Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1</a> In Newsweek's cover story, conservative David Frum (he coined the "axis of evil" phrase as a speechwriter for Bush) takes Limbaugh and the Republican party to task and gives some ideas on why they need to redefine themselves. He writes, in part: >>On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him. And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time. Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.>> I don't agree with Frum's politics, but I respect him. If Republicans want to remain relevant, they need to listen to him.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Has Rush ever claimed to be the leader of the Republican Party? I think he advocates that he is the internal voice of the party but I don't think he has show any interest, ever, in leading it. I think it makes it easy pickin's for Dems to state that Rush is the leader of the party because then they can let the games begin. But, I think if you look back at most elections, at least from the losing sides's perspective, there is just about ALWAYS a question as to who the "leader" will be. That takes time to emerge. It doesn't happen over night. I don't care for Rush, particularly as it relates to folks thinking they know me (a leaning Conservative) because they know him. But, what Rush is doing right now has merit seeing as there is a void of leadership right now. I've got NO problem with people he or anyone else questioning the direction Obama is leading us right now. Heck, many on Obama's side of the aisle are questioning it. If Rush helps to keep the conversation and debate alive then I tend to think that is a positive thing. I don't think there is much worse than an unopposed leader. I think many of us were hopeful that Pelosi and the Democrats would finally challenge Bush in '06 and forward but they laid down and died. I suspect the country would be better off today if there was more of a fight back then...and I think a debate is necessary now to get us where we need to be...regardless of who the "debaters" are. But heh...I'm just some God believing, ignorant, conservative leaning white guy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But, what Rush is doing right now has merit seeing as there is a void of leadership right now.> I think you could argue that what he is doing is harmful to the GOP. It plays right into the Democrats' hands. Rush is doing it because it's good for Rush. But he alienates moderates, and makes the GOP look like that too-far-right, southern-dominated, moderate-alienating party the Democrats say it is. The longer this vacuum exists and he is perceived as anything like a (let alone "the") leader of the party, the longer it will take for the GOP to undo that damage.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If Rush can damage the GOP to the extent you are alluding too than the GOP has bigger problems than Rush. It is too early for any GOP leader to try and emerge right now. Obama is still riding the tidal wave that put him in the White House. The GOP has been pretty well damaged by the last 8 years. There isn't a great deal more harm than can be done by Rush. Any real harm will have little effect by the mid terms. People said Gore's public persona post 2000 was going to hurt the Democrats. It didn't. Kerry didn't lose because of Gore.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Whether Rush's obnoxious rants will have a lasting impact on voter's attitudes toward the GOP is yet to be seen. Still, unless he retires, falls ill, or dies soon, I can't see him quieting down in the near future. This is a critical time for the The GOP, and certainly not the time to just sit around and hope that he magically disappears.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <People said Gore's public persona post 2000 was going to hurt the Democrats. > Really? I thought most people thought Gore bowed out gracefully in 2000 and I don't remember any groundswell of "anti-Gore" stuff except among the most partisan Republicans. Not among Democrats, who liked him then and continued to, and/or admired his work on climate change. The difference is that it's Republicans themselves like Frum who are worried about Rush's impact on the GOP's image. Democrats are eating it up. <If Rush can damage the GOP to the extent you are alluding too than the GOP has bigger problems than Rush. > Oh, I don't think it'll be that big, unless it lasts. <The GOP has been pretty well damaged by the last 8 years. There isn't a great deal more harm than can be done by Rush.> The trouble is that Rush pretty much reinforces the image of the last 8 years, as he was largely a cheerleader for Bush and his policies. Bush may be gone, but Rush is still around as a reminder. Moreover, his tone is confrontational; the general vibe is that "we were right to do what we did the past 8 years," EVEN IF he criticizes a specific thing or two. And most people don't like Bush's policies, so this is further alienation. Frum is right on Rush's style and why it's a turn-off in the current climate, but it's more than that; it's the substance too. It's backward looking and Bush-identified. The GOP needs a new leader who is forward looking and represents a clean break with the recent past. That's certainly not Rush, who has stepped into that leadership void with a vengeance.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There isn't a great deal more harm than can be done by Rush.<< If the Democrats are successful in making him the icon of the GOP, it isn't going to help Republicans one bit. Because Limbaugh has Coulteritis -- he can only go a limited amount of time before saying something unpleasant and repulsive. It's in his DNA. Michael Steele momentarily recognized this and said so. And then he instantly caved. I think the GOP is getting their strategy from ACME these days.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper He isn't going to be the icon of the GOP. A new face to the party will emerge but really, just think about it. Look at the movies...no one wants their kids movie to come out the same weekend as the next Harry Potter. They'll get creamed. Obama is Potter. He is nearly invincible right now (though I think he and his gang need to be careful because even the Titanic sank). Whether it is Romney, Palin (ugh), or someone else they will come out in due time. But, the press needs a diversion right now and Rush is as good as anything. Maybe Britney will start drinking again and the "more important" stuff will push Rush back to his studio.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think the GOP is getting their strategy from ACME these days.> You know, those Acme products always look so good in the catalog. I was SURE the "birdcatcher 2000" rocketman outfit was going to work...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Obama is Potter.<< Maybe, but I don't think GOP Studios has some great "counter programming" hidden away at this point. Bobby Jindal was supposed to be, and that debut sort of fizzled.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I agree with that. I didn't have high hopes for Jindal...and he did not disappoint me. I still say the "response" is an unenviable position to be in...no matter which side it comes from...but he certainly didn't scream, "I'm your man!"
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The GOP has been pretty well damaged by the last 8 years. There isn't a great deal more harm than can be done by Rush. << I think there is. The GOP is at a pivotal point right now, with separate factions that don't much like each other. There's the vast numbers of evangelicals; the "dittoheads" who are every bit as devout, but to a different diety; and then the "business first" types who are largely secular. The party cannot afford to turn their backs on any of these separate constituencies, but it's getting harder to pander to all three at the same time. Palin is a perfect example - she energized the red state base, but repelled the moderates and business leaders. But she had her 'pro-life' credentials in order. And that highlights another schizm in the republican party. There's a mindset that says 'pro-choice' candidates cannot run for national office. McCain had a solid pro-life record, but he was lukewarm on the issue, and the direct result was that the base was lukewarm on him. He needed Palin to bring that side of the party around. Perhaps in 2012, they'll try it the other way and nominate a a more moderate candidate, and in the process cast off the religious "values voters", hoping to appeal to the more moderate 'pocketbook' republicans. But I doubt it; without the hard core christian righties in the southern states they don't have a prayer. Which means that all this loose talk about Romney in 2012 is just that - talk. Christians won't vote for him, and neither will dems and independents. His appeal is to the business types, and their aren't enough of them to carry him over the finish line.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***without the hard core christian righties in the southern states they don't have a prayer*** I know this wasn't meant as humor, but... ROTFLMAO!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Many of my Republican friends were totally on the McCain boat... until Palin was put on the ticket.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
