RAGGED THOTS

Michele Bachmann will be going on an all-out radio run today, perhaps capitalizing on the momentum of a not-too-bad debate performance last week, coupled with the fallout of what might be called "Rootsgate."  Bachmann got a surprising amount of cross-party sympathy when Jimmy Fallon's house band, The Roots, chose a rather rude song with which to introduce Bachmann on her appearance last Monday -- the '80s ska-funk group Fishbone's "Lyin' Ass Bitch."

After the taping, but before the broadcast, bandleader ?uestlove (pronounced "Questlove") tweeted that they had chosen something with "snark" for Bachmann and then showed followers the list of the five songs off of Fishbone's debut EP.  The "la la la" opening bars of the "L.A.B" then told the tale. (Ironically, had ?uestlove said nothing, few people would have likely recognized a relatively obscure 26 year-old song).

Anyway, Twitter exploded.  Conservatives found the song an example of what mainstream media (and major networks) do to those on the right. But even some liberals thought it was a case of the easy sexism with which major institutions can be comfortable.  Regardless, Fallon first made a cute apology by declaring that
?uestlove was "grounded." When it was obvious that wouldn't suffice, he (again, on Twitter) fully apologized to Bachmann, adding that he was "honored" to have her on and "I'm so sorry about the intro mess."

That, however, wasn't enough for Bachmann.  She demanded an apology from NBC -- which she finally got Thanksgiving  night:  Don Vaughn, an NBC senior vice president called the episode "not only unfortunate but also unacceptable." Did that (and a follow-up personal call from Fallon) satisfy Bachmann? Um, not quite. "If that song had been played for Michelle Obama I have no doubt that NBC would've apologized to her and likely they could've fired the drummer or at least suspended him. None of that happened from NBC and this is clearly a form of the bias on the part of the Hollywood entertainment elite," observed Bachmann. 

So, after gaining multiple apologies from the star of a late night show and a network executive, Bachmann raises the question of how the First Lady of the United States would be treated in similar circumstances. Well, fortunately, one doesn't have to go too far to find out:  The same day the Roots were calling Bachmann the B-word, a media individual of far more reach was going after her near-namesake. In an odd defense of NASCAR fans right to boo Michelle Obama and Joe Biden's appearance at the end of season race, Rush Limbaugh -- host of a program with a reported audience of some 20 million -- declared the first lady guilty of "uppity-ism."

Let's be clear here: "Uppity" is a word that, in the 21st century, is archaic for good reason: It was a handy racial insult of a bygone era, though it had happily faded from common use. Indeed, the most public use of the word in a political context before Limbaugh was 20 years ago -- by Clarence Thomas in his infamous pushback against sexual harassment charges in his Supreme Court nomination process. (However, check baseball great Bill White's memoir, Uppity: My Untold Story of The Games People Play for another provocative exploration of the word.)

The irony -- and hypocrisy -- in Limbaugh's attack on Mrs. Obama is that, just one month ago, he was reprising the Thomas line to defend Herman Cain! Limbaugh summarily declared that the sexual harassment story was exemplary of the mainstream media "going for the ugliest racial stereotypes they can." Limbaugh, it should be noted, was the leader (along with Ann Coulter) in this "explanation" for explaining the Cain controversy -- even before the candidate himself decided to use the race card (who then backtracked to point the figure at other GOP candidates and double/triple-backed to blaming the generic "liberal" media, while minimizing the racial element). So, we're supposed to believe that, one minute Rush is Mr. Sympathetic on how the media indulges "the ugliest racial stereotypes" for a black conservative -- but he is unaware of what "uppity" means in reference to blacks in general? It strains credulity.

Sure, some media talking heads have engaged in racial stereotyping with respect to Cain -- thought the sexual harassment charges aren't indicative of that. And yes, liberals have hardly been reticent to declare that calling the president arrogant is a racial "dog-whistle" for "uppity." But that's not the case here.

Rush Limbaugh is smart man. After more than twenty years atop talk-radio and having authored multiple best-sellers, he knows what words to use where. Again, stipulating that Michelle Obama's anti-child obesity might be too intrusive (arguable, at best), there are any number of words he could have used to describe what he thought was "intrusive", "pushy" or "haughty" behavior on the part of this White House by lecturing the country on parental skills. But, he opted for the odd cognate "uppity-ism" to describe how sports fans at a Southern-based event felt about a black First Lady. (Frankly, I'm not sure NASCAR fans should feel that Limbaugh was doing them any favors with his choice of words to describe Mrs. Obama).

This is ugly stuff. And serious.

Unfortunately, unlike the bipartisan anger at the Fallon debacle, criticism seemed fairly one-sided. Limbaugh's regular foes on the Left went after him. Things were relatively quiet on the other side -- except for the support Limbaugh got that, ho-hum, there's nothing to see here; move along. Newsbusters slammed ABC for reporting on the incident (or picking up Media Matters' report of it).  Glenn Beck actually agreed with Limbaugh, in fact adding that "uppity" was the right description for both Obamas.

Great. So much for the effort to counter the liberal meme that "Tea Party=racist." How much easier it is when one of the leading voices in the conservative movement decides to use an intentionally loaded word against the first lady. Where on earth would the mainstream media come up with the wacky idea that there's an element of racial resentment in criticism of the Obama president. On the other hand, Limbaugh's early (i.e. 2009) claim that "Obama's America" gave license to black kids beating up white kids on school buses wasn't exactly helpful in that regard.

Of course, not only wasn't there any apology forthcoming from Limbaugh (as if), he went further in his Michelle O put downs: In the midst of the Bachmann kerfuffle, Limbaugh suggested playing "Baby Got Back" (AKA, "I Like Big Butts") when introducing Mrs. Obama. Ha. Ha. In another context that might actually have been funny. Not this time.

So, to be clear: In one week, we have an example of a mainstream media entertainment show's band insulting a female conservative woman with a song with a title using a universally derogatory word for a woman; the host and an executive of his network apologize. Then we have the case of a conservative media host (with a daily audience roughly ten times larger) dipping into a different Roots playbook (think Alex Haley's miniseries) to direct an insult at a black First Lady. And the disapprobation comes largely from one side?

Very sad.

Labels: michele bachmann, michelle obama, Rush Limbaugh

Of course, bodies were still being dug out Wednesday when Rush Limbaugh declared that this was a political opportunity for Barack Obama -- a chance for him to shore up his base (both in "the light-skinned and dark-skinned black community").

Limbaugh also pointed out that it took Obama “three days to go out and talk about the Christmas Day underwear bomber,” but “less than 18 hours to get out there and start rallying people about this earthquake.” Listen here:

Labels: earthquake, Haiti, Rush Limbaugh

One year after the exuberant optimism that accompanied Barack Obama's historic election, the nation's mood is considerably different.

Conservatives and Republicans are both furious and disappointed that the admittedly liberal senator elected last year has hardly proven to be an individual with whom they can find much ballyhooed "common ground." But it isn't a big surprise that the opposition will just dismiss the efforts of the party in power. It's the broad middle of the spectrum, however, that has the greatest reason to be disappointed in Obama's first year. The broad middle is willing to be patient on the big issues -- the economy, war, Guantanamo, terrorism, etc. Obama might get an "incomplete" in those areas, but that's fine. Solving all these big issues isn't going to be done overnight. However, it is in Obama's biggest promise that he has, sadly, proven to be a failure -- that of bringing a change of tone to Washington.

Sure, bipartisanship is a two-way street. The White House can make a reasonable claim that congressional Republicans haven't been eager to work with Obama on big issues. Only three GOP senators signed onto the economic stimulus package earlier this year. One of those -- Arlen Specter -- has since become a Democrat. It's beginning to look like the health care legislation -- if it ever gets out of the Senate -- will not have a single Republican on board. So, Obama can say that he tried to extend a hand, but was rebuffed. And he certainly didn't ask for the Tea Party movement to turn him into the living embodiment of socialism.

However, responsiblity for much of the increased tension and rancor that still exists in Washington, DC, has to be laid at the feet of the administration -- and the president himself. Some of the tension was created by accident: Obama's calling Henry Louis Gates' arrest by Cambridge Police Officer James Crowley "stupid" did short-term damage to Obama's "post-racial" brand. But that was, if anything, a slip of the tongue at the end of a lengthy press conference.

But it's Obama's overt partisanship that has been most distressing. The White House early on decided to start picking fights with those opposing its plans. Rush Limbaugh went after the administration with full guns blazing so taking him on might have been expected -- even though declaring him the Republican Party's "leader" might have been laying it on thick. But then, Fox News? The Chamber of Commerce? The insurance industry as a whole? And with all the big issues on its plate, how is it that the White House still manages to plunge itself into obscure congressional special elections in upstate New York? Or pulls out all the stops to get one governor re-elected?

During the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt relished identifying and castigating political foes. Wealthy himself, he didn't might mixing it up with what he saw as the members of a wealthy privileged class trying to prevent him from establishing a New Deal. But Roosevelt wasn't elected on a rhetorical platform of overcoming political and ideological differences. Obama was.

Instead, in a city where one doesn't have to work too hard to produce enemies, Obama and Co. seem almost eager to find more. One year ago, the nation elected a seeming agent of reconciliation -- not just across racial lines, but ideological and political ones as well Perhaps the nation was a bit naive to believe that all partisanship would suddenly come to an end.

But the president could and should have done more to work to that goal and help fulfill the public's belief in him. With three years to go before his re-election, Obama still has much time bring about the policy changes that he promised.

Alas, it's already too late to fulfill the change in atmosphere.

Labels: Barack Obama, Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh

With all due respect to my friends (and corporate colleagues) at The Wall Street Journal, but they are off-base in today's editorial decrying the NFL's deep-sixing Rush Limbaugh's ownership bid:

"All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in (President) Obama's America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting 'right on,'" Kiwanuka told The Daily News. "I mean, I don't want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play."

"I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there's a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can't respect him as a man."

There was no other way to read Limbaugh's "Obama's America" line than he was trying to draw a direct connection between having a black president and black kids beating up a white kid (his faux black-accented "Right on, right on" hardly helped).

Labels: NFL, Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal

Conservatives will inevitably be livid over Rush Limbaugh being dropped from the ownership group seeking to buy the National Football League's St. Louis Rams.

Consider the seeming hypocrisy: The league has current players either implicated or found guilty in vehicular homicide (current Rams player Leonard Little and currently suspended Cleveleand Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth), regular stabbing deaths (Baltimore Raven Ray Lewis who plead out of a murder charge), animal cruelty (yeah, you know who!), drug usage (too many to mention) -- and various other ethical and legal indiscretions.

Is it really the case -- given that "record" -- that Rush Limbaugh could be deemed persona non grata among owners? Is it really the case that those foul-mouthed rappers -- like Jay-Z -- can get ownership shares in basketball teams without a peep of protest from anyone? Is it really the case that any ownership group with Rush on it would be unable to get the necessary two-thirds approval from current owners?

The answers are yes, yes and yes.

To understand what is going on, realize that Rush and the NFL are unique in their respective fields.

The NFL passed baseball as America's national pastime years, if not decades, ago. The Super Bowl is annually the most watched TV program -- by far. This an $8 billion behemoth. (The Dallas Cowboys new stadium cost more than $1 billion alone.)

Meanwhile, with Howard Stern's abdication to satellite radio a few years ago, Rush Limbaugh is easily the most listened to -- and most influential -- talk radio host in the nation. With a daily audience of some 20 million, no one comes close.

Unfortunately, their brands are almost mutually exclusive.

The NFL is about conformity, control and image. Controversy is neither desired nor tolerated. Indeed, Roger Goodell, the commissioner in his third year has made discipline his watchword. Embarrassed by the multiple arrests coming out of Cincinnatti a few years ago, Goodell has cracked down. Suspensions for inappropriate off-field behavior has been swift and unsparing. The reason is obvious: He is overseeing a multi-billion dollar business and he cannot -- will not -- allow a bunch of athletes in the 20s and 30s ruin the public image of this golden goose.

Limbaugh, meanwhile, courts controversy. His image is big, bold and brassy. He sees himself as the truth-teller against a mainstream media beholden to left-wing biases and Democratic politics. He sees himself as a conservative, but not beholden to the Republican Party -- though he has many GOP guests and friends. He seeks the limelight and adopts a "bring it on" attitude when Democrats try to demonize him.

Ironically, his larger-than-life persona, of course, serves Democrats well, too: They get to deem him the "leader of the Republican Party," which helps their fundraising -- and his ratings. Of course, as several episodes this year have demonstrated, this can put the GOP in an awkward spot: Do Republicans agree with statements by Rush -- or distance themselves from them? Walking the fine line can be difficult.

On the surface, the Rush-NFL story seems to be about race: All NFL owners are white; more than 65 percent of the players are African-American. And black New York Giants players declared that they could never play for a Limbaugh-associated Rams team -- even though their former defensive coordinator is currently the head coach:

"All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in (President) Obama's America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting 'right on,'" Kiwanuka told The Daily News. "I mean, I don't want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play."

And this racially-charged incident wasn't a one-time thing. What Limbaugh can't escape is his ill-fated and brief time as an ESPN Sunday "NFL Countdown" analyst in 2003. That was when he infamously declared that Donovan McNabb wasn't "that good from the get-go" but was celebrated as a great player because the media and the NFL wanted to see "a black quarterback doing well." As it happens, McNabb was wrong on both counts -- his estimation of McNabb's talent and on the level of racial "boostering" in the media. That had been the case a few years before, but not then. It was an old story.

After the Giants players spoke out, Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith started soliciting opinions from other players.

But behind this black and white saga playing out in public, the real drama was going on in living color -- and the color was green.

It's not a coincidence that Goodell zeroed in on that 2003 LImbaugh's incident Tuesday when he made it quite clear that Rush's role with the ownership groups was exceedingly problematic. McNabb isn't just a good player; he's also a good person -- someone who's never been in trouble on or off the field. He is, yes, a role model -- the opposite of the bad boys that Goodell has been forced to discipline over the last few years (including McNabb's now-teammate, Michael Vick).

If Limbaugh could make race a feature of commentary on his first go around connected to one of the NFL's broadcasting partners, what could the league expect if it became partnered with him? Goodell could immediately envision weekly -- if not daily -- politically-charged comments coming out of Rush's mouth. Why not? That's what Rush does -- and does quite well. It's what his 20 milliion listeners expect. They don't listen to him holding his tongue on anything. And again, this has been one of his best years for having his message spread beyond his radio listeners. His statement that he hoped President Obama's agenda would fail resonated throughout the media; his speech before the CPAC conference was covered live by CNN and Fox: NBC's "Today" had a two-part interview this week. He is at his peak.

Goodell's nightmare would be regular headlines of, "NFL owner Rush Limbaugh charged the Obama administration with..." Even worse, the controversial Limbaugh brand would be attached to the conformist "American as apple pie" NFL -- just as Goodell would begin sitting down with the aforementioned Mr. Smith to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement with the players!

It's highly unlikely that Goodell even bothered to poll the owners on whether to let the Checketts-Limbaugh alliance continue. The NFL ownership is heavily Republican (ironically, late Rams owner Georgia Frontiere was one of the few Democrat owners); but they weren't any more likely to permit agreement with Limbaugh's politics imperil their golden goose -- any more than they would allow one of the privileged athletes playing for them.

And so, the Limbaugh-NFL union comes to an end before it even began. This was a potential merger of two hugely successful individual entities that were too big to succeed together.

On the bright side, they still get to remain number one -- separately, though still quite profitably.

Labels: NFL, Roger Goodell, Rush Limbaugh

Labels: Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, racism, Rush Limbaugh

From the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's website in March:

Today Rush Limbaugh yet again crossed the line saying: by the time the debate on President Obama's health care plan is over, "it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill.” It is outrageous to demonize a patriotic Senator who has spent his life fighting so that every person has the opportunity to live the American dream.

Tell Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele to denounce Rush Limbaugh once and for all.

Now, from Senator Robert Byrd (quote from Ben Smith at the Politico):

I had hoped and prayed that this day would never come. My heart and soul weeps at the lost of my best friend in the Senate, my beloved friend, Ted Kennedy.

...In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.

Shame on Senator Byrd! How dare he "demonize a patriotic Senator"!

Tell Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean to denounce Senator Robert Byrd once and for all.

