Rush Limbaugh: 'Anybody Other Than Ron Paul Could Beat Obama' - 'Easily'
The Paul-bots aren't going to be happy about this.
On Fox's On the Record Wednesday, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said, "I think right now anybody other than Ron Paul could beat Obama if the election were tomorrow – easily" (video follows with transcript):
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: If you think someone who’s moderate cannot beat Obama or should not be selected by the Republican Party, who is the most conservative who fits the bill of what you think is a Republican who can beat Obama?
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, I think, again now, if the election were held today. You see, I know that since I do not subscribe or practice conventional wisdom that my answer here is going to discredit me with all the, you know, professional political experts. But I think right now anybody other than Ron Paul could beat Obama if the election were tomorrow – easily.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Rush would be right if we had the same electorate...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:19am.
...that tossed Jihad Jimmy out back in 1980.
Problem is, back then, only around 20% of us were not paying federal income taxes, while today that percentage is bumping up against 50.
A lot of Americans cannot seem to come to grips with that very significant demographic shift - the very same Americans that have yet to open their eyes to the reality that is Barack Hussein Obama.
This is a very different America today.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
How telling.
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:33am.
The only issues that Ron Paul and Rush disagree on are the foreign policy issues that make the US the world-wide police force funnded entirely by the US taxpayer. All the while while we are demonized and denigrated by those who want us to protect them.
So apparently to Rush (and many Republicans) the US maintaining it's role as the global police is more important than all other issues combined.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
No, we just think Paul is a
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:32am.
No, we just think Paul is a first class loon on foriegn policy. He will get us killed quicker than Obama.
Really??
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:29pm.
Which country or countries will attack us if Paul is elected President?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
What countries would attack us?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:14pm.
Easy: Any country that wants to. Paul wants us to retreat to our borders and ignore everything else that goes on in this world.
Ron Paul: Why Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?
Ron Paul: I oppose sanctions on Iran, because they represent "the initial step to war."
Ron Paul: Those troops stationed overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies
Ron Paul: I don't think American troops should be stationed anywhere in the world, including Germany, Japan, or South Korea
What would this accomplish? Even if no direct attacks occured, all Iran has to do is block the straights. All China would have to do is attack Taiwan. Russia can take over anything it wants, and move missiles and military to Cuba and S. America. And the US, under Paul, would say "too bad -- we're not getting involved".
Ron Paul is a clear and immediate threat to our security.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
You know what, Noel
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:17am.
Watching Greta last night reminded me how much I miss the Rush Limbaugh late night TV show.
Who's the Loon?
Submitted by Hillbilly Genius on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:45pm.
So in the twisted mind of the dittoheads, it's perfectly okay to go around the world setting up bases that cost billions of dollars a year to maintain while making the host countries rich and separating American families by thousands of miles just so we can shoot a 3rd world militia? Yeah, that sounds well thought out. The GOP may control Rush's minds and in turn he controls the Dittohead minds but as for me and my family, I'd rather have a president that says we should be a nation of payback and not pay ahead. Ron Paul simply wants to stop throwing American Soldiers at a problem like the Liberals throw money at inner-city education scams. In both cases it's wasteful and not worth the sacrifice. And if his foreign policy is so bad then why do more military soldiers and their families donate to his campaign than all other candidates combined? They understand what Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity and the rest of the GOP fellatio performers can't grasp. That we don't need to scream for liberty here in America while denying it to countries thousands of miles away. We wouldn't tolerate China invading America or any other country for that matter.
Bugger off
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 12:57pm.
We have long time Paul supporters here who don't insult the membership.
When you post like that, you realize you just stereotype yourself as the prototypical irrational Paul supporter, yes? Don't presume what we "dittoheads" think or don't think....because you don't have a clue.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Whatever Paultard.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:08pm.
We set up bases in Japan in 1945. It kept the Russians off their back allowed a stable prosperous country to emerge. You gonna travel back in time and argue against them now?
We set up bases all over Europe in 1945. It kept the Russians off their back and allowed a mostly stable bunch of prosperous countries to emerge from the ashes. You gonna travel back in time and argue against them too?
We set up bases in South Korea and kept the NORKs and Russians off their back. Blah blah blah. Prosperous country blah blah. You travel in time blah blah.
We left Vietnam and abandoned any pretense of bases. You know the results of that Paultard?
We wouldn't tolerate China invading America or any other country for that matter.
Correct Paultard. And we don't have to worry all that much. That is exactly why we have those forward bases. It checks their aggression.
And knock off the lies Paultard. I spent 20 years at those forward bases. And I hate Loons like you just like our current armed forces members do.
Right, Paultard, lets just sit on our bums and allow...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:18pm.
...China, Russia, and Iran to dominate the planet.
Wouldn't that just make a dandy world to live in, or what?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Paulbot.......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:34pm.
When Paul says he "has no problem with Iran having a nuke"......that is a lunatic position, sorry. You can not disengage the U.S. from foreign policy, and isolate us from the world.. The last 2 times we tried that, we got WW!, and WW2. Care for WW3 Paulbot??
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
really?
Submitted by kevtheweb on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:07pm.
Really? We got WWI and WWII because the US disengaged from foreign policy back during our super power years of.... 1914 and 1939??
I mean we can discuss the sanity of Iran having nukes, but not with nonsense statements.
I don't know what you are trying to argue.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:22pm.
But the United States did not gain superpower status until after World War II. So your question is flawed from the gitgo.
And yes, BEGRUNT is far far far closer to the truth than you will ever allow.
US Isolationism Is An Antiquated Foreign Policy
A Brief History of the Pre-WWII American Idea
So much for insulting a man that is largely correct. How did that work out for you?
Why dont you read.......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:24pm.
NON revisionist history, and buy a clue!! "Super Power years 1914-1939" Ever hear of the great depression? The isolationist "Smoot Hawley tariff". We did not become a "Super Power" until after the end of WW2, and remained engaged in the world. Read up before you post bonehead statements!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
It's a useless endeavor, B.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:25pm.
Trying to argue with a Paulbot. They know everything. About nothing.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I agree J.......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 2:32pm.
He also seems to forget that if we were the "Super Power" he claims we were, then why didn't we stop Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, The Japanese expansion in the Pacific, the "Rape of Nanking"....etc, on and on....... Typical BRAINLESS Paulbot!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Wow, talk about ignorant
Submitted by kevtheweb on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 5:33pm.
For one, I am not even a Paul supporter.
I was calling out your ridiculous statement that attributed the US foriegn "isolation" to causing WWI and WWII. Where you say, "how did that work for us back in WWI and WWII" when we were "isolationist".
My entire point was that the US "isolation" had nothing to do with it, and we were a no-buddy back then. Hence how I sarcastically used the term "superpower" when refering back to 1914 and 1939, like the US being more "involved" in the world would have prevented WWI and WWII.
Talk about being low on the totem pole. Go along and keep talking to your buddy about how dumb those "paulbots" are.
The web you weave is odd, there, kev,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:20pm.
in that you could easily have said "I disagree with your statement, and here is why ----."
Sarcasm is not always detectable, hence, a /sarc tag is a valuable tool to utilize in order to avoid having to explain yourself in subsequent posts.
"Calling out" a statement just because you don't agree with it does not automatically put you in the debate winner's chair.
If you have a "no-buddy" situation - an isolationist policy - you may, or may not, end up a 'nobody' when international armed conflict comes about.
Regardless, reams have been written about both the pro and con sides of isolationism as it relates to being either a causal or an attendant factor in war making, and IIRC, isolationism is generally considered, overall, as a weakness when viewed through the eyes of a potentially belligerent opponent.
MD
Well said MD!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:42pm.
"Regardless, reams have been written about both the pro and con sides of isolationism as it relates to being either a causal or an attendant factor in war making, and IIRC, isolationism is generally considered, overall, as a weakness when viewed through the eyes of a potentially belligerent opponent."
Spot on MD!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
OK....so.....
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:16pm.
Using your tortured logic, we would have been better off staying isolationist during WW1 and WW2, right? So you would be cool with a Nazi dominated Europe, Asia controlled by Japan, along with all of the atrocities committed therein right? How long do you think it would have taken before they turned to us?? They along with the communists were into WORLD control. I guess you would like to be speaking German right now huh? The only reason the world isnt like that now is that we were dragged into those conflicts, each time totally unprepared. Sorry, you can live in your fantasy world, I prefer reality, and reality says there are bad people in this world that are hell bent on killing us irregardless of our foreign policy, or how we conduct ourselves in the world. Get REAL!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
You are a piece of work. Just got introduced to the internet?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 1:29am.
Still not quite used to interacting with others?
kevtheweb: I am not even a Paul supporter.
But you did get involved in a conversation where people were responding to a Paul supporter so that is kinda pointless now. Not only did you get involved with others talking to a Paul supporter. You thought you could insult and demean the people smacking around a Paul supporter.
BEGRUNT: You can not disengage the U.S. from foreign policy, and isolate us from the world.. The last 2 times we tried that, we got WW!, and WW2.
kevtheweb: ...your ridiculous statement that attributed the US foriegn "isolation" to causing WWI and WWII.
...causing...
..CAUSING..
You need a dictionary there, insulting little snit?
Kinda hard to go from GOT to CAUSING, ain't it?
Got: past participle, past tense of get (Verb)Verb:
1.Come to have or hold (something); receive: "I got the impression that she wasn't happy".
2.Experience, suffer, or be afflicted with (something bad): "I got a sudden pain in my eye".
Yeah, kinda hard to go from RECEIVE or BE AFFLICTED WITH to actually CAUSING something, ain't it. But you, kevtheweb did and have been insulting everyone here since.
Apologize to BEGRUNT.
Now.
If you are saying
Submitted by kevtheweb on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:32am.
If you are saying A(isolation) "got us" B, you can just as easily say A caused B. The result of A was B. Or an effect of A was B. They get the same point across. That was the entire point and theme of his post, and the argument that he made against "Paul". We got WWI and WWII when we were isolationist, and if we do it again we will get WWIII.
"You thought you could insult and demean the people smacking around a Paul supporter." - so, smacking around a Paul supporter... would that be similar to "insulting" their view or just demeaning their view?
I find many of the rabid anti-paul guys who feel the need to comment end over end about how wrong Paul is, to be just as irritating as the rabid pro-paul guys that feel the need to post idiotic statements on every paul story. If you do it, at least do it from a point that better illustrates where he is wrong, and why.
Hence when you sarcastically call out someone's false argument practically equating our isolation to causing WWI and WWII, you get 3-5 posts about someone being a "brainless" PAULBOT, who knows "everything about nothing", and wants to be speaking German right now.
I have'nt even made an argument for or against isolationism. I pointed out an argument that was made here that made no sense in the context of history.
Time for you to pack sand.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:14pm.
We now know you were not serious in addition to being an asshat wearing clown.
I find insulting little snits that fail to comprehend English boorish.
You pack that sand tight. Leave it smooth. It is all you are good for.
You must be.........
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:31pm.
real dizzy spinning like that......wow, talk about "dancing on the head of a pin" to attempt to prove your point. "I was for isolation, before I was against it"......you really belong in progressive politics, you have missed your calling!! Are you a white house staffer??
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
It's all the pot that they
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:11pm.
It's all the pot that they want legalized that is destroying any functioning brain cells they have.
Oh yeah!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:49pm.
You mean that stuff that Bawney Fwank and Ron Paul wanted to legalize that one time recently? One of the few times a Dem and a Libertarian(misnomer in this case, not sure what to really call him) might agree on something?
-Jon
Who's the loon? That's easy.
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 4:00pm.
You are. And so is Ron Paul, and the vast majority of his followers.
Wow
Submitted by bachy on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 2:08pm.
I can't tell which is worse; the hysterical, mostly-ignorant, ad hominem and/or disingenuous attacks against Ron Paul and his supporters of the Marxist left or the so-called "conservative" right...
And for what it's worth, Rush Limbaugh is factually challenged. Polls have consistently shown that Ron Paul has the best chance of all the GOP candidates to beat Obama in a general election.
I think Rush is making the mistake of assuming that his own personal opinions are necessarily shared by the majority of the electorate -- which is really to be expected from such a gargantuan ego. It's likely he's under the impression that he can sway his listeners away from considering Ron Paul simply by blithely asserting that Ron Paul "can't win."
What's sad is that impression is, in many cases, somewhat justified. But I do hold up hope that not the entirety of Rush's listening audience are devoid of the ability to think critically and independently.
So, I take it, bachy, that you ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/20/2011 - 9:02pm.
favor ol' Ron, eh?
Don't particularly care for Rush, though, huh?
Man, are you gonna have some fun here at NewsBusters.
Welcome aboard.
Sort of ?. :o)
MD
batchy's been a NB member now
Submitted by ThisnThat on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:28pm.
batchy's been a NB member now for two days and 8 hours, and has already shwing his liberal skirts.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Did you not get the lastest directive from King Crank Ron Paul?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/21/2011 - 1:25am.
You are to now dismiss all critics of Ron Paul as Muslim Haters and Gay Haters.
Get with the times Paultard.
Ron Paul says Bachmann hates Muslims and Santorum hates gays
You can tell it's an election year...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 12:02am.
NB gets more than it's share of Paulbots. Where is sarcasmo? Probly at Hooters (nothing against Hooters). And by the way.. Ron Paul can't win nor should he, if he did, we would be sooooooooooo screwed. I am sorry, but a madman at the wheel won't stear this ship into anything but an iceberg...