• 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'

Grateful Heart said:
I never thought Huckabee was viable, no. But I suspect he'd have run a tougher general election campaign than McCain. I have no doubt about that.



I wish I could explain it. I like Guiliani. But that Florida gamble was an utter disaster.

:shock:
Click to expand...

So you're saying McCain wasn't the lesser of all the evils presented?
 
TheNextEra said:
It's interesting because Gottahurt, a conservative on this board, has said that McCain was the lesser of all the evils presented for Republicans.

What say you to that?
Click to expand...

I found flaws with all of the GOP contenders. McCain, IMHO, was one of the most flawed. I was outspoken about him before the primaries. I did not vote for him in my primary, even though the outcome was already determined. I did not vote for him in the general election. I wrote in a candidate of my choice.

That's how strongly I dislike John McCain.

Many of my family and friends tried to use the 'lesser of two evils' argument in the general. I never heard that during the primaries. In the primaries most were bickering between Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, Guiliani, or Ron Paul. McCain snuck in under the radar.

:shock:
 
Grateful Heart said:
It's very easy. The GOP votes were split and fragmented throughout. Romney and Huckabee effectively split the conservative vote. Which allowed McCain to win a number of major primaries by considerably less than a majority.

Consider the results from Florida, for instance:

McCain 36%
Romney 31%
Guiliani 15%
Huckabee 13%

If you recall, Guiliani had placed all his marbles on FL and dropped out soon after. But the conservative vote continued to be split. In the Super Tuesday GOP primaries just after Florida:

Romney won Maine soundly. McCain only pulled 21%.
Romney won Utah. McCain only pulled 5%.
Huckabee won Tennessee. McCain pulled 32%.
McCain pulled out a victory in Oklahoma with 37%. Together, Romney and Huckabee garnered 58% of the vote.
McCain won

You can follow this trend state after state after state. McCain picking up enough delegates to become unbeatable as the conservative votes were split among Huckabee and Romney.

Once Romney pulled out of the race, Huckabee was the only conservative remaining to challenge McCain. He was a virtual unknown. Not much respected in the MSM. And yet he pulled 41% to McCain's 50% in VA. By that time, it was over.

So that's the answer to your question. McCain won by default. He was never the overwhelming choice among GOP voters. In fact he won less than half of all GOP primary votes. Hardly overwhelming. The facts and the numbers speak for themselves.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Approximation of the popular vote: McCain 47%, Romney 21%, Huckabee 20%, all others combined 11%. By popular vote, that's how it washed out. That's the breakdown of Republican voters. Citation of individual states is fine, you can examine the trends and deduce what you'd like. My point is this...a large majority (relatively speaking considering the candidates) picked McCain. By raw numbers, 47% of voting Republicans in the primary picked McCain over almost a half dozen others. In a five or six way race getting nearly 50% is a big deal. It's a big deal in a three way race. Relatively speaking.

The fact that the Republican party couldn't decide their identity is the point I've been after here. Actually more to the point, I find the fact that the conservative base lost so much influence...there is simply no other way to look at it, extremely interesting. Well you could subscribe to the theory they lost part and gave away part. Regardless, this shift towards a moderate posture by a large number of the GOP is telling.

So how do you think the GOP viewed the conservative base during their alleged "sit out" in 2004-2006 House/Senate elections? Do you think it weakened the conservative influence? Do you think they actually sat out at all?
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Approximation of the popular vote: McCain 47%, Romney 21%, Huckabee 20%, all others combined 11%. By popular vote, that's how it washed out.
Click to expand...

What you continue to disregard when tossing out that 47% is that much of that 47% was gained AFTER the conservative candidates had all dropped out of the race. By March McCain was regularly getting 75-85% of the votes because there was no one left campaigning against him. And even running virtually unopposed in almost 19 states... he still ended up with something less than a majority of GOP primary voters.

But what the heck. If you insist, he was the 'overwhelming choice' of the GOP.

:2wave:
 
Grateful Heart said:
See my post above.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

I've seen it and agree.

Republicans could have done much better, much like how I felt when Dems put Kerry up.

The sad part, Obama wasn't my first choice either.

I don't agree with his stimulus package either. Whether it works or not will be his greatest victory or greatest defeat.

I think it will be the last IMO.

While I think it is better to do irresponsible spending for Home use rather than Foreign use(like Bush did) it is still irresponsible spending IMO.

IMO I would like to vote for a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Liberal.
 
new coup for you said:
Well this begs the question, if he wasn't then who was? Romney?

Ron Paul :lol:?
Click to expand...

Some people would say none of the above.

I will say this, due to the public scrutiny some have to go over, I truly believe those that could really help America (Dem, Republican, independent) alike can't go through it.

There are really some SMART Americans, that have skeletons in their closets (be it themselves or family) that they want to prevent from being public.

So that REALLY REALLY sad part is that those that are best to run America won't because of the election smear machine.

The "Smear Machine' should upset all those (Rep,Dem, Independant) alike.
 
MrVicchio said:
Going after Rush just ensured his continued Sucess. I'm glad Obama did, it was a sign of failed judgement on his part.
Click to expand...

Very true.

He needs to learn to just ignore conservatives who are irrelevant, which happens to be all of them.
 
TheNextEra said:
Some people would say none of the above.

I will say this, due to the public scrutiny some have to go over, I truly believe those that could really help America (Dem, Republican, independent) alike can't go through it.

There are really some SMART Americans, that have skeletons in their closets (be it themselves or family) that they want to prevent from being public.

So that REALLY REALLY sad part is that those that are best to run America won't because of the election smear machine.

The "Smear Machine' should upset all those (Rep,Dem, Independant) alike.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there's a wealth of qualified individuals that can't run because they're gay or hit someone while driving drunk.

I think the Republicans had no clear ideology (all of their former points being quite clearly repudiated in the Bush debacle) and were essentially reduced to little but reactionary mouth pieces- which wasn't helped by Palin, who literally is nothing but a reactionary mouth piece. You're not going to win by calling some people "real Americans", with the obvious implication that the other half of the country is "fake Americans".
 
new coup for you said:
You're not going to win by calling some people "real Americans", with the obvious implication that the other half of the country is "fake Americans".
Click to expand...

That's true, but have a gay relative in your closet, an affair on your record, a drug or alcohol offense, a misdemeanor, a felony, and good luck running for president, even though you may be better than any president in History.

The sad part is the presidency is a pageant show of morality and smoke and mirrors.

It isn't about the best person for the job, it is about the person who has avoided (due to family influences) any spec of dirt in morality.

In truth the best person to run the country is the common man with intelligence and education.

The problem is the common man with intelligence and education has had one or of the following (affair, drug or alcohol offense, divorce, abortion, something considered immoral by the religious right).
 
TheNextEra said:
That's true, but have a gay relative in your closet, an affair on your record, a drug or alcohol offense, a misdemeanor, a felony, and good luck running for president, even though you may be better than any president in History.
.
Click to expand...
These are considered negatives in America?

No wonder your system is screwed up. Sexual deviancy is a requirement for any aspiring Tory PM.
 
Last edited:
I think you're overstating the direness of the situation. Bush did cocaine and had DUIs, Clinton smoked pot and has more shiftless rednecks in his family then entire Appalachian towns and Obama's mom is an atheist and dad's a Muslim.
 
Wessexman said:
These are considered negatives in America?

No wonder your system is screwed up. Sexual deviancy is a requirement for any aspiring Tory PM.
Click to expand...

Yes, these are considered negatives, hence why the witch Hunt when Clinton cheated on his wife.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, these are considered negatives, hence why the witch Hunt when Clinton cheated on his wife.
Click to expand...

That was because he was a popular Democrat, not because of any actual outrage.

Gingrich was having an affair himself while the impeachment hearings were going on.

Falwell himself publicly "forgave" Newt for his "indiscretion".
 
Wessexman said:
You mean that wasn't because it was only oral sex?
Click to expand...

If it was a single President having oral sex with somebody, it wouldn't have been news, and it wouldn't have been anything the Republicans investigated.
 
I think what we need is the representative of the common person, the person who has had either one, some or all of the following (Affair, drug usage, felony, misdemeanor, slapped his best friend for cheating on his girlfriend, robbery, cheating, sleeping with his mother's best friend, sleeping with his 2nd cousin, stealing a candy from the store, buying porn, going to s strip club, (male or female), giving oral sex to their partner, having underage sex, having unprotected sex, taking more than one newspaper when they put the money in the newspaper machine at least once, not bringing to attention the fact the cashier didn't ring up an item, not bringing to attention the waitress didn't add in that Pepsi to your total, and last but not least, but when your credit card holder says you don't have to pay that late charge because you said you didn't get the bill).

We need people who do not have money to erase their wrong doings from records.
We need a president who is really of the people by the people.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
If it was a single President having oral sex with somebody, it wouldn't have been news, and it wouldn't have been anything the Republicans investigated.
Click to expand...
I thinkm the important question is why of all the women in the world it was Monica Lewinsky.
 
Wessexman said:
I thinkm the important question is why of all the women in the world it was Monica Lewinsky.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying she's ugly, but if you are gonna take that kind of chance why not JFK it and grab a Marilyn Monroe type? The defense would be easy..."hey, look at her, who wouldn't bang her?"
 
GottaHurt said:
I assumed nothing. If you'd actually try to follow along on this forum, you would have seen the Republican party before the election, were not happy with ANY of the choices being presented.

McCain pretty much won the primary because he was the lesser of the evils, NOT because Republicans were rejoicing in his nomination.

Try to stay focused. The thread is about Limbaugh supposedly "rallying", not about McCain.
Click to expand...

IMO, McCain only got the nomination because he was the most moderate Republican and the press gave him more credit than he was due. He should have been blown out by Romney with a fair unbiased press. Of course, we found out how biased the press really was after they decided to do a hatchet job on Hillary Clinton and then began working on the Republican nominee. McCain, while IMO a much better man to lead this nation as compared to Obama, would never have been the leading candidate without a lot of help from the other side. I still think that Romney could have beaten Obama because he would not have been afraid to bring up the controversial points about Obama that McCain tip-toed around. These controversial points are starting to show their relevance as Obama continues to screw up at every turn.
 
Lerxst said:
I'll accept your surrender, as usual. This is what you do when it gets too tough. Take your ball, go home. I suppose facts are too much to ask for in this case.
Click to expand...




right. I posted around 10 links proving my point, and all you did was stick your fingers in your ears and scream "nu uh" over and over again.


What facts did you provide? what links did you use to back your position up?


FAIL
 
TheNextEra said:
Now go run away like you normally do pretending nothing happened
Click to expand...

No, that would be your MO.

It is tempting to walk away on this one though, watching you hopelessly chase your tail is painful.

TheNextEra said:
It's funny though because REPUBLICANS PICKED THEM.
Click to expand...

No, Republicans didn't pick them, they declared themselves as candidates for President on the Republican platform.

TheNextEra said:
If you REPUBLICANS didn't want them, why did you pick them to even run for the primaries?
Click to expand...

Lesser of the evils. Reading comprehension alludes you.

TheNextEra said:
If Republicans picked McCain as the lesser of the evils presented in the primaries, why did REPUBLICANS pick those choices in the first place?
Click to expand...

You take the word dense to a whole new level.

TheNextEra said:
According to you Republicans elect those closest to their political ideals, so McCain was the choice of those ideals ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC because those choices are the ones the Republicans PICKED to run in the primaries.
Click to expand...

Easy there Spock. Your logic is Epic Fail.

TheNextEra said:
At this point Gotta, the honorable thing is just to admit Republicans don't elect those with their ideals since the whole Primary listing you guys were presented with were chosen by REPUBLICANS
Click to expand...

No, the honorable thing to do is what I've already done, treat you with kid gloves, as you fell into both categories: clueless, and, you'll never get it.
 
Lerxst said:
:rofl
Click to expand...

Typical Lerxst answer. You can't refute the facts, so you feign laughter.

You feign a lot of things...lmao..

Lerxst said:
:No, I'm quite right. The REPUBLICANS picked John McCain, they rallied around him, and they showed up in traditional numbers at the polls to vote. This is documented statistically. The angry conservative base may not have went to the polls or voted third party, but their absence wasn't missed statistically speaking. Your assumptions about what millions of other people thought and did or didn't do is noted however.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.The bold text highlights just how stupid your statement is.

McCain lost, because the angry base didn't show up or voted third party.

Lerxst said:
:Right, so you're proposing that the angry Republicans ousted their own party and gave the House and the Senate away? Well, I'm not sure what's more absurd...the notion that's how it happened or the Republican strategy your touting. Whatever it is, please...stick with it.
Click to expand...

No, no conspiracy there 'ol brilliant one. People stayed home. I've already outlined this several times. You too have fallen into both categories: clueless, and, you'll never get it.

Lerxst said:
:You're right, I'll never get what it is your preaching because it's not realistic.
Click to expand...

No, you just can't fathom that people are actually willing to stand by their principles. As I'ved previously stated, time and time again, democrats will vote for anyone in order to win.

Lerxst said:
:And my sig is a reference to a bet I made during the election. I was right.
Click to expand...

Tell someone who cares.

Lerxst said:
:Well I like what your saying here. So how did you feel about the rest of your party turning on you?
Click to expand...

Wow.<insert bouncing ball here>

Lerxst said:
:Is that like "strategery?"
Click to expand...

Epic Fail.

Lerxst said:
:Whining, lol...okay.
Click to expand...

Indeed, on national TV, reaching out to the masses to not listen to Rush :lamo

Lerxst said:
:You are an awful angry person.
Click to expand...

Not even, quite elated really. The Obama administration is actually responsible for rallying the Republicans, and soon the independents, and after the rest of the union idiots slog into the ranks of the unemployed, they too will turn.

One fiasco nomination after another. Foreign policy thats a complete riot, you know, Clinton threatening the Chinese, Hollywood delegation in Iran smoothing things over, and Obama going all in before the hand is even dealt with the Russians. :lamo

Nuff said on that here though, this is the Limbaugh thread.

Wanna talk Limbaugh, bring it. Wanna offer your "insight", your "analysis"
or more bloviating on what you consider your "expert" opinion to be in regard to the Republican party, move along, you've got no game.
 
TheNextEra said:
I think what we need is the representative of the common person, the person who has had either one, some or all of the following (Affair, drug usage, felony, misdemeanor, slapped his best friend for cheating on his girlfriend, robbery, cheating, sleeping with his mother's best friend, sleeping with his 2nd cousin, stealing a candy from the store, buying porn, going to s strip club, (male or female), giving oral sex to their partner, having underage sex, having unprotected sex, taking more than one newspaper when they put the money in the newspaper machine at least once, not bringing to attention the fact the cashier didn't ring up an item, not bringing to attention the waitress didn't add in that Pepsi to your total, and last but not least, but when your credit card holder says you don't have to pay that late charge because you said you didn't get the bill).

We need people who do not have money to erase their wrong doings from records.
We need a president who is really of the people by the people.
Click to expand...
You can run as this guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom