Michael Steele didn't take long to run into the ditch.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090302/pl_politico/19498

“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” Steele said. “Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly.”

Well that's a good way to piss off 20 million listners. The RNC has yet to figure out how to get back to power.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” Steele said. “Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly.”

Listen to him apologize to the false prophet's radio show tomorrow.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): Well that's a good way to piss off 20 million listners. The RNC has yet to figure out how to get back to power.

Funny.. a few months one of those talking heads in CNN was saying that the demise of the GOP will come from internal divisions of people who are at the far right (Limbaugh + Coulter) fans, and moderates that are willing to at least listing to the other side.

I guess he was right.

The Republican Party needs to disband.

Reform into the Fiscal Conservative Party and the Social Conservative party.
The Social Conservatives (Governement Regulating Morality) Agenda runs right against a fiscal conservative goverment,

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 3): The Social Conservatives (Governement Regulating Morality)

Like the Taliban? Or Saudi Arabia?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 4): Like the Taliban? Or Saudi Arabia?

I was making no claim as to their success. However do you see a difference between the Religious Right and the taliban when it comes to imposing their religion onto politics?

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 5): However do you see a difference between the Religious Right and the taliban when it comes to imposing their religion onto politics?

"Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn’t think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior."

http://coloradoindependent.com/22701...nt-moms-rewards-sexual-promiscuity

Sure it not stoning someone to death, or cutting someone arm..

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” Steele said. “Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly.”

Steele is right though, 100% and if people within the Republican party are not allowed to speak up and state obvious truths then the "party" is doomed.

Other posters have mentioned it and it seems nothing but inflammatory and trite but there is a kernel of truth, some people's reaction to Steele's comments have been similar to the religious agenda organizations out there, in those groups if you speak different than the "moral leadership" you are assaulted and silenced. I can not believe that any fellow Republican's would support any attacks on Steele for what he said. What the hell does the party stand for?

I for one wish the excessively verbose and incendiary Limbaugh would stop and speak to the heart of the Republican party which is limited government, fiscal responsibility (NOT social conservatism), individual rights, constitutional adherence, etc.

Tugg

I first thought Steele was a good pick for RNC chair but man he dropped this ball. Rush gave a great speech and energized the party the other day. Steele should just keep his mouth shut.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 7): I for one wish the excessively verbose and incendiary Limbaugh would stop and speak to the heart of the Republican party which is limited government, fiscal responsibility (NOT social conservatism), individual rights, constitutional adherence, etc

What did Rush say that was icendiary? Find me a part of his speech that crossed the line. Everything he said was spot on. This president has no idea what he is doing, and uses the teleprompter and prewritten speeches and Bush bashing to try to get by but at the end of the day he is a liar and is the second coming of Jimmy Carter which is the reason the market is going down the crapper and why if someone doesn't speak up we are really doomed. The time for word is long gone, and instead of governing and leading he is still throwing out the talking points and trying to spend his way out of a mess he has no idea how to handle.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 7): I for one wish the excessively verbose and incendiary Limbaugh would stop and speak to the heart of the Republican party which is limited government, fiscal responsibility (NOT social conservatism), individual rights, constitutional adherence, etc.

TOO LATE for that....this clown has 'unofficially' been dubbed the head of the RNC...and he ain't lettin' go.

Boy, have the RNC painted themselves into a messy corner with these two opposing freight trains! Steele MUST acquiesce to Lardbaugh or shut and go sit in a corner (thereby making his selection as RNC head, a futile exercise, aka ..a joke) ...no script writer could have come up with a better story line.


BN747

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” Steele said. “Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly.”

Well, this proves it: honesty is the best policy!  

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): Michael Steele didn't take long to run into the ditch.

I'm not really sure why you said this. What Steele said is true - Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer. He has a radio show and part of having a radio show is to draw ratings. In order to do so, you have to be interesting - or in other words "entertaining." Why else would anyone tune in? If Rush wanted to be more than an entertainer, then he should seek office. Since he isn't doing so, then he must be content doing his show, having a bunch of people tune in to hear him and call in to chew the fat and collect his massive paycheck. I certianly don't blame him for it, I wouldn't run for office if I were him either. He's making waaaaay too much money to give it up.

Why do we assume the same confusion and loss of central principles that effect a good portion of the country do not effect "republicans" ?

A dramatically bad omen for the GOP is the impending split between principles and the lust for voters. There will be a wing of the GOP who want to side with the Dems in certain ways in order to pick off some voters in 2010. The only way back is to inspire the silent majority and run opposite of the socialist platform. And I am not that confident that this will even work ... once the Democrats clear total amnesty for illegals (2011 ?) they will pick up millions and millions of new followers.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8): What did Rush say that was icendiary? Find me a part of his speech that crossed the line.

We area talking about Mr. Limbaugh and his show which is quite often incendiary. And there is good reason it is, he is media, it is his job to get his show listened to by as many people as possible and a good way to do that is to get it talked about by the target audience.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 12): Why do we assume the same confusion and loss of central principles that effect a good portion of the country do not effect "republicans" ?

