• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Limbaugh Rallies Conservatives to Fight Democrats, Find 'Right Candidate'

LaMidRighter said:
I'd say Obama getting 52% of the vote,
Click to expand...
A respectable margin by historical Presidential elections.
McCain losing by running as a "centrist" with a heavy history of leaning left,
Click to expand...
And McCain was chosen by the GOP by a large majority based upon his platform. More Republicans voted for McCain in primaries despite his stance on the issues. Which is my point. All that talk of Hillary and Obama fracturing the Democratic party was just a distraction from where the real fracturing took place. As I said, the conservative influence in the Republican party is shrinking much to the benefit of the Democrats.
and Democrats winning because of Republican government increases and expenditures out of line with conservative values spoke volumes.
Click to expand...
Democrats won because of the awful mess GWB and the neo-cons made of this nation over eight years. The people were sick of it and they spoke very loudly. They were galvanized by eight years of misery and the arrival of a great orator in Obama. The GOP couldn't get on message and it showed. I think a large number of conservatives actually did go to the polls and voted for McCain simply out of party loyalty. They sure did down here where I'm at, we had a historically consistent conservative voter turn out for McCain. I believe the idea of conservative voters sitting out or voting third party is deliberately misleading. It's the conservatives doing damage control to cover for their loss of influence in their party. That's what I think because there is absolutely no proof that there was a conservative "protest" at the polls.

To the point, Limbaugh and Hannity were staunch apologists for Bush's lackluster performance. They were actually cheerleaders. What did the GOP do to Bush during the election? They abandoned him. Why? Because despite it all, they knew how much his administration had cost them and they knew any sign of allegiance to what had become the image of the Republican party under his leadership would cost them the election. But the whole time Limbaugh and Hannity (and others) were there supporting what he was doing. So you really think Limbaugh is the guy for the job?

What does it say about the state of the party when you have such division at the very core? The majority went more towards moderate, centrist McCain and left the further right conservatives on their own. What does this say about conservative influence in the GOP?

Well, you have four years to try and regain control of your party. We'll see.
 
Lerxst said:
A respectable margin by historical Presidential elections.
Click to expand...
Very true, it was a clear and honest win. My point is that with more Democrat voters showing up this election and the true conservatives of the Republican party abstaining from voting GOP in large blocks Barak Obama was the inevitable winner and the Republicans cost themselves a victory, by shunning conservatives.

And McCain was chosen by the GOP by a large majority based upon his platform. More Republicans voted for McCain in primaries despite his stance on the issues. Which is my point. All that talk of Hillary and Obama fracturing the Democratic party was just a distraction from where the real fracturing took place. As I said, the conservative influence in the Republican party is shrinking much to the benefit of the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Part of that was crossover votes from other partys in open primary states, the other part is that some in the Republican party have this idea that people have a turn at being candidate. Both of those hopefully will stop.

Democrats won because of the awful mess GWB and the neo-cons made of this nation over eight years.
Click to expand...
Part of the last decade were true screw ups, there were also many overstated issues that weren't so big in the long run. It's all about perception.
The GOP couldn't get on message and it showed.
Click to expand...
That is correct
I think a large number of conservatives actually did go to the polls and voted for McCain simply out of party loyalty.
Click to expand...
that is also correct
I believe the idea of conservative voters sitting out or voting third party is deliberately misleading.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, I would have voted Ron Paul or Bob Barr if I didn't think Obama was a potential problem, so it's hard to say.
Well, you have four years to try and regain control of your party. We'll see.
Click to expand...
I think some good things are happening, hopefully we'll get some traction and swing back to where we need to be, conservative, I think though that the party will either purge itself of the moderates or fold.
 
You know if the conservatives can put a good program together and get the right candidate to represent it, I'd welcome the opportunity to hear what they have to say.
 
Lerxst said:
Well, then why don't you show me where the Democrats are going to kill the American dream then. Start with some examples and logically lead me to the disaster that is sure to come.
Click to expand...

Disaster is your word, I'll just stick with my thought. I'm going to try to focus on what is right and good so that when I see bad coming over the horizon I will recognize it from afar.

From afar I can see that allowing, or encouraging the idea that taking the private property from one citizen and giving it to another citizen, in the interest of fairness, is wrong. It doesn't matter that in the opinion of some, citizen (A) may have gained his wealth unethically, it is his and, if it wasn't illegal, it should remain his...fairness be damned. Our constitution does not give the federal government power to right this type of social inequality.

Private property is sacred, it represents life itself in this way. When you take a portion of the limited time you have to live, and use it to earn,you should keep what you earn. To confiscate it for the purpose of 'spreading the wealth' is the same as taking part of your life.

Equality can exist only in the sense of providing one citizen the same treatment afforded to all citizens, like due process rights. When it comes to material wealth a disparity in the distribution of wealth is actually helpful in the maintenance/growth of the economy, as long as no government entity steps in to pick winners. It is in seeing the wealth of others that we begin to desire the same for ourselves. Here's the nut, some people will work to (A)have it, and others will work to (B)deny it to the other fellow. It's my assertion that the people we have elected are catering to the (B) group.

I don't know how long it would take for this to 'kill the American Dream' but it isn't in keeping with the spirit that made our country great.
 
Last edited:
Tagged N. said:
Disaster is your word, I'll just stick with my thought. I'm going to try to focus on what is right and good so that when I see bad coming over the horizon I will recognize it from afar.

From afar I can see that allowing, or encouraging the idea that taking the private property from one citizen and giving it to another citizen, in the interest of fairness, is wrong. It doesn't matter that in the opinion of some, citizen (A) may have gained his wealth unethically, it is his and, if it wasn't illegal, it should remain his...fairness be damned. Our constitution does not give the federal government power to right this type of social inequality.

Private property is sacred, it represents life itself in this way. When you take a portion of the limited time you have to live, and use it to earn,you should keep what you earn. To confiscate it for the purpose of 'spreading the wealth' is the same as taking part of your life.



Equality can exist only in the sense of providing one citizen the same treatment afforded to all citizens, like due process rights. When it comes to material wealth a disparity in the distribution of wealth is actually helpful in the maintenance/growth of the economy, as long as no government entity steps in to pick winners. It is in seeing the wealth of others that we begin to desire the same for ourselves. Here's the nut, some people will work to (A)have it, and others will work to (B)deny it to the other fellow. It's my assertion that the people we have elected are catering to the (B) group.

I don't know how long it would take for this to 'kill the American Dream' but it isn't in keeping with the spirit that made our country great.
Click to expand...

Sounds basically like "I got mine...get yours" in more words
 
Tagged N. said:
From afar I can see that allowing, or encouraging the idea that taking the private property from one citizen and giving it to another citizen, in the interest of fairness, is wrong. .
Click to expand...

The airwaves that Limbaugh broadcasts on are not private property any more than the oxygen you breath are.
 
Tagged N. said:
There was no discussion of airwaves. ?? And you can have my oxygen as soon as I'm done with it.
Click to expand...

There was discussion of Limbaugh as well as private property. Limbaugh makes his money off of PUBLIC PROPERTY.
 
Lerxst said:
A respectable margin by historical Presidential elections.
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'respectable margin.' Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (twice), George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton (once) all won by greater margins. And some of them by hugely greater margins. Obama's victory might be respectable. But it's certainly not pushing any records. In fact, at 7%, it's barely even 'average.' Maybe a little less than average.

brinkley4.png


And McCain was chosen by the GOP by a large majority based upon his platform. More Republicans voted for McCain in primaries despite his stance on the issues. Which is my point.
Click to expand...

That sounds like two different points. Was McCain chosen because of his platform or in spite of it?

Democrats won because of the awful mess GWB and the neo-cons made of this nation over eight years. The people were sick of it and they spoke very loudly. They were galvanized by eight years of misery and the arrival of a great orator in Obama. The GOP couldn't get on message and it showed.
Click to expand...

If the nation were truly in as awful a mess as you describe, then why didn't Obama, the great orator, win a landslide victory on the order of magnitude as shown in the chart above? McCain was, by all accounts, the most uncharismatic, unpersuasive, unconvincing, and unlikely candidate the GOP could muster. He ran, by most accounts, an incredibly disorganized and sloppy campaign. The country was in the middle of an unpopular war, and suddenly faced with a huge and unprecedented financial 'crisis.' Yet still, Obama's margin of victory was less than average. Again, refer to the chart. Where does 7% fall? Not impressive.

No sea change in ideology going on here folks. Lots of wishful thinking. Which is fine!

:2wave:
 
winston53660 said:
There was discussion of Limbaugh as well as private property. Limbaugh makes his money off of PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Click to expand...

Limbaugh broadcasting company pays fee's and follows the guidelines set down by the government to use those airways. To make a profit they charge for advertising. The profit is then taxed by the government.

So your point was an uneducated knee jerk reaction at best.
 
Grateful Heart said:
I suppose that depends on your definition of 'respectable margin.' Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (twice), George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton (once) all won by greater margins. And some of them by hugely greater margins. Obama's victory might be respectable. But it's certainly not pushing any records. In fact, at 7%, it's barely even 'average.' Maybe a little less than average.

brinkley4.png
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was pushing records though did I? I didn't mean to infer he won by a "landslide." I merely said it was respectable. And it is. Better than about half the Presidents in history, and within a point or two of most others. That's not bad. Read into what you want.

That sounds like two different points. Was McCain chosen because of his platform or in spite of it?
Click to expand...
It does seem a bit confusing looking back at how I worded it. Sorry about that. Let me rephrase. Frame this in the post election excuse making...despite the claims from the right that John McCain was a RINO, despite the claims from the right that John McCain was more centrist than he was right wing conservative, despite the claims that John McCain was somehow just not charismatic enough, despite the claims that John McCain was so "not right" that Obama should have won by a 10-15% margin...the GOP still picked him overwhelmingly as their man. So, I ask...what does this say about the GOP and conservative influence?

If the nation were truly in as awful a mess as you describe, then why didn't Obama, the great orator, win a landslide victory on the order of magnitude as shown in the chart above?
Click to expand...
He won by a greater margin than his predecessor did during a war when the nation should have been behind GWB. You're focusing on a non-issue here. So is the goal to avoid the issue of the condition of the GOP by debating the margin of victory that Obama had? Again, nobody is saying it was a landslide, but it was respectable (my opinion).

McCain was, by all accounts, the most uncharismatic, unpersuasive, unconvincing, and unlikely candidate the GOP could muster. He ran, by most accounts, an incredibly disorganized and sloppy campaign.
Click to expand...
Yet the GOP knew all of this about him and he was their knight in shining armor. Except when it became apparent you were going lose and lose handily.
The country was in the middle of an unpopular war, and suddenly faced with a huge and unprecedented financial 'crisis.'
Click to expand...
A situation greatly accelerated by the Bush administrations response to 9/11 and it's borrow and spend methodology.
Yet still, Obama's margin of victory was less than average. Again, refer to the chart. Where does 7% fall? Not impressive.
Click to expand...
Okay, you've made your point, Obama didn't win by a landslide. You've become somewhat preoccupied however. 7% doesn't impress you, fine. Accepted. So now that we have that cleared up, let's talk about the GOP. I understand why McCain lost, what I want to know is why the Republicans got behind him. In what amounted to a three way race for the candidacy he took nearly half the popular votes and over 70% of the delegates. My point here is that there is a very profound shift taking place in the Republican party towards a more moderate stance. It's the conservatives like Limbaugh who are in a bind here. The majority of your party went in the opposite direction in this last election. We see a distinction now in the GOP. A very moderate guy like McCain beat the crap out of two conservatives within the Grand Ole Party. How does that happen exactly if not for a noticeable change in posture by American Republicans?

No sea change in ideology going on here folks. Lots of wishful thinking. Which is fine!

:2wave:
Click to expand...
There certainly is a change taking place. But it's for the Republican party to work out. Until it decides what it's new identity is, moderate or conservative, the Democrats will hold sway.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
He was?


You sure about that? How often do you listen?
Click to expand...

Yes, he was a Bush supporter. This is a commonly known truth. How could you even suggest it's not the case? And it goes both ways. Bush 41, W, and Jeb are all huge Rush fans.
 
Lerxst said:
Yes, he was a Bush supporter. This is a commonly known truth. How could you even suggest it's not the case? And it goes both ways. Bush 41, W, and Jeb are all huge Rush fans.
Click to expand...



different argument...


will said "Rush was a huge fan of Bush for all that time"


He critisized Bush on numerous issues and highly critical at the end over the bailout therefore "all that time" is highly innaccurate.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
different argument...


will said "Rush was a huge fan of Bush for all that time"


He critisized Bush on numerous issues and highly critical at the end over the bailout therefore "all that time" is highly innaccurate.
Click to expand...

I would like to see where Rush has criticized Bush, especially numerous times. It's one thing to criticize Republican members of Congress, but we're specifically talking about W here. I want to see where he was highly critical of Bush over the bailout. I see where he is critical of the bailouts, but I find little of anything where he goes after George W directly. I have found a lot of support for Bush by Limbaugh. I've looked around a bit already. Show me what I can't find. I would be very careful saying Rush is "highly critical" of Bush, or even implying that.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
I would like to see where Rush has criticized Bush, especially numerous times. It's one thing to criticize Republican members of Congress, but we're specifically talking about W here. I want to see where he was highly critical of Bush over the bailout. I see where he is critical of the bailouts, but I find little of anything where he goes after George W directly. I have found a lot of support for Bush by Limbaugh. I've looked around a bit already. Show me what I can't find. I would be very careful saying Rush is "highly critical" of Bush, or even implying that.
Click to expand...




"Politically, Limbaugh remained loyal for much of President Bush's tenure, but after the GOP lost both houses of Congress in 2006, he declared himself "liberated," saying the Republicans had "let us down" and that "I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.""

Limbaugh on McCain: It's Better to Be Right All the Time



"Conservative talk radio, which is widely credited with helping destroy support for the immigration reform bill supported by the president last year"

FOXNews.com - Bush Administration Credibility Suffers After Iran NIE Report - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum




"RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Screw the market. OK, I'll take that. Not screw the market, but let me tell you something, when the government fails to pass a socialism bill and the market goes south, let it go south."

CNN.com - Transcripts



That didn't take much effort. But see I knew he was critical of Bush on numerous things. I find most critisizm of him based on hearsay and third party information.
 
Lerxst said:
I would like to see where Rush has criticized Bush, especially numerous times. It's one thing to criticize Republican members of Congress, but we're specifically talking about W here. I want to see where he was highly critical of Bush over the bailout. I see where he is critical of the bailouts, but I find little of anything where he goes after George W directly. I have found a lot of support for Bush by Limbaugh. I've looked around a bit already. Show me what I can't find. I would be very careful saying Rush is "highly critical" of Bush, or even implying that.
Click to expand...
Then go look it up. Go to Rush's website yourself.
 
Lerxst said:
Yet the GOP knew all of this about him and he was their knight in shining armor. Except when it became apparent you were going lose and lose handily.
Click to expand...
I don't know how this last class of nominees got through to be perfectly honest, most of them were left of Bush on the political scale and shouldn't have had a chance of winning the nomination. I think conservatives within the Republican party including Rush and those of us like myself warned fellow Republicans to vote for someone more conservative to be on the ticket because of the potential of McCain getting abused, all a decent candidate had to do was use his voting record, and Obama was a superb candidate(though his politics make me sick) who had a machine for a campaign. Also, there was the crossover vote in open primaries which did not help us, that one is disgusting, the Republicans who primaried McCain in because it "was his turn" scare the living **** out of me.


7% doesn't impress you, fine. Accepted. So now that we have that cleared up, let's talk about the GOP. I understand why McCain lost, what I want to know is why the Republicans got behind him. In what amounted to a three way race for the candidacy he took nearly half the popular votes and over 70% of the delegates. My point here is that there is a very profound shift taking place in the Republican party towards a more moderate stance. It's the conservatives like Limbaugh who are in a bind here. The majority of your party went in the opposite direction in this last election. We see a distinction now in the GOP. A very moderate guy like McCain beat the crap out of two conservatives within the Grand Ole Party. How does that happen exactly if not for a noticeable change in posture by American Republicans?
Click to expand...
7% to Obama should be a wakeup call to the GOP, in America he should have had little chance of beating a more conservative candidate, however, McCain wasn't close enough to conservative to please us in the base, which meant we would have had to compromise our values again and reward the party for more of the S.O.S. many conservatives were not willing to compromise this time although I wanted to wait out Obama because of the potential to appoint a couple of SCOTUS justices and an extremely friendly house. The part I bolded, Limbaugh and the rest of us as conservatives aren't the one's in a bind here, think about it this way, only a handful of the RINO Republicans survived the last election, that's not just a party purge, that's an enema of grand scale, the party is in a bind, not conservatives since we got the point across quickly and loudly and the conservative Republicans overall took their districts handily and are not in immediate danger.

There certainly is a change taking place. But it's for the Republican party to work out. Until it decides what it's new identity is, moderate or conservative, the Democrats will hold sway.
Click to expand...
I cannot argue this point, you are correct in the assessment. However going moderate would be a mistake if the values we fight hardest for are the one's we compromise, McCain is a noble guy, the problem is our deepest core values were some of the issues he seemed to be on the wrong side of.
 
The GOP was between a rock and a hard place. They chose the most electable, not the most qualified, in 2000. I remember when people were speculating whether Bush would be the next Reagan. I think they compromise their principles by doing whatever it takes to gain power. They knew their brand was damaged. That's why people supported McCain. He was perceived electable due to the perception of him being a moderate. I'm not sure you can be a 100% ideologue and get elected though. Buchanon and Kucinich just don't stand a chance. Both parties go through this.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
"Politically, Limbaugh remained loyal for much of President Bush's tenure, but after the GOP lost both houses of Congress in 2006, he declared himself "liberated," saying the Republicans had "let us down" and that "I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.""

Limbaugh on McCain: It's Better to Be Right All the Time



"Conservative talk radio, which is widely credited with helping destroy support for the immigration reform bill supported by the president last year"

FOXNews.com - Bush Administration Credibility Suffers After Iran NIE Report - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum




"RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Screw the market. OK, I'll take that. Not screw the market, but let me tell you something, when the government fails to pass a socialism bill and the market goes south, let it go south."

CNN.com - Transcripts



That didn't take much effort. But see I knew he was critical of Bush on numerous things. I find most critisizm of him based on hearsay and third party information.
Click to expand...

Well it didn't take much effort because it didn't validate your point or address my request. Can you show me in any of these points where he is directly critical of George W. Bush? That's what you said, I specifically asked you to show me where Rush was directly critical of Bush. In fact I wanna see where he is "highly critical" of Bush.

You set this up trying to debunk the claim that Rush supported Bush throughout his Presidency. You said he was "highly critical." You've not proven your point. You've supplied a few articles speaking of Limbaugh criticizing the Republican party, criticizing the immigration bill the President supported, and criticizing the bailout. In those articles he never went after Bush directly, he criticized the party, the government, and the legislation. That is not being directly critical of Bush. I was pretty specific in my request.
Lerxst said:
but I find little of anything where he goes after George W directly.
---------------------------------------
Show me what I can't find.
Click to expand...
Now, I ask you again. Show me where, in your words... "He critisized Bush on numerous issues and highly critical at the end over the bailout. "

The argument was Rush supported Bush throughout his Presidency, your counter was that he was critical of Bush on numerous issues and highly critical at the end. You're trying to defeat an argument here, not play Mr. Technicality. Unless you consider Rush "the government" or "Republicans" to be directly going after Bush. Is that your position? Please clarify because the articles you cited in your response really seem to make it so.

If that is the case we can stop this debate between you and I here.
 
American said:
Then you didn't look hard enough.
Click to expand...

I think the majority here at DP will be on my side in this issue. This is akin to saying "the Holocaust didn't happen." Rush was a huge supporter of Bush during his Presidency. Everyone knows this. The counter was "he criticized Bush on numerous issues and was highly critical at the end."

Bull. Prove it.

ON EDIT: Please be sincere in the information you post, if you post anything at all. The last minute "ostracize Bush so we can remove his taint from the party during the election" crap will be highly suspect as opportunistic.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst,


I will concede it is hard to find given the idiocy of the blogs of his detractors. I listen when I am in the truck at that time between clients.... I have personally heard him rail against Bush on immigration, and the economy among other issues.


I bet we could find transcripts on his pay site, but I don't do pay sites and my guess is you woulnd't do rush's even if you did. ;)


i will look some more later, but the sea of crap attacking him is rather large.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom