One of the problems with being the party that does not hold the presidency is that you are not sure who your leader is. That makes cohesion difficult. Power struggles generally do not allow for effective consensus. When W was president, it was not clear who headed the Democratic Party, but it tended to someone who held elected office -- Al Gore, John Kerry -- or the head of the national party organization.
No one argued that a talk show host headed the party, but no liberal commentator has the muscle of Rush Limbaugh. He has apparently been leading the fight against Obama's proposals, which have caused some to argue that he is not the leader of the party. He is the one determining what direction the party should head. Is this healthy for the party? Or for the republic in general?
Here are some provocative links:
- Rush Limbaugh Officially Republican Party Leader :: WRAL.com.
- Think Progress » McCain To Obama: Leave Limbaugh Alone!.
- House GOP member to Rush: Back off - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com.
- Limbaugh Cracks the Whip, and Republicans Get in Line - First 100 ....
My personal opinion is that Limbaugh is part of a process, articulated in posts below, driving the party further to the right and away from the mainstream. This could further marginalize the party, especially if the economy seems to react favorably to the stimulus package. The Limbaugh conservatives are a strong part of the party, but not enough to win elections.
2301: It might be worth discussing whether he represents a use of the media that helps or hurts the democratic republic.
2302: What does his influence say about the ability of the Republican minority in Congress to set the party's agenda?
