I was commenting on a thread by AC W just now and in particular on a comment that "only 11% of Republicans identified Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party."
I questioned whether the fact that 11% of the people thought a talk show host was the leader of the Republican party didn't scare people in the party. But then another question popped into my head.
Who IS the leader of the Republican party?
Can you tell me?
[This is a serious question]
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 146
How about the DNC?
But Charles, Steele has only been in the position for a few weeks, and there seems to be quite a bit of chatter among Republicans about whether he's speaking for the party or not. He really hasn't had enough time to even get a staff together, never mind lead the party. [Personally, I like the guy and thought he was a good choice, even if for the wrong reasons...and it seems he's tryng to broaden the party's thinking, which I think is a good thing.]
I would say no one person for either party.
With respect to Steele, the counter question is "who was the RNC chair before Steele, and was he considered the (or even a) party leader?" Ditto for Dean as DNC chair before Kaine. Is the Chair of the National Committee considered the "leader" by the parties?
Or if you prefer, the leader (or leaders) of the Democratic party?
I'm genuinely curious as to what people think.
So I don't think anybody is leading the Republican Party. It's headless, and running around and twitching like any vertebrate who's had it's head removed.
The Republicans are searching, but, none of the current known names seem strong enough to lead...Palin, Jindal, Steele, Huckabee, etc. They didn't have a leader this past elections...McCain is no Republican nor Conservative...he's what he always said he was...an independent mavarick.
Newt is yesterdays news...no pun intended.
Oh, never mind.
It's natural to flounder a bit after a loss, especially a "drubbing" like this past election.
So maybe we should change the question...or even better, make it two questions:
1) Who is (are) the "leader(s)" of the Republican party?
2) Who "could emerge as" the leader(s) of the Republican party?
Crazy
Conservative
Core
the the Grand Ol Pork party can in-fight for a year or so before they have to get back on track. And unfortunately they are such mono-thinkers once they have a leader they will all fall into (goose)step
Both parties have slightly more than 25% of the voting age population registered. Its slightly higher for Dems but by no major factor. Given the numbers who voted, indies went both ways in large numbers as did quite a few registered for one party or another.
Steele is a fresh voice for the moderates to liberal Repubs. He has gotten off on a rocky start by saying the New Deal created no jobs (false as we know, government expanded dramatically and many temporary jobs were created throughout the 8 years of peacetime Depression) and that Katrina should be a sign of what we want government to be better in. We won't even get into the Limbaugh mess. The Repub base and many indies who vote for that party want what the Repubs claim is their principle beliefs. Smaller government, lower taxes/spending, and a less intrusive foreign policy (but a bar none better military). They didn't get it with Bush either time and if the Dems had ran a centrist more like Clinton, they'd have beaten him the second time quite handily.
Repub apathy helped Obama considerably in 2008. McCain was not someone to support as he was little different than Obama overall. If the Repubs try another guy like that in 2012, even with all the help Obama is giving them now-you guys will win hands down. 2010 is a different story and how Steele marshals the money will be a telling factor. Moderate/conservative Dems are already getting nervous (too early I think, America tends to forget easily) and many have to run in districts they won with slim margins in 2008. Time will tell as they say but Steele needs to wake up to what he's supposed to represent, Dem light isn't it.
Okay, I know you said "serious", but I just couldn't resist! Hee-Hee!
I see Jon Stewart as a leader
Not 24 hours later, what is Steele doing? He's apologizing. Say What? Excuse Me! Apologizing for speaking the truth? Apologizing for trying show the rest of America that to be a conservative - a Republican - doesn't mean that you're insensitive and divisive. The fact that Steele is not the only political figure who has apologized to the Rush Limbaugh in recent weeks makes that fact absolutely and positively true. It is also pretty clear, that Rush Limbaugh is actually the head of the RNC and the conservative movement. Even though he hasn't been crowned, they all seem to be bowing to Limbaugh.
I think so ;-)
That was a serious answer too.
If the Democrats give him a bigger audience by helping make him the symbol of opposition to what the current administrations policies, they will live to regret it because he will use that exposure to gain power.
As people get impatient with the inability of Obama to wave his hand and make 20 to 30 years of economic mismanagement go away, he will gain real power as the symbol of opposition, and he is smart enough to use it in ways that you really don't want to see him using it.
My advice: Elected or appointed Democratic official should not engage him, should not dignify him as "the leader of the opposition". The short-term gain from doing that will come back to haunt them in a really major way. Limbaugh is very good at detecting and voicing voter discontent. Underestimate him at a great deal of risk.
One may well be the titular head of an organization and actually not be representative of virtually anyone in that organization. Steele sounds like a good man but cannot please all the Republicans, let alone anyone else. Some want him to rebulid the party to win an election, while others want him to turn it into the most conservative ting possible regardless of the winning thing.
That is the challenge that a "leader" faces. I would visualize that a good "leader" or "head" of the Republicans would be a person who could, working behind the scenes, rebuild the strength of the party and make them viable in elections without trying to spread his own concept of what they are.
Steele was selected, I believe, because he was black rather than for his politics, leadership or any other factor. After all, it worked for the Democrats didn't it? So let's just follow suite. Steele had three strikes against him in his effort to start with. But a talk show host who remains a talk show host is not a viable leader either. Perhaps a mouthpiece but unofficial! If he wants to play in the political arena he needs to do as Al Franken did and actually run for office, leaving himself vulnerable to all kinds of background checks and underhanded efforts.
:O\
That said, a republican leader will emerge over time. But that will happen with a new, emerging party identity. I don't think that will look alot like newt, steele, limpbaugh, mccain, palin, etc.
A warning to democrats. I recall triumphant republicans, following victory in the 2002 mid-term elections - declaring the death of the "democrat" party. Arrogance carries the seeds of its own demise.
As it is, Rush really is the closest thing the Republicans have to a leader. He is the one all the others fear.
It's easy to identify a leader when a party holds the presidency. For example, when Clinton was president, few would have disputed that he was the leader of the Democrat Party. Similarly for GWB--he was rightfully identified with as the leader of the Republican Party. But who was the leader of the Democrat Party when GWB was president? Not an easy answer.
When GWB was on his way out, specifically during the party primaries, who was the leader of the Democrat Party? Hillary Clinton? Howard Dean? Barack Obama? Dennis Kucinich? Each had a particular grouping of followers, but none was truly THE leader of the party. On the Republican side, with GWB on his way out the door, who was the leader?
Mitt Romney? Rudy Giuliani? John McCain? Mike Huckabee? Again, each had his group of followers, but none was THE leader of the party. When the nominations were settled, Obama became the de facto leader of the Democrat Party, and John McCain became the de facto leader of the Republican Party. When the general election was complete, Obama remained head of his party, while McCain reverted to being a senator.
Republicans as a whole are without a single leader right now, just as Democrats were during the GWB years. Boehner and McConnell have a particular following, as do Huckabee, Palin, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Romney and Steele. Hell, Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA.com has quite a following among Republicans, but he's not THE leader of the party. A leader, yes, but THE leader, no.
Republicans won't have a single leader again until they nominate another presidential candidate, just as the Democrats did not have a single leader until Barack Obama became his party's nominee.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
There is an old saying, "if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
Your question points to the difference between our system and the parliamentary system in which the minority party has a clear leader. In a sense, the President is the head of his party. But when you are out of the White House, it is harder to really say who is in charge of your party.
Nahhhhh.....
Right now there is no leader, just chaos. I have no idea who will attempt to lead them out of this.
Satan.
I asked some of my neighbors who was the leader of the Democratic party and they thought it was Obama.
It's no wonder our country is in such a mess. People have no idea who represents them, so the people who do can do whatever they want. And have been.
Nicely said.
In retrospect, it seems easier to ID the head(s) of the party in power, especially right after the election and when both Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party. And the losing party tends to need to do some soul searching.
But as I rethink the question, I wonder how one would define "leader" of a party by position or influence, rather than focusing in a particular personality. Several people have mentioned Michael Steele, but I wonder how many Democrats would have popped up with Tim Kaine (or even Howard Dean). Is the RNC/DNC Chair the "leader" of the party?
I think it might come down to "who is the first person that pops in your head" when asked the question. The fact that none of the House or Senate leadership made an appearance until later suggests it isn't them for the Republicans (for the reasons AC and Chris gave, it's likely that Obama/Pelosi/Reid would have jumped to mind immediately for the Democrats).
Also, in all fairness, Limbaugh has been getting so much air play that it shouldn't be surprising that some would have mentioned him (though the 11% are all Republicans; no Democrats were part of that particular poll, so can't be blamed for skewing the data).
Thanks Andrea. Good points. I suppose I could say something about why any elected political official should ever fear a talk show host, but I already know the answer. I agree that part of Limbaugh's hope is that a leader will step up, but frankly I think it's an incredibly small part. Let's face it, he's a talk show host. He makes his multimillions selling advertising, and controversy increases listenership, which increases ratings, which increases the amount that can be charged to advertisers, which increases revenues, which increases profits, which increases the multimillions that Limbaugh puts in his pocket.
None of us should confuse the far left and far right ideologies of such people as Olbermann and Limbaugh, respectively, with the fact that they do what they do because it makes them money. Being loud, obnoxious, and extremely partisan makes them money.
And that reflects more on us than it does them.
Or was it merely the anti-Bush sentiment that opened the door for pretty much anyone to walk through?
Actually Steve, that is a liberal perception based on wishful thinking.
The reason "they have lost power" is not "due to their ideological message" but because the Republicans have stepped away from their traditional ideological message, that of conservative values.
It was the vow to represent the people with these values expressed in the contract with america in 1994 that allowed the Republicans to gain the majority for the first time in 40 years.
Go read the "the Contract with America".
So what you are telling me is that you can't even list the "conservative values" that you espouse?
Which means "conservative values" is just a meaningless platitude to you?
That's a shame, because all of my conservative friends actually believe in their values enough to be able to list them. And most can even provide viable support in defense of them.
Furthermore, while I could go one by one of the 10 bills purported to be part of the Contract, you likely don't even know that virtually none of them was actually implemented as even those that did manage to pass the House mostly didn't make it through the Senate. So while the Contract was wildly successful as a political marketing tool, it was virtually irrelevant as a means of governing.
So are you saying that political marketing is one of the conservative values you espouse?
I am beginning to think that Dems- all of them, not just Obama himself- need to refrain from commenting on Rush. Just say "no comment". Let the circular firing squad do it's thing, and let the dust settle. In time, someone besides Rush might emerge to speak for the Republicans, and that would be better for the future of our nation. Or if they flunk the test, and if a majority of them end up being happy with Rush as their Voice, well then it's all on them.
You have selective memory David, I remember you trying to degrade and demean your way through the debate, I recall that you did not address any science or research or theory in any meaningful way.
The page is from your book David.
"So what you are telling me is that you can't even list the "conservative values" that you espouse?"
What I am saying is go look for your self, and I'd like to see if your great analytical abilities allow you to decipher what conservative values are professed or do your biases get in the way? I'm betting on your bias getting in the way.
WHO was the head of the Democratic Party while GWB was in office?
"COME ON PEOPLE....THINK!!
Limbaugh isn't a thinker, he's a partisan blowhard (and I mean that in the best possible way). While I don't deny he believes in his ideology, what drives him is the money he makes by stoking the flames. He doesn't actually think through most of what he says. The Democrats have their ideological blowhards as well. They don't think either.
But Obama thinks. And he wants others to think. He wants people to smarten up and come up with ways to deal with the rampant problems we have rather than sit around in cocktail parties and punt on every major issue so someone else has to deal with it later on (like, for example, our grandchildren).
So Obama isn't "attacking" Limbaugh, whom Obama knows is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. He's calling out the Repubicans who think. He's saying "does Rush Limbaugh, the gazillionnaire blowhard entertainer, really represent how you want to be seen as a party?" He's saying to the Independents, the moderates, the free-thinkers, and the thinking conservatives "do you want to be associated with the buffoon part of the Republican party, or do you want to have a seat at the table and get your ideas listened to?"
No one but the non-thinkers listen to Limbaugh. Obama is offering the thinkers a chance to participate in the governing of this country. His gambit is simple. The more the Republican party look like Limbaughian cult followers, the more the thinking people will want to join forces with him to get things done. And isn't that why we elect our representatives - to get things done? It certainly isn't so they can get fight for the rich loud mouth talk show hosts of the world. It's to govern. And governing takes thinking.
Of course, the above is all my opinion and obviously oversimplified. I do understand that there are a variety of motivations for different Democrats about why they are playing this game. And I'm sure it won't last too many more "news cycles." But in that time the Democrats have pulled back the curtain and revealed the silliness driving the Republican party right now. It's up to the Republicans to get serious about helping to govern this country.
"What I am saying is go look for your self,..." (Dan)
This is what I don't understand, Dan. You admit that you don't even know what your own conservative values are, and furthermore that you are too lazy to even write them out. You suggest that somehow the Contract for American espouse conservative ideals, but you don't even know what is in it or that essentially none of it actually became law.
This has nothing to do with the Contract for America. This has to do with your own conservative ideals, you know, the ones that you supposedly put into practice every day of your life. So just how is someone going to go "look for yourself" at some document from 15 years ago to find out what your conservative ideals are?