I’m all for making the Republican party choose between Limbaugh and sanity.
On the other hand, I don’t like purposeful misrepresentation of Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” comment.
There were many times I hoped Bush would fail.
-FrL-
If we’re counting the things that the President’s press secretary says as “baiting”, then in what way is Obama’s situation exceptional?
I think perhaps you’re just so used to hearing the Administration “rail against or make snide comments towards” Democrats, liberals, and other typical Republican targets that it seems unusual to you to hear somebody else being picked on for a change.
Why would you want to pick on anybody? What purpose does it serve other than to stoke the fires amongst some segment of the voting populace?
Congresspeople I can understand. Especially the likes of Chris Dodd. That guy has so much blood on his hands from the housing debacle it isn’t even funny. So in an Eliot-Spitzer sort-of-way, he just keeps ratcheting up the volume on others to distract attention away from himself.
But the President? Why does he need to do that, unless it’s for some calculated political gain?
Perhaps in the long run this could even turn out to be a good thing for Republicans? If the debate is between serious policymakers and Rush Limbaugh’s brand of hyperbole, it seems unlikely that hyperbole will carry the day.
I know Limbaugh has millions of listeners, but I would dare say that the majority of Republicans do not listen to his show, and it’d be easy to pick horrible statements from three hours of blather a weekday.
If the Republicans do reject Limbaugh, they will be more likely to elect candidates moderates can vote for.
Or am I being too naive?
Possibly, but if so I’m naive right there with you.
I see the Limbaugh maneuver as an invitation to the Republican party to be the best Republican party it can be.
Or die. 
-FrL-
(That last bit was hyperbole. I was kidding. Just to be clear. I don’t actually think there’s a chance the party could end because of this.)
Interesting question, but what I asked is why we should believe that the Obama administration is doing an unusual or exceptional amount of “picking on” people in its public announcements.
Sam Stone made the unsupported claim that Obama is being significantly more adversarial than Bush or Clinton. I’m asking for some documentation of that claim.
Your question (namely, what’s the point of any President taking an adversarial stance?) is a valid one, but it’s not the question I’m addressing here.
He’s a loud mouth self appointed flag bearer of the Conservative cause who has no power, yes, but apparently the Republican party feels they have to appease this man with no power, that is what makes addressing him relevant.
When Democrats feel they must never contradict Howard Stern, then Conservatives should feel compelled to address him.*
*- not that Howard Stern is comparable to Rush Limbaugh, Howard does have a degree after all.
I…actually agree with elucidator. Not the first time, but it has been a while…
Funnily enough, this is basically channeling the same exact crap that Rush Limbaugh spews - to summarize: “Democrats are our enemy, Democrats are more interested in pushing their socialist agendas than they are in the success of the country! Bipartisanship is impossible with our enemies the Democrats, so we will do what we can to smear and attack them to take back the country!”
If Limbaugh is saying that Democrats are the enemy of Republicans, and if Limbaugh is a leading Republican opinion-maker, then why is it “crap” for Democrats to infer that Republicans are the enemy of Democrats?
Enmity’s a two-way street, you know. If somebody persistently refers to you as his enemy, it seems pretty safe to assume that he is your enemy, regardless of whether you personally feel enmity towards him.
Personally, I’m all in favor of bipartisanship among principled advocates of different ideologies, and putting country above party, and all that. But I don’t see how it’s really possible to cooperate effectively with someone who has declared that they have no intention of cooperating with you.
The reason this is working is because the Republicans can’t denounce Limbaugh so easily. They still have primaries to win. Less than 20% of the population votes in a primary and a significant amount of those voters listen to Limbaugh. If this was just about winning general elections then there would be no problem, but even the moderate Republicans have to win primaries.
All anyone has to do is denounce Limbaugh and his views and the strategy wouldn’t work. But the GOP has gotten used to no one bringing up Limbaugh. They got used to benefiting from his hyperbole, wining primaries, but never directly addressing his arguments. Now Obama has thrown a huge wrench in that little arrangement and the GOP has no clue on how to deal with it. It’s been a joy watching several of them try to say something bad about Limbaugh and then apologize a few days later.
It’ll be interesting to see how the GOP plays this one out.
I’m surprised you have to ask this.
Of course it is about political gain. This is politics afterall and that is the game.
Obama has an agenda he wants to implement. To do that requires political capital and Obama plays the game to maximize his chances of seeing his will done. That’s what all politicians do.
In the past Dems have tried to play the “I am above all this stupidity” game and it hasn’t worked (notably the Swift Boating of Kerry). As mentioned such a policy has allowed the rot that is Limbaugh (among others) to work in the background. I think turning the spotlight on them is brilliant. Don’t let them live in the shadows chewing away at our society.
