Rush to Raise Funds for Clinton
No, I’m not talking about the unspeakably-talented Canadian prog rock trio passing plates for the teary-eyed Arka-nois Yorker. I’m talking about someone far less probable than that! Earlier this week, the man known as the Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio upset the natural order of the universe by hinting he may raise funds for the very un-conservative Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Quick! Someone seance Douglas Adams, because I think someone has finally perfected the Infinite Improbability Drive. How else could we arrive at the moment when Rush Limbaugh would be willing to toss Hillary’s financial salad without the use of blunt-force cranial trauma or drug-induced hypnosis?
This shouldn’t be misinterpreted as some kind of endorsement for Clinton–quite the contrary, in fact. Limbaugh just thinks conservatives’ natural, unquestioned hatred of Clinton is the only hope of uniting them behind “conservative” (hard to type that with a straight face) Republican candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain.
In the wake of the self-imposed suspension of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign), McCain seems to have a statistical lock on the nomination. The conservative base that has been the nexus of political power for the Republican Party has, en masse made its displeasure with McCain known through talk radio, newspaper and digital media. While McCain, a former Vietnam POW, has largely been conservative on issues of national defense and abortion, has demonstrated liberal tendencies in areas of tax policy and political speech, as well as in his support of the so-called “amnesty” bill for illegal aliens. The fear of losing the support of conservative Republicans led Limbaugh to make this statement on his Feb. 7th broadcast:
…The reason for raising money for Hillary is because that apparently my party is relying on fear and loathing of Hillary to get the nomination, to unite Republicans…The Republicans do not seem to be relying on leadership in their party to unite the party. They seem to be relying on all these external things, nobody is going to vote for Hillary, negative turnout factor. What if she’s not the nominee? We’ve got make sure she’s the nominee if the Republican Party is to be unified. What more loyal thing could I do than to run a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton?” Well, you certainly can’t argue with that logic! (Kudos to Maha-Rushi for using the phrase “Fear and Loathing”; I’m a sucker for any Hunter S. Thompson reference. Speaking of which, we’re really heading into “bat country” with this turn of events!) Recently, none other than Ann Coulter stated she’d campaign for Clinton if McCain was the nominee, though it might have sounded to some like a joke or empty threat than a commitment on her part.
At the time of this writing, no fundraiser has been announced. I’m sure you’ll be able to read all about it in the press when one is finally announced, right under the headline: “Hell Freezes Over!” Charles Dudley Warner was right: Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Sources: Time.com - Free Market News - The Huffington Post - RushLimbaugh.com
(Note: Shortly after the writing of this post, Limbaugh put the brakes on the fundraising effort, citing the recent reports that Clinton had raised nearly 6 million dollars since Super Tuesday. The article runs as originally written because I just didn’t know when I’d get the chance to use the phrase “toss Hillary’s financial salad” again.)
Rush and Ann are crazy like FOX.
McCain will have a much easier time beating Hillary than he would Obama.
The right will come together regardless of who the nominee is. McCain is already making concellations on the border and immigration issues and the disgruntled right will soon realize that the perfect Ronald Reagan con is just not out there anymore.
The disgruntled right hopefully will see that they should count their blessing and take the good that McCain has to offer and compromise and reach out to an agreement in the middle as an example to left who preaches this philosophy constantly but are rarely actually ever seen performing it.
micky2
19 Feb 08 at 4:50 pm
concellations?
sorry
micky2
19 Feb 08 at 4:50 pm
dude, consolations?
keyworkHAPPYBDAYSTONA!
19 Feb 08 at 5:37 pm
Yeah, I was going to edit it to put in the right word for you, but I didn’t know what word I should use. Words are hard.
When I was a teenager, I was a dittohead. My political views were largely formed by Limbaugh. And then I learned to think for myself.
The Bagel of Everything
19 Feb 08 at 6:05 pm
I got the stars mixed up in there somewhere. And it wasnt fucking hollywood.
micky2
19 Feb 08 at 6:10 pm
We all know Hillary will be the nominee. The Clintons have a bag of dirty tricks that makes Nixon look like Carrot Top. Furthermore, if they can’t smear Obama away, the Superdelegates will cinch it for her at the convention, because no Democrat’s vote truly counts in the primaries.
