To: Michael Steele
From: Mitch Berg
Re: Limbaugh
Chairman Steele,
For starters, congrats on winning the chairmanship.
In addition; my condolences on winning the chairmanship.
A while ago, I introduced a metaphor I like a lot – the “Tug of War” – to describe politics at this stage of the race. There are two (or more sides) to every question, and each is a tug of war, and each of our job is to get as many people pulling our way as possible, knowing we’ll likely never pull the other team into the mud pit, but we’ll at least pull the rope – the issue – far enough to our side to make us happy enough which, in a representative democracy (either a government or a party) is as good as it gets.
Rush Limbaugh represents a lot of us who are pulling to the right. You represent a lot of people who pull in different directions on a lot of issues – the fiscal right, perhaps, but the social center on a lot of issues, including some on which you and I disagree.
So don’t yap about Limbaugh pulling to the right; that’s his job.
Rather, try to sell the rest of us on what your vision is. Convince us. Show us where you have a better plan. Because your last couple of predecessors sure didn’t do it. The burden of proof is on you to show where you and your office have a better idea, especially inasmuch as Rush and all of us conservatives represent ideas that have worked, and a time that the party did conquer all in its path. Rush – and all of us – represent the Gingrich and Reagan eras; too many of the hamsters we have in office now represent the Trent Lott era.
But this is your chance, Mr. Steele. Show us what you’ve got. Take the good ideas from the right – and there are an awful lot of them – and convince us on the rest.
You have a little less than a year before the race to contest Congress heats up again.
Don’t screw up – and by that, I mean “don’t do what the last two rounds of elections have done – whiz on conservatives”.
That is all.
The problem with “fiscal conservative but social liberal” is that the social side always trumps the fiscal side so you end up with plain “liberal.”
Example:
Fiscal conservative: We should not tax people to pay for private elective medical procedures. You want one, go get it on your own nickel.
Social liberal: A woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy; but if she can’t afford to exercise that right then she’s no more than a slave. Rights you can’t afford aren’t rights. Society must help her to exercise her rights by providing taxpayer funded partial-birth abortions. We can’t let heartless accounting prevent us from doing moral good.
That’s why “compassionate conservatism” ends up looking exactly like Planned Parenthood. Frankly, I’d prefer Fiscal conservate, Social conservative, and if my most elequent spokesperson happens to have his own radio show, more power to him.
.
To: America
From: Former Chairman Howard Dean
Re: Chairman Steele
America,
And you thought I was wiggy? Hahahahahahahahahaha!
nate says:
“Social liberal: A woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy; but if she can’t afford to exercise that right then she’s no more than a slave. Rights you can’t afford aren’t rights. Society must help her to exercise her rights by providing taxpayer funded partial-birth abortions. We can’t let heartless accounting prevent us from doing moral good.”
I find a huge difference between elective items – like getting a nose job or a boob job, or VIAGRA and other ED treatments – and terminating a pregnancy. Why is it that I never ever ever hear a man acknowledge that having his penis be erect is not a NECESSITY? Yet so few people ever gripe about the funding for ED meds. So few people seem to be aware that it was our government that funded VIAGRA research.
No woman should be forced to be pregnant against her wishes. I find it ridiculous that the ‘rights’ of a potential life are given precedence by some over the rights, even the very life, of an actual living person who happens to be female.
Partial birth abortions btw have been illegal for some time.
Rights you can’t afford aren’t rights? So, it would follow that if you can’t afford an abortion, you also can’t afford to raise the resulting child either…
something nate seems to have neglected to address.
Seems to me that I remember the argument about affording rights raised back when that was a basis for denying voting rights to certain segments of our society. We acknowledge LOTS of rights not based on financial considerations, like the right to K-12 education. Sheesh!
“”I like a lot – the “Tug of War” “”
Your best piece ever, and the Patriot magazine, opened to that particular article, is on my bulletin board at school. You should see the looks I get when staff come in. I just tell ’em, “It works both ways” *grin*
“So don’t yap about Limbaugh pulling to the right; that’s his job.”
Gotta disagree here. Limbaugh’s job is selling advertising. Always keep that in mind. Rush’s ego (and his ratings) may get a huge boost out of the attention that he’s getting from Obama, but his approval rating is below Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright.
I for one don’t want a guy that I never listen to, being the voice and face of my party.
Oh Oh, MoN gets it. How many more will see the light in time to save their party . tick . . tock . . tick . . tock
Flash,
This is all a cheap political trick orchestrated by hacks like Emanuel, and his media butt buddies, Stephanopoulos and Begala. I thought you didn’t like the use of talking points.
Steele shouldn’t have fallen in this trap, and neither should the rest of us.
BTW, your concern about the state of the GOP is about as genuine as any of your other concerns posted here.
Love you too, Mon!
So let me get this straight, Steele and Rush get in a catfight, and it is a set up by the Dems. WOW!
Now, I can accept that some fictitious non existent liberal media is doing their best to amplify the spat, but the spat itself is nothing more than a battle for relevance within your own party.
If the Dems could dictate who the GOP Pres candidate was in ’08, why shouldn’t they try to dictate who the “voice and face” is too?
Classic. Define your opponent and then make them defend themselves.
“my bulletin board at school” – flush
Really?
LImbaugh’s job is to get advertising revenue… and what? He can apparently only do that by, as some hard cases suggest, expressing opinions not his own? By lying?
The guy entertains (wait for it) and speaks his mind sincerely and conveys what he believes.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Another one of Flash’s talking points shot down:
Just 11% of Republicans Say Limbaugh Is Their Party’s Leader
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_11_of_republicans_say_limbaugh_is_their_party_s_leader
“Badda Says:
March 4th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
LImbaugh’s job is to get advertising revenue… and what? He can apparently only do that by, as some hard cases suggest, expressing opinions not his own? By lying?
The guy entertains (wait for it) and speaks his mind sincerely and conveys what he believes.
They are not mutually exclusive. ”
They might be soon. Apparently Mr. Limbaugh is interested in attracting female listeners, and has asked women to explain to him why so many women dislike Rush. Along with the inquiry some willingness to change was expressed. I guess name calling things like “feminazi” wasn’t viewed as favorably by women.
I’ll see if I can find the print link.
Well, not by the feminazi and the members of the National Association of Gals… N.A.G.s.
Something tells me, Dog, that conservative women don’t mind calling members of NOW a bunch of NAGS and feminazis.
My impression Badda was that Rush had so very few women who approved of his views that he was trying to impress more women than just conservative women.
His numbers are that low in the female demographic, low enough to argue against Rush’s following even among conservative women. Further, I question whether there are enough conservative woment to generate the kind of ad revenue that he appears to be seeking.
Our experience may be different Badda, but not too many of the conservative women of my acquaintance like Rush either. I don’t like Rush’s attitude towards women for that matter; I find his comments demeaning to women.
I suspect that as long as he uses phrases that appear arrogant to the effect that he ‘owns’ the male demographic and now wants to ‘own’ the female equivalent, he is going to be disappointed.
Dog,
What do you mean his attitude to women?
If you mean his use of the term feminazi, that’s not an attitude to women. If anything, considering who Rush has used the term on, it is more of an insult to Nazis. (I keed, I keed.)
I constantly hear how “Rush is…” and his “attitude toward…” but when I push for specifics it seems lean at best.
Ha, ha, as comically entertaining as it is to watch you tragically incompetent rubes pile in and out of your clown car again and again, you might want to save some time and have your elected GOP officials preemptively sign the Apologize to Rush Form Letter. Because nothing says electoral WIN like kowtowing to a vulgar, fat-fingered douchebag.
Stop talking about your mother that way, Tim.
Mitch pleaded: “Don’t screw up – and by that, I mean “don’t do what the last two rounds of elections have done – whiz on conservatives”.”
Heck, Angryclown would cross the street to whiz on conservatives if they were on fire!
*Wouldn’t*
Damn, that mistake’s so bad, Angryclown will not only have to sack his girl, but he’ll then have to hire a new girl and sack her as well.
flash said:
“So let me get this straight, Steele and Rush get in a catfight, and it is a set up by the Dems. WOW!”
*cough* scaifenet *cough*
Dog Gone said:
“I find a huge difference between elective items – like getting a nose job or a boob job, or VIAGRA and other ED treatments – and terminating a pregnancy.”
Huge difference, sure, but all are “elective items”, I think. Comparing the “elective items” is bunk: *jobs and *treatments aren’t killing anyone.
“No woman should be forced to be pregnant against her wishes”
OK, but who should be forced to pay for whatever this woman wishes?
She could decide not to risk becoming pregnant, and so not involve anyone else in her elective procedure purchasing decisions. Or she could ask others to foot the bill, and so deal with their wishes as well as her own. Is that unfair?
Damn, that mistake’s so bad
Never diss a good Freudian slip, Clownie.
His numbers are that low in the female demographic, low enough to argue against Rush’s following even among conservative women.
That’s just a tad misleading.
Female numbers are low all across political talk, left and right, confrontation and discussion-based…all of it.
Limbaugh’s female numbers are (the last I checked ’em) better than most, actually.
Limbaugh couldn’t score a female demographic with a fistful of $20s outside the Lincoln Tunnel.
Good thing Angryclown isn’t a Republican. He’d be forced to apologize to your bloated, drug-addicted party leader right about………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….NOW!
Limbaugh couldn’t score a female demographic with a fistful of $20s outside the Lincoln Tunnel.
Substitute “any political talk show host” for Limbaugh and you’re pretty well on target.
I think Republicans should declare Osama Bin Laden the leader of the Democrat party, and then blather on and on about how “when Osama talks, Democrats listen”.
Oh yeah, Troy, cause you haven’t tried that yet.
It is pretty funny to see all your Republican heroes line up to kiss Rush’s fat ass.
“Limbaugh couldn’t score a female demographic with a fistful of $20s outside the Lincoln Tunnel.”
Maybe so, but he could buy your fat ass for a bottlecap.
