The point of the thread is that politicians in the main do “care about a goddamn RADIO HOST.” No, no politicians care about what Howard Stern says about them, or what a host of liberal leaning (but not politically focused) shock jocks say. But they do care about what Rush says and are often deferential to his expressed POVs. Most here agree with you that they should not.
Now are they deferential to Rush or to him as the barometer of the hard Right base? Probably it does not matter.
Meanwhile Saxby Chambliss is at least willing to go first of those who have pandered to the likes of Rush and the Tea Party and state outright that that Norquist no tax pledge will need to be broken. If he can weather the backlash maybe he’ll decide that he likes how a spine feels.
Your unwillingness to defend an assertion you yourself made seriously undermines your credibility and lends the whiff of equine excrement to your vicinity.
I think it’s fairly clear the intent behind “I wish for the Republican party to disappear, followed by the Democratic party”. The desire isn’t for a one party state, but either for secondary parties to perform the role the Democrats and Republicans currently have (Green/Libertarian, perhaps), for politicians to be disinterested arbiters of the citizens’ best interests (no party state) or for politics to be administered on a local level (mutual aid societies, quorum, individual initiatives, syndicalism and other forms of direct democracy - no state).
If the Dems take the House in 2014, we still don’t have a single-party system, like Mexico when the PRI ruled. We have a system where there’s a “sun party” and a “moon party.”
There seemed reason to doubt this judgment in 2010, but this election reaffirms it: After the hardest-fought, most expensive election ever, Obama remains president, the Democrats still control the Senate, the Republicans still control the House – nothing changed. Apparently the people want the Dems as the sun party and the Pubs as the moon party. That does not make the Pubs irrelevant – they were relevant throughout the Roosevelt and Truman years, weren’t they?
No, not a wish for the Democratic Party to disappear as well and either have a Monroe inspired no-party ideal or to have other currently minor parties grow to be the same as the current big parties.
No, not a wish to have the GOP be a “moon party” for many years to come.
As to Sam Tanenhaus’ take - I think he gives the electorate a longer memory than they have. Or less forgiveness. Or both. The GOP can re-invent themselves in a very short time frame if the voting marketplace demands it. They did in fact after that Tanenhaus bit: they swept the House on that reinvention, tacking hard Right. Works for winning House seats, not so much so for Senate seats or the Presidency.
The issue is not that they will sully their long term reputation with their obstructionism but a structural one. The nature of their base makes the primary process a filter made of razor blades. Getting past that issue is a tough one.
If you make an assertion, it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to us to believe you because “you know it is true”.
When you make an assertion and you are asked for an example to prove it, it really, really does not look good on you if you say that you don’t even listen to the radio.
Example:
You: There are lots of TV shows that feature leprechauns.
Us: Really? Give us one example please.
You: Well, I don’t really watch TV much anymore. Anyway, there are lots of shows like that. Why don’t you do and find them.
Several prominent GOP office-holders – I’m thinking Boehner, McConnell, Christie, Scott, Perry – would need to rebuke him when next he makes an outrageous and stupid statement, preferably in concert, and say that attitudes such as those he espouses are a large part of the reason for the party’s defeat in the last election. When he protested, they’d need to remind everyone of Limbaugh’s repeated claims that he is but an entertainer.
The real way to deal with Limbaugh if that’s what they want to do is to stop dealing with him. Stop going on his show. Stop deferring to his opinions. Stop apologizing to him after criticizing him.
That would take some sort of concerted effort, though. You stop returning Rush’s calls, and soon you might find him giving your wingnut primary challenger a soapbox to shout from. You might be able to weather that, unless the rest of the “establishment” beats you in the Republican version of the Walk to Canossa. By himself, Rush is not that powerful, but if it’s between Rush and a bunch of Republican politicians that want of need his support making a concerted effort to pick off those who stray too far from the party line, they’ve got the upper hand. Maybe the sane Republicans could form a union to strengthen their position.
