Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sarah Palin's McCain Conundrum
The Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | February 19, 2010 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 02/19/2010 2:47:52 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Don in Prescott, Arizona, great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.

CALLER: Pleasure to speak with you, Rush.

RUSH: Yes, sir.

CALLER: My question is in regards to Sarah Palin's support of John McCain in the Arizona senatorial race. She's allied herself with the tea party movement, but I can assure you, the Arizona tea party folks are not supporting John McCain. The chair of the Maricopa Republican Party -- you may have of heard this last week -- went on the news last week and stated that he doesn't even regard John McCain as a Republican. So I went to a J. D. Hayworth campaign rally on Tuesday of this week sponsored by the tea party, and John McCain got mostly boos when his name was mentioned. So I understand that Palin sees some allegiance to John McCain, but it's really terribly misplaced allegiance. So my question is, can anything be done to get her to support J. D. Hayworth, or is it too late at this point?

RUSH: Oh, it's too late. She's not going to bounce off of this.

CALLER: What are the implications for her -- you know, certainly she's supporting a candidate that's held in very low regard to the tea party movement.

RUSH: Yeah, but --

CALLER: What are the implications for her in all this?

RUSH: We talked about this the other day. I know a lot of people think that this is the part of cronyism in politics that's gotta change.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: However, if you're Sarah Palin, the one thing you know is that if it weren't for John McCain, nobody would know who you are right now.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: And there's, you know, she has some loyalty there. I'm more puzzled by Scott Brown endorsing McCain and then having McCain come into his district so Brown can campaign for him.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: Palin's not doing that.

CALLER: We're hoping that J. D. Hayworth's going to make it, but certainly Sarah Palin -- probably independents in Arizona would like the fact that she was here and supporting John McCain, but certainly the tea party movement is not in line with that.

RUSH: Well, I know. It's tough thing. I know why she's doing it. Look it: I haven't spoken to her about it, and I don't even want to put words in her mouth. I can only address this were I to be in her shoes. And she's a Republican, and she's made the case that she's a Republican, and this guy put her on the ticket, and had that not happened, she'd be "Sarah Who?" She owes him something.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, now, look, those of you out there in the tea party that are miffed at Sarah Palin and at Scott Brown, I just want to remind you of one thing, like I said the other day. If Sarah Palin had not endorsed McCain, can you imagine what the press would do to her? Can you imagine the refrain: "Oh, he's perfectly fine to be president, you'd run on the ticket with him as president, but he's not good enough to be Senator from Arizona?" They would kill her. And in the case of Scott Brown, McCain was the first senator to openly support Scott Brown. He was being totally ignored by every other Republican in the Beltway. It's the same deal, folks, it's just loyalty. It just is.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Arizona; Campaign News; Parties; State and Local; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: 2010; 2012; azwakeupcall; jdhayworth; mccain; mclaraza; palin; sarahpalin; scottbrown; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: Finny

McCain won the Republican nomination fair and square. Bush before him, Dole before that, etc. etc., etc. You get my point.


61 posted on 02/19/2010 5:00:44 PM PST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS

Thank you! You made my day.


62 posted on 02/19/2010 5:01:58 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com

McCain didn’t win the Republican nomination fair and square, because the primary process is neither fair nor square. Wake up.


63 posted on 02/19/2010 5:02:45 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Prove it! Each state is allowed to set their own parties’ nomination process. If you believe anyone in any state violated the law, make a claim.


64 posted on 02/19/2010 5:04:42 PM PST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com
Here's proof: By the time my primary came around in California, the ONE, the only, the sole candidate I would vote for, the sole candidate to whom I donated several hundred dollars, Fred Thompson, was gone; other states had in essence decided FOR me. I did the only thing I could do: I wrote in his name.

NONE of the other candidates were in essentials any different than voting for a Democrat, and I was NOT going to nominate a Democrat to a Republican primary. There was nothing fair nor square about that. Just because each state is allowed to set the nomination process, and many states allow Democrates to vote in those primaries, it by no means follows that it is either fair or square. The process is broken.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral; surely you know that. So just because the primary nomination process is the way it is, doesn't mean it's fair or square. IT ISN'T, and the proof was in McCain ending up as the nominee.

65 posted on 02/19/2010 5:14:05 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Finny
So by your logic,we should never try to vote our conscience,just someone thats a progressive so eventually the people will decide to go with a Republic? Why not should just vote straight Democrat ticket from now on?It will hasten the eventual pull back to a Republic,just one little problem,what do we do with the monolithic monstrosity of a governmental goliath thats created? Especially if they say “Oh hell no you don`t.’, and a significant number of sycophants say “We`re with you, dear leader Obama.”Can you say civil war?
66 posted on 02/19/2010 5:16:42 PM PST by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Finny

We’re talking about elections, not morality. If you don’t like how the Republican party does things in CA, then talk with the RNC in CA and make a change.

http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2008/primary/president/index.html#repub

According to the above link he was on the ballot. Why did you write him in?


67 posted on 02/19/2010 5:25:18 PM PST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: nomad

My conscience would never allow me to not vote for the person who I felt would make the best President.


68 posted on 02/19/2010 5:26:26 PM PST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: nomad

Well next time you will vote for Romney, because that is where you train is leading. Keep attacking Palin Romney-bot. And don’t comeback saying you don’t support Romney, because everyone knows that Palin is the only one out there capable of flattening the wheels on the Romney bus.


69 posted on 02/19/2010 5:27:47 PM PST by Sarah-bot ("I'm fit, I'm lite, and I sure ain't take'n' no [mitt]. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nomad
Voting one's conscience is a concept that I believe is illusion. To me, it's a matter of voting with thought and analysis.

And it is all, always, a gamble. You invest your vote the same way you invest your money: in the hopes that you're making the right long-term decision.

I am mindful of Einstein's definintion of insanity, of doing the same thing over and and over and expecting to get a different result. I have been voting a certain way over and over for more than 30 years, that "lesser of two evils" thing, always hoping for different results, and they always come out the same: the Republican party becomes more and more Democrat Lite. Government continues to grow, freedoms continue to be encroached, by the very party I HOPE will go the opposite direction. Yet I have been the one to vote for Republicans who have taken it in that opposite direction on the flawed premise (I now understand) that they were the lesser of two evils.

There is only ONE WAY for the Republican party to become less Liberal, and that is for liberal Republican candidates TO LOSE. From now on, that is how I will vote. I invite all Republicans who want to see a return to limited government conservatism to join me.

"Conscience" has nothing to do with it -- it's entirely self-interest. I want the government off my neck and back in the servants quarters where it belongs. For each of us, our vote is our each individual oar in the water, our each individual hand on the sails, to change the direction of the ship that's about to founder on Liberal shoals. I KNOW that now, and I understand that the ONLY way I can make the ship change course, is to cast my vote such that Liberal Republicans lose, and limited government conservative Republicans win. Period.

70 posted on 02/19/2010 5:28:51 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Sarah-bot

No,I never said I was a Republican,so I`ll vote third party before I vote for a Republicrat.


71 posted on 02/19/2010 5:30:01 PM PST by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com

Ok.Discussion ended.Bye bye people.


72 posted on 02/19/2010 5:30:59 PM PST by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This election is for the voters of Arizona to decide on the issues. Each voter needs to analyze the qualifications of the candidates and vote accordingly. Their vote should not be determined by the machinations of outside agitators.
73 posted on 02/19/2010 5:31:13 PM PST by Western Phil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curth

Nomad is a fraud. Don’t get a headache trying to convince staunch Palin detractors that Sarah is a true conservative. There are two types of people on here now Romney supporters and Palin supporters. Don’t trust what anyone says just judge by their actions and by where their actions will lead.


74 posted on 02/19/2010 5:32:09 PM PST by Sarah-bot ("I'm fit, I'm lite, and I sure ain't take'n' no [mitt]. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nomad

My bad you will vote for Obama by default.


75 posted on 02/19/2010 5:34:17 PM PST by Sarah-bot ("I'm fit, I'm lite, and I sure ain't take'n' no [mitt]. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: nomad; Sarah-bot

So when we get another Pres. William Clinton we can blame you.

I heard a rumor that Ralph Nader was thinking of running in 2012, I guess he’s your man.


76 posted on 02/19/2010 5:38:13 PM PST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com

This whole Tea Party thing is starting to look like an Alinsky style trick in order to blow away any hopes of a conservative resurgence. The self-righteous (Palin endorsed McCain) pukes want to destroy any hope of a Republican winning in 2012. In stead of the Tea Party allowing conservatism to flush out the Republican Party the Tea Party is being used to destroy a good person like Sarah Palin.


77 posted on 02/19/2010 5:41:05 PM PST by Sarah-bot ("I'm fit, I'm lite, and I sure ain't take'n' no [mitt]. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sarah-bot; nomad

Romney has a right to run in 2012. He wasn’t my guy in 2008, so unless someone else is on the primary ballot in AZ in 2012, I’d probably vote someone else.

BTW, there were around 20 people on the 2008 AZ Republican primary ballot in AZ. Its no wonder why McCain didn’t get a majority in his own State.


78 posted on 02/19/2010 5:41:52 PM PST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com

Good call on the Nader comment :-)


79 posted on 02/19/2010 5:42:23 PM PST by Sarah-bot ("I'm fit, I'm lite, and I sure ain't take'n' no [mitt]. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com

Romney has a right to run, and I don’t think anyone here is disputing that.


80 posted on 02/19/2010 5:44:15 PM PST by Sarah-bot ("I'm fit, I'm lite, and I sure ain't take'n' no [mitt]. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson