Go to menus

» posted on Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 4:29 am by Andy D

 

The Republican Base has had it!

I don’t like to repost articles or long quotes on this site.  However, occasionally I come across something that I think is worth sharing.  Rush Limbaugh opened his show after the South Carolina primary with a few incredibly insightful comments.  I found myself agreeing with everything he said.  I wanted to post it here to get everyone else’s take on it.  Rush started talking about this when trying to explain Newt Gingrich’s success in the South Carolina primary.   He starts by arguing that the questions about Newt’s former wife weren’t what catapulted him into the lead in South Carolina. From the Rush Limbaugh Show:

Why did those questions tee Newt up, and why did Newt know what to do with them?  Very simple. I’ve been doing this show for 23 years, and one of my themes from the beginning, from 1988, has been that the American conservative middle class are the ones playing by the rules.  They are the ones that obey the law to the best of their ability.  They raise their kids.  They try to shield their kids from cultural rot and depravity. They try to keep them off drugs. They try to get them into college. They follow as best they can all the rules and they’re laughed at and made fun of and they are impugned everywhere they look.  They go to the movies, they’re mocked and made fun of.  They turn on the radio, listen to music, they’re laughed at, mocked, and made fun of.  They turn on television, watch an average television show, they are laughed at, mocked and made fun of.  They open the newspaper, same thing.  They’ve had it. They’ve been dealing with this for over 20 years, and nobody’s fought back for ‘em. Not one person ever has fought back for ‘em.

The last time somebody actually spoke up in this large a forum, a presidential forum, would have to be Reagan; and Reagan did it not so much by what he said (although he had his moments). He did it by winning. He did it by skunking these people! Since then, the Republican leadership has not seemed focused so much on winning and they sit there and they take it. Whenever their own voters are insulted — when their own voters are laughed at and impugned and called racists, sexist, bigot homophobes — the Republicans don’t defend them nor themselves because they’re scared to death the independents are gonna be upset, or the media is gonna be upset.

So the base of the Republican Party, the voters, have been bottling up for 25 years, a resentment — an anger, if you will — that their own party won’t fight for them, won’t fight for itself, won’t fight for what’s right. So when Newt gets teed up with these questions from Juan Williams and John King and whoever else and simply says what they’ve been thinking for 25 years, they say, “Finally!” What they want right now is fight-back, what they want is push-back, what they want is kick-back, what they want is smack-down! What they want is for these people who have been laughing at them and mocking them and impugning them, put in their place.

They’re tired of the cultural rot taking place in the country. They’re tired of the incessant growth of government and spending. They’re tired of it, and they’re frustrated as they can be that members of their own party who get elected can’t seem to articulate their own passions. Politics is about passion, and the Republican Party doesn’t seem to have it! There’s always fear of somebody. Fear of the media, fear of Democrats. Well, Newt doesn’t act like he’s got any fear. So how many wives does he got? “I don’t care!” What did he do for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac? “I don’t care.” What are his national disapproval ratings?

“I don’t care! Finally somebody’s telling the bad guys who they are, what to do and that we’re not gonna take it anymore — or that we don’t want to take it anymore.” Now, you can sit there and you can say that that’s cockeyed, that elections aren’t won that way. Uhhhh, they aren’t? Who just won? Who’s already leading in the polls in Florida? George Will had a fascinating statistic over the weekend. Mitt Romney — Mr. Electability, according to the Republican establishment; Mr. The Only Guy That Can Give Us the Senate — is 9-and-16 in his election career. He’s won nine and lost 16. He’s nine out of 25. That, they tell us, is Mr. Electability — and they’re sitting around, the base is, and they’re saying, “We don’t care about this traditional stuff that you care about that’s kept you in second place all these years.”

I couldn’t have said it better.

 

 

filed under culture · Rush Limbaugh | 16 comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

16 Responses to “The Republican Base has had it!”

  1. Gerrit said:

    Feb 03, 12 at 7:00 am

    The post (not your post but the Limbaugh statement I mean) is
    a) biased (saying that only the conservative middle-class knows what is right)
    b) contradicting itself

    If that middle class is so scared of their children facing decadency and “cultural rot”, and is tired of politicians not representing opposing values, then Newt Gingrich is the last person they should trust. Because having had 3 wives is not exactly that clean when looked at from the conservative viewpoint, is it?

