Not really.

Really? It sure looks that way to me ... Cantor basically did a 180.

 

You really don't think Limbaugh is a highly influential voice in Republican circles right now?

This is for both parties: Is it wrong for a registered democrat or republican to support someone in the opposite party during an election? It just seems that any Republican that says something in agreement with Obama is asked by Limbaugh to leave the party. Is it absolutely necessary to follow lock-step with everything that a conservative (or liberal) radio entertainer says? Are you in the wrong if you don't?

 

I have no problem voting for either party. I view it more as liberal or conservative than I do democrat or republican. I tend to favor Republcans because in general they are more conservative.

 

That said, I honestly do not understand how any person who conciders themselves to be conservative could possibly vote for Obama. His is one, if the, most liberal people to occupy the office.

Edited May 8, 200917 yr by coldweatherfan

When guys like Eric Cantor, who is touted as one of the Republican Party's rising stars, starts parroting Rush after being chastised for his "listening tour" comments, it's obvious that Rush has more than just "a voice" in Republican circles.

 

Rush is far more influential in Republican circles than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are on the other side.

 

Perhaps he is today, but in their heyday, Jesse and Al were pretty influential too on the national Democratic scene. But even then, I didn't think they were the face and voice of the Democratic Party.

 

Rush is a blow hard and a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle know it. Are some of his positions on point with a large cadre of Republicans? Sure they are. The fact that some politicians agree with some of his points or for that matter all of his points, still doesn't make him the poster child of the Republican Party any where close to the degree that the Democrats are attempting to portray him to be.

 

All this silliness of the Republican Party being on the brink of being torn apart or becoming only a regional party is just that: silliness. I still believe that a majority of Americans believe more in the Republican platform than the Democratic platform. The Republicans got swept out of control of Congress for primarily three reasons: Americans have repeatedly got "tired" of one party in control of Congress and voted accordingly; the Iraq war; and frankly the Republicans in Congress messed up and failed to act and condone themselves in the manner they should have.

 

If the Republicans don't overreact like a bunch of Chicken Littles, they will be just fine. Part of that is simply due to the American voters deciding in 2, 4 or 8 years that they are tired of the Democrats in control and part of that is simply due to the fact that I believe that a majority of Americans will eventually determine that the Change Obama promised and is delivering is too far to the left.

 

Republicans need to just stay calm and not overreact.

Perhaps he is today, but in their heyday, Jesse and Al were pretty influential too on the national Democratic scene. But even then, I didn't think they were the face and voice of the Democratic Party.

Jackson, perhaps, around 20-25 years ago. His influence has waned considerably since then. I don't think that Sharpton has ever been very influential, despite his attempts to follow in Jackson's footsteps.

 

I still don't think Jackson ever had the influence in Democratic circles that Limbaugh has with the Republicans today.

Rush is a blow hard and a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle know it.

Amen to that ... it's the exact term I've long used to describe him.

All this silliness of the Republican Party being on the brink of being torn apart or becoming only a regional party is just that: silliness. I still believe that a majority of Americans believe more in the Republican platform than the Democratic platform. The Republicans got swept out of control of Congress for primarily three reasons: Americans have repeatedly got "tired" of one party in control of Congress and voted accordingly; the Iraq war; and frankly the Republicans in Congress messed up and failed to act and condone themselves in the manner they should have.

I'm in full agreement there, with perhaps the exception of the platform comment. I think the country is about even when it comes to those ... both have some attractive elements, and both have some real turn-off positions.

If the Republicans don't overreact like a bunch of Chicken Littles, they will be just fine. Part of that is simply due to the American voters deciding in 2, 4 or 8 years that they are tired of the Democrats in control and part of that is simply due to the fact that I believe that a majority of Americans will eventually determine that the Change Obama promised and is delivering is too far to the left.

 

Republicans need to just stay calm and not overreact.

You could be right, although I don't think Obama is as far-left as many want to portray him to be.

Republicans need to just stay calm and not overreact.

 

To me, that change in voting in 2, 4, or 8 years will have to come from the moderate sector of the Republican party. "Blowhards" like Rush are condemning those center-learning people right now who are not in agreement and telling them to leave the party. If those people are insulted by him and are perhaps welcomed into the opposing party (as a moderate voice in a liberal group), how will there be a sizable number of Republicans left to making sweeping electoral change?

Really? It sure looks that way to me ... Cantor basically did a 180.

 

You really don't think Limbaugh is a highly influential voice in Republican circles right now?

 

Not at all.

I don't know who the guy was filling in for Rush today, but in the brief segment I heard the intimation was that if you didn't fall well in line in the "social conservative and commitment to the unborn" wing to the party, that you weren't entirely welcome.

 

An attitude like that could eventually make the Republican Party smaller and more regional in nature. And gchs is right, it's guys like Rush and Hannity that are driving the wedge through the conservative, neocon and moderate wings of the party.

I'm hearing the same wishful thinking from the left that I remember hearing from the right in 1995. Remember back then the Democrats were dead and buried. Neither party is going to go away. As LN stated, the Republicans will be just fine as the pendulum swings back the other way. If there's one thing both parties have proven over and over, is that they each know how to screw up a good thing.

I don't think Rush has as much influence as people suspect simply because the great majority of his audience already supports him and his views and those that listen that aren't on his side do so to reaffirm their feelings.

I don't know who the guy was filling in for Rush today, but in the brief segment I heard the intimation was that if you didn't fall well in line in the "social conservative and commitment to the unborn" wing to the party, that you weren't entirely welcome.

 

An attitude like that could eventually make the Republican Party smaller and more regional in nature. And gchs is right, it's guys like Rush and Hannity that are driving the wedge through the conservative, neocon and moderate wings of the party.

 

 

A wishful thought on your part perhaps, but I think you are wrong. Heck, I think Nancy and Harry are more of a threat to the Democrats than Rush is to the Republicans, for while Rush can talk about extreme Republican positions, Nancy and Harry have the juice to make the extreme Democratic positions happen. And as these two folks do that, then the moderate majority of Americans will vote once again for the Republicans. Heck, Westsider, I've met you and know that you are old enough to have seen it happen in the past. It will once again, then again, and again, and again, etc.

A wishful thought on your part perhaps, but I think you are wrong.

No, it's not wishful thinking. I don't know where this idea that I'm some dyed-in-the-wool lefty and Democrat started, but I'm not a partisan.

 

Frankly, we need two healthy parties ... actually, three or four healthy parties would be better.

Heck, I think Nancy and Harry are more of a threat to the Democrats than Rush is to the Republicans, for while Rush can talk about extreme Republican positions, Nancy and Harry have the juice to make the extreme Democratic positions happen. And as these two folks do that, then the moderate majority of Americans will vote once again for the Republicans.

Could be ... I'm not a fan of Pelosi and Reid, either.

No, it's not wishful thinking. I don't know where this idea that I'm some dyed-in-the-wool lefty and Democrat started, but I'm not a partisan.

 

Frankly, we need two healthy parties ... actually, three or four healthy parties would be better.

Could be ... I'm not a fan of Pelosi and Reid, either.

 

Absolutely! I've lost hope that it will ever happen though. I thought there was a chance in the 90's when Perot had some success but the third parties have since lost momentum.

Love him or hate him,,, Limbaugh's facts are correct over 90% of the time.. Right leaning company's like the Sullivan Group have him as high as 98% correct and left leaning company's have him at 94% correct..

 

I love Rush and he is always right on target! The truth hurts, especially the democrats.

Joe Scarborough made an interesting point on his "Morning Joe" show on MSNBC today. His contention is that Colin Powell's post-9/11 mindset was actually "more conservative" than that of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, and that those guys would have been wise to heed his advice on how to approach the situation in Iraq.

 

The point being that the much of the Republican philosophy now is more neo-conservative than "old-school" conservative.

Joe Scarborough made an interesting point on his "Morning Joe" show on MSNBC today. His contention is that Colin Powell's post-9/11 mindset was actually "more conservative" than that of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, and that those guys would have been wise to heed his advice on how to approach the situation in Iraq.

 

The point being that the much of the Republican philosophy now is more neo-conservative than "old-school" conservative.

The Republican Party has certainly lost its way. All you have to do is look at the enormous spending under Bush. Even if you want to argue that more military spending is "conservative"- which may be true, provided you don't also argue that more intervention in foreign affairs is conservative, unless your also willing to wager that Clinton was a neocon (because his track record on overseas intervention was equally abysmal)- Bush's non-military spending was growing at the fast rate of any President in decades.