Inside the Dem's Anti-Rush Plan

Inside the Dems' anti-Rush plan
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 3/4/09 the politico.com

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.

"The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”

Considering the way Mike Steele caved when Rush went after him... considering the way that so many GOP members have their noses up his fanny...

...it is hard to deny that Rush may indeed be the new face of the GOP.

Why can't there be more Olympia Snowes and less G.W. Bushs in the GOP?

Well TRC it has been pretty obvious to me that the republican party "coalition" is fragile as a house of cards.

They are "home" to two really loud and vociferous constituencies in the far right social conservatives and the strident and spiteful wing epitomized by Limbaugh's ditto-heads.

Neither group will ever logically discuss issues or concede there is any chance whatsoever that they could be wrong.

The former group believes they are the privy to Divine revelation and the other has been hoodwinked by extreme ideologues and demagogues.

Taken togethor these groups comprise less than half the party, but both are loud and proud and exert more influence than their numbers would justify.

The "country clubbers" are also a prominent constituency, but they are more interested in accomplishing their goal of fiscal conservatism than they are in grandstanding. They just want to maintain their privileged status.

They dont have much use for the religious zealots or the dittoheads, but they are willing to swallow hard and humor them and they are willing to exert their influence more or less behind the scenes.

The fourth(and most important) group are the so-called moderates.

They tend to be more conservative, especially on "moral" or family values issues than moderate Democrats, but they are not obsessed.

Although all these groups are nearly always going to vote republican, they all do so for different reasons.

And the country clubbers and "moderates" are just as comfortable with a moderate/conservative Democrat.

So it is a fragile coalition of these constituencies, some of whom do not like the others and would rather be ideologically pure than to be elected.

Interesting analysis Sodbuster.

I doubt conservatives will be seeking your advice any time soon but it is an interesting perspective.

Riddle me this though.

What if Rush is right about Obama?

Well then you will hear from all the Democrats that didn't vote for him.