My Storify mini-rant on what happens if Donald Trump wins the nomination.
Do not fall in love with politicians. They will only break your heart.Read More »
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with EPU and everyone else that the Democrats picking Rush as their current target for destruction now that Dubya is back in Crawford for good “can’t possibly end well” for them. I personally think it can, and that actually, if things continue the way they’re going, we’re going to find ourselves talking about how to mitigate the damage somewhere down the line.
The main disadvantage of being a politics junkie interacting so often with other politics junkies is that you tend to forget that you’re far from the typical voter.
It’s not so much what Rush says, or the fact that he’s what the media and their menagerie of tame “Republicans” like David Brooks consider “controversial.” To me, those are all positives, especially when you add the fact that, unlike Bush, he bites back.
But ultimately the issue here is tactics and strategy. Rush hitting back, daring Barack Obama to debate him, taking Michael Steele to the woodshed, defending his “failure” comments, etc. is all well and good. Except that he’s doing it only on his show. Which, I suspect, is exactly what Rahm Emanuel and the rest of his crew were counting on.
It’s a matter or simple electoral math and applying what we all know about the general American electorate.
Let’s be clear here; Emanuel and Co. are not afraid or particularly concerned about Rush’s 22 million listeners. They’ve written them off as unwinnable and have factored that into their calculations. Which leads us to real targets of the anti-Rush campaign; the mushy middle – election deciders – who don’t listen to talk radio, and who get their news from the three networks and by skimming the headlines at the check-out counter – their numbers are much much higher.
And what these people are seeing now on their television screens are a parade of Democrats and neutered 5th Column “Republicans” shaking their heads and tsking at Rush’s comments, and anchors/hosts accepting from the onset that Limbaugh is hateful, angry, extreme, and hoping for the nation to collapse for political gain. And that by extension, so is the Republican Party he’s associated with.
For us to assume that this would redound to our advantage means that we’re expecting Independents – the unfortunately abysmally ignorant who unfortunately decide elections – to actually take the time to tune in to listen for themselves when we know, through bitter experience over the last eight years, that this is the last segment of the electorate that will actively go out of its way to seek knowledge beyond what is fed to them by the DNC’s agents in the Press Corps. So why are we expecting any different now?
So this is my advice to Rush; don’t just preach to the choir. Get out from behind the Golden Microphone.
To be more specific; on your show over the next few days call up the producers of the various Sunday Morning Talk Shows on the Big Three, CNN, CNBC and MSNBC, live on air, and offer to come unto their shows to debate anyone they want, or whoever the White House sends up. Right now, you’re the big story – they’re talking about you all the time. So they can’t legitimately say you’re not a prime time “get.“
Like I said, Emanuel and Co. are not bothered much by Limbaugh’s radio show and his 22 million listeners – they consider talk radio and the people who tune in to be “fringe.” But Limbaugh appearing on what they consider “respectable” (meaning liberal) media, unfiltered? Where the uncommitted get the bulk of their news?
That’ll keep them up at night.
Dubya allowed himself to be destroyed by his refusal to engage his opponents and use his bully pulpit to set the record straight. And through sheer relentless unchallenged repetition in the Press, the Democrats and their 4th Estate allies were able to sell “Bush Lied” and other damaging stories to the American people. Now they’re trying to do the same thing to Rush Limbaugh.
And they can succeed despite Limbaugh’s lack of a similar reticence to fight back. Because, ultimately, there is no difference between silence and speaking where no one can hear you – and as far as I’m concerned, preaching to the choir falls neatly under the second category.