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.
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.