Posted on 11/07/2002 12:22:19 AM PST by JohnHuang2
In the wake of this week's Republican victories in Congress, Rush Limbaugh – one of America's most influential political voices – is proclaiming the Democratic Party to be in total chaos, and advises it to drop failed strategies if members wish to see political gains in the future.
"They're a party in total disarray, total collapse, total chaos," the conservative radio talk-show host said during post-election analysis. "I've been sensing this for the past couple months, and it came true."
His remarks came in the wake of a stunning break with U.S. political tradition, as a sitting president was able to gain, rather than lose congressional seats in the midterm election.
The GOP retained its majority in the House of Representatives, and surprised some observers by winning back control of the Senate from Democrats, who had controlled the chamber since Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP to become an Independent.
A Democrat voter phoning into Limbaugh's show called Tuesday's results "quite a kick in the pants," but was hopeful that some of the wins in governorships could help the party in 2004.
"We need to begin from scratch," said Ray in Pittsburgh. "We need to get rid of [party chairman Terry] McAuliffe. We need to get the name-calling gone and just start with clean campaigns and talk about ourselves and not the others."
While the Democrats did make some gains in governorships, Limbaugh said he was shocked when Democrat Roy Barnes – who had a stated interest in a future White House run – lost to the GOP's Sonny Perdue in the traditional Democratic stronghold of Georgia.
"I was [like] Linda Blair in 'The Exorcist,'" said Limbaugh, "I was doing 360s there, and it didn't even hurt."
A Republican voter called Limbaugh to suggest Democrats would not understand the message Americans were sending.
"They still don't get it," said Phil from New Jersey. "They don't understand that last night was all about character and trust. And they're gonna misinterpret our victory as meaning that they didn't differentiate themselves enough from us. I think this is gonna move them farther to the left."
Limbaugh also had face time on television during Election Night, explaining to Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert of NBC News why the Republicans were doing so well.
"The Democrats' success in the past has been to demonize the Republican figurehead who was the leader," he said. "They got away with that with Newt Gingrich, but they can't demonize George Bush – he has no character deficiencies. He's an honest man, the people love him, he seems to have a very decent way about him. And so all of these threats that the Democrats were promising people, nobody believed them this time around. ...
"I think in the Democratic cloakrooms behind closed doors, there's gonna be some serious discussion about who's gonna lead this party, 'Where we gonna go from this day forward?' because this does not bode well for them in 2004."
He continued the commentary during his radio show, delving into what he feels is the main driving force among current party leadership.
"Their reasons for winning were nothing more than vengeance. They wanted revenge for 2000. They are still obsessed with the notion that George W. Bush is illegitimate, that he is not a legitimate president even after this. They targeted his brother in Florida. They sent Bill Clinton, and did you notice, my friends, that everywhere Bill Clinton was sent, the Republicans triumphed in almost double-digit fashion? Everywhere except for Hawaii."
And while he suggested fresher faces to lead the party, he expects to see plenty of former President Clinton, since his wife Hillary is a senator from New York.
"Hillary is now his meal ticket," Limbaugh said. "[The Democrats] can't get rid of him. The single thing they need to do is get rid of him but they can't because she's there. ...
"Their playbook is old, there's nothing new in this playbook in years and years and years. It's because their whole 'strategery' is oriented toward fear and getting people to vote against Republicans, rather than voting for Democrats. And they're in quite a quandary because they don't know how to change this; and it's just part of the Clintonization of the party."
The commentator, whose radio show is the most-listened-to program in the nation, said it was a big mistake for Democrats to attack Bush even when he was going along with some of their agenda, specifically the education and farm bills.
"They still tried to portray him as the enemy of people – the enemy of old folks, the enemy of the sick, the enemy of the gays, the enemy of young, the enemy of everybody. These people are obsessed. ...
"Certain people in the leadership realm of this party anyway are just filled with hatred, and they're even moreso today, and that is going to continue to cause this downward spiral for them.
"I don't mind telling them this, I have been telling them what's wrong all year and they're not listening to me, and they're not gonna start listening to me now ... they're never gonna take advice from me."
He said the strong Republican showing came at an important time in history, with America on the verge of possible military action in the Persian Gulf.
"This message last night to Iraq, the U.N., the EU, France, Russia, the rest of the world, [is that] the American people stand behind their commander in chief. ...
"They can hand out peace prizes to Jimmy Carter all they want. They can slobber all over Bill Clinton when he comes calling. But the American people stand not with Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton but with George W. Bush, their commander in chief, and the world knows it now. This is power."
Limbaugh's analysis stands diametrically opposed to post-election comments from Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said "not much has changed" since the election of 2000.
''Folks, Democrats are in good shape, and we look forward to the upcoming cycle,'' McAuliffe said.
''Now we get ready for 2004. We need to make sure we're out there with our message as we head toward 2004, and the president now has to deliver. No more blame game. No more nonsense about a dysfunctional Senate. This is his sputtering economy – he must take responsibility for it.''
Meanwhile Limbaugh, who has long been critical of the mainstream media for what he says is an overt liberal bias, took a moment to poke fun at some of the TV newscasters who were analyzing the election results.
"[It was] fun to see the long faces at some of the networks," he said. "Some people got that shot of Botox just in time to cover the wrinkles and tears that were no doubt streaming down cheeks."
I think it is almost certain that Morris gets copies of the DNC sponsored polls. I have no doubt that those polls said that the way to win was to oppose Bush at every step. It was an interesting commentary. It seemed to say the Democrats did what they did based on polling data that was wrong.
How do they get polls that are so wrong. Every republcan poll I saw said "Work together and co-operate". Some of us keep saying... "As soon as they secure the base this will stop." But it never stopped.
Pre-election polls of this type are ususaly contracted and paid for by either national or state party organizations. The results are shared with all campaigns. Efforts are made to coordinate common themes everywhere. Republicans have been doing this to some extent since 1994. There are many individual polls that are studied by the state and national party. The object is to find common ground with the swing voters and to put those appeals in campaign spots.
What I drew from that brief Morris statement was that the pre-election Democrat polls were wrong. They had to be wrong a year ago. They were likely wrong a week before the election. That defies belief. Republican polls were saying just after 911 that swing voters would be looking for cooperation. The Bush people were telling Republican house and senate members to respond to nasty Democrat attacks with appeals to work together. The key phrase were "This is not about who is to blame. It is about getting things done." Bush and Lott said that a lot. Hastert just kept his mouth shut.
RNC staffers were joking that for the appeal to unity to work Republicans would have to hold classes for Democrat voters. The classes were on how to vote on touch pad ballots using an elbow. In order to vote for a Republican Democrats would have learn how to vote for a Republican while holding their nose with both hands. We think some of them did.
I think that Terry McAuliffe is in many respects the quentessential "Don't confuse me with facts. I know what works" kind of person. McAuliffe obviously felt that attacks and obstructionism would work. His speech yesterday proves he still thinks that way. Perhaps he was so certain of his own beliefs that he shopped for pollsters that would tell him what he wanted to hear. In any event Morris seemed to be saying the internal polls he saw were wrong. The question is were all the Democrat pollsters wrong or did they just shop for pollsters that told them what they wanted to hear.
There is one factor that may have put a crimp in Democrat hands as the days roll on. The exit polls for both parties showed that the number 2 issue was the economy. But voters were split 50-50. Half wanted Bush to fix the economy and half wanted the Democrats to fix the economy. In other words Bush has nearly all the issues on his side. His worst case on issues is a 50-50 split... That is not nice for Democrats.
The problem for Democrats is very much like the Republicans in 1964. Many Republicans then and Democrats now are in denial, denial and more denial. Back then many Repubicans felt it was not the Goldwater message that cost so many votes. They felt it was the death of JFK. Others felt the Goldwater pitch was a disaster and the party had to move more to the center.
Nixon spent 65, 66, and 67 trying to help centrist candidates get elected. LBJ spent 4 years getting evrything he wanted through the house and Senate. The Republicans in Congress in 1965/67 were so divided that LBJ played them like a violin.
The Republican main stream goal after 64 was to take the party control away from the Goldwater supporters. That was completed in 68 by Nixon. The Nixon excesses put the party machinery in the hands of Jerry Ford and the left side of the Republican party. Reagan bridged the gap by appealing to the right while governing toward the center. LBJ blew the oportunity of a century. I don't think Dubya will.
The Democrats are at a major turning point as were the Repubicans in 1964.. Will they go down the far left lane as with Pelosi? The Gerrymandering in the house has fixed it so most Democrats with safe seats are far to the left of the nation. The new Democrat house leader will be an extreme lelfist. At least 180 of the Democrat house members are way to the left.
The Republican house members are not nearly so far right as the house democrats are to the left. The house is in the hands of the Republican majority. There are not enough RINO's that will go with the left to cause Hastert any problems. The house will do what Bush wants.
The Senate is another matter for Democrats. The Democrats are deeply divided. There areleftists who will say, "Damn the polls full left rudder." There are centrist who will understand that to fail to cooperate in this time, will mean a worse disaster in 2004. And there will be a couple who will think... "Man I wish I could get out of this mad house". No matter what the Democratic Senate leader does, he will not be able to to hold a unified body on much of anything. I don't think fillibusters have a prayer of working.
The new repubicans are elected becuase Dubya selected and elected them. They will do what he says when he says to do it. Bush is an 800 lb Gorrilla. It has been 100 years since a president has done what Bush just did. Our best case was to be in a situation where Chaffee could rule the roost. Jeffords thought to change parties and be in the Majority for at least 6 years. he thought he was trading 2 years for 6. What he did was trade 6 years for 2.
No one thinks that Bush will fail to gain seats for the Republicans in 2004. In the on year it is normal for a president to pick up 8 or 10 seats. That means 60 votes for Bush and a fillibuster attemtp is worthless. A Republican getting out of line can be punished. McCain wants to be president. He is thinking 2008. His performance during the next 2 years at least will be to make Laura Bush lool disloyal to Bush by comparison to McCain. McCain will be the loyal serving right hand to Dubya. The media will be puzzled as to why.
Think about the next Democratic Senate caucus, There will be people screaming at Leahy... What the hell do you think you accomplished. You held up Bush's judges for a year or so... But every one of them will now be confirmed. What you accomplished was to put us in the minority. Our best case is 48.. Do you want to try for 36 in 2004? I am not going down with your death wish... count me out you blankety blanktey blank. Others will scream if whe had been Leahy times 10 we would have a landslide it your defeatism that cost us... YOu can go blankely blankeyt blank.
Some leftist will try to persuade them that what they need is a coherent policy for governing.. an alternative view. They will find they can't agree on much of anything. Their contract with Chicago will come down to take the senate and house back and defeat Bush. After that they will not have much to agree on not even who should lead them.
< I do think that many will blame the Democratic power structure for buying that attacks on Bush and divided government appeals would work. The post mortums will convince many that their own party leaders were lying to them about the appeals that would work.I think that says most of the Democratic party leadership will be replaced. There will be some blood letting selecting their leaders.
I think all the media talk is biased by their hope that Dubya is an LBJ. That Dubya will reach too far and try too much. They refer to Gingrich...but they mean LBJ. And they hope that dubya is as grasping a Texan as LBJ.
But what the smarter ones in the media understand is that Bush is not an LBJ. LBJ wanted and did change the world in 6 years. Last night there were Republicans saying the goal was not 8 years but 40 years. They were talking not about short term but long term. They were saying that Clinton was about now and Bill Clinton. They said Dubya was far less about today and far more about 40 years from now.
I think that is true. It is highly unlikely that Bush is trying to make huge changes. They don't work and they don't stick. The media if full of Dubya's problems. They have it all wrong. It is the democrats who are up the creek with out a paddle.
Everyone except a lot of people on FreeRepublic. There were plenty of people in the last week or so with the Saxby Chambliss momentum that was gaining predicting a pickup of 1 or 2 in the Senate.
Many liberal Democrats still view themselves romantically as Selma marchers, but the reality is they have been reduced to defining their core reality as one that defends sticking scissors in the brains of late-term unborn innocent children, that champions the "right" of men to marry men, that preaches that traditional marriage is vile slavery and that the state makes an adequate parent, and believes that the only unforgiveable crime is the crime of making moral judgments.
Liberal democrats are a joke, a slapstick parody of what they imagine themselves to be.
That's true, but they will face an even bigger problem if they elect Frost(ed). Bill Clinton didn't fool anybody with any sense calling himself a moderate or centrist. However, the media repeated the new democrat mantra so much that too many people took it as fact. The left was still able to look at Bill Clinton and get a wink from him, knowing that he would still look out for them. Frost(ed) on the other hand now thinks that any effort to oppose Bush on the war is a lost cause, and RATS need to focus strictly on domestic issues. This will send much of the hard left to the green party and cause as much or more infighting within the RAT party.
I disagree. They don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing. He fooled a lot of people whose only glimpse of politics is based on 5-second sound bites on the evening news. He had Hitlery play a cookie-baking mom. Bill Clinton was the ultimate political chameleon. I don't see anyone else in the Democratic Party (maybe with the exception of John Edwards), who could pull the deception off as cleverly as Clinton. Also, many people have wised up about the Clintons, so it will be even more difficult for Dems in the future to cloak their true liberal nature.
As much I like Rush .. the fresher faces in the Democratic Party will be no help for them ... They are just as evil as the Clinton's ... but those folks don't hide their hatred for this country and the fact they want to tax the crap out of us
The Clinton's may be laying low .. but they ain't going nowhere because they don't think they are doing anything wrong .. remember it's all about them
You just wait .. once the smoke clears a bit .. the Clinton's will be swing shots just as always
NEVER EVER let your guard down when a Clinton is around and that little advice goes to the fresher faces of the DNC .. remember Clinton owns you and knows all your dirty secrets
''Now we get ready for 2004."
Outstanding!!! As long as the DNC keeps McAulliffe and the Rapist Mentor around, 2004 will be even more fun for the GOP!!!
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.