Interesting opinion piece by Timothy Egan in the New York Times, Fears of a Clown:
Smarter Republicans know he is not good for them. As the conservative writer David Frum said recently, “If you’re a talk radio host and you have five million who listen and there are 50 million who hate you, you make a nice living. If you’re a Republican party, you’re marginalized.”
You’d think that this rather apt observation would be obvious to everyone…
Limbaugh played his role, ever the fool. A brave Republican could have challenged him, could have had a “have you no shame” moment with him, giving the party some other identity, some spine. Instead, they caved — from Steele, to the leaders in the House, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence, to Gov. Bobby Jindal, who would be ridiculed by Limbaugh for his real first name, Piyush, were he a Democrat.
I’ve been saying the same thing–well, with respect to Governor “Bobby” Jindal–if he were a democrat, he’d be Piyush and ridiculed for it. But, as a Republican, he’s “Bobby” and not ridiculed (even for the shit he should be fucking ridiculed for! e.g., Intelligent Design, excorcism, etc.).
6 Comments
I can't pretend to understand the appeal of Limbaugh, but I am not so sure that he really isn't good for the party. Unless they end up making a major change in their platform (which I doubt will happen), he will likely continue to bring them votes.
Ditto. hehe. I'm not saying he's not good for the Republican party, I'd have to agree that he is, especially as the traditional Republican "conservatism" of Goldwater (and even Reagan) moves more and more towards "religious conservatism" and fundamentalist Christian extremism. No, I just think it's interesting that his appeal within the party isn't quite as universal as he or his devotees assert, even among his fellow conservatives, like David Frum, (a speechwriter in the Bush administration). But of course, anyone who disagrees with Rush cannot be a "real" conservative (and doesn't that argument sound familiar?).
I also find it interesting and revealing that, so far as he or his devotees are concerned, it's quite alright for Rush to betray the same hypocrisy that he so stringently bemoans in those who disagree with him. And, having been born and raised in Louisisana, the writer's Jindal observation really caught my eye.
try 20+ million listeners. A phenomenon most detractors of conservatism all fail to grasp is that of like minded individuals coming to simmilar conclusions sans-cult-like-personality to lead them. Rush only has a loud voice because he says things that many millions agree with. The play to "embarass" conservatives by nominating him as their spokesman will back fire worse than "yankee doodle" did during the revolution. I understand the need for both "true believers" and "evangelists", Rush is clearly limited to the former role. Just the same, the Replican party needs to shed the non conservatives and many of the neoconservatives it has picked up like lice before if can start to evangelize and attract new recruits. Rush is the right person with the right voice at the right time. later we will need something different, but at this point in time he IS the medicine.
Thanks for the comment, Greg. Those are some interesting opinions, and I can't say that I necessarily disagree with most of them. My opinion, however, is that wearing the badge of the "evangelist" does not and should not entitle one to engage in the very behavior he so actively decries in those who hold differing opinions. I mean, honesty and forthrightness are two of the many hallmarks of conservatism, no?
And, assuming your number is correct, thanks for pointing out the error of conservative writer David Flum in stating the size of Rush's audience. Of course, if Rush is right, he'd be no less right if he had only 20 listeners, and if he's wrong, he'd be no less wrong with billions of listeners, wouldn't you agree? I mean, at one time, every living person on our planet genuinely believed that the Earth was flat…
I can't quite see Rush Limbaugh as an actual conservative. The Fox News transcript of his CPAC speech has him confusing the Constitution of the United States with the Declaration of Independence. That's reprehensible for a Republican, let alone a Republican political commentator. Chuck the brute out!
Yeah, I bet a lot of people either chuckled or grimaced at that one! Of course, while he probably just misspoke–we've all done it–it is precisely the sort of thing Rush would jump all over if the speaker were someone with whom he disagreed…