Cpac on The Huffington Post

Max Blumenthal: Exclusive Video: Conservatives Endorse My New Book, "Republican Gomorrah" (Sort Of)

2009-09-02T18:11:05Z

In February, I went to the Conservative Political Action Conference with a mock copy of my book, Republican Gomorrah: Inside The Movement That Shattered The Party. The book is an intimate, journalistic portrait of the GOP in the thralls of the radical Right, detailing through historical analysis and first-hand investigative reporting how a cadre of extremists transformed the party once known for its big tent politics into a one ring circus of despair, doom and fanaticism. It is the story of how the party of Eisenhower became the party of Palin.

Republican Gomorrah shows that many of the radical Right's leading figures have more in common than just the power they command within GOP ranks. Their personal lives have been stained by crisis and scandal: depression, mental illness, extra-marital affairs, struggles with homosexual urges, heavy medication, addiction to pornography, serial domestic abuse, and even murder. Inspired by the work of psychologist Erich Fromm, who asserted that the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings, my book exposes the culture of personal crisis lurking behind the Right's politics of resentment.

When I confronted leading conservatives from John Ziegler to Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher to Ralph Reed with my book, including passages that covered their role in driving the GOP to the margins of the far-Right, their reactions ranged from curiosity to blind rage. Watch my latest video and see for yourself.

Josh Sugarmann: Scott Roeder: Latest Guy With a Gun Who Made the Rules

2009-06-01T16:21:40Z

What do Scott Roeder, the alleged killer of abortion doctor George Tiller, Richard Poplawski, arrested in April for ambushing four police officers in Pittsburgh, killing three and injuring one, and Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association all have common?

They all believe that "the guys with the guns make the rules"--the rallying cry LaPierre offered attendees at this year's CPAC convention. LaPierre's red-meat statements to pro-gun activists--cynical, incendiary bafflegab designed to anger up their hearts and open up their wallets--has effects that go far beyond the NRA's own political and financial interests. The NRA likes to brag about its alleged four million members and its ability to sway a compliant Congress with the merest hint of displeasure. But when asked whether it should ever be held accountable for the effect its language (both as potential instigator and chronic validator) has on the fringe of American gun ownership its public response is a surprised, "Who, me?"

On the rare occasions when it has been called to account--for example, when during the Clinton Administration it stated that the "final war has begun" and former member Timothy McVeigh took the organization at its word, blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City--the organization has made slight tacks in its language (so long "final war," hello "culture war") but has always retained the disparate combination of bullying and paranoia evident in LaPierre's words

The danger lies in the literal interpretation of LaPierre's statement and the NRA's publications. According to the Wichita Eagle, "Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide." The Eagle also reports that Roeder had at one time been a member of the anti-government "Freemen" movement. Poplawski feared the Obama administration would ban his guns. According to news reports, "One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski feared 'the Obama gun ban that's on the way' and 'didn't like our rights being infringed upon.'"

Right now there is a consensus that our nation--from the president down to the cop on the beat--is at increased risk of violence from extremist organizations. And each time a smoldering ember sparks resulting in death and injury, the question that should be asked is who is fanning the flames?

Paul Helmke: The NRA's "Bully" Pulpit, and Alabama's Gun Tragedy

2009-03-12T15:42:13Z

Even by the standards of the Conservative Political Action Committee event where he recently spoke, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre was over the top.

He explained to all of us in America that "the guys with the guns make the rules."

Most of us believe that in a democracy, the voters make the rules.

Two days ago, a deranged man in Alabama killed 10, including women and children, before taking his own life. He had the firepower of assault weapons to execute his plan of mass carnage.

Americans who have lost loved ones to gun violence are tired of the guys with the guns making the rules.

Robert J. Elisberg: Michael Moore is Wrong

2009-03-10T10:52:11Z

On Friday, Michael Moore wrote a commentary explaining the difference between how Democrats paint Rush Limbaugh's relationship to the Republican Party, and Republicans previously trying to pin Democrats as the "Party of Michael Moore." And in making his analysis, he was wrong.

Mind you, he wasn't completely wrong. In fact, pretty much everything he wrote was spot-on accurate. And most accurate of all was his point: the difference is "The American people agree with me, not Rush." Agree with him about Iraq, health care, global warming, Wall Street excess, and on and on. All of which ultimately increased his popularity. Where he was wrong is that in explaining these things as his reasons, he left out one other significant difference -

Republicans are terrified to criticize Rush Limbaugh, and will quickly apologize if they mistakenly do so, which is what has given fodder to the charge that Mr. Limbaugh has become de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Democrats, on the other hand, have never had a problem arguing with Michael Moore. Because Democrats never have a problem arguing with anyone, even amongst themselves. That's why no Democrat has ever felt a sense that they had to check with Michael Moore first before voicing an opinion - something, if they did, Mr. Moore would likely have been aghast by.

Democrats always have had plenty of leaders, pushing the party's direction. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. Some pushed with more success than others, but those were the party leaders. It wasn't Michael Moore. He was just a very outspoken voice - sometimes pushing on the fringes, sometimes smack in middle of the mainstream.

That's the hole that Republicans find themselves. They've had their leaders, as well, of course. But George Bush and Dick Cheney ended up so wildly unpopular that the Republican Party ran away from them. And John McCain was a party leader, but only by default, deeply unpopular to the untrusting Republican far-right base.

And so the GOP was left with an empty hole. And nature abhors a vacuum.

Rush Limbaugh isn't the actual, true "leader" of the Republican Party, of course. That position belongs to...well, nobody. Which is the real problem the Republican Party faces. Nature abhors a vacuum, so in the absence of anybody, after decades of cultivating an intolerant far-right base, all that remains is the bellowing voice That No One Dares Criticize.

It's not so much that Rush Limbaugh is a leader, it's that everyone else in the Republican Party are followers.

And so, you end up with a Republican Party where virtually no one dare criticize Rush Limbaugh (or, okay, sorry, criticize him without apologizing) no matter how reprehensible his words. Like saying that the feminist movement was created by ugly women. Demeaning them as "feminazis." Slamming Michael J. Fox for supposedly faking his degenerative disease. Hoping the President of the United States failed. Yet not even a whimper of indignation from what should be the actual, but non-existent Republican leadership.

That's the difference between Rush Limbaugh's relationship to the Republican Party and Michael Moore's to Democrats. The difference that Mr. Moore left out.

Agree with him or disagree (or both), Michael Moore has reveled in being the outside agitator - the very opposite of a Party Leader. His whole public career had been standing on a soapbox trying to get Democratic leaders to lead. If they haven't, he's called them out on it. If they have, he's promoted it. And if Democrats have disagreed with him, they've had no problem saying so. And Michael Moore relished the debate.

Compare this to Rush Limbaugh who skewered the chairman of the Republican National Committee for daring to call himself - the head of the party, not Rush Limbaugh. And the very next day, the chairman of the Republican National Committee apologized. To Rush Limbaugh.

In the end, this isn't about Rush Limbaugh, and it isn't about Michael Moore. It's about the parties themselves. Democrats are united behind President Obama. And Republicans have abolished all sense of party leadership and worshiped instead at the temple of a radio entertainer, afraid to take a position he wouldn't approve of, terrified to say he's wrong about anything, no matter how repellent it may be. All the while trying to convince the country that they should be the party to lead the nation. Lead? They can't even stand up to a radio host!

And that's what Michael Moore was wrong to leave out of his commentary.

And if he disagrees with me...I don't apologize.

But he's probably fine with that.

Joe Peyronnin: Where's Me Money, SpongeBob?

2009-03-09T19:46:32Z

For years the rich got richer and everyone else, including the middle class, saw real income slip. Deficits ballooned, government oversight and regulations eased and no-bid contracts were awarded to favorite contractors. Greed and corruption permeated business practices. The SEC ignored credible warnings of a massive Ponzi scheme. Where was the leadership? Where was responsibility and accountability? It was time for a change in direction.

Last November Americans voted for change. The newly elected president warned that change would not be easy, that it would be a difficult challenge to restore the nation's ailing economy and confidence in government. Now those who led America into this dark and uncertain crisis are speaking out against change. Many on Wall Street and Republicans have declared that this is President Barack Obama's recession, even though he has been in office for barely six weeks. His policies, they say, are the reason America is in trouble.

They have taken to the airwaves, to print and the Web to excoriate President Obama. They accuse Obama of doing too little, while at the same time doing too much. They complain the President is not moving fast enough, while at the same time accusing him of moving too hastily.

They are pounding away at Obama's tax plan, which raises taxes on Americans making more that $250,000 per year, and increases taxes on capital gains and dividends. The top tax rate will go up from 35% to 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts for the rich lapse. Obama is being accused of socialism and his plan is described as, brace yourself, radical. "This is the reason the stock market has crashed," yelled one commentator. "It's class warfare," screamed another. In the words of Mr. Crabs, "Where's me money, SpongeBob?"

