Yes, my friends, Rush Limbaugh is indeed a leader of the Republican Party

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, this is just plain stupid:

Despite efforts by the Obama political team and its surrogates to link Rush Limbaugh to the Republican Party, just 11% of GOP voters say the conservative radio commentator is the party's leader.

That's from Rasmussen, reporting on a new poll that asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."

Why is it stupid? Here goes:

First, although the statement comes from a liberal, it's far too loaded for what is supposed to be a neutral poll. It is meant to provoke a visceral reaction from respondents, not a considered assessment.

Second, Rasmussen's lede is self-contradictory. While it is true that there has been an effort to link Limbaugh to the GOP, being linked to the party is not the same as being the leader of it. The effort is intended to show that he is a major player in the party, as well as in the conservative movement that supports it. While some no doubt are suggesting that he is indeed the party's leader, it is grossly misleading to suggest that the efforts succeeds or fails based on whether or people see him as such or not.

Third, the effort is not meant, or at least not meant solely, to persuade Republicans that Limbaugh is the leader of their party. While the effort may be aimed at some Republicans -- say, moderates like Sens. Collins, Snowe, and Specter -- it is really being aimed at independents, including former and soft Republicans who are uncomfortable with the direction the GOP has taken, its shift to the far right.

Fourth, it is not clear what "leader" means. The poll suggests that Democrats are split, but it is possible that some respondents on both sides disagreed with the statement because they took "leader" to mean an office-holder in a leadership position, like John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, or perhaps even Michael Steele, the new head of the RNC.

Fifth, as Greg Sargent points out, it is "a grotesque exaggeration" to suggest, as Rasmussen does, that the effort has been "[a] secret plot hatched solely by the White House." Rather, the "strategy" began "outside the White House," with James Carville and Stan Greenberg, and then groups like the Center for American Progress and Americans United for Change. The White House may be involved with it somehow, and may be promoting and encouraging it, but it developed "organically," as Paul Begala put it, and was not masterminded by Obama. Yes, Obama's surrogates have been involved, but Rasmussen's claim is still grossly misleading.

Simply put, the poll results do not really show anything, and certainly not that the effort has failed. And, of course, Rasmussen does not look beyond the results to examine whether or not the claim that Limbaugh is a major player in the GOP is true or not. This requires far more nuance that tossing around the term leader.

What Rahm Emanuel has said is not that Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP but rather that he is "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. Similarly, Robert Gibbs has said that Limbaugh is "a national spokesperson for conservative views and many in the Republican Party." Leader may or may not be right, but are those two statements not true? After all, Limbaugh presents himself as the voice of conservatism, a key figure in the GOP.

Whatever Rasmussen's poll respondents may say, however they may interpret a loaded statement like the one they were presented with, the fact remains that the Obama-led "effort" has largely succeeded -- consider all the attention Limbaugh has receiving of late, and not just because of his much-ballyhooed appearance at CPAC this past weekend, an appearance that received rousing applause from the assembled faithful. And it has succeeded largely because it is right. No less an authority than Dear Leader Rush himself knows it.