Rush Limbaugh: “I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee”

posted at 8:13 pm on January 21, 2008 by Allahpundit

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I felt the earth shake! Devestation!

countywolf on January 21, 2008 at 8:15 PM

It was fun Fred, take care. I still think you would have been the best POTUS.

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM

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 leaning.

I’m sorry to see Fred go, but his campaign managers did him a terrible disservice and he never conveyed the energy people wanted to see to support him. I liked Fred, too.

I like Rudy #1 because I think he’s best able to beat Hillary and won’t be a total disaster in terms of core conservative values, esp. on the fiscal side. Romney is my #2 choice. McCain is #3 — and I’d vote for McCain in the general election while holding my nose. If Huckabee gets the nod, I will sit out.

Outlander on January 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM

It’s been over for quite some time now guys. Just another one of the reasons the world’s markets collapsed today. The Republicans can’t even dredge up a decent nominee with a chance of winning in November. Haven’t you noticed all the lefty’s endless smiling lately?

Griz on January 21, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Rush=Dobson?

Vizzini on January 21, 2008 at 8:18 PM

People keep saying Fred will drop out and endorse Mcain’t. I Mcain’t believe that..

twiggman on January 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM

This may just prove that Rush loves pandering to his advertitizers more than he loves his country.

He likes to walk that line

TheSitRep on January 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Why would anyone want an energetic chief executive?

I’m pretty sure the last thing on Chinese people’s minds during The Great Leap Forward was “gee, I’m sure glad that Mao Tse-Tung fellow isn’t lethargic.”

Gerard on January 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM

I’m stunned by this, anyone remember how Rush was hammering people for threatening to stay home in 2006? I thought I’d never hear this, I didn’t listen to Rush for long today, but I caught this and was genuinely stunned.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 8:20 PM

It was fun Rush, take care now.

TheSitRep on January 21, 2008 at 8:20 PM

blah blah blah hes dead hes back SSDD

in the meantime everyone enjoy this lil video will make you proud to be an American

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTs0in9KsrE

Kevin43 on January 21, 2008 at 8:23 PM

The really sad thing is that neither party has offered a candidate worth voting for.
Lock and Load Boys, time for the second revolution.

1sttofight on January 21, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Exit question: Is Bainbridge right?

As far as Im concerned. Absolutely. I am not meaning to offend those those that are voting for Romney or Rudy but they dont represent the republican party that I have belonged to for 28 years. Now granted Bush started us down this road, but at what point do we say that our candidate isnt a conservative? Right now its 3 good policies 3 liberal ones and thats ok. What if the leading candidate was a liberal except they were pro life and thats it? Would everyone be castigated THEN for staying home? I have drawn the line and if the GOP needs a slaughter in the General in order to refind itself, so be it.

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:25 PM

It’s all part of “the plan” to make the democrat party assume that “the plan” is exactly what they want to happen…Rush neutralized, zombie mind-numbed robots confused, Hillary landslide.

SouthernGent on January 21, 2008 at 8:25 PM

With all due respect to Rush, to whom I have enjoyed listening, lately Rush has been downright destructive and off base. Rush’s latest statement only confirms my view.

Many of the readers here may worship Rush, and I understand the loyalty due to his past performance. But recently Rush’s ego and a certain unjustified personal animus have gotten way out of hand and have skewed his commentary in ways that do not reflect well considered thought. If Rush keeps it up and if Hillary does win the Presidency, she should send a thank you note to Rush, before she then goes to work to shutting him down.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Rush said on his program he will support either Rudy or Romney

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 8:27 PM

No, McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 82.3. We need to win and keep the upcoming moaist cultural revolution of change out.

1. Re: McCain-Feingold – well Bush signed. nuff said
2. Re: Immigration – We’ll see. We needs to pledge more inforcement.
3. Re: Gang of 14 – This may have been for the better.
4. Re: Global Warming Alarmism – He’ll actually watch out for our economy and not be beholden to enviroanarchists
What else?

ninjapirate on January 21, 2008 at 8:27 PM

Good for Rush, though. It’s heartening to know that such a prominent conservative is willing to stand on principle and not act as a cheerleader for whoever the eventual GOP nominee is.

Good for you Rush. I know a TRUE conservative when I see one. This is EXACTLY my sediment. Good-bye Republican Party, Hello 3rd Party. Or I can’t wait to see the complete dismantle of the GOP, from the ground up. I’m gonna love watching all these wishy-washy RINOs get whacked. Whose gonna support Spector for re-election now? Whose gonna vote for Lynsey? How about Lugar, or Snow, et al? You won’t leave, so I will.

Sultry Beauty on January 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

This may just prove that Rush loves pandering to his advertitizers more than he loves his country.

He likes to walk that line

TheSitRep on January 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM

You obviously dont listen to Rush. First of all he doesnt pander to anyone. Anytime someone says they should start apetition to get his advertisers off his show he always responds with “My advertisers stay with me because I make them a boatload of money because of the amount of listeners, and I also have liberal advertisers.”

If you listen to his show he doesnt pick and choose and his advertisers arent political so what is there to pander to?

This is just getting bad, now the “Conservatives” are turning on Rush Limbaugh? Are you kidding? The voice of the conservative movement? The guy that draws ire from congress and fear the most?

I cannot believe I am hearing this.

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Well maybe we can regain the White House in 2012 before the end of the world on ‘doomsday’ Dec 12, 2012! It’s gotta be true, I seen it on TV! In fact it’s on again today on the History Channel.

countywolf on January 21, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 8:26 PM

No, she needs to send her thank you note to the sellouts that run the GOP.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Rush=Dobson?

Vizzini on January 21, 2008 at 8:18 PM

That’s what I was thinking. But I can’t blame him; I’m backing Alan Keyes, but I have days when I think the GOP is over – conservatives are going to have to fight tooth and nail for our own party.

Today isn’t one of those days, but still. I feel ya, Rush.

emailnuevo on January 21, 2008 at 8:32 PM

I’m stunned by this, anyone remember how Rush was hammering people for threatening to stay home in 2006? I thought I’d never hear this, I didn’t listen to Rush for long today, but I caught this and was genuinely stunned.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 8:20 PM

If I recall Rush has done this type of tactic before.
I just can’t remember on what issue. He cames back a few days later and pulls the rug out just to show by example the why and how. He’s not going to sit anything out. . I don’t believe it. . . .

Texyank on January 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM

I’m stunned by this, anyone remember how Rush was hammering people for threatening to stay home in 2006? I thought I’d never hear this, I didn’t listen to Rush for long today, but I caught this and was genuinely stunned.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Will all due respect, those were congressional elections. It was a matter of pure numbers in order to hold the house and senate.

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM

With Fred leavin, I’m done too. I will not hold my nose and vote again! (that gave us Mel Martinez).

I guess it will be a long 8 years… but maybe in that time we’ll learn something, if it is not too late.

I too, believe the GOP is finished, because I’m finished with them… Combine the 2 Parties and let’s quit pretending.

DF1

DFrosty1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Texyank on January 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM

Dude, I dunno, things are bad in the GOP right now…

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Hahaha the picture of the nuclear explosion is a tad dramatic.

mattyj86 on January 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM

I was listening when he said it. I got the impression that Rush was attempting to not endorse a candidate for much the same reason as was discussed on the Oprah endorses Obama thread; i.e. Rush endorses a candidate and looses his audience who support another candidate.

I choose to belief that Rush said what he said because he chooses to support conservative policy rather than a Republican candidate.

Rush likes to get people thinking/talking and will dance all around a conclusion and wait for you to figure it out for yourself.

rockhauler on January 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:34 PM

I guess that’s a valid point. Still, he’s generally pretty against sitting out.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

This may just prove that Rush loves pandering to his advertitizers more than he loves his country.
He likes to walk that line

TheSitRep on January 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Now we are calling Rush on the love of his country huh….if you can find me a better patriot, supporter of the troops you let me know.

Tell me what Rush should do? Hold to the values that he has been espousing for the last 19 years or should he do what you claim he is doing now? PANDER

Do you want him to change his values and pander to YOU and McCain supporters just so we can win the white house at the expense of the party and its values?

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

Good for you Rush. I know a TRUE conservative when I see one. This is EXACTLY my sediment. Good-bye Republican Party, Hello 3rd Party. Or I can’t wait to see the complete dismantle of the GOP, from the ground up. I’m gonna love watching all these wishy-washy RINOs get whacked.

Fully agree – can’t stand McCain. Don’t care too much for Huck either, but I do prefer him to the Dems. It sickens me to think that McCain could be the nominee – after his Liberal candidacy in 2000, his opposition to tax cuts, Gang of 14, opposition to Gitmo and backbiting Rumsfeld since Afghanistan, not Iraq, immigration et al. If he was the president, more than half of what the Dems want, they’d get: you’d have Feingold, Kennedy, Feinstein, Dodd, Biden et al all ruling the roost. Yeah, he supports the surge, but that’s because we’re already in the war. But if the question came up on Iran, do you think he’d agree to take out their science project?

Transcript of what Rush said today:

RUSH: Jim in Kansas City, Missouri, I’m glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: Yes, sir.

CALLER: Earlier you had mentioned that when the time comes, you’re going to announce or get behind somebody, and I’m just wondering, what’s your selection criteria for picking a candidate, and two, how do you decide when that time is that you’re going to announce? I’m more interested in how you pick a candidate. Because especially this year with — there’s really not a true conservative. How do you narrow it down?

RUSH: That’s an excellent point. I don’t have a time frame, just to address that first. I don’t have a time frame.

CALLER: All right.

RUSH: And I also, I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee.

CALLER: Hm-hm.

RUSH: And I never thought that I would say that in my life.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: “But, Rush, but, Rush, what about Hillary?” (sigh) By the way, the sigh is not aimed at you Jim.

CALLER: Oh, I know.

RUSH: This stuff is very tough.

CALLER: Well, maybe open it up two different years, where we do have — say you have two good conservatives, how would you go through a selection process? I know a lot of people, they say, well, if he’s pro-abortion and if he’s this and this. I was just wondering what your kind of selection criteria —

RUSH: I went through this in great detail mere moments ago.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: In a situation like this, where you don’t have a genuine, down the list conservative, you have to look at variables. It’s easier for me to support a Romney than a McCain, for example, because I believe his conversion is genuine and he’s not lying about past positions. He’s not trying to tell people that they’re wrong when they assess his past positions. He explains why he changed his mind and what it was that caused him to change his mind. And so I don’t want to go through that whole list again, but that’s pretty much how I would do it. If you’re a subscriber to my website it will be up when we update the site this afternoon to reflect the contents of the program. But this is really difficult. But depending — there are a couple people — I can’t take these endorsement calls, because I’m just —

CALLER: No, I don’t want you to endorse them. I was just wondering how you go about and decide. I mean, do you look at, you know, are they willing to cut taxes only, I mean is that your top — what’s your top five things that you look at in a candidate for choosing them.

RUSH: Okay, top five right off the top of my head, not in any particular order: limited government. Get government out of people’s way. Number two, belief in the system that it’s people who make the country work, not government. Number three, don’t give me a laundry list of policies without a philosophical underpinning that explains the policies. Number four, don’t tell me that government is the agent of change and that you are going to lead the government. My brand of conservatism is based on individual entrepreneurism, rugged self-individualism, telling people that they’re the ones who make the country work. I think this is born out by history and people respond to it. And then, fifth, after all of those things that I would define as conservative, which includes the belief that people can triumph over the obstacles in their lives, that they’re not incompetent, they’re not incapable, and they’re not stupid, the fifth thing is, is there any leadership on any of this?

CALLER: No.

RUSH: Well, if somebody starts exuding leadership, I’m going to tell you, the race would be over. Nobody’s exuding any leadership in this primary right now at all. What we’re getting is a recitation of policies, we’re getting a defense of past positions which aren’t conservative, that run from, (Doing McCain impression) “You’re misunderstanding me, I never said it, it wasn’t amnesty!” to people who were pro-choice, changed their mind to pro-life. We have people that said they’re now for FairTax and net tax increase. If somebody starts exhibiting leadership, if there were, even with this roster, if one of them had any kind of leadership persona, the race would already be more defined than it is now. I think the one thing that’s absent in all of this is take-charge leadership born of confidence and desire to lead the country forward according to the vision the candidate has. Right now the front-runners want it because it’s their turn. We tried that in 1996 with Bob Dole, and now they’re running the same scenario with McCain. You know what recommends McCain is so many people saying, “He got cheated, Rush, in 2000. He was cheated and we owe him! It was unfair.” We’ve been down this road of owing people. We’ve been down this road, it’s their turn. That’s not what does it for me. So I guess in speaking aloud here and answering your question, the answer is show me some leadership here and you’re going to go a long way to impressing me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: My friends, I’m going to repeat this one more time. I’ve said this countless times, but people are wondering when, how, who I am going to endorse. Please get away from that. That is accepting the notion that whoever I endorse is put over the top. You guys are demonstrating out there that you’re going to make up your own minds — and I, frankly, like that. I participate here in, hopefully, informing and educating, and you do back and forth. We do together. But you’re not mind-numbed robots. This endorsement business? Can I be bluntly honest? If I had this magical power to get everybody I supported elected, we wouldn’t have had Clinton. You know, people like me who do what I do, we’ve gotta realistic about what this is. It’s a radio show that has an identity and a mission and a purpose, but it’s not to get people elected. It’s an ancillary thing, but that’s not why I’m doing this. If I really want to get one guy over another elected, I’d quit this then I’d become the guy’s operative and dirty tricks guy and whatever else it took to win. I’m not trying to diminish my role, don’t misunderstand.

I’m the one has this in perspective. Now, you ask, on the one hand, you want me to endorse somebody, and I say no. Then you think I have, when I haven’t, and I get hell on the phones from people who think I’ve endorsed somebody. I haven’t. Now, you want to know why I haven’t endorsed anybody? Screw the word endorsement. You know why I’m not coming out and saying, “I support this guy more than the other” in those exact words? It’s because I can’t control these people. Let me give you a hypothetical. Let’s say that long ago I said, “Folks, I have surveyed the scene, and there’s only one guy in this race that’s worth supporting, and that man is Fred Thompson.” All right. So I say, and Fred runs along with his current position in the polls, and then decides to get out. What if Fred decides to endorse McCain, or throw his support to him? It’s entirely possible. Where does that leave me? I’m not going to put myself in this position. Tie your life to a politician, or link yourself to a politician? If you endorse one, you gotta defend everything they say, otherwise you gotta cancel the endorsement. Then, what the hell? When you have a roster where there’s no genuine conservative… It’s like I’ve been telling you.

Like I’m telling you: this is going to come down to who we dislike the least. It’s what it’s going to boil down to. That’s not necessarily good, but it is what it is. I can’t say, “I support Candidate X” weeks out, and the campaign unfolds and have these guys put me in a bad situation. Because I guarantee you, if I were to say, say, “Candidate X! You know what, folks? I’ve decided today I support Candidate X,” Candidate X is not going to call me and say, “What do I need to keep doing to keep your support?” Candidate X is going to assume I will maintain support whatever he does because he’s just gotten it publicly. I’m not going to put myself in that position. So if I can’t come to you and honestly say I support one of these guys over the other, I’m not going to do it. Now, I can come to you and say, “I see real red flags with this guy, real red flags with that guy.” I’ll tell you that, but always up front and honestly. Based on what? Conservatism! Because it wins. Anyway, I’ll squeeze in one more call here before we have to go. Who is it? Mike in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Hi.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, thanks for taking the call. Some hot tea and rye whisky in the same cup will help your throat. In the meantime, I wanted to weigh in on the issue you spoke of a little bit ago about the evangelical influence in the Republican Party. In my opinion we need to excise the evangelicals from the Republican Party, because I really do believe that they are hurting the cause. And this is — and this is where my thought process is, that the Republican core value is to empower the individual and that the evangelicals, you know, with their social agenda seem to me to be empowering government just as much as the far left on the Democrat. They’re are all for — for —

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: — you know, no. Letting your kids get abortions without letting the parents know.

RUSH: Time-out, time-out, time-out. I’ve got a minute. I can’t speak very fast. You’re raising a good point. I want to address it. I’ve heard this lament, “Social conservatives believe in big government as much as liberals do, Limbaugh. You know it. They want the government to stop abortions!” In the first place, the Republican Party would be nowhere without them. That’s why I hate to see what’s going on here in the current field. But number two: the founding documents. The Declaration of Independence: “We’re all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When a political party is doing its best to see to it that every abortion possible happens, there’s only one agency empowered by our founding documents to stand up for life. That’s the government. That’s considered a proper use of the government, to stand for life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That’s not oppression, sir.

END TRANSCRIPT

infidelpride on January 21, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Sultry Beauty on January 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

My thoughts exactly.

Buzzy on January 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM

I guess that’s a valid point. Still, he’s generally pretty against sitting out.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 8:37 PM

I have been listening to him for over a decade and youre right, he is always against sitting out. But we have never been in this situation. Whenever he had argued about not sitting out it was people calling in from California etc that would say that their vote wouldnt matter because the Dem party usually wins that state.

The party is in disarray. He was hammering McCain today because his campaign was pretty much telling people to shut up and that really set him off. That is something a liberal party does. They dont debate the ideas they just silent the opposition and that is exactly what McCain is doing.

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM

Here you go, Allah.
(language warning)

SouthernDem on January 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM

No, McCain has a lifetime ACU rating of 82.3. We need to win and keep the upcoming moaist cultural revolution of change out.

2. Re: Immigration – We’ll see. We needs to pledge more inforcement.

ninjapirate on January 21, 2008 at 8:27 PM

By “winning” with McCain do you mean Shamnesty ’09, when up to 30 million illegal alien law-breakers get permanent residency (after a 24 hour wait with no time for background check or health check) and a pathway to citizenship? With another 30 million right behind them, because even if we have a great fence and 10,000 BP agents, they will keep coming as long as we keep rewarding bad behavior.

Why can’t McCain just stop at full enforcement, and let it be? Why does he insist on also rewarding these folks with legalization? Why can’t he see that attrition through enforcement is working just fine as shown here in his own Arizona?

Just stubborn, I guess.

Thompson and then Romney (now with Hunter out of it) are the only ones who are not guaranteed to sign Shamnesty ’09.

fred5678 on January 21, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Well, if Rush doesn’t want to endorse anyone, so be it. I don’t choose a candidate based on what anyone says…I choose the one that best fits my views, and has the best chance to win.

JetBoy on January 21, 2008 at 8:49 PM

Exit question: Is Bainbridge right?

No.

If the choice is between choosing the lesser of 4 evils and teeing up a process by which the GOP reinvents itself for the 21st Century, I’m inclined to opt for the latter

Go ahead and build your dream party, but don’t put Hillary in the White House in the process. Bainbridge’s argument is basically that the virtue of losing is that it will grab the attention of Republicans such that they will be eager to fight the 21st century’s battles. How, may I ask, will returning to the demonization of a Clinton administration supposed to move the party forward? This is more about misplaced nostalgia for 1994 than anything else, and is a moronic and spiteful tactic. Look, moderates have a couple of pretty good candidates this year for the (R) nomination in McCain and Giuliani; it’s not their fault that the conservative well is dry except for a Senator who doesn’t seem to want to be President and a Governor who doesn’t seem to believe what he says he does. Get some better candidates before you decide to take your ball and go home.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 8:49 PM

Rush’s top five criteria for picking a nominee (in no particular order):

– Limited government — get government out of people’s way (Minarchism)
– Belief that it is people who make the country work, not government (okay, so Capitalism)
– No laundry list of policies without a philosophical underpinning that explains the policies (so, don’t just assemble your positions, build them from a central philosophy of Minarchism and Capitalism)
– Don’t tell me that government is the agent of change — belief that people can triumph over odds (Individualism, Objectivism)
– Leadership

Those can be boiled down to two:

– Unabashed and complete philosophical basis of Capitalism (from which things like individual rights and limited government naturally follow)
– Leadership

So, Fred Thompson with Ron Paul’s unwavering promotion of Capitalism and Rudy Giuliani’s New York-sized cojones and Obama’s energy level. No wonder Rush sounds so depressed. Buck up, pal. A Democratic presidency will gives you lots of material.

Mark Jaquith on January 21, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Listening live, it was clear to me that Rush was saying he would not support McCain if he were the nominee.

Last week Limbaugh said the idea of letting a Democrat get elected rather than Republicans being blamed for liberal polices was attractive to him. I think that says it all.

