Is Limbaugh detrimental to the GOP?

I dont think so, I think he is the most honest representation of what the GOP stands for that there is

One minor point about the quote up above.

While Limbaugh's listener's may be WILLING to "pummel their opponents with letters, phone calls and e-mails to make their voices heard," Limbaugh never encourages that. He never organizes his listeners on any subject, never gives them bill numbers to quote, etc., unlike most other talk show hosts. In fact, one time when he was accused to doing just that (and hadn't), he DID organize a campaign just to show what would happen if he did. The congressional phone system failed under the deluge.

I haven't listened to him in years, but those who have never listened to him have no concept of his appeal.

Limbaugh is going to appeal to those who tend to have far right views and he won't appeal to those who are more moderate. What he has is a platform that allows him to make his views loud and clear and for allowing those that agree with him to have just as loud a voice.

The GOP needs to make sure they don't make the mistake of thinking that the loudest voices necessarily represent the majority of their electorate.

from the article:

In a country that is sliding into a deep recession, where job loss is so bad that the numbers are being reported daily, doesn't this imply that he wants the country to fail? This is about the most severe anti-American sentiment that I've read in a long time. If he thinks he is the head of the republican party and has this kind of attitude, lets run the republican party out on a rail.

Drug addict? Should have been felon? 3 times divorcee? Is this the role model that you want for our country? His hypocrisy is flabbergasting.

How can anyone take this man seriously? If any politician, republican or democrat tried to run with his history, they would be laughed off the platform, or so I would hope.

And for the record, I have more faith in the republican party to believe that they would ever make Rush one of their leaders. Rush is delusional about his self importance. Maybe all those drugs warped his brain.

The preachers that used to run the KKK never actually 'organized' any lyncing when they said 'i guess that boy deserves whatever happens to him' either.

Rush is not popular with the Republican leadership. In fact, he did quite well during the first Bush administration, and he's never been afraid to criticize Republicans.

As you say, I lost any respect I had for him when his addiction became public knowledge. Most such cases end exactly the way his did; a plea bargain to save the state the cost of a trial.

He is not a leader of the Republican party. He admits to being slightly right of Attila the Hun. The party doesn't regard him as a leader.

But not to put too fine a point on it, he said he hoped Obama's programs fail, because he believes much of it is socialist. At least he was honest about it; Obama has not yet admitted that he wanted the surge in Iraq to fail.

However, economic events in the country have largely bypassed Limbaugh's wing of conservatism, at least for the time being.

He's an entertainment figure that a lot of people that share his viewpoint find entertaining.

BHO calling attention to him shows how confused people are about who the leaders are in the party. Look at the support behind Michael Steele, the newly elected head of the RNC. That's a leader. Rush is a talk show host.

I have always felt Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are two sides of the same coin.

Thank you for bringing that point up. Most people totally take that quote out of context. He even brought it up on the air.


That's exactly it. He's an entertainer and I have never once thought he was a political leader. He has a way with words that cut like a knife that people either love or hate.

I like Rush, I don't always agree with him but I like him. He makes me laugh.

And no, I don't think he is detrimental at all.

Obviously those who agree with Limbaugh's message are going to disagree that he is a detriment to the party.

I'd love to hear from someone who consider themself a Republican but who is turned off by Limbaugh. They are really the ones I think this thread is targeted at. Whether he is considered a "Republican leader" isn't really relevant. He can still can influence peoples opinion about the party. I'd ask them if the things he says in any way affects how they feel about the Republican party in general. I'd guess that some would say yes but that the majority would say no.

1. tsk, tsk, you took him WAY out of context on that "failing" thing. Not fair.

2. My word JFK was addicted to painkillers and he was POTUS.

3. 3 times divorced? Better than adultry I guess.

Look at Ted Kennedy, he was a womanizing drunkard.

Wanting and hoping for the best for our country and wanting and wishing for the best with Obama aren't mutually exclusive. This current Congress isn't helping at all and only seems to be making matters worse. Who's to say that his policies won't put the country into a much deeper hole than it is now? For all we know, or don't know, he could be joining the ranks of Jimmy Carter, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore and Warren G. Harding as our worst presidents. Change for the better has been more of the same old, same old. I'm giving him a chance but that doesn't equate to a free pass. So far, I'm not impressed. I wasn't fond of Bush either, just to make that clear.

I don't listen to Limbaugh. The large local station, 700wlw am, has a fairly conservative slant to it as far as their on air programming but they do give props to both sides of the political spectrum when it's due and also come down hard on both sides when it's warranted.

Oh, I dunno On that one, I think I'd have to give the point to Limbaugh. Whereas Moore makes his presentation from a single viewpoint, with editing, splicing, more editing and who knows what other movie magic to create a non-interactive point of view, Limbaugh is a master at thinking on his feet (or, in his seat ). He can spin his malarkey as he goes along, and is very good at it.

Indeed, he represents most politicians!!! Divorcing 3 times, implying that it was Elizabeth's fault that John Edwards was attracted to another woman & strayed because the wife's mouth didn't do more than just talk!! Did a plea bargain to get out of a felony conviction! No, Rush, you certainly don't do what Jesus would do

1. Yes, I agree - I think that Rush was implying that he feels that success of President Obama's plans means socialism;

2. JFK didn't claim to represent the "moral" party, he used those painkillers because of injuries received while defending our country in WWII and didn't weasel his way out of a conviction thru a plea deal.

3. two points to consider-
- according to Jesus, divorcing and then remarrying IS adultery. But lest that be too strong for some folks (those who think it is okay to get remarried after divorce, altho the standard for homesexuals is much higher & they should remain alone), the fact that Rush's 3rd wife was MARRIED herself when they took up online kinda settles the adultery debate once & for all.

My verdict - Rush is a hypocrite.

My question is, what does being divorced and being addicited to pain killers have anything to do with his political ideals?

To me, he's just someone that is stating his own opinion. As a Republican, I don't follow him blindly, but I do think he has some good points at times. I don't think most of the GOP agree with everything he's saying, but it gives us something to think about. I personally get a kick out of him! I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he has the guts to say it.

And the whole "I hope Obama fails" thing....that is completely taken out of context. He didn't say he hoped "America" failed, but that Obama's policies failed.

to all of the above.

Unlike most politicians, he does not try to cover up or conveniently forget his past transgressions. Which is good since his critics certainly won't forget or stop bringing them up at every opportunity (as evidenced here). Don't stop there - he also used to smoke cigarettes and is a cigar connoisseur! Oh the HORROR!

Rush is an ideological conservative. He definitely is against the left, but he is just as critical of the right when they abandon the ideologies that the GOP should be following to stay true to their history, ideology, and base. The BASE is for small government and balanced budgets, as well as protecting American assets especially the homeland. He speaks to the base, and frankly has been a thorn in a side of many politicians on both sides of the aisle.

He was very critical of Bush on the Illegal Immigration proposal and the first Bailout (TARP) among other issues. He was highly critical of McCain through the entire primaries, and made no secret of his criticism of McCain even during the elections. He's been very vocal in the reasons that the GOP lost the election in Congress and the White House and it's not blaming the Democrats. ALL of the blame is squarely on the Republicans themselves.

I suppose you would have missed all that if you only hear what the media reports about him and don't actually listen to him. And hey, I only hear him for maybe 20 minutes a day and that's not including commercials. He's on the radio when I drive home and back to work on my lunch break.

Is he a detriment to the GOP? I don't think so. If he were going to destroy his own party, Obama wouldn't be so concerned about him that he would tell the Republican Congressmen not to listen to him. The only way that Rush is a detriment to the GOP is if he doesn't convince the GOP that the new definition of "bipartisanship" is just agreeing with the new Administration and bowing to Obama's wishes. So far he hasn't, they aren't, and we're seeing the truth behind the Spendulus, er, sorry, Stimulus Bill.

Thanks Heidi! I never have the patience to lay out stuff like that but you said it so well.

DITTO! ( )

Which is exactly why he's bad for the Republican party.

I don't believe a political party should define itself so narrowly, nor should it be so condemning of those who don't happen to share that narrow ideology. Limbaugh is very good at galvanizing the "base" and just as good at alienating the rest of us.

(I always feel I have to add the disclaimer that I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, and there is much about the Democratic party that I don't agree with either.)

It might be bad for the republican party, but its good for the citizens of the US for the republicans to have such a honest, unabashed, highly visible icon of there true values and desires. Nothing like cutting through all the spin and party rhetoric and exposing the republicans to the light of day to send all the new young voters-to-be elsewhere.

hmmm, have you ever had chronic back pain? I have sympathy (empathy) for people in chronic pain -some of the most pains that I've ever had to endure were migraine headaches, and, brother, I could have become an addict just to get the pain to stop even for an hour.

Someone in chronic pain and seeking relief is different than becoming an addict for "fun", and deserves our understanding. IMHO

Free speech is good for thought in a free society.

Limbaugh crossed the line between genuine political commentary and entertainment years ago. Bill Sebastian has done a number of op-ed pieces on this topic; a couple comments from one of those pieces I posted in the forum:

... and speaking of both Rush and of Shawn Hannity:

The quotes come from this post:

http://www.billsebastianforum.com/vi...php?f=66&t=150

I can understand what you're saying; I have a chronic pain condition and I take pain medication on a daily basis. I know what you're saying about the difference between alleviating pain and recreation. Pain medication acts differently when it's taken to alleviate genuine pain than when it's taken to get "high." When it's taken in an amount that's just enough to counteract the pain, then there's little or no high. However, the amount of medication Rush got under prescription and apparently also used was waaaaaaaaaay beyond the amount necessary for legitimate pain relief.

I think this is exactly what the Republican leadership is concerned about. That people will mistake Limbaughs words for the party platform when it isn't. What he says is merely his opinion. He isn't a GOP spokesman.

I don't really see how anyone listening to him wouldn't realize that though.

Re: amount Rush was "apparently" using
Would you mind naming your Source that identified the "amount" that Rush was using? Was it his doctor(s), or ??

Sorry, I'm from Missouri - the "Show Me State"

Excellent post!

The first sentence in the 2nd paragraph should be highlighted: "Rush is an ideological Conservative". He's not a role model, nor a "leader" of the GOP. He's a commentator. Conservatism is what he's about, not being in lock-step with the Republicans, who have unfortunately lost their way (though they're showing signs of a comeback - way to go House repubs!).

How ironic that folks who are all about "tolerance" and not "judging" people jump all over a man who has had his personal failings, as have many of us. I guess when you can't bolster your argument against hard facts, you have to resort to this...

As far as being detrimental to the GOP, heck no!!! Rush is the best thing to ever happen to them, if they'll listen. Get back to first principles and grow a backbone... then we would see a revitalized GOP.

I find the hatred towards Rush Limbaugh highly amusing. Why do I have the feeling that the people that hate him the most, most likely, have never even listened to him.

I dont hate him I think hes great I hope he keeps saying like every week that hes the voice and face of the republican party and I hope every little thing hes says is put all over the news. Hes the best advertising every other political party could ever have