Why Did Michael Steele Diss Rush Limbaugh?

Loading

Does he really think that the libs or squishy moderates are going to fund the RNC if he dumps on Rush?

In the wake of Rush’s bravo performance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (Curt has the video here) on Saturday, Michael Steele was interviewed on CNN by comedian D.L. Hughley.

Michael Steele calls Rush Limbaugh an “Entertainer” and his comments are “Incendiary and Ugly.”!

I realize Steele is trying to appeal to a broader audience. But he’s a talented guy and could easily do so without taking a slap at Rush! Had Steele turned this around and asked Hughely to demonstrate how he supported President Bush’s policies we’d all be cheering instead of jeering the RNC Chairman today.

The Democrats are engaging in a deliberate strategy to split Rush Limbaugh conservatives from the Republican Party. Michael Steele should be aware of that and not play into it.

My Question: Are all you Rush hating libs now going to be donating to the Republican National Committee? If so, here’s the link to their fund raising site. Please post the text of the RNC’s contribution confirmation email in the comments section when it arrives.

Sorry to disappoint you but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen!

Update: Matt Lewis posted the audio of Rush’s response from Monday’s show.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

stix1972: I am anything from a Bushie, I did defend our right ot go after terrorists,but pretty much everything domestically he screwed up.

You don’t need to defend our right to go after terrorists, but of course the Iraq policy prevented us from killing off the very people who attacked us on 9/11 and created so many more. AQ rebuilt itself back to pre-invasion of Afg. levels while we rebuild Iraq.

We agree 100% on the part where Bush pretty much domestically screw up.

mikeA: @blast: ” I like small government that stays out of our lives.”

Yeah sure. That’s why you are enabling the biggest big government boondoggle since the New Deal.

Haha… yeah, like debating issues on FA will enable anything. Things were bad before the election, after the election, and after the inauguration. Do I think some things done by the new administration have been poor? Yes. But I believe the economic conditions were collapsing all along. Even Pres Bush was nationalizing businesses and giving away taxpayer dollars to stem the financial collapse. I think it probably was not enough given what we know. Trillions have to still come out of this market, but the destruction of capital has been so pervasive, we are F-ed. Too bad for so many.

As to biggest boondoggle, I place the Iraq war in that category because it carried with it the loss of American service members and many Billions of Dollars. Second only to cutting taxes while running a huge deficit, when we did not have an economic collapse to contend with.

@blast: So Al Queda in Iraq was a figment of our imagination and Al Queda did not call Iraq the main front in the Jihad. Maybe I am just getting the wrong information somewhere.

And are we suppose to go to war with nuclear powered Pakistan or work behind the scenes???

@blast:

Hmmm, time capsule time.

The Bush Legacy – gifting Obama with a Muslim world rejecting jihad

stix1972: Al Queda did not call Iraq the main front in the Jihad. Maybe I am just getting the wrong information somewhere.

You forget that was AFTER we invaded Iraq, where they were able to do substantial damage to our post war efforts, take THOUSANDS of American lives and tens of thousands of casualties.

stix1972: And are we suppose to go to war with nuclear powered Pakistan or work behind the scenes???

The problem we have with Pakistan today is related to our diversion to Iraq and not weeding out the damaged AQ and allowing them to escape into Pakistani safe areas. What ever happened to hunting down Bin Laden!

Missy, on your time capsule. Do you believe that AQ is not planning an attack on the US? That somehow they are irrelevant?

blast, your #43 proves that you are a liberal. Your BDS only further proves it.
We’re die hard Bushies? HA! You really are off in LA-LA land.

Hard Right, it proves I believe Bush was wrong, like many conservatives do. Look at stix1972 – #50, he had the honesty to speak out.

@blast: So let me get this straight. We should have ignored the intelligence that France, Germany, Russia, UN and others about WMD???? And also Russia’s warning that Iraq wanted to attack us???

You make no sense. We needed to go after Saddam so Al Queda and other terrorists organizations did not cozy up with Hussein. But we already knew that there were many terrorists hiding in Iraq.

And who cares if we can get bin Laden. Do you really think that capturing bin Laden would do anything to stop al Queda. Killing operatives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is better than hunting every single cave from here to Timbuktu for a person isolated from his own cause. Is bin Laden in charge of anything???? he is isolated and living from cave to cave looking over his shoulder all the time. And if we killed him, he would just be another Martyr for Jihad.

@blast: You have not been coming around here long have you????

blast: You don’t need to defend our right to go after terrorists, but of course the Iraq policy prevented us from killing off the very people who attacked us on 9/11 and created so many more. AQ rebuilt itself back to pre-invasion of Afg. levels while we rebuild Iraq.

I’m not interested in hijacking this thread to battle, one more time, about the wisdom of the Iraq war, and point out the benefits of doing so.

But I will say this, blast… just about everything you said flies in the face of fact… from the “growth of AQ” to your ludicrous comments about Iraq being the reason for “our problems” with Pakistan.

Frankly, there is just too much there to address in an unrelated thread. But by gawd, man…. you’re way outdated on your facts and history. You need to spend some time reading of the latest reports on Iraq’s history with Islamic jihad groups, and the Global Trends report I posted on (Missy linked it above…). When you’re done with that, move on to the Pentagov IV report and the translations of the Harmony/ISG docs from Saddam’s regime.

Your first misunderstanding is the definition of the enemy – i.e. the fact you think AQ is *only* Bin Laden when it is actually an association – and umbrella group – of jihad factions. Your second major misunderstanding is having no effective history of Pakistan and the Taliban, and their Islamic jihad groups that have lived in their midst forever. To assume the US relationship with Pakistan (which is significantly better than it was pre 911… when they were a nuke armed enemy) only became problem after Iraq is possibly the most uneducated statement I’ve ever heard you make.

A reminder from the post moderator: The topic here is the dustup between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele.

This is NOT, I repeat NOT another thread about blast, all about blast and blast 24/7.

If I have to I will take steps to stop this violation of the rules.

Dudley established his own blog where he can post whatever thoughts may be bouncing around his cranial vacancy.

He’s proven that he has plenty to say yet his site contains only one single word post.

I apologize Mike, should have ignored it.

@Sid:

Quit buying into the Obama ploy to place Rush at the head of the party. Get a grip folks.

Exactly Sid. the Althouse blogspot has a post up today reminding us of Alinsky Rule #12, the WH is using Rush as a distraction. We don’t need to further distract from our own personal party objectives by getting into a scrap over Rush.

@Mike’s America: thanks for reminding us.

@Missy: @Sid: I agree, this is all a tempest in a teapot. Obama has gone to the Alisnki School of Politics and is using it perfectly. Setting up the straw man and distracting us from the real enemy, Obama.

And I mean enemy as in political enemy. I am sure Obama is a great guy and all,but politically he is a fool and naive and is tearing our economy apart. Just as Rush says, I want Obama to fail in his Socialistic policies.

@Missy: No problem Missy. We’ve got some new folks coming in here from links to this post and I just didn’t want to see the entire thread degenerate into another blast fest.

I was a bit reluctant to even post this story as I know that by doing it I am buying into WH efforts to drive this wedge between Rush and the GOP.

But I felt it was an important post because:

A. When you insult Rush, you insult millions who follow Rush who you count on when it comes time to give the money and do the work that wins elections

B. Steele needed to be called on the carpet for this so he doesn’t forget “A.”

Glad to see you’re back on track. But you guys have to keep up with the news. Michael Steele has recently cozied up to El Rushbo and asked forgiveness.

Another one bites the dust – and grovels in it.

@Dave Noble: You’re late. Mata already linked to Steele’s apology.MataHarley

Please try and keep up.

I don’t see why this thing turned into such a flap. I’ve listened to Rush for a long time, though I’m not an avid (or rabid) listener. I find nothing wrong with calling him “incendiary”, since what he says is meant to light a fire: Rush wants lively discussion about certain topics, and he doesn’t mind getting people “hot under the collar” to do so. And as for “ugly”, it’s probably not the word Steele really wanted to use at the moment, and was certainly not meant to be a description of his features. Rather, it seems to me to be a very apt word to describe the state of politics in America, and likewise the level to which some discussions have to descend to be apropos. Words like “rough” or “brusque” might have been better, and if Steele had really prepared himself for the line of questioning, he would have known to respond intellectually, and not react viscerally, to the questions.

I just can’t stomach the media and left-wing radical approach of calling out those who disagree with them. Santelli, Limbaugh, who’s next? The President should be able to ignore his detractors if they are really as insignificant and marginal as he or the media would have us believe. If he had ANY class, Obama would publically admonish Gibbs and other politicians from engaging in a war of words with any private (not public-service) citizen. It’s incredibly unprofessional and down-right creepy. If you can’t take the heat, Mr. President, …

Jeff V

That’s “Mr Present” Jeff. Obama is “Present of the United States”

Steele nodded along while a gang of low life bigots called conservative republicans Nazis. He is a worthless stooge. If Rush Limbaugh had said that a gathering of brown colored people (say the dumbass farce billed as the State of Black America, for instance) looked just like a Tarzan Movie; what would the reaction be? Steele is complicit in bigotry and should resign immediately. We don’t need bigots heading our party. Lets leave that to the socialists.

Doesn’t Rush Limbaugh rip into lots of politicans – including those in the Republican Party – using his own colourful expressions? So why can’t others take a pop at him? Is he somehow immune from criticism? I’m sure he’s got thick enough skin to take it.

@GaffaUK: That isn’t the point and you know it.

It’s about the Chairman of the Republican National Committee pandering to idiots like DL Hughley instead of standing up and defending the man who has done more for the party than any politician.

It’s about insulting the millions of Rush fans who the RNC counts on to give the money and do the work.

It was a STUPID thing for Steele to do.

@Mike

I agree it isn’t the central point – but it is a reasonable point. Politically incorrect for Steele to say that but the same can be said for all things Rush has said and those he has attacked in the past. I guess it’s easier for someone like Rush to stand outside the tent and urinate inwards. And if Steele insults Rush – is that an insult to his fans? Really? Free speech.

Mike,

When you click on your link to Mata’s post and then click on her link within that post, you get a Politico artlcle about Rush’s response.

She does highlight Steele’s aides scrambling, but does not cite Steele’s backtrack statements.

If I missed it, please let me know.

Post #26 Dave.

Looks like my comment got deleted by the double standard machine again… I was wrong about Steele’s fortitude anyway.

Amusing Link

I agree that this is much ado about nothing.

Q Is Rush leader of the GOP?
A. No, of course not.

Q Is Steele leader of the GOP?
A. Yes.

Q. Is Rush considered an entertainer?
A. Yes. He has said so himself. He is a political commentator. There are lots of political commentators and many people listen to them as a means of entertainment. QED

Q. Does Rush speak for the Republican Party.
A. No. Although many Republicans concur with what he says, he is not the party mouthpiece. officially or otherwise.

Q.Has Rush said things that some people might consider “incendiary and ugly”?
A. Without specifics it’s hard to know specifically what, but having listened to Limbaugh, odds are, …yes. So what?

Q. IS the MSM trying to use this issue to create a Republican divide.
A. Yes. The White House is involved also. Rahm Emanuel contacted various political commentators over this. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8977
http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21945200/this_is_distracting.htm#q=limbaugh+steele
http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21950482/democratic_diversion.htm#q=limbaugh+steele