Rush Is In Charge: The End of the GOP

Several people around the football community have been outspoken against Rush Limbaugh’s potential bid to buy a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams. But it seems like money can't buy everything.  It also doesn't buy intelligence, because Rush Limbaugh is blaming liberals, not his racism and drug addiction.  NFL players are even against him as an owner.  Maybe that should have tipped him off, but then again, Limbaugh isn't exactly known for insightfulness, or intellect, or really doing anything positive for anyone on this planet.  At least the Rams won't need hard money loans to make Rush Limbaugh ( http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/10/15... ) go away.

I believe a much more compelling case could be made that 'it is not
easy to currently attack the Republican Party as it is SO very
difficult to get the vultures off of the (still living) carcass'. 

When you refer to 'attacking the Republican Party not being easy' may I ask you provide some examples as to who you believe are the strongest Republican Leadership Voices? The ones you imply don't make easy targets? The only one I can think of is Schwarzenneger and he's about to legalize marijuana for taxing purposes.

If you would begin from the top down regarding leadership that would be wonderful.

Maybe you're referring to Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott or maybe Phil Gramm?

I HAVE seen Meghan McCain on some blogs and she might have a high approval rating right now...perhaps she'll run?

Also- smattering of applause on your effort to toss out some horse feather's to close with.

I could almost envision your dramatic turn; cape 'curling to a crisp flutter' as you exited through the smoke.

I think you'll find people won't use their imaginations against themselves for you anymore out of fear. IMHO, you'll be required to do your own lifting now and in the foreseeable future.

Ah, how people are using those crazy intranets. Someone has started an FB group called, "I want Rush to fail":

Are you proud to be an American? Are you sick and tired of hearing divisive and hate-filled talk show hosts? Had enough of partisan sniping and failed ideas? Tired of seeing the Republican Party cowering in fear because of an Oxycontin addict with a microphone?
It's time to take back our country.

I want Rush Limbaugh to fail. I want America to succeed. And I want to see a constructive discussion about the future of our country. 
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47314307823&...

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I thought this was just perfect:

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

"Rush Limbaugh Wants to Debate Obama: Political Machismo Theater 2" http://pinurl.com/mki 

We can talk money all we want to, but it's a game of perceptions and media manipulation for now.  People genuinely concerned about the future of the nation more than scoring points for ideology's sake need to get louder.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

"I don't worry about the stock market right now. It's a deep, deep hole
the previous administration got us into, and it's going to take time to get out. Lots of time."

You should worry. This is real money being lost. Money saved by retirees and people near retirement. Money in IRAs. Money that could be lent business to create jobs and money that could be used to fund social programs.

You claim the stock market right now is a result of the previous administration. But here are the stats and a terrific analysis from the WSJ. (Hold on...just because it's the Journal doesn't mean the numbers are wrong.)

"As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow
Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level
since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763,
for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level
since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's
policies have become part of the economy's problem."

David Brooks, a New York Times columnist who supported Obama, wrote a very interesting article the other day on the Obama economic plan which reads in part

"But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is,
entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and
accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own
revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that
history has called upon it to solve all problems at once."

I urge you to read the entire column, it's solid thinking regarding the class divisions the Obama administration is fostering.  Here is the link.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03brooks...

There are any number of lists of the pork projects in the bill and in the budget being discussed now. Maureen Dowd, another Obama supporter, lists a few in her most recent column.

Here is another quote from the Journal, which by the way, warned for years of the debacle that was coming with the subprime lending by FM/FM.

"The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget
last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a
declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy.
Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and
price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no
longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect
a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and
investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in
2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even
earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails
lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The
powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and
punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable
recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the
fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is
no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the
weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this.
They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans
who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if
this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want."

If you are at all interested, here is the link to the Journal article. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347...

Even from the prospective of a "progressive," it is folly--self-evident, inarguable folly--to destory wealth and undercut the very economic system that can generate the money for the social programs so dear to your heart.

Remember, 100 percent of nothing is still nothing.  

I think, however, and what do I know, that I agree with the pundits saying we NEED to hit the bottom before we bounce back up. Scary as that is. (Is that basic physics, maybe?)

I could see that theory (about Obama) having some weight to it. Maybe we need to just be brave and dive to the bottom. Gulp.

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX

http://kidsflix.blogspot.com

...being floated, that I don't necessary buy but is worth noting, that Obama is speaking out on purpose to drive it down to it's bottom faster, so we can rebuild sooner rather than later. That the longer this drags out, the worse it could be, and the sooner we really hit bottom (even though bad) the better.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

very dangerous strategy, because we cannot see the bottom. If we knew what it was, and we moved to hasten its arrival, that would be fine.

With no floor in sight, it would not be a step I would find to be an acceptable risk.

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Well, except for bailing out the banks and AIG. I honestly don't know about that.

But much of the money in the budget and spending bill IS investment money, and you have to give it time.

I heard someone on the news (I can't remember who) say, and I'm obviously paraphrasing:

We are now INVESTING IN AMERICA, in a way the previous administration did not. We threw money at two wars, one unnecessary, and ignored our infrastructures, schools, safety... For example, some of the money is going to FEMA to bolster our emergency prepardness - the agency was in a shamble when Katrina happened... Money is also going to the FDA [I think it was the FDA], look what has happened to our food safety in recent years...

They were making the point that while Bush was promoting wars and using terror to keep people occupied and distracted, people were going bankrupt due to healthcare, and the country as a whole was literally crumbling from neglect.

I don't worry about the stock market right now. It's a deep, deep hole the previous administration got us into, and it's going to take time to get out. Lots of time.

I try to look at the money being spent as reinvestment in our country, not as money being frittered away on baubles and sparkly things.

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX

http://kidsflix.blogspot.com

I responded to a post on this last night with "Possession may be 9/10 of the law, but perception is reality." 

People think the person they see and hear from the most is the leader.  So, we could argue until the cows come home about whether Limbaugh and others are technically in charge of the GOP, but the technicalities of leadership matter little if people believe Rush and other conservative pundits rule.  Steele with his apology and Jindal with that soundbite about Rush's leadership strengthened the perception that Rush is in charge.

High drama.

Nature abhors a vacuum indeed.

For what it's worth, I think somebody at the GOP's yanked Rush by the coattails. He recently tried to soften his rhetoric. Don't know how long that will last though because soft rhetoric is not in his nature.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

Thanks, Nordette.

Kim--I couldn't agree more. Thanks for the post.

"What if all Obama's policies and legislation put us back on track, with
these deep investments paying off after several years (they are investments,
after all), and we're flush with renewable energy, a cleaner
environment, better roads and schools, afforadable health care for all,
to name a few?"

Have you watched the stock market since Obama took office? Have you noticed TRILLIONS of dollars disappear? Where is the money going to come from to fund all this? I've seen studies showing that even with the confiscatory taxes being discussed, it's still not going to be enough.

This stuff is economic nonsence and people are beginning to realize it.

"It wasn't long ago we dare not speak against the illegal war in Iraq or
warrantless wiretapping or any of it, lest we be rounded up in the dead
of night under the new executive powers that had slyly been handed over
... any disagreement with Bush-thought was blasphemy. "

This is just baloney...

I get Viguerie's newsletters by email. Here's an excerpt of his latest. I thought it was interesting:

Manassas, VA - Broadcasters and commentators such as
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and
Michael Savage are seen as the de facto leaders of the Republican Party
for a simple reason, Richard A. Viguerie said today: "It's because no
one else is acting like a Republican leader."

"The
'Rushification' of the GOP is the natural and inevitable result of the
fact that those who are supposed to provide leadership – Republican
elected officials and party officers – are doing little to bring the
party back," said Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.

"Nature abhors a vacuum, and there is no vacuum in nature as empty as the leadership of the Republican Party today."

Said Viguerie: "The GOP absolutely refuses to replace the Congressional
leaders who helped get the party and the country into this mess.  There
are many Republican governors campaigning for the Obama 'stimulus' plan
that is wrecking the economy and will push America deeper into
socialism.  Governor Jindal's speech was technocratic, without passion
and toothless, and Michael Steele's foolish attack on Rush Limbaugh
will, I'm sure, cost the party many millions in contributions."

 Full text here: http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/134

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

I'm laughing because a few conference calls hardly indicated a vast left wing conspiracy. And no one ever asked or told me to push the agenda. I watched it unfold live on network tv when Steele OPENED HIS MOUTH. Then I blogged. There was no filter by a news anchor or phone call from my president.

It was obvious. And I think it's brilliant for Dems to play it up as much as possible. That part is called strategy.

Now, on to your questions.

I, again, wouldn't call this an orchestrated attack. I think you give them too much credit. And I signed on for sanity and am getting it.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Following the link on the right-wing Drudge Report (which reads like a supermarket tabloid! I hadn't seen it in quite a while!) to the story on Politico, if you carefully read that story, you see there IS no story. It's hilarious. It merely recounts the reaction to Limbaugh's "I hope Obama fails" statement in various Democratic circles. It's exactly the same thing the GOP would do (and they did much worse). Of COURSE the Dems are going to exploit it!

Interesting how the right doesn't see Limbaugh's statement for what it is. What if all Obama's policies and legislation put us back on track, with these deep investments paying off after several years (they are investments, after all), and we're flush with renewable energy, a cleaner environment, better roads and schools, afforadable health care for all, to name a few? That's a success story .... but Rush wouldn't want that? Because it would be due to progressive policy?

What DOES he want?

It wasn't long ago we dare not speak against the illegal war in Iraq or warrantless wiretapping or any of it, lest we be rounded up in the dead of night under the new executive powers that had slyly been handed over ... any disagreement with Bush-thought was blasphemy.

Rush hopes President Obama does not have success in digging us out of the mess we are in?

Dems would be idiots not to jump on that.

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX

http://kidsflix.blogspot.com

what is essentially the question 'do you agree with using Rush Limbaugh's tactics against him?'

Um, no I don't like getting down and dirty, and my preference is to focus forward, but for the right to cry wolf, after years and years or slamming liberals as something akin to dog shit, I would say the reaction slots somewhere between hypocrisy and disingenuousness. 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

ROLF="Rolling on the floor laughing."  I'm only letting you know assuming that you may not know mean what it means because there was a time when I didn't know either. The Net is full of common phrases reduced to acronyms. Sometimes it looks like a foreign language.  If you're ever around a teen who's texting, ask may you see one of their messages to a friend. It will look like hieroglyphics. :-)

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

I don't know what ROFL means. As far as I know there was no memo from the White House...according to news reports, the plans were drawn up via conference calls.

Interesting that you didn't respond to any of the questions I raised.

I must have missed the memo from the White House

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

The news today about the White House coordinating the attacks on Rush Limbaugh confirm what many of us suspected. That the attack is conscious, orchestrated and diversionary. Pick a target, isolate him and then demonize him.

Those of you out there who are "progressives" might be reminded of Nixon's "enemies list."

Not so different, I'd say. This is "change we can believe in?"

The Drudge Report just picked up the story although it's been out there a while. www.drudgereport.com ( http://www.drudgereport.com )

Whether or not you like Rush Limbaugh and I know many of you don't...what is your reaction to this orchestrated attack? Worthy of this White House or not? Did you sign on for this kind of stuff?

You can't be serious, thinking Matthews' comment was about race?

It's CLEAR (I just looked at the clip, which I hadn't seen) that his "outsourcing" reference was about Jindal being a governor and not a member of congress... it was clear as day. That's a stretch that can't really be taken seriously.

I do think the Rush/GOP thing is very interesting.. as noted elsewhere
recently, it was moderate republican voters who nominated McCain for
Prez. That's a much wider base than those who follow the rabid,
Constitution/Declaration-mangling, disengenuous Limbaugh. Is he just so ... loud that nobody from the GOP wants to stand up and shout him down??

KeegsMom

KIDSFLIX

http://kidsflix.blogspot.com

Between Rep. Bachman's "You be da man!" shoutout to Michael Steele, and the kerfluffle over Steele vs. Limbaugh, the ideas that Chairman Steele hopes to bring to voters aren't getting much play. Blame it on the media if you will, but it also seems to be a lack of message discipline. These are early days yet, though, and I am sure the Republicans will pull themselves together.

As I've said before, I don't have any use for Limbaugh because he seems to think name-calling is a form of political discourse. He lost me the first time I heard feminazi come out of his mouth. Nor did I think Al Franken calling Limbaugh "A Big Fat Idiot" was very helpful. We have a problem in this country when people like Limbaugh, Coulter and their like get so much attention. 

This has nothing to do with political correctness, whatever one thinks that means. There are plenty of conservatives -- and liberals, for that matter -- capable of making an argument without ad hominem attacks and histrionics. I learned in kindergarten that name-calling, gratuitous insults and bullying wrong. In our modern culture, if you are Limbaugh or Coulter, it's called entertainment, and it earns you big buck and access to the corridors of power.

I think that is shameful.  

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

"Yes, GOP...this is your leader. Wow, you must be so very proud. So on
top of being sexist and racist, Rush apparently has trouble with the
constitution as well- you know, that document I'm fairly sure most
conservatives live and die by. Firedoglake ( http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/02/rush-limbaugh-la... )points out Rush's gaffe:"...

I would deny Rush is the leader of the GOP although it does seem strange the White House appears to be so threatened by a radio talk show host that it regularly tries to demonize him. And I noticed today, it took on Larry Kramer, a radio and television commentator.  Who is next? Shooting at these relative small fry by the most powerful institution in the world is a little spooky in my opinion.

However, on the subject of gaffes. Michael Medved has an interesting column about how much Obama got wrong at the recent DC prayer breakfast, including the correct attribution for "love thy neighbor as thyself." Here's the link. http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2009/... ( http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2009/... )

Neither Obama nor his minions could bother to get that right...but of course we know that during the twenty years he spent in church he wasn't listening. He told us so.

All of this palaver about Rush, et.al. diverts us from the real issues...the deliberate and systematic destruction of capital, jobs and prosperity which unfortunately for us and our children he does appear to be getting right.  

And it's not like people from the entertainment industry haven't influenced and then ended up in government.  Vintage Limbaugh ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/01/vintage-limbau... ) on being an entertainer.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

I saw that kid while visiting relatives. We watched him speak and decided "bright kid parroting what adults have said around him" and also said, "too young to vote."  I thought he was 12, but I call everyone 12 who's 30 or more years behind me. :-)

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

a fair number of feminists here.

Are we feminazis? Can you support such a crass and mocking dismissal of people who advocate for or generally support gender equality? 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

The reason why Rush Limbaugh is popular is because he usually says what most Conservatives think anyway. He is talented as a radio host, even he harshest critics agree that he is talented. Limbaugh is not a politician and would never be good at it precisely because he is way too outspoken.

 I have listened to his show for years because it is entertaining. I happen to agree with a lot of what he says. There are some things I disagree with and that is fine. Some Rush fans are Christian Conservatives, some like myself lean more towards Libertarianism. 

In all the years I have listened to Rush, I never thought him as a racist. In fact he believes that anyone can succeed despite the color of their skin. He may seem shocking at times because he refuses to use PC language. I hate to tell you most people outside DC, LA, SF, and NYC do not use PC speak. Read intellectual papers from before about 1980 and you will see what I mean. 

I think all of these attacks are silly. There is a major difference between the so called right and the so called left. (I think those terms incorrecty describe political parties in the USA) The "conservatives" are for Bourgeois middle class values where power is with the ondividual and the "Liberals" are for government control.  Because of this individualism it is difficult for "conservatives" to realy have a "leader of their movement." I rule my own movement and thinking, thank you very much. I will never become a Fascist (state control with some private which is what "liberals" fight for) and would die before giving up my individuality. 

 I didn't even know when I wrote my post last night that Jindal was coming forward in support of Rush, but in my post ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/03/limbaugh-to-mi... )on on Limbaugh vs. Steele that I also chattered on BlogHer, I said Rush in Charge wouldn't bother Jindal at all. I'll be adding the video at some point as I rest my case.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ). @Twitter ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

for the Republican party. It cannot get any worse, can it?

America needs a viable two party system at a minimum. The GOP, as it stands now, is a minor league team competing against a major league team, and that is not healthy for our form of government.

When Steele slammed Limbaugh, I was encouraged that perhaps the Republican party was intent on moving toward the centre; we are affter all a nation of the centre, even if I <-------------------------------- lie way over there on the political spectrum.

To read today that he has now sucked up to Limbaugh and proclaimed his trash-politic, which is probably the original catalyst for divisive politics in this country, was not only a disappointment to me on the reading, it is not a good day for this nation's political system. 

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

... and now the conservatives are claiming some 14 year old boy is the new face of the conservative party? If Rush, Steele and the 14 y.o. are the best the GOP can do, I think progressives are in pretty good shape.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30892

PunditMom ( http://punditmom1.blogspot.com )
BlogHer Contributing Editor, News & Politics ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/punditmom )

aka Joanne Bamberger ( http://www.mediabistro.com/joannebamberger )  :)

And I think if Rush is currently the most powerful in the party, they are doomed.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

D.L. Hughley asked Steele in an interview whether Steele thought that Rush Limbaugh had become the de-facto leader of the Republican party. I assume Hughley asked this question because every time any Republican politician has criticized Rush for ANYTHING recently, he or she has come out with a strained apology within days. It's starting to look to a lot of people like Rush has gained power with popular voters in the current Republican leadership vacuum.

Steele responded to Hughley by saying he did NOT think that Rush represented the party. And then Rush lambasted Steele on his show.

And then Steele issued a strained apology.

I think it's perfectly rational, given these events, to ask whether Rush Limbaugh is now commanding more authority in the rank and file Republican party than its own official leadership. Erin isn't using Rush to bash all Republicans. Erin is pointing out that if Rush is currently the most powerful voice in the party, the party is in serious trouble. 

Daily Kos and Huffington post on Matthew's racist comment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/1/133437/9816...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandip-roy/outsource... ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandip-roy/outsource... )

Hardly ignored.

And I was referring to Reagan as the first entertainer ...so it's fitting it opens and closes with an entertainer.

And I'm not propping him up, the leadership of the committee, the party, and the base are doing it for me.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Everyone can be something when you manipulate their intent beyond recognition for the purpose of a straw man. No one touched the racist words of Chris Matthews, when he remarked, after Jindal's GOP response, that the Republican party had "outsourced" it's reply. Nice. The crickets after were even more telling. I'm left to assume that it didn't count because Jindal's a conservative.

Rush Limbaugh is not running nor representative of the GOP; Michael Steele is not running the GOP. Steele is running the committee, but not every identified Republican - and I'll have more on this later in the week. The GOP also did not "come into its own" with Limbaugh - they did that with Reagan before Limbaugh even had syndication, before anyone even knew who he was.

To prop the man up as the representative of the GOP just so you can disparage the party by way of his prior actions is not a strong play; and I say this because it's easier for people to do that rather than try to attack the Republican party. Were it not so, many people wouldn't be gunning for Limbaugh. He makes it easy. Almost ... purposeful. People might want to mull over that strategy. 

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

I don't know where or in how large type, but you really distilled the essence:

This has nothing to do with political correctness, whatever one thinks that means. There are plenty of conservatives -- and liberals, for that matter -- capable of making an argument without ad hominem attacks and histrionics. I learned in kindergarten that name-calling, gratuitous insults and bullying wrong. In our modern culture, if you are Limbaugh or Coulter, it's called entertainment, and it earns you big buck and access to the corridors of power.

I think that is shameful.   

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )