March 5, 2012 · By Jim Bowman · 1 Comments
I cannot let this alone. I listened to Rush Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke diatribe which seem to last for hours. At the time I thought it not only trivial, it was not worthy of his extended pontifications. However, I also was taken back by my memories of his previous foray into the shadows of control.
For quite some time, I have sensed this uneasiness with headliners in the talk radio industry. That is, excepting Mark Levin and from an earlier time, the late Irv Homer. I have heard many who have had lengthy stays of success and it seems that their bored or short-tempered response to callers increases proportionately with their length of service behind the mike. While Rush has been their model and has enjoyed unheralded success, along with high public esteem, I never the less am left with this impression of “something is amiss.”
While I am not a jealous person, in regards to a person’s level of financial success since generally, “they paid their dues,” I still recognize and even anticipated a change after attaining all of one’s personal goals.
Different hosts react differently to success. Some curtail calls on certain subjects such as the touchy abortion issue. In this they convey an elitist air or at least a snobbery and/or “know it all” attitude. This is human nature’s effect after years of success and from being told how great one is. Of course, with regards to Rush, the sky is the limit and he has surpassed all his clouds. What remains is the expectation of, “what else is there to do?”
Rush’s extended pontifications about this Fluke issue has, for me, become front and center to what I have long suspected. As we all are aware, this entire issue came about from the George Stephanopolous questioning of Romney during a January debate. We all, including Rush most of all, realize what this query was originally meant to produce. First, diverting Obama and his record from further debate while at the same time presenting a golden platter issue for his own defense in the general election.
It is with this clear understanding of such a non-issue that I listened in total amazement to the lengthy dissertation given by Rush. It struck me as “why all this fuss?” What really caught my attention was his choice of sleazy terminology. Realizing that a man does not reach the levels of success which Limbaugh has without intelligence mixed with a cautionary sense for self preservation, this entire episode was so un-Rush like that I personally expected Rush to anticipate this venomous aftermath.
It was then, by realizing what had and continues to take place, that I put two and two together. I remembered back to 2008 and how Limbaugh engineered the “Operation Chaos” exercise. His listeners apparently flocked to it and so did the MSM commentators. I also recognized the glee in Rush’s voice for having manipulated this entire fiasco. Do we see a link with what is currently taking place?
Of course, this is all supposition on my part but boy how it all fits together. I recall the lessons from reading about those who “have it all;” those who have money to the extent that money ceases to be relevant. Again, what’s next on the agenda?
If we track the records of those fortunate few, the Rockefellers, George Soros, Bill Gates, the Fords and Carnegies, what we see is the lure of power and control. Now I’m not placing Rush’s wealth at those levels but there is a similar success point that causes such personal pondering. I mean, one has to have a goal, whether rich or poor. I think for Rush, it just may be this power of manipulation.
Limbaugh’s conduct was so irresponsible that it seems that he was intentionally baiting this reaction. Limbaugh is not stupid. He is crafty, egotistical and probably bored. His lengthy discussion of Ms. Fluke may well have been an attempt to actually pick his candidate without publicly doing so. Again, another example of his “chaos” thinking.
Many callers questioned why he hadn’t selected who he thought would make the best President. I might add that the same caller reaction has been directed to Sean Hannity. Limbaugh’s exhilaration from his 2008 “chaos” tactic may have been too strong to ignore. If so, it seems that through this back door technique, his selection is Romney.
I say Romney simply because of who will be negatively viewed through this unconstitutional subject of individual contraceptives. Santorum’s campaign addresses traditional and Constitutional America. There is a riff existing between the Tea Party conservatives and the embedded Republican “Establishment.” This November will not just feature a democrat/republican Presidential contest, there will also take place a battle within the Republican Party. And it is to this that adds luster to this implausible Limbaugh mystery.
The mid-term elections spanked the creditability of such Republican experts as Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, George Will and of course Charles Krauthammer. During that contest and since, their venomous regard has become an embedded cornerstone to their positions and thoughts.
Their accumulated tenure constitutes the fiber of “the establishment.” What is Rush if not an established and tenured mouthpiece who has risen and ruled the airwaves during roughly the same time period? At the very least, there must be a comfort zone if only based upon the years shared. I recall just how enamored Rush was of the Bush family.
Rush has provided a positive light in the tunnel of media darkness for decades. While this subject saddens my allegiance to my Country comes first. Since I realize that this election will decide our future, as a free or enslaved Nation, I will not leave any stone unturned. As my dear Mother used to preach, “actions speak louder than words.” These questions posed to “the doctor of democracy,” are asked by one member of his respectful audience, but from an audience who values Country first.
This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964