Demoncrats Pushing the US Off a Cliff

[Bangkoktraveler]

You got to admit, when Rush starts his show with [color:red]"Barack the Magic Negro"[/color], it has got to make you laugh but at the same time, it makes you realize how much the GOP wants Obama to fail, at any cost.

[..]

Ya. Imagine the squeals on the right if I had a radio show that had a song about "Rush, the drug-addicted kiddie-fiddler!"

 

Cheers,

SD

[kamui]

Ya. Imagine the squeals on the right if I had a radio show that had a song about "Rush, the drug-addicted kiddie-fiddler!"

 

Cheers,

SD

 

You don't need a democrat radio man to fight Rush and the GOP. Rush is the GOP's worst enemy:

 

Majority of Voters View Limbaugh Negatively, 45 Percent "Very, Very Negatively": Study

March 11, 2009 12:10 PM

 

The Democracy Corps released results of a public survey on Wednesday that underscores just how astute a political strategy it is for Democrats to tie the Republican Party to Rush Limbaugh.

 

According to the Democratic polling firm, voters view the conservative talk show host "negatively by a two-to-one ratio (53 to 26 percent), with nearly half the country, 45 percent, viewing him very, very negatively. Among independents, the ratio rises to three-to-one."

 

In short, [color:red]Limbaugh is toxic[/color] for the GOP brand. But the findings only get worse from there. "By a nearly two-to-one ratio (57 to 32 percent) a majority of voters -- and independents -- say Limbaugh does not "share their values," but Republicans are in a different world where, by two-to-one, they believe he shares them."

 

The study's authors summarize their findings as such:

 

"On virtually every question the great majority of the mainstream rejects Limbaugh's ideas and vision of the Republican Party, which severely constrains Republican elected leaders. It does not help that some of the key voters in the 2006 and 2008 elections, like [color:red]younger voters, are particularly uncomfortable[/color] with Limbaugh's politics. Conservative Republican voters, however, embrace Limbaugh, giving him a very high favorability rating; they say he shares their values and urge Republican leaders to defend him when he is criticizing President Obama."

 

Democrats at large and the White House in particular have begun receiving a bit of blowback for keeping Limbaugh in the news. But those working on the issue insist the focus developed organically, not through a closed-door strategy session among the high-ranks of Democratic leadership. That said, the party realizes it has been handed a political goldmine with the brash talk show host, and they seem more than willing to milk it as long as possible.

 

Here are some other interesting data points:

 

* 49 percent of respondents said Limbaugh has too much influence over Republican ideas and direction.

* 15 percent said he has too little influence.

* [color:red]62 percent of voters said the GOP was embracing the "same old ideas and leaders it has relied on for the past 20 years"[/color] rather than seeking out new leaders and fresh ideas.

 

HuffPo

:content:

[Hugh_Hoy]

Greenbert and Carville...now there's a pair to draw to. It's hilarious how the lefties need to go after a nut case like Limbaugh and try to define him as a GOP stallwart to detract from the the actions of the Demoncrat congress and Obama. I couldn't believe that Obama would give Limbaugh the time of day, much less react to something Limbaugh said. If that's the case, Obama is gonna be pretty busy answering Limbaugh's attacks, cuz Limbaugh eats up recognition...and the Demoncrats are giving him more than his share.

 

HH

[HeartThais]

I like tying the GOP to Limbaugh. It is the truth, since they kow-tow to him at every corner. How on Earth can a minor radio personality with an approval rating in the 20%s make powerful leaders kiss his ass? It boggles the mind and needs to be brought forth to show just how radically out of touch the GOP is.

 

My theory is that conservatives underestimate the intelligence of their own following. There are a lot of intelligent conservatives out there but in the back of their minds, just about everyone else is an undereducated, racist, bible-thumper. How else to explain McCain's choice for vp? He basically thinks his party's supporters are idiots. Limbaugh is their way of reaching out to them without getting hands dirty (or so they think).

[HeartThais]

First, those on Social Security (the unemployable and retired are NOT considered among the unemployed.) Welfare rolls are not included. Unemployment rates reflect the percentage of folks who are capable of working and are actively seeking employment, but who have no employment. Unemployment was approx. 25% during the depression; it is approx. 8% now.

 

I'm not sure what the point is to discuss how close we are to unemployment levels in 1935. I have seen conservatives (like Scarborough) make the argument that this is a garden-variety recession that hasn't even hit the 1981 numbers. That's just ridiculous.

[Hugh_Hoy]

I'm not sure what the point is to discuss how close we are to unemployment levels in 1935.

 

Maybe BT can explain, since he's the one who brought it up. On the other hand, he seems to have trouble sorting out rates and raw numbers and what constitutes what, so I'm not holding my breath. At any rate, kind of straying off the topic.

 

HH

[kamui]

Greenbert and Carville...now there's a pair to draw to. It's hilarious how the lefties need to go after a nut case like Limbaugh and try to define him as a GOP stallwart to detract from the the actions of the Demoncrat congress and Obama.

 

HH

 

That's a funny remark, since the power struggle within the GOP is currently dominated by Rush and co. Currently there doesn't seem to be an open debate within the GOP about the future direction of the party. Critics of the status quo are being condemmed and being asked to leave the GOP.

 

That the Dems are exploiting the internal power struggle is of course understandable. They learnt from GOP after eight years being humilated by the GOP.

The GOP used the same tactic of obstructionism quite successful with and after Clinton. Just remember how powerful the voice of the GOP was 8-4 years ago and how the GOP ruled the MSM for years.

Now the GOP lost is voice, lost its voters, lost its strengh and lost its path.

 

I see two options for the near future of the GOP:

 

1.) the old angry white men like Rush and other hardcore noise makers eliminate moderate and/or critical voices like David Frum, Brooks, e.g. and the GOP will become the party of right wing, fundamental, christian whites. As a result the GOP will become minority party and will be out of power for at least 8-12 years (until the old angry white men are dead).

 

2.) Rush and co will be marginalized and a real, open and intense discussion about GOP values and their adaption to a changed reality will take place. A new generation of (younger?) GOPers will become lead the party, including more women, non whites, non fundamentalist christians. The GOP won't win the next election (provided that Obama and the Dems don't fail completely), but they will be back in seven years.

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

Funny that an outsider such as yourself thinks that Rush is the leading Republican on all things political .

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

I'm not sure what the point is to discuss how close we are to unemployment levels in 1935.

 

Maybe BT can explain' date=' since he's the one who brought it up. [b'] On the other hand, he seems to have trouble sorting out rates and raw numbers and what constitutes what, so I'm not holding my breath.[/b] At any rate, kind of straying off the topic.

 

HH

 

 

I claim the REAL unemployment rate probabvly is close to the Great Depression unemployment rate. You differ but refuse to discuss.

 

During the Great Depression, there was no Social Security, Welfare, and SSDI. How they calculated unemployment is different then the way they do today. But if we take the number of adults in the country and subtract those that are working, we probably would get an idea of how many are 'unemployed'. Put the unemployed in a percentage of adults and we probably will have numbers for both time periods that are fairly close.