ecoli Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 This is more of a great quote than it is political humor, but it warranted sharing. "The vacuum in Republican leadership has allowed a mean-spirited, lard-ass talk radio mind-corpse to become de facto leader... which is turning an already crippled party into a bickering laughing stock." ~Stephen Colbert referring to Rush Limbaugh This is what I don't get... the only people I've seen claiming that Limbaugh is the "leader" of a political party is liberals. Secondly, he spoke at CPAC, a conference that's not officially aligned with the GOP. Exactly which political party is El Rushbo leading here? None that I can tell. Sorry I know it's off topic (contemplating a split) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Sorry I know it's off topic (contemplating a split) Yes, please do if you wish to continue. After all, this IS the humor section. I would be more than willing to support my position using video and news clips of republicans and other non-liberals asserting Rush's leadership to show how incredulity alone is not a strong enough argument to support the sentiment of your post... To demonstrate that it is, in fact, true that Rush is being widely acclaimed as the current party leader... but only in a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Because he's attracting way too much attention these days. Even the president has been getting in on the action. http://www.democrats.org/index.html Love him or hate him, he's laughing all the way to the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 He always has. One of things I still enjoy about Rush is his demonstration of attitude and how it effects others. That's about all I can admire about him anymore, other than his comfort in standing against popular opinion. He absolutely loves saying things that he knows people will misunderstand - by their own fault due to their biases. Like, "Talent on loan from god". People think that's an ego statement. He enjoys how that line sets people off. Rather than clarify, they assume he's ascending himself to the level of god-like talent and procede to bash him for arrogance, delusion...blah blah blah. But, he's explained that line several times over the course of what, 22 years now? Since he's a christian, he believes our talents and gifts are from god and since our time on this earth is temporary, it is therefore a loan. It's talent on load from god. Not "god talent" like most assume when they hear it. That's an example of purposely charging a statement so those with a heavily biased dispostion will fall in the trap. I enjoy this psychological exercise, and pretty much all of the controversial statements he's made over the years. It's fascinating how he can be logically wrong about so many things, yet be offered so much low hanging fruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 It's deliberate on the part of the Democratic Party, specifically (apparently) Rahm Emanuel. They would like nothing better than Rush Limbaugh to be recognized as the de facto "leader of the Republican Party," since most people see him as an obnoxious and ridiculous figure. As in, "the Republicans are so lost, this is the best they can come up with!" The strong association is terrible PR for the GOP, especially since Rush will always self-promote and force himself into public view as much as possible (even as GOP leaders would likely prefer to lay low for a while and regroup), making him kind of an advertising machine they don't even have to pay for. Rush, for his part, plays directly into it, since he's incapable of turning down attention, and has a big enough ego that he probably sees himself as the intellectual force behind the GOP anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 It's deliberate on the part of the Democratic Party, specifically (apparently) Rahm Emanuel. They would like nothing better than Rush Limbaugh to be recognized as the de facto "leader of the Republican Party," since most people see him as an obnoxious and ridiculous figure. As in, "the Republicans are so lost, this is the best they can come up with!" The strong association is terrible PR for the GOP, especially since Rush will always self-promote and force himself into public view as much as possible (even as GOP leaders would likely prefer to lay low for a while and regroup), making him kind of an advertising machine they don't even have to pay for. Rush, for his part, plays directly into it, since he's incapable of turning down attention, and has a big enough ego that he probably sees himself as the intellectual force behind the GOP anyway. That's what I was saying on a different thread. Most people 'accusing' Rush of being the de facto leader of the GOP seem to be liberals/democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH3RL0CK Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The democrats like to portray themselves as good vs. the bad republicans. This is a demonstration that the Democrats lack any credible "evil" republican currently in office. This is due in part to their sucesses, but also due to the fact that republicans are not "evil" (at least no more so than the democrats). I think it is a bit sad that they desire to tarnish the reputation of their only significant opposition in this way (as I think Rush is only a republican for ratings purposes, hes certainly not the spokesperson for the party) rather than highlight the things they have accomplished. It makes me ask: Have the Democrats acheived nothing they can be proud of? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I said it was a meme driven by Democrats, but I didn't say there was nothing to it. Do you guys (ecoli, Sherlock) not think he's an influential figure? The DNC have had a big laugh over Michael Steele (the nominal chairman of the GOP) publicly apologizing to Rush for criticizing him, but it is still kind of telling, isn't it? Even if he personally is not that important, isn't his style of politics the most consistent thing in the GOP right now? The point is that they a) don't have any strong national leaders right now, and b) have lost the support (and with it the influence) of all but the hardcore partisans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 *I added some posts about this that where made in the jokes thread. unfortunately, because the time stamp, they got pushed to the front. Sorry to steal your thunder, blike.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH3RL0CK Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Sisyphus - I fully realize Rush has some influence. However, I just don't think it is in the best interests of the Democrats, now that they have decisively won, to go around "kicking dirt." It would be better for them the say "look at all the good things we are doing." The fact that they are still "kicking dirt" makes me think they are trying to distract the public from what they are actually doing. Considering the popularity of the bailouts, that doesn't seem too farfetched to me...and I'm not at all happy with some of the other things that they have done either. FYI, I'm not a Republican... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I said it was a meme driven by Democrats, but I didn't say there was nothing to it. Do you guys (ecoli, Sherlock) not think he's an influential figure? The DNC have had a big laugh over Michael Steele (the nominal chairman of the GOP) publicly apologizing to Rush for criticizing him, but it is still kind of telling, isn't it? Even if he personally is not that important, isn't his style of politics the most consistent thing in the GOP right now? The point is that they a) don't have any strong national leaders right now, and b) have lost the support (and with it the influence) of all but the hardcore partisans. no of course not... he's a popular and widely noticed pundit. MY point was that i think the dems are exaggerating his role in the actually political side (as opposed to commentary). I have a couple of friends who went to CPAC. While they didn't see Rush's speech (too crowded) they did meet Joe the Plumber. According to media reports (esp. in liberal-leaning blogs I've seen) Joe the Plumber was a featured guest. In actuality he was stuck at a table in the corner. Just demonstrating one reason why I'm dubious about reports about the structure of conservatives and the GOP - even they don't seem to know yet, so I doubt the liberal bloggers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Just demonstrating one reason why I'm dubious about reports about the structure of conservatives and the GOP - even they don't seem to know yet, so I doubt the liberal bloggers do. There, shortened that for you. When it comes to politics, there are very few sources I would take their word for something politically charged, and even then with a bit of caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The fact that they are still "kicking dirt" makes me think they are trying to distract the public from what they are actually doing. Considering the popularity of the bailouts, that doesn't seem too farfetched to me...and I'm not at all happy with some of the other things that they have done either. FYI, I'm not a Republican... Apparently the most pressing issue on the homepage of the democratic party is to kick dirt at Rush Limbaugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well, it's obvious why this is happening, and therefore how it's happening and finally where it's coming from. Why, is because the republican party leadership is not in step with their constituents. There's a divide in the republican party between those who bought the idea that the people want "moderates" and bipartisanship and those who are sticking to their conservative principles at the expense of bipartisanship. I think the american people who don't align themselves with republicans are the ones who are clamoring for moderation and bipartisanship and etc. But I think the base does not. Rush is a kind of anecdotal evidence of this. He represents those who do not agree with the notion of competing with democrats in spending and socialistic programs - big government. Rush is the leader of the conservative voices that do not agree with complicitly "flushing the country down the drain" with ideas 180 degrees opposite from their own. The republican leadership is lost, trying to figure out what in the hell they stand for. So, How, is because they're lost, and Rush is found and supported with a huge constituency that is fed up with their leadership - he is naturally the leader of republicanism, if for no other reason than due to the firm grip of identity and principle. Where, is just the exercise of exploiting that rift in the party. So, much of the association has come from democrats and that's to be expected. They're going to take advantage of the party's weakness while they can and since they believe Rush hurts them more than he helps them, it's therefore in their interest to promote it. Just like Rush promoting Hillary against Barack during the primaries - same thing. Once the republican leadership figures out what it wants to be in the future, they'll reclaim identity and the figurehead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Funny, considering he can't even differentiate the preamble to the constitution from the declaration of independence... http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220780/march-05-2009/tip-wag---rush-limbaugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 no of course not... he's a popular and widely noticed pundit. MY point was that i think the dems are exaggerating his role in the actually political side (as opposed to commentary). I think what's generally being pointed out is Rush Limbaugh is the only face the Republicans have remaining. The Republicans have been searching for a new face. The best they've done so far is Bobby Jindal, who commanded about as much respect as Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I think what's generally being pointed out is Rush Limbaugh is the only face the Republicans have remaining. The Republicans have been searching for a new face. The best they've done so far is Bobby Jindal, who commanded about as much respect as Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock. I'd like to point out that it was Mitt Romney (once again) who won the straw poll at CPAC. I, myself, am rooting for Gary Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) And I'm sure Mitt Romney will run for President in 2012, and he's still the most likely nominee. But where is he right now? Certainly not leading the GOP. As for Gary Johnson, that might actually be a possibility. When the GOP reinvents itself (which it must do, at least in rhetoric) it might just swing in a more libertarian direction. Edited March 6, 2009 by Sisyphus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I, myself, am rooting for Gary Johnson. Never heard of him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 Never heard of him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 On paper, I like him. I would suffer an interesting inner spiritual battle if he were to shape the republican party into a more libertarian directed group. But I don't see how that can truly happen with the religious right firmly entrenched in that party. I know one doesn't necessarily exclude the other in practice, but they really do in principle. And just to at least pretend to nod to the OP...Rush has actually expressed admiration for Ron Paul. I was shocked. He really likes him - his passion for freedom and individual pursuit. Of course, he doesn't think Paul is presidential in the least, and I'm sure he'd roast him if he had miraculously won the primaries. But that makes me wonder how he'd react to Gary Johnson if he were to steal the show. Looks to me like Jindal's going to get that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 On paper, I like him. I would suffer an interesting inner spiritual battle if he were to shape the republican party into a more libertarian directed group. But I don't see how that can truly happen with the religious right firmly entrenched in that party. I know one doesn't necessarily exclude the other in practice, but they really do in principle. Meh, you're probably right. The mainstream might be annoyed enough with the religious right not to let them push the rest of us around, but the GOP apparently still can't win without them. Hence their current problems. And just to at least pretend to nod to the OP...Rush has actually expressed admiration for Ron Paul. I was shocked. He really likes him - his passion for freedom and individual pursuit. Of course, he doesn't think Paul is presidential in the least, and I'm sure he'd roast him if he had miraculously won the primaries. But that makes me wonder how he'd react to Gary Johnson if he were to steal the show. Looks to me like Jindal's going to get that role. Yeah, I pretty much call B.S. on that "admiration." He'd probably say he admires James Madison, too, but that doesn't mean he's even read the Federalist Papers. If you claim to represent "freedom," you try to co-opt anything associated with it, even if your specific positions directly contradict that. I also think you've got that hypothetical backwards: if Ron Paul ever won the nomination, you really think Rush would not lobby for the Republican? (But then, I obviously give the guy a lot less credit than you do.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well I have no reason not to believe him when he says he likes him. I have no reason not to believe him when he says he admires Madison. All of us are hypocrites upon audit of our belief systems reconciled with the philosophies we claim built them, so I really can't use that criteria to judge Rush's sincerity when he says he likes Paul. But you're probably right. And of course, you're definitely right about co-opting associations with rhetoric. Again though, nothing limited to Rush, but to humanity. And I do give him more credit than most. I'll always have a soft spot for Rush, just as I have for my history teacher - neither of which carry an ideology I can mostly agree with. It's the nature of affinity for those that catalyze a significant change in yourself. In my case, the birth of thinking for myself and the idea that the popular voice might still be wrong. That was a big deal for my small mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I, too, have a "soft spot" for Rush. It's the semi-digested lunch that he just made me vomit back up into my own mouth. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220240&title=a-party-in-limbaugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I, too, have a "soft spot" for Rush. It's the semi-digested lunch that he just made me vomit back up into my own mouth. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220240&title=a-party-in-limbaugh Haha..yeah, but of course none of that was "ugly" except for maybe the MJ Fox bit. And certainly no more incendiary and ugly than your posts on religion and intolerance for it. But, I have a soft spot for you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now