http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 3/4/09

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.

"The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence.

[snip]

The bigger, the better, agreed Carville. “It’s great for us, great for him, great for the press,” he said of Limbaugh. “The only people he’s not good for are the actual Republicans in Congress.”

[snip]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7922236.stm

Who leads the US Republican Party?

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

By Max Deveson
BBC News, Washington

There can be little doubt as to who is currently in charge of America's Democratic Party.

[snip]

But the divided nature of the American political system means that the party that does not hold the White House does not have a single figure it can look to for leadership.

This means that the Republicans - who currently hold neither the White House, nor either House of Congress - find themselves without a leader.

A number of high-profile Republicans are attempting to fill this vacuum by promoting their own policy ideas, and the resulting debate about the future direction of the party has been vigorous, verging on rancorous.

[snip]

"And they are waiting for leadership. We need conservative leadership. We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate. It's no more complicated than that."

[snip]


Sorry Rush, but it's not that simple. The old canard that Republicans always win elections if they run conservative enough candidates has been proven false in practice. What "True Conservative" candidate does Rush propose who has a chance of winning in 2012?

http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.a ... d79ad3b467

LIMBAUGH AT CPAC

David Frum
Monday, March 02, 2009

[snip]

Here’s the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

[snip]

http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.a ... 9cadb043ee

NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH? AN INQUIRY

John Gardner
Monday, March 02, 2009

[snip]

The elections of 2008 were far more than the Presidential contest. To make the case that the Republicans lost because they were not conservative enough, those who favor the CPAC attendees point of view should point to particular races that were lost from a deficit of conservatism, with numbers (such as changes in turnout) making the case.

John Sununu was an ideal Senator – an intelligent and principled conservative who represented his state well. Sadly, he lost. On what issues should he have been more conservative? I think it is simply the changing demographics of that state that determined the result.

In Virginia, Jim Gilmore ran a solidly conservative campaign – and barely over a third of the vote. Can one make an electoral case that Delegate Bob Marshall, the “more conservative” of the two candidates, who nearly knocked Gilmore off at the state convention, would have had a larger share of the vote?

[snip]

“Bush fatigue” and the general state of the economy undoubtedly contributed to these and other results. But given the lousy results at all levels last fall, the CPAC attendees’ point of view must make the case that with their favored policies, more people would have come to the polls and more of them would have voted Republican. I don’t think they can do it. At any rate, I have not seen hard evidence.

[snip]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politic ... 31466.html

Republicans are trying to find a voice and a direction

The governor's annual report card on the state of Florida exposed the nationwide rift in the Republican Party over whether increased government spending will repair the economy.

BY BETH REINHARD AND MARY ELLEN KLAS
March 4, 2009

[snip]

The ideological tension within the controlling party in Tallahassee reflects the GOP's broader struggle as it tries to find a compelling voice on the outskirts of power in Washington.

Will it come from rock-ribbed conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, who said he wanted President Barack Obama's economic agenda to fail to prove the folly of big government? Or does the party's comeback rest on moderates like Crist, who are eager to accept a helping hand from a popular Democratic president, even if it means expanding the federal government's reach?

In a state where so many people have lost their jobs, homes and life savings, the GOP's traditional message of personal responsibility may be a tougher sell.

''We should not ask what it means to be a Republican,'' Crist said in his annual address to both chambers of the Legislature. ``Nor should we ask what it means to be a Democrat; but rather we should ask what it means to be a good, decent human being.''

[snip]

''People are counting on us, and for those of you who wish to keep score, I asked you to mark your wins and losses not for our parties, but for the people we serve,'' Crist said. He added, ``The future is now and the people we serve are counting on us to work -- not for the next election -- but for them and for Florida's next generation.''

[snip]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

GOP Seeks Balance With Conservative Icon Limbaugh

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 4, 2009; A01

For a man who expresses no desire to lead the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh has a knack for creating problems for those who do.

Still smarting from consecutive electoral drubbings, Republicans now find themselves caught in a crossfire between Democrats pressuring them to denounce the conservative talk radio host's bombastic criticism of a popular new president and his own denunciations of their party as an embarrassment.

The ongoing controversy over Limbaugh's statement in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday that he wants "Barack Obama to fail" and the aggressive Democratic pushback it drew has emerged as the latest challenge for a party struggling to find its voice and lacking an obvious national leader.

Few Republicans are eager to alienate Limbaugh's millions of avid listeners. But as party officials work to expand their shrinking coalition, they are also vexed about how to contend with his more pointed commentaries on hot-button issues and a president whom most in the party have been reluctant to criticize.

[snip]

In a recent interview, Frum said: "My main problem with talk radio is things you're doing to excite a loyal audience are very different than things you do to try to win back the departed middle" of the electorate. "We can't win elections by getting our core voters agitated. But if you're a talk radio host and you have 5 million who listen and there are 50 million people who hate you, you can make a nice living. If you're a Republican Party, you're marginalized."

[snip]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

Minority Leader Limbaugh

By David Plouffe
Wednesday, March 4, 2009; A15

The 2008 election sent many messages. At the top: Americans wanted to turn the page on the politics of division and partisan pettiness, and they wanted a government -- and country -- that would put the middle class first.

Watching the Republicans operate this past month, it would appear that they missed that unmistakable signal.

[snip]

Last week's Post-ABC News poll shows that voters trust President Obama on the economy by a remarkable 35 percentage points more than they trust Republicans in Congress -- the biggest advantage for a president on this question since George H.W. Bush basked in public approval of his handling of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

The source of Obama's advantage is critical: independent voters, who give the president high marks on his handling of the economy and his job overall.

[snip]

Thus far, Republican leaders have let their strategy be guided by their most conservative base, capturing perhaps a third of the nation's voters. For Republican candidates seeking the support of right-wing activists in Iowa, who will exercise outsize influence in the presidential selection process in four years, that strategy -- while not entirely defensible in the midst of an economic crisis -- is understandable.

But any party that hopes to actually govern must appeal to moderates. Today, "moderate" is not an adjective that many would associate with the GOP minority in Congress. And a strategy designed chiefly to satisfy the 33 percent of voters who approved of George Bush's performance last fall -- while turning off first-time and swing voters -- hardly seems like the best way out of the political wilderness.

[snip]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

Rush to the Wrong Choice

By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, March 4, 2009; 12:00 AM

It's been a win-win the past few days for Democratic and Republican loyalists, but what about the rest of us?

You know. Americans who either don't think that (a) spending nonexistent trillions is quite the way to proceed in an economic crisis, or that (b) Rush Limbaugh is the messiah.

Oh wait, that's right, Barack Obama is the messiah. I get confused sometimes, what with so much deification going on.

[snip]

Michael Steele, new Republican National Committee chairman, tried to inject a little calm into the discussion and quickly learned that criticizing the omniscient one is an act of treason punishable by public humiliation. After Steele said in a weekend interview that Rush is sometimes "ugly" and "incendiary," the talk-show host administered a 20-minute, on-air spanking and let Steele know that he, El Rushbo, is the talking-head pundit around here.

[snip]

The war we're witnessing should be familiar after six years in Iraq. While insurgents battle for supremacy in an unstable environment, Obama achieves chaos in the enemy camp. Which is to say, Limbaugh isn't wrong, but neither was Steele -- even though he apologized. The GOP will sink as long as criticism is considered apostasy, as more-rational folk run to the lifeboats.

[snip]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... h-attacks/

WH admits Limbaugh attacks unhelpful

Jon Ward
Thursday, March 5, 2009

The White House on Wednesday fessed up to lowering the quality of public discourse and acknowledged that its sniping at radio show host Rush Limbaugh has been "counterproductive," even as Democratic political committees continued to use the issue in a political line of attack approved by the Obama administration itself.

"It may be counterproductive. I'll give you that," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked about his repeated verbal jousting with Mr. Limbaugh and other media personalities who have criticized President Obama.

Mr. Obama himself has regularly employed the term "cable chatter" to dismiss criticisms of his economic agenda that he thinks are uninformed or inaccurate. And his administration has often complained about superficial, back-and-forth debates that substitute for political discourse or journalism.

But Mr. Gibbs said he has been "feeding" the very beast that he and others in the White House have lambasted.

[snip]

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/ ... -limbaugh/

New Dem website makes it easier to apologize to Rush Limbaugh

By Jimmy Orr | 03.05.09

Even if you’re a Republican, you gotta admit it’s pretty funny.

Talking about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s new site I’mSorryRush.com

[snip]

Anyway, this website - unlike a lot of the quick drive-by sites set up during the 2008 campaign - is actually funny.

It allows you to customize an apology letter to Limbaugh. You have the option then of signing it as Georgia Congressman Phil Gingery (who apologized to Rush for calling him a brick-thrower), South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (who apologized to Rush for “not” calling him an idiot), and GOP Chief Michael Steele (who apologized to Rush for calling him incendiary and ugly).

[snip]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

Democrats' Diversionary Tactics

By John Boehner
Thursday, March 5, 2009; A19

In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against.

And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over. This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be.

Make no mistake: This strategy did not develop out of thin air. Democratic pollsters began laying the groundwork for this effort last fall. What's particularly regrettable is that all this is unfolding at a time our nation can least afford it.

President Obama has said that we must change the way Washington operates in order to address the unprecedented challenges of today. I hope that those inside and close to the administration begin heeding his advice, because the change-the-subject campaign they are employing is the oldest trick in Washington's book. This isn't about the leadership of political party officials or the influence of radio hosts. It's about the need for both parties to work together toward real solutions to end this recession and put Americans back to work.

[snip]

GOP needs to get its fiscal credibility first. Without that, there's nothing to base as a starting point.

This is why Obama's policies need to fail. They are bad for the country, and opposing them is the right thing to do.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... id=topnews

White House Cheat Sheet: Democrats Ca$h in on Rush

Chris Cillizza
March 6, 2009

A number of Democratic candidates and committees are using the controversial remarks made by conservative-talk radio host Rush Limbaugh about President Obama to raise money and recruit volunteers to their causes.

In an email sent to supporters late Thursday and entitled "Kowtow," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee executive director J.B Poersch writes, "when Rush says jump, congressional Republicans say how high?" and urges recipients to sign a petition condemning Limbaugh's behavior and calling on Senate GOPers to "declare their independence" from him.

A similar missive came out of the Democratic Governors Association as well. "Did you hear what Rush said?" writes DGA executive director Nathan Daschle, adding that Limbaugh and his acolytes will do everything they can to block the implementation of Obama's economic stimulus plan. The best way to stop Rush? Why, send money to the DGA of course.

[snip]

The appeals by the DNC, DSCC and DGA are the latest but far from the only evidence of how Democrats are seeking to use Limbaugh's comments as a cudgel against Republicans. Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who is running for governor in Virginia, sent a letter to state Attorney General Bob McDonnell, the GOP nominee, calling on him to renounce Rush, and followed that up with an email petition drive aimed at pressuring McDonnell to "prove" his bipartisan credential by casting Limbaugh off the Republican island.

[snip]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh

White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 6, 2009; A01

By one measure, Rush Limbaugh is a clear winner this week: His ratings have nearly doubled since his feud with the White House burst into the media limelight.

But the Obama administration's strategy of trying to elevate the conservative radio commentator to leader of the opposition has prompted a vigorous counterattack, with a key Republican senator saying the move is an "outrage" that "reeks of hypocrisy coming from a president who campaigned against these very cynical political tactics last fall."

That letter from Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and a Washington Post opinion piece by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), also accusing the White House of cynicism, underscore the GOP's attempt to make President Obama pay a political price for the rhetorical assault on Limbaugh.

[snip]

Mark McKinnon, a top adviser in President George W. Bush's campaigns, acknowledged the value of picking a divisive opponent. "We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party," he said of the documentary filmmaker. "That's why we gave him credentials to cover the 2004 convention and then turned the spotlight on him."

But, McKinnon said, "whatever you think of Rush, he is one of the most effective political communicators in history. So I don't think turning up his microphone is necessarily a wise way to go." For Obama, he said, "a fistfight with a brawler like Rush only drags him down to the street."

[snip]

If I was Bob McDonnell, I'd respond by saying that I'm running for Virginia governor. Rush Limbaugh is in Florida. While my opponent is worried about what Floridians say on the radio, I'm working hard for Virginia.

When you abandon your principles at the drop of a hat, what do you have to offer the center (or anyone else)?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090311/u ... 9188428900

Why Rush Limbaugh Is Good for the Republicans

By RAMESH PONNURU
Wed Mar 11, 2:20 pm ET

Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs knew what they were doing when they declared Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican opposition. They were putting Republican politicians in a trap. Repudiating Limbaugh would mean alienating millions of conservatives and declaring Limbaugh's plainspoken conservatism - which many of those politicians share - outside the lines of the national debate. But neither could Republicans allow the insinuation that they take orders from a radio host stand. If voters got that impression, they would look weak. Worse, the polls show more people dislike Limbaugh than like him.

The Republicans escaped this trap by saying that the White House was talking about Limbaugh in order to avoid talking about Obama's failure to come up with a financial-rescue plan. But now one Limbaugh controversy has been replaced by another. Instead of squabbling with Democrats about him, Republicans are arguing with each other. The subject of the dispute: Does Limbaugh help spread conservatism among Americans - or turn them off from it?

Some conservatives have always winced at Limbaugh's in-your-face style. But the debate today has a special charge because, like the similar debate over Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a few months ago, it is tied up with questions about the future of the Republican party.

In one camp are those who believe that the Republican party must modernize its message to account for changing circumstances. The columnist David Brooks has called these people the "reformers." Against them are the "traditionalists," who believe that Republicans need only recommit themselves to Ronald Reagan's agenda to succeed again.

The traditionalists push for upper-income tax cuts. The reformers want to cut the payroll taxes paid by the middle class. Traditionalists often deny that global warming is real. Reformers just want to make sure that our answer to it is cost-effective. The traditionalists want to hold the line on government spending. The reformers think that it's more important for Republicans to advocate market-friendly solutions to problems such as rising health-care costs and traffic congestion.

[snip]

Obama's attack on Rush is a sign of weakness, and I'm loving every minute of it.

I agree. Although I have been out of touch with current events for the past few months, I have caught snippets of Republicans having great indignation over deficit spending. My sides hurt when I stopped laughing.