Comments on The 7-10: Palmer on Politics: On Obama vs. Limbaugh

PR - it's a bit ironic coming from the party of Re...

2009-02-05T19:30:00.000-05:00

PR - it's a bit ironic coming from the party of Reagan, isn't it?

Off topic, but I love the Obama messianic cult tha...

2009-02-05T12:26:00.000-05:00

Off topic, but I love the Obama messianic cult that lives inside the heads of some people.

Did anyone in these comments say it was wrong to question the "messiah"?

gimme a break. why does obama care what a right-w...

2009-02-05T10:36:00.000-05:00

gimme a break. why does obama care what a right-winged talk show host is saying about his presidency? obama has too much to do than to bother himself with the extreme right.
i think it made obama look weak and insecure when he began addressing rush and those who support him.
besides - GOD FORBID someone wishes some of obama's policies don't make it through. how dare we question The Messiah's agenda.

and you didn't mention ron paul as a figurehead for #2. i heart him. :)

Wow, lots of good comments here.I personally think...

2009-02-04T22:24:00.000-05:00

Wow, lots of good comments here.

I personally think Limbaugh serves as a strawman Republican for Obama to contrast himself with. To the majority of the political center, I'd imagine that Obama looks more reasonable than Limbaugh does. As for Limbaugh, bashing Obama is good for ratings. So perhaps they both need each other?

As for political margins of victory, I think the only way any candidate of any party could amass victories like LBJ in '64 or Reagan in '84 would be if the rival party nominated a fatally flawed candidate, such as a closet racist or a candidate caught in a major scandal while on the campaign trail. Even with that, some states will probably NEVER vote for a Democrat (e.g., Oklahoma, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah), and some states will probably NEVER vote for a Republican (Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Hawaii). I think we're a lot more polarized now than we were during the days of Goldwater, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and even Clinton.

Again, I really appreciate all the comments you leave on this blog. Classes are taking a lot of my time this semester, so I don't have the time to respond to each comment individually like I used to. But I do read every comment, and I appreciate them all. Thank you.

Can I quibble with your numbers a little bit, King...

2009-02-04T20:13:00.000-05:00

Can I quibble with your numbers a little bit, King Politics? Sure, Obama got more votes than anyone in American history. That just says to me that we have a growing population. The record he broke was George W. Bush's record from four years ago.

Obama's margin of victory does not even come close to Johnson's in 1964 or Nixon's in 1972 or Reagan's in 1984. I may be wrong here but each of those three won like 44 states or more and 58% of the vote or more.

I think what Obama is trying to do is to find the ...

2009-02-04T19:56:00.000-05:00

I think what Obama is trying to do is to find the new unflattering face of the Republican Party. All the usual suspects are gone: Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, Jerry Falwell, Jack Abramoff, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush. I bet the average person on the street can't name a Republican other than McCain or Palin.

You can argue that Democrats have been too successful the last few years. The inevitable "Republicans are bad" theory that Democrats like to push just will not work anymore. They can try to blame Palin for stuff but she is up in Alaska. Nobody knows who Mitch McConnell or John Boehner are. Like Bill Clinton made Newt Gingrich the face of Republican cruelness, so Obama will do that with Limbaugh. Limbaugh is not an elected official but he is the best Obama has.

I have one quibble with your math. Obama received ...

2009-02-02T11:55:00.000-05:00

I have one quibble with your math. Obama received more votes than anyone, ever in American history. He has no choice but to aim low when he engages his critics, whether it's Limbaugh, Mitch McConnell, or John Boehner.

Khaki, House Republicans got their chance to offer...

2009-02-01T17:39:00.000-05:00

Khaki, House Republicans got their chance to offer amendments on the stimulus bill, which they did. That those amendments didn't pass is a function of House Republicans lacking the votes to get them passed. As they pointed out to Democrats for a dozen years, that's just a fact of political life; get over it.

However, after days of Republicans demagoging and whining about the family planning portion of the bill, Obama asked House Dems to take that out and save it for later, as a separate measure, which they did. That was an effort to accommodate opposition complaints unlike anything I ever saw from Bush and DeLay.

Well, GOP Congressmen might not have supported the...

2009-01-31T22:54:00.000-05:00

Well, GOP Congressmen might not have supported the bill, but it looks like GOP Governors are supporting it.

a good-faith stab at bipartisanshipFrom Obama? Yes...

2009-01-31T22:32:00.000-05:00

a good-faith stab at bipartisanship

From Obama? Yes, thus far he's been about as willing to reach across the aisle as he was in Illinois . . . which is to say, not at all. As he himself told a critic of his stimulus plan, "I Won." so I suppose he figures there is no reason for him to reach out.

Wait, you may have been kidding.

Unless you're really referring to Obama's possible appointment of a Sen. Judd Gregg as Sec. of Commerse which, given Obama's obvious nobility, is probably a "bipartisan choice" and has nothing to do with the fact that the Gov. of New Hampshire is a Democrat who would undoubtedly replace Gregg with a Dem -- one step closer to that super majority.

Or perhaps it was a stab at bipartisanship the way Pelosi barred Republicans from participating in authoring the stimulus bill.

However, I must admit that the bill did lead to some bipartisanship. No Republicans joined Obama, but 11 Democrats crossed the aisle to side with the GOP against a stimulus package aimed at "immediately kick starting the economy" by backloading the stimulus stipends to arrive in 3 or 4 years.

Regardless of Obama's intentions or the impact suc...

2009-01-30T19:40:00.000-05:00

Regardless of Obama's intentions or the impact such a confrontation may have on him, Rush Limbaugh as the face of the Republican Party is not a good thing for them. He may drive up his own ratings, but I have a hard time imagining many independent or moderate voter buying into his arguments. Republicans seem to be acting like its still 1994 or 2004, when the environment couldn't be more different today. That type of message may resonate at some point again, but it sure doesn't right now.

AP, it seems to me your interesting post hinges on...

2009-01-30T19:07:00.000-05:00

AP, it seems to me your interesting post hinges on one word, "engaging."

". . . one could argue that Obama is diminishing his stature by engaging Limbaugh."

If one accepts that making a single, straightforward public statement equates with entering into some sort of running debate, your case holds up very well. I'm having a hard time accepting that because Obama hasn't continued sparring with Limbaugh or his dittoheads.

I think Obama used Limbaugh as shorthand for the microphone-armed bully and his following, for the purpose of putting some Republican legislators on notice they're rapidly forfeiting any benefit they might gain from a good-faith stab at bipartisanship.

That revealed Obama as being uncharacteristically behind the political power curve. Clearly, Republican legislators have already made a calculation they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by opposing Obama and congressional Democrats at every opportunity.

Republicans' idea of post partisanship remains the same as it was under Nixon, the same as it was in 2001: Republicans gain control of the federal government and rule so completely and ruthlessly that the Democratic opposition is rendered inert.

Last but not least, Republicans will write off their Southern and Lower Midwest base when they conclude that doing so will bring them complete power and keep that power in their hands indefinitely. IOW, in some future liftetime, maybe.

Dianna, what you are missing here is the deeper st...

2009-01-29T19:58:00.000-05:00

Dianna, what you are missing here is the deeper story in the "science" of politics. I am sure Anthony will post on the stimulus, but you can probably find commentary elsewhere if you need it. This post is simply a study on the communication and rhetoric that goes on behind the scenes of many policy debates. We just happen to hear about this one. To those who are interested in the inner workings of politics on a national level, studying this debate is rather important. This issue tells the larger story about why the stimulus bill is so partisan. Understanding the "why" is just as important as the "what". Most of Anthony's post are of this nature.

Anthony, your commentary strikes me as nothing mor...

2009-01-29T19:21:00.000-05:00

Anthony, your commentary strikes me as nothing more than an elevated "He said, she said". Personally, I really don't care what Obama said in response to Limbaugh, or what their motives were.

You're obviously an intelligent guy. May I suggest that instead of writing up a psychoanalysis of a couple of statements that will be forgotten in 6 months, you give an analysis of something more practical - say, like, the stimulus package!

How do you differentiate between a good cause and something that actually stimulates the economy? I'm no economist, but it seems like many of the "good causes" (i.e. Medicaid for unemployed workers) that will be funded by this package are NOT going to stimulate our economy.

I have heard that Japan has enacted similar stimulus packages and has failed over and over again. How are we any different?

I would like to know why I should not feel like Washington is COMPLETELY out of control with this $819 billion dollar package thing. I think many Americans are asking the same question.

You seem to be pro-Obama and the Democratic party. What's your take on it?

D. (Dianna)

Limbaugh made the statement that he hopes Obama fa...

2009-01-29T19:05:00.000-05:00

Limbaugh made the statement that he hopes Obama fails. Regardless of his meaning, that is how it sounds. Republicans take a step back when they have to defend against this, especially against their own when Limbaugh starts calling out the GOP leadership. The implication causes harm whether or not the defense is good. Coupled with the RNC chair drama, I am not sure how this is helping the GOP image.

I think you're giving Obama far too much credit fo...

2009-01-28T23:47:00.000-05:00

I think you're giving Obama far too much credit for this one. Given his recent knee-jerk responses to tough questions and criticism I can't help but think that his Limbaugh comment was more of the same rather than a clever attempt to trigger a GOP implosion.

Like many Republicans, I'm not a Limbaugh fan, but I do believe that the left is taking a huge risk in educating the public with their attacks on Limbaugh. When I first heard that Limbaugh had said he hoped Obama failed I thought, "It figures" and passed it off as Limbaugh insanity. But as the left pressed I began to hear the other side of the story. Limbaugh hadn't actually wanted Obama to fail, but wanted socialist policies and Obama's "plan for big government" to fail. So now the message that Republicans lacked the ability to push during the campaign (due in no small part to being massively outspent) is back on the table. American's are once again hearing that Obama is a socialist. And now that he is pushing through what will end up being a trillion dollar stimulus package, the accusation could gain teeth . . . especially should debt spin further out of control