GOP Civil War, Rush bringing down the party for his own gain
May 6th, 2009 | By Mike | Category: Republicans |
I have already mentioned the GOP’s Civil War and Rush Limbaugh is not only instigating the war but spearheading the side of the social conservatives. On Monday Rush accused Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney of “hating” Sarah Palin. Today he went on to attack Colin Powell. He is defending her as the best candidate for the GOP. If you prefer Sarah Palin, that’s great, but by attacking prominent Republicans Rush is only alienating the social conservatives even more. Rush still believes that fiscal conservatives and social conservatives all fall under the same hat of “Republican”, or does he? What many news outlets and Republicans are afraid to say in fear of losing any social conservative audience or voters is that Rush has a stake in keeping social conservatives as the core of the Republican party. Luckily, I’m not a politician and I don’t have much of an audience, so here we go.
RUSH LIMBAUGH MAKE’S BOATLOADS OF MONEY AS A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE LEADER. In 2007 Rush Limbaugh made $33 MILLION DOLLARS. If you take away the audience, you take away his money. He is vested in keeping his audience at his heels and because his audience is (currently) a large electorate for the GOP he has the Republicans by the neck! So how does he stay in business? He abuses religion as a tool to fire up the deeply religious social conservatives on hot button issues such as abortion and gay marriage. If anyone mentions that the party should move towards the center on these issues, he relentlessly attacks and belittles them. Think: John McCain (Palin was not his first choice), Megan McCain (how dare she support gay marriage and be a Republican), Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and now Colin Powell.
As more and more Republicans begin to realize that they will soon be out of jobs by supporting out-dated policies, they will need to come up with a way to deal with Rush. Maybe Specter was the smartest of all, abandoning the party before it completely falls apart. My prediction? The GOP doesn’t have the gall to stand up to Rush and they bleed members to the Democrats and other third parties. By 2012 they’ll have little chance at the presidency. You heard it here first!
Response to Mike, May 6, 2009:
Maybe I’m more of an “Old Whig,” after F.A.Hayek and Milton
Friedman, but I am very sympathetic to a “Modern Whig” movement.
I believe you are wrong if you think Rush is the problem, or
if you think he is only a “social conservative,” or that he
incites social conservatives for financial gain. I believe
he is conservative across the board. If you believe that we
as opponents of statism should not focus too much attention
and argumentation on social issues, I agree with you. But
where we fiscal conservatives are really missing the boat is
in failing to expose the gross fabrications and incredible
stupidity of the neo-Marxists of the American left. It
should be easy to convince many independents of the danger
posed by the authoritarian tendencies of the Democrat Party
under the leadership of Obama. We should not waste effort
trying to convince people on strongly held opinions on
religion, abortion, and gay rights.
Hi Wade,
I agree that Rush is a conservative across the board. The issue is that the Republicans cannot remain viable with the social stance they currently hold. The youth of this country are far more socially liberal than the baby boomers which is supported by their massive turnout for Obama in 2008. The article demonstrates that many prominent Republicans realize this but they cannot propose to change the party because of Rush. If you don’t think Rush is motivated by money to keep his ever dwindling fan base, I think you are mistaken. This latest string of attacking anyone in the GOP who opposes social conservatism seems desperate to me. He is trying to control the party, but in the end he will destroy it.
Your comments on the “authoritarian” Democratic regime are off topic, but Obama was voted in to office and doesn’t have any plans to throw a coup and destroy democracy in this country. I disagree with some of his economic moves and bailing out some failing industries which touch on nationalization, but I don’t believe he is trying to be a dictator of any sort and I think any insinuation of such a move is disingenuous.
Mike