Is it unfair to tar Republicans with Rush Limbaugh?
A commenter made the point that tarring Republicans with Rush Limbaugh was similar to tarring Obama with every comment of Rev. Wright's. Obama wasn't responsible for Wright's comments, and Republicans aren't responsible for Rush's comments. I agree.
However, a quick google reveals that in the last 10 days, Republicans have been publicly cuddling up to Rush. Somehow, this strikes me as different from Obama's response to Wright.
Gingrey: Sorry. I didn't really mean all that, Rush. No hard feelings, right?
Rush provides safe haven for Eric Cantor
Eric Cantor in 2007: I heart Rush!!!
John McCain: I was against Rush Limbaugh before I was for him....
So, to recap: the party whip and the party's nominee in the last election are defending Rush. Another apologizes for making a reasonable remark about Rush, and another "cherishes" Rush. Tell me again why Republicans don't deserve to be linked with this doofus?
Several reasons: the Republican governors are breaking with their congressional counterparts. So who "is" the Republican party?
Similarly, Democrats have been known to embrace out and out liars and scam artists (Al Sharpton) to push their own causes.
Rush Limbaugh is a nice "bread and circus" for the Democrats, but it distracts them more than it helps. Obama has now come out an specifically complained about 2 public pundits: Rush Limbaugh and Paul Krugman. I wouldn't equate the two in terms of agenda, but would in terms of the following both have managed to generate. Nevertheless, Krugman is a political animal too, and while scholarly, he was clearly hoping for a slot in a new Clinton Administration in some capacity.
It would be much nicer if the Democrats would focus on something clearly to the left of the Republicans, not just a little so.
In fact, it would be nice for the real left to have our own populist version of a Rush Limbaugh. So far, the Democrats don't offer up much. Krugman is neither truly left nor truly popular. It would be nice to have someone more like a younger, dynamic version of Howard Zinn (or pull Zinn from the 60's foward in time to now!)
February 1, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama hasn't "complained" about either Limbaugh or Krugman. You must have a different definition for "complaining" than most others.
Obama expressed the opinion that Republicans couldn't just listen to Rush Limbaugh. He also stated that if Krugman had better ideas, he'd be open to them. These are not "complaining".
So Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh are liars and scam artists? Could you provide the links in which prominent Democrats defend Al Sharpton and urge Democrats to support Al Sharpton? Or, at the very least, a link where a Democrat apologizes to Al Sharpton for a reasonable comment? If not, your argument kinda sucks, you know?
As for the Republican governors breaking with their Congressional counterparts? Well, Bobby Jindal certainly isn't "breaking", is he? And the Republicans I'm referring to are Congressional Republicans, those who have featured most prominently by Rush. Rush doesn't give a hoot about governors.
February 1, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats haven't "renounced" Sharpton and tolerate him a lot more than they should given his clever public manipulation based on a pack of lies. In some ways, Sharpton got more respect than Gravel.
I don't understand your semantics about "complain". If you want to split hairs on a word, fine. Would "mention" work better for you? My point stands either way. It's pretty amazing for a new president to do this twice in about a week...and to both the Democrats and Republican pundits.
As to your point about who Rush cares about or not: well, that goes back to my original point. Are Republicans Republicans or are they who you claim to be against the Democrats?
February 1, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're sidestepping the challenge. You can't link to any source to support your contention that the very public lovefest going on between Rush and the Republicans is the equivalent of the Democrats relationship with Sharpton.
As for "complain" vs "mention"? "Complain" implies a petulance and irritation on the part of Obama that wasn't there in reality. It's an issue of accuracy in word choice.
Trying to untangle the thought in this is above my pay grade.
February 1, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I can see that you aren't serious.
February 1, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you have no evidence.
February 1, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plenty of evidence. Just recall when he ran for President...and how he was left alone during the debates for fear of backlash reprisal from the black community. Just as Rush's power is based on fear of reprisal of his audience.
Personally, I would have preferred to see Carol Moseley-Braun run, but Sharpton screwed up that opportunity. (True, she did drop out on her own, but cited Sharpton's run.)
February 1, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to the plenty of evidence.
Show me where Steny Hoyer, for instance, was provided "safe haven" by Al Sharpton. Show me where Kerry defended Al Sharpton, and criticized Bush for taking on Al Sharpton. Show me where Democrats publicly apologized to Al Sharpton.
You can't, because these things never happened, so your equating Al Sharpton with Rush Limbaugh is basically a straw man argument because you have nothing.
February 1, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. You win. You are the smartest cat in the room. Enjoy yourself.
February 1, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should insist on an "apology" CT Voter.
=D
February 1, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be great if the apologists stopped playing forensic games with the facts, and admitted the truth now and then.
Rush = Republican right now, if for no other reason simply by default.
"The Lump" IS their Big Chief, for better or worse, and there's nothing the party leaders can do to change it. They are hopelessly relegated to tagging along, shamelessly kissing that plump Lump hiney if they want to keep any semblance of the basest of all bases in their political corner.
And lots of intelligent Republicans are rightfully embarassed by this revoltin' development.
But they can't change the fact that "The Lump" is now the big chief, and every time a reasonable Republican revolts on that reservation, they get scalped by their own tribe. Even as they try desperately to position Kantor as their future (who is certainly no consolation for anyone with an IQ over 90) they must hand the keys to their kingdom to the Joker himself.