Soylent Ape
19 Feb 08 at 8:41 pm
Boo hiss…no more politics! I kid…
I’m dissapointed and saddened by what our country has to offer us, that i couldnt even actually read the story :(
sorry to be the debby-downer…
and it was my birthday-I VOTE FOR A RETRACTION OF this story! yeah-thats it…no politics on amandas birthday!
Stona Lisa
19 Feb 08 at 9:40 pm
yea, the Clintons are known for dirty tricks. Thats why I think America is tired of their shit.
But if Hillary does win the primaries, John will wipe his ass with her.
thats what I’m hoping for.
micky2
19 Feb 08 at 10:26 pm
It’s a damned shame when the best Republican president since Nixon ends up being Bill Clinton and the worst Democratic president since Carter ends up being Shrub.
And I’m not being sarcastic either.
Frontier Former Editor
19 Feb 08 at 11:33 pm
Sorry, Stona. Maybe we’ll do that on a non-presidential-election year.
The Bagel of Everything
20 Feb 08 at 12:13 am
Yea but bagel. Fucking elections are starting sooner and sooner . And lasting longer
just like Christmas starts on halloween now.
No one could ever be worse than Carter. If you google “worst president ever ” he takes the whole first 5 pages.
micky2
20 Feb 08 at 1:26 am
@ FFE: Bush (with the help of a complicit Republican Congress) has spent like crazy and encroached upon many civil rights. I thought he was gonna push for Social Security reform. Instead, he let it die in the Senate and never mentioned it again.
Clinton’s Presidency was enhanced, I think, by a Republican Congress that gave him shit left-and-right. That kind of gridlock actually seems to work: our government works best when it can’t get in our way.
@ Stona: Sorry to bring you down on your birthday.
@ Micky: I think when it comes down to the wire, Americans will vote McCain over Clinton. It wouldn’t be ideal for everybody, but most will perceive it as the lesser of two evils. Personally, I fought McCain through the first part of the primaries because his stance on amnesty really left a bad taste in my mouth. Still, Clinton would do the same thing in a heartbeat. Ron Paul could siphon some votes with a write-in campaign, though.
Soylent Ape
20 Feb 08 at 5:48 am
Soy.
I really hope so. I’ve pointed out the lesser of evils in other statements also.
Last night during the Hawaii caucus the first numbers came in with 10% of the precincts being in they had Obama had 2528 or close to that and Hillary at 666 !
Talk about evil preminitions!
I didn’t say anything because my wife is always looking for the antichrist.
Shes of the mind that the end days are always right around the corner.
McCain botherd me with his stance on immigration also. But recently hes been changing his tune on that issue and seems to be leaning to a compromise.
At least we know he wont tolerate any bullshit coming out of the middle east.
micky2
20 Feb 08 at 9:18 am
I must admit that Obama is attractive to me, because he’s not been in D. C. nearly as long as Clinton or McCain. I think an outsider might be the best thing for our country. Still, he’s so vague and I can’t get behind someone unless I have a little more concrete notion of what he/she’ll do.
Unless there’s a brokered Republican Convention, I’m with McCain. Even though he’s let me down in some areas, I respect his character and his sacrifice. More of his policies and stances line up with mine than Clinton’s.
Soylent Ape
20 Feb 08 at 7:32 pm
OMG-not Mccain! He’s for the NWO….!
I was all for Ron Paul…but ya know what-im not where i was 2-3 months ago when all the primary malarchy started. And now i feel like i have NO ONE who fits into what i want for prez…i feel our country is headed for an even deeper downward spiral…and i cant sit comfortably with any of them!
Stona Lisa
21 Feb 08 at 11:54 am
Relax Lisa.
McCain will probably be just as effective on the economy as Paul would of been.
Ron Paul might of been O.K on some domestic issues, but radical muslims and islam are not going away. No matter what Paul said.
There is no spiral. Its a revolving pattern that the country has been subjected to for centiries. Our system is a living breathing works in progress. Sometimes it lays down to rest and then gets back up and does it all over again. Just like the rest of us do on a daily basis. One decade for the country is relevant to a day in our time.
If you look back and study the market and our countrys evolution you’ll see the pattern.
