Shuster: Rush and Hannity Don't Matter

By Mark Finkelstein | February 7, 2008 - 07:13 ET

With Joe Scarborough away, the mice did play during the opening segment of today's Morning Joe . . .

WILLIE GEIST [facetiously]: David, I know how you like to speak for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of that group.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: He's going to the [CPAC] convention.

GEIST: You're the voice of that community, but can you make sense out of this? Are they willing, the conservatives, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys of the world, to concede the election, to not have John McCain be president, to take Hillary Clinton over them, just to take a principled stand?

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

BRZEZINSKI [sarcastically]: It's for the good of the party, David.

DAVID SHUSTER: It's such an interesting question, and I think part of it may have been answered when, I think Rush Limbaugh the other day -- you know, I listen to Rush Limbaugh every day, religiously, I do -- no, Rush Limbaugh said the other day, better for Hillary Clinton, I'm paraphrasing here, this is not exactly -- better for Hillary Clinton to get the presidency because of all the problems that she will create or a liberal will create, better for that to happen than for John McCain to be the president with his sort of agenda and create similar problems, the idea being that, well, look, if John McCain's the president the country's headed for problems and the Republican party should not be branded with those problems.

So I'm not sure some of those conservatives are going to come over, but again, I don't think the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limbaughs of the world matter at this point. I think their value is overstated in their own minds, and I think it's going to matter far more what the rank-and-file want, and the rank-and-file Republicans are sick and tired of Bush and Cheney and they want somebody who can unite the country. I think that's why you're seeing so many Republicans and independents cross over to Barack Obama; I think that's why independents are crossing over to help John McCain: because they don't want the partisan bickering to continue to the detriment that it has.

Shuster was likely alluding to comments by Rush as reported in this Howard Kurtz column:

Rush Limbaugh has been relentless in his criticism of John McCain, prompting suggestions that he may have to soften his stance if the Arizona senator wins the nomination and faces off against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But if that happens, Limbaugh said in an interview over the weekend, he would rather see the Democrats win the White House.

"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

In contrast with Shuster's presumably facetious claim, I do in fact listen to Rush virtually every day, and recall him saying yesterday that he did not quite mean to suggest he'd rather see Hillary in the White House. Clarification from Rush surely forthcoming.

As for Shuster's claim that "rank-and-file Republicans are sick and tired of Bush and Cheney: does he mean the 76% of them who support Bush as per this recent poll reported in USA Today?

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

Topics:

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

DUCT TAPE ALERT!!!

February 7, 2008 - 07:43 ET by motherbelt

This is beyond stupid.

I think that's why independents are crossing over to help John
McCain: because they don't want the partisan bickering to continue to
the detriment that it has.

Yeah, right. McCain will stop "the partisan bickering." By running with the Democrats.

And is Shuster naive enough to think that if Barack Obama gets elected, the Republicans will just roll over for whatever he wants? Or is he counting on a Democratic majority, filibuster-proof, rubber-stamp congress? Yeah, that'll stop the partisan bickering.....

Here are some examples, from Ann Coulter, of how McCain will "stop the partisan bickering."

BBRRRRPPPT......BBRRRRRPPPPPT......BBRRRRRRPPPPPT!

CPAC Attendees: Wear a Sombrero for McCain

February 7, 2008 - 07:36 ET by Jack Bauer

Yes, that's the hilarious mock and knock political action the excellent Tammy Bruce is reporting on her site

http://www.tammybruc...

Oh yes, he'll then accuse you for not being as compassionate as he, and bring up the troop whose mom is an illegal alien, and call you nativists and racists, but won't it be fun?

I can't even take credit for this idea which was sent in by Tammy Peep Kevin, and it's probably all over the internet, but if you can get your hands on some sombreros, please do so. At the very least, perhaps some underlying mariachi music for McAmnesty's speech tomorrow could add a certain realism to his Bent Talk Express.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Tammy Bruce is a must-read,

February 7, 2008 - 07:41 ET by motherbelt

Tammy Bruce is a must-read, Jack. I love her "Hillary Self-Indulgent Whining Update." LOL

I plan to catch her on Fox this AM. I think it would be hilarious for them all to show up in sombreros...we would get a first-hand glimpse of the famous McCain temper...

I am praying that he will

February 7, 2008 - 08:22 ET by USA4freedom

I am praying that he will use that Reagan tape to intro himself. That really tells us how much he understands the conservative side. They just might lynch him.

I love the sombreros idea. I nope they get them on. Classic!!

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

John McCain's version of Ronald Reagan

February 7, 2008 - 08:32 ET by RJ

"Mr Wall Street, tear down this mall!"

(h/t: Day by Day)

Where IS that article about

February 7, 2008 - 08:43 ET by motherbelt

Where IS that article about him using the Reagan tape? I read it earlier, and now I can't find it again!

Oh, OK, found it! It was Jed Babbin at Human Events, and IMO this is the money quote (emphasis added):

According to my source, McCain has prepared a video featuring President Ronald Reagan to make the introduction. If McCain uses this video, it is very likely to backfire badly. This is the group before which Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that, “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.”

Very few of the 2008 CPAC crowd will see McCain as the successor to Reagan and Reagan’s principles. McCain has sacrificed conservatives’ fundamental beliefs throughout his Senate career. If McCain uses this introduction, the boos will be very loud.

Be Glad

February 7, 2008 - 09:48 ET by Caringwhiteguy

You're lucky you didn't say that about Tiger Woods. That would have earned you a two week suspension from the Golf Channel ala Kelly Tilghman.

Irrelevance ?

February 7, 2008 - 07:50 ET by 186kps

If anybody is an expert on irrelevence it would be David Shuster.

Notice how Olbermann is actually sinking lower in the ratings (behind Nancy Grace) even during the height of political primary season.

The liberal definition of

February 7, 2008 - 07:52 ET by motherbelt

The liberal definition of "irrelevance" is the sticking of fingers into the ears and singing "La-la-la-la-la-la-la la la......."

Shuster should have a

February 7, 2008 - 07:54 ET by ConservativeRex

Shuster should have a fairly good idea on exactly who doesn't matter. The three people who watched him called in and agreed with him.

As for Juan, Tammy Bruce has an excellent idea. McAmnesty has to know he has completely lost Conservatives and will not get us back. I can't help but shake my head in dismay when I see the results of the primaries. What in the hell are people thinking? The Republicans are going to be running Dole lite with the expected loss, and the expected excuses, when in reality they have no one to blame but their own dumb asses.

Well, in any event, I will remain a staunch Conservative and see what political party wants to join me.

“Republicans are sick and

February 7, 2008 - 08:11 ET by USA4freedom

“Republicans are sick and tired of Bush and Cheney and they want somebody who can unite the country.I think that's why you're seeing so many Republicans and independents crossover to Barack Obama; I think that's why independents are crossing over to help John McCain: because they don't want the partisan bickering to continue to the detriment that it has.”

This is why nobody in the MSM gets it (or want to get it) We don’t want the country united.. at our expense. Anyone can get along with anyone else if you do everything they want you to do. What is to argue about?You want high taxes, you got it. You want gun control, you got it. You want to pull out of Iraq, you got it. You want abortion at any time, you got it... See how easy that is? Now we are all getting along.

I have a idea why don’t the Democrats try to get along and DO THINGS OUR WAY!!!!

Other then that, SCREW GETTING ALONG. Give me a candidate with some balls and a backbone. And a conservative view!

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

To add to that, USA4,

February 7, 2008 - 09:09 ET by RightOfMost

If Rush, Sean and conservatism really DON'T matter any more, Juan wouldn't even NEED to go to CPAC. There'd be no need to lure us back.

Those conservatives who stay home on 11-4-08, by impact of probable election results, apparently don't mind Marxism.

the statement answer is...

February 7, 2008 - 08:05 ET by audio357

Are they willing, the conservatives, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys of the world, to concede the election, to not have John McCain be president, to take Hillary Clinton over them, just to take a principled stand?

YES WE ARE>>. i know its foriegn to lib dems but yes at some point in life you have to actually stand for what you believe in rather than what benefits you.
honesty is the best policy... unless your running for office.

audio, spot on. they dont

February 7, 2008 - 08:14 ET by USA4freedom

audio,

spot on. they dont get it, to pick principle over victory (if we have to). That is why we are, who we are.

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

Write in?

February 7, 2008 - 08:44 ET by kbworkman

Write in the candidate you think will do the job and vote for any conservative to congress.

You may not pick the winner, but if enough do it...

Idiot Liberals

February 7, 2008 - 08:09 ET by RMR

To idiot liberals like David Shuster, "partisn bickering" is someone espousing conservative principles. And another thing Mr Shuster, if you and your friends in the drive-by-media truly believe that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity "doesn't matter", isn't it time you people stop obsessing over them?

Don't matter at this point?

February 7, 2008 - 08:42 ET by kbworkman

I think he should take a look in there mirror to see who doesn't matter. I'd like to hear this jerk call in and talk to Rush or Sean. He seems to be pretty good when he he preaching to the choir. Wonder how he will do debating someone with a brain.

Oops, sorry. I forgot, they are the intelligent ones. We are just the stupid right wing.

I was going to take a shot

February 7, 2008 - 08:49 ET by Free Thinker

I was going to take a shot at David Schuster for calling two guys with audiences exponentially bigger than his "irrelevant" but I decided there was no sport in it this morning. So I'll let the comment stand on its own. Sometimes the leftist media lobs such a softball that I feel sorry for guys like David.

The primary season should be about debate and who would best carry the message voters desire, ie. conservatism. I hope Schuster doesn't really believe that republicans would choose Obama or Hillary over even McCain. I think we just don't prefer to unite behind the "at least its not Hillary" candidate and would rather vote for someone who stood behind proven conservative principles that made this country great.

David, let me clear....

February 7, 2008 - 09:19 ET by HadEnough

the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limbaughs of the world do matter and here is why.

They matter because of this. They are my voice, they speak for me and mine.

So when you are ready to put the big boy pants on please substitute my name for theirs...I will be right here...waiting.

Oh by the way the only people I am sick and tired of is the boat anchors of the world who think they know everything like you and yours not Bush and Cheney

MSMer want to be the ones who matter.

February 7, 2008 - 09:54 ET by mattm

The fact that MSM types are so quick to dismiss the influence of people like Rush and Hannity proves that it is the MSM types who want to be the ones who matter, and who pick our president.

Look at the caucus states, look at the exit polling data - McCain lost the Republican vote and only won where Libs run rampant and where Democrats can cross over to sabotage the GOP vote.

McCain still hasn't won it yet...and he will NEVER be president, but he could be Hillary's veep.

McCainiacs and GOP establishment types had better not expect us red-neck, trailer trash, fundamentalist ultra-conservatives to just shut up and fall in line...we won't. We've held our noses long enough.

Besides, Rush and Hannity have both been criticized in the past for telling people to accept the lesser of two evils and of being Party shills, rather than ideological Puritans. The MSMers just don't get it.

All take and no give

February 7, 2008 - 10:19 ET by KC Mulville

I was struck by this: "rank-and-file Republicans are sick and tired of Bush and Cheney and they want somebody who can unite the country." Does Shuster believe that rank-and-file Republicans (i.e., guys like me) really place all the blame for "disunity" on Bush and Cheney?

That's what liberals think. Liberals think that this country needs unity to get the government moving (i.e., active) again. But conservatives don't really want "active" government in the first place. Disunity isn't really a big problem for us.
Besides, even if we did, we certainly don't put the blame for it on Bush. Reagan taught us the lesson about liberals: liberals never compromise. Instead, they smear. Reagan fought liberals, and fought them hard. Bush came to Washington, hoping that a couple of compromises and a few White House barbecues would bring liberals around, and he could win them over like he did when he was governor of Texas -- but Washington isn't Austin. These liberals take, but never give.
Where did Bush lose his support among conservatives? It wasn't over Iraq. It was our exasperation over Bush's naive habit of trading principles to win over Democrats, but getting taken for a sucker every time. The classic example is the education policy where he compromised with Teddy Kennedy. Look at what happened. Hillary and Obama now sneer at Bush, making jokes about the failure of "No Child Left Behind." The gall is staggering. Who steered that bill through the Senate? Teddy!
Liberals believe that Bush failed to unify the country, but they take no responsibility for the fact that they undermined everything he did, from the very start. Hell, they opposed his election! They claimed he was illegitimately "selected" instead of elected. It was downhill from there. Liberals have only one prescription for unity: everyone follow them.

Shuster's is the typical liberal Democrat view. The spin (lie) he's "reporting" is that this is also the view of "rank-and-file" Republicans. No, it isn't. Who are you gonna believe about how rank and file Republicans feel? Me and you, or David Shuster?