So if Rush runs the GOP, does Michael Moore head the Dems?

Here's something we simply could not resist -- from one of our favorite blogs, The Moderate Voice. Which, yes, is an oxymoron for such a time of incivility and financial decay. But maybe if more ... . Oh, never mind. It's hopeless.

Anyway, our buddy Joe Gandelman runs the thoughtful site and had his assistant editor, Jazz Shaw (this week's winning byline, and it's only Tuesday), explore an unlikely but provocative topic: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, mirror images in parallel political universes.

Right now, the party of O appears to be giving up on labeling the Republicans as the party of No. At least until there are more party-line votes.

And Rahm Emanuel, that %&*$#+ Chicago political gutfighter, is feigning acknowledgment that history's most successful radio talk show host is now the titular head of the GOP, making it the party of Rush. Which MSNBC loves to chew on.

We can picture Emanuel, Begala, Carville and Stephanopoulos cackling over that plan in their morning strategy phone chats each day. And until new Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele gains his sea-legs and learns to laugh with Limbaugh, the Republicans do seem rudderless in the bright light emitted by the great Orb.

But this is all actually a familiar pattern in the regenerative process of American parties after historic spankings at the polls.

When Ronald Reagan squeaked past Walter Mondale in 1984, winning only 49 states, the Democrats fought and struggled mightily and delivered forth a 1988 presidential candidate named Michael Dukakis, who was promptly sent off to teach somewhere by that Wimpy Bush I.

The Republicans could confront the same fate in 2012 if Obama parts the economic Red Sea and fixes everything that he's told us is so very wrong. On the other hand ... .

So while Republicans sort out which governor or ex-governor becomes their real leader, Rush the showman steps into the media void with some provocative statements that are clearly so stupid his audience of devotees will probably grow to 25 million this week. If he keeps screwing up like this, Limbaugh might have to endure a huge raise come contract time. And pass out more large cigars all around.

Anyway, back to Jazz Shaw, who sees some pretty amazing similarities between the two large showmen -- Rush and Michael "I Do Love My Baseball Cap" Moore. One is selling a radio show; the other is selling a picture show. And their opponents love to hate each, which in show biz is so very much better than indifference.

We won't ruin the reading experience. You can find Shaw's whole piece over here at TMV. Or go to their homepage and scroll down.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Just register for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. RSS feeds are also available here. And we're now on Amazon's Kindle as well.

Photo (top): Michael Moore. Credit: WireImage

Photo (bottom): Rush Limbaugh. Credit: Associated Press

Comments

[Jennifer]

Difference is Rush is factual whereas Moore makes things up. Rush is hopeful and optimistic and inspiring, which Moore isn't. Rush has a nice face; Moore doesn't.

[Mike S]

Are you serious? Mind boggling what can be published these days on the blogsphere.

Think for just a second next time before publishing such inane dribble.

Barak is the president - he's a Democrat. End of story.

[Maggie Knowles]

"So if Rush runs the GOP, does Michael Moore head the Dems?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ uh, no. Obama heads the Dems, haven't you been paying attention?

[malclave]

I was thinking more Al Sharpton.

[digialpha]

Michael Moore is nothing like RUSH! Moore is not hateful, vicious, bigoted and cares about the average American. Moore could care less about rich Republicans, unlike RUSH. Moore broke the Walter Reed hospital story years before mainstream media even noticed and his last film on the state of US health care was insightful and shocking! What has RUSH done other than rant on his radio show and CNN is still trying to discredit Moore. Why?

[Republican terrorisism]

If Rush Limbaugh is advocating the financial downfall of the American economy, he should then be considered to be a terrorist. Any action taken towards fulfilling the dreams of this terrorist by his supporters or by any political party affiliated with him should likewise be considered to be a terrorist act.

[Rick]

Although Michael Moore would make a great leader, since he's been right about most things in the past 20 years, (ie the auto industry, guns, Bush, Iraq, the Health Care system, etc etc.) we already have a large group of talented and intelligent leaders to choose from. Barack Obama of course was the best choice and we got him. We had Hillary Clinton if we wanted. Other people we call leaders of our party would be...I dont know....Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy. Let's review your list. Entertainer and jackass Rush Limbaugh. Sarah I'm not a moron Palin. Bobby Gump Jindal, Michael how you like me now Steele, and Joe the...Plumber? Please. Continue to fade into irrelevance.

[jasperjava]

The Moore-Limbaugh comparison is facetious. In recent weeks we've seen Congressional Republicans and the (de jure) head of the RNC apologize to Rush and kiss his extra-wide behind. I don't see any Democrats even paying attention to Michael Moore, much less acting like his toadies.

Rush Limbaugh is "just an entertainer", but he's the (de facto) head of the Republican Party. It demonstrates how deeply abysmal is their leadership vaccuum.

[Silver Scot]

Who's Michael Moore?

[a giant slor]

Rush is the undeniable figurehead of the conservative movement and most of the Republican Party. Michael Moore, on the other hand, is only one (popular) voice among the left wing of the Democratic Party -- Forbes didn't even put him in their recent list of the 25 most influential liberals (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal.html) Besides, his shtick is completely different than Rush's. A slightly better comparison would be Keith Olbermann -- he's closer in tone to a liberal version of Rush. However, his popularity and influence is nowhere near Limbaugh's.

Democrats and liberals don't have a figurehead, and we never have in my lifetime. We have a bunch of different voices who are influential, but nobody takes marching orders from any of them. Really, our only figurehead right now is Obama. And thankfully, no one could mistake him for the liberal version of Limbaugh.

[Lawnguylander]

When was the last time you saw a prominent Democratic politician apologizing to Michael Moore? Or seeking to curry favor with him? As far as I know neither has ever happened and I doubt either ever will. Limbaugh has real power over the Republican party, Moore has virtually none over the Democratic party. I guess he could make a movie critical of the Democratic party if Tim Kaine insulted him but don't hold your breath waiting for either to happen.

[Hart Williams]

I know that false equivalences* are a favorite GOP tactic, but Mr. Malcolm, whose blogging increasingly drops any pretense at NON-ideological debate, has pulled off a new one.

Get SOMEONE else to make the false equivalence, and then present it as 'clear thinking' and pretend a journalistic detachment.

Bravo, Andrew!

[* e.g. Charlie Manson killed people. That's a crime. Your grandmother got a parking ticket. THAT's a crime. Therefore, your grandmother = Charlie Manson.]

[richard]

I posted this on The Moderate Voice, which is also one of my own favorite blogs. I think this is a preposterous topic:

The Michael Moore analogy doesn't work, though the GOP loves to draw the comparison. Rush is ubiquitous, speaking at GOP events, drawing millions of listeners a day, always in the news and always spouting off. Moore is a film maker who hasn't been seen at a prominent Democratic event since the 2004 convention. He is rarely heard from and most Democrats will tell you he annoys them. He has no cult following and nothing in any way that approaches leadership status. Most Dems are embarrassed by him and have been disassociating themselves from him for years, as they should. This is a bogus analogy, a sham, based on zero facts. Forbes put him on their list of 25 influencers? So what? Where is his influence, what is he saying from day to day, who constitutes his audience? So annoying, to see a red herring like this being discussed seriously. If you say Moore is a Democratic Party leader, show us - i.e., where's the beef? What are the positions he's advocating, who is rallying to his call and how is he spreading his message? We can chart these things with Limbaugh. We cannot do so with Moore. A waste of time, I'm afraid.

[mizzle]

To compare Rush's importance to the GOP with Moore's importance to the Democrats is absurd. Moore is acknowledged to be a clown with some pointed material, but Limbaugh is considered an intellectual by the foolish people who listen to him obsessively. Nobody has ever suggested that Moore be elected to any office except as a joke, but the crazy knee-jerks of the GOP are all too serious when they say they want the overblown schoolyard bully Limbaugggggh as the next president. What a nightmare.

[Hart Williams]

Jazz Shaw wonders if you bothered READING his post, which he says was clearly satirical.

QUOTE (from the comments section of the link above):

"How both the LA Times and Hot Air readers managed to think that was a serious piece is a mystery, unless you simply read the title and commented without reading the post. It was making fun of all the nonsense over a non-issue. The fact that so many of you didn't get that is not on me, it's on you. Go back and actually read it again and you'll see that there's no way anyone could take this "article" as a serious analysis of Limbaugh being equal to Moore unless they are either entirely brain dead, or (like the Political Vindication boys) stuck in a mode of lying and not bothering to check any facts..."