Rush LimbaughFrancis BeckwithPatricia Mauceri

There were so many excellent comments from readers this past week that it’s impossible to pick just one. So here’s a sampling of some of the best.

Jim Lakely’s essay on the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy–the absurd overreaction to his attempt to buy into the NFL’s St. Louis Rams franchise–inspired several good comments.

From Edmond D. Smith:

Well, while the bad news is that the usual hypocritical suspects opened up their usual bag of slimey tricks and did get Rush bounced, the good news is that the blowback came fast and strong.

In the past when these tactics were used it was very difficult to get the truth out in front of a large enough percentage of the population to make a difference. The alternative, conservative media is now big enough that the supposedly racist quotes attributed to Rush were revealed to be lies to millions of people in a matter of hours. Rush was able to come to his own defense of course (in his typically very effective manner) with millions listening and the truth was further spread by Fox, the WSJ, NRO and all the conservative blogs. Even some in the mainstream media were shamed into telling the truth.

Because of this, most Americans who heard that Rush was a racist also heard that the quotes ascribed to him were fake. By the end of the day most of those who insist that Rush is a racist are doing so simply because they don’t like him. Most fair minded people have to be cynical about this fraud they’ve just seen played out before their very eyes. The next time (and there will be a next time) these smear merchants play their game there will be fewer and fewer people who will be listening.

This has been an ugly affair but it hasn’t been a worthless one. The more people who see the Left as they really are the stronger we on the conservative side of things become.

And also from Edmond D. Smith, in response to commenter Paul:

"It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”)."

One would think if these "vibes" were based in fact other than in personal bias the media could come up with a host of vile audio clips instead of having to make stuff up.

I’m getting some pretty strong negative vibes emanating from you, Paul. Maybe you should lose your job and be vilified nationally?

And Warren Nicholson Fernando wrote the following:

Whatever happen[ed] to the saying "if society can’t protect the worst of us, it can’t protect the best of us"? It sure didn’t apply to Rush in this case. To think that liberals coined this kind of ideals reveals that the worst elements are taking over their ranks.

Jim Lakely’s essay on CNN’s recent exploration of conservative talk radio likewise inspired excellent reader comments, including the following from the acclaimed writer Francis Beckwith:

Here’s the problem: CNN and their ilk are not accustomed to political adversity, as conservatives are. For this reason, conservative talk radio usually includes as standard fare something that is not found in liberal enclaves: arguments. In liberal enclaves the expert, whether its the psychiatrist, the political scientist, or the sociologist, explains away disagreement by making widely speculative claims about the belief-formation of those who disagree with liberalism. Because the belief formation is disordered, therefore, the beliefs must be disordered as well.

Ironically, this does two things: it diminishes the challenge of conservative voices as irrational, while protecting liberal elites from the temptation of political apostasy. It both marginalizes the "other" and protects "the true believer."

It functions, in other words, as an argument stopper, a bulwark against dialogue, dissent, and engagement. It is, in a word, an illiberal mechanism to protect liberalism.

And these thoughts from Brian:

That was the most pathetic attempt at trying to unravel the mystery to liberals of "conservatism ideology." Liberals do not understand the meaning of fiscal responsibility or person responsibility for that matter. The government is not immune to corruption. It’s more apt to be corrupt though. At least the private sector has to maintain at least fiscal responsibility, but for liberal voters, it’s the more about "what can I get for free from the government?" It used to be embarrassing for most people to have to take charity, but now everyone expects it. If you need a little help getting on your feet, there’s nothing wrong with that at all. It’s making a lifestyle out of it. Is that how you want to make a living? Suckling on the government’s tit? We need to come together as a nation and help those in need UNTIL THEY CAN GET ON THERE FEET, but it seems more and more people are more happy lying on their backs. Let’s keep the government out of charity and bring the average American back into it.

Responding to S. T. Karnick’s essay outlining a classical liberal view of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, Former Marine Office wrote:

Here’s a thought, instead of squandering our Blood Treasure and bleeding our treasury in an effort to make Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s borders unassailable, let’s secure our own. If the attacks on the U.S. were perpetrated by those who had no business being here in the first place, enforce our immigration laws.  Crack down on visa violations and place a moratorium on visa’s and immigration.  We have enough of our own out of work.

Afghanistan and Iraq are sovereign nations.  I surely would not want foreign troops in this nation prosecuting a war against an idea, or at all.

Mike D’Virgilio’s article "Andrew Breitbart Takes on ‘Objective’ Journalism" inspired a very productive discussion, which Edmond D. Smith summarized nicely with the following, beginning with a quote from a previous comment by S. T. Karnick:

"Let us, then, make it formal by rejecting phony calls for objectivity that are intended to force a halt to that salutary change."

And so we have reached that moment of sweet solidarity. LOL I utterly object to the lies that the msm perpetrates under the guise of objectivity. There is nothing even vaguely objective about Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, the NY Times, etc. By trying to co-opt the word they’ve made it made it worse than meaningless; they’ve made it the exact opposite of what the dictionary tells us it means. I mourn the loss of a once proud word. 🙂

Finally, Mike D’Virglio’s story on a soap opera star who was fired for defending realism and her personal values against an agenda-oriented story angle on her show brought this comment from reader Steve, with an excellent suggestion:

Thank you for the post. I was watching the most recent "Flash Forward" episode on the Internet earlier, and I noticed the same thing about the lesbian plotline. It felt a bit forced, but one assumes the producers felt like they were doing a great service to the country by addin
g it in, forced or not.

If the producers really wanted to be edgy and controversial, they’d have the lesbian character question her sexuality, and trade her love for women for men. Not likely to happen, though.

Many thanks to all of our readers for their thoughtful and insightful comments. Please keep them coming.

–The Editors