Obama: “”You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,”
Emanuel: “He [Rush] is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”
Gibbs: “‘The best question, though, is for you to ask individual
Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this
weekend.”
Carville: “He is the most exalted Republican. He is the leader of their party. They have submitted to him in the Congress. They quake at mighty Rush. And he’s the one that’s setting the Republican agenda.”
Begala: “The real leader of the Republican Party in America today is a corpulent drug addict with an AM radio talk show, Rush Limbaugh.”
Stephanouplos: ““So the Rush Limbaugh approach of wanting the president to fail is not the Eric Cantor, House Republican approach?”
DNC: “Nearly every Republican in Congress voted against the Recovery plan. Instead, they’re following Rush Limbaugh, who last week reiterated his hope that President Obama fails.”
AUC: “Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,”
No, no evidence of any talking points here.
“Troy says
Huge difference, sure, but all are “elective items”, I think. Comparing the “elective items” is bunk: *jobs and *treatments aren’t killing anyone.”
Actually, one of the factors which I believe significantly differentiate an elective from a non-elective procedure would be the time factor. If you are under a significant time limitation for a procedure, you aren’t acting on whim. Because pregnancy require a woman’s body to perform all of the functions for not only the woman but in large part the developing fetus there are potentially life endangering risks involved that are significantly different from an elective, non-essential procedure. There are a number of potential complications that could be a cause for an abortion, including things like gestational diabetes, the problems with incompatible blood chemistry, being diagnosed with a health condition like cancer which makes it difficult or impossible to receive treatment while pregnant.
The main point as I read it made by nate was that an abortion was only a woman’s right if she could afford to pay for it. That all rights were dependent on being able to pay for them. nate has yet to address the rationale of how a woman should be expecting to pay for offspring she does not want to have, if she cannot pay for an abortion. Or the rationale that rights are only yours if you can afford them.
Troy says,
“She could decide not to risk becoming pregnant, and so not involve anyone else in her elective procedure purchasing decisions. Or she could ask others to foot the bill, and so deal with their wishes as well as her own. Is that unfair? ”
You make some unfair assumptions here Troy. The first one, that all pregnancies are from a voluntary exposure to the risk of pregnancy. They are not. Second, that all of the pregnancies that are terminated by women who need medical assistance for them were the result of failing to take precautions. Even precautions fail. And no one here has addressed the comparative societal costs, between abortion and the many expenses involved in subsidizing the child resulting from an unwanted pregnancy.
I’ve been with someone during an abortion. There is a big difference in the basis for the choice. While I sincerely believe that an abortion should be the last resort, and never a substitution for responsible control of one’s reproduction, there are appropriate and necessary occasions for it.
Mitch says,
“That’s just a tad misleading.
Female numbers are low all across political talk, left and right, confrontation and discussion-based…all of it.
Limbaugh’s female numbers are (the last I checked ‘em) better than most, actually. ”
You may well be right about Limbaugh’s comparative numbers. I neither checked his or anyone else’s; rather I relied on Mr. Limbaugh’s own description of his demographics, figuring he oughta know best about them.
He himself made the statement that he was interested in gaining female listeners, and was interested in finding what changes it would take to get them. From that I infer he was prepared to make at least some changes.
I take issue with not only his Feminazi comment but the one about the feminist movement and unattractive women. It strikes me as not only the view of a misogynist, but as supportive of the worst kind of double standards.
Not in any way intending this to be hurtful or offensive to Mr. Limbaugh, but he is not exactly a stunning example of human pulchritude. For an old, overweight guy, he’s pretty ordinary looking, not ugly, just… plain rather than attractive. The idea that his career or any other kind of participation in society should be dependent on his appearance is laughable. But apparently he is willing to assert it as a pre-requisite for women to do those same things. His dismissive tone certainly suggests that he is not in sympathy with feminists about the double standard.
Parents, teachers, and mentors are usually concerned with convincing girls and young women that what they put into their brains is more important in life for the long run than superficial things like stuffing their bras. That their character and integrity, and qualities like their work ethic are more important than their derriers meeting with the approval of men, including old male talk show hosts.
Just today I saw an update on the women from Iran who was blinded by some jerk who threw acid in her eyes, blinding her and leaving extensive scarring over her face and body. She requested under Sharia justice that her attacker be blinded, literally, an eye for an eye, and was granted that judgement. Her attacker had expected to buy his way out of his crime, but the woman was adamant.
Only now it appears that the attacker will only be blinded by having doctors, while under anesthesia, put acid in one eye, not both. Because, according to the woman, in Iran, women have only half the value of men.
On the rare occasions I have listened to Rush, his dismissive comments to women who seek equal pay, and equal opportunities to use their abilities, seems a difference in how one values wome of degree but not of kind from that Iranian view.
That perception of Rush seems widely held by most of the women I know, regardless of political views. I think it will take quite a lot of change to alter that.
Dog,
Have you seen some of those activist feminists???
Rush is being KIND to them by merely suggesting they have a couple of strikes against them.
I, too, have written an open letter to Michael Steele.
You may read it here: http://link-url.com/MSteele_OpenLtr
…