The mind of Limbaugh, cont.

As a follow up to an earlier discussion about Rush Limbaugh, Alex K. writes:

Apart from defeatism, I think the main reason for Limbaugh’s frequent warnings that the GOP’s loss of Congress would lead to amnesty (he’s been making the warning since before the election) is to convince people that elections matter, that letting the GOP go down out of frustration at them from the right made no sense. This was by far his animating concern before the election, far more than the party’s faults, and he has often expressed hurt since that the voters didn’t come through for the party and reminded them with each annoying thing the Dems do that elections matter.

Well, though the bill may return, the opposite has been the case: despite a more liberal congress, we got (their attempt at) a less-reckless bill than last year, and it didn’t even manage to get out of the Senate this time! So far the GOP loss of Congress has merely led to a demonstration of the immigration-control movement’s growing strength and the increasing clarity of the elites’ isolation.

However, to take solace from this requires recognizing immigration to be the paramount issue it is. Limbaugh doesn’t.

PS: (If Bush gets a chance to nominate another SCOTUS member I may actually be sorry that the GOP lost the Senate, but who knows—his bitterness at the right may preclude any desire on his part to pick a conservative anyway.)

LA replies:

It may not have been Alex’s intention, but I think his comment is actually the most devastating indictment of Rush Limbaugh. What Alex is saying is, Limbaugh touted the supposedly inevitable passage of the immigration bill (“It will sail through the Senate,” he kept repeating, as though wishing for it to happen) in order to “teach a lesson” to conservatives that keeping the Republicans in power is the most important thing in American politics. Faced with the most nation-damaging bill ever to be proposed to the Congress, Limbaugh showed that he cares more about the Republican party than he does about America.

LA continues:

In support of my last comment that Limbaugh cares more about the Republican party than he does about America, I just went back to a blog entry on May 18, the day after the bill was introduced and found this comment by David B:

Today (Friday), I heard Limbaugh for an hour, including a long monologue. The subject was what El Rushbo called the “Destroy the Republican Party” immigration bill. Note that Rush is more concerned with the Republican Party than America. Toward the end, he mentioned what he though were Bush’s motives. Limbaugh has never previously wondered why Bush was backing liberal policies, and would always say he “didn’t understand why the President is doing this.” Today Limbaugh said in part:

“He doesn’t want to be viewed as hard-hearted. He believes in the usage of government to do good works, for the downtrodden, for the poor, wherever they are in the world. That’s the only thing I can come up with, and I’m not even critical of this. I’m just trying to explain. Politically, it’s the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007. He’s not looking at it that way. He’s not looking at this through a political prism. Senator Kennedy and everybody else, is. He’s not. This is good works for him.”

Note that El Rushbo says, “…and I’m not critical of this.” I wonder what Bush has to do for Limbaugh to “be critical?” As he did right after last November’s election, Limbaugh won’t even use the word “Bush.” Only “the President,” or “he.”

That’s what bothers Limbaugh about Bush, not that Bush wasn’t thinking about the effect of the bill on America, but that Bush wasn’t looking at the bill through a “political prism.”

Andrea C. writes:

Rush was mad because Bush didn’t look at the immigration bill through a “political prism.” It’s Repubican party politics first. Sean Hannity is doing the same thing. After the Republican debate last week he said that the 2nd-tier candidates (this would include Tancredo) should drop out now to give the top-tier more time to be heard at these debates (!). Just when we need to hear people like Tancredo on immigration in comparison to the other candidates on the issue. And it is still so early! He’s thinking party strategy and not substance on the issues—he’ll worry about that later.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 09, 2007 12:43 PM | Send