I am not confused, I haven't lost my principles. The Republican party started to lose it when they went religious. It's one thing to be conservative, it's another to base party principles on religious values. Religion is personal, not political.

Tugg

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8): Rush gave a great speech and energized the party the other day. Steele should just keep his mouth shut.

But, Rush is not the head of the Republican party, is he? Rush and other similar "conservative" commentators are part of the problem with the Republican party. They demand nothing less that total control from their minions/followers/listeners. If they do not recieve total control (support) from their minions/followers/listeners, they are shunned; called "liberals" which, because of them, has come to mean Democrats, Socialist, Communist, Fashist (sp), AND Devil worshippers all rolled into one. As a Democrat, I did not always agree with Howard Dean, but, at least he had the right idea: Let's get behind the most powerful person in our party and support them, then, when we have the power, we can make the changes we want instead of all the in-fighting and back biting before we get anyone in power.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 3): the Social Conservative party

Oh, heavens no! That would never do! That makes them sound like Democrats/Socialists/Communists/children of the Devil! How dare you...

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8): Rush gave a great speech and energized the party the other day.

But that's exactly the problem. The Republican party is relying on an entertainer to be the figurehead of the party.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 12): Why do we assume the same confusion and loss of central principles that effect a good portion of the country do not effect "republicans" ?

I don't think a good portion of America has lost its principles. But over time, core principles change and the Republican party hasn't changed.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 12): The only way back is to inspire the silent majority and run opposite of the socialist platform.

But how are you going to inspire people with a "do nothing" agenda? The Republican agenda is for government to do nothing and ignore problems with the hope that magically the problems will solve themselves. Not too inspiring.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 13): We area talking about Mr. Limbaugh and his show which is quite often incendiary.

You did a nice dodge but I will ask you again. What part of his speech was icendiary? He said we should keep what we earn and not hate people that are successful. Something our president is totally against. What is wrong with that? Why is opposing view points when it comes to a Dem always icendiary? Why don't we call out members of Hollywood like Rosie? She said basically that Bush planted bombs is WT7 to make it come down how come nobody called her out or called those remarks icendiary? It's complete lunacy.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 14): But, Rush is not the head of the Republican party, is he? Rush and other similar "conservative" commentators are part of the problem with the Republican party. They demand nothing less that total control from their minions/followers/listeners

This is major Bravo Sierra. Rush doesn't demand anything and he has built his faithful listener base by being honest and telling it like it is. Something the left doesn't want to be allowed. I agree with Rush and do hope Obama fails. I don't want the Jimmy Carter era again. I don't want big government and 40% plus of my salary to be taken to give to someone cheap healthcare to try to keep some lame campaign promise. I want what Reagan did, which is something Obama tries to say he wants with words but when it's time to put into practice it turns into Jimmy Carter. There is only person who wants total control and you call him President.

I'm not sure what to make of this...perhaps the Republican members of the forum can help. What exactly SHOULD the direction of the Republican party be? More to the point, does the Republican base agree with the current direction of the party? Is that base shrinking perhaps, or shifting attitudes? Is it possible that perhaps a good number of "Republicans" are actually opening up to more Socialist ideals or at least willing to try something different? I ask these questions because there seems to be a disconnect between what these radio hosts say and how the Republican followers vote. If you look at Reagan, Bush II, and most recently McCain it seems like they don't follow the fiscal conservatism that is supposed to be the bedrock of the party. Why is that? Is it perhaps that the Limbaugh listeners are in reality a minority within the party?

As for the RNC Chairman...well, I suppose he's not a fan of Mr. Limbaugh's show!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): Rush doesn't demand anything and he has built his faithful listener base by being honest and telling it like it is. Something the left doesn't want to be allowed.

Bait and switch. When these "conservative" commentators are backed into a corner, they simply remind everyone of the Fairness Doctrine. Only two Dems, that I know of, have brought it up. Otherwise, it has been all "conservative" commentators running with this "story." Like with guns; Only "conservative" commentators bring up the whole "they are going to take your gun away!" argument against voting Democrat. Has that happened?

It still cracks me up that these Rush "zombies" boil down their whole argument to "Rush said...." instead of "I believe..."

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): I don't want big government and 40% plus of my salary to be taken to give to someone cheap healthcare to try to keep some lame campaign promise.

So, you would rather have people die or file bankrupcy because they get cancer or ALS? This is "compassionate conservatism?" This is what gets me: these "conservative" commentators are supposed to be Christian, but no way in hell is anyone gonna make them pay for other people to have even minimal health care. Is that really what Jesus would do?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): I want what Reagan did, which is something Obama tries to say he wants with words but when it's time to put into practice it turns into Jimmy Carter. There is only person who wants total control and you call him President.

Carter, I guess, didn't work. Regan just set us on a path of greed and "me first, f*ck everyone else." This is what I am talking about: These "conservative" commentators are only willing to do what they want and anyone else with any other idea can go take a long walk off a short pier. They only want the government to follow their path. There is no way any other path (read: Democrat) could ever work in a million years even if that path is different than all of the above because their people are the people of Jimmy Carter. They all boil it down to one person. Whereas, the "other side" can boil it down to many people: Rove, Regan, Cheney, Bush I & II, Libby, Santorum, O'Reilly, Rush, Coulter, Hannity, Boenher, Rumsfeld....

