S.E. Cupp ‘innocuously’ says GOP needs cover to call Limbaugh ‘dangerous’
http://twitter.com/#!/jdonels/status/302224327112286211
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”:
I don’t need permission to disagree with someone. Backlash from cons about my (fairly innocuous) Rush comments just proves my point.
— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) February 15, 2013
And believes that she’s doing conservatism a service:
We’re fighting 4 our future. When party leaders are right, I’m their BIGGEST cheerleader. When they aren’t, we should say so. #GrowAPair
— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) February 15, 2013
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.
Yes, we all like Rush. We all learned a lot from him. I bought his two books and loved them. And you know what, it’s OK to disagree with him
— Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) February 15, 2013
i have never questioned my ability to disagree w/ Rush under any circumstance whatsoever. “Calling him out” is something a liberal would do
— D.W.Robinson (@_DWRobinson) February 15, 2013
I disagree with Rush Limbaugh all the time. The difference is I don’t go on MSNBC to tell you to as well.
— Eric(@eriContrarian) February 15, 2013
As if there was ever anything wrong with disagreeing with Rush. It’s preposterous to claim that we must “denounce” him to disagree.
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 14, 2013
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.
Wondering this myself RT @jen5309 @secupp what did u mean when u said we need to downplay rush limbaugh, hmm? U want his voice drowned out?
— Right Scoop (@trscoop) February 14, 2013
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.”
Again @secupp What exactly has Rush said that you disagree with?You put it out there in the NYT, now explain your position.
— Alan(@realistic_view) February 15, 2013
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.
Yeah, that’s Right. Rush — not Obama — is the problem, so let’s all pile on.
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 14, 2013
@secupp Rush is definitely NOT part of the problem concerning the GOP. It’s the tired, old leadership keeping a kung fu grip on power.
— Tom Anderson (@TomTomJAnderson) February 14, 2013
And if Cupp truly feels like conservatives needed a boost, why on earth would she choose The New York Times as her bullhorn?
So now we’re going to the NYTs to trash talk fellow conservatives? Et tu, S.E.?
— LilMissRightie (@LilMissRightie) February 14, 2013
p.s. This isn’t an attack on SE, i just think she was wrong here. There are better ways of making your point than a NYT attack on Rush.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) February 15, 2013
@jdonels @seanhackbarth nobody should be beyond reproach. But I’m not down with handing the NY Times a narrative that isn’t true.
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
Because she’s a hero or something. MT @conservetruth12: Why SECupp went to NYT to call for Conservatives to destroy ‘crazy, dangerous’ Rush?
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
@brodigan she just declared him dangerous & crazy to the NY Times as though he’s what’s wrong with the party.@nathanwurtzel
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
Forget about what SE said for a sec. The running to lib outlets stuff has to stop. SE to NYT, Armey to Mother Jones, Amah, to BuzzFeed, etc
— John Ekdahl, Jr. (@JohnEkdahl) February 15, 2013
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:
.@jeremyburns44 So what? No one is above reproach, but does that mean conservatives should attack them for sport?
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 14, 2013
@jeremyburns44 I have no idea why she did it — I just know it’s open season on Rush all too often.
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 14, 2013
I mean I have always liked S.E. Cupp, but that was VERY STRONG language.
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 14, 2013
If we can get 3 GOPs on diff networks to say what Rush said is crazy stupid & dangerous others may denounce him as well. That’s sweet.
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 14, 2013
Why would she even be thinking that way – to get 3 different GOPs on 3 diff networks to call Rush crazy, stupid and dangerous? Why?
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 14, 2013
@psorensen There’s a difference between disagreeing with him and “calling him out” for saying something “crazy” “stupid” or “dangerous.”
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 15, 2013
Exactly.
Alright. I’m gonna get myself into trouble, but SE was just wrong here. And I’m not exactly shy about criticizing talk radio personalities.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) February 15, 2013
1) You don’t do it in the NYT. 2) NP with criticizing statement or action, but you don’t just call for people to denounce some1 in general.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) February 15, 2013
I don’t always like the talk radio dynamic and have been plenty critical of hosts when they are wrong, including Rush. But this was wrong.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) February 15, 2013
p.s. This isn’t an attack on SE, i just think she was wrong here. There are better ways of making your point than a NYT attack on Rush.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) February 15, 2013
So am I to understand that effective messaging is now defined as coordinated piling on of our standard bearers? #GreatPlan
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 14, 2013
As if there was ever anything wrong with disagreeing with Rush. It’s preposterous to claim that we must “denounce” him to disagree.
