Attention Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s (many) critics. Brace yourself: Limbaugh isn’t going anywhere. Indeed, given the whopping big bucks he’ll now be getting for renewing his contract until 2016, if he does go somewhere he’ll be going in that new private jet he is reportedly buying.
Rather than be on the descent as the Bush era mercifully wanes, it’s now clear that it’s perceived that throughout Campaign 2008 and during the years of a possible Obama (or John McCain) presidency the man who has spawned a million dittoheads will continue to be a broadcast — and political — force to be reckoned with.
Rush Limbaugh, who’s heard weekly by nearly 20 million listeners on about 600 radio stations nationwide,renewed his contract with Premiere Radio Networks and Clear Channel Radio, continuing syndication of The Rush Limbaugh Show many years into the future. The deal also includes continued syndication of The Rush Limbaugh Morning Update, a 90-second commentary that airs Monday through Friday. Furthermore, Premiere Radio, in partnership with Mr. Limbaugh, will continue to oversee The Limbaugh Letter, a monthly newsletter with a subscriber base in the hundreds of thousands, and RushLimbaugh.com, one of the most popular broadcast media websites that incorporates Rush247.com, a subscription service.
From the standpoint of his outlets, handlers and syndication service, this is a smart move: if Democratic Senator Barack Obama wins the White House and the GOP loses more Congressional seats, Limbaugh will have tons of material over the next 8 years. Indeed, you wonder if it’s coincidental that the terms of the contract coincide with two presidential terms. If Obama wins, Limbaugh’s show will again become a rallying point for conservatives who feel on the outs. If McCain wins, Limbaugh will likely have lots of material if McCain, as expected, reaches across party lines or compromises with a stronger Democratic Congress.
Meanwhile, news of this mega-contract will increase Limbaugh’s aura as a major radio and political force — which will increase his clout a bit during Campaign 2008. He plays a major role for the GOP because his show is a rallying point for Republicans and themes he raises can set the tone of GOP debate or, in other cases, hammer home and repeat GOP talking points. He immediately influences many weblogs and when his statements are highly controversial they are pitchforked into the mainstream media.
Mr. Limbaugh stated, “This is exactly where I want to be, doing what I was born to do, with an amazing audience and phenomenal support from affiliate stations and sponsors. I’m having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. There’s a relationship between the audience and the host here that is second to none. We’re going to continue to provide Broadcast Excellence and have a lot of fun along the way.”
Advertiser and affiliate demand is at an all-time high for Mr. Limbaugh. President of Premiere Radio Networks Charlie Rahilly stated, “The Rush Limbaugh Show enjoys an unprecedented platform of radio affiliates. Plus, advertisers harness the intensity of listener engagement — no one’s ‘word of mouth’ about a product or service delivers more impact than Mr.Limbaugh’s. The Premiere team is proud to partner with Mr. Limbaugh deep into the next decade.”
Drudge puts the figure at $400 million and breathlessly writes:
Recently I was driving home from work and started flipping around the radio dial for something to listen to. I caught a few minutes of commentary from one of the major conservative talk show hosts.
His subject was the Obama campaign and the connection to the radical enviromental movement with regard to gas prices and drilling for oil. He decried the fact that they oppose virtually all forms of drilling and that this is harmful to both our national security and economy.
Now I don’t entirely disagree with his position, it is true that the hard core enviromental movement is fairly determined to send us back to the horse and buggy days. But his commentary went on to attack virtually the entire cause of enviromentalism, denying any form of global warming and seemingly asserting that ‘what is good for industry is good for America’.
Now I think most of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes, supporting reasonable enviromental protections but also recognizing that you need to balance things with the needs of modern society and our own national security.But this host chose to decry one form of extremism by resorting to another one.
This of course is not an exclusive pervue of the right. On the left we have Air America and hosts who regularly attack President Bush and the right for everything from 9/11 to the sinking of the Titanic. Again, in some cases they have a legitimate point to make when they call the right for going to far but they take it so far the other way that they become nothing but an alter image of those they attack.
Then we have people like Michael Savage, who seems to hate everyone in politics (which is not shocking since he seems to hate just about everyone in general). For those of you who don’t know who Mr. Savage is, he is a talk show host out of San Francisco who is theoretically a right winger but pretty much dislikes anyone to the left of Genghis Kahn. I try not to listen to him very often but the other day I was with a friend and was stuck hearing his diatribe.
He started with his standard attack on pretty much anyone who is not a straight white Christian, then he went on to score a hat trick by attacking McCain, Bush and Obama all in one segment, calling all of their speeches weak willed pablum (I suspect the last speech he really liked was at Nuremberg).
Now in all fairness to Mr. Savage he is a very smart man and I suspect that he is often correct on his critiques, but he overwhelms any of his accuracy by being so fanatically radical on everything.
What I would like to see out there are some talk show hosts who are rational. This does not mean that they have to be balanced or on one side of the spectrum or the other. What I want is for them to be fair and reasonable. The closest I have found are some local hosts named Armstrong and Getty. They are fairly conservative but they never allow things to get too far.
It would be nice if we could find more people to follow that example
Why is the man above smiling? Because, apparently, he has a RIGHT to.
If all goes according to projections and Senator Hillary Clinton somewhat narrowly wins the Indiana Democratic primary (CBS has projected she will narrowly win it), he has a right to smile. Because if early indications are correct, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have provided a textbook case of the influence of radio talk show hosts on partisans in the 21st century.
His “Operation Chaos” — designed to get his listeners to vote whenever they can in Democratic primaries for Clinton to prolong the Democrats’ highly divisive Clinton/Barack Obama Presidential nomination — could have given the Cinton the winning edge, if the victory margin in the end is like what seems to be shaping up now. The New Republic’s The Plank:
Some reporters have speculated about the impact of the “Limbaugh effect” — partisan Republicans crossing over to vote fr Hillary Clinton solely to help weaken the Democrats against John McCain. The sieze of the effect is hard to measure. But there is one numerical measurement, first pointed out to me by the Pew Survey’s Richard Auxier following the Pennsylvania primary, that gives some sense of it.
One exit poll question asks Indiana voters who they would support in a Clinton-McCain contest. 17% of them say McCain. Of those voters, 41% say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. In other words, these voters, 7% of the Indiana electorate, voted for Clinton in the primary but have no intention of supporting her in the fall.
Now, this isn’t a precise measure of the “Limbaugh effect” — no doubt there are some Republicans who backed Obama in the primary out of anti-Clinton sentiment, but plan to vote for McCain in November. But it is a good place to start when making a ballpark estimate. And it’s a sizeable number — 7% may wind up being as big as her margin of victory.
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein looks at exit polls and reaches the same conclusion: Limbaugh played a role in motivating some voters whose motive was basically to sabatoge the Democratic primary…something some Democrats have tried in cross-over primaries the past but not on such an organized, sustained and serious scale. Stein’s post must be read full but here are some excerpts:
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.
Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said “neither candidate” shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.
These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don’t relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.
He goes into some detail then writes:
The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton’s support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn’t like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh’s hatchet plan could be having political ripples.
Perhaps it’s a mix of all three.
Republican partisans will applaud what truly seems to be a Limbaugh success. And his “legend” as someone who can press a button and get followers to do his bidding (or jettison previous beliefs and get with the party line) will grow. Some Hillary Clinton supporters will say Well, what does it matter why they vote the way the do — they have the right to vote as they vote. (Which they do.)
But there is an ineffable stench of political sleaziness when Republicans — and Democrats — decide to cross party lines to sandbag the other party. Who would have ever thought 20 or 30 — or 10 — years ago that partisans of either party would vote in another party’s primary specifically to prolong the other party’s turmoil or weaken that party’s candidate? There have been charges that siphoning off another party’s votes has been used via third parties but this hasn’t been an actual calculated strategy until now. Welcome to mega partisan 2008.
Perhaps when Superdelegates look at these numbers, it might influence their perceptions on the components of the Indiana vote….particularly as Limbaugh starts hyping his impact and if the mainstream media latches on to the story.
P.S. Limbaugh’s power isn’t just because he’s a partisan. He is also a talented, first-class broadcaster who knows how to use the broadcast medium and get and hold an audience. He makes it look easy, and it isn’t — which is why so many other conservative and progressive talk show hosts have failed.
This may be the first vote in which his influence can be measured in qualitative terms.
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has urged his Republican listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton in today’s Indiana primary, pointing to what he said is a double standard when it comes to cross-over voters, the Boston Globe reports — and another newspaper reports signs of “hardcore” Republicans voting Democratic.
Indiana’s primary is open to Republicans and independents, as well as Democrats. Limbaugh is urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton to extend the Democratic nomination fight and, he hopes, further damage the eventual nominee.
Exit polls suggest that Limbaugh’s soldiers could have made a difference March 4 in Texas, where Clinton pulled out a narrow win in the primary, though Obama won the simultaneous caucuses.
Limbaugh told listeners on Monday that Democratic Party officials in Indiana are trying to intimidate Republican voters with monitors at the polls. So he issued these orders: “Flood these precincts. Vote for Mrs. Clinton as an act of defiance against these police-state tactics as a form of protest.” Read the rest of this entry »
And now it moves to media center stage: the trend of Republicans crossing over to vote in Democratic primaries. But the New York Times reports that many GOPers aren’t doing this because they’re “dittoheads” obeying the wishes of mega-partisan talk show host Rush Limbaugh, but disgruntled Republicans who feel their party has left — or is leaving — them:
INDIANAPOLIS - Until now, Shirley Morgan had always been the kind of voter the Republican Party thought it could count on. She comes from a family of staunch Republicans, has a son in the military and has supported Republican presidential candidates ever since she cast her first ballot, for Richard M. Nixon in 1972.
But this year Mrs. Morgan exemplifies a different breed: the Republican crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary. Not only will she mark her ballot for Senator Barack Obama in the May 6 primary here, but she has also been canvassing for him in the heavily Republican suburbs of Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis — the first time she has ever actively campaigned for a candidate.
“I used to like John McCain, but he’s aligning himself too closely with what Bush did, and that’s just not what I want for this country,” Mrs. Morgan, who is 56, said when asked to explain her rejection of the presumptive Republican nominee.
This should be a warning flag to John McCain. As I’ve predicted many times on this site, there is a large segment of voters that aren’t going to look at political party at all this year — but want to take a big broom and sweep away the people who are in charge who have brought the United States a war seemingly without end (even if X voter originally supported the war), a decimated economy, a sagging dollar, an epidemic of home foreclosures and plummeting local property values, and an economy peppered by massive corporate cutbacks or failures and employment ills.
Seen from this perspective, the decisions of Democratic rivals Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to ignore Democratic progressives’ demand to boycott Fox News, makes political sense: Republican voters are in play in these primaries and they all can’t be dismissed as participating in Limbaugh’s call to basically sabotage the Democratic primaries.
This suggests that indicates that the potency of the Democratic party’s most progressive wing, is now being offset in some primaries by more conservative and centrist voters who are cross-over Republicans who feel their party has failed them. And they’re shopping around.
The Times confirms this:
Since the start of the primary and caucus season in January, Republican voters have been crossing over in increasing numbers to vote in Democratic contests — supplying up to 10 percent of the vote in states that allow such crossover voting — and they are expected to play a pivotal role in the fiercely contested primary here. What is less clear, however, is the motivation for their behavior: are they genuinely attracted by the two Democratic candidates? Or are they mischief-making spoilers, looking to prolong a divisive Democratic fight or support a candidate Mr. McCain can beat in November?
Local Republican Party leaders in Indiana concede the attraction of the Democratic candidates to some of their party members. And interviews with roughly a dozen Republican voters in central Indiana suggest that they are driven mainly by concerns about the economy, with discontent over Bush administration policies driving their involvement in the Democratic race.
What’s now happening between Obama and Clinton is competition for some of these Republicans — Republicans probably dismissed as “well-they-must-be-Rinos” by lockstep Republican partisans who will adjust their positions or jettison previous principles according to the latest pronouncements from the White House or EIB Radio Network. The Times again: Read the rest of this entry »
As a a journalist, a woman, a white person, anything else that someone could you use to distinguish and identify me from anyone else, but especially as a sentient human being, I am made speechless by this story - which occurred a few days before Obama gave his speech on race, and which, as the reporter says, is, in her opinion, like many others except that it was caught on camera. When Rush Limbaugh says that, “America, I think, for the most part (there are, of course, exceptions to this) has transcended race. There’s so much evidence of that that I don’t even want to waste time citing it,” we can say, I think, for the most part, Rush doesn’t know the hell he is talking about.
March 10th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton’s efforts to reunite the Democratic Party — and get the votes of some independent voters — could become tougher than ever with news that former President Bill Clinton appeared on conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s show…on the day of the Texas primary.
If the story catches on, it will likely strike a decidedly sour note with many Democrats — and adds to the increasing instances in this campaign that anything will be done to get votes.
Why? Because Limbaugh is considered the quintessential demonizer of Democrats by Democrats and this means the former President was trying to help the conservative talk show host’s efforts to get Republicans to cross over in the Texas primary to vote for Hillary Clinton.
There is an irony here since Bill Clinton helped Limbaugh become quite a wealthy man over the years. But here it seems to be “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
The “crime” is made worse by the fact that the avowed purpose of Limbaugh and those talkers who joined him in this effort to get GOP crossovers was to a) throw a monkey wrench into Obama’s string of victories and break his momentum b) help force the Democratic battle for the nomination to go on longer and become more bitter in order to weaken the Democrats and help Republican chances c) get Senator Clinton as candidate because some Republicans perceived her as the weaker candidate.
Even worse: the Clinton’s have not been easily accessible to some PROGRESSIVE talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz.
But it turns out as if there apparently was a mutual overlap of interests here — the desire of Limbaugh, his fill-in host that day and other conservatives to influence the race and the former President to do whatever it took to get every single vote for Hillary Clinton, even if it meant crossover votes from Republicans who wanted to weaken the Democrats. Crossover, schmossover, weaken Obama, schmeaken Obama — as long as it’s a vote for Hillary…
It’s an almost mind-boggling development — and one that could undercut the Clinton’s credibility among many Democrats. Some blog reaction:
You may have missed it - almost everyone missed it - but Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh’s show the day of the Texas primary. You can hear the radio here. Limbaugh himself was sick that day, apparently, but he had already urged Republicans to cross over to keep Hillary Clinton in the race. Bill saw an opening - and went there.
Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so.
There also seems little doubt that Republican mischief played a real role in affecting the results. And they call Obama’s call for them to release their tax returns a tactic worthy of Ken Starr. I repeat: the chutzpah and the cynicism just leave you speechless. And as you find it impossible to do much but splutter, the Clintons plow on with new self-serving lies.
–TPM Cafe has a MUST READ HERE with Limbaugh’s campaign to get Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton. Read it all. TPM notes:
Rush was saying the day before that he felt a “flu” coming on, and then Tuesday he was “sick” and had the substitute host, and then Wednesday he was back to crow about his achievement in getting Hillary elected.
Folks, this is an ex-President! That is absolutely nuts! But he apparently wanted to get all those ditto heads to come vote for Hillary so she could stay in the race….
And to think she made an issue of Obama’s mention of Ronald Reagan, as if he were some Republican in Democrat’s clothing. The “do and say anything” crew strikes again.
Oh that is so unfair the Clintons are just dedicated Americans trying to get back the White House at any cost to save us from ourselves to show how much George Bush has taught them to get around the “no third term” rule to help small children and little old people out while keeping our defenses strong and changing our economy back into a bubble.
–Comments from Left Field recounts the infamous “mistake” Limbaugh made on his now defunct TV show when he showed a photo of then first-daughter Chelsea Clinton when mentioning a dog. He writes:
Interestingly, the Clinton campaign has engaged in the most unusual tactic of embracing the right in order to wrestle from Obama a nomination that would seem to be his based upon math alone. One thing that seems to have escaped scrutiny up until now is that years after Rush Limbaugh called Bill Clinton’s daughter a dog, the former president was actually a guest on Limbaugh’s show.
Rush wasn’t there, he was conveniently sick so that the two wouldn’t have to share a studio together. This still doesn’t change the fact that Rush had been calling for Republicans to vote for Hillary. Clinton’s appearance with a guest host only seemed to endorse this call.
…It may seem hypocritical to point to Republican support for Clinton as a bad thing when Obama partisans point to Republican support for Obama a good thing, but here’s the simple truth of the matter. Obamacans, as they are called, are planning on voting for Obama in the General Election. Clintonicans (I made that up, and I can see one of the reasons why no one really uses it) seem to be looking instead at merely sabotaging the Democratic nomination process.
But, in general this is simply the onset of what seems to be a disturbing pattern on the Clintons relying upon the right to take out Obama.
This became even more apparent when Clinton decided to become the president of the John McCain fan club. I know, I believe, what she was trying to do here, but I also believe it failed fantastically due to a miscalculation regarding how we view the world around us.
There IS a pattern now emerging from the Clinton campaign. Not a nice one. And not one that will appeal to many independent voters.
Was Limbaugh sick? As Marshall implies, this seems set up in a way to provide some “plausible deniability” so that Clinton was not tarnished with actually appearing with Limbaugh — but would be on with a substitute host. If the story gains “legs,” look for that argument from the Clinton camp and its defenders.
P.S. Did John McCain ever appear on Schultz’s or Randi Rhodes’ show on the day of a primary where Democrats could cross over and vote for him instead of other Republican nominees? Can you IMAGINE how McCain would have been skewered by Republicans if he did?
February 29th, 2008 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Question: Which is the craziest?
a)John McCain claiming that Obama is all about “the past” on Iraq. b)Bill O’Reilly equating Arianna Huffington with the Nazis and the KKK. c)Rush Limbaugh defending the “Husseinization” of Obama. d)Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling Iran the world’s #1 power.
I’ll go with b) and d) — a tie. McCain’s claim is just silly, while Limbaugh’s defence of the predictable Republican smear is, well, predictably stupid. Both O’Reilly and Ahmadinejad, however, are nuts.
**********
Speaking of the “Husseinization” of Obama — and I wrote the other day about how the Republican Smear Machine (RSM) will portray Obama as a black Muslim terrorist — one of the bigger right-wing bloggers, Pamela of Atlas Shrugs, is already on the bigoted offensive: “My objective is to unearth Obama’s relationship to Islam. Islam is a political ideology and it is incompatible with democracy.”
Actually, Islam is a religion, a faith, just like Judaism or Christianity, and, of course, Christianity has a long and decidedly anti-democratic history. (Yes, she’s that ignorant.) But no matter. Her real objective is clearly to smear the entirety of the Muslim religion, and all Muslims, and to argue that Obama is a terrorist, or at least a friend to terrorists. Read the rest of this entry »
In one very important respect — that of voter perceptions — Barack Obama couldn’t lose on Super Tuesday and Hillary Clinton couldn’t win.
Despite the fact that Clinton won most of the big states yesterday and has more delegates overall, the die is cast (or in Julius Caesar’s immortal words: alea jacta est) for a headlong scramble through the remaining primaries, and Clinton is in trouble. Clinton is in trouble because Obama has momentum, while the perceptions that have accrued to the candidates — largely positive for Obama and largely negative for Clinton in my mind — are now pretty much set in stone.
Obama has climbed some tall mountains in overcoming the inherent advantages of the Clinton campaign, including its attached-at-the-hip relationship with the Democratic Party establishment. He hasn’t had to cry in public even once, let alone try to evoke sympathy because he’s a minority dude, and except for an occasional misfire has conducted himself with a take-me-as-I-am demeanor and dignity that has inspired millions of people who didn’t know him from Adam a few short months ago.
Meanwhile, Clinton helicoptered to the top of the tallest mountain and from the outset branded herself as the incumbent, but since then has had to scratch and claw to try to stay on top. Her tears on cue and gender whinging are beyond tiresome, while the coldly calculated use of her husband and other surrogates to sling mud is contemptuous. She may be a decent person at heart, but has permitted only fleeting glimpses of her “true” self because her campaign is so scripted.
If there is a tiebreaker for me, and I suspect many other voters as well, it is the candidates’ sharply divergent positions on the Iraq war: Obama is one of the few senators to oppose it from the jump, while Clinton has bobbed and weaved as public opinion has ebbed and flowed.
If the nominee, she will be accurately saddled with the flip-flopper label that helped doom John Kerry in 2004. If president, she would continue to embrace this fool’s mission.
First we got Coulter promising with a straight face to campaign for Hillary if McCain wins. Now Rush Limbaugh is saying that he’d rather see Clinton or Obama win the presidency than John McCain, despite Bob Dole’s plea for sanity on the party’s far right. Too bad, Bob Dole. That ship sailed a long time ago.
When it comes to the McCain mutiny, Limbaugh has plenty of company on the right side of the dial. Laura Ingraham endorsed Mitt Romney last week, saying, "There is no way in hell I could pull the lever for John McCain." Sean Hannity, who also endorsed the former Massachusetts governor, regularly rips McCain. Hugh Hewitt is urging the audience for his syndicated radio show to fight for Romney against what he calls a media-generated "McCain resurrection." But with a program heard on 600 stations, including Washington’s WMAL, Limbaugh is the loudest and brashest voice inveighing against the man he derides as "Saint John of Arizona." (New York Times)
Could it be that even some of the dittoheads have noticed that the far right has turned out to be wrong about every single thing it’s said every single time? Doubtful. Clearly, though, a certain number of sane Republicans have noticed.
George W. Bush and Karl Rove apparently accomplished something the North Vietnamese in five years of captivity could not do–get John McCain to consider switching loyalties.
The story surfaces, just before Super Tuesday, in The Hill today, of McCain’s temptation to leave the Republican Party after being savagely smeared by the Bush campaign in the 2000 primaries.
In persuasive detail, it reports the approach of a McCain aide to Congressional Democratic leaders about the possibility of the Arizona Senator emulating Vermont’s Jim Jeffords in becoming an Independent and aligning himself with their party.
McCain’s disaffection in 2001 was no secret. Fellow Republican Trent Lott criticized him publicly then for keeping “unusual company.”
But why does the story surface now? The cui bono is obvious as Mitt Romney tries to persuade Republicans that he is the party’s legitimate standard bearer, and Ann Coulter reflects the weird vote by announcing she would back Hillary Clinton before McCain.
There must be déjà vu in all this for the Republican front runner. The rabid Right hated him back then, still does and will stop at nothing to derail him. But Romney, Coulter, Rush Limbaugh et al are no Karl Roves in the art of demonizing those they oppose.
When McCain gets the nomination, rational Republicans and Independents may be drawn to him by what these attacks reveal about his character–and the people who are targeting him
Mitt Romney loses a primary to John McCain that would have knocked a less loaded man out of contention for the Republican nomination, but Romney will buy his way on to Super Tuesday.
Hillary Clinton arrives for a made-for-TV celebration, complete with walls of printed placards, of “winning” a phantom contest for no delegates that she and other Democrats had promised to bypass.
Electoral weirdness goes on unabated in Florida, which gave us our unelected president in 2000, but yesterday’s results shed some light on where the 2008 nominations are heading.
Unless Romney’s money and vacuity win many hearts and minds on February 5th, the arch-conservatives will have to take a deep breath and embrace McCain as the Republican candidate. Wheel out the respirators for Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan.
Even the meaningless Democratic results hold clues to the future. Clinton won among those who cast absentee ballots weeks ago but apparently not among voters who made a choice yesterday. Obama has a long way to go but, with the Kennedy endorsements and more to come, his campaign is moving in the right direction.
Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy month.
January 30th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
With his Florida primary victory over chief rival former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arizona Senator John McCain is now seemingly the GOP’s front-runner for the 2008 Presidential nomination, but he still faces a foe that’s determined to pull out all stops and to shout warnings to try and stop him: conservative talk radio.
On a 500 mile drive Tuesday from San Diego to Yuba City (where this is being written), I listened to hours and hours of conservative talk radio — at least five programs. And if you tuned in not knowing who McCain was, you’d swear they were talking about Democratic Senator Teddy Kennedy.
The anger towards McCain seemed even angrier than the usual fury directed at conservative talkers’ favorite subject, New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Many talk radio hosts, enjoying legions of loyal listeners who trust their favorite hosts, want to stop McCain who they paint as a Democrat in Republican’s clothing, not conservative enough and — even worse — someone who will actually work with Democrats such as Kennedy. Their biggest fear: he’ll get in and do what he wants which won’t be what he’s promises during the campaign. On balance: they don’t trust him one bit.
January 11th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
No matter how it’s explained or spun, it’s never the sign of a truly healthy campaign that has “Big Mo” when you hear stories about staffers going without pay. And that is exactly what’s now emerging about former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination:
CNN has learned that top staff members of Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign were asked to work without pay for the month of January, and perhaps longer, so that campaign resources could be focused on the Florida Republican presidential primary.
Two sources in the campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted the campaign was not in dire financial straits. A third campaign source, however, said “things are starting to get tight” and that “it was more telling than asking” the senior staff to forgo paychecks beginning the first of the year.
Another source disagreed, saying it was a “voluntary” move by senior staff members “so all of our resources could be targeted toward Florida…Our campaign is not living hand to mouth right now…”
That could indeed be the case — that it’s strictly a financial strategical move. Nonetheless, the AP has a report on this, too:
About a dozen senior campaign staffers for Rudy Giuliani are forgoing their January paychecks, a sign of possible money trouble for the Republican presidential candidate and last year’s national front-runner.
“We have enough money, but we could always use more money,” contended Mike DuHaime, Giuliani’s campaign manager and one of those who now is working for free. “We want to make sure we have enough to win.”
At the end of December, the campaign had $11.5 million cash on hand, $7 million of which could be used for the primary, DuHaime said Friday. He disputed the notion of a cash-strapped operation and said Giuliani continues to bring in cash; several fundraisers are scheduled this week in Florida.
The former New York mayor has yet to win a contest and is counting on a victory in delegate-rich Florida on Jan. 29 to prove his candidacy is viable heading into the multistate contests slated for Feb. 5, where he believes he can prevail in states such as California and Illinois.
It’s an unorthodox and costly strategy because Florida and states that follow have some of the most expensive media markets in the country. And with so many states voting in such a short time period, candidates can do little else but rely on paid media to get their message out.
January 5th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
EDITOR’S NOTE: The headline of our post on the Zogby poll and the lead paragraph were wrong due to part of another post not being properly erased, although the rest of the post was correct. The poll shows Senator John McCain and NOT former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holding on to their narrow leads.
The Moderate Voice apologizes for and regrets the error. Here’s the proper version:
A new Zogby poll shows Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Arizona Senator John McCain in the lead in their parties’ respective primaries in New Hampshire — but the two front-runners are ahead by such narrow margins that Tuesday night could again be a night of surprises:
Republican John McCain lost a little ground to Mitt Romney, as Mike Huckabee picked up some ground on the momentum of his victory in the Iowa caucuses. Democrat Hillary Clinton held even and retained a slight edge against the advancing Barack Obama in the wake of Obama’s win in Iowa, the latest Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters shows.
Democrat John Edwards also remained steady at 20%, well back of Clinton but within striking distance. But partial polling after Iowa suggests some slippage may be in the offing for both Clinton and Edwards.
On the Republican side, you have see:
McCain at 32 percent
Romney at 30 percent
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 12 percent
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 9 percent
Rep. Ron Paul at 7 percent
Former Senator Fred Thompson at 3 percent
Rep. Duncan Hunter at 1 percent
On the Democratic side you see:
Clinton at 32%
Obama at 28 %
Former Senator John Edwards at 20 percent
Gov. Bill Richardson at 7 percent
Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 3%
Senator Joe Biden at 2 %
Senator Chris Dodd at 1 %
The details are eye-opening:
McCain’s lead continues to be based on the strength of support among independents, where he holds a 42% to 29% over Romney, with no other Republican winning more than 10% support among this group. Among moderates, McCain’s edge dropped from 53% support to 48% support after yesterday’s polling was added to the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby three-day rolling average, while while Romney also lost some ground, dropping from 24% to 22%.
So McCain is the favorite of independents.
Meanwhile, Romney’s edge over McCain among mainline conservatives – the largest voting bloc in the GOP - increased from one to five points.
It sounds like conservatives are settling on Romney to stop McCain — and Huckabee. Or are they?
Huckabee’s bounce from the Iowa victory comes among those who consider themselves “very conservative,” where he jumped from 21% to 28% when just yesterday’s post-Iowa caucus polling is folded into the mix. However, Romney still leads in the category with 33% support. McCain wins 20% among the very conservative.
So in New Hampshire, at least, it doesn’t seem as if conservatives are totally listening to talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the GOP establishment, which wants to stop Huckabee.
There are some other details in this poll, including about the Demmies. But here’s the most interesting:
While 64% of likely voting New Hampshire independents said they were planning to vote in the Democratic primary, about 36% said they would vote in the GOP contest – an 8-point swing in favor of the Democrats compared to just one day earlier.
As in Iowa, younger Democrats favor Obama over Clinton, but his advantage is not now near where it was in Iowa. Likewise, Clinton retains an Iowa–like edge among older voters, but she also has a smaller edge here than in Iowa. Edwards is a solid third in all age groups.
So if you look at the trending, the rhythm and the ongoing narrative of media coverage, it suggests that it’s unlikely New Hampshire voters will vote to stop Obama. More likely, it’ll either be a nail biter or they’ll vote for Obama.
A Clinton loss in New Hampshire looks likely if you pencil in these factors.
On the Republican side, the story continues to be Romney more so than McCain. He has not just not gotten endorsements in the state, but the state’s newspapers have denounced him for essentially being dishonest and changing so many of his positions (well, this is the year of “change”).
Will that override the desire of some voters to stop Huckabee? You can see by info in the poll that conservatives are split. Huckabee is too far down in the polls to likely pull this one off.
Whoever wins the GOP primary in New Hampshire will be the anti-Huckabee candidate — and will likely get support from the Republican establishment to squelch the Arkansas Governor’s challenge to the GOP’s party and ideological elite.
January 3rd, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The long awaited Iowa caucuses take place today in an atmosphere of political uncertainty greater than in many past years — amid conflicting reports, see-saw polls and signs that at least one campaign is already working on its spin to explain its candidate’s anticipated defeat.
And, when it’s over, it begins an official month of mega-politicking ending Super Tuesday February 5 when — some analysts have said — the race for the two parties nominations could effectively be over.
OR WILL IT?
The fact is: seldom have politicians and political experts seen a year in which voters seem so incredibly restive — so intent on shopping around in both parties. Consequently, self-assured analysis pieces by mainstream media and “new media” bloggers (including on this site) are sheepishly swept under the rug in the hopes no one will remember as new conventional wisdoms emerge…seemingly by the hour.
The biggest question today: will the two candidates most perceived as being most palatable to their parties’ controlling elites walk off with the prize?
Or will Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton’s “inevitability” be shattered by Senator Barack Obama or “second choice” former Senator John Edwards?
And former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (who is essentially trying to piece together a more traditional Republican coalition) find the enormous energy and money he put into Iowa paid off or will he be upset by Rush Limbaugh (i.e. “establishment) un-favorite Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee? Or by Senator John McCain? And will Rep. Ron Paul prove he can get double digits and be taken as a “serious” candidate by a red-faced mainstream media?
January 2nd, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
If Mike Huckabee loses in the Iowa caucuses it’ll be partially because of this:
Rush Limbaugh devoted a large portion of his first show since the holidays to criticizing Mike Huckabee’s candidacy and offering a disapproving bottom-line assessment of the former governor.
“Ladies and gentlemen, Gov. Huckabee, mighty fine man and is a great Christian, is not a conservative, he’s just not,” Limbaugh said. “If you look at his record as governor, he’s got some conservative tendencies on things but he’s certainly not the most conservative of the candidates running on the Republican side.”
Limbaugh’s comments come after a long-distance back-and-forth between the candidate and influential talk show host before Christmas.
Despite his criticism, Limbaugh said he didn’t want to use the entire program to bash Huckabee.
“I’m going to keep some of the powder dry here because I don’t want to be accused of piling on,” Limbaugh said, “but if people are going to ask me questions I’m not going to shirk from them and try to hem-haw around.”
The bottom line is that Huckabee and Arizona Senator John McCain are not beloved by conservatives — particularly the early 21st century brand of conservative that worships more at the altar of George Bush than that of conservative purist Barry Goldwater (there are still a lot of those around, but they don’t hold the levers of power in the GOP party elite).
Last month one of Huckabee’s supporters made the big, fat mistake of “dissing” Limbaugh — saying he couldn’t think for himself and that his thoughts were influenced by DC types, particularly the types who work or live in the White House and consider him a vital supporter who can reach millions and get out their message. Vice President Dick Cheney, in fact, prefers to talk to Rush on the air rather than to pesky reporters, who he’d rather avoid — or invite out to go hunting.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is no fan of Rush Limbaugh, but the Nevada Democrat praised the conservative radio talk-show host on the Senate floor Friday for raising more than $2 million for charity — by auctioning on eBay a letter in which Reid condemns Limbaugh.
“I think it’s really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose,” Reid said. “Everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don’t agree on everything in life, and maybe that is kind of an understatement.
“But without qualification Mark Mays, the owner of the [Clear Channel Communications] network … [and] Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they’re auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a worthwhile cause.”
Limbaugh has pledged to donate the auction proceeds to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides financial assistance to the children of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers.
Reid also encouraged “anyone interested with the means to consider contributing to this worthwhile cause.”
“I strongly believe when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people.”
The letter, which was co-signed by 40 Democratic senators and sent to Mark Mays, whose network syndicates Limbaugh’s show, condemned Limbaugh for comments he made “characterizing troops who speak out against the war as phony soldiers.”
Rush Limbaugh can’t usually be pointed to as someone who made public relations “lemon” into “lemonade” — but he can this time. In one fell swoop he helped negate some of the negative imagery surrounding his “phony soldiers” comment, since the big bucks for the letter will indeed go to a good military cause. Reid is also smart in praising Limbaugh: he’d look like a stubborn bad guy if he didn’t praise what has now turned out to be a fund-raising gold mine using a letter that was intended to damage Limbaugh’s career. The New York Times:
The money will go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation Inc., a New Jersey-based nonprofit organization that provides scholarships and other assistance to families of Marines and federal law enforcement officials who die or are wounded in the line of duty. Mr. Limbaugh is a director of the foundation, which had total revenues of $5.2 million last year.
“It’s unbelievable,†said James K. Kallstrom, the retired head of the F.B.I. office in New York, who is chairman of the foundation. He said the charity would meet on Monday to decide how to spend the money. “We might increase the size of the bonds we give these children, and we’ll probably do a lot more for the wounded veterans,†he said. “It’s almost unlimited what you can do for them.â€
The letter was purchased by the Eugene B. Casey Foundation, a $294 million foundation in Gaithersburg, Md., that has given money to a wide range of organizations, including the Washington Opera and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund. In a statement, the foundation said its purchase was intended to demonstrate its belief in freedom of speech and “to support Rush Limbaugh, his views and his continuing education of us.â€
Limbaugh had fun talking about the letter on his show:
He said fans had written him with concerns that wealthy liberals like George Soros would drive the price of the letter to $20 million or more in hopes of bankrupting him.
“It’s just amazing,†Mr. Limbaugh told Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes of the Fox television program Hannity & Colmes on Thursday night, when the bidding stood at $851,000. “This is more fun than I’ve ever had in my life.â€
He predicted the sale’s success would anger the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a signer of the letter, who Mr. Limbaugh calls “Dingy Harry.â€
But, no, Harry Reid did surprise him.
And, in the end, Limbaugh probably surprised Harry Reid. And — for perhaps just this once — America’s increasingly bitter political wars ended in some genuine good guys benefiting from America’s ideological battlefield.
