Mar 02 2009
GOP Still Imploding As Limbaugh Attacks Lesser Conservatives
You don’t have to be foaming at the mouth mad to be a solid conservative willing to fight. I fight the knuckleheads left and right every day. I am sick with overly simplistic rhetoric supported by fear mongering and demagoguery. For some reason conservatives have decided vapid emotion is better than rallying strategy.
Up until recently Rush Limbaugh was staying away from the fringes, keeping away from the civil war that has plagued the GOP for 4 years now. Either because he got sucked into the debate, or because he is finally exposing his inner purist, his speech at CPAC has clove the Conservative movement into pieces with far right purists on one side ranting about the impure (like me) who are on the other side. Just because the far right fails to make cogent policy arguments is not my fault and I fail to see why me rejection of knee-jerk ideas for more thoughtful solutions that can bring a few democrats on board makes me a traitor or a lesser conservative. But that is the battle that rages.
Let me use an obvious example of what is wrong throughout this mess. Joe Lieberman was as much a defender of the Iraq war as John McCain and George Bush. The purists in his party purged him from the democrats because he dared to be bipartisan on the war. A war that was imperative in our crushing al Qaeda’s popularity and support in the Arab Muslim Street. Yet Lieberman and McCain are evil men if you listen to the raging purists on the far right! Make sense? Hell no. Impressive, only in it self destructiveness.
Let’s go with a current example of this foolishness. Â Here is one John Hawkins, who I can relate to at times, illustrating the power of Rush Limbaugh to GENERALLY describe the positives of conservatism and the negatives of liberalism:
Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations, and too much government. …
We don’t want to tell anybody how to live. That’s up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we’ll try to stop it, but it’s a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that’s been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state.â€
…
Take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They’re still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don’t get fixed by government.
What’s the longest war in American history? Did somebody say the war on poverty? Smart group. War on poverty. The war on poverty essentially started in the ’30s as part of the New Deal, but it really ramped up in the ’60s with Lyndon Johnson, part of the Great Society war on poverty. We have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965. Yet, as I listen to the Democratic Party campaign, why, America is still a soup kitchen, the poor is still poor and they have no hope and they’re poor for what reason? They’re poor because of us, because we don’t care, and because we’ve gotten rich by taking from them, that’s what kids in school are taught today.
Generally these are fine discriminators. But when you get into tactical policies these general differences can fall aside. Deportation of immigrants while diverting our national security from looking for terrorists threats does not fit the Limbaugh generalities. A free market prescription drug benefit in Medicare/Medicaid which is reducing costs, forcing those who can afford to pay their way, and covering those who cannot pay, is not fitting the Limbaugh generalities.
See, when you get into specifics the far right is just as rigid and preachy and demeaning as the far left is. We have the Birthers on the right and the truthers on the left. And the serious adults in the center getting pilloried by both fringes for not being convinced by radical concepts.
Here is John Hawkins jumping off the purity cliff to permanent minority status:
But if Rush actually does believe that our policies are fine and that we just need the right candidate, there are two big problems with his position.
First off, it abandons the whole field of “new ideas†to people who are not conservatives. Liberals are always coming up with new ways to spend our money and grow government.
So if all the prominent “idea men†on “our side†are people who hate social conservatives and love big government, then the conservative movement will have to choose between being forever frozen — or moving farther away from its roots with the adoption of each new idea. That path will lead to a long, slow slide into oblivion.
See, only good ideas come from pure conservatives. McCain’s and Leiberman’s support for Iraq (which were pivotal in allowing The Surge to go forward and turn the country around) is just an aberration. They just happened to have good ideas because conservatives had them??
Ugh. And now the devastation is complete, as Limbaugh locks horns with new RNC chairman Steele:
Whoa. Rush Limbaugh’s bid to cement his own role as head of the Republican Party just took a wild new turn, with Limbaugh launching a brutal hit on RNC chair Michael Steele, mocking the GOP for being in a “sad sack†state and suggesting that until Steele showed “respect†for conservatives, he’ll have “a tough time†rebuilding the party.
There is no rebuilding possible if purity is all the far right wants. To ‘build’ you need resources, new material. But to add voices requires diluting the purists, which they cannot abide. Cementing the GOP into minority status seems the best they can do.
“I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be,†Rush said. “I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit.â€
Please, go into exile with the other ‘true conservatives’. This ego-maniacal bashing of the right by the right is only propping Obama up, allowing him and Pelosi and Reid more opportunities to tear the country apart.
What geniuses we have these days. Instead of building progress, they are building scrap heaps from once fine ideals. Limbaugh, you’re no Ronald Reagan (or George W Bush).
[…] about this tonight. I think the Ace of Spades has the best commentary on the subject, along with AJ Strata (as […]
dbostan, I disagree. A lot of “conservatives” refused to vote for McCain this past election. I hope they can look their grandchildren in the eye when the Obama bill comes due for them.
Look, no Democrat ever got elected by playing to the far left and no Republican will ever get elected playing to the far right. The reason is simple math.
The Democrats have 40-some percent of the population, the Republicans have 30-some percent, and the remaining 30 percent are “other”.
