COLUMN: Failure, the latest 'F' word in politics

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 | 12:01 a.m. CDT

Even in the midst of an economic uncertainty, one constantly aggravated by the caterwauling of the prophets of doom on both sides of the political aisle, a ray of humor has penetrated the gloom. The party now in power has elected to counter “Obamamania” with its own desperation attack on the right — "Limbaughphobia.”

The feeding frenzy over radio personality Rush Limbaugh’s commentary — his lack of optimism for the policies of the newly elected administration — would be more amusing were it not so patently silly. It is of no importance what he actually said, meant to say or the context of his remarks "wishing failure” for the president’s policies. The unfavorable interpretation has already prevailed — negative sells.

Anyone with a scintilla of objectivity in his or her makeup will identify readily a thread of hypocrisy in the impassioned condemnation of his use of the “F” (fail) word as somehow immoral, malicious or unpatriotic. For the past eight years, we have been subjected to an overdose of that insidious “F” word: “ failed” presidency, “failed” war on terror, “failed” immigration policies, etc., by our duly elected members of Congress as well as from the media. I even seem to recall a certain Senate majority leader referring to former President George W. Bush as a “loser” in an address to high school students.

If we agree that neither party owns a monopoly in substituting inane rhetoric for constructive ideas inasmuch as extremists on both sides march to a different beat than do those who think before they act, it should be clear that transferring the vitriol formerly reserved for Bush to Limbaugh is unwise. The attempt to identify him as the de facto leader of the Republican Party is laughable for several reasons, not the least of which is he has neither been elected nor appointed to leadership nor will he be so anointed.

What we have here is merely “Rush being Rush” to paraphrase a sports page term describing the antics of Manny Ramirez, a controversial but talented player. Love him or hate him, Limbaugh is a talented and entertaining talk show host who commands a huge and loyal audience by doing what he does best — being a perpetual burr under the saddle of the Democratic Party leadership. The ill informed decision to launch a frontal assault on this talk radio icon serves only to increase his audience — ‘tis folly indeed to provide ammunition to a defeated adversary.

With the possible exception of the aforementioned political extremists, it is highly doubtful that Rush and other conservative voices of talk radio control the hearts and minds of Republicans any more effectively than do Air America Media and others of the progressive persuasion influence Democrats. Most potential voters choose media personalities and venues that appeal to their philosophy and cast ballots accordingly — the majority votes its pocketbook.

As a fairly representative Republican of conservative bent, I – like any of my colleagues, acquaintances and friends – am not unduly influenced by the pearls of wisdom emanating from the “EIB” network. I don’t believe I have ever met a “ditto head.” Talk radio can be entertaining, informative and/or irritating, but it does not dispense news any more than do the editorial pages of the New York Times, cable network commentary or this page from which you are reading — it is merely opinion that one may accept at face value, look into or ignore.

The long-term effect of this attack on Rush will be minimal in that it will affect the status quo not one iota. The extreme right wing will, of course, double its criticism of what purports to be a socialist approach to governance, while the fringe element of the far left would welcome a reincarnation of Che Guevara. The rest of us will observe what works and what does not and react accordingly. The inherent strength of the United States exists in the flexibility and resilience of We the People — it has been thus for 234 years.

Once and for all, the mantle of leadership in the Republican Party does not belong to Mr. Limbaugh nor to anyone at present. If Republicans had a leader, it is highly probable the results of the presidential election would have been reversed.

The most unfortunate aspect of this “tempest in a teapot” is that President Obama allowed himself to become personally involved. Mr. President, one trait of your predecessor that you might consider adopting as your own is the facility of ignoring the braying and chattering of your detractors — it is far more presidential.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via e-mail at

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ayn Rand March 17, 2009 | 6:55 a.m.

Both sides do it. Two examples from 2001:

"I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." -- James Carville

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him." -- Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote March 17, 2009 | 3:57 p.m.

Apples to Oranges Ms Rand,

Carville and company were speaking at 8am on 9/11/2001. After learning of the attack here is Carville's response: “Disregard everything we just said. This changes everything.”

So in a time of great calamity, he in fact didn't want the president to fail. Juxtapose that with your Entertainer, who in the face of economic catastrophe is hoping for failure. For a party that loves to go to the patriotism well on almost every issue, you all have some explaining to do.

Also note that you would be hard pressed to find progressives who have a positive thing to say about Carville. I feel his opinions are just as worthless as Limbaughs, ergo he does not speak for me or for the left. He represents the DLC wing of the party, which we pejoratively label "Republican lite". This is not true for Limbaugh and his followers on the right, as those who don't express fealty to him are roundly criticized and than forced to issue public apologies. One striking example is the pitiful performance of Michael Steele.

You still haven't "gone Galt". What are you waiting for, the movement needs you. Perhaps this crisis is a result of the titans of industry going Galt. Just look at how thoroughly our financial institutions collapsed in the absence of real manly leadership. Maybe Bush and the Republicans went Galt as well and didn't tell you, that would explain their poor showings in the last two election cycles as well as our foreign and domestic catastrophes.

(Report Comment)
Ayn Rand March 17, 2009 | 4:26 p.m.

Foote in mouth, of course they backpedaled after the attacks. But the bottom line is that they wanted him to fail.

By the way, what we're going through now is hardly a catastrophe. For example, more than 90% of working adults have jobs, and the vast majority of homeowners are not in foreclosure. You still have to wait in line for a restaurant here on weekends. People are still wheeling big-screen TVs out of Wal-Mart and Best Buy. Some crisis.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote March 17, 2009 | 4:54 p.m.

Before the 2008 financial debacle, the next largest government bailout occurred following the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s. Total cost = $124 billion (that's in 1999 dollars).
AIG alone has already received more than that after adjusting for inflation.
The TARP fund has spent in excess of $700 billion. Now when comparing one crisis to another, I think if you have already spent approximately 3-4 times the previous record for most expensive bailout in the history of the country, I would classify that as a crisis.

I am not however impersonating a Russian emigre who has been dead for 30 years, who also happened to write some fictional drivel glorifying capitalism.

So perhaps we differ in our definition of what a crisis is.

(Report Comment)
Ayn Rand March 17, 2009 | 5:29 p.m.

I don't see bread lines. The mall was packed during December. Restaurants are still doing a brisk business. Some crisis.

My definition of a crisis is using taxpayer money as a solution for non-problems.

Did you know that the average tax refund will be about $2400? Amazing. People could give themselves a far bigger stimulus -- ~$200 per month -- than the government is simply by adjusting the amount withheld from their paychecks. What an easy way to have some extra money so that, for example, you can pay off most or all of your credit card bill each month, thus avoiding interest charges. An extra $50 or $100 toward the mortgage also adds up to huge savings over a 15- or 30-year loan.

It's very easy to avoid a personal crisis simply by thinking and taking responsibility. Is this really so much to expect from adults?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 17, 2009 | 7:33 p.m.

One of the big issues here is a lot of people are too poor to pay interest. They just haven't figured that out yet.


(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.