Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Limbaugh Intentionally Throwing November Election to Hillary? (Real Reason He Wants Her to Stay in?)
Federal Review ^ | 03/03/08

Posted on 03/03/2008 5:10:55 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

There seems to be an inherent inconsistency in how radio host Rush Limbaugh is analyzing Hillary Clinton's chances for election.

On his radio show, he is urging his listeners to vote for her in tomorrow's primaries.

Limbaugh claims to be doing this because he thinks that the longer Clinton stays in the race, the more she'll damage Obama and the party, thereby increasing the chances of a Republican victory in November.

This, however, is contradicted by his statements about how resilient a candidate Mrs. Clinton would be. For example, today he stated that "these Clintons are like cockroaches. They'll be the last thing left after a nuclear blast."

If, as Limbaugh states, Hillary Clinton is such a tough candidate, it makes no sense for him to want her in the race if he truly hopes for a GOP win in November.

All of this leads to the conclusiong that, in fact, Limbaugh wants Hillary to be our next President.

As recently as last month, Limbaugh stated that, if John McCain were the Republican nominee, he would rather see the Democrats win the White House.

If that's the case, perhaps Limbaugh sees Hillary Clinton as a better (and more profitable target) for his program's commentary in the coming years. He already has years of experience mocking the Clintons. Furthermore, attacks on Hillary don't come with the risk of being called a racist, even if wrongly.

Finally, there may be simple profit motive. In the past it has been suggested that a President of one party, increases the circulation of magazines on the other side. Limbaugh, of course, publishes a monthly "Limbaugh Letter" magazine. And, of course, he is widely considered to have enjoyed his greatest popularity during the previous Clinton administration.

If this is true, perhaps Republicans in Texas and Ohio might want to reconsider taking voting advice from Rush in tomorrow's primaries.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Ohio; US: Rhode Island; US: Texas; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: 2008; hillary; ihatehilary; limbaugh; nohillary; noooo; obama; rush; stophillary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161 next last
To: RedRepublic
Obama is harder to beat. See a bunch of black people and college kids who never voted before that will go out to vote for him this time?

And millions of women, some even "republican," will vote for Hillary because of her sex.

101 posted on 03/03/2008 6:57:43 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
Think about it. With Bill and Hilll we at least can criticise them. Obama? We can't even utter his middle name.

I'm pretty sure a site like Freerepublic.com will be hunted down with him in the power.

102 posted on 03/03/2008 6:59:26 PM PST by RedRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

The best thing that could happen is for the rat primary to go all the way to the convention. Then, IF Hillary succeeds in stealing the nomination there will be no small number of very bitter blacks (and white liberals!) sitting out the general election.

Hillary was thoroughly unelectable BEFORE the primary season - - because when the time comes to actually vote in the privacy of the voting booth, Americans will not elect the shrill, unlikeable Hillary to the Presidency - - and she is completely dead in the water at this point.

Therefore, Republicans should be smart and do what needs to be done to keep her chances (barely) alive.
Vote for her in the primary.


103 posted on 03/03/2008 7:00:02 PM PST by Lancey Howard (When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
perhaps Republicans in Texas and Ohio might want to reconsider taking voting advice from Rush in tomorrow's primaries.

From what I've read from the media, Rush is nothing more than an irrelevant entertainer.....why is anybody listening to him? LOL!

Keep tweekin' 'em Rush.......

104 posted on 03/03/2008 7:01:07 PM PST by Hot Tabasco ( Donít go messing with Smokey Taylor. He just bought a whole bunch of fresh ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedRepublic; Kirkwood
I'm pretty sure a site like Freerepublic.com will be hunted down with him in the power.

After Oklahoma City, the Clintons were ready to go after "hate radio." The only thing that stopped them was a GOP congress.

If they get back in, with the Pelosi/Reid congress to back them up, expect FR to be shut down.

The sad part is: we're bringing it on ourselves with this naive belief that Hillary is somehow either more benign or less electable than Obama.

105 posted on 03/03/2008 7:02:59 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco
From what I've read from the media, Rush is nothing more than an irrelevant entertainer.

I do know this: at best, Rush has underestimated the Clintons at every turn since 1992.

He constantly told us that Bill would never get elected in 1992. In 1996 he told us that Dole could ride the wave from the 1994 Congressional elections. In 1998 he was convinced that Bubba would be out with the impeachment proceedings and/or Ken Starr investigation. Each time, Clinton survived.

Take her out. Remove all doubt.

106 posted on 03/03/2008 7:05:24 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
And millions of women, some even "republican," will vote for Hillary because of her sex.

Oh, stop that. Did you watch the last 11 primaries? Who voted for whom? Obama got most of the votes from all categories. Go check the statistics!

Come to think about it, if Hillary wins the nominee, it will break the strong correlation between blacks and the dems. Who will benefit from this?

107 posted on 03/03/2008 7:09:39 PM PST by RedRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

great post, short/concise. :D


108 posted on 03/03/2008 7:18:51 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (just b/c your paranoid, doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you...our hopes were dashed by CINOs :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I am with Rush on this one. Having the Democrats spend time and money ripping each other can only help the Republicans. Not only are they slinging mud on each other, they are also making it harder for the eventual loser’s supporters to vote for the eventual winner. So I favor keeping both of them in the race as long as possible.

Besides, I think Hillary will be easier to defeat than Obama. I am not looking forward to being called a racist all the time as will happen if/when Obama wins the nomination. Let Hillary do the dirty work.

109 posted on 03/03/2008 7:20:36 PM PST by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
If I lived in OH or TX I's vote for Obama. Clinton is Clinton. They are evil. If we can get rid of her for this election cycle that would be great.

Also, theres this conventional wisdom out there that says this is Hillary Clinton's only chance. I disagree. Even if she does not get the nomination she could be back in 2012 (Remember Nixon in 1962).

110 posted on 03/03/2008 7:21:30 PM PST by fkabuckeyesrule
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inspectorette & All -

Let's see now, - did George win the war in '91? And very popular. The Christian conservatives on local / Sacto CA radio with their national guests were saying George had some `conservative' problems. Taxes, etc. He was very strong on ... ?? right to life, etc. But he may be vulnerable on some other issues. The conservatives were getting anxious / unhappy with George. I believe this was being said before '92.

But, who is going to vote for the alternative?

But the complaining continued into '92. Then Perot. But, if I'm weak on George, he is worth the vote to keep Dan Q.

It seems like it was summer of 92, maybe in the fall. George & Barbara, either live & in color / (or on tape) - nationwide, I thought. Barbara made it clear... ? they didn't need to win. She would be just as happy being a Grandmother in Texas... or Maine. She would be happy going to soccer games.

I can't believe it, on national TV. Whatever. My vote was now almost up for grabs, but there was still Dan Q. Until Dan Q. went a little mushy.

After the fact... Whose idea was that TV broadcast / script? Or, was it all Barbara? It took a lot of years for me to finally think that it may have been an intentional script to try to show them as down to earth, the common folk, etc. And soccer was so popular. To show they weren't to anxious to win. And maybe they were conservative `soft' to begin with. And felt they had to be more toward the center for the general election.

Yes, there was Perot. I think it was sometime after the election, that Rush made mention of "seminar callers".

So, in conclusion, I'll meet You half way: Yes, Perot, and seminar callers. But I think stronger conservative candidates -might- have made a difference.

And, my saying "Wrong -" was probably a little strong. For a few years I had vivid memories of that TV broadcast. And as people started with the "Perot" mantra to explain '92, I felt there was more to it.

111 posted on 03/03/2008 7:26:05 PM PST by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Southerngl

It’s from the article:

“He already has years of experience mocking the Clintons. Furthermore, attacks on Hillary don’t come with the risk of being called a racist, even if wrongly.”


112 posted on 03/03/2008 7:27:04 PM PST by death2tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: joebeth

Just to be rid of the Clinton corruption, to have it gone would almost seem too good to be true.

OBAMA better stay on point. Hillary keeps distracting him especially these past couple of days.


113 posted on 03/03/2008 7:29:46 PM PST by Twinkie (Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: death2tyrants

OOOHHHH, my bad. I thought you were saying I said that and I was like, huh?


114 posted on 03/03/2008 7:31:11 PM PST by Southerngl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: RedRepublic
if Hillary wins the nominee, it will break the strong correlation between blacks and the dems

Yeah, when Michael Dukakis beat Jesse Jackson in '88 it sent the African-Americans over to the GOP in droves. /sarc

115 posted on 03/03/2008 7:31:46 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I do know this: at best, Rush has underestimated the Clintons at every turn since 1992. Take her out. Remove all doubt.

I agree wholeheartedly. If we end up with a Democrat president, I don't want it to be Hillary. Republicans voting for her in the primaries are making a mistake, IMO.

116 posted on 03/03/2008 7:35:03 PM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
These people also forget: Obama is a young guy. If Hillary gets in now, Obama can still run in 2012 or 2016.

Furthermore, if Hillary loses to Obama the odds are that the Clintons will sabotage him in 2008 the way they did Gore and Kerry, out of pique.

117 posted on 03/03/2008 7:37:32 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Inspectorette; Recall; All

See # 111


118 posted on 03/03/2008 7:41:12 PM PST by Golden Gate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick; allmendream
what he said. :D...and they needed to sever the neck with one blow and also leave a flap of skin so the head would not roll off into the crowd.

thanks....didn't know that.

119 posted on 03/03/2008 7:41:33 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (just b/c your paranoid, doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you...our hopes were dashed by CINOs :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nukecheese

“Rush is an entertainer.”

Yeah. Sure he is. Don’t listen much, do you?

Come to think of it, that’s the same excuse that leftist congressbeyotch Maxine Waters uses when she refuses to be interviewed by Larry Elder on KABC talk radio. She’s been dismissing Larry as “just an entertainer” for years now.


120 posted on 03/03/2008 7:44:20 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson