« Is birtherism driven by race? | Main | Do early primary polls matter? »

May 06, 2011


I defy anybody to read the Rush Limbaugh monologue that Conor Friedersdorf thinks is "strategically ambiguous" (Brendan says Friedersdorf's analysis is "great") and find any ambiguity whatsoever. Limbaugh's sarcasm and ridicule of Obama's Obama-centric narrative of the OBL mission couldn't be more pointed, more obvious, more unambiguous.

The real fun this week, other than celebrating the success of the mission, was the White House's insistence that the rattrap OBL was living in was a "mansion." Now we understand why they gave the kill order on OBL: he wasn't paying his fair share.

Somehow Rush Limbaugh affects liberals' thinking. IMHO their reaction is akin to CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) -- the effect Bill Clinton had on conservatives.

I agree with Rob that Limbaugh's praise of Obama was obviously sarcastic. Perhaps there was some ambiguity, because comments in the monologue that were not about Obama were mostly straight. However, even if this monologue was incoherent, Friedersdorf went much too far. Based on (at most) one example, Friedersdorf generalized to Limbaugh's supposedly routine practice of strategic ambiguity.

One Friedersdorf comment was obviously wrong:

This failure to articulate and defend a single coherent position is the tactic of an intellectual coward.

Limbaugh's show has many flaws, but not this one. Limbaugh routinely articulates and strongly defends many coherent positions: opposition to big government, belief in American exceptionalism, dislike of liberals' positions on most issues, dislike of affirmative action, opposition to what he sees as liberal media bias, opposition to Feminism, disdain for what the NAACP has become, etc.

If a political scientist drew a general conclusion based on a single example, Brendan would consider his analysis to be flawed. If an analysis included an incorrect statement Brendan would normally point out its falsity. However, when a flawed analysis yields a negative conclusion about Rush Limbaugh, Brendan finds it "great".

Like Limbaugh would have any problem at all with an "Obama-centric narrative" of the OBL mission if Obama was a conservative Republican. I've seen RNC chairmen less partisan than Limbaugh.

Daniel, if you wish to see a fair comparison of the self-centricism of two outwardly similar narratives, read Obama's OBL kill statement, and then read Bush's 2003 statement announcing the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

The difference in self-referencing is, well, please judge for yourself.

No doubt that Limbaugh is partisan to the point of blindness, but so too are the legions of pundits who can't perceive even one decent thing about GWB.

Hello Brendan,

Did you read the pdf full report attached to your "Hamilton College class analyzes accuracy of pundit predictions" tweet?

Did I somehow overlooked the actual, specific predictions on which the students were grading the pundits?

Are the specific pundit/prediction data there?

Haven't looked; just thought it sounded interesting.

The comments to this entry are closed.