My, how time flies!
Ted Kennedy at age 37.
Here's a thought. Mother Rose lived to be 104. If, as a result of profit-motivated medical research, Fat Teddy were to live another 27 years in obscurity, how big would his obit be?
Posted on 03/07/2009 8:47:09 PM PST by Delacon
Full disclosure: Rush Limbaugh is a friend and benefactor of this magazine, as he was a friend of its founder. He has sometimes written for us. That friendship has, however, never prevented him from expressing disagreement with our writers when he felt it appropriate, or vice versa. The controversies of recent weeks, largely ginned up by Democrats, provide us with another opportunity to express both our friendship and our occasional disagreement.
The Democrats are trying to place Republicans in a bind by giving them a false choice: They can “kowtow” to Limbaugh, or they can denounce him as outside the realm of legitimate political discourse. If they choose the former course, they will appear weak. If they choose the latter one, they will offend conservatives and cripple their own ability to dissent from liberalism. Republicans should not play this game.
Limbaugh is not the Republican party’s leader, a role for which he would be ill-suited and which he has not expressed interest in filling. (If he were the party’s leader, John McCain would not have been its presidential nominee last year.) His views are not extreme and his manner is not, for that matter, particularly angry. (If people liked listening to partisan thuggery on the airwaves, Al Franken would have been a more successful radio host.) To address some recent smears: He did not compare Obama to Stalin, and he did not say he was rooting against the economy or the country. There are voices in American politics that should be assiduously marginalized and given no respect: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers; the Klan. What is going on here is a scurrilous attempt to place Limbaugh in their company.
The mere fact that Michael Steele, the Republican chairman, criticized Limbaugh was not objectionable. He could have made any number of criticisms without necessitating an apology. But to call Limbaugh’s show “ugly” — and worse, to make no protests while a CNN interviewer compared Republicans to Nazis — was gross. Steele fell right into the Democratic trap: He could either continue to stand by his calumny or give Democrats an opening to describe him as afraid of Limbaugh. In sticking by his remarks, Steele made the right choice, but he should not have placed himself in a position to have to make it.
All of the above said, some of Limbaugh’s recent remarks have struck us as unwise. Reacting to complaints about Bobby Jindal’s response to the State of the Union last week, Limbaugh slighted the importance of delivery — even though his own career is a testament to the importance of expressing ideas well. In his remarks to the Conservative Political Action Committee over the weekend, he said that now was not the time for conservatives to advance “better policy ideas” than those coming from President Obama. On his show he later explained that he meant that Republicans mostly need to fight Obama at the higher level of principle. But the two go hand in hand: When Limbaugh himself, just a few weeks ago, advanced a clever alternative to Obama's stimulus, what was he doing but showing how conservative principles can be applied to improve the American condition?
Limbaugh spoke critically of those who want conservatives to adapt their message to changing times, or to appeal to subsets of the population such as “Wal-Mart voters” or “female independents.” But successful political movements always alter their approaches as circumstances change, even if they maintain the same principles, just as Reagan agreed with the Goldwater of 1964 but did not run on his platform. Reagan also courted the voters who became known as “the Reagan Democrats” — a sociologically identifiable subset of the population. He advocated policies that would benefit middle-income voters and people who had not previously considered themselves Republicans, and explained how they would do so. If today’s Republicans were to do the same thing, would Limbaugh object?
We doubt it. His real concern, it seems to us, is that some people may attempt to water down conservative principles in the name of adaptation and the pursuit of popularity. But that is no reason to neglect the importance of building a popular conservatism that speaks to today’s concerns. It is a task to which Limbaugh can contribute greatly, as he has done for two decades.
The Democrats, meanwhile, think their attacks on Limbaugh are helping them politically. We understand that it is difficult to devise solutions to the financial crisis. But the Democrats won the election, and it is their job to come up with such solutions. We wish they spent as much time on it as they have spent in recent weeks talking about Limbaugh.
One more quote taken off a hate-filled leftist, bottom-feeder website tonight:
((”That’s okay. When Rush dies, there won’t be any memorial. Just celebration. n/t”))
“Ill-suited? Hell no, Rush is exactly what this country needs and he is the MOST “well-suited” to deliver that message”.
When a talk radio host that has never held office, has no intention of running for office, no matter how popular he is, and the movement wants him to be the leader, then your movement is in a very bad way. I am not disrespecting the conservative movement. I am not disrespecting Rush. I am critisizing those who would want him to lead the movement. Yes, that means you.
People who wish for others to die are not ones to be around.
I totally agree.
Whats the over/under on Steele lasting out the year as chairman.
I think the "girly-men" at National Review had a slap fight to see how their discourse on Rush should end. If they think this is leadership they need to go spend the summer at Quantico and learn what real leadership is.
TS
Rush Limbaugh is providing a great service to would-be leaders. He is providing cover for them to step out.
No one chooses leaders, leaders show themselves by their example. It isn’t Rush’s fault the Republican party is devoid of good conservative leadership.
I think their point lies in this quote:
“His real concern, it seems to us, is that some people may attempt to water down conservative principles in the name of adaptation and the pursuit of popularity. But that is no reason to neglect the importance of building a popular conservatism that speaks to today’s concerns. It is a task to which Limbaugh can contribute greatly, as he has done for two decades”.
It depends on whether or not he learned his lesson.
Steele managed to do three stupid things within a couple of days. He said some stupid things about Rush, let the remark about Republicans = Nazi go unchallenged, then, Steele apologized to Rush publicly.
Steele should never have apologized publicly to Rush. It gave the Democrats too much ammunition.
Rahm got his wedge issue, which allowed the press to portray Steele as weak and kneeling to kiss the ring of Rush.
I guess we no longer have to wonder why Steele lost the election he ran in.
“It isn’t Rush’s fault the Republican party is devoid of good conservative leadership”.
Is what I am saying and why I posted this article.
“It depends on whether or not he learned his lesson.
Steele managed to do three stupid things within a couple of days.”
No, I think that he has failed to lead or push a leader of the party. I’m taking the under.
==> “Ill-suited? Hell no, Rush is exactly what this country needs and he is the MOST “well-suited” to deliver that message.” <==
Yes, ill-suited. First, why take the pay cut, in order to waste his VERY valuable time on RINO party administrivia, including compromises with the RINO wing of the party. Second, he makes no claim to the republican party as it exists today, a sentiment that makes perfect sense to me. Rush defines himself as a conservative instead, with “republican” a secondary, useful, but not definitive label. That being true, his best course is to articulate CONSERVATIVE principles and policy proposals, to give the softhearted (and softheaded) republicans a vision to aspire to when they grow up.
Of course, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just adding my opinion to the mix. :)
May Fat Teddy live as long as Mother Rose.
What if Steele had responded to “Rush as leader” attacks by the MSM and the Obama administration but going out and saying “While I like the good work Rush does, I just talked to Rush and he says I am the leader of the party. But since it was the President who told legislative branch not to listen to Rush and since the Obama administration and many top media pundits say Rush is the leader of the GOP, then I think somebody within the administration should engage Rush in open debate telling him why they have designated him the leader and let him defend himself as a private citizen. I suggest Rahm Emmanuel as his opponent”. Do you realize how the msm could not ignore at statement like that. How the RNC could then step out of the way, and how Ruch would mop the floor with anyone the would send. Not that they would, but they’d be humiliated and Rush would have an extra million listeners who would hear him making chicken taunts at the dems.
Limbaugh spoke critically of those who want conservatives to adapt their message to changing times, or to appeal to subsets of the population such as “Wal-Mart voters” or “female independents.” But successful political movements always alter their approaches as circumstances change, even if they maintain the same principles, just as Reagan agreed with the Goldwater of 1964 but did not run on his platform. Reagan also courted the voters who became known as “the Reagan Democrats” — a sociologically identifiable subset of the population. He advocated policies that would benefit middle-income voters and people who had not previously considered themselves Republicans, and explained how they would do so. If today’s Republicans were to do the same thing, would Limbaugh object?
IMHO, that's not leadership it is instead politics. The RINO's have compromised us and incrementalized Conservative principles so that we have RINO Senators willing to hold up this stimulus package until they have more pork. That's the losing strategy that cost us the Senate and Congressional majorities and the White House - and prevented the conviction of an Impeached POTUS. Thank you Ted Stevens!
Regards,
TS
Which girly-man wrote this editorial?
“IMHO, that’s not leadership it is instead politics.”
Hell we are rocked back on our heels by the politics, let alone the leadership. RINO is a term that gets thrown out too often I think. The fact is that we don’t have to worry about demo-lite, we have to worry about our actual cons engaging the people and addressing their concerns with real answers. When was the last time you got fired up about anyone saying anything conservative about healthcare, education, retirement, the economy, etc. A leader or the politics? I don’t know which should come first. Thanks for the posts TS.
Mary Jo Kopechne was 28 when she was killed. Ted Kennedy is already 77. (Courtesy Wiki)
My, how time flies!
Ted Kennedy at age 37.
Here's a thought. Mother Rose lived to be 104. If, as a result of profit-motivated medical research, Fat Teddy were to live another 27 years in obscurity, how big would his obit be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.