They have reached a point of no return with The Lump, and his adoring lemmings. The rank and file are blindly following whoever speaks the mnost vile words, while the more intelligent Republicans are so intimidated by the die-hard dittoheads that they have taken to cowering behind vague criticisms followed by convoluted apologies.
It is a sad state of affairs. The fact that The Lump represents the GOP says all that history will ever need to know about what we have suffered at their hands for the past decade, since they first threw the gauntlet of partisan impeachment on the table of American history.
Sorry, had to vent..
February 2, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No apologies needed. It is a sorry state of affairs, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better.
There are, no doubt, lots of moderate Republicans who deplore Rush. But their elected leaders are the ones getting the attention. So until those moderate Republicans make it clear to their elected leaders that cuddling up to the rotund one is going to cost them votes, they're going to have to live with Rush as The Republican.
February 2, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There are, no doubt, lots of moderate Republicans who deplore Rush."
That is just more proof the republicans are split beyond repair. The moderates are being bullied by the wingnuts, anyone think that is good for party unity?
We should probably stop telling them what they already know, about the only thing holding the republican party together these days is their mutual resentment of everything else.
If they keep chewing on each other like this, they'll turn that resentment into abject failure. About the only thing they agree on is that they have nothing but contempt for anyone across the aisle. That's not enough to keep a fundamentalist on the same page with a CEO any more.
February 2, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cantor is an idiot and is hardly the future of the party. Self promotion and getting in front of cameras does not a future make. I am so confused how democrats, who are even now in the midst of remaking their own party to better represent its ideals, would be so pessimistic about republican faithful doing the same thing. Very odd that "liberals" could be so dogmatic in their reasoning.
February 2, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am so confused..."
At least you admit it, most wingnut apologists are in total denial...
February 2, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least you liberal wingnuts are never far off the talking points. Perhaps you could take off the ideological blinders to actually comment on what I wrote instead of offering ad hominem attacks in place of actual thought.
February 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't have any trouble with it.
February 1, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. How about a link to any denunciation of Sharpton's more incendiary statements by a prominent democrat? One link. Come on. Just one. Say, Steney Hoyer or Nancy Pelosi riffing on how crazy old Reverend Al is.
It's a ridiculous way to make an argument and simply shuts down conversation. Of course there is going to very little "evidence" of such things because most of this crap is Fly-by-Night controversy.
YIKES! main point is sound: Republicans are no more responsible for Limbaugh or the Limbots than democrats are responsible for the crazies on the left.
Parties take time to change. It took the democrats 28 years to elect another progressive and to change the nature of their game in Washington. They are still screwing things up royally by polluting the stimulus package with crap that almost dares the republicans to stand in protest.
Both parties have been run by demagogues and idiots as long as I have been alive.
February 2, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Al Sharpton doesn't have nearly the audience that Rush has, so I find the equating of Al Sharpton with Rush Limbaugh to be flawed from the start.
When Al Sharpton can crash the phone services of Democratic officeholders, then maybe we can equate the two.
If someone argues that there's "plenty of evidence" for something, excuse me if I ask for links to that evidence.
February 2, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't answer the question. Provide a single link to a single democratic leader who spoke out against Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or any number of people who have made asses out of themselves on the left.
What I am trying to do is highlight how ridiculous it is to prove some assertions. That many on the left are willing to tolerate their crazies for whatever reason isn't something that should need to be proved. Anymore than the opposite assertion should be.
These are self-evident truths that only require an explanation of how we might fix them.
February 2, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try and find the evidence that you seek, but my point remains: Al Sharpton is nowhere the political figure that Rush Limbaugh is. So why all the emphasis on a relatively minor figure in Democratic politics when the original post was about Rush Limbaugh?
February 2, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the specific person. Focusing in on Sharpton or whomever misses the larger point.
It's the idea that any one person could speak for millions of people, regardless of the size of his soapbox. It also highlights the fallacy of painting an entire segment of society with the insane words of a single man, whether anyone speaks out against him or not. No one except Limbaugh is responsible for the idiotic stuff he says.
It really isn't an "either this or that" argument, but instead represents a third view of the subject that seeks to add nuance to something not so black and white.
February 2, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're pretty exasperating, you know? After demanding evidence, now it's not important?
My original point for this blog was in response to a commenter who said that linking Republicans with Rush Limbaugh was as unfair as claiming that Obama supported Wright's comments.
Since prominent elected Republicans have publicly made a point in the last couple of weeks (and for years) of appearing with Rush, etc, it seems, to me, that the original criticism was flawed. Particularly since Obama publicly repudiated Wright's remarks and (unlike Phil Gringey) didn't then repudiate his own repudiation.
As for the larger point that you are making: that we can't change the trajectory of the country without Republicans, I agree. But I'd like to see those moderate reasonable Republicans that are out there take a step in that direction by nudging their elected leaders to back away from Limbaugh, who is interested in little else but ratings points and his own hide.
As for evidence of Democratic distancing from Sharpton? So far, not finding much, except for this:
Some critics called on Mr. Sharpton to apologize, but the civil rights activist refused to back down today in a telephone interview, asserting that he was not implying that Mormons did not believe in God.
Which is less than nothing, and represents the bad political reporting we've been subjected to for years at this point. "Some critics".
February 2, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that subtle points need to be explained over and over? I asked for evidence as a way to highlight how impossible a measure that is in order to discuss something.
I didn't claim that it is unimportant, only that it is less important than the larger point - which is labeling the entire republican party as a bunch of progress-hating Limbots is an oversimplification of the electorate that could come back to bite the democrats in the ass.
