No he doesn’t; Limbaugh is only making this challenge in the hope that Obama will foolishly take him up on it (yet another example of how politically unsavvy El Rushbo is). Rush is the political equivalent of a holocaust denier; any press is good press, and the goal of any “debate” is to lend him the veneer of legitimacy he so cravenly desires.
I suspect the “millions of moderates” will be quite happy with results as opposed to the chimera of “bipartisanship” that the right only warmed up to when they discovered they were in a shrinking minority. The change is that adults are in charge now–as opposed to the hypocritical clowns who had no problem compromising their supposed economic principles when Bush was running the show.
This isn’t Reagan’s conservatism. Despite my general dislike of President Reagan because of ideology, he was a thoughtful man surrounded by great thinkers and well respected economists. The same can’t be said for G.W. Bush or today’s brand of conservatism. The so called conservatives in Congress and the media are devoid of intellect, ideas and ethics.
If the GOP = Rush, they aren’t. And most people probably realize this.
I really doubt that the millions of moderates are going to be put off if Obama refuses to engage Rush. Obama would probably hurt himself more if he were to debate Rush directly. Most people don’t like Rush. It’s the GOP that’s damaging themselves by kowtowing to Rush.
The OP is basically correct, IMO on why Obama is singling out Rush Limbaugh (and earlier, Hannity): he’s trying to sow dissention in the GOP. Seethisif you haven’t. Add to that the singling out, by name, of the Santelli guy and Jim Cramer on MSNBC (or whatever). ISTM a pattern is emerging of a White House unafraid to go after it’s critics with both fists.
Again, as bare-knuckled politics, that’s fair; but he did not campaign as a guy who was a bare-knuckled politician. He campaigned on optimism, unity and working together.
It takes 2 to work together. Rush and the Republicans have made it clear they put their own interests above that of the country so it’s boots on and gloves off.
No, it shows how politically unsavvy you are. Of course Obama won’t take him up on it. Limbaugh knows that perfectly well. But it means that for the next month, Limbaugh gets to crow about how Obama is “scared” to come on or even send a surrogate. And he will, frankly, have a point. If Limbaugh is in fact the voice of the GOP which is what the WH is saying, why shouldn’t Obama send Emanuel or Biden or someone else on to engage him?
The majority of the country – the vast center – is never, ever going to buy the idea that either of the two parties should be ignored or discarded. They want pols who will work together (or at least pretend to). The surest way to get the GOP back in power (and long before they deserve it, IMO) is to pretend they’re irrelevant and should be ignored.
We might as well disband the police force and the military, then. Can you think of anything that could possibly be any more optimistic than that? Or if Obama wasn’t such a liar he could at least dissolve the Secret Service. That’d be pretty optimistic, wouldn’t it?
Working together? The GOP congressdicks showed what they think of that.
Unity? Toward what end? See above.
Optimism? Optimism doesn’t mean letting the monkey at the zoo fling pooh at you just because he likes it and other people think it’s funny.
Remember the ‘Come to Jesus’ discussion with old Holy Joe? Barack is a strong executive. Nobody, but nobody screws around on the ship. There’s a bunch of ways to do it, and he uses them all.
Remember which campaigns leaked, and which didn’t?
Obama isn’t saying the GOP should be ignored, he’s saying that the grown ups in in the GOP need to stop being afraid of the dittoheads and freepers. Public opinion is on Obama’s side with that. Polling shows that most people can’t stand Rush Limbaugh. Obama risks alienating no one by publicly calling the GOP leadership on its cowardice in pandering to the knuckle walkers. The only people who are going to be offended by that are the knuckle walkers.
At the time, he was regarded by most in the media – and certainly everyone on the left – as nothing of the sort. He was a doddering old simpleton surrounded by moralistic zealots, rich fat cats and mad warmongerers.
Not specifically, no. But the general approach he’s taking – in policy and in style – IS driving away conservatives and moderates who voted for him. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half-dozen pundits – right, center, even left – who endorsed him and who are now saying they’re disappointed in what they got for their vote.
“Rush is the spokesperson for the ignorant minority” Ding! I emailed Steele last to tell him what a pussy he is. Until they dump him and his bleating sheep, they’ll never be effective.
More than one person was put in mind of Lyndon Johnson’s powerful use of the Big Dog approach to working over people who stood in his way.
As to leaks: Both the Clinton and, to a lesser extent, the McCain campaign were riddled with leaks that revealed dissension and confusion in the ranks. Obama’s campaign was a tight-lipped tight ship and had almost no leaks – not until the late stages when some Clinton people came aboard.
On preview: Dio’s cite is even better than mine on the Lieberman confrontation.
Reagan was a thinker. He had his ideas, his theories, his agendas. he was willing and able to explain and communicate them. He was willing to talk to people who supported AND opposed him. Bush can’t hold a candle to him in any way, shape, or form. I’m not a Reagan fan by any means, but there is no reason to insult him by holding Bush up as some sort of equal or even a wannabe. The same goes for Reagan’s people and the amateurs and idiots that Bush had. One was able to handle dissenting opinions and got them, the other only wanted an echo chamber.
There is NO comparison.
As for Rush, I seriously doubt he really wants to debate anything. He wants to issue empty challenges that go unanswered. If the phone rang and Obama was on the line telling him a time and place, he’d probably have a panic attack.
Please…Limbaugh can crow all he wants to his dittohead minions, but even they should see how overuse of this rhetorical tactic has rendered it nothing more than a stale stunt. If Limbaugh were so eager to debate, how come he hasn’t answered this challenge from Campbell Brown? I’m sure whatever answer he gives there could be repeated word-for-word by Obama.
Who’s saying anything about discarding a party? It’s their bad ideas and de facto megaphone I’d like to see jettisoned. I’m sure the “vast center” agrees, given the results of the most recent election and Limbaugh’s current 11% approval rating.
Most importantly Snowe, Collins, and Specter. Obama needs them to be willing to continue to vote across party lines. In their states they get better coverage if they are perceived as bucking against an extremist obstructionist hyperpartisan GOP establishment and making sure that the GOP “No no no … fail Obama fail” gets interpreted by those voters in that light, by identifying with Rush’s “leadership”, helps these Senators play themselves as taking the reasonable middle ground. Specter is at greatest risk here and he cannot be made to feel that he is going to need to play with the GOP or lose a primary battle.
Next are the independents and soft Republicans. Obama’s overall support across the country is at least partly contingent upon his being seen as trying to be bipartisan but being rebuffed too. And by growing the numbers of the GOP who are willing to compromise with him. He maximizes those chances by making sure that unified support against him is seen as following Rush’s lead rather than as reasoned and principled opposition to ideas that are disagreed with. At some point individual Senators will face the choice of being seen as kowtowing to party extremists or as working to the good of the country. Those who kowtow may still win their primaries (and those who do not may, in some cases, not) but in the general they will be hurt.
Lastly those liberals who think as little as any of Rush supporters do. Those Obama supporters need a good target to rally against and Rush is that and more. If you do not give them that “other” to rail against they may turn on you, 'cause they need to bitch about something.
So no, Rush is no party leader. But he has a lot of support among the base that votes in primaries, the same few that still thought Bush did a bang-up job even to the end. And going up against that may help certain Republicans in their local more moderate areas, it takes more cahones than any other pretender to the leadership throne seem to have.
