Well, to be fair, he didn’t even do that.

He told GOP Congresscritters, in a closed-door meeting, that they couldn’t just parrot Rush Limburgh and still claim to be acting in the country’s best interests.

It was after that quote was leaked that the merde hit the fan, as senior GOP official after senior GOP official first tried to distance themselves from Limburgh, then recieved a telling off on Limburgh’s show, then raced to the microphone to say how much they agreed with Limburgh and respected his leadership role.

The Obama Administration has taken advantage of the GOP’s woes by stirring the pot a little, but the major cause behind the Limburgh Disaster has been the realisation that it’s based on a true story – Rush Limburgh really does have more influence and control over the affections of the Republican Base than any of its elected officials, and they really do have to kiss his ring when he says they should.

For a major political party in a country that very recently rejected everything Limburgh stands for, that’s more than humiliating, it’s damned well suicidal.

I believe that a repputable conservative magazine, such as American Conservative, should publish a front page article denouncing Limbaugh as the ‘supposed spokesperson’ of Conservatism.

I’d be willing to donate some money for it, too…

Any thoughts???

The talk radio goofs are all just radio celebrities. They lead opinions/movements in the same manner as [insert current Hollywood "it" girl/boy]. It’s the fans’ adoration of the on-air personas that causes them to thoughtlessly repeat what they heard on the radio at lunchtime. Just ask anyone who has proudly proclaimed that he or she has been “Hannitized”.

Why not turn the popular focus towards the ego of Rush Limbaugh and the cult of personality that tunes into his show every day? One benefit is that it shifts the spotlight away from the cult of personality that is devoted to Obama. More importantly, in the funhouse of media reality, it connects to the talk radio goofs themselves anyone who agrees with the often correct criticism leveled by Right radio. “You must be a Rush Limbaugh fan” is an easy way to shut the ears of anyone listening to a thoughtful conservative at a party.

You’re right. That is a misnomer. Then again, saying they should declare bankruptcy means that the government ought to do something based on the law, as opposed to doing something based on public opinion and lobbyist pressure. I’d rather have the former.

Chapin seems to consider Limbaugh to be a religious figure who must be treated with reverence. It isn’t a matter of who is right or wrong, but of questions one dare not even raise.

The Democratic establishment knows that the easiest way to neutralize Limbaugh is to get people talking about him. Limbaugh did a lot of good during the Clinton years, and he’s done no good whatsoever since. What’s changed? His focus. Back then he was focused on Clintonian malfeasance. Now he’s focused on himself. He has nothing good to say about himself, neither does anyone else. He isn’t a worthy topic for discussion.

I find a parallel problem with the Judiciary. There were arguments over Terri Schiavo, but one key question is if you cross the courthouse threshold, do you subject yourself to a super unaccountable branch of government, or into where all three can affect things. Or the simple criticism of judges. Or simply consider Clarence Thomas, or Robert Bork, or Ginsberg.

(The greatest folly is when they say GM, Chrysler, etc. should declare bankruptcy INSTEAD of having the government do something; Where exactly do bankruptcy proceedings occur and who runs them?).

And when are they going to start saying “the formerly oxycontin and allegedly currently viagra stained fingers and lips…”.

God help us. Or God judge us as it would be an act of mercy.