« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rush Limbaugh Is Not My Savior

RedState’s leader and my friend, Erick Erickson, wrote a piece today titled “The Peter Principle”, in which he compares Peter’s thrice denial of Christ to Republicans who dismiss the views of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Dick Cheney. Cheney was at least an elected leader. The others are not.

Rush Limbaugh is not my savior. He is neither my savior for my personal spiritual needs, nor the savior of the Republican party of modern conservatism. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Period. He often says things I agree with, but he is driven by ratings. In order to ensure these ratings, he must incite and inflame. It is his job to keep “the base” irritated and agitated. And in doing so, he very often turns off those in the squishy middle that so many here are willing to purify from the party. The problem is, we need their votes to return from minority status.

Semantics about comparing Peter’s denial of Christ to Republican’s criticizing Limbaugh aside, the larger point of Erickson’s commentary is the suggestion that we should not be attacking our own, but instead be attacking “the left”. Using various references to scripture, he chides those of us who would criticize these modern day apostles:

Their typical means of ostracism is to condemn the rest of us for daring to say nice things about them. Reasons abound for this. Many of these weak minded fools are not really fellow travelers. Like a vulture flying in flock with swans, they benefit from the work the rest of us are doing to gain themselves credibility. The media plays along calling the vultures swans so others, they hope, see ugly ducklings around the vultures instead of swans.

Some mean well. Unfortunately, their high mindedness fractures and divides the rest.

I’ll answer with some scripture of my own, starting with Mathew 7:3-5 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” As Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has so aptly stated, we were “fired for cause” in 2006 and 2008. Yet we have much of the same party and Congressional leadership. We are, in a sense, doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. The American people are a forgiving one, with one exception: Hypocrisy. Yet we have these same “leaders” that took us through the fiscal, ethical, personal, and lobbyist driven scandals that led us to deep minority status.

The subtitle of Erick’s piece is the quote “We Hang Together Or Hang Separately”. We hung together through the K-Street Project, where Jack Abramoff was able to get you legislation for Redskins tickets. We hung together while Ted Stevens gave us bridges to nowhere. We hung together when “deficits don’t matter” gave us Medicare Part D, and frankly, we’re hanging together now without a real assertion of what we’ll do differently if restored to power, clinging to the hope that Obama will fail, and the voters will have no other choice than to fire the other guys for cause, too. For these transgressions, we all were hung together on the gallows of 2006 and 2008. Fired. For. Cause.

Mathew 7:15 advises us that we should Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. We have endured our share of false profits, all the while we stood by and did nothing. If we attempted to speak out against expansion of government, hypocrisy of social conservatives, or trading K-Street dollars for legislation, we were told we were either aiding and abetting Democrats, or even worse, The Terrorists.

The last year of the Bush administration laid the perfect groundwork for Obama to accomplish all of his 100 day goals. We honestly have no one to blame but ourselves. I vowed then to no longer let party affiliation stop me from calling B.S. on our own. Before we can have credibility, we must be credible.

I have spent my time as part of Republican grass roots enabling candidates who have failed to walk the walk. I refuse to do so any longer. Nothing I can say or do in criticism of paid talking heads will do more damage to our cause than those who profit from inflaming the base in an effort to divide rather than unite us. I will judge them on their fruits, and will no longer continue to pretend that the spoiled is still ripe.

John 2: 14-15 gives us my final thoughts on those who have earned our criticism. “In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money-changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.” We, as a party, have become beholden to the money changers. Be they lobbyists, large corporations, or broadcast talking heads and authors, we are spending too much time following the money, and not our principles. Rush, Levin, and Coulter do just fine when we’re in the minority party, and I would argue, probably prosper more when we are.

We need a new generation of Conservative leaders. We also need to be a majority party. Our new leaders need to stand firm on principles of smaller, cheaper, and more limited government. But they also must recognize that to become a majority party, they must reach out to the sinners among us, and change their hearts and minds.

We, as Republicans, have too many Pharisees among us. We will never become a majority party again if we seek to only surround ourselves with the pure and self-righteous. We’ll need the votes of a few Zacheouses, Mary Magdalen’s, and Samaritan’s, to go along with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s vote.

Erick and I generally have the same goal, and that is to again achieve majority party status at the national level. But on our approach, and on this issue specifically, we disagree whole heartedly. I certainly believe that Rush, Levin, and Coulter have the right to say whatever they want to say, and in no way wish to infringe or limit that right. But I do not believe that they are helpful in the long run to us reaching those centrist voters we must have to be a majority. They are entertainers. They are not our savior.

COMMENTS

  • Rod_Patrick

    I WILL VOTE A DEMOCRAT IF THAT DEMOCRAT IS MORE CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERTARIAN THAN A REPUBLICAN.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      If you’d do that then I think you’re all wet about how to advance conservative ideas in this country.

      Voting for Democrats will never achieve that. Ever. Ditto Libertarians.

      • Rod_Patrick

        I’m worried that someday, Republicans won’t be any different from the Democrats.

        Of course, I’ll never vote a democrat. (contradictory, err? lol)

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          We all have moments of frustration. I hear you.

        • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

          I got ya big tent right hear pal!

          • Rod_Patrick
  • 6eorge Jetson

    RINO Rush critics should evaluate the policy substance on it’s own merits, regardless of the spokesman. Then get back to us when they disagree with policy differences, and not the entertainer’s barbs.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    My point was not actually to compare them to Christ, and I don’t think I did, but to highlight the typical reaction of throwing good people under the bus when it is convenient.

    The folks you cite serve a good purpose. Sometimes red meat needs to be thrown.

    I won’t waste my time criticizing them or making sure everyone knows when I disagree with them.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    Is simply wrong. We do not need to reach out WHATSOEVER to the center, or moderates, or whatever.

    What we need to do is present solid, right of center ideals and policies and then explain them and ask those people to come over to us, not try to cross over to them.

    Don’t worry about the future, if Obama manages to create prosperity without inflation, then no one will elect us no matter what, but if as I suspect, the economy tanks, then we have to be ready to present an ALTERNATIVE to the democratic party, not just Democrat lite.

    BTW, I have been saying for a long time that there is too much blind loyalty to the conservative pundits, and not enough thinking for ourselves. But it’s a hard sell.

  • JadedByPolitics

    “truth to power” and in that he is consistantly thrown under the bus by those liberal Republicans and in such they are no Republicans at all they are liberal Democrats in the old JFK mold….PERIOD! so NO WE DON’T NEED THEM….but you keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep well at night. Conservatism, small Government that is the winning strategy not a man who supported and voted for the MOST LEFTIST Democrat in our history (Powell) nor the ladies and men who voted for the “stimulas” which STIMULATED NOTHING! The Peter Principle was used as an analogy but how religious of you to take it to the extreme!

  • Leopard1996

    But he is the one articulating the principles that the Republicans need to be following. I guess my question is, how much further away from the principles of small/efficient government do we need to go before there is no difference between republicans and democrats or should we just vote for someone who has an R after their name. Sorry if that is my only option, then count me out of the two party system and I will work my damndest to make a third party viable and see if we can slay the two headed dragon of Democan or Republicrat.

  • http://www.peachpundit.com Icarus

    I don’t equate reaching out to selling out. But right now, we have too many who think that someone who agrees with us 80% of the time is our enemy and not our friend. We have our principles that we must stand on, but we have to also understand that all people will not agree with us all the time.

    As for thinking for ourselves, I often have said I missed the part where we went from being “the party of ideas” to “the party of dittoheads”. I want to be the party of ideas again.

  • MacAoidh

    …Dick Morris said the same thing on O’Reilly a week or so ago. Either Obama’s act works and the country turns socialist regardless of what we do – which we all know won’t happen – or he ruins the place and Americans will be hunting Democrats with dogs, and the less like Democrats Republicans look the better.

    The business of “blind loyalty” I don’t agree with, though. The fact is that we conservatives, unlike the other side, operate from a coherent ideology. That we should have a similarity of thought as we’re adherents of that ideology is neither a surprise nor anything to be ashamed about.

  • bs

    between “reaching out” to them, accepting them, or outright rejecting them. Your problem seems to be in rejecting them – and “reaching out” is not necessarily the remedy. Tacit acceptance is OK by me. But as I and many others here have said time after time after time – we do NOT, repeat NOT want them in leadership roles.

    And I should qualify – “tacit acceptance” is OK only after a better candidate (if one exists) is rejected by the electorate in primaries. Conservatives should be sought, supported, promoted and voted for in the primaries. If they lose to a so-called moderate, so be it…we then vote for the best of the rest.

  • Martin Knight

    We’re not talking about people who agree with us 80% of the time. Since when did Meghan McCain, Colin Powell, Arlen Specter, etc. agree with the GOP base 80% of the time?

  • MacAoidh

    …the Republican Party is a fraud being perpetrated by our enemies on the Left.

    Nobody is doing that.

    There is a big difference between throwing moderates out of the party and denying them the leadership of it. It is the latter which is being proposed, and it is the latter which is long overdue.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    as long as it’s recognized that supporters of the porkulus placed 80% of their 2009 score in the liberal column, right off the bat.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    The 1992 Congress made the “Entertainer, period” an honorary member of the House and gave him great credit for the GOP’s first House majority in 20 years and he has “saved” many a liberal fool from missing the reality mugging that makes conservatives, including me.

    more later

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

    n/t

  • bs
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    we are accused of attacking them.

  • http://theadmiralsbridge.blogspot.com/ theadmiral

    of this MO by the moderates. I frankly think we need to take a page from the Democrap’s playbook because we have ideals and principles on our side.

    You are either with us or against. And we, as conservatives, and frankly our party leadership, needs to approach every issue from this perspective.

    My wife and I are no longer afraid. We’re tired of riding around town seeing all of the libtards gloating in their Prius’ littered with Obama and Peace and 01.20.09 stickers. They are in your face about their Marxism 24-7 and that’s the way we should be about conservatism. Our cars are now littered with conservative stickers. Politics enter almost every conversation we have with our friends and co-workers who are not plugged into politics. We both have joined our local Republican party committee and will be activist conservatives within the party committee. Conservatism is right. It’s based on proven principles that work and provide opportunity for all. Why should we be ashamed of this?!? And it’s clear moderates in the GOP and many in leadership positions are still ashamed….or at least that’s the impression I get every time I call them or the RNC.

    So here’s my response to those squishes and moderates….

    You are either with us or against us.

  • DONTREADONME
  • kcdude