RNC Head Michael Steele Apologizes for Calling Rush Limbaugh "an Entertainer" During an Appearance of D.L. Hughley's Show

To the left, to the left.... That's basically what's happening in the Republican Party when conservative nutjob Rush Limbaugh is criticized. An apology always comes. So, Rahm Emanuel was absolutely right when he said that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP. I cannot believe that Michael Steele, who recently made some comments about Limbaugh while on the "D. L. Hughley Breaks the News, " has apologized to the Almighty Rush.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.” “My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party, in part by using ads funded by labor. Americans United for Change sent a fund-raising e-mail Monday that begins: “The Republican Party has turned into the Rush Limbaugh Party.”

Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.” Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon. “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not." “I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.” On Monday’s show, Limbaugh reacted both to the comment and to the assertion on CBS’s “Face the Nation” by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Source: Politico

Well, Michael Steele punked out. As a result of his actions, he is now a very diminished leader of the Republican National Committee. First of all, I took offense when he excused Limbaugh as an entertainer. I am no fan of this guy, but since when is it an automatic disqualifier from political life to be an entertainer? Wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor before he became the governor of California and later served as the President of the USA for eight years? If you can't choose your words carefully and speak with some semblance of knowledge and diplomacy, then Steele is simply not ready to be in such a leadership role. Also, I am still wondering why every Republican that says something contrary to Rush Limbaugh ends up apologizing? What gives? If Limbaugh is the new voice of the GOP, then they are in way more trouble than they care to admit.

RNC Head Michael Steele Apologizes for Calling Rush Limbaugh "an Entertainer" During an Appearance of D.L. Hughley's Show

To the left, to the left.... That's basically what's happening in the Republican Party when conservative nutjob Rush Limbaugh is criticized. An apology always comes. So, Rahm Emanuel was absolutely right when he said that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP. I cannot believe that Michael Steele, who recently made some comments about Limbaugh while on the "D. L. Hughley Breaks the News, " has apologized to the Almighty Rush.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.” “My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party, in part by using ads funded by labor. Americans United for Change sent a fund-raising e-mail Monday that begins: “The Republican Party has turned into the Rush Limbaugh Party.”

Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.” Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon. “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not." “I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.” On Monday’s show, Limbaugh reacted both to the comment and to the assertion on CBS’s “Face the Nation” by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Source: Politico

Well, Michael Steele punked out. As a result of his actions, he is now a very diminished leader of the Republican National Committee. First of all, I took offense when he excused Limbaugh as an entertainer. I am no fan of this guy, but since when is it an automatic disqualifier from political life to be an entertainer? Wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor before he became the governor of California and later served as the President of the USA for eight years? If you can't choose your words carefully and speak with some semblance of knowledge and diplomacy, then Steele is simply not ready to be in such a leadership role. Also, I am still wondering why every Republican that says something contrary to Rush Limbaugh ends up apologizing? What gives? If Limbaugh is the new voice of the GOP, then they are in way more trouble than they care to admit.

How can change occur if the Obama Administration puts Washington insiders in most Cabinet positions?

Although I will reserve my final judgment until at least 100 days after Obama has taken the oath of office, I must admit that I am not happy with what I'm seeing with the Cabinet picks:

Obama is enlisting former Senate leader Tom Daschle as his health secretary. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a well-known Washington personality, seemed more likely than ever to be his secretary of state. [...] Obama is ready to announce that his attorney general will be Eric Holder, the Justice Department's No. 2 when Clinton's husband was president. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, is another veteran of the Clinton White House. [...]

Republicans sniped at what they saw as an unwelcome trend. Alex Conant, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Barack Obama is filling his administration with longtime Washington insiders." Source: Associated Press

I voted for Obama, because I preferred him over Hillary Clinton. If I wanted to see a Cabinet full of Washington insiders with Clinton Administration connections, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton. It is a disappointment that these appointments seem to be political paybacks, rather than what would be best for the country.

I've said many times before that I would have loved to see a Presidential Cabinet made up of names I've never heard before. Couldn't we find somebody more qualified that these same tired old names that have been in Washington forever?

As I stated earlier, I will reserve my final judgment until after I see the first fruits of the Obama Administration. Until then, I plan to watch the how the remainder of appointments go and will weigh in as they happen. For the record, I still stand by my decision to vote for Barack Obama because the hope of him bringing change to Washington was much better than the guarantee that McCain would allow things to continue on the path of the previous eight years.

So my question is do you think that these Obama Administration Cabinet picks represents real change in Washington, or do you feel that it indicates Washington politics as usual?

How can change occur if the Obama Administration puts Washington insiders in most Cabinet positions?

Although I will reserve my final judgment until at least 100 days after Obama has taken the oath of office, I must admit that I am not happy with what I'm seeing with the Cabinet picks:

Obama is enlisting former Senate leader Tom Daschle as his health secretary. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a well-known Washington personality, seemed more likely than ever to be his secretary of state. [...] Obama is ready to announce that his attorney general will be Eric Holder, the Justice Department's No. 2 when Clinton's husband was president. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, is another veteran of the Clinton White House. [...]

Republicans sniped at what they saw as an unwelcome trend. Alex Conant, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Barack Obama is filling his administration with longtime Washington insiders." Source: Associated Press

I voted for Obama, because I preferred him over Hillary Clinton. If I wanted to see a Cabinet full of Washington insiders with Clinton Administration connections, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton. It is a disappointment that these appointments seem to be political paybacks, rather than what would be best for the country.

I've said many times before that I would have loved to see a Presidential Cabinet made up of names I've never heard before. Couldn't we find somebody more qualified that these same tired old names that have been in Washington forever?

As I stated earlier, I will reserve my final judgment until after I see the first fruits of the Obama Administration. Until then, I plan to watch the how the remainder of appointments go and will weigh in as they happen. For the record, I still stand by my decision to vote for Barack Obama because the hope of him bringing change to Washington was much better than the guarantee that McCain would allow things to continue on the path of the previous eight years.

So my question is do you think that these Obama Administration Cabinet picks represents real change in Washington, or do you feel that it indicates Washington politics as usual?