FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
Democrats’ sophomoric plot to demonize Limbaugh failing
By now you have most likely heard about the Democrats’ conspiracy to demonize Rush Limbaugh, complete with carefully orchestrated attacks directed from the Obama White House and coordinated with Obama’s union supporters.
The Rush plot conspiracy isn’t working so well for Obama and his minions. Limbaugh is embracing the Dems’ attack:
“The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO.
“They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my
influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the
antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever
larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings,
analysis and criticism of Obama’s policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I
own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”
Rasmussen polling finds only 29% of the nation’s voters agree with the Rush plot conspiracy’s mantra; “Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high.”
If you have not heard about the Dems’ Rush plot conspiracy, Jonathan Martin’s, “Rush Job: Inside Dems’ Limbaugh plan,” provides the best description of the Democrats’ sophomoric, but devious, plot to demonize Rush just as they did President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Governor Sarah Palin.
The “tripwire” for the Dems’ Rush plot was when Limbaugh revealed he doesn’t want Obama to succeed:
I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency.
[. . .]
I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.
[. . .]
Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.
Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he’s doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he’s my president, he’s a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn’t have to being down with the struggle, all of that’s irrelevant to me. We’re talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, “I hope he fails.”
Taken in context there isn’t anything wrong with what Limbaugh said. But the Obama left-wing attack machine played it as if all Limbaugh said was, “I hope he fails.” Martin details the Democrats’ plot:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was the first to jump on the statement, sending the video to its membership to raise cash and stir a petition drive.
“We helped get the ball rolling on this because we’re looking and listening to different Republican voices around the country, and the one that was the loudest and getting the most attention was Rush Limbaugh,” explained DCCC chairman and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank run by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, also pounced on Limbaugh’s “fail” line, drawing attention to it on their well-read blog.
Soon after, Americans United for Change, a liberal group, was airing Limbaugh’s statement in an ad aimed at pushing Senate Republicans to support the stimulus bill.
[. . .]
But liberals quickly realized that trying to drive a wedge between congressional Republicans and Limbaugh was unlikely to work, and their better move was to paint the GOP as beholden to the talk show host.
[. . .]
By February, Carville and Begala were pounding on Limbaugh frequently in their appearances on CNN.
Neither Democrat would say so, but a third source said the two also began pushing the idea of targeting Limbaugh in their daily phone conversations with Emanuel.
Conversations and email exchanges began taking place in and out of the White House not only between the old pals from the Clinton era but also including White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Woodhouse.
[. . .]
A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.
Outside, Americans United for Choice, a liberal group, and the Democratic National Committee are driving the message, in close consultation with the White House.
Isn’t there something wrong with the White House coordinating this demonetization conspiracy?
Regardless of the answer to that question, the Obama attack machine is making a mistake. The more attention they drive to Limbaugh the greater the number of people that are exposed to Limbaugh’s articulation of conservatism — one antidote to Obamaism.