3 steps forward and occasionally a step or two backwards.
micky
21 Feb 08 at 1:37 pm
well…i do have to say that the economy is not my main concern. I dont know if i do have a main concern for the up-coming election. I’m an 1980 baby-and really have no direction-but feel as though i must speak up about the thing i dont agree with anyway!
but thanks for trying to calm me!
Stona Lisa
21 Feb 08 at 2:25 pm
I’m not sure who I’m for. Mostly, I’m against Hillary. I suppose I’m for whoever has the best chance of beating her.
The Bagel of Everything
21 Feb 08 at 2:38 pm
I can beat Hillary !
micky
21 Feb 08 at 3:21 pm
I don’t like Clinton, Obama, or McCain, but I’d vote for McCain over either of the Democrats. I can deal with a social conservative easier than I can deal with an economic liberal.
Until I see who gets the nominations, I’m going to stay undecided. Maybe (heh, more like probably) there’ll be a Libertarian or independent candidate I like more.
Cody
22 Feb 08 at 12:19 am
@ Cody: Don’t count Ron Paul out. His supporters are wild and committed enough to launch a write-in campaign. I doubt if he’d come through, but he could be a heartbraker for another candidate. Paul could suck votes from both sides better than my new Hoover.
Soylent Ape
22 Feb 08 at 12:35 am
Soy said: “Paul could suck votes from both sides better than my new Hoover.”
ROFLMAO!
Stona Lisa
22 Feb 08 at 8:34 am
In all likelyhood if Paul were to do any sucking it would be on McCain.
Pauls foreign policies dictate that we should just strip the middle east of our presence.
Its common knowledge that McCain would be all over the middle east like a cheap suit.
Paul does not have a lot of followers. Its just that he gets a bigger donations from the ones hes got. At the primaries and in polls he shows at only between 2 to 5% in votes.
I dont know how much damage he could do if he did start sucking, not that he already doesnt.
Hes never been viewed as a top tier candidate which is why a lot of things about him that deserve question never hit the front pages.
His appraoch to our economy deaerves some credit. But his position on the GWOT would be self defeating. If oil shippments and middle eastern production were disrupted all of of Pauls economic applications would go to shit. If Americas oil supply was cut even in half no amount of smart economics would help to pull us out of a phenomonal market dive and depression the likes of which this country has never seen.
micky
22 Feb 08 at 10:47 am
Heres just one thing about Paul that I believe got put to rest too soon.
No one really got to the bottom of it because Paul just kept playing ignorant.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/
micky
22 Feb 08 at 10:52 am
Ron Paul: the new Nader. Only weirder.
As to Rush and Coulter raising funds for Clinton, that would be terrific political theatre.
Metro
22 Feb 08 at 10:53 am
Ann and Rush know exactly what they’re doing.
micky
22 Feb 08 at 11:34 am
Just make the checks out to Keywork for Pres.
K-Wizzle
22 Feb 08 at 11:53 am
I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul. He’s a traitor to the term “libertarian”.
Cody
23 Feb 08 at 1:34 am
I’m just saying that Paul has a yet-undemonstrated potential for spoiling a general election. He’s a washington outsider with radical plans for “change”. If the Dems pull a stunt at the convention and nominate Hillary, he could pull away embittered Obama voters. He has the right views on taxation and immigration to siphon off some niche voters from McCain, who seems to be nobody’s “ideal” candidate. This is all hypothetical: Paul may not go along with a write-in campaign. I’m just saying that there’s a lot of factors to consider.
Soylent Ape
23 Feb 08 at 8:56 am
Soy
Aside from all my other bullshit , your right. Paul could fuck up an election.
Especially when its starting to look as if its going to be a close one with Obama and McCain
micky
23 Feb 08 at 10:56 am
I admit that I worry about it. I remember how Perot came in in ‘92 to basically swerve the election into Clinton’s camp and it taught me never to underestimate even the weakest 3rd party candidate.
Soylent Ape
23 Feb 08 at 11:22 am
Thats right ! Perot !
The name was on the tip of my head, just couldnt find it
micky
23 Feb 08 at 12:23 pm
That’s the sad thing about third party candidates. They have a tendency to throw an election by siphoning votes, so everyone looks at them as bad. Perot in ‘92, Nader in 2000…it’s funny because they never win electoral votes so they shouldn’t really matter. That’s kind of surprising in Perot’s case, considering he got 18% of the popular vote. Ron Paul could probably operate on that scale if he ran as an independent.
Cody
24 Feb 08 at 3:44 am
Nader caught hell for his run in ‘oo, too. He basically gave Bush the election. That and the faulty electronic voting machines all over the country, the Florida Board of Elections and the Supreme Court.
Until we get a viable Third Party–one that has the support to really carry an election–all a 3rd candidate could possibly hope to do would be to throw an election toward another candidate.
In Europe, some nations have up to a dozen different parties: The Christian Democrat Party,The Labo(u)r Party, The Green Party, The Conservative Party, The Smoking Party, The Soccer Hooligan party…you get my point. The United States has bought that “Two-Party System” line for far too long.
Soylent Ape
24 Feb 08 at 8:12 am
I’m having a toss up as to whether syponing votes should even be allowed.
If its determined after a primary vote that you’re no longer viable should you be allowed to take votes from a candidate that is more electable than you ?
You dont want to take away peoples choices. But at the same time it was already determined in the primary that peole have made their choice, and that only a certain percentage will vote for you, why should you be allowed to continue ?
Primarys are basically an elimination round. I dont think with evn 4 partys and four viable candidates making it past the primary that anyone with less than 25% should be allowed to continue into the general.
If people want to make statement or protest votes, those kind of votes serve a different purpose from actually choosing a leader.
I dont think our election system should be place for activism.
Soy.
I admire Europes choices. But It would seem that a lot of these other parties they have are concentrated on only 1 or 2 issues that dont apply to a wider spectrum of the countrys needs.
If someone from the Green Partys was put into office you could probably bet that manufacturing and national security would be put on the back burner and a lot of green mandates would be put in place.
We can hardly get shit done with two partys on the hill. Can you imagine what a clusterfuck it would be if we had reps from 4 or 5 different partys ?
Besides that. Alot of Europes sytems have boiled down to socialism, I think as a result of failing to get agreements out of too large a spectrum of interests.
micky
24 Feb 08 at 9:22 am
@ Mickey: In many places, third parties (ie: Socialists, Libertarians, Greens) don’t have a primary election because…what would be the point. Anyone who meets the minimum qualifications for candidacy (age, citizenship, etc..) can do a write-in. I agree with you, too, because any candidate could set up a theoretical “straw man” candidate whose platform is designed to appeal to a certain bloc of voters in hopes of swinging the election. However, write-in votes might seem to constitute free speech, so there’s kind of a Constitutional quandary there. I’m not sure how to get past it.
One good thing about having a bunch of different parties in a place like Germany is that politicians have to be very specific in outlining their plans and they have to be aware of all viewpoints, because the voters will hold them to account. You’re right, though. Nearly every nation in Europe has a socialist streak and conservatism is very much a voice crying in the political wilderness.
I think socialism was less a failure to work out agreements and compromise. I think it had more to do with programs designed to help the various affected countries to recover after WWII. People got used to living in a “nanny state”, however, and now socialism has a strong hold on most of the major nations.
Soylent Ape
24 Feb 08 at 10:40 am
Yea soy. Its the free speach issue and quandry that tosses me up.
The grip that socialism took after WW11 is less likely to happen here since we’re already accustom to things the way they are.
But through our votes we should be able to start holding these shmucks to their word after they get in office.
Does anyone really believe that either Obama or Hillary will bail on Iraq as soon as they say they will ? They’re just telling the anti war vote what they want to hear.
I dont think we should leave till the job gets done right. We owe our dignity and integrity that much not to mention the Iraqis.
McCain was at least being honest and realistic when he said we could be there for the next hundred years. Look at Japan and Germany.
I think at least McCain is being up front on what I believe is our real purpose in being there.
The middle east has been a clusterfuck of morons going after each other for centuries now. How many times have we seen America try to broker peace in that region ? Enough already ! And our being planted smack in the middle of it all is very self serving in our need to keep the radicals at bay so they dont screw up our access to oil. Nobody is talking about taking whats not ours.
But we do need to ensure that what we need can still be sold and brought to us.
The single most effective way to kill our country is to disrupt the flow of our oil. And these fucking radicals know it.
micky
24 Feb 08 at 11:16 am
WW11? I missed 3-10! I know I’ve been busy and all, but wow. I really need to catch up on current events.
The Bagel of Everything
12 Mar 08 at 11:41 pm