Opinion and Commentary on state, regional and national news articles from a conservative feminist point of view expressed and written by conservative moderate: Tina Hemond
President Obama has hit the campaign trail to try and bolster Democrat incumbent governor John Corzine, who is just weeks away from from possible early retirement. An article in Politico, entitled “Corzine milks Obama appearance”, speaks to the fact that the polls have tightened in recent days between Corzine and Republican rival, Chris Christie, but fails to mention the fact that there is a third party candidate who has gained ground, with both Corzine and Christie losing ground with New Jersey Voters. The Rasmussen poll suggests that it is impossible to predict an outcome at this point, therefore, one would think that an Obama appearance would bolster Corzine’s chances, attracting a large crowd in order to “get out the vote”.
The event, held at a Hackensack University, drew an enthusiastic crowd of 3,500, most of who were there to see the President. One has to understand that events where a sitting or former president visits a specific state, especially a blue state, are well documented in the press, weeks beforehand, giving plenty of time to draw significant overflow crowds. Former President Bill Clinton’s visit to support John Kerry’s presidential bid in Massachusetts drew crowds of the City of Worcester with people “lining the streets for miles”.
Perhaps Democrats in Massachusetts are more enthusiastic than those in New Jersey – Obama will be attending a fundraiser for Deval Patrick on the 23rd of October in Boston – Massachusetts, known as “the Bluest State”, (see presidential voting patterns by State; Massachusetts has only voted twice for a Republican (Ronald Reagan), in the past 30 years.) should see crowds “lining the street” to honor Obama’s visit to the Bay State. Although the fundraiser will undoubtedly be closed to the public, it has received significant media attention in the state since the announcement in early October, giving those who would even stand a chance of a glimpse of the President time to get into line. It will be interesting to see how this Bay State visit compares to Obama’s draw in New Jersey, as both sitting Governors have dismal approval ratings.
Alternately, Rasmussen’s latest Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the President is enjoying an unhealthy 27 percent “strongly approve”, giving him an overall approval rating of 47% Rasmussen polling has seen the president’s approval “negative” for the past week. This poll, coupled with the poll numbers of the democrat incumbents in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, may act as a harbinger of political rallies for Democrat incumbents elsewhere in the nation. If that is a case, it is a question of a brand gone band, and this will become evident as 2010 election rally’s begin in earnest. The question then will be, is Obama to the Democrats in 2010 as George Bush was to the Republican’s in 2008?
This past week, RNC Chair, Michael Steele made remarks on CNN’s D.L. Hughley show (see You Tube Video Below) that we’re taken somewhat out of context by, talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh and a “feud” of sorts ensued. Michael Steele, in answer to Hughley’s assertion that Rush Limbaugh was the “head of the GOP”, was dismissed by Steele, who referred to Limbaugh as an entertainer, additionally noting that his remarks were “incendiary” and sometimes ugly. Limbaugh, who had spoken at CPAC (an ultra conservative “rally” of sorts - not the RNC Convention), focusing on basic tenants of conservatism, and the “socialist” motives of the Obama association, brought the house down, which prompted the media, aided by Mr. Limbaugh, to anoint Limbaugh as a “leader” within the Republican Party.
Steele, is correct in his assertion that Limbaugh is an entertainer and in the give and take with Hughley noted that there was no difference between remarks made regarding Obama and those made by Democrats during the Bush administration. If one were to look objectively at the interview, one would understand that Steele was doing his job, fending off assertions that Limbaugh, not Steele, was the Head of the RNC (which, note to Limbaugh: the RNC is the Republican Party), not Mr. Limbaugh. Limbaugh, who is not out of line in outlining that conservatism and liberalism are diametrically opposed, speaking out against a “socialist” driven agenda that is being advanced by the Obama administration, was out of line in asserting that Mr. Steele had made a mistake in calling him an entertainer, not the Leader of the Republican Party. One can bet the house that Limbaugh’s ratings have gone through the proverbial roof the past few days, over a conflict that has, in large part, been manufactured by Mr. Limbaugh himself. It is not so much about power, rather it is about ratings. To be fair, Limbaugh, for his part, is sincere in his beliefs, fairly well researched and in his daily diatribes delivered from his Palm Beach studio, giving a voice to conservative think that is otherwise missing in other media formats. However, his language is often contrived and inflammatory, because the man has a sense of humor, and he is “right” on many issues that are near and dear to the hearts of conservatives. Mr. Limbaugh should have been less petty (he is, after all, an entertainer), and instead of attacking Steele for pointing out truisms, he should have attacked the source, the Obama administration and the DNC.
In a clear departure from the norm, the Los Angeles Times, ran an excellent analysis of the “Limbaugh as GOP Leader” theory being promoted by the Obama White House in order to create the illusion that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP. This tactic failed miserably in the 1990’s, with the “vast right wing” conspiracy theory advanced by the Clinton’s. With the exception of those on the “left”, (or 30% of the population), moderates, independents and conservatives do not view Limbaugh as either the head of any party, nor a threat, rather a “conservative talk show host”.
In lending credence to the “fear Rush” mantra coming from the White House, Mr. Limbaugh is not giving credit to Michael Steele, RNC Chair, who is a proven grassroots organizer (GoPAC), and duly elected head of the RNC (otherwise known as the Republican Party). Steele has kept the RNC in the spotlight by appearing on a variety of talk shows, repudiating the bailouts, the Obama administration budget, and basically out-“Rushing” Rush. The difference is that Steele does so with a certain bit of gravitas that is not the bluff and bluster of most conservative talk shows. Both men play critical roles (Steele in leadership and Limbaugh in cheerleading) and giving credit where credit is due; Steele is the bigger man, showing true leadership and political skills in issuing an “apology” to Limbaugh. The quote, here from the AP :
"I respect Rush Limbaugh, he is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice," Steele said in a statement late Monday. "I'm sure that he and I will agree most of the time, but will probably disagree some as well, which is fine.”
"The Democrats are doing everything they can to find ways to take people's attention off of their massive 36-billion-dollar-a-day spending spree that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have embarked on. To the extent that my remarks helped the Democrats in Washington to take the focus, even for one minute, off of their irresponsible expansion of government, I truly apologize."
One has to admire Michael Steele; he’s battling bruised talking head ego’s and the DNC. In the analysis of the Obama strategy to create “fear of Republicans” by touting the “Limbaugh as Leader “scenario, the Los Angeles Times, has done a great service to conservatives, giving insight into the true nature of the “Leader of the Free World”. With elections just around the corner (2010), the administration and the DNC understand that time is critical; each week since Obama took office, his approval rating has taken a step down; within the past week, having dropped another point to 58%. One would think that is a fairly decent approval rating, however, losing points on a daily basis cannot bode well for the “leader of the Democrat Party”, and should this trend continue, George Bush, upon leaving office, will have had a higher approval rating than Obama. Given that the majority of the Republic of the United States considers themselves as either moderate or conservative, there is trouble brewing in 2010 in the fight to maintain the Congress and the Senate, without a majority, the President will be stymied.
Without the public buying into “the economy is not my fault, it is George Bush’s fault”, (This public understands that Wall Street’s failure directly affects pension plans held by those who earn less than $50,000 a year, they also understand that for every action taken by the administration, Wall Street has reacted, dropping lower.), the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat brand. The strategy to paint “the evil” of conservatism, failed in the past, as well as bank bailouts and extreme budgets and a “nanny” state (see Carter administration.) Rush would be providing a great service to the RNC (the Republican Party) if he took the time to admit that “Steele” is correct, and become a bit “incendiary” over the “scheme to make him Leader of the Republican Party by the Obama administration. Should that occur, it would be a rallying call to both Conservatives and Moderates within the party, rather than “sheer entertainment”.
