Rush Limbaugh’s McCain Derangement Syndrome has reached new heights – he’s not only jumped the shark, he’s jumped a giant squid and a killer whale at the same time:
On Mr. Limbaugh’s program today, he said people should not be rushing to back Mr. McCain over issues of national security. The talk host said America’s direction in Iraq would not be substantially different even if Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama were elected. “They are not going to surrender the country to Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq,” Mr. Limbaugh said after mentioning the two Democratic senators by name. “They are not going to do that to themselves, despite what their base says.”“The idea that we’ve only got one person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, who is willing to take on the war on terror is frankly, absurd,” Mr. Limbaugh said.
Holy Moly. What is going on with this man? As Michael Goldfarb points out,
Has Rush been paying attention to what the Democratic Congress tried to do to the war effort this year–and the role McCain played in stopping it? Is he unaware that right now Clinton and Obama are one-upping each other in a game of who could surrender first? That both would withdraw American troops regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of whether we are winning or losing, regardless–in short–of reality? Or is he willing to take the risk that either Clinton and Obama, upon assuming the office, will suddenly settle on a responsible approach to Iraq when they’ve each been so breathtakingly irresponsible in the past?
Do Limbaugh’s listeners believe his gibberish. Maybe so.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
30 Comments
1. David Thomson:I am shocked and appalled by the idiocy coming out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth. The harsh reality is that the Democrats are existentially committed to dishonest pacifism. George McGovern won the battle for the heart and soul of the party’s leadership. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, at a gut level, truly believes in the war on terror. I am utterly convinced that an effective struggle against Islamic nihilism will virtually cease if the Democratic Party nominee wins the White House. If nothing else, politically correctness hinders them from confronting dark skin people who do evil things.
Feb 5, 2008 - 9:51 am 2. Lem:After taking a closer look at Senator McCain’s record of public service I believe he doesn’t have the temperament necessary to be commander in chief.
Let Hillary muck things up real good and let’s try again in 4 years.
Feb 5, 2008 - 10:18 am 3. nash:The only reason the Democrats are so adamantly opposed to the war is that Bush is in office. As soon as a Democrat takes office, Democrats in Congress and the MSM will do an about face on the war. We’ll start getting stories about how well Iraq has improved. It’s the same thing they do time after time with the economy. Republican = doom and gloom. Democrat = happy days are here again.
A Democratic Administration will be more leeway to wage war and will be given cover for any mistakes it makes in Iraq. Either they’ll be glossed over or ignored by the MSM. Any dissent by radical left-wing peacenik groups will be ignored by the media. An example of this is Clinton’s Bosnian War. They bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Anybody get fired for that? Were there calls for the Sec. of Defense to be sacked? Not on your life.
Feb 5, 2008 - 10:21 am 4. Godzilla:I’ll say one thing, McCain is sure shaping up to be Limbaugh’s Cortlandt building. And I must say that I’m rooting for him to push down on the plunger.
Feb 5, 2008 - 10:35 am 5. David Thomson:“As soon as a Democrat takes office, Democrats in Congress and the MSM will do an about face on the war.”
Nonsense. These people are truly dishonest pacifists. They don’t believe, in their heart of hearts, that violence sometimes is the best option. When push comes to shove, they believe that violence only begets more violence. National defense Democrats John F. Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humprhey, and Harry Truman are long gone. Such individuals would not stand any realistic chance whatsoever of winning their current party’s nomination for the highest office in the land. They probably could not even win a state wide race! JFK would be resoundly rejected by today’s Massachusetts Democratic Party leadership. He would literally be considered a right-wing war monger.
Feb 5, 2008 - 10:45 am 6. Roger:I agree with David Thompson here. Of course there are some exceptions, but the manner in which Lieberman was run out of the Democratic Party – when the only issue on which he was really an apostate was the war- tells the whole story. That is why I think Lem’s post is naive. There is a war on and waiting around four years could be fatal.
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:18 am 7. Doug S.:Perhaps it’s a sign that the long struggle against the jihadis is going well, but it weirds me out that so many on the right seem to be forgetting that we still live in a time of war. It seems to me that if we let up in this struggle, if we allow the enemy to strike again by unwillingness to prosecute the fight vigorously, then all of the issues on which some conservatives disagree with McCain will seem like small potatoes.
