Right On Cue, Michael Steele Walks Back His Criticisms Of Limbaugh

by Todd Beeton, Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:01:36 PM EST

Guess I gave Steele a little too much credit. Remember what Rahm Emanuel said yesterday on Face The Nation about Republicans who criticize Rush Limbaugh:

And whenever a Republican criticize him, they have to run back and apologize to him, and say they were misunderstood."

Well, here Steele is today, right on cue.

From Think Progress:

"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh," Steele said in a telephone 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 said. "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."

As Think Progress notes, "Steele isn't alone":

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) have previously dared to criticize Limbaugh but then quickly backed down. To quote Rush, a lot of Republicans are being told to "bend over and grab the ankles" for him.

Pretty much.

Tags: GOP, Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh (all tags)

Comments

48 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Moderate?

Again- even if he didn't why would this illusion of a moderate Republican have been a good thing for the Democrats?

by bruh3 2009-03-02 02:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

"the Democrats?" I thought it was us Democrats...

Interesting phrasing. I'm sure it means nothing.

by QTG 2009-03-02 02:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

Well, it does mean something. It means you are paranoid. That's good for me to know.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 02:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

Easy there...

Now then, to answer your question... Michael Steele is an enormous gift to the Democrats! Between Steele and Limbaugh, they are the gift that just keeps giving. Steele suffers from foot in mouth disease worse than anyone I have ever witnessed. He makes Joe Biden look like, well, like Obama.

As for Limbaugh, there is little to nothing he can ever say to get independents on his side. Even moderate Republicans dislike him.

The Republicans will be wandering in the wilderness for quite some time. You cannot win nationally with the dub and dumber coalition they have built.

by JenKinFLA 2009-03-02 02:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

I give what I get. If someone is going to question my believe in Democratic values, or even insinuate that I don't have those values, it am going to respond poorly to it.

Now about the rest of your post, I generally agree. I actually think the Democrats are going to be okay. I have some things that policy wise I would like to see- ie, although I generally okay with healthcare talking points, there needs to be a public option to make this work. Other than that, I love Obama's commitment to clean technology and other issues of that nature, and the restoration of a progressive tax structure is certainly important. I guess my point is I think the public is on our side so regardless of this minor discussion the reality is we are in good shape so long as we deliver.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 03:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

There is no easy out for the GOP because regardless of rhetoric, they are not willing to separate themselves from the substantive policy goals urged by people like Limbaugh.

If they were willing to actually refrain from taking Rush's advice once in a while, then they might be able to create an impression that they're moderates. The Democrats do this on occasion when they Sista Souljah Moveon.org or someone like that.

But in this case, if the GOP chooses to say "we're not the party of Rush" that just creates an opportunity for us, any time Rush is like "vote against the stimulus bill" we have a rhetorical opportunity to say "Ok, GOP, are you going to be the party of Rush and oppose the stimulus bill?" And then they're in a spot that they can't get out of with mere rhetoric.

by Steve M 2009-03-02 02:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

Okay, that makes a little more sense. So we are trying to define a moderate space that equals what we do, and the extremist space being what Rush says. This is something I can understand, and appreciate. I can now see how that would work with the upcoming bills.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 03:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

The problem is that they need to jettison the fundie talking points. They can't keep railing about gays and promiscuity and porn and expect to win anything in a country that is increasingly secular. There problem is not that the country is becoming more liberal; people want what works. Most people want to see results. If the liberals can do that, great. If the conservatives can do that, great. The real problem for conservatives is that this country is becoming more secular and they are not. If anything, the conservative base is becoming more radically fundamentalist. That's good news for liberals, because I think the Romney wing can only be held together to the Palin wing for so long. When that rubber band snaps, watch out.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-02 07:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Moderate?

I don't think the country was ever any less secular. I just think that a small religious minority was able to take over under false pretenses (or at least not the pretenses they presented in actual campaigns).

by bruh3 2009-03-02 07:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

LOL! Bend over and grap your ankles for Rush

Thank you sir, may I have another!

Really, they are like the Omega Frat in Animal House, with Rush as Gregg Marmalard given out the paddlings!

The head of the GOP just went crawling to a shock-jock and kissed his ass!

Can this crew get any More Lame?

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-02 02:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Right On Cue, Michael Steele Walks Back

Wow, that's got to be humiliating.

The reality is that Steele has been talking a little bit out of turn. Party chair is not some kind of almighty message-setting position. Howard Dean was successful because of his structural reforms, not because he took office at the DNC and started making a host of controversial changes to the party's branding (and to the extent he tried, I think he got in hot water more often than not).

Leadership of the party out of power is generally up for grabs. But Michael Steele's personal following is probably dwarfed by that of Joe the Plumber. He doesn't have nearly enough of a political base to be able to proclaim that the GOP is no longer the party of Rush Limbaugh.

by Steve M 2009-03-02 02:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yes, exactly

A Shock-Jock, caught for procuring Hillbilly Heroin, pulled over on his boat with a huge cache of Viagra heading for islands known for the sex trade...

And, a Plumber who IS NOT a Plumber and whose name is not Joe...

The two Ideological Heads of the opposition party?

Seriously? I mean, in Italy you have Porno Stars and other crazed characters in there, but everyone KNOWS it's a joke.

The GOP has no idea it is staring in it's own satire of itself.

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-02 02:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Watch the speech

And you will see why. Rush's speech was about American value and heritage. Sorry I wouldn't get caught critizing it without watching it(Like Steele.)

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-02 02:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Watch the speech

Question: since you represent less than the majority (as in less than probably 20 percent of the population and more like 5) with this free market fundamentalism stuff, how exactly are you representative of Americans? I don't even get how you can say that.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Watch the speech

If you think people aren't proud to be American and believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, I really don't know what to say. Empowering the individual is ingrained in the citizens of this country. I know you feel it too or you wouldn't be sharing your thoughts and exploring the ideas of others.

Since when is being concerned about freedom being fundamentalist or part of less than 5% of the population.

We live in the real world where people get what they deserve, good or bad. Actions have consequences where I live. Isn't it the same where you live?

Don't you think it is nuts in Washington? They say there is no money to borrow out of one side of their mouth than borrow another trillion dollars. Why can't you see the disconnect? Again this is not a right or left issue this is Americans realizing that they have to be part of the process in order maintain the freedom we all love.

I am not prepared to defend Rush for everything he has ever said. In my mind he has often been more of a political cheerleader than focused on the issues that matter to me. That being said, his speech for the most part was focused on principles this country was founded on.

Maybe more people should read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Especially if respect for these documents is considered fundamentalist.

I agree with most here that government is a good valid thing. We need it for freedom to flourish. I am not asking to go back to the wild wild west or anything crazy. The President has to be careful not to alienate himself and his movement by attacking people like me - There are a lot more than you think.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-02 04:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Watch the speech

well I am answered. As I said, it's like expecting a crazy person talking to themselves on the subway to not be crazy. My mistake. Continue. You are the best thing that's out therefore a continue Democratic majority.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 04:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Watch the speech

Keeping one party in power forever is not my goal and truthfully it shouldn't be yours either. Politicians have polarized us way too much and instead of us using their debate to benefit us, it has become the other way around.

BTW: Is it me or you in your subway scenario? :0

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-02 05:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

I don't want to keep one party in power

I want to keep one political ideology in power. If the Republicans want to start caring about something other than Wal-Mart and Jesus, then maybe they'll get my vote.

I voted Republican for a city council election last week...

by DTOzone 2009-03-02 10:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Why are you so quick to assume

no one watched it?

If that speech is about American heritage, then I'm no American

by DTOzone 2009-03-02 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why are you so quick to assume

What part bothered you the most?

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-02 04:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Anybody can say nice things about America

the President talks about values everyday, but to stand up and say "of course I want Obama to fail" is disgusting. Limbaugh doesn't care about Amerca, he cares about Limbaugh. He'd love to see you and me suffer if it meant he was right.

by DTOzone 2009-03-02 10:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Watch the speech

According to Rush, all of his speeches are about American values and heritage. Unfortunately, he makes up a lot of stuff. So, if you value lying and your heritage is all about ad hominem attacks using falsified info, then Rush Limbaugh is the man.

Steele was dead on in his assessment... which, given his tone-deafness of late was kinda shocking. Although personally I'm surprised he didn't issue a retraction yesterday.

by JenKinFLA 2009-03-02 03:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Watch the speech

I really don't think that attacking the messenger is that productive. I thought the speech had some very good points and the points where focused to a broader audience than his normal show. Was there something that bothered you?