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 14, 2013
I can guarantee Rush Limbaugh (who I’ve never listened to) is FAR more influential to conservatism than a talk host host on @msnbc .
— LilMissRightie (@LilMissRightie) February 14, 2013
@tabithabeaman I’m not actually a fan. But I do understand his importance and I don’t see a rational reason to trash our leading voice.
— LilMissRightie (@LilMissRightie) February 14, 2013
@bailofrights She @secupp didn’t explain why Rush angered her or what he had done. Back stabbed him to the liberal media for no reason.
— MarkLevinsBaldHead (@LevinsBaldHead) February 15, 2013
@secupp Attacking the man who basically laid the groundwork for conservative new media is wrong headed and shows a lot of immaturity..THINK!
— Stephanie M. Janicze (@SMJanicze2) February 15, 2013
Sorry, S.E., if you ask me to choose I will choose Rush. And you’ve done what for Conservatives in this country? dailycaller.com/2013/02/14/s-e…
— Belle Roberts (@BelleRobertsHQ) February 14, 2013
.@figdrewton @benhowe S.E. didn’t simply *disagree* w. him on ANYTHING. She just flat out deemed his speech “crazy & stupid & dangerous”
— Jessica Stanton (@jessicarights) February 15, 2013
One last thing, I’ve never heard Rush say something crazy or dangerous. I have disagreed with him, though.
— RB (@RBPundit) February 15, 2013
@baseballcrank The Limbaugh hate is boring to me. It’ like people who criticize movement conservatives to make themselves look cool on MSNBC
— Benjamin P. Glaser (@BenjaminPGlaser) February 15, 2013
@seanhackbarth of course! Disagree with him all day, call him an idiot if you think he’s been one. But to plan denunciation for messaging?
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
@jdonels @seanhackbarth she projected the image of a party that is held hostage by a “dangerous” ideologue.
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
@jonhenke we have a messaging crisis & Cupp is calling for jumping Limbaugh after the game. @rbpundit @johnekdahl
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
By setting her sights on Limbaugh and urging a coordinated attack against him, Cupp misses the point and is focusing on the wrong target.
I’m not throwing SE Cupp off the ship just because of one comment. But why is denouncing Rush Limbaugh a priority?
— Glen Asbury (@glenasbury) February 15, 2013
The part that bothers me is that SE used a blurb from Rush on her website to promote herself several years ago. Now this.
— Glen Asbury (@glenasbury) February 15, 2013
@benhowe yeah for 20 yrs he was pretty much the only voice for conservatives. so now what float him out on an iceberg? for what, being Rush?
— Tony McMillan (@Slapuel) February 15, 2013
@seanhackbarth I did not. Sounded more like she was trying to signal ppl that she’s “tired of ppl being forced to agree with that idiot.”
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
I want to make sure we message to youth in a way that’s appealing. I refuse to do it by stabbing the people that paved our way in the back.
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 15, 2013
I guess you have not arrived unless you can earn your initiation rights by demonizing Rush. Wow.
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) February 14, 2013
@benhowe The truth of the matter is Rush has been fighting battles for conservatism that GOP leaders SHOULD have been fighting. They use him
— Bob Hicks (@BobHicks_) February 15, 2013
@benhowe: in the past 20+ years, has anyone in the conservative movement been more consistently conservative than Rush?
— Daniel B. Reid (@danielbreid) February 15, 2013
Our goal here is not to slam Cupp. Indeed, several Twitter users are defending her:
@secupp It’s almost as if we should focus around ideas rather than personalities.
— Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) February 15, 2013
Ok, now that I’m up to speed, much like the last NYTimes article conservatives went ape shit over, this is much ado about nothing.
— Brodigan (@brodigan) February 15, 2013
I appreciate @secupp and her contributions to our movement. She’s earned room to make a few comments without being attacked for them.
— Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) February 15, 2013
@secupp I got what you were saying. Just because it was seized on by the left doesn’t mean it’s not a valid point.
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) February 15, 2013
Wishing Rush had less influence over our party doesn’t make one a RINO, it makes one a sane individual.
— Marco Drewbio (@FigDrewton) February 15, 2013
Team @secupp
— Marco Drewbio (@FigDrewton) February 15, 2013
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.
Comments are closed.