Obama can win 2012 re-election right now.
I admit flat out: I love Rush Limbaugh. He’s the only conservative that plays the media like a fiddle these days, and one of the better natural, instinctual conservatives in the world at the moment. He doesn’t need literary references to tell you why something is conservative. The man’s intellect is already shaped in that fashion, and his ability to deliver his opinions full force each day is why he is loved/hated everywhere. Charisma does that for people, and Rush has it in spades.
Now that we’re past the disclaimer, Rush has a pretty nice idea here, and its even getting play at a bunch of media outlets that I normally would not expect.
Split the proceeds of the stimulus according to party vote, and find out once and for all what leads to more jobs. Is Lord Keynes or Hayek in the right? I have my bias already, but following the money and seeing what happens could actually remove politics from government for a bit, something I think we can all smile about.
This is also a big opportunity for Obama to really put a huge stamp on his post-partisan rhetoric. Barack, this is your moment, should you choose to live up to your lofty speeches. It would nearly guarantee reelection, no matter what happens for the next 3 years. Teaming up with Rush to save the country without partisan in-fighting? Holy crap, that would impress the crap out of even the hardest-hearted conservative pragmatics. It would also free him to do whatever he wanted right after that, regardless of political stripe.
I have huge problems with two things in the current Jobs Bailout (my new word for it).
1) Most of it is just a pork bill for Democrat talking points. Contraception, Arts, Amtrak, STD prevention, Medicaid, and welfare to name a few. Not a whole lot of jobs in that morass.
2) Obama talks bipartisanship, but then drops all facades when turning down Republicans in meetings, and he hasn’t tried to force the Dems to meet with GOPers even once. Its just not very honest. He’s in a strong position to force cooperation at the moment, but nothing has happened on that front yet.
The Obama-Limbaugh Plan could really be something interesting if given a chance. It would be the first shot across the bow that Obama really is something different than we’ve ever seen before in American politics. Color me doubtful, but hopeful.
Chris said,
January 30, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I see two problems with Rush’s proposal:
1. Tax cuts do not revive economies. Contrary to what Rush has written, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and other organizations have collected data which shows that tax cuts, at their best, have a modest impact on an economy in the long run. They may seem a good short-term stimulus, but more is needed in the long haul. Placing something like the New New Deal and old-school tax cuts on the same plane is not a good move, in my opinion.
2. More important is the trouble I have with the “Obama-Limbaugh plan” as a whole. Rush Limbaugh is a media persona, not a man – much like Keith Olberman or Michael Savage. He is not in the same league (nor even the same sport) as Barack Obama or any other politician, Rightie or Leftie. I find it troublesome, to say the least, that the best leader the Republican party seems to have right now is Rush Limbaugh, not because I feel bad for the Right but because I do wish there were more political competition out there; that’s not because I feel the ideas of the Right are solutions, but more that I think Obama’s plans would prove themselves even more useful in the face of a strong Republican leader touting typical Republican ideologies. Rush, while very good at touting ideology, is no politician in terms of possibility of implementation.
I would like to ask you, though, Red: what do you think of the choice of Michael Steele as the new Republican Party Chairman? Honest move or strictly political maneuver?
regulusred said,
February 1, 2009 at 2:40 am
I’ll simply disagree about taxes and move to your question.
I think the Steele decision was not the best choice for the party, and endemic of the fear the GOP has of lacking diversity. Racism is alive and well in America, and I think Steele and Obama are perfect examples.
For anyone to suggest the color of either of those mens’ skins has any reason to qualify them for any vote is strictly racist. Positive and negative racism are both problems in this nation, and both are equally damaging. I’m afraid both were elected with ample consideration for their skin colors, and in each case, I am extremely disappointed. Dr. King’s dream was equality, not affirmative action. At least that is the way I read it.
None of the current candidates for GOP chair were satisfactory, and any of them would only drive the base further from the party. Eventually, the GOP illuminati will lose their support, as their wine and cheese conservatism shines brighter over time. The skin color story is repulsive, and I reject it, although I know our party considers it as if no one around them notices.
I will address the Limbaugh point:
“Rush Limbaugh is a media persona, not a man”
First, he is a man. Easy enough. Maybe an argument with Cheney, not so much with Rush.
Second, he’s not the spokesperson for the GOP. He’s a conservative spokesman. I know its frustrating for you to consider the two separately, but I promise they are very different entities. I also recognize that you don’t believe that GOP answers are answers at all, but I promise I feel the same way. The GOP is without a base at the moment for good reason, which is the only way a center-right nation can somehow be represented by a left majority.
Rush is not a politician, as you say. He’s just a leader of an ongoing movement. That said, he’s played kingmaker more than you know amongst the senate and the house. I’m not sorry to have him leading the populous at this time. We could do much worse.