Limbaugh: Romney’s endorsement of McCain is suicidal

posted at 10:11 pm on February 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Ben Smith, not for a moment do I believe this is true but it’s amusing to watch talk radio start to turn on their favored candidate from 2008 this early.

I like Mitt Romney, but I think he’s risking his career over a guy, endorsing McCain, who is so out of step with what’s going on right now. McCain’s always conservative when he’s running for reelection in Arizona. The tea parties have produced a wave of conservatism that have swept Republicans-in-name-only aside. I understand Palin endorsing McCain. She’s got no choice. Loyalty, plus if she doesn’t the media will cream her, “Oh, he’s good enough to be president but you won’t endorse him to be Senator?” And it’s understandable Romney would endorse Brown, but I don’t understand Romney endorsing McCain. I just don’t think it’s going to fly. These endorsements are unnecessary. What is there to gain by this? Look, it’s unfortunate, but people are weeding themselves out of the process all the while engaging in this kind of behavior. So in one sense it has a cleansing aspect to it…

This is what I’m telling you now, I tried to say that the Republican Party is trying to fight this off right now, they’re trying to fight off the tea party people. They’re trying to avoid being run over by them. Nobody is willingly going to give up a position of leadership they think they hold and a lot of people, it’s very difficult for people to change their core. Now, again, with Romney endorsing McCain, this is all about the future. This is Romney wanting McCain’s endorsement in 2012 if he runs for president. This is all about Republicans hanging together and this is one of the things that irritates people, especially new arrivals, to what is considered to be the same old politics. It is tone deaf, it’s suicidal, at least it seems to me, but at least you find out where people think things are important early on in a process like this so it’s got its value even though it does make you mad…

Okay, so imagine you got this tent, and we all know that McCain is still ticked off that he didn’t win the presidency, and he’s still ticked off that he had to fight so hard to win the nomination. So 2012 comes along, let’s say McCain loses the Senate run, so now he’s out there really ticked off, and some people just might — just throwing this out there, I’m not trying to convince you of this. I don’t even know if it’s true or even accurate. But maybe they’re just figuring down the road they’d rather have McCain not outside the tent throwing bombs at ‘em, rather have him inside the tent doing whatever he’s doing, I think either way it’s irrelevant because I think you’re right, the era of McCain’s over.

Well, look. Granted, Romney can’t go around endorsing every centrist against every tea-party darling; that would alienate the base irretrievably and he needs them for the general election if he’s the nominee. But he’s not stupid. He will endorse some tea-party faves, most likely starting with Rubio in Florida. That race is practically a foregone conclusion already and Crist screwed him two years ago by backing McCain so Mitt should have no reservations. If he jumps in for Rubio — the earlier the better — it’ll help offset his support for Maverick. As for why he shouldn’t support Hayworth too, what good would it do him if he did? Romney’s never going to be a grassroots all-star. He could endorse every last candidate touted by Rush Limbaugh and the base will still view him suspiciously, partly because of RomneyCare, partly because he’s an, ahem, “elitist,” and partly because of his record of opportunistically flip-flopping on social issues. (And, for some social cons, partly because he’s a Mormon.) Why alienate his natural base — centrists — to woo a faction that’ll never warm to him? As radical and risky as Romney’s “concede the south” strategy is, and as impressive as the growth of the tea-party movement may be, there’s no reason to believe that a center-right candidate is doomed to fail against a more conservative one in the primary, especially if the conservative is someone whom 70 percent of Americans think is unqualified. McCain’s endorsement will help Romney with centrists but Hayworth’s endorsement would help him with … who, exactly? The sort of people who already screech “RINO!” when they see him? I don’t get it.

Update: A commenter objects that Romney wasn’t talk radio’s favored candidate in 2008. He certainly was among the McCain/Mitt/Huckabee big three, but if you include Fred Thompson in the equation, I suppose that’s fair enough.

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

Mitt and McCain deserve one another. Perhaps they can do a campaign commercial together.

Title it…something like…BIG LOVE!!

donh525 on February 23, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Maybe they can borrow Newt nd Nancy’s loveseat.

thomasaur on February 23, 2010 at 10:44 PM

If Nancy stay’s on the couch would that be the same as the Kennedy/Dodd waitress sandwich?

heshtesh on February 24, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Even if Palin is slightly damaged politically by doing a rally for McCain on March 26 and 27, on the evening of the 27th she will be doing an evening rally for the TP movement in Harry Reid’s hometown, Searchlight, Nevada. By the time she has finished the speech condemning Reid and the Democrats, I predict everyone will have forgotten her morning engagement in Arizona for McCain.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 1:21 AM

I voted for Mitt in the primaries in Michigan, the only state he won. He would be a million times better than Obama. However, I have to agree with Rush on this. There is no reason for anyone to endorse McCain. He is the past, and cannot be trusted. McCain has been remarkably disloyal at times so it isn’t like he has earned these endorsements.

It would have been easy for Romney and Palin to stay out of the AZ race, they don’t have to endorse Hayworth either. With this and RomneyCare I have to say I am done with Mitt unless it comes down to him and Huck, then I would be forced to support Mitt.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Romney just lost any chance of garnering my primary vote.

astonerii on February 24, 2010 at 1:28 AM

I predict everyone will have forgotten her morning engagement in Arizona for McCain.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 1:21 AM

And knowing Palin’s polical skills I am sure that she planned it that way.

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 1:31 AM

Romney just lost any chance of garnering my primary vote.

astonerii on February 24, 2010 at 1:28 AM

He lost mine when he signed the MASS healthcare law mandating citizens buy healthcare.

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 1:32 AM

It would have been easy for Romney and Palin to stay out of the AZ race, they don’t have to endorse Hayworth either. With this and RomneyCare I have to say I am done with Mitt unless it comes down to him and Huck, then I would be forced to support Mitt.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 1:25 AM

It would have been easy for Mitt to stay out. McCain asked for Palin’s support. from that point on it was impossible to stay out.

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 1:33 AM

unless it comes down to him and Huck, then I would be forced to support Mitt.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 1:25 AM

i would not be surprised if Palin isn’t talking to huck at the monet to get his support. If huck throws his endorsement to Palin and does not himself Palin becomes the clear front runner with 50%+ of the vote. Mitt, tpaw, Jindal are all the anti-palin vote. they like any third party candidate will split the anti-palin vote.

Knowing the hisotry of huck vs Mitt I can see this happening easily enough.

to keep it from happening I think Mitt would have to offer huck the VP slot.

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 1:37 AM

I have to keep this really simple, because it is late.

Rush is right. He is pretty much always right.

WaltzingMtilda on February 24, 2010 at 1:46 AM

The problem with the GOP at all levels is that “center right” has become an acceptable substitute for “conservative.” Ronald Reagan is the last conservative presidential candidate nominated by the GOP. Since Reagan, the only conservative elected at the national level was not at the top of the ticket and is hospitalized for a heart attack as I write this. Newt Gingrich was conservative until he became Speaker and none of his successors has been a conservative. The most reliable conservatives serving in Washington, D.C. over the past 20 years are on the Supreme Court.

Fred Thompson is a conservative, but he was a lousy candidate, more’s the pity. Sarah Palin’s conservatism still has to be tested, but her potential is more exciting than the tepid reality of center right candidates like Romney and Pawlenty. Unfortunately, she may be too irretrievably damaged by her flawed rollout and the vicious campaign to destroy her.

The antidote for the ills inflicted by Obama, Reid and Pelosi isn’t more George W. Bush. It’s Reagan version 2.0. It might be Cheney version 2.0, too. I’m ready to start a Draft Liz movement.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Impossible for Palin to stay out? Ah no. She doesn’t owe McCain a damn thing. When he is asked about her future prospects he refuses to endorse her so p*ss on him. If anything McCain plucking her too early from the tree has permanently hurt Palin. We have in essence wasted a bright young star who had a great future on an old failure like McCain. He has done enough damage, time for the leaders of the party to tell him to move on.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 1:54 AM

Oops! I didn’t mean to exclude Dan Quayle, but he is forgettable.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 1:54 AM

Unfortunately, she may be too irretrievably damaged by her flawed rollout and the vicious campaign to destroy her.
Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Only if reagan was too damaged. he was at about the same point in the polls in 1979

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 1:55 AM

He has done enough damage, time for the leaders of the party to tell him to move on.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 1:54 AM

I agree on that but if Palin would have said no to mcCain the press would have had a field day with the backstabbing barbie diva meme for the next 2 months. she did the only thing she could she endorsed McCain refused to go negative on JD and limited her help to an endorsement and a rally or two.

really a no win sitution that McCain placed her in for his own politcal skin. shameful on McCain for doing it. Palin acted with honor in the entire mess. I would rather have an hororable president than a backstabbing sheb*tch. But that IMO. yours may be different and we may not be able to agree on this

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 2:00 AM

No matter what happens with Palin in the future, she will always be fighting an uphill battle for credibility. It doesn’t matter if it is fair or not. Alot of that goes back to McCain’s team throwing her to the dogs like Couric and Charlie Gibson which was a colossal blunder.

Palin has been savaged by the media and even by McCain’s own people and he has done very little to defend her. She should have had the fortitude to tell him to bug off. Her stature would have increased, she won’t get much credit for being the loyal soldier to a RINO.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 2:01 AM

By 1979, Reagan had been a two term governor, a presidential candidate twice and a serious conservative commentator on the radio and in print media. The left tried to discredit him, but he had a track record and well known convictions to counter their attacks.

I am rooting for Sarah, but her positions past and present are still largely unknown. Whether she is a genuine conservative or a right-leaning populist remains to be seen.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:04 AM

Not endorsing McCain is *not* backstabbing. She should have started immediately distancing herself from McCain after the election, he didn’t even let her speak at the concession for heaven’s sake. She could have made it obvious (in a civil way) she was done with McCain and he wouldn’t have asked.

Even now, she could have turned McCain down and NOBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN. The fact that she didn’t have the stones to stand up to him shows she is still not ready. This election year of all years is RINO season, we don’t need weak-kneed machine politics, the stakes are too high.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 2:08 AM

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 2:08 AM

EVEN NOW, SHE COULD HAVE TURNED MCCAIN DOWN AND NOBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN

Are you joking? The MSM wants to know how often the lady goes to the bathroom everyday. Not endorsing McCain-it would have led to her being accused for months by the MSM and GOP members of being an ingrate and a backstabber to the person who plucked her out of the wilderness to be his running mate. There is no way she could have refused to help McCain, especially after he asked to her help him. Plus she is an honorable person.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 2:16 AM

He could endorse every last candidate touted by Rush Limbaugh and the base will still view him suspiciously, partly because of RomneyCare, partly because he’s an, ahem, “elitist,” and partly because of his record of opportunistically flip-flopping on social issues

I am in the base and I do not view him suspiciously because of Romneycare. That is a state program, created for a liberal state and paid for by them. Who cares?

I do not consider Romney an elitist. I don’t know anyone around my neighborhood who does either, although everyone knows he is rich and la-di-da.

His ‘opportunistic flip flopping’ is his yielding to the social cravings of his state, from what I can see. Sarah Palin mirrors Romney on this one, signing off on state benefits for same sex partners because she was supposedly advised a challenge wouldn’t pass the courts (hogwash because she could have refused to cooperate, and let the court decide the issue – which is what I would have done if it was something I could not in conscience support)

Nope none of these reasons would make this base member oppose Romney, but his endorsement of McCain sure could. First of all, McCain is no asset in the Senate.

McCain played a dirty devious game with amnesty, and like his evil twin, Obama, tried multiple times to ram a bill against public wishes

McCain is the face of campaign finance reform and he still is too stupid and or evil to admit the consequence (which favor John McCain’s re elections).

Lastly John McCain is too old for another 6 years. He looks weak, and unhealthy. The Senate is full of these old horses who refuse to relinquish power, and end up dying in office, leaving the public holding the bag

Palin owes McCain. Brown is owned by McCain, at least for now. But Romney is kissing the ring for his own needs

Rush is right, the same old politics, not principles, got Romney to make this move.

That is all I need, a Romney who is a McCain on the inside

I would call his endorsement crass, unnecessary, and disappointing. I finally have something to dislike about the guy, and one more reason to admire Rush

entagor on February 24, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Terrie, how are your health issues? I hope prospects are good.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM

I am rooting for Sarah, but her positions past and present are still largely unknown. Whether she is a genuine conservative or a right-leaning populist remains to be seen.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:04 AM

I agree with you. Palin takes positions on the hot buttons that will keep her base, like right-to-life, and avoids position statements on the ones which might lose the base, like amnesty. This is good for her now, but if she comes out of the closet late in the game with a stinking position, say, on amnesty, she will take a body blow for misleading the base.

She will lose me, because I don’t like being suckered. So for now Palin soars, but the full blown Palin could crash. She may be counting on momentum to get her past the bumps later. That would be very stupid

entagor on February 24, 2010 at 2:27 AM

Great news if true. He’s the biggest obstacle in the way of the Paul presidency. Sarah Palin will endorse Ron for the Presidency in 2012 like she endorsed Rand,.

The Dean on February 23, 2010 at 10:25 PM

You need to lay off the narcotics, that stuff has made you null and void!

gary4205 on February 24, 2010 at 2:30 AM

gary4205 on February 24, 2010 at 2:30 AM

To say the least.

heshtesh on February 24, 2010 at 2:35 AM

Neither Mitt nor Palin can afford to alienate McCain. Whether any part of the conservative movement supports him is irrelevant. McCain still holds power at the top and has the ability to destroy up and comers’ higher aspirations. To discount McCain’s influence is stupid. They had no choice. This is strategy.

And speaking of stupid, Mitt is not going to discount the south. I don’t know why this dumb idea has legs. Are they his base? Of course not. But avoid altogether? Not going to happen.

———

misty

mistythestripper on February 24, 2010 at 2:37 AM

entagor on February 24, 2010 at 2:27 AM

Contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin is not stupid. Examine all the decisions she has made since her resignation announcement on July 3rd, 2009 and I would dare you to point out one glaring UNFORCED ERROR she made.

If you missed it, the NYT about 2 weeks ago printed that Palin has been receiving daily briefings from Washington insiders for several months now.

She now has over 1.4m members on her Facebook; she polls either #1 or #2 in national and state polls. She is either #1 or #2 on Intrade. It is now between Romney and her. Nobody is now close. Huckabee has apparently slipped in every poll except for PPP.

Yes, Palin has momentum, but much of that momentum is based on her not making any missteps along the way.

Romney’s endorsement of McCain was a huge UNFORCED ERROR. This can only benefit Palin with the Tea party movement.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 2:39 AM

Only if reagan was too damaged. he was at about the same point in the polls in 1979

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Yeah, but polls aside, Reagan was big-picture thinker long before he ran for president. He had opinions about how America and the world should be shaped and how it could be accomplished.

Palin supports the troops, sure, but how would she shape the world? How would she deal with China and the war on terrorism? How would she shape America? How would she reduce the size and scope of the federal government? There are many questions still unanswered.

There is still time for these questions to be answered, but not a lot. And her endorsement of McCain during a primary and the “retard” thing doesn’t inspire confidence, even though she is my default pick of the current pack, but only compared to Romney and Huckabee. As of now I’d prefer Liz Cheney and/or DeMint.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:41 AM

Terrie, how are your health issues? I hope prospects are good.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Maybe I got here too late or you’d rather not talk about it, (or maybe I misunderstood the situation back when). In any case, I’ve always enjoyed your comments and think of you often. I’m always disappointed when I see Terrye instead of Terrie. (No offense meant to Terrye.)

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:48 AM

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Thank you for your kindness and concern. I have been living with cancer for 7 years. I am in my 15th month of chemotherapy and started a new drug — an old drug that is new to me — in October, which is working well with few side effects. My tumor markers, which track the disease’s progression, are just above the normal range. I may transition to a maintenance chemo dose like Tony Snow’s doctors tried to do with him wherein the cancer is treated as a chronic disease that can be contained for a period of time. I am very blessed that every treatment I’ve had has been effective for many months or years.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:50 AM

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:41 AM

Palin answered many of these questions in her speech in Hong Kong in September. But having said that, bearing in mind she is getting daily briefings, Palin has plenty of time to get her ducks in a row; after all the first primary debates don’t start till summer 2011.

Meanwhile she has taken on the task of taking down Obama and the Democrats. Have you noticed that Obamacare has not passed yet. Could death panels had something to do with it? Read her Facebook posts on global warming, energy development, the deficit, the state of the economy and the dollar, the nuclear capabilities of Iran, her attacks on the socialist trend of Obama’s agenda and you will come to the conclusion that the lady fully understands the problems that America faces.

This is not a time to propose solutions. It is a time to explain why Obama’s radical agenda will not work and will in turn destroy the American economy. There will be time enough for specifics.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 2:51 AM

I am in the base and I do not view him suspiciously because of Romneycare. That is a state program, created for a liberal state and paid for by them. Who cares?

entagor on February 24, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Well I sure do. It reveals his true inclinations. Romney supported using the power of government, (federal or state, doesn’t matter), to force people to buy something simply for being alive.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:53 AM

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:50 AM

My heartiest wishes for improved health and long life.

Feedie on February 24, 2010 at 3:01 AM

Yeah, but polls aside, Reagan was big-picture thinker long before he ran for president. He had opinions about how America and the world should be shaped and how it could be accomplished.

Palin supports the troops, sure, but how would she shape the world? How would she deal with China and the war on terrorism? How would she shape America? How would she reduce the size and scope of the federal government? There are many questions still unanswered.

