An interesting fissure became apparent today. After weeks of listening to Rush Limbaugh somewhat echo Laura Ingraham on the dynamics of the Pub prez field, He markedly departed from that narrative.
Of course, he didn't even mention her by name, but that was the gist of what he did. And I say "somewhat," because he shared with her the stance of "wow-this-is-so-big-and-unprecedented-all-I-can-do-is-attempt-to-objectivel-analyze-it" when it came to the Squirrel-Hair phenomenon. Ingraham has been taking it a step farther, becoming an unabashed two-note johhny, making a point of working the phrase "trade and immigration" into anything she talks about. Being very overt about using the terms "populism and nationalism" in such a way that it's been an unmistakable endorsement of those sentiments. Rush has, as I say, done this dance in which he's kept it all at the level of "analysis," doncha know.
But that's the point on which there was a very different message on each of those shows today. Ingraham was hammering home the trade-and-immigration / populism-and-nationalism message as usual today, this time in the context of Marco Rubio's impressive third-place showing in Iowa last night. She raised her voice to emphasize her view that Rubio's brief involvement with the Gang of Eight bill is central to what he's about as a legislator and Republican. Warned S-H and Ted not to spend time going at each other, saying it would do nothing but hand the race to Rubio, and she was none too subtle about painting Rubio as having gone full-out establishment. By contrast, Rush was equally emphatic in his view that Rubio is a solid conservative, not an establishment tool or a squish, in no way from the same mold as Romney, McCain and Dole.
I'll cut to the chase and say that Rush has this one right. Of course, Ingraham's views on a number of matters have become skewed beyond recognition over at least the last year.
And it seems that Andrea Tantaros has gone the same route. On FNC's Outnumbered show today, she thought she'd really ripped Rich Lowry a new one saying that the voters are now in a "nationalist mode" and that Lowry's magazine had "insulted" them. Only thing is S-H's loss in Iowa really was of major significance, since S-H and most polls had him winning handily. So the point Lowry was making that set her off was quite valid. (By the way, Gateway Pundit, to which the link will send you, seems to have gone full Trumpbot. Really sad. I wonder if Jim Hoft still gets along with his old pals Dana Loesch and Michelle Malkin, given that they give Squirrel-hair the big thumbs-down.)
Then there's Mark Levin, who has gone from being wary of S-H to getting on board at least somewhat with the wow-this-is-big-and-unprecedented school to being at war with S-H. Sneers when he uses the terms "populism" and "nationalism," juxtaposing them (quite rightly) against the concept of Constitutionalism.
So the fur is flying on the airwaves as much as it is on the Web.
You'll find no dancing, no equivocating, no splitting the difference or striking a "this-is-so-big-we-don't-know-what-to-make-of-it" pose here at LITD. This is your source for straight-up three-pillared conservatism. Cruz is the first choice here, Rubio second.
Refreshing, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment