March 11, 2009
The Face of the GOP According to Democrats

So, let me get this straight. Democrats, who were just recently trying to prop up a highly controversial (though obviously successful), overweight, balding, old guy in Rush Limbaugh as the supposed leader of the Republican party, are now trying to highlight Eric Cantor instead, an articulate, soft-spoken, younger, bespectacled fellow who comes across as the antithesis of many negative stereotypes of Congressional Republicans?

That's an in-kind contribution to the RNC as far as this blogger is concerned.

Posted by Eric Earling at March 11, 2009 10:32 AM | Email This
Comments
1. No doubt "demo kid" will explain it all to us peons.

Posted by: Crusader on March 11, 2009 10:19 AM
2. Eric.
The dem's have moved on because the Rush attack didn't work.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 11, 2009 10:34 AM
3. And how is attacking Eric Cantor going to work? The guy is young, fit, photogenic and not a rabid right winger. Nothing to really attack!

Posted by: Crusader on March 11, 2009 10:39 AM
4.
Looks like it worked pretty well to me. Mr. Steele certainly got his come-uppance. Rush and the Newt are going at it. Virtually the entire right wing blogosphere has spent a ton of time trying to walk the fine line between dissing Rush and outright acceptance of his total control over the rank & file.

We love it. Keep it going.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 11, 2009 10:42 AM
5. Uncle Ditz: What I like even better is the Times of London calling Obama an incompetent. Aren't you Dems worried that you will starve to death because your heads are so far up your a**es that you bypass your stomach. 18 positions at Treasury require Senate confirmation, how many appointments have been made? One good ol "Turbo Tax" Geitner. Yeah Obamas really concerned about the economy

Posted by: mike336 on March 11, 2009 11:02 AM
6. I'm confused by the headline to Eric's piece. Is he saying that Eric Cantor isn't the face of the GOP. Apparently, according to Eric, it isn't Limbaugh either. So, who is it?

According to Rasmussen, Republicans don't seem to know.

Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2009 11:08 AM
7. Uncle Ditz: Chew on this, MSNBC has a poll up over 120,000 replies 17% give Obama an A, 60% give him an F(as in flop, fizzle, failure farce shall I go on?)

Posted by: mike336 on March 11, 2009 11:25 AM
8. Just another bright, shiny object the liberals are using to distract the populace.

Don't fall for it. They have control. Focus should be on what they're doing or not doing. And hold them accountable.

The rest of this is just a distraction.

Posted by: jimg on March 11, 2009 11:35 AM
9. Uncle diz.

Has Rush lost any listeners? Bet not.
Your W/H and Obama are going in circles because of so many screws up. By the way, did you noticed another person has dropped out. so they go after Rush.. Yeah that well work.
(focus dem's)

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 11, 2009 11:49 AM
10. @6 scottd - what if no single person is the face of the GOP right now?

Posted by: Crusader on March 11, 2009 11:49 AM
11. So...Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell don't speak for the party? Interesting....

Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2009 11:56 AM
12. scottd -

Of course Cantor is a major (and emerging) face of the GOP. I've said as much in multiple posts in recent weeks. My point is that I'd much rather have Democrats pointing to Cantor as a true GOP voice, which is both accurate and helpful, rather than Limbaugh, which is inaccurate and not helpful.

Meanwhile, I believe Cruasder's point is that there isn't a single leading voice you can point to in the GOP. That's normal for a minority party and/or any party not holding the Presidency. Was there one, clear, go-to voice for Democrats during W's two terms? I don't think there was absent Kerry and Obama's Presidential campaigns.

Posted by: Eric Earling on March 11, 2009 12:14 PM
13. ScottD, are you intentionally trying to be dense or are you just dense? Eric did not say one way or the other with respect to Eric Cantor being the face of GOP. All he did was to question the tactic Dems are playing by going to one end with Rush and then trying to do the same with someone who is diabolically opposite (so-to-speak) of Rush. As is always the case with a typical liberal, you completely ignore the context.

Posted by: DopioLover on March 11, 2009 12:14 PM
14. scottd - when Bush was the President, who spoke for the whole Democrat party? Who was the official leader?

Dean?
Kerry?
Gore?
Pelosi?
Daschle?
Reid?
Kennedy?
Clinton?
Clinton?
McCaliffe?
Schumer?
Byrd?
Matthews?
Maddow?
Olbermann?
Zell Miller?
Randi Rhodes?
Al Franken?
Oprah?
The View?

The Democratic Party is desperately trying to assign a leader for the GOP, but as with everything else they are doing lately, they haven't quite got it done yet.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 11, 2009 12:18 PM
15. FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS. IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPIDS.

Oh, I already said it several times. Still applies. Get with it Republicans.

Posted by: swatter on March 11, 2009 12:33 PM
16. Perhaps the Democrat party is stumbling over itself to establish who's in charge of the Republican party in order to ask his/her advice on how to lead a Nation...as it appears the current administration doesn't have a clue.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 11, 2009 12:38 PM
17. We can sure see Obama not's the leader of the dem's. He say's over & over no PORK and then he signs the bill that's full of pork.

It's NO-wonder more and more people are saying that Obama is over his head.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 11, 2009 12:47 PM
18. Old unk ditz is one of the old timer faithful turd polishers here to try to repair the tarnish image of the aparatchiks.

The Rush attack merely increased Limbaugh's numbers. It did not result in ANY Republicans jumping over to Obama.

Face it skunk ditz, Obama is our turd and no matter how hard you rub, he'll always be a turd.

Posted by: Truth on March 11, 2009 12:56 PM
19. Rush's listeners are up 32%--and that is from an already HUGE base...

Posted by: Bill H on March 11, 2009 12:58 PM
20. @19 Bill - source plz?

Posted by: Crusader on March 11, 2009 01:00 PM
21. So, this whole issue is about whether or not the GOP has a single leader? Good grief! Who thinks that?

Of course the GOP has multiple leaders who shape the Republican discourse. That's true of any party. And those leaders seem to agree on many things. The Democrats are just pointing out who these leaders are and what they are saying. That's good politics and it seems to be working -- look at how uncomfortable it's making Eric.

So, if Limbaugh isn't representative of GOP thought, what in particular does he say that folks around here disagree with? Trust me, many of us would be very relieved to learn about major policy positions where the rest of the GOP disagrees with Rush. I think it could be a major boost for the party. Same question about Cantor...

Eric seems to think there's some inherent contradiction in pointing to both Limbaugh and Cantor as leaders of GOP thought -- mainly because Rush is overweight and bald, and Cantor isn't. Here's a hint: It's not the physique that matters, it's the policy positions. On policy, these two aren't so different, and they do speak for most of the party loyalists -- so I guess that makes them leaders.

If I'm wrong on this, I'd love to hear Cantor or other GOPers explain where Rush has it wrong.

Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2009 01:02 PM
22. Absolutely, Bill. With numbers like that, how can El Rushbo be wrong?

I think the GOP needs to quite denying his leadership and just accept it. That's a sure path to victory!

Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2009 01:08 PM
23. The WSRP called me asking for money once again. I have told them over and over: "I do not voluntarily subsidize FAILURE." And the State and National Party has a proven track record of being just that, FAILURES who have loaded up another spending bill with pork projects and then voted to pass a bill that is nothing more than theft from future generations.

I said to them, do not call me any more because I do not subsidize FAILURES. I went so far as to call the State Party HQ to tell them not to call me any more asking for money, if and when the State and National Republican Party are something I can support, I will know it without you calling me to let me know.

Their response was that they would "try not to call" me in the future. Let me ask you this, what is so hard about simply respecting my request and not calling? If the best they can do is "try not to call," they are hopelessly pathetic miserable failures that anybody would be nuts to support.

Posted by: JDH on March 11, 2009 01:14 PM
24. scottd -

You're grossly over-complicating this discussion, which for good or for ill I don't have time to engage in at this time.

Posted by: Eric Earling on March 11, 2009 01:22 PM
25. Sorry, Eric. I tried to make it simple for you just by trying to parse what you meant by your headline: "The Face of the GOP According to Democrats".

Look, I don't know what goes on inside of your head, but I assumed you were being ironic and trying to say that Democrats were wrong in painting Eric Cantor as a leader of the GOP. Or maybe you were agreeing?

Help me out with this. Is that simple enough?

Posted by: scottd on March 11, 2009 01:28 PM
26. scottd - if physique doesn't matter, then tell me why did Obama win the nomination and not Jerold Nadler?

Posted by: Crusader on March 11, 2009 01:38 PM
27. "overweight, balding, old guy in Rush Limbaugh"

One of our wisest founding fathers was a fat, bald, old guy. I think his last name was Franklin. I seem to recall a certain British statesman who fit the same description.

I'm just teasing.

On a more serious note I think as conservatives and Republicans we have to quit letting the Democrats dictate the political agenda.

The Democrats will always play dirty. Lying, cheating, and character assassination is what they do. The hatchet job they did on Sarah Palin ought to be enough evidence for anyone.

The Democrats aren't going to change. We simply have to stand up for our principles and explain them clearly.

Limbaugh has done a masterful job at this. Sure he pokes fun at the Democrats but he is unwavering in his conservative principles and explains them clearly. He doesn't let the Democrats influence his principles as Republicans so often will. It drives the Democrats insane. Their attempt to paint Limbaugh as the "leader of the Republican Party" blew up in their faces. Limbaugh has tons of new listeners. Rush Limbaugh outsmarted the Democrats simply by explaining conservative principles.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 11, 2009 02:03 PM
28. "Rush's listeners are up 32%--and that is from an already HUGE base.."

Hmm, let's do the math shall we? Rush started with 20 million listeners. An increase of listeners by 32% means he now has 26.4 million listeners.
Thanks libs!

Posted by: Do The Math on March 11, 2009 02:16 PM
29. scottd -

My title was alluding to the jump from Limbaugh to Cantor in who Democrats are trying to highlight and/or marginalize. I really don't spend that much time thinking about titles, I think you're reading way too much into them.

Meanwhile, I think I've been pretty clear in touting Cantor as a positive, leading GOP voice in recent weeks. I obviously embrace him in such a role, as the last line of the original post implied.

Lastly, you believe what you want about Rush Limbaugh. He's a leading voice in the conservative movement, which is not the same as the GOP. Likewise, leading voices for liberals in the progressive movement are not necessarily leading voices for the Democratic party. Example: Kos.

Posted by: Eric Earling on March 11, 2009 03:26 PM
30. Witz: Rush does not control the rank and file. He is the VOICE of the rank and file. And one heck of a lot of people on both sides are listening. Lately, considering the pork antics of both sides, it appears Madoff is a bumbling fool compared to our government. We are seeing the greatest ponzi scheme ever perpetrated, and we will all be paying for it for decades to come. Term limits, please.

Posted by: katomar on March 11, 2009 04:57 PM
31. @30 katomar - Rush has become a liability to the GOP. Even if you assume 26 million people listen to him, that is not half as many people as you need to win the Presidency.

Posted by: Crusader on March 11, 2009 05:06 PM
32. Limbaugh is only a liability if one falls for how the left has always portrayed him.

Instead Limbaugh, on the results of the Obama Administration attempting to make him the boogy man of the right, and his widely watched CPAC speech has reached many new listeners.

I don't see a downside there myself.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 11, 2009 05:15 PM
33. Frum is a "moderate". He's one of those "conservatives" who lets the left tell him what to think. Think McCain, Bush, or Arnold.

Frum said this in response to his Newsweek piece:

"I wanted not to write this piece. I'm a big believer in broad coalitions."

What in hell is a "broad coalition?"

I'll tell you what it is: An insipid, spineless group of compromisers without principles.

For example, are gay marriage and abortion something to be endorsed?

This is the kind of argument you hear from "moderates": "Well, you know, if we want to build a "broad coalition" and we think that's what the liberals in our district want then well then maybe we should support gay marriage and abortion rights."

It's about principles. Not becoming liberal lite.

Limbaugh expresses clear conservative principles. He's funny, he's bombastic, he illustrates his points with absurdity that drives liberals nuts, because they have no sense of humor. One thing he never has done is compromise his core conservative beliefs.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 11, 2009 07:51 PM
34. "What in [the] hell is a 'broad coalition?'"

Answer: when a group of female co-workers agree on a place to go to lunch on any particular day.

Posted by: Eileen Wright on March 11, 2009 08:13 PM
35. This whole topic is much ado about nothing... last week 'it' (the voice of the GOP) was Rush, over the weekend someone did an 8 page spread about Newt and opined that 'it' was Newt, before and after 'it was Cantor, Boehner ... occasionally 'it' is Mitch McConnell and Sara Palin and Tim Pawlenty... The democrap pinballs are bouncing everywhere and any where to take the focus of the debacle they've made and then exacerbated.

I want every single one of those people to be the voice of the GOP.

I want Pudge and Bill Cruchon and Michele and JDH and Medic and Mr Cynical and ME to be the voice of the GOP.

WE are not a cut and paste paper doll party and only WE can prove that. WE need to ignore the democraps: say what we have to say and if they don't like it, screw em'; if they mock, mock back louder, if...er, WHEN they lie, spread the TRUTH.

In a similar vein (the TRUTH) there were these 2 stories today:

Operation Rescue Founder to Vatican: Remove Cowardly US Bishops

Orange County Supervisors Terminate Planned Parenthood Funding

THAT is TRUTH and That is Hope! and Change! we can and SHOULD beleive in.

The rest is mere annoying background noise.


Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 11, 2009 08:42 PM
36. if Frum is a 'moderate' then Rush must be a loose cannon. The days ahead will be interesting as they eat their own....

Posted by: gop in exile on March 11, 2009 08:59 PM
37. @#36, I couldn't agree more Ragnar.

If conservatives are afraid to stand for their principles just what is the point?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 11, 2009 09:10 PM
38. Reading a reliable source besides the liberally-slanted Newsweek would provide a more realistic viewpoint. The Republican party should ought to have some new faces, not the same ones that were identified with big-Government Republicans.

Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, Judd Gregg and Mike Pence to start with. They can stand for conservative principles without being seen as hypocrites or lacking credibility. The old guard does not lend much value to this argument (ie. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner) because they presided during the Bush big spending years.

The Democrats have never been seen as one face, so their claim is ludicrous and their claim is just another example of them wanting to get down and wrestle in the mud, like the swine that some of them are notorious for being.

Posted by: KS on March 11, 2009 10:16 PM
39. Yes, but in the end, how much mud wrestling is the gop willing to endure over a piece of scum like Limbaugh? Hmmm? Telling, isn't it?

Posted by: gop in exile on March 11, 2009 10:28 PM
40. RE 40: Al Franken.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 11, 2009 10:57 PM
41. Rahm and David got together with Stephanopoulos, Matthews, Couric, Lauer, etc. for the morning call. The talking points have changed. Rush is off, Cantor is on.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 11, 2009 11:17 PM
42. Then Pelosi is the face of the Dem(communist)Party..The Air Force Service personel flying Pelosi around should uphold their oath to defend and protect the constitution of the United States and throw Pelosi out of the G5 at about 25,000 feet...

Posted by: Hellpig on March 12, 2009 03:15 AM
43. #41, Al Franken will be the 59th senator in our strategy. That crazy no-good Steele will be drummed out in a no-confidence vote. The gop is really in a bad spot.

Posted by: gop in exile on March 12, 2009 02:19 PM
44. The democrats is using media intervention to voice out their fucking ideology against GOP. The GOP is doing well actually. They're taking aim at the newly picked democrat candidate for 20th congressional election for refusing to accept his responsibility to pay hi millions due taxes and penalties. Obama knows that. But, his taking it for granted.

Scott Murphy for Congress Tax Liens

Posted by: Jennifer on March 12, 2009 04:09 PM
45. ..to voice out... what does that mean?

Media intervention? How does that work?

Oh yes, I remember Judith Miller and her fake stories in the NY Times

Har Har!

Posted by: gop in exile on March 12, 2009 09:39 PM
46. Whack jobs like gop in exile and their ilk will be humming a different tune when Islamists attack the US before the end of 2010 - at least as bad as 9/11.

Obama insists keeps hiring folks who are terrorist sympathizers and will let those at Guantanamo be tried in civil trials - kinda like #57 who have sympathy for the devil and in the process f-up this country more than they can imagine. To the George Soros and the rest of progressive, neo-Marxist useful idiots - go to he!!.

Posted by: KS on March 13, 2009 06:47 PM
47. Whack jobs like gop in exile and their ilk will be humming a different tune when Islamists attack the US before the end of 2010 - at least as bad as 9/11. He is setting it up nicely those who want to bring significant harm to us.

Obama insists on hiring folks who are terrorist sympathizers and will let those at Guantanamo be tried in civil trials - kinda like #57 who have sympathy for the devil and in the process f-up this country more than they can imagine. To George Soros and the rest of progressive, neo-Marxist useful idiots - go to he!!.

Posted by: KS on March 13, 2009 06:49 PM
48. The RNC is controlled by the Marxists so who really gives a damn about the Democrats giving them a gift or not.

At least it isn't some stupid pen set.

Posted by: Les on March 15, 2009 02:55 PM
49. The Face of the GOP According to Democrats by Eric Earling March 15, 2009

" .... prop up a highly controversial (though obviously successful), overweight, balding, old guy in Rush Limbaugh as the supposed leader of the Republican party .... "

This critique must be coming from someone who is thin, has a full head of hair and is young. And unsuccessful.

I haven't met Eric, does that sound like him to you?

Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 15, 2009 08:08 PM
50. #49 and #50 - I don't know where to begin, except to say that you'd be doing many of us a favor if you'd relocate to Cuba or a another warmer commie country where you'd fit right in.

Posted by: kS on March 16, 2009 07:51 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?