Rush Limbaugh: The Right's Tip O'Neill

I'm sympathetic to Reynolds' argument, but he doesn't back up his points. No specifics, no examples or illustrations. Maybe someone else will offer this, but I haven't seen it so far.

Saying that Limbaugh "made an argument that in our present societal context sounds like a spirited defense of the White Star Line on April 16, 1912" makes sense only if it's clear to everyone that the current economic disaster was a conservative-managed disaster. Maybe it was, but it's far from self-evident, at least to the politically and economically un-astute like me.

Perhaps Reynolds simply assumes, like he says about Rush, that his readers will "get it." And maybe the faithful in both audiences will. I, for one, am left out on both sides.

Obama is a clever man.

I find his tactics these last weeks interesting. He uses Rush to caricature the conservatives. He is entertaining on weekly basis at the White House to charm friend and foe alike. He travels from coast to coast to build and maintain support for himself and his programs. I keep seeing TV ads promoting his agenda for green energy and etc. (and make it look like a grass roots movement?)

Seems the man definitely understands how to manipulate people and utilize propaganda, fear tactics, and other such ilk and illusions. I wish someone would expose his tactics for what they are. Didn't the communists use faux grass roots movements to make their propaganda/agenda look like an idea coming from the populous?

Surely there are play books for this junk? Did Ayers or his such ilk write a book with these tactics? Or Edward Bernays? Is Obama going to run the country as the GREAT community organizer president of the USA. No substance... just great PR?

Another critique/analysis: http://townhall.com/Columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2009/03/02/limbaugh_message_trumps_obama_style?page=full

SjB, as to whom President Obama learned these techniques, you might want to look at Saul Alinsky.

When President Bush was in office, was Rosie O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olberman declared the defacto leader of the Democratic Party? The idea that Rush is our "leader" is coming from the Democrats for the purpose of splitting the conservatives. Interesting, they claim that Republicans have too small a tent, then try to shrink it even more. It appears to be an effective strategy. Rush has been around a long time, why is he a lightning rod now, just when it suits the President and the liberal media?

While I think that we should be careful to not withhold criticism when it is called for, I would entreat conservatives to be careful not to react when the media and the Democratic party demand.

RNC Chair Michael Steele did the right and necessary thing with his statement over the weekend and efforts to put distance between Limbaugh and the conservative movement in general.

Did he do it in hackneyed ebonics? Steele's hardly an improvement. He's Sarah Palin in blackface, really, a person picked more for their identity than for their ability.

At any rate, Eddie hit the nail on the head, you can't complain that the media is making Limbaugh a central figure of conservatism when conservatives give him a central speaking position at one of their most important conferences.

As for Limbaugh's speech, the biggest problem with it is that it could have been given in 1996, and probably was. Worse, he makes no acknowledgement that I could tell of his own dogged support for Dubya and his covering for that administration's screw ups.

Eddie: Rush is the "Leader" because Conservatives grovel before him. Any conservative that repudiates him has to apologize quickly or else.

Those are the facts. They're pesky things, facts are.

Me: I don't see any grovelling taking place. Facts are inconvenient to some, but not to me.

Gina,
I think you, as do many conservatives around here, mistake the mood of your select group of thinkers for the majority of people who vote 'conservative'.
Your conservative world view and their conservative world view could not be further apart.

Much as I disagree with you on nearly everything, I would a thousand times rather deal with you as my political opponent than the sheeple who fall for Limbaugh. But it is they, not you who are guiding the Republican party and it is their vote, not yours and the one or two other rational conservatives left active in the Republican party.

One of the greatest problems with conservatives in general and supporters of the Republicans specifically, has been the lengths you all go to in insisting that you are not in any way, shape or form allied with or working together with 'those' conservatives who got us into these wars and this economic mess.

Sorry, but they are your people, they are from your side and, having isolated yourselves so thoroughly from people like me (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) you have no other political voice except the Republicans and Limbaugh.

Well, ok, maybe Shep on Faux news. I admire his courage.

It appealed to Rush's base, but I fail to see how it went beyond that base. There was no attempt to reason with a broader audience using language that they could understand or would find appealing.

Wow, that's pretty amazing. Rush thrives when putting conservative principles forward. That makes him a bad voice? I'll take principles over party expediency any day.

Re: Too bad Obama couldn't have shown the same guts -- and lent himself to his own "Sister Souljah Moment" -- by openly reigning in Pelosi and Reid.

The equivalent of Limbaugh would be Markos Moulitsas or maybe Al Franken.

The Republican brand has been trashed - by Republicans. Rush is a conservative; an outside-the-Beltway conservative. And, gasp, he wasn't even wearing a tie at CPAC. But he is not Mr. Republican (with apologies to anyone old enough to remember Robert A. Taft).

Michael Steele is a good man, but is an inside-the-Beltway man. Can he rescue the Republican brand? I’m doubtful; he’s not nearly dynamic enough. But it can’t be put on his shoulders. We Republicans have got to field better candidates; people who aren’t beholden to special interests like the Bush family to Saudi oil, or who are earmark kings like Ted Stevens.

Enter Rush Limbaugh, who, as the hackneyed phrase goes, speaks truth to power. Conservative truth in all its plain ugliness. It’s ugly; that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Michael Steele is a good man...

He's certainly good for his sister's business.

I must have missed something here. What aspects of "individual liberty" will be extinguished by "a European-style socialist welfare state" and by what mechanism?

The freedom to earn an income based on what the market will bear, which is rather difficult when there is no market. This situation most prevails in the health care sector.

Now one can be declared “persona non grata” for speaking the truth about Islam and made to leave the country.

A government that controls the means of production will control speech as well.

"Please tell me it's not Danielle Steele."

Even better -- she's Mike Tyson's ex-wife, Monica.

Yes, Eddie, I'm sure.

Grovel:
1: to creep with the face to the ground : crawl2 a: to lie or creep with the body prostrate in token of subservience or abasement b: to abase oneself3: to give oneself over to what is base or unworthy : wallow

What I saw was an apology and an explanation. Rush has no power over Gingrey or Steele. Who does have the power are his listeners.

Rush is the types affable persona that keeps the mass of conservatives
from storming the gates of power. In that he is actually a gift
to leftist and crunchy cons alike. Rush's mantra is "play by the rules and America is the land of opportunity", but I think a more strident conservative would have declared America obsolete by now.

In todays environment conservatism that is not unbearably angry
and resentful is useless as a political force. Conservatism is
as marginalized in the mass media and institutional party politics
as bolshevism was 100 years ago.