“But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;” II Peter 2:12
Well it has happened again.
The newly elected head of the Republican part, Michael Steele, took on Rush Limbaugh. He took objection to Rush’s criticism of the President Obama using words like “incendiary” and “ugly”. When asked if Rush was the defacto leader of the Republican Party, Steele replied, “He’s an entertainer” and “I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party.”
Less than a day later, he was calling Rush to apologize.
So who IS your daddy?
The deeper question of course, is why has Rush Limbaugh become the defacto leader of the Republican party?
My sense is that it has to do with the nature of modern conservatism. It is no longer a political movement. It has become a religion.
Rush is the Republican Savonarola. He is the one filling the power vacuum because he is willing to condemn the unbelievers. He is the one who is willing blame the failures of the past eight years on Bush. According to the gospel of Rush, it was corruption that led the Republicans astray. The conservative policies themselves are still strong and would have worked fine if Rush had been at the helm.
He is the one who is advocating wholesale revolt among the electorate. Rather than simply rail against policies which he doesn’t believe in, he openly supports resistance. In part, I think it is because if President Obama does succeed, it will herald a long period of liberalism and Democratic dominance.
So Rush has gathered his small band of true believers and they will drag the Republican party into the cold dark desert of extremism. They will purge the party of non-believers and those that consort with the enemy. They will marginalize themselves as they self-righteously predict a failure that will never come. If the story plays itself out in classical fashion, at some point Rush’s followers will turn on him and the self-proclaimed leader of the Republican party will meet the same fate as all other bullies and tyrants.
Hey Jeff,
Did you watch Rush’s speech?
Keith
Which speach?
The speech at CPAC.
To answer your question, “Who may Rush the Defacto leader of the Republican party?” Turns out it has been the White house administration lead by Rahm E. amoung others going all the way back to October. This according to the Politico. Hardly a right wing organization.
I would think they have better things to do, like finding people without tax problems to join the gov’t or say, I don’t know, address the lack of confidence in them wall street and everyone else involved with our financial institutions in this country. (dare I say the world)
I am losing faith they have a plan other then every libral idea thats been on the back shelf the last 20 years…..
Jeff,
I am reminded of Trent Lott who as speaker of the house was toasting Strom Thurmond at a gathering on his 100th birthday. Trent and many others said many words of praise. Then Trent said somethng along the line of “and he ran for president in 19xx, and the country would have been better off if he had won.” Simple praise and a slap on the back. What else are you suppost to say to a 100 year old man on his birth day. Well seems the lib media didn’t like it and asked Tom Dashle that same afternoon what he thought of Trents comment. “We all say things sometimes in a way that we later wished we might have said differently. There was no harm in Trents words.” Well Jeff, the NAACP didn’t agree and either did Al Sharpton and Rev Jacjson etc, etc, etc….so what do you think Mr Daschle did the next day? He found the first camara he could and said “after more careful consideration he could not simply let Trents words pass without a word of condemnation for them.” Jeff, who was Tom Dashle’s DADDY?
I am growing more sceptical of your blog as each day passes. You are looking over your shoulder at the Repubs, and Rush of all people, and seemingly not fixing your gaze on the “spiritual wickedness in high places” that currently is being demonstrated in Washington. Be balanced, my good friend, and not one sided. Spiritual wickedness does not know the boundries of party.
Also the protestors of the war in Iraq and Afganistan have dissappeared from the public squares here where I live. I also don’t see news footage of them on TV any longer. I think we are still there and in Iraq acting in the same manner we did under GW. I Afganistan, “the real theater for the battle on terror,” we are contemplating an mini SURGE. Where, oh, where are the protestors in the public square demanding immediate with draw?
No one is calling Obama a war mongerer or Baby Killer. This is puzzeling to me. Please shead some light on this or I will soon think all the hours over several years I watched those, mostly 60’s throw backs, walking around in circles protesting Bush and the Adm were just political hacks
Jeff,
I’m beginning to get a little worked up as you can tell. I’ve spoke with three or four economists in the past month. One the chief Economist at Wacovia. All modifing the mark to market rules would free credit NOW!!!
Why no move on this.
Here’s a link to an articule that is well written and good commentary.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/a_dishonest_gimmicky_budget.html
Jeff:
I offered my two cents on Rush Limbaugh on “News Notes.”
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/editors
It’s true, as Keith notes, that the Democrats have worked behind the scenes to encourage the notion of Rush as the head of the Republican Party. I don’t suppose you can blame them – it’s what politicos do, trying to gain an advantage over the other side. Just another part of the humor in all of this. The joke’s on everyone – Republicans, Democrats, any concept of good government – while Rush laughs to the bank.
Keith,
As always, I appreciate the time that you take to participate.
I agree that the Democrats are attempting to marginalize the most conservative and strident members of the Republican party by challenging the party to either embrace their most radical elements or disavow them.
Frankly I think that it is a fairly clever response to the Republican stance on the Recovery Act. The Republicans closed ranks in their opposition in order to be able to say in the next election cycle that they had nothing to do with this package. The Democrats are now saying, “If you do all speak with one voice, whose voice is it?” This is going to put a lot of pressure on the more moderate Republicans to figure out a way to demonstrate that they are not dittoheads. As long as Obama retains his current high approval ratings, more moderate Republicans will do that by breaking ranks in some of the upcoming votes.
As far as my blog is concerned, you should read the rest of the title – progressive politics from a Christian point of view.
Keith,
Dealing with the bank assets is a real balancing act right now. I agree that the mark to market rule combined with the depressed housing market exacerbates the capitalization crisis that the banks are facing. I believe that the administration is attempting to play a balancing game to keep as many banks open and solvent as possible in hopes that the stimulus package will get enough people back to work that we can stem the foreclosure crisis. There is some early indication that the housing markets in some of hardest hit areas are starting to come back. Values finally got to the point where they began to attract investment and the amount of inventory in those markets has actually started to go down. Housing prices won’t go back up (which is what will ultimately solve the bank problems) until demand again exceeds suppply. I’m afraid that we’ve got a ways to go yet.
Jeff,
I do read the rest of the title and you have reminded me of this many times. The word Christian there is the problem. It does nnot know right, left, conservetive, lib or progressive. It knows Christ. There for I expect because of the name in the title it would be followed with Christ like judgement, i.e. pointing out spiritual wickedness where it lies. Not just on one side of the aisle.
Today I want them all thrown out. Obama said “NO EARMARKS.” He now has a bill on his desk that has about 9,000 of them. Lets see what he does. The worst part about this is that 40% of them are from REPUBLICANS. How on earth can we ever claim to be different then the dems if this is what WE”RE doing…..stupid. They must like being in the minority.
God’s blessing to you and your family.