Thursday, March 05, 2009
White House vs. Rush Limbaugh?
Has anyone been keeping up with the White House's attacks against Rush Limbaugh? It's interesting, as it seems to be a concerted effort to paint Limbaugh as the "face" of the Republican Party, and thus exploit a party that seems to have a power vacuum within its ranks right now.
Who do you think will end up as winners and losers in this political game?
If you're interested in reading more, check out the story on Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19641.html)
# posted by Melissa Smith @ 10:52 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I have and it is interesting, because Rush has not changed much over the last 20 years or so. I used to listen to his show long ago, and read his books, and something about his messages kind of pushed me away.
What I find interesting is that even though the GOP certainly has it's leaders, they are letting Limbaugh determine the direction of the party, even though he speaks to probably the people farthest to the right (although maybe not as far as some even more distinct voices like Ann Coulter or Michael Savage). At a time when the party is at a low point, should they really be swinging so far to the right that the party is in danger of becoming even more exclusive? They really aren't developing a message right now that would invite new members.
I saw yesterday on I think "Morning Joe" where it was said that the number of people who identify themselves as members of the current GOP is smaller than the number who identify as independents. That's kind of remarkable, but not unexpected because by allowing Limbaugh to dictate their direction, they are even more ideologically-driven than usual.
The reason I think is that Limbaugh has essentially no accountability. As long as he doesn't violate profanity standards, he is able to say whatever he wants, without apology (and routinely does). He is able to push an ideological agenda and over the past two decades has built up quite a following, which probably roughly matches the "base" of the GOP in numbers. Rush plays to and entertains the base. The party leaders know that and seem to be reluctant to rebuke Limbaugh in any meaningful way when he makes some of his more controversial statements.
I don't know if it's a mistake or not. It probably is, because it is definitely making the leadership look weak. And unlike Limbaugh, they actually do have to be accountable.
The question is, is this a good "strategy" for Democrats? It definitely paints the Republican Party into a corner. They are letting an entertainer dictate their direction, and an unpopular entertainer at that (his approval ratings are lower than Bush's). He doesn't have any policy suggestions, other than a return to Reaganomics, an approach which really doesn't have a place today.
The party leaders really should reassert themselves, and start offering their own ideas, if they want to be taken seriously in the near term. Saying "no" just isn't an alternative right now.
What I find interesting is that even though the GOP certainly has it's leaders, they are letting Limbaugh determine the direction of the party, even though he speaks to probably the people farthest to the right (although maybe not as far as some even more distinct voices like Ann Coulter or Michael Savage). At a time when the party is at a low point, should they really be swinging so far to the right that the party is in danger of becoming even more exclusive? They really aren't developing a message right now that would invite new members.
I saw yesterday on I think "Morning Joe" where it was said that the number of people who identify themselves as members of the current GOP is smaller than the number who identify as independents. That's kind of remarkable, but not unexpected because by allowing Limbaugh to dictate their direction, they are even more ideologically-driven than usual.
The reason I think is that Limbaugh has essentially no accountability. As long as he doesn't violate profanity standards, he is able to say whatever he wants, without apology (and routinely does). He is able to push an ideological agenda and over the past two decades has built up quite a following, which probably roughly matches the "base" of the GOP in numbers. Rush plays to and entertains the base. The party leaders know that and seem to be reluctant to rebuke Limbaugh in any meaningful way when he makes some of his more controversial statements.
I don't know if it's a mistake or not. It probably is, because it is definitely making the leadership look weak. And unlike Limbaugh, they actually do have to be accountable.
The question is, is this a good "strategy" for Democrats? It definitely paints the Republican Party into a corner. They are letting an entertainer dictate their direction, and an unpopular entertainer at that (his approval ratings are lower than Bush's). He doesn't have any policy suggestions, other than a return to Reaganomics, an approach which really doesn't have a place today.
The party leaders really should reassert themselves, and start offering their own ideas, if they want to be taken seriously in the near term. Saying "no" just isn't an alternative right now.
As an update, just in case interest in Rush is slacking off, today while knocking the president by suggesting that he could only address one problem at a time, Rush said Obama had moved on to health care to keep his approval ratings high. Or, as Limbaugh called it, the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill." I would shake my head, but it's classic Rush and I'm sure his audience ate that up.
I think this whole Rush thing has been rather ridiculous. The thing with Rush is, he doesn't have to worry about getting elected, only about getting listeners, so he's not worried about saying the politically correct thing for his party. The more controversial he is, the more people tune in to listen to him. So he goes around insulting the new GOP leader, Bobby Jindal, and basically bashed McCain throughout his run for presidency. He doesn't care if GOP leaders are really in power or not, unlike people who work for the party. He only cares about his own agenda. So, while he may have a lot of followers, it is not good if he is the new "party leader" or even seen as that because he does not ultimately have the party's best interests at heart at all times. It's also very dangerous because (even though I think he isn't as politically radical as some say he is...I think he just acts kind of nutty sometimes to get attention...I think he's a fairly mainstream, conservative guy) he has a lot of negatives to the general public. Ask a group of random people who have mixed political beliefs what they think of Rush, and they'll have more negative things to say about him than they will positive. So if your party becomes identified with that, it's not a good thing.
As far as this move by the White House goes, I think it's pretty smooth politically, but it has it's draw backs too. After all 2010 is not that far away, so it's good to get a headstart in planting the Republicans in a bad light. However, it doesn't exactly make the case for bipartisanship. Supposedly Carville and Begala are responsible for a lot of this...and of course they are master campaigners. So who knows how it will turn out in the end. My guess is, it will just be a blip on the screen unless the GOP keeps the public infighting within their own party up for several more months.
As far as this move by the White House goes, I think it's pretty smooth politically, but it has it's draw backs too. After all 2010 is not that far away, so it's good to get a headstart in planting the Republicans in a bad light. However, it doesn't exactly make the case for bipartisanship. Supposedly Carville and Begala are responsible for a lot of this...and of course they are master campaigners. So who knows how it will turn out in the end. My guess is, it will just be a blip on the screen unless the GOP keeps the public infighting within their own party up for several more months.
True, but we can't confuse Obama with other members of the Democratic Party either. Far more than his predecessor ever did, Obama has extended olive branches to the Republicans in Congress. His stimulus offered as much tax cuts in a concession to them as their membership numbers in Congress, perhaps even a few percentage points more. But the response he received was a unified and resounding no, which not only flew in the face of reason and responsibility, but also put party politics above the priorities of constituents. Those Republican representatives and senators said no to funds that will help recover jobs in their districts too.
These congressmen didn't act out of conscience, they acted out of brand loyalty, and no one is vocalizing that brand more than Rush Limbaugh right now. Ignore his words where he seems to chastise the party leadership, because that's the showman coming out, giving him some 'rebel' credentials.
The party is very visibly taking their cues from Limbaugh's rhetoric, and whenever anyone drifts out of line in public comments, you only have to wonder if they will voluntarily call Rush immediately afterward, or wait until Rush calls them out on their show first before apologizing. It is outrageous that someone would wield so much political power, while not being an elected official himself. Just because he gets ratings, 20 million people by his boast in a country of 300 million, he essentially calls the shots for 40% of Congress.
The White House, Dems, Begala, Carville, or anybody else are not out of line, simply for pointing out the obvious.
Post a Comment
These congressmen didn't act out of conscience, they acted out of brand loyalty, and no one is vocalizing that brand more than Rush Limbaugh right now. Ignore his words where he seems to chastise the party leadership, because that's the showman coming out, giving him some 'rebel' credentials.
The party is very visibly taking their cues from Limbaugh's rhetoric, and whenever anyone drifts out of line in public comments, you only have to wonder if they will voluntarily call Rush immediately afterward, or wait until Rush calls them out on their show first before apologizing. It is outrageous that someone would wield so much political power, while not being an elected official himself. Just because he gets ratings, 20 million people by his boast in a country of 300 million, he essentially calls the shots for 40% of Congress.
The White House, Dems, Begala, Carville, or anybody else are not out of line, simply for pointing out the obvious.
<< Home
