GOP has a problem

[Neil D]

Congressional Republicans have turned to Rush Limbaugh to lead the battle against Obama. One problem: A poll says he's less popular than Jeremiah Wright.

Republicans who have turned to Rush Limbaugh to lead the fight against President Obama may have backed the wrong horse. According to one recent poll, Limbaugh turns out to be one of the most unpopular political figures in the country.

An October 24, 2008, poll conducted by the Democratic research firm Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner has Rush Limbaugh enjoying a public-approval rating of just 21 percent among likely voters, while 58 percent have "cold" feelings toward the right-wing radio-talk-show host. Limbaugh's cold rating was higher than that of all the political figures the firm polled. It was seven points higher than Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright and eight points higher than former Weather Underground domestic terrorist William Ayers. (As the firm points out in an email, it's true that Wright and Ayers both had lower "warm" ratings than Limbaugh--as you'd expect for men who have virtually no constituencies.)

Limbaugh is so unpopular that only 44 percent of Republican voters reported "warm" feelings toward him, ten points less than those who felt the same way about Limbaugh's top competitor, Fox News' Sean Hannity, and a full 20 points lower than Fox News itself. Yet in spite of rock-bottom favorable numbers, Limbaugh confidently declared one week after Obama's inauguration that his power far exceeded that of the Republican Party's top two leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives. Obama, Limbaugh roared, is "obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

Obama seems unfazed by El Rushbo. The president recently implored Republican leaders, "You can't listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

Despite Limbaugh's low popularity ratings, congressional Republicans are so intimidated by his perceived influence that even the most resentful members shamelessly grovel at his feet. He might have alienated vast sectors of the Republican base, but Limbaugh still commands an army of self-proclaimed "Dittoheads" who represent the party's most politically fervent, ideologically extreme, and easily shepherded element. This is a faction that flood the party's elected representatives' offices with phone calls, and which they believe they cannot afford to offend.

In 1994, one year after the National Review ran a cover proclaiming Limbaugh "The Leader of The Republican Party," the "Dittoheads" helped propel the Republicans to a congressional majority. Hoping to stage another comeback against even greater odds, the Republicans maintain a strict code of masochism, bowing to Limbaugh even and especially when he casts them as his useful idiots.

Consider the case of Phil Gingrey, a Republican representative from a safely conservative district in Georgia. After Limbaugh mocked Boehner and McConnell, Gingrey decided to take his stand, blasting Limbaugh (and Hannity and Newt Gingrich) for "throwing bricks" without paying the consequences. "You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing," Gingrey told a reporter on January 27. "But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn't be or wouldn't be good leaders."

What happened next provided a perfect example of Limbaugh's dictatorial power. The next day, Gingrey, a former obstetrician, crawled on to The Rush Limbaugh Show to diagnose himself as suffering from foot-in-mouth disease. "I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments," Gingrey pleaded, "and I just wanted to tell you, Rush--and all our conservative giants, who help us so much to maintain our base and grow it to get back this majority--that I regret those stupid comments."

Another illuminating instance of Limbaugh's hold over congressional GOP leaders arrived when he announced, on the day of Obama's swearing-in, "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it." Rep. Mike Pence, the former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the nexus of right-wing House members, rushed to Limbaugh's defense during an interview with MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell.

"I certainly hope there will be strong opposition to Obama's agenda from voices like Limbaugh" Pence said. "I certainly understand what he was saying." When O'Donnell read to Pence Limbaugh's statement that Americans should not "bend over and grab their ankles" because Obama is the first black president, Pence intensified his apologia, flatly declaring, "I don't believe Rush Limbaugh's got a racist bone in his body." (In 2003, Limbaugh was forced to resign as a commentator for NFL games on ESPN for on-air remarks about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb: "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do wellhe got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve.")

Pro-Obama progressive groups in Washington are exploiting Limbaugh's resurgent power to assail lockstep Republican opposition to Obama's stimulus package. Yesterday, Americans United for Change announced plans to expand on the "Rush to Failure" ads it is already running in the districts of vulnerable Republican senators. The ads declare, "Every Republican voted with Limbaugh, and against creating four million new American jobs."

Democratic strategist James Carville reacted with glee when I interviewed him about Limbaugh's re-emergence. "From a political standpoint it's fine with me," Carville told me. "I'm absolutely elated to acknowledge his primacy in the Republican Party."

Limbaugh may not yet have precipitated his dream of Obama's failure, but he has at least guaranteed the Republicans' servility. In doing so, one of the most unpopular men in American politics has ensured that even amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, he is still, in the words of his new acolyte, Congressman Gingrey, "living well."

[phkrause]

The funny thing Neil is the Republicans just gave out, what, 300 billion dollars to these banks that have not done nothing other than pay there CEOs and give out bonus's to each other, with no accountability. Obama from what I understand wants who ever gets any money to be accountable for it. I'm pretty sure that if Bush were in office he would have gotten all the republicans to vote yes to the same thing!

pk

[Neil D]

Rumor has it that Peter Difasio, an Oregon Rep., has found language that states that we can get that bonus money [i believe that they said that it was $18B] back or at least force it back, from these companys who gave it out. There are a couple of liberal talk show that say that it can be done....

...and quite frankly, I would like to see it done....Because that is 360000 people who could have $50000 jobs....They may live modestly well too, depending upon what area of the country they are living...

No doubt that Rush would lobby for the money to stay with those CEOs so that the trickle down effect from the supply and demand economics can come into play here....Riiiiiiiiight..

[Dr. Shane]

I think some Democrats are getting just a little too paranoid about Limbaugh's influence over the Republican party. Limbaugh's ratings go up when he goes negative. The Obama Administration is going to be a big cash cow for Limbaugh. Obama has been playing right into Limbaugh's hands.

The Republicans are not opposing Obama because they are taking marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. The Republicans are following Tip O'Neil's example of being the "opposition party." I think it is a poor decision but since the Democratic Speaker of the House decided to play that game with President Reagan, they have been playing tit-for-tat ever since.

[Neil D]

Quote:

The Republicans are not opposing Obama because they are taking marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I am going to say that you didn't read that article, did you.....?

It shows that Limbaugh IS running the show and IS calling the shots...Remember, " I hope that Obama fails" and today, the house still fails to give support to the stimulus package. ....

At this rate, if obama's economic package shows that it even slows this economy's decline, Obama has won and the republicans will have a very hard time getting back the white house....

[phkrause]

Absolutely Neil, and had Bush pushed this plan it would have pasted by the republicans and the democrats would have voted against it. The only change that we have seen is the party in the WH. And like I've mentioned before, where are all those Bollywood supporters now. The only reason they campaign for Obama, or any other democrat, was for the money they hoped to gain from them. The republicans had already let them know they would not get anything from them. At least that's the way I see it!

pk

[Dr. Shane]

It shows that Limbaugh IS running the show and IS calling the shots...Remember, "

The article is wrong. It is filled with left-wing paranoia. It lacks balance and perspective. That is what I am providing.

[Dr. Shane]

At this rate, if obama's economic package shows that it even slows this economy's decline, Obama has won and the republicans will have a very hard time getting back the white house....

[Dr. Shane]

Rumor has it that Peter Difasio, an Oregon Rep., has found language that states that we can get that bonus money

What will Obama accomplish by limiting executive compensation for firms taking government bail-out money? Will those companies have more money (since they pay their CEOs less) and thus hire more people? Whoever believes that please post a big YES. Or will those CEOs simply jump ship and go to work for some other company that can pay them the compensation they are use to earning and thus leave the troubled companies in the hands of new and less qualified leadership?

Imagine if you had a good job. Let's say you were the CEO of the hospital and suddenly there was an industry-wide crisis so your hospital became unprofitable. The government steps in and bails out your hospital and cuts your compensation to 20% of what it was. Within a few weeks you get offered a job for a pharmaceutical company making what you made before your hospital was bailed out and your compensation cut. Are you going to stay with the hospital to help them through the crisis or take the new job?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

Rumor has it that Peter Difasio, an Oregon Rep., has found language that states that we can get that bonus money

What will Obama accomplish by limiting executive compensation for firms taking government bail-out money? Will those companies have more money (since they pay their CEOs less) and thus hire more people? Whoever believes that please post a big YES. Or will those CEOs simply jump ship and go to work for some other company that can pay them the compensation they are use to earning and thus leave the troubled companies in the hands of new and less qualified leadership?

[Neil D]

In four years we will have the Reagan test. "Are you better now than you were four years ago?" The Republicans best shot at getting back in power is to step aside, let the Democrats do what they are going to do, and hope it doesn't work out. If unemployment is still above 6% in four years the public isn't going to buy the "I inherited this mess" excuse from Obama. He told us he could fix it. Now he has it. If he can't fix it in two years he will cause the Democrats to lose seats in Congress. If two years after that he still hasn't fixed it, he is going to be deciding if he moves back to Illinois or Hawaii.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So you are saying that those CEO of banks, who favored the selling of junk mortgages and ran the bank into bankruptcy should be awarded bonus' in addition to their lucrative salaries....???

Banks have many departments and many CEOs. The CEOs of the departments that have been profitable are the CEOs getting the bonuses.

Quote:

Compensation includes salary....This is a totally different scenario than what is being proposed by Defazio...Salaries are not being penalized...

Wrong. Obama has issued an executive order that no CEO working for a company that gets bail-out money can make more than $500k/year.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

"Mr. President, I probably come at this from a slightly different perspective. I remember when FDR beat Hoover in 1932. So I remember the Great Depression very well. I don't remember any of the many government programs affecting the course of the Depression. Government programs didn't work then, I don't know why we think they would work now. Mr. President, I think our obsessive borrowing has fully mortgaged my kids and my grandkids. Now we're working on mortgaging my two great-grandkids. Mr. President, I think it's more than a little bit selfish to try to solve our economic problems which we created by burdening future generations yet to be born."This prompted applause.

Really? Boy, you had better tell that to my grandfather...He worked on various construction projects in the Northern California area, and did other road construction and his work was able to provide some major food on the table...

Aye, a very cooperative person.....Too bad he voted against the bill....I hope he knows that he's putting his career on the line....If Obama succeeds, ALL those republicans are gonners...

I don't think the Congressman is worried about his own skin. He is more concerned about doing what God would have him do in the position He has placed him in. He is a very honorable man.

Economists pretty much agree that FDR's New Deal did not pull the country out of the Depression. Obama is avoiding a lot of FDR's mistakes. FDR heavily taxed business to pay for his programs. Obama is giving many businesses tax cuts and leaving the Bush tax cuts in place. FDR hired many construction workers and put them on the federal pay roll. The proposed construction under Obama will be done by private companies. FDR's New Deal was really a failure. The US didn't pull out of the Depression until after WW2 under the Trueman Administration.

[phkrause]

I personally don't think any of these CEOs should get any bonuses. Why do you think that the Wang Corporation, the Digital Corporation etc. here in Mass went under. They kept giving bonuses to there CEOs and laying off the workers under them, until finally they had no work force and just upper management, who didn't do any kind of labor. The only reason I know this is the company I worked for did lots of printing for Wang & digital. So the print buyers would talk to us and let us know the scope.

pk

[Neil D]

I don't think the Congressman is worried about his own skin. He is more concerned about doing what God would have him do in the position He has placed him in. He is a very honorable man.

[Neil D]

it is interesting that many companys are top heavy with managment where most of the money goes to administration and management and it is the employees who do most of the work and don't get the bulk of the money....To me, there is something criminal when a CEO makes 12 times the salary of it's lowest paid employee... I can see 3 or 4, maybe 5....but 12 TIMES....And that was 10 years ago...I can see bonuses for CEOs, but there needs to be some for the employees as well....

[phkrause]

You know Neil all this talk about FDR or whoever, its all speculation anyway. No one knows what has worked, or has not worked, obviously, because if they did, we would know exactly what to do. Half the economists say one thing and the other half say something else. And of course everybody takes sides. This is one of the many reasons I can't stand politics.

pk

[Neil D]

You know Neil all this talk about FDR or whoever, its all speculation anyway. No one knows what has worked, or has not worked, obviously, because if they did, we would know exactly what to do. Half the economists say one thing and the other half say something else. And of course everybody takes sides. This is one of the many reasons I can't stand politics.

pk

So then why are all the pundits and nay-sayers lookin' for ways to down play, downgrade the efferts of what appears to be an honest man? Why when in good faith does the President do one thing, and the critics here don't allow him to work the work he's gotta do before they nay-say him....There are people here who echo Rush Limbaugh, putting him down, chewin' on his deri-air befoe he's taken office claiming a broken faith with the american people.

there is just too much negetivity and not allowing the man to have a chance perportionate to the task at hand...And this is a big task.....

[phkrause]

Because I guess they want it fixed yesterday!

pk

[Cosmin M.]

Scary.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

your congressman has definately placed himself in a position that if Obama stops and begins to reverses things in 2 years, your congressman will be retired...

My congressman is a Democrat. He won re-election last year by more than 20%. He will only be retiring if he chooses to.

Quote:

you gonna have to tell that to my Grandfather

I don't need to tell him. He can just go down to a local community college and take a few courses in economics.

The reason there was no money available during the Great Depression is because FDR was taxing business so much no one had money to build, expand, hire more workers. FDR was starving the private sector and that is why the New Deal was a failure.

Obama seems to be on the right track BUT it is because he is infusing cash into the economy without raising taxes. However what he is doing may cause run-away inflation and if it does, it will come well into the recovery. So once employment picks us and the economy starts growing again, inflation may rear its ugly head real bad. Why? Because of Obama's big infusion of cash. Time will tell. Let's pray and hope for the best.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I personally don't think any of these CEOs should get any bonuses.

Bonuses should be based on profitability. If a CEO's company or department within a company is profitable than that CEO should get a bonus. If it wasn't for the success of a CEO, the workers wouldn't have any jobs. The CEOs are the people making companies successful which create jobs for the workers.

Class warfare will pit the worker against management however they should both be on the same team. Workers should be compensated well for their labor and management should be rewarded for the profitability of the company.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Bonuses should be based on profitability. If a CEO's company or department within a company is profitable than that CEO should get a bonus. If it wasn't for the success of a CEO, the workers wouldn't have any jobs. The CEOs are the people making companies successful which create jobs for the workers.

So explain to me again, when a bank is recieving taxpayer moneys due to bad debt, why the bank shoul

d pay him a bonus?

Because as I understand it, the business is failing...and the CEO is still recieing his bonus...why????

In a related note, please explain to me why a bonus should be paid to it's CEO and not be compesated by base salary? What is the logic for that ?

[Dr. Shane]

A bonus is an incentive and good companies tie them to profitability. It is like the waitress earning a tip. Her tip is a bonus. Ideally, the better she does her job, the bigger bonus she is going to receive. Another example would be sales people getting a commission. That is what a bonus is (or should be). The bonus is like a commission. Say my company bids a project and puts a 5% markup on the project. The boss than tells me that he will give me 25% of anything over that 5% that the project makes. In my line of work that could be anywhere from $2,000 to $50,000 depending on the size of the project. With that kind of incentive, my boss doesn't have to look over my shoulder to see that I am doing my job.

Now let's look at the banking business. A bank has many departments. For discussion let's just consider the commercial lending and home lending divisions. Let's say the home lending division has been making a bunch of high-risk loans, people have been going default and that division is costing the bank millions of dollars. The CEO in charge of that department doesn't get a bonus. However down the hall in the commercial lending division they have stayed away from the high-risk loans and are making money for the bank. Yet, they are not making enough to cover the home lending division's losses. But, because the commercial division is making a profit, the head of the division and key employees below him or her all get bonuses.

[Neil D]

again, why should a CEO get a bonus if his bank is failing? I don't care what department it is...What is the point of a bonus

if all you have to do is show up smelling nice? And what is the point of a wage for work compensation? Why the extra incentives?

Shouldn't bonus be used when you exceed reasonable expetations? Just because a department exceeds 5-10% of it's gross from last year, doesn't mean that they need a bonus. Market conditions from various areas change and fluxuate 15-30% per year easily.