Is Rush Limbaugh Down For The Count? (Part II)
by Christopher G. Adamo
Two weeks ago this column was devoted to the question of whether or not Rush Limbaugh's radio career would be diminished by his revelation of addiction to prescription painkillers. Reader response has been profound and wide-ranging, varying from deeply supportive to the far extremes of hatred and venom. Admittedly, some rare individuals, who disagree with Rush on an issue-by-issue basis, still displayed a degree of thought and compassion in their consideration of his present situation.
But far more prevalent were those who saw his ordeal as an opportunity to attack and hopefully neutralize his espousal of the conservative message. Admittedly, no great statistical measurement can be derived from reader responses to a single column. However, insofar as they are reflective of several prominent voices in the mainstream media, they suggest a malignant presence in American society. As such their shrillness and viciousness is far more telling about their own character than it is reflective of any aspect of Limbaugh's life or political philosophy, irrespective of his substance abuse problems.
What should be of greatest concern among all decent Americans is the frequent suggestion that Limbaugh should be forcibly silenced. Democrat Presidential aspirant Howard Dean, to name only one, has publicly stated that Limbaugh ought to be expunged from the airwaves. Such ominous rhetoric is in perfect harmony with many of his previous statements claiming that the country needs to be “taken back” from the likes of Limbaugh. The inescapable translation of all this is that Dean believes those Americans who radically disagree with his left-of-Berkeley agenda should be actively suppressed.
Dean's mindset is a far cry from anything held by those who believe, in the best traditions of American discourse, that Limbaugh's guiding principles might be effectively and thoroughly refuted. Liberalism, historically sustained only by the perennial propagation of the lies of government-managed society and fraudulent promises of socialist utopia, cannot withstand the presentation of facts and reason. And these are Limbaugh's most predominant and devastating weapons. Thus it is that those great engines of liberal social change throughout the world, from the former dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc to the present leftist tyrannies of American universities, can only appear to thrive in the total absence of any vocal opposition.
Consider, for example, some recent comments and the underlying attitude of actor Ed Asner, whose tenuous grip on reality allows him to recount needy inner-city children as a damning indictment of America, while in the next breath he lauds the under-appreciated virtues of Joseph Stalin. At an October 2003 cocktail party Asner, referring to Limbaugh's ESPN controversy, explained to syndicated radio host Michael Gallagher, “We're going after your buddy Hannity just like we went after Limbaugh this week- and look what happened to Rush.”
Clearly, Asner sees the necessity not to repudiate, but to destroy his opposition. Perhaps such comments, coming as they do from this leftist icon, explain why Limbaugh's statement regarding NFL efforts to achieve “diversity” on the playing field (a sentiment previously shared on a widespread basis throughout sports media), resulted in an immediate and intense firestorm of protest.
Before writing off Asner's words as the ranting of the far-left “fringe” (and despite the fact that any Democrat presidential “debate” of recent months bears proof of just how mainstream-Democrat Asner's thinking actually is), consider another project being undertaken by this country's liberal establishment.
An October 28, 2003 article in the Bismarck Tribune explains how North Dakota liberal radio personality Ed Schultz is being recruited as a national radio voice to counteract the likes of Limbaugh and rising conservative radio star Sean Hannity. But the forces at work to launch Schultz as a major personality are not the normal commercial interests that invest in promising individuals with the hope of a financial return. Rather, they are, according to the Tribune, “Democratic lawmakers in Washington” who have pledged $1.8 million in support of their cause.
No doubt, they anticipate that conservatives will tremble in their boots at this possibility, as if Schultz has anything to offer that has not already been tried by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times (to name just a few…). Among liberals it is invariably presumed that the manner of the messenger, not the message itself, carries the ultimate weight.
Despite his personal problems, against such an opposition as this Rush Limbaugh simply cannot lose. He will be back.
|