The Republican strategy is simply to say no. There is no real leadership within the party, except for entertainer and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. And he has rallied the beleaguered right wing by calling for President Obama to fail. This icon of the conservative movement recently bounced on stage at the CPAC meeting in Washington, dressed in a black jacket and black silk shirt opened at the neck. His flashy eyes, fleshy chest and flabby girth were symbolic of a Republican party that feasted for eight years on Bush deregulation and government deficits.

"We can take this country back," he declared. "We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming that people know." Memo to Limbaugh, America already knows. "We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence," he continued. "We believe that the preamble of the Constitution contains an inarguable truth, that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom. And the pursuit of happiness." So, therefore, the President should fail?

Freedom of speech is an essential principle of our great democracy. We have long benefited from our diversity and differences of opinions. New ideas and constructive criticism lead to a stronger and healthier nation. But when criticism is emotional, vacuous and divisively strident it can be destructive. Driving a political wedge through the heart of this country will result in further chaos, confusion and great harm to the health of America.

It is time for calm voices and thoughtful ideas. It is time to come together as one nation. Rather than thinking about the next election cycle, it is time to do what is best for our children and for America.

Warren Holstein: GOP Mini-Me: No Pubes, No Punditry Please!

2009-03-09T19:22:39Z

It comes as no surprise that after letting a man-child run our country for eight years, the GOP would give a child-child a crack at it (but then nothing is sacred in the New Token World Order of Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal). Introducing 14 year-old Georgia eighth-grader Jonathan Krohn, the latest star speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), little talking head (he's appeared on CNN, Fox and Friends and numerous radio shows across the country) and pre-pubescent voice of the Right.

Yup, this home-schooled Doogie Howser R.N.C. is the latest offering from the downward-spiraling Republican Party's public relations arm. Move over Jonas Brothers, there is a new asexual post-tweeny sensation hitting the nation and he has thrown down the gauntlet, defiantly proclaiming that " Barack Obama is the most left-wing president in my lifetime." Hmmm, let's see... subtract the eight years of tyranny and irreparable damage done by George W. Dunderhead Jr. and... well, I guess his seven formative years spent under the Clinton Regime gave him an adequate frame of reference. Toilet training under such a period of economic prosperity and fecundity must have traumatized him something terrible.

And what would any self-respecting right-wing pundit be without a book to pimp over the air waves and fiber-optic cable lines. Who wouldn't want to fork over their hard-earned Depression Benjamins for his 86-page magnum opus Define Conservatism (which he took the summer off to pen and humbly refers to as his "first effort" )? Suggested book jacket money quote: "I'm Bill Bennett: I used to work for Ronald Reagan and now I'm a colleague of Jonathan Krohn's."

Boy, oh boy, braces be damned! I'm sure his newfound fame will make him quite popular with the ladies over at Jesus Camp this year. He can finally throw out his over-thumbed, heavily creased, slightly sticky fold-out Sarah Palin poster (which he had secreted away in between Rush Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be and the Oxford World's Classics' Authorized King James Version of The Bible) and become a man! Well almost. Remember, real men don't let dirty demonic desires ruin their lives and desecrate the Lord's Holy Plan for procreation; however, he certainly should have no problemo getting the Promise Ring of his choice (not to mention all the lanyard Holy Crosses and Ichthys Fishies a good God-fearing American boy could dream of).

Jonathan's conversion to the political dark side evidently took place at the tender young age of 8, after hearing about a Democratic filibuster involving judicial nominations. "I thought, 'Who goes to work saying, I'm going to filibuster today"?'" he said. Evidently his radical right media filter did not inform him of the late great Republican hero Senator Strom Thurmond's Guinness Book of World Record 24-hour-and-18-minute 1957 filibuster against the pesky prospect of civil rights (whose failure ultimately led the ascendancy of ole Jonny Boy's left-wing arch-nemesis--that's 3.714286 of his lifetimes ago if you're counting math nerds).

Considering his age, it is hard to say whether this is just a phase and if his political convictions will falter when his perfectly honed pre-pubescent inflected radio voice goes askew and non-partisan hormones run amok. It's even possible he could end up rebelling: start reading The Origin of Species, smoke weed and convert to Zen Buddhism. Although a more likely scenario would be his becoming a fanatic fan of the Christian heavy metal band Stryper, egging the local Planned Parenthood and flirting (Heaven forbid!) with being a moderate. Still, I wouldn't be shocked to see a Jonathan Krohn/Bristol Palin presidential ticket in 2030. God help us!

Deepak Chopra: Rush Limbaugh: Icon of Anti-Morality

2009-03-08T19:02:19Z

When Michael Steele, the hapless chairman of the Republican Party, lost his bearings and called Rush Limbaugh's style ugly and incendiary, everyone knew it was the truth. But it was a perfect example of an inconvenient truth. The right wing has long used ugly, incendiary speech the way baseball players use steroids: to artificially pump themselves up. Limbaugh has taken to saying that he wants Obama's policies to fail because they spell the end of an America based on personal freedom. This isn't just a grotesque exaggeration; it disguises the very thing the right wing has been doing when it curtailed civil liberties in the name of national security.

Yet I know people who listen to Limbaugh every morning. They don't believe a word he says. They deplore his rhetorical sins. They detect the whiff of hypocrisy. Basically, they tune in out of sheer incredulity.

Limbaugh has been plowing the field of moral outrage for decades, but unlike Billy Sunday and the other hot-headed radio preachers who cashed in on social resentment in the Great Depression, Limbaugh threw out God. With no religious tradition to anchor himself, he can swing wider. Anything Limbaugh judges against is condemned, not by scripture, but simply by him being pissed off. Whatever Limbaugh hates -- however petty, personal, and arbitrary his animus -- is ipso facto wrong.

This represents a huge social shift in American values. Before the Eighties there were a handful of right-wing outlets on the air; now there are well over a thousand. They exist purely as steam vents. The common citizen gets to be pissed off by the millions, unrelentingly, without cease or solution, and in return, he is praised. To be outraged is to be morally superior.

The Limbaugh effect fueled the anti-morality of the Bush years. Under ordinary morality, the wretched plight of illegal immigrants, for example, must be considered along with the fact that they are breaking the law. Being poor, illiterate, and desperate, their human condition makes them more sympathetic than ruthless lawbreakers would be. But under anti-morality, if you hate immigrants because they are foreigners who don't look American enough, the argument is over. Your anger strips away tolerance, sympathy, and regard for "the other." Hence the almost imperial bearing of Limbaugh, the bland certainty that because he never stops being angry, he never stops being right.

The same goes for a wide range of "others" who mightily tick off Limbaugh's listeners: Muslims, feminists, people of color, gays, and environmentalists. There's no need to understand them or try and accommodate their views. Just put them through the wringer of Limbaugh's perpetual judgment and, poof, there's no problem anymore. Of course, the whole scheme is delusional. Problems aren't solved by remaining perpetually ticked off. Accords can't be reached when you demonize the other side.

By any sane account, Rush Limbaugh is dead weight when it comes to finding a solution to anything. Like Sarah Palin, his spiritual bride, he lurks in the shadow of the human psyche, expressing the dark anger, resentment, jealousy, and vindictiveness that society can never escape. And yet, the next time you tune into Limbaugh's censorious circus of insensitive scurrility, give him a kind thought. As far back as Mark Twain, the American character has been ornery. We secretly love rascals, bank robbers, tricksters, swindlers, hell raisers, and outlaws. And when we feel so inclined, we laugh at them. Rush Limbaugh may represent a toxic form of entertainment -- and the bile he spews bears no resemblance to true morality -- but the fact that America makes room for him is something to be proud of. I don't pray that he goes away. I pray that we can keep laughing, even if our grin is crooked, at the pranks of the eternal shadow who is our companion for life, whether we want him or not.

John Amato: "Leave Limbaugh Alone"

2009-03-07T14:17:59Z

Those mean liberals are beating up on Rush Limbaugh! The horror! The horror!

This is, as Kos notes, the right-wing whine du jour, keyed by Karl Rove. I just wanted to beat Glenn Beck to the burst-of-tears thing ...

Digby sent me an e-mail saying that a reader from the Burnt Orange Report had mentioned doing a takeoff of the "Leave Britney Alone" video from Chris Crocker, this time about Rush Limbaugh.

Since Limbaugh is running the GOP now, I thought that he could use a little back up from us lefties, right? Michael Steele certainly hasn't helped the GOP or Limbaugh very much.

(John Amato is the founder of CrooksandLiars.com and the video was a cross post.)

Parker Blackman: More Than a Rush Job

2009-03-06T19:15:53Z

The public frenzy over Rush Limbaugh's most recent display in political grandstanding has been a delightful distraction from the deluge of bad economic news. Watching Michael Steele kowtow to Rush was hilarious. And the media's re-release of Rush's greatest hits (who can forget his wildly inappropriate and offensive imitation of Michael J. Fox?) has restored a certain spring in my step that's been lacking for the past month.

But before we get too giddy about Rush and the albatross he may be for Republicans, it is important to remember one axiom above all else: The buck can't stop at just one man. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Democrats have been smart enough to hold Rush out as the new face of the Republican Party. And I'm even happier that Rush has been so obliging. But if it is just about Rush, then we miss the real and more important opportunity: to firmly tie the failed policies of the last eight years to the conservative ideology that foisted them upon us. If we can effectively link right-wing ideology to the policies that dug the hole we find ourselves in today, we will cement America's understanding of what conservatives represent for a generation.

By now we all know the history: conservatives spent years and millions invested in think tanks, message development and leadership training to make their brand of conservatism exciting and accessible to the American public. And they effectively branded the left. Liberal = tax and spend. Big government = bureaucratic and ineffective. Class action lawyer = ambulance chaser. Environmentalist = tree hugger. And so on.

But you can't spin eight years of abject failure. It turns out tax cuts are not the cure-all conservatives led us to believe. And guess what? Wall Street cannot be trusted to police itself. Turns out government does have a role to play, whether it is helping citizens during natural disasters or agency staff with the knowledge and spine necessary to protect our food, toys, and investments.

Soon enough, the Rush Limbaugh frenzy will die down. But the conservative effort to reshape their legacy will not. They are already feverishly working to rewrite the last eight years and distance themselves from George W. Bush. Conservatives are fast and furiously casting their one-time savior and movement leader as having lost his way, straying from the ideals of a true conservative.

But Bush didn't lose his way. He steered his party's course to its inevitable conclusion. The only thing that did get lost over the last eight years is the veneer covering up conservatives' un-American, every-man-woman-and-child-for-themselves version of patriotism. As progressives, we can't let their current attempt at an extreme makeover go unchallenged.

Today is our best opportunity not only to reclaim the American dream, but also to indelibly cast the dye on the real conservative agenda. So let's cast Rush, Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor and the rest of the right wingers out to the wilderness. And let's make sure it's not just a Rush job, but a casting out of their entire reckless ideology.

Alec Baldwin: Hoping the GOP Gets Its Act Together

2009-03-06T12:53:18Z

I am an actor and someone employed in the entertainment business. I have my own opinions about how this government should be run and how disgracefully it has been run by both parties. I want to give it as hard as I can to those who willingly seek political roles and disgrace their office and, conversely, commend those who, in my opinion, behave commendably. I express those opinions un-self-consciously while never believing for one minute that they will influence anyone or anything. I do it as an American. For me, it's an American thing.

I am not the head of my Party.

Rush Limbaugh is an uneducated, marginally talented, overbearing, recovering drug addict who was, at least according to Wikipedia, ineligible for the draft because he had cysts on his ass.

I have dear friends of mine who represent real Republicans. Goldwater Republicans. Strong on defense. Tough on immigration. Fiscal conservatives. Not the bullshit Reagan wing of the party which, along with Clinton killing Glass-Steagall, brought us to where we are today.

My friends who are these real Republicans (not hypocritical evangelicals who are too lazy to raise their own children properly so, therefore, insist that all public institutions and policies bend to their will to make that job easier) do not listen to Limbaugh. They don't care what he says. They think he is an amusing entertainer. Like most progressives I know are well aware how hit-and-miss Michael Moore can be and, ultimately view him as an entertainer and don't give a damn what he says.

Until Limbaugh gets real, weans himself off the big salary and runs for office, he will always be nothing more than a poorly educated, marginally talented buffoon who has developed a real talent for manipulating the G-spot of the neocon consciousness and massaging the hate gland of so many economically displaced white voters in America.

I hope to God the GOP gets its act together soon and finds a real leader for their Party. Rush Limbaugh as the spokesperson for the GOP? 2010, I can't wait.

Michael Moore: Why I'm Not Now and Have Never Been the Democrats' "Rush Limbaugh"

2009-03-06T04:46:34Z

I have watched with mild amusement this week the self-immolation of the Republican Party as it bows before the altar of Rush Limbaugh, begging for mercy, pleading for forgiveness, breathlessly seeking guidance and wisdom from The Oracle.

President Obama and the Democratic Party have wasted no time in pointing out to the American people this marriage from hell, tying Rush like a rock around the collective Republican neck and hoping for its quick descent to the netherworld of irrelevance.

But some commentators (Richard Wolffe of Newsweek, Chuck Todd of NBC News, etc.) have likened this to "what Republicans tried to do to the Democrats with Michael Moore." Perhaps. But there is one central difference: What I have believed in, and what I have stood for in these past eight years -- an end to the war, establishing universal health care, closing Guantanamo and banning torture, making the rich pay more taxes and aggressively going after the corporate chiefs on Wall Street -- these are all things which the majority of Americans believe in too. That's why in November the majority voted for the guy I voted for. The majority of Americans rejected the ideology of Rush and embraced the same issues I have raised consistently in my movies and books.

How did this happen? Considering how, for the past eight years, the Republican machine thought they could somehow smear and damage the Democrats if they said it was "the party of Michael Moore," it appears that the American public heard them loud and clear and decided that, 'hey, if you say Michael Moore is connected to the Democrats, then the Democrats must be OK!'

During this past election, a Democrat in Michigan, Mark Schauer, was running against the incumbent Republican congressman, Rep. Tim Walberg. Schauer asked me to endorse him and campaign for him, and I did. The Republicans were thrilled. They acted like they had been handed manna from heaven. They filled the airwaves with attack ads showing pictures of me and asking voters, 'is this the guy you want influencing your congressman?' The voters of western Michigan said "YES!" and threw the Republican out of office. The newly elected congressman told me his poll numbers had gone up once the Republicans started running ads likening him to me.

There have been over a half-dozen attack documentaries on me (Michael Moore Hates America, Fahrenhype 9/11, etc.), plus a feature film starring Kelsey Grammer and James Woods that had me being slapped silly for 83 minutes. Several books have been written by the Right in a concerted attempt to denounce me. One book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, had me listed at #1. The author was so sure people would know why, he didn't even bother to write a chapter on me like he did for the other 99. You just get to the end of the book and all it says is "#1" with nothing but a big picture of me that takes up a full page.

What made the Republicans so sure that Americans would recoil upon the mere mention of my name, or by simply showing a photo of my face?

The result of this was one colossal backfire. The more they attacked me, the more the public decided to check out who this "devil" was and what he was saying. And -- oops! -- more than a few people liked what they saw. Overnight I went from having a small, loyal following to having millions go to movie theaters to watch... documentaries? Wow.

Yes, the more the Right went after me, the more people got to hear what I was saying -- and eventually the majority, for some strange reason, ended up agreeing with me -- not Rush Limbaugh -- and elected Barack Obama as president of the United States, a man who promised to end the war, bring about universal health care, close Guantanamo, stop torture, tax the rich, and rein in the abusive masters of Wall Street.

Think about this road I've traveled. At the beginning of the Bush years, I was pretty much an outsider, referred to as being on the "far left." I usually found myself holding viewpoints that differed from the majority of the people in this country. When I spoke out against the war -- before it even started -- I was marginalized by the mainstream media and then booed off the Oscar stage in "liberal Hollywood" for commenting about a "fictitious" president. Seventy percent of the public back then supported the war and approved of the job George W. Bush was doing.

But I stuck to what I believed in, kept churning out my movies, and never looked back. The Right and the White House spokespeople came after me time after time. President Bush 41 called me an "a**" on TV, and I became a favorite punching bag at both the 2004 and the 2008 Republican National Conventions in speeches by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. On the front page of this morning's Washington Post, Mark McKinnon, a top adviser to George W. Bush, revealed -- for the first time -- the Bush White House strategy of singling me out in the hopes of turning the country against me and the Democratic Party. Here's what the Post said:

Mark McKinnon, a top adviser in President George W. Bush's campaigns, acknowledged the value of picking a divisive opponent. "We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party," he said of the documentary filmmaker.

In the end it all proved to be a big strategic mistake on their part. Thanks to the Republican attacks on me, average Joes and Janes started to listen to what I had to say. Contrary to Richard Wolffe's assessment that "there were no Democrats as far as I can remember who were saying they stood with Michael Moore," Democrats, in fact, have stood side by side with me during all of this. Here's the Congressional Black Caucus supporting me on Capitol Hill in 2004. Here's Terry McAuliffe, the head of the Democratic National Committee, enthusiastically attending the premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" with two dozen senators and members of Congress. Here's a group of Democratic congresspeople endorsing my film Sicko in the chambers of the House Judiciary Committee in 2007. And here's President Jimmy Carter inviting me to sit with him in his box at the Democratic National Convention. Far from making me into a pariah, the Republicans helped the Democratic leadership realize that to identify themselves publicly with me meant reaching the millions who followed and supported my work.

Though John Kerry lost in 2004, my focus that year had been to get young voters registered and out to vote (I visited over 60 campuses). And so, just a few short months after the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, America's young voters became the only age group that John Kerry won. They set a new record for the largest 18 to 24-year-old turnout since 1972, when 18-year-olds were given the right to vote, thus sending a signal about what would happen four years later with the youth revolution that ignited Obama's campaign.

After Fahrenheit, I kept speaking out, the Republican machine kept attacking me, and two years later, in 2006, the American public sided with me -- not Rush Limbaugh -- and voted in the Democrats to take over both houses of Congress.

And then, finally, two years after that, we won the White House.

That's the difference -- The American people agree with me, not Rush.

The American public believes that health care is a right and not a commodity.

They want tougher environmental laws and believe that global warming is real, not a myth.

They believe that the rich should be taxed more.

They want to go after the crooks on Wall Street who got us into this mess and the politicians who enabled them.

They want more money invested in education, science, technology and infrastructure -- not in more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

They believe that, whether Democrats or Republicans have been in power, wealthy corporations have been calling the shots for the past few decades and the American people's voices have not been heard as their country has slowly been driven into the ground. Our politicians and our media have been bought and paid for by the highest bidders and we don't trust them anymore.

Finally -- they want us to get the hell out of Iraq and to investigate the criminals who sent us there for fictitious reasons.

Obama and the Democrats going after Rush is a good thing and will not do for him what the Republican attack plan did for me -- namely, the majority of Americans will never be sympathetic to him because they simply don't agree with him.

The days of using my name as a pejorative are now over. The right wing turned me into an accidental spokesperson for the liberal, majority agenda. Thank you, Republican Party. You helped us elect one of the most liberal senators to the presidency of the United States. We couldn't have done it without you.

Lincoln Mitchell: My Challenge to Rush Limbaugh

2009-03-05T14:28:06Z

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.

Rob Shapiro: GOP Economic Policy as an Exercise in Grief Management: Denial, Anger & Rush Limbaugh

2009-03-05T10:40:12Z

The leaders of the Republican Party, reeling from their painful string of defeats, seem stuck in two of the classic stages of grief, denial and anger. This week, Rush Limbaugh replaced Bobby Jindal as the leading and most colorful example. Limbaugh may seem like too easy a target, since talk radio always tends toward hyperbole. Nonetheless, the essence of the message from the presumptively addled Mr. Limbaugh is that Americans would be better off if the president's economy program failed. Even if their homes slip into foreclosure and their kids have to drop out of college, American families would at least escape the degradations of "socialism" or, as another popular conservative pundit put it, "left fascism" (that's from the hard-right blogger and historian, Ron Radosh).

The rhetorical excesses of talk radio and the web would hardly be noteworthy, if the same strain of non-thinking didn't also dominate the Republican Party's current economic positions. Let's set the stage: of the three natural sources of demand in a market economy, consumers have stopped spending, businesses have stopped investing, and exports have fallen off the proverbial cliff. That leaves government stimulus as the only possible source of new demand to at least slow the accelerating downward momentum of the economy and most of the people in it. Perhaps the best explanation, then, for why every Republican in the House and all but three GOP senators voted "no!" on the President's stimulus is, well, denial and anger.

To be sure, economic ideology almost certainly plays a role here, too, on top of their denial (about the consequences) and anger (about no longer calling the shots). This came through vividly at a conference I attended earlier this week for the National Chamber Foundation. My panel was asked to talk about whether the administration's plans foreshadowed a permanent change in the relationship between the public and private sectors. Set aside the fact that the leaders of the central private institutions in this drama, big finance, have begged Washington to amend that relationship long enough to preserve their jobs and the assets of their bond holders.

At the panel, a well-turned-out executive from a major private equity company (and former Bush Treasury official) laid out what once could have been the reasonable conservative position -- stimulus weighted to tax cuts, a banking rescue that avoids taking over anybody (or dictating anybody's compensation), and tax-based measures to reduce foreclosures. As a matter of economics, he got his targets right, even if his approaches are weaker than those favored by the Administration. But at least his response suggested that he wants the economy to recover, regardless of who gets the credit.

Not so from the other member of the panel, Brian Westbury, who on top of being an economist with a Midwestern financial advisory is also the economics editor of the American Spectator and a frequent writer for the Wall Street Journal. He provided an economic-cum-ideological gloss for the denial and anger expressed by the flamboyantly-frustrated Mr. Limbaugh. Westbury's prescription was no stimulus, no banking rescue and no program for foreclosures. The only constructive government action he could imagine was to jettison current "mark-to-market" rules. Those rules say that the balance sheets of banks and public companies have to reflect the actual market value of their assets and liabilities. So, for example, when a mortgage-backed security goes bust, you have to write down its value while preserving the liability of the money borrowed to purchase it and still owed.

In this view, none of what seems so important to the rest of us -- collapsing demand, investment and trade, huge job losses, rising bankruptcies -- matters for government policy. The only thing Washington should do here is to change how the financial losses from these events are reported. This isn't economics; it's a prescription that follows from a hard-edged ideological view that government can do nothing of value for an economy, regardless of conditions.

Unhappily, this cramped understanding isn't limited to the pages of the American Spectator and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. Bobby Jindal put the Republican Party on record for much the same view in his awkward response to the President's address to Congress. He even cited the colossal inadequacies of the Bush Administration's response to Katrina as proof that the private sector is always the best answer to any problem or catastrophe -- even if it's under water at the time.

I honestly can't believe that they're really so dull-witted. A better explanation for Jindal and Limbaugh, along with commentators like Westbury and Radosh, is that they're still grappling with the grief of losing the support of the American people -- and the power that came with it. They're stuck in denial and anger. And that's a very bad position from which to consider the best policies for a nation and world economy in crisis.

Cross-posted at the NDN Blog.

Jonathan Tolins: And a Child Shall Lead Them

2009-03-04T18:06:25Z

There he was, standing at the podium at CPAC, dazzling die-hard conservatives despite the fact that he is a member of a group not usually favored by Republicans. No, not Michael Steele. I'm talking about Jonathan Krohn, conservative wunderkind and theater geek. (I use the term with great affection, being one myself -- "theater geek", not "conservative".) But this theater geek doesn't get taunted in gym; this one is invited to appear on Fox and Friends. Adorable and untainted by the last eight years of Republican failure, he is the answer to a conservative's dream.

I've watched the clip of the precocious thirteen-year-old's CPAC address several times now. I can't get enough. I know that kid -- a smart, effusive, eager-to-please adolescent who thinks he knows everything and has no trouble lecturing adults. Heck, I was that kid... albeit in the liberal Long Island, Jewish variety. If Krohn's delivery felt like an address from the president of the Drama Club, that's no accident. From his bio on his website, www.defineconservatism.com:

Jonathan Krohn is a 13 year-old home schooled young man who has been performing on stage since he was eight. Inside Edition's Debora Norville named him "Atlanta's Most Talented Child" in 2006. Jonathan has had 3 call-backs for the Broadway part of Michael Banks in Mary Poppins.

(Oh, to be back at the age when you can claim credit for the jobs you didn't get....) Yes, he's a Broadway Baby. But in his search for a role model, Jonathan somehow settled on Bill Bennett instead of Nathan Lane. He listened to Bennett's radio program every morning for three hours, a fact that offers a revealing glimpse of the home schooling revolution.

Jonathan made a huge splash at CPAC (Arianna called him "the highlight" of the convention) and this could be only the beginning. After sending Bobby Jindal out to address the nation, as Paul F. Tompkins described it, "like a loving dad reading a bedtime story to a baby with a severe learning disability," the GOP could now brand itself as the party of children. Not children's issues - like health care and education - but a child's view of the world, unsullied by adult reality or experience. They won't address us just as children, but by children.

Here's young Jonathan on his blog responding to Obama's call for health care reform:

Uh oh! Here it comes... Obama is going to expand government's interference into your doctor's office. Government will tell you what you can and cannot get at the doctor's office. Obama, Dodd, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and Biden, just a few of the people who will be out their telling you what you're healthcare benefits will be. President Obama has told us that he wants to boost the economy, but when he talks about universal healthcare all he is discussing is a government monopoly of the healthcare industry; meaning a loss of jobs and a major dent in the economy, not to mention policy commonly described as typical socialism.

What's striking here is not that Jonathan Krohn's writing sounds like standard-issue conservative punditry; it's that most conservative punditry sounds like the writing of a thirteen-year-old. The argument, in addition to being wildly inaccurate, fails to recognize that those of us lucky enough to have health insurance spend too much of our time fighting for the coverage we paid for. (When our daughter suffered from a simple case of croup, the insurance company claimed it was "a pre-existing condition.") Government regulation of an industry that has run amok and is determined to deny service whenever possible doesn't play as a scary specter of socialism. For a home-schooled thirteen-year-old not to recognize this is understandable. For a political party, it is a shortcut to irrelevance.

No wonder CPAC swooned. They've had a problem of late matching principles with experience. Small businessman Joe the Plumber and family values champion Sarah Palin are two obvious examples. Jonathan Krohn won't be victim to the same biographical contradictions. He's thirteen. He's supposed to have no experience.

I worry. The kid is already the most appealing conservative spokesman on the scene and he is ripe to be exploited. The questions will come. Did he really write that book by himself, "giving up his summer" to do so? Was it right for Krohn's parents to indoctrinate him so intensely in Republican thinking at such a young age? Should anyone be exposed to that much Bill Bennett? Are his parents just making a buck off their son's talents, pushing him like a right wing Baby June? (Last fall, he and Mom went on a book tour of northeast Georgia. The sky's the limit now.) And is this all because he didn't get cast in Mary Poppins? (Did rejection from the nanny musical lead to rebellion against the nanny state?)

I don't pretend to know what's really going on inside this bright young kid or who he'll turn out to be when he grows up. But it will be interesting to see if his ideological certainty holds up, particularly if he follows his passions for both conservative politics and musical theater. It won't always be easy (see "Eckert, Scott"). Will this budding Alex P. Keaton maintain opposition to the National Endowment for the Arts or gay marriage if it means fewer opportunities to play Boq in Wicked? Life will do its dirty work on Jonathan Krohn. If and when he emerges from his home-school-and-talk-radio cocoon, he will be challenged by people and events that stubbornly refuse to abide by his principles. And that could be the best thing that ever happened to him. Perhaps his already obvious gifts will enable him to forge a new conservatism, one that melds old principles with the realities of today and a keen awareness of the mistakes of yesterday (the way Obama did at his inaugural).

And who knows? Maybe someday this kid will make Republicans act like adults again.

Jill Brooke: If the Republican Party Represents Family, Then How Come Their Two Leaders Are Childless?

2009-03-04T17:31:20Z

Who were the undisputed champs of the Conservative Political Action Conference? Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh - two unmarried people without any children. Can they really represent the Republican Party - especially one that promotes itself as the pro-family party - without this experience?

I don't think so.

For Coulter and Limbaugh, it's very easy to be selfish - and clueless - on how a family has to stretch budgets like salt water taffy to afford soccer cleats, school binders and extra boxes of Mac N' Cheese. It's much easier to support one person vs. a family.

The spinster and spin master are not as concerned about spending federal money into improving local schools since they aren't seeing first hand how a math program doesn't add up.

Nor will they ever viscerally know the anguish - as described in President Obama's recent speech - of "the college acceptance letter your child had to give back."

Without nursing a sick child at night or living with disease machines as my friend Lara jokes about our kids, how can they really know why health insurance is so essential? Nor will they know the stress of leaving your child at home and scrambling to find babysitters when you have to leave town to make a speech or work late to keep your job.

As anyone who has children experiences, kids force your heart and mind to become more elastic. When you become a parent, you turn into a pragmatist. Kids test you - as well as your positions. You learn from each other.

Coulter and Limbaugh don't have to make allowances for other people's beliefs, behaviors or feelings and can surround themselves with sycophants and people who echo their positions. Not when you're a parent. You learn diplomacy at the dinner table when your teenager is touting his newest position on recycling iceberg lettuce, your fifth grader is wondering why you don't use solar panels and your eighth grader considers Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt heroes.

Through your kids, a whole new universe of people arrives in your kitchen. Your kids' friends - and as a result their friends' parents - become a part of your life as you organize play dates together and are forced to spend endless hours on sports fields side by side. I am now friends with people I would never have chosen but because we share our kids in common, I have found common ground and appreciate positions different from mine.

Rush Limbaugh has been married three times - and divorced. Ann Coulter has never been married. Yet they are now considered the voices of the Republican Party. In fact, Limbaugh has turned into a rigid headmaster who gleefully raps the knuckles of any dissenting Congressman or Senator who doesn't march to his views. Wanting the President to fail at such a perilous time are the words of someone who doesn't have as much of a stake in the future which comes when you have children.

While no one argues that Coulter is treacherously articulate, she herself learned that her inexperience as a parent backfired even with her own party when she went after the 9/11 widows. As the author of "Don't Let Death Ruin Your Life," I know that no amount of money makes up for losing a child - or husband.

Clearly there are many people who haven't had children or never married who become loving supportive aunts and uncles and are sensitive to issues impacting families. But it still is not the same experience as being a parent.

My husband is a moderate Republican and someone who voted for Sen. John McCain while I voted for Barack Obama. Our three children challenge our positions at dinner and we must reply not with insults but with reasoned arguments. I have agreed that Obama's economic policy is too much waste along with gloom and doom while Gary acknowledges that expanding innovation in energy policies is the future. We have learned to agree to disagree and still love each other. By having different views around the dinner table, and having to be tolerant of each other day in and day out, the winner is the most informed and inventive, not the one spewing souped-up sound bites.

America is a family with problems and we have to pull together - both Republicans and Democrats - for the greater good. The leaders of the parties need to be those who understand both compromise and compassion and those are not traits that can be applied to the childless Limbaugh or Coulter.

Brian Wolff: ImSorryRush.com

2009-03-04T15:59:22Z

Picture this. You're a Republican who just accidentally offended your leader Rush Limbaugh. You know that your only option is to bow down to King Rush and offer a groveling apology. But you have to do it fast before Leader Rush calls you out. What can you do?

Luckily, we've uncovered the secret Republican Apology Machine. Check out www.ImSorryRush.com, the fastest and easiest way for a Limbaugh-Loving Republican to express the error of their ways to the king himself.

Now you can draft your own "apology" to Rush just like the pros do it. Best of all, we'll share your "apologies" with Rush personally.

Check it out.

Mike Lux: From Lincoln to Limbaugh: Oh How The Republican Party Has Fallen

2009-03-04T15:25:28Z

Did you catch the newly crowned leader of the Republican Party's "first address to the nation" Friday night? I am truly embarrassed for my Republican friends as to how far the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt has fallen.

As I discuss in my book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, the Republican Party began as the party of radical reform. In the Big Change Moment of the 1860s, they abolished slavery, passed the three most far reaching progressive constitutional amendments in history outside of the Bill of Rights, made sure the freedoms of the Bill of Rights would be enforced in the states, gave away millions of acres of free land to poor people, started the land grant university system, and passed the nation's first progressive income tax. Although they increasingly became the party of big business in the years afterwards, Teddy Roosevelt brought them back some of their glory by breaking up big corporate trusts, establishing a national parks system, instituting food safety measures for the first time, and establishing other reforms of the progressive era.

Sadly for the country and their party, though, Republicans have become more and more conservative in the years since. Not a single Republican House member supported Social Security, the minimum wage, or most of the other major reforms of the New Deal. Only a few remaining Northern moderates supported civil rights legislation in the 1960s, and most of those were driven out of the party when Goldwaterites and southern segregationists took over the leadership of the Republican Party in that decade.

Now they have sunk to a new low, as Rush Limbaugh has become their virtually undisputed leader. Did you see the adoring reception at the Conservative Political Action Committee Convention? The way attendees listened in rapture to every word of his 80 minute speech? The reception for Limbaugh far, far exceeded GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney or that of Senate Minority Leader McConnell. As I discuss in The Progressive Revolution, Limbaugh's ugly, mocking, racist and sexist rhetoric is eerily similar to the worst right wing demagogues in American history, people who opposed ending slavery and Jim Crow, denying women the right to vote, and attacking immigrants who were not of European descent. Yet no matter how ugly or outrageous his remarks, Republicans rarely do anything to distance themselves from him, and one GOP congressman who did last year was forced to quickly apologize and beg for forgiveness. Now RNC chair Michael Steele made a half-hearted attempt to stand up to him, but he too almost immediately backed down. No matter what Limbaugh says or does, no Republican dares stand up to him because he controls their party.

Now Limbaugh has made himself crystal clear: even in the midst of the terrible economic crisis we are in, he wants the president to fail. No Republican member of Congress has condemned those remarks. That's why groups are joining together to take action and to congratulate Rush on ascending to the Republican Party's heights - by dragging it down to his level. Limbaugh says he hopes President Obama's economic plan fails, and Republican leaders have rushed to agree.

Never mind that the fate of our economy - and Americans who are suffering because of its decline - are at stake. And that siding with Rush means rooting against recovery.

The most telling thing about Limbaugh's speech is how badly he mangled the words of the Constitution. His quote was classic:

We [conservatives] love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom, and the Pursuit of happiness. Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We Conservatives think all three are under assault.

Yeah, you revere those documents so much you don't know which sentence is in what document. And you don't know that equality was at the cornerstone of Jefferson's Declaration. I guess that's not a surprise: conservatives throughout history have always wanted to ignore that inconvenient idea in the Declaration that was at the heart of the American idea.

Right now, it's good to be Rush. Let's let him know we're happy for him by sending a congratulations card from Americans United for Change by clicking here.

Thomas Frank: Conservatives and Their Pity Parties

2009-03-04T15:15:10Z

Just as the financial crisis has created toxic assets and "zombie" financial institutions, so has it transformed conservatism into a movement of the living dead. Its partisans cling to a now-toxic portfolio of discredited notions, rhetoric, gestures and strategies. They lumber comically on, their only goal being to obstruct efforts to save the economy from catastrophe.

These days the zombie right is rallying around CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who won fame last month when he railed against a rescue of the economy's "losers."

Mr. Santelli claimed he was backed in his outrage by "the silent majority" -- meaning a floor full of traders at the Chicago Board of Trade -- and he called for a "Chicago tea party" to protest the administration's mortgage plan.

Next thing you knew, there were "tea parties" all over the land. When I showed up for one last Friday in Washington's Lafayette Park, however, my suspicions were immediately raised. A fellow in an expensive-looking pinstriped suit came hustling into the gathering knot of the discontented, handing out pink pig balloons. This had to be a put-on, I thought, one of the "Billionaires for Bush" pranksters in his capitalist costume, preparing to lead us in a chant of "Four More Wars."

But no, this was for real: the pigs symbolized "pork," the stuff of which President Barack Obama's stimulus package was supposedly made. Suits were common among the protesters. And the slogans on the signs made their undead politics impossible to misinterpret: "Liberalism Socialism Communism," read a typical one, "What's the Difference?"

Lending proletarian authenticity to the proceedings was the famous Joe the Plumber, who took up the bullhorn to deliver a dose of working-class cynicism that would have been convincing in, say, 1978. "Our politicians up on the hill, Republicans or Democrats, don't give a rip about you, and that's the bottom line right there," Joe Wurzelbacher declared.

Banks are insolvent, asset prices are falling, GDP has taken a nose dive, but what exercised this bunch was the possibility that government -- understood as a force of pure evil -- might get too big.

"America wants people who are gonna come to D.C. and say no," exhorted Andrew Langer of the Institute for Liberty. "No more taxes! No more spending! No more expansion of government!" Another speaker insisted that deregulation was not at fault for our troubles, and that the free market had never really been tried.

As the event wore on, the speakers began to repeat, zombie-like, some version of the famous line from "Network," the 1976 movie, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore."

I got out of there quick. This was no place to find the changed, chastened conservatism that all the pundits are looking for.

But at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which was going on in the swank Omni Shoreham hotel on that same day, what I found was merely a smoother version of the same grumbling.

Capitalist self-pity was much in vogue. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, looking tanned and groomed and yet strangely mechanical, joked that he needed to get through his speech "before federal officials come here to arrest me for practicing capitalism."

Jim Gilmore, a former governor of Virginia, moaned that the "philosophy" one encountered in the land these days was that "people who succeed and have wealth are bad people, and they're entitled to be discriminated against in the tax code."

Perhaps this was because the current economic crisis was being "overblown," as claimed Lew Uhler, who heads the National Tax Limitation Committee. The administration was trying "to create as much trouble for all of us as possible, and we're here to create trouble back, back, back!"

A little while later, Mr. Uhler lapsed into the same confused zombie cry as the tea partiers across town: "We're not going to stand around and take it anymore! We're mad as hell and we're not taking it!"

They're not going to take it anymore? I guess it's supposed to be obvious that conservatives are history's real victims -- that their imagined suffering at the hands of that Big Deficit to Come trumps the global systemic economic crisis and all the upheaval it may unleash.

Or is it that the mind of the right is running on some spooky kind of autopilot? "Silent majority," "Mad as hell": These are the sayings of the 1970s. Remembering them brings back all the false populisms to flicker across the screen since then, all the stale illusions that brought us to our present disaster -- all the fake cowboys, the folksy radio talkers, the regular-guy billionaires, the middle American tax rebels, the salt-of-the-earth bankers.

There is much to dislike about President Obama's approach to the financial crisis. But opposition, it seems, will have to come from somewhere other than conservatism. The party out of power is also a party out of touch.

Thomas Frank's column, The Tilting Yard, appears every Wednesday at OpinionJournal.com

Also in Opinion Journal:
Evan Bayh: Deficits and Fiscal Credibility

Robert J. Barro: What Are the Odds of a Depression?

Karl Frisch: With Talent on Loan from Rush

2009-03-04T15:06:30Z

In 1994 when Republicans regained power in the House of Representatives after 40 years of Democratic control, the freshly minted majority knew just who to thank: radio host Rush Limbaugh. With great fanfare they bestowed upon their spokesman the unique title of honorary member of Congress.

Fifteen years later, with Republicans on the ropes following major losses in back-to-back elections, Congressman Limbaugh remains the conservative movement's de facto leader, and he's wasted little time embarking on a mission to take President Obama down and bring the right back to life.

The day before closing the annual Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend in Washington, D.C., with a barn-burning call for obstinance and obstruction, Limbaugh told his radio audience -- "ditto heads" as they refer to themselves -- "the dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it."

It wasn't the first time Limbaugh had declared his hope that the president would fail. Just days before Obama's inauguration, the conservative talker ignited controversy when he matter-of-factly said of the soon-to-be-president, "I hope he fails."

The "ditto heads" in Congress were listening.

Marching in lockstep with Limbaugh, not a single House Republican voted in favor of the president's economic recovery and reinvestment plan despite numerous overtures from a White House avowedly committed to the search for common ground. Congressional Republicans went all in, betting on Obama's failure.

To be fair, not all conservatives have been happy with Limbaugh's line of attack. Some have even spoken out noting their displeasure. Congressman Phil Gingrey, a Georgia Republican, reportedly said, "I mean, it's easy if you're ... Rush Limbaugh ... to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party."

Hold your applause. It took less than one day for Gingrey to reverse course.

Appearing the next day with his tail between his legs on Limbaugh's radio program, Gingrey apologized, saying, "I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday. ... I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments."

Not to be outdone, the other night on CNN's D.L. Hughley Breaks the News, Michael Steele, the new Republican National Committee chairman, offered his own unpleasant assessment of Limbaugh, telling Hughley, "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."

Perhaps the ugliness to which Steele referred was Limbaugh saying of Obama, "We are being told ... that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." Or maybe it was after Obama's historic Democratic Party presidential nomination when Limbaugh said it "goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." It could have been back in the 1990s, when Limbaugh reportedly played "Movin' On Up" -- the theme song from TV's The Jeffersons -- while discussing Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, the only African-American woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate.

It shouldn't have been surprising that Steele, the first African-American chairman of the Republican Party, would seemingly harbor such ill will toward Limbaugh.

True to form, however, the very next day Steele appeared on bended knee ready to kiss Limbaugh's ring, telling Politico, "I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. ... I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

Several recent polls have showed Obama substantially more popular than congressional Republicans. Who on Earth would want to "diminish" Limbaugh's influence when it's paying such tremendous dividends for the right?

I kid, but seriously, it's beginning to look like conservatives are hopelessly addicted to Limbaugh.

At a briefing this week, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs advised those in attendance to "ask individual Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said. Do they want the president's economic agenda to fail?"

Should the press choose to take Gibbs' advice, it would behoove them to take note not only of what conservatives say, but what they do as well. After all, if they stand up against Limbaugh it will only be a matter of time before they end up groveling for forgiveness.

Limbaugh often proclaims that he's broadcasting "with talent on loan from God." It seems more and more that conservatives are attempting to find their way out of the political wilderness with talent on loan from Rush.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

This column also appeared in the Orlando Sentinel.

Anger At Media Over Palin Permeates CPAC

2009-03-04T10:24:16Z

The crowd of about 100 people sits in the dark, hushed, mouths agape, as Gov. Sarah Palin watches clip after clip of 2008 presidential campaign coverage. She peers at a laptop and watches Saturday Night Live star Tina Fey, as "Sarah Palin," answer a question about moral values.

"I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers," says Fey. Briefly, we see the hosts of The View, laughing along with the skit.

Ari Melber: Michael Steele's Heavy Handed Hip Hop

2009-03-04T08:12:46Z

"Are there any conservatives in the house?" thundered Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican Party. He was getting funky, to use the GOP's new vernacular, as he scanned the hotel ballroom for young conservatives: "Young people in the house, stand up!"

Turning to serious matters, Steele urged his allies to acknowledge their party's mistakes, while salting the message with millennial slang. "Tell America: 'We know the past, we know we did wrong--my bad.' " Escalating the banter, master of ceremonies Michele Bachmann, a 52-year-old Minnesota Congresswoman most famous for suggesting an investigation of Barack Obama's "anti-American views," took the mic from Steele and proclaimed, "You be da man!" Twice.

Who needs SNL when you have CPAC?

This cultural flailing might seem like little more than fodder for the late-night shows, but it also reinforces the demographic conundrum facing Republicans. And no, I'm not just talking about race.

Steele is the first African-American chairman of the GOP, a striking development that remains forever overshadowed by its catalyst, the election of President Obama. Leading a party pales next to leading the country, of course, but even if Steele had a bigger job, there are no silver medals for breaking barriers. You don't remember Larry Doby, do you?

So Steele soldiers on, sans street cred, in pursuit of those voters Obama won so convincingly. (More on who they are in a minute.) The strategy, Steele told the Washington Times, is a "hip-hop makeover" for Republicans. And he meant it.

In the past few weeks, Steele has reached out to the President via rap lyrics; advocated conservative principles in a television debate with Chuck D., star of the politically charged hip-hop group Public Enemy and, in a sign that Steele may be on to something, provoked a challenge for a freestyle rap battle from Stephen Colbert. Yes, Proposition Eight can finally meet Eight Mile. Now who exactly is this all for?

The media coverage has focused, predictably, on black voters. A Sunday article in the Boston Globe asked whether Steele can "lure minorities" to the GOP, while pundits have scoffed at the idea the Republicans would out-organize Barack Obama in black communities. Yet Steele is not just targeting black voters--the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc long before hope was trendy. He is focused on young voters, who flocked to Obama in the largest demographic shift of the 2008 election. The new chairman has said so directly, too: "Where we have fallen down in delivering a message is in having something to say, particularly to young people." And he is right--about the problem, anyway.

In 2004, John Kerry won voters under 30 by nine points, and lost every other age group.

Last year, Obama won those young voters by a staggering 34 points. (And he lost voters over 45).

If Obama can hold those voters' support, and keep them backing Democrats in Congress, the Republicans really would have no national future.

Young voters back Obama's policies, sure, but many also appreciate his youthful style and new-school "brand." For this generation, by default, hip-hop is the shared cultural experience. (See the top albums of the last decade, for example.)

Obama's comfort with that culture, and endorsements from its leaders, has earned him generational credibility. When Obama channeled Jay-Z on the campaign trail to brush the "dirt" of petty attacks off his shoulders, young people knew exactly what he meant. Older television pundits did not get the reference. Some even conceded their confusion while blasting the gesture as "contemptuous," (as the Washington Post reported at the time). Obama invoked hip-hop deftly and accurately. He played on the theme that being tough does not mean you respond to every attack. Just as Jay-Z confidently brushes away his enemies, and hip-hop culture scolds the "haters" who pillory successful people, Obama signaled that his political approach--transcending trench warfare and pessimistic snark--was cool, current and strong.

Now contrast that to Steele's gimmicky foray into dusty LPs. Here is his debut in the New York Times after assuming the chairmanship: " 'It's going to be an honor to spar with [Obama],' he said, before throwing down the gauntlet to Mr. Obama with a quotation from... a rap song by Kool Moe Dee: 'How ya like me now?' "

First of all, what is he talking about? How does the president like a former lieutenant governor now that he's become chairman of the opposition party? It doesn't even make sense. Second, the album is twenty-two years old, so this reference does not exactly resonate with young people.

The spectacle got more awkward when Steele offered Bobby Jindal some "slum love" for doing a "friggin' awesome job" as governor of Louisiana, in an ABC radio interview. As the Wonkette blog pointed out, this mess of a shoutout was actually coaxed out of Steele, based on his proclivity for questionable slang. All this heavy-handed hip-hop may make him "da man" for fellow travelers like Rep. Bachman. To young people, Steele just looks like he's fronting.

In the end, however, this is all still a welcome trend. For decades, our national politics were fueled by a supposed cultural backlash from older whites--from Willie Horton and the White Hands to the Pledge of Allegiance and the Confederate Flag--which Republicans exploited and relayed through a range of cultural tropes. Democrats used to nervously compete on this turf. Just last year, in fact, an old-school consultant flanked by the battle flag was chiding Obama to drop the urban "elitism" and get rural.

Now the turntables have turned, as the GOP chairman might say. It is Republicans who are frantically remixing their message for cultural appeal, targeting a new generation of voters who speak a different language. And the Democrats, led by Obama, have found their rhythm.

--
This column originally ran in The Nation.

COMMENTS UPDATE: An interesting take from HuffPo commenter hsm121:

I think that the whole thing is a joke. Part of the reason 0bama connects well is that he treats even the young people like intelligent adults and he doesn't try to bullsh*t us. The JayZ thing fit into what he was saying and it was low-key, not in-your-face. I'm one of those young people and watching Steele these past few weeks has just been cringe-inducing. Bling-bling? Slum-love? Etc? It's not his natural manner and it's not cool, it's embarrassing. It actually, to me, makes them look more out of touch than anything. Not only do they have a message problem, they have a messaging problem. It makes them look foolish. It's obviously fake. And young people, regardless of what some people think, are not instantly going to switch parties just because some leader says bling-bling and hip-hop or because some congressional reps are using twitter. Underestimating people and reducing them down to their simplest terms seems to be par for course for the Republicans.

Jack Myers: Radio Stations and Advertisers Consider Withdrawing Support for Rush Limbaugh

2009-03-03T18:33:06Z

Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric has crossed the line between free speech and a political campaign. It's appropriate and necessary for media to give voice to political opposition, but it is inappropriate when on-air media talent becomes the voice for a political opposition party. Limbaugh's lengthy Castro-like speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was his coming out party for a run for president of the United States and as he emerges as the new leader and voice of the Republican Party, radio stations and advertisers have an obligation to reconsider their support.

It is essential to question whether Limbaugh should continue to have access to the public airwaves and whether advertisers should continue to support him. The support of advertisers could be easily perceived as a statement of political support for Limbaugh's policies. Advertisers and radio stations that support Limbaugh could -- and perhaps should -- be interpreted as providing explicit support for the far right wing of conservative politics. Giving a political party control over the press is a dangerous precedent, and a Sustainable Free Press requires that the people believe that media takes responsibility for the content it delivers. An editorial voice is far different than a politician's control over the press, which throughout history has been the first step toward dictatorship.

Limbaugh's only real job is to appeal to a very small but loyal audience and deliver them each day to his radio program. His only professional need is to generate larger audiences than other radio show hosts and in that context he is no different than a snake charmer or tattoo lady on the carnival midway. But we should not ignore Rush Limbaugh's oratory. He has taken over the political leadership of the far right wing activist group in our country -- a group who appear to believe the last eight years were the best in our nation's history and a group who may count among them advocates for violent anti-government actions. Limbaugh, in his (CPAC) speech, explained why he believes it's acceptable to hope for the President of the United States to fail. He essentially has called for the overthrow of the current government, saying "it is time to take back our nation." Politicians are subject to being voted in or out of office. Those who find Limbaugh's political calls as the leader of the "take back the nation" campaign to be inappropriate for a radio host have a more immediate option: to withdraw support.

This is a dangerous time for the American radio industry. Advertising revenues are drying up. While leading Republican industrialists are among those who support Limbaugh's calls for action by the wealthy few against the government, many of these same leaders are dependent upon the Obama Recovery Plan to bail them out of the mess they have put themselves and the nation in. Media companies are dependent upon a national economic recovery. Media owners must think long and hard about their role in society and the messages they want to communicate about their support for Limbaugh and what many consider to be his politics of hate. Limbaugh is using his bully pulpit to launch a presidential campaign that radio stations and advertisers are explicitly enabling. If the proposed boycotts against Limbaugh's advertisers and stations gain any momentum, it will be just one more challenge for an already challenged industry.

The media industry and marketers should consider getting out ahead of the Limbaugh backlash. Radio station owners and advertisers should consider their own role in our nation today. They should not censor content. But they need to acknowledge Limbaugh's new role as a politician and set profits aside to protect the fundamental separation of a free and independent press from political control over content.

Boycotts are rarely successful and several other times over the past few years various media outlets and writers have called for a boycott of Limbaugh's advertisers. Previous advertisers have been listed at (www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/121022/830) and organizations are now readying updated lists with such advertisers as GoToMyPC. These boycotts are also calling on those who oppose Limbaugh to reject those radio stations that carry his syndicated program. Boycotting Limbaugh's program itself is a useless exercise, but there has been a call to boycott other programming on the stations that carry his program, sending a strong message that stations cannot simply accept anti-government rhetoric without paying a price. Limbaugh publishes his station list at www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/rush.guest.all.html.

To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, link to the JackMyers Connection Hotline.

This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com.

Monday's Late Night Round-Up: CPAC, Michael Steele, And The Poor Weatherman

2009-03-03T12:21:18Z

Jon Stewart followed the goings on at CPAC last night, while Jimmy Kimmel took a look at how weathermen suffer in the winter.

On Jimmy Fallon's first night on air he went after Microsoft saying:

"Despite the recession Microsoft is planning to open stores to compete with Apple. Microsoft said they'll be just like the Apple stores except the staff will freeze when you ask them a question."

WATCH:

James Moore: I Hope Rush Succeeds

2009-03-03T11:31:56Z

Never envisioned myself writing a sentence like this but I hope Rush Limbaugh succeeds. Yep, I hope he spreads his vile as far and wide as he possibly can through his EIB (Extremely Ignorant Broadcast) network. Through his outreach, even more Americans will come to know the absurdity of Limbaugh's politics and the conservatives he continues to represent on the radical right. The more people that hear Limbaugh articulate his disdain for the success of America the better will be the country's chances of rejecting his hateful ideology and getting back on the path to prosperity.

As one-sided as that paragraph sounds, I think it's time to start using some of the same tools that people like entertainer Limbaugh deploy to make their points; except I'm going to avoid hypocrisy and oxycontin since every second grader knows those two combined are bad for both the soul and the body. But what if the president who just left the White House (I'm through writing his name) were to propose a financial solution for solving the financial crisis and then Keith Olbermann went on the air and said, "Mr. President, I hope you fail." Everyone knows what would happen: conservatives of all ilk and Republicans would be screaming "treason" and the FOX Ruse headlines would be, "Democrats Don't Want America to Come out of Economic Crisis." Steve Dorky on their morning show would be asking over and over, "How can we let people say this? I mean, I realize we are a free country and everything but isn't there a line that's being crossed here? Don't we all want America to succeed?"

That's what I used to think. But Rush apparently wants us to fail, go right down the old crapper. He never said anything even remotely close to this when the previous president (so tired of having to even think about that guy) gave blank checks to Wall Street to save the big financial institutions from collapse. That was different. That guy was a Republican. He had the interests of the nation at heart, (and probably the interests of Rush's investment portfolio.) But the new president it seems is a socialist, even though he's doing pretty much what the previous president was doing; except he's including individual taxpayers and homeowners in the recovery package. Is that what makes it all socialist, Rush, just including the little guy?

Man, I hope you succeed. And I hope your angry voice and cigar-smoking mug become the profile and the sound of the Republican Party for the next four years. Whenever anyone thinks about the GOP I hope they can't help but see your round puss with a long Montecristo Cuban sticking out of it as you stand at the tee box on your private golf course or board your private jet or waltz around the grounds of your mansion in West Palm and they realize you are the ideologue that guides conservative thinking. And every solitary time there is a person who wonders what the GOP might do differently or better, I hope all that individual hears in their ears is the sound, "I hope the president fails."

The problem with guys like you Rush is that you never think anyone can see through your contradictions and your hypocrisy. When the little taxpayers' money was being used for the Wall Street bailout by the last president, there wasn't much of a protest over there on Easy Street where you live. We had to protect the economy. But as soon as the assistance started to include the little guy, you were outraged. I say stay angry, pal. Keep the outrage working. Moan and whine and wish ill on the president and his attempts to get our country out of a nosedive. Tell everyone you can what you think and why you want him to fail. The ragtag band of Republicans that the previous president (oh crap, I have to think about him for a last sentence) bequeathed the conservative movement needs a leader. You're perfect. Angry. Rich. And loud. You can steer that party anywhere you want.

And, at the moment, I'd say you're leading them further into the wilderness. Here's hoping they all recognize your leadership skills and follow wherever you may go.

Also at http://www.moorethink.com

Robert J. Elisberg: Republicans Decide at CPAC to Run on Empty

2009-03-03T10:49:04Z

I don't begin to have a clue what the Republicans are doing. If it's any solace, apparently neither do they.

Conservatives are not merely the Republican "base," they've become the party. So, when CPAC met for the big conservative gathering last week, it was significant. It was to show America the foundation from which the Republican Party will attempt to rebuild itself, after getting crushed in the last two national elections, and losing the White House.

It turns out that the foundation is papier-mâché.

With the nation's economy in freefall and two wars being fought, how did the conservatives at CPAC make their case for having substance and depth?

Their keynote speaker was a radio host. "Joe the Plumber" headed a panel. And they had a 13-year-old child deliver a policy address.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the new face of the Republican Party. Who the GOP hopes to convince America will lead the nation out of its George Bush-created collapse.

Honest.

Mind you, I understand that Rush Limbaugh is popular with his broadcast audience. But, geez, folks, so is Keith Olbermann. Just imagine if a floundering Democratic Party brought in Randi Rhodes to lead them. But it's worse than that. Rush Limbaugh's fire-breathing bombast is what helped Republicans lose their last two national elections! Why in heaven's name would a political party still want to listen to his advice??? It's like a favorite bus driver taking you over the cliff, and then asking him to drive you out after the crash bursts into flames. Forget directions, the bus is destroyed.

Rush Limbaugh hates everything President Barack Obama stands for. We get it. Fine. But it's Republicans following that very hatred that helped get Barack Obama to be president!! And Republicans now make the conscious choice to have Mr. Limbaugh be their CPAC voice, their keynote, their standard bearer?? This is the political equivalent of pinning a "Kick me" sign on your own butt.

Yet even that doesn't explain having Joe Wurzelbacher at CPAC. "Joe the Plumber" shouldn't have been anywhere near the convention - unless it was to fix leaking toilets. And even then it would be a bad idea, since he isn't licensed. From every public word he has spoken since elbowing into our accidental public consciousness, there is nothing about "Joe the Plumber" that is not pitiful and buffoonish - including that he's known to his admirers as "Joe the Plumber." America is facing its worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. You don't bring in clowns to lead policy. That conservatives think it's a good thing to be associated with Joe Wurzelbacher about anything speaks volumes about their grasping emptiness.

The only thing that might speak louder is having 13-year-old Jonathan Krohn address the convention. Mind you, they didn't invite this preadolescent to preen adorably about the future when he's all grown up - he was there to lecture on party strategy! "Conservative Victories Across the Nation." Who cares that three years ago he was named "Atlanta's Most Talented Child"? The operative word in that title is "Child."

(By the way, know how he got that exciting "title"? He was dubbed it by Deborah Norville on TV's "Inside Edition." No, honest.)

Now, young master Krohn might be extremely bright for a 13-year-old kid. But the point is, if you're trying to convince America that your party's discredited philosophy should be given another chance, is that really what you want to put forward? This is a time when Republicans should be listening to party leaders with the historical stature of Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, even Ronald Reagan. Not any 13-year-old kid. The problem is that there aren't Republican leaders like that these days. So, the GOP is stuck with Rush Limbaugh, "Joe the Plumber" and a 13-year-old.

"We have to return to conservative values" is what these crack experts keep insisting. Sorry, but if Republicans couldn't handle the concept of being themselves for the past eight years they were in power, why should anyone think that six weeks out of power would make a difference? But far more to the point -- conservative values are cutting taxes and individual liberties without government control. That is how Republicans have been acting for the past eight years. There's nothing to "return" to. And...these conservative values are precisely what has gotten us into the mess we're in. I can understand a 13-year-old not grasping that, or "Joe the Plumber," but these other leading Republican voices know. And you know they know.

They know that conservative values have failed America. That's why at CPAC, Rush Limbaugh once more explained how he hopes the President of the United States fails. It's the only flop trick he has left.

Just imagine if a Democrat said this about any president.

But the thing is, in the end, as much as Rush Limbaugh and Republicans think it's a winning strategy to copy how Democrats ran against George Bush, it shows the mindless futility of their papier-mâché GOP foundation.

George Bush had a 23-percent approval rating. Barack Obama is at 67-percent. George Bush was tarnished with the Iraq War, collapsing economy, Hurricane Katrina, failing education, global warming, and so much more. Barack Obama was just elected in an Electoral landslide.

Yet Republicans want to keep running against the man they just lost to. Want to return to the values they never left which got them voted out of office. And want to push forth as their public faces of leadership a radio host, "Joe the Plumber" and a 13-year-old child.

It's pathetic. But then, it's that attitude when in power which got us in this mess in the first place.