.@secupp yeah, big difference between disagreeing with a fellow con and calling them “dangerous”—
(@jdonels) February 15, 2013
Conservative author and MSNBC cohost S.E. Cupp is taking some heat over comments she made to The New York Times Magazine. Here’s what she said in the article, entitled “Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?”:
“And we can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh,” said [Cupp]. “If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous,’ maybe that’ll give other Republicans cover” to denounce the talk-show host as well.
Cupp is insisting that her comments were “innocuous”:
And believes that she’s doing conservatism a service:
Grow a pair? Since when has anyone ever been afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh has never been immune to questioning or condemnation — not from liberals, not from conservatives, not from anyone.
If you take issue with Limbaugh, go ahead and say so. Conservatives embrace the free marketplace of ideas and encourage more speech in response to speech we don’t like. It’s liberals who seek to silence dissent.
It’s also liberals who would encourage the sort of creepy messaging coordination that Cupp is proposing. Get Republicans to denounce Limbaugh on different networks? What would that accomplish, other than making George Soros proud? It’s a ridiculous notion, as is the notion that Limbaugh regularly says something “crazy and stupid and dangerous.”
There’s an important distinction that needs to be made here: controversial does not equal dangerous. You know what is dangerous? Democratic politicians vowing that “there will be blood” or likening the GOP to hostage-takers who would shoot children. Union leaders threatening to “take these sons of bitches out.” Professors mooning over cop-killers or retweeting death threats and calling for NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick. Rush is not the problem.
And if Cupp truly feels like conservatives needed a boost, why on earth would she choose The New York Times as her bullhorn?
It certainly gives Media Matters something to celebrate, but that’s about it.
Her remarks have left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservatives, who feel that in issuing a sweeping indictment of Limbaugh as “dangerous,” Cupp is only hurting the conservative cause:
By setting her sights on Limbaugh and urging a coordinated attack against him, Cupp misses the point and is focusing on the wrong target.
Our goal here is not to slam Cupp. Indeed, several Twitter users are defending her:
This is also not a knee-jerk defense of Limbaugh — he’s more than capable of defending himself. But Cupp is offering only vague attacks with no substance by focusing on calling out Rush Limbaugh as a priority. She’s not only undermining conservativism; she’s flat-out wrong.