How Rush Limbaugh saved Clinton’s candidacy

Let it be known, if there is any hope of Hillary Clinton becoming the nominee, it can solely be credited to the task force launched by Rush Limbaugh in the form of “Operation Chaos.” If you’re unfamiliar, Rush has asked Republican voters to re-register and/or simply crossover in Democratic primaries to vote for Hillary Clinton. The eventual hope is to keep the Democratic race alive and let them descend into madness at the Denver convention.

Don’t kid yourself, should Clinton take the nomination at this point, madness it will be. The liberal groups are urging mass riots at the Democratic convention should Obama not become the nominee at this point. Think I’m kidding, check out Re-create ’68 and see for yourself. Here’s the goal of the organization:

Welcome to the “Re-create 68” website, your virtual activists’ Convergence Center for the Denver Democratic National Convention of 2008. This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party.

R-68 agrees with the proposition, POTESTAS IN POPULO, “all power comes from the people.” What stands between the people and power are the party machines. The parties were devised as a means to represent the people. Today they represent nobody, not even party members, but only party bureaucracy. The people have been left without appropriate institutions for their representation. We intend to create those institutions!

Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained.

I find this whole notion utterly hysterical as these liberal loons will basically be doing exactly what pundits like Rush would like them to do, continually embarrass and expose the Democratic Party for what it is.

As fun as it is contemplating the thought of liberal activists shutting down the Denver convention, let me get back to my point. Rush succeeded so strongly with “Operation Chaos” that he has liberal pundits and the Obama campaign trying to convince everyone that, had it not been for Rush, Obama would have won Indiana. They’re not even trying to marginalize him, they are using it as a reasoning for why Obama lost by less than 20,000 votes.

The Huffington Post, bastion of incoherent liberalism that it is, even went out on a limb to discuss the effects of “Operation Chaos” at length. For example, this post which explains it using the exit polls:

Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?

The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the “chaos” in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.

Though at the end they concede his effect may have been minimal, the fact that they’re acknowledging and crediting it is victory enough.

Do a little more searching and you’ll find numerous stories like this one:

Those looking for evidence of Limbaugh’s influence pointed to Clinton’s edge among Republicans in Indiana and North Carolina. In Indiana, 10 percent of Democratic primary voters described themselves as Republicans, a higher rate than in any state but Mississippi, and they went for Clinton by eight percentage points, according to exit polls. In North Carolina, they were 5 percent of the electorate, and went for her by 29 points.

Finally, as even more evidence that the media along with the Obama campaign are crediting Rush with Clinton’s victory, Chris Matthews unloaded on any Republican voter who dared meddle in the Democratic Primary:

What a crock! Where were these people when liberal activists were urging Democrat voters to crossover and vote for Mitt Romney in Michigan? Remember, less than a few short months ago, The Daily Kos was urging voters to extend the Republican Primary by giving Romney a victory in Michigan, here’s the the quote from Kos:

“(W)e want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us,” Kos writes. “We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan……(N)ot only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney’s victory.”

Rush simply succeeded where the Daily Kos failed. So to Chris Matthews, and anyone else criticizing Rush, chew on that one. In the same fashion, nobody has been able to destroy Obama the way Clinton has. In essence, Democrats should be more upset that Clinton is allowing her candidacy to be used by Rush as a way to continue attacking Obama.

Clinton, for her part, has played the situation well. She’s joked about it and played it off cool as a cucumber. However, secretly I’m sure she’s thanking God everyday that “Operation Chaos” is out their keeping her campaign alive. No campaign advertising funds in the world could pay for the free votes Rush is tossing her way.

So kudos to Rush who singlehandedly save Hillary Clinton’s candidacy Tuesday night in Indiana. Plus, we also learned that when moderates and independents choose the Republican nominee, the pendulum can equally swing the other way.

The bottom line is that the success of “Operation Chaos” simply shows the state of this presidential race: pure chaos. There are weak candidates full of hope, change, and other empty crap they’re continually putting forth. Republicans are disgusted with McCain, Democrats are disgusted with the superdelegate system, perhaps this is the year of the third-party candidate.

  • freespirit

    In a country where a guy such as G.W. BUSH has been voted TWICE as president by YOU guys – NOTHING suprises me anylonger…so don’t be suprised if the wrong guys are up for grabs again..

    I would have loved to see, Arnie vs. Gore LOL

  • My Operation Chaos: What I Learned in Talk Radio

    I’ve learned a lot from failure. In the late 1990’s I worked in AM talk radio here in Salt Lake City. In that time I worked in front of and behind the mic of two AM talk radio stations and was the program director of a third station devoted to syndicated news. When I got into radio it was with the hope and ambition of having an enduring career. One day I thought, if I work really hard maybe I could be as popular as a Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, or G. Gordan Liddy….
    http://www.futureosophy.com

  • IndiMinded

    I’m not sure I entirely get you. When you speak about the people threatening to make a scene should the democratic superdelegates vote against the will of the voters, you call them “liberal loons”, but you also say that they are “exposing the democratic party for what it is”.

    It seems almost as if you’re simultaneously expressing agreement with and contempt for their aim. They want democratic elections for their party. Do you honestly think they’d care what Rush wants?

  • Jeremy

    I am not sure that R-68 are ‘loons’. They are simply trying to make sure that the population are the ones to make the choice of who their future presidential candidate will be.

  • Mike

    Yay, name-calling! What are we, CG, six-years-old? Well, speaking as a “liberal loon,” I’m quite happy the Democratic primary has gone on so long.

    Don’t kid yourself, there really is no way Clinton can take the nomination at this point, even with FL and MI…there’s just no “saving” to do, just a prolonging of the inevitable. Even the mainstream media, the last voice that would want to end this headline-generating race, now recognizes Obama’s inevitability.

    However, a protracted race has had several positive effects:

    1) Massive Democratic party registration over a record number of states. Sure, you can claim that this was just Rush’s doing, but most pundits argue the Operation Chaos effect was minimal – certainly not enough to cause the 10-1 Democratic-Republican registration gap. It also doesn’t explain similarly massive Democratic registration in open primary states.

    2) Stealing John McCain’s thunder. The media is, above all, sensationalist: If it bleeds, it leads. There’s just no story to follow on the McCain side of things, not compared to a close Democratic race, anyway.

    3) Vetting Obama. Had all the non-issue controversies come out in the GE (Wright, secret muslim, Ayers, etc.), it could’ve seriously affected his chances for a November win. As it is, though, numerous polls have shown Obama has successively bounced back from each piece of dirt as it’s revealed. I’ll give credit to the Clinton attack machine, they’re efficient. If there was dirt to be dug up, it’s been dug up. McCain can try to harp on those same controversies in the GE, but it’s old news and the narrative has already been set.

    So for all this, I say “Thanks, Rush!” Now, please, go back to your secret bunker…I hear Cindy McCain scored some oxycontin for you back there.

  • Cy

    To me this whole show seems so childish and stupid. It has exposed vulnerabilities of our democratic system and the very fact that how a mouth-piece can ruin the reputation of a whole nation.

    How do you think our enemies, and friends alike, will interpret this “Chaos”! We look more stupid than ever in their eyes.

    Don’t label me with “Liberal loon” since I consider myself an “Ultra Conservative”.

  • Babs

    Mike, I’m not so sure your #3 is a wrap yet. You might want to score yourself some oxycontin and hold on for the ride.

    CG, I don’t think Rush had a lot of success with his operation, not according to the latest. But I look at it this way. If John McCain loses, I’d be more ok with Hillary as President than Obama. So if that was the end result of the operation, I could live with it.

  • Michel

    Babs, if you are not so sure about Mike’s #3, I strongly recommend you to check something that I’m sure you’ve already seen: http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/05/09/video-another-fiery-pastor-for-mccain/
    And read as well that other article where the polls showed that most voters were tired of all the Wright talk in the media.
    BUT… if you want to be in denial, be my guest.

    I also found quite funny that sentence of yours:

    ” If John McCain loses, I’d be more ok with Hillary as President than Obama.”-Babs

    Is funny because that’s what is driving most Republicans more than any affection for McCain. And not because I say so, by the way. Look at this new Hotline poll from yesterday. It seems to be strengthening since McCain won the nod and Obama has become more defined.

    “Which Best Describes Your Nov. Reaction to McCain Getting the GOP Nod? (GOPers)

    Now March 31

    Vote for him enthusiastically: 34% 38%
    Vote for him, but mainly against the Dem: 42% 40%
    Vote for the Dem candidate: 11% 7%
    Not vote at all: 2% 4%

    Of course, a vote is a vote and McCain will take them for whatever reason. And this and other polls do show him consolidating the GOP base. But it seems that most of them are coming home more out fear of the other than passion for their own guy. It strikes me that your disdain of Obama may put you in that category.

  • Michel

    CG:

    About a third party dark horse triumphing in this year’s election, I say: ….. not a chance. The potential voters, through all the media coverage and the campaing ads, have invested too much of their attention and emotion in this election. There’s no time for the organization of a third party campaign, and there wouldn’t be enough voters interested at this point. Maybe your idea of solving what you see as a year of three frustrating candidates could be a third party nominee… but that happening in reality as opposed to only in your dreams? Not a chance.

  • Babs

    Michel, when your english reading comprehension improves and you can understand my posts and put them in the proper context, feel welcome to comment on them. Until then, don’t.

  • Michel

    Hahaha, nice escape line Babs. Good one.

