Posted on 12/01/2008 6:23:14 AM PST by Soliton
Rush: “Ladies and gentlemen, I want to start the hour here by restating the origins of Operation Chaos and the goal, because I am continuing to receive mail, e-mail from people, you, who listen in this audience, who are getting panicked and paranoid that Mrs. Clinton is going to end up winning this whole thing and that it will be my fault and that if that happens, you are never, ever, going to listen to this program again.”
“Former US president Bill Clinton said he would back his wife Hillary if she became secretary of state but has even bigger political hopes for their daughter Chelsea.”
Of course it is only speculation, but it appears that Hillary’s strong showing in the latter primaries bought here leverage with the Obama administration. Even if Rush wasn’t as successful in “Operation Chaos” as he crowed, he still could have tipped some of the critical primaries in the Hildabeast’s direction. In doing so he allowed Hillary to, not only maintain her future presidential viability, but to enhance it by building a foreign policy resume. This will allow Bill to continue to launder bribes from America’s enemies and funnel half of them to Her Thighness’ 2016 campaign, and prep for the run of Web Hubbel’s daughter, Chelsea, in 2020.
Rush was too cute with his “Operation Chaos”. We will pay and he will get richer. I thought he was against redistribution of wealth.
Has Rush admitted that Op Choas was total failure and did absolutely NOTHING to hurt Obama? More evidence that the Fairness Doctrine is not needed since Rush has no more influence other than hawking tankless water heaters and hotdogs.
And I am a ditto head but just stating the obvious.
Oh, please...The Clinton’s live on “polls”. The Clinton Machine made a back door deal. She needed the black vote and she wasn’t gonna get it. There is absolutely no difference in their platforms.
It made Limbaugh money through higher ratings.
Which is all it was designed to do.
maybe but it was entertaining. It just didn’t do what Rush had hoped it would do. And that’s only because people wanted a black man who doesn’t talk like a jive turkey like many black politicians. Obama “seemed” authentic and clean like Biden describes him!
Please...all Rush did was help. Had the DNC had a brokered convention, which was Limbaugh’s goal in operation chaos. it would have left the Dems weaker during the National Election.
> It made Limbaugh money through higher ratings.
> Which is all it was designed to do.
Well, yes. And while I appreciate the effect Limbaugh has in highlighting the right stuff, ultimately he is not for “the little guy”, he is out for himself. Anyone feeling any “betrayal” should take a good look at who they trust and why.
Why do you suppose no one has ever snatched up Bill and Chelsea’s Starbucks cups so they could be sent away for DNA testing to see if they are a match?
The logic implimented in this article is absolutely assinine.
It´s like an athlete blaming Bill Belichick for losing the Super Bowl. Well guess what. You´d be a .500 team without him, so maybe you should practice harder or play harder in the game next time (or maybe your team needs a new quarterback? One that doesn´t throw as many interceptions?).
Give it up. You've got RDS - Rush Derangement Syndrome
I have no problem with him making money...just wondering if he came out and admitted that Op Chaos backfired...
Don’t come down too hard on Rush just yet-
Operation Chaos may have facilitated Madame Rodham’s infiltration of the Obama administration, forced a “power sharing” arrangment on the messiah, and created a whole new battlefield
No.
A humbled Hillary would have been VP. A walk through Ft. Marcy park away from the presidency.
However, the competetive Hillary was given the chance to show her disdain for His Obamaness. Thus, she wasn't even considered for VP and is now in a job that will end in 4 years.
Bottom line excerpted from full commentary below:
“...data from the Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed that Mr. Obama took command of the race during the 10 days following the collapse of Lehman Brothers — when the Wall Street meltdown hit Main Street.
Before that event John McCain was leading nationally by three percentage points.
Ten days later Mr. Obama was up by five and never relinquished his lead.”
WSJ - The Polls Show -[Opposite of What Some People Think]- That Reaganism Is Not Dead
By SCOTT RASMUSSEN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628429302812557.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates.
Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan. His victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era.
During Reagan’s campaign, the nation suffered from high unemployment and high inflation. This time around, data from the Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed that Mr. Obama took command of the race during the 10 days following the collapse of Lehman Brothers — when the Wall Street meltdown hit Main Street. Before that event John McCain was leading nationally by three percentage points. Ten days later Mr. Obama was up by five and never relinquished his lead.
Mr. Obama’s tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are well-received at such times: 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree and see them as bad policy.
Down the campaign homestretch, Mr. Obama’s tax-cutting promise became his clearest policy position. Eventually he stole the tax issue from the Republicans. Heading into the election, 31% of voters thought that a President Obama would cut their taxes. Only 11% expected a tax cut from a McCain administration.
The last Democratic candidate to win the tax issue was also the last Democratic president — Bill Clinton. In fact, the candidate who most credibly promises the lowest level of taxes has won every presidential election in at least the last 40 years.
But while Mr. Obama was promising to cut taxes, the Bush administration took the lead on a $700 billion, taxpayer-backed bailout bill — with very little marketing finesse. Few Americans supported the bailout, and a majority of voters were more concerned that the government would do too much rather than too little. In terms of getting the economy going again, 58% said that more tax cuts would better stimulate the economy than new government spending.
A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Just 28% disagreed with this sentiment. That survey also found that 44% of Obama voters agreed with Reagan’s assessment (40% did not). And McCain voters overwhelmingly supported the Gipper.
The real challenge for the new president will be attempting to govern with a message that resonates with most voters but divides his own party. Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called “conservative,” “moderate,” “liberal” or “progressive.” Except among Democrats, that is. Fifty-one percent of Democrats view that Reagan comparison as a negative. There’s Mr. Obama’s dilemma in a nutshell.
Mr. Obama won the White House promising tax cuts, but he will be governing with a Democratic Congress bursting with desire for a more activist government.
As he faces this challenge, he might remember the fate of another man who made taxes the central part of his campaign: the first President Bush, whose most memorable campaign line — “Read my lips, no new taxes” — was as central to his victory as Mr. Obama’s promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.
George H.W. Bush famously reneged on that promise. Voters rejected his bid for a second term.
Mr. Obama ran like Reagan. Will he be able to govern that way, too?
Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company.
NO!!
Whatever the truth is concerning whether Rush helped or did not help the Clinton campaign: I still cringe at the thought that he openly advocated voting for the thing.
Yes, the job will end when she replaces Biden on the ticket in 2012. This is why she's giving up a safe Senate seat to take a job that she can potentially be fired from. Biden will be totally neutered and have no role in his supposed area of expertise, foreign policy. And in four years Hillary takes his place.
He never hoped it would do anything, other than foment chaos among the Demagogues.
In that, it was a resounding success.
Biden was neutered a few weeks before the election. Note that we never hear a word from him, we never hear a word about him, I don't think I've even seen him on TV.
You are right though about his "supposed" area of expertise. Biden gave Obama foreign policy credentials for one reason -- because the media decided to tell America that Biden had foreign policy credentials.
In fact, Biden's grasp of foreign policy is horrible. If Bush had said what Biden has said over the last 8 years, the media would have castigated him. But Biden is a democrat, and the media is in the job of selling Democrats.
I don’t see that it was a success. The Dems didn’t end up having a brokered convention, they didn’t have chaos, and they ended up being more unified when all was said and done.
He advocated voting for Mrs. Clinton in the primaries, and in the end, she didn’t win the nomination.
Limbaugh did not run McCain’s campaign...Limbaugh was not the guy talking about walking across the aisle....
Out of operation chaos things came out like jeremiah wright,bill ayers and what not...
Limbaugh wasn’t the guy who couldn’t out maneuver obama in a debate
If there is any blame it certainly isn’t limbaugh’s
I agree.
I voted for Hillary in the Indiana primary which she won.
Obama is a far more dangerous foe than Hillary.
We just don’t know yet where all his money came from.
He didn't want her to win the nomination.
He just wanted to stir the pot.
He's just an entertainer. He makes politics a lot more fun! If he were a political operative, the FCC would shut him down.
Of course. Can you imagine him calling Hillary Clinton on the phone and saying to her "This is what we want you to do."? It's laughable. But no matter, the whole point to her taking the SoS role is to replace Biden in 2012 and then run in her own right in 2016.
I am not blaming Rush for McCain losing, but for helping Hillary stay so close as to empower her.
Amen brother. When you have a stake over a vampire's heart, you don't stop for a coffee break!
First, her job won't end in 4 years- Condoleeza's didn't. Second, had he destroyed her in PA, Texas, and other big states, she would have had no power over him.
Remember, the PUMA vote never materialized. It was a bluff to get state. It worked.
Not to my knowledge
I have found quotes of him bragging about how well it was working though. I'm not saying that Rush lost it for McCain, just that he could have helped to swing a couple of key states and kept Hillary in the race thereby giving her power--power she used to get state.
Then try a review of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution:
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time”
Hillary voted to increase funding of the State Department. She cannot be SOS.
Entertainer is the usual moniker that the left uses to describe Rush. As far as what he wanted or didn’t want, the pot wasn’t stirred that much. 0bama still won the nomination. And Rush only advocated that his listeners vote for Hillary in the primaries. If he was truly trying to stir the pot, he would have advocated that his listeners also vote for 0bama on several occasions, but he didn’t.
They already have a way around it
What an intelligent response! (Not). I’m sure I can count on you to be one of my listeners.
You seem to know everything, and especially what other people are doing wrong.
Surely you could do such a trivial thing as become a talk show host and leader of the free world.
Get back on your meds. You’re truly flipping out. Sounds like you can’t hold an intelligent discussion.
As he has readily admitted. Why some folks ignore this is beyond me.
Sounds like you're one of those people who blames everybody else for your problems.
If it matches Papa Webb, how does that help—you have no proof of the source and chain-of-custody of the samples.
All you’d potentially gain is exposure to Arkancide, whether through litigious or physical channels.
Has that musty old document been restored to effectiveness? Since when?
Sir or Madam, it is you who has the problems. Take a deep breath, drink some hot tea, and enjoy your life.
Yes. Eclair went to harlem and “kissed the ring”, as Glen Beck put it. This helps our side in so many ways.
Sir or Madam, you are projecting.
Sir or Madam, this is a forum for an exchange of ideas. If you disagree with my assessment, you are free to say so. But you have gone way over the line and sound as if you are bordering on a nervous breakdown. Chill out!
You really should take your own advice.
When you come out of the gate and answer me in a very sarcastic, rude manner, don’t expect me to throw bouquets at you. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
Is that the best you have in your arsenal? That’s the kind of answer one gives when one can’t think of any other response. I’m waiting for something intelligent to come from you. (That may be asking a lot of you). Wake me when you have something of substance to say.
I bet your blood pressure is through the roof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.