Is limbaugh the intellectual force of the Republican party?

Emanuel says limbaugh is the intellectual force in the Republican Party....that is pretty low.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

limbaugh is the guy you said that the intellect of women is tied to the size for their breasts, and the sad part is the guy was serious...citing a non existent study. Is it any wonder why limbaugh followers are so whacko?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would like to see Rush Limbaugh say that to Ann Coulter. I'd pay for those ringside seats

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think democrats are more obsessed with Rush L.than republicans are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Me too Liebling.

Clustering did you watch his performance at CPAC? The crowd loved limbaugh. And CPAC is where all the stalwart Republicans hang out...those are the folks that make the party work.

 

I did too. But those were the days when he was just picking on the Dems for the stupid things they did. Then he took it a step further and decided to be the voice of conservatism....and that was a step too far for the dude. He does not have the intellectual capacity required for that leap.

 

They are, but they also represent the whole of the party about as much as, say, the people at a DailyKos convention represent the Dems. CPAC is full of wackos, but what it shows is how partisan and myopic the insiders are. The rank and file voters would be shocked by CPAC. I know I was.

 

They sure do swallow the Party line, pray up and vote according to CPAC instructions.

Seems to be difficult to get the news to the rank and file, for some reason.

To the Reps, and most self-described independents, he's just there - ordinary reality. You might as well be excited about grass growing in the lawn.

Of course the single most influential media political commenter in the English language spends his full time spreading garbage, lies, stupidities, and propaganda designed to damage the enemies of the corporate right, and further a fascist agenda for the corporate ruling class.

And of course every issue, every political dealing, in the US is at least partly framed by his language and approach, and must answer to or spend serious resources overcoming, his influence.

That's status quo.

 

That's because you're not trying -- or don't care to try, given your obvious bias (all Republicans are EVIL). Sure, there is some similarity between party platform and the warped version of ideology on display at CPAC, but the likeness isn't striking, believe me.

If you think I'm wrong, you should consider how disappointed conservatives have been with their candidates and elected officials in the past six to eight years. The 2006 election, in part, came about because Republican voters either stayed at home or voted against incompetent incumbents. You got a little bit of more of the same in 2008.

Anecdotal, I've been to CPAC -- with Republicans, many of whom shuddered. I've talked to the patrons, vendors and speakers there. Any place where Tom Delay, G. Gordon Liddy and Anne Coulter are welcomed like rock stars is representative of noting beyond the wing-nut world you like to talk about. The difference is, as is the case on the Left, the wing-nuts are not terribly representative of the rank and file voters who support the party (I doubt a Daily Kos convention represents the people who voted for Obama, for example). This is the problem with American politics in general, I think. That is, its been captured by the Elite and by those who care too much. The people who populate these events tend to be a little off.

 

And if you think I'm wrong, you should consider how regularly that little dance of election and betrayal has played out, from Nixon to W.

And how powerful the beneficiaries of the scam became over the years.

Or as noted:

Limbaugh remains where so many - Haggard, Abramoff, Coulter, Rove, Norquist, the PNAC crowd, Delay, - have sort of, well, shit happens. Guys like Brit Hume are still around, Dobson, but in a sense Limbaugh is the last blowhard with national wind in him. Too bad Palin hadn't read enough to fake it.

So now a former mainstream Republican Congressional leader, the single best selling non-religious conservative author, and a loyal member of Nixon's administration now born-again popular radio host, are dismissed as some kind of fringe figures with only wingnut appeal?

Back when people like me were referring to Tom Delay as fringe, and complaining about the fascist takeover of the Republican Party, IIRC we didn't get a whole lot of agreement from the self-appointed speakers for the rank and file.

 

I'm not sure know exactly what this interesting piece of prose even means, but "that little dance" -- promise and anger -- exists for both sides or one party would always be in power.

Yes, they are. The fact you don't think so doesn't some how make them indicative of something you despise. We have you in other threads talking about people -- Republicans even -- matching up with Paul's ideology. Now we have you saying they fall in line behind this trio? I don't think so. . .

Tom Delay came from a district in Texas that no more represents America than Nancy Pelosi's. Interestingly enough, I've argue Pelosi isn't indicative of her party, either. But there you have it. Our political system. It rewards people who stay in power for long periods of time and accumulate favors and chits. Delay left office in disgrace and you didn't see anyone but the hardliners --Ralph Reed, another wacko -- trying to find something nice to say about him. CPAC likes him because it's more in the Reed mold, which is my point. Your rank and file don't.

Coulter is much more popular with the average Republican voter, but even they don't hold views that match up with hers. Most of this probably has to do with Ann just saying things to sell books (and even if she sells a million, that means 1 out of, what? Every 50 or so people who voted for McCain might have bought it?) I put her popularity down to her looks and her hyperbole, something you know all about. Nobody -- that is, nobody but the CPAC crowd -- on the right takes her seriously.

Liddy's case is cut and dried. He's a crook, and outside CPAC, where people think Nixon got a raw deal, he's thought of as such. The man may have a radio show, but so what? Its listened to by about as many people as listen to Air America -- and its about as influential.

Regardless, you typical attempt to broad-brush everyone is just that. It's not my place to try to divorce you from your illusions, but at some point you may want to do it yourself. Personally, I don't care. And I'm not going to argue with you. It's not worth it. You're not worth it. But I've been to CPAC, seen how it works. This is a place still pining for Romney, a place that actually thought George Allen could be president. It is, in other words, totally divorced from reality. If you want to hold on to your dear illusion that this represents the party you hate, then do it. I just thought other people should have a more realistic assessment.

You throw the word fascist around a lot, and frankly, I'm sick of it. But then everything right of your warped worldview is "wingnut" or "authoritarian" or "fascist." I'm particularly fond of the middle term, as I'm not certain it's possible to govern at all without being, to some degree, "authoritarian," but whatever, Ice. As I mentioned above. I'm not here to divorce you from your kooky illusions. And I've given up trying to have an actual conversation with you.

 

But they voted for his approved candidates - the ones he approved and backed, in Congressional districts nationwide, sometimes going so far as to run primary candidates against incumbent Republicans he disfavored.

And they voted for W, twice.

So as observed, the news of Delay's fringe status seems to have had a hard time getting to the rank and file.

Over 2 million in hardcover books alone - and that's just among the Republican voters who read books

Not as sick as I am of the political cadre it describes. We should live to see the day when the word is not of daily use in discussing US politics - after a massive reorganization of the Reps, say.
[

The entire US government barring a handful of Congressmen and some judges is rightwing authoritarian. That is where LImbaugh comes in - because most Americans tend to be more leftwing and libertarian. Limbaugh herds voters. Intellectual leadership.

And in breaking news the latest Republican official to find himself apologizing to the boss, RNC chair Michael Steele, regrets the misunderstanding: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html

 

Who Delay backed and who he didn't is hardly the point. The people voting likely didn't know. And sure, you could argue that doesn't matter, too, because they were backing his ideology unwittingly. I'd grant that -- if there weren't other circumstances involved, such as a War on Terror and a floundering Democratic Party.

I'm not sure, but I think if you go back and look, W. was probably not heralded by the CPAC crowd. They hated his old man, hated his brother.

Again, these are people who were lining up last year to see Mitt Romney a few hours before he dropped out of the race due to a lack of interest. To me, this is a very clear indication that the convention-goers were totally out of step with where the rest of the party was headed. And they generally are. Again, George Allen.

You're assuming their all Republicans and all voters. As for all her book sales, they amount to less than what Jon Stewart or Al Gore commanded, and I've yet to see either of them have a real impact on the Democratic Party. I mean, if you can find me something that shows how Coulter influenced something, I might concede part of your point, but I think Coulter is largely a phenom of the news cycle. People in the beltway with actual power don't take her seriously.

The only people using it on a daily basis are you and people of your ilk. This doesn't make it commonplace. The branch you live at the edge of is very long and very narrow and the people living on the other branches don't typically pay that much attention to you.

He doesn't want to tussle with a man who has three hours of air-time each day? Yes, what an idiot. I think this speaks more to Rush's media presence than anything else, but nonetheless, I'm willing to concede that the fat man with the cigar and pills is far more important to the party you love to hate than anything that happens at CPAC, where people talk about doing away with income taxes, Hillary as communist and machine gun rights.

 

The point is that Delay was not a fringe player in the Republican Party. He was a central and powerful broker, nationally as well as in the House itself.

Easy enough to check:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200002/ai_n8899208/pg_9?tag=content;col1

McCain was the big enemy, W took a plurality of the straw poll,

W was the CPAC preferred candidate in 2000, with the more generally popular McCain CPAC's enemy, and the rest of the them (Keyes, Forbes, etc) in between. The CPAC convention in 2000 featured Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham, Barbara Comstock, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, and W's longtime acquaintance and supporter (the major force behind the "Death Tax" and priviatizing SS campaigns, as well as possibly the major lobbyist backing the Pharma interest in W's Medicare innovations) Jim Martin of 60 Plus.

Not exactly a fringe group, and many close connections with what proved to be the incoming administration.

You started it - I was just correcting your numbers.

Accurate describers, you mean. We are few, is it? And therefore wrong, of course, in the reality free world of political Argument Deco.

So Rush is not that important because all he has is media presence, and Delay was not that important because all he had was backroom power.

And the betrayed conservatives remain puzzled - how did they end up voting for these guys?

 

Rush Limbaugh is only liked by the extreme right and super conservatives, the rest of the world sees him as just another media clown that is used by many to poke fun at. While he does have some very solid facts, most of his views lean to far one way to get the majority of the conservatives to follow him.

 

Steele apologizes to Limbaugh!! It didn't take long...less than a month. Steele said Limbaugh was wrong to call for Obama to fail. And now Steele is apologizing to the limbaugh.

Even the chairman of the GOP cow-tows to limbaugh. It is now clear who is the leader of the Republican Party.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxDhf3ih3pg3s69ZTdvps4KpU10gD96MB5500

 

I never meant to imply Delay was a fringe player in the party. He obviously wasn't. My intention was to argue that he does represent the majority of the rank and file in the party, hence his popularity with the fringe CPAC crowd even to this day. Representing the fringe elite inside the beltway and being picked to run the House, an honor that has little to do with mainstream acceptance (see Pelosi) and everything to do with power under the Dome, does not mean you are the representative of the rank and file. If you're looking for a theme, it's that both parties are totally disconnected from the people that vote for them. Delay or Pelosi -- neither represent the Left or the Right very well.

OK. CPAC liked Bush. That surprises me. The rest of the poll makes my point for me. Keyes and Forbes? Here are two people polling well ahead of a man who nearly became president -- twice. Both these guys are fringe wackos who could never get elected president. So yeah, CPAC is way out there. Not in touch with reality. Heck, when I was there last year, McCain was booed and hissed at.

It's not who goes to CPAC that's in power that matters, because any Republican who wants to get anywhere in politics goes, it's about the people who attend CPAC and are lobbying there. These are the fringe right of the party. The way out-there's.

Again, I'm not here to divorce you of your illusions. If you want to sit around and think you are right all the time and everyone else is wrong, that's your business. I don't care. Personally, I've seen you be wrong numerous times on this site, and demonstrably so. But whatever. It's your myopia. Not mine.

I never said that. I simply pointed out that Steele made a smart decision. Don't argue with someone who buys airtime by the hour or ink by the barrel. Surely, you have heard this maxim? As for Delay, I don't even know what you're talking about.

Same way Democrats ended up with the boobs they have put in power over the years: It's a system that is setup by the fringe and largely controlled by the fringe. My point is not disputing that. All I am saying is that CPAC does not represent the rank and file.

 

There is no Democratic Party equivalent to CPAC, and no leftist equivalent to the K Street lobbying crowd or the conglomeration of rightwing "think tanks".

But CPAC's approved candidates have represented and do represent the rank and file, in physical fact. W, not McCain, for example, represented the Republican rank and file in the Presidency for eight years. By represent I mean they voted for him, and he served in office as their representative.

Likewise Tom Delay, Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, Mitch McConnel, and so forth. Most of the Republican House and Senate since Reagan, and especially since '94, has been Gingrich approved, Delay approved, Limbaugh approved, wingnut approved, band of brothers and Party loyalists.

And CPAC organizers' approved causes have represented and do represent a major share of the legislative efforts and issues of the United States - Jim Martin's three major areas of concern in 2000 (pharmaceutical pricing protection, repeal of estate taxes, privatization of SS), for example, were given lots of legislative attention and made significant progress in the subsequent years, and were not relegated to the wingnut fringe where they belonged.

The fact that the leadership had to round up the Christians from the hinterlands for the mass vote is the only complication (if it is one). "Otherwise" (or "withwise") you have a straight fascist takeover with CPAC's organizational backing as a major component of the "intellectual" aspect - stereotypical.

 

First, we see that this sudden elevation of Limbaugh has some rather calculated and ugly political dimensions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

This is about what I expect from Begalia and Emmanuel, but Obama? I thought he was above all this? Apparently, not . . .

Ridiculous. The fact the equivalent are more diversified in no way, shape or form means they do not exist. Go to DC. Democrat think-tanks abound. K Street used to be owned by Democrats, and it soon will be again (lobbyists lobby to whomever is in power).

Again, I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions. You see all this as fascist and as representative of the people who call themselves Republicans. That's fine. It's your opinion -- and not a very valuable one, if you ask me. Your inability to objectively look at Republicans and your often demonstrated habit of dubbing anyone who doesn't share your Leftist, fringe point of view as "authoritarian" and "rightwing" and "fascist" makes your political assessments pretty useless, in my book.

 

With words like these, I would hardly define him as anything even relating to "intellectual".

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." --on an ad by Michael J. Fox endorsing Claire McCaskill for Senate for supporting embryonic stem cell research.

"And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." --on the 2006 Ohio Senate primary race involving then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is white.

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."


"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

"They oughtta change Black History Month to Black Progress Month and start measuring it."

"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."

"There are more acres of forestland in America today than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492."

"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares."

"And one of the things that -- that the -- the
AIDS activists said regularly back then was, oh,
this is only a matter of time before it spreads to
the heterosexual community. It's only a matter of time.
And they used that as -- as one of the weapons to try
to get people like Reagan to start talking about it
from their standpoint. And of course it -- it hasn't.
It -- it didn't, and it hasn't, other than in Africa,
and in Africa it is -- it is being spread not just by
-- it -- it -- it's promiscuity that -- that -- that
spreads this, if you want to know the truth.
It's promiscuity.
But it -- it hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual
community."
June 9, 2004 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show