Limbaugh switches stance on "moral" victories following NY-23 defeat
In 2006, Rush Limbaugh accused Democrats of "redefin[ing] victory" by claiming a "moral victory" in elections they lost by small margins. However, reacting to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman's loss in New York's 23rd Congressional District, Limbaugh touted Hoffmann's "good showing" and applauded conservatives for having "kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning" in defending his and Sarah Palin's support of Hoffman.
In 2006, Rush mocked Democrats for claiming a "moral victory" in losing campaigns
Rush's 2006 message to Democrats declaring "moral victories": "You're just stroking yourselves trying to tell yourself something good happened when you lost." Discussing the special election in California's 50th Congressional District between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby during his June 6, 2006, broadcast, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: The Democrats have already said that even if Francine Busby loses, that it will be a "moral victory," because they're making inroads in these safe Republican districts. It's sort of like Paul Hackett when he lost in a Republican district in Ohio, they said it was a "moral victory." Can I tell you about moral victories?
[...]
So I would say to you Democrats who want to continue to redefine victory as when you narrowly lose, "Keep it up, because for all the moral victories in the world you think you're having, it's just a bunch of sophistry. You're just stroking yourselves trying to tell yourself something good happened when you lost," and of course for the country at large, it is a good thing when liberal Democrats lose. [From RushLimbaugh.com, accessed 11/4/2009]
Rush mocked Democrats for portraying 2006 CA-50 election as a "moral victory." From the June 7, 2006, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Then you go to California 50 and Brian Bilbray, 50-45%, over Francine Busby. Busby can't get above 45% no matter what happens in that race. As I predicted to you, ladies and gentlemen, when the last polls came out that showed that they were basically tied but then he had moved up two points, I said, "It's going to be bigger than that," and that the Democrats are going to proclaim this a moral victory, and the reason why -- I didn't predict that because I was just reporting that -- some guy that works at The Hotline, which is an inside-the-Beltway tip sheet, had pretty much some weeks ago said, "This is going to be a big moral victory even if Busby loses."
Here's just a sample. I mean, you can find this on any Democrat kook blog that you go to today. But here's just a sample. What is the blogger? "My Direct Democracy," I guess it's called. "No matter what the media says, no Democrat should be mistaken about this result. First, this is a huge seismic shift in our favor that bodes extremely well for November. If we receive an 18% shift nationwide, we will win the House easily. If Republican candidates are pulling only 20% of the independent vote the Indecrat [sic] realignment is still on." So the Democrats are indeed portraying this as a "moral victory," ladies and gentlemen, even though Francine Busby loses by four-and-a-half to five points.[From RushLimbaugh.com (subscription required), accessed 11/4/2009]
Reacting to defeat of conservative-backed Hoffman in NY-23, Rush touted Hoffman's "good showing"
Limbaugh says Sarah Palin "is not damaged at all" by Hoffman's "good showing." On his November 4 broadcast, responding to a caller's question as well as "talking points" in the media that the result of the NY-23 election was that "Limbaugh and Palin lost" for supporting Hoffman, Limbaugh said: "Sarah Palin is not damaged at all, to answer the [caller's] question. Sarah Palin's not damaged at all by the good showing of Doug Hoffman. Not at all." [Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/4/09]
Rush on Hoffman vote: "I'm reasonably sure that this was the highest percentage of the vote ever won on the Conservative Party line by a House or Senate candidate." From his November 4 show:
LIMBAUGH: These are my thoughts on New York 23. In the first place -- I'll have to double-check this, but I'm reasonably sure that this was the highest percentage of the vote ever won on the Conservative Party line by a House or Senate candidate. I think Hoffman had a higher percentage of the vote than even James Buckley, who won his U.S. Senate race on the -- against this Goodell guy, Charles Goodell, in the '70s. So that's one thing.
Rush "paraphrase[s]" RedState's Erick Erickson: "[T]he real victory was making sure that a Republican in Name Only did not win." Referencing a blog post by Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Limbaugh said on his November 4 show, "the message out of this is, we took out a horrible Republican. We kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning and totally redefining the party in a way that would make it a permanent minority party. So in Erick's view, yeah, it would've been great if Hoffman won, but the real victory was making sure that a Republican in Name Only did not win."
Rush on NY-23 outcome: "What did not lose was conservatism." From his November 4 show:
LIMBAUGH: So there's a lot to be said here. But what did not lose, what did not lose, is conservatism. What lost was Republican ineptitude and incompetence in selecting the wrong candidate from the get-go, staying with her for too long, and then sending her off packing while she endorses the Democrat.
If readers don't believe, go to Vote-VA.org and put in a phony address to see the ballot.
It was Washington state and Maine. Please forgive me, Dex. I know you have it in your heart to forgive since you are a deeply flawed political observer yourself. You once claimed that the war on poverty has not eradicated poverty. Had you paid closer attention you would remember that the war on poverty and welfare programs were never meant to end poverty, but to alleviate the pain and suffering of the poor.
Thank you for your kindness.
I'm not saying get rid of the programs (especially since some are overly-reliant now), but there's a better way. Not like the current GOP has that way on the table either, unfortunately.
Typical conservative. Knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. It is mathmatically impossible to signifcanlty reduce the % of people at or below the 'poverty level' in the US, becasue that level is set up relative to median income. And if you understood Keyenes, you'd realize that if "poor people" have more money, then we'll all have more money, becuase they'll SPEND IT and that will support MORE PEOPLE'S incomes! So median income will go up, and leave just as many behind.
The point is not to reduce the %, but to imporve the standard of living of those living in "poverty." And you're a gott-damned fool if you think "poverty" today means the same thing as, or is not a hell of a lot better than, "poverty" 40-50 years ago, or farther back. So WHEN median income goes up, leaving just as many behind the lines, their LIVES and STANDARDS OF LIVING (not to mention everyone else's) are BETTER.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So stop the spin please, you're making me dizzy.
So, you're helping because they need help because they're poor, but they're not necessarily poor, just poorER than the rest of us, so regardless of their standard of living, the programs should stay in place without trying anything new?
I don't know if the poverty level is literally a "bottom %" vs any kind of calculation on what kind of income could reasonably support an individual or fam of 4, but if it is just that, than it's sort of meaningless, huh?
You know who else trumpets constantly "our poor have it better than the world's poor?"
But you see, welfare programs are not there to raise people from one social strata to the next anymore than social security is there to enrich the elderly. They are aid programs to help those that struggle to buy groceries, have access to medical care, keep a roof over their heads and keep them from sinking deeper into debt and poverty.
The real solution to moving people out of poverty, in my humble opinion, is honest to goodness living wages and strong benefits for workers. It's no pipe dream either, Costco does it and makes a healthy profit. The problem is a sickness in the me first attitude of the majority of businesses today. Most employers are too concerned with cheap labor cost cutting that they have neglected their responsibility to be good shepherds of the communities that support them.
I'll stop rambling now.
thank you dex. take care.
Any guesses where a huge chunk of my former coworkers took their vast store of knowledge and experience? Yeah, Costco snapped 'em up and gave them raises.
For the retail giant that decided to drive our senior employees and began hiring high school kids for far less wages ended up hurting themselves with the 25-50% loss in sales, no government action required. And those quality employees went to Costco for higher wages and better job security, no government action required.
Employers who treat their employers like dirt with dirt wages will only end up losing good employees, and as you say, sales on top of it. And those that do the opposite will be rewarded with better, happier employees who make better wages.
No government action required.
My God this really isn't that difficult for you is it?
History: it's not just for distorting, it's for forgetting!
Randy
But to answer your question the minimum wage was just raised again this year.
Take off your Reagan glasses every once in a while. Every thing is not as black and white as it looks through those glasses.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Really? You really believe the free market needs no government intervention at all? Laissez-faire to the extreme, huh? I think if you check your world history you will find that this does not work. Eventually, when the middle class disappears the peasants storm the gates. And yes, the mighty middle class in this country in the 50s and 60s was helped along mightily by government intervention.
This example was as plain as day and you still find a way to somehow worm government's necessity into it. Amazing.
I did eventually leave, for less pay and health benefits that cost four times what I'd had. But I'd topped out my wage and hadn't gotten a raise in nearly seven years, which makes my new job far superior, despite the crippling health insurance premiums.
So, no, government interference in the marketplace is not unnecessary. For all the dozens of other reasons why health care reform is needed right now, add job mobility for people who can't do without health insurance.
No one would find themselves in 'group 2'.
However, I do think there are some programs that have been excellent. I think social welfare has been much more effective than corporate welfare. The numbers bear out that most people do not stay on welfare, they use it for a few years and then move on and move up. I think we tend to act as if we are punishing people for accepting social welfare, and that is the wrong idea. We should encourage those in need to seek help, and when they seek help also include a chance to improve their lives.
My family ran a not-for-profit United Way agency for many years - food bank, clothing bank, commodities, WIC, etc. I still volunteer at one where I now live and I would encourage anyone to do the same. If you actually spend some time helping those in need you will find that there is a great deal of shame and embarrassment attached to asking for help and admitting you cannot help yourself. Those welfare queens that Reagan and the far right like to use as an example are the exception, not the rule. Most of the country does not behave like the defendants on Judge Judy.
Where the government fails, is when they refuse to let a program go away. We should always try new ideas and new programs, but the ones that do not work need to be ended so that those that do work (Headstart, WIC, etc.) can have the money necessary to work effectively. Anytime a government program fails because of lack of funding that is a failure of us as a people and not of the people it was intended to help.
Big news. It is the Democrats and Republicans job to spin all losses and victories to their fullest advantages and present the rosiest of rosy scenarios following elections. To suggest that one is more devious or far-fetched than the other is ridiculous.
In reality, this post is about exposing Limbaugh's hypocrisy.
You are such a hypocrite it's amazing. Argue with someone who swallows your nonsense, I don't.
Like I said. Whatevs. This post is about Limbaugh being a hypocrite. Plain and simple.
Keep it up with the insults, Tommy. I don't care.
You can claim I'm moving the goalposts, but they were your own words, not mine.
I don't read into this post the implication that Democrats or MMFA (which you attempt to conflate) are saying the concept of moral victories are bunk, I still think this post is about Limbaugh being a hypocrite and nothing more.
I don't defend Limbaugh much, if ever. But this whole post-election spin that the parties and their loyalists do is their job. It doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time, but I understand the double standard each employs.
The only thing left to do here is point and laugh at the fool who doesn't even comprehend the topic that they personally introduced.
Admit it -- you needed help understanding what "hypocrisy" means. I was happy to provide it.
He alleged that Dems do it, and then never even provided an example. Even if there was a Dem who did it, it doesn't matter - this wasn't about Dems doing it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
He alleged that Dems do it, and then never even provided an example. Even if there was a Dem who did it, it doesn't matter - this wasn't about Dems doing it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If he wants to make conservatives look stupid to further the nefarious plot of making somebody say "I won't post to this thread; there's too much noise", I won't complain. Next to calling the media stupid, this is the most fun I get here.
But this is as smart as conservatives get. If there were any smarter conservatives, the corporate media would be using them to promote their interests.
I think you missed the point as well. This is not at all about whether any defeat is a moral victory or not. It is whether one believes in the concept of it. Rush claimed he did not believe in the concept at one point and now - all of a sudden - he does.
In order for the comparison to be valid, RightOn needs to find an example of a Democrat that does not believe in the concept of moral victories and then switches his position like Rush did.
You are absolutely free to stop responding to my posts.
Correct. I do not believe in moral victories. Accept defeat and learn from your mistakes. Otherwise, you just become stuck in an endless cycle of moral victories / defeats. Just ask Sarah Palin, I think Joe Biden just beat her again. She is about to become the queen of moral victories.
MMFA is wrong, yet again
"In 2006, Rush Limbaugh accused Democrats of "redefin[ing] victory" by claiming a "moral victory" in elections they lost by small margins. However, reacting to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman's loss in New York's 23rd Congressional District, Limbaugh touted Hoffmann's "good showing" and applauded conservatives for having "kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning" in defending his and Sarah Palin's support of Hoffman."
Cheney, you believe that you have some kind of point... those who are too obtuse to understand the content of what they're reading or hearing would agree with you.
However, Republicans, when they do win, do so more often by a)lying b) cheating and/or being devious little weasels. Although some of them are just plain batsh*t crazy....
Only some?
It IS true that only some of them are crazy.
Some others are stupid. And yet some other are evil.
Many of the stupids are also crazy; and most of the evil are also hypocrites. Most of the crazies that aren't as stupid are also hypocrites.
And while not as common, there's nothing stopping any one indiviudal from being all four.
----------------------------------------------------------------
But really, Conservatives manly come in TWO flavors: Evil and Stupid. One lies and the other buys.
Ohh, ohh, never mind.
Of course, I'm KIDDING, but whatever. I've never understood conservative "humor" so I shouldn't expect any of you to understand mine.
OTOH... Can you really present a single example of a republican that the liberals here couldn't provide evidence of them demonstrating possession of at least ONE of the four charectaristics above?
-----------------------------------------------------------
'Cause if you can, I'd love to see you try.
----------------------------------------------------
Although you are in the wrong place if you're looking some someone to call out liberals... :) Just sayin'. ;)
More intellectual dishonesty. Generalizations are the seeds of bigotry and hatred. But then again, you said that it doesn't bother you. Thanks for caring.
Some suggested reading:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/200809/generalization-learning-the-lessons-history-today-saved-us-tomorrow
http://www.wwnorton.com/COLLEGE/PHIL/LOGIC3/ch15/general.htm
And FYI, I only call you out as a generalization troll because you are the most repeat offender. Got it?
I can't say for certain if it was Robert A. Heinlein, but I recall an essay or commentary about them. To paraphrase, someone says "I hate Blacks".. that is a generalization, because, as was noted in the essay, the person has not met all Blacks, so can only judge by the ones he/she has met. I've been ready for someone to make such a statement while I'm present, and ask them "So, you've met every Black in the world?". The answer would be, if they were honest "No". Final response would be "Then how do you know you hate 'Blacks', if you haven't met them all? You are making a statement about people you know nothing about".
I think we may be generalizing a bit. Not all Republicans are crazy or lying or cheating. Unfortunately, they have allowed their party to run by charlatans like Beck and Limbaugh who are amoral entertainers. But, I would still not classify the entire Republican party with the far right. Not yet. A couple more years of them killing of their own with guys like Hoffman and maybe. But, for now, it is an over-generalization in my opinion.
Everything else he said is a strawman argument. No one said that politicians don't try to spin stuff.
But Rush said that Dems were wrong to declare a moral victory, then he does the same thing here.
And the whole thread is not invalidated by exposing Rush's hypocrisy.
Rush is a hypocrite. Whatever Dems did or didn't do is irrelevant.
RightON couldn't offer moral clarity to Satan.
And you Sue, are way too simple to understand that you just displayed incredible hypocrisy of your very own with your above statement. Keep on however.
Of course, it's not true. I didn't exhibit a shred of hypocrisy.
Two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't matter if Dems behaved in a similarly bad way. Of course, when you were challenged to provide even one example of similar behavior, you couldn't do it, but it wouldn't absolve Rush of guilt even if you had found someone on the left who behaved in a similar way.
(And remember, the similar way would have to include a person rejecting "moral" victories at one time, and later promoting a "moral" victory another time.)
Rush is a hypocrite. I exhibited no hypocrisy, much less "incredible hypocrisy".
I'm still not Sue, but what we see is that when you get backed into a corner, all you seem capable of doing is lashing out with a personal attack. It's really sad, but incredibly entertaining at the same time to see you flailing about like a caught fish out of water.
This MMfA posting does not show that Democrats are "changing their stance on the concept" of moral victory. MMfA is merely pointing out that Rush mocked Democrats for claiming moral victories in the recent past but is now doing the same with respect to NY-23. There's nothing wrong with claiming a moral victory and trying to put a loss in the best light possible (certainly nothing new for any party), but when you do so after attacking the practice, that is hypocrisy, and that was the point of this story.
Really? Then will you urge your fellow Democrats to call the NY-23 loss for Republicans a "moral victory", or will you label it as such yourself? Because if you do neither, then it is you who is illogical, unreasonable, and a hypocrite if you agreed with the Democrats in 2006 who labeled their loss as a "moral victory". Your call.
"This MMfA posting does not show that Democrats are "changing their stance on the concept" of moral victory".
Whether or not NY-23 is indeed a "moral victory" or not is not the point. Both sides seem to believe in the concept that their side can lose a race, but do better than they thought they should. The thing that makes Rush particularly hypocritical is that he claimed he did not believe in the concept at one point, but now he obviously does. If you can show where a Democrat has been a hypocrite on the concept of moral victories, that would be an apples to apples comparison.
RightON is actually pretty good at what he does - that's probably why he gets paid to do it now, and apparently used to get paid under the Tommy screen name.
That he's good at it doesn't make it pretty, or a good thing, but it does explain why he does it. The fact that I recognize this and point it out is why I have drawn much of his ire and get the personal attacks from him.
Well... I'll have to give them credit for that! GOOD JOB!
I hope they do a LOT MORE of this in 2010 and 2012!
I for one would like see a LOT fewer of these "horrible Republicans!"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Colbert has the easiest job in the world.
NY 23 used to be the district in NYC environs. Then, for about 20 years, it was the district that included Albany and Schenectady - not the same rural district it is now.
One has to look at the counties currently included in the district, and not the number of the district.
But some here lied to you, and you bought their lies hook, line and sinker.
A generation ago, a few small parts of the current district, portions close to bigger Central NY cities, were represented by a Democrat. 60% of the district hasn't been represented by a Democrat since the late 1800's, and a large portion of that hasn't had a Democratic Congressman since the 1850's.
I hope you know that I would not just blindly "buy" their argument. I looked at the history of NY-23 and it shows what I described. Now if we are talking about the geographical area (that has been redistricted over time), then your argument makes sense. I would like to see some links that back up the claims so I can understand the issue better.
If I made a mistake, I want to know, but I am equally skeptical of both sides. What evidence do you have for your case?
You should consider that we do a thing called a census every 10 years, and that census causes us to re-draw district boundaries. I can only hope that you're so young as to not have seen that happen as an adult, because I can't understand any adult who has seen that event happen who wouldn't realize that the number assigned to the district isn't the relevant data one needed to look at here.
Now, to your argument that you 'looked it up'. How did you go about that 'looking it up'? You can go to wikipedia and look up the NY 23rd, and you'll see the regions it covered. I guess you didn't do that in your research, huh? Where did you look at the history of the NY 23 district and not learn what counties it covered? And how did you not know that the counties that a district covered wouldn't have changed over the years?
I have plenty of evidence. For a map, go to DailyKos, and go about 3 pages back into their front page history, and you'll see a map of the North Country of NYS. There it will show you the counties currently represented by District 23, and it will show you the length of time that has passed since a Democrat represented those counties.
It is clear that he says the word "district". By that I took it to mean the 23rd district. Although the 23rd district has been moved around the state from time to time, it has not always been Republican. Now if he meant the geographical location in regards to district, which is how you took it, then I can understand your point. The wiki-page makes no mention of the historical voting records of each of the geographical areas that have been historically served by what is now the 23rd district of New York. It was an honest mistake and I resent you being so unnecessarily asinine about it.