The major problems confronting the Republican party is their tired policies of fear plus lack of inclusion for Blacks, Hispanics and other growing middle-class segments. But the key problem is the lack of leadership as no replacement has emerged since the Obama victory. Even worse, into the leadership void has come such ultra conservative and ultra-shrill voices as Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. No one dares to take these screed speakers on. Republican National Party Leader Michael Steele tried to control Rush last Spring and got his head handed to him on a platter. So this is the type of remarks the defacto head of the Republican party regularly makes:
Not finished Rush went on to say Obama was happy for the quake in Haiti, as his administration will “use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, in the … the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It’s made to order for them.” Yes, tasteless.
But the really interesting question raised by NBC commentator Mark Halperin on Meet the Press was ” who among the Republican leadership would publicly repudiate Rush Limbaugh for his Haiti remarks”. All the Republican analysts on the show were mum or hiding behind Freedom of Speech. Ditto for Republican key thinkers like David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will. In fact the only dissent came from an unexpected Republican source – Pat Buchanan. He noted that the remarks were ” deeply insensitive. The president speaks for the whole country when he says we’re going in there. You want your whole nation, and it’s very positive. And I think Rush’s comments were cynical.”
So I have an alerter for when to start paying attention to Republican ideas and policy. The indicator – as soon as the Republicans are able to “bell the brat” that is Rush Limbaugh. This will indicate that analytic thinking takes precedence over shrill polemics.