From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:02:22 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 772@psygate.psych.indiana.edu, 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.

>
>    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.
>
>>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.

>
>>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.  
>
>>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.
>
>>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.


---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother