![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-x7_mwi5EYyZJxpzNqsvkYATDseYTHIovP09YKrIctspB17DY_5s2AeackCCaZqX14NV-rcs5S81-anUoEkQcrbMqc9hATVpw0uU3hH1tyIbe0iq0Jfe5iTwGlJaoODZXAOt_Kg/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
Go Ahead, I Dare You
Having said that (and you knew this was coming, right?), I feel Democrats and the Obama administration are making a HUGE mistake by engaging and mocking Rush.
Apparently, some level-headed Democrats feel the same way.
From NewsBusters via Malkin:
Susan Estrich is worried. Very worried. She believes that the current coordinated Democrat strategy of attacking Rush Limbaugh is completely counterproductive. And she's right:He talks for hours every day. He gets paid to talk. Just talk. Doing it well is no small thing; witness the number of people who have tried to be him, or be the NOT-him, and failed. But he doesn't have to build a coalition. He doesn't need the votes of the other side to earn his check. He doesn't have to write the legislation, convince Olympia Snowe, raise money to keep the lights on, put his name on the ballot. All the things he doesn't have to do give him the freedom to be as effective as he is at what he does.
Trying to beat him at his own game when your own game is played by a different set of rules is a losing proposition. He knows that.
Estrich, whom I generally respect despite ideological differences, makes other good points in her piece. One thing she didn't mention that many Democrats and the White House are underestimating is one simple, basic but important thing (already alluded to):
Rush Limbaugh, like him or not, is an extremely smart and savvy man who has used his smarts and instincts to make himself the most popular radio host in the country. If you underestimate this, well....go right ahead. But consider this a fair warning.
Lampoon Limbaugh and his listeners at your own risk. Limbaugh has nothing to lose. I can picture Limbaugh right now doing his best Robert Conrad and daring the White House to keep it up. The opposite is most definitely true for the other side.
Labels: Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh
posted by Robert at 2:06 PM
8 Comments:
Estrich also says:
"That is not to say Rush should go unchallenged or unanswered. The blogoshpere is full of smart, savvy, creative progressive voices, who can and should engage Rush."
Portraying Rush Limbaugh as the guiding force behind today's "fundamental conservative" movement is golden.
He is, after all, the man George W. Bush invited to the White House on his birthday, fed him chocolate cake and sang Happy Birthday to him, something every Republican needs to explain when they brush him off as nothing but an entertainer and a guy having some fun.
I'll take that dare any time.
.
Of course Rush shouldn't be expected to go uncontested. That's pretty much been the case ever since he went to syndication. Of course, ask Air America how well they've been doing against him.
Republicans don't brush off Rush as "nothing but an entertainer". He takes his job very seriously. Please. Don't speak for Republicans.
Whether you like his style or not, it's hard to deny that he speaks for most Republicans with his unwavering belief in conservative values. But he's NOT a politician. Obama is, and the president would be wise to not engage Rush too much for all the reasons already stated. Maybe Team O needs to distract us away from their problems - our problems. I don't know.
From a marketers point of view, pros and cons of painting Rush as the GOP defacto leader (disclaimer: I have never in my life listened to Rush Limbaugh. EVER.)
Pros: manipulate voters' attitudes towards the GOP by the simple equation of Rush=GOP, therefore anything he says, the party says
Cons: increasing Rush's ratings, therefore exposing his message to more people. Now, like I said, I've never listened to the guy, but I doubt he's been a success for so long for not knowing how to use language to his favor.
Pros: see pros above
Cons: that the White House is actually engaging Rush thereby "stooping" to his level. Don't remember the Bush WH directly addressing Kos (I may be wrong)
Pros: see pros above
Cons: this cannot last for four years; people will become used to the message before the year is over, and will soon start dismissing it again, therefore defeating the purpose of pros above.
Is the strategy a good idea? From a marketing standpoint yes; however, the execution of the strategy is currently leaving WAY too much to be desired. That this are so called strategists is scary that they do not see what they are doing.
Another Con - what about the independents? They were key for Bush and they were key for Obama. It is clear that independents sway either way, and they can find the strategy petty and unbecoming; some may actually listen to Rush be turned off, and associate the GOP=Rush meme.
Again, the execution of this is all wrong, turning it into a BIG risk.
And YES I am a conservative. YES I had my beefs with Bush, as I have and will have them with Obama. And NO never listened to Rush. EVER.
LV....What about the independentss, you ask?
You're talking to one.
.
Rick, give me a break. You might consider yourself one, perhaps because you are not affiliated to a party, but you are quite partisan. That'd be like me calling myself an independent.
A true independent is not he or she who is not affiliated to a party, but he or she who in any given election can vote for either candidate. Given your expressed political views, which are almost opposite those of Republicans, I can't see you ever voting for any Republican candidate.
Here is wikipedia's definition.
Of course you say that not knowing anything about who I've voted for in the last 25 years. But, whatever.
.
OK Rick, point taken. But your published remarks and opinions leave no doubt as to you being highly partisan (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that...but just saying). If we're missing something, it's only because you haven't exactly been up front about it.
Most of us have varied voting records. I could tell you some of my votes in the past 10 years which would most definitely shock you, but that doesn't make me any more independent than you. LV's definition is on the mark, and there is a difference between "no party affiliation" and ideology.
Post a Comment
<< Home