Limbaugh throws down the gauntlet

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I hate interrupting your string of responses to yourself. This thread is funny, because the entire premise that the president must debate those whom he criticizes is asinine, to say the least. Bush and Reagan both criticized countless individuals. None of them ever received a debate offer, and nobody suggested they should. Should Bush have debated Harry Reid when he blamed Reid for immigration reform issues?

Rush is the de facto leader of Republicans. That is the problem. He shouldn't be. He is radical and in no way representative of the values of most Americans, let alone Republicans. The man has a 10% approval rating. To get things done with elected Republicans requires that they stop kissing Rush's ring. They won't. Obama urged them to do so and wound up with Steele apologizing to Limbaugh for calling his program "ugly" and "incendiary," both of which are totally accurate observations.

You keep saying that Limbaugh is the de facto head of the GOP, yet offer no proof other than yours and Obama's opinion. Why?

[MikeWaters]

During this debate, does Obama get to use a teleprompter?

I'm pissed off that the media has gone to great lengths to hide the teleprompter. Screw that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Rush is the de facto leader of Republicans. That is the problem.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...ref=newssearch

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.
The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

During this debate, does Obama get to use a teleprompter?

I'm pissed off that the media has gone to great lengths to hide the teleprompter. Screw that.

You're pissed, but are you surprised? The media has had it's head entrenched so deeply in Obama's hind end for the last two years that they fail to see or admit anything that might cast a negative light on him.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You're pissed, but are you surprised? The media has had it's head entrenched so deeply in Obama's hind end for the last two years that they fail to see or admit anything that might cast a negative light on him.

That is coming to an end. The knives come out, because the beast must be fed. Such is the news cycle in 2009. Esp. when we have a POTUS who sees his main job as telling us how terrible things are and will be.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is Harry Reid an unelected private citizen (which I've repeated like, 3 times)? My, you have reading trouble.

I know you're a political neophyte, but presidents don't typically go after private citizens in public.



He's the de facto leader, says you. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. And his approval ratings are irrelevant. As I told you before, Limbaugh represents conservatism, and a lot more than 10% agree with many of his views.

Time will tell if this is a wise strategy, but Gibbs "counterproductive" comments already indicates cracks in the strategy.

Limbaugh is a public figure. He hasn't been elected to anything, and let's pray he won't be, but he is a public figure.

Steele's actions pretty clearly set Limbaugh up as the de facto leader. I already asked you who you thought the leader was. I will give you another shot at it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...ref=newssearch

lol! I, for one, don't know who would be better for Dems: Limbaugh, or this guy:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/02...ichael-steele/