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 3): The Republican Party needs to disband. Reform into the Fiscal Conservative Party and the Social Conservative party.

It may well come to that.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 11): I'm not really sure why you said this. What Steele said is true - Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer.

With 20 million listners. If he wants to disagree with him, in private would be a better way to handle it.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 15): But that's exactly the problem. The Republican party is relying on an entertainer to be the figurehead of the party.

Because no one in elected office seems to willing to stand up and be a lightening rod the way Limbaugh is. With good reason, soon as the liberal press gets ahold of someone standing up to the President, the mud starts flying and doesn't stop.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 17): What exactly SHOULD the direction of the Republican party be? More to the point, does the Republican base agree with the current direction of the party?

I think Gov. Jindal summed it up nicely the other night. At some point the GOP needs to get back to being the limited government/less regulation/less taxes party that got them elected with such huge numbers in 1980,84, and 94. No before someone on the left wants to jump all over the fact that President Bush and the Congresses from 00-06 spent heftily, that has already been acknowledged and addressed as wrong and a major part of the party that needs to change. Just trying to outspend the democratic party didn't work and won't work.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 18): So, you would rather have people die or file bankrupcy because they get cancer or ALS?

First off, people are going to die of certain cancers and ALS no matter what sort of health insurance is available until cures are found. That being said, I would love to see the copy of this paper you evidently were given at birth that says your life will be compeletely trouble free and that the rest of the population owes it to you to see that it is that way.

Quoting DXing (Reply 19): Quoting ER757 (Reply 11): I'm not really sure why you said this. What Steele said is true - Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer. With 20 million listners. If he wants to disagree with him, in private would be a better way to handle it.

So Rush can publicly disagree with Steele, but Steele has to voice his disagreement privately?
Hmmmmm
And Rush has 20 million listeners. There are over 100 million voters in the USA so I'd say Rush's base is a distinct minority. So if Steele dares disagree with Limbaugh, he's still only alienating 20% of potential voters.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): Why don't we call out members of Hollywood like Rosie? She said basically that Bush planted bombs is WT7 to make it come down how come nobody called her out or called those remarks icendiary? It's complete lunacy.

It is lunacy and many people did call her out for that - and rightfully so. I think her opinions have now been relegated to the wacko bin by most.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): I agree with Rush and do hope Obama fails

See, now this I just don't get. I didn't vote for Obama, I don't agree with a lot of what he's said but to hope for failure means to hope for the country to go through four more years of downturn, job losses, foreclosures etc. Why would someone who loves their country want to see it suffer through an extended period of turmoil? I don't want to lose my job, but if Obama "fails" as completely as Rush (and you) hope - it is a real possibility not only for me but for millions of others - whether they voted Democrat, Republican, or not at all. Personally I think that statement by Limbaugh is one of the most selfish and un-patriotic things he could have said. In so many words, he's said he hopes for America's downfall.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 20): he's still only alienating 20% of potential voters.

Re-think your logic on that one.

Quoting DXing (Reply 19): Because no one in elected office seems to willing to stand up and be a lightening rod the way Limbaugh is. With good reason, soon as the liberal press gets ahold of someone standing up to the President, the mud starts flying and doesn't stop.

BS. Rush can be a "lightning rod" because he is not an elected official. He has no special interests or constituents or anyone to answer to other than his sponsors. At the end of the day, Rush only cares for Rush. He is an entertainer. By making incendiary statements, he gets press (while calling them all the "liberal media") which equals curious listeners, and scores of arguments like this one. It's his and many others' M.O. And yes, he is being selfish and hypocritical. For someone who called Bush's critics "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican" for "attacking a sitting president," he sure doesn't seem to do as he says. But that's fine, because he's an entertain. Him getting people riled up and listening to his daily blowhard rants is what keeps the money flowing for him and his sponsors.

I seriously doubt he does all of this for the love of his county.

And steps out....

""My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh," Steele (pictured here in a photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images) said in an interview. "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.''"

""I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking," Steele told Politico. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people ... want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...ops_steele_limbaugh_not_bogey.html

Groveling?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8): I first thought Steele was a good pick for RNC chair but man he dropped this ball. Rush gave a great speech and energized the party the other day. Steele should just keep his mouth shut.

Then why doesn't Rush run for public office? It seems all his big butt does is now talk about what the GOP isn't doing. If he is so powerful through radio why doesn't he bring CHANGE to the nation and run for office. I think he would have more success being a public servant holding office and executing what he thinks is good for America. He just sits behind the mic. What? is some GOP politician going to become inspired by Rush to take back the country? Rush should do it himself!

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 24): ""I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking," Steele told Politico. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people ... want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not."

WOW...not even 24 hours and he's on his knees kissing Lardbaugh giant caboose....we'll for all his huff and puff, Steele has shown who his true master is....and it ain't himself.

This proves the guy would have as much 'sway and influence' leading the RNC were he where he now (chairman)..or working for Dunkin' Donuts. Zilch. He's now been verified for what many suspected all along a Token ... with a capital 'T'.



BN747

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 15): But how are you going to inspire people with a "do nothing" agenda? The

Its a good point ... people want to know what their government is going to do for them.. rather than .... you know the rest. A increasingly dependent society will only become more and more dependent. Conservatism is about self inspiration .. not following stars.

The Plan of the democrats is to get more and more dependents ... it insures there power. That is what makes illegals so attractive , a new slave class waiting for that $600.00 check every month.

Look this is all just philosophical , it probably does not matter anymore at this point.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8): . .... This president has no idea what he is doing, and uses the teleprompter and prewritten speeches

Again, I'll ask, since you are in to blame Obama for the next four years, what are YOUR credentials to handle the country? Funny, but I didn't envy Bush nor do I envy Obama. But who am I to criticize?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): You did a nice dodge but I will ask you again. What part of his speech was icendiary?

He didn't dodge. I perused this thread twice. Where did the poster state that he was referring implicitly to that speech? Are you accusing him of dodging something based on something he didn't even say?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): he has built his faithful listener base by being honest and telling it like it is.

You mistake the ability to gather followers with leadership or good sense. Hitler, Mussolini, David Koresh, all of them also had the ability to build listener bases. Your point?

Quoting ER757 (Reply 20): See, now this I just don't get. I didn't vote for Obama, I don't agree with a lot of what he's said but to hope for failure means to hope for the country to go through four more years of downturn, job losses, foreclosures etc. Why would someone who loves their country want to see it suffer through an extended period of turmoil? I don't want to lose my job, but if Obama "fails" as completely as Rush (and you) hope - it is a real possibility not only for me but for millions of others - whether they voted Democrat, Republican, or not at all. Personally I think that statement by Limbaugh is one of the most selfish and un-patriotic things he could have said. In so many words, he's said he hopes for America's downfall.

ER757, don't you see see it? Its simple hypocrisy. Limbaugh, Hannity, these hotheads are there to sell and market and make their bucks. They are entertainers. Don't think for a minute they really care about their "cause." They are there to do the same thing that they blame the media of, but do it under a different light. In the end they simply care for themselves.


And you know what's truly incredulous:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): how come nobody called her out or called those remarks icendiary? It's complete lunacy It's complete lunacy.

It's scary that you even bring that gal into the conversation. I'll ignore that faux pas.

Lunacy is allowing some like Limbaugh saying they want a President to fail and your supporting that statement. If Limbaugh said he'd love for Obama to be assassinated, I'm sure you'd agree with that lunacy just as well, in lock-step fashion. That's really sad.

People like that don't give a damn about their country. They could care less of the soldier's lives lost in foreign lands or the struggling homeless Vets that roam our own. If they were truly honest, they'd just come out and tell it like it is, that that only care about themselves, #1.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): doesn't demand anything and he has built his faithful listener base by being honest and telling it like it is.

And for the crystal clear image of complete lunacy.....so let me get this straight...

Michael Steele was honest and told it like it is. And you bash him for being direct, like Limbaugh. Way to make your case...



I hope Steele continues headstrong in revamping the party.

[Edited 2009-03-02 19:52:39]

Quoting BN747 (Reply 26):

Steele's apology to Rush proves that what Rahm Emanuel said about Rush and the GOP is all true:

"Limbaugh called for President Obama to fail. That's his view. And that's what he has enunciated. And whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him, and say they were misunderstood. He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. And he has been upfront about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh."

It's like watching a chess match, and a very interesting bit of political strategy from the Obama camp.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): Rush doesn't demand anything and he has built his faithful listener base by being honest and telling it like it is.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 28): ER757, don't you see see it? Its simple hypocrisy. Limbaugh, Hannity, these hotheads are there to sell and market and make their bucks. They are entertainers.

Precisely, entertainers, just like, Tom Cruise, Bill Maher, Charlie Sheen, Tim Robbins, Barbara Streisand..are ENTERTAINERS... Rush is also...an Entertainer. I recall a lot of you here now championing Rush (as telling it like it is, blah, blah, blah) was telling the other entertainers to 'STFU' when they were trashing Bush & his policies (which got us where we are today)...now you guys are suddenly embracing 'entertainers' valued sources of political input/spin. Infact is now beyond refute that Lardbaugh is the defacto head of the RNC. I can see 'Streisand' as the defacto head of the DNC...no how, now way, not ever.

It seems the RNC gravitating more towards the role of 'obstruction at all cost' (Limbaugh) and faked us all out with the 'Steele' is symbolic of 'change in the RNC'..the answer is clear.

BN747

Quoting ER757 (Reply 20): So Rush can publicly disagree with Steele, but Steele has to voice his disagreement privately?

In this latest episode Rush was responding to a statement by Steele so I think you have things a little backward.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 20): And Rush has 20 million listeners. There are over 100 million voters in the USA so I'd say Rush's base is a distinct minority.

Split them in half, which the last three elections have been, 2/5ths is 40% which would make you a major stockholder in most publicly owned companies.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 22): BS. Rush can be a "lightning rod" because he is not an elected official

I think that is pretty much what I said. There are no elected officials on the GOP side with the grit to stand up to President Obama/Speaker Pelosi/Senator Reid/liberal media bias.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 24): Groveling?

Sure sounds like it. Maybe next time he'll be smart enough to say nothing which is what he should have done this time. As others have noted, Rush Limbaugh is not an elected official so Steele can let him fend for himself.

Steele is saying that Rush is an obnoxious jerk. He is neither a conservative nor does he have any valid political ideology. He's just an obnoxious, loud-mouthed, windbag jerk. I agree with Mr. Steele.

The GOP might actually pick up a lot of moderate votes if they kicked out the obnoxious jerks.

There are jerks who align with the left and jerks who align with the right. We need to learn to grow a spine and stand up to both.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32): There are jerks who align with the left and jerks who align with the right. We need to learn to grow a spine and stand up to both.

You make an interesting point, yet it bothers me people try to play both sides as they're equally destruction to the good of society. So I ask, can you make list of 10 leftist jerks and 10 right-wing jerks. And next to each assign a number 1-10 (10 being greater, 1 being minimal) as a rating of each person listed -- of their actual impact/influence on their respective followers .

Example:

Left: Terry McAuliffe - 1 (actually, that should be a negative 1)

Right: Ann Coulter - 7

Coulter, like Palin's speeches at the RNC Convention, speaks to divisiveness, disdain for other Americans (truly in favor of 'destructive' as opposed to pursuit of greater good for society) which went over very well with millions of Americans. The entire Right sees strength in appealing to the lesser common denominator in all of us. Rating Coulter a 1st class jerk(ess) with considerable sway/influence.

McAuliffe on the other hand holds little sway and is simply a middle aged unstable person with very little influence...a minimal or gnat-weight jerk.

BN747

[Edited 2009-03-03 01:59:40]

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 24): And steps out.... ""My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh," Steele (pictured here in a photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images) said in an interview. "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.''"

Man, this is bull. Steele NAILED IT earlier, and now is kissing that fat asses' ring.

The Republican party is doomed to be a regional party, and possibly a FORMER political party if they keep capitulating to this uneducated and unelected pot-stirrer while simultaneously stymying any and all dissent within the party. If the republican party's followers cannot realize this, then they deserve what they get.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): Well that's a good way to piss off 20 million listners. The RNC has yet to figure out how to get back to power

The 20 milliion listeners are for the most part die-hard Republicans anyway, much like the viewers of Fox News. Strong audiences in rural red states in the south and west but very few listeners in the cities and on either coast.

These aren't the people the RNC needs to win over - these people will vote Republican anyway, for the most part. What they need to win is the middle-of-the-road voters who actually decide every election, the ones who have voted for both Democrats and Republicans.

This has been a big reason why the Republicans have lost power - they are obsessed with preaching to the choir, their own power base, about religion, abortion, guns and gays ... the kind of stuff that turns off young and independent voters everywhere.

Cairo

[Edited 2009-03-03 07:20:21]

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): You did a nice dodge but I will ask you again. What part of his speech was icendiary? He said we should keep what we earn and not hate people that are successful. Something our president is totally against. What is wrong with that? Why is opposing view points when it comes to a Dem always icendiary? Why don't we call out members of Hollywood like Rosie? She said basically that Bush planted bombs is WT7 to make it come down how come nobody called her out or called those remarks icendiary? It's complete lunacy.

Doge? I did not dodge a darn thing, I stated what was going on. As to his "icendiary" (use spell check) speech, this is incendiary: " He said we should keep what we earn and not hate people that are successful. Something our president is totally against." You have drunk the kool-aid and are long gone if you really think that our president is totally against that, you are no better than Rosie saying Bush intentionally mis-lead us, you and Rush are doing he same.

In this world and country taxes are necessary, so no we don't get to "keep what we earn", I for one think we need roads, police, a strong national defense, etc. You want to see our country crumble? Let everyone keep what they earn, we'll have warlords and fiefdoms springing up and we are lost. Stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. How the hell can you even begin to defend such a stupid argument?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): This is major Bravo Sierra. Rush doesn't demand anything and he has built his faithful listener base by being honest and telling it like it is. Something the left doesn't want to be allowed. I agree with Rush and do hope Obama fails. I don't want the Jimmy Carter era again. I don't want big government and 40% plus of my salary to be taken to give to someone cheap healthcare to try to keep some lame campaign promise. I want what Reagan did, which is something Obama tries to say he wants with words but when it's time to put into practice it turns into Jimmy Carter. There is only person who wants total control and you call him President.

There is really nothing to say, you are just so far gone it is sad. Signed, a thinking, independent Republican.

Quoting DXing (Reply 19): With 20 million listners. If he wants to disagree with him, in private would be a better way to handle it.

But Pres. Obama received 63 million votes and 56 million voted for McCain, yet Mr. Limbaugh doesn't have to disagree with either in private? By your reasoning he does. And yes I do realize that you are just pointing out that Rush has a fan base and Mr. Steele would not have had this "blow up" occur if he had done it in private. But I do not think popularity is any reason to silence anyone's opinion in this country.

Quoting DXing (Reply 19): First off, people are going to die of certain cancers and ALS no matter what sort of health insurance is available until cures are found. That being said, I would love to see the copy of this paper you evidently were given at birth that says your life will be compeletely trouble free and that the rest of the population owes it to you to see that it is that way.

I can't see anything where people are saying their lives should be trouble free and that the population owes it to said people to be that way, why push into hyperbole? This is the whole problem. As for me, as Republican, the best way that I can think of to have productive people is to have healthy people, the best way the I can think to have competitive companies is to have the burden of heath costs removed from the companies. More cars were built is Ontario this past year than in Michigan and the reason was two fold, Ontario has lower health costs and the work force has fewer days off from being sick. These are global competitive reasons, capitalistic, competitive reasons that I think the USA needs so form of universal healthcare, not government run but something that is available to everyone on a basic level. The way we do it now is irresponsible and is bankrupting us. I've said it before but it is ridiculous that we have so many competing systems that are exclusive of each other, there should be integration and open competition between the 5 or 6 different healthcare systems.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 24): Groveling?

Sadly, I had higher hopes for Mr. Steele but then he is at least trying to heal and help the Republican party. I hardly doubt that even with this will Mr. Limbaugh be gracious, contrite, or healing to the Republican party. It will likely just embolden him (like he needs any).

Rahm Emanuel is being brilliant and the Democrats are being smart, by constantly throwing Rush's name out there. If I were them I would keep doing what they are doing and puffing up Rush till the Republican party fractures over this kind of crap. We are already showing stress cracks with all the divisive figures that we have had leading us these past decade.

Tugg

[Edited 2009-03-03 07:52:06]

Quoting ER757 (Reply 20): And Rush has 20 million listeners. There are over 100 million voters in the USA so I'd say Rush's base is a distinct minority.

Just because he has 20 million listeners does not mean all 20 million will vote his way. I listen to Rush and no way in HELL would I ever vote the way anyone ever tells me to, much less Rush.

Quoting DXing (Reply 19): Because no one in elected office seems to willing to stand up and be a lightening rod the way Limbaugh is.

A quote from the movie "The Ref" comes to mind:

Kevin Spacey: You know what I'm gonna get you for next Christmas, mom? A big wooden cross so that every time you feel unappriciated, you can crawl up and nail yourself to it!

Quoting DXing (Reply 19): I would love to see the copy of this paper you evidently were given at birth that says your life will be compeletely trouble free and that the rest of the population owes it to you to see that it is that way.

Really? I said that? Wow. Thanks for telling me what I said, otherwise I would never know. I just don't understand what the right's obsession is with being self-centered and being Christian at the same time. Imagine if Mother Teresa had that attitude. Imagine if John the Baptist had that attitude. Imagine if Noah had that attitude. The nation does not owe me, we all owe each other.

Another great point was brought up: Salaries, and by extention production costs, would lower if every citizen of this country had health care. If everyone were on the same playing field for health, that is one less thing all of us would have to worry about. Do you honestly think if one of us had the same brain issues Ted Kennedy has we would be treated exactly the same? Hell no! Not even close. Unless we are some type of A-List celeb or CEO, we would probably hear "we'll do what we can" from the doctors and "that is not covered by your insurance" from the insurance.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 35): they are obsessed with preaching to the choir, their own power base, about religion, abortion, guns and gays ... the kind of stuff that turns off young and independent voters everywhere.

They always seem to bring those points up loudest and first and just keep hammering away at them, don't they? But, don't forget nationalism. "Secure our boarders! Keep them illegals out so Americans can get jobs!"

Quoting DXing (Reply 19): I think Gov. Jindal summed it up nicely the other night. At some point the GOP needs to get back to being the limited government/less regulation/less taxes party that got them elected with such huge numbers in 1980,84, and 94. No before someone on the left wants to jump all over the fact that President Bush and the Congresses from 00-06 spent heftily, that has already been acknowledged and addressed as wrong and a major part of the party that needs to change. Just trying to outspend the democratic party didn't work and won't work.

Fair enough. I just wonder if with the out of control spending we have right now the GOP could sneak up and grab some middle of the road voters IF they indeed go back to the limited government/regulations platform. One big obstacle I see is what Cairo brought up:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 35): they are obsessed with preaching to the choir, their own power base, about religion, abortion, guns and gays ... the kind of stuff that turns off young and independent voters everywhere.

As long as you have loud voices preaching this kind of social conservatism within the GOP you'll put off many potential voters. The GOP has to determine whether they can win without them or not.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23): This statement only proves my earlier point in previous threads: Limbaugh is far more invested in himself than the actual good of the conservative movement, much less the country.

This might be true but we must keep in perspective that Mr. Limbaugh is an entertainer/businessman and not a public servant. He and his staff depend on the ratings of his show so, inevitably, he'll go down the path of saying whatever he needs to say in order to generate income. The RNC Chairman, while entitled to exercise his freedom of speech, should have exercised his freedom to use his brain as well. As the head of a major party it shouldn't be his place to pick fights with folks in the show business. I'm no fan of Mr. Limbaugh at all but picking a fight with him is a bit silly when you consider his influence over the GOP base. It's akin to having Howard Dean picking a public fight with Rosie, just doesn't suit folks at that level. That's my opinion anyways.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38): As long as you have loud voices preaching this kind of social conservatism within the GOP you'll put off many potential voters. The GOP has to determine whether they can win without them or not.

