About those attacks on Rush Limbaugh: “orchestrated” or not?
There was a discussion in the comments section here about whether the current campaign to use fabricated quotes to shout “Racist!!!” at Rush Limbaugh was “orchestrated” or not.
I think the word “orchestrated” is a bit strong. It implies a centralized planning committee, a real Left-wing conspiracy like Hillary’s vast Right-wing conspiracy, that one that was so intent on doing in her husband.
Now, don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I don’t think that groups of influential people—Left and/or Right—ever get together to plan things. They certainly do, at times (for instance, I’d certainly like to be a fly—or a house centipede—on George Soros’s wall; and then there’s this, for Hillary). But although orchestration is possible in the Limbaugh/racist case, it’s hardly necessary.
The mechanism by which such attacks tend to happen all at once is through the “follow-the-leader” effect. It works this way: in this case Obama, and various spokespeople for him, declared unequivocally quite some time ago that the press and pundits on the Right were an enemy most foul and underhanded, rather than honest opponents who merely disagree. Certain targets were mentioned by name. Rush was an early one, Fox News another.
So Rush is one of the people who already have been fingered by the Leader as ripe for attack. It doesn’t take a direct order, either; supporters understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the enemy of my friend is my enemy, so he is their enemy too. It helps, of course, that most Obama supporters already hate Rush and consider him the media devil incarnate, whether they’ve ever listened to him or not.
Therefore, there’s a race for the honor of being the person credited for destroying Limbaugh, or at least cutting into his power. And the race card—race baiting in particular—has long been the favored tool in the kit of Obama and supporters. During the campaign, for example, Obama only had to hint, and the minions eagerly took up the cause. Now it’s automatic; Obama doesn’t have to do a thing, and he knows that his followers will cry “racist!” at any criticism. It is very telling that he has not come down hard on them for this.
The “releaser” for the current campaign against Rush was the leak of the news that he was interested in an NFL purchase. I don’t know who was responsible for letting this out (the articles I’ve seen use the passive voice—“news broke”—without identifying the breaker). All that was necessary after that was to put two and two together, go to the files, and trot out the bogus racist quotes that were waiting on Wiki and several other cites. After that, there is no shortage of so-called journalists willing to suspend whatever lingering devotion they might have to the antiquated practice of fact-checking (what’s that, you ask?) if it will help the Left and liberal cause. All’s fair in love for Obama and war against the Right.
So let’s review. And remember, this isn’t primarily about Rush Limbaugh. It’s a generalized several-step process:
(a) the target is identified by the leader and/or his spokespeople
(b) the preferred method is demonstrated
(c) an event is reported that seems ripe for the application of the method
(d) the bogus history is trotted out
(e) others pile on
Is this an orchestra, or a jazz group with each member taking a turn for a solo in the spotlight, or a group of street musicians each on a different corner? Whatever it may be, no proof is necessary—and of course, since all of Limbaugh’s shows are recorded, it should be easy enough to dig up proof if there was any. But believers don’t need proof—after all, everyone knows that all people on the Right are racists. That’s the higher truth.
There is the infamous Journo List. Maybe not a conspiracy but a message board of like minded liberal journalists. Clearly, this little grapevine could be used to damage any high profile conservative.
Pingback:The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Blackballing Conservatism
“Orchestrated”?
Ah…maybe, maybe not.
I remembered something vague from earlier this year and went a lookin.
Here’s the basic story, which nobody has contradicted to this date, giving some details as to the relationship between certain politicians of a particular leftward bend – and certain pundits you’re likely to see on the Sunday morning talk shows, as well as at least one so-called *reporter*.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200902063585/culture-wars/abcs-george-stephanopoulos-admits-daily-calls-with-rahm-emanuel.html
The level of cooperation is astounding.
Then there was also a story which broke that involved various left leaning reporters all being members of some online group, which they kept secret and used for communication and to bounce stories, ideas, theories, etc. off of each other with the idea that their conversations would remain hidden from public view since it was on a private web site of some sort.
I think it was kind of like a chat room for the privileged, if you will – or maybe just an email group – only news broke about their involvement and the lil group became public knowledge.
I’ll have to do some more research to find the exact thing I’m talking about as I don’t remember the names of the characters involved. The important thing I’m recalling from that news item was that these reporters were apparently coordinating their stories out of the public eye.
The point is, there are, or at least were, at least 2 different organizations, that were composed of reporters, and coordinated their views on certain subjects – and I’m sure Rush would generate a fairly consistent response from about any lefty reporter with very little effort.
While those 2 groups were revealed, I do wonder about what other groups have not been revealed and are still operating under the radar.
The end result of such groups could easily be that only one or two or three individuals start a ball rolling – and THEN everyone else of like left leaning beliefs pick up the ball and run with it, repeating without question the original assertions or viewpoints being promulgated by certain key players.
You could have a situation where you do have an “orchestrated” attack started by key players, followed by herd mentality as the rest of the media follows.
OK, Hong got the reference right – I couldn’t remember the name of the group but that is the one I was referring to.
(he got a comment in faster than I did, while I was composing….lol)
The mechanism you postulate is certainly sufficient to explain the observations, neo.
Still, I can’t help but recall my time in Berkeley, when one morning every Red on campus was suddenly bleating about the exact same issue in the exact same language. The chorus didn’t gradually rise to a crescendo, as in a grass roots phenomenon, but rather broke onto the scene full-blown. It was reminiscent of the neck-snapping turns made by Reds at the signing of Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Hard to believe that that sort of thing isn’t orchestrated.
This one, however, could go either way.
Leftists and their media are minnows. When their lateral lines are stimulated, all minnows in the school immediately react alike.
Schools of minnows have no leaders. No orchestration needed.
I rather like the explanatory phrase, “a conspiracy of shared values,” (coined by John A. Stormer in his book, “None Dare Call It Treason,” originally published in 1964 and since reprinted and updated in 1990, see http://www.danielpipes.org/526/none-dare-call-it-treason-25-years-later), to explain how all of these Leftist efforts–in all sorts of often disparate areas–can come streaking in like a missile, to home in on their targets, yet not be centrally directed, except in the sense that these Leftists have all read many of the same core books, and have absorbed the same basic ideology and world-view, and work from the same tactical playbook and repertoire; they know what to do without having to be told what to do, thus, for instance, the wildly successful Gramscian “long march through the culture,” long after pre-WWII Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci was dead.
It is a type of cell system, in which no one can be pinpointed to be an actual central coordinator or leader.
But they are lies.
Without George Bush around to kick around, who better than Rush? Being so combative, he’s even better to hate than Bush. So orchestrated isn’t even the point now, it’s reverted to an old-fashioned garden variety culture of hate. Who has more experience and a better cultural history of hate in this country than the Democrats; with their origins from the original and dedicated segregationists, though now they think they’ve redeemed the party by becoming in your face communists. Unfortunately this hate thing has rubbed off. When I told somebody I hated Bush haters more than Bush haters hate Bush, it ended the relationship. It’s gotten very personal. If it were just a matter of taxes being a little higher or lower it would be one thing, but the stakes are considerably higher now; it’s not just politics as usual anymore. Personally, I want (need) to be more like Rush, Rush is no fool…
Alinsky: Isolate the target.
Limbaugh can fight back. He has – via his own excellence over time – built for himself both a bully pulpit + millions of persons who know he is not racist.
Others are more effectively isolated from their natural allies, and thus cannot fight back as effectively. WHY are the accused so easily isolated in the face of smears?
Writers and media persons cannot afford to be tinged with racial accusation. Even bloggers have day jobs, and cannot afford to have future employers Google their names and see that they blogged about – and even worse: excoriated – accusations of racism. Human Resources middle managers do not want to hire persons who are lawsuit attractors; Human Resources will always take the easy, noncontroversial path: will always hire the person with less potential to attract lawsuits.
Examples of public persons who were isolated to some degree (there have been numerous additional examples):
Palin: “Sambo” in the restaurant, or whatever the blogged smear was (by a site whose bloggers had connections to Axelrod)
Larry Summers – most baseless accusation of sexism I have ever seen
William Bennett – here is a man who explained, inside a conversation, in detail, what he was saying and why he was saying it, and was smeared anyway. The left didn’t care, at all, about the truth. Rather, the left leaped for the smear.
Don Imus – I don’t even like Don Imus. The times I’ve heard him, he has set my teeth on edge. His comment re amateur athlete basketball girls was unfunny and ungraceful and jerk-like. However, he apologized immediately, and profusely. Imus did not deserve the widespread condemnation; did not deserve to be fired. Imus’ treatment was an example of how the needle has swung too far in the direction of righteousness and vindictiveness.
And the needle is swinging back. The nation is shifting, before our eyes, back towards equilibrium.
The election of Barack was a big deal, but not for the reasons the MSM thought. Rather, the election of Barack allows a black man to be heavily criticized; allows national debate to happen – around coffee pots – as to whether the heavy criticism of the prominent black man is racially motivated; allows MANY persons to have their eyes opened: the criticism is not racially motivated.
This is a HUGE FAVOR to black people. It allows black people to be criticized equally: with little or no regard to skin color, with little or none of the head-patting condescension and pretension of the left and MSM. It allows black people to earn the deserved respect: if a person can be criticized fairly and equally, then a person can be praised and respected fairly and equally.
Finally: I continue to believe the Henry Gates kerfuffle was a historic moment. It was a moment when many Americans were disgusted. It was a moment when many Americans began, for the first time, in public, to speak out against ridiculous false accusations of racism. Americans made jokes – openly and publicly, and without fear – about the false accusation of racism. That really didn’t happen before. Americans on the left publicly spoke out and joked about the false accusation of racism. That had not happened before. Gates was a line of demarcation.
He should sue them all for libel, teach them to stop playing so fast and loose with the race card.
Libel suits don’t work as well for public personas.
The Left plays dirty, but so does the Islamics.
All this means is that the more they fight us, the more we learn from them what the best tactics there is. A US military focused entirely on artillery, conventional tanks and aircraft, now is focused exceptionally upon population centric counter-insurgency. Much as the terrorists must prioritize the people, so must a counter-terrorist strategy. That’s what we learned from the enemy.
What are we going to learn from the Left? Will it be equally useful and requiring of great sacrifice
gcotharn poses the risks of being up-front and outspoken (5:25). I am inclined to disagree. Caving to bullies ? But I agree the nation is feeling free to laugh at Baraq, a very good thing indeed.
I’d like to personally thank the Balloon Kid for taking my mind off of Obama’s America for a few hours this afternoon. It was a welcome diversion.
I would also enjoy watching his dad beat him.
It’s win-win.
“I think the word “orchestrated” is a bit strong. It implies a centralized planning committee, a real Left-wing conspiracy like Hillary’s vast Right-wing conspiracy, that one that was so intent on doing in her husband.”
This would be the first time, would it not, that the “liberals” have managed a “vast left-wing conspiracy?” Generally, the best they can manage is never better than half-vast.
Tom,
I’m not in favor of caving to bullies. Re speaking out: I respect everyone’s individual choice. Everyone’s circumstances are unique to them. I’m glad you agree that Americans are feeling more free to publicly laugh at Barack, and more free to publicly ridicule Barack, and that that is a good thing. I think its a very big deal. A moment. A shift – a positive shift – for Americans of all skin hues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OT, sort of:
Olberman says this:
Some ugly stuff. Revealing of Olberman’s internal nastiness.
And: so what? Malkin is in public. She’s a big girl who can handle this stuff. Calling her “meat” has no bearing on any actual issue.
And this is kind of why the left doesn’t have to put us with similar type of horse manure when they say stuff. The right is interested in issues; believes it is on the virtuous and reasoned side of issues. The right is sort of evangelical: wishes to share the good news about small government and free markets and liberty and constitutional protections unleashing the spirit and creativity of human beings. Namecalling? Pish! Issues, man! The right is evangelizing!
Conversely: the left doesn’t want to go more than an inch deep into any issue – doesn’t really know how to go more than an inch deep into any issue – doesn’t really understand the reasoning at a foundational level. Most on the left believe: SOME smart left persons, somewhere, could win a debate on each issue – just not me. Most on the left DO understand that the right is unvirtuous.
Therefore: namecalling makes sense. It’s the perfect ground upon which to make a stand. It’s a fight the left persons can win! Hooray!
It’s a “Group of street musicians with each one on a different corner” of the same city:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
Projection.
These people don’t listen to Rush or watch Fox. They listen to each other and what THEY have to say (see Olberman passage – what does he do on Sunday nights, again?) about the opposition. This results in what we see here. Boy howdy, it sure is nasty out there right now.
Just to add more suspicions on top of what I noted earlier regarding the JournoList as well as Stephanopoulos’ daily briefing by Rahm Emmanual, here’s some fresh information regarding DeMaurice Smith….
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/limbaugh_targeted_by_obama_off.html
Nah…no chance of an “orchestrated” campaign.
I don’t know about “orchestrated” or a conspiracy – but I think there is definitely a PRE-MEDITATED intent on the part of Obama’s followers and left-wingers in general, to repeat falsehoods, which are KNOWN to be false by the first ones to utter them; over and over over — until these falsehoods become “common wisdom” and assumed to be true, and mainstreamed into the public consciousness.
We saw this with Rush. Fabricated quotes, pulled out of thin air, and put in a left-wing book. Then repeated and repeated, and EVEN WHEN EVENTUALLY DEBUNKED…..no longer matters. Too late. The IMAGE of Rush as a “divisive” figure who (here is direct quote from a lefty I was debating online with yesterday) “has been affiliated with making ethnic slurs…” is set. In stone.
Mission accomplished. The narrative is set.
Look – it’s the average, everyday, NON-political person they are targeting. With success.
Today (via Patterico) we see a little SEED being planted for Glen Beck — a little nugget; a little tidbit of a LIE…..intentionally planted.
Beck was showing a video of that heinous woman Anita Dunn giving a speech where she credits mass murderer Mao as an influence. Beck sarcastically says in total disgust “How can that man be your favorite anything? He killed 70 million people. That would be like me saying to you “You know who my favorite political philosopher is? Adolf Hitler! Have you read Mein Kampf?”
Patterico busted some leftist ASSHOLE who tweeted that Beck “admits that his favorite philosopher is Hitler and Beck endorses Mein Kampf.”
If this is allowed to be spread around without a HARD strike back at the lie, right now??? Then….
Just you wait. Just you wait!! Within 6 months to a year, if his name comes up while engaging in a debate with your average liberal (who will defensively admit, but only when aggressively pushed, that he/she has never actually listened to or watched Beck) — he or she will blithely and dismissively wave her/his arm and say — “oh, isn’t THAT the guy who admitted that Hitler is one if his favorite philosophers? Puleeze.”
You heard it here first, folks.
I know advocating being hard-nosed and aggressive makes our country even MORE polarized, divided, and divisive – but there is no civil way to counteract this ongoing, intentional campaign. We have absolutely no option but to fight back HARD.
During the campaign, for example, Obama only had to hint, and the minions eagerly took up the cause. Now it’s automatic; Obama doesn’t have to do a thing, and he knows that his followers will cry “racist!” at any criticism. It is very telling that he has not come down hard on them for this.
So, is Obama imitating Charles Johnson, or vice-versa?
What was our Fort Sumpter moment? When did the Civil War (which as of right now is still a “cold” war) get kicked off?
Well, right after the 2000 elections were finally wrapped up and decided, after all those weeks of litigation, a phenomenon occurred which I don’t think a lot of people gave much thought to at the time. But it was a shocking and jaw dropping time for me.
For the first time in my life (born in 1958), the losing candidate did NOT as I expected he would, gracefully acknowledge and congratulate the winner as being the true, and legitimate, “President Elect” who we should all “rally around and support, in spite of our political differences” etc., etc. The same standard (but critical for our functioning and peaceful transition of power) set of speeches and public positions which has always been a hallowed American tradition.
No. Instead that son of a bitch Al Gore remained petulant, and totally classless. This served as an extremely unfortunate model and inspiration; and gave credibilty for members of the losing party to “Declare” that Bush was really not “their” president at all. 9-11 washed away or made a lot of us forget those early months — but I will never forget the INTENSE hatred and vitriol of the “selected not elected” crowd.
And I hold Al Gore and his selfish and shameful post-election conduct 100% responsible for fanning the flames and encouraging that unhealthy (for America) sentiment to take root and become an imbedded mindset.
To me….maybe that cannot be nailed down as the precise “Fort Sumpter” moment — there are other contributing factors of course too – Bush was not exactly a great unifier in many many ways….the perception from the left that meany conservatives were maliciously “out to get” Billy Jeff over a simple private sexual affair….etc., etc…..but that post 2000 election atmosphere has I believe contributed to our getting to where we are now – a very bitterly divided country.
When you hire a cat, you don’t have to teach it to catch mice.
southernjames: the 2000 election was also a turning point for me. I last voted for a Democratic Party Presidential candidate in 1976, and voted third party with the exception of 1988. I voted third party in 2000 because I didn’t like the way that Dubya had gotten rich off his Texas Rangers stock- largely due to a taxpayer-subsidized stadium. The 2000 election brouhaha biased me towards Republicans.
Gore’s whole approach post November disgusted me. Trying to get recounts in Democratic but not in Republican counties, for one. Trying to change the procedure by which votes were counted, when the procedures had been set in Democratic Party- controlled counties, for another. Or not accepting a second count, and trying for another. Anyone who has tried hand counting a large number of objects knows there will be a certain amount of error. Try it, you’ll see.
Recall that Tricky Dick had ample evidence that Daley had cheated in Chicago, but did not dispute the 1960 election.
I’ve seen this behavior before in my own house. I have 2 dogs, both pretty nice. My fiance has a dog who is a sweet thing.
My little stepdog stays with me on the weekend and the dynamics change. Something that would have brought a curious look, or a muffled ‘woof’ now brings a crescendo of barks and howls,with dogs jumping.
The pack mentality removes the natural reserve of both man and beast. If they sense a weakness (eg one of my cats running) they turn into devil dogs immediately. (Of course, with my 2 cats that’s a big mistake, and I really don’t need to intervene.)
Mind you, my 2 are miniature pinschers and my stepdog is a toy rat terrier. Weighing in at less than 40 pounds all together, they make such a ferocious racket (the toy rat terrier has a yippy bark, the other 2 sound like bad-asses). Given the media, I consider the comparison to be quite apropos.
Hong was right on about journolist and let’s not forget the Townhouse flap a while back. I remeber Moulitsas’s quote about “starving an issue of oxygen” if liberal bloggers ignored it.
While, there is not any real Central Commitee type planning, there are closeknit venues of communication and the ‘schooling’ (as in fish, as mentioned earlier in the thread).
The left has to resort to personal attacks because their ideas are dismal losers in the market place of ideas. If the media were truely ‘fair and accurate’ and if issues were reported with the intent to inform the public. Both parties would be in a world of hurt, though the democrats would be in far deeper trouble.
One thing that these events do emphasize though, is that the mainstream media, for all of their losses, finacial and otherwise, is still the big megaphone in the dissemination of ‘news.’
Not on topic, but important as giving the lie to all of the progress in “creating/saving” jobs brought about by Obama’s policies and the stimulus.
He is a very understandable graphic the says it all (http://tipstrategies.com/archive/geography-of-jobs/).
The White House may not be conducting, but they are certainly beating time for their amen chorus.
From Gateway Pundit this a.m.:
“Plus– Rush responded to the state-run media’s smear machine today in the Wall Street Journal, via Instapundit:
Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.
I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand.”
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”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).
Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. Don’t we all feel better?
Paul, very interesting that you never addressed the issue of whether or not Rush actually said those things he was purported to have said.
If I state that XYZ is a thief, and have no evidence that XYZ is a thief, then by your posting it is whining for XYZ to object to my having called him a thief without any evidence.
Evidence-based liberals. Oh yeah.
Simplest explanation is, Paul approves of lying.
Paul, the standard around here is to provide links and checkable citations. In the absence of those, the working assumption is that the only blowhard in evidence is you.
After reading Paul’s rant, I’ve come to the conclusion – based on the evidence provided so far – that Paul doesn’t actually listen to Rush.
You don’t have to listen to Rush. Your betters have told you what your opinion is to be.