Watching RL lead the GOP... off a cliff

I think I'm a fairly articulate person. And, minor cranky fits aside, I've learned to become detached and have some perspective on the few things that really irk me. But I don't approach the subject, I don't even consider discussing the vile, loathsome, hateful, hypocritical evil that goes by "Rush Limbaugh." (Oh, I cannot even speak the name. I shall call him Rude Lyingblabberbutt, or RL.) I am incapable of mustering the language...or reigning my wrath. Suffice to say that I think being a fan should be recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a diagnosable mental disorder.

I wasn't surprised to hear that RL said he hopes President Obama fails, because I'm not surprised by any stupid, cruel, inane, hateful thing he says.

I wasn't surprised to see him villified by Huffpo's Bob Cesca: "...the GOP has been inextricably grasped within the meaty, sweaty mitts of that familiar planetoid of addiction, racism and self-indulgence known as Rush Limbaugh. ...Limbaugh has indeed broken the Republicans and I'm pretty sure they know it. Yet they're powerless to do anything about it." J. Wilkes weighed in: " Limbaugh speaks with impunity. When he makes a gaffe that Media Matters or some other media watchdog group latches onto, Republicans rush to his defense. ...And when, god forbid, a Republican criticizes Limbaugh, they run back and immediately apologize."

Deepak Chopra commented:

The Limbaugh effect fueled the anti-morality of the Bush years. Under ordinary morality, the wretched plight of illegal immigrants, for example, must be considered along with the fact that they are breaking the law. Being poor, illiterate, and desperate, their human condition makes them more sympathetic than ruthless lawbreakers would be. But under anti-morality, if you hate immigrants because they are foreigners who don't look American enough, the argument is over. Your anger strips away tolerance, sympathy, and regard for "the other." Hence the almost imperial bearing of Limbaugh, the bland certainty that because he never stops being angry, he never stops being right.

The same goes for a wide range of "others" who mightily tick off Limbaugh's listeners: Muslims, feminists, people of color, gays, and environmentalists. There's no need to understand them or try and accommodate their views. Just put them through the wringer of Limbaugh's perpetual judgment and, poof, there's no problem anymore. Of course, the whole scheme is delusional. Problems aren't solved by remaining perpetually ticked off. Accords can't be reached when you demonize the other side.

Yet, with a heart as big as the universe, Chopra believes that tolerating even RL's bile is something Americans should take pride in. I'm not so sure.

Frank Schaeffer has plenty to say in an Open Letter to Republican Traitors (from a former Republican):

With people like Limbaugh as the loudmouth image of the Republican Party -- you need no enemies. But something far more serious has happened than an image problem: the Republican Party has become the party of obstruction at just the time when all Americans should be pulling together for the good of our country...

For the party that created our crises of misbegotten war, mismanaged economy, the lack of regulation of our banking industry, handing our country to rich crooks... to obstruct the one person who is trying to repair the damage is obscene.

The fact that RL even has an audience, after calling an adolescent teen "the White House dog," after ridiculing Michael J. Fox's tremors, after being exposed for the lying, venomous, serially-divorced junkie that he is really troubles me. Chopra's take is my best hope, that it is proof of America's tolerance. But still, I think RL needs to be spanked and put on the naughty chair for a couple centuries. (Okay, skip the spanking. Something tells me he'd really like it.)