Posted on 03/09/2010 11:11:27 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Meet Rush Limbaugh: the latest blowhard to learn nothing from history, thereby fating himself -- and his flock -- to repeat it.
Rush was on the air back in 1993 and 1994, when Republicans found themselves in essentially the same position they’re now in: locked out of the White House and staring up at imposing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
With Rush egging them on, they defined themselves by their blanket, loud, and often hysterical opposition to Bill Clinton’s agenda (and to his legitimacy as commander in chief). They killed his stimulus bill by filibuster, offered zero votes for his first budget (the one that set the stage for the economic prosperity -- and balanced budgets -- of the late '90s), and demagogued healthcare reform until an utterly defeated Clinton pulled it from the agenda.
And for their willful obstruction and fear-mongering, the Republicans were rewarded with an electoral tsunami in the 1994 midterm elections, one that handed them control of Congress for the first time in decades. And it was only supposed to be the beginning: Two years later, Clinton himself would be on the ballot (well, if Democrats didn’t dump him first), and then the real fun would begin.
But that never came to pass, and surely you remember why: The Republicans who won in '94 mistakenly believed that Americans had ratified their right-wing philosophy, when voters had simply been using the GOP as a protest vehicle. When 1996 rolled around, the economy was stronger (thank you, 1993 budget), the Republicans' brand was tarnished (voters came to loathe the Gingrich Congress), and Clinton was again able to charm the country with his sunny demeanor.
The story of Clinton’s first term, in other words, is the story of the difference between midterm and presidential elections. You might think Limbaugh, having lived and broadcasted through it, would appreciate this. Apparently not.
On his radio show on Tuesday, he took after me for something I’d said on "Hardball" on Monday -- namely, that "the party of Sarah Palin, the party of Rush Limbaugh can win in 2010, but that same party can’t turn around and win in 2012." Limbaugh played a clip of me (the full video from "Hardball" is below) and then replied:
This guy is supposedly some brainiac at Salon.com. I don’t know how the Republicans can take victory in 2012 (SK: I think he meant 2010) as a vindication of their strategy when there isn’t one. What’s happening here is, Mr. Kornacki, is that independents and Democrats are running as far away and as fast as they can from Obama. And Obama’s still going to be there in 2012. (Laughs) He’s still going to be there. What this guy’s trying to say, 'You Republicans, don’t think conservatism’s going to win for you, ‘cause that’s not going to win for you….'
First, he’s wrong: The GOP clearly has a strategy right now, and it’s evident with every Senate filibuster, every "no" vote on healthcare, and every denunciation of the stimulus. Today’s Republican Party is treating the Obama administration just like the Republican Party of the 1993 and 1994 treated the Clinton White House. The strategy is to say no to everything and to benefit from the buyer’s remorse nature of midterm elections, which (as I noted on "Hardball") should be particularly apparent this fall, with joblessness near or above 10 percent.
Second, I’m well aware that Obama’s still going to be there in 2012. And it’s exactly why I’m so bullish on his reelection prospects. If recent presidential history has established anything, it’s that the political turmoil Obama is now enduring was essentially inevitable. There have been five presidents in the modern, "permanent campaign" era of American politics, and Obama is the third to reach this same low point in Year Two of their first terms. Clinton and Ronald Reagan were the others, and both, not at all coincidentally, rebounded to win second terms.
Does Rush not remember that Republicans were gloating in 1994 about how independents and even some Democrats were abandoning Clinton just like they're gloating about Obama today? And just like Democrats in 1982 and 1983 were crowing that independents and even some Republicans were fleeing Reagan?
The Clinton and Reagan comebacks provide very important lessons for those who would write Obama off right now -- and for those who would read the GOP’s bright 2010 prospects as much more than a predictable reaction to double-digit unemployment and single-party control of the White House and Congress. (I wrote much more about the parallels between '82, '94 and the present day -- and why they portend well for Obama’s '12 prospects -- here.)
The point I was making on "Hardball" is that the GOP is doing itself no long-term favors by blindly rejecting and obstructing Obama and by defining itself as Rush Limbaugh’s party. It won’t hurt them much in 2010. Midterm elections, by nature, just aren’t about the party that’s out of power. But presidential years are different. And, especially if the economy is showing signs of life, the GOP is positioning itself to pay dearly in 2012 -- just as Bob Dole paid dearly in ’96 and Walter Mondale did in ’84.
Oh, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out one more thing that Rush screwed up. That thing about me being a "brainiac" -- well, as more than a few friends have already made sure to tell me, he’s wrong there, too.
I added the keyword ‘rememberthis’.
You have to admit, this is just another bad attempt at trying to get Republicans to lay down and follow 0 over the cliff, with the rest of the rats.
Revisionist history strikes again.
Alot of revisionist history written in this drivel.
and if Obama pulls a Clinton and moves to the center-right (welfare reform), I think he can save his 2nd term.
I don’t think Obama has that in his blood and he’s not surrounded by people who might push him in that direction (Dick Morris).
“Look on the sunny side of life (whee whu whee whu whee wha whe wah) look on the sunny side of life whee whu whee whu whee wha whe wah)...”
After reading his article, I agree with that assessment: He is no brainiac.
And Bubba was a seasoned politician with buckets of charm. Sleazy charm, but charm nonetheless.
Obomba is an elite boob and the electorate is already all 'bamad out.
Salon? they still publishing?
Palin’s name does not belong in front of Limbaugh’s.
My heavy favorite at the moment is Paul Ryan, subject to change of course, but I haven’t seen an interview he’s flubbed yet. He was unbelievable at the show-summit. I haven’t seen anybody enthusiastic about Romney. I can’t imagine him winning the primary with the Massachusetts health care around his neck dragging him down. The only possible argument for Romney is experience - which is where Obama is proving himself a total loser. Independents may be looking for someone who’s proven themselves at some level of management.
Obama is not Clinton.
1996 is not 2012.
The Left thinks we’re in an economic recovery, al Quada has been defeated, Global Warming is real and people actually want socialized medicine.
So take this for what it is worth.
Salon hoping that Zero can pull a Clinton, and not a Carter?
For what it’s worth, Bill Clinton has more smarts in his “little” head than Obama and all his White House cronies combined.
Don't run old Senators...Dole...McCain
Run Governors...Reagan, Bush. Bush the elder won his term on Reagan coattails so that's not one I put in the mix.
Even on the Dem side we can point to Clinton, Kerry and Gore.
... but too often WJC thought with the little brain...
This yokel is just keeping the ball up in the air and getting himself ‘face time’ by using Limbaughs name.
He’s wrong and he knows it. Limbaugh, once again, has it right.
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.