Vindicating Rush
by digby
Rich Lowry thinks he’s found the silver lining in all the conservative losses:
There should have been something for everyone in President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address. For liberals, a full-throated call to arms. For conservatives, vindication.
Obama settled once and for all the debate over his place on the political spectrum and his political designs. He’s an unabashed liberal determined to shift our politics and our country irrevocably to the left. In other words, Obama’s foes — if you put aside the birthers and sundry other lunatics — always had him pegged correctly.
If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters, for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle yet to be fully worked out.
Rush, et al., doubted that Obama could have emerged from the left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, become in short order the most liberal U.S. senator, run to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008 primaries and yet have been a misunderstood centrist all along. They heeded his record and his boast in 2008 about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” and discounted the unifying tone of his rhetoric as transparent salesmanship.They got him right, even as he duped the Obamacons, played the press and fooled his sympathizers. David Brooks, the brilliant and winsome New York Times columnist, has been promising the arrival of the true, pragmatic Obama for years now. In his column praising the second inaugural address, he appeared finally to give up. “Now he is liberated,” Brooks wrote. “Now he has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display.”
So, he and his cohorts can revel in “being right” even though they are wrong. Whatever.
But never fear, it’s not as if they really have to worry. Their delusions are intact in every way.
Obama is making his play, as the newest cliché goes, to become the liberal Reagan. As soon as he won reelection, we went from the Obama administration to the Obama years, and that is no mean feat. Becoming an enduringly transformational figure like Reagan, though, is a different proposition. He will have to leave office adored. He will have to cement his legacy by winning a de facto third term. His big policies will have to work, as Reagan’s did in winning the Cold War and reviving the economy.
But know this: nobody will ever be as good enough, as kind enough and doggone it, as downright wonderful as St Ronnie of Hollywood:
For all of the ideological ambition of his second inaugural, the policy agenda was thin or unachievable. Reducing wait-times at the polls isn’t a major item. At the federal level, gay marriage is largely up to the courts. He will get much less on guns than he wants and probably nothing significant from Congress on climate change. His best chance for a breakthrough is on immigration, which divides Republicans.
The virtue of the address was making his intentions unmistakable, although Rush Limbaugh never mistook them in the first place.
This is mostly playing the refs, of course. But I’m fairly sure they believe it too. Obama made a liberal speech. Therefore everything Rush ever said about him is true.
They really are childlike aren’t they?
Of course this isn’t the first time the denizens of the National Review have paid obeisance to their bombastic Jesus:
Rush’s angry, frustrated critics discount how hard it is to make an outrageous charge against him stick. But, we listeners have spent years with him, we know him, and trust him. Rush is one of those rare acquaintances who can be defended against an assault challenging his character without ever knowing the “facts.” We trust his good judgment, his unerring decency, and his fierce loyalty to the country he loves and to the courageous young Americans who defend her.
They just can’t help loving that big galoot.