I second Patterico's thoughts on Rush Limbaugh, David Frum, et. al. (yes, that makes it a double dose of Patterico today).
Rush Limbaugh is an important voice in the conservative movement, but probably not a leader of it, nor certainly a public spokesperson...there being a substantial difference between a self-selected radio show (widely successful as it is) and a proactive, public spokesperson: Example:
Using the word "deranged" to describe liberals as a whole is just silly. It's true of some of them. But not all of them. Calling liberals deranged may make you feel good, and it may make you laugh. But many of you consider Limbaugh to be the spokesman of the conservative movement -- and if our spokesmen regularly say stuff like that, we'll alienate voters. And then, we'll get eight years of Obama and his crazy spending that is killing our children's future.
That's exactly why Limbaugh is an important voice (for the successful way he articulates other critiques against tax & spend liberalism, and the like), yet not a leader. At the same time, some of Limbaugh's critics, such as Frum, are so wildly off the mark that they diminish themselves in this discussion:
When I choose leaders and spokesmen for my party and my political movement, I want clarity, vigor, integrity, perspective, and a lack of pettiness. In my view, David Frum -- with his comments about Limbaugh's bulk and personal life -- showed pettiness. With his ambivalence about Clinton's impeachment -- not justified by any argument but made as an aside as if to curry favor with the elite -- Frum lacks the integrity of a true conservative.
True.
Now, one quibble with Patterico. He says:
Frum also repeats an offensive set of comments he made on his blog earlier this week -- comments that I bashed as contradictory and unnecessarily insulting:With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence--exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.In other words, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot. Well, Mr. Frum, we already have one too many Al Frankens in politics. We don't need another. Limbaugh's bulk and private life have bupkis to do with his arguments, and you devalue the debate if you maintain that they are in any way relevant.
Patterico has a point in a sense. Yet, consider this: is the era of visual images being so important in our politics, can one think of a worse image for the GOP right now than an overweight, balding, aging, white guy with a propensity for being photographed in what the general public construes to be obnoxious and or angry-looking images. Granted, that might be great for Limbaugh's ratings, but there is a very good argument to be made that the literal image of Limbaugh - as portrayed by the MSM (fairly or not) is not a net positive for the GOP.
You the loyal reader might argue, "Hey, Earling, Rush isn't the leader of the GOP and he's on radio...who cares what he looks like?"
True enough. But let's not pretend that Democrats and Limbaugh-critics in the MSM don't use that imagery against him and conservatives. Moreover, given Rush's atrocious favorable/unfavorable ratings outside of Republican audiences, let's not pretend that doesn't matter.
All of which makes me think the sooner the GOP has a handful of reliably, effective vocal leaders who can be the public face of the party and conservatives the better. Note, I'm not saying default standard bearer for 2012; that's too far away. I'm saying voices, right now. That means Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, etc. Whoever is ready and able to take a voice on the national stage. Let's hear from them, and often...all while potential stars like Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Paul Ryan, Meg Whitman, and the like continue to emerge.
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini seems to be of a similar mind, essentially, shut up and move forward. Agreed.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 08, 2009 09:45 PM | Email ThisHey, you left out "beautiful" and "chic" and "hip" and "defiant" "audacious" and "witty" and "svelte" and "steely-eyed" and "rosy-fingered" and "wine-dark"... oh, you'll grasp the idea. I'd hope for a contest of ideas instead of one of appearances. And aren't appearances supposed to be deceiving? John Edwards was gorgeous, but what ideas and probity did he have to offer?
If you insist on peering about questingly for leaders who haven't made themselves heard, to cast off the ones someone might consider 'unsuitable' or 'untelegenic' or, heaven forbid, 'obese' (catchy term, hey? Custom made by lefty elitists, too), you're in the same position as the Republican Party was when Ronald Reagan was being elbowed aside as some sort of flawed candidate. You goes to war with the army you've got. And Limbaugh can get more telling points into one paragraph - all plenty attractive to the plainspoken blokes who are turning out in these unprecedented 'tea parties' - than most of the prepped and cultivated Republican candidates to date.
Granted, the MSM being the undisputed gatekeeper that it is, the voices of leaders not of the left are going to be severely muffled in the public's ear. That's the name of the game. So even calling on the legion in your last paragraph is sort of whistling in the wind. And why is Sarah Palin omitted? Remember her before her entrance into the Presidential election? The MSM loved her - she was pragmatic and practical and had slain some pot-bellied Republicans in fair combat. Only after they caught on that the public loved her too did they abruptly abandon their former approval and commence their hatefest against her. Are you saying that we must dump a potential leader as soon as the MSM goes negative on him/her?
Time to regroup and rethink on the combination of politics with fashion show.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 8, 2009 09:57 PM* he ditches the Creationism
* moderates his anti-abortion view
* becomes a more forceful speaker
because he has all the academic credentials(Oxford grad, Harvard Med, Yale Law, attended Brown). Heck even his wife is an MBA and chemist! They're a great looking couple of brown shade and can help us win back the swing voters in 2012!
Posted by: Crusader on March 8, 2009 10:00 PMYou forgot the part about Obama being a pathological liar, a hypocrite, and a fraud. The MSM seems to have missed all that too.
Now you're getting it!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 9, 2009 01:05 AMThe problem with your comment @3 is that Creationism, Anti-choice, and Anti-intellectualism are the cornerstones of contemporary Conservatism. So while that may improve Jindal’s effectiveness in your mind. It does nothing to sway the band of Neo-cons, rednecks, and bible thumpers who comprise the current base of the Republican Party.
I would add 2nd-term Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Even if he's not high on the ''likely'' list for 2012 (at least not yet), IMO he certainly meets Eric's ''voices now'' criteria; i.e.:
Pew Center named Utah the Best Managed State;
Chairman of Western Governor's Association;
Worked in the Reagan White House;
Stints in Commerce and State Departments;
Was an Ambassador;
Speaks Mandarin Chinese (VERY few can say same).
Also, I agree Palin deserves to be on the list. She's not my candidate for 2012 (and I think it's very unlikely that she will be the nominee), but overall she has a good record as Gov. of Alaska and presents a perspective that deserves to be heard.
Finally, WRT to Hinton's disparaging comment about Jindal @ #1:
Clearly Hinton has not been paying attention since the ''Obama rebuttal'' event:
Jindal has been on multiple network and cable news programs since then, and did great every time I saw him. I'm guessing one of if not the primary problem with the Obama rebuttal speech was that he let himself be ''packaged'' by a bunch of handlers who tried to make him into something that didn't work very well (although I still think content wasn't bad; it was the delivery that was deficient).
In any case, that one speech event is already yesterday's old news. And as pointed out on another thread somewhere:
Remember Bill Clinton's unmitigated speech disaster at the 1988 (D) convention; and what happened 4 years later.
I hate to be blunt, but, "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPIDS". It is not Limbaugh or the face of the GOP. Carville understands it. So does Begala and Rahm and Steponallofus.
The economy is not good for Ds, ergo, the Trojan Horse- Limbaugh. So, FOCUS, FOCUS AND FOCUS.
Posted by: swatter on March 9, 2009 08:51 AMAnd the Chicago mob are now the Enforcers of that leftism, and their glib PC puppet is just the cutest figurehead for the whole seizure of our lives, enterprises and properties.
Guard your remaining valuables, and ready the tar and feathers.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 9, 2009 09:07 AMGOP Will Gladly Take Rush If Dems Will Claim Soros
... If the Obama While House wants America to believe that Rush Limbaugh is running the GOP, it seems fair to ask who is pulling the strings at the DNC. A cursory examination of the Democrat's platform tells us a lot. It calls for higher taxes on productive Americans and more welfare for those who don't pay taxes. It supports bigger, more intrusive government and advocates unchecked power over American businesses by Big Labor. It promotes deviant ideas like same-sex marriage and other special rights for homosexuals, and destructive policies such as abortion on demand up to the moment of natural birth. Democrats also favor wide open borders, a shackled Central Intelligence Agency and a gutted military. Does that about cover it? I may have left out a few of the crazy planks in their platform, but those are most of the highlights.
Now ask yourself this question: Who most readily embodies and embraces that agenda? Why, it is none other than George Soros, everyone's favorite paranoid Hungarian billionaire, who uses his vast wealth -- gained mostly from speculating on and (some say) manipulation of currency markets around the world -- to fund left-wing causes like Air America, Media Matters and MoveOn.org.
Soros is a behind-the-scenes despot. He is an evil man who has used his wealth to further all the causes the Democrat Party holds dear.
He was also a Nazi sympathizer. In his autobiography, entitled "Soros on Soros," he blithely describes how as a teenager he helped cart off the possessions of Hungarian Jews after they were sent to concentration camps. Soros wrote that this never bothered him, even though his father was Jewish and he grew up in a Jewish home. He says he has no regrets for his actions. "Somebody would have done it," he wrote.
Oh yeah, the GOP will take Rush Limbaugh in a heartbeat if the Dems will just claim this guy.
Regarding Patterico... he's been all over the place about this issue. Looking at the volume of comments (and therefore traffic) he's gotten for every Limbaugh post, I don't blame him for keeping the issue alive.
One of the things I liked about Fred Thompson is he did not attend an Ivy League school. I don't hold his Ivy credentials against Bobby Jindal, I think he has a bright future in the Conservative movement, but I hope we don't overlook talent educated in "flyover country."
wep
Penn '62
Apparently the DC GOP has different ideas...
GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.
McHenry's description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only):
"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint."
Country first!
Posted by: Rank Stranger on March 9, 2009 01:55 PMWho cares about the politics when the economy is crashing? Hey, someone had to be listening to Nero when Rome burned.
The FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS was meant for both sides of the equation, Mr. Stranger. However, it would be nice if you used your old moniker or adopted one moniker and stayed with it. It is the ADD new posters who don't keep one that I normally don't respond to.
Posted by: swatter on March 9, 2009 03:01 PMIt will be fun to see how much time goes by before Newt is back in front of the cameras explaining how he "mis-spoke" and was "taken out of context" and didn't really mean to say anything negative about RUSH.
But what's really funny about this is - Hey Newt. You ain't in politics either these days. Seems like you been making your living in the "media" too.
"RUSH for RNC Chair" - Go RUSH!
