Manipulating Sexual Preference

The insincerity of it all is breathtaking and would be astonishing, if it weren't Rush Limbaugh.

On Friday, vowing "You're not gonna bait me on this, you people," Limbaugh declared of Elena Kagan "her one true love is socialism, her life partner, her soul mate. Socialism." He contended

You know, sexual orientation. It really doesn't interest me. I don't know what the problem is. I know that the liberals are trying to act like we have a problem with it, but we're not taking the bait. They're trying to make the big deal out of it....

I don't care if she wants to spend her soical time with male socialists or female soccialists, I just know she prefers socialists over free market capitalists.

Rush Limbaugh taking the high road, criticizing a Supreme Court nominee because "her passion isn't for the law. It's to equality of outcome as defined and determined by central government planners."

Never mind that "central government planners" is intended to evoke images of Soviet Russia. The mainstream media will treat accusations of "socialism" as just another point of view, rather than a more insidious obsession with the nominee's sexual orientation.

It would have been helpful, then, or at least a little more candid, if Rush elsewhere in the very same program hadn't commented

From the Washington Post, this is Ruth Marcus. Elena Kagan. The first lines of Ruth's column: She's not gay, okay?" She's "a smart woman with fewer choices." The point of Ruth Marcus' column is Kagan is not gay. The reason she's not married is she's too smart for a man to want to marry her. Why didn't I think of that? Something as obvious as that! When you look at Elena Kagan, it is clear. Now that Ruth Marcus has written it, it's clear to me that's it. She's not gay. She's just too smart! No wonder any guy wouldn't want to have a relationship with her. She's too smart.

Helpfully, Limbaugh's website links to Marcus, in which she remarks

She's not gay, okay?

Actually, the all-too-public discussion about the ought-to-be private topic of Elena Kagan's sexuality would be easier if the Supreme Court nominee were gay.

It really is quite clever, quoting from a column pertaining to the candidate's sexual preference. If Rush is criticized for having a problem with Ms. Kagan's sexuality, he'll remind everyone (probably by playing the excerpt out-of-context) he declared "you know, sexual orientation. It really doesn't matter to me." But on the same afternoon he brings into play a piece about Kagan's sexual orientation- which he can shrug off blame for, claiming that it wasn't he, "the liberals" "trying to make the big deal out of it." And, before maintaining his lack of interest in her sexual orientation, he can even claim she is

passionate about socialism. Passionate. I mean, this woman is on fire for socialism in her thesis.

That's right. Obama's nominee not only is a "socialist;" she "is on fire for socialism." It's a good thing he doesn't care about her sexuality.

Rush really is more unhappy that the nominee may be a little more concerned about corporate dominance of the economy than he himself is- which is to say, that she is within the mainstream of American thinking. But with the hijinks of the banking industry, the mining industry, and the oil industry in plain view for all to see, it is convenient to be able to throw some darkness onto the candidate's personal life. (This is especially true when Limbaugh is unable to present any evidence of a "passion" for "socialism" or, for that matter, anything about Kagan and "socialism.") Even a few of Limbaugh's listeners might be starting to have a few questions about whose side some corporate chieftains are on these days, and it's useful to be able to fall back on sex, one of Rush's favorite topics, anyway.

Of course, most of Rush's acolytes will buy his rap, but so will the traditional media. They won't approve of the fantasizing about Kagan's sex life nor actually believe that she is a socialist; but they will imply that the attacks on her views, bereft of reasoning though they may be, are characteristic of Washington's partisan wrangling. It's all part of the "fair and balanced" myth in which Democrats cooperate, Republicans obstruct, and it all gets reported as one big mess.

Share|