Posted on 01/03/2014 3:46:32 PM PST by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Did you people know that I want Hillary Clinton elected president? Well, it happened this morning on C-SPAN, on their Washington Journal show. Peter Slen, the host, was interviewing American University Women and Politics Institute director Jennifer Lawless. During the interview they took some phone calls from C-SPAN viewers about women in politics, and a guy from Rochester (snowed in, no doubt), Andrew, called in and had this to say...
ANDREW: I'm a little afraid that Rush Limbaugh is gonna get Hillary Clinton elected. I'm a little afraid.
SLEN: Why do you say that, Andrew? You're calling on the Republican line.
ANDREW: Well, Rush Limbaugh, I don't think is interested in getting Republicans elected. I think he's interested in getting Democrats elected so that the people that pay Rush Limbaugh can make more money off of a divided country. That's just what I think. Anyway, if Rush Limbaugh does get Hillary elected, which is what it -- the people that pay Rush Limbaugh would like him to do, do you think that Hillary Clinton would be a good president or do you think she's just in it for the money like a lot of people?
RUSH: (laughing) So the people that pay me are in it for the money, I'm in it for the money, and Hillary's in it for the money. "The people that pay Rush Limbaugh want Hillary elected." This guy, maybe remembers Operation Chaos and he may be totally confused about what it was, but I doubt that. I just think this is your average, low-information idiot who thinks he knows everything. He doesn't listen here, and he doesn't know what goes on here.
But he reads what is said or broadcast about me, and he thinks that I don't believe what I say, and I'm just in it for the money, and I want Democrats elected so I'll have people to oppose and argue about and conflict, that I don't want my own guys to win -- which is just pure idiocy. It's lunacy. Anyway, so that was Andrew in Rochester. Here is Jennifer Lawless from American University Women and Politics Institute. She's the director. Here's her reaction...
LAWLESS: I think that Rush Limbaugh cannot get anybody elected president. But if we go down the path of assuming that Hillary Clinton is the nominee and then does get elected, she's in a position now where it would be far more lucrative for her not to run for office and not to be president of the United States. She and her husband can both command speaking salaries that far exceed what she would make as president. It's hard to find a candidate, though, with a better resume and more diverse experience than she has.
RUSH: Absolute lunacy all over C-SPAN today. Just total lunacy. I mean, here's this guy who calls and makes it all about money, and so this woman, "Okay, well, I'll deal with this guy on the basis of money, and then say, 'Well, there's no way Hillary could make anywhere near the kind of money being president that she could if she wasn't elected president! She couldn't get paid for speeches and so forth. But if she ran, there's nobody better. No better resume and more diverse experience.'"
How about competence, Jennifer? There isn't any. Benghazi, Hillarycare, the bimbo eruptions? Would somebody explain to me? I've told you, this business with Hillary is not about her competence. It is not about her qualifications. It's about what she is owed for making sure that Clinton survived. It's about paying her back for all of the excrement sandwiches she had to eat while married to that guy while they were in Arkansas and everywhere else during the bimbo eruptions.
During Clinton running around with Monica Lewinsky, she enabled him to stay in office. She enabled him to stay married. She took all of that, and it's her turn -- and it was her turn in 2008, until Obama came along, and then the party powers chose the young black guy over the... uh, over her. She's been a dutiful soldier since then. So now it's her turn, and they tell us she has a "diverse resume" and all of this. What about competence?
END TRANSCRIPT
I’m the king of the shlubs, so yeah, why not? Remember how short the time was that Fred Thompson was in the race?
That’s a decent come-back, but what we need to keep in mind, is that she loathes our Founders and their principles.
She thinks the Constitution is toilet paper for the Left.
She’s not a Capitalist, unless it can be proven that the practice thereof (at least in part) will contribute to the unraveling of our nation.
Her ilk thought that the Barney Frank Leftist forcing of our lending institutions (and the courts played right along with this) to give loans to people who couldn’t pay it back was a swell idea.
Then when the inevitable took place, she turned right around and blamed the entities she and her cronies forced to extend those loans. Then she called them greedy and advantage takers.
These folks are destroying our nation. Each are as bad as the other. I think we’re kidding ourselves by playing a game of degrees here.
Not to be too argumentative, because this is merely an academic discussion...
Thanks.
She’s working on it, as it says in that post. What have the people here done to help her?
That’s revisionist history, at best.
How do you figure?
romney would have probably rolled out HillaryCare/RomneyCare/ZeroCare efficiently.
There would have been no sudden destruction of RAT voter household finances, as we are seeing now.
Nuance of I was in the right place, but it must have been the wrong time...
Socialized medicine hopes and dreams will best collapse now, under zero.
Hate can make many forms. I actually had preferred Obama between the two, because I had underestimated how well prepared his allies were to make the most of their time. Also, after Bush the Younger, I want to break up this dynastic cycle. I also had no idea the Republicans were willing to sabotage themselves because they didn’t want to seem “mean”.
That said, I figured HRC was more likely to make her changes stick. The Obama people have countered with the sheer ubiquity of their deconstruction and their indifference to how they are seen by the public at large, except to the degree that it slows their agenda.
This time around, I think HRC is the old, tired face (literally and figuratively) and has more in common with Kerry and Mondale than with the ‘92 Clinton, ‘76 Carter or ‘’08 Obama, all of whom were new faces when they got the nomination, which helps passing the lie.
Of COURSE I remember all of that. The woman has a lot of pluck to stand up through all of it, and willing to show the ridiculous side of the MSM at the same time. Nothing I said implied I wouldn’t support her. I simply believe it would have been better if she could have decided earlier, so we could have all chosen a NOT-Romney.
I want her to decide well before Christie or Jeb can be credibly anointed.
Just curious, but do you think the reaction would be different this time around if she announces a run?
If she ever announces there will be several million contributors and volunteers who will materialize as if by magic. Someone is making her three books into best sellers. Have you seen how many blogs are dedicated to following her and her actions?
There may be a third major party by then.
Barak is so inept that little he does is likely to last. Hillary would have been more effective at making lasting change.
To be honest... newt and santorum were both 2nd tier candidates at best. Michelle never had a chance. Never forget that the gop/e stole the Iowa Caucus and then had to admit defeat a week later... too late... damage done... and then they conspired with republican sos in two states to keep newt and santorum off the ballot... and then mitt attacked newt in Florida in savage ways that he never ever attempted to use to attack obama... and the entire election was lost because romney sucked as bad as romney sucked... he was a republican ted kennedy running as Ronald Reagan... his own family knew it was all a lie and so did America... plus he threw the fight in the second debate... just laid down for the count.
See my response... it is the truth and the whole truth.
In other words, I'm not seeing where the conditions that are cited as the impediment to her running in 2012 will be any different come 2016. This being the case, I'm not going to expect a different outcome.
So since no one is threatening Governors Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, we should just fold and let one of them have the nomination?
Where?
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.