Sometimes you may find it difficult to let a certain topic go. But when the players and cheerleaders keep making themselves look stupid and then admit to it, it gets even harder.
In the Washington Times today, White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, fessed up to, "lowering the quality of public discourse and acknowledged that its sniping at radio show host Rush Limbaugh has been "counterproductive." This has the understatement of the millennium.
Wonder if the cheerleaders at CBS have gotten the memo. Yup, there isn't anything such as media bias, it's just your imagination.
CBS, Cheering for Barack's Success, just can't help themselves. They have scored the White House v. Limbaugh v. Steele fiasco as advantage, Obama.
According to CBS, with SNL doing a parody of the Limbaugh/Steele conflict, where Steele is hooked up to electrodes and getting shocked everytime he criticizes Limbaugh, Obama is victorious.
Subsequently, Robert J. Samuelson of NewsWeek, is not buying into the hyperbole of the President or his media cohorts. As Samuelson points out, the juxtaposition of Obama's message and actions are quite to the contrary.
All of this considered, the comedy that is CBS reporting continues on.
With a constantly tanking DOW, further housing market erosion, rising unemployment, major states on the brink of economic collapse, outrageous government spending, etc. why such an infantile distraction like a war between Obama and Limbaugh? Well look at the state of affairs in the country or a recent poll on peoples' feelings about the direction of the country and maybe you can figure it out.
This little political feint was shaped by Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville. Back in December, after adding Limbaugh's name to an October poll, they found he was "deeply" unpopular with many Americans, especially those of younger ilk.
With Palin back in Alaska, Gingrich hiding out in underground DC and plotting a GOP return, and the remnants of the GOP Congressional caucus in tatters, Rush was the obvious boogeyman du jour and a willing participant in their reindeer games. And with a media that is more than willing to capitulate to gain WH favor, I'm sure it seems like a good gamble.
We have seen the Democratic proliferation of memes before against former President George Bush. The one difference between Bush and Limbaugh is the former President chose not to bite back, rather deciding on trying to keep the office dignified. Well, we know how that worked out.
In its initial stages Operation Rushbo, as Carville calls it, might look like a surprising success which is only natural. However, as the economy further deteriorates and domestic problems start to worsen there is a far greater possibility of this strengthening Limbaugh's message. Which means this could turn against the White House.
Americans, by nature, love the underdog who fights city hall. This is exactly the role the Democrats are manufacturing for Limbaugh and one which he is embracing. The tone of his message has been changing as he adapts to the attacks. He is cunningly firing back with a certain degree of optimism and talk about a renewal of the American dream for everyone. A prime example was his speech at the CPAC.
If Rush fine tunes his speak enough towards the positive and the American psyche has not gravitated towards big government this stratagem could prove fatal for the Democratic leadership.
Then there are the a questions of staying power and who is willing to go further. Limbaugh can get as outrageous as he wants without costing himself too much. His base will remain loyal and his fighting city hall will only galvanize his position with them. This new attention might even gather him a host of new listeners and spreading his message even further.
Either way, the story still eats up bandwidth and the soap opera goes on.
Mike Steele, RNC chairman, and former conservative radio commentator, Rush Limbaugh, have had a bit of an exchange over the last few days that has created some controversy.
Here is what Steele in the interview, courtesy of the Politico.
“I hope the RNC chairman will realize he’s not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats don’t nominate our candidates,” Limbaugh said, his voice rising. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.”
This little quibble has shown the obvious fractures in the GOP and the fight that is going on for its core beliefs. Many questions arise about the future of the Republican Party's survival if infighting like this keeps up. Anyone who thinks that Limbaugh is the voice of its intellectual movement is sorely mistaken.
Mr. Limbaugh is now fulfilling a role more suited to his talents and that is GOP Conservative Whip. Mr. Steele's apology was evidence of that. I think Rush will do a fine job of keeping the Republican leadership in line over the next few years. And I think he has, as he likes to put it, the wherewithal to do it right.
PS-We still love yah' Mike, just watch what you say in the future. Geez, it's not that hard.
Rush Limbaugh spoke at the CPAC yesterday and interestingly enough the speech was carried by Fox News, CSPAN, and CNN as well. Is Rush Limbaugh, as Rahm Emmanuel points out, the intellectual force behind the GOP?
Here is the first 10 minutes from his CPAC speech.
Limbaugh is an interesting character, often accused of being narcissistic, arrogant, and pompous by his his detractors and straightforward, on-target, and brutally honest by his supporters. Rush's delivery may be polarizing, but not his message.
He has recently been espousing the exceptional nature of the conservative movement and America herself. These questions might make some wonder, "Where has that American movement gone?" Did it ever really exist?
For media purposes though, his polarization is probably one of his greatest assets and audience draws. It makes people curious about Limbaugh and they listen, sometimes even becoming avid fans.
Recently, as most know, he has even drawn scrutiny and criticism from the White House. A very historic event in my mind. I cannot remember, in my lifetime, a private citizen or media personality being called to the mat by the President of the United States. This is actually testimony to the power that Limbaugh wields.
However, his strengths aren't just his charismatic two-fistedness or his supposedly polarizing ideals. Limbaugh is relentless in his commitment to what he believes in. In today's world, especially where politics are concerned, this is a rare attribute. One which, I personally feel, is the key to his unmitigated popularity and a lesson for pols of all stripes. One they could learn, if they could get over their partisan hackery.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't call Limbaugh the leader of the conservative intellectual movement. There are several such as; Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, and Charles Krauthammer, who fill this role but do not have his prominence on the media scene. Rush has become conservatism's greatest vocal advocate. Saying what a lot of people feel, but don't have the podium or forum from which to do so.
So, whether or not you like Rush, feel he is blithering hate-monger, or a guy who just calls it like he sees it. The obvious fact is, Rush ain't going anywhere anytime soon.
Personally I don't listen to talk radio all that much except brief forays into Glenn Beck territory and occasionally, Rush Limbaugh. Nevertheless, I had heard on his show he would be writing an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal concerning the Obastimulus package. At first I thought it was a joke, well I stand corrected.
From the WSJ, words of wisdom from the underground leader of the Conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh.
My Bipartisan Stimulus
By Rush Limbaugh:
Wall Street Journal-There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.
I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.
Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.
Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.
Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.
Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."
Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me. read more...
I thought this would be wrought full of sarcasm and infantile jabs at Obama, but surpisingly, El Rushbo, has offered the most bipartisan, comprehensive, sensible, and comparative stimulus package yet. The best part is, by this application you could finally determine which economic school of thought solves recessions better, Keynesian or Supply-Side. This is perfect since recessions are a fact of life and will continue to happen. While I am not his hugest fan, my hat's off to Limbaugh for his simple and common sense approach, I love it!
Posts
