Posted on 01/01/2008 3:12:59 AM PST by Maelstorm
Rush Limbaugh is, arguably, the most influential conservative Republican of the post-Reagan/post-Buckley era – someone whose support is essential to any GOP presidential nominee and the next GOP president. If you doubt his impact, check Mike Huckabee's poll numbers since Rush responded over the airwaves two weeks ago to ill-considered insults hurled at him by the Huckabee campaign.
Since his national emergence in 1988, Rush has pledged never to endorse any Republican candidate during the presidential primaries. In 2007, he seemed to come close to breaking his own 11th commandment twice. First, he identified Fred Thompson as the only conservative participant in the CNN/YouTube GOP debate and defended Thompson against charges of laziness. Then Rush commended Mitt Romney's speech on faith, although he also criticized Romney's less-than-conservative record and his Iowa debate comment about not losing any sleep over the tax burden on upper income Americans.
Limbaugh may not issue official un-endorsements, either, but attentive listeners can easily discern his sympathies and antipathies. Among the top tier candidates, he has been completely positive about Thompson. Conversely, John McCain is a longstanding target of Limbaugh’s disdain. In a 2004 Wall Street Journal opinion piece about the conservative themes running through convention speeches given that summer by McCain, Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rush characterized McCain as the most liberal of the trio. He also lauded Giuliani for taking “on John Kerry directly, detailing his equivocations and flip-flops on matters of war and peace, and pointing out how such indecision and expediency endanger America's security” (please see http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005563).
However, if Limbaugh holds fast to his illusion of impartiality in the 2008 primaries, his reward might well be the nomination of Senator McCain.
Romney is, I believe, a fatally flawed candidate. Regrettably, Giuliani’s aforementioned warnings about Kerry’s flip-flopping and expediency apply likewise to Mitt Romney. The GOP base is divided among those who hope Romney means what he says today, those who are skeptical of his Clintonesque glibness, and those who will never vote for a Mormon. Significantly, he is clearly disliked by his GOP opponents.
Giuliani appears Clintonesque in his personal life, holds social beliefs unacceptable to evangelicals, and his Florida-centric campaign strategy may be his political downfall. If so, where will his supporters go? He has expressed admiration for McCain and ostensibly could endorse him.
Conceivably, Huckabee would continue through the primaries as a spoiler, buoyed by his evangelical base. Thompson seems like the natural beneficiary of a Huckabee collapse. Nevertheless, as Huckabee’s Iowa support was seen to decline, Romney and McCain also enjoyed increased poll numbers there.
The only criticisms published of Fred Thompson are personal (the “laziness” charge that is belied by his current campaign schedule and his resumé) and strategic (his late entry into the race). His conservative credentials are widely heralded and stand in stark relief against the records and positions of his “moderate” competitors.
If Thompson fails to finish well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he probably skips Michigan and enters South Carolina with a substantial disadvantage, politically and financially, from which it will be extremely difficult to recover. Thompson endorsed John McCain in the 2000 presidential race and it is no great stretch to imagine that he will endorse McCain again if he drops out.
That would be a death blow to the conservative movement of Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, and Limbaugh, which has not had a genuine conservative nominee since 1984. More importantly, the conservative principles Thompson would bring back to the White House are needed desperately to win the war on fiscal irresponsibility, win the war on our borders, and win the war on terrorism as they steadfastly won the Cold War.
If Limbaugh were to endorse Thompson this week before the Hawkeye cauci, single-handedly Rush could return the national conversation to conservative vs. liberal ideology, overturn the conventional wisdom so beloved by beltway and drive-by media types, and spurn the McCain surge. In a battle of wits, ideas, principles, integrity, and gravitas, Fred Thompson is best armed to lead us to victory.
How about this idea, suggested to me by another Freeper:
A significant number of Republicans will not vote for Rudy, Mitt, Mike or John, as evidenced by the level of passionate comments against these candidates in the blogosphere. Whether it’s 5% or 25% of total Republican votes, it will be enough to lose.
However, if Thompson is the nominee, all Republicans will vote for him, because he has no significant policy or ideological negatives. Thompson will unite the party like Reagan did, even bringing in many Reagan Democrats.
C’mon, Rush ! Do it ! It’s time to sink the farce candidacies of these RINO liberals Rudy McRombee once and for ALL !
Well said.....
Bingo !
Let him win the nomination first, which is as we stand today he is done unless he makes some comeback in South Carolina, if he does not then he is finished for good.
So maybe this IS Rush endorsing Fred without breaking his rule and looking like a flip-flopper.
I think you are sadly mistaken. Rush has tremendous power and he is careful with it, which may cause you to believe he has none.
Fred and Hunter are the only conservatives out there. The polls say alot about the republican party of today. Anyone saying they support any candidates other than these two are not the true republicans; they are all RINOS, period. They have given up their repub credentials and joined anyone at all costs; liberal or not.....
Let's see haw Fred does in Iowa; if he does better than expected....lets look at the, doesn't stand a chance crowd here on this blog and also the msm. Will anyone change their mind? If not, they are hands out rinos, period........give me something! RINOS need to change partied now.....
Your points are rational in a general sense, although I think I am a bit happier about the potential for Fred to win.
Sure there is uncertainty, but I believe Fred’s grassroots approach these past couple of weeks have earned him a following that will surprise us.
Ping
Thank you.
To Rush and your Staff you know you are reading this.
Do you remember a certain part of the story of the 1980 U.S. Hockey Team during the 1980 Olympics?
Here is a refresher redacted so the moderator won't pull it:
"Herb Brooks came into the locker room beforehand, and said, "If you lose this game, you will take it to your f****g grave." Then he turned and walked almost all the way out, before turning around and saying again, "To your f***ing grave."
If you don't endorse Fred and we end up with Rudy McHuckamney or Hilda/Breck Girl for 4 to 8 years, we all have to live with the consequences, but you know it is a defining moment for you.
It is time to win the game.
Although I agree, that Rush should endorse Fred, I’m not so confident as the author is that the endorsement would carry that much weight. Not that Rush isn’t a huge voice in the Conservative crowd. Of course he is. But conservatives, by their very nature, are much less persuaded by endorsements than liberals and leftists are. Liberals and leftists need to be told what to think, while conservatives tend to think for themselves.
The reason Rush is so popular is that he sees his job as showing “the other side of the story”, the side the media tries to cover up and hide. Although Rush thinks for himself, he doesn’t try to think for the rest of us, and leaves us to think for ourselves.
Which is part of the greatness of Rush.
I’ve heard some people speculate that Rush Limbaugh and some other conservative talk radio hosts actually would LIKE to see a Beast victory, since that would bring about the greatest boom in talk radio (until the Beast outlaws it) in the history of the medium.
One reason Rush should endorse Fred is, perhaps, to kill that kind of speculation.
Rush Limbaugh does not endorse candidates in the primaries. This is a time when the Republican party defines itself. If a Limbaugh critic is the nominee it does not make Rush more or less popular.
This is not a time to overreact. The candidate that is overreacting will lose. People may want change but the definition of change cannot change or the candidate will fail - either electorally or in the legislature.
There will be a nominee and it will be the best candidate available this year. Even if I think that man is Fred. :)
Hear, hear!!!!
Each of the men have some good conservative credentials.
The best Rush has said, imo, is that we shouldn't vote "for" a candidate based upon one primary attribute--that is the kind of thinking that kills nominees in the general election.
This is the source of the braggadocio and self-promotion which are the hallmarks of his radio personality and apparently, are 180° in variance to his off air persona. This style has subsequently been copied by many other broadcasters but it was initiated, in my view, by Rush as a matter of personal compensation and also as a matter of compensation for the low esteem in which conservative opinion was held generally. Limbaugh saw the need to tell his listeners that it was respectable to be a conservative.
So Limbaugh has contrived an aura of sagacity and power which he dares not jeopardize. He often refers to as honorary membership in the house class of 1994, and properly so. He is saying to his audience, "look, see how much power I have!"
This is as it should be. This is as it always has been with all radio broadcasters who have survived. The industry is essentially a confection of vaporous unreality. The talk Jockey must manipulate his audience to go along with the shtick. He cannot, for example, permit himself to be exposed as ignorant or misinformed by one of his callers. He certainly cannot afford to permit himself to be labeled a "racist" by his political enemies. Have you observed how vigorously Rush has always defended himself against these kinds of allegations? He cannot be seen to be on the wrong side of an issue which is dear to his listeners. Did you notice how vigorously he defended himself against attacks by the majority leader which distorted his remarks about soldiers? Ultimately, a radio talk host cannot be exposed as being ineffectual.
Fred Thompson has done nothing to indicate that he can gain traction. There is simply no upside for Limbaugh to be gained by falling on his sword for Thompson. This is not to say that Limbaugh has "no influence" only that he does not have infinite influence and cannot at this stage in Iowa anoint a candidate no matter how much we like him or Limbaugh likes him. At this stage in the game, Thompson must do it on his own. I hope Thompson can do it on his own. If not, then we are going with Romney, and the rest of us must pull up our socks, salute, and serve as good soldiers.
That’s true. I love to be entertained by Rush, but as far as, to hanging on to every word. Huh huh. I can think for myself.
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.