Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
And nails it. This is best bit of analysis I've seen on l'affaire Rush v. Fluke. Theroux, otherwise known as a travel writer and novelist, tries his hand at media criticism in this column and argues that our "condemnation of Rush Limbaugh shows our hypocrisy":
Virtually everyone in public life condemned Limbaugh, some mildly, some harshly, and none were more strident or hypocritical—as Sarah Palin was later to point out—than the hordes of liberals, Fluke-like in their sanctimony. Limbaugh had been offensive! Ms Fluke said she was contemplating a lawsuit—for what? Apoplexy was rife. The man whose whole career is based on offense and mockery had apparently touched a nerve. No one raised much fuss when he hauled out “Queasy” his pet name for Kweisi Mfume (born Frizzell Gray), or called Charles Barkley “Milk Dud,” and when he said that black quarterbacks couldn't rifle the ball he was merely admonished and lost a gig.
Limbaugh is referred to as “the virtual leader of the Republican Party.” Oh, really? If you believe that a cracker like Rush with a radio show is the “virtual leader” of the Republican Party, you need a good proctologist to reposition your head.
Limbaugh, like many mockers—and many successful populists—is a man with a mere high-school education who is able, partly through recklessness, partly through overweening self-regard, to reflect the justifiable anger of a large proportion of the white American public. This is the identical profile of Michael Moore. And by the way, both these semieducated men calling themselves men of the people are multimillionaires.
“Do you ever think you’re just a bag of hot gas?” David Letterman asked Limbaugh a few years ago, when he appeared as a guest. Limbaugh squinted and then, taken aback, denied that the thought had ever occurred to him, as Letterman to his credit said, “I certainly think I am!”
My gorge rose again when Limbaugh offered an apology, muttering about a poor choice of words, sorry, sorry, blah-blah, and of course no one believed him for a minute. Many of his sponsors bailed. Limbaugh’s spin to his listeners on this was “They don’t want your business!” The result was that he got even more listeners.
The whole affair has now begun to appear to me fairly interesting. The defense of Sandra Fluke is so shrill that it is almost as though many of her defenders actually believe there is a vicious taint of self-indulgence, if not sluttiness, in a female student’s clamoring for a federal mandate of subsidized contraceptives. How else to interpret such a welter of special pleading? They believe she actually needs defending.
Read the rest over at The Daily Beast.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Nonsense. Rush is a brilliant analyst and speaker. His credentials are irrelevant - since Ronald Reagan, no person has done a better job explaining conservatism to the American people than Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, he mocks. But he does so because humor is the best weapon - and Rush, unlike Moore, does not spare himself.
Edited on March 12, 2012 at 1:58pmRe: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
I am finding it somewhat hilarious to watch liberals as they realize the implications of the out-of-control attacks on Rush Limbaugh.
It was fine while it went on for a week. Nobody cared or questioned the unhinged attacks. But then Louis C.K. had to drop out of hosting the White House Correspondents Dinner. And every non-conservative with half a moment to think things through realized that a ban on offensive speech might limit the ability to viciously attack Sarah Palin or any other conservative female.
It's way too little, way too late, but in the long run a freakout over impolitic rhetoric will hurt the Bill Maher/Keith Olbermann/Ed Schultz/Andrew Sullivan/everyone in Hollywood crowd far more than Rush Limbaugh.
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
John Marzan makes my point better in the Member Thread here:
Jun '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
If that article was a defense of Limbaugh, Rush should get another attorney. No matter. As Mollie says, the longer this continues, the more the worm turns.
Jun '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
You REALlY think this insulting screed against Rush "nails it"?
"Limbaugh, like many mockers—and many successful populists—is a man with a mere high-school education who is able, partly through recklessness, partly through overweening self-regard, to reflect the justifiable anger of a large proportion of the white American public. This is the identical profile of Michael Moore. And by the way, both these semieducated men calling themselves men of the people are multimillionaires."
That "nails it"? This is pathetic, hardly insightful, and has all the depth of graffiti. I'll give you a proper analysis of this Fluke incident: "Rush was right the first time."
Oct '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
I would hesitate to call this piece "analysis" at all, let alone the "best" on the matter. But I guess the Beast gets a marquee name, and Theroux gets some dough, for what must have been minutes worth of stream-of-semiconsciousness dictation.
Jun '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Theroux: "...and when he said that black quarterbacks couldn't rifle the ball..."
Except, that's NOT what Rush said. Rush was speculating as to why one particular quarterback, Donovan McNabb, with an inconsistent level of performance, was worshiped by the Philly sports press like he was the second coming of Christ. Rush though it was because, in the hypersensitive mainstream press, they go out of their way to prop up the black guy. That's essentially what Rush said. Then, ESPN proceeded to prove that Rush was right--black quarterbacks are a special case. You can't even even speculate on how race affects one black quarterback's press coverage, or you're gone. Welcome to Philly.
