That simplifies the process a bit too much. To make for a really big and loyal audience you have to have some wins and triumphs and heroes and spear carriers along with the elements that cause alarm and a feeling of loss.

As casinos know, somebody has to win sometime to keep all the others in the games.

It’s a Weapon of Mass Deception, except nobody ever wants to look for it like they did for WMDs in Iraq.

Limbaugh’s job is to keep people agitated.

Hussein was already doing that, they didn’t need Limbaugh’s help.

To Matt SE, I suspect around half of the GOP’s media PR is in the Left’s pockets. Remember what they did to Sarah Palin? Remember how Noonan admitted voting for Hussein because there was no Reagan?

These political class aristos are already working for the Leftist alliance.

That is exactly as I see it. Well put.

Talk shows are businesses. I’ve written about this before, for example here.

Of course he won’t acknowledge incremental progress such as passage of an Obamacare repeal bill. To do so risks that his audience may feel as if things are going their way for once. That lowers the sense of urgency they feel for finding a kindred voice on the radio. Smaller audience = smaller revenue from advertisers.

I don’t enjoy pointing out that an advocate who’s done so much to help conservatives unite has such a cynical motive. But it’s well-known among similar enterprises (D.C. think tanks, advocacy groups, education foundations) that when your constituency calms down, your fundraising falls off.

Limbaugh’s job is to keep people agitated.

You call this post “hating on Rush Limbaugh”? Are you kidding me?

Whatever Limbaugh’s history, when he’s wrong he’s wrong, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out. It’s odd to think that he’s somehow above criticism.

He’s not a good spokesman for conservatism if he’s not sticking to the facts about what has actually happened.

You write, “Finally, to repeal a bill with not alternative is a sure sign you’re only doing it so you can claim you did what the voters wanted.”

Actually, it’s not “a sure sign” of that at all. It is a sign, however, that the GOP could not agree on an alternative, although they discussed it and there were many proposals (see this for more detail; see also this, this, this, and this).

The idea that “power of the purse” is a sufficient explanation for anything we’re talking about here is simplistic nonsense.

HOW to exercise that power is the question, as well as how to be successful.

I suggest that you read this, this, this, and also this. These will explain some of the GOP efforts re the budget and defunding Obamacare.

Read this, this, this, and also this. These will explain some of the GOP efforts re the budget and defunding Obamacare.

In addition, you say the GOP promised to defund Obamacare. That’s my recollection, too, but when I tried to find an article about those promises, I couldn’t find one. That doesn’t mean they didn’t make the promise, but I’d like to see what they actually said. I clearly remember—and can find articles referencing—their “repeal and replace” promise. But so far I haven’t found one with any promises about defunding.

The GOP also vowed to defund Obamacare. How did that work out?