Steve

Jack made a comment within a comment the other day:

‘It means you are using the typical Rush Limbaugh tactic of taking a small item, blowing it way out of proportion and saying that represents the whole picture!’

If you go to the ‘official’ Democratic National Committee website, you will find that their top billing is an edited video of President Bush entitled ‘Faces of Frustration’. Of course, it shows a series of unflattering pictures of Bush alongside dignified pictures of Senator Kerry. In other words, the DNC is ‘using the typical tactic of taking a small (edited) item, blowing it way out of proportion and intimating that it represents the whole picture.’

Also, Jack’s own comment uses ‘the typical tactic of taking a small item, blowing it way out of proportion and saying that represents the whole picture.’

That portion of the statement (the typical tactic of taking a small item...) is true. That which puts Jack within his own characterization is the use of ‘Rush Limbaugh’ as though Rush is the author or sole user of such a tactic. He could have used the DNC, RNC, African-American, homosexual, red-neck, atheist, Christian, etc. depending on how he wanted to ‘slant the truth’– ‘represent the whole picture’
.
The use of Limbaugh, however, increases the ‘out of proportion’ aspect of Jack’s own statement. Rush is up front concerning his conservative defense. That is not at all a hidden agenda. He is on air 15 hours every week, has a website, authors newsletters, and books. Most of the rest of his ‘free’ time is spent researching. (I can respect someone who works diligently and researches.) Yes, his conclusions are ‘tainted’ by his conservative bias. He has no claims of neutrality on this issue. But, anyone who chooses to criticize him should first understand what he has said, research as extensively, and acknowledge his own biased agenda, before making an intelligible counter-argument.

The use of Limbaugh contains other aspects of the ‘out of proportion’ syndrome. Jack is trying to ‘Quayle’ him. He parrots other anti-Rushies in associating Limbaugh exclusively with this rhetorical tactic attempting to make it Rush’s ‘potatoe’ and associating him with red-necks or anyone considered stupid and beneath contempt. In this way, one disagreeing with his statements discounts them without having to do the work to defeat them intellectually. Dan Quayle was ‘defeated’ by cheap-shot comics and the lazy ‘intellectual’ elite.

In Dan Quayle’s case, the tactic that Jack cites was totally effective. It did not matter how much was later written as to how ‘Dan Quayle Was Right’, the damage was irreparably was done. In Limbaugh’s case, although it may not seem so because of his millions of listeners, the tactic also has had a great impact. In spite of all his research and well formed, consistently conservative logic, he is rarely mentioned by conservative, wannabe intellectual Bloggers, as though they are ashamed of him. I consider him to be the most influential leader in the successful rise of the conservative movement. But, so many of today’s conservatives seem to succumb again to the ‘Quayle-ing’ that has occurred.

Yes, Rush Limbaugh uses the tactic that Jack cites. But he also researches, states his argument with clarity and logic, and stands consistently. It would have, therefore, been much more accurate to use another name within the statement to appropriately illustrate the intended point.

It means you are using the typical ‘Quayler’s’ tactic of taking a small item, blowing it way out of proportion and saying that represents the whole picture! And repeat, repeat, repeat!