Why Rush Limbaugh Should Endorse Fred Thompson Now (and join his brother David Limbaugh)

http://www.redstate.com/ ^ | Dec. 31, 2007 | http://www.redstate.com/

[underbyte]

“”Fred Thompson has done nothing to indicate that he can gain traction.””

Fox news and the other MSM’s have ignored FT’s message and have marginalized all true conservative candidates.

Those that control what you hear(MSM) are determining who is elected. The New Media (RUSH is prime) has to find a voice in the process. It reminds me of Bush’s passivity in the face of a constant barrage of criticism. The result is a greatly weakened presidency. The conservative movement is on it’s last legs in part due to Bush in part due to it’s own passivity.

The MSM is afraid of another strong Ronald Reagan type presidency, Reagan broke the democrat 50 year hold on government. I doubt that Reagan could get nominated in today’s climate, too old, to far right, maybe lazy?

All the newspapers, all the public schools, all the collages, all the cable tv stations sending a constant stream of leftist liberal messages contrasted at best with a few token RINOS nods from FOX. Even TV and Movies being made today cram leftist’s propaganda in the story somewhere. This is a social cascade, a belief system that becomes ingrained into mass thinking.

The conservative movement is losing the battle, Republicans are talking about global warming, universal health care, they are going green and taking up the liberal agenda. Hilliary care resoundingly rejected in the 90’s looks like a real possibility today less than 15 years later.

The conservative movement is trying to fight a battle with one hand tied behind their back by not responding due to some principle? Let the chips fall where they may? We lose this election (we lose even if RHINO’s Romney or Guliani wins) and the conservative agenda is going to suffer a crushing blow.

Rush could support the best conservative candidates at any given time and not having it impact his image, he is too big and this is really trivial to his image. It will probably hurt him more if the leftists win. If conservatives become marginalized what is the point of being an activist if activism has no effect? Look at the whole EU I do not see conservative voices at the table.

Rush is a wimp, you have to take stands for what you believe in. Bush was a compromiser, fence straddler,wishy washy on many issues and ended up drifting aimlessly through the last years of his presidency.

Rush has made a career based on conservatism and he is going to look like a real hypocrite supporting Romney or Guliani in the general election which will be the equivalent of supporting universal health care, supporting illegal immigration and gun control and I for one will not bother listening to him at point.

[Hawthorn]

>It would be nice to have a candidate that espouses all the conservative priciples that FReepers hold dear, but if that’s all that qualifies somebody has president, I would imagine that would qualify any average FReeper as president as well.<

Very well put. You have my nomination for quote of the year!

[Ghengis]

I saw him raise his hand, stand in shock as Thompson said no and then proclaim, "I'm with him!" That showed me how Romney's lack of firm foundation allows him to turn on a dime in any circumstance.

I do not find that an admirable trait in an executive who will deal with that question, which affects the sovereignty entire economic future of our country.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yup. It’s those kinds of moments that tell you all you’ll ever need to know if a person is a leader... or not.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with almost everything you say and to prove it I will post a portion of a vanity which I published on Free Republic a few days after the election debacle of 2006:

Other reasons are less easily identifiable and more subjective in nature. One goes to the very essence of the character of George Bush. I've long published that he is not a movement conservative, in fact he is not a conservative at all but rather he is a patrician with loyalties to family, friends, and country. His politics are animated not by conservative ideology but by a noblisse oblige which, as a substitute for political philosophy, move him to act from loyalty and love of country. The result of this is that he does not weigh his words and actions against a coherent standard grounded in conservatism, but instinctively reacts to do what is right for family, friends, and country. Thus we get Harriet Meirs, pandering to the Clintons and Kennedys, prescription drug laws, campaign finance laws, runaway spending, and the war in Iraq. The conservative movement is left muddled and confused and the Republican Party undisciplined and leaderless. In these circumstances all manner of mischief is possible beginning with corruption and indiscipline in the ranks. To be effective, a president must be feared as well is loved. A President is more than just Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the nation, he is the titular head of his party and he must rule it. If Bush was willing to pander to the likes of Teddy Kennedy, what did Senator John McCain have to fear from him? Bush has utterly failed in his role as head wrangler of the Republican Party.

Other subjective reasons for the debacle involve Bush's personal character. He is essentially a nonconfrontational man who would rather operate through collegiality than through power. This is reinforced by his Christian belief and he will almost literally turn the other cheek. So, his loyalty to family and friends affects his appointments and produce mediocrities like Brown at FEMA and Ridge at Homeland Security and Harriet Meirs. It makes him shrink from prosecuting the crimes of his enemies even to the point of overlooking real security lapses committed by The New York Times. It makes it very difficult for Bush to discipline his troops and fire incompetent or disloyal subordinates. Instead he soothes them with the Medal of Freedom. George Bush is a singularly inarticulate man. When he is not delivering a prepared speech, his sincerity and goodness of character come through, but his policies often die an agonizing death along with the syntax. The truth is that Bush has never been able, Ronald Reagan style, to articulate well the three or four fundamental issues which move the times in which we live. One need only cite the bootless efforts to reform Social Security as an example. His inability to tell America why we must fight in Iraq to win the greater worldwide war against terrorism, or how we are even going to win in Iraq, has been fatal to the Republicans' chances in this election. Of course, one can carry this Billy Budd characterization too far and it is easy to overemphasize its importance, but it is part of the general pattern which has led us to this pass. It is a very great pity that the bully pulpit has been squandered in the hands of a man so inarticulate. That the bully pulpit was wasted means that there are no great guiding principles for the country, for the party, for the administration, for Congress to follow, or for the voters to be inspired by. If the voters went into the booth confused about what the Republican Party stands for, the fault is primarily George Bush's.

There are structural problems for the Republicans as well. By the demographic breakdown of the Northeast and the ambitions of senators such as McCain, there was no coherent Republican policy in the Senate. It is in the nature of the Senate that wayward senators are difficult to bring to heel in any circumstance and Bush's inability properly to act as party leader has given Mavericks a green light to commit terrible damage to the Republicans' electoral posture. This demographic trend is destined to get worse and the self survival instincts of what is left of the Republican Party outside of the South will only become more acute and lead to more defections. Other senators, even when not motivated by personal ambition or demographic problems in blue states, felt free to engage in an extravaganza of corrupt spending to benefit their districts and soothe their contributors. There is a regrettable tendency to underemphasize the demographic handicap under which we conservatives struggle. Here is what I posted, before the election:

Perhaps now is not the time but certainly after Santorum is defeated we conservatives must face the reality that the electoral map is shrinking. We are unable to make inroads into the blue states (these New Jersey an anomaly due to parochial corruption) while we remain vulnerable and virtually all of the border states, Tennessee, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland (actually a lost cause). Now even the Old Dominion is threatened. Ohio may be as difficult as Pennsylvania after this cycle.

Demographics will soon turn Florida and Texas away from us and, with the loss of either one of them, conservatism has no hope of putting a president in the White House

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news//posts?page=17#17

Bush failed to provide leadership on spending. Merely cutting taxes is only one leg of the stool, fiscal discipline must be maintained. Failing to impose party discipline is a grave sin, but Bush magnified it exponentially with the mindless prescription drug entitlement, farm supports, and educational spending. If Bush can have his prescription drug program that nobody wanted, why cannot Senator Stevens in Alaska have his bridge that nobody needed? Bush not only failed to set the proper example in fiscal discipline, he affirmatively set the wrong example of profligacy.

[nathanbedford]

Your indignation, indeed one might say, your bitterness, evidently comes out of a personal experience with Romney. Because I am aware of the quality of your posts I am inclined to take that as an evidence of some weight but surely you must understand that the rest of your post is purely invective and conclusionary in nature.

What am I to do with that?

[Matchett-PI]

bttt to those remarks!

[TChad]

every time I look at Fred, I wonder if he isn’t the start of another Dole/Kemp ticket.

Fred seems to be rising to the occasion, which candidate Dole never quite managed. Also, Dole had a much more formidable opponent than Hillary or Obama.

[underbyte]

Great analysis, There are a lot of factors working against the conservative movement and you nailed a good number of them.

Electing a liberal republican gets the republicans in, but leaves us with a loss of our conservative identity. What’s left for us at this juncture?

The leftists will do anything, say anything to gain and consolidate power. Ethics do not apply.

Conservatives should be fighting on all fronts and using all tools at our disposal. We are losing because we are not playing the political reality game due to misplaced ethical standards and lack of coordinated conservative leadership(Bush failure). The environment is such that new leaders can not emerge because their voice is not heard and presented as an alternative.

This is my problem with Rush, he is failing the conservative movement here with too much passivity. It really will be a joke if he ends up supporting Mcain, Romney, Guliani in the general election, All candidate’s who views run contrary to everything Rush has fought for.

It may be the beginning of the end of Rush, not that his show will will go off the air but a drifting into irrelevancy as a political force changes the political climate

[fieldmarshaldj]

The personal experience is that I came to realize my past belief that Republican = Conservative was rank naivete. I am a Conservative first and foremost. I know advancing liberalism in the Republican party is not only a recipe for disaster, it is a death sentence. In a matter of only 15 years, it can reduce a state from competitive for the party to absolutely moribundity.

Again, if you don’t believe Romney is a liar or a fraud or a rank opportunist with questionable character, just check the record. If you don’t believe this man has been buying off people to win their support despite his unmistakeable record of liberalism, just take a closer look and follow the money. I don’t like liars. I especially don’t like fraudulent liberals telling me they’re Conservatives and I don’t like their paid lackeys spewing bullcrap wherever they go deceiving people into believing this guy can walk on water.

If somebody you previously trusted or believed in turned out to be a con man and was trying to buy the highest office in the land, would you be sitting idly by and allowing others to spew lies championing his cause and deceiving those that don’t know much about him (beyond seeing him on tv) into supporting him, knowing what you know (which isn’t much of a secret), or would you be telling everyone within earshot that he is a destructive phony as loudly as possible ?

What would you do ?

[Doctor13]

Is that the worst you can say about Hunter? That he comes across as a "grouch?" Beam me up, Scotty!

To compare him to Nixon on that basis is ludicrous and unfair! Better an apologist for Muslims like Spencer Abraham in the service of Fred Thompson?

And to criticize Hunter's "post military," is also ludicrous, especially since his son has served two tours in Iraq, and is now planning on running for Congress himself.

Son of President, Hopeful Hunter to Run for President

Seems to me, these are exactly the people we need - conservatives - service to their country - both military and civilian.

Thank God for people like the Hunters.

[Neu Pragmatist]

That was a very telling moment in the raw . Nothing sums up Romney’s lack of core prinicples , as that moment did . Fred accomplised all of that, and more, in just a matter of seconds ....amazing .

Fred is truly a leader , Romney is truly lost .

[alstewartfan]

Amen! Fred is NOT Bob Dole! I fervently hope that Rush joins David before it becomes a logistical impossibility for Fred to win. Just think: Any of the other possible nominees will be WORSE candidates than Dole, and much more liberal! GO FRED!!! Bob

[alstewartfan]

Every candidate has SOMEONE in his campaign who we would find unsavory. The pick of Abraham was probably based upon personal friendship, and NOT b/c of his Middle East views. Oh, and WHO is better than Fred among those with decent support? NO ONE! Cordially, Bob

[LibLieSlayer]

Your post is 100% dead on... I am first a CONSERVATIVE and then I am a Republican... I remain a Republican because I think what Reagan taught us is well worth fighting for... and we fight the same “country club” mentality today that Ronaldo Magnus fought against then. Conservatism... when practiced... WORKS! Liberalism ALWAYS fails... whether practiced by a rat or a liberal with a “R” by his/her name.

LLS

[Romneyfor President2008]

Romney’s not lost. If you go to rushlimbaugh.com’s front page, there is a photo of him right there with a list of positive articles by Rush.

Rush on Mitt Romney:
• Mitt Romney Raised the Bar
• Romney Looked Great on MTP
• Drive-By Media Out to Get Mitt
• Romney Speech Freaks Out Libs
• Mitt Romney’s Inspiring Speech
• Mitt, Buckley, the GOP’s Future

:-)

[Neu Pragmatist]

Did you like how Mitt practically fell off the stage clamoring to follow Thompson’s lead in that debate , during the hand puppet show ?

Face it , Thompson is a true leader ... Romney otoh well ... can you say follow the leader ?

[NewRomeTacitus]

I am disgusted that a sleazy “tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear” professional politician who seems to be emulating the Bill Clinton campaign playbook is not only edging out truly conservative candidates but has snowed members here I KNOW would drop him like the slimy organ part he is if they just perceived it.

Neither Romney or Huckabee are conservatives...just more of the same old same old. One appeals to stupid people who elect the “pretty mealy-mouthed” while the other attracts the “compassionate religious” - down the same path the Catholic Church has taken that puts invaders’ non-existent rights over native citizens. Neither of these guys are worth the calories expended to vote for them while REAL Americans motivated by their love of our country remain in the running.

That be Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yup. I notice I never got an answer from the poster to my query...

[NewRomeTacitus]

I believe we’re surrounded by a bunch of pretend-Conservative wusses who long for the Clinton era but lack the gumption to admit it. The weather here has been freezing but MY nads will never retract that much.

While we’re constantly told that Supreme Court choices are a primary motivation I always see that as a secondary consideration after use of Presidential powers. Can’t see either Romney nor Huckabee going after Islamic jihadists or China’s continuing war on our infrastructure; but can foresee their “Can’t we all just get along?” speeches easily. Fool and corrupted fool.

Conservatives here on this purportedly conservative site should cleave to their principles and put a real Conservative in the Oval Office.

IMHO Thompson’s the man despite his past CFR participation and weak points in legislative history. He’s the only guy saying what needs saying without backing down, apologizing or trying to rewrite his history. It’s a shame that a man running a brilliant campaign on honesty is getting such a short shrift by the media while most of the Iowans who’ve heard him speak are blown away by his candor and won over.

I feel totally certain putting my Primary vote on Fred Thompson. Can’t see voting for one of the pretend conservative animals at all if they get the nom.