RUSH IS THE LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

My understanding is that the Limbaugh/Obama debate may go ahead after all. It merely depends on whether Sasha can get her homework done early.

erm...

http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

You got that backwards McGentrix... it is the conservatives who are whining.

We liberals are laughing at Rush.... yes we are laughing all the way to the election booth.

You deserve the academy award for that pic. I can't wait to forward it.

Fox and the House Republicans join Steele at the feet of Rush. Don't you dare criticize or question that guy.

MEDIA -- FOX NEWS RUNS WITH RIGHT-WING TALKING POINT THAT WHITE HOUSE IS FOCUSING ON LIMBAUGH TO DISTRACT FROM THE ECONOMY: On Wednesday, Politico reported on an alleged "strategy" to paint hate radio talker Rush Limbaugh as the face of the GOP and claimed it was "being guided in part from inside the White House." From there, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent detected a "new media meme" that the White House was "entirely to blame for the Rush Limbaugh story getting so much media attention and turning into a media circus." Yesterday, Limbaugh charged that the White House was "playing manipulative games with washed up talking heads, targeting me on the taxpayer dime...and making enemy lists." Defending Limbaugh, House Republicans this week claimed that the White House's alleged strategy was an effort to distract the nation from more pressing issues. Fox News picked up the talking points. "Is the White House using Rush Limbaugh as a diversion?" asked Bret Baier. "They have succeeded in distracting the attention of the American people," thundered Sean Hannity. But as Sargent noted, "it's a grotesque exaggeration" to say that a coordinated campaign was hatched in the White House to focus on Limbaugh. The Politico piece "explicitly says that groups outside the White House...were the first to push the strategy." Additionally, this media "meme" ignores the more important point that Limbaugh himself started the "diversion" when he said he hopes Obama fails.

--americanprogressaction.org

Rush: Eschew New Ideas


Rushing Toward Irrelevance
By Joe Conason

Once upon a time, conservatives liked to say that “ideas matter.” They attributed this pithy slogan to Ayn Rand, venerated author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Virtue of Selfishness,” and tried to live by it, generating books, papers and legislative proposals by the dozen. Although many of their theories later proved flimsy, they at least attempted to address real problems with fresh thinking.

But ideas no longer matter"and in fact they’re dangerous, according to the maximum leader of the right.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last week, Rush Limbaugh declared that new ideas ought to be shunned by every right-thinking American. The radio kingpin savaged those in his movement who have dared to suggest that the right needs policy alternatives to compete with Democratic plans for economic revival, universal health care, environmental stewardship and educational improvement. Ranting on for more than an hour, he warned against any reconsideration of the sacred platitudes of Reaganism.

“Everybody asks me ... well, what do we do, as conservatives? What do we do? How do we overcome this?” said Limbaugh, and, of course, he had a simple answer: “One thing we can all do is stop assuming that the way to beat them is with better policy ideas.” He went on to denounce the conservative “media and policy types” in the “Beltway establishment” who have written on “the concept that the era of Reagan is over.” That cued loud booing from the audience, which turned into cheers as Limbaugh roared: “We have got to stamp this out within this movement because it will tear us apart. It will guarantee we lose elections.”

The image of a radio demagogue, dressed entirely in black, roaring against dissenters from the official line, provoked comparison with Fidel Castro or Mao Zedong. Here was the harbinger of an ideology in decline, exhibiting pathological aversion to intellectual activity and unfettered debate, an aversion that is always the surest evidence of political decay.

The irony, of course, is that Reaganism was, at its zenith, a vehicle for policy ideas as well as a personality cult. What began with the founding of National Review and the Barry Goldwater campaign as a rump protest against stale Republican moderation became the dominant current"with a vision of its own and a series of policy schemes, from supply-side economics to workfare, faith-based social spending, school vouchers and Social Security privatization. But although the world has changed radically since those ideas entered the political mainstream a quarter-century ago, Limbaugh and his millions of followers evidently feel that any attempt to cope with change is heretical.

Some Republicans clearly understand that their party and their ideology are exhausted, even if they still can’t come up with anything more creative than capital gains tax cuts. (That means you, Newt Gingrich.) They also know that as a public spokesman and symbol, Limbaugh, whose utterances over the years have been larded with obnoxious racism and sexism, leaves much to be desired. Broadening the appeal of the GOP and renewing the party platform is plainly essential after two elections that have shrunk its base and shriveled its message. Perhaps that is one reason why party leaders chose Michael Steele, an African-American from Maryland, as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee. Even the clueless Limbaugh seems to realize that his movement has a problem, as he demonstrated when he vowed to convene a “female summit” to figure out why the great majority of women cannot stand him.

But Limbaugh and his dittoheads"whose prejudices also find expression in the wisdom of “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher"maintain a stranglehold on the right. When Steele dared to assert his leadership and sniped at Limbaugh’s show as “incendiary” and “ugly,” he swiftly followed up with the same kind of humiliating apology heard from other Republican critics of the radio host. Having claimed to be the “de facto” head of the Republican Party, Steele had to back down and heel to the strongman.

For Democrats, these clown shows are amusing and encouraging. As long as the Republicans kowtow to Limbaugh, they won’t be able to muster substantive opposition to President Obama and the congressional majority. That may be just as well for now. But every nation needs a competitive marketplace of ideas"and conservatism today offers only retreads.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of CPAC, did anyone read about how Tucker Carlson was received? He got boos?

His message was to try an inspire ingenuity and create new solutions/ideas. I don't agree with the guy very often, but I cringe just thinking about the anti-intellectuals booing the guy.

I think Tucker has made some great improvements in his image from just a pundant to a thinker/speaker. He simply said that conservatives need to come up with solutions and not just be critical of other's ideas He also said that they need to rely on facts and not pundantry. That's just sound advice, it doesn't matter if you are left or right. It's ridiculous that he would get boos for that kind of speech. I'd be furious if I was him.

So while his message was one of a challenge got boos, Coulter and Rush get standing ovations for their message.

The clear winners: Rush and Coulter
The clear losers: Anyone not Rush or Coulter

T
K
O

Do you have any idea what Carlson is doing these days? He was very prominent on TV for years, but seemingly absent for about a year.

I saw him a number of times during the election. He seems like he's moved into a more moderate position. Perhaps the ultra conservative Tucker was just a act for television. I'm not sure. I've heard him speak more about conservatives than speak about liberals these days.

I'm unclear how he feels about the left, but his message seems pretty clear about the right: Wise up.

T
K
O

I guess Chris Wallace is the latest Limbaugh bitch. Chris says that Limbaugh didn't mean it. However, the piece below shows that Rush not only wants Obama's policies to fail, but wants Obama himself to fail.


MEDIA -- CHRIS WALLACE DEFENDS LIMBAUGH: 'HE WASN'T SAYING I WANT THE PRESIDENT TO FAIL': Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked DNC chair Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) if "going after Rush Limbaugh" is a "perfect example of the stale ideology and petty partisanship" that President Obama discussed recently regarding divisions over the stimulus bill. "We wouldn't even be talking about Rush Limbaugh at all had he not said he wanted the president to fail," Kaine replied, adding, "At a time of crisis in this nation, nobody should be rooting for this president to fail." But Wallace quickly came to Limbaugh's defense. "I think if you read what he says, he wasn't saying I want the president to fail. He was saying I want his policies, his agenda to fail and that he disagreed with them and thought they were bad for America," he said. Yet, while Limbaugh has indeed expressed desire that Obama's policies fail, he has also specifically called for Obama himself to fail. "'I hope he fails," Limbaugh said shortly before Obama's inauguration. Just last month, Limbaugh expressed similar sentiments. "The dirty little secret...is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it. We want him to fail because we want to preserve our country as we found it. We do not want to see a successful attack on capitalism."

--americanprogressaction.org