Rush: Preposterous! Remember?

[Serenity Now]

You forgot to respond to these responses to your "preposterous" statement about the GOP having a challenge with their nominations historically having to go so far right to get the nomination that they can't get out of that conservative hole that they've dug themselves. It would actually be interesting to see how this plays out in this election cycle, watching it as we go. As we speak Paul is getting hammered for things he's said in the past that he's having to walk different directions on.

--------------------------
http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/...-gop-strategy/

The danger of the power of the far-right was evident in both Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s campaigns. Both candidates postured themselves too far to the right in the nomination battle, alienating moderates and losing the general election as a result. John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to appease evangelicals and was then forced to a deal with an unpredictable and uneducated running mate who continually embarrassed him. Mitt Romney did the same by flip-flopping on almost every social position he held as governor of Massachusetts, only furthering the view that he had no legitimate beliefs. The complicated truth for Republicans is that their evangelical base is making it impossible for them to win national elections. As the public’s views on social issues continue to liberalize, the GOP will either have to abandon their solid evangelical voting bloc or continue to lose the moderate vote, and therefore lose the White House.
--------------------------
http://fair.org/blog/2015/03/24/rebr...rp-right-turn/

Before the 2000 campaign, McCain was consistently among the party’s most conservative members. In the 107th Congress (2001-02), McCain was the sixth most liberal Republican senator, according to the VoteView statistical analysis of voting patterns. In the next congressional session, he was the fourth-most conservative.

And he’s more or less stayed there since. According to VoteView, McCain’s voting record in 2005-06 made him the second-most conservative senator in the 109th Congress, and the eighth-most conservative in the 110th Senate. Outside of McCain’s brief tack to the middle, his overall voting record makes him a reliable member of his party’s caucus.
As for Romney, his reputation as a “moderate” was largely based on his having implemented as governor of Massachusetts a healthcare program inspired by the Heritage Foundation.

--------------------------
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-extreme-right

When he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he strayed only marginally from those positions, continuing to stress his pro-choice bona fides and even adopted a position on gun control that ran counter to the powerful National Rifle Association. As late as 2008, when he first ran for president, Romney was prone to tout his one major domestic policy initiative – healthcare reform.

Those were the days. As the Republicans have moved consistently further to the right Romney has followed the crowd, adopting increasingly strident political positions. This was true throughout the Republican primary season as Romney, facing off against a motley collection of Tea Party-approved also-rans, was forced to take stances on immigration, government spending, taxes, abortion and a host of other issues favoured by the party's most conservative members but that left him vulnerable to Democratic counterattack.

Illegal immigration is perhaps the best example. It's an issue that is a veritable cri de coeur for the Tea Party and Romney embraced their views to the point where he attacked unpopular Texan governor Rick Perry for insufficient rigour in cutting social services for illegal immigrants in the state. It gave Romney a boost in the Republican primaries but also provides a hint as to why he is losing Hispanic voters to Obama by a 2-1 margin.

But the romancing of the Tea Party continues. Just last week, the Romney campaign ran two controversial ads, one attacking Obama on welfare benefits, the other accusing the president of declaring a war on religion, because of his backing of a provision of the healthcare law that forces businesses to provides contraceptive services to their employees. Both ads are basically made-up attacks; lies for lack of a better word. But the mendacity of the Romney campaign is by now well chronicled.

What's more interesting is the target for them: conservative voters who recoil at the thought of welfare cheats absconding with their taxpayer dollars and religious voters convinced by years of Republican rhetoric that their faith is under assault. Just as Republicans in the Senate have reason to be fearful of the wrath of the Tea Party, so does Romney. Just three weeks before his convention, he is in the uncomfortable position of reassuring the right about his conservative bona fides.

[FaninAma]

Any blog that insists on calling Romney a true conservative is not worth reading. McCain's problem is that he enjoyed irritating conservatives and being called a maverick during the forst 3/4ths of his Senate career. The difference between the GOP base and the Democrat base is that the GOP remembers what individual GOP politicians did and said before they became a candidate for POTUS. The Democrat base doesn't seem to GAS as long as they can vote for a personality.

I stayed home in 2008. I held my nose and voted for Romney in 2012 only because it was clear how incompetent and dishonest Obama was.

[Serenity Now]

Where'd you go rush?

[olevetonahill]

Where'd you go rush?

Prolly chose to ignore a troll.

[Serenity Now]

Prolly chose to ignore a troll.

4/8/2015 07:31 PM
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Thread: Turd
company provided. WAKE UP!

He gave me negative feedback pretty recently. So, that's probably not the case.

[Serenity Now]

What it said was that Romney spent yearS trying to get away from his moderate history be "acting" conservative. And, he was then on record as a flip flopped with no real principle. I like the use of the term "bona fides".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Prolly chose to ignore a troll.I release him from banishment from time to time. All the sh*t he wants to talk about has been discussed ad infinitum. It must be he thinks views counter to the hardcore statist are patently wrong, so he pretends they can't be true.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"your "preposterous" statement about the GOP having a challenge with their nominations historically having to go so far right to get the nomination that they can't get out of that conservative hole that they've dug themselves".-SerenityNow 4-9-15







I didn't say such nonsense. I said the best way a republican can win is if he/she is actually a conservative, and can deal with the Media that is always trying to destroy him/her, ala Ronald Reagan. There are too many R's that won't vote for a squishy moderate RINO type.

[SicEmBaylor]

The GOP hasn't nominated a legitimate conservative for President since 1984. This just re-enforces proof-positive that McCain is a steaming pile of ****, and it validates my decision to vote against his ***. So don't blame me -- I voted for Bob Barr.

Romney was *almost* as bad, and I didn't vote for him either.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The GOP hasn't nominated a legitimate conservative for President since 1984. This just re-enforces proof-positive that McCain is a steaming pile of ****, and it validates my decision to vote against his ***. So don't blame me -- I voted for Bob Barr.

Romney was *almost* as bad, and I didn't vote for him either.So, you are like the conservatives who won't vote for a squish, enabling the democrat, full blown authoritarian socialist/fascist to win again. We know that already. how many times have we seen you say what you do/did? haha

[hawaii 5-0]

Saw on TV today that 42% of Republicans would not vote for Jeb Bush under any circumstances.

Not healthy to feel thataway.

5-0

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I would not vote for Jeb for any circumstance. He is Hillary and Brack lite...

[SicEmBaylor]

I would not vote for Jeb for any circumstance. He is Hillary and Brack lite...

Amen. You can add Santorum and Rubio to that list.

[okie52]

Saw on TV today that 42% of Republicans would not vote for Jeb Bush under any circumstances.

Not healthy to feel thataway.

5-0

42%? Glad to hear that....wish it were more.

Probably 90% of pubs wouldn't ever vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

So that's unhealthy?

[Serenity Now]

My point is/was that there are two hurdles. 1. The nomination: You have to appeal to the right to win that. 2. The election: You've got to be able to appeal to the moderates to win here. It appears that the two are becoming mutually exclusive. Your singular response: "preposterous". Whatever, I don't think someone far enough right for this crowd to support him/her can get enough of the folks from the middle to win an election. I don't think the left has that issue. At least not in recent history.

McCain sure tested out conservative as far as actual votes. The difference between the perception of him and his actual voting record is interesting. I wonder what other politicians have such a difference.

[Serenity Now]

FWIW, had you simply responded with "I disagree because....." that would be discussing. Many from the far right are summarized well by Alinsky: “if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated.” I don't think anyone from the middle to the left in this forum thinks they have the answers. The fistful of neocons are the ones who are humorless and intellectually constipated. :)

You guys can knock me with some more negs now.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

FWIW, had you simply responded with "I disagree because....." that would be discussing. Many from the far right are summarized well by Alinsky: “if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated.” I don't think anyone from the middle to the left in this forum thinks they have the answers. The fistful of neocons are the ones who are humorless and intellectually constipated. :)

You guys can knock me with some more negs now.Almost everyone on the Left dismisses or won't discuss the amazing amount of free propaganda they get from the Media, Public Education and the Entertainment Industry. Part of Reagan's accomplishments are dealing with those forces and overcoming them, and it has to be done for someone to be able to begin to restore America.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would not vote for Jeb for any circumstance. He is Hillary and Brack lite...Couldn't agree more, but Lite is better than full on, like we are assured will come from the democrat. I sincerely hope Jeb isn't the nominee, as much as anyone here(except for the statists, of course).

[okie52]

FWIW, had you simply responded with "I disagree because....." that would be discussing. Many from the far right are summarized well by Alinsky: “if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated.” I don't think anyone from the middle to the left in this forum thinks they have the answers. The fistful of neocons are the ones who are humorless and intellectually constipated. :)

You guys can knock me with some more negs now.

The banning of 8th certainly removed a guy that was not only a man of integrity, hated talking points and hypocrisy, but also had all of the answers from the left.

[okie52]

My point is/was that there are two hurdles. 1. The nomination: You have to appeal to the right to win that. 2. The election: You've got to be able to appeal to the moderates to win here. It appears that the two are becoming mutually exclusive. Your singular response: "preposterous". Whatever, I don't think someone far enough right for this crowd to support him/her can get enough of the folks from the middle to win an election. I don't think the left has that issue. At least not in recent history.

McCain sure tested out conservative as far as actual votes. The difference between the perception of him and his actual voting record is interesting. I wonder what other politicians have such a difference.

This scenario for the right isn't much different than what the dems were often faced with in their primaries in the past. Move to the left in the primaries and back towards the center in the general election. Hillary has been trying to bridge that gap recently with the Warren adherents.

But the demographics are changing so the recent elections have been more favorable due to minorities for the dems. Romney captured 60% of the White vote and won virtually every category of white voters...men, women, youth, etc...but it wasn't enough to offset the minoritie's vote that was overwhelmngly for Obama.

[Serenity Now]

The banning of 8th certainly removed a guy that was not only a man of integrity, hated talking points and hypocrisy, but also had all of the answers from the left.

Funny. :)

I've caught myself here and in the last forum almost representing the devil in abstentia. I don't purport to have all the answers.

[okie52]

Nor do I.

I'm happy to go with pragmatic approaches in most cases...of course, like most things, the devil is in the details.

[champions77]

I just do not buy into the argument that the GOP Presidential candidates had to move to the far right to gain the nomination, only to lose the General Election because they could not move back to the middle fast enough? I agree that McCain and Romney did move to the right to gather increased support. But that is where the votes are. It makes no sense that they would then have to move to the middle to win a General election. How about the argument that the elections were lost because conservative voters were not sufficiently motivated to vote for someone they saw as a moderate? Mitt Romney was elected as Governor of MASSACHUSETTES, if not the most liberal State in the Union, not far from it. McCain saw this and tried to balance his ticket with a conservative Sarah Palin.
The GOP has been labeled on many occasions in the last several years as being "democratic Lite" meaning they talk a good game when back in their States running for election, but when they get to DC, it's politics as usual. As to budget matters, as to making genuine efforts to address the billions in waste, fraud and abuse, as to putting up serious opposition to many of the democratic initiatives, they just don't engage the Democrats, so you see what we have today. A overburdening central government, racking up Trillions in additional debt, unleashing attack dogs from departments like the EPA onto private citizens, threatening closure of their farms and ranches, additional regulations and policies that drive up the cost of doing business, enabling those here illegally, and of course a plethora of additional taxes. Outside of the posturing, the GOP had done very little in the way of 1) Communicating a cogent message to the public of what is occurring today, and 2) Providing some leadership to not only stop this expansion of the Federal Government, but to provide reasonable alternatives to the American people. Any that have tried to bring these issues up, like addressing social security or any welfare reform have been met with the Dem commercial of granny going over the cliff in the wheelchair, or the GOP is trying to starve little children. The GOP response to these counterattacks has usually been silence, and their reform efforts are usually discontinued.

I think a more genuine observation is why has the Democratic Party moved so far to the left? To my knowledge the Obama Administration is the very first to employ a card carrying Communist, Van Jones who was appointed as BHO's "Green Czar" in 2009. Our President was mentored at one time by Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist. Over the last fifty years, the Democratic Party has become more and more hard left in their political leanings. They claim they have a big tent, but anyone that regularly posts on this Forum would have a better chance of being sent to the Moon in a rocket ship, than some Pro-Life Democrat would have in addressing the Democratic National Convention. They have for the most part made their party one in which the far left feels very much at home. It is now their core. They are now the majority in that Party. A look at their platform with regards to climate change, support of Unions, the environment, tax reform, extending "rights" to illegal aliens, and of course the diminishment of the US Military leaves one with that impression.
The Media likes to beat up on the Tea Party, whose values, ideas and positions actually mirrors the average American much more closely than the Democratic Party. The Tea Party came into existence in the first places as a response to what was seen as a radical move to the left by our politicians. Only the gigantic leap to the far left in the last few decades could make Tea Party positions look far right in comparison.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Good post, Champions77! This is the part the Left will not admit, and constantly is lying about:

"How about the argument that the elections were lost because conservative voters were not sufficiently motivated to vote for someone they saw as a moderate?"

[champions77]

Good post, Champions77! This is the part the Left will not admit, and constantly is lying about:

"How about the argument that the elections were lost because conservative voters were not sufficiently motivated to vote for someone they saw as a moderate?"

That's basically what I am stating. You just did so much more succinctly. Thanks

[Serenity Now]

You guys aren't wrong. It's already started with Rand Paul. He's on record with so much "content" from his history that is very conservative that he's in a position now of having to defend that and then being labeled as a man with no true principles.

You're not necessarily wrong about the left. I'm on board with environmental and health stuff. I know enough to know that I don't know enough about the military issues. However, the real lefties think Obama is a moderate. Like, he should have closed Gitmo, he should not be golfing with Haliburton, etc. I figure he's probably a little like a referee. If both sides think he's screwing you, he's probably calling it right. I also see, historically, that Presidents and Supremes migrate to the center. It just happens. To continue down the referee path, it's probably similar to how a home team gets the calls even from good refs.

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/

Enjoy those two links. They're presented for your entertainment purposes, not to educate anyone. Although, it couldn't hurt. ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bear is anti-American, Serenity. it's not complicated.

[Serenity Now]

Bear is anti-American, Serenity. it's not complicated.

Kenyan socialists are apt for that. :|

[rock on sooner]

Couple of things here...about having to move to the right and then try to get
back to the center. In Iowa, the conservative HAS to go waaaay right...the
evangelicals are more vocal, more active and more motivated than moderate
Pubs in this state...cases in point...Huckabee won the Pub caucus, Santorum
did, too, except the GOP couldn't get counts in on time then it went to Romney.
Next stop NH, how did Huckabee and Santorum do? South Carolina is similar
with its conservatism. It takes a while for the far right to wear off the Pub
candidate.

As to Gitmo, Congress kept and is keeping it open. There was a solid plan in
place to create a SuperMax in IL to bring the detainees there but Congress
shut it down.

As to Paul, he is REALLY having to walk back a lot of his earlier stuff. It's going
to be a lot of fun watching the Pubs winnow themselves into one or two down
to the wire.

Hillary is going to have to not appear inevitable...imo...this aint 2007/2008 and
her organization has gone to school on their own mistakes. I would love to see
Bernie Sanders gain traction and make some noise!

[champions77]

Couple of things here...about having to move to the right and then try to get
back to the center. In Iowa, the conservative HAS to go waaaay right...the
evangelicals are more vocal, more active and more motivated than moderate
Pubs in this state...cases in point...Huckabee won the Pub caucus, Santorum
did, too, except the GOP couldn't get counts in on time then it went to Romney.
Next stop NH, how did Huckabee and Santorum do? South Carolina is similar
with its conservatism. It takes a while for the far right to wear off the Pub
candidate.

As to Gitmo, Congress kept and is keeping it open. There was a solid plan in
place to create a SuperMax in IL to bring the detainees there but Congress
shut it down.

As to Paul, he is REALLY having to walk back a lot of his earlier stuff. It's going
to be a lot of fun watching the Pubs winnow themselves into one or two down
to the wire.

Hillary is going to have to not appear inevitable...imo...this aint 2007/2008 and
her organization has gone to school on their own mistakes. I would love to see
Bernie Sanders gain traction and make some noise!

Well unlike Obama, ole Bernie at least owns up to his affinity for socialism. That would be refreshing. As to Bernie's chances, I would think that he would be rejected by at least 90% of the American people. 10% is about the percentage of Americans that would feel comfortable with his ideas, principles and values.