I agree. Republican leaders should "repudiate" Limbaugh if they want to have anything resembling credibility. I disagree, however, that them not doing that means one thing or the other. I don't think Obama should had to apologize for Wright's remarks either.
Guilt by association is a piss poor way to debate politics. I think that is the only thing the person you called out in your blog was saying.
February 2, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was meant in gentle fun.
I disagree that this is guilty by association. Prominent Republicans aren't just connected to Rush because he also happens to be a Republican. They're actively seeking him out.
If Obama continued to actively seek out Wright, then he should have been questioned about why he wouldn't repudiate Wright's inflammatory statements. He did nothing of the sort.
February 2, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, but it didn't sound like gentle fun.
As to the rest of the point, I don't think that any politician should have to answer for the words of someone else, regardless of how often they seek them out or quote them for posterity. That goes for Obama or McConnell.
The ultimate arbiter of what is proper will be the voters come the primary election of 2010. At that time, I suspect anyone holding a belief that is too far outside the American mainstream, which Rush et. al. clearly are, will be in for a big shocker.
Change is coming to America, just going to be a little slower and methodical on the right than it has been on the left since that is the essential difference between liberalism and conservatism, as they were originally defined.
February 2, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"liberalism and conservatism," as they were ORIGINALLY defined?
Google Locke and Metternicht.
That's how they were originally defined.
February 2, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defined in American politics and throughout our 230 year history, most recently before this latest bastardization of the language, which Locke or Metternicht are certainly not applicable.
February 2, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree.
February 2, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
particularly with this apples and cranberries comparison...
"YIKES! main point is sound: Republicans are no more responsible for Limbaugh or the Limbots than democrats are responsible for the crazies on the left."
The lefties are much more independent, too, they don't take their talking points from the White House like The Lump and his ilk did, when was the last time you heard of a group of ONLY liberal journalists being invited to the White House for a talking-points tent party on the lawn?
Stop ignoring the deliberate conspiracies of the wingnuts with the ideological agreement on the left... BIG DIFFERENCE!
February 2, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop EQUATING the deliberate conspiracies of the wingnuts with the ideological agreement on the left... BIG DIFFERENCE!
February 2, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess you liked the line so much you had to say it twice, but in a slightly different way.
Hyperbole aside, delusions of persecution do not a conspiracy make. This is the same argument that the producers of 24 must be in collusion with the Bush Administration because they use torture as a plot device. That Rush is an idiot who doesn't speak for the majority of conservatives is hardly in debate here. That some "conservative" leaders would use Limbaugh and his Limbots as a cover for their own crazy ideas is hardly a conspiracy.
Is this what passes for "independent" thinking on the left?
February 2, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually, I got it wrong the first time, and chose to correct my error.
Admitting error is unfamiliar to some folks....
February 2, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I have noticed. You have yet to admit to a single one.
February 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
ad hominem much?
February 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not ad hominem at all, but ironic you would accuse me of such given your comments.
February 2, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"delusions of persecution do not a conspiracy make."
Actually, all it takes is two morally challenged Republicans to constitute a conspiracy.
All this jive about how many crazy conspiracies are, according to the definition of the word, those conspiracies happen every day.
All it takes is two people to make a conspiracy, you can add a hundred more and it is still a conspiracy.
So every time I hear someone deride the possibility that there may have been "a conspiracy" I just laugh.
Politics, particularly the past 8 yearts worth, is nothing but a series of little conspiracies, sometimes they add up to a big one.
Anyone who is naive enough to believe there's no gambling going on at Ricks's should go back to reading fairy tales.
February 2, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, it must be a conspiracy if you can't find any rational reason for something to have happened? Tin foil hat much?
February 2, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever heard of Occam's razor? It sure slices this argument down the conspiracy cleft. Give it up, you can't possibly expect anyone who has been victimized over the past 8 years to delude themselves they have not been victims of a very indemic conspiracy.
Believe what you will, but you aren't fooling anyone here.
February 2, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Occam's Razor would dictate a simple solution not a complex one. What is more likely is the individual pursuit of selfish interests met with a public that refused to pay attention and led to an unsustainable status quo.
That doesn't require a conspiracy between hundreds of thousands of individuals, both past and present, to game the system to somehow make all the latest depredations possible. It doesn't even make sense to blame a number of systemic problems has having conspired to make us susceptible to what Bush et. al. got away with.
If you think that life is that simple, I suggest you need to do a little more reading.
February 2, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That Rush is an idiot who doesn't speak for the majority of conservatives is hardly in debate here."
Unless I have read this whole blog wrong, that is EXACTLY the argument in discussion right now. I agree with many others, RUSH SPEAKS FOR THE MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVES! You can say you disagree, but you certainly can't speak with anything akin to certitude, it is your OPINION, not TRUTH, but you apparently have the two confused.
Seriously, JEM, aren't you assuming a lot of authority for the right wing here?
You can rightfully say "Rush doesn't speak for me and I consider myself a conservative.." but you CAN NOT say "Rush doesn't speak for the majority of conservatives.." because according to many, he does.
Once again, another conservative who assumes his opinion is the majority opinion, no matter how many people disagree.
February 2, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, JEP, have you ever talked to an actual "conservative" or republican in person? It doesn't seem like you have. Nor many of the other "liberals" here who substitute prejudice and stereotypes for intelligent analysis.
February 2, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, how's THIS...
I have the invitation to the Nixon-Agnew '72 Inaugural ball. It belonged to my Grandad, he was on the Committee to Ee-elect the President.
I grew up surrounded by more conservatives than you meet for evening cigars. When i tell people I was raised as a Republican in rural Iowa, and they ask how I became a Democrat, I just repeat "I was raised as a Republican in rural Iowa."
You are, once again, a making those assumptions. I live in Kansas, tto, in one of the most conservative counties in the state. So I think I can speak quite exclusively aboout conservatives.
Your earlier allusion to us boomers as the problem was one more bit of puffed-up-rooster that just leads me to believe nothing anyone says will ever pierce that bubble of delusion you protect yourself with.
Culture wars? When I think of the transfer of wealth we just experienced under bush, and the clearly detrimental results of that greedy mistake, I wish the public fervor of the 60's and 70's had been reborn BEFORE Bush was selected.
Culture wars... as if they have ever been won...
February 2, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Boomers have been in charge these last few decades, so it is hardly in dispute that youa re largely responsible, as a generation, for the problems facing us. That's not to say Generation X doesn't have its share as well. We have been able to vote sicne before Reagan was elected and yet never bothered to show up until just recently.
To the rest of your comment. Living in the midst of the most conservative of conservatives hardly makes you an authority on the changing face of the party. Further, having family and friends, presumably, who are still republican, why wouldn't you want to help the change?
I don't understand comments like this that seek to delect any notion of accountability for mistakes made, quickly followed by an examination of how we would change the status quo. You are trying to bring back riots from the 60s and 70s to replace what my generation sees as a time for intelligent deliberation.
We have some serious structural problems in this country that need to be fixed yet you would continue to exploit them for personal or political reasons.
Odd.
February 2, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wouldn't be very nice.
Beyond any particular talking point Limbaugh pushes forward at any given moment, his core business model is about delivering a sense of self satisfaction to those with a view of the world that requires very little of an individual other than a slavish devotion to the demands of one's job.
The message within the message of hoping Obama will fail is that nothing is required of you beyond what is about you. Stay focused on getting what you can for you and yours and these people who are plotting to end your way of life will go away.
Obama is some kind of fever. Drink lots of fluids, stay in bed, and wait it out. Don't worry, the people who have your best interests at heart will re-emerge.
In other words, Limbaugh is asking for a certain line of credit.
February 1, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not unfair in the slightest.
In fact it seems like they want to associate themselves with the hate that Limbaugh spews forth...the man who wants Obama, and therefore by extension America, to fail. What more needs to be said for them? America first? Nope, it is quite clear they believe that best interests of their party trumps their love of country...
February 1, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Limbaugh the hate spewer who sat for 20 years in a pew of a church whose pastor's prayer was 'God damn America"?
February 1, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try. There aren't even lovely parting gifts for you. But you keep pushing that discredited fallacy while ignoring the entire point of the post.
Stawelicious.
February 1, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaahahahahahhhaha
February 1, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see a pattern developing...the only way you are able to defend someone is not by actually defending him/her but by attacking someone else. OK, lets try a little exercise here in focusing and try to stay on the topic of Rush Limbaugh here. On why he wants to see Obama and America fail so the liberal ideology will fail only so his friends get back in power. And of course all the R's who sing his praise or ask for his forgiveness for their sins against him.
February 1, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't at all unfair. They and he are the unimind! Tar em, feather em and hang em on the edge of town I say!
February 1, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this community of people does love the tar'em, feather'em mentality!
February 1, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't say as I agree with ya on that, takes quite a bit for most folks here to want to tar and feather folks, but let's face it, it just ain't no fun lessen ya hang em after ya tar and feather em. They've earned it after all!
February 1, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you advocating violence by lynching people? Are you familiar with the TOC for this place?
Why you racist, bigoted, hating, ignorant homophobe!!!!!
February 1, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah, blah, blah, blah... yawn.
February 1, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying Rush is homosexual?
February 1, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think he needs all that Viagra for?
I have been praying to the fertility goddess to give him a five hour boner. Without medical consultation.
February 1, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
=D
ROFLMAO
February 1, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that fertility prayer WORKS, DD, mebbe you could pass it on?
Not that I NEED it, of course, but still.... got some "friends" who could use it. ;-)
February 1, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Steven Colbert says, "In the event an erection lasts longer than four hours, you're welcome"
February 2, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaahhaahhaahah
You know Jolly, I get more comments from a boner joke than I can get all week yelling about Rush!!!!
February 2, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
boner joke
Rush is a boner joke...the only non-pharmaceutical wood in his life is *"peckerwood"
*There is a full body portrait of Rush (yuck!) next to the definition in the OED.
February 4, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
...she's too old...
February 2, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that Rush would venture out into The Castro OR on Christopher Street without a disguise...
February 2, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm....that's a toughy...NO.
C
February 1, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably unfair, if the world were a "just" world where every action is somehow independent of other actions.
Seems like it's a tactical move. And in that sense it's brilliant. And may work. B
February 1, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should one worry about being 'unfair' to Republicans ?
No.
Republicans sneer at anyone who worries about fairness. Ever listen to those RIght WIng Radio Blowhards ? Fairness is one of their everyday targets.
Relax, colleagues - there is no need to be fair to these people.
Exception : if one has strong personal principles to be fair at all times to all people including Right Wing blowhards.
February 1, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tru Dat
February 2, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about being fair to the one-half of one-percent of the republican party who is on the radio or employed someway by the media or in an elected office.
It is about fair to the 59 million people who voted republican last year and may or may not hold similar opinions. It is about being fair to the roughly one-third of Americans who self-identify as "conservative" yet may indeed want to figure out a way to fix this country.
It is about being fair to ourselves as we realize that all partisan warfare does is continue the war at a time when liberals should be declaring victory and moving on the reconciliation. The small percentage of outrageous assholes who still hold microphone do not represent the vast majority of everyday people, many of whom are ready to hear a new story.
February 2, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do have to say that Republican ought to be careful, people like Limbaugh eventually go down. (Even though Limbaugh's been quite resilient, I gotta say). One day he's going to go that extra step too far.
CT's right that some Republicans associate themselves with him to their detriment.
February 2, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. His demise is likely to take down an entire generation of republican leaders. Can't happen soon enough as far as I am concerned.
February 2, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doofus is right. The reps wish to protect the rich and step on the middle class. destroy unions, protect health care for those lucky enough to have insurance, eschew infrastructure as some marxist aim........
They just do not have anything to hide their true aims right now. I watched these bastards this morning on some of the news shows and it is the same old crap. Oh, just lower taxes and jobs will be created!!!!
I get so damn mad at this and then I remember, oh,
the voters seem to agree with me more than the capitalist pork rinds.
Enough rant, I say. Rush has a microphone that is listened to by millions. I only hope all the reps lash themselves to this demagogue like Ulysses to the mast. They will never win a national election as long as they do.
February 1, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELL NO!
Republicans NEVER say anything against him.
I myself have gone after Rachel Maddow numerous times!
February 1, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although the actuality of tarring and feathering is unthinkable, the written and spoken equivalent is certainly called for. Rush Limbaugh has apparently become the self appointed voice of the Republican Party, and I certainly haven't heard any actual voted for Republicans telling him to shut up and let them do their jobs...
As far as I'm concerned he can keep it up. The more he spews his filth, the more the Democrats benefit. However, I would like to see the Dems step up to the plate and actually clean things up. I'm getting mildly concerned that all we're going to do is "more of the same" w/ a little left of center twist...These ethics problems are beginning to get me down.
February 1, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
ethical lapses get me down too, stilli.
February 1, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Phil Gringey had the temerity to suggest that Rush and Sean have quite the cushy time of it while elected Republicans actually have to do the heavy lifting.
And we know how that story ended up.
February 2, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rush is the id of the Republican Party. The zenith of conservative ideals, and that's all I'm going to say about it.
February 1, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno, we are only exactly the same page! Yes, the ID!
February 1, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have seen the enemy and he is id.
February 1, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, well done, dd!
February 1, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rush is the Super Ego of his own mythology. He is hardly the Id of the republican party. More hyperbole that can't be backed up or proved one way or the other.
February 2, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of agree with you. When you take ranking Republican comments about Rush in context (feel free to bash me, because I have no time this morning to find video and am relying on my own recollections and interpretations), it always seems to me that Republicans talking about Rush are half-joking, half-humoring, when acquiescing towards their cheerleader.
Everyone knows that Rush is a blowhard egoist insulting ex-drug addict. But so many right-leaning people listen to him that Republican leaders cannot just bash him.
February 2, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. It's like trying to ignore a talking dog at the family picnic.
I suspect that many moderate republicans and formerly die-hard righties will be in a state of self-examination over the coming years. Of course, a small cadre will remain intransigent to the very end, though I am quite sure most will seek to change the environment in which the GOP operates.
It is too hard for me to believe that half the country wants the other half to fail as some sort of object lesson. Especially considering the common sense nature of progressive ideas. The cognitive dissonance will become too great at some point.
Or I am totally wrong and will be moving to Europe or South America at some point in the next few years, because the democrats will not be enough to fix this country on their own.
February 2, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! (OT) I just finished this weekend a humor book called "What White People Like" and threatening to move to Canada or Europe is one of it's tenants. (It's got a checklist at the end and I ended up being 40% white, whatever that means....). I too have threatened to move elsewhere, drink coffee, have shopped at REI and Trader Joes, and sometimes enjoy winter sports.
February 2, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is funny, though I hate winter sports (except for hockey) and would rather stay here since I have house and family and stuff.
I am hardly a masochist, though, and have no desire to see this country move into a darker place than it has already been under the Boomers and their crazy ass culture ware. If we can't figure out a way to fix this country (both "halves" of it) over the next four to eight years, I will be convinced that it can't be done.
At a certain point, being an ex pat will be the most honest thing I can accomplish with regards to an America long past its prime and well into its post imperial degeneration.
February 2, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"because the democrats will not be enough to fix this country on their own."
True, we need everyone working on solutions since we're all in this gd recession. This means, the Republicans need to start doing more than just whining and get themselves working. (I'm talking about the House here, at least the Senate Republicans are proposing something; the House Republicans seemed to just shoot everything down)
February 2, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am actually not all that optimistic about the current republican "leadership" being much more than a thorn in the side of democrats until the 2010 primaries teaches them a new lesson.
Right now, they are simply playing out the dance card they were given in 1994. Hardly an aspicious way to begin again. I do agree that the senate republicans appear to have a little more than the standard lines, but if I hear the words Tax Cut again in response to a complex question on how to fix what ails the economy I am going to scream.
They have been cutting taxes like a demented tailor for the last 28 years. All it did was dig us deeper into debt. I'll be happy to see some proposals that are forward thinking, but am not holding my breath.
February 2, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they have already had two lessons (2006, 2008)--if they need another one, then they are hopeless. I'd like to see a vigorous, intelligent Republican Party (and a vigorous, intelligent Democratic Party). Am I too idealistic?
February 2, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not a lesson. A lesson is a good old-fashioned ass whipping.
The democrats won a bare majority despite the most disastrous president since the last one, so there is obviously something about the American psyche that doesn't like their progress too liberal. That's not to say that most Americans aren't looking for change right now, just that we haven't clearly articulated what that means or how that can be applied at the ballot box.
I expect the transition for both parties to take ten years or longer before the old, dead wood has been cleared from Congress on both sides of the aisle.
February 2, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You're realistically optimistic.
February 2, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like to tar anyone with anything. There are millions of Rush fans, but he doesn't speak for all Republicans, no more than Al Sharpton speaks for the entire African American community. Rush fans have power, just like the religious right, because politicians in charge bend to the pressure of the fan base, but I am not comfortable to paint with such a large brush.
February 1, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Toad, HE thinks he does.
February 1, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment, toad. The less credit we give Limbaugh and the Limbots, the less apparent influence the man appears to have.
Most of these "personalities" are self-fulfilling prophecies at best. Anyone heard from Howard Stern lately? Enough said.
February 2, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
JEM, if The Lump is so meaningless to your party leaders, why do they tremble whenever some of their constituents call them on the phone to complain about their treatment of that old anklegrabber?
You sound so coourageous, a true intellectual paragon of the right apparently, but your assumption that you represent the majority of your fellow wingnuts is just one more bit of evidence that you and Marie Antoinette might have met up on E-Harmony...
February 2, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never said I represent the majority, but neither does Limbaugh.
He represents the crazy few that make themselves heard. You should recognize them because you seem to represent the same percentage on the left - the true believers that are very quick to follow whatever the rest of your herd is doing. As soon as the moderates change the conversation, the "base" is sure to follow.
Limbaugh's influence was always much smaller than advertised and it's shrinking as more people start paying attention.
Nice ad hominem attacks. Again. About what I would expect from a loyal member of the Leift Wing of the country.
February 2, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rush is associated with their party. Rush was part of their Bill Clinton attack team and though the now forgotten American Spectator did much of the dirty work, it was Rush that publicized the work of David (I'm supposed to trust him now) Brock's work about Troopergate and the Clintons.
I know people are forgetting it now and I feel old saying this but, damn it, when I was just graduating high school, Rush Limbaugh helped get the twice elected president of the United States impeached for getting a blow job and the guy was popping pills when he did it!
So yeah, any Republican who voted to impeach Clinton deserves to be forever tied to Rush Limbaugh. Rush is not part of their crazy fringe, he was, when they needed him, their favored warrior. They don't get to distances themselves now.
February 1, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're not even trying. That's the disheartening part. They're actively engaging with Rush.
February 2, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Rush is worried they are makeing him look bad.
February 1, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I side with those who feel we are not tarring anyone, rather the GOP is swimming in Rush's dirty little pond because he scares the shit out of them. They are doing a fine job of staying in a shared state of denial about the total FUBAR condition they left us in.
So please, all who listen to Rush, do continue, but stay out of our way.
February 2, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real problem is that it is not as easy as avoidance or broad stroke alignment.
Although each is a useful tool, the question is: How do we bridge our differences to get to a mutual understanding?
Because there truly is a base commitment we all make being a part of our society, and it is upon that commitment we have to build.
I clearly have some reading to do.
February 2, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a Catch 22 involved with building that bridge.
What Rush is selling with his call for the Obama administration to fail is the view that things aren't really that bad. His followers can afford to withdraw from the labor of a shared commitment because their form of life will still be there after the leadership of the country collapses in failure.
One wouldn't have to be an advocate for progressive governance to wonder if setting a fire in the middle of the lifeboat is the best way to stay warm.
February 2, 2009 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know that the more filth he spews, the more listeners he loses and the faster the old GOP falls before the new an improved version now growing at the grass roots? I suspect that continued liberal attention to his idiotic rants is exactly what the man (and his advertisers) are looking for.
February 2, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"new an improved version now growing at the grass roots?"
YOU BETCHA!
February 2, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has to be a trick question.
You can't not acknowledge the commonality of the brushstrokes used by RL and republicans. They have the same genesis and goals and operate using tactically equivalent methods. Anyone who doesn't recognize this is so screwed.
February 2, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't a trick question. Someone objected to my comment that Republicans should be saddled with Rush's comments, until they repudiate him. The commenter seemed to think that Republicans weren't really embracing him and that further, tarring Republicans with Rush was as unfair as tarring Obama with Wright. The comment function was screwed up, so I just put my response in this blog.
February 2, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a crazy analogy. Most people outside of Chicago had never heard of Reverend Wright before the Obama campaign. But Republicans all over the country listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. He's by far the most popular radio man in America, the pater familias of conservative talk radio, and an icon and hero to millions of his conservative listeners. As far as Republican thinking goes, Limbaugh reflects the conservative mainstream of the party, and over the years he has been praised, endorsed, and embraced enthusiastically and almost without reservation by the leaders of the party.
This guy is no fringe figure, but one of the key national leaders of the conservative movement which dominated this country during the past few decades. In 1992, Limbaugh was hailed as the "National Precinct Captain" for the Republican victories. And in 1994, no less an authority than the Republican patron saint, Ronald Reagan, called Limbaugh "the number one voice for conservatism in America":
Dear Rush,
Thanks for all you're doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I've retired from active politics, I don't mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country.
