Posted on 03/07/2008 6:55:55 PM PST by Yosemitest
Don't Doubt the Limbaugh Effect
March 5, 2008
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Last night on DNCTV's Decision '08, political analyst Norah O'Donnell reported this about the exit poll data.
RUSH: But CNN had a little bit different take on their Election Center last night. Soledad O'Brien and their political analyst Bill Schneider had this exchange about the effect in Texas.
SCHNEIDER: Mmm-hmm?
O'BRIEN: What did you find?
SCHNEIDER: Nooooot much. (laughter) Only 9% of the Texas Democratic primary voters were self-described Republicans and they voted for Barack Obama, 53... 46%, almost half, voted for Hillary Clinton so maybe that was some influence from Mr. Limbaugh.
RUSH: But not much.
So PMSNBC and CNN disagree with their numbers. Then on PBS last night, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Amy Walter of the Hotline took a neutral position. She's not sure about the Limbaugh Effect.
RUSH: Hmm. Hmmmm. Sounds like the conclusion here is rather unmistakable.
Moving on now to Chris Matthews, Election '08, PMSNBC; here is an apoplectic Chris Matthews describing to a T why we needed Hillary to win in this primary to continue.
VOICE: Mmm-hmm!
MATTHEWS: -- in a state you absolutely, positively have to carry?
It's not good news to spend seven weeks in Pennsylvania blasting each other, if you're Democrats. This country's in a rut on the war in Iraq and pending wars elsewhere in the Middle East, the economy! Everything! We're in a rut! We can't fix anything, whether it's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security! We can't fix our health care system! Nothing's done since '65 when we did the civil rights bill.
People want something done. Will that something get done if we have an election that bogs down in Pennsylvania with seven weeks of Democrats killing each other?
RUSH: Aside from the gibberish about nothing getting done in this country, does that not make my point (laughs) of what we are trying to accomplish here? This is the last thing the Democrats wanted to see, and they're going to have to see it,
and it's not just Pennsylvania. Forget Pennsylvania, forget April 22nd. You are talking June the 7th, Puerto Rico and beyond!
Now this business about "nothing having gotten" done since the Civil Rights Act.
Here's the problem. Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, the health care system:
RUSH: I rest my case!
Carl Bernstein, of Woodward and Bernstein fame, talking to a Clinton strategerist.
Pete in Woodbridge, Virginia. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Just fine, Rush. How you doing?
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: There's at least eight or nine different reasons for voting for Hillary, and you've enumerated some of them for almost two hours. First of all, fear is Hillary's most effective message against Obama, and that's also McCain's message. So as long as she's running her 3 a.m. ad, she's helping to make McCain's point about the importance of experience and national security experience.
RUSH: That's right. This is actually a great ad for McCain.
CALLER: Oh, absolutely.
In addition, the Democrats should be thanking you.
This screening process really helps them to ensure that they aren't going to have a Gary Hart or a Michael Dukakis running against McCain in the fall.
As far as on our side, it extends the time, as you said earlier, for Hillary to get the press to scrutinize him.
RUSH: Well, not only that, but there's another thing that's possible. I don't know how likely it is. But Senator McCain...
I heard Karl Rove last night. Karl Rove was doing analysis on Fox, and he had a good point. He said,
"I'm going to do whatever I can. If he wants me to campaign against him, if it will help him, that's what I'm going to do."
"Well, where are you going to campaign for him? Where are you not going to campaign for him?"
McCain was standing there, you know, asking the reporters for the next question, and the questions always went to President Bush.
President Bush can help him with fundraising, and I'm sure that was on the table today when they had their luncheon. But this is an opportunity here for McCain to actually solidify who he is because he's not going to have to run any contests against Huckabee anymore. He's not going to have to go out and get votes and get delegates in any of these remaining states
-- and then on the other side of this, everybody is talking about the momentum that Hillary has.
The momentum to where?
You've got Wyoming, the Wyoming caucus this Saturday. I think Obama expects to lose that.
You have got Mississippi next Tuesday. Obama's probably going to win that going away.
But, yeah, Hillary may have some momentum, but to where? The next big state is not for six weeks! Whatever momentum she has is not going to sustain her that long. So she's going to have to try to keep the momentum alive by doing exactly what Carl Bernstein said, and that is, they gotta mess Obama up. That's Carl Bernstein's word.
My word is they gotta bloody him up -- politically, of course. Don't misunderstand.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Do you want to hear the babes on The View discuss this? Do you want to hear what they have to say? I literally marvel, I really do, at the obtuseness, the dim-wittedness, the no "there" there-ism of some of these women.
Who do we have here? We've got Elisabeth Hasselbeck, we've got Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Sherri Shepherd, discussing Hillary's chances in the primary voting. This is yesterday, this is Tuesday morning. And Hasselbeck says,
GOLDBERG: Is that why he's encouraging people to vote for her? Because he's saying that voting for Hillary will unsettle the Democratic Party, and that can only help Republicans.
SHEPHERD: Yeah, he said,
HASSELBECK: You know, I don't agree with him, just so you know, like I'm not --
BEHAR: The thing about Limbaugh, I don't totally trust anything Limbaugh says, because -- I worked with him, right?
GOLDBERG: Did you?
BEHAR: Yes. I know him. And after -- when I was at the radio station with him, Clinton won. And he was so happy, because he could now be funnier on his radio show. It has nothing to do with real patriotism or whatever he's talking about. It's about his show.
HASSELBECK: So he feels as though he'd have more ammo against Clinton--
BEHAR: Yeah, he has more fun with Hillary. That's all he cares about.
RUSH: You know, Joy Behar saw me every day, and, folks, I do know about you, we were miserable.
I don't want to go through that again.
I do not want to live through the misery.
I mean, to say that we wanted Clinton to win because it was more fun, that I was happy when Clinton won?
And then this poor old Elisabeth Hasselbeck is the conservative on this program and is going out of her way -- it's pathetic. This program has the potential to be doing more damage to women than Oprah is doing. Good Lord, it's insulting. There have to be executives at ABC that understand the literal ignorance that's being broadcast on their network signals each and every day. I guess they know their audience.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
Maybe he misunderstood why they hired him.
I don’t believe ESPN suits thought we want this guy to drag ‘race’ in discussion and piss off people and that would be good for us.
I think they thought they were getting Dennis-Miller-Lite. Some interesting comments, some unique perspective. Maybe someone like Skip Bayliss on ESPN’s First Take. Guy who people like to disagree with, but still interesting.
Libs should not be the arbiter of manners or taste.
Can’t disagree with that.
I was waiting Tuesday evening, here in Texas, for my Republican precinct convention. When talking with the first two people who showed up after me, I learned that one had a daughter and son-in-law decide to “do what Rush had said”, and they went and voted for Hillary. Then, the other man said he knew a couple of guys at his work who were doing the same thing. I was more concerned with the effect it would have in two years on the number of delegates we’d have to Republican conventions. :)
I love Rush, but he is as often wrong as he is right. His heart is in the right place. Yes, he has a big head. But I would never want a world without him. I rarely get to listen to him because I’m at work when’s he’s on. But as soon as he’s posted his program to the internet, I tune in. He is what he is. Like all of us, he has his faults and his virtues. But he loves our country, our Constitution, and our conservative, free market values. He articulates everything we believe in, with passion. I can’t complain.
God Bless him.
You need to add the word “lacky” or “hack” to the end of your moniker.
But then you would be out of a job. LOL!
Hey- thanks for that. Nice to see reasonable intelligent influence on a thread that is getting nasty.
Rush is 80% on the mark. Of course 80% of his air time is fluff. I hate the songs and parodies and crap because I get to tune in for maybe 1 hour per week total. And it is very easy to cherry pick clips to make him look like a fool.
But imagine the world without him. Now that Buckley, Reagan and Gingrich are gone, who is leading this charge?
Honestly, who?
Name one person. ONE. Honestly now. Who does more for conservatism?
Hannity?
Will?
Okay, George Will. But how large is his influence?
Coulter? Ingraham? Miller? Bush? Who?
Newt Gingrich
Bill Kristol
Brit Hume
Perhaps some more painkillers can take his pain of being ignored away.
Spoken like a true Democrat, Republican
Ever hear the old English Proverb: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
If you understood the Proverb, you would have stayed out of this. ROFL!
I know Gingrich has been demonized off the map, but imagine, IMAGINE! and I mean just picture it: = - = - A debate between Gingrich and Hillary/Barack.
Populist pandering blatant stroking fluff getting pulverized at every turn by sharp harsh unyeilding REASON.
Damn, a guy can dream, can’t he?
Sorry Vet, you’re the one looking foolish here.
Sorry.
Two outa three.
McCain is UNACCEPTABLE!!!
He will only destroy the conservative movement!
Remember 1994!
We don't need a RINO in office ... to win.
You know very well that when the primaries finally come your way you’re going to jump ship and vote AGAINST Hillary, right!
He is a great entertainer.
But he’s no great political guru, able to lead millions. He’s proven that enough in past elections.
I don't much care about Wall Street Journal political reporter John Fund's report yesterday that's roiling the blogosphere and cable news talking head shows. Fund reported that Sen. John McCain
Since Sen. McCain led a gang of other Republican renegade senators in deserting their party's sitting president and colluding with the opposition party to throw some of that president's pending judicial nominations down the toilet jettisoning along with their confirmation chances the chance for a constitutional showdown that could have ended senatorial filibustering of judicial nominees there is nothing that Sen. McCain can do, and certainly nothing he can say or write as a campaign promise, to restore his credibility with me on the subject of judicial appointments.
Oh, yes, he did vote to confirm Roberts and Alito. But could we possibly set a lower bar than that for someone who's supposed to be a leader of his party and a contender for the opportunity to fill as many as three SCOTUS seats in the next term?
There are a lot of good things that can be said about Sen. McCain by good conservatives but not on this issue. By taking the "constitutional option" (a/k/a "nuclear option" in Dem-speak) off the table, McCain and his fellow "maverick" GOP cronies doomed not only a handful of worthy circuit and district court nominees to non-confirmation, they ensured that the White House would thereafter dare not make any more controversial nominations to those vitally important lower courts. For "controversial nominations," read "demonstratedly and predictably conservative nominations just like Roberts and Alito would have been, but for the higher profile of SCOTUS nominations."
The only way that the Dems could justify stonewalling Dubya's circuit and district court nominations was that the stonewalling happens mostly out of sight, and rarely if ever makes a blip on the general public's radar screens. They couldn't get away with denying a floor vote to a SCOTUS nominee. But John McCain led the deal that let the Dems guarantee that they could continue to exercise an effective veto on circuit and district court nominations for the remainder of George W. Bush's term, regardless of the outcome of the 2006 elections. The unquestionable result of the Gang of 14's "compromise," as brokered by John McCain, will be two-fold:
No sir, the day John McCain led the Gang of 14, he forfeited all of my trust irrevocably on judicial selection issues. No ma'am, I don't care what words he mouths now on that subject.
In fact, I'm slightly more inclined to believe Rudy Giuliani's promises about appointing conservative judges than McCain's. Sure, it's contrary to Giuliani's own stance on many social issues; and I'm far from entirely comfortable about Giuliani's campaign promises on this and other subjects. But at least Giuliani hasn't already betrayed this particular trust, and then equivocated about that betrayal. already shown himself to have no backbone, and to be a willing collaborator with the Dems, specifically when it comes to appointing judges at the circuit and district court levels. To the limited extent that I care at all what McCain says now, the mere fact that McCain continues to defend the Gang of 14 deal out-shouts anything else he says. And saying now that he "fought for" the abandoned nominees is just a palpable lie. The way to fight for them was to continue at least threatening to use the "constitutional option." There was no other way to fight for them. There was no other way to even get their nominations to the floor for a vote! To even pretend that those abandoned nominees had a chance once the Gang of 14 struck its deal is comparable to the Brits and French saying in September 1939,
Stepping back and looking at the big picture:
But just don't insult my intelligence by pretending that John McCain is a reliable conservative on the subject of judicial nominations. From the point of view of any knowledgeable conservative, this is one of the huge warts on this particular candidate. And he doesn't have to "wear" that particular lack of conservatism "on his sleeve," because it's a wart that's as plain as his nose. You can secure my enthusiastic agreement that the Democratic alternatives are uglier, that they're practically "all-wart." But quit trying to pull my leg about McCain and this particular subject, okay?
Maybe if McCain is making a SCOTUS nomination, he really will pick another Roberts or Alito. What concerns me, though, is that at best, he'll gladly let the Dems pressure him into packing the circuit and district courts with Kennedys, O'Connors, and occasional Souters. I have no doubt that John McCain would be willing to take on the Dems on matters of national security, even if it means a bloody, long-term dispute. But I also have no doubt that if pressed (and he will be), he would make his picks, and then cut quiet deals left and right, to avoid such fights over judicial nominees below the SCOTUS level. Since he's already abandoned conservative principles and cut a deal with the Dems on nominees to those courts even when the GOP controlled the Senate, why would he possibly stand up to them as president, especially if they continue to control the Senate?
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.