Jun '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
We should remember that George Stepanopolous launched this entire kerfuffle during a Republican presidential debate. The gambit was contrived by insiders in the MSM as a means to distract the electorate away from more important issues like abortion and ObamaCare. Anita Dunn is the proof that this issue is being orchestrated as part of the president's re-election campaign. To the credit of Rush, our presidential nominees, and a host of pundits on the right, our chess masters have refused the gambit and turned the table.
Edited on March 12, 2012 at 3:05pmJan '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
No sane or objective observer could contemplate both Rush and Bill Maher, and then excoriate Rush but say nothing (or even praise) Maher.
I've lately grown extremely tired of "mocking" as a form of political conversation.
Do you know how adolescents speak to each other? (I often have this conversation with my children.) When adolescents are among adolescents, they spend all of their conversation mocking each other. Think of the Sweathogs, Dead End Kids, Eddie Haskell, and familiar examples from every other generation. (Full confession: I was that way.) That's what adolescents do. They basically insult each other during every waking moment. And unfortunately, that's often all they have to say.
For an adult, that gets dull and annoying very quickly.
So when we have political conversations (making collective decisions about how we collect taxes, spend money, and go to war) and the conversations are drenched by adolescent mocking and kabuki protests of outrages and hypocrisy, it also gets dull and annoying very quickly.
Why do we have adolescent political conversations?
Jan '12
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
I disagree. As long as liberals are the ones controlling who can speak and what can be said, the usual suspects you mention will all escape scrutiny.
Jan '12
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
No, welcome to post-free speech America.
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Give Theroux this: he's right that satire is pretty much impossible outside the precincts of South Park, Colorado, these days with the literalist, humorless, grievance-mongering and offense-taking that characterizes so much of today's political discourse. Skins are thin.Oh, and he errs in his splenetic shot at Mitt Romney—the illiterate Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon to his patron, Martin Harris, not one of Smith's wives (I think he was unmarried at the time).
Nov '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
I read the whole thing. In my view, Paul Theroux does not understand satire, he does not under Jonathan Swift, and he sure does not understand Rush Limbaugh.
For those reasons I’d have a hard time calling it "the best bit of analysis.” For another, and to my mind better, analysis of the Fluke flap try University of Rochester Professor Steve Landsburg’s Rush to Judgment.
I’ve never before cited myself and probably won’t again but if you’ll indulge me this one time, you might also like my own University of Rochester Flap Over Fluke.
Edited on March 12, 2012 at 4:44pmJun '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
If I ever need someone to come to my defense (not that Rush does) I hope he doesn't call me a semi-educated cracker. Also, I sure hope he doesn't completely mischaracterize my arguments-- especially when it comes to football players!
Jan '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
It was foolish for Mr Limbaugh to use those words, however in his apology he should have used the typical liberal phraseology - "For those who were offended, I apologize".
Mar '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
I'm glad we have a well-educated President, otherwise the country would be in a complete mess.
Oh, wait...
May '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
As others have said, this is nonsense. I'm surprised, Emily.
Rush doesn't just express the justifiable anger of voters in flyover country. He is the most reliable analyst of DC politics anywhere. No one is better at predicting what Democrats will do or say. And he has been leading the battle against political correctness for decades, saying what DC pundits won't say.
Rush's show is worth more to American conservatives than any dozen of the writers typically cited on Ricochet.
Apr '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
Calling Fluke a slut wasn't the problem for Rush, he could have easily retracted that remark later. The problem, which is unusual for Rush, is that he didn't seem to know where he was going with his analogy. "What do you call someone who has so much sex that they can't afford the contraception? A slut?" And then he went on to even more absurd areas.
The problem was, it was a bad analogy, and Rush should have had the experience and knowledge to recognize it and retreat. Not, with tongue in cheek, ask for sex tapes in compensation for contraception.
In the past, Rush invented terms like Feminazi which accurately portrayed the most ardent supporters of abortion. He was able to repeatedly explain what he meant by the term, define it so as it had real meaning, and was effective.
But in this case he was searching for a cogent thought, failed to make any kind of sense, and should have realized it and let it go. To his credit Rush has been really good and particularly sharp since this incident you can't say that about Theroux, Maher, Moore, et al.
Apr '11
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
The piece is written from the point of view of a leftist, so of course he is going to knock Rush, Romney, Santorum, Nixon and any other conservative he can think of in 30 seconds. The point is, leftists are reading the piece. One of their own has pointed out their hypocrisy. It also scores a point for liberty. I often tell people, you should not celebrate when your enemies are silenced; they may come for you next. If even a small number on the left figure this out, it is a victory.
Aug '10
Re: Paul Theroux Comes to Rush's Defense
It's obvious to me that this is a man who clearly has no idea what he is talking about. His assertion that the Book of Mormon calls the Catholic Church the "Whore of Babylon" is totally false and is an insult to both the LDS and Catholic churches.
I suspect that what this fellow considers good satire agrees with his political views and that which doesn't is poor satire...
Edited on March 12, 2012 at 10:32pm