Washington Babylon — March 6, 2009, 9:24 am

Media Fuels Tale of Obama-Limbaugh “Feud”

“GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh,” ran the headline in today’s Washington Post. “White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy.” The accompanying story was written by Howard Kurtz and was an epic example of building a “conflict” around partisan talking points, which are accepted at face value instead of being treated as self-evident political spin.

Kurtz’s latest effort was highly similar to a campaign piece he wrote last year in which Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s top campaign strategist, complained bitterly (in an exclusive interview with water-carrier Kurtz) that the news media was “on a mission to destroy” Sarah Palin and that the McCain camp was in the middle of the worst media “feeding frenzy” that Schmidt had ever seen. Kurtz dubbed Schmidt’s banal and self-serving remarks as “extraordinary and emotional” and expressed amazement that McCain’s man had “talked openly about his frustrations.” Stunning stuff, indeed.

Now, Kurtz has again found angry Republicans, this time Senator John Cornyn, who calls the White House’s attacks on Limbaugh an “outrage” that “reeks of hypocrisy coming from a president who campaigned against these very cynical political tactics last fall.” House Minority Leader John Boehner is also upset; he’s “accusing the White House of cynicism.” In another shocking discovery, Limbaugh says he is mad too, comparing his treatment at the hands of White House ruffians to Richard Nixon’s “enemies list.” (The Nixon White House, as described in a memorandum written by John Dean, was examining “how we can [secretly] use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies,” whereas the only impact of the Obama administration’s open attacks on Limbaugh thus far have been to double his dwindling ratings.)

Is the Obama administration actually being cynical in attacking Limbaugh and seeking to exploit this “feud” for political purposes? Of course it is — this is politics, what else is new? The Republicans do the same thing all the time, as one would expect. As noted in the Kurtz piece:

Mark McKinnon, a top adviser in President George W. Bush’s campaigns, acknowledged the value of picking a divisive opponent. “We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party,” he said of the documentary filmmaker. “That’s why we gave him credentials to cover the 2004 convention and then turned the spotlight on him.”

Were Cornyn and Boehner outraged about that? Was the media?

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Postcard October 16, 2013, 8:00 am

The Most Cajun Place on Earth

A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits 

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

September 2015

Weed Whackers

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Tremendous Machine

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A Goose in a Dress

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Genealogy of Orals

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Romancing Kano·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:

The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.

leadership
service
integrity
creativity

Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.

Article
The Prisoner of Sex·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“It is disappointing that parts of Purity read as though Franzen urgently wanted to telegraph a message to anyone who would defend his fiction from charges of chauvinism: ‘No, you’ve got me wrong. I really am sexist.’”
Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
Gangs of Karachi·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“In Karachi, sometimes only the thinnest of polite fictions separates the politicians from the men who kill and extort on their behalf.”
Photograph © Asim Rafiqui/NOOR Images
Article
Weed Whackers·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“Defining 'native' and 'invasive' in an ever-shifting natural world poses some problems. The camel, after all, is native to North America, though it went extinct here 8,000 years ago, while the sacrosanct redwood tree is invasive, having snuck in at some point in the past 65 million years.”
Photograph by Chad Ress
Article
The Neoliberal Arts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“College is seldom about thinking or learning anymore. Everyone is running around trying to figure out what it is about. So far, they have come up with buzzwords, mainly those three.”
Artwork by Julie Cockburn

Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:

65

An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.

A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Subways Are for Sleeping

By

“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”

Subscribe Today