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-02 04:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

It was rambling

incoherent, and repetitive. Castro-esque.

by JJE 2009-03-02 03:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

I watched the first half

It started out kind of inspiring, in a Tony Robbins/Amway sort of way. If he stuck to the "I want you to succeed" part, he'd be great as a corporate motivational speaker.

Unfortunately, once he began the "Dems tell you you will fail" bit, I started to tune out. How could I not? That's patently ridiculous, unless you're already part of the Birther/UFO/Soros conspiracy set.

By the time he got to "equal opportunity not equal outcomes" I was done. You could persuade me that an individual's "opportunity" follows a Bell curve, or a Pareto distribution, and I might think you were talking reality - or even meaningful theory. But the "everyone has equal opportunity" bit is simply self-justification for those who start out higher on the curve than most. I'd love to know how some impoverished Appalachian has the same opportunities Bill Gate's kid does.

At the end of the day, Rush's speech only made sense if you agreed with a huge set of premises up front. In that, it was very much an Evangelical speech, except that the religion is Conservatism instead of Christianity.

by Neef 2009-03-02 03:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I watched the first half

The rhetoric is good, but it's all so disingenuous. Right, like government is all that's getting in between hard-working people and their dreams of success. We apparently had no problem with poverty in this country before the Democrats came along and passed legislation that made poor people dependent upon government. And so on.

What I find funny about all this is that, if you look at the polling numbers, many of the values and principles espoused by Rush Limbaugh are significantly more popular than Rush himself. So it's a gift to have him out there as a spokesman for these positions.

by Steve M 2009-03-02 03:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I watched the first half

To your points.

1. Let's see taxing people who make over $250,000 39% (plus all state and local taxes etc.) Do you not think that there is some disincentive to work hard? Remember this is the working rich, not those hand downs or investments.

2. Capital Gains tax: There is a problem with not enough money being lent so lets again remove incentives to borrow and invest by doubling the tax.

3. Interest rates: Again we have a lending problem , but the Fed holds down the interest rate. Reducing the incentive to borrow money to others again. BTW: It doesn't help when our government borrows a few trillion either.

4. Running up debt: Again with the debt, but high debt and low interest rate can only bring inflation. Once again wiping out hard earned savings.

It seems every law is set up to teach people to be irresponsible and to punish the responsible. If you save - screw you, if you work hard - screw you, if you purchase with cash - screw you, if you live within your means - screw you. Since when did the democratic party become the party of consumerism?

If you have any idea the amount of debt ($55 trillion) our government is going have to pay for you would be more excited too. What is it an additional 8 trillion between Bush and Obama's stimulus, bailouts, budgets etc? Even if you taxed the rich at 100% you couldn't pay it back very fast and certainly not as we continue to spend. It is insane.

I have been asked to give up logic and forget math and US history. As much as I just want to be left alone - I can't ignore it any more. Why am I always called the crazy one?

The second part of your question on poverty. There always have and always will be poverty, but in a free country the barriers to leave poverty are very small. This may sound callous but pain is part of life, shielding it from people is not the solution. Can you not see some truth in the basic philosophy of the Democrats for the last 100 years has been to give people fish instead of teaching them to fish?

I think there is just too much disregard for natural law, common sense and tough love.

Good luck and good day - Thanks

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-03 05:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I watched the first half

You have to admit the country has one of the best motivational speakers around in its President. We were all sold hope with the righteous wind at our back. Now elected every speech is about the world going to hell in a hand basket and the only solution is government.

Many feel desperate because desperation comes from not being able to do anything to better our situation. It is so fake. We need motivation, our lives are in our hands and we are in control. People that say else wise scare me.

I know some of the reflection on the war on poverty was harsh, but don't you think results matter?

I am not sure why you are so focused on money. It does not buy happiness. Many rich kids are depressed beyond belief. Unless YOU produce your own money you will not be happy. Quite frankly it is more about serving others than making money. It is so much less about money then values. Last I checked the rich do not have a monopoly on good values.

Preaching envy does no one any good either. All Americans are the spoiled rich kids compared to the rest of the world. Let's not get crazy.

I hope I don't lose any remaining respect I might have among you when I say I try to instill many of the values from his speech in my children. Reach for the stars, you can do anything you set your mind to, do onto others as they do to you.

I mean, lets face it why did "Yes we can" become "not without my help"?

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-02 05:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Reach for the stars?

Do anything you set your mind to?

Where the hell did you get that from his speech?

by DTOzone 2009-03-02 10:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

I've been poor

as in scrounging up "couch change" for dinner. Currently, I'm lucky enough to pull in a six-figure income. Looking at it from both ends of the spectrum, I would say that while you can be happy without money, it's easier to be happy with money.

Money, in our society, is freedom and power. When you're sick, you go to the doctor - if you have money. When you're wronged, you hire a lawyer - if you have money. You get to raise your kids in a safe neighborhood - if you have money, and so on. Frankly, even the amount of racism I've experienced has decreased in direct proportion to my income. I have an immense respect for the power of money.

As far as the values from the speech, take just one - self reliance. Self reliance isn't something you should "aspire" to, any more than you should aspire to breathing. Self reliance is a simple fact of life. I don't teach my daughter to be self-reliant because of any "principles", I teach her because one day she'll have to rely on herself, and I want her to be prepared.

My issue with making a big deal of these "principles" is that people get much better at talking the talk than they do at walking the walk (this is also true of many Christians I know). You get people making a big deal about how the poor need to stand on their own two feet, then these same people buy houses with down payments from their parents. Not to pick on the man, but take Rush as an example - he talks a GREAT game about conservative principles, but how does he live? Let me give you a passage from a conservative pundit, David Frum:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." 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.

They want to teach the country conservative views? Let a conservative person preach them. Show me an example. I would no more believe Rush's vision of conservatism than I would take stock tips from a guy who's always broke.

by Neef 2009-03-03 05:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Thank you Thank you Thank you

Self reliance is a fact of life! I love it. Okay we can build on this. It is so true, but can you not see how just saying this liberates you. Why would we not teach all American's this?

Did you scratch a lottery ticket for your job? Lucky enough...you must make the company you work for more money then they pay you. It is ins't luck then.

As far as money being equal to freedom and power. I would guess it would be more about being out of debt and having savings in the bank (not the amount of money you make). The only way to get to that place though is to work for it. Naturally ingrained in all of us is the feeling the un earned money does not make us happy. Thus the saying "easy come, easy go".

I would argue though that doctors don't make us happy and money really won't make us happy. I think it is the feeling of self worth. Like they say it is not the destination, but the road(the pursuit of happiness).

Lets not throw out all common sense and reason to form a "better" government.

On to the second part of your statement:

Go to a George W Bush speech writer to attack Limbaugh? :) What is happening here? Are the parties flipping?

Attacking messengers while avoiding the message is old. We are all hypocritical to some degree, it doesn't mean we should have no standards at all. We all make mistakes and we all learn from them. I think it is the successful people the cherish their mistakes and actually learn from them.

One of the biggest complaints I have heard about Republicans is they are stuffy and always judging people.

Is it judgmental to point out that your friend has a booger coming out of his nose? No and hell when you point it out he thanks you and damns everyone that let him walk around like an idiot for the day without telling him. We do way too much not pointing out the booger. :)

You seem to want to control the message of what it means to be a conservative. Like it has something to do with being perfect. No one is perfect.

Maybe it is my natural respect, but distrust for authority that allows me to even listen to what Rush has to say.

I will pick up on this later - have to work.

Thanks again for you time and thoughts.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-03 06:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

thats it for me...

I have enjoyed our conversations, but when you come here and suggest that Rush's speech was about American values and heritage I have to ask you what exactly you are thinking?

Rush is no friend of yours, and if you don't believe that you are a fool.

I get that you stand for small government and less government intervention; I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. But when you start defending Rush I have to wonder where your head is really at.

by JDF 2009-03-02 04:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

I am sorry to hear that I always take something from our little chats. It is different for me because I really don't feel connected to either party. It was refreshing to hear Rush attack Republicans which promise one thing than try to use government to maintain their tiny bit of power they temporarily held. You have to admit I have been speaking that line for a while now.

After watching the speech I still wasn't ready to open my check book for the GOP, but I did like much of what he had to say. After all of my friends including the most progressive told me to watch the speech I had to do it. I certainly didn't seek it out.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-02 05:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

I understand that you don't feel like you belong to either party. I'm guessing that you are libertarian in most views (since that is what the original liberals were, mostly). If so, I really do feel badly for you. You've got Ron Paul, who is uncomfortably attached to the Republican Party, and that's about it.

I actually wish a true secular libertarian party was the rival of liberals, not the wacky fundie conservatives that are currently (sort of) running the GOP. I don't agree with libertarians on much of anything, but I respect their principles a lot more than the "But the Bible says gays are sinners!" crap of Rush's listeners. And I listen to Rush, and Hannity, and Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly fairly frequently (partly because the NPR station here is classical music all day) and they are no friend of yours if you are a libertarian.

On a related note, you should consider the fact that not only are you allowed to have an account here and disagree with us, but we have all (I hope) been respectful of you and your views. If you disagree on RedState, you get blammed (banned) immediately. Doesn't mean we are right about every issue, but at least we aren't mean-spirited.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-02 07:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

Look the GOP at least as been talking libertarian philosophies. The democrats are claiming the free market is dead.

No party is going to attachment themselves to limited government that means less jobs/power for them. That is why the opposition party seems to always take that role.

People like Rush understand that absence of power is not enough. The people have to have good values, care for themselves and each other. Our founders understood that too. If people don't self regulate themselves with the Book(any book really), then they will be regulated by the sword. That means that the government is secular, but religion is still ingrained in the country.

Here is your secular libertarian party: http://www.lp.org/platform

I can't speak for Hannity, can't stand for party cheer leaders, but I have listened to Beck and you are so wrong on him. He has had Paul on as well as Barr. All of these guys are leaning libertarian lately. There is no where else to go. Our country is already quite statist and with this next round of power grabs I am not sure what we will be.

Never have I heard any of these show suggesting growth in government or using the power of government on its own people. Where do you think these guys are not libertarian?

I am glad you "Allow" me to post here. RedState and Democratic Underground are the same thing. I have been here since Mydd actually stood for My Due Diligence(which of course drew me to it.)

I stopped living in fear of being removed and I have a lot of respect to the moderators for putting up with me. You guys should be able to eat me alive and there is no reason to block people who stick to the issues and stay away from personal attacks.

Fear of debate is unhealthy for this country.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-03 05:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

I would certainly never ask them to block or ban you. But you said it yourself, these guys are turning towards libertarianism because there is nowhere else for them to go.

Do you think for one minute Rush Limbaugh would be talking about less government if it meant less Republican government?

These are people who beleive in depriving homosexuals the rights of marriage. They are people who believe that Global Warming is a farce. They are not libertarians, they are fascists. They are only against regulating corporations...they would have no problem with laws controlling every aspect of your personal life though.

by JDF 2009-03-03 10:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

You know they say the first to throw out the fascist term loses the debate, but I am okay with repealing that unwritten rule.

You really shouldn't wave the fascism finger around. As you talk down to the notion our country was founded on and the economic system we work within and the concept of empowering the individual.

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline.

You are advocating empowering the government. You live in this fairy tale that thinks only Republicans can be "fascist".

I am advocating freedom and Rush was too. Whether or not you believe what he says is not at issue. Do you believe in these things?

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-03 04:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

I do not believe that advocating for an empowered government and advocating for freedom are mutually exclusive. You do, that is the the primary philosophical difference we have.

I believe that a responsible and effective government can enable freedom just as easily as an irresponsible and oppressive government can destroy it.

by JDF 2009-03-03 08:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

Sorry if I over reacted.

I also believe that a responsible and effective government can enable freedom. In fact freedom can not thrive with out it.

I just am passionate about our freedoms and I know you think Bush limited government, but I really feel he grew government and centralized its power, it grew through the expansion of FEMA, DHLS the patriot act, nclb, medicaid, campaign finance reform, FISA, SOX, etc etc etc. I don't see this government growth reversing (along with the reversing any of these new powers), in fact it is accelerating. I hope you can at least understand where I am coming from.

Thanks.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-03 09:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Exactly!

"you think Bush limited government, but I really feel he grew government and centralized its power"

Exactly my point. Beck, Limbaugh, Levine, Coulter, Savage, and Malkin (and, to a lesser extent, O'Reilly) accepted every single one of Bush's expansions. They all accepted and supported the Iraq War, even after it turned out to be a farce that was not based on sound intelligence.

They all support DOMA (well, I'm not sure about O'Reilly).

They all support huge and bigger defense.

Most of them reject embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds, not just the notion that government should not fund it.

Most of them support torture as long as it is probably not on innocent people and and as long as it potentially brings in intelligence.

They all support warrantless wiretaps.

None of these policies are libertarian. Now, I have no problem with them obstructing and fighting against liberal policies; that is what they are supposed to do. What I do have a problem with is them suddenly all finding fiscal conservatism after 8 years of supporting huge federal deficits under Bush. IOKIYAR, apparently.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-04 06:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Exactly!

I have the same problem with the Republicans which is why they do not have the trust of the independents. Unfortunately the the Democrats are no better for a classical liberal. They have not repealed any laws that limited the citizens freedoms. In fact they use the power of government just as much if not more to reach their goals.

FYI - Defense is commonly considered the number one responsibility of a Federal government amongst Classical Liberals.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-04 09:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Exactly!

"Unfortunately the the Democrats are no better for a classical liberal."

I would actually agree with you there.

As for "defense," I agree that the defense of our country should be our #1 priority. Maybe we differ on what counts as "defense." Iraq, unilateral support for Israel, money to Pakistan, presence in South Korea and Germany and Japan and Cuba do not count as defense in my book.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-05 03:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Exactly!

I have to admit I am currently exploring my opinion on that. We definitely can be policing the world, but there are external threats currently building their militaries while we are weak. It is worth a good debate.

by Classical Liberal 2009-03-05 04:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: thats it for me...

They also almost all support the drug war, reject euthanasia, and want the government forcing people to carry pregnancies to term (I'm unsure about Beck's and O'Reilly's stances on these).

I don't like them because they are mean-spirited. But libertarians should realize that when their positions happen to line up with your positions, it is only an accident. They support bigger government when it is used to enforce Judeo-Christian values; they reject it when it is not used to enforce Judeo-Christian values.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-04 06:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Limbaugh

is a one man wrecking crew. He is killing the GOP even though he himself might think its saviour.

All this is beginning to remind of the 1930s and a radicalization of politics.

CPAC had 8,500 attendees. 1,757 voted in the straw poll which Romney won. Of those 1,757, 54% of the respondents were 25 or younger. There were other questions in the poll. Another one was who's your favorite media personality? Rush Limbaugh took first prize. Now look at the rest of the results:

Rush Limbaugh - 26 percent
Glenn Beck - 17 percent
Sean Hannity - 11 percent
Bill O'Reilly - 10 percent
Ann Coulter - 7 percent
Laura Ingraham - 4 percent
Michael Savage - 3 percent
Mark Levin - 2 percent
Michael Medved - 2 percent
Neal Boortz - 2 percent
Bill Bennett - 2 percent

Beck is insane and he took second at 17%. The only ones on this list would qualify as sane are Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett and perhaps the libertarian Neal Boortz. Coulter is surprisingly low suggesting her popularity is on the wane. This has to be especially troubling given that Coulter's popularity is largely in the college right wing set. Sales of her books drop off dramatically among older readers so Coulter's base is now moving elsewhere.

How does one explain Beck's popularity? Well Beck is the master of bizarre conspiracy theories like climate change being a ruse for a world government. Beck is anti-UN stuff and anti-Mexico. Who else taps into these conspiracies theories? Ron Paul supporters, that's who (not Paul himself but his lunatic supporters). Paul scored 13 percent of the CPAC straw poll vote, higher than his 2008 showing of 10 percent.

After Limbaugh speech, guess which was the best attended speech of CPAC?

George Bolton's.

Now guess the topic of his speech?

"The Coming Assault on American Sovereignty."

That in a nutshell, no pun intended, is the lunatic fringe of the modern Conservative movement. And it is frankly worrisome.

by Charles Lemos 2009-03-02 03:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

The Coming Assault on American Sovereignty.

My gawd, they are back to that?

It's the NWO/Black Helicopter/Bilderburg/UN One World Government Crazies, back in charge!

I thought they were put out to pasture when Bill Clinton DIDN'T declare himself "President for Life"...

Conspiracy Crazy never dies, it just goes underground, gestates for a while, and pops back up like a loony Jack-in-the-box every decade or so.

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-02 03:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The Coming Assault on American Sovereignty.

I would expect conspiracy theories to explode in number. Just look at the PUMAs, some of them still think Obama was born in Kenya.

The popularity of Glenn Beck is beyond me.

by Charles Lemos 2009-03-02 04:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Just to Add

Mark Levin and Michael Savage are scum. They are terrible human beings. They are mean-spirited, bigoted, and racist. I don't generally agree with the Fairness Doctrine, but I'd be tempted to support it if it got these a-holes off the air. I feel dirty just writing about them. They would have made good Inquisitors 600 years ago.

by ProgressiveDL 2009-03-02 07:39PM | 0 recs