As for Cameron’s comment on Thompson always angling for VP, I call BS.

Nessuno on January 21, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Like Rush i am a conservative not a Republican .I cannot vote for McCain or Huckabee.If that means a Obama or Clinton win so be it.I will not hold my nose again and vote for a candidate just because he or she has a R by there name!!

thmcbb on January 21, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Well, There is probably only one person in this world who would pay attention to who I endorse for President:

But if Fred drops out, there will be no one I can actually endorse. OH, I can probably hold my nose and vote for Romney, but I couldn’t endorse him or send him a campaign donation.

All the rest; I doubt that I could even hold my nose and vote for them. I won’t say unequivocally that I won’t vote for Giuliani but it will be darn hard to do so regardless of the consequences. McCain or Huckster, even more so. I’d vote Huckleberry Hound before Huckabee.

LegendHasIt on January 21, 2008 at 8:52 PM

Okay, top five right off the top of my head, not in any particular order: limited government. Get government out of people’s way. Number two, belief in the system that it’s people who make the country work, not government. Number three, don’t give me a laundry list of policies without a philosophical underpinning that explains the policies. Number four, don’t tell me that government is the agent of change and that you are going to lead the government. My brand of conservatism is based on individual entrepreneurism, rugged self-individualism, telling people that they’re the ones who make the country work. I think this is born out by history and people respond to it. And then, fifth, after all of those things that I would define as conservative, which includes the belief that people can triumph over the obstacles in their lives, that they’re not incompetent, they’re not incapable, and they’re not stupid, the fifth thing is, is there any leadership on any of this?

I agree with that assesment. That’s what is most important to me and that is what is completely lacking in the current crop of GOP front runners.

mattyj86 on January 21, 2008 at 8:52 PM

It’s easy to understand. We want a Republican Conservative, not Donk in a darker suit.

ronsfi on January 21, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Mark Jaquith on January 21, 2008 at 8:50 PM

So, would you include any laws against abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc. in that platform? I just don’t believe that that’s all there is to it. Conservatives always talk about keeping government as small as possible; that is, until they start to think God might get offended.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM

Breaking News: Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict. WHo cares what he thinks!!! lololol

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

As any structural engineer will tell you, there are times when it makes more sense to tear down a decrepit building than to continue trying to effect repairs.

It pains me to admit it, but Bainbridge is correct in his analysis. The fact that the Republican electorate effectively turned its back on the one man who could have turned this country around for no reasons other than their own sloth, ignorance, apathy, and vapidity bodes ill for this republic.They have apparently chosen to cast their lots with the partisans of the nanny state.

Democrats have spend decades sowing the wind and now the Republicans have joined them. Well, folks, harvest time is rapidly approaching.

A plague on both your houses.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Rush knows how a lot of conservative-before-republican voters like myself feel.

Why vote for someone you can’t stomach? It’s time for a third party.

HebrewToYou on January 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Rush said the words “shut up” thirty (30) times today in response to all the McCain supporters telling us to shut up.

This is how it got started:

When Huckabee was coming out of nowhere in Iowa, we had numerous pundits on the left who write their conservatism to be read by liberals, jumping on the Huckabee bandwagon.

And then McCain came out of nowhere in New Hampshire, and then they jumped on the McCain bandwagon.

Romney wins in Michigan, and they didn’t jump on the Romney bandwagon. They stayed on the McCain bandwagon.

Then we go to Wyoming, and Romney won all the delegates there, and they didn’t jump on the Romney bandwagon.

They stayed on the McCain bandwagon and hoped for Huckabee. And then we get to South Carolina and Nevada.

In Nevada, Romney cleans up, and nobody talks about it. “Romney is nowhere. He’s off the charts. He should quit.

Thompson should quit. He should get out of the race!” They remain on the McCain bandwagon.

Now the people on the McCain bandwagon are telling those of us who aren’t on the McCain bandwagon, to shut up. Just be quiet. We are supposedly damaging the Republican Party.

This was one of Rush’s finer days even though he had a cold or allergy’s and couldn’t talk very fast.

Rush was more fired up today than I’ve ever heard him.

Sean Hannity was more fired up today than I’ve ever heard him.

More of Rush’s rant: (he said the word “be quiet” thirteen (13) times

I have even pundits on supposedly my own side of the aisle saying, “Just be quiet! You’re causing problems…

…Senator McCain’s domestic record is not conservative, and we’re being lectured by the media — some who are hostile to conservatism, some who wear the conservative label — to be quiet, to not be too hard on him, or whatever.

Those of us who have been here since the beginning of the program in 1988, you know we deal here in ideas.

Why should I be quiet about my ideas?

Why should I be quiet, or anybody else on the radio who happens to espouse what I believe?

Why should we be quiet? The primary is precisely the time to speak! That’s when this stuff gets aired and sorted out.

Here’s what I’ve noted. Governor Huckabee has reversed course on taxes, on illegal immigration. He has reversed course on law and order. Why shouldn’t we discuss this? I mean, he made a major, major flip-flop on immigration. It didn’t help him in South Carolina, and look what happened when he did that.

Many of you think Governor Huckabee is very conservative. Put when he did this flip-flop on immigration, what direction did he move? He moved right. His previous position was: tuition, illegals, kids stay, blah, blah, blah. He vowed to send ’em all home, right before the South Carolina primary. Huge, huge flip-flop.

Why should we be quiet about that?
Just let it go! There’s going to be a rift. Just be quiet.”

..What occurs to me is to engage him and discuss what he says and try to prove him wrong.

It’s the same thing with whoever it is — Bill Kristol is one — who’s now on the McCain bandwagon. He’s been on the McCain bandwagon since 2000.

By the way, McCain wants people to shut up. That’s called McCain-Feingold. McCain passed the first successful, major shut-up bill in the history of the country. McCain-Feingold was an abridgement of free speech. McCain wants people to shut up. Why should we shut up? Why don’t they shut up?

It would never occur to me to say to Senator McCain, “Shut up about what you’re saying on the campaign trail. It’s not inaccurate. You’re not being truthful about your past positions on issues.”

It would never occur to me tell them to shut up.

It occurs to liberals to tell people that they disagree with to shut up, but it doesn’t occur to me. I’m not afraid.

This notion that we should shut up is insulting and offensive.

If it’s such a great idea, they should shut up, too.

They all like McCain and Huckabee, so they just want these guys to sail through here without any opposition.

Why don’t Brokaw shut up? They like McCain and Huckabee, too. Why didn’t MSNBC just shut down and shut up?

Why didn’t CBS just shut down and shut up? Why doesn’t the New York Times just stop publishing for the rest of the primary? Washington Post? Go dark. Save some money.

Rush also played a clip of Tom Brokaw ranting about Huckabee and McCain surging, saying that:

[low guttural voice]:
“It’s thee end off dawgma”

Exit question.

Who do you think are these pundits?:
I have even pundits on supposedly my own side of the aisle saying, “Just be quiet! You’re causing problems…

Mcguyver on January 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Another Rush transcript

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Ann in Carrollton, Virginia. Hi, Ann, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Yes, thank you for taking my call. For weeks you’ve been telling us why we should not vote for McCain because he’s not a true conservative, or Huckabee because he’s not a true conservative, and you base that on their records as senator and governor. What I’d like to hear is why you feel that Romney is a true conservative, because I honestly don’t know a lot of about him. But I base —

RUSH: Before I answer the question, who are you for?

CALLER: Well, to tell you the truth, I’m not totally convinced about any of them. I really have not made up my mind. Honestly I haven’t. But my problem is, when I think of Romney, I think of someone who was elected governor, as he says in the bluest of the blue states, so to me that doesn’t equate with a conservative, and also he forces people to get health insurance, which doesn’t sound like a conservative. When he campaigns in Michigan, he says that when he becomes president, he’s going to pass governor mandates to help the auto industry, and that doesn’t sound like a conservative. So what I’d like to know is if you can tell us a few things he did as governor to show that he is a true conservative.

RUSH: In the first place, I have never said that he is the one true conservative in the race.

CALLER: Hm-hm.

RUSH: I haven’t. And, in fact, I recoiled when I heard his $20 billion annual subsidy to the auto industry in Detroit and I said, “Jeez, that’s just flat-out pandering.” My point on all this, Ann, from the get-go, and I even mentioned it today, and it’s an unfortunate position, but not one of these people totally fills the bill.

CALLER: No. Well, that’s one of Romney’s problems, is really we don’t know what did he do as governor to show us that he’s a conservative? You know, we never hear it. So is there anything that you can tell me that he did as governor to show me he’s a conservative? Honestly I’d really like to know.

RUSH: There are a couple things, and it depends on the credibility of somebody that, you know, what was their record prior to doing that, what is their record in the real world, as an entrepreneur and a businessman, what occasions are there from that record that you can draw conclusions. He cut taxes in Massachusetts, and he was amazingly able to get that done. He tried fighting this court business where they mandated gay marriage from the Supreme Court without going through the legislature. But, look, what you’re illustrating here is that nobody on our side fits the pure bill. But there are lessers. In fact, one of the lines I used earlier, not on today’s program, but in previous weeks, is this whole Republican primary is going to boil down to who we dislike the least.

CALLER: Hm-hm.

RUSH: And that’s sad.

CALLER: So why do you feel that he’s more of a conservative than McCain, based on the record?

RUSH: Oh, that isn’t hard.

CALLER: What record would you have for Romney to show us that? Because I tell you, truthfully I’m not a McCain supporter. So I’m not saying —

RUSH: Of course not, probably a Huckabee supporter.

CALLER: (laughter) Well, to tell you the truth I’d like to know more about Ron Paul, because I’m for as little government intervention as we can have.

RUSH: Enough said. Wherever you go here in this roster of candidates, you’re going to be able to point out “not conservative, what he did there is not conservative.” The one guy that has the least of that is Fred Thompson, that’s what I’ve said, but Fred Thompson was right in there supporting McCain on McCain-Feingold. That’s a red flag. I make my living with my mouth and what comes out of it, and that was a direct assault on what comes out of certain people’s mouths around election times. Once you chip away successfully the First Amendment, it’s easy to do it the next time, second time, third time, fourth time, and 50th time.

CALLER: Hm-hm. Well, maybe, when you get a chance, you could inform us a little more about Romney’s record.

RUSH: Well, sure, I’d be happy to. People have been asking me to go down every one of these guy’s records and do A-B — that’s not what I do here. I don’t have Romney’s record in front of me. Let me give you this. You mentioned McCain. I don’t see the left-wing media propping up Romney like they are propping up McCain. I don’t see them calling Romney a maverick, and the definition of a maverick is one who constantly goes against his party. McCain is a maverick, and he is loved and adored for that and he gets away with the straight talk stuff because, to them, the straight talk is ripping his own party, and ripping his own president, and it got him fawning press coverage. I haven’t seen any of that said about any of these people. Well, maybe Huckabee to a certain extent but the press and the Drive-Bys are trying to destroy Romney; they’re trying to destroy Fred Thompson; they’re trying to destroy Rudy. If you look at who they’re propping up, absent a list or a record of these guys, there are certain indications that you can get. The press is ignoring Ron Paul. That should also tell you something; they don’t consider him to be a serious contender for the ultimate prize.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me speak generally here. She wanted to know, “Well, you tell me what’s conservative about Romney? What is his record?” and, of course, I’ve not said Romney… She accused me of saying Romney is the only true conservative in the race. I haven’t said that because there isn’t one. But there are some in the race who are trying to destroy conservative while saying they’re conservative, and they’re trying to redefine it. I’m telling you, I’m not going to sit by and just shut up while that happens. There are other people who are not conservative down the line, but they’re not trying to destroy conservatism and they’re certainly not trying to redefine it totally to fit them, but there are those in the race who are. So let me speak generally, here. In order to have a change of heart on issues or a real conversion — because every one of these guys has had a liberal position or more at some point in their past, and they’re all out there saying they’ve changed their minds. Romney’s changed his mind. McCain says (impression), “Well, I get it now, Limbaugh. I get it! I gotta do enforcement! (grumbling) I gotta do the borders, and then we’ll make ’em legal. How’s that?” And then, of course, Huckabee wanted to bring ’em all in and give them health care and welfare and Medicare, and now he wants to kick ’em all out.

So in order to have a genuine change of heart, a genuine conversion, you have to admit — at least I think you do — that you were wrong about your prior view. If you lead the effort — if you LEAD it, if you lead the effort — to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and now claim that you didn’t, how can you be believed when you say that you now believe in securing the border first? You gotta go back and remember. I understand a lot of people that I’ve talked to are McCain supporters and don’t care about that. They want to beat Hillary, or it’s the war on terror, or what have you. All this stuff is irrelevant to them. But if you lead the effort — and you not only lead the effort, you lead the effort to keep it quiet; you lead the effort to make sure nobody knows what’s going on in the amnesty bill — and then when you say that the amnesty bill wasn’t amnesty because we’re going to collect the $5,000 fine from these people and we’re going to try to register them all in one day? This is a bunch that couldn’t even get Katrina right in five months, and we’re going to rectangle all the illegals in one day? This is poppycock, balderdash, folderol! It’s flummery. How am I supposed to sit here and accept that a real conversion has taken place, if you lead the effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, and now claim that you didn’t do that.

Also, if you claim to be for the FairTax today but you were a net tax increaser in the past, how can you be believed as actually wanting to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax? If you can’t admit what your record was as governor, if you have to say in answer to the question, “Were you a net tax increaser?” “We built roads,” it’s a deflection. Look, I say this because the best we can do here, folks, is to try to measure the candidate’s record and recent comments, and you have to judge whether what they’re saying today is expedient or serious. Let’s take abortion, for example, shall we? Romney was pro-abortion. He now says he was wrong. Says he was for it when he ran for governor. But he talks about the moment he changed his mind and why he changed his mind. He doesn’t claim to have been “misunderstood.” He doesn’t claim to say that he was pro-life. He doesn’t say, “Well, I never was pro-choice. I have always been pro-life.” He doesn’t try to obfuscate or cloud his record. He comes out and apologizes. You have to judge whether that’s a real conversion. It’s up to you as a voter, but it’s far easier to make that judgment when he says, “I made a mistake. I was wrong. Here’s why and how and when I changed my mind,” and when he doesn’t say, “Look, you’re misunderstanding me.” He’s not saying that.

The other candidates are saying (McCain impression), “You misunderstood. It wasn’t amnesty. It’s different with amnesty! Quit lying about it.” Or: What about the fact you’re a net tax increaser? “We built roads. We built schools.” You try to make the best judgment you can. Here’s the thing: All of us who are steadfastly trying to maintain a conservative, genuine conservative identity of the Republican Party, we’ve been lectured to forget about Ronald Reagan, and we have been lectured to forget about conservatism. We’re told it’s time to rewrite things, to adopt some new, revolutionary, adaptive thinking that takes those principles and applies them to the issues of today. Now all of what we’re told — lectured to forget about Reagan, forget about conservatism, understand it’s a new day and there’s a new role for government, new issues, all of this — is intended to ease the way for a McCain or a Huckabee. Romney, Rudy, Thompson supporters don’t talk this way for the most part. Romney, Rudy, and Thompson people are not telling us to shut up. They’re not telling us that we’re causing problems. They try to argue that their guy is the best when comparing their records and speeches to a true conservative template.

Whether they’re convincing or not is another thing, but that’s what’s going on. Rudy, McCain, and Thompson are trying to say, “We are going to continue the conservative tradition.” The other two guys are saying, “We need to rewrite it. It’s old hat. We need to let go of it. We got new issues.” Another example: Rudy does not claim to have been anything about pro-abortion. He’s not saying, “Well, yeah, I was pro-abortion, but I was a liberal in New York. I had to be to get elected.” He’s not even saying that. He doesn’t even run around making excuses for it. There’s something admirable about that. We got other guys making excuses for their positions or telling us that we’re misunderstanding their positions, or that they never were what we think they are. Rudy is not doing that. But he says that he will appoint conservative judges to deal with the issue. Agree or not, that’s what he says. We do the best we can here, folks. There’s no litmus test here can get applied, because none of these people would fit it all. So we do the best we can in figuring it out. Then you have to ask yourself, “What can the president really do about abortion? He can lead, change minds and hearts, try and reduce the number that would take place.”

By the way, that’s happening. But legally, in terms of Roe vs. Wade there’s only one thing a president can do, and that’s appointment to the Supreme Court, and Rudy says he’s going to appoint guys that would do it. McCain… Now, this is really a stark contrast, and I want you to listen to this. McCain says (impression), “Look Limbaugh, I’m pro-life! I’ve always been pro-life. You can’t say that’s not true. That’s always been the case. I’ve always been pro-life!” Well, what did he do to advance his pro-life belief? He joined liberal Democrats in filing a brief in the Supreme Court against the ability of the Wisconsin Right to Life committee to run ads about life and abortion prior to an election. This is above and beyond McCain-Feingold! He actually filed his own brief in the Supreme Court against the ability of Wisconsin Right to Life committee to run ads about life and abortion prior to an election.

“I’ve always been pro-life, though, Limbaugh! You can’t say that’s not true!”

I’m not saying it’s not true. Where’s the leadership on it? It’s one thing to say it, then you stand in the way of pro-life people trying to get their truth out in an election? And then you tell us you’re going to appoint judges that will take care of it? We do the best we can, folks. We look at what they say versus what they do, what they say they’ve said versus what they are saying. We do the best we can. That’s not to get into the Gang of 14. That’s another story in itself. Senator McCain wants it both ways on pro-life. Rudy doesn’t. Rudy’s not denying highs pro-choice. But he also says he hates abortion, and will do what he can to stop it appointing judges. McCain says he’s pro-life, and stands in the way of people who are pro-life, trying to impact an election. He wants it both ways. Why did he file that brief? Maybe it’s to be consistent with McCain-Feingold. Who knows? Why did he do it? We do the best we can in sorting this stuff out.

END TRANSCRIPT

infidelpride on January 21, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Breaking News: Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict. WHo cares what he thinks!!! lololol

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

I can’t say I’m fond of the new breed of Hot Air commenter.

Nessuno on January 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Nessuno on January 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM

d’accordo

Tacitus on January 21, 2008 at 9:05 PM

With all due respect to Rush, to whom I have enjoyed listening, lately Rush has been downright destructive and off base. Rush’s latest statement only confirms my view.

Many of the readers here may worship Rush, and I understand the loyalty due to his past performance.

But recently Rush’s ego and a certain unjustified personal animus have gotten way out of hand and have skewed his commentary in ways that do not reflect well considered thought.

If Rush keeps it up and if Hillary does win the Presidency, she should send a thank you note to Rush, before she then goes to work to shutting him down.

Phil Byler on January 21, 2008 at 8:26 PM

#1 – Rush is far from off base, he’s defined it.
#2 – no one worships Rush, they see him for what he is
the very definition of conservatve.
#3 – Rush’s ego ? certain unjustified personal animus ?
WTF – he thought McCain was a fraud 8 years ago, it
was a fact then, it is a fact now – straight talk
from the man (Rush) who made it famous.
#4 – If Rush keeps it up and if Hillary does win – then, as
I read elsewhere, it’ll prove that if it is wrong to
rob a bank it is also wrong to drive the get away car.

I would never, ever vote for a ticket that includes McCain:
– taxes
– immigration
– the gang of 12 or 14 – whatever.

Onager on January 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Nessuno, the new Hot Air posters think the old Hot Air posters are old farts. How bout dem apples? lol

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Rush is a man of principle. Let’s hear all the nuts come out of the woodwork now and talk about how he is a closet socialist and he isn’t really a conservative and blah blah all that bulls*** because he is no more enamored of the field of candidates than we are.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM

And most every one of the Hot Air posters thinks you’re a trolling pile of donkey crap. How about them apples?

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Our last provincial election here in Ontario was a choice between the Liberals, running as liberals, who should have lost the election, versus a “conservative” who ran as liberal lite. Now we get 4 more years of crappy liberal policies doing untold damage to the province. I wouldn’t wish that choice upon anyone, but here we are.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 21, 2008 at 9:09 PM

MadisonConservative, stop acting like a little kid! Show some maturity!!!!

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 9:10 PM

Breaking News: Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict. WHo cares what he thinks!!! lololol – froghat on January 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Strictly speaking, a drug addict is one who develops a physical dependence on opiates because he or she has an emotional dependence on the physical and mental ecstasy generated by their use.

Rush Limbaugh, like many unfortunate people who have used opiate-derivatives as painkillers, developed a physical dependence upon them. Unless you have ever fallen into this trap (and it is pretty obvious that you have not) you cannot imagine the torment and suffering it causes to those who develop a physical dependence upon these drugs.

Perhaps you might consider trying it – if only as an illuminatory experiment – so that you can experience for yourself the hell on earth, the equisite, gut-wrenching agony that is euphemistically called “withdrawal.”

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:12 PM

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 9:10 PM

You have got to be freaking kidding me.

Breaking News: Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict. WHo cares what he thinks!!! lololol

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Wise up and go away, you little creep.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Amen Rush. I can’t and won’t support Huckabee or McCain.

CABE on January 21, 2008 at 9:15 PM

second look at voting libertarian

Baraka on January 21, 2008 at 9:16 PM

So, would you include any laws against abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc. in that platform? I just don’t believe that that’s all there is to it. Conservatives always talk about keeping government as small as possible; that is, until they start to think God might get offended.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM

FAIL

I think there is a valid argument for being generally pro-life that goes beyond “God might get offended”, however I’d probably favor a state by state approach. As for the rest, as long as its consenting adults and they aren’t asking for gov’t subsidy or harming others, have at it.

Not all conservatives are Morality Police Nanny Staters.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Breaking News: Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict. WHo cares what he thinks!!! lololol

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 8:58 PM

His being a drug addict does not really bother me, since plenty of good people have chemical issues. However, the fact that he can be such a whiny, preening drama queen really ticks me off sometimes. I’d rather hang out with the junkies.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 9:16 PM

infidelpride on January 21, 2008 at 9:01 PM

I would choose to support Romney, not because he is a conservative, but because he appears to be an able, effective administrator who is open to a persuasive argument in support of a conservative policy.

It would be up to us to present an effective argument for that conservative policy.

rockhauler on January 21, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Thanks CS.

JiangxiDad on January 21, 2008 at 9:19 PM

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Give me your case against Giuliani then.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Cameron is right…it was obvious from the get-go Fred wanted the Veep spot.

Jim-Rose on January 21, 2008 at 9:20 PM

However, the fact that he can be such a whiny, preening drama queen really ticks me off sometimes. I’d rather hang out with the junkies.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 9:16

I love him. Owe him a lot. Respect him immensely.

JiangxiDad on January 21, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Fred! out? Dammit all to hell and back again – because that is where we are all heading.

I could get behind a Romney/Thompson ticket. I would prefer it to be the reverse order. But it beats the hell out of a McCain or Huck led ticket.

And, yes, Bainbridge is right.

SimplyKimberly on January 21, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Clearly Rush has been listening to the sage advice of Hollowpoint.

Then again… has Hollowpoint and Rush ever been seen in the same room at the same time?

Hollowpoint on January 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Good read.

wccawa on January 21, 2008 at 9:24 PM

I’d rather hang out with the junkies. – Big S on January 21, 2008 at 9:16 PM

No, you wouldn’t.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM

And, yes, Bainbridge is right. – SimplyKimberly on January 21, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Indeed, he is, Kimber. So cry ‘havoc’ and let slip the dogs of war.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Indeed, he is, Kimber. So cry ‘havoc’ and let slip the dogs of war.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Nemo, I came over here tonight to simply post my link (above).

But I would like to add that I read your posts over the past few days, and from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

I had lost all hope. Your appearance was certainly timely.

wccawa on January 21, 2008 at 9:30 PM

It was reported days ago that Fred had made no plans past SC. The “no plans” included the Florida debate. That doesn’t mean he will not decide to go to the debate and continue his campaign.

When I hear Fred report his plans, now that will be believable.

redneck hippie on January 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM

But on your frog hat you de-evolved troll!

Mcguyver on January 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

If you don’t agree with Rush or Hollowpoint, vote as your concience allows.

But for Hollowpoint: None of the Above for President.

2008 is… Year of the Scorched Earth.

Hollowpoint on January 21, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Of course he can “see” the possibility of not supporting the republican candidate. That’s an easy threshold to meet– seeing a “possibility” of something. He has given himself plenty of wiggle room.

He’s disgusted with the current crop of candidates, as most of us are.

And poking a stick at Rush for a prescription drug addiction? Seriously? Impressive…

Security Mom on January 21, 2008 at 9:34 PM

I’m really liking what I’m seeing written here! 2008 could be the year that conservatives allow the once conservative Repub party to crash and burn. We can rebuild it after 8 years of Clinton! Moderates and RINOs will be begging for CHANGE!

I hope all the people saying they will stay home, vote Dem or 3rd party really mean it and follow through if McCain or Huckabee get the nomination. I’ll be sticking by my decision regarding McShamnesty. Maybe we need a revolution within the Repub party. This could be the year. The possibility really intrigues me.

jwp1964 on January 21, 2008 at 9:36 PM

wccawa on January 21, 2008 at 9:30 PM

Thank you for your kind words.

Never lose hope. It is the one thing that no one – that nothing – can ever take away from you. However, be very careful of hope. Much like fire, it has the power to warm a cold and weary spirit and, just like fire, it can consume you and drive you mad in the face of what is inevitable and insurmountable.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Give me your case against Giuliani then.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 9:19 PM

To begin with he is pro choice. That about eliminates half of the conservative electorate.

Would allow states to fund abortions

Supports affirmative action

Buys into global warming myth

Weapons ban

Sanctuary city

Supports changing law to allow an immigrant to be POTUS

Endorsed D Mario Cuomo

Wont sign no tax pledge

broker1 on January 21, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Give the White House to Hillary/Obama so that the GOP will learn the hard lesson of adhering more strictly to its base? There are two problems with that:

1.) There is a lot the Dems could do with the White House and congress for, possibly, 8 years. Ask the Dems who backed Nader in 2000 if they feel ideologically purified.
2.) Parties that fall out of power can also develop a “just win” attitude and subsequently nominate a pragmatist who’ll beat the opponents–that’s why the Dems made compromises and went with Bill in 1992.

dedalus on January 21, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Give me your case against Giuliani then.

Big S on January 21, 2008 at 9:19 PM

I have no strong problem with him, other than his squishiness on 2nd Amendment issues and his willingness to play along with the Global Warming greenie crap and a few other minor side issues, but I know there are enough people who do have enough problem with his policies that it won’t work, and will cause the same rift Huck would create, just in the opposite direction.

The overarching problem we face this election is not the issues, its about conservatism and preserving or…ugh, rebuilding the coalition.

I agree with Bainbridge, we needed a full spectrum conservative this year, given how disgruntled all the different factions are, Fred was that guy, but it didn’t happen.

Ultimately, I can’t support Rudy because he would cause a massive rift between social cons and the rest, just as Huck would do by alienating small gov’t, fiscal cons and some hawks. If I can’t support Huck, I can’t support Rudy, because in essence, they’re the same thing, causing the same rift.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 9:40 PM

When I hear Fred report his plans, now that will be believable. – redneck hippie on January 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

Amen, hipster. As a “to-the-death” Fredhead, I will accept the demise of his candidacy when and only when he makes that announcement.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:42 PM

To begin with he is pro choice. That about eliminates half of the conservative electorate.

Rudy has said he’d appoint the “right” judges. That seems to be the only meaningful thing the President can do.

Rudy may be out of the race in two weeks, but if he does turn his campaign around he would match up well against Hillary from an electoral count.

dedalus on January 21, 2008 at 9:43 PM

Oh, and his squishiness on immigration, forgot that, there’s his strike against him.

doubleplusundead on January 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM

You don’t have to vote for a bad candidate.

Neither McShamnesty nor the Huckster.

You can write in another.

But I’m sensing a Romney-Rudy ticket winning against Hillary-Edwards.

(With John McQueeg and Mr. Fried Squirrel Popper retired to their respective crankshafts.)

profitsbeard on January 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM

froghat on January 21, 2008 at 9:07 PM

You really need to turn daddys computer off and go to bed.

Big Orange on January 21, 2008 at 9:45 PM

(With John McQueeg and Mr. Fried Squirrel Popper retired to their respective crankshafts.)- profitsbeard on January 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM

LOL. I like McQueeg. As for Huckabee, I’m still partial to my moniker for him: Chef Squirrel-ar-dee.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:47 PM

AP, I haven’t been keeping up. Did you get a day job?

jaime on January 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Let’s NOT give the White House to the Dhimmicrats. Imagine if Gore had been in office for 8 years. Roberts and Alito would be nobodies and the tyrants on the SCOTUS would be liberalized 6 to 3. That would be unbearable. There’s no vice in choosing the lesser of two evils. I want my 10 month old to grow up in a country where at least the Supreme Court is sane.

I hope you principled conservatives can find it in your hearts to at least vote AGAINST Hillary.

Here’s hoping Fred’s the VP. That would be a no-brainer if McLame is the nominee. I’m not sure if the others would pick him or not.

Mojave Mark on January 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM

So, would you include any laws against abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc. in that platform? I just don’t believe that that’s all there is to it. Conservatives always talk about keeping government as small as possible; that is, until they start to think God might get offended.

Abortion defies categorization. It completely boils down to whether you regard a fetus as a human (with rights) or a potential human (without rights). I think the fetus is a human with rights, but I’ve seen very reasonable arguments to the contrary. We’ll leave that one alone.

laws against … gay marriage

I want the government out of marriage altogether. Employers and insurance companies can handle that any way they see fit.

laws against … pornography

Consenting adults can do as they please.

Conservatives always talk about keeping government as small as possible; that is, until they start to think God might get offended.

You have me confused with someone else. I loves me some omnipotent deity, but I want him to stay the hell out of my small government.

Rush is obviously missing some things from his real top five. Not surprising, since 4 of them condense down to one (Capitalism). The missing ones? (1) Proclivity towards military solutions. (2) Theism. (3) Disbelief in Capitalism with regard to pornography, mind-altering substances, the military, religion, etc. I just thought it was interesting that if you just looked at the five (or two) things he mentioned, Rush sounds like a libertarian. Heck… listening to him during my teenage Clinton presidency years is what got me interested in libertarianism. He paid homage to its principles frequently, albeit inconsistently.

Mark Jaquith on January 21, 2008 at 9:49 PM

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.

Alas, no longer Fred! but now…

Fred:(

RightOFLeft on January 21, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Thompson/Limbaugh ’08!

FloatingRock on January 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Mark Jaquith on January 21, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Great points. All of them.

dedalus on January 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Thank you for your kind words.

Never lose hope. It is the one thing that no one – that nothing – can ever take away from you. However, be very careful of hope. Much like fire, it has the power to warm a cold and weary spirit and, just like fire, it can consume you and drive you mad in the face of what is inevitable and insurmountable.

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Well spoken, and true.

But as a favorite writer of mine once put forth; “I would never betray a friend to serve a cause… never reject a friend to help an institution. Great nations may fall in ruin before I would sell a friend to save them.”

And this, now, I feel most deeply about the direction our beloved country may be taking. I speak not only for myself, but for my eight-year old daughter.

As I am not prepared to sell out my soul, I am even more loathe to sell out hers.

When did this nation start fading away as my friend? I can’t even place the date, and it pains me greatly.

If only I’d gotten the memo…

Sigh.

wccawa on January 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM

If Fred is out, the only other one I will vote for is Rudy.

Case closed.

Metro on January 21, 2008 at 9:54 PM

I hope you principled conservatives can find it in your hearts to at least vote AGAINST Hillary.

Here’s hoping Fred’s the VP. That would be a no-brainer if McLame is the nominee. I’m not sure if the others would pick him or not.

Mojave Mark on January 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM

You don’t get it. If it’s McCain many of us may stay home or even vote for the Dem just to stick it to him and any other RINOs/Repubs who gave him the nomination. McCain, Never! Under no circumstances! If you want to forgive and forget then go for it, but don’t try to lay a guilt trip on me…it doesn’t work…I’m a hard hearted CONSERVATIVE.

jwp1964 on January 21, 2008 at 9:56 PM

AP, I haven’t been keeping up. Did you get a day job? – Jaime on January 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM

As long as Fred Thompson has any shred of hope as a viable candidate in this primary, I suspect that Captain Ahab-pundit will continue stomping the quarterdeck. I can almost hear him ranting:

“Whoseover of ye raises me a baldheaded Tennessean with jowly jaw, he shall have this gold ounce!”

“Fred Thompson, is it?”

“Aye, Fred Thompson.”

“But why seek ye the Fred?” inquired Nemo. “That which you seek is a blasphemy to conservatives.

And Ahab-pundit replied, “Because he tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the Fred Thompson agent, or be the Fred Thompson principle, I will wreak that hate upon him. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.”

NemoParticularis on January 21, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Rush, like the rest of us is frustrated with the lack of Conservative principles we would get with McCain and Huckabee and their basic lack of honesty, in Hucks case an explanation of were when or why he’s changed his policies, a lie of omission, McCain refuses to even acknowledge he has changed positions, a lie in itself and has a temper fit when his duplicity is pointed out.

Rush pointed to Mitt as a candidate who has changed his policies since becoming Governor of Mass. but also gave why, when and where he change his mind.

I don’t think Rush was endorsing Mitt but he did seem to accept Mitt as a potential nominee, Rudy as honest but pro choice and Huck and McCain as unacceptable.

My sentiments, exactly.

Tom Delay on Hannity this afternoon actually liked the idea of a brokered convention and thought it possible.

Nominee brokerage is scary because I think who becomes the nominee could fall back on either seniority (entitlement McCain) or who falls in line with current RNC policy trending (Rudy Bush), someone like Mitt who doesn’t have a lot of inside friends could get shut out, that wouldn’t be cool.

Go Mitt go.

Speakup on January 21, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4