2009.06.04
Are Rush and Newt winning?
That's what E.J. Dionne thinks, anyway. In today's column, he's critical of the press for paying more attention to conservative critics of President Obama than progressive critics, "treating far-right views as mainstream positions and by largely ignoring critiques of Obama that come from elected officials on the left."
The result leaves an impression of Obama as a politician "somewhere on the far left end of a truncated political spectrum" when, Dionne argues, the reality is this: Obama is "a politician with progressive values but moderate instincts who has hewed to the middle of the road in dealing with the economic crisis, health care, Guantanamo and the war in Afghanistan"
Dionne apportions some blame to Democrats for building up the unpopular Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich of de facto leaders of an increasingly marginalized Republican Party, but he says the media do more than their share of allowing Rush and Newt to set the news agenda.
RSS feed 
No they are not winning. They are showing us what we are really up against. They are showing the world how far they are willing to go to regain control (i.e. the 'kill it to save it' ideology). They are making the noise that is the only thing keeping the Republicans in the news because they believe that bad news is better than no news.
America is in too much of a struggle for the old politics and old ideas to gain ground right now. They are positioning themselves in the hopes that the old adage of "everything old is new again" will come true for them if the Obamanator cannot pull this off and get us back on a positive track. It is a gamble that may well pay off, who knows. It is also a gamble that could backfire and complete the exile for 40 years. We shall see.
The funny part is the Conservative and Right Wing folks who still believe these clowns care about their issues beyond using them for a vote. I accepted a long time ago that people like me were the foot soldier cannon fodder for the pols 'on my side' but these guys still believe change is gonna come for them despite all evidence to the contrary. That is faith. Misplaced faith, but faith.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 9:24 am
They are the opposing team. Of course, they are winning. They have no competition. And the Left is more than willing to feed them all the publicity they could ever want.
Comment by Henry — June 4, 2009 @ 10:14 am
"Dionne apportions some blame to Democrats for building up the unpopular Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich of de facto leaders of an increasingly marginalized Republican Party,"
And why is it "increasingly marginalized"? What is it exactly Newt and Rush are "winning"...dominance in a party that a smaller and smaller pool of people claim membership in? They may indeed be "winning"...but the only people they're beating is the moderate Republicans desperately trying to navigate the GOP on some course back to relevance.
I completely don't get Dionne's point. If the democrats can sell Rush/Newt as the voice of the GOP...how does it hurt the Democrats?
Comment by Kristen — June 4, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I find it funny that the writer seems to imply that Rush and Newt just arrived on the scene. The only thing different is that they are one of the few journalists willing to criticize the Democrats who are in power. That makes them king of the hill on the opposing side. The Democrats have MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and NPR to get out their message. A year ago, these networks were hammering the president. Now they are singing his praises every minute.
The Democrats are trying to define the Republican party by using two unelected Republicans. Even a blind man can see through that ruse. Next strategy, guys. You are playing into Rush's hands.
Comment by Henry — June 4, 2009 @ 10:30 am
He is not 'right' enough for 'the right' and he is not 'left' enough for 'the left', but luckily he is still just fine for the rest of us. The only people who think bad publicity is a good thing are the ones getting it and that is because they have no choice. Rush could moderate, Newt could moderate, the whole country really is moderate but NO they would rather fight than switch. Go for it, boys! I cannot get enough. True colors are the order of the day and some colors do run in hot water.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Yes Henry...Rush's plan is coming together perfectly.
Comment by Kristen — June 4, 2009 @ 10:42 am
Obviously it is working. He is getting a lot of publicity and his ratings are up. Newt is getting more face time now.
Comment by Henry — June 4, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Yes...as someone pointed out, a large listenership for Rush makes him rich and puts the GOP on the fringe. Maybe Rush will be able to hire all the Republicans who are looking for work these days.
Comment by Kristen — June 4, 2009 @ 11:13 am
How is it that Rush an Newt are being labelled the Republican Party. Neither of them are politicians. Sounds like a really good selling job by the Democrats to paint all Republicans as extremists. The Dems don't have to put much effort or money into the selling either - they got the MSM to do their dirty work.
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Sorry, "politicians" may not have been the best word choice. How about current elected officials.
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Oh yeah, they are both politicians to the nth degree! They are not standing for election (which makes them less accountable) but make no mistake, they are politicians to the bone!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 11:59 am
"How is it that Rush an Newt are being labelled the Republican Party. Neither of them are politicians. "
Good question? How come when Michael Steele, the putative head of the RNC, spoke out against Rush he was forced to come back, apologize, and suck up to him?
How come Dick comes on TV and says that between Powell and Rush being spokesmen for the GOP...he'd pick Rush?
The democrats don't have to sell this. The GOP is doing it to itself, very successfully.
Comment by Kristen — June 4, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
IF they are it's because they are educating. If and when PREZ O's approval numbers go below 55% then yes they would be winning.
Comment by BUD — June 4, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
I bet some Presidents would have sold their soul for 55% and you want to call that failing? Pick a number nearer to Bush's in 2007 and I'll agree that would be failure and you can even chalk the win up to the fat boys.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
The response by Cheney was not an endorsement of Rush to be the spokesman for the Republican Party, it was an answer to a loaded question. It was sour grapes over Powell endorsing a Democratic candidate. He reiterated that he did not have issues with Republicans who are making attempts to move the party to the middle. Personnaly, I have always admired Colin Powell, but his endorsement of a Democratic candidate puts him at the bottom of every list - if you strictly want to play party politics.
From what I understand, Steele isn't necessarily the darling of the Republican party either. If he was forced to do anything, he was being sacrificed.
I'm not saying there aren't extreme wackos in the Republican party, but the Dems certainly have their share too.
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
I'm not saying that the democrats have any fewer whackos.
Dick's answer was absolutely sour grapes. The question posed was...Why are the democrats trying to push Rush as the spokeshead for the GOP. My answer was only that...lots of people are kissing the ring lately, and they're not democrats.
As it is now, prominent Republicans aren't allowed to speak out at all in opposition to anything Rush says without the GOP Taliban rushing in to point fingers, call names, and demand apologies. More moderate players like Romney are being hurt by this.
Comment by Kristen — June 4, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Jerry W. are you certain about that "He reiterated that he did not have issues with Republicans who are making attempts to move the party to the middle" quote? I have heard Rush go off on Moderates like they were Feminazis so I am seriously wondering when his own conversion took effect.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
"GOP Taliban" - that's pretty good.
You can't pretend that the ring kissing isn't going on in the Dem camp though, just a different ring.
A little dissention in the ranks just might be a good thing. If everyone in any party were to say "yes Mr. President, you are absolutely right all the time", when and if things go bad, they are gonna go bad for the whole lot.
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Sandi, in that case of he, I was refering to Cheney.
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
What unelected ranting maniac's ring are we kissing pray tell Jerry W?
And I also believe I heard the quote from Cheney as "No I don't. I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/07/scott_hennen_interview_with_dick_cheney_96391.html
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Again Jerry I don't deny anything. The discussion was about Rush and the right, nothing else.
Comment by Kristen — June 4, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Sandi, I think we're pulling comments from different interviews. There is no clear line for "moderate" if we're looking at totally different interviews. The whole of the Republican Party is not aligned with Rush, no matter how many times someone wants to say it is. Moderate as a verb does not fit if the party is left of Rush. If the party is completely aligned with Rush, then Cheney is wrong. I would be all for moderation if the whole party is in Rush's pocket, but I really don't think it is.
I didn't realize the ring had to be unelected. The Dems are only kissing the ring of the elected "ranting maniacs".
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Point taken Kristen. It's just a little extreme to extrapolate Rush to the remainder of the population who might consider themselve Republican.
The extremes always get the press. Somehow, it seems that the extreme Right have been able to make money in talk radio and have been able to survive.
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Jerry I agree with your entire post.
I almost never get to say that!
Comment by Kristen — June 4, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Jerry W. you did not link to your interview so I cannot judge. I concur that the Republican Party is not aligned with Rush or with Steele or Bachmann or Malkin they are not aligned behind anyone or even all together without those people. Rush and Cheney do not like Moderates is my take and I stand by that, whatever quote or context is used. THEREIN lies the problem. MOST of the country IS Moderate. There are very few ranting lefties in government and even fewer with real platforms to embarrass us daily. You may well want the whole party to be "in Rush's pocket" and I would have to say that would be the best news I could hope for being as he helped Bush's popularity and McCain's popularity so much. Party on Gsrth!
Kissing the ring of someone we elected is called loyalty. You may not remember the Reagan years but your guys do it to. Us kissing the ring of an unelected ranting maniac like Olbermann or Rhodes (although either pales in ranting next to Limbaugh) AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN DUDE! But you guys can continue to pucker up at will. Make him richer, more loud and puffed up, WORKS FOR ME!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Sandi, in no way did I say that I want the whole party in Rush's pocket. I do agree that most of the country is moderate (forced to be extreme on some issues), but moderate just the same.
Nothing at all wrong with loyalty. But loyalty is a lot like respect, absolute loyalty has to be earned - otherwise, it's more commonly referred to as being a sucker.
I have the distinct feeling we would probably disagree on the number of ranting lefties in government, but it's nice to know that you acknowledge there are some.
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Sandi, Here's the discussion I was referring to:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5004521.shtml
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Thanks for the link but I don't change my stance on his 'moderation' opinion. I apologize if I read your "pocket" comment wrong and I am glad that you do not want your party in his pocket (wise move IMHO). The zealots in politics, religion, art, music and the office try all of our souls. I refuse to label President Obama or the people in his administration as ranting maniacs on any sane person's rating chart. There are Republicans I admire and respect and whom I believe have only what is best for America at heart. I am partisan, but I am American first. Radicals make a big fat spectacle and sometimes hit on the truth but no one would really want to be governed by one.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
I understand that you don't think Cheney is moderate enough for your taste. You have political and philosophical differences. I respect that. I do honestly believe that he (again Cheney) is more moderate than Rush.
I'm sure I agree with some things Rush says, and some things Cheney says, and some things Newtie says. I won't ever say I agree with every viewpoint any of them have on all occasions.
Believe it or not, I might agree with our current President on occasion. Certainly not on everything, though.
See, we can all find some common ground. Now, if we can just make it so my kid can carry guns to school. lol
Comment by Jerry W — June 4, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
I am sure your Utopia of gun toting kids is just around the corner Jerry! Since few people are less Moderate than Limbaugh, I will have to agree that yes Cheney is more moderate than Rush. Which is a distinction without a difference but if you need the concession, you have it.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 4, 2009 @ 4:04 pm