McCain Not A Real Man, Says Limbaugh

One of the best indicators of John McCain's weakness in the general election is the questioning of his manhood by right-wing pundits.

Rush Limbaugh -- who likes to dress up as a general and command his listener's to foment political violence -- took time out this week to besmirch McCain's maleness, wondering on air if the Republican candidate could really count as "a man" in the wake of his speech in New Orleans (link).

What prompted Limbaugh to make a negative ruling on McCain's manhood was not that McCain bashed Bush, but that McCain dared to criticize 'government' in his New Orleans speech earlier this week. What did McCain actually say in New Orleans that made Limbaugh slap down his dress-up-general riding crop beyond his normal paroxysms? This paragraph gives the main thrust of the McCain speech (emphasis mine):

The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy -- health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time.

For playground-soldier Rush Limbaugh, when a Republican gives a speech that questions the effectiveness of government, that forfeits said Republican's status as "a man." What would have earned McCain his "I'm a man" badge? Blaming the destruction of New Orleans on liberals, of course (as if you had to ask).

But after reading that New Orleans speech by McCain -- the one that has been widely ridiculed in the media since he delivered it on Tuesday -- I noticed that McCain was actually trying to do something astounding. He was trying to use that speech (1) to bring Reagan-esque themes into the election and (2) to reframe this election as a referendum on "government," not a referendum on "Bush" (e.g., to undercut the Obama campaign's framing strategy).

11 times in his New Orleans speech John McCain used the word "government." 11 times! It was a sure-fire sign that he was trying to set a frame -- and that nobody in the media actually noticed he was doing it, nor did they bother to ask why he was doing it.

The reason is simple: McCain is afraid to bash Bush; so he is trying to make this election a referendum on "government."

If, for example, I swap the words"'George W. Bush" for the phrase "of our government" in the above paragraph from McCain's speech, this is what we get:

The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of George W. Bush have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy -- health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time.

Yep. That is really what this election is about, but McCain is just too scared to say it.  Instead, he will try to reframe debate in terms of "government."

More importantly, perhaps, by critiquing "government" instead of 'George W. Bush,' McCain is going back to the old hobby horse of Ronald Reagan -- patron saint of conservative framing and archetypal Republican manly man's man.

The model for McCain's speech must have been Reagan's oft-cited "Time for Choosing" speech (1964) in which Reagan railed against government, against the liberal "elite" who supposedly ran government, and in so doing set a conservative framing strategy that held the debate up to this very year.

In that 1964 election between Barry Goldwater and the incumbent Lyndon Johnson, Reagan set the frame with phrases like this one:

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Yep -- that is the idea that McCain is trying to dig up and toss into this election almost 45 years later. Interestingly, it is the idea that gets his manhood castigated by the likes of Limbaugh, who no doubt thinks he embodies the true manliness of Reagan.

In reality, the Reaganism that McCain is trying to reclaim is no longer the core idea the guides the voice of American conservatism. Steered by right-wing pundits and fueled by hateful, violent rhetoric, contemporary conservatives no longer say that government is wasteful and inefficient. Instead, they say that liberalism kills, liberalism supports terrorism, liberalism will lead to the destruction of America.

No wonder McCain gets called a sissy by Limbaugh when he tries to channel Reagan rather than bash Bush -- because Limbaugh has long since left the Reagan legacy behind in favor of the new violent rhetoric of the right.

And the irony does not stop there, because in all likelihood, Limbaugh's bashing of McCain will bully him into conformity -- will goad him into retooling his campaign into some kind of "liberals will kill you" message. The paradox, of course, is that this will mean that an actual war veteran - -who survived torture and still bears the scars of that experience on his body -- will likely allow his manhood to be questioned by a drug addict who cross-dresses as a general and equates salivating on cigars with public service.

Rush Limbaugh, the quintessential military-dodging conservative coward, in other words, will humiliate the war veteran in this election.

Man, oh man.

Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman

Comments

[westwind]

Serves them right - they slimed another genuine war hero, John Kerry, in the last presidential election, so let's see how much they enjoy it when they do it to themselves.

