Skip to comments.
Limbaugh Intentionally Throwing November Election to Hillary? (Real Reason He Wants Her to Stay in?)
Federal Review ^
| 03/03/08
Posted on 03/03/2008 5:10:55 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161 next last
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Anyone who really listens to Rush knows exactly what he wants, as close as possible of a primary so we have 1968 all over again.
61
posted on
03/03/2008 5:46:10 PM PST
by
mnehring
("Ronald Reagan has made Jimmy Carter look like a conservative..."- Ron Paul)
To: Nervous Tick
Fact is, shes a Clintoon (synonomous with criminal). She will do whatever it takes to gain power. WHATEVER it takes.I'm also an avid fan of Rush, and I'm not from the Red, White and Blue. For the eleven plus years I've been listening to Rush, your above thoughts are that of Rush's. Perhaps as a fan of Rush, you do not realize how much he has influenced your thinking.
Do you not think she'd be an easier candidate to beat in the generals? Is this perhaps why Rush is leaning this way? All I know is this: Rush is not a fan of the Clintons', nor is he a fan of Obama--liberalism.
62
posted on
03/03/2008 5:48:10 PM PST
by
mirado
('...)
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Bull. He wants then dims to fight during the convention. That and he realizes that Obama Rama is Teflon due to PC. Hillary is not, she has large negatives.
Go Rush!
63
posted on
03/03/2008 5:48:13 PM PST
by
alarm rider
("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -)
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Take her out: remove all doubt!Ditto.
64
posted on
03/03/2008 5:50:06 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Obama, the King of Hope-a-Dope)
To: Steely Tom
Do you wonder as I do that the people who are mad at / pissed off at / disgruntled at Rush have actually never listen to his show?
Rush explains sometimes to death why he says what he does, how can anyone misunderstand?
65
posted on
03/03/2008 5:50:37 PM PST
by
svcw
(The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.)
To: Behind Liberal Lines
To be honest, I can understand both lines of reasoning as who to back to sabotage the Dems. I personally agree with Rush, the people who hate Hillary already are legion, and somewhat Bi-partisan (there are Dems who hate them), so taking her out in a general election is easier. People don't seem to harbor the same deeply-ingrained hatred of Obama that they do for the Clintons. And he's at least "likeable" to what Rush would call the "mushy middle."
Also, I think the Clintons would be more defeated after a loss in the general. If Hillary loses the primary, meh, "race trumps gender" they'll likely say. And she'll run again. After possibly needing to hit the personal stash to run in the general, they'll be more cleaned out than after a primary loss.
Your logic (take her out, remove all doubt) makes for a pretty strong (and bumperstickerable, though with short shelf-life) argument though.
66
posted on
03/03/2008 5:52:36 PM PST
by
mbennett203
("Bulrog, a tough brute ninja who has dedicated his life to eradicating the world from hippies.")
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Rush is right as usual.
This guy is a just another nutter.
The longer the Dems trash each other and spend money , the better off we are.
Comrade Hillary has driven up negatives for the more dangerous Osama Obama .
The more they drag each other thru the mud the better off the Repub are.
67
posted on
03/03/2008 5:53:14 PM PST
by
ncalburt
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
12 million viewers now, 20 million when Clinton was POTUS.
That is because there are enough other conservative venues to access without the extraneous BS that goes with Limbaugh's shows
68
posted on
03/03/2008 5:55:29 PM PST
by
uncbob
To: alarm rider
So essentially it’s easier to slam a woman rather than a black. Racial tensions are higher than sexism charges.
Fair, but accurate.
To: Behind Liberal Lines
I wish Rush would’ve just shuttup on this one. I don’t want even the ghost of a chance of that evil woman being elected.
This talk of McCain being able to beat Hillary is a crock. No one knows what will happen within the next 8 months.
And the fact that he’s encouraging people to f*ck with the election process p!sses me off, too.
To: Behind Liberal Lines
71
posted on
03/03/2008 5:56:46 PM PST
by
blueyon
(Loose lips sink ships.)
To: seekthetruth
HOw the heck can you say such nonsense.
Do you have any idea how RADICAL OBama is ??????
He is far far far left socialist who plans massive wealth redistribution, banning guns,promoting partial birth abortions, and forcing radical left socialist unions down out throats.
His background is the radical socialist unions of CHICAGO !!!!!
72
posted on
03/03/2008 5:57:38 PM PST
by
ncalburt
To: mirado
>> Do you not think she’d be an easier candidate to beat in the generals?
Sorry, I just don’t see “gaming” the election to try to help McCain as the best use of my vote. As I have said elsewhere: if McCain can’t figure out how to beat EITHER of these two lame commies, then he has no business whatsoever being the candidate, let along chief executive.
Anyway, figuring out which candidate is most or least electable in March, for a November election which hasn’t seen serious head-to-head action between the nominees, is a fool’s errand. Many people on this forum as well as Rush huff and puff and postulate such nonsense — but they simply don’t know. Even the pollsters and pundits can’t agree.
No, the best use of my vote tomorrow is to help whack the head off of the most evil crime family ever to play on the American political stage. And that, my FRiend, is how I intend to use my vote.
73
posted on
03/03/2008 5:58:48 PM PST
by
Nervous Tick
(Retire Ron Paul! Support Chris Peden (www.chrispeden.org))
To: pjsbro
He got Bill elected. Why not Hillary?Wrong - Perot got Bill elected.
To: Behind Liberal Lines
75
posted on
03/03/2008 6:05:24 PM PST
by
Miss Didi
("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
To: Southerngl
“This is about Rush and the others ratings. This is a business first and foremost and anyone thinks otherwise is naive.”
Anyone who thinks Rush is worried about being called a racist is naive.
To: tennteacher
I agree with Rush. Obama is a much more formidable opponent than Hillary. I think that he is absolutely right to try to throw primary votes to her. To say that he wants her to win the presidency is patently absurd.You are correct. Obama would be a far more formidable candidate than Hillary.
To know her is to loathe her. America is just not ready for a big-assed, shrill President.
77
posted on
03/03/2008 6:15:48 PM PST
by
E. Cartman
(Huckaboob will never be Vice President.)
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Obama is harder to beat. See a bunch of black people and college kids who never voted before that will go out to vote for him this time? That's why Rush is urging conservatives to keep Hillary in the race. McCain won't criticize Obama. The midea won't do it either. Only Hillary who is trying, though not effectively. If you don't like Rush, it's ok. But you are wrong about him
To: joebeth
“I say Obama is far better than Hillary.”
Say it all you want, it’s still isn’t true.
There’s a very real possibility that our next president will be a democrat, and if that’s the case then I much prefer her shrilliness to Obama. The Clintons are political snakes, they’ll do whatever is in their best interest to get and retain power, however despicable that mentality may be, it can be reasoned with. There’s some hope of getting a Clinton to compromise, mush as Newt convinced Bill to go along with welfare reform (it only took three tries).
The situation with Obama is much more serious. He, like Jimmah Carter, actually believes in the leftest boilerplate that comes oozing out of his mouth. Someone that idealistic in all the wrong ways should not be let within 1000 yards of the white house.
Throw in that Hillary is the more beatable opponent, and why the heck shouldn’t we be supporting her for the nomination?
79
posted on
03/03/2008 6:16:50 PM PST
by
eclecticEel
(oh well, Hunter 2012 anyone?)
To: Nervous Tick
Yes, the seppuku person opens their stomach, a painful way to die, then their ‘second’ finished the job by severing the neck, which is quicker. It was important that this be done by a master swordsman because the body might shift during the stabbing, and they needed to sever the neck with one blow and also leave a flap of skin so the head would not roll off into the crowd.
I recommend the Japanese art book “Lone Wolf and Cub”.
But I don’t like the analogy, what the Dem’s are going to do to themselves at a brokered convention if Hillary steals it is not going to be nearly as final and dignified as seppuku. More like pandemonium.
80
posted on
03/03/2008 6:24:14 PM PST
by
allmendream
("A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal."NapoleonD)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson