Does Rush Represent the GOP?
Right now, I am wondering if there are any Michael Steele supporters regretting their support for his RNC Chairmanship. With the recent Rush Limbaugh controversy, along with a lot of fellow Republicans angered at Steele for his leadership. Although he has only been the Chairman for a month, Steele has fired the entire staff and has yet to fill some key positions. Byron York of The Washington Examiner reports that this is starting to raise some suspicions with Steele, especially since he has been appearing on television and not dealing with the internal affairs at the RNC. Now, I am not completely saying there is no hope for Steele, rather I think he just needs to focus on the job the RNC membership elected him to do.
While I like Rush Limbaugh, I do not believe he is the right figure to lead the RNC, and I do not think he is the next leader of the conservative movement. Limbaugh is definitely a strong conservative, but he is polarizing by many Republicans (not just the RINOS, rather those with a libertarian bent). However, he is not afraid to shy away from a battle, but is the ideologue needed to lead the party? We need someone who will be a tireless worker for the party, but be able to reach out on the technological end, campaign end, and get candidates who will stand strong for our core principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility.
Limbaugh will not unite the party or really go out there to get our candidates passionate about our core principles. A recent Rasmussen Report shows that “just 11% of Republicans view Limbaugh as the leader of the G.O.P., while 81% of Republicans do not view him as their leader, and 8% remain undecided.” While Limbaugh may not be a good choice, there are certainly other leaders who could be considered strong leaders for our party.
Why don’t we look back to the candidates who ran? No doubt, I believed Ken Blackwell would have been the best choice to represent the G.O.P. His vision for revamping the G.O.P. involved incorporating technology, working with young Republicans and other ethnic outreach groups, strengthening the party platform, and recruiting candidates who would not back down from the principles. There were other viable candidates, like Saul Anuzis and Katon Dawson, who could have filled this void as well.
However, Steele was selected and maybe, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to lead. If we fail, then we can focus on finding a new leader for the party. Steele just needs to be focused on his job, not television performances.
Posted on March 5, 2009, in National Politics and tagged Republicans, Rush Limbaugh. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.
I don’t think we should be putting regret in supporting Michael Steele just yet; give him a chance to learn from recent events and see where he goes from there I say.
As for Rush Limbaugh, there is no doubt that he is very influential within the conservative circle, but he is and always was a red herring for all the finger pointing on the left and by the current White House administration. He is a pundit, not a politician, and for people to be taking this kind of criticism towards him seriously shows just how easily swayed and manipulated people can be. I wish I could say all we needed to do was to tell these people to ignore the Rush-bashers and instead focus on who is in charge, but unfortunately, I doubt it would be that simple
The Rasmussen Report states the obvious: of course Rush is not the leader of the Republican Party,…even his fans would say so. Regardless, this certainly does not diminish his considerable influence, which too many reporting this story are trying to infer.
Rush represents the GOP by being the (arguably) most articulate and outspoken opposition to the Democrats. It is a shame that it takes an “entertainer” to do what Republicans are supposed to do. Of course Republicans seem to be getting back to that.