What Rush Limbaugh truly means to the Republican party is a question that is becoming more and more impossible to answer. 

Former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently joked in a CNN interview that his Republican colleagues, and in specific — Sarah Palin ”aren’t that cute.” This was a quote Mr. Limbaugh didn’t seem to take in as much of a playful stride as Romney, instead attacking the week old GOP council. ”They despise Sarah Palin. They fear Sarah Palin. They don’t like her either. According to them, she’s embarrassing.”

Without playing into the overall political message of Mitt Romney’s quote at all, the main significance of this situation is what should be last straw of the GOP’s political patience. Why? As the GOP continues their monumental grassroots conservative movement, Mr. Limbaugh simply isn’t a positive addition.

In what has been known in the political world as a media distraction to the many aspirations of the new Republican party, Limbaugh has set a trend of, although indirectly, punctuating his points as a radio pundit squarely at the GOP. This is hardly healthy, especially since Mr. Limbaugh has in fact built a political base himself closely linked and connected with the respective Republican base. 

As MNSBC’s Rachel Maddow puts it, “Disagree with Rush Limbaugh, and you risk alienating your base — but agree with Limbaugh and risk alienating everyone else.” 

And this is precisely the problem. A think progress video recently showed key conservative Tom DeLay agreeing directly with Limbaugh’s notion of the fact that he wants President Obama to “fail.” Essentially, the addition of powerful GOP members on the political boat of Limbaugh opens the party up to a very rocky road ahead. President Obama recently played out this point by telling the media that the conservative movement could not succeed by listening to Limbaugh, but proceeding his CPAC engagement, a presenter condemned this notion, quoting that “the only way we will succeed is to listen to Rush Limbaugh.” 

But no forward thinking political movement can significantly provide a controversial figure such as Limbaugh with such an amount of control to tactically succeed — the 2008 Presidential Elections being the world’s proof. 

The GOP cannot win elections, or popularity for that matter, by squarely addressing their far right base. We saw this with the collapse of the Republican party following Sarah Palin’s entrance into the spotlight. The true conservative, liberal conservative, and centrist voters of America do not want to hear that the goals of the new Republican movement are to aspire a Presidency that does not succeed. 

A fundamental change must be made to the governing body of conservatism, and Limbaugh is not, at any moment in time, a figure to capitalize on now or in the future.

June 5, 2008. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich publishes a piece on the upcoming presidential election in Human Events – the self described headquarter of the conservative underground. It is titled: “My Plea to Republicans,” and ties the recent loss in a Louisiana Congressional election to what he warns could end in disaster in the coming November election. His strategic piece highlights painful figures for the GOP – an 18 point Congressional polling  deficit “reminiscent of the depths of the Watergate disaster.” He warns the GOP’s current attack ads and political talking points are without depth, failing and close to disaster. And finally, he cautions that the Republican frontrunner – John McCain, seriously misrepresents the GOP’s message and is straying away from the party’s intended and proven talking points.  

Gingrich was correct.

Come November 4^th, Congress widened their Democratic leaning polling gap, the McCain campaign recklessly drove forward the same attacks that they were warned against – chose arguably the most controversial Vice Presidential pick in the history of the modern presidential election, and overall – dissolved its entire lead, falling into the wrong side of the main stream media, and of course, the blogosphere.

But most of all, the McCain campaign tore apart the GOP – initializing off topic but politically detrimental side stories from inside their own campaign. They lost most of their little presence in the web, and sent their most passionate bloggers rebuilding their own web stature. House GOP members have been forced to ban against Presidential spending bills, but have only accomplished being dubbed by the liberal media as the “party of no.”

So in a party still plagued with revenge, how is a quick and painless reconstruction possible? As Michael A. Cohen writes, without even a hint of extremist rhetoric.

Cohen certainly makes a good point. The Reagan-era conservatism of worlds past certainly proved effective, but when used the in context of the current audience and their patience, it may come off as the word than no politically respected conservative wants to hear – extremist. This breed certainly is far from extremist, but as we certainly have witnessed, anything in the realm of a brash, new policy from the conservative or Republican side has not been taken in with open arms by the press.

So essentially, how can the GOP implement new policy by passing through the main stream media without as much as a negative peep, and even harder – passing by the newest media – the web?

Frankly, if the GOP has any shot, it is to go politically younger. CPAC gave us a very good glimpse of who may arise as the newest leaders in the party, and who should be not included in the future, the highlights being 14 year old Jonathon Krohn and the infamous Rush Limbaugh, respectively.

Limbaugh, along with similar GOP counterpart Glen Beck prove to be insufficient, but most dangerously, unpredictable. The Republican Party needs someone remotely controllable, and with quotes such as “I hope the president fails,” Limbaugh could be potentially suicidal.

On the other side of things, Krohn is a glimmer of hope for the young conservative movement that has not been seen for a very long time, but then again, his age and maturity will definitely work against him.

His impact on the GOP, however, seems unclear. His message of splitting the political stature conservatism and the Republican Party shows he is cool-headed and smart, but he lacks the valuable political skill of thinking on his toes, and most of all, is not mature enough to understand the process of a press conference – reporters treat him like a kid, not a politician, and because of that, he loses the legitimacy that he earned from writing his book – Define Conservatism. He also doesn’t have what he should be able to acquire because of his age – an easy path through the blogosphere.

Essentially, the GOP will not have a brand new leader out of the box for a matter of years, and this greatly degrades the party’s chances to succeed in the younger generation, a category where Barack Obama essentially slaughtered them in the 2008 elections.

So, as advice to the GOP goes – make the 2012 elections a test of strength and by the way – listen to Newt Gingrich a bit more. 

Recently, after a quiet few months on the subject, President Obama ordered the Department of Justice to release memos on interrogation, and of course — the infamous waterboarding. Many of the the liberal media outlets cried out to exploit the supposed unconstitutionality of the Bush administration, while the conservative media spoke relatively quiet on the subject. 

So in a short post — I’d like to open this up to the commenters: what means of torture (if any) is acceptable — even if it gives valuable information?

Measuring a person’s right to express themselves is constitutionally guaranteed, but one thinking quite radically may cite some minor flaws. 

In the wake of one of the worst recessions our domestic economy has ever experienced, one might expect the inevitable — a grassroots political rally that uprises middle and urban America to protest somewhat unpopular decisions by the federal government. But in one of the rarest cases, this essential Democratic concept seems to partially damage the political system with its string of complications. 

Held across the country, the April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties aroused thousands into what was described as a rally against government spending. But instead, the rally visibly barreled into a anti-Obama slugfest. Bluntly, this is not successful any way you look at it. Opposition to the President isn’t anything that should be discouraged, but when put into the context of this situation, in isn’t exactly healthy. 

President Barack Obama was the successor and inheritor of eight years of politics that close to the entire country decided to change in the form of the 2008 Presidential Election. Speaking in a visibly loud tone, Candidate Obama stressed the fact that the American economy needed to change its ways. Although it was not popular, he stressed tightening the grip on the private sector, and yes, spending on bills which he, Congress, and a majority of the American people supported. 

And now, not after these bills were passed — but after they have gone into effect, must a fraction of the American taxpayers revolt. Essentially, these tea parties single-handedly disprove the small glimmer of hope that America has to work together. 

Enter the press.

Because of these parties, the press has had a field day not only covering the widespread events, but how their political colleagues covered it. On both suspected sides of the Main Steam Media, punches were thrown. MSNBC’s liberal Keith Olbermann invited political activist Janeane Garofalo, who not only condemned the rally, but focused her attack on the people attending, suggesting they did not understand the history lesson that came with the posters they were holding, rather attending to push their supposed message of racism forward into national TV.

Moving on to the conservative media, Garofalo blasted Fox News for their continued coverage and “impli[ed] support” of the rallies.  The conservative Bill O Reilly of Fox News fought back, defending himself and Fox, citing progress in the rallies toward better decisions on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

Although my support of the Garofalo does not take me as far as to say the attending people were racist, there was an obvious partisan support of the rallies from Fox, and at the same time an opposition from MNSBC. 

But what concerns me the most is not the length of the coverage or the punches thrown after, but the simple fact that the American people have contradicted themselves. Millions of people, Black and White, Republican and Democratic, punched their respective ballots for Barack Obama on November 4, 2008, and now it seems that many of these same people are rallying against what they in part originally supported. 

– pacer521

Published as guest post on Involuntary Fury

In a growing age of overpaid and overworked cinema that seems to be angled exactly in the path of money, it is never a bad idea to walk outside and take a breath of fresh air. And essentially, with that, I have summed Kevin Macdonald’s State of Play.

If one decided to find a well paced, well worked plot illogical twists, a good dose of action and a popular but unquestionably skilled cast in the past few years, he/she would be hard pressed to find anything to their liking, and instead offer a dose of the past — something in the realm of a “All the President’s Men” or similar.

Enter State of Play. Seemly designed to disprove my above theory, it factors in thrills that kept the entire theatre hunched forward in their seats, emotion that triggered a similar reaction, a plot that grips to even the most seasoned viewers. And, of course, it did slip forward like any movie to add in the required fields for today’s movie, a dab of sex appeal, some broken windows and one chase scene.

But it also went right back to the past as well, reminiscing on the previously mentioned All the President’s men.  I noticed a similar garage scene as when Deepthroat met Woodward, and of course, the same press theme of inside the Washington Globe.

Few things could be changed about this movie, however, they are somewhat noticeable. A scene involving a subway killing could be implied more at the time, and the final plot twist, while still genius, had some minor flaws. But, I am essentially bickering as this was one of the best trillers I have seen from the 21 century in a long time.

All in all, State of Play is a must see — it provides the viewers with a plot with healthy depth, action for everyone to enjoy, and very well executed suspense — even a great score.