Rush Agrees With Me
I turned on Rush's show today for the first time since last week, and I note that he essentially has the same outlook on the presidential race as I do. I don't think that Huckster-bee has a shot at the nomination now, though he'll hang on at least through February 5, when Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia will be among the 22 states voting. But Crazy John McCain does have a shot, and his nomination would remove the last vestiges of Reaganism from the Republican Party. Many people call Crazy John the "most electable," because of his appeal to independents and Democrats. I disagree, since his nomination would alienate many rank-and-file conservatives. The GOP nominating McCain would be a lot like the Democrats nominating former Georgia Sen. Zell Miller. And when you think of the good solid conservative Republicans who might have run...
From Newsmax.com:
Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh stunned his listeners by announcing that he might not support the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election.
Limbaugh said on Monday’s show: "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life."
The reason: “You don’t have a genuine down-the-list conservative” among the GOP candidates.
“Wherever you go here in this roster of candidates, you're going to be able to point out ‘not conservative, what he did there is not conservative’” Rush said.
The Republican front-runners want the nomination “because it's their turn,” he also stated. “We tried that in '96 with Bob Dole and now they're running the same scenario…
"I'm telling ya, it's gonna come down to which guy do we dislike the least. And that's not necessarily good."
After Rush’s pronouncements, Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm wrote: “Across the country, people were dropping their coffee cups, choking on sandwiches, fainting and driving off the road. The king of conservative talk radio not supporting the Republican nominee?”
But Limbaugh’s remarks are not quite so surprising in light of statements he made about GOP candidates Mike Huckabee and John McCain last week:
“I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.”
posted by Steve Rankin | 11:39 AM
5 Comments:
There's no "down-the-line conservative" in the race?
I guess Ron Paul is just a figment of my imagination.
Rush obviously is referring to the candidates who have a chance to win the nomination. After losing in SC, Huckster-bee is all but finished, and we'll soon be hearing "Goodbye, Rudy Julie," sung to the tune of "Ruby Tuesday." I predict that it will come down to a Mitt vs. Crazy John race.
Besides, Rep. Paul is a libertarian conservative. The results of the primaries and caucuses held so far show that he doesn't have a great deal of popular support in the Republican Party. I believe he'll be on the November ballot as a third party or independent candidate.
Was he talking about who was likely to win? I didn't get that sense. I must have skipped a line or two.
I assumed that what he was probably referring to was someone who supports things like nation-building, legislating personal morals, and spending like a drunken sailor, as is typically the type of person considered to be a "conservative" these days.
Fortunatly, an actual conservative is anything but that and Ron Paul is a good example. If there is any "down-the-line conservative" still in the race, it's him and only him.
He's been the only actual conservative in the race from the beginning.
Most of our laws are related to morality. It is, for example, immoral to rob a bank.
Should we repeal the laws against bank robbery?
I share your admiration for Ron Paul, as I voted for him in 1988 and may well do so again this year. Rep. Paul, however, does not oppose laws dealing with morality.
Robbing a bank involves more than morality. It involves coercion and harm to property.
I've never seen Paul not support a law that opposes coercion and harm to property, whereas a law strictly about morality I have seen him oppose, which should be the (real) conservative thing to do.
If you have examples of Paul supporting coercion or morality alone, I would like to see them.
Post a Comment
<< Home