This is a problem for Republicans:
Republicans, out of power and divided over how to get it back, are finding even the most basic questions hard to answer.
Here’s one: Who speaks for the GOP?
The question flummoxes most Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, which is among the reasons for the party’s sagging state and uncertain direction.
A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn’t come up with a name when asked to specify “the main person” who speaks for Republicans today. Of those who could, the top response was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (13%), followed in order by former vice president Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Former president George W. Bush ranked fifth, at 3%.
Although considering they don’t know quite what their message is, not having an identifiable messenger might not be that bad.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Er … The silent (but deadly) majority?
Redhand
Having El Rushbo and Darth Cheney as top contenders for your party’s spokesman is a disaster in and of itself. The content of their messages doesn’t exactly resonate with the public. It’s also interesting that only one person on the list, McCain, holds public office.
The Grand Panjandrum
Yeah, Peter Daou was on to something, wasn’t he?
Ash Can
I find it interesting that Limbaugh comes first among the individuals named in the results. That shows that the Limbaugh-as-GOP-leader meme has real traction. I also find it interesting (although not really surprising) that Michael Steele’s name doesn’t even show up in the excerpt blockquoted above. For a political party that’s so deeply authoritarian (at least, at this point in its history), there’s something ironic about seeing this degree of lack of leadership.
JGabriel
Redhand:
Not from the Dem point of view. I’m thrilled by it.
ETA: OTOH, I consider myself an American first, and from that point of view, having a major political party represented by such extremists is rather disconcerting.
.
donovong
Well, obviously, Jon Voight is the present voice and future hope of the GOP.
I know Angelina is proud!
D-Chance.
Of the 48% who do identify a “main person” in the GOP, 13% name Limbaugh… so that’s 6.24% of the survey.
300,000,000 Americans x .0624 = 18,720,000… about what Limbaugh claims as his weekly radio audience.
That tent ain’t big enough, boys.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@Ash Can: Steele roared in with 1% of the responses.
The best part will be Flush’s reaction. That bastard will swagger (or at least waddle in an aggressive manner) about this for ages. Prepare for loud brays of anger when his party does something he doesn’t like. I bet he winds up trashing the GOP harder than the Dems.
Popcorn?
Bill E Pilgrim
@D-Chance.:
Well yeah plus saying “Rush Limbaugh most represents who speaks for the Republican Party right now” doesn’t neccesarily mean you’re a fan.
I mean I’d respond that way, and god knows I’m not.
So it’s an even smaller group than that, or put another way, that result is fairly meaingless in gauging how many people like Rush Limbaugh.
DougJ
They left out Gary Sinise.
kid bitzer
may i just say what a pleasure it is to scroll down this page?
not only does ms. anderson disappear upscreen, but the delightful lily appears below.
one of them is a truly dignified lady.
MattF
The only well-known Republican I can think of off-hand who is broadly respected is Colin Powell. Who endorsed Obama, whose exit from the Bush White House in disgrace looks better and better as time goes by, and who has been attacked by The Ex-Vice President from Hell.
robertdsc
La Belle Palin got no percentage? The horror!
Separately, I’m firmly on Team Tunch, but Laura’s Lily ad has me sweet on the girl.
geg6
@kommrade reproductive vigor:
OMG, that is the best line EVAH.
Thank FSM this place is dead today and there isn’t anyone to hear me giggling hysterically.
Violet
@Ash Can:
Yeah. Obama is very smart politically (along with being smart in a lot of other ways). He pushed this for awhile and look what happens: Americans think Rush is the Republican leader. That cracks me up.
Of course, having the Republicans scurry back to apologize to El Rushbo everytime they suggest he isn’t The Almighty Leader of the GOP probably helps support the impression that he is the Supreme Leader. But Obama and his folks didn’t miss the opportunity.
Fulcanelli
The fact that a reclusive, obscenely rich and fat, drug-addicted, suspected pedophile talk-show host who uses V i a g r a polled at the top of the list of people who the voting public believes is the leader of the Republican Party is WIN enough for me on this cold, damp June morning, thank you very much.
Hmmm, seems the Sun is poking through the clouds as I write this… ;)
Can I haz moar good newz and pix of Lily, John Cole?
Ash Can
@Violet: Furthermore, IIRC, he didn’t even push it, or at least he didn’t have to push it very hard at all. Obama made a throwaway remark (was it to the press?) that they should stop listening to Limbaugh and basically look at reality for a change. Then, a few days later and in the wake of several Republican politicians publicly apologizing to Limbaugh, Rahm Emanuel remarked to a Sunday AM talker that it was looking as though Limbaugh was the de facto head of the GOP. That’s really all they did/all it took, and now Obama and Emanuel look (even more) brilliant because of it.
Fulcanelli
Moderation Gods… Clean-up at Post #16 plz, no haz-mat handling necessary.
Fulcanelli
Let’s try this again…
The fact that a reclusive, obscenely rich and fat, drug-addicted, suspected pedophile talk-show host who uses the little blue pill polled at the top of the list of people who the voting public believes is the leader of the Republican Party is WIN enough for me on this cold, damp June morning, thank you very much.
Hmmm, seems the Sun is poking through the clouds as I write this… ;)
Can I haz moar good newz and pix of Lily, John Cole?
Lupin
I’m shocked that Bozo the Clown, Hannibal Lecter and Bizarro Lois didn’t make the list. Shocked.
bago
I would only hope that a white drug-addicted male would make a better spokesman than a wise Latina female.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Ash Can: Exactamundo. I doubt whether they had much to do with at all, actually. All of the Republicans ritually debasing themselves bowing to Rush had created the idea pretty firmly all by itself, whether Rahm said anything or not.
The Beltwing Blatherers just love to feel like they have some preception that cuts deep into the brambles. So it goes from “Oh, the White House probably loves this”, to “Oh look, Rahm even mentioned it”, to finally “The White House entirely created it! Out of their evil Machiavellian blah blah blah”.
Legalize
Who cares? The Dems themselves are the ones who will undermine any chance of moving this country into the 21st century. The GOP is just a sideshow for Chris Matthews and the rest of blithering morans on television to obsess over so that they can avoid talking about the realities dragging this country down.
Sorry. GOP stupidity is not enough to make me hopeful this morning.
Deborah
Rush and Dick, with Newt trying hard for third and Meghan McCain utterly ignored, is about what I would have said.
As for message, Wonkette this morning linked to an NPR piece about Republican plans to lure independents and moderates with their careful opposition to Sotomayor based solely on her racist judicial rulings. Goes on to note that (as people following the story already knew) these do not appear, technically, to exist, but this is not going to stop them. They have a plan, gosh darn it!
As one of those independent moderates who used to vote for both parties, I was just shaking my head over this one: Do they think I wasn’t watching over the past weeks? Do they honestly, truly imagine that this is appealing to the independents who’ve fled their craziness, rather than to the “I guess the spokesman is Rush” base?
Party Hack A: We need to attract some independents if we’re ever going to win another seat.
Party Hack B: Without compromising our principles in any way, of course. We’re not moderating, we just want moderates to vote for us.
Michael Steele: We might let moderates vote for us, so long as they don’t get uppity ideas about holding any influence in the party.
Party Hack A: Of course. So, Sotomayor, brown person, we’re opposing her as a racist, right? But it’s about her record, not her skin color–brown people can vote for us!
Sane person: Her rulings don’t support that; we’d look like morons. To convince moderates we have to find a reality-based….
Party Hacks: Not that word!
The Other Steve
You could have said the same about the Democrats in 2001.
Violet
@Ash Can:
I don’t think they really pushed it. They just commented on it for a few days. Didn’t Gibbs mention it once too? Or am I misremembering?
gwangung
Yes, but absent Obama, do you think matters would have ended up with the Repubs so far down in the hole?
It’s going to take a real leader on the Republican end to stem this. Not sure if they’re self aware enough to allow that to happen.
Da Bomb
I am sure the republicans can find their own voice or leader. Here’s a suggestions: Find someone who would be a cross betwwen Archie Bunker and Al Bundy. So they can kept that Party of “Grumpy Ol’ White Men” meme going.
Oh yeah, they already have that person, Pat “what is happenign to white people is the same thing that happened to Black folks during Jim Crow” Buchanan. I think he’s doing a bang up job.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
The Knights Who Say “Newt!”
Somebody needs to tell them that we already brought them their damn shrubbery in 2000, and they ain’t getting another one. I don’t care how nice the
Lauralaurels look, or whether they want a two level effect with a paaath down the middle.Dreggas
This post really needs a photoshopped picture from the movie Idiocracy of Luke Wilson’s character and the words “YOUR REPUBLICAN LEADER….NOT SURE!” in big obnoxious letters just like it would have been in the movie because NOT SURE knows his shit and kicks ass.
scarshapedstar
I think Bill Maher said it best:
‘More guns and more Jesus!’
brian griffin
A strong republican leader that was anti-torture could actually define gop goals at the same time as they put the bush years behind them. I think that is what it will take to make them no longer the ‘party of cheney’: an aggressive embrace of law and order, directly applied to the bushies.
he would be able to cast the democrats as wishy-washy on torture and defense strategy (and thus weak on national security–always a favorite tactic) and make a case for justice without appearing partisan, in a way that democrats just can’t.
Someone reasonable like Huntsman or McHugh could actually pull this off.
Or…are they not available?
Calouste
Isn’t this inherent to the American political system? That the party that is not in the White House doesn’t have a clearly defined leader between election day and the end of the next primary season. Of course you would expect people to mention either the House Minority Leader or the Senate Minority leader and that these people poll at less than 3% is rather a concern. I’m pretty sure that Pelosi polled quite a bit higher than that as the leader of the Democrats between the 2006 elections and the end of the 2008 primary.
Dreggas
@brian griffin:
“Law and order” republicans brought us the “War on (some) Drugs” which is not exactly popular anymore. Further it was “Law and order” republicans who gave us enhanced interrogation and warrantless wiretaps. In fact republicans embrace the police state far more than dems, of course dems bear some of the blame as well but by and large all of these are part of the republican brand. Those who don’t embrace the brand completely are pushed out and wouldn’t stand a chance in a primary.
What you are asking for is someone sane and the ones with any sanity at all, left the asylum long ago and are letting the lunatics run it.
Cyrus
Everyone here seems to be giving Obama credit for Limbaugh being the most popular answer, but that’s simply not true and arguably harmful. Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. Who else could it be? Michael Steele has said he admires Malcolm X and panders to young and minority demographics (sure, he does a horrible job of it, but he’s trying harder than any other Republican in my lifetime.) Dick Cheney had low approval ratings even among Republicans while he was in office, and he’s not strongly opposed to gay marriage. Newt Gingrich is Limbaugh, he just doesn’t have any broadcast real estate of his own. Bush seems happy to be out of a leadership role. (Finally, something we can all agree with him on!) McCain was overshadowed by his VP candidate, and his VP candidate has the culture war dog whistles down pat, but, darn it, she just can’t stop talking like a socìalist. Limbaugh is the only person who (1) wants to lead the Republican Party, (2) agrees with both the stated platform and the majority of the members about all substantive issues, and (3) is liked by the backbone of the party.
It’s not just a “meme,” no “pushing” by the administration was necessary, and while Obama is “very smart politically” that doesn’t have anything to do with this. Saying so makes the administration sound more Macchiavellian and the Republican Party more innocent than is actually the case.
Elie
If you can reflect the need in a population accurately, you become the leader. Right now, the Republicans reflect the ideas (using the term loosely) of a very small number of people — and even then I imagine only part of the time. Obama rose because he reflected something powerful in many of us. He channeled it, refined it perhaps, but it was in US.
The Republicans are reflecting only pettiness, bigotry and no serious answers to anything we face – after having left a mess from their own tenure. If you have a problem, are you going to go to the guy who shrugs his shoulders and says ” got me – I have no idea what to do but lets shoot abortion doctors” or – “I have a bunch of new names to call Obama”?
There is no faking this dilemma for them. The only people that they can throw in front of their partisans are clueless liars and buffoons, failed has-beens from other times and entertainers. That they have no embarrassment about it speaks volumes about them and the people whose views they express. I don’t see that changing anytime soon – no matter WHAT Obama does or doesnt do.
slippytoad
During Clinton’s first term, it was either Newt or Dole who appeared to be speaking for the Rethugs. After Newt went up in flames and Dole went down in defeat in 1996, I can’t recall the GOP having much of a coherent message except IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH after which they ceased to have much of a centralized image until the 2000 elections, when the biggest dumbfuck they could find somehow won their Presidential primary.
IndieTarheel
@Deborah: What you said.