Au contraire

Joseph Farah overestimates both Rush’s influence as well as the essential nature of presidential election campaigns:

I hate to say it. Rush is a friend. I love listening to him. He is one of the most entertaining people on the planet. But it was this crossover voting inspired by him and a few other talk-show hosts that kept Hillary’s candidacy alive – positioning her for the collapse of the Obama campaign.

They outsmarted themselves.

I had a bad feeling about it at the time. I recalled my own thoughts along the same lines years ago, when I lived in California. There were a number of Democrats running to be the nominee for governor at the time. There was only one Republican, Dan Lungren, vying for that party’s nomination. So I decided to vote as a Democrat and to pick the least likely candidate to be able to win. I picked a dull bureaucrat with no charisma, no accomplishments and no natural constituency. His name was Gray Davis.

Needless to say, he won the nomination and beat Lungren in the general election – inducing my family’s hurried exodus from the Golden State, not to mention power failures, an economic crisis and an eventual recall election. I outsmarted myself, too. That’s why I was suspicious of this effort to save Hillary’s political career.

Just think where we would be had Obama won Texas. Hillary would probably have quit the race. Everyone knew she had to win that state. Had she been defeated then, Obama would be the only Democratic candidate standing when Jeremiah Wright’s sociopathic ramblings were played for the entire nation. Essentially, the Democrats would be up the creek with no paddle – and wouldn’t that be just too bad?

But that is not the case now.

The problem with this analysis is that Jeremiah Wright has been around for the duration of the Obama campaign, in fact, he’s been around for decades. Had Hillary needed to make use of him sooner to take out Obama, then she would have done so. Look at how far back the McGreevey and Spitzer “scandals” go… most high-level politicians have similar vulnerabilities which allow them to be destroyed at will whenever it is deemed necessary. This is one of the ways in which the elite orders the process on the rare occasion it feels the need to step in and make a choice between two of its servitors.

It has been quite clear since 2003 that for whatever reason, Hillary’s presidency has been deemed a necessary step in the road to global integration. (I don’t quite understand why, since Obama and many other potential presidents on both sides of the aisle have no principles that would cause them to defend national sovereignty, but nevertheless it’s obvious that she is the chosen one.) Therefore, Hillary will win and those who stand in her way will be first raised up in order to make it look like a genuine competition, and then destroyed should the sacrificial lamb threaten to actually present an obstacle.

McCain is no threat to Hillary, as I stated from the start, only Ron Paul could have been anything but a sacrificial lamb. To me, the only question is whether Hillary’s landslide will approach Reagan’s 1984 slaughter of Mondale or not. I don’t think so, since she won’t win enough staunchly Republican states to swamp the electoral college, but it should be a sound thumping either way.