Rush goes nuclear on Huckabee? Update: Audio added
posted at 2:03 pm on December 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Bryan’s headline yesterday said it all. Geraghty has a list of choice quotes from today’s tirade — “McCain’s starting to look better to than this guy, and that’s saying something” jumps out — but the partial transcript suggests he spent most of his time defending himself as a heartland conservative rather than attacking Huckabee.
Most, but not all:
CALLER: Yeah, Romney after that debate, the last debate, said he was in favor of expanding entitlements, which is anything but conservative.
RUSH: Yeah, that’s why I haven’t endorsed anybody. I’m waiting. I don’t know how else I can do it. I realize that there are a lot of you out there: You got a candidate, and you think that if I got behind your candidate it would put ‘em over the top, and you might be right. But, at this point, it’s just an age-old belief that I have, and I remain true to my beliefs and principles. Now, some people have written me, “I hear you say this, but you’re full of it. What about 2000 with Bush and McCain in South Carolina?” Special circumstance. You had a two-man race, and what was happening in South Carolina, McCain was going so far off the conservative reservation, so far off of it, that it was necessary to step in. Huckabee is getting close, I’m going to have to tell you. Huckabee’s getting close to the same stuff. Huckabee is using his devout Christianity to mask some other things that are distinctively not conservative. He is against free trade. He’s really doesn’t believe in free market. Well, let me read what George Will wrote today. This is when I go along with “the DC-New York axis.” But I just want to read from George Will’s column, a paragraph today. “Huckabee’s campaign actually is what Rudy Giuliani’s candidacy is misdescribed as being — a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs. Giuliani departs from recent Republican stances regarding two issues — abortion and the recognition by the law of same-sex couples. Huckabee’s radical candidacy broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America’s corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity. [C]onsider New Hampshire’s chapter of the National Education Association, the teachers union that is a crucial component of the Democratic Party’s base. In 2004, New Hampshire’s chapter endorsed Howard Dean in the Democratic primary and no one in the Republican primary. Last week it endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary — and Huckabee in the Republican primary.” It likes Huckabee on education.
Huck’s people have already begun kissing ass to mitigate the damage. The more the conservative world comes out against him, from Will to Peggy Noonan to NRO to Rush to Sean Hannity, the more he’ll be forced to pitch an “us against them” campaign to his supporters. He’s too far left on too many issues to tack right credibly, so the only way to keep them in the fold is to try to build on that religious and economic populism he’s peddling and make this a full-blown Cause against the conservative establishment. The trick is keeping the few truly big players like Limbaugh neutral, since they really do have the chops to tilt this thing in a two-man race. Sounds like it might already be too late.
Update (Bryan): Here’s audio of the Maha Rushie’s show today.
Update: Geraghty wonders:
My instinct is to say, “no way, a thumbs down from Rush is fatal,” but a guy on another campaign cautions me. “An Iowa pastor who has been talking up Huckabee isn’t going to change his mind because Rush Limbaugh doesn’t like him.” He points out that a pastors and religous leaders deal with people who fall short of their ideals all the time; hearing that Mike Huckabee was too merciful in dealing with Wayne Dumond is not going to be a dealbreaker for them. They’ll probably go, no pun intended, “there but for the grace of God go I.”
So… if a certain significant chunk of Huckabee’s supporters back him because he’s the most vocal Christian in the race, not because of the conservatism of his record or policy stances…. if the moment comes where the race needs a Huck Slayer (as social conservatives thought the race might require a Rudy Slayer)… can anybody in the race go after Huckabee on that ground? Can anyone make the argument to that Republican plurality, “Okay, nevermind conservative policy choices - he’s not the good Christian leader you think he is”?
Coulter’s been trying, but no, no candidate can afford to alienate Huck’s supporters that way. They’ll have to stick scrupulously to attacking him for being too far left — which they should, incidentally. The more religion stays out of this, the better. The question is, if Huck does turn this into a crusade to remake the party and overthrow the establishment, how many of his supporters will be willing, if they’re defeated, to turn out for the eventual nominee?
Update: Apparently Limbaugh mentioned the CBS interview with Ed Rollins, Huck’s new campaign manager, as another reason for today’s pique.
CBSNews.com: Let’s start with the attacks on Governor Huckabee from a lot of Republican establishment figures lately. Rush Limbaugh has called him “the Huckster.” Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, has said it would be suicide to nominate him. Why do you think he’s provoking all of this criticism?
Ed Rollins: Well, I think first of all he is not an establishment candidate. I don’t think anybody anticipated early on when he started to run that he would do as well as he’s doing. Some of these guys have picked other candidates.
And I think, to a certain extent, the alleged wise men have sat around in either the studios, or the newsrooms, basically writing magazine articles. They didn’t see it coming and I think they underestimated him.
CBSNews.com: Does he threaten them?
Ed Rollins: Well, I think he’s not their candidate. You know some of them obviously are with McCain. Some of them are obviously with Romney. And I think at the end of the day Mike is a guy who basically was a very effective governor.
You can look at his record. It’s a record of accomplishment. He didn’t use the governor’s office to just purely run for president. He wanted to fix mistakes and do things that are meaningful. And I think the thing they challenge him on is not really about his record.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Too late to kiss his ass. The damage is done.
JammieWearingFool on December 21, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Hey Huck…Call Harry Reid and ask him how his run-in with Rush went !
DoctorDentons on December 21, 2007 at 2:11 PM
And here we see the true value of a man like Rush. G_d bless him, his ex-wives, his cat and his habits. America would be in (even more) trouble without him.
Hannibal Smith on December 21, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Going back to the Hillary aging thing. I think Rush has made this an issue to get “age” & “looks” on the list of “THINGS WE CAN NOT TALK ABOUT IN THIS ELECTION” — Enter Fred Thompson (who I believe Rush favors).
Excellent strategy, Rush. Now we know why Rush “runs America” -you know it and I know it.
stenwin77 on December 21, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Rush was just tellin’ it like it is.
That was good!
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Didn’t all this start because an “anonymous Huckabee ally” criticized Rush to a writer at the National Review?
Hmmm.
Interesting.
EduardoOTI on December 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM
What kind of idiot would take on Rush and think he would be served well? Huck is playing the religion card and some people will vote based on that alone. As far as his “conservatism” goes, he may as well not even try to go that route - he has no shot.
Isn’t having 1 president from Arkansas enough?
woodman on December 21, 2007 at 2:17 PM
No, I think it started when Huckabee ran as a conservative with a liberal record. This was inevitable. The anonymous Huckabee supporter only accelerated the process.
Slublog on December 21, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Get Huckabee out of the race. Hopefully this will move one of the only two candiates I would consider voting for, Mitt or Fred, up nationwide.
davenp35 on December 21, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Are you insinuating it didn’t happen or that it was a put up job?
a capella on December 21, 2007 at 2:20 PM
EduardoOTI on December 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Yeah, it seems like a bit of a stretch for Rush to dig into the Huckabee campaign for that.
Newsflash: Some guy who supposedly supports Fred told a friend of mine once that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I think.
Cue righteous rage in 5…4…3…
Big S on December 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Yep.
J on December 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM
I infrequently listen to Rush, but whenever I hear him, I like it.
Spirit of 1776 on December 21, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Rush just stated it was the ‘anonymous ally’ and the Rollins interview on CBS today. Spin? Probably. But the campaign gave him the opening and he took it.
Limerick on December 21, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Wonder of Huck will have another enlightenment episode and emerge from the tunnel a true Conservative?
Wonder if there’s a quota on epiphany’s?
Speakup on December 21, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Huck is taking up most of the show today.
Valiant on December 21, 2007 at 2:27 PM
a capella,
I didn’t even think of it this way. I was simply surprised Rush’s ego is so easily hurt when it wasn’t even the candidate or anyone officially linked with the campaign addressing him.
But now that you mention it, seeing as the NR is backing Romney and they were the ones to start the story, I guess it could have been a ‘dirty trick’ of sorts.
EduardoOTI on December 21, 2007 at 2:27 PM
P.S. What’s next, speaking in tongues?
Speakup on December 21, 2007 at 2:27 PM
By process of elimination, who can it be other than Fred at this point - regardless of the latest near-meaningless poll snapshot?
McCain - unacceptable to anti-illegalists and base Rs
Giuliani - unacceptable to moralist social cons
Huckabee - unacceptable to fiscal and war cons
Mitt - unacceptable to evangelical and hardcore security cons
Fred - not saying he’s perfect (far from it), but what major R constituency would veto him?
I’m not and haven’t been a Fred-head. I was disgusted and annoyed by his early appearances. Mitt TRIES to touch all the bases, but, in the event Mitt won the election, is it easier to imagine him explaining away his compromises in year 2 of his administration, or sticking to his guns?
CK MacLeod on December 21, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I disagree with the reasoning behind that, mainly because falling short of ideals in that context is related to faith. A pastor is of course used to hearing from his parishoners about how they coveted, oh, an iPhone or something. But I think in matters political the standard is different.
Plus, we aren’t talking about Huckabee outlawing public smoking as a compromise of ideals…that is his ideal. Similarly, a pastor wouldn’t have much patience for a murderer if the murderer held killing someone as an ideal.
JohnTant on December 21, 2007 at 2:28 PM
No, it was here.
JammieWearingFool on December 21, 2007 at 2:28 PM
This is like watching one of the horse races in the movie Seabiscuit. Rush is biding his time and waiting until the moment is just right before he endorses Fred. Then Fred will sprint to the finish line and win the nomination going away.
World B. Free on December 21, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Exit question 1 will a gingrich endorsement have any effect on the race ?
Exit question 2. Gary Bauer doesnt like huck has he endorsed anyone ?
William Amos on December 21, 2007 at 2:29 PM
When Huck drops out, who will he endorse?
Yep! You guessed it.
Ron Paul
TheSitRep on December 21, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Didn’t all this start because an “anonymous Huckabee ally” criticized Rush to a writer at the National Review?
Hmmm.
WRONG. It was the liberal Atlantic.
Cuffy Meigs on December 21, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Would make about as much sense as Tancredo endorsing Romney, or Brownback McCain, or (insert random endorsement here).
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Sean Hannity questioning a Republican?
V15J on December 21, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Fine. The Atlantic. Though Marc Ambinder is far from liberal.
Either way, it was ‘anonymous’. And thusly, ridiculous to get this riled up about.
EduardoOTI on December 21, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Ring-a-ding-ding. The only way the remaining candidates can let Huckabee back in this after the Limbaugh death blow (never taught to Chuck Norris, BTW) is to bring religion back into it. While there are enough evangelicals who can tell when somebody is crying wolf regarding a claimed religious attack on him and are not willing to bite on that card, when there is some truth behind that play, there are also enough evangelicals who will rally around the aggrieved to tip things.
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I suspect Rush was biding his time and looking for a reason to bash Huck. I doubt his feelings were hurt,..more like a timed indirect bit of help for Fred, who Rush has already stroked as the only real conservative. This way Rush can ostensibly remain pure from endorsing anyone directly. Gamesmanship is what it is all about.
a capella on December 21, 2007 at 2:47 PM
There was nothing anonymous about this, also quoted by Limbaugh this afternoon:
It was a thinly-veiled attack, but it was an attack nonetheless. Huckabee and his campaign have spent far too much time in victim mode for my taste. He’s got to grow a thicker skin.
Slublog on December 21, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Someone needs to actually tell the masses what Huckabee stands for. Then we wouldn’t have this problem. He’s the flavor of the month. Only problem is, this is the month that counts.
Vincenzo on December 21, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Not quite gamesmanship. Why should he allow a lifetime of hard work, commitment, and sacrifice to an ideal and philosophy for America to be squandered by this mistaken detour along a tangent? He believes in what he says. Why shouldn’t he fight for it. It is his right.
JiangxiDad on December 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM
William Amos @2:29, when Newt decided not to run for president himself, Gingrich chose to support Fred Thompson’s campaign.
steveegg @2:38, LOL.
HotAir readers wonder why Allahpundit refrains an endorsement. Allahpundit enjoys poking sticks in eyes, and to date exhibits no personal rationale other than snark. His claim that blogs mean nothing is self representative. If not for patient reasoning, a lack of position represents the fear of unpopularity misunderstood as being “wrong”. However, one can not fault him for intolerance. Forgive me if I am wrong.
maverick muse on December 21, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Point taken. However IMO, Rush’s final endorsement(in whatever form)will be more effective if he seems to be still mulling over all the prospects until just that right moment. Maximum impact. Theater. Climax. Nothing wrong with that. Rush knows how to play an audience. No different than Allah.
a capella on December 21, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Bing. This is how I see it.
Jaibones on December 21, 2007 at 3:03 PM
FINALLY.
F*CKING FINALLY!!
thareb on December 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Do you think Rollins was the leak to the Atlantic? He is a veteran who should know better but he has been known to put his foot in his mouth.
Bill C on December 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM
The one endorsement that really made sense to me was The Other (that would be Tommy) Thompson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. They truly are huge-government socially-liberal birds of a feather.
Fortunately, nobody supported TOT.
steveegg on December 21, 2007 at 3:09 PM
I am smack in the middle of Huck’s red-state Christian conservative demographic. My wife teaches at a church preschool where the director claims that she knows Huckabee personally and “He’s a wonderful candidate and really one of us.” Note that I have no idea if the director knows Huckabee from church functions or just met him at a campaign stop once.
I was much more attracted to Huckabee as a candidate before he started pulling this identitiy politics garbage (and I am also less than thrilled to learn more about his record in Arkansas). There is a fine line between advocating socially conservative principles, and outright egregious pandering. Huck has crossed that line for me. I am also really concerned about how close he came today to the Democrat’s line on our “failed” foreign policy.
I could go for either Mitt or Guliani, but honestly I’m not all that thrilled about any of them.
Anton on December 21, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Join the club.
JiangxiDad on December 21, 2007 at 3:14 PM
I thought that, but unless he was looking to get a little more victim of the establishment cred, it was a dumb move.
Slublog on December 21, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Boy, I guess.
Jaibones on December 21, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Well, this is also the guy that came out of the gate saying that the Huckster was the next Reagan, so dumb moves seem to be his stock-in-trade these days. Either that, or Rollins is just a whore. Or both.
ReubenJCogburn on December 21, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Finally…what? Finally…Rush comes out and slaps this douchebag?
Jaibones on December 21, 2007 at 3:23 PM
That would be my guess…and that was about my reaction too, FINALLY!
Huck made a big mistake, he’s about to learn you don’t try and take up arms against the Don of the conservative movement.
Bad Candy on December 21, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Believe I read somewhere that he admitted paying black pastors and congregations to stay home during voting when he was involved with the Whitman campaign in NJ.
a capella on December 21, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Thanks for the tip. I went there and found:
Very strange snide aside by someone who either
1. obviously does not listen to Rush
2. Knows well they are misrepresenting Rush but want to
–A. trigger Rush to behave badly and make Huckabee a sympathetic underdog
or
–B. Triangulate and isolate Rush so the religious progressives will distrust him on topic
The last possibility would be that Rush is working in cahoots with the big boys to manipulate the voter bloc. While I understand Rush gets his back scratched a lot, he likes and needs his audience. There are too many times when he could have gamed his audience before.
Extreme conspiracy theory is brain depleting.
IMHO the Hucksters didn’t like the Huckster remark or the witholding of favor by the Rushbo. They do not expect to gain his enthusiastic support, so have turned on Rush like a bunch of progressive moderate hens in the barnyard
This will not hurt their chances with other hens
entagor on December 21, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I agree with Rush.
ThackerAgency on December 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Mega-dittoes, Rush.
silverfox on December 21, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Here comes the waaaaahhhhmbulance. Huck’s a big victim. If he can’t handle questions about the facts of his past and feels they are attacks on his religion, how will he deal with true attacks on his religion and country by our extremist enemies in the religion of peace?
My guess is he’ll try to appease them by doing things like, oh, I don’t know….closing Gitmo perhaps?
Meanwhile he’s had 14 ethics violations related to gifts he’s received according to the Wall Street Journal. Just another Arkansas good ‘ol boy politician.
NTWR on December 21, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Rush didn’t unleash a thing against Huckabee. He just rolled up his cuffs an inch or two.
Later in this same show (edited by me):
24/7 is truly a great gift for yourself, students, family members, and you can even send a membership to someone in the military.
I highly recommend it.
RushBaby on December 21, 2007 at 4:27 PM
For Rush this is about Ed Rollins. It sounds to me like Rush thinks that Rollins is behind the Ambinder comment.
