The GOP’s Politics of Moderation
One of last week’s lighter political moments was the RNC tantrum over the runaway liberal bias of the lamestream media’s plan to immortalize Hillary Clinton [as only a TV bio-pic can] who might, or might not run for president someday.
Now, this is pretty funny stuff on a number of levels. For example, it is my contention that IF Hill decides to run, Republicans have a whale of a lot more to worry about than a three-year-old cable film tipping the scales.
And, despite the fact that FOX was in the running for production, excitable Republicans were just sure that the film would be a love-letter to Hillary. But, as those of us who remember the real-time rise of the Clintons know, there’s a lot more dirt in their past, than fluffy white clouds, for a dramatist to work with. Just ask Kenneth Starr, Monica Lewinski, Newt Gingrich . . .
And, while you’re at it, ask Newt how well that impeachment thingy went for the GOP. Remember? Newt expected the Republicans’ “divine intervention” in the Clinton presidency to guarantee a pick up of at least 30 seats, in the House, during the 1998 mid-term elections. In actual fact, a fairly disgusted America rewarded Republicans with a net loss of 5 seats instead.
And, then, of course there is the modern Republican candidates’ propensity for on-air political hara kiri, in which the clean-cut, All-American posed in front of an American flag opens his/her mouth and magically transforms into a far-right wacko-bird . . . to use a Republican-coined term.
So. It is what it is and we’re all pretty used to it by now BUT—a new idea was born in the minds of wily Republican strategists for a new way to self-immolate: the Limbaugh-moderated primary debate. Delighting conservatives and Democrats in a rare bipartisan moment.
Alas! it is not to be. It came as a terrible blow to me, yesterday, to read that Rushbo is rapidly back-pedalling away from this idea because, of course, he’s too famous and would “overshadow” the event and that wouldn’t be fair to whatever collection of odd ducks, Luddites and political paleontologists the party decides to cram into the GOP clown car, next time around.
Too bad. I had a lot of fun, for a while, imagining how that could work . . . based on Limbaugh’s own copious and freely-shared thoughts, this is how I imagined his debate moderation rolling [all quotes in italics are actual statements that Limbaugh has made throughout his long and tiresome career]:
On gun control:
Governor Walker, I once proposed “ . . . liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It’s just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled. If we did those three or four things, I can’t tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals, take their typewriters and their keyboards away from ‘em, don’t let ‘em anywhere near a gun, and control their speech. You would wipe out 90% of the crime, 85 to 95% of the hate, and a hundred percent of the lies from society.”
How would you go about implementing such a change?
On income inequality:
Gov. Bush, you come from a large, very diverse state and as most conservatives know ”. . . some people are self-starters, and some people are born lazy. Some people are born victims. Some people are just born to be slaves. Some people are born to put up with somebody else making every decision for them” so, tell us a little about some of the decisions you’d make to eliminate the lazy and unmotivated people from the country and could the people “born to be slaves” be put to constructive use in their elimination?
On Immigration Reform:
Sen. Rubio, as you know I, myself, am all for more Latinos. I believe that America needs more Latinos and, I suspect, given your Cuban background you get my drift when I say: “[l]et the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.” Win/win! amirite?
Senator Paul, you may have noticed, as have I, that “. . . all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson.” Since that’s the case, isn’t there a more streamlined solution to getting criminals off the streets in America? Your thoughts on that?
On Foreign Policy:
Sen. Cruz, it’s my firm belief that “the only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.” What are some of your ideas on nuclear proliferation?
On attracting women voters:
Rep. Ryan, you’re kind of a buff stud so how do you see the GOP’s “ladies problem”? Don’t you think that a large contributing factor is that ”[f]eminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society” and now a bunch of loser broads want a “seat at the table?” Who needs that?
And this one’s for all of you—I think I’ve come up with a very clever way to turn the tide on the pro-choicers and virtually eliminate abortion in America, here’s my idea:
“Let’s say we discover the gene that says the kid’s gonna be gay. How many parents, if they knew before the kid was gonna be born, [that he] was gonna be gay, they would take the pregnancy to term? Well, you don’t know but let’s say half of them said, “Oh, no, I don’t wanna do that to a kid.” [Then the] gay community finds out about this. The gay community would do the fastest 180 and become pro-life faster than anybody you’ve ever seen. … They’d be so against abortion if it was discovered that you could abort what you knew were gonna be gay babies.”
All it takes is a few well-placed “scientific studies” posted on gay websites and Voila! problem solved.
Are you all down with that?
Too damn bad to let talent like that go to waste.