And they can’t use Hillary for that purpose anymore, the poor dears.
I’m going to need a cite for this beyond half-a-dozen pundits (who, I suspect, may be “disappointed” but not switching sides yet). Obama’s approvals are through the roof and Limbaugh’s are in the toilet. Obama stays calm while Limbaugh engages in hysterics. Who exactly are going to be shedding their POTUS approval for Rush exactly? The conservatives and moderates who voted for Obama were already alientated by the GOP’s red meat brigade; and now you’re asserting that confronting the poster boy of everything they hated to see their party become will draw them back?!? It’s delusional.
Because Rush controls the mic. And he has been shown, unlike Obama, to be afraid to have any appearance where he is not in total control, so to call Obama afraid to come onto his (Rush-controlled) show would be hypocritical.
Back when I had a roommate who listened to Rush (and I’ll admit, he was actually entertaining once a week or so, but by the time he got his TV show both the TV show and his radio showed no funniness at all,) there were hardly anyone who called who disagreed with Rush, and those who did only got on by lying about their agenda.
Do you think Rush would do any different if Obama came on?
No, I have no reason to believe he wouldn’t try to control the mic, both to control the agenda or if Obama complains about it to try to cast him as a petulant mic-controller himself.
Why, yes, of course, those liberal-lefties who are the mirror counter-image of Rushbo, those lefty commentators who spew just as much ignorant crap and lies as Limbaugh. I would dearly love to adopt the posture of an independent thinker, one who is equally disdainful of claptrap, I too would like the opportunity to publicly preen my intellectual independence!
Problem is, I can’t think of any, off hand. You must have them right at your fingertips, perhaps you can help us out, here?
No cite needed, I’ll take your word for it.
My point was just that, whatever the reality was, the rhetoric of the Obama campaign was that it would not practice “politics as usual,” that he would be post-partisan, that he would unite us, that he would be a pragmatic centrist. And in fact, many people were convinced that this was true by the way he ran his campaign: you will recall even staunch conservatives like Bricker saying they were drawn to Obama for this reason.
Obama held the promise of change in the way we pass laws, enact policies and “do politics” in this country, and not merely a change in what laws, policies and politics get enacted. Those voters are the people that gave him his victory margin, and they are the ones he is disappointing.
Not only would it be hypocritical, but it would be transparently so. Obama’s failure to “debate” :rolleyes: Rush will not make Obama look bad anywhere, except for the Limbaugh-faithful already. The rest of the country–left, right, and center–are not going to believe that Obama staying away from Rush’s radio program will be motivated singularly out of fear. They are simply not that stupid.
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.
Please read carefully, reply if needed.
’luci - a wee tad defensive are we? There is enough evidence on these threads alone of knee-jerkiness. Oh sure many fewer than the mindlessness on the Right, but they exist among us.
Which half dozen pundits are you thinking of? And are they disappointed for the same reason?
Of course everyone had different expectations of what Obama would do, and it would be impossible to satisfy them all. I know many liberals (including myself) feel Obama is being too moderate/centrist, and I imagine many conservatives feel Obama is too liberal.
Be fair about MSNBC as well as Fox, okay? Olbermann, and especially Matthews, have way too many lickspittle moments of their own.
Of course not. The man’s a blowhard. (Though I’ll confess I find him amusing at times) That’s why it’s stupid for the damned President of the United States to demean himself by getting into a pissing match with a talk-show host, however influential that talk show host is. You’ve heard the one about why you never wrestle with a pig?
Yeah, I read it the first time. You make an assertion with a big old IS but you’ve got nothing to back that up except a few anecdotes by media types. You act as if there’s a big sea change in support and a dramatic erosion away from Obama, but just because you say it don’t necessarily make it so.
I also noted that it was those moderates and conservatives who voted for Obama that were the ones who were so alienated by the Limbaughization of the right, so asserting that Obama confronting Limbaugh is going to alienate those same voters back to that same Rushified GOP is simply nonsensical.
RNC member calls on Steele to quit
To the point in this thread:
If Rush isn’t the head of the GOP. he’s certainly more powerful than the actual head of the GOP.
Of course, as we’ve been hearing for years “Rush is just an entertainer”, so the leader of the nation’s conservatives isn’t very powerful how ever you look at him.
:smack: :head scratching smilie:
This impassioned defense of the big guy is damaging the web of lies the right built up around Rush to shield him from any requirement that he take responsibility for what comes out of his own mouth. Is Rush to be taken seriously or no?
NO. He is a clown, who stopped being amusing or entertaining long ago.
Top of my head, I’m thinking : David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, Maureen Dowd, David Gergen, Andrew Sullivan. All supported Obama, all now upset at his economic policies. Hell, even Chris Matthews was ripping him for earmarks last night.
But this contradicts your previous statement:
You claimed it was How he was doing things, not What that was alienating those mods & cons. But in your list of Brooks, et al., you only cite his economic policies and not what this entire thread has been about–his political maneuverings vis a vis Rush.
And I know that, for one, your characterization of Sullivan is off the mark. While he may not like the some of the economic policies, there are a large number of things Obama is doing that Sullivan heartily approves of, so “disappointed” is a disingenuous stretch.
That’s nothing… I heard he’s offering to fly Obama to Gaza and dare him to strut around while wearing an “I [HEART] JEWS” t-shirt!
That’s seriously at odds with what they’re saying at RedState and the like:
Dems attacking Rush - trying to rob gun stores
Of course, not everyone on the right agrees with that sort of stuff:
http://www.redstate.com/martin_a_knight/2009/03/05/on-rush-vs-obama-i-beg-to-differ/
However I look at Rush, he looks to be the source of a big deep split among conservatives and GOPers.
Maybe, for the good of the party, the GOP ought to drop both Rush and Steele. 
I don’t read Sullivan regularly, so I’ll take your word for his overall views. I do not appreciate the claim of disingenuousness. “You’re wrong,” would have been fairer and less inflammatory.
WRT the rest: I was not saying they all disagree with him vis a vis Limbaugh. The statement I made was “the general approach he’s taking – in policy and in style – IS driving away conservatives and moderates who voted for him.”
IOW – the first thing he has done in office is to push through enormous, record-breaking spending packages, full of earmarks and pork, much of it going to things that the right and center are guaranteed to find unacceptable. It’s been pretty inarguably a boldly progressive program. That’s the policy.
The style has been the way they’ve used pretty strong rhetoric to sell their plans, suggesting that anyone who opposed the spending did not care about the economy. It’s been attacking, by name, people like Santelli and Cramer. And now it’s taking Limbaugh’s wish that Obama fail and using it to claim that Limbaugh is “wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country.”
Again, none of this is evil; Obama won the election, and of course he’s going to advance every bit of his agenda he can, any way he can. It’s just politics as usual.
That’s my point. Obama said he was above this sort of thing, and he’s not. People who voted for him on those grounds may find themselves disenchanted, and some already are.
Sorry – got to bow out of this thread for a while.