Everything I Know Is Wrong

The Limbaugh Challenge

Over the lunch table yesterday afternoon my friend Tim and I talked about how liberals say they hate Rush Limbaugh even though they have never heard his show. Then, in the LA Times of all places, there is this:

LA Times

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!"

There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Which leads to a question: Why not?

{...}

Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

This is a brilliant Op-Ed, and it's printed in exactly the right place—arguably the most liberal major newspaper in the country. Read the whole thing, and e-mail it to your liberal friends.

Update: Patterico notes this article, too, and takes the opportunity to clarify his record regarding El Rushbo. After Rush's CPAC speech this year, Pat criticized his formulation of the "I want Obama to fail" meme. Pat defended the point that Rush was trying to make (Rush wanted Obama to fail in implementing his radial policies, so that America would succeed) while lamenting the choice of words he used to express it. It was fair criticism, though I'm not sure I entirely agree with it (controversy has its palce, after all), and it was presented in the well reasoned manner that is the hallmark of Patterico's Pontifications.

Unfortunately, there are as many on the right as on the left who want their leaders to go unquestioned. Pat has experienced a backlash from these people, who think he doesn't show enough love for the big guy. They couldn't be more wrong.

Putting aside any quibbles about the meaning of Rush’s recent comments, I agree with Klavan that, if you’re going to criticize someone, you should do them the favor of listening to their actual words.

I thought about this recently when a reader wrote me and asked:

Patrick: Just what is it about Rush that you dislike? . . . [T]here seems to be something in his personae that just has gotten under your skin?

Not at all. How could someone ask me that, when I have a long history of defending this man on my site?

If you’re going to criticize my attitude towards Rush, maybe you should do me the favor of looking at my actual words.

As someone who loves both Rush and Patterico, I encourage you to listen carefully to both of them. They agree on almost everything, you know. And I have heard Rush, on his radio show, sharing the love with Patterico.

Whatever happened to "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism?"

 Alan Colmes is irrelevant. And a lightweight. And peevish. But he has a "great idea":

Clomes - Leave My President Alone
Leave Obama alone. Stop it. Stop it now. We’re not headed toward communism. We’re not becoming a socialist nation. (We already became one under Bush). The middle class is not disappearing. (That, too happened during the last 8 years and the stimulus will hopefully bring that back.) Leave him alone. The next election will be here soon enough. Leave him alone. Go about your business. And have a nice day.

Extraordinary advice considering how the left—often given voice by Colmes himself—blamed Bush for every little thing, whether it was under his control or not.

The whining is growing in shrillness.

Gore leaves the lights on...

...during Earth Hour.

Nashville Post
President of the Tennessee Center For Policy Research Drew Johnson takes a Saturday drive by Al Gore’s during the time most environmentalists went dark:

I pulled up to Al’s house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm – right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.

In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching “Cheaters” or “Chelsea Lately” reruns.)

The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.

I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees.

Ah, the sweet smell of green hypocrisy. How many more times do you suppose Al Gore will have to show how little credence he gives to his own words before no one at all will listen to him?

Update: Gore responds.

Update: Drew Johnson stands by his story. Includes time-stamped photos.

US Government Argues it has Right to Ban Books and Films.

The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act is bearing more poison fruit. Not that that comes as a big surprise to anyone who has paid the least attention to the legislation. Before it was passed its opponents, of whose number I have always been a member, cried loud and long that it was an assault on our freedom of speech. But its provisions banning political speech by certain groups during the period leading up to an election were seen by Congress as a protection—against their own voting records—for incumbent politicians. Against that the First Amendment didn't stand a chance. Congress passed it. Bush signed it.

Now the CFRA, which is I think the primary reason many conservatives had a hard time supporting John McCain's bid for the Presidency, is being stretched beyond the realm of paid political ads, to the banning of books and films. For the Government, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart is arguing, in front of the Supreme Court, that it has the right.

NRO
At issue is a film called Hillary: The Movie, a documentary produced by the nonprofit group Citizens United, which did not wish to see Senator Clinton elected president. Because McCain-Feingold prohibits so much as mentioning a candidate’s name in pre-election communications paid for by certain disfavored groups — unions and “corporations” — the filmmakers were informed by a federal judge that showing their work would constitute a crime. The filmmakers sued, and the case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Mr. Stewart is defending the government’s ban on this film; the same rules that apply to a campaign commercial apply to a documentary film, his reasoning goes. Justice Alito alertly pressed Mr. Stewart on that issue: If commercials and films are covered, how about books? How about campaign biographies? Yes, Mr. Stewart answered, the U.S. government is prepared to ban books, under certain circumstances, and is legally empowered by McCain-Feingold to do so. Jaws dropped, black robes fluttered.

Under the law, it depends on who is paying for those communications, and here the government has two targets, one well defined and one less so. The first group whose speech is suppressed under McCain-Feingold is labor unions. We rarely find ourselves on the same side politically, but we would not see them stripped of their First Amendment rights. The second group is “corporations,” a word that has practically become a term of abuse — good guys are businessmen, employers, or entrepreneurs, bad guys are corporations — but is in fact a common form of legal organization employed by a myriad of enterprises, including nonprofit advocacy groups, of which Citizens United is one. Let that sink in: The First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, the right to advocate causes and criticize government officials, and McCain-Feingold holds that organizations incorporated for the express purpose of engaging in political speech are to be burdened with special restrictions. Put another way, a stripper pole-dancing in Vegas has more robust First Amendment protections under current practice than does a political-advocacy group organized as a nonprofit corporation.

Hard to believe? Not at all. A couple of years ago the FCC "decided" that it would—for the time being—not apply the rules imposed by CFRA to blogs like this one. It was a good decision, but was not codified into law and they can "decide" the other way simply by changing their minds.

The string of outrageous assaults based on the CFRA's rules, upon Constitutionally protected rights, has proved beyond any doubt that McCain-Feingold is an abject failure. It must be repealed.

A Letter From My Congressman

A form letter, and a little lukewarm toward the end ("I believe both parties..." , etc.), but he voted against it. Good on him.

Dear Sean:

Thank you for letting me know of your opposition to the so-called stimulus bill.  

I strongly share your opposition to this legislation, and you will be pleased to know that I voted against it when it was considered by the House.

As I said on the floor of the House during the debate on the original bill, we need a real stimulus that will put people back to work - that preserves, protects and most importantly creates jobs.  But this big government spending bill does not accomplish this.

An analysis by the nonpartisan CBO found that just 7-8 percent of the infrastructure spending in the plan would be delivered into the economy by the end of this year - and less than half is spent in the first 2 years.

In addition, an extremely low percentage of the plan is aimed at job creation.  Instead, the bill essentially turned into a supplemental spending bill and became a grab bag of special interest spending on unrelated items that will not save or create jobs.  The bill will fund requests such as $2 million for neon signs in Las Vegas, $4.5 million for an eco park featuring butterfly gardens and gopher tortoises, $500,000 for a dog park, $3 million for a municipal golf course clubhouse, $886,000 for a 36-hole disc golf course, $1.8 million for replacement tennis courts, $6 million for three aquatic centers with water slides .. the list goes on and on.  Clearly, we should not be spending more on these programs than on helping small businesses create jobs.

I supported an alternative stimulus plan that would provide relief for Minnesota families and create jobs.  The proposal contained a variety of incentives for small businesses to create jobs, including a 20 percent tax deduction for small businesses; a health insurance premium deduction for those who do not get health insurance from their employers; an improved homebuyer tax credit; an exemption to make unemployment benefits tax free; and a variety of other initiatives that would help jumpstart our economy.  In fact, analysis showed it would create twice the jobs at half the cost.

I believe both parties in Congress need to work together on real solutions to jumpstart the struggling economy and put people back to work.  Congress also needs a "new era of responsibility" in how it spends the taxpayers' money.  This stimulus package does not achieve those goals but only adds to the budget deficit.

You can be sure of my continued efforts to grow our economy, put people back to work and restore fiscal responsibility to Congress.

Thanks again for sharing your concerns, as I appreciate hearing from you.  Please let me know whenever I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,

Erik Paulsen
Member of Congress