Rush Limbaugh: Today's GOP 'Is Filled With Moderates'

newsmax.com ^ | 12/11/14 | Melissa Clyne

[Revel]

Rush was MIA for many years as well as far as I am concerned. A lot was lost during that time. I am glad he is back on board-I hope.

[central_va]

I came of age in the 70’s and then Reagan came along and I thought he is what the Republican Party stood for. Well Reagan was a one-off anomaly. The Republican of today are more liberal than the Democrats of the 1950’s and 60’s. Rush fell for the ruse like many others, me included.

[ArtDodger]

“Rush fell for the ruse like many others, me included.”
We all did. Finally, even the most dense are seeing the light. Mark Levin is coming around, too. All these talk radio guys fooled themselves with the ‘Let’s at least get moderates in the offices.. later, we can change them to conservatives’ meme. Now that the country is crumbling to dust, they are beginning to suspect we have a larger problem. Welcome aboard, Guys. Let’s Roll!

[jjsheridan5]

As long as the system remains the same, this is the correct answer, as a third party will result in democrats getting elected.

There is no evidence for this, at all. In fact, it is an overly simplistic view. If conservatives splintered off, both the Democrats and Republicans would lose voters, at roughly equal rates. Democrats would lose large numbers of their disaffected voters (a sizable group) to the Republicans, as a conservative-less Republican party would be a tolerable alternative to these voters. The Republicans would gain voters from the Democrats, but would lose a larger number to the newly formed party, for a net negative.

The idea that Democrats would dominate a three party layout is a mindfact, and nothing more. It is without basis, and fails under anything but the most superficial analysis.

[EternalVigilance]

When people stop organizing around party, and start organizing around truth and principle, we will be well on our way to saving the country and preserving liberty for our children and grandchildren. There are some good signs in this regard, as dark as these times have become.

[kosciusko51]

Ok, it depends if the third-party candidate is right-leaning or left-leaning, e.g. the ‘92 election and the Fla 2000 election.

So a strong third-party candidate will produce an outcome worse, from their voters’ perspective, than if they did not run.

And I have yet to see a third-party candidate win in a federal election that wasn’t supported by a major party, and I have not seen four strong candidates in a federal election.

You can dismiss me as simplistic, but I see no proof of what you claim.

[60Gunner]

"As long as the system remains the same, this is the correct answer, as a third party will result in democrats getting elected."

And you honestly believe that what we are stuck with right now- a Republican party that hands the win to the Democrats at every turn- is better than giving the quislings over to the Democrats and rallying true conservatives to a new party so that our values will actually be represented?

I have a news flash for ya. The Democrats are still in power, thanks to the culture of moral cowardice that characterizes the Republican party. And until WE get off our butts and make the change ourselves, even if it means storming the offices of our so-called "representatives," nothing will change.

Nothing else is working. Maybe putting some real fear into them will.

[pallis]

Another name for the GOPe, or moderate Republicans, is the Republican left. It removes the confusion. The Republican left is best distinguished from radical Democrats, by their subservience to the same. The Republican left hates conservatives more than the radical Democrats do, because conservatives cut into their numbers during primaries, and make courtesan life in the Democrat bed uncomfortable.

[kosciusko51]

You did not read the rest of my post, or if you did, you did not understand what I was saying.

[bgill]

Rush is insulting moderates.

[skinkinthegrass]

I came of age in the 70’s and then Reagan came along
and I thought he is what the Republican Party stood for.
Rush fell for the ruse like many others, me included.True..It could be said, the (Traitors) in GOP/e Ldrs. Class...
weren't Republican anyway..only of "convenience"/streetwalkers...

America's Own Axis of Weasels..

GOP/e
GivingO'BamaPower/everytime

[skinkinthegrass]

The Republican left hates conservatives more than the radical Democrats do, because conservatives cut into their numbers during primaries, and make courtesan life in the Democrat bed uncomfortable.OH! That's so true, esp. this year...

[Yashcheritsiy]

Some here will answer, “Vote GOP anyway. They’re our best bet.”

Yeah, it's a shame so many "conservatives" have battered wife syndrome.

[husky ed]

“Rush fell for the ruse like many others, me included.” We all did

Not all of us fell for it. The people like me that stuck to our guns and were saying that these people weren't Conservative. Or would flip, flop on their so called core values were called 'Single Issue Voters'.

So we had Dole (who was just a D.C. hack). Than Bush who I felt would do some good. But than they toss in McCain. My God the guy is a crook and a liberal. Followed by Romney.

Jesus H. just nominate a fricken Kennedy and get it over with.

Yep, the group mind on FreeRepublic was vote Republican. It's for the children.

Ed

ps; I did not vote for either McStain or Rummy. They did not represent my values or beliefs. And I do not donate cash to the RNC anymore as they do not listen to what the 'People' have to say.

[jjsheridan5]

Ok, it depends if the third-party candidate is right-leaning or left-leaning, e.g. the ‘92 election and the Fla 2000 election.

I am assuming that a third party will be formed by conservatives.

So a strong third-party candidate will produce an outcome worse, from their voters’ perspective, than if they did not run.

This is what makes it a simplistic argument. It only looks at the initial "realignment", and ignores all of the secondary effects.

And I have yet to see a third-party candidate win in a federal election that wasn’t supported by a major party, and I have not seen four strong candidates in a federal election.

And how big is the sample size, here? Ignoring all of the non-serious campaigns, that leaves Ross Perot as the only real modern example. He probably would have won, or come very close, had he not dropped out the first time around (remember, in polling it was a tight 3-way race at that point). I don't consider the Anderson campaign non-trivial, by the way, because he didn't represent any sizable voting block, but if you count that, non-major parties have been competitive half the time.

You can dismiss me as simplistic, but I see no proof of what you claim.

I didn't mean to imply that you were simplistic. Just that the argument itself is simplistic. Didn't mean to offend.

[kosciusko51]

No offense taken.

Yes, the sample size is small, but an actual small sample size is better than no sample size. I’m not sure how you define modern, but Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 is the best example of a strong third-party candidate splitting the R vote. He was far more popular than Perot, and still couldn’t win.

Also, I prefaced my comment with the system remaining the same. Until I see a third-party that can compete with the dems and reps, I stand by my comments.

[Jagdgewehr]

Indeed

There is likely an assortment of reasons why so many conservatives still vote for the effete, left-leaning, elitist Republicans despite the GOP's proclivity to insult and alienate conservatives. Regardless of their reasons, they're blind to the inevitable course. Liberties diminish, the middle class shrinks, socialism pervades to irreversible levels, office holders and elites become more tyrannical, immorality and corruption becomes the norm, the borders are overrun and the U.S. Constitution fades to oblivion. At the very least, the GOP is too cowardly to act. Mostly, they're complicit in all this.

There is not one damned good reason to support the GOP. None of my money and none of my votes. They can rot in Hell along with the Democrats.

You're not getting your country back, folks. Not without bloodshed.

[ArtDodger]

You are correct.. Not all fell for it. Some people were voices in the wilderness. Freepers, for the most part. One would have to be pretty thick to still believe these RINOs are kin to conservatives..