Rush Limbaugh: “I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee”
posted at 8:13 pm on January 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s come to this. An idle threat, surely — he won’t kneecap McCain if it means President Hillary — but it’s as close to a Romney endorsement from him as you’re going to get.
Meanwhile, Carl Cameron reported at around 7:15 that Fred’s aides say he won’t be at the Florida debate on Thursday, just in case you’re wondering which way tomorrow’s big announcement is heading.
Exit question: Is Bainbridge right?
Update: More Cameron. I just don’t believe it:
Fred Thompson sources say the actor and former Tenn senator may withdraw from the race. There are no plans to attend Thursday’s Florida debate…
From THE FIRST DAY FoxNews broke the story last March of his candidacy, Thompson has always had a vice presidential bid in mind.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
What I am hearing is that she took a turn for the worse yesterday. My thoughts and prayers are with Fred, Jeri, and the whole family
ConservativePartyNow on January 22, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Captain Cavalier,
You irritate the hell out of me because of your arrogant egocentricity and unfunny jokes, but mostly because of your idiotic suggestion that we sit out the election and let the Dems win. Nothing like adopting a losing strategy at a time of war!
I’ll take a nice tropical global warming over a nuclear winter any day, but you’re all comfy down there under the sea with your muffins, so what do you care? I get the sense that you have no children to think about, and only have your very large ego to feed.
***********
Prediction: Rush will begin to backtrack on the rash statements he made yesterday.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I highly doubt that. Rush doesn’t just say things off the cuff. It will be interesting to hear his commentary after Florida and Super Tuesday.
geckomon on January 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Danish,
I agree with the your point that sitting out the election is detrimental. Betting that the election of Hillary/Obama in 2008 is going to lead to a conservative resurgence in ‘12 or ‘16 is playing a bank shot plagued by uncertainty. Did the election of Reagan lead to a resurgence of the McGovernites? Did the election of FDR spur a reaction against big government and a conservative resurgence?
Sometimes a Phoenix rises from the ashes but most of the time you just have a dead bird.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Elections matter and betting on a backlash which will bring renewed vigor to the conservative movement is (to paraphrase Rush) too smart by half.
He was kind of rambling yesterday. I think he will clarify his comment. This is the guy who used to argue with Buchananuts every day, telling them how self-defeating it was to vote for a third party candidate, diluting the Republican vote.
Of course he doesn’t have any children either which may make it easier to encourage people to play Russian Roulette with our future.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 11:35 AM
The electorate has moved beyond Rush Limbaugh.
bnelson44 on January 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM
What is funny about all this is how this election is becoming about attacking, ridiculing, and/or mocking the voters instead of debating the qualities of the candidates.
People keep telling me that Rush influences voter decisions. Maybe so. But maybe, really, Rush is more a reflection of the voter base than a leader of it.
Lawrence on January 22, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Also, bashing Hillary/Obama can make for good radio. The problem is that Presidents do things that matter and things that can’t be undone. This more true of Democrats than Republicans since Democrats tend to expand the role of government, and once an entitlement or service is created it is near impossible to roll back. Both Reagan and Bush got clobbered for touching social security. Future Republican Presidents would have a similar challenge with whatever give-aways Hillary/Obama conjured up.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Voting for a third-party candidate in the general is a hell of a lot different than supporting a candidate for the nomination. Third-party votes make or break elections. Nominations can offset that.
I’ve noticed you bring this up with a couple other posters. What is with the sudden parent pedestal?
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Rush is correct- If McCain or Huckabee are the nominees, the Republican Party is down and out for this election cycle. Unfortunately, our country will suffer.
trainwife1962 on January 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Rush is his very much on his game today.
For all you ignoramuses that love to knock Rush, you could educate yourself by tuning in.
Don’t expect me to attempt an intelligent conversation with you, as long as you’re displaying your ignorance of Rush and the issues.
Mcguyver on January 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Ten bucks says they don’t even listen to Rush more than the occasional clip posted here.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Thats a pathetic cheap shot. He is always arguing first and foremost the policies of this nation that are ruining the future generations.
Its not just here, RedState, FreeRepublic, everywhere I go people are beginning to bash Limbaugh. Drug Addict!! Philanderer!!1!1…
Rush has been doing this for over 19 years, we have all looked to him for those 19 years. Now you dont like what he has to say and you bash him?
The GOP base really needs therapy.
broker1 on January 22, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Thompson stepping out, non-endorsing McCain, the status of the economy worrying many voters… THIS IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO for Mitt Romney.
iamse7en on January 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM
They come here for their therapy. That’s why we beat up on them. They must love it because they always come back for more.
Mcguyver on January 22, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I live in New York state, and I have witnessed the death of the republican party here after several decades of being cut-rate liberal wannabes. The conservative people left the party and the electorate has chosen to support people that call themselves Democrats over the people that pretend they aren’t Democrats.
I have two young adult children. I love them and care for their security. But they will be able to fight their own battles. For now, they are libertarians…. by their own choice. They are more conservative than I am. Hopefully they will have a political party one day that doesn’t betray them like the Republican party has betrayed its conservative base today. Let it die! The sooner the better, before Hillary and the socialists destroy what’s left of the great American experiment.
Mustafa Hemmroid on January 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM
In case I wasn’t clear, I strongly support the things Rush Limbaugh has been saying.
The party establishment, the Wall Street money people… they control the Republican Party. It’s time the conservative base free itelf from these people.
Mustafa Hemmroid on January 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM
The Republicans already have this attitude, that’s why we are in the position we are in now. Voting for them isn’t going to change that.
Gianni on January 22, 2008 at 1:59 PM
It’s much easier to be cavalier about these things if one doesn’t have children to worry about. That’s a reasonable observation and has nothing to do with a “pedestal”.
Indeed, I wager that many of the despairing Fred Heads who are making these threats fit into that statistical subset.
I’ve noticed that a lot of the commentary is all about me! There is something very self-indulgent about a lot of it, like the guy who said he had to sleep at night and couldn’t worry about other people’s nightmares.
Sorry you take offense, but if Rush encourages people to gamble with our future and stay home that will effectively be like playing a game of Russian Roulette. That is a realistic, unemotional, intellectually based conclusion.
I am a dittohead, but there is no way in hell that he can convince me that staying home would be a reasonable choice. It is undeniably true that in the past he worried about future generations, but in the past he encouraged people to vote too, so something has changed here.
As for the drug addict charges and that sort of piling on, you will never find me saying that kind of thing.
Really? What choice do they have in the matter if, say, Iran decides to push the nuclear envelope and a bunch of code pinko dems are in the White House?
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM
No, it’s you making a really arrogant claim that just because you’re a parent you somehow care more about this country. And it’s pure bulls***. It’s equivalent to all the politicians that argue an issue with “Don’t you care about the CHILDREN???” It’s emotional crap, and it’s nonsense.
If someone is young and has not had kids, does that somehow make your opinion more valid? If someone is older and their kids are grown, does that make their opinion less valid? If someone is unable to have children, does that mean they’re not allowed to even speculate on what they think is good for the future?
As I said: Pedestal. Get off it. You are not special just because you have bred.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Maybe. My perception is that social cons, libertarians, hawks, and free market cons are splintered. They seem willing to reject candidates who are flawed in some areas, even if it means the Dems win. There isn’t an urgency to compromise among the coalition that the Republicans need in order to get to 270 electoral votes. When you’d rather lose to the opposition than compromise, you’re likely to get your wish.
Even with a loss to Hillary, the GOP will still need to get to 270 in 2112. The country’s demographics are changing and there is no guarantee that the current coalition can be put back together.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Perhaps many of the electorate have moved to the left, but that doesn’t mean that conservatism is over. The GOP needs to make a stand by reiterating “this is who we are.” The GOP (the institution) has failed in that regard.
Oink on January 22, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Fred just announced he is out.
It is a sad day.
broker1 on January 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Unfortunately for your erroneous presumption, Mcguyver (re your 1:07 PM post), my comments made in this thread critical of Rush concerning John McCain are based on listening to Rush.
Being a real conservative means thinking for yourself and not letting even Rush do the thinking for you.
Phil Byler on January 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I am not saying that I care more about the country, I am saying that my priorities are different. Obviously there is no one more patriotic than Rush Limbaugh.
My child is special, not me. I am only important in that I provide him shelter, guidance and love. It is also my responsibility to do everything possible to secure his safety, and in that regard party loyalties and strategy concerns for the future of the conservative movement take a backseat.
I am talking about perspective, and if one has children it is fair to say that one has more than just oneself to think about. That being the case one’s decisions on Election Day are motivated by different concerns than, say, urban singles.
I can’t get worked up about some issues which are first and foremost for some people, and vice versa. Everybody has their own special interest group, and in my case it’s my son. For some people they are Seniors, or want gay marriage, or affirmative action, or abortion rights, prayer in the schools, ethanol subsidies, or a litany of other priorities.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I agree. However, many urban singles plan to have children. Some urban couples plan to have children, as I do. Not to sound melodramatic, but often times I have considered the state of the present and the possibilities of the future when thinking about having children, and it scares me off the idea.
We may have different perspectives, but this is a case of valid relativism. There are like-minded outlooks that permeate every group you can think of, so don’t discount people’s opinions simply because they don’t match all your characteristics. All parents were once not. All couples were once single. Proclaiming other’s paradigms to be less valid on the basis of such only splinters movements more. At the risk of repeating what’s been said here a thousand times, we’re supposed to be on the same side here.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM
‘
He may not have said it last summer, but he did in 2003:
He now says he has never supported amnesty, this is a flat out lie. He has also said he never changed his position, this I believe as I believe he still supports amnesty as he always has. If he can’t admit that he supported amnesty and that he was wrong in doing so than I can not believe that he has changed his views.
Gianni on January 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM
To the Republican party? Certainly.
To conservatives? Not so much.
To the GOP: “Sorry, we have to break up. I know I’m supposed to spare your feelings and say that it’s not your fault… but it is.”
Stashiu3 on January 22, 2008 at 2:57 PM
The GOP wants to stay in office, and will respond to how people vote.
If people vote for moderate Republicans, they’ll continue to nominate moderate Republicans.
In my opinion, that’s something worth sending a message over.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM
It’s just an expensive message. It seem analogous to the Naderites in 2000. If the Dems get Hillary 8 years later as a result, I’m not sure they’ll feel it was worth it.
If the various conservative factions are trying to knock out certain candidates in the primaries, that makes a lot of sense–fight like hell for your guy. I’d vote for whoever is the GOP nominee and look for a stronger primary candidate in 4 years. Conservatives didn’t like Bush 41, but I’m glad he was President instead of Dukakis.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 3:37 PM
The whole reason McCain and Rudy are being pushed is because “they can beat Hillary.” Voting for them is not going to make the party change. I am not voting for someone just because people think they can beat the opposition and no one else can.
Gianni on January 22, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Really? No one? There are a few people who have sacrificed for the country who I’d put ahead of Rush.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Tell me, have you looked at your childs school books lately?
Fred was the only one willing to take on the NEA in any real fashion.
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Yes, I was an urban single once and I always wanted to have children, but I can tell you that my perspective and priorities were very different then.
I’m not discounting other opinions, but from my perspective this talk about not voting is very unwise, and puts far too much emphasis on fantasies about teaching the party a lesson at the expense of the very real need to secure our country’s future.
Iran or AQ could be sending us a message first. And a much more poignant one at that.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I don’t think that is the reason for them running. McCain is programmed to run for President, as most Senators are. Rudy’s performance during 9/11 gave him unprecedented name-recognition and created a perception that he was a strong leader in a time or crisis. Since 9/11 he has spent his time raising and making a lot of money with people whispering in his ear that he could be president.
Fred is out. I think Huck can’t make it. Mitt, McCain, Rudy. They are all flawed, but if you are going to help Hillary or Obama get control of the country I think it is bad for America. Will sitting it out pay off in 2012? The cost of that “maybe” is 4 years of “change”, and not change for the better.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Inevidable, most likely an EMP or two.
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM
…and how the president reacts will be an even bigger message. Liberal democrats and liberal republicans, if they kowtow, will send a very big message to the nation.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I’m guessing, in national security domain, Rudy would be considered hawkish enough.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I’m sorry to report that Fred has withdrawn from this race, and we will just have to slog on without him. He may end up on Mitt’s ticket which would be lovely, but if not we will carry on.
In any event, we’ve been taking on the NEA for a very long time now, and I don’t expect it to be resolved anytime soon. Meanwhile, my child is very well versed in current events and conservative principles, and is quite adept at detecting Moonbatic ideas, so I don’t worry at all that he will end up a Useful Idiot.
One can be eminently patriotic without making sacrifices on the field of battle, dontcha think?
For example, my great(+3) aunt wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I think it’s fair to say that she was as great a patriot as any general.
Rush has done immeasurable good in advancing the principles of this Republic, and he deserves a full measure of credit for it.
?
If there were, say, a nuclear holocaust, what sort of nation would we have left? This is not a game of tiddlywinks we’re playing.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM
You’re right. It’s chess. Pearl Harbor was the sacrifice of a pawn in order to move into checkmate. It won’t be the last gambit if we want to preserve the foundation of this nation.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 4:03 PM
True. I’m not so fearful of the kowtowing as I am the detriment to the social fabric of this country. Lib dem or repub…I don’t see much difference any more.
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I didn’t say that was why they were running. What I said is that is the reason they are being forced on us. All you ever hear from the people who support them is that they are “the only candidate that can beat Hillary.” That is the answer to any attack on their positions. I’m sorry but that is not good enough. Beating Hillary isn’t my reason for voting. That was what the Dems did in 2004 and look what it got them. Sorry, not falling into that trap.
Gianni on January 22, 2008 at 4:21 PM
I don’t worry at all that he will end up a Useful Idiot.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM
This is good news, but isn’t it frustrating looking at these books.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM
and, we all know who invented the game!
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM
This is not some Banana Republic country with faux-elections. These candidates were not “forced on us”. They chose to run by their own volition, and a few very good ones are still standing.
You might think differently if you were living in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
In any case, Instead of Pearl Harbor, let’s think 9/11. Were the people who died on that day sacrificial “pawns”, or, given a different prior administration, is it not fair to argue that that catastrophic event, and their deaths might have been prevented?
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 4:39 PM
It may not be a reason to support them in the primary, but winning is essential in the general. There can be candidates who make a statement by running and losing, but Mitt, Rudy & McCain aren’t those kinds of guys. If they run and lose, I think, like Kerry, the primaries four years from now won’t include them.
I’ve got problems with each of the remaining candidates, but Mitt, Rudy & McCain are better on the issues than the Dems.
dedalus on January 22, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Why does anybody give a flying bleep what Rush Limbaugh thinks? He’s an entertainer, but most of all, he’s a intellectual lightweight and and a buffoon.
dakine on January 22, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 4:39 PM
If Jamie & Janet hadn’t put up a few roadblocks between FBI and CIA…. it might’ve been.
jerrytbg on January 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Conjecture on what didn’t happen is pointless when discussing future policy. We have to go by what did happen.
To answer your question, largely, no they weren’t pawns. However, in some sense they were. Apparently the embassy bombings, the first WTC bombing, and the USS Cole weren’t enough to make the American public wake up to the problem of Islamic terrorism. 9/11, for a time, did. In the smaller sense, it was an advantage in being able to make foreign policy without the instant cries of imperialism, etc. Unfortunately, because Bush faltered and started talking about how peaceful Islam is and what poor wretches the Palestinians are, those cries caught up to him.
The more the United States citizenry gets a front-row image of what these sick bastards want to do, the more they’ll react. In a sense, yes. We have to be shocked out of our complacency until we remember that not all the world wants everyone to live in peace.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 5:03 PM
The electorate has moved beyond Rush Limbaugh.
bnelson44 on January 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM
++++++++++++++
Unfortunately, the electorate is moving past the inexplicably self-destructive Republican party. A lifelong Republican to now, I will not vote for any of the remaining Repub candidates. Worse, the party likely will never recover my allegiance after this debacle. They’ve been headed steadily downhill for years and this just cakes it.
fabrexe on January 22, 2008 at 5:32 PM
I mean, now that Fred’s out of it.
fabrexe on January 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM
That and a few other things, like ignoring a report that Logan’s airport security was a disaster waiting to happen. Granted it’s all speculation, but Clinton was not focused on this stuff during his 8 years.
My point is that elections matter.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Woops, missed this one.
As someone who lost 3 friends on 9/11, I am not willing to sacrifice anymore Americans for shock value.
I think it is height of complacency to stay home on election day and hand an election over to people whom AQ would rejoice over, and who would surrender at the first opportunity.
All this bit about the candidates not being true enough to the Republican Party Platform is insane IMO, and for the most part is not even factually correct.
Anyway, ’nuff said.
Buy Danish on January 22, 2008 at 5:45 PM
If it comes down to Obama versus McCain, I have a huge problem. Huge.
Warning, Republican party. I’m a Republican. I’m a Conservative. I don’t see myself voting for McCain unless the alternative is far, far worse.
And, Hillary is far, far worse, but Obama is not, and the Republican Party better get it before the election, because if they don’t and it’s Obama, the Republican Party is going to have 8 years to get it.
pabarge on January 22, 2008 at 6:15 PM
It’s not just shock value. It’s a reminder that there are people in the world who want to kill us. When people don’t realize that fact, they become soft and oppose all military action. Then, before you know it, we’re France.
If it’s McCain versus Obama or Hillary, it won’t make a difference. You’ll be voting for a hawkish ultra-liberal or an anti-waterboarding liberal Republican who uses military spending bills as political capital to settle scores with the guy he lost the presidency to.
In this case, it really makes no difference, and I’m not giving a vote for either of them to run this country.
MadisonConservative on January 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM
We should all just write in Fred in the remaining primaries. Mitt is the only other candidate partially reasonable.
duff65 on January 22, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4