Jun 13 2009
Who Was the Leader of the Democrat Party in 2005?
So there was an unbelievably stupid hubbubaloo following President Obama’s inauguration where the supposedly not-extremely-liberally-biased media started suggesting that Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party (because obviously it fits neatly within established standards of journalistic ethics to take talking points from the sitting White House Chief of Staff). When people who, you know, dislike the fact that the media has allowed itself to become a de facto wing of the White House Communications Department pointed out that this was horrifically corrupt, the media pulled its head into its normal turtle shell, the “We wouldn’t get away with it if people didn’t already on some level believe it to be true” garbage.
After that has faded, they keep asking the question, “Who is the leader of the Republican party?”, essentially as an extension of the “Is Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican Party?” nonsense, because anytime they ask the question, they can trot out a poll showing that the plurality of Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party.
So I figured, fine, if this is supposedly a legitimate question, let’s look for consistency. In 2005, following the loss of John Kerry and the losses in both the House and Senate, who was the leader of the Democrat party? If the media’s questions are honest, if they honestly think it’s important to get an answer and it’s not simply motivated by the media’s urge to make the Republican Party seem disorganized, then it would stand to reason that there would be a lot of stories from early to mid 2005 in which media organizations like MSNBC ask who was the leader of the Democrats? Was it Hilary Clinton? Was it John Edwards? Was it Howard Dean? Was it John Kerry? Was it Janine Geraffolo? Was it George Clooney?
I can’t think of a way to check this, but I watched a lot of news at the time and don’t recall a single power vacuum question. Corrupt bastards.
I’m sure Democrats nationwide will thank you for your post. The simple fact that there was no media frenzy concerning leadership in the party would indicate that it was a non-issue. The current state of the GOP is exacerbated by the prevailing question posed by both the media and the public: Who is running the Republican Party? Though many point to Limbaugh; he is merely a windbag who spews the same rhetoric over and over. However; the influence he has is exemplified by retractions from Reps such as Steele. Many feel that the front runners for 2012 are Bobby Jindal and Mitt Romney (wow-they are in trouble).
Though it wasn’t your intention; you made a strong case for the perilous position the GOP is in and the absence of any Democratic void in 2005. If you were unable to find anything that refutes that assertion then common sense would tell you that it didn’t exist. I may be an Independent but I can see where you have made a positive point for the Dems-oops!
If it were a non-issue, then there should be an easy answer. So then what is it? Who was the leader of the Democrats in 2005?
If there is not an easy answer, then I would suggest that the prevalence of this question of who leads the Republicans is a product of a corrupt media.
LOL. You do realize that made absolutely no sense. If this corrupt media you speak of is exacerbating the problem by asking the question-why doesn’t FOX (GOP’s little lapdog) step up and answer the question. Just as the conservatives have their trio of obnoxious windbags; the liberals have that pain in the ass Olberman spewing his own distorted diatribes. The point is that there is obviously a void in the GOP which naturally provides a forum for a media feeding frenzy. The fact that they are unable to provide an answer simply adds to the confusion.
Why don’t you check the archives of Limbaugh in 2005? Believe me; if there was a problem with leadership in the Democratic Party in 2005; that asshole would have pounced on it. The fact that no attention was paid to a problem you are merely hoping for should be your answer. I don’t even understand what would prompt you to ask or even bring up such a ridiculous question.
Who was the leader of the Green Party in 1976? LOL.
It made perfect sense, your lack of understanding withstanding. The opposition party to the White House almost never has a unified leader except going into a Presidential election. I thought that was clear enough considering there’s no other reason I would’ve chosen the year 2005.
Who led the Democrats in 2005? If there was a unified leader, then there isn’t evidence of media bias, because it was a non-issue. But if I do recall, the morning that John Kerry conceded, there was a little argument between Hilary Clinton and John Edwards over whether John Edwards would take over the DNC, and I recall at least a year of people questioning whether Howard Dean had any idea what he was doing with the DNC, and I remember a primary that went until just about a year ago, so who led the Democrats?
Point being, the media didn’t ask the question when the Democrats had this problem, but they do ask it when Republicans have it, which is evidence of a double standard, which is evidence of media corruption.
So your assertion is that only MSNBC is viewed in this country. Interesting considering FOX consistently rates higher. However, as biased as they both may be; you simply can’t completely fabricate a story. The fact that the GOP is in such disarray is bad news for everyone. If we are going to continue to have a party system; it would be much more beneficial if both parties were unified within their own ranks. I am not happy about the fact that they are in serious trouble. The nation needs them to bring viable and valuable alternatives to the table. I’ll refrain from calling Limbaugh the de facto leader but he is one of their spokesman. This is a man who has publicly stated that he hopes the Obama administration fails and that the new GM fails. WTF? He is saying he hopes the country fails and several thousand more Americans end up on the unemployment line.
I, for one, hope they find some form of an identity. I can tell you that Jindal and Romney aren’t going to provide that. To close; stop pretending that the media is one sided. There are liberal dominated networks as well as conservative dominated ones. The leadership problem the Dems experienced in 2005 was both minor and fleeting. The leadership void and the present state of the GOP is dwarfs the Dems of 2005. Let’s hope they get their shit together because considering the condition our nation is in (though there are small signs of economic recovery), we need both parties to propose legislation in order for us to dig ourselves out of this debacle.
Did I mention MSNBC? Because I’ve looked over the post and my various comments, and I don’t see one mention of MSNBC that wasn’t made by you.
Albeit a lot of the media doesn’t necessarily seem to share MSNBC’s perpetual boner for Rush Limbaugh, they largely do share MSNBC’s political bias. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc. are all participants.
The Republican Party is going through the exact same thing every party goes through when they go from in power to out of power, or more accurately when either they lose power or when they expect to gain power and fail. The Democrats were like this after 2004, the Democrats were like this after 2000, the Republicans would’ve been like this after 1996 if Bob Dole was ever their leader in the first place, the Republicans after 1992, the Democrats after 1988, 1984, 1980, Republicans after 1976, 1974, Democrats after 1972 and 1968, Republicans after 1964 and 1960, etc. Coalitions breakdown and new coalitions are formed to replace them. It would take an extremely short memory to think that there’s anything unusual about the process the Republicans are going through.