So Who is really running the republican party?  

Thanks for your response LIL. I agree with your response, I just wonder why so many think that Rush is running the party (and I am sure his comments this week at CPAC aren't going to help). I agree that Rush is an entertainer, but his hold over his listeners is cult like. You really have to wonder how far he would go to prove a point, and get attention.

Thanks for your response Lady. As you put it, there is a difference between actually running the party, and leading the party. This is just like any sport, as long as the team is winning no one really cares who is the leader, and who is the followers. But, when you are losing, everyone questions the leadership, and people usually start to get pink slips, and talk about change. I agree that there are many factions to both party, I just wonder why it is that no one ever blames Rush when republicans lose, but they give him credit when they win? He has seen the ups and downs of the party, and seams to be the teflon Don of the republican party.

Hello Greatdebater,

Let me preface this follow up with two brief points:

1. I disagree with Rush Limbaugh on many points and issues.
2. There is a plethora of erroneous assumption among the left on the substance and objectives of talk radio.

Having said that, I'll move on to address your reply. Although, before specifically addressing the "teflon Don" question, I'm compelled to inquire about your statement below.

"but they give him credit when they win"

Who gives Rush credit for what? Are you saying that Rush is credited with election wins? If so, I'm going to have to ask for corroboration. Granted, I do not listen to Rush daily, sometimes I don't catch a moment of his show for weeks on end. Though, I have no recollection of Rush ever having been credited with election wins. The appropriate clarification may better be that Rush and many others are credited when Conservative principles win. And yes, there is a signficant difference! The whole Rockafeller faction of the GOP are, for the most part, adament opponents of Conservatism. Meaning that they dislike Rush (et al) as much as most on the far left do.

As to the "teflon don" question. You ask: Why doesn't anyone blame Rush when Republicans lose? Because Rush doesn't represent Republicans. He is one of the venerated spokesperson(s) for Conservatism -- a political ideology. When Conservatism wins, like it did over the issue of the border fence legislation (due to millions of angry phone calls to D.C.) then Rush, and all other Conservative ideologues are given due credit.

Limbaugh & Obama definitely have one thing in common. They are both "community organizers". Rush's kind of community activism just happens to be directed behind a capitalist microphone. Obama's kind of activism just happens to be directed behind situational legislative lobbying. They both have hugely benefitted (financially, societally, reputation, etc...) by mobilizing people and by shaping public opinion.

'I'm happy to report that at least the GOP only has two factions, which is a real blessing!"

Are you saying that although the Clintons may be running the Dems, There is no possiblity that an x pres or Sara Palin may be among those taking a leadership role with the Repbulicns? And what about the Republicans who are willing to be nonpartisan? Have Arnold Schwartzenagger, Arlen Spector, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins no place in the Republican party? Doesn't seem to me that they fit in with Russ Limbaugh and I doubt they will fall in lock step with Michael Steele either. I think that right now there are many more factions in the Republican party than there are in the Democratic party.

Hello Irisheyes,

As I said before, there are only two 'wings' of the GOP. The first is the Rockefeller 'Blueblood' wing, and the second is the Conservative wing. The aristocratic 'Bluebloods' controlled the party with a praetor Aulus Gabinius clenched grip, for the most part, right up until the Reagan Revolution. Today, Rockefeller Republicans, or Bluebloods are more often referred to as RINOs'(Republican In Name Only).

Sarah Palin is a Conservative. While Schwarzenegger, Spector, Snow, and Collins are 'Bluebloods'.

There aren't any more factions than that. Some one of prominence will periodically rise on either side, though when it's all broken down there are only the two factions.

There was a break in the party that resulted in the emergence of the Libertarian Party, rising to prominence on its own principles. Though to be sure, it is distinctly unfair to the principled Libertarians to suggest the continued existence of a Libertarian Wing of the GOP. Libertarians have an ideological home to go to in the Libertarian Party. 'Course, that Libertarian home will be the one to watch in 2012! Just a little prediction for the fun of it.

Taskr, the reason I posed the question was his response at the CPAC gathering last weekend, and the fact that Michael Steele called him an "Entertainer". During the election last year I heard many republcaians saying that George Soros, and Michael Moore ran the Democratic party. I guess that we all just assume that the loudest mouth in the fight is leading the battle.

Yup, Michael Steele is the best thing that ever happened for Democrats. May the RNC never win another election as long a that RINO is running it. He is to the Republican Party what Child Molesting Priests are to the Catholic Church.

WOW, Para that is a little harsh wouldn't you say? I am not the biggest Steele fan, but you just put him in an entirely new catagory. Good thing you said that, and not me.