RSS
Home
Good and bad ways to play the Rush card
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Believe me, I'm delighted that Rush Limbaugh is getting a hefty dose of ridicule and scorn, the likes of which he probably hasn't seen since Al Franken's 1996 book took him apart. But I think it's a fair question to ask whether it's possible that the Democrats are overplaying the Rush card in repeatedly beating up on him. I think the answer is not binary: Rush can be used for ill or for good by the left.
There is one question to dispense with. Some conventional wisdom is beginning to congeal that says the Limbaugh-punching from the White House is a bad "distraction" from the business of governing. Mainly, this seems to reveal itself in the form of moderate Republicans becoming uneasy that a chunk of their base, already dubious of their conservative bona fides, will not be happy with them working with an administration that beats up on their radio hero. John Harwood reported in the New York Times' Caucus blog on one such example:
“It doesn’t help, frankly,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine who serves as a fulcrum in contentious debates on Capitol Hill. “It sidetracks all the major issues they’re facing.” . . . [T]o achieve the consensus necessary for action on energy, health care, Social Security and Medicaid, Mr. Obama will need not only Ms. Snowe but also a broader group of Republican backers — most of whom share more views with Mr. Limbaugh than Ms. Snowe ever will.
That last sentence is the key. Issues aren't being sidetracked, as Snowe asserts, but highlighted by the Rush wing's boorish resistance to their solutions. Limbaugh makes himself the distraction, and raising his profile serves two important purposes: the blatantly political, by aligning Republican obstruction with Limbaugh's unpopular personality and ideology; and the legitimately informative, by making clear the paucity of substance in the GOP's policy arsenal. Besides, if Republicans really do like Limbaugh so much (enough to grovel at his feet), they shouldn't be complaining when they are equated with him.
If anything, I agree with a take from media analyst Robert Thompson who told the Star Tribune that if Rush is a distraction, the blame lies everywhere:
The fact that this has taken so much time, effort and intellectual capital from at least seven other huge issues that desperately need the attention means everyone is to blame – the Republicans, the Democrats, the media, the viewers. Look in the mirror.
But let's take a look at two examples of the use of Rush as a political punching bag, one that I think works, and one that I think doesnt. The first is an ad from Americans United for Change which makes a single, important point, and hammers home the "Rush-wants-us-to-fail" meme.
Issues are highlighted, and the GOP blanket resistance is quickly spelled out, using Rush's bluster as the capper. Amusing, to-the-point, and pretty much correct.
Now, witness this gimmick from the DNC, a contest in which Democrats submit a slogan to insert into a billboard to be placed in Limbaugh's home town.
What is this meant to accomplish, exactly? Yes, it's red meat for the faithful, which is all well and good for a fundraising e-mail, but then of course the billboard will have to actually go up! I fear that means days of stories of what jerks the Democrats are being, or at best just makes the DNC look petty and childish. Hey Rush! Look at our billboard! Na-na-na-na-na-na! Plus, the nominated slogans are pretty lame:
"Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure"
"Hope and change cannot be Rush'd"
"Failure is not an option for America's future"
"We can fix America, just don't Rush it"
"Rush: Say yes to America"
This actually is a distraction, and other than extra cash for the Democrats, I don't see what good it does. Seems a waste of perfectly good ad space to me. How about we use that money instead to sell the administration's climate policy? I might pony up a slogan idea or two for that.
Related Articles:
Comments
