Rush Limbaugh on Romney

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81343.html?hp=l1_b1


“This is such a golden opportunity,” Limbaugh said on his radio program Tuesday, according to a show transcript. “This could be the opportunity for Romney and for that campaign to finally take the gloves off and take the fear off and just start explaining conservatism, start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don’t have to be in that 47 percent.”



This comment quoted in Politico gives the reaction of commentator Rush Limbaugh to the Romney remarks about the 47%.

Assertion:  A golden opportunity for Romney to present conservatism.

True.  Romney has the attention of the media.  He does have the microphone to speak.  Now the other side of this assertion--what about the conservatism message?  It is an unfinished assertion.  Limbaugh is actually giving a cue to Romney to speak.  

Assertion:  Start explaining what liberty really means.

This has some Derrida/Barth-like deconstructionist messages.  A recessive argument within the larger context?  I would be interested to hear this definition of liberty.  The statement by Limbaugh parallels the comments of Romney about the "victims" within the 47% by sounding condescending.  Those who do not understand the conservative world view are out of touch with reality and the principles of liberty?  I see an ethical argument coming.  

My conclusions:

Frankly, I have never liked the arguments of Rush Limbaugh because he has a very Juvenalan satirical style.  His long history of biting snarks do not lead to easy compromises and understanding.  This particular statement sounds unusually tame, but then he is coaching the republican nominee.  I am disturbed that someone feels that the population, especially the 47%, needs special lessons in liberty.  Elitist. 

Undoubtedly this particular argument is under construction. As this fits into the context of a presidential campaign, it appears that we are about to have a national discussion about such topics as personal responsibility, the role of conservatism, and the relationship between the wealthy and the poor.