[rh654]

While I am not voting for McCain and find plenty of issues with him - given his past experience - I think one thing that would be hard to pin on McCain would be that he isn't manly - particularly from the lips of a Chickenhawk like Limbaugh.

I'll tell you one thing - given the two I'd rather have McCain watching my back even though he is 70+ years old and partially crippled - over Limbaugh that's for sure.

[Ndw]

Yes, many people have to see the irony in that pink twit calling ANYONE unmanly, let alone a war veteran who has certainly earned some element of respect.

[ashenthorn]

I find it interesting that McCain wants Obama in these town hall meetings, presumably to debate the issues. He doesn't realize that the debate on the issues is over and the electorate has spoken - in 2006 - on Iraq, on the economy, on a federal government solution to healthcare, on energy and global warming. The fact that the mandate of 2006 hasn't been acted upon due to the presence of the Bush administration doesn't meet these issues are still up for debate. In order to win in '08 , Obama simply needs to *reassure* voters - that he's not a black radical, that he's not a muslim, that he's not too young, that he knows what he's talking about. And inorder to win, McCain needs to *prevent* Obama from reassuring voters. Town Hall meetings, where the two candidates disagree professionally, politely, and genially about issues that the electorate has already decided upon can only help Obama - even moreso than the biggest rock star rally.

[tuttlemsm]

I have this strange wish that it wouldn't matter--- in this, our theoretically secular government--- if Obama was a Muslim or not.

We progressives seem to be scrambling to prove that he's not a Muslim, as though that were the one identitypolitik it would be acceptable to hold against a candidate--- rather than challenging the relevance of any candidate's religion in the first place.

[indypete]

You've just identified the genius of the right wing strategists!

[midknightryder13]

If you want additional evidence that the Constitution is nothing more than a "piece of paper" to the GOP vis-a-vis -- "Is Barack a Muslim?" -- you need only go as far as Article 6. You know, the part that says "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office...in the United States"
I've had people look me in the eye and say things like, "Well, I'd feel better if he weren't a Muslim" or (my favorite) "BORN a Muslim."
When I point out that BO was baptized a few DECADES ago, married in a Christian church by Rev. Wright (remember him?) and so on -- I often get a response to the effect that they are still not sure he's "really a Christian". I then usually ask, "HOW LONG after one is 'born again' before you are?" More stammering.
Finally, when I state that it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to disqualify him because of religious ANYTHING -- I've had people flat out tell me that isn't true.
When I tell them WHERE to look (and some of them actually do, I think, they are hoping to prove me wrong) and discover the truth -- well, let's just say the conversation either ends or changes subject.

It's not just "Knowledge Is Power", but "APPLIED knowledge is Power." And thanks to cyberspace, WE ALL HAVE IT!

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

For once in his life Limbaugh is saying something useful: The more he can pull McCain to the extreme right, the more out of touch McCain will be with the wishes of actual people.

For once in my life I say: Let Limbaugh talk!

[goatsage]

One fake calling another fake a "fake". Do they cancel each other out? I sure hope so.

[ThermoChemist]

I think a negative AND a positive would cancel each other out. A negative and another negative -- still comes out to a negative.

[SeriousBlack]

It simply boggles the mind how clueless and pathetic the right wing is.

Absolutely breathtaking.

[robotfog]

limbaugh is not a real human

[957]

Limbaugh is irrelevent his operation chaos has failed to do anything. very few even listen to him any more. he is what he always has been. a giant in his own mind. Not worth the ink.

[KINGS]

McBush is a flip-flopping hypocrite http://therealmccain.com has the evidence.

[tuttlemsm]

One of Ronald Reagan's more well-remembered sayings was "I've always felt the nine most frightening words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' "

I suppose Reagan wasn't a man either, in Limbaughland.

Republicans used to be about shrinking--- and being suspicious of--- the government. That is, until they're the ones running it. Then it's just fine. Hypocrites.

[klmebane]

yup. they want small government in terms of regulations and rules for the rich, but big government when it comes to peoples personal decisions that only affect their own lives.

[aceholiday]

a typical big government fascist. and hes fat. and a pill popper.

[spiderbucket]

What does Limbaugh know about being a man ?

Look I think McCain is a decent guy overall. The thing I hate is how he has had to pander to the Republican base (and I mean BASE). And he has no energy. And he somehow came to decide that he needed to emulate Bush. OK, so he's not that great of a guy.

Notice how McCain SHOULD be beloved by the wackos on the Right. He is old. He is white. He was in the military. He loved Reagan. He is balding. But they don't want Reagan now. They'd crucify him in fact cause what they want is not at all on any level in the best interests of the United States. Ask Joe Lieberman.

[devanate]

Speaking of BASE... I find it interesting the fact that Al Qaeda translates to The Base and at the same time, conservatives are alwasy talking about their "Base". Any correlation?

[ThermoChemist]

That’s not the only similarity. Al Qaeda and the Republicans both rely on the fear generated by each other to remain in power. Republicans are constantly promoting the threat we face from al Qaeda even reproducing statements/images from OBL and attacks in political ads that they use regularly.

[1] Al Qaeda No. 2 Agrees With Republicans [May 2007]
al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for troop pullout.

"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap. We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."
[So, Al Qaeda AND the Republicans BOTH want US troops to remain in Iraq – indefinitely (!?!)].

[2] "Prolonging the war is in our interest," wrote "Atiyah," one of bin Laden's top lieutenants.
[So, why is Bush continually doing what’s in the best interest of Al Qaeda?]

[3] Former Republican Rep. Siljander was indicted on money laundering to fund Islamic terrorist organizations.
[Why are Republicans financing terrorists…? LOL]

[4] IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY REALLY AL QAEDA IN THE US? [May 2008]

OBL couldn’t have done a better job of ruining this nation’s economic, political and moral standing in the world as the Republicans have done with Bush. Can we be sure that Republicans aren’t Al Qaeda in the US?

[pfc1369]

Though it is endlessly repeated, in media of every stipe, that McCain was "tortured" as a POW, I will insist on pointing out that McCain himself has never made this claim.

He only declines to correct the record when others say it.

Why is that not one commentator, writer, what you will, ever attempts to deal with this?

[johnwcowan]

He was beaten first by a mob and later by experts, bayoneted, tied up, starved, denied medical treatment for dysentery and other problems. The reason he won't say he was tortured is that it would put him into the position of conceding that those actions actually *are* torture, and not just "enhanced interrogation techniques".

[jadez]

40 % of thesoldiers back from the war zone suffer from mentel illness.

what do you thing mccain suffers from if he went through what you describe?

[eternalkerri]

or maybe its something he just doesnt want to "brag" about. anyone who would hold that as a source of pride has never been a soldier much less a POW. I dont know of anyone who is mentally stable who has ever "bragged" about combat or prison.

[Rubyfoo]

Limburger is no position to judge someone else's virility (a little overcompensation, Rushie?), but it couldn't happen to a nicer presidential candidate.

[mbshults]

Excellent analysis on framing and the construction by McCain of his campaign. Although, I would argue that McCain is still trying to stay within the frame of modern conservatives.

McCain is trying to co-opt Obama's frame of Change We Can Believe by putting forth his own frame of Change, but he also paints Obama's Change as threatening. That attempt at re-framing by McCain IS consistent with the current and prevailing conservative framing of Obama as "liberalism kills, liberalism supports terrorism, liberalism will lead to the destruction of America."

By making this about Government, and not Bush, McCain clearly hopes to broaden the frame of the issues and recast them as to avoid criticizing Bush. Spot on. He clearly understands that he has to hold onto and maintain his image of a reformer even though it is just an image as he has signed onto most of Bush's policies.

Great post Jeffrey as I so rarely here a true discussion involving the framing of the campaigns. Connecting it with history is very good. Keep up the good work.

[ORSunshine]

To use that Limbaughism: "Ditto."

Great analysis. :)