Limbaugh on McCain, Limbaugh on Giuliani

Anyone who imagines that the GOP might unite around John McCain is living in a fantasy. Consider what Rush Limbaugh is saying about McCain. Today Limbaugh spoke with unusual intensity about McCain’s bald-faced lie that he has not supported amnesty. He reminded us of the one-day period set aside for discovering the criminal records of all 12 million illegal aliens prior to their being legalized under last year’s S.1348, the worst atrocity in the history of legislation, a bill that McCain not only tried to push through the Senate without a debate, but called his fellow senators xenophobes for opposing. Limbaugh speaks of how McCain angrily says people are wrong when they speak the plain truth that he supported amnesty, as contrasted with Romney who has frankly admitted that he has changed his mind on issues, for example, abortion, and explains why he has changed his mind. Rush also mimics McCain’s endlessly repeated, robotic claim to be “pro-life,” then tells how McCain filed suit along with liberal Democrats to silence an anti-abortion group—an act that was “above and beyond McCain-Feingold,” as Rush puts it.

Limbaugh isn’t just hinting that he would not support McCain. He tells a caller that he might not vote for the Republican candidate this year. And what about Hillary? “This is tough,” Limbaugh says with pain in his voice. Meaning that if the GOP nominates McCain, we would be faced with a hitherto unimaginable situation, in which the most loyal and influential GOP opinion maker in the country would remain at best coldly silent during the general election campaign, even if that helped send Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to the White House.

Yet Republican fantasists, such as the deeply unsound Robert Novak, keep regurgitating the liberal Democratic line that John McCain is the GOP’s strongest candidate against the Democrats!

A female reader adds these observations:

On the other hand, Rush himself has contributed to the loss of conservative momentum in the Republican Party by going along with Bush’s transgressions against conservatism through the years, or watering down his criticism of them. He did this while also boasting of his access to the White House and phone calls from the Oval Office, not realizing that this is how Bush successfully silenced any conservative criticism, not only from Rush but from the full panoply of conservative journalists. As soon as one heard of those upcoming Oval Office meetings of Bush with certain selected conservative journalists, you knew that their cojones would be left behind in those historic halls.

And now, though Rush sees that McCain is no conservative, he is ready to carry the water for another candidate who even more than McCain would destroy the Republican Party, Giuliani. Perhaps because Rush himself has been divorced three times, he can’t see what a disaster a Republican candidate with Giuliani’s personal history would be for the whole family issue for Republicans. Although many conservatives have unfortunately lost sight of it, the family issue—the idea of strong, intact, two-parent families—is closely connected with the ideal of limited government that conservatives believe in, or used to believe in, as recently as yesterday. Certainly Rush still believes in limited government and self-reliance as the very center of his political creed. And since he does, how can he square limited government with the family chaos and personal disfunction, leading to the need for more government, that Giuliani represents?

LA replies:

Does Limbaugh, even as he agonizes about the absence of genuine conservative leadership in the Republican party, realize how he himself has undermined conservatism with his lap-dog support for Bush these last seven years?

Steven Warshawsky writes:

Just as I think you are correct to criticize those who elevate opposition to abortion to the be-all and end-all of conservative politics, I believe those who emphasize the somewhat broader “family values” position also should be criticized for adhering to an overly narrow interpretation of what conservative politics means circa 2008.

Case in point: The female reader who responded to your post about Rush Limbaugh’s comments re John McCain. This reader criticizes Rush and others for offering support for Rudy Giuliani (I have no idea what Rush’s actual position is re Giuliani). Why? Because Giuliani has been divorced multiple times, as has Rush. For this reader, this personal history absolutely disqualifies Giuliani for the presidency, and presumably for any high leadership position as a Republican.

One can legitimately object to how Giuliani has managed his personal life, surely. But I think simply declaring divorce—or even a messy personal life—out of bounds for a national leader is going much too far. The reader implies quite strongly that divorce per se is a mark of moral and/or personal failure. Nonsense. I know plenty of people who are divorced and/or the product of divorced households (my parents divorced when I was young) who are quite productive and law-abiding citizens.

This is not to deny that “strong, intact, two-parent families” are the best situation for adults and children alike, and should be encouraged as both a cultural and political matter. My point is simply that not everyone who does not enjoy this situation is somehow “damaged goods” and/or should be disqualified from politics in the Republican Party. This seems to be the reader’s position, which strikes me as little different than the position of those who make being “pro-life” the measure of whether or not a person is a “conservative.”

LA replies:

I am surprised that Mr. Warshawsky would simplify and misrepresent the anti-Giuliani position as he has done here. If he had read any of the articles on this subject at VFR and elsewhere over the last year, he would know that it is not just the fact that Giuliani has been divorced that disqualifies him, not just the fact that he has been divorced twice that disqualifies him, and not just the fact that his personal life has been generically “messy” that disqualifies him. It is the totality of this man’s unprecedentedly appalling conduct that disqualifies him. Which by the way has been catalogued many times at this site. For example, as of this moment, Giuliani has no relationship with his children. Why? Because after he destroyed their family with his adulteries, after he tried to force his then wife and their children out of Gracie Mansion so that he could bring his girl friend there, after he then went back to Gracie Mansion in 2002 to marry his third wife there so that his third wife could have that satisfaction, he then refused to get together with his children in the absence of his third wife, whom, for obvious reasons, they were not eager to see. Giuliani’s son told the press about it last year. So selfish is Giuliani, so in thrall to his third wife, that he refused to see his children unless she was there too. And so the parental relationship has ended. And Mr. Warshawsky thinks that a man who has callously destroyed his relationship with his own children in this manner can be a plausible and credible leader of the United States of America.

Haven’t people learned anything? Haven’t they learned that you do not put in positions of the highest leadership men who have had tremendous disorder and misbehavior in their private lives—because that is, if I may use the expression, bad karma?

Steven Warshawsky replies:

I’m just responding to what I see in this lady’s post. Few people are as detailed in their “character” critique of Giuliani as you are. I am afraid for many people it’s enough that he’s been divorced multiple times. Doesn’t the reader criticize Rush for this as well?

LA replies:

This same reader has commented on Rudy many times at VFR. It’s the totality of Giuliani’s behavior she has reacted to, not just the bare fact of divorce.

When a subject has been been gone over as many times as this one has been, it’s understandable that people begin to use shorthand.

In effect you’re demanding that every time people mention the case against Rudy, they must give a detailed account of every objectionable thing he ever did.

However, concerning divorce just by itself, I’m sure that many people would say, “two times and you’re out,” regardless of the circumstances of the divorce. I don’t think that I or the reader has ever made that argument.

Steven W. replies:

I also would add simply this: This man, however deeply flawed as a husband and father, governed New York City as effectively—and as “conservatively”—as anyone ever could have. The third largest political and economic jurisdiction in the country. He is more than qualified to be president. The debate should be about his politics.

LA replies:

You see, you want everyone to ignore something that YOU think doesn’t matter, but the problem is, other people, LOTS of other people, DON’T think it doesn’t matter.

Steven W. replies:

Well, of course.

I agree that these issues are very important to lots of people. I just think they are misguided in their priorities. Just like I think those who place abortion front and center in the conservative movement are misguided. Their concern itself is valid and important. I just disagree with the relative weight they place on it.

LA replies:

Yes, fair point. But given Giuliani’s history, and the way millions of people regard it, a prudent political actor would take that reality into consideration and not simply ignore it on the basis that he personally thinks that it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. And that, in fact, is exactly what happened. Rudy’s cohorts of conservative and neocon supporters began saying, “Rudy’s the one, he’s the one, everyone likes him, he’s a hero, he can make us safe, morality and family values don’t matter any more in a president, because the only thing that matters is that he make us safe! And we know we’re right, because even the evanglicals don’t care about Rudy’s background any more because they have matured politically and they too understand that the only thing that matters for America is that Rudy can make us safe, safe, safe!”

This, boiled down, is what Rudy’s conservative establishment supporters have been saying all along. Thus they blinded themselves to both the moral and the political reality of a Guiliani candidacy. For years before 2007, whenever I saw him being touted by a conservative opinion maker, I would write to him pointing out what an absurdity it was to support Rudy for the presidency, that he could never be nominated, and if he was, it would split the party. But the conservative establishment continued to champion him, to close their eyes to his stunning disabilities, and not to look for and put their energies into supporting other, better alternatives for the nomination. If they had done so, the GOP might have been close by now to settling on an acceptable conservative nominee, instead of facing the chaos and the unsatisfactory choices that it faces.

Steven W. replies:

You may be right about that. As you know, I don’t have the same view re the consequences of a Giuliani nomination. But it looks like it’s going to be a moot point anyway. If he does not win Florida, which I doubt he will, his campaign is done. Frankly, I don’t understand how McCain and Huckabee are in the running for the nomination. As problematic as you find Giuliani, I think the fact that McCain and Huckabee are (so far) such strong candidates is a very poor commentary on the state of the Republican Party and conservatism in this country. I’m not sure what to make of it.

Lawrence B. writes:

I don’t find plausible the assertion that Rush Limbaugh exhibited “lap-dog support for Bush these last seven years.” He’s been quite critical of the Bush Administration on a variety of issues, including Harriet Meiers, immigration, the education bill, the prescription drug plan, the lack of forceful communication, and overspending.

As one brief example, the August, 2003, cover of his Limbaugh Letter, “Whatever Happened to Limited Government?”

I find your accusation inaccurate and unfair.

LA replies:

Yes, yes, Limbaugh would painfully, slowly, with infinite qualifications and regrets, express his dissatisfaction with this or that thing that Bush had done, then go right back to supporting Bush like a lap dog.

Don’t you remember that about a year ago, Limbaugh announced that he would no longer be the water carrier for Bush and the Republicans? That means that, in Limbaugh’s own estimation, he had been a water carrier for Bush. “Lap-dog” is worse than “water-carrier,” but both expressions convey the same idea of totally loyalty.

Therefore your disagreement is not with my opinion about Limbaugh; it’s with Limbaugh’s opinion about Limbaugh.

Lawrence B. replies:

That Rush admitted he carried water for the GOP does not logically lead to the conclusion that he did so uncritically. More importantly, it doesn’t line up with the fact that he really *has* been quite critical of Republicans as he’s thought necessary.

Maybe his criticisms haven’t matched yours, but that’s no excuse to misrepresent those criticisms as being made painfully and slowly, much less to slander Rush with this “lap dog” nonsense.

LA replies:

Ok, fair enough. “Lap dog” is both unfair and insulting. I will amend what I said to the idea that Rush has continued to be Bush’s water carrier long past the point where he should have stopped.

A female reader writes:

You wrote:

“You see, you want everyone to ignore something that YOU think doesn’t matter, but the problem is, other people, LOTS of other people, DON’T think it doesn’t matter.”

And the proof of that is, after these so-called conservatives, really libertarians, kept pushing Giuliani down our throats for months, announcing that social conservatives didn’t care anymore about character, personal behavior, dressing in drag, marching in gay rights parades, publicly humiliating his wife, alienating his children, divorce, abortion, and all the rest, especially since every other president did the same, after being told that none of that matters because of the war on terror and the need to find someone to keep us safe, all of a sudden HUCKABEE arrives on the scene and starts garnering the most socially conservative Republicans, the evangelicals, who were evidently keeping silent while other people were proclaiming how they, the social conservatives, didn’t care anymore about the social issues.

Instead, if all these pundits and armchair strategists had not wasted months pushing Giuliani, but instead had united around Romney, clearly the best and most integrated candidate in the field, perhaps we wouldn’t be looking at a possible McCain nomination. And Rush wouldn’t be choking and croaking through laryngitis to say that he doesn’t even know if he will be able to support the Republican nominee in this election, even if Hillary is the opposition.

And whatever Giuliani says about appointing conservative judges, first, one never knows what political situation will prevail when the nominating time comes. And second, he wouldn’t be appointing them alone, he will require congressional aproval, and the Congress is probably going to be Democrat controlled. And third, Giuliani also said it would be ok with him if Roe were repealed OR if it stood. So his promise is relatively meaningless at this point, although evidently enough to sucker some conservatives.

David B. writes:

Although I didn’t hear him today, yes, as someone who has been following him for years, I say that Rush has been a “lap-dog.” The only times he would openly criticize Bush on his amnesty proposals was when it was about to got to a vote. Other than that, he might mention immigration in general once or twice a year.

Does Limbaugh understand that his refusal to criticize Bush has enabled him practically to end any serious conservatism in the GOP? No, he doesn’t. Or, he won’t admit it. Rush describes himself as “all-knowing” and doesn’t admit any mistakes. His standard excuse is, “I don’t understand it,” when he sees his “Conservative” President acting like the liberal he is.

The day after the 2006 elections, Limbaugh said something about how he wasn’t going to “carry water” any longer for certain people who would not fight for themselves. However, he would not mention Bush by name. Even when speaking against amnesty, Limbaugh would STILL express his personal admiration (“He thinks this is his job as President”) for George W. Bush, and blame the “liberals.” Last summer after the last amnesty went down, Rush spoke of a private meeting with GWB. “The President is very smart and articulate in private,” Rush said.

LA replies:

Hmm, I guess “test anxiety” makes him become stupid and inarticulate in public, except of course for his rote slogans about how everyone is the same and wants democracy, and how no one else understands this, but he understands it and will stay the course.

Lawrence B. writes:

“I will amend what I said to the idea that Rush has continued to be Bush’s water carrier long past the point where he should have stopped.”

Very cool: stated that way, it’s a position about which reasonable conservatives could disagree. Like most everyone else, Rush has probably tried to maintain a balance between compromise as a political reality and making bold stands for one’s principles. We probably all have our own ideas of what balance is best, and it may be that even Rush thinks he could have done better in certain situations.

A female reader replies:

David B has it exactly right. Even when Rush was critical of Bush, he would keep exonerating him and saying he really believes this, or he really thinks that is the best way, or, most annoyingly, that he is not an “ideologue,” making that sound like a bad word and thus making Bush seem yards better than someone who is a principled conservative. He couldn’t just out and out let loose with real criticism wthout somehow making even the criticism flattering to Bush. The biggest tribute to Bush’s intelligence is the way he managed to neuter Limbaugh and other conservatives by bestowing his attention upon them. I don’t think Bill Clinton was able to do that with liberal journalists. Conservatives being a smaller group, it’s easier to get them all in a room at the same time.

And while we’re detailing the coarse and selfish exploits of the Giulianis, let’s not forget their tacky photograph in Vanity Fair in which she devours him with kisses in spider-lady fashion and he looks like a dopey middle-aged male who can’t believe he’s getting this much sex. That might account for the goofy, empty looking grin he sports these days as well.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 21, 2008 03:29 PM | Send