PDA

View Full Version : Rush - The Great Right Hope?



The Bare Knuckled Pundit
03-11-2009, 11:32 AM
Back in the day, when someone asked if you’d heard the latest from Rush, it immediately conjured up visions of the legendary power rock band from Canada. The same question today, though, is more likely to evoke images of a mercurial and wily Conservative talk radio host than the talented trio from the Great White North.

Where once the reply would have been, “Do they have a new record out”, today it’s “What’d he say now?!”

Of course, I’m referring to Rush Limbaugh, he whose talent is on loan from God.

The self-styled voice of Conservatism and a consummate self-promoter, Rush has selflessly stepped forward to defend the movement and its principals from the unmitigated assault he sees emanating from the White House and the Obama administration.

Rallying the faithful at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Rush launched into a blistering tour de force that has propelled his exposure and ego back to the heady days of the Clinton era when he was the face of the “Great Right Wing Conspiracy”. In the process, he has unwittingly given the President and the White House priceless political cover by becoming the story itself, instead of commenting on it.

Don’t get me wrong. Rush is an intellectual and ideological powerhouse of the first magnitude. In truth, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and legions of authors, pundits and talk show hosts across the nation owe their success in no small part to Rush’s indefatigable and dogged efforts.

However, at this point not only is he rallying the faithful among the Conservative ranks, he is also doing it among the devoutly Liberal. He inspires unrivaled passion and fury in both camps; one in support and the other opposition.

The question on the minds of many is - How did this come to pass?

The answer lies in two parts really. And both are relatively easy to understand.

First, politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

There is currently a power vacuum in the Conservative movement and the Republican Party. Rush, with his weekly audience of 16 million-plus loyal listeners, his reputation and influence among Conservatives generally speaking and his zeal for political combat – however personal it may become – is naturally positioned to fill that void.

Many would naturally look to the leadership of the Republican Party and the Chairman in particular to step into the breach. While Michael Steele’s taking the helm at the Republican National Committee was greeted with great expectation and hope, he has to date been disjointed and incoherent at best and a bitter disappointment at worst.

More than a month into his term, Steele’s executive staff lacks a chief of staff, a political director, a finance director or a communications director. So long as these critical elements of his staff are missing, his effectiveness will remain chronically crippled.

In addition to offending and then subsequently kowtowing to Rush after the Conservative icon dressed him down on-air and condemned him to the children’s table of the movement, Steele has made repeated and highly embarrassing public gaffes that have left many Republicans nervous and questioning his ability to lead the Party organizationally, much less philosophically out of the political wilderness.

That being the case, in the absence of any other credible and substantive contender, Rush is the de facto face of Conservatism and the loyal opposition for the time being. Controlling the largest bullhorn in the movement, with the White House, its Liberal base and the cable news networks eagerly awaiting his show each day and the target de jour of his scathing wit and analysis; this will remain so for some time to come.

The second part of the answer can be found in the preferences of the White House and its’ supporters.

Instead of having to defend the President’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget and projected $1.17 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2010, the White House and Liberal stalwarts like Paul Begala and James Carville are more than happy to play up Rush’s latest diatribe. They delight in highlighting the internecine warfare that is part and parcel of a political party wandering in the wilderness in search of direction, purpose and leadership. In the process, they have succeeded in transforming the debate into a clash of personalities and not ideas. Substance has been sacrificed for style as discussion of the nation’s future degenerates into the political equivalent of pro wrestling.

While the outcome may be unknown at this point, what is certain is that it will not be Rush in the cage match for the title come November, 2012. While I have no doubt he’ll be at ring side loudly cheering on the President’s opponent, it will ultimately be someone else hitting the political mat and looking for the three count that John McCain never came close to sealing last November. The sooner the Republican Party can develop a staple of legitimate contenders to challenge for the belt, the better off they and the nation will be.

In the meantime, Rush is gonna run wild on the Obama-maniacs, faithful readers! Oooohh yeeeeaahhh!!!

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant, the Republican Royal Rumble rises to a fevered pitch and the White House continues to benefit from a loyal opposition that is disjointed and leaderless.

Jagger
03-11-2009, 11:44 AM
Rush Limbaugh is a traitor who wants the President's efforts to combat terrorism to fail. He's a traitor. He should be hanged.

Nukeman
03-11-2009, 12:59 PM
Rush Limbaugh is a traitor who wants the President's efforts to combat terrorism to fail. He's a traitor. He should be hanged.
How did YOU feel about Bush's programs to deal with terrorist??? I only ask because if you didn't agree with them we could always try you for treason. I mean after all you weren't agree with the president and if that is all it takes with your great messiah than it should be retroactive to include all past presidents........

What exactly has Rush done that is traitorist????? could you please tell us!!!!

MtnBiker
03-11-2009, 03:46 PM
Jagger is an clearly a supporter of the US Constitution and especially the first admendment.

crin63
03-11-2009, 03:47 PM
Rush Limbaugh is a traitor who wants the President's efforts to combat terrorism to fail. He's a traitor. He should be hanged.

Rush was mocking Harry Reid, when Reid said that the war was lost in Iraq and he was in reference to Obama's war on the economy. I realize finding out the actual context of what Rush actually is never used by Libs but you might try it some time.

Jagger
03-11-2009, 04:56 PM
Rush was mocking Harry ReidLimbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/20/limbaugh-obama-fail/

Jagger
03-11-2009, 04:59 PM
Jagger is an clearly a supporter of the US Constitution and especially the first admendment.

The Constitution allows us to hang traitors like Limbaugh who want our President to fail.

Jagger
03-11-2009, 05:02 PM
How did YOU feel about Bush's programs to deal with terrorist? I thought he was a stupid coward for not sending in American troops to keep Bin Ladin from escaping into Pakistan.

Kathianne
03-11-2009, 05:02 PM
Sounds familiar, though different:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/


On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

Yurt
03-11-2009, 05:02 PM
The Constitution allows us to hang traitors like Limbaugh who want our President to fail.

liar

Yurt
03-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Sounds familiar, though different:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/

i'm sure jagger will show us that he is not about party over country when he calls for carville's execution and 51 percent of the dems polled 2006...i'm sure he will call for them to be hung

Kathianne
03-11-2009, 05:10 PM
i'm sure jagger will show us that he is not about party over country when he calls for carville's execution and 51 percent of the dems polled 2006...i'm sure he will call for them to be hung

Indeed! :beer:

Nukeman
03-11-2009, 06:23 PM
I thought he was a stupid coward for not sending in American troops to keep Bin Ladin from escaping into Pakistan.

So are you willing to give Clinton a pass for passing up the opportunity to nab Osama on 3-4 different occasions??

Are you also willing to hang James Carville for stating tat he "hoped Bush fails" as well.. Or are you willing to give them a pass????...