I know the liberals call you "the most dangerous man in America," but don't worry about it, they used to say the same thing about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be."
Sincerely, Ron
When Brent Bozell, another leader of the conservative movement who heads the influential and conservative Media Research Center, announced Limbaugh would be the first recipient of the William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media and Excellence, in 2007, he said this:
We are honored to present this award to a pioneer of the emerging alternative media, in recognition of his invaluable contributions to conservative ideals. It’s only fitting that Rush Limbaugh be the first recipient of this annual award.
Yet no one with 1/15th of a brain would call Reverend Wright the "number one voice for liberals or Democrats in America."
Limbaugh is no fringe Republican. He is Mr. F-ing Republican himself. Of course he represents the Republican Party, and of course it is fair to tar them with the Limbaugh brush. And if Republicans appear to be running away from him Rush, that is only because they are lying through their teeth in a hostile political environment, while still eating up his every word.
February 2, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know that Dan K is gifted with the amazing power of mental telepathy and prescience. Must make it easy to never miss a bus or a phone call.
The simply fact of the matter is that parties change all the time and it only seems obvious in hindsight. The democratic party has been a willing participant in our mass subjugation since at least 1980, yet most of those fossils are still stumbling around the Capital speaking as if they were actually progressive.
What is a "fringe" position changes all the time and I am quite willing to bet that the Limbots in the republican party will go the way of the DINOsaurs by the primaries of 2010.
The only thing that can prevent or slow down the reformation of the republican party is an overly aggressive and partisan democratic party running things the next few years.
February 2, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
since 1968
February 2, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will agree with that date and could set it even earlier but for Johnson signing the Civil Rights Amendment in '64. Still, he did bomb an entire country back into the stone age, so equal rights may have simply been a way to soothe his conscience.
I was trying to be a little charitable because the dems did nominate and elect Jimmy Carter in 1976. Of course, they promptly threw him under the bus in 1980, so perhaps that was an aberration since there hasn't been an American imperial conquest that "liberals" in Congress have ever seen fit to stand up against.
Will the real democratic party please stand up?
February 2, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a bet I would certainly take.
Dan K made the case very well - with documentation - that the Repubs are truly represented by Rush; that there is no political equivalency between Rush and Jeremiah Wright.
And the dreams of a singular Republican does not a movement make. I see absolutely nothing happening within the Repub Party that shows any kind of moderation happening. If anything, the whacko right is ascendant, as witnessed by how quickly the "rebels" like Gingrey fall so quickly back in line with their tail between their legs if they dare express common sense in place of dittohead talking points.
Certainly by 2010 we will still have the same politically bankrupt Repubs in charge of the Party. The closest thing the leadership and Rush have now to an opposing voice is Newt Gingrich, fer chrissakes. There is no movement toward "moderation" on the horizon, regardless of how much you (jason) wish it were so to justify your experiment at joining the GOP subsequent to the Obama win..
February 2, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again. Did you miss the "wacko right" being in charge of the entire shooting match these last 28 years or so? Did you miss the democratic party playing their tune as well? Did you miss the complete implosion of their supposed "ascendant" movement this year as we elected a unknown community organizer and junior senator to run the country?
The only evidence that was provided was evidence that same old tired voices are still passing the same old tired shit off as reality. These supposed "leaders" of the conservative "movement" are losing more and more support to more moderate voices. These "leaders" are also nothing of the sort. They are followers. That they missed the change in tide is hardly surprising, but that doesn't mean many other conservatives aren't changing.
That democrats would eat it up with a spoon and use it as an excuse to assume that 59 million Americans are idiots or crazy or both is just making that dying ideology capable of one last grasp at power.
It is clear to me that you don't know a single "conservative" in real life because you keep calling what I am advocating a one-man crusade, though I have had dozens of conversations with people in my own life who are life-long republicans who speak of the same things. Are they going to run out and join the democratic party as a result? Hardly, but that doesn't mean they want to see the same culture war that has dominated this country for the last 40 years remain in place.
The only people who can keep the republican party from changing over the coming years are "liberals" who can't let go of their hate and prejudice.
February 2, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you have so many times before, you continue responding with anecdotal stories about "Republicans that you talk to."
I again ask you to provide the name of someone (anyone!) on the national stage who looks like they are effectively promoting any kind of moderate change in the GOP Party; who is attracting attention for providing a roadmap that directs Republicans to a different destination than Rush and the GOP lemmings are pursuing.
I do not think this is an unreasonable request to ask of someone who declares that such a movement is underway. But I also must say that there are no credible signs out there that even suggests a change in direction but rather an entrenchment behind the newly legitimated authority of Rush Limbaugh. He seems to have acquired more prominence in GOP political thought in the absence of courage or intellectual vigor that infects the party from the top straight down through its core.
You and your acquaintances may wish this "moderation movement" was the reality, but your call for same seems to have you firmly established at the fringe of the Party. As CponnecticutMan so eloquently states down-thread: "They picked their horse and ran with it." You can grab its tail and say "Whoa, there!" But you'd do well to open your eyes when you do so and face the situation at hand.
February 2, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was to ask for proof of a progressive reformation underway in the democratic party anytime before the last election you would not be able to supply me with more than a handful of fringe ideologues who were pissed about Clinton and were sure that the DLC would be repudiated any day now.
ALL grassroots movements happen outside the view of the normal power structures. That is why they are grassroots movements. The "leaders" don't catch up until the change is already underway or has already been completed.
You may wish for our country to remain divided and at each others throats, but I do not and will not accept that as the status quo. I am quit baffled why you advocate for such rather than simply agreeing with me that such a movement is desirable and then seek to promote it in whatever way you could.
More specifically, by laying down your rhetorical weapons and lingering bitterness over decades of misplaced trust in the democratic party that has now been transferred to "conservatives" since your team is on its way up.
February 2, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to be another one of your convenient "truths" that are thrown about because they fit or they make your argument sound reasoned, not because they are in fact true.
Do you have examples of what you talk about here?
The Dem Party took a major shift in 1968, for example, but I'm guessing the Dems at Chicago knew it contemporaneous to its happening - although they can THEN be forgiven if they had a subsequent lapse of memory after confronting the police batons up alongside their head in Grant Park.
Likewise the Repubs with the Gingrich Revolution. The fact that the GOP was undergoing a pretty fundamental change was not a closely held secret. In fact, all the preliminary work done by the Christian Coalition was well noticed by all but the most blind as it was happening.
And so on what basis do you claim this "only perceived in hindsight" meme? It may explain why we do not see today any movement toward moderation in the GOP, but if it is in fact an "untrue truth," I suggest it shoots your argument about today's "GOP Changing" reality all to hell.
February 2, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Once again, a protest that is without historical accuracy or merits.
No one would have called the democratic party of the Reconstruction era as being the party that would lobby for the Civil Rights Act. Just as no one would have figured the Party of Lincoln would advocate segregation in its future. Yes, parties change all the time. Sometimes for the better as in 1932 and sometimes for the worse in 1980.
In fact, parties change in the same decade as the democrats both decimated Vietnam AND helped right some wrongs at home at the same time. Just as republicans both ended the war in Vietnam AND signed EPA and OSHA into being AND totally defiled the office of the presidency. Seems to me that both democrats and republicans were waving the hoses that so set your ideological blinders into place.
Better watch out, your irrational partisanship is showing again.
February 2, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy is no fringe figure, but one of the key national leaders of the conservative movement which dominated this country during the past few decades.
_____
Yes, he is fringe -- exactly as is the so-called "conservative movement".
LUNATIC fringe, in fact, along with Coulter. Hate-speech and rage based upon lies told to oneself cannot be other than fringe.
That fringe hates "Liberals" as much as Hitler did.
February 2, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a huge difference when some of Wright's comments were taken wildly out of context and Oxy-Rush's are taken in their exact context.
It certainly is unfair to be saddled in the sucks-to-be-you stable on the rose-colored-glass impaired GOP high horse.
But they picked that horse and ran with it.
February 2, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other side that many have mentioned on this thread is a comparison of Limbaugh to Sharpton. How can you really compare the two? Is it because both have used a microphone before? I see Sharpton, obviously as not a spokesman for liberal America or for that matter Democratic America, but nonetheless he has worked within a community, he is an ordained Baptist minister and I would venture to say has constituents with whom he meets. He meets with American people on the ground and attempts to bring recognition to those that he deemed needed a voice on their behalf. I am sorry but I have never heard of Limbaugh organizing in the streets, I have never heard of him representing the people in their day to day. Limbaugh meets with those in power who understand his influence with those whom in our society feel their grasp slipping. He is a voice to those that think that liberalism is destroying the American fabric and also an echo chamber himself by being a proponent of almost every wedge issue we have faced since Bush I or Clinton. Gays, he's against them and he will tell you about it. Taxes, he's against them and he will tell you about. Immigrants, he's against them and he will tell you about. War, he's for it and he will tell you about, unless of course it is a Democratic President and in this case he will mock and denigrate the character of the man in office.
Rush Limbaugh has not attempted in my mind to ever elevate the public discourse on any range of issues but rather seeks to stabilize and re-enforce the already apparent divide between Americans by pouring gas on the flames every chance he gets. He also asks his listeners not to question his words but to move in lock-step with his every suggestion. He is a fascist. The real reason he won't go down and mingle with the people is most likely because of security concerns. I believe it is quite obvious that there are any range of Americans who would be more than happy to throw a shoe at him should they get the chance.
February 2, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a similarity though. In times of racial controversy, Al Sharpton will "be the voice" of the African American community, just as Rush will be the voice for Republicans during political controversy.
February 2, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but who appoints them as such, frizzletoad? If you are talking about someone who works for the mainstream media who searching for someone to comment on a racially tinged story especially someone on the east coast, then yes of course they are going to think of Al Sharpton. If a racial story is being covered in the Houston, TX area, then I am sure the local news stations are going to see what Quannel X has to say about it. On the other hand are you saying that when conservatives are aggrieved that the media then goes an interviews Limbaugh to hear what he has to say on the subject? Limbaugh does not speak for many of the conservatives who listen to him on their show; he speaks to them, like a leader. I am sorry but as bad as Al Sharpton can be sometimes, I really fail to see how the two are the same from a public perspective. From a media perspective I can see where someone might put the two in their proper ideological camps, but again this doe snot serve the public good. Therefore I do not see Rush really a participant in journalism or activism, he is purely an entertainer. Many may believe he is the real deal, but he is not down in the trenches, yet many in the GOP understand his power. His power is propaganda and the sowing the seeds of division.
February 2, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans made clear at their retreat they have no intention of governing, only campaigning. This is time on the trail for them. Take back the House, Boner! Sarah in 2012!
February 2, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink