Too funny - Steele apologizes to Limbaugh

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:48 am

This is too damn funny! It took exacltly one news cycle for supposed RNC Chair Steele to apologize to the real head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, for his comments to DL Hughley. Not only has Steele effectively reduced himself to figurehead status, but he just proves what Democrats have been saying - Rush is the ideological driving force of the Republican Party, and the master Republicans in Congress will answer to.

If I were a Republican, I would be upset that my party chairman is a hypocritical, self centered, egotistical, narcissistic, drug addicted, bloviating blowhard douchebag whose personal negatives are hurting the party. Rush personally delivered Claire McCaskill's Senate seat in MO in 2006 by his attacks on Michael J Fox, delivering the Senate to the Democrats. Since they answer to Rush now, and not the American people, I predict that in 2010 he will cost them more seats. The ads just write themselves - cue Rush saying "I hope he fails" next to a picture of Congressman/Senator X with the voiceover saying "________ chose to listen to Rush and hopes that America fails. Why do we want someone in office who refuses to listen to their constituients instead of one radio show host?" We will be seeing a lot of those ads accross the country next year.

Robert Gibbs made some great comments about the feud between RNC Chair Steele and Republican Party head Limbaugh. And Obama played Congressional Republicans perfectly in a classic Rope A Dope strategy by forcing them to embrace Druggie Limbaugh.

As a Democrat, I am laughing my ass off at all of this.

Enjoy having Rush as your party leader. ;D

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:06 pm

First, I want to give Slider props as he is consistent in his beliefs and opinions and has no problem standing up for them. YOU GO slider! But then I read this "opinion" article today and I just had to post it in a "point - counterpoint" type of way...

Blaming Rush
By Richard Miller
Author, “In Words and Deeds: Great Speeches in History”

I read with a mixture of amusement and despair the Democrats’ recent announcement that they intended to make talk show host Rush Limbaugh the “face of conservatives.”

It won’t work.

But in fairness to my few liberal friends, I should concede that there is nothing illegitimate about these efforts. Political parties aren’t in the business of bipartisanship or creating even temporary across-the-aisle coalitions.

The historical reason for political parties is to emphasize the differences, not the similarities with the opposition. They must do so in order to retain, increase and exhort members. Moreover, both Republican and Democratic parties do this by putting a face on political evil and then aggressively marketing the symbol.

Thus, Republicans depicted the Age of Bill Clinton as the Age of Laxity in every thing from national security, political corruption and personal morals.

The Democrats, with their meme factories in newspaper cults (now dwindling at a sufficient rate to be termed a cult) and academia, have generally been more successful in hate-marketing. Those of a certain age will recall when the pinched face and high collars of Senator Orrin Hatch was the symbol; he was quickly followed by President Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush and others. All of this matters because without hate marketing to exhort the faithful, contributions slack off. Nothing personal; it’s just business.

The reason why the Democrats’ current campaign against Limbaugh will fail is that he makes a poor target. Unlike earlier villains chosen by Democrats, Limbaugh is not a politician. He’s a private citizen with no governing responsibilities; it is impossible to legitimately attach his name to bills, policies or wars that Democrats may portray as evil or wrong headed. In short, he’s just one man with an opinion, and here, resembles pundits of every political stripe.
Unlike politicians that hold office and govern, Rush Limbaugh may be “turned off” with a switch on the radio.

And what Limbaugh’s selection suggests is that Democrats are running out of blame targets. The Republicans are now a minority in both houses. And as Obama’s failures aggregate into a deepening crisis of confidence the Democrats’ need for villains will increase in an effort to deflect blame.

And this is why I despair. I predict that in opting to campaign rather than govern, the Democrats are likely to spread the blame net far and wide. The result will be uber-polarization more typical of socialist and fascist polities. The stock market not cooperating? Blame capitalists, the banks, the “investor class.”

Not getting your way in the Middle East? Blame Zionists, Christian conservatives, hint darkly at organized “new-conservative” cabals of Jews. Unemployment continuing to rise? Blame employers. I don’t know which of these or other villains are likely to appear, but based on Democratic Party behavior thus far, am certain that blaming Limbaugh is only the beginning.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:09 pm

That is his opinion. However, the very fact that Steele apologized to kiss the ring of Rush shows that he is in fact a figurehead. The fact that NO elected Republican politicians dismiss or repudiate the stupid BS that Rush spouts implies that they agree with him, or are too scared to face him down, less they risj the wrath of the Dittoheads. The fact that there is no leader in the Republican Party who can speak for the Party (Boehner and McConnell are jokes), leaves a leadership vacuum that Rush is only too willing to fill. And the fact that he is such a narcissist, Rush will continue to spout more outrageous BS.

Trust me - having Rush as an enemy will be the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:28 pm

Tom DeLay was now recently quoted as saying that Rush is a role model for Republicans to follow. And Republican House leader Mike Pence has now been quoted as saying that he too wants Obama to fail.

Rush - the gift that keeps on giving.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:39 pm

This whole spat seems to have stemmed from Rush's remarking that he hopes Obama fails. Here's what he's said: "What is so strange about being honest and saying, 'I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?' Why would I want that to succeed?"

I gotta say, IF Obama's mission is to restructure the country so that capitalism and individual liberty aren't foundational, y'all can add me to the list of those hoping he fails. At this point, I can't say for sure what Obama takes his mission to be, so I cannot say with any conviction whether I hope he succeeds or fails. I do hope America and Americans find a way to succeed, regardless of Obama's mission. I will be doing my part, you can rest assured.

This seems like it's been ramped up by the Dems and the White House over the last few days, when in reality what Rush said makes perfect sense. Damn. Never thought I'd see the day where I'd actually know what Rush said or where I'd be defending him. His point is logical, though.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:49 pm

Logical to want the President to fail? Obama vision of America is what people voted for in November. By saying you want Obama to fail, it is tantamount to saying you want America to fail, because if his plans fail, then we all fail. And what Rush said want "I hope he fails." He even repeated that comment at the CPAC convention last weekend.

Could you imagine what the Right Wing Noise Machine would have done to a Democrat who said I Hope Bush Fails?

Republicans should understand this. Remember, anyone who didn't agree with Bush was considered to be a terrorist sympathizer.

At the bare minimum, Rush has effectively emasculated Steele now. Why would any Republican listen to Steele when they know he is not as important as Rush?

And BTW, here is a website to go to if you want to apologize to Rush.

http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

Again, I find this all very funny - and I will continue to find it funny for a long time.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:06 pm

slider, you didn't even read AA's post did you? You as with all your Democratic comrads have taken what's said, put it in a context that works for you are trying to demonize him because you don't know what to do since W. left office and you don't have him to blame everything on. Rush said that he hopes that Obama's policies fail IF they are policies that he is not supportive of.

As was stated in the article I posted, it's normal politics...both sides try to find a villian in the opposing party and you all are purposely putting Rush as that face...thing is, all people have to do is turn off their radios...it will not affect anything one wit what Rush says or does.

Don't tell me for ONE second that you didn't want George W. to fail miserably...I know how happy you are that he did just that (in most people's opinion).

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:07 pm

Yes, logical to want the President to fail IF HIS MISSION IS TO UNDERMINE CAPITALISM OR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. We can't say for sure what his ultimate mission is yet, IMO. His success or failure doesn't necessarily have to directly correlate into America's success or failure--slide you have to remember that America is made up of free individual citizens who don't take their marching orders directly from the Prez's mouth...they are out there thinking on their own and doing their best to succeed even when they feel its an uphill battle against bad policies, etc. People don't sit in their homes doing nothing productive waiting on Obama to tell them what to do, I don't think.

I never considered Bush critics to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. I actually think that if ANY leader is trying to undermine the values of the republic we have an obligation as citizens to fight back against an attack against our liberties.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:13 pm

I understand the DCCC wanting to push this but for anyone within the Obama administration to be a part of this is quite low IMO.

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager last year and a member of his inner circle still, will publish an op-ed in Wednesday’s Washington Post chiding Republicans for being “paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader.”

A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090304/pl_politico/19596

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:27 pm

So much for the Obama administration changing the bullshit politics of this nation. Nope, because now it's their turn, because the American people have said so, and YOU WILL FEEL THE WRATH.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:28 pm

slider, you didn't even read AA's post did you? You as with all your Democratic comrads have taken what's said, put it in a context that works for you are trying to demonize him because you don't know what to do since W. left office and you don't have him to blame everything on. Rush said that he hopes that Obama's policies fail IF they are policies that he is not supportive of.

As was stated in the article I posted, it's normal politics...both sides try to find a villian in the opposing party and you all are purposely putting Rush as that face...thing is, all people have to do is turn off their radios...it will not affect anything one wit what Rush says or does.

Don't tell me for ONE second that you didn't want George W. to fail miserably...I know how happy you are that he did just that (in most people's opinion).

I did not want my country to fail in Iraq, nor did I say as such. I disagreed with his policies but I did not wish the economic collapse that came on his watch to happen. Am I sad for Bush? No. If anything, his failure justified the fact that I didn't vote for him. And As I said both here and and on GC, it gave me no joy in attacking him. I did so because I wanted my country on another path, and as we have seen, his policies have left this country in a weaker position than it was in when he took office. Am I glad he is gone? Yes.

It's one thing to say "I disagree with his policies". Its another to say "I hope he fails". Totally different context. And I tell you what - I bet there are some Republican voters out there who have lost their jobs and hope that Obama succeeds. It is perfectly fair game to ask their representatives why they voted the way they did. And that's the true rub of this - the Republican Party is ideologically bankrupt. They have no new ideas to offer except for the same old and worn out talking points. That is why they are in the position ther are in now.

And yes, you can turn off the radio. However, your Republican Congressmen and Senators still care about what he thinks, and they are showing that they will jump as high as he tells them too. And that does affect you.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:29 pm

Yes, logical to want the President to fail IF HIS MISSION IS TO UNDERMINE CAPITALISM OR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. We can't say for sure what his ultimate mission is yet, IMO. His success or failure doesn't necessarily have to directly correlate into America's success or failure--slide you have to remember that America is made up of free individual citizens who don't take their marching orders directly from the Prez's mouth...they are out there thinking on their own and doing their best to succeed even when they feel its an uphill battle against bad policies, etc. People don't sit in their homes doing nothing productive waiting on Obama to tell them what to do, I don't think.

I never considered Bush critics to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. I actually think that if ANY leader is trying to undermine the values of the republic we have an obligation as citizens to fight back against an attack against our liberties.

You might not have - but there were many who did and said as such. Or did you forget that?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:31 pm

I understand the DCCC wanting to push this but for anyone within the Obama administration to be a part of this is quite low IMO.

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager last year and a member of his inner circle still, will publish an op-ed in Wednesday’s Washington Post chiding Republicans for being “paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader.”

A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090304/pl_politico/19596

And how is that any different than the Bush White House coordinating talking points with Sludge and Fox "News"?

It's brilliant political strategy.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:34 pm

You might not have - but there were many who did and said as such. Or did you forget that?

I haven't forgotten it--it was a retarded argument back then and it's a retarded argument right now. I'm just glad you didn't come back with more bullshit against my obviously valid and correct point. Thanks for that--definitely a pleasant surprise.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:36 pm

And how is that any different than the Bush White House coordinating talking points with Sludge and Fox "News"?

It's brilliant political strategy.

Do as you say, not as you do--got it. If it's brilliant political strategy now and Bush did the same thing, wasn't it brilliant political strategy then? Or are you too wrapped up in the childish political "he said she said" to recognize that connection?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:45 pm

Wow - the venom coming from you. I understood why they did what they did. And maybe two wrongs don't make a right. But if there is one thing Obama has learned from the mistakes of Clinton, its that unilateral disarmament doesn't work. You have to fight fire with fire.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:56 pm

The fact that NO elected Republican politicians dismiss or repudiate the stupid BS that Rush spouts implies that they agree with him, or

or.............could it be that addressing everyone you disagree with lends credence to that persons opinion or ideas?

i 'try' not to address the town idiot whenever i can...i fall short of it most of the time as you can see (not referring to you obviously)

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:59 pm

I understand the DCCC wanting to push this but for anyone within the Obama administration to be a part of this is quite low IMO.

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager last year and a member of his inner circle still, will publish an op-ed in Wednesday’s Washington Post chiding Republicans for being “paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader.”

A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090304/pl_politico/19596

so much for bi-partisanship huh? i am hoping BHO'll put a stop to the nonsense and set the example.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:07 pm

Wow - the venom coming from you.

I'm just tired of responding to your inane arguments only to have you shift the focus elsewhere after I've disemboweled the logic of your position. You'd fit right in with law school kids. Can't ever admit anything, can't see the other side of any argument, can't open your mind to logic. Which is fine, I won't judge how you choose to live your life--but I can't promise I'm going to appreciate it in any rational way.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:09 pm

The fact that NO elected Republican politicians dismiss or repudiate the stupid BS that Rush spouts implies that they agree with him, or

or.............could it be that addressing everyone you disagree with lends credence to that persons opinion or ideas?

i 'try' not to address the town idiot whenever i can...i fall short of it most of the time as you can see (not referring to you obviously)

You are absolutely right - it could lend credence to his opinions or ideas. However, he has a louder megaphone than you do. While it is not fair, for better or worse, the fact that no Republican is repudiating him does speak volumes and it tars all Republicans with a big brush. That is not fair, but that is the perception in the country. It is alienating many voters, especially Independents, who are tired of his schtick.

At the very least, it was cowardly for Steele to apologize. Would you agree with that?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:13 pm

Wow - the venom coming from you.

I'm just tired of responding to your inane arguments only to have you shift the focus elsewhere after I've disemboweled the logic of your position. You'd fit right in with law school kids. Can't ever admit anything, can't see the other side of any argument, can't open your mind to logic. Which is fine, I won't judge how you choose to live your life--but I can't promise I'm going to appreciate it in any rational way.

My inane arguments? Disemboweling my logic? You have an inflated opinion of yourself. At best you have pointed out some areas of disagreement with me. I have commented on good points you have made - you have not done the same, so I wouldn't talk about being open minded if I were you. I would also not use the words inane arguments given some of the things you have posted. Either you don't understand my arguments which I have laid out, or you choose not to. I have made my decisions and have come to my conclusions in a logical manner. If you choose to disagree with me, then that is your opinion.

Besides, aren't you the one who thinks this country is heading down the toilet anyway? Why do you care?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:15 pm

I understand the DCCC wanting to push this but for anyone within the Obama administration to be a part of this is quite low IMO.

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager last year and a member of his inner circle still, will publish an op-ed in Wednesday’s Washington Post chiding Republicans for being “paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader.”

A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090304/pl_politico/19596
so much for bi-partisanship huh? i am hoping BHO'll put a stop to the nonsense and set the example.

Its kind of hard to have bipartisanship when the Republicans have no interest in it.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:17 pm

My inane arguments? Disemboweling my logic? You have an inflated opinion of yourself. At best you have pointed out some areas of disagreement with me. I have commented on good points you have made - you have not done the same, so I wouldn't talk about being open minded if I were you. I would also not use the words inane arguments given some of the things you have posted. Either you don't understand my arguments which I have laid out, or you choose not to. I have made my decisions and have come to my conclusions in a logical manner. If you choose to disagree with me, then that is your opinion.

Besides, aren't you the one who thinks this country is heading down the toilet anyway? Why do you care?

When you make a good argument I'll be sure to let you know.

Let me ask you: do you think I should support a leader whose mission is to undermine capitalism and individual liberty in America?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:29 pm

boehner says this

The fact that NO elected Republican politicians dismiss or repudiate the stupid BS that Rush spouts implies that they agree with him, or

or.............could it be that addressing everyone you disagree with lends credence to that persons opinion or ideas?

i 'try' not to address the town idiot whenever i can...i fall short of it most of the time as you can see (not referring to you obviously)
You are absolutely right - it could lend credence to his opinions or ideas. However, he has a louder megaphone than you do. While it is not fair, for better or worse, the fact that no Republican is repudiating him does speak volumes and it tars all Republicans with a big brush. That is not fair, but that is the perception in the country. It is alienating many voters, especially Independents, who are tired of his schtick.

At the very least, it was cowardly for Steele to apologize. Would you agree with that?

just to update you on this cause you're so fixated on rush limbaugh ironically...boehner has come out and said this 'dustup' is nothing more than a white house originated story designed to take the focus away from the 'spending' bill

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:43 pm

*cough* SO MUCH FOR A NEW BRAND OF POLITICS, HUH OBUSHMA? *cough*

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.

"The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”

The bigger, the better, agreed Carville. “It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”

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