    Limbaugh states that Gingrich is the answer for Republicans who are tired of the party not standing up for their (conservative) values, but we do talk about a guy whose private life is not without scandals itself. Compared to that, Romney has not had any such escapades. So isn’t ironically Romney the one guy that has not participated in that “cultural rot”? Santorum’s wife had an affair with a pro-choice doctor prior to her engagement with Santorum, Gingrich re-married twice, and Paul is considered too much out of the standard Republican spectrum of thoughts. So if it is really about the struggle against cultural “rot” and about defending the conservative values, then Romney seems to be a candidate with a lot more “clean” background than Gingrich (and then we’re not talking about Gingrich’s ridiculous idea of a US state and permanent settlement on the moon which is scientifically speaking impossible to realise and a populist rhetoric that is too silly to even be funny)

    So Limbaugh sounds both biased (by stating that only conservatives and/or middle-class know what is right — “right” and “wrong” are opinions varying from person to person) and inconsequent in his speech.

  2. Andy D said:

    Feb 03, 12 at 8:11 am

    Well of course only conservatives know what is right :) .

    Limbaugh wasn’t necessarily arguing that Newt is the guy for the Republican nomination. He was saying that Newt’s big win in South Carolina was because Newt was saying things in the debates that the conservative base agrees with. It’s splitting hairs, but that was Rush’s point. Rush hasn’t come out for any of the Republican candidates so far.

    As one of those conservatives, I support Newt. I recognize the problems he’s had in his personal life. He’s admitted to them, and asked for forgiveness from God and his family. I’m not going to hold those against him. I also think its very difficult for the federal government to change our culture. It can do things to negatively impact our culture and help it side down hill quicker, but it can’t really do much to reverse that. It can only slow it.

    Changing our culture is up to individuals. No presidential candidate in either party can do it all by themselves.

  3. Gerrit said:

    Feb 04, 12 at 11:25 am

    While I am not conservative and very very far left-wing, I can only agree with your last paragraph. Nobody can change a society overnight, and this goes for each political direction, for each religion, for each political system, … Not in Christian, Islamic countries, not in right-wing or left-wing regimes, not in democratic or single-party countries, not in liberal nor conservative regimes. A culture develops influenced by so many factors, there is no way a single person or even select group of person can stop this process and dictate the way a culture should evolve.

    I am not a Republican (I am way too left-wing for that) and not a conservative, but I also agree with you that Newt Gingrich’s private life have nothing to do with his candidacy. In my opinion a nation needs a strong government which is capable of leading a country. Weither the president is a single person with frequent short relationships or someone who never slept with anyone else but his wife… weither he’s an atheist or a devote believer… weither he is black or white… weither he is a young idealist or an experienced older person… The one criteria is: is he capable of leading the nation? If the answer is “yes”, then the private life of that candidate becomes irrelevant IMO. Unless we talk about someone with a serious criminal record maybe, but other than that I would just wish to see the nations of this earth governed by people with knowledge and capability. Which are their spiritual believes, sexual preferences, racial background, age etc are all irrelevant to the big question who is the best leader.

  4. Anonymous said:

    Feb 07, 12 at 12:41 pm

    Andy,

    I have to disagree with you. First, though let me say that Limbaugh is pretty much right on… I am fed up. A great example of why is the tax increase Republicans and Democrats jammed down our throats at Christmas while voting on the payroll tax extension. There is not one incumbent I will vote for, not one.

    Ok, my disagreement(s)…

    Presidents can change a culture. Look at Roosevelt’s New Deal, which started the American Entitlement culture. Of course, he had to have the help of Congress to get the legislation passed but Roosevelt is attached to that program in every way. It has taken decades, but he has changed our culture. Yes, individuals have to follow along with change but that policy has played a huge role in the entitlement culture we live in. Let me add, though, that in this case there is not choice in whether or not you want to follow along with the change.

    My next disagreement. I seriously consider the personal life of a candidate. My fundamental belief is that if you cannot keep a promise and more importantly a commitment to your wife under the vows you said in front of God and witnesses then you will not keep a commitment to ME as president. Is the Presidential Oath of Office more sacred than the vows of a marriage? Newt looked his wife(s) in the eyes and still broke his vows, do you really think he is going to keep promises to you, someone he will probably never see, let alone look you in the eyes? Ok, so he has made up with God and his family… decisions have consequences and my vote is one of those consequences. As I argued with friends during Bill Clinton’s fiasco, I firmly believe Newt’s infidelities would pose a Nation Security Risk.

    With that said, Newt is an incredibly intelligent individual. I think he is a very good politician. However, I will not vote for him for many other reasons, even if I do not consider his previous infidelities. I have found it funny that Republicans argued against Obama’s lack of experience four years ago but yet put three candidates in the race who have similar executive experience, NONE!

    So, now you may think I am supporting Mitt Romney… not a chance. He passes the personal life test but can’t pass the political test. I would imagine that he and Gerritt would be sitting next to each other at political rallies in Europe.

    I will be doing a write-in candidate, either Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan. A decision that might be made as late as voting day.

  5. Gerrit said:

    Feb 08, 12 at 5:30 am

    Me and Mitt Romney? You must be kidding? I am member of a largely communist/socialist party. Romney is (although more moderate than some others in his party) right-wing. Romney is amongst the rich class, while I support a society without classes divided by different incomes. Me and Romney? Seriously, no :)

    That said, as much as I disagree with Andy on overall political directions (I’m a socialist / pretty much the opposite side of the spectrum as him) , I do like the fact that he is open for debate even with people with very different opinions (such as me) and I do have to agree with him that one’s private life should not be taken into account when voting.

    First of all, to my knowledge the US is a nation with separation of law and religion, which means a religious test or religious event such as marriage are not requirements for a presidential candidate. Even an atheist can perfectly run for office (at least, I hope so) as well as a believer who belongs to a minority religion (such as for example Mitt Romney, who is Mormon). The moment religion is mixed with politics, we behave on thin ice.

    I would obviously not vote for Gingrich as my political believes are very different than his, but his private life is not amongst the reasons for that decision. And this I have to credit Andy for, that he looks at how he rates a candidate in terms of political believes rather than joining the blackmailing of candidates like many do. Gingrich probably was very sincere when he promised loyalty to his wives, but people are not machines. Emotions are unpredictable and cannot be manipulated easily. Feelings, emotions can change. It is not because his romantic life has taken some drastic turns, that this has any influence on his capabilities as a politician (which I’m sure are quite good, even though I am not of the same political ideology). Keeping a promise as a politician is very different than one’s romantic life. Signing a law is something very different than marriage. I think one is more likely to stick with a political ideology than to never change emotions throughout his life (by which I am not saying that you should marry with the intention of divorcing after a while, I am saying though that political believes are the result of an opinion formed by rational thinking, whereas emotions are a lot more unpredictable because they are not rational but are beyond our control — emotions just happen, they’re not the result of rational analysing)

    By the way, I think there has never ever been in history a politician who managed to keep every single promise he made. Either because he could not have a law passed by the Senate or Government, because circumstances stood in the way or realising a specific plan, or because opinions changed. I cannot think of any person, including politicians, who never changed their opinions and managed to keep every single promise they ever made. More important is intention. Breaking a promise you never intended seriously is downward lying. Not managing to keep a promise while you were sincere in making that promise, is just a change of momentum and doesn’t mean the promises made were insincere. This is not like an indication that you’re one who makes promises overnight without intentions to keep them.

    I think that politicians are in one way very similar to office clerks, bartenders, shopkeepers, … : they are supposed to do a good job in the work they’ve been hired for. Just like an employee of a company has the right to keep his private life private, a politician should have that same right. There is no need to know everything of a politician’s private life. What matters is his ability in leading a government/nation.

    I would not vote for Gingrich or any GOP candidate, but I would not hold their private lives against them. Of some politicians throughout history which I very much admired (in my case all leftists, although this is irrelevant) I don’t even know if they were married just once, if they had children or not, … simply because it doesn’t really matter nor infuence the decisions they made while in office. You can not vote for Gingrich (I wouldn’t vote for him if I were American) but to not vote for him for the reason of having remarried would not be a justified reason to abstain from voting for him IMO.

    I think the only case in which one’s private life would be a reason for me NOT to vote for him, would be if the person has a serious criminal past. In any other cases, I want to know the policies the candidate would want to enforce if elected. What he does in the privacy of his own house is not my business, and is not something I’d think of while I’m in the voting boot. Of many people within the party I’m member of, I don’t even know if they’re married or if they have kids or if they are religious or not. Does it matter? As long as they believe in the same political ideal as me (with some nuances as you can never have a party where everyone agrees on every single detail) then they’re welcome in the party as far as I’m concerned.

  6. Gerrit said:

    Feb 08, 12 at 5:35 am

    And just to avoid misunderstandings: in my first comment I mean that Limbaugh is using double standards when talking about wanting a candidate who represents the conservative image and then naming Gingrich next.

    I do think Limbaugh (and everyone else) should not take into consideration one’s personal backgrounds. If they would ignore this, then of course voting for Gingrich is perfectly fine for those who agree with his political points of view. I may not be in that group, but I would not try to dig into his private life to decrease his chances of being elected.

  7. Po said:

    Feb 08, 12 at 7:05 am

    It is unfortunate, but I believe all of the candidates are lying, from both parties. It’s what I have come to expect from them. I think looking at their personal lives is important. How he/she acts there will often tell you how they will conduct their political affairs. Bill Clinton is a good example, and more recently, a former governor of South Carolina was caught flying to South America to see his “soul mate”, of which his wife was mone too happy about. This occurred while he was still in office. And he failed to mention where he would be to the majority of his staff. Character still counts when I vote, but again, most candidates are on the same level there as well

  8. Andy D said:

    Feb 08, 12 at 6:48 pm

    Anonymous,

    If you write in a candidate in the Presidential election, you might as well vote for President Obama. A write in candidate will not win the presidency, and it’s one less vote someone can get to help defeat President Obama. I am sure the President would love for you to vote for a write in.

    I think you have a number of valid points in your comment. A president can affect the culture, but he can’t change it by himself. FDR changed our culture, but the elected officials of the time, and the voter let him. They could have easily voted him out after one term, but didn’t. Both groups enjoyed getting federal dollars way to much.

  9. Andy D said:

    Feb 08, 12 at 6:49 pm

    Gerrit and Po,

    you might be interested in my newest post. Lying and politicians figure very, very heavily in it…

  10. Kram said:

    Feb 09, 12 at 1:17 pm

    The Anonymous post was mine, I forgot to put in my name.

    Andy…

    At this point in time I have switched my focus away from the Presidency to Congress. If a Republican Presidential candidate wants my vote he provide to me solid conservative reasons I should vote for him, not because I should vote against the other guy. Putting a Republican President in office that would carry us down the same destructive path is unacceptable. I have found it interesting that Republicans want conservative principles in their candidate but yet refuse to vote for a Conservative. I am not a Ron Paul fan, but he is the true Conservative in the field right now.

    Gerritt….

    It’s just my opinion, but I think you would be surprised how close your politics would be if Romney was a European. If Obama was a European, again my opinion, but I think the difference between you two would be that Obama is farther left than you. If I remember correctly, he said something to the effect that he spent time studying Marxism and Socialism and befriended professors of similar ideologies.

    Po…

    The list of examples is endless. Not considering a candidates personal life is just a bad idea to me.

  11. Gerrit said:

    Feb 10, 12 at 3:41 am

    Why is that private life so important? So what if Bill Clinton had an affair? He was doing a fairly decent job in decision making. So what if the governor of South Carolina (not even sure if it’s a Republican or Democrat but it’s irrelevant anyway) flies to a mistress in South America? If that person does a good job in governing, then what he does in the private hours and days is nobody’s business.

    The way some people put it make it sound like only people who publically reveal their entire history and private life, can be candidates for a political function. If this would be applied, you won’t find too many people willing to be candidate. If you apply for a job in any company, shop, hotel, … you are not asked to reveal your private ongoings neither. Why should a politician be an exception and just throw his whole private life out in public? In the end they’re elected for their political capabilities, not for their private ongoings. In Europe, many people vote for people without even knowing any details of their private lives. And I think this is how it should be. Imagine you are leading an enterprise, and have a vacant position. The decision who to hire will largely depend on one’s CV and/or degrees and/or former experience in the field, not on which pub he goes to, what type of women he sleeps with and how many children he has.

  12. Po said:

    Feb 10, 12 at 9:27 am

    The problem with the SC governor is that he left without letting many his staff know. For a day or so, only a couple of people knew the sitting governor had left the country. When a guy is supposed to be leading a state and leaves the country for an affair, leaving the state without a leadership structure in the event of an emergency, then that is not the kind of leader you want.

    I don’t need to know every detail of someone’s life, however, when details that concern me come out, I’m not just going to over look them. With the business example, I don’t probe deep into personal lives. Again, if something comes out that makes me question the performance of that person, I do keep that in mind when making a decision. How people conduct their personal lives is an indicator of potential job issues, regardless if they are elected officials or not

  13. Gerrit said:

    Feb 10, 12 at 11:18 am

    Kram, Romney and Obama are right wing in European standards. Maybe moderate, but still.

    I don’t see Obama nationalise banks and abandon private schools and private clinics to make everyone use the state-funded network. I don’t see Obama promote a one-party system replacing the multiple-party system and elections. I don’t see Obama demand a maximum salary for CEO’s. I don’t see Obama propose that companies where salary gaps between departments are too wide get nationalised on the spot. It’s not because he studied Marxism or socialism that he believes in it, he surely doesn’t show any belief in these theories. I have read up on right wing politics, that doesn’t mean I support them. I do support the total nationalisation of banking, education and healthcare, the one party socialist system, and the maximum salaries for privately run businesses (which I would like to see only in areas that cannot be nationalised entirely, unlike banking, healthcare and education)

    Obama may have studied Marxism, he surely doesn’t display any support for it.

    And Romney? Please, this guy is a rich millionare, something which for a true leftist would not even exist since we support a society without classes and without a rich elite and working class. The fact Romney is a millionare himself per definition sets him very far apart from my own believes.

    And while I see no viable alternative for Obama, I can only say I’m fairly disappointed with him on many fronts, with the healthcare bill maybe as sole exception although it doesn’t really go far enough to my likes. He’s for sure moderate, but for sure not a true socialist. Hence I prefer to not be tagged in the same way as him.

  14. Gerrit said:

    Feb 10, 12 at 11:20 am

    PS: I never studied anything political in university terms, there’s other ways to do your research than through official studies. I am a member of a political party though which is mainly communist-socialist, and I can only say I would not like Obama to join the party and i doubt any fellow party member would. For sure I haven’t met one who openly sympathised with Obama’s regime (although granted, we’re even further away from Republicanism)

  15. Andy D said:

    Feb 11, 12 at 7:49 am

    Gerrit, I think Obama would probably belong to a center left or socialist party in Europe. However, it doesn’t matter, because we have to deal with him here in the US.

    Romney would probably belong to the party he thought could get him the furtherest in politics.

  16. Gerrit said:

    Feb 11, 12 at 12:08 pm

    Obama in most European countries would be considered center, maybe center right. Moderate, for sure. But also surely not very far on the left. I’m member of a party which is communist/socialist in its roots but the majority are more communist than moderate socialist. I can guarantee you Obama would not fit in our party. By that I don’t say he’s far right or so, obviously not. But also definitely not a true socialist. Somewhere around the center is probably the correct place if you’d want to “europeanise” his tag. He may have studied Marx and such but that doesn’t mean he supports his theories. I read up on many theories I don’t support. It’s important to “know your enemy” as they say. In the end, Obama is not supporting what we —the real communist/socialist base in Europe— stand for. Here in Europe, we would certainly not want him amidst us. Nothing against the guy, but I don’t rate him left wing enough to truly support what we believe in.

    The US has no real left wing as we have it in Europe, with the exception maybe of the Communist Party of the US (based in New York City) but their member base is way too small to have any bit of influence overall on American politics. Hence I would say it would be a correct statement that the left as it exists in Europe is inexisting in the US. I am not saying that here in Europe the left is dominant, the party I am in for example had a 10% of votes during the last municipal elections. So we’re far from big. However, in the US it would be unthinkable that a party which is mostly communist/socialist in ideology would come close to that 10%. Obama would certainly not fit within our package.

Leave a Reply

 

« »
 
 
 

» archives