Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

by Todd Beeton, Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:35:27 AM EST

Over the weekend, Michael Steele marked his territory by undermining the entire concept of Rush Limbaugh as defacto leader of the Republican Party.

"No he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party," Steele said. The RNC chief went on to call Limbaugh, who that very day delivered the keynote address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, a mere "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

Today on his radio show, Limbaugh shot back, at first somewhat mildly:

"So I am an entertainer and I have 20 million listeners because of my great song and dance routine," Limbaugh said. "Michael Steele, you are head of the Republican National Committee. You are not head of the Republican party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the Republican National Committee...and when you call them asking for money, they hang up on you."
"I hope that changes," Limbaugh continued. "It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of being some talking-head media star."

But then later, as Greg Sargent reports, with a much sharper tone:

Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position as the chairman of the Republican National Committee that you want a left wing Democrat president and a left wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if it's your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do.
Why are you running the Republican Party? Why do you claim you lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it that President Obama succeeds? I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda...
I don't understand why you're asking Republicans to donate to the Republican National Committee if their money is going to be spent furthering the agenda of Barack Obama? If we don't want Obama and Reid and Pelosi to fail, then why does the RNC exist, Mr. Steele? Why are you even raising money?...
I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it's in.

While I REALLY want to see Steele crawl back to Rush with an apology, I'm fairly sure that this time he won't. With the one two punch of both Steele and Cantor distancing themselves from Limbaugh this weekend, it appears they've made the calculation that the party must use Limbaugh as a foil to make themselves appear more moderate. I think it's probably wise in the long-run although, really, the beauty of Limbaugh is that from the Republican Party's perspective, there is no good option when it comes to responding to him, there's only which is less bad: piss off the base or alienate the middle. Were we ever this much of a mess?

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

Comments

23 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

How is this wise for the Democrats to have conservative extremists appear moderate only because they differ in rhectoric but not action from the Limbaugh? I don't get your point at all.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 11:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

It is good to have conservative Democrats be forced to prove they don't bow to Limbaugh or take advice from him. We are in the beginning stages of that happening.

Also, Democrats can keep using Rush when these conservative Dems take positions that he wants them to take. This is a win-win for Obama and Democrats. It forces Republicans to attempt to moderate or it forces them to go even further to the right and publicly side with a very unpopular man.

by Lolis 2009-03-02 12:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

oops, I meant conservative Republicans

by Lolis 2009-03-02 12:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

Hard to tell the difference, sometimes!

by LordMike 2009-03-02 12:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

The way the democrats should use this is as Rahm did. Say that Rush represents the GOP. Then say that Cantor and co are not any different from Rush despite their attempts to distance. In other word, don't pretend there is any difference. Again, the diarist accepts the messaging by the right as fact rather than shaping that narrative as if it's not- that in fact they are all extremists, and then force them to prove they are not rather than accept rhectoric as proof.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 12:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Because

It leaves these guys two choices:

A) Disavow Rush, and get attacked (eviscerated, really) from the Right, or

B) Throw in with Rush and risk alienation with the country at large

by Neef 2009-03-02 12:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Because

That's not my question. You are answering how making them appear moderate hurts the GOP int he short term. My question is one of strategy as to actual behavor. When the budget battle happens, for example, creating the image that there are some moderates when in fact they only differ as to rhectoric does not serve our interest. it serves there. For Cantor to be perceived of as a moderate may piss off republicans in the short term, but hurts us when it comes to actually fighting GOP House extremism. These arguments being made about how it hurts the GOP in the short term feels like checkers. Ask yourself how to it affect the entire picture to have an extremist appear moderate when in fact he's not.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 12:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Their behavior is irrelevant

in fact, it is probably fixed, based on their perceived political outcome. They are always going to vote no, they are running the 1993 playbook.

This isn't a strategy to drive their behavior, it's a strategy to maintain public support for initiatives that the GOP will vehemently oppose.

It's simply a PR war.

by Neef 2009-03-02 12:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Their behavior is irrelevant

I don't think you understand my post's long term trajectory or the PR war in which you are engaged. The relevancy is whether people think of them as 'moderate or not" Them being the GOP- not the person in front ofyou. You keep fixing I believe in the short term- this is this person in front of me and thats it. The point is not whether their behavior is irrelevant, but how our labeling makes extremist seem moderate across the board. How are we labeling all Republicans- not just the House. For example, that's fine for the House, but when we turn to the Senate, the same sort of simple minded thinking occurs. Your strategy has the opposite affect by making Limbaugh seem like the extreme, and these congression republicans and the "adults' as moderate. At the end of the day, you wont' see my point until it comes up in a battle, and so I am going to leave it at this post.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 12:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Their behavior is irrelevant

by the way- luckily for us I think Rahm and others to get this point. Hence his trying to label all Republicans as the party of Limbaugh rather tahn putting space between like you and otheres are doing. I would not allow the GOP to separate itself from its extremist through rhectorical challenges in terms of how I were shaping the narrative, and neither it seems is Rahm. Good for him. Bad for the bloggers for not getting this.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 12:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

I am not "putting space between them"

what are you talking about? I simply pointed out the two alternatives this strategy leaves them.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

by Neef 2009-03-02 01:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

At this point I don't get your confusion

I am point out that your point is a short term strategy. Not a long term one. I am not really sure how else to explain it to you. By creating the illusion that there is a Republican moderate out there (even if it serves the moment) does not serve long term goals. I am not sure what's confusing you at this point. It's pretty simple- why even pretend there is a moderate? That does not serve our interest as much as saying they are all like Limbaugh no matter what they say. I find your confusion to be confusing to be quite frank since your strategy like the diarist relies on creating a space where there is a so called Republican moderate. I don't see how that serves Democratic interest at all.

by bruh3 2009-03-02 01:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

"I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it's in."

