RSS Feed MenuRepublican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele had it right the first time.
Appearing on the DL Hughley show on CNN, Steele quipped that Rush Limbaugh was not the leader of the Republican party – Steele was.
Then Steele used the words “ugly” and “incendiary” to describe either Limbaugh’s program or Limbaugh’s speech to CPAC. (Cross-talk makes it difficult to be sure exactly which.)
This comment prompted a harsh response from Limbaugh on his show today.
Michael Steele has been around long enough to know that the liberal media will use him by twisting what I say or what others say. He took the bait, he bit down hard on the bait, he launched an attack on me even though the premise of what was said to him was false. He took the bait and he went for it. 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 have to conclude that he does because he attacks me for wanting it to fail.
Rush’s chastisement prompted Steele to issue a semi-apology via Politico’s Mike Allen – adding that “There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
It was a misstep for Steele to be drawn into a direct spat with Rush. But on the substance: Steele was right. Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican Party, and this weekend he again demonstrated why not.
Limbaugh mocked Steele for appearing on television and “trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.” Oh? As compared to whom? Nothing Steele said will be 1/1000 as harmful to Republicans and conservatives as Rush Limbaugh’s now multiply repeated statement that he hopes President Obama fails.
I cannot believe – I mean I really cannot believe – that a communicator as skilled as Limbaugh fails to comprehend the lethality of this remark. When Limbaugh says he hopes Obama fails, almost everybody listening will hear that as a wish for a longer and more severe recession. I appreciate that Limbaugh has a personal and ideological meaning behind his statement. He means that he wants the President’s program to be rejected in favor of some other emergency package. But that’s not what he said, and that’s not what the big voting public will remember.
At CPAC, Limbaugh claimed that congressional Democrats wanted the Iraq war to fail. Um, okay, that no doubt explains why more than one-third of House Democrats (82 out of 209) and a majority of Senate Democrats (29 out of 50) voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution. How very cunning of them to vote in favor of a war they wished to lose! But now imagine: What if one of those Democrats actually had said aloud what none of them did in fact say: “I hope President Bush fails in Iraq.” The sky would have fallen upon that Democrat, and rightly so. It would not have done any good for that Democrat to say, “I was hoping for the failure of George Bush’s unilateral approach to international relations.” Everybody would have interpreted that Democrat to have wished for the nation’s defeat on the battlefield – and the damage done by such a remark to the offending Democrat’s party would have resonated for years.
The same applies to Rush’s yearning for a domestic failure for President Obama. His wish sounds (and will certainly be made to sound) like a wish for more economic hardship, more bankruptcies, more layoffs, more foreclosures. Nor is Limbaugh content to offer that wish for disaster only in his own name. He added in a broadcast last Friday, “The dirty little secret …is that every Republican in the country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so.” Those words too will be tossed into the teeth of every Republican in an economically hard-pressed district. “You won’t admit you want the recession to be worse – but Rush Limbaugh admitted it for you.”
Limbaugh explained at CPAC that he has some reserved private meaning to his words. He means only that he wishes the president’s harmful program to be rejected in Congress – or in some other way prevented from going into effect. But that’s not what the listener of the Limbaugh radio program hears, and frankly, I don’t think that Limbaugh’s CPAC explanation is precisely accurate. When Rush goes on to say that the only reason Republicans refrain from openly wishing for disaster is their fear of challenging a black-skinned president, as he again and again does, he is revealing that there is something more going on here than a mere call for more economic individualism. Limbaugh’s wishes for Obama’s failure are saturated with race consciousness – a race consciousness that Limbaugh (again falsely) attributes to the whole Republican Party. And he’ll be believed on this too.
Rush told one of his callers Friday, “We all agree I’m not an idiot.” OK, stipulated. Which means, Limbaugh must have some intuition, some perception, of the way his words will sound on the ears of his non-core audience – of how they will be used against his fellow Republicans and conservatives. He knows, but does not care. His words may be deadly politics, but they sure make for lively radio. And look: We are all discussing him! Mission accomplished – that is, assuming your mission is to aggrandize yourself rather than to serve your professed cause. And that’s why Limbaugh, whatever else he may be, will never be a conservative leader. Leaders subordinate themselves to serve others. Subordinating others to serve yourself? There are many words to describe that- but leadership is not one of them.
Clarence Darrow // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:23 pm
David is right. Rush is no party leader when he continues to play right into the hand of being painted as the party leader by Obama’s strategy team and Rahm.
Obama’s team made another brilliant political move by painting an ecomaniac shock jockey with little love from the center as the leader of the Republicans.
If I were Steele – I probably would have said something similar. At this point, Republican leadership has to keep calling Limbaugh what he is – “Entertainment”
Also – I really enjoyed – Go Dog Go! ’s comments they are 100% spot on.
Realist // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm
dragonlady said: “Frum, do you see leadership in fueling a civil war between moderates and conservatives?”. Do you actually believe Rush has ever had any interest in appealing to moderates? His show is popular because it is so incendiary. So stop blaming David Frum for fueling a civil war between moderates and conservatives when it’s clear that the person who is truly enjoying the rift is the guy getting the most radio listeners.
Chekote // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“If President Obama’s economic program fails, the country will continue to be mired in a deep recession, perhaps even a depression;” If Obama succeeds in implementing his policies, the country will end up in a depression. Worse. The very values that made this country unique will be lost. Yes, I want Obama to fail.
larryo // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:46 pm
betterred, how do you expect to win without compromise. You are hardly in the majority – neither extreme is in the majority. The independents choose who will win elections and have since at least the 1960’s. Gabriel Almond – the father of voter profile analysis – proved it decades ago.
Chekote // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“”New Majority” was started because David Frum believes that conservatism has made serious errors in policy and needs to change course.” Let’s list the errors: 1) War in Iraq; 2) Expansion of the federal government; 3) Running up deficits; 4) Splitting the Republican base by insisting on a comprehensive approach to immigration.
larryo // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:54 pm
“Republican pols have to be ambigious about Rush.” * * * Oh, I don’t think anyone will be fooled by that anymore, for at least awhile. * * * “But love or hate Rush, he is quite popular to many in the base.” * * * I rest my case – that is what is so scary to the rest of us – don’t you get it? That you are so sanguine about that, and so ready to take advantage of it for crass political reasons, renders you unworthy of trust. That’s the problem! I agree with Zonie – my politics are left of center – I know that. But I want to see an effective opposition party in this country too – that’s the only way it really works. But you people don’t seem to want the same thing – look at the way the Republicans froze the Democrats out for the last 8 years – marching in lockstep to orders given by BushCheneyRumsfeld. There wasn’t even any collegiality, meaning no one was even willing to listen to the other side. And look what happened.
dragonlady // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:06 pm
larryo, let me be clear. I’d much rather the Republican party as an opposition party be a principled, conservative party then a Dem-lite party. But you really make me chuckle on the so called crassness of my politics. Rush and his dittoheads do see themselves as principled, just like the Code Pink wackos you revere. However if you ever bothered to listen to Rush, as much as you despise his politics, I guarantee you he has put some more thought in his broadcasts than the Pepto Bismoal cheerleaders. You are just more sympathetic politically with the Code Pinks and their ilk, so you don’t find them objectionable. But the majority of Americans think they are moonbats.
dragonlady // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Realist, get off your high horse. Rush is doing what he’s always done, plugging his radio show and provoking controversy. Frum is the one claiming he’s trying to build a NewMajority. Having a discussion on how to do it is one thing; sowing unneeded discord within the party is not particular a smart way to do it. If you bothered to read my other posts, I have again and again stated we should be the Big Tent party, room for both moderates and conservatives. But I don’t believe for one minute Rush Limbaugh is why the GOP lost in ‘08, even though I said I understand why he shouldn’t be the public face of the Republican party. You want to ostracize Rush and his followers? Go ahead…launch the NewMajority and see what happens.
olipane // Mar 4, 2009 at 12:44 am
Mr. Steele was right…Rush is an entertainer plugging his station first, then a conservative philosphist second. He’s not a leader, except for the fact he is educating our base on what is going on in the political world but giving his “incendiary and ugly” perspective on things. Sure it excites our base but it alienates everyone else. He’s a leader of a niche that basically says, “anything a democrat says is wrong and bad.” 84% of Americans are sick and tired of this kind of political banetering. You want a true leader with the right perspective who can not only excite the base but also woo the moderates and conservative democrats? Mitt Romney! Listen to his speech (on this site) at the latest CPAC 2009 and listen carefully to the balance of his remarks. “America first”, “agree when we can and stand firm where we should”, support the President because he is our President and “he” has to make those decisions ultimately. This guy IS the guy for 2012. He SHOULD be the leader of the Conservative movement/Republican Party and our 2012 presidential candidate. I believe had Romney been the candidate against Obama, Romney would be the President. McCain was simply the wrong choice this past election. People trust a former CEO of a business especially when it comes to economics. THAT was his trump card against the liberals. So, spread the word around. I hope this seed planted today bears a harvest of fruit for the conservative/republicans in 2012. Forget Limbaugh – he’s an agitator that does nothing for the rest of the American people. We know who we are – the job of a TRUE conservative/republican leader is to convince the “others” to join us. We need to minimize Limbaugh because he helps nobody except those who already agree that the liberals/democrats are “wrong.” =) Romney for President – 2012!!! Shut Limbaugh up!!
choccity2005 // Mar 4, 2009 at 11:44 am
Hello fellow conservatives and independents.I only found this site b/c of frum’s comments.I agreed 100 percent.David frum is vastly more superior to analysis than rush limbaugh.Hey why don’t we give ann coulter a radio show and make her the head of our party .How many would love that…casue she’s not polarizing right?
Steele is the best thing for the GOP,some have taken him to task for the hip hop thing.Let me explain something….not that i agree with even half of hip hop,but it is number 1 with young people.It makes more money in record sales than anything else.Movies,music(except country and christian)controlled by the left.Newspapers,hollywood,majority of blogs,tv,cable….all we have is talk radio and fox news but where is it that you can say you want a popular president to fail and that doesn’t become front page news.We have to expand as a party….do you know if we can get 30 percent of the black vote,40 percent of the hispanic vote,and 45 pecent of the female vote……THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!II mean if we could just get those goals…there is no democratic party…..they wouldn’t even win a high school class president election.Now who does RUSHBO not have in his audience….blacks,hispanics and women.WHy is he valued again???
larryo // Mar 4, 2009 at 3:07 pm
dragonlady – I didn’t say your politics was “crass” – I was commenting on your patent willingness to pander to the Rush Limbaugh moonies. A better word to have used there would have been “opportunistic.” Hindsight is always 20-20. But I notice that you chose to respond on the level of semantics rather than address my main point, which was that the left wing protesters have been historically vindicated. You must agree. Of course, you are at a disadvantage – he left has mounted protests about many things, but the only things that cause the right sufficient anxiety to get people out of their armchairs seems to be weapons registration and abortion. I must admit, however, that I am as leery of weapons confiscation as they are so I am not favorably disposed toward registration. I would like to be able to figure out a way to *legally* get the handguns away from the street gangs without abridging everyone else’s right to have them, but I have not been able to do so as yet.
choccity2005 // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:10 am
choccity2005
wrote 0 minutes agoA senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy. Outside, Americans United for Choice, a liberal group, and the Democratic National Committee are driving the message, in close consultation with the White House. Democrats can barely suppress their smiles these days, overjoyed at the instant-ad imagery of Limbaugh clad in Johnny Cash-black at CPAC and, more broadly, at what they see as their success in managing to further marginalize a party already on the outs. I want to send Rush a bottle of vitamins, said Begala. We need him to stay healthy and loud and proud. With President George W. Bush and Vice-Presidentk Cheney out of the White House and Tom DeLay gone from Congress, the left had been suddenly absent an unpopular right-wing figure. Few Americans know who the congressional Republican leaders are. Even Sarah Palin is now four time zones away from Washington. Enter Limbaugh. This the article i found…….on politico,WHO CAN DEFEND LIMBAUGH NOW…HE’s destroying us!!!
sinz54 // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:26 am
choccity2005: I agree with you 100%. The GOP is always focused on Step One–Motivate the Base. And yes, Limbaugh is good at Step One. But I keep waiting and waiting to hear Step Two–Reach Out Beyond the Base. We seem increasingly incapable of that. We seem to have turned inward–only concerned with preserving the ideological purity and fervor of the base, not with aggressively reaching out beyond the base.
choccity2005 // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:22 am
sinz54 :thank god for people like you and david frum who actually see STRATEGY.I’m a black conservative and i came to this party b/c i believe in School vouchers(notice barack obama puts his kids in private school),Social security accounts,Low taxes(i live in NY for goodness sake),smaller government,Strong defense(not for war with the world)Fiscal discipline(not 9,000 earmarks),I am pro-Life,Pro-gun rights, and i believe in GOD.This is why i am a independent conservative…..This is why i supported mccain in the last election.Why id i support mccain/palin b/c they went against thier own party and they stood against washington.Mccain has NEVER taken an earmark.I applaud that…he would be a better president now than obama.
Limbaugh however i can’t stand b/c he’s a coward.It’s easy to sit in your fat chair and spew incendiary rhetoric and allow lawmakers to take your heat but you won’t DARE RUN FOR OFFICE.You want to debate obama,you want to be our leader…get some courage and run for 2012…..until sit there,smoke your cigar and shut up!!
DestinyBender // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:26 am
Mark Levin speaks for me as well. We tried things your way by nominating McCain and look how well that worked out. The radical liberal net roots took control of the Democrat party and they WON! First you bad-mouth President Bush and now Rush. If sniviling little putzim like you would direct your criticisms toward Dems instead of our Conservative Leaders we’d be alot better off.
choccity2005 // Mar 15, 2009 at 11:54 am
destinybender:Can i tell you why we loss the election.
1st off mark levin is a idiot who know one listens to.I prefer michael savage,andrew wilkow and glen beck cause thier not a bunch of ditto heads.
We lost teh election b/c GEORGE BUSH Was president for 8 years!!A freaking laughingstock on every comedian and every late night/early moring talk show.katrina,Iraq,afahanistan…WMDs.If a democrat had made that many blunders…tell me rush would not be taking them apart every day.When did any of them call for bush to fail in anything other than amnesty.Conservs and repubs defended this man in his rampant government spending,increasing governemt,the first bailouts…george bush did that.increasing the deficit…george bush did that!!!No one in our party was loud enough to oppose bush.that’s why mccain loss…every word,every comercial was how mccain represented 4 more years of george bush.bush’s third term remember that!!!If it was any other repub but mccain it would be a 43 state win for obama.that’s teh truth
choccity2005 // Mar 15, 2009 at 12:00 pm
How can we say we stand for fiscal discipline,smaller government,lower deficits,and national defense and no government bailouts when …BUSH DID THE ALL THOSE THINGS.
WE want to oppose barack for it…yet who OPPOSED BUSH FOR IT??
WE want barack to fail for it…but no one not even might rush called for bush to fail.Rush sold us out and any conserv who never spoke up against those principles.Michale savage did,glenn beck did.Oreilly did….That’s why they are all i listen too…cause they have credibility.David frum did.
We still have senators and congressman…..voting for earmarks.Democrats like feingold and mccaskill are showing more principles by voting no and not putting earmarks in the bill……and they wonder why we keep losing elections.