Rush Limbaugh has been much in the news recently. And despite the best efforts of Barack Obama and his acolytes to trash and marginalize him, he continues to draw a loyal if limited audience. And Rush will continue to grow stronger for a very simple reason.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't give a damn what the media think of him. He doesn't give a damn what Barack Obama thinks of him. That is incredibly liberating, and it gives Limbaugh a lot of power. Barack Obama could learn something from that.
I don't listen to Limbaugh much, but the reasons are more circumstantial than preferential. He is on while I am in the office and I need to concentrate on my work, so listening to Rush (or any talk radio show) just isn't practical. I suspect that most of Rush's audience is on the move while they listen to him; I'd be willing to wager that his program is on the radio preset buttons of several million American vehicles. And because Barack Obama has chosen to engage, Rush Limbaugh is on the move again.
It began when Obama namechecked Limbaugh a few weeks back, suggesting that if we want progress, people need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's riposte was to state that he hoped Barack Obama would fail. He further amplified his stance with a highly visible appearance at the recent CPAC conference.
The feud has continued and today Rush called his president out (via Powerline:)
If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it's on the record. They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.
Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let's talk about your stock market. ...
Let's talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let's go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party -- they think that's a great thing -- then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!
That would be a sucker bet. There would be no upside for the President of the United States to have a debate with a radio personality. He couldn't risk it. There was a reason why George W. Bush ignored what Jon Stewart said about him. Barack Obama and his people should have known better than to engage Rush that way. You could see this coming right down Pennsylvania Avenue.
One continuing meme that you read in conservative circles is the notion that Barack Obama is some sort of Saul Alinsky acolyte and that he is following the playbook of Alinsky's largely-forgotten treatise called Rules for Radicals, which is treated as some sort of evil holy writ. I have no idea whether Obama is a follower of Alinsky or not. It's not important. The tactics that Obama and his team use will not determine his administration's fate. What will decide matters is the success of the policies he implements. If I were advising Barack Obama, I would tell him to ignore Rush Limbaugh and stay focused on his agenda. But I doubt that he will.
17 comments:
being as i am off work for the past several months (and several more to come) i've had the guilty pleasure of tuning in daily.
the last couple weeks have been a riot. rush loves the admin coming after him, and he's been on top of his game,for sure.
If El Presidente did go one-on-one with El Rushbo in a real debate he would get various parts of his anatomy handed to him.
Without his teleprompter and speech writers the Big O seems to babble aimlessly in search of a coherent thought while Rush gets better when he gets on a spontaneous roll. As Rush pointed pointed out during his address, "I don't need a teleprompter". Rush has the definite advantages of having the courage of his convictions, great oratory skills and showmanship, and that his views reflect a political philosopy that has a demonstrable historical record of being correct while Obummer's populist/socialist talking points have a history of failure any time they were put into practice.
Like Mark said it ain't going to happen. Obummer may be arrogant enough to be tempted but his handlers would never permit it. The closest thing we could see is for Uncle Rush to do the rebuttal for the GOP after a State of the Union address. It would at the very least acutally draw some audience.
Because it wouldn't be a debate. It would be Limbaugh yelling epithets. There would be no "listening," no "acknowledging of another's points." It would be a BS waste of time, and no matter who the president is, they have more important things to do than "debate" (hello, the election is over) with some blowhard who's generating publicity to his own pecuniary advantage. Mark pointed out earlier that we've got Obama for the next four years regardless; so how patriotic is that, to root for a president to fail?! Never did I feel that way about Bush, and I hated that guy (as a president).
I'm not saying that RL doesn't have a voice in the pundit-sphere, or that his views don't represent a segment of the population who want to be heard. But to suggest that it's "arrogance" that would prevent President Obama from "debating" with a radio talk show host is absolutely ridiculous.
And just to explain what I mean by "listening to other's points" I've actually intended to disagree with things on this blog from time to time (more things than I've already disagreed with), and decided against it, upon further reading. I know that I'm not always right!
I actually agree with some of what you've said, Amanda. Of course any debate would be for Rush's pecuniary advantage. But that's a good thing. We evil capitalists like pecuniary advantages. :)
Two things, though -- Rush doesn't "yell epithets." If you don't believe me, give his show a listen for a day or two and see for yourself.
And while the most recent election is over (well, except for a certain Senate election that shall remain nameless), the debate is never over. I surely didn't hear the Loyal Opposition back down much after the 2004 election.
Amanda, your point that the election is over is well taken. Of course the idea that a sitting president would go on a radio program to debate an opponent is foolish. I think all of us (including Limbaugh incidentally) would agree with that.
The point is, that the administration has been doing something equally foolish that has opened this can of worms. For political advantage, they are trying to paint Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party. They are debasing themselves and they don't need anyone to defend them. Obama is in charge, he needs to start leading instead of campaigning.
Obama is in charge, he needs to start leading instead of campaigning.
Exactly.
I did not suggest arrogance would prevent Obama from debating Rush, rather that his arrogance may actually tempt him to do it. His handlers recognize the folly of such an action and will prevent it from happening.
With regard to generating publicity for whatever reason, remember that it was Obummer who first called out Rush and that his handlers are orchestrating much of the on-going publicity.
Funny how Nixon was crucified by the media for his "enemies list" yet the Anoited One skates on. At least Nixon resigned... :)
Obummer will, like Clinton, be in full campaign mode throughout his entire presidency because he has no clue on how to lead or the desire to do so.
"Two things, though -- Rush doesn't "yell epithets." If you don't believe me, give his show a listen for a day or two and see for yourself."
or you can go to his website where every word is posted for that day, verbatem, as he spoke theme.
although, reading them is not the same as he speaks often tongue in cheek, so the spoken word is important to get the gist of what he is saying.
Because it wouldn't be a debate. It would be Limbaugh yelling epithets.
Et tu, Ms. Mitchell? As Mark suggests, I'd give Rush's entire show a listen instead of forming an opinion based on cut and pasted sound bites.
It would be a BS waste of time, and no matter who the president is, they have more important things to do than "debate"
Then explain to me why in the sam hell President Obama keeps invoking Rush's name? President Bush had far more harsh critics (who, by the way, rarely showed any intellectual honesty in their criticism) yet he went about his daily duties as Commander in Chief without petty shots at his critics. Mr. Obama would be wise to do the same.
Since you all are talking about Rush, a quote from Friday:
Rush Limbaugh suggested that one of the main sponsors of health care reform won't live to see its passage, telling his audience today: "Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy memorial health care bill."
Classy.
Rich
Classy.
You mean like Randi Rhodes fantasizing about President Bush being shot over Social Security reform?
No, not so much. The lefty invective is far worse.
Rich,
I dunno - I wouldn't have gone there, but I'm not sure it's out of the realm of decency. Kennedy is going to die sooner than later and I fully suspect that he will be invoked in support of the forthcoming legislation, inasmuch as he's been trying to foist national health care on us for at least 40 years.
And as James Taranto is fond of saying, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
Brad,
who the hell is Randi Rhodes? I know he ain't the putative leader of the Democratic Party.
But I will concede that this isn't that big a deal. In fact, it pales in comparison to the time Limbaugh announced that President Clinton “had a new dog in the White House” and held up a picture of then 13 year old Chelsea Clinton. And I believe he did that without a teleprompter. Nothing like bolstering your political philosophy by tearing down an innocent child. As a father of two daughters, I think the guy oughta' be bitch-slapped for that, but maybe I just don't understand his brilliance.
Do you guys really wonder why the Dems are filling the gaping hole at in your leadership with Limbaugh? The guy is a gift that keeps giving. Here's a shovel, keep digging.
Regards,
Rich
who the hell is Randi Rhodes? I know he ain't the putative leader of the Democratic Party.
Randi Rhodes is a she. She was one of the ill-fated voices of Air America. A non-collegial colleague of Rush, so to speak.
Impressive use of archival material on Rush, though. The guy has been on the air for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week for over 20 years now. I don't dispute that ol' Rush has said some dumb things. I am certain that I said something stupid and insulting in the early years of the Clinton administration. Fortunately, nobody gave a damn about what I had to say.
Your side can keep up this project but in the end Obama's fate, and the fate of the Democratic Party, hinges on the actions they are currently undertaking, not on the opinions of one highly influential pundit. I can hardly blame the Democrats for trying to deflect attention from what's happening now. But eventually there will be a reckoning and pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh won't cut much ice.
Right back at ya on the "keep digging" thing, good sir!
Mark,
this is really no different than what your side did with Michael Moore, except that Rush is a bigger target (figuratively. To figure out the bigger physical target, I am pretty sure we would need a weigh in with those two guys). This is the kind of stuff that make politics fun. As I often say, we pay a lot of good money for this, we might as well enjoy it. And yes, I do have a good memory for people who pick on children. The archive I pulled that out of was my head. I happened to be watching Limbaugh's show that night.
Rich
I'd forgotten about his television show. Didn't watch it much.
Libs need to listen to Rush in context.
The comment about the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Plan was in reference to a previous discussion with a caller a while back just after Kennedy's health situation was made public. Rush opined that the libs would take full advantage of the situation to sell their socialized medicine program (i.e. the pitch will go something like "this will be a great tribute to the great senator"), much like they clumsily tried to take advantage of the Welstone tragedy to hold on to a Senate seat in a close race at the memorial service.
He had also pointed out that Senator Kennedy would probably not be alive today if he had received the care that a socialized medicine program would impose on the rest of us.
Post a Comment