Politico started this conservative family feud and I found out about it through both listening to Rush’s show today and from Richard Falknor at Blue Ridge Forum. And while it sounds like Steele has done a little bit of a mea culpa since the radio show aired, this was a concern I had with his election to the RNC Chairman post in the first place. While Michael Steele is conservative in many of his views, politically he’s trying to align himself squarely in the center of the tension in the GOP between the Beltway establishment and the conservative grassroots. And we know what happens to those who inhabit the middle of the road.
Those conservative grassroots are the ones who hailed Limbaugh as a hero when he spoke to CPAC on Saturday. Whether you attempt to dismiss him as an entertainer or feel he’s the soul of the conservative movement, there’s little doubt that Rush Limbaugh has placed himself into a position of political influence. Basically he appeals to a significant voting bloc of 15 to 20 million people who regularly tune into his afternoon radio show.
Even though Michael Steele has made himself into a more noteworthy figure with frequent appearances on the Fox News Channel and other media outlets, in terms of recognition he pales in comparison to Rush Limbaugh. Obviously we in Maryland know him well but someone who subscribes to a conservative way of thinking down Texas way may not know Steele from a hole in the ground.
And while Steele may get praise from the Beltway Republicans who despise Limbaugh nearly as much as the party’s legacy left by Ronald Reagan, the split in the party is what will draw the attention of pundits everywhere (obviously including me.) But I don’t really see a schism unless Steele also wishes to split from party principles, which by and large embody what’s known as the conservative movement.
The biggest trap Michael Steele could fall into would be separating himself from the grassroots who will help rebuild the party for future elections. He won election by pledging to reignite them into a volunteer force, and it wasn’t Michael’s fault at all that some GOP members of the Senate forsook principle to score political points with the punditocracy. Those three RINO’s will have to face an angry electorate, although Steele could find himself in more hot water should he overtly support them over a primary opponent (as George W. Bush supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004).
Much of the criticism of Limbaugh stems from the oft-quoted statement Rush made that he “hopes Obama fails.” Well, you folks can criticize me too because I agree. The election of Barack Obama was a colossal blunder.
Are you kidding me? The best I can hope for is that the country’s not in some sort of internal armed insurrection come 2013. I hold out exactly zero confidence that anything Barack Obama is doing will improve the economy in and of itself. Now we may bounce back to some extent simply based on the fact that pent-up demand can only be suppressed for so long but it’s my contention that doing what Obama is doing will only lengthen the suffering. This stimulus was a bad idea under Bush and even worse under Obama because he’s throwing more money at the problem!
The lack of confidence is signified by the utter collapse of the Dow Jones and NASDAQ markets, which have seen their overall value eroded by about 1/3 just since Obama was elected. That’s billions or maybe even trillions in aggregate personal net worth, vanished in the proverbial blink of an eye. And while it’s true that huge mistakes were made in the financial sector – mistakes which helped bring about the recession we now suffer from – I’m arguing that the steps government has taken to “solve” the problem will only make things worse down the road. Even our nation is not too big to fail.
Rush Limbaugh takes to the airwaves five days a week because he clearly and cleverly articulates a worldview that most of his listeners nod their heads and agree with. For the most part, it’s a worldview which reflects one our Founders intended our nation to follow and it’s one that unfortunately didn’t get much of a chance to be heard from in the last election. When you consider that the more popular draw on the Republican ticket seemed to be the Vice-Presidential nominee – one who articulated a more conservative stance on issues, or at least stayed truer to them – there’s no question that a number of Americans aren’t going to be satisfied if the Republican Party apparatus continues to ply a moderate course.
If Steele is truly attuned to what the grassroots of the GOP have to say he will begin to adopt the pitbull attitude that Limbaugh has exhibited since last November (and actually prior to that, since he wasn’t a great supporter of John McCain as the Republican nominee.)
We can respect our political opponents as people, but to me they’re still wrong and my job here is to help them see the light. It’s nice to have a great communicator like Limbaugh in my corner though.
Speaking of GOP nominees, the CPAC attendees preferred Mitt Romney in a straw poll of likely 2012 nominees. While 20 percent supported Mitt, 14 percent saw Bobby Jindal as the best choice, followed by Ron Paul and Sarah Palin with 13 percent each and Newt Gingrich with 10 percent. A host of other hopefuls ended up under the 9% who were undecided. (h/t Bob McCarty).
“The best I can hope for is that the country’s not in some sort of internal armed insurrection come 2013.”
Nice, Michael. This is why you guys lost the last election, and why you will lose the next one. The country is tired of what really are anti-American sentiments. I’m sure you will get all crazy about that, but I don’t care. All you Republicans who are forecasting doom should get off your butts and do something for your community instead of predicting, almost salivating, over the prospect of American collapse. Limbaugh can dump some of his billions into helping folks, or better yet, get off his tubby butt and swing a hammer for Habitat. If you think rhetoric like this wil get people to come to your side, you are sadly mistaken. I hope you all keep Limbaugh as your poster boy–see how well he did in the last election?
Of all those candidates, I find Ron Paul the most interesting, and the most principled . . .
He’s very principled, but probably won’t be a serious candidate in 2012. Part of it is simply his age since he’ll be 77 by the next Presidential election.
I honestly think he ran this time just to bring up issues and create a new generation of activists, which he seems to have done.
If we lose the next election, it will be because of one of two things: an economic “recovery” which will be a mirage simply based on pent-up demand; or, the GOP voters have only weak candidates to select from because no one wants to run against an incumbent President.
As a matter of fact I am doing something for the community. Someone has to be Paul Revere and I’m the guy. I’m not the largest charitable giver but I think I did pretty well in 2008.
Since you likely don’t listen to Rush, you probably don’t know the charitable work he does for a variety of causes. In about a month he’ll do a special show for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (he does this every April) and he generally starts the donation with a six-figure amount. And don’t forget the Harry Reid letter signed by Senate Democrats that he got a hold of last year and auctioned off on eBay for over $2 million (which he matched) for a charity which provides scholarships for the children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers.
Trust me, I do not want an American collapse – but I do not want the socialism that Obama promises either. I do not believe the federal government should have a role in health care, nor do I believe they should have ever gotten the stake they already have in the banks and automakers. That’s not in my copy of the Constitution, but neither is much of what they already had done, sad to say.
If Limbaugh equals the Republican Party and Obama equals the Democrats, given the results which have happened since the election I’d take my chances with Limbaugh. Rush has earned what he has through his own efforts and talents while Obama has developed a gift of gab like Limbaugh (at least when BHO has a teleprompter present) but used it to spend other people’s money while enriching himself because of the power he possesses.
I believe that when given a choice Americans would rather keep what they have and maximize their freedom. You seem to be falling for that class envy game with your sarcastic remarks about Limbaugh.
I have been watching with interest the promotion of Rush to spokesperson for the Republican party. He has been called that by the Obama administration and others, and I don’t think that is a good thing for Rush and his followers. They are setting him up for the fall.
What this does is cause conservatives that disagree with the incendiary remarks of the BFI to call him out. Ultimately, the true leaders of the conservative movement will take Rush down. Steele just tried to do it a little too early. The American Conservative magazine has started with a recent issue stating that loudmouths like Limbaugh are wrecking the Right. They are correct. Limbaugh does not offer a constructive alternative, only partisan, destructive rhetoric. At some point in the next couple of years, Limbaugh will cross the line, and the real Republican party leaders will drop him like a hot potato.
Enjoy it while you can, ditto heads, because the party won’t last forever. Your leader will self destruct at some point in the near future.
Anti-American sentiments? When I hear or read those words coming from a lib, I nearly choke from laughter.
I don’t worship at the altar of Limbaugh (I actually find his style nettlesome) but I agree with him a lot more than I disagree.
Now that I see Mr. Obama in action what I am observing is classic Hegelism. While the financial world tanks, do nothing to stop or slow the bleeding, wealth diminishes, the masses cry out, and Presto! Slim from D.C. shows up with his magic tele-prompter, and after the speech is over we can re-distribute wealth.
What is Un-American about keeping the fruits of your labors? I happen to do quite a lot for my community, but I won’t have the means to do so when my larders are empty if Slim has his way.
BTW when I donate to a church, a charity, or a cause I do not claim it as a deduction.
Limbaugh (and Palin, since you brought her up) may fire up the base but they turn off moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats. We can’t win an election with just the base (nor can we win by alienating the base, but that’s a topic for another time). Making Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity the face of the GOP is a huge mistake for our side.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what Limbaugh said (although he was wrong in what he said about Iraq, but, again, that’s a topic for another time), but in how he says it. He’s condescending, snide, self-righteous, and arrogant. Compare him to someone like Ronald Reagan, a guy who expressed clear conservative values and won over pretty much everyone but the most liberal of the liberal when he did so.
This new breed of conservative commentator, embodied by Limbaugh and exemplified perfectly by Ann Coulter, eschews intellect and is content to throw red meat to the already-convinced. They don’t seem interested in the type of intellectual debate of a William Buckley or George Will. They won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. Michael Steele knows that and I think, in his clumsy way, that’s what he was trying to get at.
This is probably a rhetorical question, but why is it always a focus when the conservative movement has a schism but rarely noted when it happens on the left? All those coalitions of special interest groups can’t always be in lockstep singing Kumbaya – for example, the Teamsters and environmentalists definitely disagree on energy exploration and on the fate of the auto industry, or the civil rights groups being upset that the gay rights advocates equate their struggle with the 1960’s civil rights movement.
But who on the left ever thinks that the likes of those on Air America are blowhards or pompous?
Michael,
I think lots of leftists are pompous blowhards, but I will take them over Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh any day. Rush Limbaugh NEVER admits when he makes a mistake (you are wrong–I do listen to the guy until I can’t take it anymore). He is factually, demonstrably wrong all the time and he never, ever admits it. The guy gets such a pass from the right, it is unbelievable! A drug addicted guy who somehow got prescriptions WAY past the normal limits (to the point he actually lost his hearing) and is on marriage 3 (or is it 4?) leads the “family values” party? Please. Your premise that nobody notices when there is a schism on the left is ludicrous–that’s basically what the left is! A giant ball of different opinions that truly is a big tent (unlike the Republican pup tent).
The “giant ball of different opinions” seems to agree on one thing – that government is the solution, not the problem.
And where’s the compassion for the addicted that the Left is so famous for? Yes, Rush had a problem with prescription painkillers and he’s paying a heavy price for it. It seems to me that one of the Kennedy grandchildren had a similar addiction and when he sought treatment we on the right didn’t condemn him so much as we wished him the best on his recovery. But I knew that the drug addiction issue would come up sooner or later in your comments; it always does when the left discusses Limbaugh. If you can’t refute the message, kill the messenger. By the way, I’ll grant that I’m with you on Michael Savage – he is annoying.
In essence though what you’re saying is that you’ll accept the message you believe in regardless of the messenger, even if he or she has a lack of ethics, but moral equivalence is only allowed on the left.
I’ve read the comments and I have some observations:
1. Us guys lost the election the last time was because the Republicans lost track of who they are and are supposed to represent.
2. Libs need to disabuse themselves of this direct corelation between Republican politicians and conservatives.
3. Rush Limbaugh is not a spokesPERSON for anything. He is the spokesMAN for the conservative movement. Get it straight. OK?
4. “He is factually, demonstrably wrong all the time and he never, ever admits it.” You would really be on to something (instead of on something) if you can do something that legions of highly paid liberal media types have been unable to do: Demonstrate how Rush has been factually wrong.
ShoreThings: “Ultimately, the true leaders of the conservative movement will take Rush down.” True Leaders? Like? I think it is a safe if not sure bet that you wouldn’t know a True Leader of the conservative movement if he fell in your lap. But humor us and give us some names. Hmmmm
Perhaps the only thing that Savage ever said that I agree with is that Liberalism is a disease.
The reason we “libs” find it difficult to have compassion for Limbaugh’s drug addiction is the hypocrisy of it all–he has long been on record attacking liberals for being compassionate about drug addiction! He’s in favor of jail for guys who do illegal drugs, yet he was illegally using drugs (but this doesn’t count? Come on). Michael, you say “he’s paying a heavy price for it.” Let’s see, post-drug abuse he has earned hundreds of millions of dollars, did not spend a day in jail, divorced wife number 3, and is a keynote speaker at CPAC. I’d love to pay that samme price. And for Mr. Netherland, if you seriously think Limbaugh has never, ever been wrong, you have moved from loyal listener to cult member. I could give you loads of examples: here’s one http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020007
Oh, but that’s the MSM working in cahoots with the liberals of the U.S Census Bureau, right Mike? Yeah, the actuaries at the Census tend to be raving liberals. Please.
So you’d go deaf to enjoy those other things you cited? That’s what I was referring to.
You act like divorce is an easy thing to go through, too. Trust me, it’s no picnic.
I’ll back up Mike Netherland to some extent – more often than not Rush is proven to be correct.
By the way, I actually looked up the Media Matters post but unfortunately the link to the analysis they cite didn’t work properly. I think that would have been the key to proving the point.
There is a podcast called the “Limbaugh Lie of the Day”. The fact that he can put out a podcast a day should tell you something.
This summer I didnt have my ipod for a month and very limited radio selections. i started listening to conservative radio. i really did want to learn about John McCain’s positions.
You know what I got instead? Fear mongering and lies about Obama and Liberals!
Not once did I hear something I believe in described as such with intellectual honesty. It was straw man after straw man. Fear mongering after fear mongering.
How come I can read Andrew Sullivan and his links everyday and be intellectually stimulated and provoked to really think about the issue and my stance without being offended as a decent human being? Its one thing to be a principled conservative, its another to be Rove/Coulter/Hannity/Rush/Palin and not even be able to tell the difference.
Fun Fact Thursday- Reagan didnt actually say that the government is the problem and not the solution, he prefaced that comment by stating, “at this time, the….” You know, if you cared about the truth and all that. I never knew that listening to conservative radio and foxnews and I prob never would have bc that takes the extremism out of it and thats where all the fun is!
Given the approach our Founding Fathers took to insure as best they could a limited government in response to the tyranny of the British Crown, Reagan’s statement is timeless and doesn’t need the qualifier.
Well, I’m glad you pointed out the podcast, but something tells me that their “facts” are a little slanted too.
I’d enjoy laughing at the extremism on the left but the problem is America foolishly put them in charge and once freedom is lost it’s extremely tough to get back. Right now Obama is working on the freedom of achievers to keep what they earn. I wouldn’t mind a “progressive” tax bite so much if it were consumption-based but there’s no sign Obama or any of his economic advisors are considering such a bold idea because they can’t regulate behavior nearly as well with a consumption-based tax.
Granted, in the podcast they arent always explicit lies that are address, but sometimes are the afforementioned straw men that are set up to avoid intelligent debate and accountability on his part.
Where is the acknowledgement of his extremism and horrible tone and disposition? I wouldnt allow Keith Olberman or Bill Maher to be the figurehead of my party that could not be questionsed or challeged. This isnt someone like Kissinger or Goldwater or Ted Kennedy, old stalwarts who have been in the trenches and deserve to have standing. This is a man whose job it is to create an educational show. How does he have this much unchecked sway?
You talk about extreme liberalism in the White House, but it is not like the Pink Shirt crazies or 9-11 Truthers hold any sway like extremist did in the Bush Administration, and still do in the Republican Party. Dont tell me you really think ACRON is extreme? Obama has governed from the middle (from the center-right on foreign policy) and even my father admits he is doing a good job.
And I am not suggesting that you cowtow to the Democrats just because you lost the election and screwed up the economy and took political discourse lower than its ever been,but that you provide constructive opposition instead of just pointing at the Democrats and sayin, “Wrong”, hoping that it doesnt work so you can be deemed right down the road despite offering nothing substantive to fix one of the worst financial situations in generations.
In fact, the only idea the Republicans are offering is lower taxes and fewer regulations, exactly the same type of policies that got us into this economic disaster in the first place.
You cannot forget the last 8 years never happened like an etch-e-sketch. Like Little Joey getting mad when people go after his family. Selective memory and outrage is not the route to take on this, and all polls indicate that the average American feels the same way too.
“In fact, the only idea the Republicans are offering is lower taxes and fewer regulations, exactly the same type of policies that got us into this economic disaster in the first place.”
Please elaborate. I haven’t heard anyone, left or right, blame this on low tax rates. I have heard that it is the fault of regulations, though. Considering that the financial maket is quite highly regulated, it seems a stretch to say that “fewer regulations” put us where we are today. Since you feel differently, I’d be interested in hearing what you mean.
Idiot, The Republicans can hardly be chastised as “The Party of No.” When they presented their ideas to our Enlightened Leader they were summarily rebuffed with the imperious statement, “I won.”
Also more than once in the last 8 years Republicans Bush and McCain warned about the impending failure of FannieMae and Freddie Mac. They were ignored by the likes Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. What happened next?
As far as the Pink Shirt Crazies, or the 9-11 Truth Commision goes, the Democrat Party trots out the nut-cases any time they do not hold a political majority. It’s called grasping at straws. This tactic is also employed to distract the public from more substantive issues. Sometimes it works. Other times you need an Oprah or a George Soros.
Michael,
Going deaf is no picnic, of course, but it is my understanding that the guy can hear again. As for his divorce(s), I would hazard a guess that someone who has divorced three times is probably heavily to blame for the collapse of his marriages, and should in no way be the standard bearer for the “family values” Republican Party. You all want to prevent gay people from destroying the sanctity of marriage? Look no further than Rush Limbaugh. When you start passing laws that Rush Limbaugh cannot get married, then you will cease being hypocrites, at least on that issue.
Doesn’t anyone listen to George Will anymore? I’d take him over Limbaugh or Savage any day.