Posted on 02/11/2008 11:19:02 AM PST by pabianice
Heard this afternoon on Rush's show, in response to a caller's question: 'Obama may get the most delegates, but he won't be the Democrat nominee. We're talking about the Clintons here.'
Yes, letting them take over every branch of government will help the conservative movement!
Especially when some more supreme judges have to be selected.
I think Obama goes into the Convention leading on delgate counts, and the Clintons attempt to get Mich. and Florida seated and split the convention wide open.
She may win the nomination but alot of Obama supporters are going to sit the election out, giving the GOP the election and maybe Congress as well.
The Clintons would destroy the Democrat Party rather then lose this nomination.
The files are for use on the Super Delegates”
Ah, good point. That does make a difference, doesn’t it?
I agree with you, unless they fracture their party with infighting by having a big scandal involving their party nominating process that makes people think the the party has ignored their wishes.
That could leave the Dems as fractured as the Republicans, and allow the anti-Clinton vote to beat the anti-McCain vote.
McCain won't win the election based on his merits. However, if the Democrats self destruct, he still stands a chance.
“She can always resort to the Florida & Michigan”
How can she seeing as no one else was on the ballot? I can forsee perhaps another primary in Fla & Mich to settle the score if need be, but... I just don’t know Didi. We shall see.
It really depends on how much control Hillary has over the party leadership and the super delegates.
Many people in the party would hesitate at fracturing the party, but Hillary wouldn't. The Clintons are all about themselves.
Hillary might try and mend the breach by offering to make Obama her running mate. He's still young enough to run again in the future, so if he went along with it, it might result in some damage control. However, she would do her best to keep him out of the spotlight to make sure he couldn't challenger her in 4 years.
A very good point. And though McCain makes me visibly ill, I believe we have to bring something else into the discussion here.
Forget the lib part of the discussion for a moment. We need to seriously consider what Hillary is capable of in the way of using federal power illegally to target political opposition once she is in the WH. For example use of the IRS to squash non profit conservative organizations and individuals she sees as threatening.
I submit that Hillary is capable of, and more than willing to, commit serious crimes against a lot of us with the power of the IRS and Justice Department. Stuff that no one will have the power to combat. Further, what congress is going to seriously oppose such abuses? The Dems consider it their right to commit crimes against conservatives. And congressional Republicans, particularly Senators have absolutely no backbones in that regard. The 900 FBI file fiasco was petty larceny compared to what is coming.
Point being, we need to consider whether McCain or Obama is likely to do the same thing. Not just compare them as regards liberal proclivities.
I think the media will carry Obama through as JFK reincarnated. We’ll be inundated with it from May through November. Only McCain won’t get as close as Nixon did. If the nominee is Hillary, she has to pick Obama as VP. But if it’s Obama (and it will be), he probably won’t pick her.
It’s weird because the D’s are split as badly as we, but not along ideological lines. On the left, it’s the establishment liberals vs the establishment liberals. It’s so odd seeing Ted Kennedy behind Barack Obama.
Both of their morons run on nearly identical platforms. At least Hillary isn’t bent on yanking defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq - which is what you’d expect from a Muslim. Other than that, both can’t wait to tax the hell out of us, take things from us for the good of all, etc.
It’s SO RACIALLY divded over there and yet there’s NOTHING being said about it.
Then there’s the delegates in Florida and Michigan, the idiotic superdelegates, etc.
On the right, it’s nothing more than a hostage crisis: “Vote for this liberal idiot with the REPUBLICAN badge on, or you’ll get Hussein or Hillary.”
It’s beyond broken, and the fact that its become so dangerous isn’t really my fault.
They are pulling the pin on the grenade, and then asking me to put the pin back in by signing on the dotted line.
I hate to say this, but the party used to be our agent in this ideological battle with liberalism. Now Rush is basically implying that though the party no longer is an effective agent in that battle, we should somehow reserve our contempt because the antics of the other party are so much more egregious.
The result is that no matter how far to the left the Republican’s slide, as long as the Democrats remain even more screwed up, then leaving the party will never be a legitimate option.
The way I see it, and ironically, the way Reagan saw it, was that the party left me, and not the other way around. This is also not a very effective argument to establishment Republicans this year, so let’s look at where we are.
Pragmatically, and at least back in 2006, Rush believed that even IF McCain’s the guy, less evil is still good.
As such, when will it ever be safe enough to decide the party’s finished and that we should basically face the fact that you’ve got three parties anyway: the right, the center, and the left? Will there ever be an election cycle where, “Hey, this is the year you’re free to essentially vote your conservative convictions, just like the Moonbats do on the left!” I mean, when can our ‘kooks’ be ‘kooks’ again safely?
I’ll point out that the definition of ‘kook’ is expanding quite a bit in 2008 on the right.
The anti-homosexual/pro-family lobby are kooks. 1st amendment apologists (anti-McCain Feingold) are kooks. Anti-amnesty types are kooks. Gun owners are kooks. Small government types are kooks too. Anti-regulation types are kooks. The evangelicals apparently are legitimate kooks (Huckabee? Please. I saw a quote in the WSJ about some 40 year old that essentially votes any way his pastor tells him to.)
The further left the party drifts, the more kooks seem to pile up on the right.
I guess I still want to know why we just can’t come to recognize that the party has in fact split. There’s not going to be any less dangerous time to do this, and it’s not like we aren’t going to stay home. We just won’t be voting for President, donating to the party, etc.
We won’t be volunteering, defending the McCain as a candidate to liberals (how does one defend a liberal to liberals, except perhaps to say, “He’s just less suicidal than your liberals”.)
If Republicans don’t like it, then they can build a better platform and attract better candidates.
One thing I think both parties will agree with, and that is that never has the process for choosing who is going to be the Leader of the Free World rendered less qualified people than in 2008.
Establishment Republicans, with John McCain as their leader, look pretty ridiculous telling me that John McCain is the best guy they could find to 1) protect the country, 2) defend the Constitution, and 3) protect citizens from their own government.
Boiled down, that’s exactly what conservatives expect, right? Those three things? Against that basic test, McCain’s the best they could do, and good enough for me to endorse enthusiastically?
I choose to fire them as my appointed agents in this particular fight. I haven’t filled the position, but I’m taking applications now. If the country dies in the meantime, I can tell you I will bear NO RESPONSIBILITY in it against the backdrop of what MY PARTY has perpetrated on its own as my representative for the last 16 years.
She doesn't want to be VP.
Or else what?
Nothing keeps superdelegates from changing their mind. They aren't committed until their vote is cast.
this is on Drudge right now.
If the Beast were to be nominated by virtues of the superdelegates but actually lose in terms of the regular delegate count, is there any chance that there would be enough chaos in the party that Osama might consider a third party run? Assuming, of course, that there was no deal cut for the vice presidency.
I don't see it. Even in the scenario you describe, Obama is 46. He's a young man who wants to be president, and he knows that third party will never be the way to the Oval Office.
Exactly. I fear for Obama's life if he even gets close to actually winning the nomination.
Rolls eyes Aint that the truth
"Oh Chris, that's old news."
Make no mistake, Hillary or else.
Wait a minnut! I thought Janet Reno was Chelsea's father.
Quick, someone break Condi's leg and put her in front of McCain????
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.