The only way this ends well for Huckabee is for Rollins’ head to roll. Of course, with Limbaugh out until next year, the damage is done. It would have been better never to have brought up Rush at all.
It’s my belief that he did real damage to McCain’s campaign in 2000. He is doing the same for Huckabee here. The stuff about not endorsing a primary candidate is a smokescreen. Candidates engage Rush at their own peril. Notice Mccain has stayed out of Rush’s sights this cycle (unless you count the comprehensive POS fiasco).
DB on December 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Yeah, I’m going with
Rush almost never picks a guy in the primary. Now I’m listening to Medved, who is mouthing the Huckster’s party line that the elitist conservatives don’t like Huckster “because he’s not one of them — he’s an outsider”.
He cites the fact that he, Medved, went to Yale, Ingraham went to UV and Dartmouth, and Coulter went to Cornell. Uh, Michael? Rush doesn’t have a degree. Neither does Hannity. Few of the rest of us who despise Huckabee went to Yale, fyi.
Weakest thing I’ve heard yet.
Jaibones on December 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Dear Huckleberry,
Never pick a fight with someone who buys electrons by the megawatt.
dinasour on December 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
And this coming from Medved is surprising how?
Medved has been off his rocker for while now.
Speakup on December 21, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I was excited when I got online to hear Rush FINALLY (as some of you have said) went after Huckabee. So I logged in on 24/7 and listened to it, and though it was decent, I hardly think he went nuclear and not nearly far enough on attacking Huckabee on the substance of his horrendous policies. I’m certainly happy at least we got something out of him these last couple days, but in some ways I feel like he missed out on a great opportunity to just destroy his candidacy and completely expose him. But Rush went farther than he wanted to go and has gone this entire campaign, so I guess I should be pleased about that. Finally something.
Patriot33 on December 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Huckabee’s Happy Spears Is Keeping Her Baby
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM
With Rush, it is all about Rush. Since he fent attacked, he lashed back. He has been doing it for years. He probably figures it is good for 4 or 5 shows easy.
Huck would be wise to make up.
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 5:32 PM
You must not be a listener to his show. Meant as a mild observation.
RushBaby on December 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I’ve listened to his show for years and years.
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Delighted to hear that. Then we probably agree that:
1) Rush has no desire to lash out at Huck at all, much less figuring how many days he can make it good for.
2) Rush does not attack, he defends
1) With Rush, it is all about his audience - the cornerstone of his business.
RushBaby on December 21, 2007 at 6:07 PM
LOL! Sure he does. He has lashed back at almost anyone who says anything slightly derrogetory, has for years.
Tell that to those he has attacked.
Do me a favor and next time you listen to him, time how long he talks about himself.
bnelson44 on December 21, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Free trade is a liberal principle. Fair trade is better.
tommuck on December 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM
First it’s a Huckattack on Bush’s foreign policy. Now it’s a Huckspat with Rush. Good grief, it’s looking like Huckacide.
The more I see of this guy, the less I like him.
petefrt on December 21, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Like I said, it’s all about his audience. Most of us are fans, who like his little personal stories. They’re a welcome break from all the pro-America, pro-entrepreneurship, pro-military, and pro-conservatism stuff that could get, you know pretty boring and stuff.
RushBaby on December 21, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Huck is done for (thank god) You don’t even accidently go after the grand poobah of conservitive talk and survive very long. I am willing to bet that about half of Hucks supporters are Rush fans. Guess who they will line up behind here.
I hope Huck enjoyed his 15 minutes.
Now go away.
conservnut on December 21, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Oh please! Thank God for Rush! He was perfect today! If Rush really wanted to attack someone he could! Rush defended himself today! I was a Husck supporter for about 3 weeks! It was largely articles on HotAir that convinced me of my error! Rush has actually defended Huck in the past and called him a “nice guy” about two months ago! I had read these stories about Hucks glass jaw and thin skin and he is proving they are all accurate! He was stupid to go out and attack Rush! I am convinced he would be a disaster as President!
JellyToast on December 21, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Rush said with there was nothing personal. I say BS, what ever decision a politician makes IS PERSONAL. When he sends someone off to war, it is personal to the family of the Solider, Airman, Marine, Sailor. When the politician issues clemency to a criminal, it is personal to the family of the rape or murder victim, who was victimized or who is later victimized after the clemency or parole recommendation. When a politician is weak on immigration and protecting our borders it is personal to the displaced and waged reduced employee or contractor, or the victim of a criminal illegal alien gang member. It is personal to the small businessman, who been hit by taxes, trade limiting regulations, thus affecting his or her income or ability to conduct business or even be put out of business because some Politician signed the laws or enforced the law. Anyone say anything about a politician or politics is NOT PERSONAL is b.s.ing.
Politics is personal to the people the politicians affect. Guess being in battle is not personal to anyone who spends their life at home. Watches the news all day, read blogs and does little else but respond to blogs too. Perhaps it is not personal to people who just comment on life. Not personal maybe to a radio commentator, but to a citizen who has something at stake in the actions of a politician, it is very personal.
StuLongIsland on December 21, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Well stated.
right2bright on December 21, 2007 at 7:30 PM
I like Rush.
Scoreboard44 on December 21, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Listening to the man for so long, like some or most here…the man (Rush) only wields his stick when need be. He went after Reid when Reid made it personal. Rush could easily flood phone lines here and there but does not use his mic for that reason. He speaks for me.
I have listened to him for fifteen years. He is not perfect. He did not fight in any war. He has flaws. Like me. But when he speaks, he sounds like the lower to middle class guys I golf with and hang with. He loves this country and can say so better than guys like Hannity and Coulter who are abrasive. Rush does it with a touch of humor. He holds off just like I am doing before jumping on someones bandwagon because even he does not know the total story on some of these people.
I was hoping Fred would be the man. The MSM didn’t cover Hunter or Tancredo.
He doesn’t really like McCain that much, his impression of him makes me laugh.
But Huck scares me. The MSM want him badly. So badly they pushed him to where he is and the rest faltered because of the many flaws they had or because like here in Michigan, we can’t seem to deliver a guy who has the chops.
Fred’s gonna drop out. McCain may have learned his lesson. I don’t know. But for sure…Huck is not on my list this year as the guy I am going to look at.
Norris endorsement or not.
Scoreboard44 on December 21, 2007 at 7:45 PM
There was a time when Rush was on the tip of the spear
Now he is just left to bringing up the rear
Others were on the march quite some time ago
And he is just now beginning with the heave-ho
Paul Revere anymore he is certainly not
But at least he is now coming out against the Dingleberry Camelot
MB4 on December 21, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Huh? Dude…buy a clue.
Jaibones on December 21, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I usually enjoy Medved’s style and his smart and level-headed approach. This is the second time I have found him way out in left field. The last time was when he was defending the GOP Senators on Shamnesty.
When I disagree with him, he seems really nuts. Maybe it’s just me…
Jaibones on December 21, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Thanks, Rush… Go FRED!
Fred-Mitt in ‘08
Rugged Individual on December 21, 2007 at 8:51 PM
man, he gets the biggest forehead award, more than that guy on CNN. sheeesh. Must mean he’s smarter right?
kiddng aside, I love rush. I just like how rolled up sleeves and the forehead thing are expected to make us listen. In RUSH’s case, hey, he’s smart no matter what.
johnnyU on December 21, 2007 at 8:52 PM
As with Rush, I identify with conservatism, not necessasarily Republicans. I think Michelle and the Hot Air gang might be a tad conservative as well.
The Huckster is no conservative. Nope. And how does that old song go, don’t tug on Superman’s cap, don’t spit into the wind…
Zorro on December 21, 2007 at 9:26 PM
all the pro-America, pro-entrepreneurship, pro-military, and pro-conservatism stuff
RushBaby on December 21, 2007 at 6:44 PM
*smack*
Not to mention, pro-faith and pro-Christian stuff.
RushBaby on December 21, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Peggy Noonan is anti-Huckabee? Hmm, that means he must have something going for him. Maybe I should reevaluate my possition.
srhoades on December 21, 2007 at 10:47 PM
The Huckabomber is a (D)emocrat pretending to be a (R)epublican spouting the exact rhetoric the most hystrionic (D)emocrats unfairly use to smear (R)epublicans.
In other words… he is Hillary(D)’s designated (R)epublican nominee..
DANEgerus on December 21, 2007 at 11:11 PM
…he will do more damage to Christianity than the ACLU has.
Connie on December 21, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »