Posted on 12/21/2007 12:05:13 PM PST by Checkers
After today, Rush Limbaugh is in reruns until January 3, the day of the Iowa caucuses.
Highlight from a moment ago: "The drive bys are doing everything they can to influence the Republican primary. Mike Huckabee has been getting a pass from the drive-bys... They don't want Rudy because they think he can beat Hillary. They don't want Romney because of the same thing. They don't want Fred Thompson because of the same thing."
Can a guy who's been slammed as hard as Mike Huckabee has by Rush Limbaugh, the most popular conservative radio talk show host in the country, go on to win the Iowa caucuses? Anybody think Rush will have dropped this issue by the third of January?
My instinct is to say, "no way, a thumbs down from Rush is fatal," but a guy on another campaign cautions me. "An Iowa pastor who has been talking up Huckabee isn't going to change his mind because Rush Limbaugh doesn't like him." He points out that a pastors and religous leaders deal with people who fall short of their ideals all the time; hearing that Mike Huckabee was too merciful in dealing with Wayne Dumond is not going to be a dealbreaker for them. They'll probably go, no pun intended, "there but for the grace of God go I."
So... if a certain significant chunk of Huckabee's supporters back him because he's the most vocal Christian in the race, not because of the conservatism of his record or policy stances.... if the moment comes where the race needs a Huck Slayer (as social conservatives thought the race might require a Rudy Slayer)... can anybody in the race go after Huckabee on that ground? Can anyone make the argument to that Republican plurality, "Okay, nevermind conservative policy choices - he's not the good Christian leader you think he is"?
Tough ground to fight on. Just thinking out loud here, can a rival point out the ethics questions from Huckabee's Arkansas days? Is Huckabee's "innocent" question about Mormon beliefs the act of a good Christian? Is there something borderline blasphemous to compare opponents' direct mail to a Biblical verse describing "weapons" deployed against the righteous, or comparing one's campaign fundraising to the miracle of loaves and fishes?
Would Jesus hire Ed Rollins?
Mike Huckabee is Jimmy Carter
LLS
Rudy the corrupt liberal is a hundred times better than Huck the corrupt socialist.
Let me guess...you’re an avid listener to Michael Savage, right?
“Your saying Fred is your first choice and the Huckster is your second. Is like saying, Ronald Reagan is my first choice, but Hillary is my second. Makes no sense whatsoever.”
YEP! It makes no sense...great point
Rush talked about people like this, this morning.
He called them “Identity Voters.”
They are voters who vote for the woman because she’s a woman, for the black because he’s a black, etc.
These voters overlook the candidate’s shortcomings, and vote for them anyway.
This is what folks on the left do.
As illustrated in this article, we are now seeing it on the right, and I’ve seen it on this forum.
There are people who will overlook Huck’s shortcomings because he’s a Christian.
Nevermind that under his “leadership” Muslims will kill us, and we will be overrun by illegal aliens.
To them, the only things that matter are abortion and the homosexual agenda.
Those are very valid concerns, but they aren’t the only concerns.
Huck is right on those issues, but wrong on most everything else.
Every time Rush says anything about Huck, Ron Paul and I bring up or post what Rush said, many love to point out that Rush is only an entertainer.
Well I agree he is an entertainer who just happens to have enough influence to sell a stupid letter from Hairy Reid for over two million dollars.
Who happens to have 15 to 20 million listening everyday and most agree with just about every thing he says.
I would imagine that every candidate running for office would like to have that little of an influence on America.
Am I the only one who sees the hypocriticy in Rush taking on Huckabee but not doing anything to put the Flipping Mitt in his place? I lost allot of respect for Rush. If he wanted a real conservative to win the nomination he could have done more to help Thompson or Hunter. Lame.
That isn't what I said. Fred's my first choice. It doesn't look like he'll be an option by the time I get a chance to vote. So the question then becomes, 'which of the viable candidates is the least offensive?'
There's a big difference between 'second choice' and 'least offensive'.
I'm with you 100%
Well every time he says that he always comes back to soundly say Fred Thompson says this or says that and leans this way or that.
I believe that Rush really wants to see Fred Thompson as our candidate.
What do you think?
Just the lowly opinion of a red state wannabe.
Me too.
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
You have a point but only to a point. I've had some FReepers accuse me of being some flaming Lefty because I'll take positions that are contra on a few contentious issues within the Republican Party. After a few post, though, I have either handily defended myself and the accusations go away along with the FReeper or there's some constructive dialogue that follows.
But when you write something like this:
Most people understand by now that Rush is nothing more than a pill popping, thrice divorced hypocrite laughing all the way to the back because of the sheeple who continue to buy his line of b.s.
You might want to understand that most people really do not view Rush as a hypocrite. They do not care that he profits greatly from his radio show -- that in fact, they are very satisfied with his commentary and analysis and think he deserves the compensation he receives. And, most importantly, his message is far from being anything resembling b.s. [your claim], it is instead very enlightening, engaging, liberating, inspiring, and send great messages regarding how big government is problematic.
Rush does not have that much power.
Power is a strange word to use -- something I'd expect from someone sympathetic to Huckabee. But to deny that Rush has tremendous influence, particularly amongst the FReeper class, is a downright poorly thought out statement to make and shows a high level of ignorance on your part. You probably deserve the verbal beating that you are taking here at the moment. We would think that someone who has owned a FReeper account for the last eight years would use a little more wisdom than this.
So, most people at FR agree that Rush is very powerful and can take down Huckabee. You also think that he supports Thompson. Why doesn’t he take down Mitt? He doesn’t have to come out and support Thompson but he could do a better job pointing out Mitts glaring flips, lies and distortions. Instead he attacks Huckabee in an attempt to stem the Huckaboom and help Mitt. Did Rush even mention Thompson today?(I missed parts of the show) I heard him say the Rudy and Mitt have a just a couple of negatives but Huckabee is terrible. Translation: You have to choose between Rudy and Mitt.
Huckabee is better than Mitt in every way. I’d take Thompson over Huckabee but if he isn’t around by Oregon’s primaries I’ll be 100% behind Huckabee.
I think the key isn’t so much Rush’s opinion about Huckabee. That alone won’t sway that many opinions about Huck. It’s that Rush will start talking, over the air, about the left-wing parts of Huck’s record that most conservatives don’t know anything about. These are aspects of Huck’s record that the liberal media knows, but hasn’t thought to publicize because they agree with Huck on these issues and don’t find his positions objectionable. Conservatives who knew nothing about Huck except how personable and religious he seems, will now have second thoughts, as the scales fall from their eyes. Do conservatives want someone who communicates like Ronald Reagan, but governs like Jimmy Carter?
Is that open for debate or is that a case-closed statement that everyone else should see or needs to see? Ya know, some people actually think that Huckabee is a big-government-extoling, nanny-statish, paternalism pimp with a slick tongue...not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, since the case is closed.
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.