Name-Calling Revisited: Can we move on?

I only listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show for a few hours each week. Partly that’s because I don’t have time to commit to listening to the radio for three hours per day, five days per week. The other reason is that I don’t really enjoy listening to him much. I regard it as work. As would an annoying little brother, he seeks to annoy people and insult them, while claiming complete moral innocence and the high ground. To be perfectly honest, his behavior reminds me of the advice given by the demon Screwtape to Wormwood in the C. S. Lewis classic The Screwtape Letters:

… the delightful situation of a human saying things with the express purpose of offending and yet having a grievance when offence is taken.

I say this not because I’m joining the group that wants to beat on Limbaugh. I say it to emphasize what I’m about to say, which amounts to a retraction of a previously-held opinion, though not one about which I wrote on this blog.

In case you have the fortune of not knowing, Limbaugh is the target of a firestorm because he made a reference to “phony soldiers” who oppose the war in Iraq.  My initial reaction to this was to think of him as being in the wrong. I read the article “The Anatomy of a Smear” on his own web site, and basically came to the conclusion that at best, he overspoke. After all, he says generally that he’s referring to one particular phony soldier, but he clearly spoke in the plural, and the caller — whom Limbaugh did not correct — clearly made the assertion:

If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

But I disagree now with my previous position.  Limbaugh had clearly done some work talking about at least one actual “phony soldier,” Jesse MacBeth. While part of me wants to break down the call and beat him up for not rebuking the caller, I also have to think about whether I would do that in a conversation … or might I speak in generalities?

I have to come down on Limbaugh’s side on this one. At worst, he was a bit sloppy in his wording.

And now, certain Democrats in Congress, led by Harry Reid, have sent a letter to Clear Channel Communications asking that Limbaugh apologize for his comment, which they say was insulting to troops and veterans who oppose the war. In response, Limbaugh has challenged Harry Reid to come on his show and discuss the matter. While Reid has not accepted that invitation, the anti-war organization VoteVets.org has offered to send its own representative to his show to argue about it. Retired General Wesley Clark has weighed in, calling for Limbaugh to be taken off Armed Services Radio.

Meanwhile, Republicans are putting up resolutions for Congress to consider commending Limbaugh for his support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I might ask … Can we put on the brakes here?

Is this really something that deserves time on the House or Senate floor? Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen with a radio talk show. People can denounce him all they want — heck, I do it all the time. But do we really need our legislators to spend valuable time out of their already-short work weeks passing resolutions about whether Limbaugh was mean?

In discussing this with my wife, she asked, “Does Congress really do stuff like that?”

I told her about the recent resolution condemning MoveOn.org for its ad maligning General Petraeus as “General Betray Us.” She rolled her eyes.

I agree with her.

Congress should not be getting involved in mud-slinging between MoveOn.org and the administration or the good general, and it certainly shouldn’t be getting in the middle of this Limbaugh nonsense.

It’s all childish, silly stuff.  I rather suspect that the Left wanted an equivalent for the “Betray Us” debacle, and they’re using this one.

But when it’s all said and done … who cares?

If General Petraeus wants to take action against MoveOn.org for its conduct, fine. If any anti-war vets who feel offended by Limbaugh’s comments want to discuss it with him, that’s also fine. It doesn’t warrant attention from legislators who are getting six-figure salaries  and full benefits.

Of course, there is a radical idea … maybe we could all act like grown-ups and discuss things maturely instead of stooping this low. Or is that just too much to ask?