Neither party will ever get elected by their “base”. Democrats and Republicans alike play to the center during general elections in order to capture that center that they both need in order to win. The party that gets the most of the moderate vote wins, period. It isn’t opinion … it is simple arithmetic.
Completely off topic … a friend of a friend of mine needs this service today. If ever there was a worthy charity, this is one. Consider them the next time you are considering a charitable donation.
crosspatch, It’s true that a lot of conservatives didn’t vote for mccain. I did, but I certainly was not enthused by him. He’s a liberal in every sense with a slight (very) exception for US security and some foreign policy. He’s definitely on the left side of the center, so he got some moderates, few real conservatives and most Republicans. Someone slightly to the right of certer could have gotten the same mods, all Repubs and most conservatives and would have won the election. So it doesn’t have to be any far right winger, just someone to the right of center. Who would have won if they had been the Repub candidate? Palin, Romney, Thompson; all likely. Once the manipulators tanked the stock market, it was all over.
We need to stop the infighting and unite in the next election. If there is one.
I voted for mac only because I knew what Obama will do, as I am a political refugee from Eastern Europe and i recognize his commie language and tactics.
We are in big trouble. This Obama presidency will not end well for the American people and freedom in general.
Just look at what happened in Detroit yesterday. The brown shirts are starting to be deployed…
What happened in Detroit?
The manipulators still need to do more to tank the stock market to change the Obie supporters. Amazing that they still stand by him at this point.
Steele made a gross tactical mistake as did Cantor.
They had better learn to anticipate the Democrats’ antics and unite in the next election.
What I would hate to think is what happens if the stock market hits 3000 and Obie says, “Sorry, we have to raise taxes to all of you.” Or that Obie will finally get the idea that true free markets do actually work, implement it, then win the next term.
“crosspatch, It’s true that a lot of conservatives didn’t vote for mccain. I did, but I certainly was not enthused by him.”
Me either. I thought Rudy would have been a better choice but he didn’t seem to attract any funds.
It might already be too late. Obama will have damaged our relations with countries like Poland and others possibly beyond repair. His whipsawing of US positions on things like missile defense in Europe and policies toward Syria, Iran and Israel and going to make other nations believe we can not be trusted. What we promise can not stand longer than an election cycle here in the US because the next President will just change the rules.
We have no integrity anymore. Diplomacy rests on a foundation of integrity and consistency. It will force us into more wars because any diplomacy will be a matter of the other side simply waiting out the current administration to see what the next will bring … like Iran did.
A quote from David Brooks:
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.
Strange some people can be fooled so easily. Maybe it’s wishful thinking on their part. Obama is exactly who I thought he was, nothing has surprised me. Nothing.
Redteam,
Actually, in light of the vitriol that came from the far right, Obama sounded damn reasonable.
It is all relative. And as long as the far right continue to rail against the impure, Obama will be given more time to do more damage.
Crosspatch, your math is right on target. With 30% of the voting public neither Dem or GOP, both parties need to target the center. But you can’t expect the far right, self proclaimed “true” conservatives that. Nothing can convince them of that. They’re more intent on propping up Obama by scaring away more rational people.
Redteam, the quote by Brooks is exactly how many people were. I fell for Obama’s rhetoric in 2004 watching him speak at the Dem convention. It took me a while to come to my senses. It is sad that so many people can be so gullible and vote based on style rather than substance. Sadly, the ones I know are still supporting Obama, despite cabinet nominees with tax problems and everything else.
AJ: I get a lot of terrific info from your blog, and I very much appreciate the time you put into it. I’ve always felt you were too hard on the conservatives, of which I am one, but in truth, I have to admit that it serves as useful corrective to the narrow-mindedness that partisans of any political bent are vulnerable to.
So, in that spirit, I’ll do the same for you. You’re not hearing what Limbaugh said. Even if there was some ambivalence to his first saying he hoped Obama would fail, although it seemed clear enough to me, everything about the man, from his direct comments on this matter to his persona and philosophy make it clear what he meant.
Indeed, nothing could be more common in political life–or any other realm of human existence for that matter–than to hope for the defeat of policies one believes will be hurtful. You couldn’t have it more backwards: Limbaugh is hoping Obama will fail so his policies will not bring harm to America, not that Obama’s policies will be enacted, then America will be hurt, and so Obama will be a failure. Rightly or wrongly, Limbaugh takes it as axiomatic that the polices will be harmful.
If a “conservative purist,” as you put it, were elected to the presidency and wanted to implement an anti-abortion, prayer-in-the-schools, end-gay-rights, what have you agenda, do you honestly expect that liberals would say, “Let’s give the president what he wants and see if it helps the country before we condemn him. It would be treason to hope he will fail.”?
The “birthers,” as you term them, are a sliver of a sliver of the conservative movement. Your exaggeration of their role is as unfair as your condemnation of Limbaugh.
Apparently the American people are like a bunch of chickens. They are in a whole new world every morning when they get up. They can only remember the last thing they heard and it is “Obama and Dems are good, Republican and Bush are bad,” 24/7 from every aspect of the media, around the clock. So what can we expect. The morons are breeding and the high IQ’s are aborting.