I think it’s totally to Rush’s advantage. It makes him look even more important and powerful than he really is. That’s the beauty of this approach. It’s totally in Rush’s *personal *best interest to leverage this in his favor.
And by doing so, he damages both the Republicans in Congress and the conservative brand in general.
It’s like Jeremiah Wright, writ large. It became clear after a while that Wright was mostly interested in using the publicity he was getting to help himself, regardless of how it damaged Obama. But because he was a minor figure Obama had no problem distancing himself from him. The Republicans don’t have that luxury. They’re chained to Limbaugh by the power of the dittoheads. The have no choice but to align themselves with him, even if he stakes out extreme positions that damage them politically.
In the glee most of the dopers are feeling in thinking of the POTUS harpooning Limbaugh, I think you’re missing the matter of perception and how the ma & pa flyover voters may interpret this entire process.
It could well be perceived as a blatant attempt just to silence the voice of a critic. And while that may well be the intent, it’s all about how it’s perceived. If it becomes a silencing a critic movement instead of discrediting a critic move, it will be a loss for Obama by rapidly becoming a rallying cry for free speech.
You mean the bat-shit insane view point that dominated the country thanks to Republicans?
The one that wanted riots in Denver? Some view point.
No thanks. The adults are trying to have a country here. Shine the light on that fat drug addicted lieing or insane cock roach and make it scurry away.
Republicans are idiots. They’re traitors, torture supporters, mind numbingly ignorant, or hypocrites too.
Bush was a fool and war criminal. Anyone who voted for him is truly a traitor, or stupid.
It goes hand-in-hand with hiring a wackjob like Rahm Emanuel. This “enemies list” is right out of Rahm’s playbook. This isn’t the first time Obama has gone after someone in the media. He was banning reporters during his campaign and his White House Press Secretary has recently sparred with financial commentators.
Anyone who criticizes Obama will find himself on a Nixon style list and that doesn’t speak well for the office of the President.
As I asked Sam Stone and IdahoMauleMan: Exactly what comments by Obama are you referring to as being abnormally confrontational or adversarial for a President? Once again, we seem to be seeing a lot of vague objections about Obama’s “approach”, but a dearth of specific references to particular actions or statements that are being objected to.
Again, let’s see some cites of specific actions or statements you consider out of line, and then we’ll have some basis for considering the (so far unsupported) allegations that these are somehow atypical or unprecedented.
(And if we’re bringing in remarks made by the White House press secretary, that broadens the field of comparison considerably.)
I wouldn’t call it confrontational or adversarial, necessarily. But I do think it is courting trouble that may come back to haunt him.
I expect a President to show exasperation from time-to-time with members of the opposing party who have direct input-and-control over his/her desired outcomes. I expect a little demonization of foreign powers that may pose a strategic threat.
But what I don’t expect, unless the guy really wants to play the populist card, is the demonization of groups of his own citizens. And American businesses, to boot. These are people who voted for him. And whom the country is counting on to create jobs.
Do I really have to look for cites? I’ve heard, just through passive listening to NPR, Obama
Knock bankers repeatedly…I think the line was ‘I don’t care about the banks’ from the speech. That might not be the exact words, but it was close.
At least two jibes about executives using corporate jets, one for Citibank and one for the Big Three automakers.
A crack about some company sending top sales performers to Las Vegas for an annual awards trip. I think it was Wells Fargo, might have been AIG.
A swipe at defense contractors today.
How is that helpful? To him, I mean? The finance and banking blogs are already buzzing with buyers-remorse posts from Wall Street folks who are asking ‘Why did we elect this guy again?’
There are 100s of thousands of people who work in banking and finance in New York. Not all are evil. Most are hard-working, law-abiding citizens just like you and me. Ditto for defense contractors and corporate jet manufacturers. And for the folks who make $10/hour waiting on tables at Caesar’s.
The President is preying on populist anger that is searching for villians. Somebody…anybody, to blame. Then he can punish them for us. It’s not productive and it’s a big gamble on his part.
Cite? Oh and give me some evidence that Rahm Emanuel is a wackjob, I have seen evidence that he is ambitious, but he has nothing on Rove’s dirty tricks as far as I can tell. If he is comparable, I would like to know.
Cite?
Again, cite?
Really, Magiver, give me a cite. I seemed to have missed this and would really like to know if my president (Note: Bush was my President also, but I voted for this one) was pulling crap like this and to what extent…
While we are at it, I would like to know other things about this president: Has he been letting gay prostitutes into the white house press pool to pitch softball questions?
Has he been releasing prepackaged pieces of propaganda designed to look like news stories? (Note: Both Presidents Clinton and Bush did this and I found it reprehensible… It was my opinion that President Bush took the spreading of propaganda to level never seen before in this country; something that really disturbed me. Has President Obama been engaging in this practice, and if so, how?)
By the way, I think Kimstu has a point… I have searched (my Google-fu is weak tonight though, I am too tired in mind to do a proper job) Google news for quotes made by President Obama about Rush Limbaugh and cannot seem to find any… I do agree that the democratic party, and maybe even the White House specifically, is trying to stir up crap with Mr. Limbaugh, but President Obama himself? What has he said and done personally?
How you figure? As far as I can make out, since Obama took office, he has made one mention of Limbaugh, and Emanuel has made one mention of Limbaugh. Obama, Jan. 23:
(And that was after Limbaugh’s notorious “hope he fails” remark.) Emanuel, March 2:
Other administration members have referred to Limbaugh when they’re asked about him in interviews, but I haven’t found another reported instance of the administration actually bringing up the subject spontaneously. Maybe you’ll have better luck than I did finding cites for this.
ISTM that a lot of the focus on “engaging Limbaugh publicly” that is being ascribed to the White House actually is coming from liberal opinion sources, other Democratic politicians, and media hype—and, of course, from Limbaugh himself, for whom it’s excellent publicity.
After all, Limbaugh’s the one who picked this fight, not Obama. It’s kind of hard for me to see how the administration could be engaging him less than they are without drawing criticisms that they’re afraid or unable to respond to him.
The adversarial comments are given in the link in the OP. To wit:
They aren’t going the Franken route and saying “Limbaugh is a big fat idiot,” they’re saying “Limbaugh is the voice of the Republican party and he wants Obama to fail.” Two very straightforward statements that can’t easily be refuted and are damning as all hell when put together.
I dunno, it seems these statements are adversarial only insofar as they’re not exactly complimentary.
The administration has brought up Limbaugh and Santelli specifically because the press pool has asked questions about them specifically. They could ignore the questions, but then the Dittoheads would be screaming about the administration’s refusal to engage the opposition. “What are they so afraid of?” they’d say.
This has been the Republicans’ chance to have a Sister Souljah moment. The difference is that in 1992 Clinton could afford to piss off Jesse Jackson and his wing of the party, because doing so would bring around plenty of moderate votes. But Limbaugh’s listeners are just about all the Republicans have left right now, and it’s going to take more than half-assed repudiations of Limbaugh to win back the moderates.
Well, yeah, actually, if you want your claims to convince people. I mean, that’s how it works around here, isn’t it?
As I asked in an earlier post, how are you managing to interpret that “no more blank checks” remark as a swipe at defense contractors themselves, rather than a swipe at the previous administration’s rather loose and wasteful policies for awarding them contracts?
And your “knock bankers” complaint also seems to be on the weak side. As far as I can tell, what you’re referring to is Obama’s sentence in his Feb. 24 speech, “It’s not about helping banks, it’s about helping people.”
But all that says is that the ultimate purpose of the bank bailout is to restore prosperity to individuals, rather than just making sure that financial companies don’t lose money. In what way is that “knocking bankers”?
This is exactly right. If Limbaugh is not the de facto leader of the Republican party, I’d at least expect to see GOP leaders who criticize him to stand by their remarks rather than go on his program and apologize.
Does the GOP want the public to stop thinking Limbaugh is calling the shots? Then publically distance yourself from him, and specifically repudiate his comment that he wants Obama to fail–without a mealy-mouthed excuse like “his statement was out of context.” Until they do, Limbaugh’s 20-million listeners each week will disregard the Republican party as political cowards. Now’s the time to formally distance themselves from this cancer (if they really want to); I mean, could GOP approval really sink much lower?
Rahm once talked about an “enemy’s list” at a restaraunt while stabbing a table with knife. Wiki: Emanuel is known for his “take-no-prisoners attitude” that has earned him the nickname “Rahm-bo.”[13] Emanuel is said to have “mailed a rotten fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways.”[10] On the night after the 1996 election, “Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting ‘Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name.”[5][6] Before Tony Blair gave a pro-Clinton speech during the impeachment crisis, Emanuel reportedly screamed to Blair’s face “Don’t fuck this up!” while Clinton was present;