I love this. Especially he IS the leader of the Party and has been for over a decade. He is the reason every Republican you know talks about the same things and in the same ways.

He, along wtih Billo and Slant Head, can make a break a politician in the eyes of rank-and-file Republicans, or deceide whether an indiscretion is an outrage or can be overlooked.

by midwestdem1 2009-03-02 11:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Morning Joe's backing off too

by Neef 2009-03-02 11:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

Hmmm... maybe this is all a setup? Create an intraparty fued, allowing Steele and Cantor to triangulate and make them look better to the average voter...

We are enjoying this, but it may be nothing more than a setup!

by LordMike 2009-03-02 12:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Not sure they are that willey...

or that Rush is willing to play along to help guys like Michael Steele.

Rush is for ONE thing and one thing above all.

Rush.

His ratings have SHOT UP since Obama got elected, and this tusstle is sending them through the roof.

The more he gets talked about, the more his numbers go up.

The party machine is trapped, because so much of the army is in thrall to Rush...

I can't help but saying, couldn't happen to a nice bunch!

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-02 12:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

No way Mike Steele

took such a nasty public beating as part of a tactic. Rush slapped him down HARD. Not to mention he's bleeding support from conservatives.

Go check out FreeperLand or Redstate. They are hating on Steele quite authentically.

by Neef 2009-03-02 12:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

A sister Souljah thing? I seriously doubt it. The Republican party is defacto a strongly conservative party. The few moderates left are being pillored or challenged by the right-wing as it is. Limbaugh is the loud mouth piece of the Republican party, and the base follows him. For a ruse to be effective the group that is being "put in its place" would have to be a small fringe group. Here we have the Republican party's BASE incensed by the party's leaders. These are the most engaged, these are the people that show up in the primaries en masse, they bang the drums.

All this infighting within the Republican party is not soul searching for "leadership," as some would have it, since the GOP is not even close to that stage yet (still in the denial phase.) It is more a symptom of a group that has basically imploded and because it has lost virtually any grip on power (the power brokers in that party are hated RINO's like Snowe and Collins) is free to attack each other without much care or a modicum of restraint. It is just great theater, self-mutilation for self-preservation. Not unlike we had seen from our own party, oh, about 16-odd years ago.

by devilrays 2009-03-02 12:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

What is missing from that equation is

I also think it's a generational shift, Bush, Rove, Cheney, Newt and most of the Neocons are persona non grata now with the base.

Even Mitt is a little old school.

This is the party of Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindhal, Mark Sanford and Joe the Plumber.

And, Rush is their idealogical leader.

Wow, THIS I did not see coming.

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-02 12:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

Short answer- yes. It's the same game Steele has been playin since he was choosen. When push comes to shove to explain how they are different. There isn't any daylight between what he believes and will do tactically and Rush. It's PR. But it's effective PR because it allows a) conservative Democrats something to rest their arguments upon (see they are redeemable) b) allows for the post partisans to feel they got something (again- see you are wrong all Republican leadership are not the same), and the list goes on. In fact, looka t who is responding to what here and how it fits their bent. My bent is to not trust anything the GOP does that makes the GOP looks moderate. Others bent is to want to be process-y so long as as they don't have real power, except they ignore how creating the illusion of a moderate here means they then get to use that label in debates over the say the budget. See Cantor is now a moderate so when he attacks Obama's budget, he's not doing it as a Rush type conservative. He's a moderate. Get it?

by bruh3 2009-03-02 01:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Rush is right!

Well, about one thing: Steele shouldn't be spending all his time going on TV, telling people he's the head of the Republican Party, etc. I don't get the feeling Steele has the first clue what a party chair is supposed to do; I certainly don't recall Howard Dean, who became chair of a troubled party committee with a much higher national profile than Steele has, making wooing the media his top priority in 2005. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with Steele being an incompetent party chair, but I can see why Limbaugh would be nonplussed with his tenure so far.

by aaronetc 2009-03-02 12:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Wow, that was fast

Steele to Rush: I'm sorry

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an "entertainer" whose show can be "incendiary."

"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."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 9/19517.html

by Neef 2009-03-02 01:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rush Limbaugh Hits Back At Michael Steele

self flagellation suits the republican party. A can of gas and a match is all that is needed now.

by lojasmo 2009-03-02 02:21PM | 0 recs