Will Rush Limbaugh Raise Money For Hillary Clinton?

[Wok]

Rush's show is not based on who is in the White House...





Never has been. I hated him when I was a Democrat. Then I listened to him because one of my black belts had him on while we were out and about and he was saying things I thought.

So do you think he will bankroll Clinton or campaign along with Coulter?

 

[hogjack]

the people who criticize Rush the most are the ones who don't tune in to his show...figure that one out.

I've listened to his program many times. He's a capable radio professional & personality, a complete blowhard, a hypocritical bastard, a major Chickenhawk, and he plays fast-and-loose with the truth.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

So do you think he will bankroll Clinton or campaign along with Coulter?

I don't remember the name, but a black guy ran for the Govenor of New York and the Democrats put him to the curb. That was the same year either McAuliffe or Dean was elevated to the head of the DNC over a black guy.




It was Rush and his listeners who raised money for him...

 

[Wok]

I don't remember the name, but a black guy ran for the Govenor of New York and the Democrats put him to the curb. That was the same year either McAuliffe or Dean was elevated to the head of the DNC over a black guy.




It was Rush and his listeners who raised money for him...

Ah, so that is the plan.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

It was mainly TIC saying, okay, if I'm to be a good Republican, and be in lockstep, then I need to do what I can to elect Cap'n Queeg, and since Can'p Queeg's candidacy mainly lies in the polling data that says he can beat Hillary based on fear, then we need to stop Obama, 'cause no one's afraid of Barry...


You gotta understand, the Washington DC power structure is trying to circle the wagons around the Senators. This is the Titanic election; the who's who are only concerned with who sits where in the deck chairs...



Willie Horton hears a who...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Watching the primary results you see exactly how fringe some of the "conservatives" on Lit are. Republicans are coming out in droves and voting for McCain yet with very few exceptions all of the usual suspects here are throwing a tantrum and talking about backing Clinton rather than their own party candidate? I'd hardly call Coulter or Limbaugh "mainstream" anything unless you're making a list of hate-mongering loudmouths.

If the "real" conservatives aren't supporting McCain then who is exactly? He's taken more than a few closed primaries, so it's registered Republicans turning out for him and not Independents or Moderate Democratic voters. Or is it that the "real" conservatives aren't so mainstream after all? The religious candidates (both of them) are taking a beating. The Fascist favorite dropped out after he was handed his ass in Florida. Ron Paul? He's just siphoning votes (very few of them) from the other candidates. The rest gave up the ghost long ago.

 

[Problem Child]

I've listened to his program many times. He's a capable radio professional & personality, a complete blowhard, a hypocritical bastard, a major Chickenhawk, and he plays fast-and-loose with the truth.

That's about the most accurate and concise description I've ever seen for the guy.

 

[Azwed]

I've listened to his program many times. He's a capable radio professional & personality, a complete blowhard, a hypocritical bastard, a major Chickenhawk, and he plays fast-and-loose with the truth.

Agreed. I used to listen to Rush all the time because my boss liked him. I agree with your assessment completely.

 

[bronzeage]

Agreed. I used to listen to Rush all the time because my boss liked him. I agree with your assessment completely.

The first time I ever heard Limbaugh show was the day after New York Yankees manager Billy Martin was killed in an auto accident. Rush was ridiculing the people who eulogised Billy and went into a mock crying jag, basically saying Billy Martin was a horrible person who did not deserve the grief people felt.

 

[tactful]

How much he raised, I would say, it depends on how much Viagra he took, oh we're talking money,
same answer.

 

[sigh]

Watching the primary results you see exactly how fringe some of the "conservatives" on Lit are. Republicans are coming out in droves and voting for McCain yet with very few exceptions all of the usual suspects here are throwing a tantrum and talking about backing Clinton rather than their own party candidate? I'd hardly call Coulter or Limbaugh "mainstream" anything unless you're making a list of hate-mongering loudmouths.

If the "real" conservatives aren't supporting McCain then who is exactly? He's taken more than a few closed primaries, so it's registered Republicans turning out for him and not Independents or Moderate Democratic voters. Or is it that the "real" conservatives aren't so mainstream after all? The religious candidates (both of them) are taking a beating. The Fascist favorite dropped out after he was handed his ass in Florida. Ron Paul? He's just siphoning votes (very few of them) from the other candidates. The rest gave up the ghost long ago.

And those "real" conservatives have only themselves to blame. Six years, they had. Six years of control over Washington. They had a rubber-stamp congress and a no-veto president. They did anything they wanted to do, and they fucked up. Big time.

Oh yes, I remember Rush and Coulter praising Bush and defending his policies. They raised him up while ignoring that Bush time and again did things a real conservative should abhor. But it never was about conservatism. It was about power and arrogance and blind, stupid stubborness.

So conservatives had their day. They had the chance to build their dream, but it turned out that the party of values didn't have any special abundance of values after all. And suddenly big government was okay, as long as THEY were the ones laying out the rules. So - surprise, surprise - people are pissed, and those "real" conservatives have a shitload of explaining to do. They did it to themselves, so for next couple of election cycles they're going to be sitting back in their lonely corner, still wondering how it went so horribly wrong.

The Republican party, meanwhile, is scrabbling to get back to the middle as fast as possible, and understandably so. Being way off to the right is no longer a politically safe ground.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

If its no longer "safe" ground, what the hell was McCain's speech about yesterday?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Watching the primary results you see exactly how fringe some of the "conservatives" on Lit are. Republicans are coming out in droves and voting for McCain yet with very few exceptions all of the usual suspects here are throwing a tantrum and talking about backing Clinton rather than their own party candidate? I'd hardly call Coulter or Limbaugh "mainstream" anything unless you're making a list of hate-mongering loudmouths.

If the "real" conservatives aren't supporting McCain then who is exactly? He's taken more than a few closed primaries, so it's registered Republicans turning out for him and not Independents or Moderate Democratic voters. Or is it that the "real" conservatives aren't so mainstream after all? The religious candidates (both of them) are taking a beating. The Fascist favorite dropped out after he was handed his ass in Florida. Ron Paul? He's just siphoning votes (very few of them) from the other candidates. The rest gave up the ghost long ago.

There are actually a number of well-spoken conservatives here on Lit...you just can't hear them for all the noise of the extremists here. It's amazing that Lit is a microcosm for America in general, a few bellicose fringe players (Ish, Capn, Vetteman) have co-opted and ultimately destroyed the credibility of the Republican party.

 

[firespin]

If its no longer "safe" ground, what the hell was McCain's speech about yesterday?

There aren't enough conservatives to win an election all by themselves, but there are more of them than there are centrist / independent types. If somebody from either of those groups wins, its because they put together a coalition to do it. (Same is true if "liberals" replaces "conservatives" in that sentence.) Bush had to do that to win his first term especially.

By 2006, the conservatives were a disillusioned bunch. Even before McCain, go figure. An MSM reference: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1555024,00.html

"Another challenge facing the G.O.P. is a stark drop-off in support among what is usually a core constituency: white evangelical Christians. According to TIME's poll, only 54% of people in this group favor Republican candidates, with 5% undecided. Thirty-eight percent of white evangelicals polled say they'll support Democrats. In 2004, exit polls indicated that 78% of this constituency voted for Bush. While the G.O.P. won out in the poll by seven points (42-35) as the party perceived as best equipped to protect moral values, a matter especially important to this group, the party's standing among evangelicals may have been hurt by recent Congressional scandals, which have tarnished the G.O.P. especially. Forty-one percent of registered voters said Congressional scandals were extremely or very important as voting issues this campaign."

So...if you're McCain, you can either outwardly antagonize these people and be sure to lose, or you can try to attract their votes. I realize antagonizing is popular, especially on message boards, and even for McCain more than most politicians, but if you barf every time you hear him to try to explain why conservatives should vote for him, you'll be in a bulimia clinic by Labor day.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I'm never going to vote for a guy who runs out and makes a speech telling me he's conservative and then acting like he's Dutch Jr., when he ain't.





I'll be sitting on the bench enjoying watching the ThrobDownSouth's of the world run the show again. Sometimes the very best way to make your point is through a negative argument. Sometimes, a battle lost is a war won.




You're not going to hear Barack and Hillary go out and proclaim their Liberalism to shore up their base, they don't have to, they've already walked the walk...

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

I'll be sitting on the bench enjoying watching the ThrobDownSouth's of the world run the show again. Sometimes the very best way to make your point is through a negative argument. Sometimes, a battle lost is a war won.

Your whole political philosophy is fueled by negative argument.

You guys had your chance...and blew it. The "permanent Republican majority" is history. Cry your bitter tears, and move out of the way.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

11 more months and the shoe's on the other foot...





I kin wait...

 

[Ishmael]

There aren't enough conservatives to win an election all by themselves, but there are more of them than there are centrist / independent types. If somebody from either of those groups wins, its because they put together a coalition to do it. (Same is true if "liberals" replaces "conservatives" in that sentence.) Bush had to do that to win his first term especially.

By 2006, the conservatives were a disillusioned bunch. Even before McCain, go figure. An MSM reference: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1555024,00.html

"Another challenge facing the G.O.P. is a stark drop-off in support among what is usually a core constituency: white evangelical Christians. According to TIME's poll, only 54% of people in this group favor Republican candidates, with 5% undecided. Thirty-eight percent of white evangelicals polled say they'll support Democrats. In 2004, exit polls indicated that 78% of this constituency voted for Bush. While the G.O.P. won out in the poll by seven points (42-35) as the party perceived as best equipped to protect moral values, a matter especially important to this group, the party's standing among evangelicals may have been hurt by recent Congressional scandals, which have tarnished the G.O.P. especially. Forty-one percent of registered voters said Congressional scandals were extremely or very important as voting issues this campaign."

So...if you're McCain, you can either outwardly antagonize these people and be sure to lose, or you can try to attract their votes. I realize antagonizing is popular, especially on message boards, and even for McCain more than most politicians, but if you barf every time you hear him to try to explain why conservatives should vote for him, you'll be in a bulimia clinic by Labor day.

First of all, there's a myth in your post that has been effectively perpetrated by the MSM, and the democrats for that matter. That myth being that 'conservative' and 'Christian Fundamentalists' are synonymous. Conservatism is a broad based set of philosophies, fundamentalism has but one philosophy. With but minor modification the democrat tent is quite capable of picking off the fundamentalist vote, or at least reducing it to a 50/50, self nullifying block. You have to remember that these are the voters who traditionally voted democrat until Reagan came along. They aren't conservative by political philosophy and without a truly conservative candidate, they have no overriding reason to vote republican.

McCain might be able to recapture their votes and he'd still not make up the deficit he'll be facing by the disaffection of the true conservatives.

Getting back to the point, one of the most effective political 'albatross around the neck' tie-ins the democrats and the press have made over the years is the tying of conservatism to, by implication, religious fanaticism. In no small measure aided by repulican candidates who based their campaigns on catering to the fundamentalists while not having a clue as to what being a conservative was all about. After the democrats effectively purged Gingrich (aided and abetted by Gingrich himself) there was no one left to hold their feet to the fire and the republicans reverted to what they were pre 1980, democrats lite.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Well stated...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

And McCain was more than happy to stand aside as Newt was railroaded...





So, again, thanks to the proclivity of the Republicans to not be in lockstep like the Democrats, Democrats now get to crow in unison about how "conservatism" failed and grew government, yada, yada, yada, when it was actually the McCain wing of the party and it's leader, George Bush...

 

[firespin]

I'm never going to vote for a guy who runs out and makes a speech telling me he's conservative and then acting like he's Dutch Jr., when he ain't.

I'll be sitting on the bench enjoying watching the ThrobDownSouth's of the world run the show again. Sometimes the very best way to make your point is through a negative argument. Sometimes, a battle lost is a war won.

You're not going to hear Barack and Hillary go out and proclaim their Liberalism to shore up their base, they don't have to, they've already walked the walk...

Imagine how Reagan would be pilloried now if he had raised taxes repeatedly, or granted illegals amnesty, or appointed justices like William Kennedy?

I'll buy you lunch if the sound of Hillary ("I was for the war before I was against it") Clinton, or Barack ("I'm only half black") Obama lurching to the center for the general election doesn't leave your ears ringing by the summer.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Trent Lott too. More power for John... More friends across the aisle...





And we're the bad guys because we won't cover his back...

 

[firespin]

First of all, there's a myth in your post that has been effectively perpetrated by the MSM, and the democrats for that matter. That myth being that 'conservative' and 'Christian Fundamentalists' are synonymous. Conservatism is a broad based set of philosophies, fundamentalism has but one philosophy. With but minor modification the democrat tent is quite capable of picking off the fundamentalist vote, or at least reducing it to a 50/50, self nullifying block. You have to remember that these are the voters who traditionally voted democrat until Reagan came along. They aren't conservative by political philosophy and without a truly conservative candidate, they have no overriding reason to vote republican.

Well...if you say so. Your partner in crime seemed to think the endorsement of Dobson was pretty key. If these folks are self-nullifying, why would it be?

Two signature issues for fundamentalists are right to life and gay rights. Those things don't seem like minor modifications to the Democratic platform.

I understand your point, but I think several people here are getting confused, thinking that a "true conservative" would be so popular they would be guaranteed a victory in November just like Dutch, or at least would lose in a way that is right and just and good. Whereas we've just seen that conservatives come in different sizes and shapes, appeal to different parts of the electorate, and don't even have a free pass to victory in a Republican primary.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Imagine how Reagan would be pilloried now if he had raised taxes repeatedly, or granted illegals amnesty, or appointed justices like William Kennedy?

I'll buy you lunch if the sound of Hillary ("I was for the war before I was against it") Clinton, or Barack ("I'm only half black") Obama lurching to the center for the general election doesn't leave your ears ringing by the summer.

Reagan was pilloried, Nancy was the Dragon Lady. I know, because I was one of the Democrat shouters back then. I didn't become a third party voter until the days of Jimmy Carter and this mob ain't gonna stop screaming until those days come back, they near a clear and present danger before reality will ever sink in, and the last time a Clinton was, reality hit home for the majority of America, in short, I don't fear Hillary as much as John needs me too, she is her own worst political ernemy, just like Bill was with his self-destructive behavior.

I'd rather have an enemy I know than an ally I cannot trust; in any unit, the murderer garners more respect/sympathy than the thief...