Haven’t seen Chris Christie lately, have you?
FYI: I screwed up the link to Limbaugh’s rant in the OP. For anyone who wants to read the correct transcript, here it is all fixed. If a mod finds this and can correct my mistake, I’d appreciate it.
Right wing talk radio is not in an economically healthy place, and the trend is downward. The ongoing push from the Left to pressure advertisers to cut Limbaugh loose is apparently having some significant effect. So it may be that the Republican solution will be to stand by and gratefully watch Rush dim out without having to disavow him.
Never mind, what I thought was relevant wasn’t.
But here’s the thing: as Limbaugh’s audience diminishes (NOT in waistband size, in votes) they will not simply disappear. If Limbaugh’s dittoheads were say 35% of the voting public in the past, they are under 25% now, and will be 15-20% in the foreseeable future. (Numbers courtesy of my ass.) This is a big drop, but the GOP can’t afford to tell these people to drop dead. They need their votes to win.
Actually, in the long term, they really don’t, but it takes guts to recognize that they’re kind of screwed in the short term anyway, and the quicker they are re-establishing their brand by cutting these neanderthals loose, the better for them. It will take a while for them to grasp this, and find the guts to act on it, so much the better for Dems in the next few cycles.
Despite some Republicans understanding that the “Conservative Entertainment Media Complex” (or whatever term they choose to use) is steering them wrong and contributing to their defeat, there is simply too much money and too much power in it for them to combat it directly. They made the monster to serve them and only now are they starting to discover that it only serves itself.
I think ‘no’ at least among elected GOP politicians. MahaRushie is the spiritual leader of conservatism in the USA. It’s not unusual for current and former DC insider GOP strategists (Schmidt, Murphy, etc) to occasionally criticize or downplay Rush’s commentary, and that won’t change. Elected GOP politicians tend to dodge reporters’ questions about Rush’s comments (such as those associated with the Sandra Fluke brouhaha) and that likely won’t change. The GOP will try harder to coach their own candidates to avoid comments that go too far…whether that’s successful or not for 2014 remains to be seen.
How would you like (or expect) the GOP to ‘deal’ with Rush? Most of the GOP will distance themselves from the Rush rhetoric, but they (aside from an occasional strategist) won’t publicly denounce anything said by Rush. Romney acknowledged that Rush’s insults toward Fluke were “not the language I would have used”, but that was barely a criticism of Rush at his worst. Other than McCain and Boehner, I don’t recall any serious criticism to Rush’s mockery toward Fluke among elected Republicans. It’s not as if there was some major backlash from Republicans.
Remember when RNC chairman Michael Steele called Rush’s schtick ‘incendiary’ and ‘ugly’ in 2009? After that ‘mistake’, Steele called Rush on air to kiss his ring and apologize.
Some RW pundits (Hannity, Krauthammer, Coulter) seem to be encouraging a shift to moderation on immigration and possibly other issues. We probably won’t hear similar chatter from Rushie’s golden microphone. He will continue to gripe about losing GOP candidates not being ‘conservative enough’.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
There is an enormous loophole in the Norquist pledge, however. If the Republicans were suddenly inclined to raise tax rates, all they would have to do to stay in compliance with the pledge is let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and top marginal rates go from 35% to 39% without any vote at all. Then when they convene in January, they can vote to reduce taxes to 38% or 37%, and thump their chests as tax cutting conservatives, while simultaneously increasing revenue to cut the deficit. I am betting that is how this plays out.
[/QUOTE]
Haha, yeah. I am also expecting that not enough Republicans will budge on taxes and let the current marginal income tax rates expire among all brackets, and then blame the Democrats, of course. The GOP leadership wants to avoid this situation, but I doubt that they will find enough House votes to agree on a package with Democratic support to pass before 01/01/13. I’d like to think that Congress (both parties) would be more concerned about restoring confidence among markets and businesses rather ideological purity, but that didn’t appear to be the case during the debt ceiling debacle during the summer of 2011.
[QUOTE=TriPolar]
Grover is nearly gone already. He doesn’t have a very big microphone and lots of Republicans are about to okay a tax increase so he’s in no position to make a lot of noise about it.
[/QUOTE]
I seriously hope this is correct. Let’s let the top marginal rate increase a little. Congress needs to move past this issue.
Slight hijack: The best cure for deficit spending is to grow the economy through simplification of tax code (which is 70,000 pages!) and regulations, helping small businesses and start-ups by increasing access to capital and reforming the US Patent and Trademark Office, and giving the markets confidence that Congress and cooperate enough to avoid another procrastinated debt ceiling fight. The bickering over tax rates above $250k overshadows too many other important issues.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
[QUOTE=Son of a Rich]
How instrumental was Steve Schmidt in the selection of Palin? If it was his doing, then the blame for McCain’s defeat could be put on him, imho. At any rate, his quote above makes him sound reasonably lucid.
[/QUOTE]
McCain wasn’t going to win in any case. Schmidt had to swing for the fences, and that was the one and only reason he picked Palin. As sad as it is to say this, Palin probably gained McCain more votes than she lost him.
[/QUOTE]
I recall that the Palin pick was Schmidt’s idea with McCain’s approval. I can see why this was thought to be a good idea at the time. Palin had an ~80% approval rating in Alaska as governor, Hillary had just lost the Dem nomination, and Palin hadn’t presented herself as a loony in prior interviews. Schmidt discussed this a bit in a 60 Minutes interview. McCain supposedly wanted Joe Lieberman, but the right wing backlash was fast and heavy after that rumor was leaked to the press before the RNC Convention. There was probably nothing that could have been done to elect McCain in the 2008 climate with all the Bush fatigue and financial crises.
[QUOTE=Chimera]
Despite some Republicans understanding that the “Conservative Entertainment Media Complex” (or whatever term they choose to use) is steering them wrong and contributing to their defeat, there is simply too much money and too much power in it for them to combat it directly. They made the monster to serve them and only now are they starting to discover that it only serves itself.
[/QUOTE]
Very true.
“Sex tourism”?
Do I really want to know?
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
“Sex tourism”?
Do I really want to know?
[/QUOTE]
US Customs officials caught Limbaugh with black market Viagra in his luggage when he was traveling back from the Dominican Republic. The ‘Sex tourism’ comment could be derived from that incident but I don’t know for certain.
No.
No. Other than immigration reform (which won’t get very far in today’s GOP), nobody’s proposing any policy changes. They’re saying they need a more positive tone, and a better messenger, but that’s pretty much it.
They’ll kiss and make up, assuming there’s enough of a fight that any making up is even needed.
GOP candidates will continue to be extremely conservative during primary season, and will continue to try to minimize the consequences of their positions in people’s minds during the general election, without actually changing their positions: just putting as much of a moderate gloss on those positions as possible.
The GOP is looking for people more skilled at that latter step than Mitt was.
No, no, Satan’s claim on that prevails.
We shall have to save a small breeding population at a park-sanctuary in the Hamptons.
I’m sure Siam Sam will say sex tourism is good for you.
Rush Limbaugh is a RADIO HOST. I think everyone should be a Radio Host since it now holds endless power. He’s not a Politician. He does not control any party or Politician. There are many blue Rush’s out there. This man has been saying un PC things for years. Howard Stern says un PC things. Both men are very famous shock jocks, but no one claims Politicians should deal with Stern. Larry Flynt is a famous liberal and extremely un PC, but he also doesn’t get beyond his job title. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think Politicians care or should care about a goddamn RADIO HOST.
No, there isn’t IMHO. There’s no one individual, no talk show host or politician or anything else who has the kind of power over the Democrats that Rush has over the Republicans.
Precisely. “How do we explain to people that increasing taxes on them, reducing them on the wealthy and cutting their social programs will benefit them”? Their message is never questioned.
You’re dead wrong.
Here’s the unfortunate truth. The Republicans don’t really need to stop kissing Rush’s ass to win. Maybe I’m wrong (and since I never listen to the guy there’s a pretty good chance of it), but I don’t remember he’s been big on Latino-bashing. While he hasn’t been helpful with women, it wasn’t HIM who made all those dimwitted rape comments during the campaign.
If the Republicans can come up with a rational immigration policy, and train their candidates to at least keep their mouths shut about their ideas on women and sex, they can win. I know that’s a big if, but it seems doable.
[QUOTE=Muffy_Simba;]
. There are many blue Rush’s out there.
[/QUOTE]
Name one. No liberal equivalent that has the same or similar influence. Nope.
Maybe not directly. But when Obama announced that he’d stop deporting immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. by their parents when they were young, Rush called it a “dictator’s wet dream”. He’s heaped praise on Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He’s described illegal immigrants as “potential future dependents on government” and said that Obama wants them here in order to vote fraudulently for him.
I think Hispanics can figure out what Rush thinks of them.
yeah, he just called Sandra Fluke a slut over and over again (53 times, actually) for having the temerity to explain why health insurance should cover women’s contraceptives.
When Rush tells his audience to call their Congresscritters, the phone lines light up all over the Capitol. And apparently he does this with some frequency. This is what makes Rush a political force. How often does Howard Stern or Larry Flynt do this, and what happens when they do?