Fool’s gold
Mar 4, 2009 Medialites, Politics and Poker, Stragety
Why is the never-ending campaign of President Obama elevating Rush Limbaugh’s profile?
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.
October?
Gee, has anything changed for Barack Obama, and that praise shower, since… October?
Something's changed
UPDATE: Still looking golden?
March 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
This will be money in the bank for Limbaugh until they nationalize the bank and seize his microphone.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:07 am
100%, Ron. If only W. would still be in power, we would be sailing along just dandy. Those were some might heady days for the nation. And for the Republican party. Gone was the so called “nuance” and moderation of Eisenhower, or the realpolitik of Nixon. Obama (and the rest of us) were lucky to inherit the country in such great financial condition thanks to W., and now look — he’s just ruining it! I CAN’T believe this is happening after all the progress we made under W.
Do you think we at least can have a little more deregulation? Please? Just a little more?
DK’s last blog post..The JCPA Sets Pollyanish Policy
March 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Actually, DK, you are responding to a post someone else must have made on some other blog, not this post on this blog. My point is simply that notwithstanding whatever widespread good faith and trust may have existed in October, the picture is likely different now. You may disagree about that point.
Although it is not responsive to my blog post, however, I will note that your rant is idiotic, though.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Ron wrote:
“My point is simply that notwithstanding whatever widespread good faith and trust may have existed in October, the picture is likely different now.”
That’s not really born out by empirical evidence, Ron.
Of course, graphs have a well-known liberal bias.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
The graphs indeed show that President Obama remains personally very popular. But anyone who thinks the political landscape today is the same as it was then — and the article I quoted suggested not the slightest variation — is crazy. Hey, right through the Inaugural I thought the President was entitled to every benefit of the doubt, and I was giving it to him. The spending bill, however, was so politically ham-fisted and back-room generated, and so different from what we had been promised and led to expect, is so short-sighted, and has been so calamitously received on Wall Street, that the Limbaugh strategy may end up being a very good example for Democrats of “be careful what you wish for.”
March 5th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
You won’t be surprised that I couldn’t disagree with you more:
Things have indeed gotten worse all around, but (a) to think things would turn around in 46 days (or that Obama could make things much worse in 46 days), and (b) to measure short-term success by the DOW is what is crazy.
Remember it was the speculators and financiers that drove the DOW to its illusory and unsustainable heights that got us in this mess in the first place.
Moreover, the stock market is just looking for a quick fix. Sorry, there is none. Our problems are deep and wide, thank you to 8+ yrs of tax cuts and deregulation.
Re: omnibus spending bill, I understand feeling disappointed, but I also understand you’ve got to pick and choose what battles to fight. But before wasting too much anger directed at Obama on it know that six of the top 10 earmarkers (by dollar amount) are Republicans and 11 of the top 20 are Senators from red states. We’ll see what happens with Obama’s budget.
Finally, this “Limbaugh Strategy” is not only political gold for the Democrats, it is VERY entertaining. Did you see the polling that sparked the strategy? Rush had higher negatives in Oct. ‘08 (during the height of the campaign, mind you) than Wright and Ayers. Hah!
We should do lunch, I bet it would be fun.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
OK, a few things. We agree on a lot, actually, so you could disagree with me more than you think!
Agreed. But I am not talking about success, I am talking about the existence or lack thereof or quantum thereof of warm, fuzzy feelings.
Agreed as to the former, disagreed as to the latter. The policy choices now matter a lot, because — remember “nothing to fear but fear itself”? — the present crisis is in no small degree a crisis of confidence. It is hard to argue that the Administration’s choices have increased confidence.
You are almost right about the stock market, but you’re being unreasonably partisan, pace the “+” sign, to measure the trend with the beginning of the Bush Administration. This true correction has indeed been a long time in coming. I wasn’t merely jealous of the guys downtown: I knew, as a student of economics, that Wall Street was playing with funny money, while paying itself with an ungodly amount of real money. This did have to happen.
Regarding the bill, first of all, I’m not angry; I assure you I’m entirely dispassionate! I think it’s a lousy bill and was rushed through unreasonably. I think earmarks are lousy no matter which party marked ‘em. I think the signal condemnation of GWB is his refusal to say no to Congress, including the GOP Congress of his early years.
As to your Rush point, you are again missing the point: Don’t give me October polling negatives for Rush, give me February. The absence of such data in the story, or even an acknowledgment that there could have been movement, is telling. A lot has changed since October.
We can do lunch any time you want but who told you to stay in Philadelphia to practice law? Look at our cousin Moish: Just because he grew up there didn’t mean he had to stay there. Who ever has business in Philadelphia? Plus all the kosher food’s here. Just let me know when you’re coming in; I work right above Penn Station!
March 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
OK, but if I have to eat kosher food you’re paying!
March 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
http://themissal.blogspot.com/2009/03/bumperstickers-for-age-of-obama.html
Jack’s last blog post..Bumperstickers for the Age of Obama
March 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
The markets may be too impatient in wanting a quick fix, but the underlying problem is not the speed of repair, it’s Obama’s no-fix or anti-fix plans. What the markets see is a blend of chaos and socialism.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Well, this article is right up your alley on that, Bob.
I actually do not, however, believe that we’re even remotely talking about socialism, if the word is to have any meaning.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Ron, you beat me to the punch! If Obama is a Socialist, then Nixon was a Communist.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
[...] this moment in economic history, and the reason it can and is taking place now, is as good a proof of the vitality of the market as there is. Is today’s middle-aged GM worker better off today, unemployed and used to [...]
March 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Urk!! Someone say something about “scientific”?