Comments on: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele and the Republican Party: The Sequel

By: Discordant Democrats vs. Republican Dittoheads | Quiche Moraine

Discordant Democrats vs. Republican Dittoheads | Quiche Moraine — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:28:26 +0000

[...] });The Steele-Rush affair is documented at Think Progress, Salon, and The Moderate Voice. [↩] Tags: democracy, diversity, Republicans, Rush [...]

By: Liberal Suicide March? « Cornell Democrats

Liberal Suicide March? « Cornell Democrats — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:38:22 +0000

[...] Well, that was awfully fast. Apparently Democrats, like Republicans, are eating their young and forcing moderates from the party and are doomed to fail sooner rather than later. Even if you don’t buy into realignment [...]

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:41:11 +0000

Well, it looks like others beat me to the punch pointing out that the Rush=Moore argument is not in fact anything resembling a legitimate question, it is a BS question that is just one more example of a crappy excuse for trying to be “fair” when in fact there is no resemblance between their influence in the opposing parties.

By: richardphx

richardphx — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:16:48 +0000

The Michael Moore analogy doesn't work, though the GOP loves to draw the comparison. Rush is ubiquitous, speaking at GOP events, drawing millions of listeners a day, always in the news and always spouting off. Moore is a film maker who hasn't been seen at a prominent Democratic event since the 2004 convention. He is rarely heard from and most Democrats will tell you he annoys them. He has no cult following and nothing in any way that approaches leadership status. Most Dems are embarrassed by him and have been disassociating themselves from him for years, as they should. This is a bogus analogy, a sham, based on zero facts. Forbes put him on their list of 25 influencers? So what? Where is his influence, what is he saying from day to day, who constitutes his audience? So annoying, to see a red herring like this being discussed seriously. If you say Moore is a Democratic Party leader, show us – i.e., where's the beef? What are the positions he's advocating, who is rallying to his call and how is he spreading his message? We can chart these things with Limbaugh. We cannot do so with Moore. A waste of time.

By: skylights

skylights — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:12:25 +0000

Rush is the undeniable figurehead of the conservative movement and most of the Republican Party, and he has been for a long time. Michael Moore, on the other hand, is only one (popular) voice among the left wing of the Democratic Party -- Forbes didn't even put him in their recent list of the 25 most influential liberals (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-me...)

Democrats and liberals don't have a figurehead, and we never have in my lifetime. We have a bunch of different voices who are influential, but no Democratic politician is scared of criticizing any of them if necessary. Really, our only figurehead right now is Obama. And thankfully, no one could mistake him for the liberal version of Limbaugh.

By: NordicAngst

NordicAngst — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:01:45 +0000

The Rush = Moore bit mentioned by Malcomb is the same stale argument that gets made anytime the subject of far right radio windbags come up in political discourse. It's this weird idea that there must be some cosmic balance that creates identical figures in both parties. Moore really isn't much like Rush though, and wields very little of Rush's clout.

What is Moore even doing these days? Making documentaries doesn't quite grab headlines like grabbing at party leadership.

By: Lawnguylander

Lawnguylander — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:53:35 +0000

So if Rush runs the GOP, does Michael Moore head the Dems?

I don't see that as a legitimate question at all. Does Michael Moore have the same kind of sway with the Democrats as Limbaugh does with the Republicans? When was the last time you saw a Democratic politician groveling at the feet of Michael Moore? Limbaugh suggested to his listeners yesterday that there was no point in donating to the RNC due to Steele's posture. That would be a big problem for them going forward and Moore can do no such thing to the Democrats.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:28:47 +0000

The Repubican Party would be irrelevant with or without Limbaugh. Look at how the Republicans in the Senate deicded to lard up the budget with earmarks and pork inside of trying to regain some sembalance of the fiscal conservative party.

Instead of worrying about Limbaugh and Steele, why not worry about what happens when the Repubican party completes its death spiral.

The Democrats have the advantage that upper middle class white progressives never listen to want is said on urban talk radio and are never forced to defend it. Also, urban black politicains are never forced to defend the militant homosexual stands of elite white progressives. Yet, every Repubican candidate, activist, or pundit is forced to answer for everything said or done by a Republican. The talk about Limbaugh demonstrates how uneven the treatment of the two polticial parties are and how only one of them is still relevant.

Image what Limbaugh will do once the Repubican Party completes its collapse and he starts trying to affect Democratic primaries.