From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:23:23 GMT

mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>>>Rush is such a bad loser. He now claims victory for conservatism
>>>since the democrats had to shift to the center to be elected. 
>>    And on the basis of that you call Rush a bad loser? I guess that 
>>language revisionism has gotten farther than I thought. If Rush had gone 
>>around saying things like "Those Democrats cheated" or "Those people must 
>>be really stupid" then I might agree that he was being a bad loser, but 
>>that's not what he did. 

>You have to admit, he is a bad loser.  He claimed that he is proud that
>he and his ideals are part of the reason that Bush lost.  I couldn't believe
>this when I heard it.

    Probably that's because Rush couldn't believe it when he heard the 
pundits making the claim about him in the first place. I don't believe for 
a minute that Rush and his ideals are what cost George Bush the election,
and I also don't believe that Rush feels any sense of accomplishment over 
it.

>>
>>    I thought that Rush did a very good job at making the best of what (for 
>>him) must seem like a very bad situation. He's trying to pick out those rays 
>>of hope which would console and hearten conservatives. He told several 
>>callers that they needn't feel bad, and that this is still America and 
>>they're still free to reach for opportunities. I believe that he agreed
>>with a couple of callers that it would be harder now, but I thought that 
>>he did a great job of being supportive and offering comfort to what 
>>(according to the returns) is apparently a very large percentage of 
>>Americans.

>I guess I don't see it that way.  I see a guy who keeps sniping and
>fearmongering, even after his brand of conservatism is now dead.

    Cripes, you *do* jump to conclusions pretty quickly. Bush got nearly 
40% of the vote, and those millions of people will sustain Rush's "brand 
of conservatism". The liberal cause isn't set in stone; it has lots of 
opponents and there is more than enough of a spark to fuel a big-time 
conservative backlash if we continue to go around making remarks like 
that. How do you expect to get the American people united behind your 
president if you insist on rubbing 57% of those people's faces in the 
mud? Please leave gloating to Rush.

>>>Well, I think conservatism has lost since people didn't support Bush and
>>>the ultra right wing, wacko religious right present at the
>>>republican convention. 

>>    I would have said that the group that actually lost was not 
>>conservatives but extremists (i.e.- the "ultra-right wing" is what lost, 
>>not the moderates).

>I agree, and Limbo is part of that group.

    Right. Extremism has lost. Conservatism has not. Therefore, I would 
have to say that Pim's gloating over the death of conservatism is somewhat 
premature. I would even say that his gloating of the death of extremism 
would be premature; extremism has suffered a temporary loss at best, but 
there are still a great many extremists in our country and they are far 
from dead.

>>>Bill and Al have won 350+ electoral votes, a clear indicator that
>>>were it note for Perot a similar landslide popular vote would have
>>>resulted. 

>>    Don't get carried away there. There's really no way of telling which way 
>>the Perot people would have gone if Ross hadn't gotten back in the race. On 
>>Tuesday night I was ready to curse them properly for taking votes from 
>>Clinton, but in retrospect I've come to the opinion that they probably took 
>>more away from Bush.

>That's not what the pollsters are saying now.  

    Fortunately I don't listen to pollsters to tell me what I should think. 
IMHO there's still no way of telling which way the Perot people would have 
gone regardless of what any network-TV affiliated pollster is telling you.

>>>Bright days are ahead of us, we have a liberal president. Cuomo will
>>>soon be appointed as supreme court justice

>>    Please excuse me if I don't share in your enthusiasm.

>I don't blame you.  If I were a fan of bush I wouldn't either.

    I'm no fan of Bush; I voted for Clinton. My lack of enthusiasm for 
Pim's gloating is based on my total rejection of his premise; conservatism 
is *not* dead and if the men we're sending to the White House think it is 
then they're considerably less intelligent than I give them credit for.

>>>And what about Rush Limbaugh ? He is such a bad loser and is hoping
>>>that Bill won't be able to help the country. 

>>    That's not the impression I get. I think that Rush is very patriotic, 
>>and I believe that he hopes that Clinton will do Ok (though perhaps not so 
>>well that it would hurt Republican chances in '96).

>I have to disagree with you on this one.  limbo is doing everything that he can
>to put a negative spin on the soon to be inaugurated Clinton Administration.

    Have you heard him advise anyone to close down businesses and put people 
out of work in order to discredit Clinton? I would agree that Rush is trying 
to put a negative spin on Clinton's victory, but I don't think that he has 
advised anything along the lines of doing damage to the economy so that 
Clinton will be blamed for it. My impression has been that he's sure 
that Clinton will hurt the economy without any help from Rush or his 
Dittoheads.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8160 alt.rush-limbaugh:9229