Variations on the theme "Limbaugh Hurts the Nation"

I haven't been posting so much so here's one in the old vain.

To say that what Rush Limbaugh has been doing recently is hurting the country is a rather timeless statement. You could have said it in the early 90's (when Limbaugh was still on the junk and in his prime!), or yesterday, or any time in between.

But now it's a little different. As you probably know, Rush and RNC Chair Michael Steele have had a bit of a skirmish (I love that word) in the media recently, and as a result, Steele is just the latest on a long list of Republicans who have had to apologize to Rush (as Jon Stewart put it, the apology is for "determining that Rush's language is incindiary and ugly," also known as "being familiar with Rush's show").

But this isn't good for anyone. It's certainly not good for Republicans. Cliché as it may be, the Republicans as a party are suffering an identity crisis. They clearly need to move to the center, but most of their centrist Congressman were unseated in November. Add Rush to the mix, and you see the party is clearly on track to lose even more seats in 2010 (you might be able to argue that it's too late to turn this fate around) and is severly hurting their chances for a comeback in 2012, with the White House virtually guaranteed for Obama.**

(Update: I want to clarify: if they keep doing what they're doing, they virtually guarantee the White House for Obama. I am making no prediction about the 2012 presidential race.)

None of this should be particularly suprising, but I would like to argue that this is bad for the nation. The reason is that Democrats are already riding a pretty powerful wave of power that, as I said, will probably only strengthen through 2010. So with our foreign affairs in crisis mode and our economy an order of magnitude worse than that, we've already basically guaranteed that Democrats will retain the White House and both house of Congress through the 2012 elections, meaning Republicans won't have a chance until 2014.

And look: if you have any doubts about how much power the Democrats have right now, just imagine what you'd think and how you'd feel if a newly elected Republican Congress was passing legislation of John McCain's that was of the same magnitude - but a very different direction - than what Obama and the Democrats are doing. And then it becomes clear that, in times like these, weakening the standing of the opposition party is just bad for America.

But then again, Rush has been a specialist in "Bad for America" for quite some time.

News Flash: Elections 2010 and 2012 possibly still too close to call

Continuing my series on "Hey, the Republicans aren't going to lose forever," I present this WSJ article about the last time the Democrats won over 360 EVs, 58 Senate seats, and 257 House seats.

Two years afterward the Republicans took the Congress for the first time in 50 years.

Romney cedes 2012?

I guess you NYT people saw this, but Mitt Romney, who idiot pundits liked to say could have carried Michigan because he graduated high school there in 1965, has an article out today in which he says that the automakers should be allowed to fail.

As a politician who currently holds no office and one assumes is still aspiring towards one, why on earth would you say something like that? What if it happens? Thousands of jobs will be lost, even if the greater long-term interest is actually served. You alienate blue-collar workers, who are becoming more important to the Republican party in the new economy (young white-collar workers did mean that Colorado, Virginia, and to a lesser extent North Carolina were actual shifts in the map this year, just as older, less-educated Missouri also shifted to the right). You certainly aren't gaining any votes by making this proclamation. I could go on, but I guess you guys get the point. Right or wrong, I don't see how coming out with this helps you at all. I suppose there's a chance the majority of Americans favor letting them fail (only with some sort of line about how they've been digging their own grave, which I suppose is fair) but they won't be too happy about it if they get what they want and unemployment spikes. It just seems like a no-win statement.

Here We Go!

OK, I promise I won't do this except this once, but we've already got a poll on the 2012 election.

Newsweek, 10/24/2008, 1,092 RV

Item #21:
If John McCain is not elected president, which one of the following three possible candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?

Mitt Romney - 36%
Mike Huckabee - 27%
Sarah Palin - 21%
Other/Don't Know - 8%