Well, that apparently appears to be the logic of Rush Limbaugh. As the Smoking Gun pointed out…on his website earlier this week, Mr. Limbaugh announced “Al-Qaeda Terrorists Urge: Vote Democrat!”…reference to the news bite that the five suspects arrested in Buffalo, NY were registered Democrats.
Well the Smoking Gun notes that David Westerfield, the convicted murderer of Danielle Van Dam, is a registered Republican.
I note that Timothy McVeigh was also a registered Republican.
Apparently if you like to molest and kill kids, or blow up federal office buildings…the Republican party has plenty 'o room for ya.
Either that or Limbaugh is once again proving that he is a hypocritical assmunch with not enough working cranial synapses to find his asscrack in the shower.
AFAIK neither party can do a damn thing about who registers in their party. Can a party excomunicate someone?
As far as Rush finding his ass I don’t think it has anything to do with his brain but rather how big his ass is. I mean how could he reach around?
You forgot Ted Bundy, who was, at one point, being groomed for a candidacy. Republican. However, to be fair, it must be noted that Charles Manson’s political opinions were left of center.
It is of little consequence, however, since no SDMB is a doodoo head.
While this is very true de iure, there seems to be an awful lot of tension between this and the actual situation. Whether he claims to be a spokesman for the republican party or not, it seems that he is received by his listeners as such. When they parrot his political views in private conversation or introduce serious discussion with, “Today Rush said that…,” I think the line between party spokesman and entertainer blur very conveniently.
Use him to reach millions of people, distance yourself from him when it gets a little too thorny. Very nice.
MAEGLIN, first you say Rush is “received by” his listeners as some sort of spokesman for the Republican party, then you say the Republican party “uses him to reach millions of people,” then “distances [itself] from him.”
Surely you see that the second does not follow from the first. The Republican party is not responsible for how Rush’s listeners take him, and the listeners’ (wrong) impression that he is an official Republican mouthpiece does not mean he is being used as such by the party – he is not.
The question is: Does the Republican party have some affirmative obligation to state that Rush does not speak for it, when it knows (a) he doesn’t, but (b) some (most? all?) his listeners think he does. I would argue the party does not have that obligation. So long as Rush does not claim to be an official spokesman of the Republican party, the party need not pre-emptively step forward to refute some claim that he is – a claim he’s never made. Does the party benefit from the misapprehension his listeners may be under? Sure. Just as the Democrats benefit from the incorrect assumption that hip young celebrities have some say in Democratic policy decision.
Just because the party doesn’t officially embrace him doesn’t mean it has to officially reject him. It can certainly stand quietly by while he says things the party likes, and then speak up when he says things it doesn’t. You may consider that “using him,” or a practice that is not “very nice,” but I see nothing wrong with it.
That said, I think his claim to be an “entertainer” fails because entertainers ought to be entertaining, and he is not. IMO, of course.
You’re right, Jodi. I wasn’t even trying to imply that one did follow from the other.
I also agree, for what it’s worth. I wish the Democratic party had an obligation to retire Al Sharpton, who does not speak for it in any such official capacity.
All I am suggesting is that it is perhaps a tad dishonest to make the absolute claim that he is not a spokesman when in fact he both speaks, invokes the party frequently, and reaches a truly appalling number of people.
Do you think a case can be made that since the party seems to make efforts to rein him in when he crosses the line, it tacitly accepts everything else he says? Rush doesn’t write the platform, obviously, but he seems to be a key way in which the Republican platform is transmitted nationwide.
Uh, no. I didn’t claim that he was a “spokesmen” (sic) for the Republican party, official or otherwise, so I didn’t forget anything. :rolleyes: I was making an absurd statement about the nature of the Republican party, to illustrate the absurd nature of Limabugh’s statement. Both in print, and on the air, he has tried to suggest that the political party affiliation of the suspects in Buffalo (which I believe is a blue collar, union town …hence high Democratic membership anyway, FWIW) is relevant or meaningful.
Limbaugh is a political commentator. He may try to be entertaining to draw audience share, but he is a political commentator. So yeah, facts matter. Imagine that.
FWIW, I’m not a registered member of either political party…seldom vote straight ticket. When I see idiots making statements from either side of the fence, I tend to call them on it.
I see no dishonesty there. Anyone can speak, anyone can invoke the party, and the size of his audience obviously has nothing to do with the Republican party. A “spokesman” is a person with implicit or explicit authority to speak for another. He clearly does not have explicit authority; the question is whether he has implicit authority. IMO, he does not, because the party has done nothing to grant him that authority except remain silent, when in fact they have no obligation to speak. Are they required to run around taking issue with every speaker who seeks to invoke conservatism/Republicanism? No.
No. I think that’s a logical fallacy, though a common one – and note it is not one I’m accusing you of making but rather one inherent in the argument: If I only object to A and B, C through Z are okay with me. That doesn’t follow.
Maybe so, but the party has nothing to do with that. They did not ask him to “transmit the platform,” he just does it because he’s a political commentator who happens to be Republican. Given his political leanings, you expected him maybe to transmit the Democratic platform?
And while I am myself a registered Republican, I go on record as agreeing with Al Franken that Rush is, in fact, a big fat idiot. I say that not because I disagree with him politically, which I generally do not, but because he is so frequently and thoroughly intellectually dishonest – if not dishonest, period.
Remember my friends, and you are my friends, that a Democrat pulled the trigger of every bullet fired at a Union soldier boy in blue. If you do not vote for the party of Lincoln, our martyred leader, the party of Grant, who brought us victory over treason and disunion, you will dishonor the memory of all of those honored dead. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the forces of disunion, Copperhead principles and treason.
In other words, Democrats have endured worse that Mr. L.'s feeble attempts at “political entertainment.”
Yeah, that’s pretty funny, all right, but I’ll stick to the physical comedy myself rather than the cerebral stuff. Remember that time Al Gore smashed a White House ashtray with a hammer while appearing on David Letterman? Now that was entertainment.