    When you can correct my interpretations and explain what you REALLY meant, I’ll be glad to read them in proper context. And other readers will be able to make their own conclusions about it.

    Until then… well, I’m just stating the obvious here: You just pulled an escape line.
    And a cheap one, by the way, but I’ll take no offense at it.

  • Babs

    What I meant was plain, Michel. The scandals surrounding Obama are not over, if that helps your comprehension any. There is at least one more on its way, and I expect it will hit fairly soon. I don’t write for your understanding, get it or don’t. But your personal sarcasm toweards me is tiring. I’m happy to respect an Obama supporter, I’m not happy to respect an Obama attack machine, which you are.

  • Michel

    Can you tell an “Obama attack machine” from an Oabama supporter who is passionate and gives arguments at the same time? Can you?

    Yes, it’s a rethorical question. I give you polls, I give you articles, i say what I believe in and argue against those who just shout their opinion without backing it up. When you say something that I indeed find incorrect… I WILL comment on it. If you’re sensitive about it and see me as an “attack machine” that’s not something I can remedy.

    And I don’t need to tell you once again that is not because I say so… is because the polls say that MOST people are tired of listening to all the talk about Wright. I think that the Wright scandal has ran its course, and it’s only going in circles now. And the people that keep addressing it just do it for one simple thing…. they don’t know what else to bring up about the guy.

    So, yeah, aht you say was plain and simple. It doens’t make it right, though, and I pointed that out five (5) comments ago.

  • Babs

    One last time, Michel, I’m not referring to the Wright controversy, there’s new trouble on the horizon for Obama. Watch the news. They have plenty more “to bring up about the guy”, and it started last night.

  • Michel

    What’s the new trouble? What’s the new controversy? Do you even know? Is there any? I watch the news, I surf through the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, Politico, Huffington Post and this site. Oh, and the blogs of Ben Smith, Jonathan Martin and Michael Calderone. So… what’s new with Obama? I’m dying to know.

  • Michel

    Well, I searched through some major wbsites and nothing fishy about Obama popped out. I hope you will enlighten me at some point.

    Meanwhile, here’s a website I know you will LOVE. Since you seem to know many stuff that will hit Obama hard on the general election… but you don’t seem to mention McCain’s anywhere…. well, here you have McCainSource.com, and I must warn you… it has an impressive record of events that may be pretty interesting to all the voters out there.

    http://www.mccainsource.com

    The good news for you is that Obama hasn’t shown any sign of pretending to use non-issues against McCain. You can rest assured.

  • Stalin

    Michel,

    You are so in the tank for Obama that I think you have lost your ability to think straight. You act like Obama is infallible. He has made some huge mistakes in this campaign, what makes you so sure nothing else is going to happen?

  • Babs

    Stalin, did you catch the Bill O’Reilly show Monday? That’s what I’m referring to.

  • Stalin

    Babs,

    No I didn’t catch Monday’s show. I usually only catch a couple shows per week. My interest is piqued however.

  • Babs

    Stalin, here’s the URL to the transcript. Looks like they’re digging into the Woods Organization and Obama’s connection to it. I didn’t know that’s what brought him to Chicago. I’m thinking it’s probably connected to the 1000 page dosier the RNC has accumulated on Obama and his wife. I guess time will tell on this one, but it sounds a little sinister.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355673,00.html

  • Michel

    Stalin,

    “You are so in the tank for Obama that I think you have lost your ability to think straight.”

    I could say the very same thing about you, but I don’t. We have differing views, and yes, I think we are both biased. All I ask for is evidence and facts and logic to support our biased opiniones. That’s why I posted mccainsource.com

    “You act like Obama is infallible.”

    I don’t. I just think he has made less mistakes and with lesser gravity than the other two main candidates (Clinton and Obama) and I stand frimly behind that. That’s specially evident in issues, and not in “non-issues”. I hope you can agree with that. We can have differing vies about politics. You’re a conservative and I’m basically a liberal. I don’t consider myself radical though, nor Obama. So we may differ on many things about the best possible future of this country. But there have being real mistakes and displays of ineptitude (as unsincere stances during this campaign) from McCain and Clinton about things both conservatives and democrats have declared as B.S. I don’t see anyone commenting on Obama about anything else than him being 1. a liberal (that’s only political posturing so I don’t beleive that’s really a much legit concern) 2. bearer of suspicious character triats (which I consider B.S.) and 3. much more inexperienced than the other two candidates (yet his political knowdge have proofed once and once again in this very campaign to be superior even to McCain’s.

    “He has made some huge mistakes in this campaign, what makes you so sure nothing else is going to happen?”

    I don’t know if there will come any new problem for him, but I don’t like to talk for sure about things that have not come to pass. I don’t like to assume things before they actually happen. I could say that Babs is reading to much into that news outlet, but I’ll just wait for it to grwo larger (and that isn’t happening yet).

  • Babs

    Michel, you may say I’m reading too much into that article, but if you do the homework you’ll find its not an Obama/Ayers issue they’re building. It’s an Obama/Alinsky issue, and one that the Clinton camp has not been able to raise since Hillary was also a “student” of Alinsky. But don’t doubt for a minute that the Republican Party will elevate Obama’s ties to Alinsky’s theories on radicalism to him and his campaign, and that could hurt him. It doesn’t matter to me, but it could potentially be more damaging than Wright. If you’re not familiar with Alinsky or his teachings try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

    The interesting thing about the wikipedia page is that yesterday it included a written passage about his influence on Barack Obama. Today that passage is missing, so you know that the Obama camp is out doing damage control even as we speak.

    As I said, makes no difference to me if it becomes full blown or not, but this could label Obama a radical. The passage quoted from Alinsky’s last book “Rules for Radicals” sounds a bit like the campaign road for Obama, even including his “change” platform. At least that’s the way the spin will go, and it’s already begun on the internet blogs.

  • Michel

    Do you believe that Obama’s camp tried and succeded to remove that part of the article on Wikipedia? Do you think they even can do it?
    Wikipedia constantly removes pieces of articles with quationable partiality or questionable objectivity. But if you want to hitnk it was Obama doing damage control, hey, I wouldn’t try to deny that.

    If there’s something legit and trascendental about that relatioship, then don’t doubt for a second, I will look into it and will try to stay clear and see if this indeed reveals a part of Obama’s pollicies that I don’t agree with.

    Until now, I think Bill O’Reilly is grasping at straws. Most of the interviews with the other two was unsubstantial speculation and affirmations that weren’t backed up about Obama’s career and where allegiances lie. O’Reilly is not precisely known for being and objective journalist. If the rest of the mainstream media isn’t echoing that piece of information, is because they find no value at it.

    It won’t surprise me though that Fox New will try to make something big out of it, but everybody knows Fox News reputation.

  • Babs

    Sure they can do that, Michel, don’t be naive. Here’s what was there yesterday:

    From the Wikipedia article on Saul Alinsky:
    “Alinsky was the subject of Hillary Rodham’s senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, “There Is Only The Fight…”: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.[8] Rodham commented on Alinsky’s “charm,” but rejected grassroots community organizing as outdated. Once Hillary Rodham Clinton became First Lady of the United States, the thesis was suppressed by the White House for fear of being associated too closely with Alinsky’s ideas.[9]

    Alinsky also had a significant influence on Barack Obama, who is a United States Senator and candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.[8] Obama particularly used Alinsky’s techniques while participating in Chicago community organizations in the 1980s.”

    If you were Obama, wouldn’t you protest that under the circumstances? Smart move for the Obama camp.

  • Michel

    Sure, I can protest, but to pull out a piece of article from wikipedia isn’t that simple. It’s a community controlled system, and you can only pull articles when they have been voted by several people as biased, or unconfirmed, or infringing copyright laws, among other things.

    All you need to do is to compare the Hillary paragraph with the second one. The second one has only two sentences and odens’t present any facts, just two unfundamented allegations that aren’t even backed up by the article validating the claim, which is this one: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10305695

    Maybe I am naive about Obama, maybe you’re naive about O’Reilly, who knows? What I do know is that this issue is not waiting to explode…. it hasn’t exploded yet because there’s nothing substantial behind it. When it is, yes, it could be trouble. But I think you act too sure about it because of your Obama opposition. And so does O’reilly, but that’s expected.

  • Babs

    Last time I checked, Wikipedia is owned by one man. And as you say, the reference to Obama didn’t present facts, so it would have been easy to have it pulled.

    As to the situation, like I said before, it’s of no interest to me anyway as it won’t change my vote. But with a reported 1000 page dosier the RNC claims to have against Obama and his wife, the general race should be entertaining.

  • Michel

    The RNC can claim lots of things, and 1000 pages with nothings really dirty are totally useless.
    I’m glad we agree on the facts thing. It’s owned but not contrlled. Read about the wiki system. I think that assuming it was pulled off because of an Obama intervention is really, really jumping the shark on this arguments. And I read about your “poverty brain-washing” theory in another thread…. and I won’t even comment on that since it’s a self-ridiculized idea already.

  • Michel

    Instead of looking for things about Obama to put in a 1000 page dossier, the Republicans should be doing this:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10370.html

  • Michel
  • nzpudding

    In hindsight, this article is rather hillaryous…LOL

    It seems Rush Limbaugh has failed TWICE, cos his mad rantings didn’t get a true conservative as the GOP nominee and it certainly didn’t help Hillary.