Has Rush Limbaugh become the titular head of the GOP?

[Charlotteman 13]

Geez it's looking like the GOP is essentially leaderless. Blowhard Rush Limbaugh has practically appointed himself the head of the party~

The vacuum occurring in the GOP has also put more attention on Sean Hannity, and his ilk. Maybe Limbaugh or Hannity might win the party's 2012 presidential nomination.

[abttown 87]

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing him take the official lead of the party, because he would only bring it down. I have to believe that most people are intelligent enough to realize the majority of this man's message is simply hateful and makes little to no sense. Rush's purpose is to cause controversy only to initiate interest in himself (much like Ann Coulter). Even though it seems like MANY in the party are bowing to this man, I just can't see him rising any higher in authority than he already (sadly) has.

BTW, I know Rush's views are not shared by all Republicans and that he is not the only symbol of the party.

[Gusterfell 0]

Well, I don't recall any Democratic lawmakers ever apologising to Rachel Maddow or Al Franken for speaking against their rhetoric, but we've had two Republicans, including the official head of the party, do so with Limbaugh in just the last week. If Limbaugh isn't technically the leader of the party, he is certainly its Godfather.

[tamias6 16]

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing him take the official lead of the party, because he would only bring it down. I have to believe that most people are intelligent enough to realize the majority of this man's message is simply hateful and makes little to no sense. Rush's purpose is to cause controversy only to initiate interest in himself (much like Ann Coulter). Even though it seems like MANY in the party are bowing to this man, I just can't see him rising any higher in authority than he already (sadly) has.

BTW, I know Rush's views are not shared by all Republicans and that he is not the only symbol of the party.

[Charlotteman 13]

Can ya'll just imagine what went on (behind the scenes) between Rush and RNC Chairman Michael Steele?

Rush is a mean S.O.B.------- I would imagine he directly threatened Steele for that apology. Man is this heating up.

[sean 1]

makes fun of the ill... thats character

lots of folks envy him because he sits in a mostly unaccountable position: he holds no public office to which he is responsible for, he has no wife to which he would have to share his time and compromise his desires, no kids to nurture with sacrificed time.

high quality cigars, golf, and the best painkillers money can buy... i really do think that even his most ardent critics envy him.

[mlsimons 0]

I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing him take the official lead of the party, because he would only bring it down.

[Charlotteman 13]

Jim Tedisco, the GOP candidate for NY's 20th district, recently joined the chorus of anti Rush thought. He claimed that Rush was meaningless to him. And he said Rush ran an ugly talk show.

But then, his people released a statement "explaining" what Tedisco really meant. Does this mean Rush cannot be contradicted or disagreed with by the GOP flocks?

[Charlotte_native 0]

They want it both ways. Take the votes from the whipped up angry ditto heads he leads, but also court the moderate thinking (non-ditto) Republicans. I know GOP'ers on both sides -- those that think he is right on target and those that see him as a useless fire-fanner who is making a lot of money dividing our country. Right now the GOP is in an interesting period -- they can choose a few directions and hopefully the last decade or two of trying to win by anger and pitting Americans vs. Americans just might lose ground. I hope so. I'm not against the party itself and do agree with some of their policy, but the hate mongering is an absolute turn off.

[erdogs 0]

They want it both ways. Take the votes from the whipped up angry ditto heads he leads, but also court the moderate thinking (non-ditto) Republicans. I know GOP'ers on both sides -- those that think he is right on target and those that see him as a useless fire-fanner who is making a lot of money dividing our country. Right now the GOP is in an interesting period -- they can choose a few directions and hopefully the last decade or two of trying to win by anger and pitting Americans vs. Americans just might lose ground. I hope so. I'm not against the party itself and do agree with some of their policy, but the hate mongering is an absolute turn off.

[Charlotteman 13]

I still think someone will eventually blab----someone who was there when Rush probably threatened Michael Steele and Tedisco. People say Rush doesn't have that kind of power, but I will always be convinced Rush did it. Those two men apologized too quickly for something not to have happened.

[Gusterfell 0]

You could use this same line of thinking using Keith Olbermann and the Democratic Party. Unfortunately this is the way both sides play politics and until it changes we will continue to be divided.

[erdogs 0]

I have also listened to Limbaugh quite a lot (when I was a teenager in the nineties, my very conservative parents listened to little else). While you may take his comments as tongue in cheek, he does not present them that way on-air.

[Gusterfell 0]

If saying "I want the president to fail," and then defending this statement by saying "I do want him to fail. I disagree with his policies" is sarcasm, then I suppose I don't recognize sarcasm. If he was being sarcastic, why not say so when his statements were attacked, thereby painting his critics as a bunch of uptight dimwits?

Limbaugh isn't successful because he is a brilliant satirist. He is successful because he allows extreme conservative fanatics to vent their hatred for the other side. He may not believe in what he says, but a large number of his listeners certainly do. The same holds true for Olbermann and such. Their recent success has ben entirely due to their providing an outlet for the extreme left's hatred for Bush and his policies, which is why liberal radio and television never took hold in the Clinton years.

[erdogs 0]

If saying "I want the president to fail," and then defending this statement by saying "I do want him to fail. I disagree with his policies" is sarcasm, then I suppose I don't recognize sarcasm. If he was being sarcastic, why not say so when his statements were attacked, thereby painting his critics as a bunch of uptight dimwits?

[monsoon 0]

I would not put Olberman and Rush in the same camp for these reasons. I would not put Rush in the same camp with most people in the media for these reasons:

Rush has no limits to the people he will try to hurt in order to meet his goals. One of the most despicable things I have seen him do is to make fun of people suffering from Parkinson's disease by doing his jumping up and down routine of mocking Michael J. Fox. He said that Michael should have stuck to his rehabilitation routine and he would be fine. Yet, his is the same person who himself got caught illegally getting others to purchase prescription narcotic drugs to feed his drug addition because he didn't keep up with his drug rehab program. Rush BTW, spent $30,000 to get the charges dropped.

He routinely preaches about people's morals, yet he has divorced 3 wives. He is the worst sort of hypocrite.

Rush has derided anyone who was against the Iraq War including the very soldiers who did their duty by going to Iraq and meeting their service commitment who only criticized the war after they were discharged. This is their right under the Constitution. I take note that Rush has never served an any military. It's OK to take a position on the war. (either for or against) It is not OK to attack the very people who are over there doing the fighting. It wasn't right when they blamed the soldiers for the failures that took place in Vietnam nor is it OK to blame soldiers for being against it now. As long as they do their duty for the USA they should be commended.

I could go on, but I am not going to give Rush Limbaugh a free pass for making huge profits by fanning bigotry, hatred, and the worst of human nature by saying that it is OK because others do it. (they don't) He doesn't inspire people, he tears them down, divides us and I have yet to see one good thing come from Rush Limbaugh unless it didn't also serve his purposes.

[Charlotteman 13]

In the early 90s I was on the road a lot, and usually I listened to Rush on the radio. Of course I disagreed with him on almost everything, but I did enjoy some of his humour.

One thing I'll never forget was his vicious attacks on feminists. But as far as I can remember he never argued issues about feminism. He just continually ridiculed feminists' appearance. Like a high school sophomore calling names.....he called them "ugly" and "fat" and "incapable of getting a man" etc

And during that time, he relentlessly berated "the poor".....but claimed he had nothing against poor people.

He is truly one of the most divisive public figures we've had in America in a long time. His version of chutzpah sounds like pure recklessness to me.

[Charlotte_native 0]

One of my main problems with Rush is his attackes ON ME. He contantaly talks about 'the liberals', the homosexual agenda, and those of us 'we (he and his peeps) are fighting against'. He often doesn't seem to go after just the representatives, but us the people. This includes what Monsoon has pointed out above, even soldiers who were in Iraq who don't agree with it, or what Charlotteman has pointed out about the Feminazis.

Line up representatives, present policies you believe in, do anything that keeps a perspective on two parties and their beliefs that you either support or you don't, but why constantly try and make this out to be a battle between citizens? I don't see all of us as being in a battle, we just don't agree on some issues. What he does accomplishes nothing towards finding solutions, just ratings and money.

[Charlotteman 13]

I think we must all be reeling over Dick Cheney's recent comments about Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh.

In case anyone missed it, Cheney lit into Powell on a Sunday talk show-----said Rush Limbaugh is more of a leader of the party than Gen. Powell. It almost sounded like Cheney was kicking Powell out of the party!

These days, is there anyone that doubts Rush is the head of the party?

[Captain Worley 0]

Me.

The guys a blow-hard, no leader.

[sean 1]

truth hurts, but he's (rush) everything that the consumer culture really wants to be: rich, famous, self-indulgent and accountable to none. no pain, no pain!

[monsoon 0]

Rush is the smartest guy on the planet. ClearChannel, who owns your local FM station, paid him $400M to stay on the radio. This is more than you, your ancestors, your kids, their kids, their kids, and so forth will make combined. This is a guy who never ran for any election.

(well except for maybe Howard Stearn who got $100M more)

This is what ClearChannel, the corporation that destroyed local FM radio, got for their money.....

[sean 1]

^don't under estimate my kids!

[erdogs 0]

I think we must all be reeling over Dick Cheney's recent comments about Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh.

In case anyone missed it, Cheney lit into Powell on a Sunday talk show-----said Rush Limbaugh is more of a leader of the party than Gen. Powell. It almost sounded like Cheney was kicking Powell out of the party!

These days, is there anyone that doubts Rush is the head of the party?

[monsoon 0]

....When Joe Leiberman did the same thing, he was labeled a traitor by the Democratic Party and the media. Hypocrisy?

.................