It may be as nash says, that the Dems will embrace the war once Bush is no longer attached to it, but it strikes me as a real gamble. The Clinton track record in dealing with the jihadi problem ÔøΩ treating it for the most part as a criminal matter ÔøΩ didn’t work too well, and “Let’s invade Pakistan instead of Iraq” Obama doesn’t inspire any more confidence. And besides, to pick up on David Thomson’s point, a Dem president will owe much political debt to voters who don’t understand and have never understood that we are at war with a dangerous foe.
Romney might be an effective wartime president, I suppose. I would have preferred Fred, myself. But of the serious candidates who are left, I think McCain has the most profound understanding of what’s at stake in terms of prosecuting the war in which we still find ourselves.
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:19 am 8. pmccarthy:Roger, See Andrew McCarthy on McCain at NRO…Rush is right.
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:28 am 9. MikeD:Well, McCain is right on the war and possesses a past record of national service and bravery. And for that reason alone I will force myself to vote for the SOB if he gets the nomination (maybe). But the man is a RINO at best, he parrots the Democratic line on all too many issues and is no conservative. His temper, his behavior, and the lies he is telling about Romney (to wit the present Bob Dole misrepresentation)are despicable. Frankly, he is no leader, he is another self-serving, pandering and dishonest bastard. Yes, Hillary and Obama suck. So does John McCain, but just maybe a little bit less. Support him if you must but don’t tell me what a great fellow he is–I don’t believe you.
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:36 am 10. chuck:but it weirds me out that so many on the right seem to be forgetting that we still live in a time of war.
Rush lives in the time of Limbaugh. Lots of the NRO folks are similarly inclined to self regard. I think a Sister Soljah moment is coming due.
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:49 am 11. Lem:Roger, the naivete is the dems’s money I’m looking at…. All that money the dems are raising (some reports have at 2 to 1 over repubs) says to me that “change” scam has bamboozled a lot people.
A lot of people (on both sides) no longer seem to have the WOT on their radar.
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:55 am 12. Sheryl:For years now, all we have been hearing from these pundits on the right is how the Democrats are “surrender monkeys”, how they are at best naive fools, at worst, dangerous traitors, how the only thing saving Western civilization from being overtaken by Islamists is the Republicans steadfast resolve. Democratic hawks were welcomed and embraced by these people for recognizing America’s number one priority, and praised for being wise enough to put aside partisanship for a more important cause.
Feb 5, 2008 - 11:56 am 13. Lem:It now appears these pundits were lying the entire time. Either about how important they thought the threat of Islamism, or how dangerous the Democrats were on the issue. And that’s the kindest interpretation I can make of Limbaugh’s comments.
It’s the tragedy of success.
Feb 5, 2008 - 12:01 pm 14. CTRepublican:I am shocked and appalled by the idiocy coming out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth.
For your sake, I hope that’s a joke. You do know he’s been a racist drug addict for years, right? This isn’t a new development.
Feb 5, 2008 - 1:40 pm 15. Roger:“It’s the tragedy of success.”
If it only were.
Feb 5, 2008 - 1:42 pm 16. David Thomson:“And that’s the kindest interpretation I can make of Limbaugh’s comments.”
Rush Limbaugh is making a complete fool of himself. He perhaps is somewhat bitter that he has been proven unable to sway the voters.
“You do know he’s been a racist drug addict for years, right?”
Rush Limbaugh has never uttered a single racist remark. Your slanderous accusation is another reminder why Democrats cannot be trusted regarding the war on terror. You cannot distinguish between racism and legitimate criticism of dark skinned people. It’s all one and the same to you. This makes you incapable of taking to task the Islamic nihilists who are perceived by the leftist establishment as victims of Western imperialism.
Feb 5, 2008 - 2:01 pm 17. Orson2:I embrace Limbough’s case, and the FACT that there is any doubt that McCain drives the Republican Party b ack to the Nixon days (who was also both conservative in foreign policy, but a liberal-compromiser on domestic issues like McCrazy) is what worries me!
Hugh Hewitt said as much based on his own personal
experience! He worked as a speechwriter for Nixon,
then went to law school (specializing in the new
environmental law), then worked under Reagan’s Admin
for 6 years. McCain=Nixon again. Who here want’s Nixon again?
Here’s what’s truely Nixonian and risible about McCain:
in 2004, he wanted to be Democrat John Kerry’s Vice
Presidential candidate, against a sitting Republican
president! (Kerry’s people said McCain’s men
approached him in April that year,,,,)
HOW THE HELL CAN HE CLAIM TO BE “a good Republican”?
Only a good turncoat!
In 2004, mccain also said: ìI believe my party has
gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine
party, and I have no problems with it, in their views
and in their philosophy.î
Astray? Thanks to mcrazy, it has.
it mkes much more strategic sense to get a Prez
H~who will rally the Republican troops to defeat some if not many of her statist schemes, thereby reinvigorating the
Party. A Prez M will viIiate this traditional, Reagan anti-statism! It will split and pacify the opposition to socialist schemes that make Pubbies take back the House in 1994 and deafeat the worst of the Clinton years. A president McCain will result in our surrender!
Vote for Hillary in 2008! (Sure, I’ll actually vote Libertarian in November-but that doesn’t mean I won’t help get out the vote in Dem areas where I live.) These truths should be self-evident.
-Orson
Feb 5, 2008 - 2:07 pm 18. jaimeshawn:I loathe all the major candidatesÖ I feel like Stan Marsh, forced to vote for a Turd Sandwich or a Giant Douche. If our system of government means you only get to chose between corrupt and crazyÖ crazy with a large helping of incompetence thrown in, then our government is broken.
Feb 5, 2008 - 2:29 pm 19. Michael J. Totten:Rush Limbaugh has always been an idiot. More people are seeing it now because he’s going after a popular Republican candidate, but it’s the same old crap from this guy.
Feb 5, 2008 - 3:04 pm 20. Lem:“Rush Limbaugh has always been an idiot”
MJT has always been a Rush listener?
I’m impressed; from one ditto-head to another.
Feb 5, 2008 - 3:50 pm 21. Michael J. Totten:Lem: MJT has always been a Rush listener?
Only rarely, for good reason.
Dittohead? Hardly.
Feb 5, 2008 - 4:09 pm 22. michael:If nothing else as Victor Davis Hanson says, ‘the die (by our voting) has been cast’ and, from my point of view, we are better able to live with the results. When Iran overruns Iraq and closes the Straits of Hormuz, I’ll say, “Oh, Well. No biggee. We’ll get back to you when we get our act together.” Re: the comment on Rush being a racist. That may come from his, endorsing by implication, our insisting on being told we are the greatest souls in the world and ‘I, whoever the candidate is, can take that brown stain right out of your social fabric just like Tide took it out of your momma’s clothes. Now let me just have at it.’ With re: McCain Feingold, I was talking to a pharmaceutical rep today. They can’t talk about their products or scientific studies unless there talking about an FDA approved indication; forget published peer reviewed literature indexed by the National Library of Medicine. This is a very serious infringement on free speech; anybody care? So reacting to that one restriction does not reestablish free speech. The SBVT which sunk Kerry was done after McCain-Feingold.
Feb 5, 2008 - 5:42 pm 23. David Thomson:“That may come from his, endorsing by implication, our insisting on being told we are the greatest souls in the world and ‘I, whoever the candidate is, can take that brown stain right out of your social fabric just like Tide took it out of your momma’s clothes. Now let me just have at it.’”
This is not an example of racism. It is merely a witty observation on how the politically correct elites perceive the candidacy of Barack Obama! There is little doubt that his campaign is taking full advantage of white guilt.
Feb 5, 2008 - 6:08 pm 24. Richard Nieporent:Wow. I started reading this thread and I thought that I had somehow been transported to the Daily Kos. This is not the level of discourse that I have come to know from reading this website. Why all of these intemperate remarks? It clearly is a sign that McCain is a flawed candidate. I am sure Roger that you know that. Attacking Rush Limbaugh (no I am not a fan of Rush) is not going to change the fact that many Republicans have major issues with John McCain. Rather than trying to change the subject by deflecting the anger to Rush or Ann Coulter or anybody else, why don’t we all stop and take a deep breath and assess the situation from a more pragmatic point of view. A lot of Republican’s do not like McCain for a host of very good reasons. Until McCain sews up the nomination, these people are going to do what is in their power to try and prevent McCain from getting the nomination. Thus you hear some Republicans saying that under no circumstance will they vote for McCain and others saying that they would even support Hillary in the general election. However, before you get too excited, remember that this is being said before they are faced with the stark reality of having to choose between McCain and Hillary or Obama. Rather than calling them names, just give these people a chance to vent their anger over what is (certainly from my perspective) one of the worse choices we could get for a candidate. When reality sinks in a lot (not all) of these Republicans will with great reluctance (as I will do) vote for John McCain, the lesser of two evils.
Feb 5, 2008 - 6:57 pm 25. Barrett:Roger,
As pmmcarthy and MikeD have indicated, McCain is at best a RINO and at worst a blue dog Democrat.
What I find funny about your criticism of Rush is that it questions why a conservative (Rush) would criticize a supposed conservative (McCain).
The war with Islamofacism is the issue of our times. McCain maybe okay there.
But many other things will be determined in the next Administration, including if McCain wins. McCain SUCKS (i.e. a technical term) on almost any other issue, including McCain-Feingold, taxes and the economy, immigration, gun control and judges (on of the Gang of 14), among others.
While I don’t listen to Rush, I know a lot of people who also don’t listen to Rush but who like Rush think McCain stinks.
Some conservatively persuaded voters will stay home, some will vote for Hillary (fools that they are) and some will hold their nose and vote for McCain.
If McCain wins the Republican nomination, I will most likely vote for him because (1) I don’t think he will cut and run (although the Democrats will get everything else they want so he can keep the fight going) and (2) it is time to stop the Clinton corruption machine.
But I must reiterate – McCain sucks. And I don’t have any derangement syndrome!
Feb 5, 2008 - 7:51 pm 26. Inspector Callahan:Let me start by saying that that I will probably vote for McCain if he wins the nomination. But I won’t like it, and I’ll probably regret it later. If we weren’t at war, I definitely would NOT vote for McCain.
If those who canÔøΩt stomach voting McCain stay home, it wonÔøΩt be because Limbaugh and Coulter told them to do so, itÔøΩll be because theyÔøΩve taken a principled stand. And good for them. They have plenty of good reasons not to vote for McCain, all of which have been addressed within the comments of your numerous posts about McCain Derangement Syndrome, and none of which have addressed by the host.
The idea that conservatives are deranged if they passionately disagree with McCain on issues which they find important, is just ad-hominem masquerading as analysis. Some of us really are concerned about this country’s leftward lurch, and see the long-term effects of a McCain presidency as more damaging than 4 years of Clinton or Obama, since this would probably be followed by a return to sanity.
McCain is no conservative, regardless of what the ACU says. He’s a statist, through and through. Because he’ll continue the Iraq war should not be the ONLY prism through which to choose our next president, even if it may be the most important one.
TV (Harry)
Feb 5, 2008 - 8:40 pm 27. Andrew:The available evidence is pretty strong that McCain has Duke Cunningham Disease. More commonly known as Fighter Pilot’s Syndrome. He is convinced of his own perfection. Any criticism of any of his policies drives him into foaming tirades. He’s a hater, and he’s good at it.
He’ll defend McCain-Feingold by appointing judges like Ginsburg and Souter. He’ll support open borders with appointments like the La Raza racist he’s got as his “Hispanic Outreach Director”. Tax policy will be set by Ted Kennedy.
It will probably be fun to see how he deals with his former friends in the media, once they turn on him with all the savagery and slander they use when confronted with their goal of electing a Democrat over anyone else. That may be as entertaining as Spiro Agnew, with possibly the same end result…
I’ll go vote next November, but I likely will leave the President selections unmarked.
Feb 5, 2008 - 8:46 pm 28. Inspector Callahan:As a side note, Andrew McCarthy sums up this whole “MDS” line of BS better than I could:
I recall being most frustrated when some anti-Clinton zealot would claim the president had ordered an assassination or run cocaine through Mena Airport. Naturally, the Clinton people would very effectively conflate those inane accusations with the highly colorable allegations that the president had obstructed justice and committed perjury. Commentators would duly brand all the presidentÔøΩs critics as deranged Clinton haters.
Based on this post (and the prior), I believe our host is guilty of the same thing.
TV (Harry)
Feb 5, 2008 - 8:51 pm 29. Stephen_M:“Rush Limbaugh has always been an idiot”
Feb 5, 2008 - 9:35 pm 30. non-partisan:Strong words coming from a guy who went to Beirut only to completely misunderstand everything about the place. I remember your shock that the place went violent. God god.
When has Limbaugh ever been any good to anybody–other than duping simpletons into voting for Republicans for reasons that have nothing to do with the policies they end up crafting?
Ditto the whole roster: Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Ingraham… They all are sounding more and more like dinosaurs–thank goodness their whole mistake might be coming to an end.
We really need to get beyond the pretend Left-Right civil war; it’s beneath all of us who have brains in working order.
Feb 6, 2008 - 11:56 pm