My Challenge to Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh's challenge to debate President Obama should not, and of course will not, be taken seriously by the White House. Debating a clownish, if frightening, entertainer like Limbaugh, even if he is, as Rahm Emanuel and others have pointed out, the de facto leader of the rudderless Republican Party, would certainly not be the best use of the president's time, nor would it set a particularly good precedent.
While I never have been able to stand Rush Limbaugh, I recognize that he is very smart and extremely media savvy. Picking this fight with the new president and offering to debate him is just the most recent way in which Limbaugh has demonstrated this. In politics, it is always to your advantage to get in a conflict, or even a debate, with somebody more powerful than you. At the local level, for example, a candidate for City Council gains in stature if she has a conflict with the mayor, while a mayor has nothing to gain, politically, from sharing a stage with a candidate for a more minor office.
A similar dynamic is at play between Limbaugh and Obama. If, in some strange alternate universe Obama were to agree to debate Limbaugh, no matter how badly Obama humiliated Limbaugh, Limbaugh would gain in status by engaging with the President of the United States, while Obama would lose some dignity and gravitas simply by sharing a stage or studio with a cranky extremist radio personality like Limbaugh.
A direct confrontation with Limbaugh would be bad for Obama and almost certainly will not happen, but the elevation of Limbaugh is good for Obama and the Democrats. As Limbaugh, who combines a discredited right wing ideology with a demographic profile that makes it difficult for the party to expand beyond its insufficient base, increasingly becomes understood as the real leader of the Republican Party, the party will slink increasingly further away from mainstream America and political relevance. Moreover, Limbaugh's proudly repeated boast that he is rooting for Obama to fail, while red meat to the Republican base, cannot be playing well with the millions of Americans of all political views who are hoping for the president to succeed in his efforts to right our economy. Limbaugh's angry and blustery style is emblematic of the past in American politics and precisely the kind of style against which the people voted in November.
The group that is injured the most by Limbaugh's rising prominence in his party is not Democrats, but moderate Republicans. This admittedly small faction within that party is an essential ingredient of any Republican recovery. Without a strong moderate wing of the party, the Republicans simply will not be able to grow and compete with the, now majority, Democratic Party. It is very possible that over time, the moderate wing of the party will make a comeback, but Limbaugh's ascension postpones that likely eventuality.
A Republican Party that is not buoyed by a moderate wing, while more annoying, presents less of a threat to Obama's ambitious programs and agenda; and keeping Limbaugh front and center in the Republican Party, makes the work of moderate Republicans far more difficult. The Republican Party needs to be the home for moderate conservatives who, for example, are concerned about the economy, have mixed feelings of the stimulus bill, don't like high taxes, but don't really care about gay marriage or abortion. Limbaugh scares these people off; and, for now, Obama seems to still have their support.
Thus far, the administration, and the Democratic Party leadership, seem to understand the value of Limbaugh's rising role in the Republican Party, as well as the parallel need to avoid any direct confrontation with him. Allowing Limbaugh to lead the Republican Party into a more confrontational and belligerent opposition will also make it easier for the administration to explain the difficulties they have encountered trying to embrace a new bipartisan spirit for which many had hoped. There is no easier way for the administration to explain this than to simply point out that if Rush Limbaugh is the new face of the Republican Party than bipartisanship, in this circumstance, is not only almost impossible, but irresponsible as well. At the same time, Obama can continue to leverage his enormous popularity to win the relatively small number of votes he needs from Republicans in the senate to reach cloture on proposed legislation.
This is not a particularly easy balance to maintain; and it may get more difficult as Limbaugh will probably keep attacking Obama and banging the debate drum even more loudly. Limbaugh may even begin to accuse Obama, rather implausibly, of lacking the courage to debate him. If, however, it makes Rush Limbaugh feel any better, I will take up his offer and defend my president, by debating with Limbaugh anytime, online, in the studio or in person.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
From a 2006 poll:
Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?
51 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Independents didn't want President Bush to succeed...even though our nation was at war in Iraq and Afghanista.
But decent was patriotic then, wasn't it? But since a Dem is in office, Rush is the devil for wanted Obama's policies to fail.
2006 poll, were 's the link.
WALL STREET DOES NOT LIKE PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES????
All day long, that is all you hear from Limbaugh and his loyal supporters: Hannity, Ingraham, Republican members of Congress and Fox News. And that is followed by some sort of statement that President Obama’s policies are causing the Stock Market to go down.
The whole time, the alternatives being put forth by those critics of President Obama are being ignored. Let’s review those alternatives.
LET THE FREE MARKETS WORK! There will be a lot of pain, but we will be better off in the long run. That is said as if a few years or more of Depression and the suffering of millions will build our character.
Another one, POORLY OPERATED and FLAWED BUSINESS MODELS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FAIL. Does that mean that AIG, CITI, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Bank of America, General Motors and Chrysler should be allowed to GO BANKRUPT?
Would anyone wish to estimate the VALUE of the DOW if those corporations were allowed to fail?
The last one, PEOPLE THAT PURCHASED HOMES THEY COULD NOT AFFORD should suffer the consequences. Would it help the DOW if more and more foreclosures occur, neighborhoods deteriorate and housing values continue to decline?
How would WALL STREET react if all those mortgage backed securities it currently owns wind up having even less value?
In one way, Limbaugh may be correct on President Obama and Wall Street.
Perhaps, Wall Street does get anxious when President Obama speaks. It may be a reminder that he has no Republican support and sooner or later his efforts to fix our economy may be stonewalled enough to make some or all of the alternatives that i mentioned in my above post a reality.
A STRETCH YOU SAY! How about the Republican governors refusing to accept STIMULUS MONEY to help their citizens and give a badly needed boost to their state’s economy.
How about THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE having to enact legislation to overrule their governor on the acceptance of stimulus money.
Deregulation of Credit Default Swap Insurance created this crash.
600T$ debt overhang on insurance on risky investments can never be paid.
When will you get it?
We deregulated in 1925 and got a bubble then a crash.
We deregulated over the last 8 years, and we got a bubble and a crash.
How many people should we let die of starvation before the Market corrects itself?
The market is rumors creating panics.
It the market is so smart, why did it go down when king deregulation Raygun came to office? Hm?
Unregulated capitalism leads to corporatism, poverty and crashes.
Perhaps that's what you want. a bankrupt governmnet so Plutocracy can rule?
Agreed, add to that CDO's Mortgage Backed Securities, etc...
MY firm belief is:
WITHOUT A WATCH DOG
FREE ENTERPRISE BECOMES THEFT ENTERPRISE!
Whoever thought this up was a political genius.
Labeling Mr. Limbaugh as the mouth and leader of the GOP was brilliant on many fronts.
--places GOP on a perpetual defensive
--plays to Mr. Limbaugh's deficient stimulus-response mechanism
--puts every member of the GOP in a position they cannot defend, other than to side with the President.
--makes Mr. Steele completely ineffective
--paints all GOP policies as confrontational and obstructionist
Keep it going. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Rush Limbaugh would bury the One!
In what alternate universe?
I've heard Rush do interviews, it's all a bunch of ass-kissing: Rightwing media figure comes on to plug a book, tells Rush "ohh, I think you're SO GREAT," and Rush responds "ohhh, ____________ [insert name here] I think you're pretty damn great too." You don't learn to debate real orators like Obama by doing that all the time.
Besides, is he sober enough these days to think on his feet?
On substance, yup. On sleep-inducing, rhetoric, probably not.
One can't have an intelligent debate if both parties are not intelligent.
Mr. Limbaugh may not be evolved enough to engage in that type of meaningful discussion.
"If, however, it makes Rush Limbaugh feel any better, I will take up his offer and defend my president, by debating with Limbaugh anytime, online, in the studio or in person."
That would be the same as if Obama accepted Rush's challenge.
I say the more the blowhard talks, the more he reveals what an ass he is. If he gets more listeners it's just cuz people want to hear the freak show. Those 20 million listeners don't translate into a full 20 million votes. The Repugnitans think Rush is more powerful than he really is. Anybody who cow tows to Rush's base needs to be thrown out of office in 2010. Rush is the spokesperson for the ancient hate beast resurrected by McSame and Sarah Pal at their nasty rallies. Shame on these people!
Here is the thing. The group most damaged by Limbaugh isn't moderate republicans it is all republicans. Anyone engaging in a fight with the white house gains in stature. It is a simple fact of the press coverage the white house gets. So Should Obama engage with Eric Cantor, or Mitch McConnel and double their stature? No, of course not. They could actually do something with the power. A more powerful Rush pulls the party to the right, towards the fringe. It makes it more base driven and it destroys the party's ability to promote a leader. Rush sucks up all the air in the room and he is defending his position strongly. All we needed was a reporter willing to ask every republican he came across, "Do you support Rush Limbaugh in his hope that the President fails?" Thank you David Shuster. By making every republican answer that question for the next two years, and watching them contort as they attempt to answer and kiss Rush on the lips at the same time dooms the party. Dooms them to almost joke status. They are weak, and they show it every day.
Hence, a win for the dems. PS - if Rush wants to debate the President, then all he has to do is win his parties nomination. I'd love for someone to point that out to him.
J
I agree with your analysis until you focus specifically on Rush Limbaugh. Arianna Huffington has warned us, rightfully so, not to underestimate the Conservative/Republican right. Rush Limbaugh is simply a member of a team that at least includes Carl Rove and Newt Gingrich. Even though we have had an election, there has been no let-up in the drumbeat of propaganda. Clever propaganda too, half-truths, slightly twisted use of language, conflation of events, recounting false history, and so on. The designers of the stategy have clearly understood how to influence and direct their base. For example, take the puzzling events surrounding Steele. A reasonable (for the right) black man was selected as "president" of the GOP. Somehow, this educated man was advised or convinced to act the fool. Next, he challenged Rush Limbaugh and was smacked down big time. Now there is talk of "firing" the head of the GOP, which looks like something quite easily accomplished. Is this a strategic visual message to the "conservative" base? Do not underestimate what the Right is doing, they are using some powerful tools.
Rush has never debated.
Let him start with
Al Frankin.
Since you dittoheads think Obama has some responsibility to debate RL, let's turn it around and see if Sarah Palin would debate Howard Stern.
Do they call them Dittoheads because they don't think for themselves?
that just shows you know nothing about Rush or his show or his audience.
On the contrary. The only thing wrong with the remark is it should have been a statement rather than a question.
Obviously, which is why there is a question mark at the end of the question. Can you THINK of an answer to the question or not?
No, that is what they call themselves. They were proud of calling up Rush and saying "dittos", and then they started calling themselves dittoheads. I don't know if they still call themselves that, but the name stuck.
It's all a publicity stunt by the Republicans' new leader. He knows it won't happen so he's using the debate challenge to puff himself up ... and don't be surprised if you hear him saying that Obama's afraid to debate him.
"and don't be surprised if you hear him saying that Obama's afraid to debate him."
Yeah.. it's coming. The repugs on this site are already clamoring that Obama must be afraid of Limbaugh since he has not accpeted Rush's debate challenge.
Yeah, well....that's a bunch of malarkey, Obama obviousy isn't afraid of anything.
He already HAS said that. How do I, as a non-Rush listener, know this?
All of his dittoheads have been saying it nonstop.
"A direct confrontation with Limbaugh would be bad for Obama and almost certainly will not happen"
You know how they say you should never say never... I'M SAYING NEVER!
Obama will NEVER debate Rush Limbaugh. There's no value for the President to debate a radio talk show host. Cat's don't have conversations with mice; they just play with the mice before they gobble them up.
Didn't President Obama say he wanted to change the way politics was done in Washington, be post-partisan. He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging in childish things. This is not really the change we thought, huh? The president has an enemy list. Sounds an awful lot like Nixon to me.
It's all a distraction. Talk about Rush, and not the sinking stock market.
umm when was the last time you heard obama or gibbs bring up limbaugh of their own accord? it's congressional democrats who are really doing this. more power to them. crush the repubs for all i care.
Obama mentioned Limbaugh by name several times. "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done" comes to mind. He also attacked Rush and Hannity on the campaign. Gibbs comments on evreyone in the press that has ever said anything negative about Obama. Rush, Cramer and the other guy from CNBC whose name I can't remember right now. It's the politics of personal destruction on steroids.
You're very pedantic.
What's your point, anyway? Are you trying to coerce someone to change their mind about supporting the president? "Oh my god, I just noticed how much Obama is like Nixon! He's acting childish! He lied to us!" yeah, OK, that'll work.
And what's this "we", as in "...this is not the change we thought..."
I have a suspicion that you're not being honest there, good buddy. So let's see, you voted for Obama cuz he promised change, but now he's just turned on you - he's just no good!
Ironically, politics has changed and it is a post-partisan Washington. A death rattle can be heard from the terminal GOP. It's never been like this. They're usually strong enough to sabotage any Democratic ideas. What a change! I Liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats working together for the betterment of our nation! I for one am glad to see it. Aren't you?
[He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging (with) childish things]
You realize you just gave the REASON why Obama will never debate Rush?
Enemy list?
The tinfoil lining in your hat is torn - better see to that.
Ghandi never boxed Max Schmeling. Because, certainly, Ghandi had a secret enemy list and Schmeling was on it, and besides he didn't want to appear weak contrasted with someone whose stock in trade was violence and crippling people.
President Obama is delivering exactly the change I thought. Don't know where you're coming from.
Anybody that looks at just the stock prices (how wealthy people speculate) as their only indicator of the economy is foolish. Your implication that Mr Obama should have fixed the worst economic recession created by eight years of lack of oversight after just 44 days in office is idiotic. You gave Mr Bush 8 years to create the mess, let's give Mr Obama a little more time don't ya think.
This is change?
Yes, I do blame Bush for some of the mess we are in. But, the economy was good for over 6 of his eight years. The market has done nothing but go down since Obama took office. His budget will create for debt than all of the previous presidents combined. People are losing the retirement savings they have spent years building. Unemployment is higher than it's been since Carter. All while everyone is talking about Rush Limbaugh. Again, it is a distraction.
I'll debate Rush. in my house, anytime he wants. I'll pay for his bus ticket and broadcast the debate live over the internet with my web cam. I'll even give him lunch.
LOL HA HA OMG you are killing me. Please stop. You'd probably wet yourself even if you tried to debate him over the phone.
conversely you are killing me. hahaha blah blah blah
Wouldn't do it over the phone. He'd cut me off and talk over when I say something he doesn't like.
That's why Rush has a "dump" button in his studio. As does Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly for TV. They can't handle a intelligent debate they just yell over their opposition.
I have no doubt that Mr. Limbaugh is popular in certain circles. If you're frightened of what is happening around you, you might like to receive "oversimplified blather spoken in an assertive tone of voice at high volume and rapid speed."
The underlying political strategy here, which I call the "Karl Rove Principle," is simply: "divide and conquer." Create "a nation divided against itself." But that is not what this President was elected to do, and it's not what any political party should be doing either.
The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the entire Government, and the role of any member of the Congress (and of any State and Local legislature, for that matter...) is to be "The Board of Directors." To craft the laws, rules, policies and ordinances. And to that end, even though "conflict" is expressly designed-in as a fundamental part of that process, "this is your only primary objective." This is ultimately WHY these people live in the capitol cities.
I don't particularly want a legislature to be lovey-dovey with its Governor or its President. Conflict is part of the process. But, they must know that they are expected to move the process along... and, to get high-quality professional results.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
