Politics
Posted on 03/12/2009 11:22:07 AM PDT by AreaMan
Rush is not the right leader for the Reagan Revolution Phase Two
03.04.2009
Rush has enviable radio talent. He reaches out to a big group of people every week and edutains them.
He has his reward and needs no further praise. I am not going to let leftists force me to throw Rush under the bus, but they cannot force me to make him the driver either.
Suppose you want to see some of his ideas, such as pro-life and small government, win.
Suppose you want to see the Reagan Revolution continue or expand to new groups.
Rush is the wrong guy to feature. Featuring him as “leader” or “public intellectual” is a misuse of his talent. He can help create the conditions for change, but he cannot lead it.
Let me make my point using an analogy from the Revolutionary War.
Sam Adam was a great guy and genuine patriot who now has a decent beer named after him. He was a leader in the early stages of the Revolution who sacrificed his all for the Cause. He was personally brave and an effective rabble rouser. Revolutions need a Sam Adams like they need air.
If, however, he had become the face for the Revolution in those days, we might very well have lost. He could not appeal (and turned off) many people we needed on our team. Instead, Washington became the face of the revolution and our leader and the Revolution was saved.
This irritated many purists who wanted the more “in your face” approach of the Sam Adams set. Sadly for Adams, but perhaps fortunately for the Revolution, he was physically unable to challenge the more moderate leadership of the Patriot Cause.
A Sam Adams can create a revolution, but he cannot lead a successful one.
Notice that by “moderate” voice, I do NOT mean compromised or wimpy. Washington was a patriot willing to sacrifice everything for the cause. He was also the patriot the British feared, because he was impossible to dismiss.
America found a champion that even our foes had to admit was sterling.
It matters to get the right Face Man. Ideally (see Washington, George) your Face Man is also your Fighting Leader, but you simply cannot have the Sam Adams types being your public persona or a good many of the Virginians and nice Pennsylvanians you need to win will turn away from you.
Rush as party leader or Voice of Conservatism is in the wrong role. He is Sam Adams cast as Washington.
Bad move for Rush and for us.
*Editors Note: Listen to John Mark Reynolds discuss Rush at Scriptorium’s podcast Middlebrow.
Another so-called author trying to get hits by explaining why Rush-is-a-great-entertainer-but-sucks-because-of-X.
Yeah, that’s not what he is saying.
I’m purer than anyone on Free Republic!!!! If you don’t agree with me 100%, then you’re a RINO!!!!
Could you be more specific? Or are you simply mouthing off, too?
No, what he does is expose the idiotic Left in an entertaining way ...
Decaf.
It is the fault of the Republican party and politicians if they don't pick up on it and use it.
No but he is the right leader for thge capitalist insurgency.
When the British offered amnesty to the revolutionaries, they excepted Sam Adams...he was destined for the gallows.
Jefferson even indicated there would have been no revolution without him.
That’s because their intellect level is so far below Rush’s ... and those of us that know laugh at them ....
Rush is the greatest threat to Moderates in the RNC.
Moderates need to feel threatened. Maybe they’ll find a spine and join the fight, or just admit they are liberals and go to the DNC.
Rush Limbaugh never said that he wanted to be a party leader. In fact he stated clearly that he did not. As to his being the voice of conservatism, why not?
This author talks about a “moderate’ voice. He qualifies it by saying that he doesn’t mean wimpy. Ok, what does he mean? The Republican Party is out of power now because of moderates. I am questioning whether can remain a Republican because of moderates who have gained control of the Party.
I have been trying desperately where I live to get a centrist or moderate Republican to tell me what that means. I have asked some of these people to identify an issue, any issue, and tell me what their position on it is, that conflicts with my conservative position.
Guess what! They can’t. Or they won’t. Let this guy explain why he thinks that Limbaugh shouldn’t be the voice of conservatism. If he is going to disqualify Limbaugh I think that he owes his readers a more detailed explanation of why.
I frequently find Rush extremely irritating. His style, or perhaps more accurately, his ego, really turn me off. I think he is a braggart and probably turns off many others with his “Schtik”. Perhaps that accounts for Mark Reynold’s rejection of him as the “Voice”.
What Limbaugh does is provide information, evaluation and expression from a conservative perspective. He has resources most of us don’t have when it comes to information gathering. If he is not acceptable to Reynolds then perhaps Mr. Reynolds can suggest someone who is.
IMO, just the fact that we have Limbaugh doing what he does, gives me hope that Divine Providence will see us through this chapter of American history - as it did at the founding.
Dittos to that.
If you’re attacking Rush, you’re part of the problem. There is one gigantic enemy right now. Try focusing on him.
Dittos. It would be a very great thing if the RINOs would just leave. Then conservatism could run with more determination and purpose.
Rush Limbaugh never said that he wanted to be a party leader. In fact he stated clearly that he did not. As to his being the voice of conservatism, why not?
This author talks about a “moderate’ voice. He qualifies it by saying that he doesn’t mean wimpy. Ok, what does he mean? The Republican Party is out of power now because of moderates. I am questioning whether can remain a Republican because of moderates who have gained control of the Party.
I have been trying desperately where I live to get a centrist or moderate Republican to tell me what that means. I have asked some of these people to identify an issue, any issue, and tell me what their position on it is, that conflicts with my conservative position.
Guess what! They can’t. Or they won’t. Let this guy explain why he thinks that Limbaugh shouldn’t be the voice of conservatism. If he is going to disqualify Limbaugh I think that he owes his readers a more detailed explanation of why.
I frequently find Rush extremely irritating. His style, or perhaps more accurately, his ego, really turn me off. I think he is a braggart and probably turns off many others with his “Schtik”. Perhaps that accounts for Mark Reynold’s rejection of him as the “Voice”.
What Limbaugh does is provide information, evaluation and expression from a conservative perspective. He has resources most of us don’t have when it comes to information gathering. If he is not acceptable to Reynolds then perhaps Mr. Reynolds can suggest someone who is.
>I pray she’s the next president.<
What is even more important is that EVERY RINO gets replaced by a conservative Republican.
Good question, I don't know. I suppose it would mean someone who can SAY and DO what Rush and most conservatives believe in, without turning people off. Someone who can "sell it".
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.