Yes!

I would very much like to vote for a politician that was serious about limiting the size of government, reducing debt and in general getting government out of our lives - but since no such party exists - I voted last time for the party that doesn't try to preach about issues that should remain private - religion, abortion, gays/sexuality, etc...

Reagan didn't make a big deal out of these things. No one checked into Nixon's church habits. Bush the Elder was always trying to keep his distance from overtly Christian policies and affiliations. Rove etc... found a demographic movement and was able to capitalize on it in the late 90s through 2004, however, I think that movement - always strongest in the south - has been eclipsed by the population in America's cities and on either coast and sticking to it will further make the GOP a regional party.

Cairo

There are quite a few stories out there now about the "Limbaugh strategy" by Democrats. The brilliance of it is that they can hang Rush's incendiary rhetoric around any Republican's neck and if the person says anything to refute this then Mr. Limbaugh himself does the attacking.

Basically you can't denounce Rush without him publicly lashing you in front of 20 million people. And since he turns off soo many people the Dem's are using him to keep the Republican's from using this time after the election loss to redefine themselves coherently.

Someday the schism will end, either with Mr. Limbaugh reduced, the Republican party splintered, or the Dem's with more voters.

Tugg

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 25): Then why doesn't Rush run for public office?

IMO, two reasons. 1. He would have to invest his own money, which he would never ever do. There would be no return on that investment, unlike getting sponsors. 2. He has done so many things in his personal life that many feel is "unsavory" there is no way anyone would ever take him seriously.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 29): It's like watching a chess match, and a very interesting bit of political strategy from the Obama camp.

Very well put. I think we are starting to see two camps on the right. One is the show camp and the other is the business camp. This back-and-forth between Steele and Rush highlights that. Rush keeps people in his camp because he is an entertainer but Steele keeps people in his camp because he is wants to see the party go back to being more political.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 28): Lunacy is allowing some like Limbaugh saying they want a President to fail

And fallacy is continuing to repeat an incorrect statment. Perhaps you should go back and re-read or re-listen to what he said.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 28): I hope Steele continues headstrong in revamping the party.

So do I, especially if it means promoting fiscal conservatives.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 35): These aren't the people the RNC needs to win over - these people will vote Republican anyway,

Not necessarily. They have proven they will sit on their hands of they don't feel the person represents their views.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 35): This has been a big reason why the Republicans have lost power - they are obsessed with preaching to the choir, their own power base, about religion, abortion, guns and gays ... the kind of stuff that turns off young and independent voters everywhere.

Perhaps you should take a look at the cpac audience.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36): But Pres. Obama received 63 million votes and 56 million voted for McCain, yet Mr. Limbaugh doesn't have to disagree with either in private?

No, because those individuals were elected into office and as such have a different standard.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36): But I do not think popularity is any reason to silence anyone's opinion in this country.

Agreed but to avoid the kind of liberal media blow ups like this one has caused those kind o statements are best left to private.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36): I can't see anything where people are saying their lives should be trouble free and that the population owes it to said people to be that way,

I see it in a number of policy initiatives being promoted by the present administration. More than any other in the past 50 years this administration and Congress seems hell bent on promoting and passing into law forced cradle to grave government decided no option programs that will forever make the government the decider in a persons life with the price being paid by those that take the time to make the right decisions and excel in their lives.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36): the best way the I can think to have competitive companies is to have the burden of heath costs removed from the companies.

To be replaced by a government that has a proven track record of inefficiency?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36): Ontario has lower health costs and the work force has fewer days off from being sick.

I doubt that has much if anything to do with it.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36): way we do it now is irresponsible and is bankrupting us

We are already being bankrupted by the government and you want to give them even more?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 37): Really? I said that? Wow. Thanks for telling me what I said, otherwise I would never know.

In virtually all your postings that is what you espouse. From how radio stations should lose money just to carry liberal radio programs, to health care, to employing people in make work government programs fixing roads and bridges that will make the entire project more costly and inefficient, to education, to how business should be treated. Tell me I am wrong and show some examples of where you have ever advocated individual responsibility above government intervention.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 37): Another great point was brought up: Salaries, and by extention production costs, would lower if every citizen of this country had health care.

And taxes would go up correspondingly. Do you understand the concept of insurance? When was the last time medicare or medicaid cost less in an annual budget?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38): As long as you have loud voices preaching this kind of social conservatism within the GOP you'll put off many potential voters. The GOP has to determine whether they can win without them or not.

I don't think that will be necessary. The President said that the market is sort of a tracking poll. If that is true, then he ought to be very worried. I have a feeling that in 2012, just like in 1980, people are going to look back over the previous 4 years and be very angry at what was promised versus what was really delivered.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 41): Quoting Tsaord (Reply 25): Then why doesn't Rush run for public office? IMO, two reasons. 1. He would have to invest his own money, which he would never ever do. There would be no return on that investment, unlike getting sponsors. 2. He has done so many things in his personal life that many feel is "unsavory" there is no way anyone would ever take him seriously.

Those are valid reasons, but I think the BIGGEST reason is that he would actually have to face a debate with the other side. If you notice, he NEVER engages those that disagree with him. He surrounds himself only with friendly audiences.

Truth be told, he would get crushed in a debate with an intelligent person that disagreed with him. And he knows it.

Now, think: if you make money hand over fist and you're adored by millions, regardless of what those that do not adore you think you'd be a fool to change course. There is almost nothing positive for Rush to gain by running for office.

On top of that, which office would he run for? House? Congratulations - you just went from being at the top of the totem pole in your industry to being one of 438 members, all of whom outrank you, and most of whom disagree with you and carry a bigger stick than you. Even the other republicans would run roughshod over him. If he were able to find a district conservative enough to elect him (which I think he probably could), he would be immediately marginalized upon entry in Washington. (And probably thrown in the klink for drug possession.)

Senate? Wouldn't be elected. Florida is a purple state if ever there was one. Moderates get elected there. Right wingers don't. Not state-wide. What state could he move to to get elected? Probably none -- most states don't like carpetbaggers.

President? Even bigger problem than Senate. Think about it: assuming he won the nomination, which states do you think would actually elect him? Probably only the McCain states, minus Arizona, Missouri (unless he can play up his being from there) and maybe even West Virginia. He *might* grab NC back from the dems, but that's a long shot considering moderate McCain couldn't.

You see, Rush running for office would be like that guy that bragged about being the fastest man in the world until the day someone timed him with a stopwatch. If Rush ran for office, he would find out that he's nowhere near as significant as he thought he was.

Quoting D L X (Reply 43): Those are valid reasons, but I think the BIGGEST reason is that he would actually have to face a debate with the other side. If you notice, he NEVER engages those that disagree with him. He surrounds himself only with friendly audiences.

He also speaks louder when someone disagrees with him and controls the microphone. In a debate, he would have to yeild that control, which, I don't think he would ever do. He also insists. I think a lot of his listeners saw Bush that way the second time around. They both seem to be "my way or the highway" types. I think Rush played that up for him in 2004.

Quoting D L X (Reply 43): If you notice, he NEVER engages those that disagree with him.

That's not true. At various times he has done talking head shows and while I would agree the intelligence displayed on some of those shows is questionable at best, he does square off against people that oppose his views. He certainly doesn't do them with any regularity but that probably has more to do with not over exposing the brand. By that I mean, in the early days some stations took to replaying the Rush Limbaugh shows at night. It didn't take long for EIB to nix that idea as they didn't want over saturartion of the product. On top of all that he lives in Florida and unless the show in question wants to field a satellite truck and all that entails he is more than likely to decline the chance to participate.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 37): Just because he has 20 million listeners does not mean all 20 million will vote his way. I listen to Rush and no way in HELL would I ever vote the way anyone ever tells me to, much less Rush.

That and I wonder...

Do you remember that before the World Wrestling Federation came out and admitted that the fights were fake/staged/choreographed that there were actually people, and I mean adults, who thought that they were real?

I view Rush as being the WWF of the political world.

Let us recall that this is the same Rush who had the ACLU run to his rescue after his little prescription pill issue. After he said that people who abused drugs should face the death penalty. Yet somehow, I don't seem to recall him volunteering to hang from any gallows.

Sorry, but if you take him seriously, I can't respect you.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38): As long as you have loud voices preaching this kind of social conservatism within the GOP you'll put off many potential voters. The GOP has to determine whether they can win without them or not.

Your right ... but if they morph to just get voters with liberal ideas then whats the point.? We will eventually just end up with one big democraticliberalsocialistscommunist party anyways... of course there wont be any money left .. and I will be living in China .

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 46): Do you remember that before the World Wrestling Federation came out and admitted that the fights were fake/staged/choreographed that there were actually people, and I mean adults, who thought that they were real?

And that is another point: there are adults who believe the whole WWF/WWE thing is real. I am sure Rush has his own personal beliefs. I am sure he believes he is expressing his opinions. However, at the same time, he is getting his minions whipped up into a frenzy and frothing at the mouth over his opinions, which they carry on to a political affiliation. These people actually believe he IS the Republican party.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 48): but if they morph to just get voters with liberal ideas then whats the point.? We will eventually just end up with one big democraticliberalsocialistscommunist party anyways...

That is what has happened. Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly and other right wingers have brainwashed their people into believing that anyone voting anything other than Republican are the spawn of the devil and should be put down IMMEDIATLY! They interchange liberal, Democrat, Socialist and Communist so much that their minions actually believe they are all the same. We can all see that on this board. Me, for instance. I do not oppose gun control and I am a Christian but I believe abortion should be available in some situations. I see myself as center just possibly a little to the left. However, since I tend to support Democrats, my opinions are completely dismissed by people on the right. I am a raging liberal/Socalist/Communist/Democrat.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 36): Signed, a thinking, independent Republican.

Amen to that. Rahm Emmanuel and the DNC didn't need to do a thing.

You know, its really sad watching the Rush really hurting the GOP. Get rid of Rush and the RNC can focus it efforts. Rush is a sideshow.