Audio: Rush slams Huck-a-love

posted at 4:25 pm on January 2, 2008 by Bryan

This is from today’s show. El Rushbo chides Huckabee for Ed Rollins’ attack on him and for the Huckabee campaign’s use of identity politics:

He also said flatly that Huckabee “is not a conservative.”

After yesterday’s conspicuous praise for Romney on Rush’s site and his past praise for Thompson, his chiding of Huckabee takes on a bit more significance.

Campaign Spot caught the show and transcribed a different but relevant part:

His campaign people in Arkansas know full well how to reach me. They’ve got access to office phone numbers, they’ve got access to e-mails. Huckabee was saying, ‘I don’t know how to reach him.’ … He was saying, ‘I can’t repsond to what because I don’t know who said it or what was said.’ This was three or four days after it appeared on the Atlantic.com blog… He was saying that he would love to respond, but he didn’t know what was said. Now, he might not know who said it, but it was hard for me to believe he did not know what was said, three or four days after it was posted. Now, none of this is personal to me. But how can you not know what was said, and yet reach out to me?”

“I did not reply to Governor Huckabee’s e-mail. I didn’t reply because I wanted to avoid the possibility that any little phrase that I use in the e-mail could be waved by the governor or his staff as a sign that all of this was over. There was no need to make peace. This isn’t beanbag. This is the big leagues. My feelings are not hurt. I’m not taking any of this personally.”

Heh. Rush was intent on avoiding the John Bolton problem.

Huckabee told reporters in Iowa recently that he was being advised by John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations. But Bolton has said he never talked with Huckabee. Huckabee then said he had sent an e-mail to Bolton.

It’s just not credible for the Huckabee campaign to assert that they didn’t know how to get in touch with Rush if they really wanted to. To start with, all conservatives probably have 1-800-282-2882 committed to memory just from years of listening to the show. If you don’t have it in the memory banks, Rush has one of the most visible sites on the net and he’s only on a couple hundred radio stations around the country. And that’s for us rank and file people. Surely Huckabee’s top guys have a line to get to Rush more directly. But what does it say about a Republican presidential campaign if it really can’t get in touch with someone like Rush? I’m not sure what it says, but it’s probably not good.

*Ironically, I originally had Rush’s number wrong. It’s fixed now. I’m not giving back the official EIB mug, though.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Umm…Bryan…that would be 1-800-282-2882.

reppac122 on January 2, 2008 at 4:28 PM

Surely Huckabee’s top guys have a line to get to Rush more directly.

And how about Ed Rollins?

amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 4:29 PM

reppac122 on January 2, 2008 at 4:28 PM

Heh. You are correct. It’s fixed now.

Bryan on January 2, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Rush also mentioned SEVERAL times that there is only ONE conservative with the requisite bona fides to honestly call himself that. (FRED!) And he said you can’t be a conservative without the record to back it up.

GO FRED!

Ex-tex on January 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Kiss of death for the Huckster. Buh Bye, now.

pistolero on January 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM

El Rushbo chides Huckabee for Ed Rollins’ attack on him

It wasn’t Ed Rollins who attacked Rush it was a supposed prominent DC-based Huckabee ally.

Complete7 on January 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Complete7 on January 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Which describes Rollins to a tee. And it’s the kind of thing he’s likely to do.

Bryan on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Thompson surge. Yay! Dreams can come true!

frankj on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Huckabees handling of this whole situation has been disturbing. The clueless act is not welcomed when you’re running for Chief Executive of the United States.

bj1126 on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM

To start with, all conservatives probably have 1-800-282-2882 committed to memory just from years of listening to the show.

Heh.

Jaibones on January 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM

With a parting swipe at McCain, too…SLAP!

NickTx on January 2, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Rush Limbaugh may have just had a MAJOR affect on who gets the nomination by saying that Huckabee and McCain (it wasn’t just Huckabee he said it about) were NOT conservative. Politico’s banner story is on this and Drudge has linked to it as well. Hopefully this will swing votes to Fred and Mitt!

davenp35 on January 2, 2008 at 4:48 PM

Being trapped here in the State of Chaos that is Illinois, I can’t have much impact until our gerrymandered primary comes around. But I can’t wait to see how things shake out between Mitt and Fred, either of which I will support without reservation come November, against the imbeciles on the lib side.

Finally, something to be happy about with the GOP!

Jaibones on January 2, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Kiss of death for the Huckster. Buh Bye, now.

pistolero on January 2, 2008 at 4:41 PM

I’m not betting on it. His criticism will be dismissed as “intolerance” or something along those lines. If after seeing how horrible Huck is on foreign policy, crime, national security, etc., people still support him, Rush’s critique isn’t going to change that. As was said in the one thread in the headlines: Many people support him simply because he’s a “Christian leader”.

amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Thompson surge. Yay! Dreams can come true!

frankj on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM

It might be a Happy New Year after all.

NickTx on January 2, 2008 at 4:51 PM

But as modest as it so far remains, his sudden rise in the polls—this “late-breaking surge,” to quote Zogby again—could persuade whole slews of Republicans that Fred might just pull it off after all—and lead to a breakout.

From an unexpectedly strong third place in Iowa…to first place in South Carolina?

swooon.

And Frankj hijacked the thread, not me.

TexasDan on January 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Which describes Rollins to a tee. And it’s the kind of thing he’s likely to do.

Bryan on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Other than conjecture how do you know it was Rollins? Huckabee has said that he didn’t know who made the comment. And that he doesn’t have any major staff in Washington.

Complete7 on January 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM

I’d like to think Rush had more infulence on the policial scene but after he practically endorsed Fred as the “clear conservative” after the “show of hands” deb..acle and it had no apparent effect on Fred’s numbers, I really wonder if: A) Not many people listen (take to heart)to what Rush says or B) The conservative party that listens to Rush (all 23+ mil) are the not the conservative party THAT WE think it is.

amend2 on January 2, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Rush was way too nice about this whole Huckabee situation, and it was especially frustrating to hear when numerous Huckamorons called in defending Huckabee and Rush just very gently responded, if that. I don’t get it. If I was Rush I would be personally insulted to hear that people in my audience–whom I supposedly have informed to what is conservatism–can support someone like Huckabee who’s candidacy is a direct affront to that conservatism I espouse on a daily basis.

Very frustrating to listen to, but at least he said Huckabee “is not a conservative.” Not that it will change the minds of the Jesus freaks.

Patriot33 on January 2, 2008 at 5:03 PM

C’mon gang, Huck doesn’t have a shot even if he wins Iowa. Doesn’t anyone remember that Pat Roberston won Iowa in 88?

swami on January 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM

swami on January 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Oops, sorry Robertson came in second. Regardless, Huck is not going to win the nomination. Period.

swami on January 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM

***I will add I’m still listening to the show and I just listened to the first segment of the third hour, and it was the best of the day. It was the first time he actually talked about Huckabee’s policies, and the redefining of conservatism that’s going on, etc. which was good. Still, I’m a bit disappointed.

Patriot33 on January 2, 2008 at 5:20 PM

This Huckabee guy is coming off like another hillbilly jackass.

benrand on January 2, 2008 at 5:20 PM

and he’s only on a couple hundred radio stations around the country.

Just bein’ picky here but, unless things have changed ALOT recently, Rush is on over SIX hundred radio stations nationwide.

FishFearMe on January 2, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Other than conjecture how do you know it was Rollins?

Doesn’t Rollins Work for Huckabee?

baldilocks on January 2, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I really hope that the Huckster fades away. I have carried water for Bush for this decade. If Huck gets in then it’s 8 more years of water bearing. Yuck!

Go Fred!

Mojave Mark on January 2, 2008 at 5:45 PM

At least Rush has finally woken up. Why the hell didn’t he say anything 3 weeks ago when this ridiculous boomlet for Hickabee started?

rick moran on January 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM

“But what does it say about a Republican presidential campaign if it really can’t get in touch with someone like Rush?”

Sorry eastern Europe, I just didn’t know how to get in touch with Putin. I could almost swear that someone in the White House sent him an email though.

JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM

rick moran:

“Why the hell didn’t he say anything 3 weeks ago when this ridiculous boomlet for Hickabee started?”

Because he’s genuinely trying not to meddle? Because he doesn’t want to piss off a chunk of his own constituency?

JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Maybe NOW my mother and sister will listen when I tell them Huckster is the new Bill Clinton.

srhoades on January 2, 2008 at 6:14 PM

I rarely listen to the Rush man anymore, but a co-worker does, and I heard his slam of huckleberry. Short. Concise. Accurate.

Huck is no conservative. His record proves it. The Factor dude echoed the sentiment, and added that huckleberry is peddling a belief system not political leadership.

~Nuff said.

locomotivebreath1901 on January 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM

I listened to part of this today, it was good! And he did say that Rudy and Huck are not conservatives, and that only a real conservative can win the election.

conservnut on January 2, 2008 at 7:27 PM

He did respond on the 19 … which in my date book is about 3 weeks ago. He respond the day after Huck attacked.

amend2 on January 2, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Huckabee and Paul – now there’s a couple that I would rather not see in the White House.

docdave on January 2, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Limbaugh today figuratively unendorsed McCain, Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani by stating they were not conservatives. The kiss of death effectively.

paulsur on January 2, 2008 at 8:38 PM

Limbaugh today figuratively unendorsed McCain, Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani by stating they were not conservatives. The kiss of death effectively.

Exactly. Separating the wheat from the chaff, done.

Zorro on January 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM

I really can’t remember when Rush’s take on things was in error. Once again he’s nailed it.

Actually I think this is pretty novel. Rush never (to my memory) gets involved till after the primaries. Guess he’s as disturbed by the direction the party has taken as I am.

Buzzy on January 2, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Rush better be careful. The Huck phenomenom could come to be known as the Trailer Park Putsch.

pc on January 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Much the same way my gay friends don’t like to be discriminated against because they are gay, but never miss an opportunity to remind others they ARE gay, so Huckabee does with being an evangelical.

SouthernGent on January 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM

And the fact he’s been given an audience with Jay Leno he night before people vote shows how seriously involved in almost vendetta style the old world media is in trying to throw this thing. They are playing with fire here. These people in the old media are really bitter f-ers with their savings going away in the value of their stocks and their careers going the same way especially with the printed media where the incumbant newspapers found they had zero franchise value. These people are cornered animals. If the democrats sweep they expect to be rewarded with equal time laws and other squealching and controlling triggers put in place to try and regain control of the media. Scary.

pc on January 2, 2008 at 9:15 PM

Those that think that Huckabee doesn’t stand a chance may well eat those words. The Christian backlash is very real and gets stronger every day. He’s drawing support from both parties now and honestly I’m thinking that barring photos of him with a prostitute or something nothing is going to stop him.

Christians are TIRED of being an 80% majority that can’t even admit their faith in public. They’re tired of a tiny minority of non Christians telling them what they can and can’t do, or say. They see their Religion as the answer to Islamists making demands on our society. They see Huckabee as their answer after Bush was such a disappointment.

You’re not going to see this movement on the Web, or even in the media but it’s in the Churches all across the country and prayer groups and email groups and it’s a lot bigger than anyone believes.

Don’t count it out so quickly and I can say this as a die hard Fred supporter (since Tancredo dropped out).

Buzzy on January 2, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Christians are TIRED of being an 80% majority that can’t even admit their faith in public. They’re tired of a tiny minority of non Christians telling them what they can and can’t do, or say. They see their Religion as the answer to Islamists making demands on our society. They see Huckabee as their answer after Bush was such a disappointment.

Buzzy on January 2, 2008 at 9:20 PM

I agree Christians are the only group that its acceptable to malign and even commit ‘hate crimes’ against and it be more okay. However, if they make this whole election about religion and push it down people’s throats the backlash against THEM and THAT would be even more immense. I’m all for Christians getting more fair treatment, but if this becomes a Come to Jesus (Huck) thing its really going to piss me off.

Darksean on January 2, 2008 at 9:36 PM

You’re not going to see this movement on the Web, or even in the media but it’s in the Churches all across the country and prayer groups and email groups and it’s a lot bigger than anyone believes.

I hope the IRS is paying attention.

davenp35 on January 2, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Darksean on January 2, 2008 at 9:36 PM

I agree and honestly worry that Huckabee is grabbing the cross for political gain when his own political merit wasn’t working well at all.

And davenp35, you’re not alone. That’s what all the far left Democrats are saying too. Won’t work though, it’s not from the pulpit it’s person to person, excercising their right to free assembly and speech (until the fascist left takes over).

The problem is that only 1 in 5 (on a good day) pay attention to any politics that doesn’t involve mindless chanting while 3 in 5 pay more attention to their religion and are upset over it to some degree.

I think a lot of voters were looking for something new. The good news is he’s Republican and he’s drawing a lot of Democrats. The bad news is he’s politically liberal on everything old growth conservatives hold dear. Now where are the folks that thought we should vote for Rudy because liberal as he might be he can beat Hillary?

I hoping for a Fred surge myself.

Buzzy on January 2, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Buzzy:

I think you vastly overestimate the number of Christians who consider Huckabee one of their own. I’d be willing to bet he doesn’t have much of an Episcopalian following, for example, along with a lot of folks who don’t approve of running for political office sporting a big cross on your sleeve and acting like you’re God’s gift to Christian America.

JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Buzzy on January 2, 2008 at 9:20 PM

You make very interesting points. I think you may be right. Tiered allegiance also occurs to me, meaning from lowest to greatest value: Republican, Conservative, Christian. So criticism from a republican to a conservative is water off a duck’s back, same as a conservative to a Christian. Rush’s impact may be limited by that.

Spirit of 1776 on January 2, 2008 at 11:35 PM

bj1126 on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Ditto. No one wants an ignoramous in the Oval Office.

Darksean, I’m hoping that Christians awake in the morning realizing the difference between coffee and sewage. Huckabee, even if elected, is not going to make expressing one’s Christianity any easier in public, particularly when on the defensive for his obvious shortcomings.

maverick muse on January 2, 2008 at 11:37 PM

I think a lot of voters were looking for something new. The good news is he’s Republican and he’s drawing a lot of Democrats. The bad news is he’s politically liberal on everything old growth conservatives hold dear. Now where are the folks that thought we should vote for Rudy because liberal as he might be he can beat Hillary?

I hoping for a Fred surge myself.

Buzzy on January 2, 2008 at 10:43 PM

You, like many, are ignoring our most viable and conservative candidate we have–who so happens to be positioned as a potential Huck AND McCain slayer–Mitt Romney. Why is this?

Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM

You, like many, are ignoring our most viable and conservative candidate we have–who so happens to be positioned as a potential Huck AND McCain slayer–Mitt Romney. Why is this?

Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Because he’s not a conservative.

Gianni on January 3, 2008 at 2:19 AM

Because he’s not a conservative.

Gianni on January 3, 2008 at 2:19 AM

Yet the entire conservative establishment seems to disagree with you. No one has come close to the amount of endorsements he has received from conservatives, from National Review to Paul Weyrich to Justice Bork. Does that not say anything to you?

And how exactly is he not a conservative? Yeah, you can get him on flips on social issues (which should not be primary issues of this campaign nor ideological defining issues imo; see Mike Huckabee), but he’s been running on conservatism across the board since day one of this campaign and has not changed that one bit.

That being said, I do not think he is the most conservative candidate in the race–Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson perhaps more so. But the point is he is conservative AND viable as a candidate running a campaign for POTUS, something none of the others have come close to. And it’s to the point now where if not Romney–then who?–Huckabee, McCain, and if we’re very lucky, Giuliani.

Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 2:52 AM

He’s been a “conservative” since he started running. Sorry, but being “conservative” for political expediency does not make one a conservative, I don’t care who buy the crap he’s shoveling.

Gianni on January 3, 2008 at 3:12 AM

By the way, last I heard those people that endorsed him admitted that he could not win the general.

Gianni on January 3, 2008 at 3:14 AM

He’s been a “conservative” since he started running. Sorry, but being “conservative” for political expediency does not make one a conservative, I don’t care who buy the crap he’s shoveling.

Gianni on January 3, 2008 at 3:12 AM

He governed Mass as conservative as he could. And any changes in policy were again, social issues, NOT ideologically defining issues (see Mike Huckabee on one side, Rudy Giuliani on the other) and should NOT be primary issues of this campaign. Then again, apparently voters are stupid like that, thinking a president’s policy towards abortion is more significant than his policy towards islamofascists and taxes–which regardless of comparative importance are issues he has much more influence on. But I digress.

Beyond that, do you really think he’ll change his positions as president? Is that a legitimate concern? IMO Romney is a man of integrity and there is nothing that gives me any reservation about him being otherwise.

And I find the “phony” charge against Romney pretty ridiculous considering many making it are supporting the phoniest, most disingenuous candidate possibly in the entire race in Mike Huckabee (not saying you personally, just ironic generally).

Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 3:29 AM

Rush has one of the most visible sites on the net and he’s only on a couple hundred radio stations around the country. And that’s for us rank and file people.

Not every listener is rank and file.

El Guapo on January 3, 2008 at 9:42 AM

*Ironically, I originally had Rush’s number wrong. It’s fixed now. I’m not giving back the official EIB mug, though.

Dude. I love ya, man. But. . . you got the number wrong. I don’t know how, in good conscience, you can keep your mug. I think you should send it to me. It’s the only way to properly repent for the near unpardonable sin of forgetting that number.

Troy Rasmussen on January 3, 2008 at 12:00 PM

He governed Mass as conservative as he could. And any changes in policy were again, social issues, NOT ideologically defining issues (see Mike Huckabee on one side, Rudy Giuliani on the other) and should NOT be primary issues of this campaign. Then again, apparently voters are stupid like that, thinking a president’s policy towards abortion is more significant than his policy towards islamofascists and taxes–which regardless of comparative importance are issues he has much more influence on. But I digress.

How about immigration, guns, or health care. These are all issues he was not conservative on as governor, and they are key policy issues, or “primary issues” as you call them. I don’t trust him on these issues, yes I do fear that he would change when it comes to these issues. For the record Romney is my second choice at this point, just because the others are so much worse than he is, and I would vote for him in the general although I would need a big clothespin to do it. I will not be voting for him tonight however. “Electability,” whatever that means, is not the reason I pick my candidate. I will not be voting for the Huckster tonight either, and fear I would find myself pulling for the Dem if he got the nom just because I think he would do more damage to the conservative cause than a democrat ever could.

Gianni on January 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Yep, I don’t consider Mitt conservative any more than I consider Rudy or Huck or McCain (I consider him a Democrat) or even Ron Paul conservative. But I would vote for Mitt or even Huckabee if they got the nomination and I can’t say the same about Rudy, McCain, or Ron Paul.

And, as always, I could be very wrong about Huck’s Christian Base or things could change but it is all too possible that our only chance to see a Republican in the White House is Huck and we’re right back to gay marriage amendments and amnesty plans for illegals and their corporate slavemasters. If so I’ll write off the GOP as the right wing of the Democrat party for good and become a permanent independent.

Buzzy on January 3, 2008 at 6:37 PM