Labels: Robert Byrd, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Kennedy

Based on Sunday's Face The Nation, Barack vs. Dick. vs. Colin vs. Rush may be a Final Four better than the NCAAs: 

Labels: Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh has managed to mix it up with just about everybody this year.

His pre-inaugural statement that he wanted Barack Obama to fail got him identified by Democrats as the "leader of the GOP." That ended up producing retractions of seeming insults from high-profile party leaders like RNC Chairman Michael Steele and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor.

This week, the Rush-inspired party civil war continued. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the party was in "deep trouble," partly because of Rush's influence:

Powell, criticizing some of the party's leaders for bowing too far to the right, suggested that neither radio commentator Rush Limbaugh nor commentator Ann Coulter serve the party well. The party lacks a "positive" spokesperson, according to Powell: "I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without.''

Not surprisingly, Limbaugh fired back:

"What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party," Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday.

Limbaugh also took aim at Powell's decision to endorse President Obama over John McCain during the presidential election, repeating his earlier sentiment that Powell's move was "solely based on race."

"He's just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country who had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama," Limbaugh said. "It was purely and solely based on race.

There are two ironies here: For one thing, Limbaugh says that Powell's endorsement of Obama was "purely and solely based on race." In making that statement, he ignores the various other white moderate Republicans who endorsed Obama. And, as Powell himself said at the time of his endorsement, he could have done it months before if it was "purely and solely based on race."

But Limbaugh is more likely to use race as a motivating factor -- whether it is there or not -- as anybody, including Powell. His brief sojourn at ESPN exploded six years ago over a racial incident that wasn't. He said that the media didn't criticize Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb because he was black:

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

The problem with Limbaugh's analysis? As yours truly pointed out at the time, by 2003, African-American quarterbacks had begun to thrive in the league; there was no need for the sort of media boosterism of which he was claiming -- nor was it in evidence. Interestingly, before quitting ESPN, Limbaugh went on the attack just as he did with the current Powell situation: He annointed himself the hero who was the only one daring to speak truth to power on the, uh, white elephant in the room:

"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," [Rush] said. "If I wasn't right there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sportswriter community."

Note the similar self-aggrandizing language with respect to his being "the one person in the country who had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama."

Another irony that comes from this latest kerfuffle is that for the second week in a row that Limbaugh has suggested certain Republicans need to leave the party. After Arlen Specter jumped to the Democrats, Limbaugh said he should take John McCain and his daughter Meagan with him: "You're weeding out people who aren't really Republicans."

Funny thing though, Rush has made a big thing for years about not being a Republican himself -- or at least beholden to the party establishment. Indeed, he reiterated it during his famous, "I want Obama to fail" performance:

Reasons number 249 and 50 why I'm not a Republican. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has been chosen to introduce Vice-President-elect Biden at a bipartisan dinner in Washington on the eve of the immaculation. Biden was one of Hagel's closest friends in the Senate. "Bipartisan dinners also held that night honoring McCain and Colin Powell. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina will introduce McCain at a dinner." So all these Republicans are being honored on the night before Obama is immaculately inaugurated, as though they're part of the Obama administration. Our presidential candidate is being honored. I can understand liberals honoring their losers, but I just...

So, the guy who proudly claims to not be a Republican is telling a guy who has served in multiple Republican administrations -- and spoken at Republican conventions -- that he should quit the party? But, of course, Rush thinks pushing moderates out of the party makes it that much stronger.

Call it Limbaugh's Anti-Powell Doctrine: The enemy may outnumber you -- but still keep removing as many as possible of the free-thinkers on your team until you've achieved ideological purity. Who knows? Maybe Rush will be knighted as the new leader of the Duchy of Free-donia. Call him the Mouth That Roared*.

*Yes, the mixing of metaphors and allusions to fictional literary and cinematic small countries was intentional.

Labels: Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh

All is not lost! 

Yeah, there are a couple of wars going on. And, yes, there is a mini-, almost-but-not quite -Great Depression enveloping the world. 

But there is cause for hope:  A lot of famous and semi-famous people are really happy to declare their hate for one another!  It's Celebrity Smackdown-A-Rama.  And, we're not talking about Trump's Apprentice wannabes either.  

The GOP vs Rush bit a week ago looked like it was going to fall by the wayside, with Republicans realizing they had been expertly set up by Democrats to get into a Rush-denunciation fest. Then Newt reignited things on Meet the Press, saying that hoping for the president's failure was “irrational.”

Rush then unloaded on the former speaker on Monday:

“I'm frankly getting tired of talking about Newt. I mean, it's a pointless exercise. I'm surprised by nothing when I'm dealing with people in the media who think they're in politics. ... They are fly-by-night operators, and most of them stand for nothing until they see a poll about what the American people want, and then they go out and try to say one way or another what the American people want while trying to falsely hold onto an ideology at the same time — and you can't count on them. You can't depend on them. They will sell you out; they will throw you overboard to save themselves, faster than anything. And they'll use you on their way up as often as they can at the same time.

"I mean, next week Newt could come out and profess his total admiration and love for me if it would serve his purposes. They're running TV ads against me. Newt Gingrich wishes they were running TV ads against him."

Of course, Rush is someone in the media who thinks he's in “politics.” Limbaugh is great at what he does, but it's not like he's ever run a political campaign or won an election. But, so what? The ego has landed on everyone! Newt, for his part, may have staged the whole thing, knowing how Rush would react. After all, Newt is one of the few in the conservative movement who has enough independent cred that he doesn't have to worry about offending dittoheads. The former Speaker won't be “apologizing

Just as these two were swiping at each other, another precinct was  to be heard from!  Yep, ladies this time! Meghan McCain decided to take after Ann Coulter and settle some scores left over from the presidential campaign in the process:

Is she for real or not? Are some of her statements just gimmicks to gain publicity for her books or does she actually believe the things she says? Does she really believe all Jewish people should be “perfected” and become Christians? And what was she thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election? If you truly have the GOP’s best interests at heart, how can you possibly justify telling an audience of millions that a Democrat would be a better leader than the Republican presidential candidate?

Coulter, surprisingly didn't immediately return fire. Possibly because she was busy Monday going at it with her best frenemy, Bill Maher.

Not to be outdone, however, CNBC's money madman decided that Jon Stewart had been too unfair to him on a recent “Daily Show.” Stewart actually went after examples of analysts on the network getting predictions wrong. Admittedly, Stewart did take great pleasure pointing to Cramer's boosting of Bear Stearns several days before it collapsed. So, Cramer responded to Stewart. He also hit the airwaves to dismiss Stewart as just an “entertainer.”

Interestingly enough, that's the same word many of Rush's denouncers in the Republican Party use to dismiss his lines. Hmmm....does this mean that Stewart could be the (a?) leader of the Democratic Party? Joe Scarborough might want people to believe that as he happily tag-teamed with Cramer to slap at Stewart. Of course, Stewart wouldn't let that alone – so he dumped on Cramer again.

Cramer vs. Stewart vs. Scarborough!!!

McCain vs. Coulter vs. Maher!!!

Newt! vs. Rush! (you know you've made it when you only need one name) vs. everybody!!!

Now, none of this is up there with the intellectual firepower of William F. Buckley vs. Gore Vidal. But as end-times entertainment, it sure beats a string quartet on the Titanic 

Labels: Ann Coulter, Jim Cramer, Jon Stewart, Meghan McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh

The problem with Rush Limbaugh as conservative spokesman is eloquently stated by Ross Douthat.  

Labels: Rush Limbaugh

Barack Obama first brought up Rush Limbaugh in a conversation a couple weeks into his presidency.  I thought he had made a mistake -- essentially elevating a talk-show host as a leader of the opposition.  Now, I'm not so sure. 

RNC Chairman Michael Steele said this Saturday about Rush Limbaugh:

“I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be,” Rush said. “I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit.”

Rush then mocked those who have criticized him for saying he wants Obama to fail, and directly challenged them to choose: You either want Obama to succeed or fail at his goal of dismantling conservatism.

“So send those fundraising requests out,” Rush said in a sneering tone, in an apparent reference to Steele, adding: “Make sure you say, `We want Obama to succeed.’ So people understand your compassion.”

“Republicans and conservatives are sick and tired of being talked down to, they’re sick and tired of being lectured to,” Rush continued. “And until you show some understanding and respect for who they are, you’re gonna have a tough time rebuilding your party.”

Labels: Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh