Right Thinking From The Left Coast
The Government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. - Mark Twain

Rush Limbaugh’s Wet Dream

Well, yes, this is exactly what they want.

If Hillary ekes out close wins, stays alive, gains the nomination and the White House, will Rush hold the Bible at her Inauguration?

Bill O’Reilly was just on with Brit Hume giving Rush the credit for the Clinton comeback --which is certainly the least expected bit of Campaign 2009 news in this very, very long campaign.

A month ago talk radio was dead.  Now it has resurrected Hillary?

Well, you got what you wanted. Anyone who thinks she wouldn’t be able to beat McCain needs a reality check. McCain will have to move further to the right to beat her the way that Dole and Bush the Elder had to do against Clinton the First. Thanks to you idiots of the airwaves, we are now faced with the possibility of having the Queen Bitch in power. So Rush gets a big fat target for the next four to eight years. What about the country, you fucking moron? Oh, right-real patriotism is for suckers. Like the jackasses in Texas who listened to you.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 03/05/08 at 03:28 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by InsipiD on 03/05/08 at 05:47 AM from United States

Would you rather have McCain run against Obama?  This was the right thing to do.  How is forcing McCain to the right bad?

I say that Rush did well, and proved that he isn’t over.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 07:45 AM from United States

How is forcing the Dems to drag this thing out to the convention a bad thing? Hillary still has a long way to go.

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 08:24 AM from China

Would you rather have McCain run against Obama?

Fuck yes.  Look, it’s a hell of a gamble these pricks are taking.  They’re rolling the dice, risking a fucking Hillary presidency, just to prove their own relevance.

Fuck them.  This just makes me fucking hate the fucking conservative movement in this country more than ever.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 08:25 AM from United States

Oh god....this is all so funny, because it’s all so fucking pathetic.

Conservatives squealing and acting more retarded than usual, and liberals squabbling and posturing like a bunch of petulant 10 year olds. All to be able to wield leviathan’s reigns of power that should not be.

Then again, I guess we’re far past the ability for the average publicly-educated dolt to see that the simple solution to all this nonsense is to reduce the power of the presidency so that it doesn’t matter who wins, but most people now seem to view the Presidential primaries as just another reality show - a version of American Idol, where the last person standing after the weekly votes is the winner and gets to live in the big white house and fly on the big jet!1!1!!1 That’s HOT!!!

*rolls eyes*

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 08:42 AM from United States

I’m very suspicious of the claim that Rush helped decide the race in Texas. I just don’t believe that that many people were able to actually stomach voting for Hillary, just for some gimmicky reason Rush came up with. Besides, one way or the other, she was going to win Rhode Island and Ohio by comfortable margins and make it VERY close in Texas. It looks like Obama may have peaked for the time being and there was some backlash as the “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!” nonsense wore thin with some voters (plus the NAFTA flap). All of that would still give her some momentum going into Pennsylvania, and the end result would be pretty similar to what we’re looking at right now. She stil has an upward battle to get the nomination…

So, no, I don’t “blame” (or credit?) bozos like Limbaugh for what’s going on in the Democratic race right now. Of course, Rush is going to play this up though—that’s the sort of thing these people always do. Who cares?

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 08:52 AM from United States
I’m very suspicious of the claim that Rush helped decide the race in Texas. I just don’t believe that that many people were able to actually stomach voting for Hillary, just for some gimmicky reason Rush came up with. [/quote

I said I was thinking about doing it, but, as much as I hate the witch, I doubt I could have actually pushed that button with her name on it.

{Recently moved, didn’t get registered in new county}

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 08:56 AM from United States

Oops.  Redo -

I’m very suspicious of the claim that Rush helped decide the race in Texas. I just don’t believe that that many people were able to actually stomach voting for Hillary, just for some gimmicky reason Rush came up with.

I said I was thinking about doing it, but, as much as I hate the witch, I doubt I could have actually pushed that button with her name on it.

{Recently moved, didn’t get registered in new county}

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 09:15 AM from United States

It’s called identifying the proper business model.  Rush needs Hillary, or someone like her, in office to complain about so he can sell ad revenue while angry people listen to his every word.

For example; McDonald’s is in business to make money off of selling soft drinks, using burgers as low profit or loss leader.  Car dealerships sell you vehicles so you will use their service centers (you DO want to keep your warranty valid, don’t you?). 

Rush uses outrage and anger to sell advertising time.  He therefore needs an immoral leftist asshole in the oval office.  Obama will do, but nothing will beat Hillary as a whipping bitch....

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 09:46 AM from China

It’s called identifying the proper business model.  Rush needs Hillary, or someone like her, in office to complain about so he can sell ad revenue while angry people listen to his every word.

Bingo.  And the sad thing is, I’m quite sure that in a state with an open primary, there are enough fucking mind-numbed Limbaugh idiots out there to actually make a difference.  Did it guarantee Obama’s loss?  Not at all, Hillary might very well have won the state on her own.  But at the very least it increased the scope of Hillary’s victory.

Fuck them.  They might view this as a fucking game, but this is MY country too.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 10:17 AM from United States

Well, I think you guys give Rush way too much credit for having that kind of influence. Sure, he “plays it up”, no doubt because he realizes how ridiculous it is (side note: notice how “ridiculous” is spelled. The second letter is “i”, not “e”—I get sooo tired of seeing “rediculous” that it’s ridiculous).

Hell, his radio blurb is “The Man Who Runs America”, because the left has “accused” him of that very thing, and yes, he simply “plays it up”. You guys misread Rush if you seriously think he takes it all that seriously.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 10:41 AM from United States

the simple solution to all this nonsense is to reduce the power of the presidency so that it doesn’t matter who wins

Amen. The current cock monkey has usurped far too much power. People need to realize that Congress is their voice. Congress should control the purse strings and not authorize stupid wars. Of course the presidency still matters but it shouldn’t matter as much. Unfortunately, people seem to actually want a dictator.

Posted by Thrill on 03/05/08 at 11:08 AM from United States

Clearly, you have your hearts broken that your precious Obamessiah has suffered a setback and it’s made you pissy this morning.

Those of you who are complaining are missing out on some basic facts:

1. In most elections, whichever party settles on its nominee first wins.  Prolonging the Democrat nomination is absolutely to the advantage of the Republicans.

2. Poll after poll indicates that Hillary has the highest negative numbers of possibly any candidate who has run for office in the last century.  McCain would have been forced to compete with Obama for Independent voters and even some Republicans, along with a number of screwball libertarians (how you guys have gotten it into your heads that an Obama presidency would be good for this country or your beliefs, I will never understand).  This will not be a factor with Hillary.

3. Many Republicans are unhappy about the fact that our primary was decided by a bunch of liberal Independents before many more reliably red states had the chance to vote.  Call this payback.

4. Sooner or later, somebody has got to attack Obama; be it his record, competence, or patriotism.  It’s better to let Hillary do it and maybe she’ll find something that works between now and the nomination.  The more damage the Democrats do to each other, the better.  McCain sure as hell won’t do it against either one of them since they’re all such great friends and all.

We’ll never know how influential Republican voters in Texas and Ohio (I do have a Republican in Cleveland who told me on Sunday that he was going to vote for Hillary, so I know that they exist) were on the Democrat primary, but if it was decisive, it was brilliant.

I’ll send Sully a sympathy card.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 11:14 AM from United States

At Rush’s peak of popularity in the early 90’s, the guy could utter a couple sentences on his late night show and have Bill and Hillary holding a press conference over it the next morning and in spin control for the next month.

Rush has power, all he needs is enough public outrage to get things spun up properly…

Posted by Manwhore on 03/05/08 at 11:33 AM from United States

Thanks to you idiots of the airwaves, we are now faced with the possibility of having the Queen Bitch in power.

Actually a lot of credit needs to go to the elusive student vote, and anyone who signed onto a Cult of Personality, and never followed through (ie. reading thier politics).

There should also be a hat tip to every Baby Boomer age female in America, and Oprah, for proving again that even if Her Highness herself championed Obama, nothing is so delectable to the female species as a female president.

I could drag up all of my comments on the matter, but I don’t want to sound like a Magic 8ball.

I’ll send Sully a sympathy card.

Don’t worry about Sully. He’s already down in West Hollywood with a baggie of Cocaine and a marraige certificate.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 11:37 AM from United States

There should also be a hat tip to every Baby Boomer age female in America, and Oprah, for proving again that even if Her Highness herself championed Obama, nothing is so delectable to the female species as a female president.

“I fart in her general direction.”, thank you very much.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 11:40 AM from United States

Clearly, you have your hearts broken that your precious Obamessiah has suffered a setback and it’s made you pissy this morning.

The delegate count was pretty much a wash last night, she’e still 100+ delegates behind.  The math is against her and her campaign has to know it.

Fuck them.  They might view this as a fucking game, but this is MY country too.

I wonder how much of a game it will be when she starts making noises about the “evils” of right wing talk radio and tries to stifle them.  I wouldn’t put it past her.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 03/05/08 at 11:48 AM from United States

1. In most elections, whichever party settles on its nominee first wins.  Prolonging the Democrat nomination is absolutely to the advantage of the Republicans.

Care to back this up with evidence? Until recently, the candidate wasn’t even selected until the convention.

2. Poll after poll indicates that Hillary has the highest negative numbers of possibly any candidate who has run for office in the last century.

Reagan had very high negatives early in his presidency and won re-election. Clinton had extremely negatives. Nixon had high negatives.  You give Hillary eight months of image building and McCain trashing and this will not matter.

4. Sooner or later, somebody has got to attack Obama; be it his record, competence, or patriotism.  It’s better to let Hillary do it and maybe she’ll find something that works between now and the nomination.

That can go both ways.  Obama learns to respond to various criticisms now, rather than eight months later.

I’m convinced that whoever wins the Dem nomination is going to be stronger because of the nasty fight.  The only possible way it backfires is if there is a nasty floor fight.

Posted by dwex on 03/05/08 at 11:51 AM from United States

The math is against her and her campaign has to know it.

Except for the superdelegate wildcard.

Posted by Manwhore on 03/05/08 at 12:05 PM from United States

Hey, Hal-

Come to the Tabernacle, and get some O-B-A-M-A!!

Posted by Thrill on 03/05/08 at 12:13 PM from United States

Care to back this up with evidence? Until recently, the candidate wasn’t even selected until the convention.

Take it up with USA Today(I apologize in advance if this jacks up the thread, but I can’t get tinyurl.com to come up).

McCain could have this advantage over the Democrats: The Republican nomination is his to lose while the battle between Democratic hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama isn’t likely to end soon. That fight could divide Democrats and leave scars in the fall. In modern times, the party that has settled on a nominee first has won in November in every election except once, in 1992.

As for this:

Reagan had very high negatives early in his presidency and won re-election. Clinton had extremely negatives. Nixon had high negatives.  You give Hillary eight months of image building and McCain trashing and this will not matter.

Reagan’s negatives in 1980 were not 50% the way Hillary’s are now.  I still maintain that Hillary will not be able to make inroads with Independents as effectively as McCain and that is what this race hinges on.

Nixon had the benefit of running against a split Democrat ticket (Humphrey and Wallace) and Bill Clinton overcame his negatives thanks to Perot acting as a spoiler.

Hillary is more beatable than Obama.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 03/05/08 at 12:31 PM from United States

In modern times, the party that has settled on a nominee first has won in November in every election except once, in 1992.

USA today needs to be horsewhipped. That’s like the article I read the other day saying Obama will win because he’s lefthanded and six of our last nine presidents have been left handed.  Sample size, guys.

Thrill, Reagan’s approval numbers were down into the 20’s by 1982. He was blamed for the massive recession we had. To be fair, it was his fault.  But ending inflation, he induced the massive hangover of 15 years of bad fiscal policy—and then 25 years of solid growth.

I’m not convinced that Hillary is more beatable than Obama.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 03/05/08 at 12:48 PM from United States

*slaps self on head*

USA today *is* full of crap.  The reason the settled nominee usually wins is because he’s the incumbent.

Posted by Thrill on 03/05/08 at 12:51 PM from United States

That’s like the article I read the other day saying Obama will win because he’s lefthanded and six of our last nine presidents have been left handed.

I suppose you could make that comparison if you were completely clueless, sure.  The point is that as long as the one party’s candidates are still having to spend money and still having to fight with members of their own party, it can’t help but benefit the nominee of the other party, who is not spending money and already consolidating the support of his party.  I thought it was obvious but I don’t mind taking the time to explain it to you.

Thrill, Reagan’s approval numbers were down into the 20’s by 1982. He was blamed for the massive recession we had

That’s 1982; I said “1980”.  You know, before he was elected.  By 1984, when Reagan won re-election, his approval rating was as high as 60%.

Find a poll that says that Reagan’s negatives (as in “43% of Americans will not vote for Reagan in November 1980 under any circumstances") were as high as Hillary’s are now in March of 1980 and we’ll talk.

Posted by Thrill on 03/05/08 at 12:59 PM from United States

USA today *is* full of crap.  The reason the settled nominee usually wins is because he’s the incumbent.

Ooookaaay, Hal.  The incumbent still has to get elected in the first place and it does not change the fact that whoever gets the nomination clinched first wins.  You can make this as complicated as you like but it does not change the fact that keeping the Democrats at each other’s throats for as long as possible harms their efforts in the national election.

Because of the Democrats penchant for identity politics, the Democratic single women and Latinos are fighting with the Democratic blacks and the Union members.  The longer this goes on, the longer it will take for them all to reconcile and focus on winning the election.  The fact that they keep raising the issue of “dirty tricks” and “voting irregularities” is just making it richer. 

Whoever wins the nomination will have less money to spend in the general election because it’s being wasted on commercials with phones ringing and pictures of people in dashikis. 

How are you not getting this?

Posted by Hal_10000 on 03/05/08 at 01:08 PM from United States

How are you not getting this?

It’s not that I don’t get it.  It’s that it sounds too pat.  It sounds like wishful thinking.  You have to remember that this is the party that practically wets itself with glee at the thought of Bill Clinton—who led them to lose the Congress, lose state legislatures, lose governorships and presided over a very conservative era with welfare reform, NAFTA and spending restraint (thanks to a GOP congress).

In the end, all the Democrats wll care about is that the nominee has a D after his name.

Posted by dwex on 03/05/08 at 01:13 PM from United States

In the end, all the Democrats wll care about is that the nominee has a D after his name.

Oh please. That’s true for the vast majority of Republicans, too. Political parties are for sheep.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 04:03 PM from United States

Oh please. That’s true for the vast majority of Republicans, too. Political parties are for sheep.

Stop passing your self off as more enlightened than others. Political parties are simply a means to organize power.

Posted by dwex on 03/05/08 at 04:26 PM from United States

Political parties are simply a means to organize power.

Yeah. Because they aren’t bastions of cronyism and groupthink…

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 05:11 PM from United States

Of course they are. Although the fact that you even used the term “groupthink speaks volumes.” Whenever you have a large powerful organization, there will always be corruption and flaws.

Posted by Thrill on 03/05/08 at 05:41 PM from United States

Whenever you have a large powerful organization, there will always be corruption and flaws.

Such as the ACLU.

Posted by dwex on 03/05/08 at 06:21 PM from United States

And the NRA.

We can go all night…

Posted by Manwhore on 03/05/08 at 06:25 PM from United States

Don’t forget the cult dwex belongs to! LOL!

Posted by dwex on 03/05/08 at 06:36 PM from United States

Would it freak you out if I told you that my main character is a chick?

Posted by Thrill on 03/05/08 at 06:38 PM from United States

And the NRA.

We can go all night…

Let’s do it then.

Posted by Manwhore on 03/05/08 at 06:49 PM from United States

Would it freak you out if I told you that my main character is a chick?

Not really, unless it was a part of some cross dressing fantasy that you don’t feel you can’t play out in public.

Otherwise, it probably has more to do with the characters advantages/disadvantages.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 06:58 PM from United States

Would it freak you out if I told you that my main character is a chick?

You go, girl!

Next entry: Lift Embargo

Previous entry: You Reap What You Sow

<< Back to main