Rush Limbaugh *endorses Mitt Romney

posted at 2:03 pm on February 5, 2008 by Bryan

Levin, Hannity, Ingraham and now Nobel nominee Rush Limbaugh (membership req’d): Big talk radio swings unanimously for Mitt Romney. Rush makes several solid points that you’ve heard before, mostly regarding how McCain represents the GOP’s national security wing, Huckabee represents its social conservative wing, and Ron Paul represents the economic conservative wing, but Romney is the one candidate who represents all three by himself. Romney is a late convert to all three, which as I wrote the other day explains why conservatives have taken so long to warm up to him.

Rush also makes a point that conservatives won’t benefit if the GOP expands its base by attracting liberals as liberals to the party. I had a similar thought last night while watching Bill Maher tell Larry King what Republicans ought to do to become more competitive in the future. Never mind Republicans have historically held the presidency more than Democrats over the last 60 years. Never mind that Maher hates Christians and conservatives, so he obviously doesn’t have social conservatives’ interests in mind, and never mind that Maher is not exactly friendly to either economic or national security conservatism. Maher noted that McCain has flanked himself with Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that that trio ought to be the GOP’s future. Of course he would think that: He’s a liberal and so are two of them on at least one of the three major GOP planks and McCain’s maverickness makes him a liberal on some issues. If the GOP becomes the kind of party that attracts leftists like Maher and they remain leftists, what does the party stand for?

Turned around another way, McCain’s supporters make much of the fact that he has a record of reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats. But in every case, he’s reaching across the aisle to do what the Democrats want. Where’s the evidence that McCain has ever reached across the aisle and plucked off a few Democrat votes for a conservative issue or cause? I can’t think of a single case, so I’ll put it to the McCain supporters in the HA readership: Name an issue where McCain reached across the aisle and ended up benefiting conservative issues, ideals or causes.

Here’s Rush’s endorsement of Romney. It remains to be seen if it was too little, too late.

RUSH: I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.

Of course, the foreign policy crowd is obviously what it is. I don’t think there’s anybody on our side who doesn’t care about national security, which is why I found it amazing that McCain gets the bulk of those, because the idea that Romney or Huckabee are going to punt national security? In Huckabee’s case, you might just say the things he’s saying about it represent an ignorance born of inexperience in the subject. I don’t think Huckabee has any deleterious intentions about the country. When it comes to the fiscal side, you cannot say — you just cannot say — that John McCain is interested. He’s even admitted he’s not interested in the social side. He’s not interested in the economic side. He said this, and when he has spoken up about it, he sides more often with liberal Democrats on fiscal issues than he does with his own side. That’s problematic. This is why I think — and why I have said — that the Republican Party, not conservatism, but the Republican Party is in big trouble if it is empowered and gets elected by attracting people who also hold liberal Democrat views simply because they like McCain because of his character, his honor, his prisoner of war story, and they don’t like Hillary or Obama.

Now that Rush has endorsed Romney, his “carrying water” speech in 2006 is being brought up against him. You can “gotcha” anyone who spends 20 years, 3 hours a weekday, giving their opinion on the air, and it’s all too easy to snipe from the bushes at someone who’s willing to take a public stand for or against something. The point he made then remains valid, though: The 2006 Republicans were far from perfect but were better on just about every issue than the Democrats who defeated them and that’s why he supported them. There’s a cautionary tale in that election for Republicans who want to sit out 2008, too.

*Clarification: It’s clear from the above, and from Rush’s longstanding criticisms of McCain, that Rush supports Romney for the GOP nomination. Some commenters here and a reader have emailed that strictly speaking, Rush didn’t endorse Romney. I didn’t hear the entire show yesterday or today, but they say that Rush said that he’s still not expressly endorsing a candidate. Fair enough, though that’s a great deal of nuance to pack into a headline. And then there’s how Rush’s site headlined the article in which he names Romney as preferrable to McCain. Here’s a screencap of that.

rush-mittheadline.png

That’s on Rush’s site right now. Don’t call me a “liar” for interpreting the clip above plus that headline as an endorsement.

Update (AP): It’s obviously an endorsement, guys. Rush can cover his ass however he likes but his meaning surely isn’t lost upon his listeners.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Rush asked to ignore the MSM attempts to portray early wins on the East Coast as the end of the campaign. He expected them to indulge in their usual voter suppression behavior.

Igor R. on February 5, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Bryan,

Hollowpoint did answer your question.

Here’s two issues where Senator John McCain led bipartisan support on issues important to Republicans.

1) The Surge
2) Earmark reform

But, facts don’t really atter to you, do they?

You have decided that the distinguished Senator from Arizona that has served his party and country for far longer than you have is the antichrist and no amount of facts will change your view.

Your MacHatred has blinded you.

If Romney is all that, how come your support came barely a week before Rush’s?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Let’s hope this helps…..probably too little too late.

Although I wonder how many Rush fans are diehard McVain supporters.

omnipotent on February 5, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Eh…. Rush was needed far earlier but he was still flirting with “the only true conservative in the race”.. but that flirtation ended when Fred’s campaign fizzled out.

As we all knew it would for months.

In this case, Rush is right about McCain, but its too little, too late.

Always Right on February 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM

What Democrat supports the surge based on McCain’s persuasion? What Democrat has moved toward earmark reform based on McCain’s persuasion? I’m not talking about someone like Lieberman, who was always for winning Iraq, or about rank and file Democrat voters who might look at McCain on earmarks and like what they see. I’m talking about votes in Congress, like the ones he lends to liberal causes.

Don’t accuse me of ignoring facts again or you’re banned. You’ve been a near total jerk over the past week, acting just like McCain routinely acts toward conservatives. Knock it off.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Here’s Rush’s endorsement of Romney. It remains to be seen if it was too little, too late.

Did any of you actually listen to the clip. It wasn’t an endorsement. It was an analysis of the candidates. Nowhere in that clip did Limbaugh say anything about who he’s for or who he’d vote for. All he said was that McCain was not a conservative and Romney was the most conservative candidate still in the race. Matter of fact not in the clip but in today’s broadcast he reaffirmed that he doesn’t endorse during the primary. In other words he said nothing that he hasn’t been saying all along. Knickers in a knot over nothing, Jeez.

Oldnuke on February 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I would suggest that ‘endorse’ is a little strong. ‘Favors’ would be more appropriate.

Rush doesn’t tell his audience how to vote. He presents ideas, sometimes outrageously provocative ideas, and waits for you to make up your own mind.

rockhauler on February 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Don’t accuse me of ignoring facts again or you’re banned. You’ve been a near total jerk over the past week, acting just like McCain routinely acts toward conservatives. Knock it off.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM

CLAP CLAP CLAP

+1

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Oldnuke on February 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I don’t know, it sounds like he is saying the only one to vote for is Romney, if you want to be a conservative. It may not be an “I’ll vote for Romney” endorsement but he does seem to say there is no other one to consider.
During his show today he did say he does not endorse but saying there is no one left but “XYZ” is pretty close.

DrM2B on February 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM

True McCain deserves alot of the flak he gets. If reoublicans want to attack McCain on issues I have no problem with that.

Its the argument that Hillary would be better than a McCain presidency that really is pushing it however.

William Amos on February 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Don’t accuse me of ignoring facts again or you’re banned. You’ve been a near total jerk over the past week, acting just like McCain routinely acts toward conservatives. Knock it off.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Now THAT’s snippy. Compared to the frequently vile lambasting that McCain and Huckabee supporters receive here, as well as of course McCain himself, suggesting that support for the surge represented an example of across-the-aisles-reaching in addition to earmarks reform is pretty weak tea.

Getting Democrats to oppose the surge a little less fervently and monomaniacally – to the extent of shaming them into supporting critical defense appropriations – probably does qualify on this score. So does being – as Dole acknowledged – one of the most dependable supporters of the military over the course of decades. It’s not always possible to point to a specific vote and say “if not for Senator X on the other side, Senator Y wouldn’t have voted this way, or would have supported some other plan.”

CK MacLeod on February 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM

If your only response to being challenged on facts is to threaten a ban, I’ll take that as aknowledgement that I am right.

It’s your site, if you only want Pro Romney comments, that’s your call.

I have not yet seen you threaten to ban a Romney supporter in spite of massive slime they have been posting in comments here.

Why do you pretend you want a debate when you reject facts you don’t like and threaten to ban people that bring them up.

Banning me won’t make Romney any less of a losing candidate.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Let’s see, most of these demagogues were saying a few days ago they would rather campaign for Clinton/Obama than the prospective GOP candidate. So much for conservative principles. So much for the wishes of the voters in the GOP. But it became obvious some time ago that this was much less about conservatism than about the wounded pride of egotists.

If he were really interested in Conservative values, he ought to have voted for Alan Keyes, whose record is solid and secure and not based on flip-flopping over every issue

Name an issue where McCain reached across the aisle and ended up benefiting conservative issues, ideals or causes.

Not difficult. McCain has spent many years fighting against attempts in Congress to scupper our chances in Iraq, often working with Democrats such as Lieberman, to bash the liberal quitters even when some GOP senators were jumping ship. He has also worked with those down the aisle to promote conservative tax policy, as with McCain-Saxton.

On Tort Reform, he worked across the aisle to sponsor the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which sought to curb lawsuits by shifting suits from state to federal courts, by requiring judges to review all coupon settlements, and by limiting attorneys’ fees in non-cash settlements. Reducing excessive litigation is good for business, a strong conservative platform.

On free trade, McCain worked across the aisle to kill the Schumer-Graham bill, which would have imposed huge tariffs on China if it refused to revalue its currency, and voted to give the President trade promotion authority.

His work across the aisle was vital in getting support for his amendments to cut wasteful and profligate liberal spending in Congress, and to reduce the federal deficit. Recall his 2006 amendment to cut $74.5 million for various agriculture programs, his 2003 amendment to reduce funding for the Yazoo Basin Backwater Pump Project in Mississippi, his 2002 amendment to eliminate $2.5 million for coral reef mapping of the waters off the coast of Hawaii, his 1998 amendment to cut $78 million in projects from an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, and his 1994 motion to kill an amendment to provide $40 million for the conversion of a New York City post office into an Amtrak train station.

McCain may not be an ultra-conservative hardliner (hence his acceptability to independents), but to paint him as left of Clinton is a complete load of BS.

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Does everyone here realize that this is from YESTERDAY’s show? Rush (sortof) endorsed Romney yesterday, not today. In fact, I posted this and the public guest link to his website with these exact quotes. This news is over 24 hours old.

Michael in MI on February 5, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Getting Democrats to oppose the surge a little less fervently and monomaniacally

But where’s the evidence that McCain did that? Harry Reid still hasn’t backed off on calling the war “lost.” Hillary Clinton still played her “willing suspension of disbelief” act against Gen. Petraeus. The Democrats are as committed to defeat in Iraq as ever. I don’t see how McCain has had any effect on them, though he has certainly had a positive effect on galvanizing Republicans. Where McCain has disagreed with Republicans, he has done so with unnecessary spite and rancor. When has he treated the Democrats with similar venom? That’s what I’m getting at in asking that question. It’s pretty easy to come up with times when McCain has reached across to the left. When has he pulled Democrats to the right, though?

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM

You’ve been a near total jerk over the past week, acting just like McCain routinely acts toward conservatives. Knock it off.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM

If you were the slightest bit objective, you would recognize how much I have been holding back in spite of an overwhelming onslaught of crap by Romney supporters on this site.

You have no problem with people questioning McCain’s Integrity, Calling him a traitor, comparing him to Nazis, calling him a liar, but let a McCain supporter bring up a fact that you don’t like and all of a sudden that person is a jerk.

You ever think that the only reason that you think I have been a jerk for the last week, is that is exactly how long you have been drinking the Romney kool aid?

If you really do not want a balanced discussion, then ban me and hollowpoint and anyone else with the nerve to not fall in line with you.

However, that will not change Romney into a winner.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM

1) The Surge

While I respect and appreciate McCain’s support for the war in Iraq, it ticks me off when he personally takes credit for “The Surge”. There were many legislators from both sides of the aisle who expressed the desire for “more troops” at various stages of the conflict. “The Surge” was not designed by, approved, or executed by ANYONE in the legislative brance of government.

edgehead on February 5, 2008 at 3:31 PM

CLAP CLAP CLAP

+1

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM

I’m with Nineball…

ricer1 on February 5, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Where McCain has disagreed with Republicans, he has done so with unnecessary spite and rancor. When has he treated the Democrats with similar venom? That’s what I’m getting at in asking that question. It’s pretty easy to come up with times when McCain has reached across to the left. When has he pulled Democrats to the right, though?

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM

DITTOS!
The answers are: never and, um… never.

edgehead on February 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM

DrM2B on February 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Oh I wasn’t saying that Limbaugh’s broadcasts don’t lean toward Romney just that it wasn’t an endorsement. I believe he supports Romney now just as he did Thompson before he dropped out. What Limbaugh is saying about McCain is the same things that he’s been saying forever. Nothing new there.

Oldnuke on February 5, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Sorry, John McCain needs to stop with his nonsense of taking credit for leading the way on the “surge”. His strategy was wrong. He supported the President in implementing GEN Petraeus’ COIN strategy, which included a 21,500 troop “surge”, but this strategy was NOT what John McCain was calling for in the years prior. So him taking credit for it is a slap in the face to GEN Petraeus. He can take credit for supporting President Bush. That’s it.

As an only slightly OT point, I’m way past sick and tired of McCain claiming the current strategy is what he had been calling for all along. The only thing the dumbass was calling for was more troops to “lock down” Iraq. That is not at all what is going on. It may be too nuanced for Mr. Maverick but the extra troops were not sent to “lock down” anything. They were sent to provide a continuing presence in small locations to help stand up local Iraqi assets and build relationships at the sub federal level since it became obvious that clearing and handing over to Iraqi forces wouldn’t work until competent Iraqi organizations were available and they weren’t coming from centralized training fast enough to do the trick. If some of the Iraqi’s see our troops as an occupying army think of how many more actual moderate Iraqi’s would have joined any sort of resistance force if we had tried to “lock down” Iraq with more troops. For many Iraqi’s our troops have simply become members of the Amerika tribe and are allied with their tribe and country. Never could have happened under McCains “plan” (BTW, sending more troops is not a plan it’s just sending more troops). [ … ]

Michael in MI on February 5, 2008 at 3:38 PM

While I respect and appreciate McCain’s support for the war in Iraq, it ticks me off when he personally takes credit for “The Surge”. There were many legislators from both sides of the aisle who expressed the desire for “more troops” at various stages of the conflict. “The Surge” was not designed by, approved, or executed by ANYONE in the legislative brance of government.

edgehead on February 5, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Not a one of the suits on Capital Hill had anything to do with the surge insofar as level of troops, tactics or otherwise…if you think they did you are a fool. They merely control the throttle…not the direction, not the planning not the execution. McCain, or any politician for that matter is an ass for claiming as much.

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Now Jack Kemp is on TV comparing McLame to CHURCHILL!!!!

Such hyperbole.

Disgusting.

LegendHasIt on February 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Wow, McVain responsible for the Surge…who knew. What will he claim next?
The only thing he is famous for is all his compromising measures that end up either taxing us or taking away our liberties.

What good is the surge when he’s as guilty as Dems as destroying the country from the inside.

TOPV on February 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM

You have no problem with people questioning McCain’s Integrity, Calling him a traitor, comparing him to Nazis, calling him a liar, but let a McCain supporter bring up a fact that you don’t like and all of a sudden that person is a jerk.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Several things here…

1. I don’t think anyone on this site has every said that McCain is a “traitor” to his country, maybe to the conservative cause, but not to his country.

2. I also don’t think anyone has compared him to a “nazi”, but I could be wrong with all of the posts… but a link to back that assertion up would be nice.

and

3. I highly doubt you being a jerk is all of a sudden.

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM

You have no problem with people questioning McCain’s Integrity, Calling him a traitor, comparing him to Nazis, calling him a liar, but let a McCain supporter bring up a fact that you don’t like and all of a sudden that person is a jerk.

That entire paragraph is a demonstrable lie. When have I EVER called McCain any of those things? I don’t even call him “McVain” or any of the other lame things people call him. When has a McCain supporter brought up a fact “that I don’t like?” If there’s evidence that McCain has pulled in Democrat votes to a conservative cause, I’d love to see it. Earmarks are a marginally better argument on that than Iraq, btw, since the Dems are at least nominally if not actually making better sounds there than they usually do. But they’re still a party of porkers and I don’t know of any actual votes that McCain has won over. Show me the money and I’ll change my mind. But you’d rather be a jerk and hit me personally.

Now, I have said that McCain has mischaracterized things, because he has, most recently Romney’s position on Iraq. I have said that McCain has worked against conservatives, because he does. That’s how he got the “maverick” rep. I have questioned whether McCain is a conservative, because his record is full of holes on that. I’ve accused him of disrespecting conservatives, because he has. Just look at how he addresses border security.

I don’t get in commenters’ grills about what they say about candidates until commenters make the mistake of attacking me directly in the way that you did. And have repeatedly over the past week or so, actually. Calling me a liar, which amounts to what you did, I don’t and won’t tolerate. Life’s too short to let that crap pass.

I’m done arguing with you, Jay. Knock off calling me a liar, which is what got you the ban threat and not criticism of Romney which is perfectly fair game, or you’re gone.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM

McCain lends his vote to those who he agrees with, and tries to find supporters for the bills/views he agrees with? What is so surprising about that? He got some Dems on board for earmark reform; I’ll bet those Dems’ leadership/co-Senators were not exactly to see them cross the aisle in a spirit of bi-partisanship to support McCain’s bill. Come on, McCain has been hammering away on balanced budgets and eliminating pork since he has been there.

He’s a RINO, but he’s tried to move the Congress to the right on spending issues and he has been vocal about supporting the President and the troops during the war. More so than 98% of anyone else in Congress. He deserves some credit. BTW, I voted Mitt.

RW Wacko on February 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM

I have archived examples of all of the above on my home PC. When I get home from work, I will post the links for each of them.

I am a jerk, because I disagree with you. My tactics are no different than those of Romney supporters, you just don’t support McCain.

I can be banned, but I will not be intimidated. Romney is a loser and the Republican party should not go quietly into the nnight with him.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM

So him taking credit for it is a slap in the face to GEN Petraeus. He can take credit for supporting President Bush. That’s it.

McCain deserves credit for knowing enough to be critical of Donald Rumsfeld, while still supporting the goals of the invasion, and subsequently Bush & Patraeus. If Bush had known enough to dump Rumsfeld sooner Iraq would be in better shape and the Republican congressional losses in 2006 might not have been as bad.

dedalus on February 5, 2008 at 3:47 PM

it’s strange how Romney supporters don’t really have much ill-will toward McCain supporters, but plenty for the candidate himself. Meanwhile McCain supporters spend a lot of time criticizing Romney supporters.

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

McCain may not be an ultra-conservative hardliner (hence his acceptability to independents), but to paint him as left of Clinton is a complete load of BS.

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 3:24 PMTrying to categorize him to the left or right of Hillary is nonproductive, because of the variety of issues involved. IMO, she is far more socialistic and anti-military inclined than he. But, I noticed in your post above, you failed to include his involvement in CFR and immigration reform legislation. I saw no mention of his position on Bush’s tax cuts, or his present excuse for why he was opposed, compared to what he said at the time. You did not mention his flirt with Kerry as a VP candidate. If you were trying to just highlight conservative credentials, it makes sense to leave out those parts which hurt your argument. But, if you were being truly objective, hence more credible, you would have included it, and presented it as less important than the conservative positions he has taken. But, you didn’t include it. I also suspect his attractiveness for independents is his position on illegal immigration, which really means he is using a position of non enforcemnt of the law to gather votes.

a capella on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

The success of the surge is much less a matter of increased troop numbers than it is due to the change of the ROE…

A much more aggressive ROE, of which I have to assume McCain doesn’t approve due to his stances on Gitmo, Waterboarding and other tough on terrorist measures.

LegendHasIt on February 5, 2008 at 3:50 PM

dedalus on February 5, 2008 at 3:47 PM

What did Rumsfeld do that was worthy of critique?

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 3:50 PM

I am a jerk, because I disagree with you.

No, you are a jerk because of the way you “try”, and I stress “try”, to come to your candidate’s defense. You act smarmy, holier than thou, twist other people’s words, and basically act pretty classless. But other then that…

I’m not saying others don’t stoop to that as well, but you have been pretty blatant about it these past couple of weeks.

Gloating isn’t attractive.

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM

LegendHasIt on February 5, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Good point

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Got the quote tags backward… sorry.

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM

I’m tired of McCain being portrayed as strong on the GWOT. He repeats it all the time and is never challenged. Yes, he’s solid on Iraq, but Iraq is only one theater of the overall war.
Meanwhile, back in the US of A, McCain is an open-borders fanatic, wants to shut down Gitmo and bring those murdering bastards over here into the welcoming arms of the ACLU where they will have access to critical intelligence. He also opposes waterboarding. Iraq apart, McCain is not much better than the Democrats on the GWOT.

infidel65 on February 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Bryan,

Don’t get me wrong.

I respect you and I agree with you on 90% of your posts on this site. You understand National Security better than 99% of the people that post on BLOGS. You understand the need to resist Ismalofascism and you seem to dislike Hillary as much as I do.

But, if you think my posts towards you are over the top, you should try to read some of what you posted, objectively.

I do not question your honesty, but I do question the sudden support for Romney that I did not see until very recently. I think that is fair game.

This will all be a moot point soon as Romney himself should be intelligent enough to see the handwriting on the wall before too long and he will stop trying to tear the party apart for his own personal benefit and concede.

Hope springs eternal.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Bryan, AP, and all the other owners/moderators/etc.:

Don’t waste your time; let us (the commenters) handle the crazies. You just keep doing your job.

emailnuevo on February 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM

If there’s anyone who has done everything he can to alert voters about John McCain, it is Rush. He has mocked McCain mercilessly for years. Anyone who’s ever listened to a minute of Rush knew long ago that he would pull for Romney over McCain. How can this possibly be news?!!

Halley on February 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM

it’s strange how Romney supporters don’t really have much ill-will toward McCain supporters, but plenty for the candidate himself. Meanwhile McCain supporters spend a lot of time criticizing Romney supporters.

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Do you mean the Romney supporters that have supported him all along or the “Romney Supporters” that joined him 7 days ago out of hatred for a certain distinguished Senator?

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM

CLAP CLAP CLAP

+1

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Amen!! “A stopped clock is right twice a day”!

landlines on February 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Hope springs eternal.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Indeed, it does. That’s pretty good post, for the most part. ;-)

Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 3:54 PM

it’s strange how Romney supporters don’t really have much ill-will toward McCain supporters, but plenty for the candidate himself. Meanwhile McCain supporters spend a lot of time criticizing Romney supporters.

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

To be honest see-dubya I simply warned other to not sit and home and let Hillary win if McCain is the nominee and I have been repeatedly attacked. I have never said people should stay at home because Mitt wont win the nomination even though I saw signs of that. I urged people to still vote for Mitt even if he he doesnt win today. But because I simply told others Mitt wont win and that McCain is better than hillary I have been regularily attacked on here.

William Amos on February 5, 2008 at 3:54 PM

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM

No, you’re a jerk because you took a legitimate question about McCain and used it as one more opportunity to smack me personally because I disagree with you. That’s been your MO for a while now. You’ve been one of the “get in line behind McCain” people who are really turning skeptics like me off to his candidacy in a huge way. You respond to nearly all criticism of McCain with sneering disdain of the writer, rather than taking on the argument.

As for what you have archived, we haven’t deleted anything so if I said what you allege it’s here on HA now. Use the search function over on the right. Anything you claim to have downloaded is suspect imho. If it’s not on the site right now, I didn’t say it and that’s that. And don’t pin what commenters have said on me. If they didn’t attack me personally like you do it probably didn’t attract my attention, and we don’t hold ourselves responsible for everything everyone says here. Comments left standing don’t represent our opinion; we just don’t go around deleting everything we don’t happen to like and that doesn’t mean we “have no problem with” arguments like that. And you’re smart enough to know that.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM

a capella on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

I was answering Bryan’s question if you bothered to read, not arguing that McCain is some clone of Pat Buchanan. I’ve never said that. But he’s conservative enough on most issues, and light years away from Clinton/Obama, unless you’re happy to consider being anti-abortion, pro-heterosexual marriage, pro-military investment, anti-wastful federal spending, anti-socialised healthcare, pro-free trade, anti-liberal SC nominees, pro-border control, anti-Islamic appeasement conferences, anti-tax hikes, pro-tort reform, anti-surrender in Iraq as issues of no consequence for conservatives whatsoever.

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Too little too late, but I will be voting for Romney anyway. I guess I came to that conclusion before Rush did, but once Fred left, there wasn’t anyone else left.

RobTN on February 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM

JayHaw, are you a centrist or moderate conservative? There is no way that you look in the mirror and think, “yeah, driving the big bad conservative camaro to work today.” What is it about the fact that McCain always compromises conservative principles (not his, just the party’s) and never slams the other side?

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM

What is it about the fact that McCain always compromises conservative principles (not his, just the party’s) and never slams the other side?

What about that can’t you grasp?

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 3:58 PM

I too am tired about McCain being tough on War on Terror. He hasn’t done a thing IMO other than criticizing Donald Rumsfeld and voting in favor of war efforts — which practically every republican in congress has done which does not particularly make him special. If there is one person I’d give credit for war on terror, I’d give credit to Bush long before I’ll even consider mentioning McCain.

How do you support war on terror while wanting to shutdown gitmo and when you have hell-bent problems with water being poured down on terrorists’ nose? And practically every Republican supported Iraq surge, so don’t give me that BS. Then again, even Hilary Clinton stoop up proudly and clapped her hands when Bush announced that surge is working well during his state of union address.

blahdy on February 5, 2008 at 3:58 PM

This will all be a moot point soon as Romney himself should be intelligent enough to see the handwriting on the wall before too long and he will stop trying to tear the party apart for his own personal benefit and concede.

Gimme a break. McCain and the rest of his ilk as just as much or more the cause of the rift in the Republican party as anyone else. By his ilk I mean pretty much all the old guard entrenched for life politicians such as John Warner, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter and the rest of that bunch. Of course Warner has finally given it up. About time for McCain to just fade away too.

Oldnuke on February 5, 2008 at 4:00 PM

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Fair question. I have given a lot of thought about this, especially recently.

I do not line up 100% with conservatives, but I have almost nothing in common wh liberals.

I define myself as Fiscal Conservaive, National Defense Conservative, Social Moderate and completely non religious.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM

I agree, but that wasn’t my question. It is definitely worth keeping in mind, though.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM

I have to say this election cycle certainly hasnt been dull.

Stupid yes dull no

William Amos on February 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM

But where’s the evidence that McCain did that? Harry Reid still hasn’t backed off on calling the war “lost.” Hillary Clinton still played her “willing suspension of disbelief” act against Gen. Petraeus. The Democrats are as committed to defeat in Iraq as ever. I don’t see how McCain has had any effect on them, though he has certainly had a positive effect on galvanizing Republicans. Where McCain has disagreed with Republicans, he has done so with unnecessary spite and rancor. When has he treated the Democrats with similar venom? That’s what I’m getting at in asking that question. It’s pretty easy to come up with times when McCain has reached across to the left. When has he pulled Democrats to the right, though?

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 3:27 PM

You ask, “When has he treated the democrats with similar venom?” How about when he asked what the Democrats in the Huuse applauding with their anti-Iraq resolution “if not surrender”? How about when he hit Hillary on the Woodstock Museum? These are just two recent examples. As for the larger issue, as I said in my previous post, it’s not always possible to say exactly which votes were changed or which policies were or were not adjusted. Yes, Harry and Nancy and Hillary and Barack continue to speak as though it’s eternally 2006 in Iraq, and a big part of the reason they sound like they’re caught in a time warp is because of the surge – which, contrary to the views of some of the people here, those intimately involved strongly credit McCain for advancing and protecting. The objective evidence is that, despite all of the insane rhetoric from the other side (and all of the “endgame” defeatism at HotAir and other blogs), the surge went forward, the war was funded, and the famous light at the end of the famous tunnel was allowed to come into view. If it hadn’t, worrying about the Republican nominee would be about as relevant now as worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

CK MacLeod on February 5, 2008 at 4:02 PM

The fact that McCain was endorsed by the New York Times (and many other liberal rags) is all I need to know about him. Genuine “Reagan foot soldiers” don’t get endorsed by the NYT.

infidel65 on February 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM

How about when he asked what the Democrats in the Huuse applauding with their anti-Iraq resolution “if not surrender”? How about when he hit Hillary on the Woodstock Museum?

And those are good points to ponder.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM

And I neglected to mention that the ‘new’ ROE is actually something that Rumsfeld wanted, but Bush, Powell, Rice (in her SoS job, not as National Security Adviser, where she was much more realistic) and the other political hacks opposed.

If Bush had given Rumsfeld permission to do the ‘new’ ROE from the beginning, we’d be at least three years ahead of where we are in Iraq now.

Which brings us full circle to why so many Generals are supporting McCain; Most Generals and other ‘brass’ that don’t have an ‘elite’ background count their power more by the number of troops and machines under their command than they do by success in battle.

LegendHasIt on February 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM

No, you’re a jerk because you took a legitimate question about McCain and used it as one more opportunity to smack me personally because I disagree with you.

I “smacked” you, because you posted your question, a commenter aswered it and then you posted again saying no one had an answer.

That is where my assertion that you were choosing to ignore facts came from.

Then you threatened to ban me and the conversation shifted.

Anyway, as I said I respect you and agree on most issues and while you have been very unpersuasive in your arguments for Romney the issue is not worth being banned over.

I’ll tone down my posts until after Romney concedes.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:06 PM

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM

And that’s not a dig, everyone isn’t conservative. Most conservatives truly honestly understand that the founders were conservative, the constitution is conservative and that the guiding principles that have led this country are conservative. That is totally pro-individual, limited govt., and non-nanny state. Anytime a Republican “reaches across the aisle” to the Dems, whose ideology is diametrically opposed to freedom, we view it as a de facto rebuke of conservative principles. There should be no compromise that pushes us further from our source and closer to socialism…

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:07 PM

That is why most true conservatives view McCain with skepticism, and would rather vote on principle

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:08 PM

There should be no compromise that pushes us further from our source and closer to socialism…
ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Amen.

Oldnuke on February 5, 2008 at 4:09 PM

infidel65 on February 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Real conservatives don’t let the New York Times define conservatism by automatically going against everything they say just to oppose. As one of the commenters just typed, even a broken clock is right two times a day.

myamphibian on February 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM

tear the party apart for his own personal benefit

That’s the most apt description of John McCain’s behavior for the past 10 years I’ve read yet. He’s made a political career out of disloyalty to his party, to conservative principles specifically, and now he has to game the system to get what he wants. He couldn’t win in 2000 as a younger man, and he’s been groomed by the MSM for 8 years for this election, and he still can’t unite the party under his banner.

His whole bloody campaign is centered on the assertion that he can beat Hillary. Never mind the veracity of that assertion. His campaign is framed within the context of his opponent. What happens when Barack Obama wins? That’s a whole convention’s worth of reasoning up in smoke.

It’s just absurd, this election.

spmat on February 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM

And those are good points to ponder.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM

And I applaud your for being a lot more fair and open-minded than some of your fans and allies.

CK MacLeod on February 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM

The fact that McCain was endorsed by the New York Times is all I need to know about him. Genuine “Reagan foot soldiers” don’t get endorsed by the NYT.

Could be worse – how about having a geriatric dictator on side? But c’mon, does anyone recall who the NYT endorsed for GOP candidate in 1984?

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Do you mean the Romney supporters that have supported him all along or the “Romney Supporters” that joined him 7 days ago out of hatred for a certain distinguished Senator?

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Both, actually.

But because I simply told others Mitt wont win and that McCain is better than hillary I have been regularily attacked on here.

William Amos on February 5, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Hmm. Well, I’m sorry that happened, and I still think it’s different from the way a lot of pro-McCain bloggers are approaching it.

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 4:16 PM

Now Jack Kemp is on TV comparing McLame to CHURCHILL!!!!

It appears that several Republicans are wanting to come in from the cold and are standing in an ever-growing line hoping to be part of McCain’s administration.

After today, will Huckabee be next to join the parade?

pocomoco on February 5, 2008 at 4:16 PM

People like Bill Kristol are telling Rush and co. to lay off McCain. Have you noticed they don’t ever defend Romney? Where was Kristol when McCain lied about Romney’s position on Iraq? I guess Romney is fair game, but McCain isn’t.
Rush made an excellent point today; he is lectured about loyalty to the party, but for years McCain has done nothing but shaft the GOP. He even considered leaving it in 2001 until Jumpin’ Jim Judas Jeffords beat him to it. Three years later he considered running with John Kerry.
Loyalty, my ass.

infidel65 on February 5, 2008 at 4:16 PM

spmat on February 5, 2008 at 4:12 PM

I have not seen one poll from any source, at any time in this campaign, that shows Romney with moresupport in the general election than Obama or Hillary. In fact mac does better by 10-15 points in all that I have seen.

Now, of course, polls aren’t always right, especially in this election season, but aside from Bravado, what can possibly make a Mitt supporter think that their candidate will do better in the general?

There is not one shred of objective evidence supporting that position, yet 90% of the Romney supporters claim that.

Daydreaming and kiving a fantasy is no way to win an election.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM

I have not yet seen you threaten to ban a Romney supporter in spite of massive slime they have been posting in comments here.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Romney supporters don’t post slime on McNastyMan, they just tell it like it is about him. If the truth about him seems like slime to you, well then, you should not be supporting him, now should you?

MB4 on February 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM

WELL, YES: “Conservatives dropped the ball.” Now over the next few years you can look for — and do the work to elect — some good governors who might make Presidents that you’ll like better than McCain or Romney, and do the other bits of hard work it takes to make a difference. Or you can just complain a lot on the Internet. Your choice!

posted at 02:30 PM by Glenn Reynolds

bnelson44 on February 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Most conservatives truly honestly understand that the founders were conservative

The founders were also revolutionaries who were implementing liberal ideas from thinkers like John Locke. Jefferson & Paine were in strong disagreement with a conservative like Burke over the principles of the French Revolution. I guess it depends, as a conservative, whether one identifies with someone like Jefferson or someone like Burke.

dedalus on February 5, 2008 at 4:19 PM

…You have decided that the distinguished Senator from Arizona that has served his party own interests as an independent and country Mexico for far longer than you have is the antichrist and no amount of facts will change your view.

Your MacHatred has blinded you.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM

FIFY.

McCain-Kennedy ALONE disqualifies McCain. Three times he tried in vain to shove that piece of crapola legislation down the throats of American citizens. And in 2007 he used the most insidious strategy of all: in a 1000+ page bill, in secret in the middle of the night, he and the Swimmer changed the 2006 version’s 90 day waiting period for a Z visa to only one business day in the 2007 version, and then allowed their colleagues a generous 36 hours to find it. Who was McCain representing when he did this – Americans or foreign invaders? In one fell swoop, up to 30 million illegal aliens would have been granted PERMANENT residency, the right to work, exemption from threat of deportation, and freedom to leave and re-enter our country at will.

The only description for that is perfidy. Look it up.

Meanwhile, states are enacting strict laws in self-defense – even in McCain’s own Arizona, where a Democrat governor signed their succcessful new law. A law working so well that Mexico is complaining.

McCain may be a hawk on foreign military action, but he is a conspirator with Mexico on our border security, and therefore our national security.

Here is what McCain supporters are blind to.

fred5678 on February 5, 2008 at 4:20 PM

That is why most true conservatives view McCain with skepticism, and would rather vote on principle

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:08 PM

If that’s the case, why the hell are so many of these ‘true conservatives’ voting for a turncoat like Con-mey, whose past record is more liberal than McCain’s? Why aren’t they voting for Alan Keyes, the most conservatively principled man left in the race? Forgive me, but your claim needs to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 4:21 PM

MB4 on February 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Yah I get the rules.

Saying anything negative (no matter how over the top) about McCain is fine, but being negative about Romney equals much anger.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:21 PM

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Not at all. Personal attacks on other commenters and the hosts is out of bounds, though. Learn that rule and you’ll be fine.

Bryan on February 5, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Just like after 9/11, some big tectonic plates are shifting under our feet. Only now, it’s much harder to understand the cause, or predict the effects. A whole lotta serious re-thinking is going to start going down tomorrow…

Halley on February 5, 2008 at 4:23 PM

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 4:16 PM

I have to disagree with you.

I think most people that have supported Mitt Romney from the very beginning have been very reasonable. I see 99% of the slime and attacks originating from the people that jumped on Team Romney’s bandwagn 7 days ago.

Not just in this site, but all over the Media too.

For example, Mary Matalin’s raving stream of consciousness on Fox news yesterday attacking McCain and all who would support him. How long has she been onboard team Romney?

It seems that most of the people that joined Team Romney since Florida are driven more by their hate of McCain than their love of Romney ad it shows in their vitriol.

Hate is never a good argument. Hate will not defeat Obama.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Or you can just complain a lot on the Internet. Your choice!

bnelson44 on February 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM

You mean typing comments into a text box and hitting submit isn’t enough? bummer.

dedalus on February 5, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Romney has accounted for, with much articulation. He isn’t a con- and name calling is unbecoming. McCain has been unapologetically the counter-conservative, from, “I’ll build the Go*Damn fence”, to various other transgressions against conservatism. Don’t you understand that conservatives detest his running in the name of a conservative because his record proves he isn’t. For every policy change Romney has made, he’s has explained it. You’re forgiven for your skepticism ;-)

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:28 PM

Halley on February 5, 2008 at 4:23 PM

First I disliked Romney, then I disliked McCain, now I just hate politics. : (

myamphibian on February 5, 2008 at 4:30 PM

One Candidate Now Represents All Three Legs of Conservatism (The choice is clear, but the decision is yours.)

Nuance.

Vizzini on February 5, 2008 at 4:30 PM

For every policy change Romney has made, he’s has explained it. You’re forgiven for your skepticism ;-)

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:28 PM

And if he wins the nomination, he will have a good reason when he changes each and every one of his positions once again.

Integrity is standing up for what you believe in in spite of overwhelming pressure, not shifting your position (even for a good reason) with each shifting wind.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Hate is never a good argument. Hate will not defeat Obama.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:25 PM

From the NY POST:

In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed,
“F- -k you!” at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns
about the legislation.

“This is chickens- – - stuff,” McCain
snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the
Senate floor Thursday. “You’ve always been against this bill, and
you’re just trying to derail it.”

————

Don’t tell me about Hate. Tell your pathetic candidate John McCain about it.

CABE on February 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM

The founders were also revolutionaries who were implementing liberal (Remember, of course, that “liberal” had a very different meaning back then. A very different philosophy.)ideas from thinkers like John Locke.

dedalus on February 5, 2008 at 4:19 PM

MB4 on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Meanwhile McCain supporters spend a lot of time criticizing Romney supporters.

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Just like their master… just like their master.

Mcguyver on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

McCain-Kennedy ALONE disqualifies McCain.

You mean BUSH – McCain – Kennedy. I’m just waiting for you to slam the 43rd President as a RINO too, and tell me that you wished you voted for Gore and Kerry instead.

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Why is it such a big deal when and why we jumped on the Mitt Bandwagon? I imagine a good chunk of us came over from Camp Fred once it was pretty obvious that the conservative candidate Fred wasn’t going anywhere.

Minor nitpick, you sound like a total dick and belittle us Mitt supporters that, god forbid, want a conservative candidate. Yes, he’s a politician and he changes his mind/stance to get votes. Everybody does. But he hasn’t stabbed us in the back like Mac has. He hasn’t pissed all over the 1st Amendment for the sake of CFR. I can’t speak for everyone, but my feeling is that Mac has betrayed us and the conservative movement in several areas.

Kai on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

What we are witnessing is Jorge Bush’s (& the MSM’s)revenge on the conservatives (and talk radio) for the Amnesty revolt.

Mark it.

stenwin77 on February 5, 2008 at 4:37 PM

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

You are almost there, you are starting to peel the layers away. Soon you will realize our big problem with McCain is that he is running as a republican conservative when he SHOULD be running as the sole candidate for the McCain Party. He’s a shape-shifter…riding the coat-tails of the republican party–he should have been the independent candidate.
Also, your argument is double-edged because you have no way of guaranteeing McCain won’t slouch leftward…whereas Romney’s trend line is clearly moving rightward.

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Meanwhile McCain supporters spend a lot of time criticizing Romney supporters.

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Just like their master… just like their master.

Mcguyver on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Wait, aren’t Romney supporters criticizing Huckabee supporters nowadays?

Vizzini on February 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Meanwhile McCain supporters spend a lot of time criticizing Romney supporters.

see-dubya on February 5, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Just like their master… just like their master.

Mcguyver on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Matthew 7:3

CK MacLeod on February 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Kai on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Your post just proved my point. Thanks.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 4:40 PM

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 5, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Call Byran a liar again and the context of his warning will be perfectly clear.

No one cares that you are shilling for that liar McCain. No one cares that you lie about Mitt.

Wise up.

csdeven on February 5, 2008 at 4:40 PM

McCain-Kennedy ALONE disqualifies McCain.

You mean BUSH – McCain – Kennedy. I’m just waiting for you to slam the 43rd President as a RINO too, and tell me that you wished you voted for Gore and Kerry instead.

Pax americana on February 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM

I will, Bush is a RINO, I don’t want another RINO in the White House…being good on the GWOT, (Bush is and will be better than McCain can ever be) isn’t enough when Bush, like McCain is willing to sell our borders, our sovereignty and our economy down the river. Romney wouldn’t.

ColdBore76 on February 5, 2008 at 4:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4