I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is a dearth of volunteers for post of "Hey, I run the Republican Party!"
(Insert joke about taking the helm of the post-iceberg Titanic.)
If I were an ambitious Republican, I would consider exile. I would govern my state or represent my district quietly and stay the h*ll away from radioactive politicians.
So nobody should be surprised that IN AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION, Rush Limbaugh was the most cited name when REPUBLICANS were asked to name the person who speaks for their party.
No surreptitious tricks by left-leaning dirty pollsters here, asking poor confused GOP folk to choose necessarily between Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain, Michael Steele and Limbaugh. No letting Democrats choose the R's leader (although they did select Limbaugh too, so we can all agree on something for once).
No no, this radio personality was the top vote-getter for national leader of a major party. Times are tough for conservatives. (In the interest of full disclosure, Newt tied with Rush and Cheney was right behind in third place. Not sure if that makes anything better.)
In the same questionnaire, zero percent of Republicans named George W. Bush as the party's voice. That seems odd, but within the realm of believability. Still, zero. Wow.
This actually does not surprise me: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Limbaugh has over 20 million listeners each week by Arbitron ratings. No other conservative voice has that range of subscribers to their ideal. Gingrich and Cheney are the only other two that are really heard in media but aren't heard on the consistent basis that Limbaugh is.
ReplyDeleteThis is compounded by the fact that the national media has keyed into this quite a while ago. Without a strong voice coming out the organized Republican party, Limbaugh will be a lightning rod for criticism of the Republicans. This has the potential to benefit the Republicans as it gives time for new voices, ones that are seeking to be elected, to begin to surface while negative attention is directed at Rush.
As the squeaky wheel, he'll get the media attention grease. Until the next presidential cycle begins and someone can get more airtime than Rush, it will probably stay this way.
I totally agree that 2011 is when the "face" of the GOP will show up on the national scene. Before then makes no sense. Keep an eye on Huntsman, the dude in China now. Since Rush, Newt and Cheney aren't about to get elected to anything, it's mostly just fun to kick Republicans when they're down. For me. I'm a hater.
ReplyDeleteWhat was interesting about the survey was the absence of Palin/Steele/Bush as approved "voices" of the party. One was a VP candidate months ago, the other is the chairman, and the last one was a two-term President... and none of them are perceived by Republicans as speaking for Republicans. It's hard to know what to make of that, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Not really unexpected to not see those names in the list:
ReplyDeletePalin was never really a voice when she was on the campaign and is still running personal battles, the latest with Letterman.
Steele has never had the respect of the party mainstream. He was relatively unknown at the time he took his current position outside of the beltway. His first time in the limelight was butting heads with Rush who, as we've previously noted, has a strong following in the party and is nationally recognized.
Bush, to his credit, has dropped out of site. If you are really out of the spotlight, the glow of your 15 minutes wears off quickly. We just never saw that with the Clintons since they seemed to have a hard time letting go. Look how long she held on to the presidential race.
Huntsman is an interesting thought. He and Romney as a full LDS ticket. Crazier things have happened. Like an African American in the White House.