CALLER: But, Rush, what I wanted to say was (sigh) I'm a Christian conservative and a loyal Republican. I voted every year, every election cycle since 1984. So I'm pretty depressed today because this is the first time that I found myself in a position where I will not vote for the nominee. In fact, hell will freeze over before I'll vote for McCain -- or Huckabee, for that matter. I'm going to sit home this year, and my husband says he is, too. I also want to say that, it's really true what you said about Obama. He doesn't scare me. I'm not afraid of him. In fact, I may even vote for him against McCain.
RUSH: You won't do that when you find out what Obama's policies are.
CALLER: Well, you know what? I know that he's very liberal. I know that.
RUSH: Just think of a nice Hillary Clinton, in terms of policy.
CALLER: You're right. You're right.
RUSH: Maybe even worse, if that's possible.
CALLER: But he's very likable.
The man has powers. Obama, I mean. Rush too, but not the same way. He's got to see this is a real problem. Conservatives voting for Obama. What's that?
Let me add that next line to that exchange: After the caller's "But he's very likable," Rush says, "Yeah, and that matters in a television age." I hear a wistfulness there from the man who is so big on radio but not so much on TV.
ADDED: It wasn't that long ago that Barack Obama said, "I want some Obama Republicans, some Obamacans."
पोस्ट्स
१०८ टिप्पण्या:
Why not? I'm sure Reagan Democrats voted for him because they liked and trusted him, feeling the country would be in good hands, not because they embraced his conservatism.
I listened to yesterday's show this morning. I heard that dialogue on the train and I didn't hear any wistfulness. I am curious whether Rush is going to do a fundraiser for Hillary. I think he said that the tagline for Republicans might be "Keep her in it to win it".
I caught about 15-20 minutes of Limbaugh yesterday.
It was like the Five Minute Hate from '1984'...a vomit of anger.
In particular, one woman called to say that Benedict Arnold was a war hero, too....
Sickening.
Rush had a TV show and says he opts out because everything is complicated to do on TV. A radio show he can do alone and on the spot.
Apparently people liked it. I never personally saw it (or any other TV show since 1971).
I cannot vote for McCain either, and no vice president pick or promise from him will change that. I do not have to listen to his words, I can trust his voting and legislative record.
Perhaps the Republicans are correct that they can win the presidency without us Conservatives. In my case, they will get to test their hypothesis.
Trey
In particular, one woman called to say that Benedict Arnold was a war hero, too....
Arnold was considered a war hero. He led his soldiers to several victories in the 1775 to 1777 time frame. It's after he switched sides (1780?) that his reputation went away.
Rush's TV show was on in from 1992-1996. It was like a funnier version of A Daily Show.
I cannot vote for McCain either, and no vice president pick or promise from him will change that.
I read this and I don't believe it, either from you or from Dust Bunny Queen, who has also said something along these lines. I think you've passed through Denial ("I can't believe he's the nominee") to Anger ("I won't vote for him"). Soon up: Bargaining ("It's better than a vote for Hillary!"), Depression ("I can't believe McCain lost!") and acceptance ("Hillary wasn't so bad after all...the economy was growing during the Clinton years").
Sincerely,
Dr. MadisonMan Kubler-Ross
Well, I remember the TV show and I saw it. The style did not work on TV. You need a cooler demeanor for TV, and seeing the dittoheads amassed in the audience and cheering for everything was not effective. On the radio, you get the feeling he's like an opinionated and funny member of the family and just you and he are hanging out and shooting the fat (the big idiotic fat, perhaps). When he has a conversation with one person who calls on him and gets to dialogue for a few minutes, it enhances that one-to-one feeling. It wasn't like that on TV. It was a blowhard haranguing an audience of followers.
If you look at the "dittocam" on his website, you can still see how he looks when he talks. He gesticulates and puts a lot of energy into producing that voice, but it's not a good look for TV. It's best to have just the voice. He is a radio guy. Nothing wrong with being a radio guy if you're a radio guy.
acceptance ("Hillary wasn't so bad after all...the economy was growing during the Clinton years").
That's if we're lucky enough to get Clinton. What if we get stuck with the walking personality cult that is Obama?
What if we get stuck with the walking personality cult that is Obama?
Acceptance: The Obama Presidency wasn't so bad...everyone loves each other now!
There is a long time between now and the election. Opinion is mallable. All someone has to do is hint that there is a consipiracy that the democrats are working on a campaign targeted at conservatvies trying to keep conservatives from voting for McCain (and against the democrat). Once that gets out, everyone can use the excuse to come around and vote for McCain. It's just a matter of time.
Also, once McCain starts being compared to Clinton/Obama rather than Romney/Thompson etc... he will appear a lot more conservative. For example, it's becoming clear that Obama/Clinton want to abandon market economics i.e. - Reaganism - and return us to the 1970s ("change"). McCain can use this to become the standard bearer of Reagan to continue the market economic revolution.
On another note, it's interesting that Romney was not trustworthy until all of a sudden McCain pulled into the lead.... then Romney became trustworthy on conservative issues? What gives? It's as if hatred of McCain made Romeny trustworthy? There is a mental disorder invloved somewhere in that calculation. Romney passed universal health care in his state - is that conservative?
Conservatives, who now have no representative running, are flailing around, in public, trying to figure out what to do.
Ultimately:
Some will vote for McCain.
Some will stay home.
Some will vote third party (ie. Libertarian or Constitution Party).
A very few will vote Democrat.
And a Democrat will likely be elected. On balance, with a few exceptions, he or she won't be that much different from McCain.
Part of the reason Rush's TV show wasn't successful was due to the machinations of the local TV execs. Rush's show would typically be broadcast at 1:00 a.m., or 5:00 a.m., or some other ungodly hour when no one is watching. That's what happened here in Charlotte, NC, anyway.
I agree with Ann that Rush is much better on the radio. That TV show just did not work for me.
It's best to have just the voice. He is a radio guy. Nothing wrong with being a radio guy if you're a radio guy.
True. Especially when you're THE radio guy.
I'm a Conservative and I may vote for Obama. So, count me in.
I was trying to figure out why Howard Stern's show worked on TV, while Rush Limbaugh's didn't. Then the missing element struck me: strippers and porn stars.
Rush's TV show always had a treasure trove of video clips. I think Jocelyn Elder was always good for material - I remember that she said how much she liked "Eric Clapner's" music. I also believe Rush was the first one to show Bill Clinton's classic metamorphosis at Ron Brown's funeral from laughs to tears. It's on YouTube now.
The military has a way of smoking the nuts out on both ends of the spectrum.
Whoever has the most nuts loses-it's that simple.
Conservatives that want to take their ball, er nuts and go home-
I'm tempted to say please go do that.
It might be a long term winner for a re-alignment of the party to-Republicanism. Something other than what Conservativism has been smeared to by it's standard bearers.
Rush Limbaugh. Malkin-give me a break.
What the hell is it with "conservatives" that they will defend those two to the ends?
Man I can't wait to lose you.
For once keep your damn stupid threats-follow through.
Cripes nothing has been more idiotic than Kathryn Jean Lopez making threats to John McCain.
Talk about Stuck on Stupid.
McCain hopefully he loses these ass-sombreros and never looks back-could be the best thing that ever happens.
Don't even give them a chance to save face because it might cost him and the military.
The military doesn't need the democrat pity and we don't need whatever these "Conservatives" are up to...
Treachery-something like that.
At least the liberals declared themsleves and wore the enemy colors.
And a Democrat will likely be elected. On balance, with a few exceptions, he or she won't be that much different from McCain.
True... except the Dem
Will pull out of Iraq and go on the defensive in the WOT.
Unpass the patriot act
Pass Universal Health Care - i.e. SCHIP to all persons
Raise your taxes to pay for the above.
Appoint activist judges, maybe 4 supremes and hundreds of appellate judges. These judges will change the social fabric of the country for decades.
Appoint liberals to rule over every federal agency.
Double the amount of pork in Congress.
Mess with the economy 1970s style - freezing interest rates, price controls, reduce free trade
Did I say raise your taxes?
Tear down the half built wall on the border.
Pass Amnesty for illegal aliens, while at the same time increasing the amount of immigration from Mexico.
Reagan Democrats are a good analogy to the Obamacans.
Here's a snippet from our local reporting on yesterday's Obama appearance in New Orleans:
"But some local Republicans found themselves more impressed with Obama's message than concerned about his experience. George Kobitz of Covington, toting an "Obamacan" sign -- a contraction of "Obama Republican" -- lumped Clinton in with Bush as part of the old guard that has to go.
"I've been a Republican all my life, and this Bush thing didn't go over very well. If it was just Clinton, I would stay a Republican and vote for (Arizona Sen. John) McCain, but Obama's about change," said Kobitz, who drove to Tulane before sunrise to catch the speech. "The Bush-Clinton era is over. We're sick of it."
Covington is a GOP stronghold, a conservative town of above-average income. Even our newly elected GOP Governor, Bobby Jindal, has held off on endorsing a presidential candidate. He's playing it smart, saying he wants all of the candidates to court the state, and come to New Orleans. But I'm beginning to wonder if he's sincerely waiting to decide.
Here's the link for the quote above:
Obama brings campaign to fervent New Orleans crowd.
We call them "Obamicans"
(pronounced Oh-bah-mick-ens)
sloan, I'm not sure how you can with a straight face (well, maybe you were laughing insanely) think the Democrats will be more fiscally irresponsible than the Republican clowns who have been playing fast and loose with earmarks since 2001.
Rich B said...
Rush's TV show was on in from 1992-1996. It was like a funnier version of A Daily Show."
As in a plane crash is funnier than a head on collison? There is nothing funny about Rush Limbaugh. Nothing.
Nothing gets on his air unless it is pre-screened and part of the day's agenda. Callers either support his point or make his point or are bludgeoned for being idiots without the gravitas of El Rushbo.
He is a fading candle and the sooner he blows himself out the better this political/social system will be....unless of course you actually believe that conversation exchange wasn't just spew from the carnival huckster taking advantage of the innocent.
I think the reasoning is that if it is inevitable that the next President will have lots of policies you absolutely cannot stand, you may as well vote for the one that actually seems personally likable.
I know a few moderates who voted for Bush in '00 for that reason.
sloan, I'm not sure how you can with a straight face (well, maybe you were laughing insanely) think the Democrats will be more fiscally irresponsible than the Republican clowns who have been playing fast and loose with earmarks since 2001.
Except that is not the case for McCain. He has always blasted earmarks which is why many fellow senators dislike him.
It's going to be tricky for the democrats to run against McCain. Except for the war, McCain is the true outsider to the Bush Administration. McCain got all of the anti-bush vote in the primaries (except for Paul). Thus, Dems won't be able to rely on Bush hatred to defeat Mccain like they did for Congress in 2006.
Agree with sloan that it will be tricky for the democrats to run against McCain. Not counting temperment and age, he has the Keating Five scandal in his past, he has campaign finance reform (but that can be spun as independence and bipartisanship), and he has his self declaration about ignorance of the economy. All in all, he is going to have stronger appeal to the swing demographic of independent voters than either BO or HRC. Interesting election ahead--esp if he can get the true conservatives back under the big tent.
Sloanasaurus said...
"There is a long time between now and the election. Opinion is mallable" (emphasis added).
That's true; I get all my best opinions at the mall. Come on everybody -- let's go to the mall! Etc. and so forth.
Obama is a likable guy who gives passionate, content-free speeches. At some point, the honeymoon will be over and the bubble will burst. Bill and Hillary have certainly tried to put a couple of pricks into it.
Tear down the half built wall on the border.
Mr. Obama.. Tear.. Down.. That.. Wall.
Althouse, please. This caller is the political/media equivalent of phishing. Come on woman stop being such an old fogy.
Take it from someone who has repeatedly funded some unknown bank accounts in Turkey. Don't be so easily taken in.
The caller could be an Obama supporter passing as a conservative who likes Obama because he's "likable".
Or he's a Republican who knows that ultimately most of America is NOT going to vote for - 1. a black guy, 2. named Barack Hussein Obama 3. who is the most liberal member of the Senate. 4. who has never run anything in his life other than his mouth.
Republicans know despite her flaws Hillary is a stronger opponent in the general election. So they want to build up the weaker candidate for the Democrats.
Sloan-
Exactly. If you think of McCain as the "anti-vice-president" it makes sense.
Romney tried to run to the outside of that-big mistake.
roger-
The "true" conservatives always find a reason not to vote in the generals-they vote in the primaries as self-appointed gatekeepers but then the media always finds them a reason to not vote in the general. It's called-
October Surprise
except for now they time it even tighter-
Early November..
He cows to the Righties-it'll cost him the Indies. The Righties who ain't voting anyways-remember? The ones that are making some real irrational arguments...
He's suppose to waste his time talking them off the ledge?
They've already thrown everything and then some at him. They've got nothing left. Hell he won the primary without them.
He needs to keep his eye on the ball-and not to listen to those stupid polls.
The ones that showed Obama winning NH, MA, Jersey and CA-remember those?
Rich notes: "Bill and Hillary have certainly tried to put a couple of pricks into it." Rich, please!!! Do you have any idea what Trooper York is going to do with this? What were you thinking man?
Ann Althouse said...Well, I remember the TV show and I saw it. The style did not work on TV. You need a cooler demeanor for TV, and seeing the dittoheads amassed in the audience and cheering for everything was not effective.
First off Marshall McLuhan was a charlatan.
Second of all two words, Wally George:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGj_Mzdg3c
Rich notes: "Bill and Hillary have certainly tried to put a couple of pricks into it." Rich, please!!! Do you have any idea what Trooper York is going to do with this? What were you thinking man?
Too easy. I won't mention cigars.....doh!!!!
Besides if we elect McCain we will have just one prick in the White House.
Come to think of it, that might happen if Hillary gets the nod.
Jeesh.
LETS GO SIDNEY!!!!!
I don't spend my time listening to Rush but I do listen to Stephanie Miller a lot and she is for Obama. She has gotten several calls from people who are conservative or have conservative family members who say they would vote for Obama. One caller said her dad, who voted for Bush in both elections, said he would vote for Obama. But then there are the racist white democrats who would not vote for Obama and would be happy to support McCain.
But I know that ultimately most of America is NOT going to vote for - 1. a white woman, 2. named Hillary Rodham Clinton 3. who is the most liberal member of the Senate. 4. who has never run anything in her life other than her mouth.
Rich B said...
"Bill and Hillary have certainly tried to put a couple of pricks into it."
It's what he does, sugar. Her, I don't know about; that's new.
former law student said...
"Mr. Obama.. Tear.. Down.. That.. Wall."
More like "Mr. Obama.. Move.. That.. Bus."
FLS, I don't think Clinton's the most liberal member of the Senate by almost any definition or metric. I wouldn't be too sure that she won't end up as the next President anyway, though.
I am a strange fish, a self described conservative libertarian who is also a McCain supporter (since 2000). I would understand the dislike greater is it started after the immigration bill fiasco, but it is very long standing.
In any event, what I am beinging to find a bit creepy is the increasingly cult like aspect of Obamamania!(TM). I am expecting any day now that a lame person will walk when Obama's shadow touched them.
Sloanasaurus:
Lets say we get a dem prez and a dem congress, and those things you predict will happen happens. Then guess what happens next?
Do you remember what happened in 1994 to 50 years of dem control of Congress after just 2 years of Clinton and a mere whiff of HillaryCare? It'll be baaa-ack. Plus a Ronald Reagan on steroids in the presidency in 2012.
Bring it on.
former law student said...But I know that ultimately most of America is NOT going to vote for - 1. a white woman, 2. named Hillary Rodham Clinton 3. who is the most liberal member of the Senate. 4. who has never run anything in her life other than her mouth.
Which is why President John McCain will serve one term and then let VP Romney or VP Bill Owen run for the job.
Anthony - it's even starting to irritate liberal bloggers enough to point out that Obama is not Jesus
Jack - in terms of veep, it's more likely to be Thompson, but I think Sanford, Palin or Steele would be good choices.
Plus a Ronald Reagan on steroids in the presidency in 2012.
You could be right. But I would prefer not having to suffer while waiting.
But I know that ultimately most of America is NOT going to vote for - 1. a white woman, 2. named Hillary Rodham Clinton 3. who is the most liberal member of the Senate. 4. who has never run anything in her life other than her mouth.
Looks like you're 0-4 Champ. Nice work. The more I see the supreme naivety of Obama Fan thinking that hard core conservatives will magically flock to Obama in Nov and make nice and "change Washington", "change the tone" "bring everyone together for change", it makes an easy choice to vote for Hillary. The only thing missing from Obama's speeches is the spectacle of dozens of mindless zombies lining up to be instantly cured of the incurable by the hands of The Healer.
[Added, seeing the likes of this poster, Andrew Sullivan, and to all The People Who Watch Hillary eat their own words for a minimum of 4 years will make it even more delicious].
"...most of America is not going to vote for - 1. a black guy, 2. named Barack Hussein Obama 3. who is the most liberal member of the senate 4. who has never run anything in his life other than his mouth."
Well, you've got my number. I hope you're right. I hope I am most of America because 5. the stench from the human sludge that would man the posts in an Obama administration would inflict a four year gag reflex on most of America.
Thompson?
It's Crist, Pawlenty or even Ridge-before it's Thompson.
His national co-chairs were Ridge and Pawlenty.
Crist brought in Florida.
Hell I can think of more options before Thompson.
Come General Election, Republicans will either stay home or hold their noses and vote McCain.
Talk of voting for Obama is nothing but early smoke. It won't happen.
[How can you] think the Democrats will be more fiscally irresponsible than the Republican clowns who have been playing fast and loose with earmarks since 2001.
Earmarks is chump-change. Messing with the market, starting a new, massive entitlement program--even bigger than Part D--while the old ones are starved for cash, presiding over the biggest tax increase in history (by letting the Bush cuts lapse)--that's some hardcore enslave-your-grandchildren fiscal irresponsibility, there.
And, yeah, there's no guarantee that a Republican wouldn't do it, as W proves.
Seems to be part of the Democratic platform, on the other hand.
Democrats will be worse--but only until the Reps get back into power. There's a distinct one-upmanship going on.
Wasn't it Reid who said fiscal responsibility was irresponsible, since the Reps were just going to eventually come back in and screw it up?
First principles, as Hannibal Lecter might say: It's easy to talk about wasteful spending when it's not you doing it. The Reps had religion until they got handed the checkbook, then the Dems became all concerned about it--until they got the checkbook.
The good news is its early.
The bad news is its early.
Most people have only been paying close attention to Obama for a few months, where he has been talking in generalities and trying to make you like him. McCain's been pissing people off for a long time and actually trying to get things done.
If so-called conservatives are going to not vote for McCain over what really amounts to a small percent of difference or under the delusion that a 1994 like Republican uprising will come out of a painful loss in 2008, then they will deserve the many years of liberal Supreme Court decisions, higher taxes and increased government control that will follow. I said many years.
Hdhouse:
If you believe Rush is soon to lose his audience, mass appeal or even his show, I bet you thought the TV show Mash would only last a year or two.
Think about this - Rush has been going strong through the last 15 years under a DEM and a REP administration. His appeal and his ideas and his philosophy do not age or get old.
madawaskan said...Crist brought in Florida.
It is widely believed that Crist is a homosexual. He wont be picked. Thompson is 68? and has the energy level of a tree sloth.
McCain needs to pick some conservative no older than Romney.
Madison man, your analysis made me laugh and it may be correct! I will keep you up to date.
Thanks for the laugh, you may have nailed me and the best laughs are always at myself.
Trey
The plural of anecdote is not data. Four years ago, people argued that John Kerry was a shoe in because conservatives were disgusted with George Bush and would vote for a real war hero.
No matter how many people you see on the internet saying "I'm a conservative and will never vote for John McCain," it means nothing compared to the hundred million votes that will be cast in November.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Four years ago, people argued that John Kerry was a shoe in because conservatives were disgusted with George Bush and would vote for a real war hero.
Had one (a real war hero) been running conservatives might have voted for him.
I would understand the dislike greater is it started after the immigration bill fiasco, but it is very long standing.
Not exactly. McCain does have a history of being a media whore and selling out the GOP to score "maverick" points. But that would have remained a minor gripe if not for McCain-Feingold and Amnesty. That was the tipping point for most of us.
I actually left the GOP over the amnesty sham. Have been an Independent now for about 9 months.
My wife and I will be voting FOR Obama in Maryland's primary, but only as a vote against Hillary.
In any event, what I am beinging to find a bit creepy is the increasingly cult like aspect of Obamamania!(TM).
Agreed. He's an empty suit full of vague platitudes. No substance. His campaign is built on a personality cult, like Howard Dean's, and will be pushed off the rails by the MSM [the Dean Scream] or the Dem power brokers.
I have to admit, I'm disappointed in the choices the identity politics of the Dem party gave us. I wish the first legitimate female and black contenders were better [Dem or GOP]. Instead, we get the corrupt Queen Hillary and an empty suit who would be irrelevant if he was white.
No matter how many people you see on the internet saying "I'm a conservative and will never vote for John McCain," it means nothing compared to the hundred million votes that will be cast in November.
Thats fair. For all my talk, and even action in leaving the party, I'll probrably hold my nose and vote against Hillary and the Magical Negro in November.
jack-
I've seen that linked to by a democrat blogger fwiw.
Shelby Steele has it about right:
Obama will be admired by all, but cannot not win. He is a "bargainer" :he has an implicit agreement with majority white America to not hold racism against them in exchange for it not holding his being black against him.
He has yet to discuss openly any real policies that he will implement (his website for example doesn't count as "openly" - who really goes there to check it out except sycophants?).
If he gets the nomination, he will be called out on issues, and he will then have 2 choices:
- hide who he really is behind the "lofty rhetoric", which will not counter charges of "no there, there", or
- engage in actual policy discussions, which will spell "old liberal"
Either way, when any Karl Rove clone gets a shot at him, he's toast.
oops
the above should read:
Obama will be admired by all, but cannot win.
(double negative. sorry.)
madawaskan and jackdripper:
Far be it from me, a liberal Democrat to try and guess the GOP VP choice, but my prediction is this:
McCain will pick Mel Martinez. He has everything that Crist has (including helping McCain win Florida by convincing the Cuban community to vote for him) but none of the baggage.
Martinez brings
1. As a former RNC chair he has broad support in the GOP and is acceptable to conservatives
2. Gives McCain a diversity card without it seeming an obvious reach
3. Probably wins Florida but he's straight so he doesn't hurt him among the GOP's homophobic base like Crist would.
4. Gives Bush-lovers a reason to vote for McCain because if he wins it vacates a Senate seat in Florida giving Jeb Bush's otherwise dead ended political career an option to continue.
David Brooks had a nice riff on Obama today
Obama offers to defeat cynicism with hope. Apparently he’s going to turn politics into a form of sharing.
Eli - sure, if he wanted to take THE single issue with which he's most at odds with the rest of the party, highlight it, and really tell the party to go f*** itself, sure, he could pick Martinez. Or he could, you know, not, and have a chance of being President. I mean, your very first point is out of touch with reality. He was an immensely unpopular pick to follow Mehlman, and soon lived down to expectations.
Well, I don't know about Rush type conservatives but a lot of ordinary people (conservative and liberal) like Obama because he wants to move beyond the political scorched earth-and-gotcha games that has poisoned the well of public discourse during the 1990's and 2000's. (Don't forget that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could square off against each other all day and still enjoy a drink together over dinner; those days are long since past.)
However, we will see how much conservative support Obama gets if it gets to that point. Speaking as a Democrat, I'd say that if we really want to move past that atmosphere then the ball is in our court first-- we can't claim that we're moving past the hyperpartisanship of the last twenty years if we nominate a Clinton.
I saw a graphic the other day which looked at the accumulated raw vote totals for Clinton and Obama in all states that have voted so far (and ignorning votes not cast for either of them) and among those votes, Clinton led 50.08%-49.92%. THAT'S how close it is.
Why didn't Condi Rice run? Female, black, not an empty pantsuit -- she would have run the table.
Look at Hillary's voting record (minus the war) if you doubt me.
If Obama were white he'd be John Edwards. If Hillary were male she'd be Howard Sprague.
Hdhouse:
Rush has been going strong through the last 15 years... His appeal and his ideas and his philosophy do not age or get old."
AJ actually if you can believe it, his demographic is rising ... so old that it is hard for them to hear in general...
I have a dog, AJ, who walks the same walk every morninga at 6 am. He pee's on the same trees, smells the same sign posts and ultimately dumps in just about the same wooded area. He also, never fails, to smell his old poop when encounted...
Reminds me of Rush and those who listen to him.
RHHardin - the problem with Brooks' comment is that it's as vapid as Obama's rhetoric (although Brooks might be able to claim his tongue was in his cheek); it isn't cynicism that's our problem, and even if it was, there's no particularly good reason to think that either (a) hope defeats cynicism or (b) Obama is a candidate who can provide hope. So we've circled back to FLS' very first comment this morning: why did Reagan Democrats vote for RWR? FLS is wrong; they voted for him because they knew the country was in deep trouble, they knew the Democratic party was morally and intellectually bankrupt, and Reagan was able to compellingly articulate what the problem was and what actual solutions he was proposing. Smartly, Reagan Democrats got on board.
Eli-
Former law student-
Man I actually like both of those ideas.
The only thing about Martinez - he was at something dismal like 44% approval rating in Florida as opposed to Crist who was at 70% to 60%..
But cripes I'm going off those crap polls.
Still 60% to 70% even if that's off by a gross margin it's still something.
Have you guys not seen the polls for Obama.... I swear the media just wants more money.
Heck even Rasmussen looked to be fudging the republican side of the results.
I have an old Republican ground campaigner friend and he said he was going to rename him-
Scott "Dead Heat" Rasmussen after all the guy has his own prduct to sell.
Don't ask me what Zogby's selling though-I think it contributes to global warming...
{his stuff is really off}
Eli Blake said...
"[Obama] wants to move beyond the political scorched earth-and-gotcha games that has poisoned the well of public discourse during the 1990's and 2000's."
What's your evidence for that? Because he says he does? You wouldn't rest it on such thin reeds, surely. What compromise positions does he offer on the issues that divide people and produce that tone? None that I know of. Talk's cheap; it's useless to just say that we should move beyond these issues - on some level, "everyone wants the culture wars to end ... but they want them to end with their side on top." In the absence of some indication that Obama genuinely has something new to offer, we have to presume that his rhetoric means the same as everyone else's: "[Obama doesn't] want to end the culture wars, [he] want[s his] side to win them, and the other side to stop getting in the way." You may be right that he wants to "move beyond" these issues, but let's be clear, he means to unite by silencing dissent, not by building consensus.
The ultimate problem with basing a campaign on hope is that it will not appeal to conservatives. Hope implies that you are beaten and are relying on an outside agency (President, government in this case) to rescue you. Perhaps Orwellian State citizens may harbor hope, but Americans have the capacity to DO SOMETHING. To quote Better Than Ezra from "Briefly"
"Nobody wants to be the butt of every joke
And nobody wants to be the one who's full of hope"
Hope cannot appeal to individuals who believe in personal responsibility and limited government in which the citizenry participates. The conservatives may ultimately stay home if McCain cannot convince them to get on board, but they're not going to vote for Obama.
Agreed. He's an empty suit full of vague platitudes.
As opposed to the other candidates?
Campaigning politicians run on a default setting of "as vague as possible" until they see that voicing a strong opinion will serve them. It's part of the game.
That granted, Obama's been as clear as anyone else. Is there a mystery issue you have in mind, or is this just something you say?
Actually, same thing with "magical negro". It doesn't really fit, why would you call him that?
Simon:
Let me answer that by quoting from a comment I made on Coldheartedtruth the other day (link is http://www.coldheartedtruth.com/index.php/2008/2008/02/06/a_california_tsunami and it's comment number 6 on that thread):
Gee, California was a Republican only primary, and it was supposed to be a hotbed of anti-immigration fervor (I guess which explains why Duncan Hunter stayed at 1% in the national polls, right behind Tom Tancredo.)
In 2006, there were three border districts where the immigration issue was huge and resulted in a party change: AZ-5, AZ-8. TX-23. Democrats won all three of those against Republicans who ran hard on immigration. Then last year it was supposed to be the 'silver bullet' that would save the Virginia state Senate for the GOP. It didn't.
So this year, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and the two previously mentioned ran the hardest on immigration (Huckabee is anti-illegal immigration but rarely talks about it.) So who wins in the supposedly hardcore anti-immigrant state of California? Mr. Amnesty, that's who.
Republicans have been fooled by polls suggesting that about 3/4 of Americans are against illegal immigration. True. But for very, very few is it a single issue vote-- and I'll wager that is fewer than the number of Hispanics or others who have family members who may be in the country illegally and consider the GOP line to be an attack on their family. Certainly it is less than the number of people who have gotten turned off by the whole immigrant bashing argument, especially since unemployment is not the biggest economic problem most of them face.
This should show that the GOP needs to ditch this lemon and find another issue to run on.
The whole illegal immigrant bashing thing is an anchor that is taking the GOP straight to the bottom, and I think more and more Republicans are starting to realize it (and those who don't will go down with the ship.)
"Why didn't Condi Rice run?"
She's sane?
I prefer Rush in transcript.
I can't stand him on radio, but in transcript he's pretty good. (By "can't stand him on radio" I mean, you'd have to pay me... a lot.)
If Rush is concerned about conservatives voting for Obama, he has only himself to blame. He went on a three week "nothing but anti-McCain" tear and demonized him so fully that now he has to re-brainwash his listeners back or watch the very real possibility of an Obama presidency.
Rush went too far, he lost his balance and went over the edge. I had to turn him off. And like lemmings the other talk-radio hosts went right over the ledge with him.
Now they have a mess of their own making. And I say that as a regular Rush listener.
"Agreed. He's an empty suit full of vague platitudes."
As opposed to the other candidates?
Well, as opposed to Fred Thompson. :)
:) Yah.
FLS,
No, that's exactly who I though Reagan Democrats were--fairly conservative Democrats (there really was such a thing, once upon a time), Scoop Jackson Democrats, UAW Democrats, George Meany-type hardhat-wearing Democrats, Southern rural Democrats, etc. etc. etc.
Eli,
"a lot of ordinary people ... like Obama because he wants to move beyond the political scorched earth-and-gotcha games"
Either that, or he's learned he can get quite a ways just by saying he does.
"magic negro" is a quote from somewhere or other (LA Times?) very early on. It's a literary term for the person in a story that is very humble but wiser than anyone else, sort of a medicine man (or woman) character, and is frequently enough (though not necessarily) an old black dude.
I sort of resent the idea, somehow, that conservatives or Republicans won't vote for a black person or a woman. And all the while we're treated to this Democratic side-show where it's a whole lot about being black and a whole lot about being a woman and how wonderful and fabulous it would be to have a black president *just because he's black* and some woman saying she won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman but "because *I* am."
So let Condi Rice run and they can get a two-fer. Huh?
The Democrats could vote for her because she's a black woman and the Republicans can vote for her because she's brilliant and has vital foreign expertise and experience.
"Agreed. He's an empty suit full of vague platitudes."
As opposed to the other candidates?
No, as opposed to no one. Thats the point: Obama's claim is that he's different, its not politics as usual with him. But the sad truth is he's a chimera. When pressed on substance, he behaves just like Clinton and Pelosi.
The whole illegal immigrant bashing -
Bullshit. No one is bashing illegal immigrants. We just want the laws enforced.
Limbaugh has been ripping on McCain for a lot longer than a few weeks. More like 7 or 8 years, if not longer.
If McCain manages to win it in November it won't be because the conservatives got out the vote for him. They won't. It'll only be because independents and democrats themselves turned out to vote for him in sizable numbers, repulsed by the specter of Hillary or Obama, and seeing McCain as a viable and attractive alternative.
David, you seem to know the future. Do you recall the past?
I remember a song called "We Won't Get Fooled Again."
Trey
Fen said...
The whole illegal immigrant bashing -
Bullshit. No one is bashing illegal immigrants. We just want the laws enforced."
Then make a call to the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.....let's see ...who can that be? What party is he? ...hmmmm
Why isn't it an issue for people like you HD? How do you square the finite resources of all your pet socialist programs, welfare, healthcare, etc with an almost infinite number of immigrants?
Are you like one of those land barons willing to exploit indentured servants and sharecroppers for short term financial gain?
Fen has a point; we can either embrace a large flow of immigration OR take care of our poor. We can't do both. There is a real conflict between open borders and the welfare state.
It's an interesting dilemma, and I think it's going to be a stress on the party in the coming years.
If you think conservatives are going to vote for Obama, I had a bridge to sell you, but some Pole bought it first.
Trooper York said...
"If you think conservatives are going to vote for Obama..."
If he's the nominee, yes, they are. If Obama is the dem nominee, the conservatives who stay home because they can't get over themselves and vote for McCain are voting for the dem nominee, whether that's Clinton or Obama. Don't count against the obtuseness of people.
There is no way that staying home is any sort of moral stand.
Don't vote for McCain if you don't want to, but there will be races for Congress and Senate and local seats and if Republicans stay home, Democrats will win them.
Synova said...
"There is no way that staying home is any sort of moral stand."
"We will make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them." That's the Bush doctrine. It rests on the premise that you can help the enemy by failing to act to oppose the enemy not just by actively helping them screw the U.S. So what does that paradigm say to an election? It seems to me that there's no distinction worth spit between voting for the Democratic candidate and failing to vote for their opponent.
For a lot of people there may really not be a preference. I felt that way in 2000. I really did not have a preference. I liked Gore and Tipper every bit as much as I liked Bush and Laura.
But not voting one way or the other for President is *not* the same as sitting out the election.
Someone who choses to sit out the election doesn't *just* affect the presidential race. Those who plan to do so in order to spite McCain are going to do so at the expense of those in their State and National Congressional and Senate races as well as their local races for mayors or judges or dog catcher. They sit out voting on bond issues and referendums.
If Democrats are excited about the race and go to vote in large numbers and Republicans are either bored or apathetic or angry... it's not just McCain that won't get voted for.
simon:
I had to go before responding to your other post (after I answered regarding immigration in reference to your observation vis a vis Martinez.)
My response is that to your 6:14 post is that sure, everyone does want to win (and until future events either prove one side wrong or right, or any given issue becomes moot for whatever reason there will continue to be discussions going on about issues.)
The difference is that now issues themselves are rarely discussed as much as they should be, but rather they are subordinated to personal attacks and all kinds of political harrassment (special prosecutors, congressional investigations based on scant evidence, and similar tactics.) The basic premise among too many people (on both sides) is not (as it used to be) that the people on the other side were wrong, but rather that they are evil and out to destroy the United States.
I'm not suggesting that a President Obama won't push for liberal policies-- obviously he will, and equally obviously I don't expect conservatives to just give up, or not use the filibuster or whatever other tools they have to try and stop him, but I do believe that he is sincere in his desire to change the mindset in Washington away from the mentality that the guys on the other team are practically in league with Satan. I think you know what I mean-- people who are so consumed with hate that they can't have a civil discussion with the other side (which is one reason why I cherish sites like this one or CHT-- it may have started with Washington but you can find plenty of unadulterated hate directed at people who have a different position, expounded on the internet. Just read George's comment at 11:52. I may never vote for John McCain, but I consider comparing him to Benedict Arnold to be immature at best and evidence of a brainwashed mind at worst.
Benedict Arnold was in fact a great American. He led the original invasion of Canada and was the main reason why the rebels won the battle of Saratoga, which really changed the war and led to the French to decide to give us the aid that helped win the war. But he was disappointed, bitter, and angry at the "slights" he received from others in the government. He was jealous of his reputation and was known for having a mean nasty temper. Sound familiar.
In fact Benedict Arnold did more for what would become the United States of America than any of the people who are currently running for president. He just made a mistake at the end, because he was a bitter, angry, and disappointed man. Sound familiar.
Plus he liked to talk to the press too much. Always kissing up to James Callender and talking smack about the Federalists. The bastard. Sound familiar.
The basic premise among too many people (on both sides) is not (as it used to be) that the people on the other side were wrong, but rather that they are evil and out to destroy the United States.
Exactly. Back when I worked in the Texas State Senate [1988], my "rivals" and I would go back and forth like rabid dogs... then meet for drinks later and slap each other on the back. We disagreed on everything, but we respected our differences, even stood together when an "outsider" attacked one of us.
I noticed the sea-change after Florida 2000. I've lost friends and family because I'm no longer a liberal.
Synova wrote: "I sort of resent the idea, somehow, that conservatives or Republicans won't vote for a black person or a woman."
Who says we won't vote for a black person or a woman? The people of Oklahoma who elected J.C. Watts? The people of Alaska who elected Sarah Palin? Those of us who would vote in a second for Sec. Rice?
Who are these racists? I think that the Aryan Brotherhood has left the party, and good riddance!
I think you are confusing Conservatives with bigots. Recall that the KKK was started as the terrorist arm of the Democratic party. Ancient history, to be sure, but then 85% of the Republicans voted for the Voters Rights Act of 1965. In the Senate, 94% of the Republicans voted for passage while only 74% of the Democratic senators did.
Today, Conservatives have different ideas about how to assist the poor. Liberals want to give them money, Conservatives want to create jobs that they can compete for.
I am not buying that Conservatives are unlikely to vote for a woman or a minority. I would vote for either, race and gender are immaterial. Philosophy of government and the ability to lead the nation toward Conservative principles are what I look for.
Trey
Trey said...
"Today, Conservatives have different ideas about how to assist the poor. Liberals want to give them money, Conservatives want to create jobs that they can compete for."
One might put it thus: a liberal is one who wants to give a man his daily fish; a conservative is one who wants to teach him how to fish so he can feed himself. I've often wondered what liberals made of that saying since they clearly don't believe in it.
Simon, you know that's BS. Liberals, in government and in private, non-profit agencies, have created and support job training programs in inner cities. They run shelters and day programs aimed at improving the literacy and job skills for those recovering from addictions. That's just a smattering of examples, but it's clearly untrue to say that liberals only support handouts, and even less true to say that conservatives are all about developing jobs. What's the job development under Bush? Not a great record to stand on, Simon!
Simon, when you and your wife visit New Orleans, I'll take you to lunch at a wonderful restaurant, Cafe Reconcile, designed and run by dyed-in-the-wool liberals. Every six weeks, a new group of high school students begins training in all aspects of restaurant work, from cleaning to cooking to waiting tables. It's smack in the middle of the poorest, most dangerous part of the city, where these kids face the worst choices possible. But they leave ready to apply for work in any restaurant in town.
Order the catfish and greens, or the crawfish etouffe. It's my treat!
a liberal is one who wants to raise taxes to open fishing schools with small class sizes and good pay and benefits for the fishing teachers; a conservative is one who wants the man's parents to pay for his fishing education.
Unfortunately the conservative has already allowed giant commercial fisheries to deplete the resource to the point where there is no more fish for the newly trained to catch.
fls nails it!
Conservatives have given away ALL THE MONEY!
Beth, it's not whether individual liberals support job creation, it's whether liberal programs do a good job of teaching people how to survive WITHOUT those liberal programs.
And it really isn't a specifically "liberal" thing. It's an organizational thing. MADD accomplished its goals years ago but there it sits, becoming less a drunk-driving-awareness-group and more-and-more a temperance group.
The liberal approach is primarily responsible for the 70% out-of-wedlock births that has destroyed the black community.
And I honestly think the intent was deliberate - to keep them enslaved to the Dem party.
a liberal is one who wants to raise taxes to open fishing schools with small class sizes and good pay and benefits for the fishing teachers;
...and I won't even go into what liberalism and its teacher's unions have done to the public education system.
[...]
I prefer this analogy instead:
A conservative is someone who will ignore your broken down car on the side of the road. He's late for his tee time.
A liberal is someone who will stop to help you change your tire and somehow blow up your car in the process
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा