Don't cross Rush Limbaugh

[MacBeth]

Well, as of today, we know who wears the pants in the GOP. If you were wondering, it's not the party's elected officials.

Tuesday, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) criticized radio host Rush Limbaugh for his attacks on the party's congressional leadership. "I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey told Politico. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

One day later, apparently cowed by the angry response he received, Gingrey was singing a different tune. His office released this statement:

Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives. Let me assure you, I am one of you... As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives -- that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.

Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans -- myself included -- turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination.

The congressman also called in to Limbaugh's show to apologize. "I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday… I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth… I regret those stupid comments," Gingrey said.




www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?source=newsletter

[oskar]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..... ad infinitum.
What a wimp.

[wheelspinner]

Jan 28, 2009 19:06:08 GMT -5 MacBeth said:

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.

And that's a big part of what's wrong with the American conservative movement. These people are not intellectuals, they are not thinkers, they don't care about the citizenry, they are just entertainers. Ratings and lining their own pockets are their only lodestones.

[Pax]

Newt Gingrich I have some respect for, but...

"Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity... and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience."

Oh no he di'ent!

Ok, I shall coin a new phrase here and now: "You can't BE a conscience if you don't HAVE a conscience."

[MacBeth]

That is a keeper, pax !!

[crazielollie]

wheelspinner,

That's the problem with both parties. Democrats had Fannie and Freddie where they "helped people" while lining their own pockets. The focus wasn't on what was good for the country but rather what kept the votes coming. Both parties do it big time. Even Obama can't stay away from lobbyists when making appointments.

Listening to a senator calling in to Rush and kissing his butt was entertaining to say the least. (don't have time for Rush but they played it on the news) Then, again, it was just as nuts hearing Obama mention Rush' name adding stature to someone who is nothing more than an entertainer. Politicians are at a low on both sides and entertainers are more able to sway the people than elected leaders. We are in a crisis and it's much more than just financial.

[Pax]

Rush Limbaugh should not be dismissed as an entertainer.

That makes it sound like he's the Barnum and Bailey Circus, where you go, see the animals, have a few laughs, then go home and forget about it till next year. Rush Limbaugh has a strong impact on the political views of millions. "Worse," he has a strong influence on framing the debate in this country: He not only talks about what's going on in this country -- he's one of very few individuals who can actually influence WHAT gets talked about in this country, and HOW it gets talked about. Finally, with just a word on his radio show, he can mobilize millions to be active on his behalf.

Just an entertainer?

One more thing: A direct quote: He says he "carries the water for the Republicans," which means that he admits that he puts party over country. With all that power, and he puts party over country. I call that dangerous. NO ONE should put party over country, NO ONE, and especially not someone with his amount of power.

[wheelspinner]

Pax

I consider Rush Limbaugh an entertainer in the sense of what motivates him and drives him.

I've no doubt he is capable of all you say, but his real motivation is ratings and money, not to advance the country or perform any kind of public service. His interest is a self-interest.

The approbation "voice of the conservative movement's conscience" is way over the top for somebody who is all about getting people to dial in and listen to his spiel. He is going to say what it takes to get people dialing in, not what it takes to develop new policy positions, nut out a conservative political philosophy for the future, or any of the other heavy lifting that needs doing by the Right now that they are out of power. One only has to look at his duplicitous stance on Hilary Clinton to see that he is a political opportunist.

What the right in the USA needs to do is to stop listening to hacks like Rush and start in on some serious intellectual work of their own. Rush is the medium, not the content. Once they have worked out their political stances, by all means use him to get them out there. But you do not ask the delivery boy to write the paper as well. You need rigorous thinking and new ideas, not blind parroting of old ones, to move ahead from where the us right is now.

[Pax]

Wheelspinner -- I can agree with that.

I'll say these two things about conservatives in the US:

1. I think that this country needs genuine conservatives every bit as much as it needs genuine liberals. Neither side has the best ideas every time, and both sides keep each other honest. And I mean "genuine" in every sense of that word.

2. I think, metaphorically speaking, the conservatives are systematically killing off the genuine conservatives. Conservatives like Phil Gingrey who dare to say, you know, Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be taken that seriously, get tarred and feathered, and end up having to apologize to these "entertainers." And then there's Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. The face of the conservative movement is no longer Reagan's easy gentlemanliness, his willingness to work with those who don't agree with him, his capacity for pragmatism. Why are all the prominent voices of the conservative movement now schoolyard bullies and taunts? How can conservatives have allowed this to happen -- nay, how can they STILL be actually energized and encouraged by it? It's even begun to influence their choice of political leaders: It is precisely this kind of thing that has allowed the straight-faced ascendancy of Sarah Palin.

Conservatives will one day win the White House -- and even Congress -- but God help us all if they haven't returned to the party of Reagan by then.

[crazielollie]

"I consider Rush Limbaugh an entertainer in the sense of what motivates him and drives him.

I've no doubt he is capable of all you say, but his real motivation is ratings and money, not to advance the country or perform any kind of public service. His interest is a self-interest."


...and this differs from most of our entertaining public officials how?

[Pax]

So.... is that a criticism of Rush Limbaugh, or a defense of him?

In any event, if you're suggesting we line up all of our self-serving "public officials" (Rush Limbaugh is a public official now?), shoot them, and start over, I'll help with that.

[crazielollie]

pax

Didn't say he was a public official. Just wanted to know how he differs from the many self-serving public officials who have as their main interest polls, personal power and money. For some reason, even in a "crisis", all is either rushed thru or put on hold based on campaign schedules. There is an answer to this I guess. The public officials are hired by us to do a specific job for this country. We can fire them. Rush is hired by a company and his job is dependent on ratings. He lets no one down by his flights into absurdity as long as it makes money for the company. Criticize or defend? Neither...I prefer to ignore him.

Don't want to shoot them but jailing them would be a start. They're a private club where their transgressions don't see the light of day unless it becomes politically expedient to get rid of them. Bet serious investigations would get rid of over half of congress. I can't believe we sat and let many of those who benefitted mightily from the companies "in crisis" write checks to them with our money and no oversight. The inmates are running the asylum. Compared to this, Rush is a fly speck.

[Temperament]

Rush is not a fly speck. At least he has the guts to telle the truth.

[MacBeth]

What truth would he be telleing? And when did he make that departure from his usual nonsense?

[Pax]

Rush Limbaugh once said, "I am tired of carrying the water for Republicans in Washington."

There would be no reason for him to complain about that if making Republicans in Washington look good generally aligned with the truth as he sees it.

Therefore, Rush is on record admitting that much or most of what he says on air is NOT, in fact, the "truth" as he sees it.

Your court, Temperament.

[Temperament]

In my court indeed. I submit that the truth Rush tells is that of an ignorant, uninformed, segment of society. It's a truth that they believe and think what they do, however ill informed. I think that the truth rests in him being a bullhorn not an original thinker.

[Temperament]

I have also had it pointed out to me a number of times how someone else's truth or reality can be more important to pay attention to than the facts of a situation. I think that Rush creates the words for the people who can't form the words on their own but it is what they are thinking or feeling anyway. That is why they all repeat the same thing. As there appears to be quite a lot of them, their truth is important to hear. I think it takes guts to give that truth form.

[Pax]

So you'd agree that every single one of Rush Limbaugh's followers are what we'd call "flat-earthers?"

[MacBeth]

Only the ones who believe any thing that man says....