Go James Carville
I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say the Steelers got lucky, but they did get the majority of the calls, including a “we’re not going to review this” call from the refs on the last play of the game. Sure, the Cards would have had no choice but to throw a hail mary, but who would you rather have trying to bring that down than Larry Fitzgerald. Oh well, it was a great game nonetheless.
Anyway, I just read a quick editorial by James Carville, in which he basically puts it to Rush Limbaugh. Honestly, I guess that’s probably not very tough, given Rush has a history of saying moronic, racist, painkiller-induced, small-minded comments. Still, it’s worth a read. Check it here.
Juvers said:
Feb 01, 09 at 10:35 pmWas a good article, but this is also part of a larger strategy. Can’t seem to recall where I found it earlier in the week, but I was looking at polling numbers that showed Limbaugh’s approval rating among the American public was somewhere around 27% (roughly where Bush’s numbers were).
Now, there’s sketchy stuff to how those numbers came about (registered voters, likely voters, interested in politics, etc.) that make this somewhat of a lame poll, but it’s still relevant to the point I’m going to make.
While the GOP is struggling to figure out what they stand for, they Dems are attempting to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party. Without being able to go after Bush any longer, they’ve picked a member of the party that has numbers that are just as low.
You all know well my partisan beliefs, but I’m skeptical as to whether or not this will work. As the old saying goes in this arena, “never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” Limbaugh is an entertainer, that only conservatives are listening to anyway. And he has loads of airtime to voice his opinion.
As much as I would like to never have to hear her again, I would much rather we take our chances with Palin as the face of their party, and continually prove how ill-equipped she is to play at this level.
scott said:
Feb 02, 09 at 9:31 am“Rush Limbaugh, the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States”
Yeah, that’s definitely the strategy you outlined, Juvers.
The White House is preaching bipartisanship pretty hard right now. Wouldn’t you say it is hypocritical to say you are bipartisan and then work so aggressively to keep the Republican party down? Painting Palin or Limbaugh as the face of the party and capitalizing on their stupidity might be a good way to win elections, but it hardly jives with the unifying message that was preached by this administration during the election.
jared said:
Feb 02, 09 at 11:53 amI’m curious, would you disagree with the statement that Limbaugh is “the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States”?
I can definitely see what you’re saying about being hypocritical, but I’d say it’s not Obama doing it. It’s unfortunate that the whole party isn’t following suit, but Limbaugh is one of the most consistent leaders of the party. Having already said he hopes Obama fails, I don’t see any issue with painting him into a corner.
scott said:
Feb 02, 09 at 2:40 pm“While the GOP is struggling to figure out what they stand for, they Dems are attempting to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party. Without being able to go after Bush any longer, they’ve picked a member of the party that has numbers that are just as low.”
What I take from that statement is that the Dems aren’t attacking Limbaugh, they are attacking the Republicans in general by associating them with Limbaugh. Maybe he is the most influential person in the party, and maybe he is the moral and intellectual leader. Certainly, though, there are members of the Republican party who are sane, reasonable, intelligent people. Why not paint one of them as the face of the party? Associating those upstanding Republicans with Limbaugh or Palin in an attempt to keep the entire party down is just another version of the divisive politics we have all come to hate.
I want the people in Washington to quit focusing on fighting each other and start focusing on fixing it. Fix it!
Juvers said:
Feb 02, 09 at 3:08 pmI think Carville calling Limbaugh the most influential person in the party is a short-sighted statement. I’m not sure he would have been arguing the same thing as recently as a few weeks ago, and I doubt the argument will stick for very long.
It works currently, however. Simply because Rush is the only one doing any sort of talking. (An argument could be made here that Sean Hannity has roughly the same amount of air time and similar ideas.) Republican / Conservative constituents have nowhere else to turn right now. I’ll be interested to see how long this lasts and who steps up on their side to take a leadership role.
As for Scott’s wish that any of this could cease so that real governing could be done, it’s the evil of American politics. Note however, that few legislators are taking part in this sort of banter. It’s the media gurus. But it’s necessary. We’re a few months shy of gubernatorial/congressional/senate candidates staffing up for their 2010 bids for office. If you aren’t on offense, then you’re on defense, and nobody likes being the guy in the corner. Thus, someone must always be on the front lines.
jared said:
Feb 02, 09 at 10:52 pmI guess my point was that there’s nobody else whose name you really even associate with the party right now.
But I think Juvers is mostly right too that it’s generally the media doing the “fighting” at this point, not necessarily the politicians. After all, Obama just nominated a very fiscally conservative, Republican senator to be his commerce secretary.
scott said:
Feb 03, 09 at 8:23 amThe point that it’s the media doing this fighting honestly makes me feel a bit better about the whole thing.
Juvers said:
Feb 06, 09 at 4:09 pmJust for reference, here is the latest polling, pertaining to my point above:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx