Last edited by BARS-N-STARS on Mar-01-2009 at 16:25

You know The17sss, for all your love of Rush, he is going to be the undoing of the party if this keeps up. The democrats are going to criticize the republicans through Rush and tie the things Rush says as the views of the party in general. The best thing democrats could hope for is Rush being viewed as a party leader. Good luck shutting him up

quote:

Asked to comment on the status among conservatives of radio commentator Rish Limbaugh, who gave a keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington yesterday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." (CBS) Appearing on CBS News’ Face the Nation, Emanuel said that the conservative commentator was very straightforward regarding his views about the new adminstration and its efforts to rescue a suffering economy — to which Emanuel said the Republican Party clings. “He has been upfront about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure," Emanuel told host Bob Schieffer. "He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh. And I think that's the wrong philosophy for America," Emanuel said. Schieffer asked if Emanuel really believed that Limbaugh was such an influential force within the GOP, to which his guest said, “I do think he's an intellectual force, which is why the Republicans pay such attention to him. "But our goal, Bob, is to continue to reach out," Emanuel added. "And it's our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh, who is praying for failure." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/0...ry4836756.shtml

you are both right and wrong IMO.... The Democrats are pointedly trying to create and reinforce the theme that Rush is the de facto GOP leader. This strategy is a good strategy because so many view him as a polarizing figure. As Rush himself said about this:

quote:

Asked about the strategy to portray him as the new face of the GOP, Limbaugh said Friday Democrats neededa new whipping boy. "The Left needs demons in order to distract people from what they are really doing," he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. "Bush is gone, hello me, because I don't back down."

Every time a Republican is on Hardball or whatever other show, they ask that Republican to condemn Rush, trying to put them in a difficult spot. It's a good strategy actually.

But, I think the mistake they are making is that they are turning him into a martyr of free speech. He is galvanizing a grass roots effort that may be the spark that finally inspires the millions of Republicans that stayed home on Nov. 5th because they couldn't bear to vote for McCain.

Rahm probably didn't catch this follow up interview on CNBC (fwiw), though I think only a couple hundred thousand people watch CNBC regularly, and unfortunately I'm one of 'em. A bit of clarification by Rush, who is still obviously a lightning rod for controversy.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss you are both right and wrong IMO.... The Democrats are pointedly trying to create and reinforce the theme that Rush is the de facto GOP leader. This strategy is a good strategy because so many view him as a polarizing figure. As Rush himself said about this:

Aren't the Republicans the ones that gave him the keynote at CPAC?

People like Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, etc. are the reason that people flee the Republican party.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss But, I think the mistake they are making is that they are turning him into a martyr of free speech. He is galvanizing a grass roots effort that may be the spark that finally inspires the millions of Republicans that stayed home on Nov. 5th because they couldn't bear to vote for McCain.

Well this is the million dollar question isn't it. Its almost as if Republicans completely missed the last election. They play like there is a fire somewhere waiting to be unleashed. That was the last 8 years, they had their shot and blew it, like uh, hello? This generally comes from the conservatives that think their current problems are from not being conservative enough. Its grasping at straws for blind hope of still being relevant.

We will ultimately find out in the midterms. If they loose even more seats it will be an unequivocal denunciation they can't deny and prove they are completely out of touch with the public.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Rahm probably didn't catch this follow up interview on CNBC (fwiw), though I think only a couple hundred thousand people watch CNBC regularly, and unfortunately I'm one of 'em. A bit of clarification by Rush, who is still obviously a lightning rod for controversy.

Off topic how does CNBC compare to MSNBC or where does it place on the spectrum? I ask because I know some people that watch it and the political leanings of those people are hard to pin down. I've never viewed CNBC so I'm curious

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss you are both right and wrong IMO.... The Democrats are pointedly trying to create and reinforce the theme that Rush is the de facto GOP leader. This strategy is a good strategy because so many view him as a polarizing figure.

Well this is odd - you quote Rush frequently as the voice of conservatism in arguments on a host of subjects... yet you protest when Democrats say he's the intellectual leader of your party? If not him, then who? Surely not Cantor or McConnell. Michael Steele? Sarah Palin? We sure haven't heard much from Mitt Romney or Bill Kristol lately. I'd say you've got Rush, for better or worse. Have fun with that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Well this is odd - you quote Rush frequently as the voice of conservatism in arguments on a host of subjects... yet you protest when Democrats say he's the intellectual leader of your party? If not him, then who? Surely not Cantor or McConnell. Michael Steele? Sarah Palin? We sure haven't heard much from Mitt Romney or Bill Kristol lately. I'd say you've got Rush, for better or worse. Have fun with that.

Rush is the voice of conservatism, I'm not debating that. But he is a private citizen, not an elected official... therefore, he is not the leader of the party; conservatism is not a paty. Michael Steele would technically be the leader, but he's too new to make a huge impact as of yet. I like Boehner... Bobby Jindal is a fresh face, but not a leader yet.... but he's getting there because of his actions, not his words (except for that weirdly delivered speech last week that set him back a bit). I say, watch for Mitt to go back on the rise by 2010.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Well this is the million dollar question isn't it. Its almost as if Republicans completely missed the last election. They play like there is a fire somewhere waiting to be unleashed. That was the last 8 years, they had their shot and blew it, like uh, hello? This generally comes from the conservatives that think their current problems are from not being conservative enough. Its grasping at straws for blind hope of still being relevant.

There is a fire... but there has not been anyone to really lead them. Bush went off the conservative rails, and McCain was not accepted as a leader because, well, he wasn't. Conservative principles do not "go out of style" or become irrelevant... the GOP itself went out of style because they tried too hard to be like Democrats, trying to appeal to every spcial interest group and demographic rather than to people as individuals regardless of the group, ethnicity, or gender.... and just ended up looking like charlatans in the process.

If and when a leader steps up, they'll be back. Don't forget that 58 million people voted against Obama with a hack like McCain on the top of the ticket. You can't really believe that Democrats are in power forever under the current spending spree format we're seeing. It goes through cycles.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I say, watch for Mitt to go back on the rise by 2010.

As a conservative or a liberal this time?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Rahm probably didn't catch this follow up interview on CNBC (fwiw), though I think only a couple hundred thousand people watch CNBC regularly, and unfortunately I'm one of 'em.

Is it unfortunate that you watch CNBC regularly, or that more people don't watch it more frequently? I watch CNBC either in the morning or at night. As you obviously know, it's one of the few channels that focuses on business related news. I also watch the bloomberg channel on occassion. For some stupid reason I can never determine which channel bloomberg is on.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss There is a fire... but there has not been anyone to really lead them. Bush went off the conservative rails, and McCain was not accepted as a leader because, well, he wasn't. Conservative principles do not "go out of style" or become irrelevant... the GOP itself went out of style because they tried too hard to be like Democrats, trying to appeal to every spcial interest group and demographic rather than to people as individuals regardless of the group, ethnicity, or gender.... and just ended up looking like charlatans in the process. If and when a leader steps up, they'll be back. Don't forget that 58 million people voted against Obama with a hack like McCain on the top of the ticket. You can't really believe that Democrats are in power forever under the current spending spree format we're seeing. It goes through cycles.

Dice the party up into groups and throw under the bus whomever you want. The public doesn't see it that way and they certainly don't separate Bush from Republican or Republican from Conservative.