Republicans are all in a tizzy over the supposed concession from democratic leaders that radio personality Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Grand Old Party. Republicans have called the move "cynical" and an "outrage", among other things, while failing to understand the reasoning behind it. The party was waiting for a leader to step up, Limbaugh took the reigns and nobody stopped him… Why is that so hard to understand?
The party seems to have lost its direction, and without any Jews in the party, they're unlikely to realize this could mean 40 years in the desert.
The republicans grip on power began slipping in the 2006 elections when they lost 31 seats in congress and 5 in the senate (plus 6 governorships), becoming the minority party for the first time in 12 years. Rather than recognizing the shift as a hint that times may be changing, the republicans kept towing the traditional line, you know, with the gay bashing, abortion hating, war mongering and all, and in 2008, the democratic party picked up another 21 seats in congress and 8 in the senate.
And of course, Obama took the Whitehouse back to blue by a tremendous margin, overcoming his lack of experience, blackness and the sheer ineptitude of Joe-the-Biden.
To put it another way, the republicans controlled 54% of the house and senate seats in 2004. In 2008, that figure fell to 41%. This could be seen as a referendum for change.
There are a few presumptive republican leaders to look to, but they haven't stepped up. RNC chairman Michael Steele is has embarrassed himself enough times to be discounted, especially for his racial gaffes, but the real problem with him is that he fails to inspire. He lacks the leadership quality his party is looking for, and so the vacuum remains.
Many have looked to the scandal plagued, media-demonized Sarah Palin, but she has said she's in no position to lead, and that she won't even run for national office in 2012. It's an interesting stance, considering she was ready to lead the nation just a few months ago. Besides, she's got an impending state budget gap so massive it will make California's embarrassment look downright responsible.
John McCain would be an obvious choice to look to for leadership, but apparently America voted, he's not their leader, and he's quietly stepped back into virtual obscurity. He can't touch the media attention commanded by Palin, Limbaugh or even Steele, so the old man may not be dead, but he is gone.
So Rush made a few inflammatory remarks, got himself a few headlines, and effortlessly stepped into the role of GOP leader. He didn't get it without a fight, though. Michael Steele spoke out against him, calling his rhetoric "ugly". Georgia Representative Phil Gingrey said Limbaugh likes to just "stand back and throw bricks" instead of offering "real leadership".
But the biggest bad boy with the greatest face for radio redirected his bile towards both Gingrey and Steele, ripping them to shreds on his popular syndicated radio show. He called his constituents (mostly conservative men over the age of 50) to action, and they flooded calls to the corresponding offices, making both high profile critics come sniveling back in apologetic disgrace.
It's not lackluster Photoshop work, his head really is that big.
The lesson was clear. If you try to stand up to Rush Limbaugh, you will feel pain. Between three divorces and the untold pounds of Oxycontin the guy's eaten over the years, it's safe to say he knows a thing or two about pain.
Rush assumed the leadership role, a few voices tried to dissent, and they were crushed.
If the Democratic Party is calling Rush Limbaugh the leader of all republicans, the republicans who don't appreciate it need to stop pointing fingers across the aisle. If he isn't the leader, and they don't agree with his comments or nature, they need to stand up and say so. Not to the democrats who don't care too much either way. They need to say it to Rush.
Phil Gingrey had a chance. He could have stood up, offered some bold ideas, and maybe even become that much-needed leader himself. Instead of growing that much-needed hairy pair of 'em, he said he sees "eye to eye with Rush Limbaugh." He even said that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich are the "voices of the conservative movement's conscience."
Since when did the conservative movement in politics have a conscience? These are the people who support the death penalty, support sending our teenage children to fight and die in wars without purpose, and demand that even the gays in their own party are deprived of rights.
So if republicans refuse to denounce him as their leader, why should democrats do anything different? Why should they be left to conquer the demons the conservatives are too terrified to tackle?
And in the mean time, based on the outdated dogma of ultra-conservatives like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, the democratic representatives are plenty happy to let the madness continue.
Republicans, meanwhile, are encouraged to get in touch with the people, and not just the ones who attend ultra-conservative rallies, to get a better handle on the fact that it's no longer the 1950s, that American sensibilities have changed significantly, and that they better start evolving if they hope to hold any power at all in the future. Also, they might be wise to believe in evolution, because without it, those cavemen stand little chance of figuring out much more than how to buy Geico.
