Whose party is it, anyway?
The new RNC chairman Michael Steele got into a smackdown with Rush Limbaugh over who is the de facto leader of the GOP. Guess who backed down?
Mr. Steele bristled after a questioner on CNN referred to Mr. Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican Party on Saturday.
“No he’s not – I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party,” Mr. Steele responded.
“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” he said. “Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary, yes, it’s ugly.”
Mr. Steele told Politico on Monday that he had called Mr. Limbaugh to apologize.
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Mr. Steele told The Politico. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
Oh dear.
Somebody on The Daily Dish suggested Rush Limbaugh for president in ’12 with Sara Palin for vice president.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Who’s your daddy?
I had a feeling that wouldn’t last long.
His statements were correct – what a wimp.
Rush, with the (virulent) power of his talk radio has the entire GOP cowed – they are all scared expetiveless of him.
That’s the sad truth of the somewhat laughable bipartisan lines some get off.
The sneering responses here reminds me of conservative sneering responses to moveon.org, such as its ad “General Petreaus betray us.”
Too bad, because this episode could provide an opportunity to analyze the current state of the GOP in relation to Rush Limbaugh. Not to say efforts from Democrats to portray the GOP and Limbaugh a certain way, such as “Party of No” ad as reported in the NYT link above. Obama may want to reach his hands across the aisle, but there obstructionist work from all sides, not just some GOPers.
I placed too much hope on this and a few other blogs. I’d like to think it’s not the posters but the medium, and may have to join another poster (John Page?) in saying this medium is beyond me.
Historyman, I certainly hope you’ll hang around. I don’t understand the sensitivty–this episode is rather comical, but sad, too, and does reflect on the state of the GOP and the conservative movement. I think everyone would like a serious conservative movement and strong GOP. This episode is about GOP in-fighting and self-inflicted wounds, not about something caused from the outside.
Historyman –
If I thought that the GOP had nothing to offer I wouldn’t read The Daily Dish.
So I second David Gibson’s proposal — do stick around.
Sticking out one’s hand in cooperation will be a short-lived exercise if said hand is constantly slapped away, ignored, spat upon and subject to being burned.
Obama has a country to lead, with or without the cooperation of that smaller, sadder, bitter, ineffective, whining remnant of the Republican party.
They remind me of the little boy who takes his ball and pouts in the corner because the rest of the team won’t play the game he wants it to be played.
People keep conflating the GOP and the conservative movement – they are not the same thing. But regarding the conservative movement, there is no leader, de facto or otherwise, as there is no monolithic conservative movement such as exists with its counterpart on the left. Rush represents a mixture of egotism and a conservative populism but to actually give any serious consideration to the reelection campaign rhetoric of Messrs. Axlerod and Gibbs that Rush is some sort of leader of both a fictional monolithic conservative movement and the GOP is absurd. I mean, do people really believe that if only Rush was silenced the conservatives would just suddenly agree that we should borrow $6 trillion dollars from Red China this calendar year to double the size of federal government, propter se, and nearly double the public debt (in a year, btw – it took Bush 8 to accomplish that feat) on the heads of our children and grandchildren? I am not an expert, but I do not think it is because of Rush Limbaugh this opposition exists. Rush has been a go-to scapegoat for the Democratic Party stretching back to the Clinton administration when they accusing him of creating the conditions which led to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. That being said, this is all very smart reelection politics for the ruling party; they have taken the ignoratio elenchi to its pinnacle of perfection and to extraordinary electoral and rhetorical effect.
Now, I don’t know if it is appropriate for this forum, but to people who have any interest in the conservative movement other than seeing its destruction there are several print and internet publications which tend to be far more reflective of its leadership which would include The National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Times, and Human Events. That being said, there is no doubt the conservative movement is very top-heavy with talk radio talent as a counterbalance to all of the television, print, and film media dominance of the left. Some conservatives, as mentioned by Jonah Goldberg today in the LA Times and others elsewhere, think this so-called “lowbrow conservatism” gives the impression that, in Goldberg’s words, “the right is deficient in other areas and adding to the shrillness of public discourse.” He probably has a point, but I would counter there is no other option. Conservatives are not going to be reasserting themselves in the Academy anytime soon, especially not in journalism or film departments, and just cannot conceivably compete with the control over television news, the metropolitan newspapers, and film which the liberals have a monopoly on. It is probably in the best interests of the movement to take the scapegoating and stand by their man, In the long-run it will pay off via a smaller but more principled opposition philosophy.
MAT: I don’t think this is a simple case of the left trying to discredit the right. No, conservatism is not limited to the GOP. But the GOP is the conservative movement’s loudest voice and most likely path to active participation in politics. So it’s troubling that Republican politicians, and the man just elected to lead the GOP, feel the need to grovel and beg forgiveness any time they express distaste for, or distance themselves from, Rush Limbaugh. Their careers shouldn’t depend on their willingness to kiss Limbaugh’s hem, and if they are mainly concerned with staying on his good side they can’t be a productive or respectable opposition party. Plenty of serious conservatives (some writing in publications like the ones you mention) are dismayed to see Rush treating Steele et al. like lap dogs, because they know it’s bad for the party and bad for conservatism.
Posters here may enjoy excavating the comments on last night’s Newshour (March 3) about the future of the Republican Party with Vin Weber and Grover Norquist; Judy Woodruff presiding. I would value an exegesis from a true red conservative and a true red Republican. Sorry I don’t know how to post videos. But its PBS Newshour, etc.
Margaret, I watched that segment, too, and I thought Weber and Norquist did a good job laying out the various strands of conservatism within the GOP, and both of them took the tack that Rush is just one of many voices within the conservative movement. I was sorry they didn’t take time to plug the publications MAT provided above, which offer thoughtful commentary and reporting. Rush more or less steals those ideas and then pumps them up with volume, hyperbole and personal attack. Which I suppose is why a lot of conservatives are afraid to cross him.
I thought Norquist’s comments about Bush striking. He called that administration something like millstone (can’t remember the exact words, “dead anchor”?), criticized its spending policies, and now calls for the GOP to start getting spending under control and curb regulations. A bit rich since I don’t remember Norquist ever publicly criticizing President Bush for driving the national debt up.
Always so much easier to take the opposition for the good of the nation when your own guy isn’t in power.
On the other hand, I share the general concerns of some conservatives about the haste (and possible waste) in the Obama stimulus plan and the rise in the national debt. Some of the assistance in the bill strikes me as being spread too wide or too thin. For instance, those on unemployment will receive $25 more per week.
Raber was on unemployment three years ago, and I can’t honestly say that $25 a week wouldn’t have been a make-or-break amount (you can get that much selling blood plasma, which we used to do in grad school days for movie money). That part of the package might have been better saved or rolled into an extension of unemployment or into a fund for those willing to relocate to find work.
But nobody called me to ask for advice. They never do. Sigh.
Ooops, I mean “I can honestly say that $25 wouldn’t have made much difference to us.” Got tied up in my own negatives …
Jean, read the following, for what I think is a very perceptive analysis of the “debt” issue by someone who is not reflexively liberal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303321.html
As for Rush, if Republicans don’t look at him as their leader, they should stop treating him as their leader, and stop calling him their leader (Jindal), and in general, should just stick to the message that he is one of many voices, and otherwise remain silent rather than being goaded into foolish responses that they then have to backtrack from.
Thanks Barbara, the Pearlstein column is illuminating.
About the Weber-Norquist discussion. I was reminded that the consevative movement and the Republican party are two different, but overlapping entities. I knew that, but hadn’t thought about it in a while. That may explain why Weber was careful not to criticize Bush and those deficits, while Norquist went after both.
Sorry, that was Gwen Ifil presiding; it’s hard to tell her and Judy Woodruff apart. And David G. has posted a link to the show way, way above.
David Gibson and Ann Olivier: Thanks for your kind words. Be assured that it wasn’t oversensitivity on my part. Like many things in life, political blogs aren’t for the thin-skinned or Keatsian type.
I probably placed too much expectation on the medium and should recognize instead that each blog/forum/listserv has its own characteristics. In my online experience (admittedly limited), the best debates seem to come from people on the same side arguing about their own side. For example, conservatives debating Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers. Or more recently, Sarah Palin as VP candidate. With the dominance of the Democratic Party, I think that the most illuminating debates and discussions about Obama and the Democratic Congress will come from liberals rather than conservatives. I’ll look forward to hear them.
Finally, as an observer of the Internet Revolution, I think one of the novel characteristic about blogs/forums/listservs is that posting is neither writing nor speaking but, usually, something in between. I haven’t seen the latest edition of Emily Post or Miss Manners, but wouldn’t be surprised that there were a section about Internet etiquette and all that jazz. This is something common to all blogs, not just dotCommonweal. The medium is changing our modes of communication, and we are sorting them out as we go.
Historyman, toughen up your hide. We’ve had discussions about Netiquette on here before, but they do no good. People tend to be brief, which makes them sound blunt. Or they believe they’re plugged in to the Truth direct from the Almighty, and they’re not going to apologize for broadcasting it.
If you stay on here long enough, you’ll eventually start getting offline messages from people who think you’re morbid, people who want to give you advice to help you be a good Catholic (instead of the bad Catholic you are), shaming you for being short with them, and la la la. I can’t say these folks didn’t have their points–I am a pessimist, a bad Catholic, and I can be extremely sarcastic.
The blogosphere is what it is, and f you can’t take the heat, you’re better off starting up a decorous correspondence with people who agree with you all the time.
And I mean that in the nicest possible way.