The GOP must choose between Rush and Minorities

The GOP ought to choose Rush. If so, then the minorities, in time, will choose the GOP. I'm talking probably a generation, maybe more. If the GOP "chooses the minorities", then I predict the fracturing of the conservative coalition between the moderates, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives.

And by the way, "choosing the minorities" is really code for "abandoning conservative principles", one of which is adhering to humanistic rather ethnic or socioeconomic platforms.

I don't believe either strategy will amount to conservatism winning elections in the near term. One of those strategies, however, will allow it to be resurrected in time.

Now, there is such a thing as force of personality, and if the right personality comes along who can articulate the message and engage people on a personal level, then he or she can change all of that in about 5 minutes. Right now I don't see that person on the horizon.
 
Roger35, that's the best post you've ever posted. I congratulate you.
 
Colecanth: Did you even read the linked article? Was there any call for abandoning principles?

What conservative principle motivates Rush to do songs like "Barak the Magic Negro" ? Is it a conservative principle to always and in every situation be boorish towards minorities, show no sensetivity or restraint? Do you have to be an ****hole all the time to join the conservative fraternity and embrace and extoll those who are the biggest ***holes? Do you have to assume that people who don't vote conservative do it just because they have their hands out for government help?
 
Crockett, does the writer of the article actually listen to Rush?

I ask because based on your few comments here, it's obvious that you don't - yet you still share your uniformed opinion of him
 
There's no doubt, Roger, that we can find many instances when it seems as though the GOP acts in contradiction to the principles that I alluded to in my post. In some cases, this may be because of lack of devotion to the principle, which is a habit common to all political movements. But in many cases, the world forces us to choose between two or more principles that we believe in. That is, it forces us to give some priority, or rank, to various principles, as we face different sets of emergencies through the years. Or, it is more accurate to say that the world forces us to re-prioritize these principles continually; and in doing so, the opposition (no matter which side) will always be able to find some contradiction that it can exploit.

So Abraham Lincoln may well say, in 1854 that a government "ought to redress all wrongs which are wrongs to the nation itself", but he was not prepared, at that point, to end the wrong of slavery, even if he had been president. Nor would he be prepared to do so until after the Civil War had begun, and even then he did so primarily as a device for ending the war sooner. This is precisely because he understood that the related concepts of priority and emergency interacted in dynamic ways.

But even if I'm wrong about all that, the whole premise of the thread is about "reaching out" to minorities, and there can only be 3 explanations of why the conservatives such as myself would be averse to this course of action: (1) they are stupid, (2) they are racists, or (3) they believe it is counter to the greater good (or the principle of humanism) to do so.

Now, I would concede the general truth that there are no doubt stupid people, and racist people, in both parties. But do you wish to say that all conservatives are stupid, or racist?
 
I have listened to Rush in the distant past, but honestly, like in most of conservative talk radio I just get really tired of listening for minutes stretching into quarter hours hoping the blather, the self promotion, the speculation, the unempathetic portrayal of liberal positions, will slow and somebody will initroduce a "fact" into the discussion. But I do catch the "highlights" when he says something stupid or offensive enough to make the Daily Show.
 
Crockett, do you vote on the basis of sentiment?

Let's just say, for the sake of the argument, that you're right about Rush being insensitive. Are we safe, then, to exempt ourselves from having to consider the arguments of all insensitive people? Does sensitivity, or sentiment, provide us with a solid basis for deciding how to cast our vote?

How much weight do you think sentimentality should have in helping us decide whom to vote for?
 
I can hear a lot more quality, well-delivered conservative opinions during 30 minutes of NPR than I can two hours of the Rush Limbaugh show. Real conservatives offer substantial well-informed opinions delivered politely in an information-packed dialogue. I really try to listen to conservative radio every now and again , to Rush, to Mark Davis .. to get the other side. Then I keep saying to myself .. mllions of listeners must hear something here concetrate Crockett. ... " please Rush , make a point ... make an arguement -- guilt by association is a logic fail ... God you just found the dumbest liberal alive and you are using quotes from him to tell us what we are all "thinking" ...give me some real logic that would stand up in an academic discussion ... oh God another commercial ... but they only talked four minutes since the last commercial and it was all packaging something that may be useful .... but wait we packaged before the commercial ... unwrap it now don't package some more ... what have you got ... how much longer before I can hear something relevant ...
The second my concentration flags and I stop making a conscious decision to listen my hand reaches over to switch to sports radio, NPR or an oldies station.
 
Ramius and Colecanth: The linked article was full of Rush quotes. Was the "Barack the Magic Negro" just made up? Can you guys imagine why black people may find it offensive. Offering up Allen West as a role model? So the inablity to distinguish between West German style social democracy is and East German Communist oppression is an intellectual mark to which bright young black people should aspire? I pomise you, Allen West could outstupid a Rick Perry-Michelle Bachmann tag team and I'm not saying that with any disrepect to his race.
 
I think the point of the article has sailed over the heads of many of our Republican friends here. It isn't arguing that Republicans should abandon their principles (even though they long ago did that), but Rush and people like him.
 
Romney distanced himself from talk radio and lost every swing state. I'm confused as to what he could have done other than calling for them to be taken off the air. This of course is exactly what people apparently want him to do - and oddly enough don't care that Obama or other prominent democrats have embraced MSNBC.

I would submit to you that the problem isn't that Romney didn't distance himself enough, because he couldn't distance himself enough. The left had him painted as a right-wing extremist despite him being probably as moderate a republican as has ever run! Ultimately what the GOP chooses or does not choose is irrelevant, because it will always be portrayed in the media as crazed, right-wing extremism.
 
I dunno... let's see. He's asked by reporters to talk about a non-issue about an inconsequential person that has nothing to do with his campaign that has been raised by someone that he has never embraced publicly. he said he wouldn't use those words - why is it so important that he attack any conservative that a reporter wants to name?

Romney refused invitations to go on pretty much every conservative talk show there is - I don't even know if he went on Hannity.

Again, you just proved my point. It's not enough that he not associate with or embrace them. He has to call them out proactively. You guys are such hypocrites. You couldn't care less about any demonization of women if they're conservative. Bill Mahr can say anything he wants and not a peep. But apparently the left needs constant reassurance that any republican doesn't approve of Rush Limbaugh because he uses a pejorative that I can pretty much here on every sitcom running today.

And the key is this: it's not about getting Romney to denounce - it's about association. By even spending a second on the topic, Romney gives it credibility. He did his best to skirt it and move on, which he should have. It was a ridiculous situation and not worth the time the media wasted on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top