Lib Convert Caller to Rush Limbaugh Show Sheds Light (Bush vs Clinton)

Rush Limbaugh Radio Program | self

[thedugal]

A caller to the Rush Limbaugh show who described himself as a lifetime partisan democrat has been turned from the darkside. During the course of the call, Rush grilled the guy, asking what made him change his mind. The caller first pointed out that Al Gore was committing fraud in Florida. Rush pushed him as to why this matters, he said the law. Rush then kept pressing him on Clinton. After all, if this guy is concerned about the law, certainly Clinton should have bothered him more than Gore.

At that point, the guy got very defensive. It was as if he was right back on the darkside as a useful idiot. He said he thought it was just politics. He thought the republicans were trying to shut down government. He thought the charges against Clinton were purely political. This shift from fresh new republican to die hard liberal democrat was instantaneous at the mention of Clinton's name. He made a few more excuses and basically evaded Rush's onslaught of questions until the conversation shifted.

At some point in the conversation, (Rush was really shooting questions at this guy so it shifted to and fro), the guy blurts out 911. Bush showed strong leadership after 911, to paraphrase, I believe the guy said "He became a president" (whatever the heck that means). At this point, it hit me like a baseball between the eyes. Proper analysis of this caller can get the republicans a few extra percentage points and start to take back our country.

Here's a few points:

• This caller was still acting like a liberal even if his philosophy had shifted to the right. He did not use logic or reason in his defense of his position. He did not base his politics on a set of core principals. It was basically a feeling. He FEELS that Bush is a strong leader and that has warmed him over.

• Attacking Clinton caused an immediate reaction and near instantaneous reversion to liberal mode.

• Bush's leadership and personality has a positive effect even on the opposition.

• The democrat's reaction to 911 has harmed them while the Bush's reaction has helped us tremendously.

OK, now a lot of this stuff may seem obvious, but there are never ending posts shouting about Clinton. Also conservatives rely too much on facts and logic. They don't work on democrats nearly as well as feelings. So, rather than saying "If Bill Clinton had accepted Sudan's offer to turn over OBL, 911 probably never would have happened." One might say something along the lines of, "Don't you feel that Bush's actions since 911 have made the country more safe."

[Warren]

Need to insure Jim Jeffords is out of a job as soon as possible. This crap is all his fault.

[BigBobber]

Very good analysis.

Now a question. Was Reagan successful in appealing to the masses because he addressed their rational side, or their emotional side?

[thedugal]

Reporters are calling Daschle's office asking if he signed the NION (Not In Our Name) anti-war=America-hater's petition. Daschle's office is aparantly NOT responding at all. Total silence. This most likely means that he signed it but now is buying time while they destroy the evidence. I am not sure if this is the same group, but here's a link to some dirtbags: triple dubya :) dot nionbayarea dot net

Sorry, you'll have to type it in yourself, I am not going to contaminate my own thread :)

[1Old Pro]

Liberals tend to be swayed by catch phrases more than logic. "it's all about sex/politics", "blood for oil", "choice". If you try to make them think about the logic behind the slogans, they fall apart. They can't really explain them. Liberals are not very smart people.

Yup, good summary.

[McGruff]

Leave me alone

I'm having a bad day.

[SW6906]

Just this morning I was trying to make a point with one of the local liberals about how the RATs are playing politics by being against Bush on Iraq when they supported Clinton's nearly-identical position on Iraq a scant four years ago. Meanwhile the Republicans have been on the same side of the issue no matter who is President. The mere mention of Clinton and they descended right into talk about how the Republicans endangered the country by going after Clinton in a power grab, etc, etc, etc. He wouldn't let me make my point and join me in condemning the RATs for being hypocritical and changing their position based on who is in the White House.

We agreed to disagree: he blames the Republicans for going after Clinton, I blame Clinton for giving them the opening (again and again and again).

[TXBubba]

I like this approach. I think there are a LOT of registered Democrats out there that are Patriots. They have been so out of the loop in keeping up with politics that they are just waking up to the fact that their party has been taken over by the extreme left. Hannity had an author on his radio show the other day that was saying the NY firefighter shown with Bush after 9/11 was a Democrat who is now fully in Bush's camp as is the Principal at a downtown Manhatten high school. I remember back during the election some of my parents democrat friends saying to them that they just couldn't believe Algore's actions. They were embarrassed and NOT happy. I think there are a lot of grass root democrats in that boat - especially with the latest war resolution mess.

[South40]

Republicans good.

Democrats bad...real bad!

[narby]

The best approach is feelings AND logic.

Everyone wants to believe they're logical. So even when being snookered by a good salesman like Clinton, they'll use some kind of false logic to justify their position.

Reagan appealed to feelings AND logic, and look how far it got him.

This is what turned me on to Bush so much. He has that same gift, to work both sides of the fence. For all he lacks in presence (except when he tries hard) he makes up by being in the right stratigic political position. He's always thinking way out in front of himself. We can learn a lot from him.

One good pitch to dems is to find a way to make them FEEL they've made the proper LOGICAL conclusion. That's a hard nut for someone like me to crack, since I don't hardly feel a da@n thing.

[dmanLA]

Great post.

Does anyone remember Reagan's ads when he was running for president? It didn't mention a single issue. All it had was Ronald and Nancy walking around with an American flag waving in the background.

Dems were laughing at those ads. They weren't laughing after the election. Patriotism is an emotional reaction. Reagan understood that emotions were needed to pull people his way.

Why do you think the Democrats are so upset when they think someone is implying they are unpatriotic?

Republicans should use the patriotism emotion. Democrats would never use it because they hate the flag and the foundation of this country. Democrats favorite emotion is FEAR.

[VaBthang4]

I think this is why GW refuses to touch anything relating to the Clinton Administration. He doesnt comment on it....he doesnt sent his JD after it. He avoids the Clinton's and anything associated with them.

Many have whined about that...I never have. It is a good move.

You hit it....Libs move on feelings.

This guy isnt so much a convert as much as he doesnt "feel" well supporting Gore or any of the current crop of Lib ahem leaders.

regular dimwit Liberals [not the diehards] cater to strength regardless of the source. Even in the media you see this...the media dislikes Conservatives, but right now GW is the man with the percieved strength...so begrudgingly they gravitate to him.

I dont think Conservatives lean on logic and facts too much as much as they dont properly orientate themselves to what drives Liberals...."feeling".

Once Conservatives work out the chinks in their OODA loop...they will be unstoppable.

[VaBthang4]

"Clinton is a Master at emotional manipulation. To those who are susceptible to that, they will always think he is great. To those who are motivated by rational thought, logic, law and precident - they see through him. But those are a minority of the population."

...Nail on the head.

[VaBthang4]

In total agreement bump.

[VaBthang4]

"Sounds like a typical seminar caller. There's no conversion there, just a dem trying to pretend that dems are concerned about national security. Dems are frying in hot grease over Iraq, and this is an attempt to make dems sound rational.

Too late."

Haha....I like you.

[dark_lord]

Was Reagan successful in appealing to the masses because he addressed their rational side, or their emotional side?

I would say clearly their emotional side. That is what actors do, that is their job, and he was good at it. And he was a great president, absolutely the right man to face down the USSR because the good versus evil dynamic was best presented at the emotional level. His humor was great as well.

[Hostage]

I disagree with the premise. Less than half of the voters voted for Clinton each term. And each of Clinton's election terms there were less than half of registered voters voting. Thus, less than a quarter of registered voters voted for Clinton. Any perception that the general population was in love with Clinton is a fabrication by the media.

Beware.

Liberals are donning wartime costumes and yelping war chants because they know they must be in the mainstream or risk losing supporters.

Yesterday in Seattle on KVI radio a liberal was interviewed by John Carlson. This liberal was saying the samething. We must fight the war on terrorism, any criticism of Clinton is all politics, yada yada yada.

It's their new tact.

Remember, people loved Ronald Reagan on both sides of the aisle. He was kind, compassionate, in tune with people's "feelings" but he was overflowing with honor, humility and integrity. There are seemingly countless anecdotes of his responding personally (even on the telephone!) to people's letters and seeing to it that their needs were looked after, whether it was a senior citizen having trouble with social security or a vet having trouble with a VA hospital.

Those are the character traits that must be emphasized universally, forever.

[section9]

Very true, but even though Clinton never really got more than 43% of the vote in either of his runs, he found a way to make those who did vote for him buy into his success psychologically.

That's why Bush doesn't attack the Toon.

You'll notice that the Toon and his people have baited Bush from time to time? Toon understands his psychological hold on the base of the Democratic Party, and the affection that many mainstream Dems still hold for the man.

Bush hasn't jumped into the briar patch.

Poor Toon.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

"Feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings..."

From a column by Cal Thomas last week, regarding Liberal Dem leaders sucking up to Baghdad Babs no matter what stupid thing she says, because they depend on the millions she raises for them in Hollywood ---

"People who need people like Barbra Streisand are the unluckiest people in the world".

[tubebender]

I heard this today and I think the guy was serious as far as what he said about the "Rats ploy in the last couple of years but this type carry a lot of hidden guilt for Clinton and can't admit it.

When Rush does his impersonation of Bubba I reach for the Depends...

[=Intervention=]

We don't need to make the emotion/logic dichotomy, because it's a false one. Did Thomas Paine use logic or emotion? How about Washington? C'mon y'all...the whole point is to fuse both into an unstoppable argument. Sadly, one of the primary failures of conservativism is that feelings must not be shown, because to do so is somehow effeminate or improper, or whatever...I've never understood it. If you can't get excited about liberty, truth, justice, and honor, are you even alive in the first place?