An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Two Sides, Same Mouth: GOP Genuflects to Limbaugh Yet Nicknames Obama “The Messiah”
If that doesn’t express the internal and external conflicts with which conservatives and Republicans are struggling, I don’t know what does.
Just check out BlogNetNews.com Rightysphere results for “The Messiah”
versus
A Google search on “apologize Limbaugh.”
Complete, total, utter, abject absence of looking in the mirror. (I know – so many opportunities to make jokes about what they’d see re: Limbaugh’s image at CPAC.)
Read the rest of the post at Writes Like She Talks.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Two Sides, Same Mouth: GOP Genuflects to Limbaugh Yet Nicknames Obama “The Messiah””
The Fairness Doctrine. It must be struck down because we dont like what the Right is saying on radio.
There seem to be factions in the GOP that idolize Rush Limbaugh and in the Democrats that idolize Obama, both to the extent that it might cloud their judgment. Hypocrisy is not unique to either party.
Green – you can read what I think about that fearmonger's dream here. (Also – did you mean to write that it should be reinstituted?? That's what people are saying would be done allegedly to silence the right)
DaGoat – the problem, from my perspective, isn't that it's just any old little teeny tiney “faction” within the GOP – we're talking about the CHAIR OF THE RNC genuflecting to Limbaugh. I know rank and file Democrats that could be said to idolize Obama but I can also come up with daily posts from more prominent Dems who are criticizing Obama. Conservatives love to try and say that there's no dissent in the left side of the aisle but dissent is everywhere. Have you checked out Accountability Now?
Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.
Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) are among the many politicians who have called for a return of the Fairness Doctrine.
In 1987, the FCC decided the Fairness Doctrine was no longer needed. The growth in the number of radio stations since the 1940s, when it originated, had been so great that there were enough outlets available that people could seek out what they wanted to hear and make up their own minds about what to think. This decision kept the Fairness Doctrine on the books but unenforced. It was effectively gone but could easily be restored by majority vote of the five-member FCC
Now lets go back to what Obama wants…………..He does not want to limit free speech. He simply wants to limit who owns radio stations so that they are the ones he approves of. You dont attack free speech you simply demonize the other side and then justify changing regulations to encourage 10,ooo liberals to buy up all the radio stations thus ending the rights ability to speak out on the only true media left to them that is not owned by liberals.
This is just another step in Barak Obama and the democrats desire for a fascist one party state. The road to fascism is steep and the democrats appear hell bent to take it.
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama intends to nominate his technology adviser, Julius Genachowski, to head the Federal Communications Commission, a Democratic source close to the Obama transition team said.
During the campaign, Mr. Genachowski served as the top technology adviser to Mr. Obama, putting together a detailed technology and innovation plan that expressed support for open Internet or “net neutrality” protections; media-ownership rules that encourage more diversity; and expansion of affordable broadband access across the country.
This decision kept the Fairness Doctrine on the books but unenforced. It was effectively gone but could easily be restored by majority vote of the five-member FCC
Jill – you say conservatives are showing a “Complete, total, utter, abject absence of looking in the mirror” yet Greensleeves, myself and several others are here continually looking in the mirror. I've criticized Limbaugh many times, so has GS, so have many others across the internet.
Anyway this discussion is really about which party is more hypocritical, an argument that is rarely productive.
Green, you wrote:
“I fully believe that there are two things going on right now with the obsession over Rush Limbaugh by the left. One is that the left is just piling on and making out the GOP to look like Rush clones. The second is that by demonizing talk show hosts on the right that the fairness doctrine when its reintroduced with a simple vote by the FCC that it will have teeth by an ignorant public.”
This is definitely a “from where you sit” thing – because from where I sit, I see nothing but “obsession over Rush Limbaugh”… by the RIGHT. Green – the RNC CHAIR had to apologize for calling the man an entertainer?? Come on.
As for the fairness doctrine fears, you know – maybe I'll be wrong – it won't be the first or the last time – but I don't see all this fear being met with fruition. On the other hand, won't you all feel great when if it really happens?
DaGoat-
Being someone who often is out there raising her hand saying, “I dissented!” and “I dissent!” I appreciate you saying that you criticize Limbaugh. And of course I've linked to conservatives who are criticizing Limbaugh.
It's obviously just my opinion and I'm fine with it being that, but my opinion is that the right's embrace of Limbaugh has reached histrionic and democratically unhealthy proportions when people like Tom Delay are saying that Limbaugh is a model for moral conservatives. Again – just how it strikes me. I honestly tune out anyone who likewise genuflects about Obama, on the left, but frankly, as I noted above, groups like Acountability Now scare me too.
Coming from a party that spent the last 5 years calling bush Shrub, Hitler, Nazi, Fuhrer, Chimperor, Dubya and everything in between.
I think the bigotry runs in both parties. Perspective is what matters and right now both parties turn my stomach.
Incidently Jill.
There is only room for one Messiah. Obama and his fans are battling it out with Rush and his fans. Who will win?
Jill, you seem to be sincere in your 'concern' over the GOP's attraction to Limbaugh, which is what motivates me to comment on it under this post.
Be assured that the only thing that is happening here is that the Democrats have cleverly set a trap, and way too many GOP leaders are falling head over heels into it.
Limbaugh has a big fan base which is a sizable portion of the conservative GOP base. There are many, many voters who agree with his ideas on conservatism and on policy. A certain number of them also agree with his ideas on strategy and tactics- basically, the idea that you have to crush your ideological opponents rather than persuade them. This is a losing strategy for any political party, but a very lucrative one for a radio talk show host.
The GOP leaders need to find a way to avoid the trap; if I were advising, I'd tell them to first point out the nature of the trap whenever they're asked for an opinion on Limbaugh, and then clearly state that they might agree with any number of policy positions that Limbaugh takes but since his role is not the same as an elected official he uses a style that alienates people who disagree rather than persuading them. To govern effectively, the GOP must form coalitions based on areas where people have common ground rather than exploiting differences among different factions.
So, to borrow a phrase from another divisive right wing talker, Sean Hannity…”Let not your heart be troubled,” Jill. What's happening right now isn't a sign of some fatal problem in the GOP, it's a sign that the Democrats are exploiting the base vs. moderate fault line that always exists in any political party. The GOP could have done the same thing (probably missed a chance, actually) to the Democrats early in the last election cycle when Dems were courting the netroot votes. By making a litmus test for GOP leaders, to either denounce Limbaugh or lose any hope of support from moderates, they marginalize any opposition to their own policies.
When external conditions begin to force moderates to rethink their support of Obama and the current Democratic majority, and when a credible GOP leader emerges, people will have no problem putting Limbaugh back in the box in which he belongs.
GS
Your slant on the Fairness doctrine is amazing. Here in fly over country, I watched as a number of local stations were bought up by Clear Channel, and suddenly, we went from diverse local programming to a daily lock-step of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity.
I wish he was for re-reinstatement. At least there would be a little diversity of opinion again.
CStanley – thanks. I comprehend what you're saying, not sure I disagree with much of it but I do have a question – why do you call it a Dem trap? I stick w/Steele's description of Limbaugh as an entertainer, and add that he is one with a $400million contract and people who love fame and fortune and money love coveting that. But I'm not getting why it's a Dem trap – I think the people who follow or admire or adulate over Limbaugh are capable of being pulled into Limbaugh's own marketing efforts – no matter how they might be supplemented by the Dems – all on their own.
What exactly is the Dem trap?
Green – I'm treating what you've written as your opinion to the general masses – it just doesn't apply to me – the way DaGoat talked about criticizing Rush etc.
CStanley: Ah – oka – you mean something along the lines of something like this?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596…
I see you've answered your own question, Jill. Even before reading that Politico piece, I intuitively knew that this was being orchestrated by Democratic strategists, but the article confirms it. Actually I see that it's actually been even more premeditated and calculated than I realized.
It seems that the Democratic party has discovered that rather than using wedge issues to their advantage, they're consolidating their support among swing voters by using tone as a wedge.
“Anyway this discussion is really about which party is more hypocritical, an argument that is rarely productive.”~Dagoat
**********
Don't dismiss the issue now. I know the GOP is all about being dismissive of real issues to further their agenda of bashing Obama.
It's not so much the GOP grovelling at Limbaugh's feet that is alarming, it is the manner in which they do it. A simple nod would suffice. Instead they are rolling over and pissing on their tummies, licking his bootheels. And that isn't even the end of it. He lords over them and dominates them visually. Obama is far more concilliatory to people who disagree with him. Obama welcomes those who disagree with him over for football games, dinner and cocktails. Rush demonizes them and threatens to ruin them politically. He is a despot, a tyrannical diarhhea-mouthed bully. He appeals to monkeys, apes who believe in “might makes right”. I can hear the “ooga boogas” now as the next foolish GOP leader dares to bring their balls out of cold storage and is immediately chest-thumped into submission.
It's the NATURE of the grovelling that is alarming. Rush Limbaugh is forcing his party to its knees much like Adolph Hitler did in the 1930s. Yes, it is a fair comparison.
Forget the Messiah. Rush is more like the Antichrist.
{rolls eyes} at Silhouette's comment. There really ought to be a corollary to Godwin's law to cover comparisons to the Antichrist.
And anyway, if you know anything about Biblical prophecy, Obama's style of acting conciliatory while wielding great power is far closer to that model than is the belligerent, honest crushing that Limbaugh advocates. Don't misunderstand and think that I'm comparing Obama to the Antichrist, but I'm just pointing out that you're analogy doesn't even make sense.
My analogy makes perfect sense, and hence the reason you feel compelled to try to sway otherwise. : )
Rush coos and woos his listeners. It is those who try to rein him in that feel his unbridled wrath. That is the making of a slick and evil man. The antichrist-Rush comparison fits perfectly. Obama is not the messiah, nor is he any other godly being or devil. He is merely a man using strategy to clean up the mess left by an evil regime…the GOP and it's diabolical leadership the last 8 years.
Don't sugarcoat the pill. Rush is a pursuasive closet-despot who is, factually, bringing the GOP to its knees much in the same manner another antichrist did in the 1930s…that left millions dead and suffering scars that never quite healed.
LOL, Silhouette, no, don't flatter yourself. I'm quite sure that your use of an antichrist metaphor AND a Hitler reference for Limbaugh says more about your feeling compelled to sway than my response to that says about me.
Look, to understand the Rush phenomenon, you have to talk about a dicey subject that few want to visit out of political-correctness to people who are frankly….a little slow in the head.
Rush and other smart-and-therefore-evil GOP leaders understand that their consituency is a herd of knuckleheads. The average republican of the lower classes has about a 5th-grade educational profile, is reflexive, rigid and thinks much like a herd animal.. See…I told you the subject is unseemly but needs to be addressed.
Ergo, Rush Limbaugh knows that all he has to do to weild factual power is to threaten to spook the herd. Since GOP leadership (the elected kind) have no voice in radio, they must do as Rush bids or face annihilation. And he knows this. And he's taking full advantage of it. And he makes good on his threats. So therefore he is evil. Period.
I see I'm pretty late to this, so all I have to say is that I love the headline of this post.
Really, my eyes just burst into valentine hearts as I scrolled down to this part of the page!
Congrats, JillMZ!!
Rush Limbaugh February 13, 2009:
“I'll say it again. Not only do I want Obama to fail, I want this package to fail. I want this to blow up in their face.
I hope the stimulus bill fails. I hope it does exactly what we know it will do, blow everything to smithereens and not do one thing that has been promised. Apparently, experience is the greatest teacher, and when these poor people who think Barack Obama means a new house, a new car, a new job, when they find out that's not what Barack Obama means, maybe then they'll see. So I hope that happens.
I hope Obama fails. Now the bill has passed the House. I hope when they implement it, that it fails. If I hope it fails beforehand, I better hope it fails afterwards to be consistent, right?”