In the end I think it is a win-win for Obama and, frankly, for the United States as a whole. He will force conservatives to choose sides and I think few will willingly choose the fringe where Limbaugh resides. Whether left or right extremism is almost always counterproductive and damaging to the country. Most of us live somewhere in the middle. Bringing conservatives back from the far right that Bush & Co. drove them too can only be a good thing overall IMO. Differences will remain, ideologies will still clash but with less a gulf to cross perhaps more and better work can be done.
Certainly I do not see the current politics of obstruction as remotely helpful and indeed counterproductive in a time where we really cannot afford it.
Don’t you see the flaws in that reasoning though? It’s hypocritical. Democrats and liberals love railing against what Rush says and pointing out how stupid and flawed his arguments are, but then time and time again I see some of the same people using the same flawed ‘Limbaugh Logic’ to demonize and disparage their political opponents at every opportunity.
Just as Limbaugh is wrong for tarring all Democrats with his overly broad brush, so are people like Der Trihs that seem to do the same thing to Republicans. I don’t see any difference.
Getting the Republican National Committee chairman in a position where he has to say Rush Limbaugh is a mere entertainer whose show is sometimes ugly is brilliant. Its also true.
Yeah, it’s brilliant politics. The vast majority of Americans think Limbaugh is an ignorant blowhard, but he has a small army of hardcore fans who are a key element of the Republican base. By directly engaging with Rush and setting himself up in opposition to him, Obama puts the Republicans in a really nasty bind. If they distance themselves from Limbaugh, they lose their base. If they embrace Limbaugh, they alienate the center. Limbaugh himself makes it all worse. He has a huge ego and, being unelected, is beholden to no one, so he has no incentive to moderate his behavior for the good of the cause.
The Republicans are welcome to try the same jujitsu on the Democrats. Good luck with that. I can’t imagine a Democratic leader calling a news conference to APOLOGIZE to Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann. They just don’t have Limbaugh’s power within the party.
Why do you think it’s wrong for a politician to do something for political gain? Why is it wrong for a politician to seek to motivate some segment of the voting populace?
I know that having their hypocrisy observed back to them has never once changed a Republicans mind, but there’s just no way that anyone can object to the idea that Rush Limbaugh represents Republicans who also supported the idea that Ward Churchill represented Democrats or liberals.
It is undoubtable that Rush Limbaugh has an extraordinary amount of influence on the Republican party. As has been repeatedly observed, elected Republicans apologize to him, not the other way around. They also make use of, if not covertly participate in, the Limbaugh-Drudge-Fox-mainstream media process of newsmakery.
The tears being shed over this travesty of holding up Rush Limbaugh as a leader of the Republican party are beautiful! Keep 'em coming.
The difference is, Der Trihs isn’t in congress, nor is there anyone in congress falling all over themselves to make sure they don’t appear to disagree with him.
Can you imagine a left-wing version of Limbaugh having any influence in the democratic party? Anytime someone like that comes up, like, say, Bill Ayers, they’re quick to denounce him.
Both sides have their nutcases, but the difference is that the republicans have to pander to (or elect) the nutcases whereas the democrats can just ignore theirs.
The later apology for that remark did have the nice effect of Steele symbolically hacking off his own balls and offering them up on a doily-lined silver platter.
I don’t agree with many of the items in the stimulus package, but if we start with the presumption that the administration genuinely wants it to pass, I am struggling to see what you are asking from the administration here, and why you would think it a reasonable request:
-
Bankers: If the administration genuinely believes there was action taken by bankers that caused harm, should they shut up, just in case they alienate bankers who vote for him?
-
Las Vegas and corporate jets: this was not instigated by companies doing these things, it was instigated by companies doing these things after in effect being given tons of taxpayers money. You would think that they would make a slightly better effort to cut costs, in particular for such public costs. It is a tough sell for any administration to convince the taxpayers to shell out for this, and I don’t see how it was possible not to call them out on this. At the very least they ought to have shown some discretion! (I do to some degree buy the argument that business air travel can be more efficient than commercial, but the lack of political acumen shown by the auto industry in particular was pretty silly.)
-
Rick Santelli: The press secretary was asked a question specifically about Rick Santelli and his comments, which were very negative against the administration. The administration has a reasonable interest in managing popular support for these policies, and it would be stupid not to address these criticisms, which in effect means attacking Rick Santelli’s opinion.
This isn’t directed at you in particular, but sometimes I get concerned with the “softness” of modern society. From the coddling of kids to the extent that they can’t function properly in college or beyond, and the remarkably thin skin that develops when a politician or his supporters are “attacked”. I’m not suggesting we return to the days of fist fights in the Senate (or worse, poor old Charles Sumner). But healthy, public disagreement is good, and is a reasonable mechanism for an administration to encourage popular support for it’s goals. Call me when Obama challenges Limbaugh to a duel!
He has real power. You’re mistaking power for authority. He has lots of power, he has no authority.