Sounds like I’m running for Senate, doesn’t it?
I want to shine a bit of a different light on my friend’s post. I heard the same radio broadcast as Joe did but I came away with a different take. I can’t find the actual quote on Limbaugh’s site so I’ll use a snippet via Salon who got it from Media Matters, so you know that it was taken out of context:
Rush Limbaugh announced on Monday that President Obama won’t be impeached over recent controversies and that “Benghazi is not going to touch” him. And no, it’s not because the talking points “scandal” wasn’t really, you know, scandalous, or that the Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus told impeachment-happy members of Congress to cool it until they have evidence to support their claims or any other reasons that are based in reality.
It’s because Obama is black, and “the American people are not going to tolerate the first black president being removed from office,” according to Limbaugh.
Of course, Salon and Media matters can only see this through the lens of race, as indicated in the title of the post, “Limbaugh: No one willing to impeach the first black president: Rush announced on Monday that Obama is not in “any jeopardy” of impeachment — but only because he is black”
I think that even though they meant it to paint Rush as a racist, there is some truth to that – I’ve long made the argument that to vote for Obama just because of his race is just as racist as voting against him due to it…but that was not the point. Limbaugh was not saying that we shouldn’t impeach Obama, what he was discussing was the disconnect between the scandals we see and the fact that Obama’s poll numbers are still relatively undamaged and that to try to impeach a popular president, especially one with the advantage of being the first black president (and it was an advantage), will not wash with at least half of the American people.
Rush’s position is that Obama and his administration are doing everything that they can to keep him from being seen as actually governing and that way; they keep him for being seen as bearing responsibility for anything:
Look, I don’t mean to make this personal. I really don’t. You people in this audience that have been here for years and years understand that, for example, when I say that this past weekend, today, all of last week, the Limbaugh Theorem has been in full display, I don’t mean to make that about me. Remember what we’re about here.
We are about persuading people. We are about creating the largest group of informed, educated people participating in our process as possible. And, as such, it is I who try various ways to come up with ways to explain things to people that will convince or persuade them and also do so in a way that will help them then explain to other people, and we create a cascade. The Limbaugh Theorem was not about me giving me credit for something. It was simply sharing with you when the light went off. And just to restate it again.
In most cases in the economy, the president owns it. Good or bad, it’s his. He gets the credit when it’s great; he gets the blame when it’s not. Obama has managed to pull off this detachment in a very (to get down to brass tacks), very easy way. He is constantly campaigning. His campaign never ends. He’s presidency is not one of governance. In fact, in one of these AP stories today there’s even a reference to the fact. Obama’s even quoted as saying, “Maybe it’s time for me to start governing.”
The reason I’m doing this is I had a bunch of e-mails from friends over the weekend who are in the media, who have never heard of the Limbaugh Theorem, alerting me, sending me, “Can you believe how Obama’s getting away with all this? Like he had nothing to do with the IRS, and he had nothing to do with what went on at the Department of Justice and the AP,” and I politely — I’ll tell you what I did. I went to the website, Rush 24/7, and I got all of the relevant transcripts from the archives of this program going back to February, the Limbaugh Theorem, and I fired the stuff out. I mean, I buried ’em with data, and I said, “Look, I finally figured this out.” Everybody is coming to it now, but they still haven’t closed the loop on what it means.
I’m sure you’ve seen this. Where everybody is now, “Wow.” There are even satirical members of the media doing parody and satire on Obama. For example, I saw where the Borowitz report or something, and it was a satire on Obama saying, “Well, you know, I didn’t know this thing was going on at the IRS. I found out about it when the press told me.” It was a takeoff on how Obama is literally not attached to anything in his administration. He’s not attached to his agenda. He’s not attached to these scandals. He’s not attached to anything. But what they’re missing is that this has been going on since day one in 2009, and what they’re missing is the purpose of it. They all acknowledge, for example, that Obama’s on a perpetual campaign.
But it stops there. They’re all remarking to me, “Boy, isn’t it amazing how this Obama guy, he doesn’t know anything about what’s going on and he’s a smart guy.” Yeah, yeah, but do you know why all this is happening, is the point? And the answer is right here. “Obama Approval Holding Steady at 55%.” Now, it’s a CNN poll and we have to treat this in a guarded way. “President Barack Obama’s job approval rating is holding steady, despite a trifecta of scandals. CNN’s Candy Crowley said on State of the Union Sunday that 53 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. His approval is virtually unchanged from a poll the network did before the three scandals that have put the administration on the defensive.” And the three scandals, of course, are the IRS probing the Tea Party, Republican criticism of Benghazi and Libya and the AP phone records.
The approval rating hasn’t changed. Now, you poll the American people, they’re all opposed to this. They don’t attach Obama to it. There’s a reason. It’s not just something to marvel at and insult voters over. There is a studied, purposeful reason why Obama is never going to be seen as governing, and it is precisely within the minds of low-information voters to make sure he’s never seen as responsible for any of this. It is purposeful. It’s not just some anomaly that happened that everybody can scratch their heads at or laugh at. The Limbaugh Theorem attempts to explain why the administration is doing this and how it is working and how it is succeeding.
Rush has always been a conservative first and a Republican second but I guess he and I have shared the same character flaw; both of us have thought that the vehicle for conservatism/classic liberalism was the Republican Party. I think he still does and uses “republican” interchangeably with “conservative”, but I’ve been disabused of that notion by 8 years of Bush and 4 of Obama. Rubio and the Senate Amnesty Gang was the final straw. I still can’t conceptualize how we can govern without control of a major party and I don’t want to be consigned to a life of frustrated marginalism but there simply isn’t an electoral vehicle that is broad or deep enough to carry the flag for classical liberalism today.
What we are missing is a true leader and I have yet to see anyone worth following…