Paul Krugman used a small quote from President Eisenhower today, and I found it worth looking up the whole bit. In a letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower on November 8, 1954, Eisenhower wrote:
Yeah, the emphasis is mine, but if ever there were a line that deserved bold type, there it is.
I find Eisenhower's thoughts on moderation particularly fascinating in light of the current fight in the GOP non-elected leadership. Honestly, I can't seem to get too worked up by the Rush Limbaugh-Michael Steele mess (except for some offense at the number of newscasters who can't pronounce D.L. Hughley's name). Republican in-fighting? Sounds great. You kids have your "no, I'm the real leader!" fights in the backseat while the grown-ups drive us through the global economic meltdown.
What Eisenhower reminded me of, though, is that there are wider implications for a Republican party fight than simply the fun it will provide on "Countdown" for the next few days. If the GOP splinters, it won't do it in any sane way: The two huge and mismatched coalitions that make up the party -- the fiscal conservatives, who want smaller government and stricter budgets, and the social conservatives, who are willing to pay and expand government when government is repressing what they want it to repress -- will not say friendly good-byes and form new parties. Instead, they'll strike some weird bargain and stay together, with one group subordinate to the other. This isn't the fault of the GOP. This is because we are America, and We Have Only Two PartiesTM.
So instead of breaking into, say, Cash Conservatives and Church Conservatives, the Republican Party will remain intact. It just may look a lot different.
Here's the worst-case scenario: Rush Limbaugh won't "win" this fight, because he can't, technically -- he's unelectable and not running for anything, so his power is at best and worst symbolic. But let's say adherence to a Rush-like agenda of outright despising and demonizing the other party takes the day and shapes the RNC, whether under Michael Steele or somebody they recruit off CNBC to replace him. So non-cooperation leads the party further and further to the right on social and fiscal issues, and suddenly, to define yourself as even an average Republican, you must be an absolute obstructionist asshole on every policy put forward by the Democrats, even if, in earlier days -- let's call these days "2008" -- you might have been neutral on or even in favor of these policies.
Here comes 2010. It's time for people to start running for their seats again. To do this, they need money. They turn to three sources: their own fund-raising efforts; political action committees (those of their friends in the party and those of interest groups they favor); and the party itself. The party itself holds -- or should hold -- a substantial fundraising advantage to the candidate in congresional elections. The party can choose district to district for whom it turns on the funding faucet, and for whom it finds its well dry.
Now let's say you're a Republican who has been, at different times, considered anywhere from moderate to conservative on the 2008 (pre-Obama) Scale of Conservatism, but who, in the first month of the administration, made a compromise that allowed passage of the stimulus bill. This is now completely out-of-line with your party and has earned you a primary challenge by someone who can now make a credible claim that you're no longer a member in good standing.
Welcome to the Arlen Specter nightmare.
Specter managed to scrape up the courage to join Senators Snowe and Collins in voting for passage of the stimulus bill. This was in part possible because Specter's GOP challenger from 2004, Pat Toomey, had said he wasn't going to run again in 2010, so Specter's seat seemed a little safer. Only now, as the Republican run to the right continues, Toomey's making some very frightening "hey, maybe I will run" noises (H/t: Yglesias). One must wonder if it's coincidence that Toomey's reconsidering his run right as Michael Steele, in further efforts to assuage the Limbaugh "base," has reaffirmed that he's considering electoral punishment for those who voted "yes" on the stimulus bill. In short, if you want to see real GOP-on-GOP action, kids, watch Pennsylvania early next year.
If Specter loses in the primary, which seems likely, Toomey probably can't win in the general, because Pennsylvania is more Democrat-leaning than ever. So it's a victory for the Democrats, except in the message that it sends out to every Republican currently serving in Congress: mess with the party, and we'll take you down.
Should the GOP decide to pursue this line of action -- and hey, I'd vote for it -- then here's the death spiral they face: the big bloc of nominally Republican voters who are socially moderate and fiscally conserative but willing to spend to maintain social programs, so long as there's an effort made toward deficit reduction, bolt the party completely as it turns further rightward and becomes more obstructionist. Their electoral margin dwindles even further, and by 2012 we break up into two groups: The Sane Party and, in the words of President Eisenhower, The Stupid and Negligible Party. The former, also called the Democratic party, wins every major election for the next twenty years, a realignment on a magnitude with that of 1932, and when the Republicans do re-emerge, they're a kinder, gentler party unafraid to attach the word "moderate" to their beliefs or candidates. Their next success comes not in the form of a Rush Limbaugh or a Sarah Palin or a Bobby Jindal but in a woman or man who, like Dwight Eisenhower, understands the fundamental wants of the country and the moderation necessary to maintain them.
If the party stays on this path -- if they embrace Rush Limbaugh as a leader now -- then there's more good news here than just the fun of the infighting. The good news is that he can't lead them into a victorious future, but he sure can lead the rest of us there.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
The worm is beginning to turn on Obama. His supporters are well advised to hop on the Distraction Express.
And when they mount these campaigns, against their own, they must go to what well? The Rush/Hate/Lies/Demons well, which parades them as loathsome, shrill, disconnected. They have embraced a philosophy of teeth-bared cacaphony, without a moral compass.
I too miss thoughtful Rightists. These drive-by Repunklicans (is that you, TS?) feel disgust at the very thought of Thought.
Cowards. Make your case, stay and work it out. If your ideas are so Right, how come you won't clarify what they are? How come you can't stay and discuss? feh.
The splintering has begun and it's exponentially growing. The sit in their same position shouting their same failed rhetoric as the country moves on. The "Party" has already embraced Limbaugh. They embrace him because of his vile vitriolic rants that expresses all the pent up anger and aggression they obviously have. Their President squanders the first trillion dollars with NO transparency of its use, and Obama, 7 weeks into his job has yet to even allocate all the next trillion, although he has set up a system to at least attempt to track its usage and he is the Devil incarnate. Status-quo for the G.O.P.. (We have to figure out what that stands for now.)
As you persist in dogging my comments out of some sort of morbid fascination, I think it's time to make a couple of points.
I never equated good spelling and intelligence. You made that one up, as you do much else. Besides, spelling mistakes are but a modest beginning to the ways in which you disrespect English. You latest post, for example, short and simple (in more ways than one) though it was, managed to sqeeze in reversed words, a missing determiner, and a dangling clause which has the unintended consequence of making it sound like you are the object of your own disdain.
Even though good spelling does not necessarily indicate intelligence, deplorable English across a wide spectrum, including the resort to toilet "humor," does suggest in an adult inadequacies in education, environment, or both.
As for the limited substance of your post, I wonder why so much attention is focused by you and others upon a man whom all of you consider some sort of nothing. Much ado, I'd say.
It's stupid to state that Limbaugh has no principles. He has many: limited government, honest politicians, individual responsibility, etc. The fact that they threaten or scare insecure dependents such as you is your fault, not his.
Please tell me that you did not say "neglible" in your HEADLINE.
And how could AR, who can't even recognize a tongue-in-cheek misspelling by T.S. when he reads it, have missed it?
Thanks for this insightful piece. I’m especially grateful you expanded on the small quote Paul Krugman used in his column yesterday. While reading his article I smiled at Krugman’s comment that, “...it’s telling that the new term of abuse is ‘socialist’: ‘liberal’ obviously doesn’t scare people anymore.”
I’m not so sure that’s true. I think the GOP strategy is to make the two terms synonymous.
I agree with you that if the party panders to Rush and the extreme “conservative” base who find his rhetoric inspiring they will indeed become the party of the negligible and the stupid.
I have a gnawing fear, however, that many in the GOP may wake up and find themselves embracing a “different” brand Republican leadership represented by leaders like Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr.
In an interview with the Washington Times (February 24, 2009) Huntsman said of congressional leaders, “I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential - completely.”
Though Huntsman consults with party leaders like Gringich he is savvy enough to understand that the GOP must have “big, bold solutions and ideas." He is a proponent of addressing the energy crisis, the environment and health care in serious terms.
The Governor is a former ambassador to Singapore and speaks Mandarin fluently.
What I fear most is while Democrats and Progressives are enjoying the Limbaugh-Steele meltdown someone like Huntsman may be quietly positioning himself to revive the GOP and persuade the electorate with a retooled version the old “Contract with America” ploy.
If the Dems can't make any real headway on the economic front, then everything's up for grabs -- if not in 2010, then definitely in 2012. (The American people have a very limited supply of patience, and 4 years is the max.) Remember that out of economic desperation, people will turn to anyone -- that's how the likes of Hitler came into power. That's what frightens me.
"YOU latest post, short and simple..."
I am sure you meant "your", but then the keyboard can be a contrary thing when typing fast!
It is a joke in our house: "WWID?"...what would Ike do?
Eisenhower was an atypical Republican. But once upon a time there were sane ones--they had to subscribe to a broadly post-FDR agenda to get elected to anything more than dog catcher or state representative. It's a symptom of the fragmentation of our electorate that being batshit crazy is a requirement of GOP elected officials these days--take my Congressman, Bill Cassidy, please--because we have redistricted our way to entire tracts of the purest Red State ignorance and paranoia.
I have written about how this insane fat radio newsguy news coverage seems to me when there are so many more important issues to cover.
Thanks.
Right now, this stuff is the equivalent of having a crowd of head spinning, pea soup spewing Inside-The-Beltway Linda Blair's right up in our living rooms!
We'd better wake up. One day, these evil clowns will be back in power, and then we're done.
T.S. -- a problem with Jack Klugman? I thought he did well in "12 Angry Men."
RickyB, yeah; though there are plenty of things I disagree with Ike on, he certainly was prescient in that area, too.
GordonO, well, I certainly agree that the Limbaugh business is a bit of a distraction from real business, but I don't think that's entirely a one-sided affair. And yes, you caught me, I did spell negligible wrong to start. It's fixed now.
O/E, I think the coalitions that stand within the current behemoth parties are in a way led by specific interest groups, or at least by shared interests. But I can't quite go so far as to say they run things, at least not currently. We'll see, though.
K.o.Blue, yeah, I can't see any positive outcome for the party if it sticks with or adheres to Limbaugh's line, either.
RIF, thanks!
Dennis, again, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I need to read more about the Utah governor, because he's made some interesting counter-party calls of late, hasn't he? I think your fears of a Contract with America are well-founded, though it will take a few years -- and some failed policies from the Dems, a la Clinton of '92 and '93 -- to make it viable.
Silkstone, Odette, and Rich, it has been a dizzying spiral into chaos, but I'm not convinced it's going to be a systemic, lasting problem; they've managed to paper over their enormous rift in the past, somehow (just as the Democrats did in the 50s), so they may still rise again, splintered but unbroken, by 2010 -- if Democrats give them something to unite against. I'm a little surprised the party *hasn't* better unified in the face of the stimulus bill and budget.
Thanks, yekdeli! I like Ike some, too, though his positions on racial inequality left much to be desired.
And thank you, o'steph, that's very kind.
Lsujp, I like the "two evangelicals" division you define of the party. It's a nice way of putting it. I think there are some true fiscal conservatives out there, but I agree with you and Odette that they aren't perhaps the same folks who've been claiming that brand in the GOP of late.
Thanks, Dorinda. I'll check out your post right now -- always good to see more points of view!
Kent, you're right, this does speak directly to your point, that the parties stand for little except standing against each other. But I think the outcome is more likely a broader joining of the Democratic Party than a dissolution of the Republican Party with replacement by some other coalition of the unhappy.
The other part of this all is that the larger the Dem. Party tent gets, the more to the center its policies will move, until perhaps a space does open for an effective third party on the left.
Zuma, "evil clowns" does paint quite a picture. I'm curious to see as we go along what the path back to power is for the GOP.
Thanks for pulling up that Eisenhower quote, it's the first time I've seen it. There are some who saw this deterioration of the GOP from decades away, and others who knew of the perils invited by the path the GOP has taken in general.
I think the downward spiral will continue because it must. It will eventually reach a "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" moment.
Let us hope for the least messy conclusion.
Both Republicans and Democrats have their preachers of hate and only the hard core followers on either side listen to them.
I really enjoyed your article, Saturn. It is the best thing in Salon today. Interesting comments, too, at least several of them.
Hadrian: you long for Republican statesmen... that seems to be the key to all of this: as long as the GOP thinks goverment shouldn't be doing anything for its citizens other than the military, as long as they think it's broken, they will have no respect for being statesmen. Reagan did us all a disservice by making government the enemy.
It's a shame because as bad off as the world economy is, it would be helpful to have everyone trying to pitch in and work on solutions.
Just as Saturn Smith graciously acknowledged my correction of her title, I thank you for your correction of my typo. I hate when that happens! Cheers.
What a great imagery! It should be drawn as a political cartoon.
I am a little frightened of the way any of the Republicans speaking against Rush have retracted so quickly - just exactly what is holding sway that they would turn on a dime like that?
The GOP as of 2009 is sweating out the Neocon virus. Maybe if they stopped to think, they could reinvent themselves more effectively.
I really disbelieve that the Republican party is embracing Rush. It's just that they are having great difficulty distancing themselves from him. They are caught between their insufficiently large base, who brook no divergence from Limbaugh's principles or his methods, and the larger group they need to win over, who are weary of the rhetorical firebombing on both sides. The efforts of the Obamaites to canonize Limbaugh Mr. Republican may appear out of spirit with their professed bipartisanship, but they are in a political sense deeply consistent with their self-styled bipartisan brand. On the one hand they talk repeatedly about reaching out to political rivals; on the other they identify their political rivals with the irreconciliable Rush. They thereby persuade people of their willingness to cooperate, while painting the Republicans as constitutionally unable to do so. By deprecating Rush only to cravenly apologize to him, Republican like Steele play right into the Obamites hands--they seem willing and yet finally incapable of discarding their own hyperpartisan heritage. This dynamic is in my view the reason Obama remains so popular relative to his own policies, still seems the figure of hope despite having done precious little to alleviate a grim (if not hopeless ) situation.
M Todd, usually I think you're right, but sometimes by the sheer volume -- both in sound and in mass -- of the preaching, they get elevated briefly into national attention, as has Rush on any number of occasions. So he's become something of a larger player than just among his followers, again and again.
Thanks, Michael. The little I know of Hunt would suggest he wasn't stupid with his own money (nor, probably, of negligible concern to those around him), but was pretty wrong-headed on his ideas about how to run things/cuts to be made in social programs. But I really only know a teeny bit, so I could be off.
Karin, thanks. It would be helpful, you're right, if everyone would pitch in, but I fear for now that we have neither unity of purpose nor action to look forward to.
Thanks, consuelo! And Icemilk! Heh, maybe someone on OS could draw that up. I'm a terrible artist.
Teresa M, it is frightening, and I think the answer may be "money," as the only folks left able to make major campaign contributions to the party are probably those who think most of what Limbaugh says is right.
You know, those people sound a lot like a certain democratic President.
Bill Clinton.
Isn't it amazing that for all the talk about balanced budgets and cutting the size of the government from Reagan and both Bush Sr. and Jr., the only President to actually do it was Bill Clinton?
Republicans are like the guys who talk a good game and yap, yap, yap. But then when you actually start the game itself, they're the ones who are exposed and abused.
Kansas is dichotomous, anyhow. I grew up with Dockings and a Carlin as governors, and thought it normal that My state elected democratic governors and republican presidents. And though we were fervent Dem'z, my house respected Ike; my grandfather thought he was tops.
Is there another Ike out there? Could he/she be seen, heard, if he were? I don't think so.
I doubt JFK could get elected now, either.
So goes the nation.
First, the "porky earmarks." The only politician I've seen criticizing the earmarks is John McCain, who still hasn't realized how irrelevant they are. Earmarks are an easy target, but they only make up something like $1.7 billion out of this recent $400 billion spending bill. That is such a small percentage it's almost not worth worrying about. Obama pointed this out during the campaign as well: earmarks are a tiny tiny tiny percentage of overall federal spending, a few billion a year in a $3 trillion economy. So I don't know what lie GordonO is referring to.
Sure, some moderate and conservative Democrats have expressed concerns about the amount of spending overall, as is their right and their job when any president sends a budget over. In my opinion they are doing their job and should not be classed as heroes for it.
OK, Obama's connection to corrupt politicians: did I miss something on the news? If you are referencing his nominees who have gotten in trouble over back taxes, well, yawn. Some of Clinton's nominees didn't pay correct taxes for household help either. I personally think these tax mistakes were genuine oversights or incompetence on the part of some accountants. When you are a multi-millionaire trying to keep track of all your sources of income, taxable gifts, and whatnot, it's probably easy to overlook how much Social Security you paid for the maid (except in Daschle's case, his whole car-and-driver thing was kind of a whopper.) If you want to care about that instead of, say, the economy or health care reform, you go right ahead. Personally I think it's a waste of time.
Which brings us to the "worm is beginning to turn on Obama" comment. Really? Last I checked he had an approval rating of well above sixty percent, and two-thirds of people polled trusted him on the economy far far more than they trusted the Republicans. My guess is that people like having a president who seems engaged on the issue and is willing to try a few things. The reason Rush's prescriptions look so unappealing right now is because they are basically lazy: don't fund projects that would put Americans to work, don't collect more taxes, just don't bother doing anything and the problems will somehow take care of themselves. Completely the wrong tenor in a crisis.
I do agree that the Dems should shut up about Limbaugh already. The more they talk about him, the more they might motivate Republican moderates to fight for a voice in the party and eventually pull things together. Nobody MADE Michael Steele mouth off about Rush, he did that himself. So let the GOP tear itself apart fighting over the party's direction while the Dems focus on the business of governing.
The Specter nightmare is real. Loyalty is serious business in partisan times. He will pay the price for party treason.
The broader implications of demographics works against the Republicans. The young, the black or latino, the women, the better educated, work slightly more in favor of Democrats. Birthrates of minorities and disproportional deaths of older whites will allow natural gains of, say, 1% for the Dems. It makes a huge difference in close races and the Republicans are tilting against windmills on this one.
The Democratic Party did a superb job of branding Republicans white and hateful. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. Republican leaders noticed this and appointed Steele but greater strides will be needed to overcome all the negativity that snowballed over the last 8 years. What is needed is for the party to humble themselves before the electorate, admit fully to the lies and wrongdoings, purge the extremism and bring new ideas to the table. Natch, it won't happen and they will go the longer "time heals all wounds route". It also won't happen because the mouthpeice Rush will deny legitamacy to those attempting such actions.
I find it amazing when people to looking for historical quotes to support your point of view. You infer automatically that Ike was necessarily some great wise man and that when his words are read, that happen to agree with you, everyone should just be awe struck.
Did you always think he was so wonderful or just since you read the quote? Good for Ike. He said something. I also noticed that he referred to anyone that would abolish such programs. I don't know anyone that want to abolish such programs. And nothing in his words indicates his standard for moderation. You just assume "moderation" fits yours views and you throw the words out there like "wow look what the wise Ike said". You actually have no woy to know what moderation meant to him.
And as far a abolition of SS goes, there where do you think we are headed. As of now many people will pay nothing in ad get a retirement out. Just how does that math work? It will be abolished because it will fail. Or should I say it will fail many of us. I can see the day that those who paid in will get nothing out. The day will come when the gov will look at your total net worth ant retirement and tell you if you have saved responsibly and now have too much, you will get nothing. How else can it possibly be paid for?
Do yo ever think of the pragmatics social programs and over spending? Do you not see that this "House of Cards" that just collapsed is just being propped back up again and it is still made of cards? It will fall again. You should study the Great Depression.
We didn't just get over it with the New Deal. It fell apart again shortly afterwords.
If the economy even recovers sort of OK in two tears Obama and the dems will retain power. If unemployment is still 7+ % in 18 months, the congress will turn over.
The popular vote was 53% to 46%. Some see hat as a 7% difference. Not really. if 3.5% in the middle change their mind, it goes the other way. People were feed with the situation and willing to try for a change, especially when it comes to money.
If the economy still sucks ideology concerns for things like abortion and such will take a back seat. Money will talk.
Its pretty black and white. Good economy. good for Obama,
bad economy the dems go home and a new congress will fix it with appropriate "moderation".
So far, our fledgling president has done little to inspire confidence in that arena: Georgia, Iran, and Chavez come to mind.
It's interesting that supporters of a party that I find noticeably shy in the principles department posits the notion that cheating on taxes is OK unless you're forced to withdraw from consideration on account of it, that governmental waste is OK if it bears a certain proportional relationship to some mammoth number, and that telling lies, whether about earmarks or public funding for a campaign is OK if . . . I forgot the lame excuses for those.
As for governmental waste, you are going to have some in a $3 trillion economy. Some of it will be earmarks, some of it will not. I think continuing to build F-22s that we don't need is probably wasteful, and the amount the Air Force wants to spend on those far outstrips the amount of earmarks in the spending bill. In a perfect world we would all agree that every dollar the federal government spends will go to worthy projects and none of it would be considered wasteful. It's naive to think we can stamp out all waste. All we can do is hope to minimize it, which is why it doesn't bother me if it's a tiny fraction of a mammoth number. And, I might add, six of the top ten earmarkers in the Senate on the spending bill are Republicans.
If you want to talk about a party that's shy in the principles department, we could talk all day about Republican enablers of the last administration's policies on warrantless wiretapping, illegal renditions, torture of prisoners, indefinite detentions, signing statements, de-regulation of the financial services sector, preemptive attacks against a country that posed no threat to us, bald-faced lying about non-existent threats to justify those attacks, politicization of nearly every department of the federal government, and firing US attorneys because they were insufficiently loyal to the Republican Party, just to name a few. We could talk about those John Yoo policy memos that turned up this week that basically advised Bush it was okay to completely ignore the Constitution if he felt like it. We could talk about irresponsible and uninformed tossing about of terms like "socialism" or items like birth certificates. Hell, I could do this all day.
You, sir, are intellectually lazy. You cherry-pick words here and there to fit your preconceived notions without analyzing an overall argument. That was obvious in your first comment, which was in no way a response to the merits of Saturn's post. You just wanted to make a point without backing it up with, oh I don't know, facts or evidence.
Fine. Point made. Now leave those of us with coherent arguments alone. Go post over on RedState, where you will not in any way have to bear the burden of reasoned debate or thoughtful intelligence. Hell, you won't even need basic grammar and spelling skills.
Your windy litany of liberal talking points was full of unproved accusations (deliberate lies? what evidence is there of that?) and whitewash (if you think that Geithner's little tax faux pas was innocent, you're not only "polite," but also . . . )
But to get a genius like Geithner I suppose we have to overlook some faults. Look how effectively he has staffed his department and how he has infused the investing public with the notion that everything is under control in his capable hands.
Thanks for the unsolicited advice about where to post, but if it's OK with you, I'll hang out where I please. You may enjoy the sound of one hand clapping, around here the left one to be sure (talk about lazy), but I prefer to preach to others than the choir.
I QUIT trying.
`
The stars we gaze at are Myriad. The Moon shined into my bedroom and that's all I need. Moonlight. The stars and suns seem remote on some nights. Remote? The stars become twinkling beams of dancing Light.
It all depends on a vantage point. We are all here in a vast constellations. Gads. Look at what the silly Fools are doing in the Mesopotamia Lands. What creeps crawl the DC inner dark hovels.
Anyhow, O keep up the hoots. O, mythopoetic, bird tweet outdoors.
Thanks.
Mythopoetic is a fun word.
Awe. O, saying:` mythopoetic.
O, be irritating farm folk all day.
O, youngster, it's old Saturn's fault.
O, GordonO, Go easy on the newbie.
Fun @ OS. I am still a bit confused tho.
Everyone has there moment in the sun. Limbaugh will fade in a few weeks because he has no material yet. Limbaugh was at the height of his popularity and power when Clinton was in the middle of his sex scandal. When Bush took office he lost access to his material and had to find a new rallying point. As it stands right now Obama is still popular and has not done anything worthy of scandal. It is the political scandal that gets people interested not political talking points.
Another problem Limbaugh has is there are a lot of Republicans that do not like Bush and his out of control spending, patriot act, war on terror and use of federal power to supersede state authority. The republican party of today is more opposed to the values most republicans hold dear than the democrats.
I use to listen to Limbaugh back when the show first started. It was good political satire and the show was funny. Maybe it was the drugs, but he was funny, witty, and was able to poke fun at a lot of stuff that was being ignored by the rest of the media. But, now he is just a sad angry man who actually believes his followers see him as the next republican Messiah. That is why I believe he will fade back to his talk show. But, he has changed and the world around him has changed.
Bill Mahur is now faced with the same thing Limbaugh had, no target. Since Obama is president who is he going to bash? He has no rallying point. What is he going to do sit around talking about the Bush years? When the democrats won, he lost his act. He is faced with the same thing Rush had for 8 years, he can't attack Obama in the same way Rush couldn't attack Bush.