Do you think it is a good or bad idea to highlight Rush Limbaugh’s role in and influence over the Republican Party? If yes, do you think it is appropriate for high profile members of the administration like press secretary Robert Gibbs and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to be engaging in this strategy, or do you think it is better left to people like DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen, and DSCC Chairman Bob Menendez?
As food for thought, consider Peter Daou’s argument against highlighting Limbaugh’s role (at least, if done by high level administration officials).
I can understand that argument, but I still think it is a good idea. As for high profile members of the administration talking about him, I think it’s ok but only in moderation and only with regard to specific quotes or opinions from the Rushtard.
The Republican party as a whole made a concerted effort to marginalize the left of the Democratic party as out of touch dirty hippie terrorist-sympathizing business-hating tree-hugging pinko commies. I feel that is a large factor in the Democratic party platform being full of such centrist bullshit.
So, I say do the same to them while we have the megaphone. The Republican party is already fractured, and I think this is a chance to hammer that wedge deeper and split the factions apart for good.
I guess my argument is also based on the (perhaps misplaced) faith I have that the large, large majority of the country will see Rush as the bigoted, short sighted idiot he is regardless of (or in fact because of) an elevated platform or empowered role.
The Clintons gambled that boosting Newt’s profile would result in revulsion from the general public and they were, on balance, correct. They coasted to victory in 1996 and built up armor that was put to use during the l’affaire Lewinsky.
Could the same thing happen with Rush?
And see, I don’t, because I’ve met several otherwise bright and educated people who think if Limbaugh says it on the air, it must be true.
That’s how easy it is to propagandize people. That’s why we shouldn’t see this as laughable, but rather, as a frightening development that the party is now bowing to this nut.
Sorry Lisa, but they are not bright and educated people.
I agree and disagree. They pass tests, they get A’s in school. They just don’t have the ability to discern truth from BS. But that’s like a specific gene set or something. These people rise to positions of great power in the world. Don’t tell me they’re not bright.
People without BS detectors rising to positions of power and influence? Nah, I don’t buy that at all. That’s like saying that people who run around with Confederate flag bumperstickers are intelligent, well-educated people. Anyone with such a bumpersticker is by definition a very poorly-educated person. To get to a position of power and influence means putting such silliness aside, even if it means pretending to “keep the faith.”
I think it works. He’s a nut. We have a more politically informed and engaged populace now than any time since the 1930’s. Work it.
You have more faith in people than I do!
I don’t mind them mentioning Rush if AT THE SAME TIME, in the SAME SOUND BYTE they point out one of Rush’s innumerable errors of fact. To mention him and take for granted people know he’s silly is dangerous.
I agree with Peter.
When the talking heads mention these tinpot demagogues, I’d rather see a “who cares?” response from the grown-ups.
I don’t want to see the administration taking part in the showbiz problem of filling the 24-hour news cycle. This Rush bs is just feeding the beast that brought us to this point. It’s not their problem to redefine republicans.
Time’s a wasting, why bother with this?
We might better argue about whether Jennifer or Angelina is the better mate for Brad.
You can’t wish away the reality of the situation. Rush is not a “tinpot demagogue,” he is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. There’s no getting around that.
So, if you agree that Rush is the de facto leader of the Republican Party, how can it be a “waste of time” to publicly oppose him? How is it exactly a “waste of time” to foil with the leader of your opposition?
It’s not the Democrats empowering him. It’s the Republicans publicly genuflecting to him in the media on a nearly daily basis. The Republicans are going to empower the Oxycontinfather no matter what the Democrats do.
Since that’s going to happen anyway, you might as well point out that Rush leads the party, and that he looks like a big jackass doing it.
Nothing’s going to stop Rush’s twenty hour a week spew anyway.
Are we still having the argument that pointing out Rush exists is making him stronger? I’ll not have Democrats bowing and scraping to his ass either. THAT will empower him. Pointing out that he’s a bloviating douchebag counters his power, it doesn’t enhance it.
Rush isn’t going away. Deal with him head-on.
Exactly.
surely not high level Administration people — risk tarnishing the Executive branch. President Obama must be seen to represent all Americans.
leave the task to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and
Tim Kaine, DNC chair.
— in on
Gov. Jindal setting up Dear Leader Rush Limbaugh – siad on FOX:
Rush Limbaugh Is “He Who Must Be Obeyed” In Republican Party
Agreed, although I’d include congressional leadership as ‘high level’.
I’m okay with it but agree with ejmw above. The White House should do it sparingly.
It leads the Republican party down the road to further extremism, and irrelevance. Those with some insight will jump ship.
Steele’s apology to Rush only further cements things. (But of course Steele was right, Rush is an entertainer.)
I think that it’s worth a go of it. A lot of people who listen to him for laughs write him off too easily. He changed the political discourse in America during the 1990s in a way that gave W the chance to steal office. The established media legitimized him and Drudge during that period by treating them as honest information providers. Only the Bush meltdown has caused a whole bunch of folks to see that he was lying to them.
That does not include the Republican base however. And now he has the head of the RNC and other erstwhile “powerful” people lining up to kiss his pilonidal. And that includes Congresscritters.
Obama uncorked the issue by asking whether Republicans in Congress were listening to their constituents or to Rush Limbaugh. The vote on the stimulus bill showed the obvious to those constituents. Rahm has just used the occasion of CPAC to highlight the fact that Rush Limbaugh is indeed the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Not only are they reduced to a regional party, but to a marginal regional party.
Telling the truth never hurts an administration if it’s in the right context.
Daou is a might too concerned.
Gibbs was responding to a question and gave a perfect answer, far as I’m concerned. It’s almost historic that a public Dem faced with the giant scary windbag failed to go all shaky and conciliatory. I’m proud of him and his straightforward, grownup response. He took a loaded question and dumped on the other side where it belongs.
I think Daou’s argument is just more craven timidity of the kind that made the Dem party a laughing stock for so long. Plus, he’s just setting up straw men to be combative. I haven’t seen any high Dem officials calling Limbaugh names or engaging with his statements. They’re asking legitimate questions about where the Republican party stands now that its head is publicly kissing Limbaugh’s ample ass. I just don’t understand why anyone would think the Dems should just ignore that, and I’m glad Daou isn’t part of the administration (which is probably what his silly column is really all about).
Confronting a bully is rarely empowering one. It usually shows their weaknesses. Every pin prick is a sign to others that they can get away with it also.
That is why Rush MUST directly confront any Republican comments towards him. One rock allowed to slip will quickly lead to an landslide.
It also seems to me that the Demo ‘leadership’ is simply telling the truth. They are not really attacking him, but pointing out that he is the de facto leader of the republicans. Is that an attack? No, it is the truth.
When the chief of staff says Rush is the intellectual heart of the republicans, he is right.
Obama must have approved all this, and he has been pretty good with his political instincts. So WTF, go for it.
I don’t particularly buy Daou’s argument. It has a ‘watch out for incoming’ feel to it.
We should be past that.
nalbar
Don’t ever assume Obama approves something just because it’s happening. His government is way too big for him to personally approve anything. He appoints people and hopes they’ll do the right thing. If they don’t, he’ll try to reign them in, if it’s bad enough. But he’s fighting fires on many fronts – I can’t believe he cares about this particular issue, and we should never assume we know what he did or didn’t approve. That way lies disaster.
I liked the way Maddow covered The Rushtard last night. That is, pointing out what it means for Obama’s policies to fail (people starving in the streets) and what it means for Limbaugh hope for it and several Republican leaders to echo that sentiment. That is, Maddow took what Limbaugh said and pointed to what it MEANT. And when Limbaugh says something as cruel and dumb as that, it’s good to tie Republicans to Limbaugh’s sinking ship.
I don’t think that people higher up in the Administration should give him too much attention because at some point he’ll say something that will stick, or will be deemed to stick, and then you end up with the Administration debating with a clown. Maybe Franken, once he’s finally sworn in.
I generally like Peter Daou’s writing, but I think he’s off course on this one. Rush Limbaugh and his followers are nuts, and prone to making outrageous and provocative statements. If the Republicans are stuck with him as the public face of their party, they are at great risk because they can’t control his actions. Limbaugh presents a real problem for sensible moderate Republicans, and will likely drive them away from the GOP. Obama projects a cool, calm and intelligent persona, which is exactly what we need in the midst of the present crisis. Let’s give Limbaugh and his whack jobs plenty of rope and let them hang themselves.
yes it’s a good idea, and yes it’s ok for officials up to Rahm’s level to play.
I think highlighting Limpbaugh’s huge but irresponsible influence can only hurt repubs. Daou is wrong to think that noticing Rush will increase his influence, rather it will expose how far he is from the mainstream.
I thought the really interesting part of Daou’s article was the personal bitterness. This Clintonite dead-ender is still holding a grudge against the people who beat him and his candidate.
DAOU: … he wouldn’t be president without a tsunami of Hillary-hatred expertly surfed by his campaign…The myth of a technological, grassroots revolution, of prodigious strategic and tactical brilliance, of a do-no-wrong campaign, perhaps the greatest ever run, that myth sounds good, but it’s not what happened.
Exactly – Daou is dead-wrong on that. Obama got within striking distance by being Obama but he edged out Hillary by strategic and tactical brilliance. And Daou is failing to do the math again with Limbaugh.
I don’t think highlighting facts is ever a bad strategy. And that’s essentially what’s happening here. Witness the craven mea culpas from those elected officials who offended the Great Rush. You can’t really ignore the elephant among elephants in the room. But now that Rahm and Gibbs have weighed in, no more needs to be said by them.
I disagree with Peter Daou’s column. Rush doesn’t have any more power than the right is willing to give him. The real point of the strategy is to illuminate the leadership vacuum among Republican officials, which complicates their ability to govern effectively.
You make a good point nepat. Take a look at those mea culpas and then compare them to Rahm’s more confrontational attitude.
It might be a two-fer. Hang him around the republicans necks, AND contrast the wimpiness of them compared to ‘fearless’ democrats.
We ain’t afraid of no Rush Lim-bah!
nalbar
I agree. This whole exercise has been nothing but emasculating for elected Republican officials. They look weak and indecisive. This is why Peter Daou is so wrong. It really isn’t about Rush. It’s about a servile and supine party that mistakenly believes that a talk radio show host trumps the people who elected them. Any Dem running against any of these characters has just been given a huge gift. Because of this move by the administration, they now get to position themselves as legitimate representatives of the people, not as a bunch of milquetoast yes-men (and women) worshiping an entertainer. It’s all about 2010.
I think it is right for Gibbs and other White House people to brand the Republicans Limbaughlicans. You can’t ignore these people. That’s what got us into such deep crap in the first place. They are dangerous and need to be marginalized. The best way to do that is shed light on them and anyone who supports them.
‘Are you now, or have you ever been’ someone who openly and deliberately called for the President of the United States to fail?
Sounds good to me. Of course, I would rather just see them strung up.
I’d saw the best way for teh government to deal with Limp-dick is to ignore him, and allow his ‘colleagues’ in the Media to deal with him.
This way, it would then clearly be stated that Rush is NOT a government functionary, but a media talking head, and that his ability to affect National Policy would be limited/viewed in that role. Government functionaries kowtowing to media figures conveys legitimacy they didn’t earn, and don’t deserve.
don’t be afraid of the hot air, and DEFINITELY don’t be afraid to point it out AS hot air
…as a government functionary? Somebody upthread said that Rush only has as much power as Republicans give him, regardless of what Dems do.
Ok, so what do we do if Republicans decide to give him a LOT of power? What if, say, numerous Congressmen and the RNC chair decide to subjugate their own authority and influence to Rush?
Rush does, in fact, lead the Republican Party. Is that something to be ignored?
I tend to agree with Al Giordano
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ugly-and-incendiary
I think the GOP has to rewrite recent history in order to gain back some credibility. You can see it in the “news” nearly every day. “Where is the plan? Wall Street reacts like they should because of the recovery plans ambiguity”, or some such nonsense. They will continue to blame the President, his administration and godless Dems in general for whatever the country’s current ailment is. So, when we can “make hay” by pointing out to the Independents and moderate Republicans how self-serving and absurd the daily offerings of the MSM (like Rush and Co.) truly are, then I think we must. I think many in this country are ready to listen to reason, but sometimes they need a nudge or two to point out what is reasonable.
Quite simply, YES this is a good idea. Look at this way:
Those are the facts.
Gibbs and Emanuel are simply pointing those facts out and linking them together. The longtime leader of the Republican Party hopes that our nation’s economic recovery fails.
It doesn’t look like a waste of time to me, it looks like good policy to bring sunlight onto an area that bears a lot of responsibility for the mess that this nation is in. What, do people think we should decry the yahoo core of the Republican Party, but not say anything about the creator of those yahoos? Ridiculous. If you want to fix a problem, you have to attack the core of the problem.
Yes, it’s time for the nation to face the fact that half of our political system is being run by Rush. Yes, this is a good idea.
I think the Obama guys are just doing the math, as they did in the caucuses when they beat Daou’s candidate even though she was a prohibitive favorite.
Limbaugh and his hostile demagogue brethren were the most powerful weapon in the Rove strategy of polarize and conquer, which worked with increasing effectiveness from 1994’s congressional elections to the “permanent majority” triumphs of 2002 and 2004.
It’s stopped working now – not because we’ve become less polarized, but because the demographics have shifted due to old people dying, young people starting to vote, and a sharp increase in the percentages of minority voters. To say nothing of the fact that the parasite of Reaganomics has started killing its hosts.
Limbaugh, and right wing media in general, however, continue to flourish. They need much less than 51% to make billions, and polarization works even better (for them) when the people you’re polarizing are in the minority. Look how angry and active we all became during the Bush Administration.
Limbaugh is ridiculously successful and he’s continuing to do what made him successful. As it became more and more apparent that the democrats were going to sweep he even made comments about relishing the idea of no longer having to defend the Republicans and being able to go on the attack, as he did in the Clinton years when he rose to prominence.
IN SUMMARY: Limbaugh wants to make money. Rove wants to win elections. Their goals coincided perfectly until 2006. Now, with increasing momentum, their goals have come into sharp conflict. Polarization is now the mortal enemy of the Republican minority. The more concentrated, isolated, and angry their base becomes, the more they will spend on Limbaugh-esque products, but the less likely anyone from the non-base is to join them.
Thus, Emmanuel’s glowing praise of Limbaugh’s role as the leader of the Republican party. He’s helping Limbaugh’s bottom line immensely, and Limbaugh, in turn, is helping the democrats.
You don’t punch down.
Olberman is doing a fine job.
Keep the bare knuckling in the back alleys. If you want to use Rush as the Strawman to knock down, fine, but use the media to fight the media until it’s time to sit astride his beached corpse and claim victory.
I disagree with Daou using his own words. There was a moment when the far right would be passe and that moment is NOW. By elevating Rush, Obama is forcing him out into the open, he and his statements and they are revealed for the hateful, ignorant, twisted rhetoric they are.
And so he presents people a choice: Are you going to go with that, or are you going to try and work with me to fix things?
If the American people really prefer Rush over Obama then as a country we deserve what happens to us. But like with Race, Obama is thinking that forcing people to make that choice will mean they make the adult choice.
I think Daou overestimates Rush’s potential influence on the public. What’s worse, he completely misses El Rushbo’s position within national discourse.
On point one, Limbaugh hardly qualifies as a new or growing media entity (insert fat jokes here). He’s been on the air for twenty years and his audience topped out early in the Clinton Administration. People may like him or hate him, but his name recognition is through the roof. Rush won’t enlist ten million more followers now because Obama’s aides are attacking him.
Next, Daou is right that Limbaugh, Coulter and the like poison the public discourse. But they’re dangerous because the networks and cable channels treat them as sane, “normal” people.
Major network and cable figures have been cozying up to Rush for some time. I recall a Nightline episode on global warming from the mid-’90s that pitted Al Gore against Limbaugh, as if Rush were some expert on climate change. He appeared regularly with Brian Williams on MSNBC’s 2000 election coverage and was treated as some wise old political observer.
Katie Couric took some flak when she began anchoring the CBS Evening News because some of her special segments used topics and talking points from Rush’s site.
By pushing Rush so firmly into the political arena, Obama’s folks have removed him from, and cut him off from the punditocracy. He can no longer back door his talking points into their programs and they no longer can host him as a representative of mainstream thought.
When he appears, he’s guaranteed to be seen as hyper- partisan, which shifts the frame of “mainstream” farther to the left.
Great point, Marvin. I hadn’t seen that by pushing Rush so firmly into the political arena, Obama’s folks have cut him off somewhat from some of the punditocracy, although as I type this, I’m thinkig, yeah, but then why is Karl Rove on teevee as a political commentator?
Obama wins. Let him set up Limbaugh as the opponent. It’s visceral, and visually vivid.
Just the catalog of sound-bites will persuade the anxious center who they would rather run the country. Let everyone hear Rush, and they will choose our guy.
Actually, they already have. This game is over.