The Limbaugh Strategy: Keep the Democrats fighting.
Why We Want to Keep Hillary Alive
Rush and Laura talk Democrats and McCain (w/ video).
Laura Ingraham's Friday Interview with Rush on Fox News Channel
Posted on 03/03/2008 5:10:55 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
There seems to be an inherent inconsistency in how radio host Rush Limbaugh is analyzing Hillary Clinton's chances for election.
On his radio show, he is urging his listeners to vote for her in tomorrow's primaries.
Limbaugh claims to be doing this because he thinks that the longer Clinton stays in the race, the more she'll damage Obama and the party, thereby increasing the chances of a Republican victory in November.
This, however, is contradicted by his statements about how resilient a candidate Mrs. Clinton would be. For example, today he stated that "these Clintons are like cockroaches. They'll be the last thing left after a nuclear blast."
If, as Limbaugh states, Hillary Clinton is such a tough candidate, it makes no sense for him to want her in the race if he truly hopes for a GOP win in November.
All of this leads to the conclusiong that, in fact, Limbaugh wants Hillary to be our next President.
As recently as last month, Limbaugh stated that, if John McCain were the Republican nominee, he would rather see the Democrats win the White House.
If that's the case, perhaps Limbaugh sees Hillary Clinton as a better (and more profitable target) for his program's commentary in the coming years. He already has years of experience mocking the Clintons. Furthermore, attacks on Hillary don't come with the risk of being called a racist, even if wrongly.
Finally, there may be simple profit motive. In the past it has been suggested that a President of one party, increases the circulation of magazines on the other side. Limbaugh, of course, publishes a monthly "Limbaugh Letter" magazine. And, of course, he is widely considered to have enjoyed his greatest popularity during the previous Clinton administration.
If this is true, perhaps Republicans in Texas and Ohio might want to reconsider taking voting advice from Rush in tomorrow's primaries.
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.
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.
Go Rush!
Ditto.
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.
So essentially it’s easier to slam a woman rather than a black. Racial tensions are higher than sexism charges.
Fair, but accurate.
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.
Your right!
>> 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.
Wrong - Perot got Bill elected.
“This is about Rush and the other’s 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.
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.
If you don't like Rush, it's ok. But you are wrong about him
“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?
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.
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.