One thing that some people in this thread are forgetting is that however objectionable you find Rush Limbaugh, personally or professionally he is effective at speaking to (and speaking for) a large segment of the disaffected conservatives. Limbaugh was not a huge fan of Bush’s big government and economic policies and held his nose while supporting many of the Administration’s polices over the past 8 years. Limbaugh is a smug jackass and a certified ego manic, but he is not a stupid man, and people need to understand the distinction. Limbaugh knows just how far to press his influence. Underestimating him is a huge mistake.
To those who think he will run for office there is not a snowball’s chance in hell. Limbaugh has absolutely no appetite for one on one debate confrontation that national politics entails. He is very comfortable and well paid behind his microphone.
Maybe I can “tweak” that just a little, for fun’s sake.
Let’s change the following :
“absolutely no appetite for one on one debate confrontation that national politics entails. He is very comfortable and well paid behind his microphone”
To this:
“absoltutely no guts or backbone for one on one debate that national politics (and the accountabilityt it may bringl) entails. He is very comfortable HIDING behind that microphone.”
Sitting around doing a whole lot of nothing does not impress me. Sitting around doing nothing, and throwing rocks at the people who actually DO something, impresses me even less. For better or worse, like them or hate them, the Republicans and Democrats, the conservatives and liberals in Wahsington are DOING something. They are then held accountable by the constituents and voters. That gets far more respect from me, than some do-nothing rock tosser, who never accomplished anything himself. Any blowhard can criticize. Any loser can be a Monday morning quarterback.
What’s interesting is that while Obama is accusing the GOP Congressmen of kowtowing to Rusty, the GOP Congressmen are, instead of being careful not to seem subservient to a mere entertainer, actually kowtowing to Rusty–appearing to confirm what Obama is saying.
Does anyone think that if I accused Claire McCaskill or Mitch McConnell of sucking up to Bill Maher, that an indirect effect of that would be an apology to Maher? How about Kucinich or Pelosi?
Actually, now I say this, I could see it happening in a small way, like, “I’m sorry if I insulted you & any of your viewers who might vote for me.” Even to Maher. But it wouldn’t mean Maher, who’s not even a Democrat, runs the party.
I can certainly understand trying not to piss off Rusty. His schtick is based in bad puns & insults more than in ideology; he has no great qualms about savaging right-wingers. But I think the GOP needs to be concerned about the appearance of servility to a clown.
Then it’s up to the vast majority to distance themselves from that extreme minority by using the name of the Democratic Party correctly. Right?
It’s no secret that many REpublicans deliberately use the incorrect term “Democrat Party” to make a snide ideological accusation about Democrats being anti-democratic. And it’s no secret that Democrats in general get pissed off when they do this.
If you use an incorrect term that has widely-recognized offensive implications, and which many people admit to using with offensive intent, then people are going to assume you were trying to be offensive, no matter how much you protest that it’s a meaningless trivial distinction. If it’s such a meaningless trivial distinction to you, then it should be no trouble for you to use the correct term instead of the incorrect one. Right?
And this is why this is bad strategy by Obama. If you’re going to claim that he is the de facto leader of the Republican party, you can’t then turn around and refuse to engage him; or at least you can’t do it and then claim to be the uniting, post-partisan healer of wounds and raiser of tone Obama ran as.
If the formula goes GOP=Limbaugh, Limbaugh=not worth talking to, then it follows that GOP=not worth talking to. Whether or not you agree with the logic, that is not what the millions of moderates and even conservatives who gave Obama his victory margin hoping for “change” thought they were voting for.
The GOP isn’t ready to deal with an actual angry minority. Jindal’s as close as they’ll get without crossing the street and furtively glancing around for a cop.
Engaging with Rush does not mean that Rush gets to dictate the terms of the engagement. Obama doesn’t have to debate him one-on-one. All he has to do is use his bully pulpit and his proxies to keep emphasizing how his position differs from Limbaugh’s. Obama gets to look moderate and middle-of-the-road, while Limbaugh looks angry and extreme. It solidifies the country behind Obama, and further marginalizes the far right.
This is exactly what Reagan did in the 1980’s. He got the public to associate “liberalism” with the most extreme excesses of 60’s radicalism and trashed the brand for a generation. Obama is working to destroy the conservative brand the same way – by tying it to extreme positions that only a tiny fraction of Americans support. Then, when conservatism is discredited and marginalized, it will be much easier to pass progressive legislation.
Charlie Crist is very carefully angling for a takeover of the Republican Party. He can do it, too. Not in 2012, but in 2016, he might be ready to go all the way.
For a change, the Dems are in control of this one. All they have to do is push Rush’s buttons and his monologue becomes increasingly hostile and absurd. I actually think it is a brilliant move to hang Rush around the Republican’s neck. It corners the party into an inflexible extreme right wing position.
I can’t tell you how much I enjoy watching that sweaty jacked up asshole nearly crapping his pants with his blathering, making a fool of himself. Wanna bet he’s wearing XXXL adult diapers under his big ugly fat-man pants?
When the opposition party’s response to a very important bill is to stick their fingers in their ears and yell, “NONONONONNONONO!!!”, they are NOT worth talking to. Obama tried, they responded with a tantrum.
This hits the nail on the head and is perhaps what many dopers don’t seem to grasp.
I’ll admit I haven’t been a dedicated listener to his program for years, but at one time his shtick was to preach conservatism and try to get the republicans to follow. Kind of a “Come into the light Carol-Anne” spiel.
From the couple of times I did hear him while W was in office, it seemed like he was begrudgingly waving the party flag. Maybe now that W is gone, he feels he can lure them into the conservative light again.
As I said, just a guess on my part. I don’t have the opportunity to listen in during the day.
Reagan, as you say, assailed liberalism as an ideology. He did not try to pick one individual, say that they embody liberalism and make it about them personally.
If Obama wants to say that conservatism as a political ideology is bad and must be discrded, he should have the sack to say so. But he never does; instead he talks as if he himself is ideology-free, just a pragmatist at heart. This is in fact what his appeal was to millions of self-identified moderates and conservatives who voted for him. To now embark on this kind of “trashing the brand” approach amounts to a bait-and-switch.
Well, I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Sam Stone in the concurrent thread about Obama picking his enemies: what, exactly, has Obama said that leads you to describe his “approach” in this way?
As far as I can tell, most of the objections about Obama’s “approach” so far seem to be based on a very vague and generalized perception of his allegedly “focusing” on Limbaugh. Can we get some specific, cited statements or actions on Obama’s part that you’re criticizing?