There is still time for these questions to be answered, but not a lot. And her endorsement of McCain during a primary and the “retard” thing doesn’t inspire confidence, even though she is my default pick of the current pack, but only compared to Romney and Huckabee. As of now I’d prefer Liz Cheney and/or DeMint.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 2:41 AM

The woman has a 20 year record of EXECUTIVE LEVEL governance. You can go look at her record to see what she would do.

Did you not hear her speech in China on global economic issues? Have you not read all of the op-eds she has written on energy and monetary policy?

Hell, have you not read her book? A Rush said, it’s one of the best policy books ever written. You read her book and you’ll know EXACTLY how she will govern.

Look, I like Liz and DeMint as well, but neither one of them have a day of executive experience. Not a day. A person needs that to be an effective POTUS.

BTW, Palin has more executive experience, CHIEF EXECUTIVE experience, than any other “legitimate” POTUS hopeful out there. Even better, her record is full of accomplishment, and she doesn’t have a bunch of blunders she has to apologize for. Can’t say that about the rest.

We need DeMint where he is, in the Senate, and Liz certainly has a role to play. But only Palin has the right stuff to be POTUS at this point in history.

gary4205 on February 24, 2010 at 3:02 AM

Palin has plenty of time to get her ducks in a row; after all the first primary debates don’t start till summer 2011.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 2:51 AM

Yeah, she has time, but not a LOT of time. My point is that Reagan made policy speeches, (or at least big-picture speeches), before his first presidential debates.

Compared to Romney and Huckabee she is my de-facto candidate as of now, (of those that are being polled), but she needs to start delving into the big-picture issues soon, IMO, especially foreign policy, which she doesn’t have much of a record on aside from supporting the troops and an ambiguous WOT.

And last I heard she hasn’t backed off of her position on Shamnesty, which mirrors McCain’s, so I’m hoping the open-borders crowd makes another failed attempt at it before ’12 rolls around, forcing her to take a stand one way or the other.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 3:04 AM

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:50 AM

Your reference to Tony Snow is disconcerting. I hope you’re just using it as an example of a technique and that your prospects are brighter.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 3:15 AM

Palin answered many of these questions in her speech in Hong Kong in September.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 2:51 AM

At least two of you have mentioned it and I don’t think I’ve seen it. I’ll try to check into it tomorrow, but if you have a link handy it would be appreciated.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 3:17 AM

Update: A commenter objects that Romney wasn’t talk radio’s favored candidate in 2008. …I suppose that’s fair enough.

Every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in. Seriously, how can you say with a straight face that Mitt Romney wasn’t talk radio’s favored candidate in 2008? Conservative talk radio did everything they could to elect Romney in the 2008 election. Sean Hannity endorsed Romney on his radio program. Laura Ingraham endorsed Romney on her show too. Live! On-Air! Limbaugh, Bennett, Prager, Beck, Levin, Savage, and Hewitt… they were all trying to persuade voters to vote for Romney! Every one of these flunkies of the GOP establishment shilled for that two-faced, double barrelled phony! That’s how pathetic the so-called conservative movement is folks — what a joke it is. I mean, sheesh, it’s just insane! Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. By the way, this corporation Bain Capital is wonderful. Supporting the transfer of dangerous technology to Communist China that can be used against America, Israel, and other American allies. Selling sensitive and dangerous technology to an enemy of the United States. Mitt Romney should have been a no-go for that reason alone. Hey… anybody know how many of these radio hosts work for Clear Channel Communications? Just curious.

apacalyps on February 24, 2010 at 3:29 AM

No, really, this time I must go. Seriously. You guys stay though, I don’t mind.

apacalyps on February 24, 2010 at 3:31 AM

Seriously, how can you say with a straight face that Mitt Romney wasn’t talk radio’s favored candidate in 2008?

apacalyps on February 24, 2010 at 3:29 AM

Easily.

They, (Rush and Mark), stayed out of it until the field was winnowed down to McCain, Huckabee and Romney. Of the three, they felt that Romney was the least bad, IMO, which I think Mark made pretty clear, though in a more positive voice. Rush too, though I don’t recall his attitude as clearly.

Personally, I felt at the time that Romney and McCain were fairly interchangeable, and said so here at the time even though I didn’t like either of them, and most here jumped into Romney’s camp. They’re both RINO’s and while Romney was stronger on economics, McCain was stronger on foreign policy. A wash.

Sorry, Apacalyps, but I didn’t even consider Huckabee, any more than I considered Pat Robertson. Incidentally, I think the only state that Pat Roberson won was my state.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 3:46 AM

McCain was stronger on foreign policy

…though weak on national security in general.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 3:53 AM

There are 45 million of us who voted for McCain. Most of you people here.

It REALLY pains me to see Rush going after Romney over this. I would prefer Hayowrth as well. Also Rubio in Florida is Amazing.

But Mitt Romney has my loyalty all the way.

He is among the most decent human beings and competent leaders I have ever witnessed in my life. I cannot abandon that. He know’s what he is doing.

scotash on February 24, 2010 at 3:58 AM

I think Rush may be right on this and I think AP underestimates just how much we outside the NYC-DC-Boston bubble really, really,…..really despise McCain. Rightly or wrongly, he is now the embodiment of everything wrong with the GOP and everything we ‘bitter clingers’ can’t stand any longer.

JimP on February 24, 2010 at 6:01 AM

But only Palin has the right stuff to be POTUS at this point in history.

gary4205 on February 24, 2010 at 3:02 AM

Only a true Palinbot could make the statements you did and believe them.
Objectivity and critical analysis of her is tough if not impossible. Try reading the following: remember, reading doesn’t mean you have to agree but it may open your mind to the possibility that she isn’t as much of a giant as you opine.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/16/a_north_star_fades_104418.html

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23532

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/16/president_palins_long_odds_in_2012_104420.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/18/mutual_loathing_society_104450.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071330757893248.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Bradky on February 24, 2010 at 6:16 AM

The GOP is to RINOs like some of those inner-city moms are to their perpetually in trouble sons -supporting them as being right and in the process they take down the son -the family -the culture – and the nation. Helping no one.

We need to start using RINOs in the very same way they’ve used traditional family valued people – help us when we need it. After this Marxist blitzkrieg is over give them a stern lecture -a whuppin and send them to their rooms without supper. If they threaten to bolt – show them a poster of Arlen Spector and offer them a tea-bag and bus fare.

Don L on February 24, 2010 at 6:28 AM

Neither Romney nor McCain would fight Obama hard enough or protect the US hard enough, both during the election season, and during Obama’s first year. Neither deserves back into public office. If I ever had to vote for either again, it would be because for one reason or another, I’d decided to prolong my dying.

JiangxiDad on February 24, 2010 at 6:42 AM

“Romney’s “concede the south” strategy is, and as impressive as the growth of the tea-party movement may be, there’s no reason to believe that a center-right candidate is doomed to fail against a more conservative one in the primary,”

Here’s the problem with that analysis — its the census dude!

Most likely the 2010 census will do the same the last one did. Fewer districts in the NorthEast and MidWest. More districts in the South and SouthWest. So Romney is betting on the old NE – RustBelt paradigm of days gone by. Might work in the primaries, but it will cream him in the general. Is the GOP so stupid as to pick a candidate that willing abandons the South, knowing that since the postwar period no President has ever been elected that did not carry at least a majority of the old Confederacy?

Dr. Dog on February 24, 2010 at 6:55 AM

Rush says:

These endorsements are unnecessary. What is there to gain by this? …This is Romney wanting McCain’s endorsement in 2012 if he runs for president.

Rush is overstating the case, calling this suicidal. This is not about Romney wanting McCain’s endorsement in 2012 so much as it is about Romney betting McCain wins, and wanting to be on good terms with a powerful and experienced hand in the Senate should Romney himself win.

Romney is a center-right politician, and this endorsement will not hurt him with the center-right. For the primaries, he has apparently written off the socon vote that is so determinative in the South, for reasons which are apparent to anyone who reads the posters here. Most socons not only hate him, they will never vote for a Mormon. He loses little, and gains a friend in the Senate.

As for those socons who will stay home in the general election if he is the nominee, Romney will pick up moderate Independents, conservative Democrats, and every Libertarian and Conservative who find another four years of Obama unacceptable. It won’t hurt him.

entropent on February 24, 2010 at 6:56 AM

Romney isn’t the reason Obama and the Dems are on the ropes now. So he’s not deserving of the Presidency. Find the person who did the most to destroy Obamism, and give it to him/her. That person has their priorities straight.

JiangxiDad on February 24, 2010 at 7:00 AM

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:50 AM

God bless you

True_King on February 24, 2010 at 7:08 AM

Will the gray-haired Lefties at HotAir please put away their hairspray for a moment and think clearly of what is happening in this country? The TIDAL WAVE of anger and dissatisfaction is coming – and Romney is DEAD on arrival – it doesn’t matter whether or not he sucks up to McCain – McCain is dead too…………as is the HUCKster. The wave is only for true conservatives………..Sarah is going to sweep them all out to sea and that includes Greek Temple Messiah and Mrs. Messiah. Amen.

Cinday Blackburn on February 24, 2010 at 7:11 AM

I heard part of this on the radio and Rush also went after people on the right who keep telling him that the Republicans suck and he sucks for not saying it. He said that if they really felt that way, they should get out from in front of their keyboards and go out and show people all those people they say suck…how it is done. I was kind of surprised that Rush went off on them that way. He also said that the problem is not the Republicans, and that includes Romney, the problem is the Democrats and this White House who want to turn Americ into the USSR West.

I don’t think it really matters who Romney endorses. One way or the other. Hayworth is not Rubio, he has a lot of baggage when it comes to ethics and the last time he ran on immigration, he got beat. I have read that some tea party people actually prefer McCain, just because of Hayworth’s history of supporting earmarks. Hell if I know, I think a lot of people are out there speaking for Tea Party people who may or may not actually represent them. In fact they may not be of one mind on this anyway.

The people of Arizona know both of these men pretty well, I am sure they can make the decision without a lot of input from everyone else.

Terrye on February 24, 2010 at 7:14 AM

entropent on February 24, 2010 at 6:56 AM

True that. HuckaBigot will probably run and Romney will need McCain.

csdeven on February 24, 2010 at 7:15 AM

The wave is only for true conservatives………..Sarah is going to sweep them all out to sea and that includes Greek Temple Messiah and Mrs. Messiah. Amen.

Cinday Blackburn on February 24, 2010 at 7:11 AM

Sarah endorsed McCain too, you know.

Terrye on February 24, 2010 at 7:15 AM

Rush is overstating the case, calling this suicidal. This is not about Romney wanting McCain’s endorsement in 2012 so much as it is about Romney betting McCain wins, and wanting to be on good terms with a powerful and experienced hand in the Senate should Romney himself win.

entropent:

I think this is true. I know people who hate McCain think that everyone else should feel the same way, but McCain has won a lot of elections in Arizona and Romney might well feel he is going to win this one. Hayworth’s past association with people like Abramoff might hurt him more than his supporters realize. We shall see.

Terrye on February 24, 2010 at 7:20 AM

Sorry, Romney’s lost me with this gaffe. Better if he remained neutral than going back to the same old, same old. I understand the loyalty factor where Sarah Palin is concerned, but this definitely makes Romney look wishy-washy and hard for me to trust as a presidential candidate anymore. And as for McCain, now that his wife Cindy has gone loony like daughter Meaghan, it’s so time to clean house of these wishy-washy-democrat-wannabees.

mozalf on February 24, 2010 at 7:32 AM

Sarah endorsed McCain too, you know.

Terrye on February 24, 2010 at 7:15 AM

That’s kinda funny. She barely endorsed McCain when she ran with him.

JiangxiDad on February 24, 2010 at 7:34 AM

OK, I support McCain, but what I don’t understand is how Romney came to support him? both McCain and Huckabee held grudges against Romney and singled him out with bitter attacks after the campaign was over. Huck, in typical un-preacher like fashion, still holds a grudge and I bet McCain does too yet he still accepted this endorsement.

McCain does NOT like Romney, but Romney still endorsed him. Romney easily could have remained silent or went the other way and nobody would have thought anything. I think he just followed in Palin’s footsteps but the smarter thing to do, politically, would be to back Hayworth and generate healines. Maybe he just did what he felt was right and backed the better Candidate, which is clearly McCain over Hayworth who might lose the general election and cost us a Senate seat.

Daemonocracy on February 24, 2010 at 7:36 AM

entropent(6:56am), once again I agree with what you’ve written(great minds think alike I guess). The whole “I hate Romney” thing is based on religious bigotry. I left the Republican Party in 1986 because of religious bigotry in the party. Still voted Republican everytime as I won’t pull the trigger for the Socialist Dems.

Everyone thinks Reagan was a Saint. He was perfect for the first term, but screwed the party by kow-towing to religious bigots for votes in the second term, which has turned off a lot of non evangelicals for years. I consider myself a Barry Goldwater conservative, not a Reagan conservative for that reason. Goldwater was a REAL conservative. The only candidate that follows that line of thinking is Wayne Allen Root who is running for the Libertarian Party in 2012. He was a staunch Republican until the party left him. Two great books are “Conscience of a Conservative” by Barry Goldwater and “Conscience of a Libertarian” by Wayne Allen Root. This is TRUE conservatism. I’d like people to at least read Root’s book and say they don’t agree with him 99%. I’d like to see the Republican Party sway him to become Republican again. As you can read from his book, he is the anti-Obama.

Anyway, agree with your post. The Socons think they are the base of the party and I think getting rid of them would be compensated many times over by dissaffected Republicans and ex-Republicans like myself. They are an overly vocal minority. Let the flames begin……….

adamsmith on February 24, 2010 at 7:39 AM

Terrye on February 24, 2010 at 7:20 AM:

You make a good point that Hayworth has a lot more baggage than many folks outside of AZ realize.

Personally, I don’t hate McCain, but then, I like to think I don’t hate anyone. Of the people I strongly dislike, he’s near the top of my list. But I voted for him anyway, as many people who felt the same way did. In the two-party system, it really pretty much always boils down to the lesser of two evils. It will be the same in 2012. Most will come out for whoever the Republican nominee is, some will stay home. Fewer will stay home this time than did for McCain, though, as Obama is so clearly in over his head.

entropent on February 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM

Update: A commenter objects that Romney wasn’t talk radio’s favored candidate in 2008. He certainly was among the McCain/Mitt/Huckabee big three, but if you include Fred Thompson in the equation, I suppose that’s fair enough.

True, but backing Fred Thompson got us where exactly? Could there be a lesson there for 2012?

Buy Danish on February 24, 2010 at 7:48 AM

It’s just the latest example of Romney squishiness on issues. Besides RomneyCare is his albatross.

But then again, maybe he’s maneuvering for a Romney/Palin ticket and getting chummy with McCain might get him there, since he knows that Palin is rock-solid loyal.

EMD on February 24, 2010 at 7:49 AM

*sigh*

franksalterego on February 24, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Uh, AP, Mitt Romney wasn’t El Rushbo’s favored candidate from 2008. He became a choice ONLY as an alternative to John McCain.

So it isn’t like Rush is eating one of his own.

pdigaudio on February 24, 2010 at 8:03 AM

I didn’t use to believe in the “all politicians are the same” mantra or the “both parties are the same”. I’ve come to the point where I don’t care anymore.

Romney endorsing McCain after Palin endorses McCain. I mean WTF? Palin is supposed to be the savior for conservatives and she endorses the guy who was that close to being Kerry’s VP? And then Scott Brown’s very 1st vote is for Porkulus #2? And then Rommeny, Mr. “I have seen the light and I am now a conservative, really, I mean it” also endorses that RINO POS McCain? And all this of course after 8 years of drunken sailor spending by another supposed conservative.

For all the Dems’ faults at least they are true to themselves. They are socialists and make no bones about it. I don’t agree with that they do, but I have to begrudingly respect their honesty. On the GOP side they’re nothing but opportunists who will say/do anything to get elected and then piss in the face of the very people who did the most to get them there.

angryed on February 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM

Mitt, if he wins the gop nomination, would be another lesser of two evils vote getter. We want someone we can vote for, not have to choose between. How is it the McCain wields so much power in the party. Who’s actually in charge behind the scene and why is it always an old white man who’s the face of the party. Go, Sarah!

Kissmygrits on February 24, 2010 at 8:18 AM

How many times does it have to be said that Rush did not endorse anyone in the 2008 GOP primary?

This was an unforced error on Mitt’s part. He will never need McCain’s endorsement; it won’t matter.

DaydreamBeliever on February 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM

For all the Dems’ faults at least they are true to themselves. They are socialists and make no bones about it. I don’t agree with that they do, but I have to begrudingly respect their honesty. On the GOP side they’re nothing but opportunists who will say/do anything to get elected and then piss in the face of the very people who did the most to get them there.

I don’t think I could have put it better myself. While there is no one I agree with 100 percent of the time, the most I can deal with is 75 to 80 percent. What I am sick of is political opportunists grabbing conservative issues, using them to get into power, then offering the SSDD of Republicrats and Demopublicans.

pdigaudio on February 24, 2010 at 8:24 AM

Oh, for reference, SSDD = Same S*** Different Day.

pdigaudio on February 24, 2010 at 8:25 AM

True, but backing Fred Thompson got us where exactly? Could there be a lesson there for 2012?

Buy Danish on February 24, 2010 at 7:48 AM

yeah don back fred thompson. He did not have the fire in his belly. back instead a conservative that will fight with everything he/she has for the cause. don’t back a squish like fred or Mitt that there is the lesson to take away

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM

At least two of you have mentioned it and I don’t think I’ve seen it. I’ll try to check into it tomorrow, but if you have a link handy it would be appreciated.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2010 at 3:17 AM

the speech transcript was posted on her facebook page

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 8:31 AM

If Romney has lost Rush, he can kiss being president goodbye.

rollthedice on February 24, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Bradky on February 24, 2010 at 6:16 AM

Your obsession with liberal commentators is well known…and you found one (I could find more then one) “conservative” commentator, Dorothy, who has had it in for Palin from the beginning.
So you quote basically the NYT and some Euoropean commentators about Palin…we can find hundreds of others to counter.
It just shows you read liberals, we read consevatives…we each have our sources.
You have MSNBC, we have Fox…which one is more dominant? Which one is more respected? Which one is more balanced.
You might want to read (or listen) a real feminists view on Palin…the woman who was the president of NOW (L.A.), gay, activist, campaigned for Boxer and Feinstein, and a huge fan of Sarah Palin….Tammy Bruce, Google and you will see another side.

right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 8:36 AM

The left tried to discredit him, but he had a track record and well known convictions to counter their attacks.

I am rooting for Sarah, but her positions past and present are still largely unknown. Whether she is a genuine conservative or a right-leaning populist remains to be seen.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:04 AM

and yet the press still attacked him at every oppurtunity. it is not the person they attack it is the ideas behind the person.

If you take the top student from Yale with a masters from havard and a PHD from MITT and he starts talking about federalism, limited gov, proud to be american, fiscal sanity, cutting spendinf the press would protray that person as a stupid idiot. that’s what marxists do

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 8:36 AM

am rooting for Sarah, but her positions past and present are still largely unknown. Whether she is a genuine conservative or a right-leaning populist remains to be seen.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:04 AM

the only way her positions remain unknown is if you have not been paying attention

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 8:37 AM

If you take the top student from Yale with a masters from havard and a PHD from MITT and he starts talking about federalism, limited gov, proud to be american, fiscal sanity, cutting spendinf the press would protray that person as a stupid idiot. that’s what marxists do

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Thomas Sowell is a perfect example of what you state.

Sowell is a delusional idiot.

I often wonder if he really believes the crap he spews. He seems smarter than that.

Uncle Tom Sowell

But could never find any liberal attacking Sowell for his policies and theories.
They know that intellectually they can’t attack truth and honesty…so Sowell becomes a delusional idiot for being smarter then them…strange those liberals.

right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM

the only way her positions remain unknown is if you have not been paying attention

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 8:37 AM

Some of the strangest posts…someone, after a best seller, and speeches specifically outlining her policies, her history and past actions clearly investigated and “vetted”…some one writes “but her positions past and present are still largely unknown”.
It boggles my mind…the most written about, talked about political person the past two years, and some one doesn’t know her policies…unbelievable.

right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 8:48 AM

I just wish Mitt would be humble, come down to earth, and step back. He would be a real asset as a VP, or a top cabinet pick, or an “economy czar” to kick start this economy.
But he is too arrogant, to full of himself, to political, to actually want to serve the country in the most humble and effective way.
He will just muck up the process of selecting a conservative to lead the country…his money and cronies will just get in the way.

right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Rush is right. He is pretty much always right.

WaltzingMtilda on February 24, 2010 at 1:46 A
//
Yeah,what is his rating now about 99.7%?:)mmm,mmm,mmm!

ohiobabe on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Rush is right… Romney just upset my confidence in him greatly. John McCain is a great American, a war hero for sure. That being said, John McCain sponsored or co-sponsored several pieces of legislation that has harmed Americans and our freedoms. I also don’t trust what took place in the 2008 presidential election as it relates to McCain. No candidate running for the most powerful position in the world would manage a campaign that badly. This leaves me with only two choices as to what happened.

1> McCain really is that lame.
2> The fix was in.

Keemo on February 24, 2010 at 9:10 AM

adamsmith on February 24, 2010 at 7:39 AM

Barry Goldwater didn’t write Conscience of a Conservative, he merely skimmed over it and approved it.

Daemonocracy on February 24, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Romney didn’t need to endorse McCain. So why did he? He had all kinds of cover to ignore the race completely.

Romney should have kept his mouth shut on this one. Bad instincts.

spmat on February 24, 2010 at 9:32 AM

I don’t think Romneycare’s endorsement of Mac is either surprising or risky for him. Both are centrists, and Mittens wants to succeed to Mac’s spot as the candidate of choice for Party insiders, libs and the lame stream media. Seriously, how many of the hard right and tea party types who really dislike Mac were going to end up in Mittens’ camp?

I don’t care who Mittens endorses or who endorses him. I know with certainty he is not my guy for 2012.

james23 on February 24, 2010 at 9:45 AM

For a few weeks, yes Fred might have been “endorsed” by conservative talk radio. But they quickly fell out of love with him once he showed he was a joke candidate. Romney was their true love however.

Speedwagon82 on February 24, 2010 at 9:46 AM

I can’t quite track Rush on this one. First of all, endorsements rarely mean that much. Active campaigning can make a difference, but endorsements are good for a few minutes of chatter.

Second, I can’t see the problem with reelecting McCain. He’s a decent man. Yes, he lost the election, but come on. It would have been miraculous had he not lost.

Sounds to me like it’s the purity stuff again. Arizona voters can decide what is best for them right now.

AnninCA on February 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM

If anything McCain plucking her too early from the tree has permanently hurt Palin. We have in essence wasted a bright young star who had a great future on an old failure like McCain.
echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 1:54 AM

I know your point was to criticize McCain and not dump on Palin, but you seem to be buying the allahpundit spin that Palin is already finished.

Let’s not forget about allahpundit–he condemned Mac’s selection of her right out of the gate in late August, 2008, urging him to exercise the “eagleton option.” He hasn’t changed his tune and never will. Where Palin is concerned, allahpundit has something bordering on an unhealthy obsession.

On the subject of whether Palin is finished, all you need to do is look at the crowds and press she draws at all of her events. Mittens, TPaw and crew would kill to be finished like her.

james23 on February 24, 2010 at 9:56 AM

She should have had the fortitude to tell him to bug off. Her stature would have increased, she won’t get much credit for being the loyal soldier to a RINO.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 2:01 AM

I don’t think so, and I say this as one who would not vote for him in the primary if I lived in AZ. Once she said yes to his invite to be on the ticket back in Aug 08, she was on the hook to campaign for him if he asked. And he asked. She would have looked horrible to refuse. It would have been dishonorable, and she’d have been (rightly) ripped to shreds.

Now maybe you are of the view that she should have told him No back in Aug 08 when he asked her onto the ticket. That’s a debateable but fair point, but I am glad she said yes. I’m not sure I would have voted in NOv 08 if it was Mac/Mitt or Mac/tPaw or Mac/Joe running against Obama. As it was, I was delighted to vote for Mac/Palin.

james23 on February 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM

am rooting for Sarah, but her positions past and present are still largely unknown. Whether she is a genuine conservative or a right-leaning populist remains to be seen.

Terrie on February 24, 2010 at 2:04 AM

No one can force you to read her book, her WaPo commentaries, her facebook posts, and no one can force you to watch her speeches on you tube, of which there have been many recently. Her positions are well publicized and easily knowable. If they are still unknown to you, that is on you.

You ought to check out her book, its a great read, and you will finish knowing more about her than I’ll wager you’ve ever known about any other public figure who was not already President. And you will have no doubts about her conservative bona fides.

james23 on February 24, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Claiming that Sarah Palin is politically finished is akin to Japan declaring, that after it attacked Pearl Harbor, that the United States, the world’s richest nation, was finished.

Sarah Palin is currently nip and tuck with Romney as the Top 2. Some national polls show Romney ahead while others show Palin ahead for the GOP primaries. But until I see otherwise Huckabee appears to be going in the wrong direction.

But back to Romney. His UNFORCED ERROR in endorsing McCain threatens to send many TP members into Palin’s camp. Thanks Mitt.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Lets not forget that this is the man who couldn’t buy a primary election victory except to squeak one out in Michigan. He’s not The One. Endorsing McCain is a fool’s errand.

kens on February 24, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Lets not forget that this is the man who couldn’t buy a primary election victory except to squeak one out in Michigan. He’s not The One. Endorsing McCain is a fool’s errand.

kens on February 24, 2010 at 10:12 AM

That’s funny. I didn’t watch much about the GOP primaries, so I didn’t know.

What you say, however, tracks with me. I think it’s funny to presume that he wouldn’t lose big, too, in a lot of states.

AnninCA on February 24, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Impossible for Palin to stay out? Ah no. She doesn’t owe McCain a damn thing. When he is asked about her future prospects he refuses to endorse her so p*ss on him. If anything McCain plucking her too early from the tree has permanently hurt Palin. We have in essence wasted a bright young star who had a great future on an old failure like McCain. He has done enough damage, time for the leaders of the party to tell him to move on.

echosyst on February 24, 2010 at 1:54 AM

Bingo. I daresay Palin would have been a successful dark horse for 2012 if McCain hadn’t picked her.

Speedwagon82 on February 24, 2010 at 10:23 AM

unseen on February 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Fred Thompson isn’t a “squish”. He was just a very poor candidate who wasn’t willing to do the hard work it takes to win. That was apparent very early on.

His wife rocks though.

Buy Danish on February 24, 2010 at 10:32 AM

If he jumps in for Rubio — the earlier the better —

Too late to be considered jumping in early if and when he endorses Rubio. He may or may not endorse him but at this point it would look like waiting to see who looked like the likely winner since that seems to be his pattern.

KittyLowrey on February 24, 2010 at 10:34 AM

My goodness, that opener went on and on trying to make something out of Rush’s mild and sensible observations. The point is simple, Romney didn’t have to endorse Hayworth…he didn’t have to endorse anybody in the race.

KittyLowrey on February 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Rommey was at the top of my list till now. I was hoping for a Rommey/Palin ticket, now I have to start all over.

lperello on February 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Sounds to me like it’s the purity stuff again. Arizona voters can decide what is best for them right now.
AnninCA on February 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM

I’m inclined to agree with you, Anne. Everyone agrees it’s a bad thing when the much-reviled “Republican Establishment” tries to rule from the top down agitating for their favored candidates in the primary. How is it then somehow a good thing for the “Purity Brigades” to select everybody else’s primary candidate themselves coming from the other end of the party power structure?

Everyone has a right to their long-distance opinions, but this is Arizona’s primary. Let Arizonans figure out if JDH is the guy they want to be their advocate in the Senate or not.

The hallowed Grass Roots has already proven it can be just as spectacularly wrong-headed as the Beltway crowd has ever been bestowing its blessings to candidates from afar (viz. Debra Medina). As a Texan, I’m somewhat mystified as to how Rick Perry has now morphed into the ‘true conservative’ choice of the RINO-busting crowd even though (sigh) I’ll probably end up voting for him, so I’m pretty skeptical about the Puritistas’ long-distance judgement these days, myself.

The Puritistas seem to be mysteriously selective about the candidates for whom they choose to turn on their high-dudgeon about the mortal sin of ‘flip-flopping’ so they’ve got almost as many credibility problems with me these days as does the beltway elite.

leilani on February 24, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Romney would never have done this if HOT AIR had even ONE PERCENT of the influence we think we have.

jay12 on February 24, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Crist screwed him two years ago by backing McCain so Mitt should have no reservations

And McCain screwed Mitt in West Virginia (?) when he told his supporters to back Huckabee instead of letting Romney get a win. So why is Mitt giving JohnnyMac his backing now? and why shouldn’t he give Crist his endorsement as well? you screw me now, I’ll endorse you later seems to be in full swing.

And Rush is right on this. Mitt is backing a man who routinely ignores the 11th commandment? no, thanks.

I R A Darth Aggie on February 24, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Whatever folks may thing about Rush Limbaugh having too much influence or power on GOP politics, he is like the Godfather. If you screw up and he calls you on it, you are in deep do-do with the conservative movement and grassroots of the GOP.

technopeasant on February 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4