Skip to comments.My Obama Theory Validated (Rush Limbaugh)
Posted on 02/17/2013 10:35:34 AM PST by lowbridge
That's why you can have polling data that show 55, 60% of the people oppose Obama's agenda and still support him. They don't associate his agenda with the problems in the country. They don't believe, they don't understand, they don't think that Obama's policies have had any of the negative impact on the country. Somebody else did that, other presidents did that. They view Obama as trying to fix it.
So this led to a discussion of the theory on Fox News yesterday. Megyn Kelly had a couple of guests. The first is the Talk Radio News Service president, Tony Sayegh. And she said to him, "Rush believes that people don't associate Obama's policies with what's happened in the country. They associate the spending and the debt to the lack of jobs, so they think he's out there working to fix it as opposed to the one who's created it."
SAYEGH: He does have support, whether Republicans like to admit it or not, on an emotional level with the voters. And if you look at the election, Megyn, what I suggest is that President Obama did something extremely effective. He ran it like a jury trial. He knew he was on trial. He found someone else to blame, George W. Bush. He created reasonable doubt that it was his fault, and we saw in the exit polling that people really did not associate the failure of the first four years with this president. So he's trying to continue down that road because he knows that he has, as the president, a very strong bully pulpit, and he's excellent at being able to talk directly to voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
America : 47% of it’s voters are OJ jury members - that and a media, including Faux News that might as well be a White House Press Office and a RINO that wouldn’t / couldn’t articulate conservatism and this is what we get - simple, really
Rush Limbaugh has graciously allowed full postings of his articles on FReeRepublic, no excerpting necessary.
This is absolutely correct.
It is also absolutely correct that the reason he has been able to do this is because of the Republicans strategy of never taking the fight to Obama directly confronting him for his policy failures and calling him on his disastrous and destructive actions as president
There are only two Republicans who had any effective attempts to call Obama on his record - Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich
This was Romney’s big mistake and the primary reason he was not elected as President.
Fox is worthless, just a pink form of red as in the traditional definition of communism. They joined in the current coloring of states as red and blue from 2000 forward. They echo the leftist media right down the line. They are statists, Rino’s, and sellouts. Hannity is a great example.
The media is the difference here. The drumbeat was always negative in the Bush years, even blaming him for hurricanes, and he is remembered as Herbert Hoover, the guy who caused all this. He was indeed a dreadful president, but not as bad as portrayed by the media. This only works because of the elite media continually dumbing down and conditioning the public, while speaking as one. That includes Fox. The elites have all the bases covered, right down to movies and Jon Stewart.
Rationality, logic, and thinking outside the box will always be in a minority. Even Reagan fought a continual battle which was lost. He lost the senate to the Democrats in 1986, and they darn near ran him out of office over Iran-Contra.
Fox is establishment that ges a little bit to the left and a little bit to the right as the mood suits them.
>There are only two Republicans who had any effective attempts to call Obama on his record - Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich<
But neither dared to bring up the question of his eligibility. Like all conservatives, they blare out the 90%, swallow hard, and then they conveniently ignore the crucial 10%.
Rush says that. And it's something Republican candidates should have tried. The nominee should have been more aggressive than Romney was.
But reading between the lines here and looking at how Obama's 51% react to even the flimsiest show of resolve by the Republican Congress one could conclude that it wouldn't have done much good, that a little over half the country -- enough to reelect Obama -- wasn't going to listen or consider any criticism of its idol.
That doesn't mean we should give up by any means. I'm just saying that I see a lot of deep pessimism in the article.
You are EXACTLY right. Noboby in the GOP had the gonads to call out Obama on his past.
It’s not JUST his LFBC. His ss#, his draft registration papers, his high school and college records. EVERYTHING about this guy’s past has been put off-limits by the MSM. Cleary the media was prepared to scream “racism” at the mere mention of any of this stuff.
Even Palin and Gingrich were scared off...and look at the price we are paying. Four more years (at least) of this incompetent. Who knows if late in his term he moves on the 22nd Amendment.
11 million illegals about to be made citizens, they will bring their family members with them...and then there’ll be another wave of illegal immigration just as there was after 1986.
Glad I’m old.
I didn’t know Rush Limbaugh had a position on posting his material at FR. I do remember when he used to make fun of us, posting Photoshops of people looking stupid and calling them FReepers.
Did he change something?
Hey old man, I think I’m older than you.
I wore an “Ike jacket” and proudly served under a CIC by the name of Eisenhower.
If he were to come back, I would proudly serve under him again.
“We dont want to be against the first black president in our history.”
“But the SECOND black president...”
We never had any more illegals given amnesty after 1986. Teddy said the 1986 act would be the last time because we’d never need to do it again.
You must be remembering it wrong, comrade. /s
But reading between the lines here and looking at how Obama’s 51% react to even the flimsiest show of resolve by the Republican Congress one could conclude that it wouldn’t have done much good, that a little over half the country — enough to reelect Obama — wasn’t going to listen or consider any criticism of its idol.
Romney and Ryan stirred up Obama’s “base” of voters by saying they were going to cut welfare and other entitlement benefits and take away their Obama phones
Ryan compounded the problem by saying we need to trim Social Security spending.
That is all the motivation Obama voters needed to go out and vote as many times as needed to keep their free money , free food, free healthcare, free housing, free daycare, free electricity, free phones, free head start, free amnesty and all the other free stuff they get.
Romney also motivated illegal aliens to vote against him by his weasel words illegal immigration that alienated all sides of the fence.
What Romney did not do was direct blame on all of the problems we have on the person who created them in the first place and fight back against the lies of the other side.
He did not motivate the Republican base or the independents to vote against the status quo and neither did any of the other Republicans.
If Romney would have went after Obama for all of his screw ups like he went after his Republican rivals he would have won.
I heard Rush talking about this on Friday. It’s an intriguing concept, but I haven’t decided if I buy into it or not. I’m still cogitating to see what I will believe.
All the chatter about barry blaming Bush, and succeeding at it, forgets ONE big piece of this puzzle.
Why is it overlooked that soros spent upwards of TEN MILLION to gin up absolute hatred for Bush? That is what sunk in, to far too many semi-interested voters, those who were too lazy to take the time to understand the issue, and those who are always so happy to jump on the hate train.
Who could overcome that amount of money flowing into every crack and crevice of public opinion?
You can be sure he will be a powerful political broker in 2016 & beyond.
I don't see what any of that has to do with my original assertion that Limbaugh, graciously allows full posting of his articles at F.R.
If you dislike him, why post excerpts, requiring readers to click his web site when they wouldn't have to if you'd post the whole thing - again, which he allows?
My mistake on that last reply. I thought when I posted it that you were the original poster.
That’s OK. I knew that last part was not to me.
But this is the first I’d heard that Limbaugh explicitly allows full-text posting on FR. I know we do post full articles (with pictures!), and I read them all the time, but (to me anyway) that doesn’t mean we have specific permission to do so, it only means he hasn’t bitched about it like everybody else.
And I wasn’t amused when he implied all FReepers are retarded. I’m still not amused.
F.R. has a list of “excerpt only”, “Link only” and “do not post”, Limbaugh isn’t on any of them.
I found a link to F.R. while reading Rush in July 2003, prior to that, I’d never heard of the place.
Sometime around 2005, Rush quoted me, using my screen name and crediting me and F.R. I wasn’t listening at the time but people started pinging me like mad, by the time I turned on his show, he was off on another topic.
I don’t even remember what the subject was that he quoted me on but it was positive.
Glad to hear you had a good experience! :^)
A crummy commercial. Son of a....