You're giving Rush too much credit. The Republican party was imploding without him.

Anyway Rush would probably love a Democratic Prez to pound on for the next 4 years.

Rush could possibly become a billionaire if Hillary wins the White House.

Finally, the left wing realizes that these rightwing conservative talk show hosts are nothing but blustering, self-absorbed entertainers whose power and influence has been vastly overstated and overrated for years.  Their so-called loyal minions who supposedly do as they are told is a myth, they may be a very vocal constituency, but it hardly translates to the voting booth.  

The conservatives had their chance with Sam Brownback, and Fred Thompson and each barely registered a blip anywhere.  So the Limbaughs and the rest may have been living in some fantasyland concering the power they have, and now they are just irritated that it was obviously negligible.  Too bad. 

We knew they were unhinged loonies, we just realized they've been the mouthpiece of the GOP all these years. Hopefully the GOP will finally denounce them and stop inviting them to their conventions.

It's really sad though that in the GOP, history keeps repeating itself. They let McCarthy run free until he started targeting the GOP, then they realized he was unhinged. And here we are again...

Snoop,

Who cares who they invite to their conventions, or who speaks to what group.  These inside the beltway stuffed shirts have their little parties or whatever, and schmooze with whomever they want too, primarily for donations and publicity, big deal.

The point is the average voter could care less. 

You may be right about the average conservative, I never considered those bobble heads conservatives. But if you want to know who is still firmly in charge of the GOP look no further than their conventions. Coulter and Limbaugh may very well cause the self destruction of today's GOP, but it won't happen if the true conservatives keep voting in right wingers. When you see these people stop getting invites to the white house or a convention that's when you'll know the conservatives took the GOP back.

Who cares who they invite to their conventions...

But you see, it doesn't stop there.  The right-wing gabbers were invited to the OVAL OFFICE to speak personally to the prez himself.  They were there to personally get the new batch of talking points to help spread the propoganda.

Access to power + access to the airwaves=influence on the public.

And the "propoganda" wasn't worth much, was it?  A lot of good it did.  Show me that it paid off at the ballot box and you may have a point.

Well, the propaganda from the likes of Limbaugh/Malkin/Ingraham/Savage/etc doesn't seem to be affecting this election, but I wouldn't say they have no influence. I think they're being tuned-out now because the American people are so angry with the current state of affairs.

Also, Limbaugh and his ilk trying to sell Mitt Romney as the "real conservative" was never going to work. Mitt was still the former Governor of that arch-liberal state of Massachusetts, and had supported liberal positions most of his life. He was constantly changing positions and personality, so no amount of selling by Limbaugh and others were going to help him. I don't see that as Limbaugh's influence waning. I see it as Mitt being a complete dudd as a candidate.

If Limbaugh truly had no influence, nobody would even care which candidate he supported. Instead, it's big news who he's supporting.

Limbaugh also still has the largest radio audience of any talk show in the country.

Everyone keeps saying they have influence just because they have huge audiences, well so did the Super Bowl, so what?  Unless that influence translates into something other than ratings success, it isn't worth much.  Obviously it's falling on deaf ears, and it has nothing to do with Romney.

As I said, the conservatives had plenty of chance to act on some "influence" with the very strict social conservatives like Brownback or Thompson, and the fact is they didn't do it. 

So the fact of this election is the fact that the moderate Republican the talk show hosts despise, is winning.

Tell me again how much "influence" they have. 

Jeez, Tommy, have you seen your party lately?  Your elected leadership is drowning in far-right neanderthals you can't stand.

McCain is almost the sole exception to a very obvious rule, and that's only because Limbaugh waited for him to nearly win the nomination before teeing off, rather than going in on him immediately after New Hampshire.

(And the rest of us know that McCain has sold out and will be as far-right as he's told to be.)

"So the fact of this election is the fact that the moderate Republican the talk show hosts despise, is winning.

Tell me again how much "influence" they have. "

That's wilfull ignorance. Limbaugh and the noise machine cannot overcome the damage the Bush Republicans have done to the Republican brand name. That's no indication of a lack of influence.

You ask for a direct correlation of talk radio to the ballot box, as if polling data can measure the way the constant repitition of conservative themes affect indidvidual perception. Cognitive science shows that 98% of thought is subconcious and 95% of the population vote according to gut feeling.

Also, these talkers have a broader affect on the general population than just on those who tune in. The people who listen don't live in a bubble, they're out here among us repeating the narratives they hear on the radio and even tv. And due the inter-personal nature of trust, the guy at the water cooler can spread the anti-liberal, pro-corporatist agenda with even greater appeal than Limbaugh himself.

Bush barely won both of his elections.  Given his small margins of victory it's not out of this world to suggest that the support of the hot air brigade may have given him just enough influence to squeak out those victories.  If just half of Rush's audience voted Bush that's enough to account for the votes he needed.

In 2000 he didn't win at all in the popular vote. He only won the electoral vote by means of the Supreme Court stopping Florida from exercising its Constitutional rights in the recounts.

In 2004 he had the worst showing of any president in US history running for re-election during a time of war. And even there are questions in the legitimancy of that electio.

A record amount of people voting in the Democrat primaries (No Conservative base) and a significant amount of voters in the Republican primaries voting against the Conservative orthodoxy should be a red flag or should that be a white flag that the conservative movement is long over and should be dead and buried never to be exhumed. 

 

"Their so-called loyal minions who supposedly do as they are told is a myth, they may be a very vocal constituency, but it hardly translates to the voting booth. "

"And the "propoganda" wasn't worth much, was it?  A lot of good it did.  Show me that it paid off at the ballot box and you may have a point."

Why don't you show us your findings to support such bold statements about myths and worth?

I strongly disagree Tommy. I've listened to this numbskull for the past 20 years and his influence and relevance has only grown with a great deal of credibility afforded him and his ilk by the MSM. I've directly challenged him in calls -- including his tiresome whining about the liberal media.

As a PR exec, let me emphatically state that all "publics" are not equal. There are four basic types of publics (audiences): nascent, passive, active and volatile. publics (audiences). Limpbrain has an active to volatile audience which is most desirable since these are the folks that will "act" on information as opposed to merely processing and considering the information -- which is what nascent and passive publics do.

That's why the new republican congress made him an honorary member when they took control in the mid-nineties. Call him merely "an entertainer" all you want, that's a cop-out.

What's become clear during this electoral cycle is that his influence -- and that of his imitators is in decline. They have alienated all but the most right wing elements of the republican party and clearly insulted moderates and independents. We gave them the rope and their hateful rhetoric successfully kicked the stool out from under these arrogant fools.

"...his influence and relevance has only grown with a great deal of credibility afforded him......."

"What's become clear during this electoral cycle is that his influence - is in decline" 

I am confused as you seem to be saying two things here? I agree with your second statement. 

Happy to clarify. The influence of talk radio and particularly Rush Limbaugh has been great over the past 20 years. However, since they are consistently hateful and irrational, and because sites like MMFA have educated millions of rational people about the hateful things these people actually say, they are now losing influence. That's why they hate this site so much. Previously only  their core audience and a small handful of watchdog groups and individuals incredulously listened to, and reported on, their misinformation and lies. I as objecting to your post that downplayed Limpbrain's historic influence by casting him as "an entertainer." He is indeed a conservative activist and a grass roots organizer.  

What data do you have showing that Rush's lack of influence has anything to do with this website, or anything else for that matter?  Unless you have some backup for that assertion, it is nothing more than your opinion.

You're right . . . it's my opinion based on deductive reasoning. Almost everything here is based on opinion. Some opinions are informed -- others less  so. The fact that Limpbrain and O'Really{?} have found it necessary to respond to the influence of MMFA speaks volumes about their fears of being exposed. Boehlert's analysis is dead on.

And remember, these are Republican voters who have essentially shunned the advice of the conservative talkers, not the general electorate.  And unless you can demonstrate that those Republican primary voters take their cues from leftwing media watchdog websites concerning their feelings about Rush and the others, you are just offering an unsubstantiated opinion.

But remember that Limbaugh is suggesting that these are not true conservatives but moderates and independents that are supporting McCain and Huckabee. So how come his supposed 20 million listeners (it's actually four to five million per day x five) are not supporting his preferred candidates Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani? His influence has waned. And that's a good thing for America and for the GOP.

I would like to suggest,tommy, that your suggestion that McCain's winning means Limbaugh does not have influence does not make sense. Hasn't McCain benefited from the votes of many independents? Isn't that why the far right is so mad? From what I have seen, the Republicans (probably including many Limbaugh listeners) were splitting their votes between anti-evolutionist Huckabee and robo-candidate Romney.

The funny thing, too, is that the right wing talkers all claim Reagan's mantle, but they are much more conservative and militaristic than the moderate and humanistic Reagan ever was.

The fact that Limbaugh is now attacking someone who is in fact the most capable of reassembling the Reagan coalition, even likely attracting the former "Reagan Democrats," reveals that even Ronald Reagan himself was not conservative enough for these folks.

BTW, which GOP candidate is/was most like Reagan? The successful ex-governor and polished speaker (Huckabee); the divorced, optimititic, nationally popular figure who appealed to patriotism and liked to talk tough on national security (Giuliani); or the seventy-something year-old who is willing to work with the other party to get things done, who likes to laugh and tell jokes, who is pro-military, divorced, pro-life, likes movies, etc. (McCain)? As for family man Romney, apart from his wealth, his matinee good looks, and his being an ex-governor, what does he have in common with Reagan?

Interesting comparisons, except for the part that claimed Reagan was a humanistic moderate. He was anythig but. Reagan sent death squads to central America and implemented the doctrine of disaster capitalism, a radical incarnation of market fundamentalism. Other than that, good comparisons.

But even Kennedy sent troops into Cuba.  Compared to the current republicans you could get away with calling Reagan a Humanist and a moderate

I would say the failure of Brownback's and Thompson's campaign had more to do with their vacant personalities than with political beliefs.

 

I give these people far more credit than does this column.

I'm not now nor have I ever been under the impression that these people are stupid or reckless, when it comes to their jobs and careers (which they are fabulously successful in), and when it comes to the political opinions they express in public (which is their job and their career).

They're clever and planned-out and amazingly on the same page so often (as though they were all on the same memo system or something). There's nothing they don't do, that's without a purpose... and sometimes it's better not to go with your first impression in these matters (because it may well be your first impression that's being counted on, and cleverly manipulated), but to pause and wonder about what purpose might be served, by what it is they're doing or saying.

 

It's sort of early to completely understand this thrust, but this much I'm reasonably certain of: It serves some purpose to presently be seen in such a high profile manner, speaking of Mr. McCain as they are, it must.

It might be based on an assumption that Mr. McCain cannot win the election this fall, and maybe it drives voters who might otherwise be "conservative" or leaning Republican, drives them to Sen. Obama... because if they know up-front their candidate can't win in Novemeber, then they'll pull out all the stops, and employ any and every imaginable scheme, to keep Mrs. Clinton from that Office...

Maybe they assume Mrs. Clinton will win the Office, and are already positioning themselves defensively, against what might be a return of the Fairness Doctrine to the FCC's Regulations (that's a remote possibility, but one that I like to imagine, because they fear the Fairness Doctrine that much, and a President could bring it back, by way Executive Order and the FCC, that easily)...

Or maybe they assume it possible that Mr. McCain could win in November, but that right now they have less than satisfactory influence over the man, and over his Policies, and that they are presently EXTORTING influence from the man, by withholding their "conservative" support (and their supposedly many "conservatives" that they imagine they possess as an audience)...

Ever think of that, that maybe they're trying to POLITICALLY MUSCLE Sen. McCain, now that he appears to be getting on November's ballot? ...that they're EXTORTING influence from the man, in exchange for their "conservative" endorsement?

Maybe it is meant to drive some part of the herd to Mr. Obama, I don't know as of yet... like I said, it's still sort of early in the matter, and these guys aren't exactly on my radar screen that much.

 

But again, I know one thing for certain, that these people are not reckless or without purpose in their jobs and careers, evidenced by how successful they are, and continue to be.

It may not be as it appears on first impression.

 

I'm inclined to agree. Limbaugh and Co. have been carrying the GOP water for 15 years...and suddenly they're willing to split the party over "principle?" Seems doubtful, though I'd love to watch them eat their own... nothing would please me more.

I think it's all a sham... but we'll see.

On the other hand, they may be hoping for a Democratic victory.... not for ratings, but because they know that Puddinhead George has created such a huge mess.... and the house of cards is likely to implode during the next President's term. That way, they can blame the whole mess on the Democrats. They are just shameless enough to do that.

I completely agree with you, and I think that's why there aren't any "good" republicans running this year.  They realized that their backs were against the goal line and decided to punt the ball to the Democrats and play defense for the next couple of years.  They can then point fingers and blame the Democrats from the sidelines in the hope of making gains in the 2010 midterms and winning back the White House in 2012.  

Sounds logical. But I don't know if their lust for money and power can be subdued by logic. 

You are right Dem2020, the bllitzkrieg is not without purpose. I'll theorize too.

It could very well be strong arming McCain to fall in line with the corporate conservative mindset in exchange for an endorsement.

There's also the possibility that they are mercilessly beating him in an attempt to garner the sympathy vote fhor him. No doubt they can see how people will rally around the perceived underdog. It's the whipping boy who always gets sympathy from fair minded people and who doesn't regard themselves as fair minded. (How many people have we heard say they support Hillary or Obama because of the unfair treatment they get from the media? ) This also has the bonus effect of re-enforcing his maverick status, his outsider cred.

I don't know the method yet either, but it's too early to dismiss this as mere madness.

 

Yep, agreed as to the part that stirring sympathy in People might play, in criticizing and opposing Mr. McCain the way these players on the stage seem to be doing.

Note: By nearly any sensible and objective measure, rush limbaugh is, nationwide, much more hated and despised and mistrusted, than he is loved or admired or thought sincere. The numbers of People who would express a favorable opinion of the man (which of course includes his listeners) are probably outnumbered by those who despise him (as there are extraordinarly greater numbers of People who don't listen to the guy, than do)... and if you factor in among the non-listeners, those who have merely a dim and vaguely unfavorable view of him (as opposed to the disgust those of us feel who despise him), then their numbers dwarf both camps combined. And this observation about rush, is even more true about ann coulter (as I find it nearly impossible to imagine more than a handful of People nationwide, who have any affection for that creature).

The point is this: That it may well be recognized by those most in the know and most astute in these political matters, that the likes of rush and ann would presently make a terrible drag on Mr. McCain's popularity nationwide, and that perhaps this millstone should be loosened and removed from any appearance of being around his neck...

And placed where?

Around whose neck shall it be fastened?

I think you know the answer, and it makes for just another strange consideration in this farce we see rush and ann partaking in.

And I'd add that it seems peculiar and noteworthy, that my impression of the supposed "support" that these two widely disliked American "media" hacks have publicly expressed for Mrs. Clinton, contained no expression that they would ever vote for her, but merely farcial assertions that they would "campaign" or "fund-raise" for her...

 

Anyway, it's a slick theatrical production for sure, as these players are always on script, and never mispeak their lines, and always follow exactly and purposefully the plot of the play...

...and we just watch and follow along if we like, to see where the actors are going with their story. 

But in any and all cases, we know we're watching actors on the stage, as they act out some farce or other charade, to manipulate their audience in some way...

Perhaps manipulate their sympathies, we shall see.

 

 

I, too, am delighted that Limpbaugh, Rannity, mAnn, et al are being seen by the reicht-wing for what they are and always have been.  And I might even agree with Tommy that "rightwing conservative talk show hosts are nothing but blustering, self-absorbed entertainers whose power and influence has been vastly overstated and overrated for years."  However, be they "entertainers" or whatever, their one unquestioned "contribution" to political and overall society has been the cheapening of the national discourse.  As evidenced by any on-air oppositional point of view's treatment, interruptions, put-downs, and generally rude behavior by the "host" of the program is the norm today.  Holding a conversation in these oral wrestling arenas is as likely as seeing pigs fly.

I would agree with you that these people have coarsened the political discourse, they have no interest in that however.  Their ratings and relevance demand these histrionics, apparently, but the overriding point is their actual influence isn't nearly what they thought it was.  

Tommy, discourse is not the worst of it. The real damage is the poo they throw gets treated like it's news while real issues like this are totally ignored. We should be up in arms demanding an end to this, instead we get to get our knickers in a twist wondering what the next insult of the day is. Limbaugh and co really stuck it to us.

Snoop,

Your anger should be directed at our news organization then, not talk show hosts.  They aren't under any obligation to discuss anything in particular, they can spend three hours on David Schuster if they want too, it's their program.

I know if I want substantive unbiased discussions on serious news topics of the day, the last place I go for that is talk radio.  

 

You both have a point. The Free Press has been absolutely corrupted and castrated. I'm not sure where to place the blame for this... the rise and total dominance of Conservative talk radio certainly is a factor, but is it a cause, or just another symptom of a deeper problem? True investigative journalism is almost nonexistent... otherwise, the lies told leading up to the Iraq invasion would be the lead story on all media outlets. As it is, that story is NOWHERE to be found, except on a few internet blogs and in a handful of books. It's obscene.

Here's another example of the power they still wield. If a liberal pushes to get advertisers to stop supporting them, it's stifling free speech. What is it called when they use their power to get you fired over political/religious differences?

You mean the last thing you go for is RIGHT WING talk radio.  I listen to NPR and Air America a lot, and Thom Hartmann always discusses substantive issues and provides historic context for most of them.  Similarly, NPR doesn't have bloviators or anyone more interested in their ratings than the news and how to present it.  

Talk radio is not the problem, right wing talk radio is the problem.

And to comment on what you said above, I remember back in 98 during the height of "BJ-gate," Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly were very powerful.  I mean, Limbaugh was made an honorary congressman four years earlier! 

So at one time, they did have power and sway over the Republican party.  Maybe not you or Jeter, but they did influence a number of conservatives in the way they now talk about politics and in how they demonize the left.

I never said they didn't have power or influence over the Republican "party", I said their influence over the voting public is obviously nothing like what they thought, or wanted people to believe. As I said, I could care less if they become honorary this, or honorary that, or who invited whom to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, who cares?  It means diddly-squat apparently.

And when the politicians finally catch up to their constituents and realize these talkers' power is way overrated, which should happen any day now, you probably will see far less cozying up to them.  

Sorry, I garnered that "Finally, the left wing realizes that these rightwing conservative talk show hosts are nothing but blustering, self-absorbed entertainers whose power and influence has been vastly overstated and overrated for years"  Meant that you believed that they never had much power, that it was all a "myth." 

I can see your point about the voting public, but that's subjective, and there's no way to know exactly how much influence they did have.  But I will say they all went for Bush, the 2000 election was settled in Florida, and Rush Limbaugh lives in Florida.  Coincidence? probably ;)

Lastly, is the Republican party not a large portion of the voting public?  And what constitutes a large portion? 25%? 40%?  

 

I don't know how subjective it is, considering many of these talk show hosts  are foaming at the mouth over McCain, yet the Republican voters have ignored their whining so far and he is poised to be their nominee.

And I would think that this would thrill liberals anyway.  For many of you have been sighing at all the influence they have over their listeners, and now when it's shown that they obviously don't, why not celebrate that?

I didn't say I wasn't celebrating it, and I'm more talking about in the 90's and the 2000 and 2004 elections than this election.  They're losing out in this election, and they're pissed, because they did have that standing as a bulwark for the Republican party for 15 years or so.  But yes, I agree with you about this election.  Their influence has been wholly diminished.

So at one time, they did have power and sway over the Republican party.  Maybe not you or Jeter, but they did influence a number of conservatives in the way they now talk about politics and in how they demonize the left.

That is the major point of the article that Tommy is trying to skirt around.  Regardless of his influence now, Rush was undeniably a major influence in the Republican revolution and was widely embraced by the Republican establishment, including many current members of Congress.  For that reason, they are tied to him and all that he represents until they specifically denouce him or publicly seperate themselves from him.  They have not, and in some cases have recently defended him and his repulsive statements. 

Read my answer to Dbeden, I never said the party, I said the voting public.

Shouldn't it be directed at both?

One thing I do know, from listening to Rush off and on for 15 years.... the man has ZERO integrity, and consistency means nothing to him. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. He will often talk down to his audience, and occasionally demonstrates just how gullible they really are. Once, on April 1, 1996, he declared that he had decided to support Bill Clinton rather than Bob Dole. I'm sure they carefully screened the calls, but his audience was collectively suicidal over his perceived "betrayal". At the end of the show, he finally fessed up to the joke. Whether he actually intended to reveal the stupidity of his audience is debatable, but I wouldn't put it past him.

I think what happened is Bush exercised such dictatorial like power it wouldn't allow more moderate republicans to exercise their leadership skills and become viable republican contenders for the White house. they ain't got nobody !!!!

I won't argue that Rush and the other right wing media lunatic fringe are as powerful as they pretend to be- they have a large audience by radio standards, but a very small percentage of the American public who gets their info. directly from them.

Their influence is viral, from what I've seen, relying on the true believers who are dedicated listeners, and very motivated in spreadng the misinformation they hear. This is actually more effective than speaking directly to large numbers of people.As these media people have come under closer scrutiny, they've become more careful, and, unfortunately, more talented at getting out the message without actually lying.

The audience hears what the host wants them to hear, and repeats the version they were directed to hear. This is what I come across, people repeating things I've heard implied on Rushlimbaugh's show as fact.

This is as the GOP has wanted it for all of these years, and now they're finding out what their creation looks like from the other side.

Nice Frankenstein analogy above, BTW, I've actually been reminded of the more obscure film Westworld by recent events;The robots are pretty swell when they're working for you, but they're a little creepy when they short-circuit.

I don't think Rush should get credit for tearing the GOP apart. They have torn themselves apart by not sticking to Conservative values.  Maybe if McCain had been more Conservative in his last few years in office, he wouldn't be struggling to get our votes now. If he is the best that the R's have, I have no doubt that he will lose to either Obama or Clinton.

Riiiiight, they're not conservative enough. That is the exact same theme Limbaugh and especially Hannity have been pushing. But honest to Goodness, how much evidence does one need to recognize the truth? People don't want to hear anymore about the divine right of corporations. People are tired of being told to fear gay marriage, tired of being told there is something to win in Iraq. People are tired of hearing blame liberals even though Republicans have been in charge of government for the better part of 26 years. The middle class can no longer afford the fraud that is supply side economics.

The conservative era is coming to an end. It's time for the progressive era of effective government, broad prosperity and mutual responsibility.

Not a single pure conservative in the race gained traction with a purely conservative message. Tancredo was laughed at for his draconian immigration stance, Rudy couldn't get anyone to get scared enough to get behind his tough guy foreign policy. Romney's no taxes for the rich, CEO style government stirred no consideration.

Of the most pre-eminent candidates left, Huckabee and McCain, Huck is an Edwards style economic populist and McCain is at least sane on the border issue.

If the Republican loses it will be because they aren't liberal enough. :)

Wake up already, Dave.

I think that fat blowhard just hasnt come around to the face the fact that his endorsement of Romney and denouncement of McCain meant nothing. His ego is hurt, he'll line up behind McCain eventually like the tool that he is. He just wants to make McCain throw him a bone first so he can try and save a little face.

I listen to Rush almost everyday, but I think I missed the show where he "endorsed" Romney. I completely understand that he bashed McCain for his policies on a couple of issues, but I have yet to hear him endorse anyone.

Hi Dave,

I am not sure he specifically "endorsed" Romney, but his actions certainly sound like an implicit endorsement.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/18/limbaughs_praise_for_romneys_run_heard_loud_and_clear/

In your opinion, which Senators do a good job of sticking to Conservative values?  Who would you choose if you could pick anyone for President?

In your opinion, which Senators do a good job of sticking to Conservative values?  Who would you choose if you could pick anyone for President?

Well Fried,

None of them. There is a weak field of Cons out there. That's what makes this election cycle so hard.

Dave,

I didn't mean for you to limit yourself to the current candidates.  Who would you pick if you could pick anyone (governors, senators, etc.) other than yourself, for President?

OK, if I had to pick....Newt Gingrich

That's a good pick - the guy who served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital. 

And that had Zippo to do with his policies. They were sound.

Yeah Foghorn & Bill Clinton got BJ's in the Oval Office...so using your standards that must mean he was lousy President?

 

Jeter,

I think the difference is that Clinton didn't claim to be a "family values" guy.  Newt, on the other hand, has been kissing up to Dobson et al for a while.  Just my guess....

Wow, his behavior wouldn't suggest he would be a social conservative, but ok, fair enough.

I didn't mean for you to limit yourself to the current candidates.  Who would you pick if you could pick anyone (governors, senators, etc.) other than yourself, for President?

Fried,

I know your question was for Dave but if he were a lot younger I would have picked Sen. John Warner. A real statesman IMO. He is a moderate Conservative but I believe he's more highly respected by most Republicans than John McCain.

I think Warner would be a great choice (sorry didn't see the response) for a more honest debate.

Now didn't he say he'd raise money for Hillary if McCain was the republican choice? And there's this article where a limbaugh associate endorsed romney. I think a bunch of cartoonists believe he made a choice as well.

I'm waiting to see a little RNC self immolation in Wash state. They decided to stop counting votes when John boy was 200 votes ahead of Huckabush. Huckster is complaining, if he does so strenuously enough he could break the state organisation as reports out of the cacuses are that any winner other than John was unacceptable to the state party leadership. So they disinfranchised their own people in their own cacuses.

As far as I know Rush had nothing to do with it, other than the political outlook he's sponsered over the years infecting a lot of conservative voters. You respect swine, you can easily become swine.

"the Republican Noise Machine's collapse, which, naturally, has closely mirrored President Bush's downward spiral. (The same post-Bush tremors are being felt at Fox News; read about their ratings"

The Republican Noise Machine now claims that the decline in Fox News ratings is because they have become too liberal.  Fox no longer speaks for the true conservative.  And according to Rush, Republicans are down in polls because they have become "democrat light".  They aren't flaming crazy right wing enough to compete with true liberals.  That's Ditto-head logic.

One of the reasons it took me so long to understand conservatism was that I kept hearing people talk about "real conservatives", and "true conservatives", and "sincere conservatives", and I kept looking around wondering where they all were. Do they live in a Batcave somewhere, and they only come out in their Batmobiles when the Commissioner sends up a signal? I feel foolish now that I understand they were just talking about mythical creatures like unicorns and Pegasus and leprechauns. I went looking for "sincere conservatives" the way the new kid gets sent on a snipe hunt.

"Look everybody, there's the signal! Put on your capes, the people want some FISCAL DISCIPLINE, and it's up to us, The Incredible True Conservatives, to deliver it. But first we'll have to defeat the evil forces of the liberal bad guys, who will hold us down and tickle us to make us borrow and spend all the money in the world if we don't find a way to stop them. But stop them we will, because we are ... The Incredible True Conservatives." - The ITC, Wednesdays at 8:00 pm, 7:00 Central, on NBC.

That was fantastic.  You had me fighting to keep from laughing out loud at the office.

Yea, let me second that sentiment. You should turn this into a letter to the editor or a column and see if a local newspaper will run it.

From Media Matters:

 "Eric Boehlert calls CPAC 'radical' without relaying to readers he is radical"

In Eric Boehlert's column on Media Matters for America, he writes that talk show hosts "represent the radical CPAC wing of the Republican party".  Radical, by definition, means "favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms".  Mr. Boehlert's reference to CPAC as radical is given without proof, as CPAC supports keep America the way it is, with only a few social changes.  However, it is Mr. Boehlert who, by the definition of the word, is the radical, as he definitely favors drastic political, economic, and social reforms. 

Whatever, dude.

Ann Coulter is a radical authoritarian and an invited speaker at CPAC.

Our country was founded upon liberality. In the last thirty years or so, the radical minority of Republicans have managed to pull our country so far from the common sense ideals of the comon good that your rant is a joke.

So, let me get this straight.  You say that my "rant" is a joke, without showing that it is a joke, and in fact, had Boehlert been a conservative, MM would have taken him to task for it, as their track record proves.  then you say that Coulter is a radical when she her beliefs are much more in line with the voting record of the past 4 congresses than yours are.  She may have been radical in 1999, she's not in 2008, per the laws that are being passed.

While you're at it, please prove that the country was founded on liberality and not to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.  Liberality is not necessarily in line with each of these.

And what you don't get is that you and I are actually on the same page as far as belief structure.  My beef is not with what Boehlert wrote but instead with the fact that it is the kind of thing that someone writing for an organization that is as hyped about the context of words as MMFA is should know better.  It harms credibility to go after conservative writers who use descriptions without proof when MMFA publishes them.

The unfortunate part is that right now, judging by the actions of the government, and the fact that those in government still get majority votes, we are the radicals.

My favorite part of the above article was this:

"Was Coulter being rational ... well, ever"? 

Funny stuff.

For many years the entire phenomenon of Rush Limbaugh and other right wing radio talkers has reminded me of these lyrics from the Jefferson Airplane song Go Ask Alice:

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "Off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said

Feed your head
Feed your head

The Republican Party and its loyal minions out there in radio-listening land have created this ugly, surreal monster and now they have to deal with it. I just hope this current situation signals a return to sanity and a more unified America with the partisans of the extremes marginalized.

Great song.  But actually it's called White Rabbit 

FYI, the title of the song is alternatively listed as either Go Ask Alice or White Rabbit. Don't know why...

What? Are we playing "Who's the biggest Hippie on MMFHRC"?

LOL...far out! Actually I thought the title of the song was White Rabbit but when I looked it up to make sure I had the lyrics correct it came up under the title Go Ask Alice as well. I went with the latter title under the assumption that more (non-hippie) people might recognize the lyrics of the song. Anyway, peace, man...gotta go listen to some Hendrix. ;>)

Dave,

If this site is solely behind HRC, why are they posting articles that purport to slam her biggest obstacle to the Democratic nomination?

Really?  I've never heard it referred to as that.  Got a link?  Wiki doesn't mention that.

 

<hippie as pejorative now?  The same ones that dragged "liberal" through the mud as well I guess>

Try this.

 

http://www.lyricsdomain.com/10/jefferson_airplane/white_rabbit.html

 

Go Ask Alice lyrics:

http://www.lyrics007.com/Jefferson%20Airplane%20Lyrics/Go%20Ask%20Alice%20Lyrics.html

See my comments below. Man, I can't believe how much useless stuff you can learn on Media Matters...  ;>)

Trippy.

 

Thanks to you and marker for the links

What...? <laconically>   ;>)

...and just so my original point was not lost, whenever I tune in to Rush Limbaugh I get the sense of stepping into an alternate reality where up is down and black is white, and which is as menacing as it is surreal...not unlike the lyrics I cited. If I believed that Rush Limbaugh's evil was truly representative of America perhaps I would do drugs.  ;>)

Yes, Limbaugh is a fool, a jackass, and a liar...

But we shouldn't forget the power this cretin has.  Even if it's power misused, the corporations will not give it up easily--and allow liberals an even playing field on talk radio.

The fact that he has a microphone, and can lie and smear at will, is very powerful. 

I think I've figured it out. Go Ask Alice was a book about a girl on drugs that took its title from the lyrics of the Jefferson Airplane song, White Rabbit. Some people incorrectly thought the song derived from the book and referred to the song as Go Ask Alice. It was the other way around, however, as the book was written after the song. But the song is sometimes still referred to as Go Ask Alice. Do a search for the lyrics to Go Ask Alice and the song comes up. I didn't know all this sheit until now. I always thought it was White Rabbit, too. Great song, anyway. Peace, my brother...

Rush's biggest legacy may be his driving away considerate, intelligent, republicans from the party he claims to want to help.

Sorry Rush, not that many wackos to make up a movement.

Yeah, the Republican party has gone over the cliff...

Maybe with this next election we can put them so far out in the wilderness they'll need GPS to find their way out.

The fact that this man has the clout that he does is a great embarrassment to the United States of America.

Oh but unfortunately you are dead wrong.  53 percent of the population in this country put GWB in office in 2004!  Lest we forget---the British newspaper stated on election day 2004---"HOW CAN 53 PERCENT OF AMERICANS BE SO DUMB." And look at what we have today---the biggest mess this country has ever seen.  Let Limbaugh, Hannity, etal keep on raving as this time, they are FINALLY out of steam.  "What goes around--does indeed---come around".