LOWD INVISBUL ARMEY: GLENN BECK HAZ ONE

[defrog]

ITEM: The New York Times puts forth the proposition that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity et al are not nearly as in control of the GOP as they would like you to believe, and in reality are in command of a lunatic fringe with plenty of volume but no real power.

So what lying liberal dink is writing this wishful-thinking hoo-ha? Why, conservative columnist David Brooks.

Of course, Brooks has considered the likes of Beck and Hannity and the whole teabagger movement to be an embarrassment to the Republican Party for some time now. So I’m not surprised he wants to downplay their real influence.

And he does have a point – at least when it comes to elections. If these people had half the influence they claim, Mike Huckabee would have been the GOP nominee and, if he’d lost, Hillary Clinton would now be president.

On the other hand, Brooks kind of shoots down his own thesis by expressing alarm that his fellow Republican politicians seem to be falling for the hype:

They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist. They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

Now wait just a minute Dave. If that’s not influence, what is? I ask you.

And anyway, it’s not like Limbaugh’s fans give a flying flip what fake "conservatives" like David Brooks thinks.

Asleep at the wheel,

This is dF

Comments

[nebris.livejournal.com]