« The Election Biden Lost | Main | State Aid Is Stimulus . . . Don't Cut It »

February 06, 2009

Comments

Yeah he clearly has no idea what he's doing. What's that image I always see? "Everybody chill the fuck out. I got this."

More popular than Ctheney?

Is that like being poorer than Bill Gates?

Obviously, he's using Limbaugh as a wedge in the Republican party to further marginalize the lunatic right-wing fringe. If the GOP somehow found the gumption to jettison Limbaugh and voices like his, they'd be in a much stronger position to compete for the center (along with actually having policies that make sense and make for effective, conservative governance). The more they cling to Limbaugh, the longer they stay in the wilderness. So let them!

It's just sad that they will, since, partisan considerations aside, we actually need a healthy, sensible conservative movement in this country. Limbaugh is a sickness (or, if you prefer, a symptom of a sickness, since his rabid listener base owns him as much as he influences them), like WalMart-ification, like subprime lending and environmental non-sustainability and rising trade deficits and other types of fast food.

and back in October, Limbaugh was... less popular that Jeremiah Wright.

a smart political campaign would assemble some of Limbaugh's greatest hits into a nice package and spread it far and wide.

More popular than Cheney . . . I believe that's what my ol' Daddy used to call "praising with faint damn."

And yes, I get the tongue-in-cheekiness of the post. I just wanted an excuse to quote my Dad.

"Obviously, he's using Limbaugh as a wedge in the Republican party to further marginalize the lunatic right-wing fringe."

Technically, to qualify as a "fringe", doesn't a faction of a party have to constitute a minority of that party? The portion of the Republican party that likes Limbaugh is a substantial majority.

Obama is trying to peel loose from the GOP the "RINOs", the party's left-wing fringe, who agree with Democrats about Limbaugh, and pretty much everything else.

Obama is trying to peel loose from the GOP the "RINOs", the party's left-wing fringe, who agree with Democrats about Limbaugh, and pretty much everything else.

I'll take it.

Actually, instead of "lunatic right-wing fringe" just write the "lunatics".

Brett gets it in one! Yes, most of the GOP is Limbaughian in their philosophy, mean-spiritedness, and willful ignorance. The "average Joe" they claim to speak for is Joe the Plumber. The Limbaughites are not a fringe of the GOP, they are its soul. The more sane Americans catch on to that fact, the better.

--TP

I haven't listened to Limbaugh since he started to take himself seriously, but I had always noticed that the one thing he always ran away from was anything that set the Party of Business against the Party of Religiosity. He always did his best to ignore or cut off callers who wanted to talk about the religiosity that made Wall Street howl -- like science denialism.

Obama is trying to peel loose from the GOP the "RINOs", the party's left-wing fringe, who agree with Democrats about Limbaugh, and pretty much everything else.

Brett is absolutely correct. And peeling lose the RINOs is crucial to Obama's political strategy because they (along with the Blue Dog Dems) are the key group with respect to the passing of legislation in the Senate, which in turn is the crucial bottleneck where the fate of most bills will be decided between now and Jan 2011.

Look at the chart which Nate Silver posted on 538 ranking Senators from top to bottom in terms of their votes so far indexed by whether they voted in favor of Obama initiatives, or against them. Start at the top and count down to 60 (enough to get cloture). Below that line (give or take a few votes on an issue by issue basis), it doesn't really matter what the rest think, so far as determining whether bills pass or not.

When I count down that chart I come up with Voinovich in the #60 slot (let me know if I've miscounted), with Specter at #61, and Snowe and Collins as the only other GOP Senators higher in the chart. Those are the votes Obama has to get in the Senate.

I wonder how Rush Limbaugh is polling in Maine and Ohio and PA these days? His national numbers mean a good deal less than do his numbers in those specific states from which Obama needs those particular Senate votes.

Speaking of specific states, in the next post Nate points out the language used by Gibbs in describing why we need the stimulus:

"Last month the economy lost 598,000 jobs. That is the equivalent of losing every job in the state of Maine."

...

"In the past two months, the economy lost 1.2 million jobs. That's basically losing every job in Pittsburgh or in Cleveland," Gibbs continued.

I think maybe there is a message in here somewhere, but perhaps I'm reading too much into the tea leaves.

The Limbaughites are not a fringe of the GOP, they are its soul.

Which is... well, sad and pathetic, if you think about it.

The point is not so much that Limbaugh and his ilk are a fringe element of the GOP as that they are a fringe element of America. Dittoheads may be a sizable majority in the Republican Party, but they and everything they stand for are a big part of why the GOP lost so big this time around.

And yes, I'm deeply enjoying watching Republicans fall over themselves to see who can most loudly insist that they lost because they weren't insane /enough/. When I see the Redstate crowd smirking and crowing this way, I smile, because it means more time in the wilderness for the GOP.

we actually need a healthy, sensible conservative movement in this country.

You've got one. It's called the Democratic Party.

Left Turn - Voinovich is sounding like he'll be retiring at the end of his term in 2010, so I don't know that re-election possibilities are that important to him. On the other hand, he is from Cleveland and maybe the pain being felt up there - especially from foreclosed and abandoned homes - will work its way into his conscience. We can only hope.

Ohio has lost 5% of its total employment since 2000, not counting the latest waves of layoffs. Even worse, Ohio has lost 22% of its manufacturing jobs during that time. I'm in SW Ohio, normally the land of the GOP, and anecdotally I'm having a hard time finding anyone who supports them now.

You've got one. It's called the Democratic Party.

Francis D wins the thread.

Obama is trying to peel loose from the GOP the "RINOs", the party's left-wing fringe, who agree with Democrats about Limbaugh, and pretty much everything else.

A lot of us voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean that we're prepared to line up with the Democrats (or abandon the Republican party). Until the Democrats jettison their left-wing and neo-machine wings, that is, which just ain't going to happen.

the "RINOs", the party's left-wing fringe, who agree with Democrats about Limbaugh, and pretty much everything else.

The unintended humor in this makes it a keeper. Brett seems to imagine them wearing Che Guevara t shirts under their suits and going off to secret coffee klatches where they start off the meeting singing the Internationale and then give speeches about running dog capitalists while quaffing soy lattes.

I think you mean "while sipping soy lattes".

I'm sure that their excitement with the ripping away of the decrepit facade that hid a flawed system of government that represses the proletariat and allows the bourgeoisie to own and control the means of production would have them quaffing, not just sipping.

"Brett seems to imagine them wearing Che Guevara t shirts under their suits and going off to secret coffee klatches where they start off the meeting singing the Internationale and then give speeches about running dog capitalists while quaffing soy lattes."

Well, if that's your idea of moderate Democrats, you said it, not me. I have to admit my picture of RINOs is much more prosaic.

Words have meanings, Brett, so 'left-wing fringe' does carry those images. The idea that the GOP has a 'left-wing' is what makes your frothing so laughable.

Yes, "left-wing fringe" does have meaning. Let's analyze it.

1 "left-wing"; We're talking about people who are to the left of the center of the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Since it's the left wing of that party we're talking about.

2. "fringe"; We're talking about a relatively small fraction of the Republican party.

So, "left-wing fringe of the Republican party" denotes a smallish faction of the Republican party which is on the "left" of THAT party.

Why would you expect a left-wing Republican to act like a left-wing Democrat?

My point is that you are willing to throw around words like 'left-wing fringe' (which presumably includes people like von), which bleeds them of any objective meaning. You are welcome to define yourself as the center of the universe, but that doesn't really make you a centrist, no matter how much you think it may be the case.

LJ, I think you're getting a little carried away. "Left" and "right" are relative.

Sheesh; I was responding to somebody who claimed that Obama was trying to peel off the "right-wing fringe" of the GOP. Now, THAT is defining yourself as the center of the universe, declaring the majority of a party to be a "fringe" just because you disagree with it.

The right and left fringes of parties are defined relative to the centers of those parties, not relative to where I stand on the issues. There's no "center of the political universe" to define them otherwise, and if there were, I, a Libertarian, would be nuts to think I was at it.

Ahh, the 'I'm a libertarian' defense. It's just lil ole Brett, a voice in the wilderness. I'll remember that when you start arguing about how every American wants their 2nd amendment rights protected.

KC, sure, left and right are deictic, but where one places the left and the right tells a lot about where someone thinks they are. Brett was just pushing back again DavidG's comment about the existence of a Republican right wing fringe. Brett might accept that there is a right wing fringe, but as to it being a part of the Republican party, for Brett, that beggars belief.

LJ, Brett has said plenty of things here in the past few days that are worth objecting to, but I don't see how this is one of them. As far as I can see, Brett's objection was to the word "fringe", not "right-wing", because (as he correctly points out) Limbaughism is not a fringe belief in the modern Republican Party -- it's the mainstream.

I take Brett at his word. I think he does believe that there are Republicans "who agree with Democrats about Limbaugh, and pretty much everything else." Why he would believe this when there were no House GOP votes for the stimulus is beyond my ken, but I'm sure there is some explanation as to why there are these left wingers, but they don't actually register their opinoins for anything.

Francis: You've got one. It's called the Democratic Party.

True.

What the US needs is for their fascist religious lunatic party to become an unelectable fringe screaming about the good ol' days of George W. Bush... wait, did that already happen? ;-)

...and a sane, sensible, electable left-wing/labor party.

In a two-party state, this can take a long time: maybe the US is where the UK was in 1909?

"Why he would believe this when there were no House GOP votes for the stimulus is beyond my ken,"

Are you really silly enough to think that a single high profile party loyalty vote, with the leadership pulling out the stops to keep members in line, is a good measure of where members stand?

There wasn't a single Democratic vote against the bill, either, you suppose that means the Democratic party doesn't have a right-wing?

Brett, there were 11 Democratic votes against it.

But I wouldn't say that those conservative Democrats agree with the Republicans on Limbaugh and pretty much everything else.

Brett, there were 11 Democratic votes against it.

Depends on which vote you're talking about.

Are you really silly enough to think that a single high profile party loyalty vote, with the leadership pulling out the stops to keep members in line, is a good measure of where members stand?

I am.

This was a test of seriousness with respect to the economic crisis we face. It's clear that the Republican leadership is clueless with respect to the problem. I would have expected that some number of Republican representatives knew better than their leadership, and were willing to vote in the best interest of the country.

Apparently not.

I would have expected that some number of Republican representatives knew better than their leadership, and were willing to vote in the best interest of the country.

Even one would have been great.

How the Republican members of the House (or Senate) feel about legislation deep in their hearts, in their private and unguarded moments, don't mean a damned thing.

Votes count.

but 60% of republicans is less than 25% of the country ...

so who cares if 60% of republicans think he walks on water?

the bigger problem is that 100% of the republicans in congress and on your teevee think he roolz.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad