Barack Obama's push: Make Rush Limbaugh appear to be the face of the GOP

Chicago Tribune ^ | 3-2-09 | Peter Nicholas

[STARWISE]

he Obama White House has begun advancing an aggressive political strategy: convincing the country that the real power behind the Republican Party is not the GOP leaders in Congress or at the Republican National Committee, but rather provocative radio talk show king Rush Limbaugh.

President Barack Obama, top presidential aides and outside Democratic allies have been pushing the message in unison.

*snip*

With the White House working to make Limbaugh the face of the GOP, it is getting some outside assistance.

A tax-exempt group that supports progressive causes — Americans United for Change—is helping finance a television ad that claims GOP leaders are beholden to the radio host. The ad closes with Limbaugh saying of Obama, "I want him to fail."

*snip*

Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, said the group has discussed the ad campaign with the Democratic National Committee. Woodhouse is joining the DNC next week as its communications director.

Asked whether the White House was notified about the ad, Woodhouse said: "They certainly are aware—I'm sure they're aware of what we're doing."

[downwdims]

The most instructive thing to me through the whole campaign was a show that Mark Levin did in October. October 14th or something. He went through Rules for Radicals over 2 hours and it showed how and why Zero was operating. It was so insightful I made 5 of my friends who never listen to Levin hear it. Everyone kind of woke up to the trickery of his language and his tactics.

It’s War on you, your family, your savings, your job, and your lifestyle. They want everyone in this country to be dirt poor and fighting with each other so we can beg at the feet of a ruling elite.

[TheZMan]

“See: Operation Chaos”

Not quite the “calling on” I’m referring to.

[lentulusgracchus]

Not sure what you mean by astroturf, but...I do see a theme developing there...

Money quote:

While it may be a noble endeavor to hold on to what you feel are "core" beliefs, it may be a losing one when it comes to the country's elections; and a long-term one at that. If you want to cling to positions that are less and less popular in the country, so be it. But realize, those choices will have consequences and one of those consequences may be political irrelevance.
--Big_Monkey

So, Big_Monkey .... what do you plan to offer the People? Principles? Apparently not..... We just went through a campaign in which the GOP contender thought he could tap-dance into the White House by being all tactical and stuff and "managing" the issues. You know, the Ed Rollins/Bob Squier/Bob Shrum school of "expert" politicking, all polls and numbers and pie charts .... and 225 electoral votes on Wednesday morning.

Why do you think a principled appeal by the GOP will never work? Because you think the MSM has got a total headlock on the population? That 22-year-olds are ineducably stupid and will continue to vote for wingo dreamboat candidates into their 40's?

We are up against wicked and smart, ruthless politicians whose worst plans for us we can only guess at, because they're hiding so much and won't even think out loud, like Bill Ayers did that time, about what they have in store for America. Why do you think it's a loser to campaign on that basis, starting right now and using the loudest trumpets we've got?

[lentulusgracchus]

Bush tried that it didn't work for him.

Sad affirmation bump.

He seemed to have the idea that the People will notice and reward good performance and won't really listen to media lies, if the Administration performs (i.e., victory in Iraq).

Guess we can strike that idea off.

Too bad he didn't try to defund the Left when he had the chance. We're screwed now.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Someone got phone logs and showed hundreds of calls being made per day among Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begala (at CNN), James Carville, and George Stephanopoulos (at ABC). You're absolutely right -- and half of them are working as termites inside the MSM. " 117 posted on Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:07:11 AM by lentulusgracchus

We suggested that on FR as probable back in January, that Clintonoids, Carville, Begala, and Stephanopoulos, had previously been involved in "blame Rush" strategy back in the 1990s when Slick Willy was president. It went so far as spreading the meme that conservative talk radio and Rush Limbaugh had caused the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

It's unclear what this is supposed to mean though when liberals bring up Rush Limbaugh. The appropriate response for Steele and any other Republican is "what about Rush Limbaugh?" Do the Dems want him off the air? Why? Do they want the GOP to repudiate him the way Sobran and Buchanan were by National Review once upon a time? Again, why? What specifically is Rush Limbaugh doing they object to? That he criticizes Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Barney Frank? That he does voice impressions of liberals that seem unflattering? Doesn't SNL also do that? Should SNL be off the air? Is it because he plays Paul Shanklin's parody songs?

The anti-Rush meme, if you follow it, seems to imply that conservatives in congress oppose Obama because Rush tells them to on his radio show. That doesn't make any sense. Cart before the horse. Conservatives were pushing for the same policies under President Reagan in the '80s before anyone had heard of Rush Limbaugh. So the anti-Rush hysteria (the Rush Panic and Rush Scare) doesn't make much sense. Conservatism wouldn't go away if Limbaugh disappeared.

It seems more likely that the funny stuff that Limbaugh does upsets them. They think it's mean-spirited because it involves parodies of the way Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and Obama talk. And because he has played that audio clip: "We're feminists and we're in your face!" They want him not to be able to say these things in the way that Adult Children of Alcoholics don't like people saying their father is a drunk. It's not about the real Rush Limbaugh. It's about the paranoid liberal imaginary Rush as a mean-spirited bully who they claim spreads "a message of hate." This meme began during Bill Clinton's administration when Rush was exposing the scandals and lechery of Slick Willy. The protests were exactly like Adult Children of Alcoholics covering up for a drunk parent. They didn't want Rush saying "mean" things about their boy Slick Willy. Likewise, they don't want Obama exposed.

The reason Rush triggers hysteria in liberals is that he exposes things about them which are embarrassing and about which they are in denial. Their emotional attachment to a degrading lecher as president who abused young women. That's when this started.

[Darkwolf377]

While it may be a noble endeavor to hold on to what you feel are "core" beliefs, it may be a losing one when it comes to the country's elections

Why on earth would this person you quoted above post such a thing unless he didn't really believe it, and wanted US to think that way?

Why would I support someone who doesn't support my core beliefs for president?

[Darkwolf377]

So return the favor, and knock his block off. You want a fight, propaganda boy? You and your pseudojournalist agitprop pukes? Let's go.

Well said.

This is our SOCIETY, folks. These are our LIVES. If the GOP can't get it up for the game over these issues, what the hell do we need them for?

[Condor51]

Barack Obama's push: Make Rush Limbaugh appear to be the face of the GOP

Be careful what you wish for Kenyan.

You may have fooled 66,882,230 into voting for you with your song and dance, but Rush alone has 20,000,000 loyal radio followers. And there's tens of millions of like minded 'others' who can't listen to him.

And mr pretender-in-chief, while you're using Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals', Rush is following - and he may not even know it - a major principle from someone considerably more knowledgeable than you or your 'hitman', Rahm Emmanuel, and that's Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu's 'rule #1' is...

"If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles."

Trust me Barry, Rush 'knows the enemy' and he for sure 'knows himself' - so its a battle you really don't want.

[lentulusgracchus]

Their emotional attachment to a degrading lecher as president who abused young women. That's when this started.

I think you were right the first time, that it started in 1995. -- or even 1994, the morning after the big GOP congressional victory, when the implications were sinking in on Clinton and his crew of stooges. That's when Slick made that "Nazi time" remark -- which wasn't casual or off the cuff; Clinton stage-managed even his lip-pouts.

And I don't think it has a psychological basis, but an Alinskyite one -- remember, Slick and Beast were SDS from the get-go, all the way back in college; and remember Beast's long-held senior paper at Wellesley, about Alinsky.

This is about propagandistic demolition of public paragons and rallying points, in accordance with Alinsky's nasty little Red cookbook.

[napavet]

Dittos;s to all you said. Out of all the responses, yours was the only one that is right on the money. Rush is huge and the left is worried about him. They would not respond to him if he didn’t matter. His speech Saturday was fabulous, I recorded it and have watched it a couple of more times. The stock market is tanking for one reason and that is because of Obama and his policies, and that is what Rush was trying to tell everyone. CPAC, had the largest showing ever with a ton of college Republicans, who will be our future. Rush stated today that legislators call his show all the time to get on. Rush talks the truth, and if we had more legislators who spoke like him, we would win the Congress back. If the economy keeps getting worse we will win in 2010. Then we can stop this maniac ruining this country. Believe me, if Congress had Rush’s backbone the Independents would flock to the right in a hurry. If Obama keeps it up we’ll win because of his incompetence. Best tee shirt is “Welcome Back Carter”.

[mtrott]

If the dems were smart, they would just ignore Rush. But they are so completely and arrogantly sure they are right about everything, that they cannot resist blabbing their big mouths.

The problem is, despite Rush’s huge audience, millions have never actually listened to Rush. But by elevating awareness of Rush, the dems may be encouraging more people to actually tune in! After folks do listen to Rush for any length of time, many find out that Rush stands for and defends their own beliefs.

Case in point, my 25 year old son(who has never listened to the radio show) was visiting over the weekend, actually arrived on Saturday in the middle of Rush’s speech we were watching on Fox. He sat down and listened to the rest of his talk. When it was over, my son said, “wow, that was inspiring!”. Then, yesterday, he texted me to ask what station Rush was on.

So, again, if I were the dems, I would just shut up about Rush.

[Aunt Esther]

Do you really think Bill Ayers is relevant? Really?
Most AMericans have never heard of the guy or don’t care.
I fear we’re wasting our breath on Ayers.

[villagerjoel]

It´s working. People who have never heard a word Rush has said are writing vile things about him. I´m embarrassed. Rush is the only one standing up for us, and the US, and nobody is standing up for him. Steele just threw him to the wolves. If Steele won´t defend the good man, who will? How does a radio host stand up against the president?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Probably both psychological and Alinskyite. When it started in the '90s with the Slick Willy regime, they clearly did not like Clinton's dirty laundry and disgusting lechery peccadilloes being aired on talk radio. Clinton even had a mantra for this: "Stop the hate!" The idea that conservative commentary is not legitimate debate but "hate" is part of this. And Hillary had started the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" meme, certainly one of the most paranoid episodes in liberal conspiracy theory.

Also, whatever year it was that Rush had the TV show, he was showing lots of embarrassing clips of liberal idiocy, Joycelyn Elders' comments about masturbation, etc. It was an embarrassing time to be a liberal. The anti-Rush hysteria is a little like Puritan prudery. They don't want scandalous stuff about them aired.

Hillary sparked the panic in 1998:
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right_wing_conspiracy ):

The Today Show interview

"Allegations that Bill Clinton had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and then lied about it under oath, first made national headlines on January 17, 1998, when the story was picked up by The Drudge Report. Despite swift denials from President Clinton, the clamor for answers grew louder. On January 27, 1998, Hillary Clinton appeared on NBC's The Today Show, in an interview with Matt Lauer.

Matt Lauer: "You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here."

Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know if I've been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this — they have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

The "get Rush" strategy is a subplot of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy meme started by Hillary, also an Alinsky follower.

[NeoCaveman]

OK, We need to fight back. Here is my recommendation. When anyone mentions Rush we say "The economy is dying and all the White House can do is launch a coordinated media attack campaign on a talk show host"

[villagerjoel]

“If he pushes Rush we, ALL OF US, need to push back HARD!”

He is pushing on Rush. What are any of us doing?

[Big_Monkey]

"Why do you think a principled appeal by the GOP will never work? Because you think the MSM has got a total headlock on the population? That 22-year-olds are ineducably stupid and will continue to vote for wingo dreamboat candidates into their 40's?

Unfortunately, just because you "think" something, doesn't make it true.

Every piece of empirical evidence on party identification and loyalty with young people is very clear. It is a well-studied phenomena. But, don't take my word for it, do a little reading. You could start with a book called "The American Voter". If you've gone to college, and studied ANY political science, then you've read the American Voter just like any medical student has read Grey's Anatomy.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Voter-Angus-Campbell/dp/0226092542

And, since you mentioned "Money Quote", try these one on for size from he aforementioned book...

“When we ask people to recall their first presidential vote, for example, we discover that of those who can remember their vote for President two-thirds still identify with the same party they first voted for.”

“A majority (56 per cent) of these presidential voters have never crossed party lines.

Not good enough, how about a little diddy from Norman J Ornstein from the AEI (hardley a left-wing think tank)...

“All the research done on the dramatic Democratic realignment of the 1930s shows that the key was young voters, coming of age as the Depression hit, influenced deeply by the contrast between Hoover and Roosevelt…those young voters became lifelong Democrats…The oldest segment of today's population, those who came of age during the golden years for the Republicans (the Roaring Twenties), remain staunchly Republican today.”

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.48/scholar.asp

The Democratic party gets it. At one time, the GOP got it as well as witness by Reagan's brilliant outreach to college Republicans. Young people matter - they may not matter in the first or even second election they vote in, but they certainly will matter in elections through the balance of their lifetimes. The GOP can't continue to cede the youth vote (by completely ignoring the issues that are important to them) to the Dems and expect to be a party of any relevance or influence in 10 of 15 years.

So why you and the rest of the "Flat Earth" wing of the GOP cling to disproven anecdotal evidence while holding scholarly reason, logic and research in contempt, the Democratic party and their candidates continue to whoop Republicans at the local, state and national levels.

Finally here's the worst part, when people provide information based on empirical evidence, you name call, demonize and pillory because your either not bright enough to get it or too scared to admit it.

But hey, you'll still have Rush Limbaugh and his loyal base of 4 million daily listeners. I wonder how many elections 4 million wins? Let me know how it works out.

[rbmillerjr]

How cheap our liberty is. What is the point of winning elections if you abandon your principles...something our Founders considered.

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

...Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

[zimfam007]

Thank you, thank you. Well said... this is not the fight we should be engaged in.. all it is doing is taking the focus off the real fight, keeping the demonrats from destroying this country and freedom as we know it. This is a stupid highschool he said/she said arguement... get off it already and put the focus back on these MF’s who are trying to run this country into the ground for their ultimate POWER and CONTROL grab. This is psychological warfare 101... and we are falling for it, hook, line and sinker!

[EdReform]

BTTT