I was going to post this on another thread, but it fits in here too.
There are a number of complaints about both Rush and Duncan Hunter on this thread. Maybe Duncan Hunter isn’t running the best campaign, but maybe Rush isn’t shooting straight with us either. Maybe Duncan Hunter’s campaign manager is doing the best he can, but is thwarted by the RNC at every turn. I have posted some comments on other threads about these issues but will try to tie it together here. Other people on this and other threads have made some of the points included below. Since I can’t read everything on FR, some of my theories may have been posted already in articles or comments by others.
Rush has stated many times that President Bush (43) is conservative on some issues but is not “a conservative”. President Bush (41) started the ball rolling down hill when he promised a “kinder & gentler nation” followed by President Bush 43’s “compassionate conservatism”. Both Presidents Bush were not “movement conservatives’ as Rush likes to call them. However, both Presidents Bush were able to get the endorsement of the conservative elites.
The endorsements of Mitt Romney by well-known conservative leaders William F. Buckley (thru NRO), Paul Weyrich, David Keene, and Bob Jones III have baffled me. Most of us have seen the articles posted here about Mitt, along with links to YouTube videos of the Romney flip-flops, etc. Romney isn’t really a conservative; he is a liberal to moderate Rockefeller Republican. Why are all these conservative icons endorsing Willard? My theory is that President Bush (43) has anointed Willard as his successor with the blessing of President Bush (41). President Bush (41) was probably pals with Willard’s father, George Romney (interesting read). The tip-off came when Willard gave his Mormon speech at the GHWB Library. With a White House blessing comes the gentle arm-twisting of conservative leaders, such as, Buckley, Weyrich, Keene, Jones, and Limbaugh. How can you say no to the White House?
In addition to anointing the favored candidate, the White House can also use its influence to knock out candidates it really dislikes. How does this happen? I can’t say for sure. It could be someone on the president’s staff having dinner with a media executive or background discussions with reporters. The president also controls the RNC and can make things happen using the party as cover.
The prime targets of White House wrath would be candidates they have crossed swords with on one or more issues. If one of the president’s senior advisors (Karl Rove) told you (Tom Tancredo) never to “darken the door” of the White House again (May 13, 2002) due to your stance on illegal immigration, I think that qualifies as crossing swords. If you (Duncan Hunter) get a bill passed to build a border fence and co-sponsor a bill to free two border patrol agents wrongly convicted by one of the president’s old pals you’re in deep trouble.
How would a Republican presidential candidate feel the wrath of the White House? I’ll throw out a few ideas. I’ve used the term “blackballed” a few times on this forum to describe the situation. Could the RNC quietly tell state party officials and contributors not to help several candidates because their position on immigration is hurting the party? This would make it hard to get support at the state level, such as access to donor lists and volunteers. Remember, Duncan Hunter said, “Don’t complain, work harder”. His motto may apply to more then just his lack of exposure in the debates. His campaign may be getting the cold shoulder straight from the top at the RNC.
In the debates themselves, would the “willing accomplices in the media” be happy to keep the number of questions to candidates that opposed amnesty to a minimum? Many of us complained that Hunter along with Tancredo received far fewer questions in the debates then their rivals. If the candidate doesn’t drop out is the next step to exclude him from a debate based on low poll numbers? This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy since the candidates were ignored in previous debates. Keep in mind that Roger Ailes (Fox News) is a friend of both Rush and Rudy.
We know that deep down the president wanted to pass the amnesty bill. Rush said that “powerful forces” sent people to “get his mind right” about immigration. Rush didn’t buckle to the pressure then, but maybe now feels he owes the president, Karl Rove and his idols in the “conservative movement” a favor. Maybe that’s why he never mentioned Tom Tancredo’s name and only mentioned Duncan Hunter’s name a couple of times. Rush never spoke up about the unequal treatment the conservative candidates received during the debates. Rush was also silent about ABC and Fox excluding Duncan Hunter from the debates. As one poster on another thread stated, “Rush treated them like Terri Schiavo”. Fred is harder to marginalize since he is a TV/movie star and more conservative then the remainder of the pack. Since Fred was the only candidate remaining with anything close to conservative credentials, he eventually said something positive about him. However, in the same breath he will usually say nice things about Willard. The bottom line is that Rush has been in the tank for Willard all along. I don’t know if he owes the president a favor or if its loyalty to a friend and mentor (William F. Buckley) to back Willard. The problem is that Rush, along with Ann Coulter and other conservative leaders lose credibility when they try to tell us a candidate is conservative when they are not.
The other problem(s) for Willard and Rush are the remaining candidates. Even though Rudy is an acquaintance from Rush’s days in NYC he can continue to not mention him. Besides, it would be hard to sell Rudy to his audience. If you can’t marginalize them by ignoring them, you attack them. It’s easy for Rush to attack McCain since he has done it before on many issues. Not that McCain doesn’t deserve being attacked over amnesty, the gang of fourteen and opposing tax cuts. It is also easy for Rush to attack Huckabee. Mick Huckabee can be portrayed as a cross between Gomer Pyle and Forest Gump. Sometimes the Huckster makes it all too easy.
Mike Huckabee is the joker in the deck. The one person they didn’t count on emerging from the pack. No one could see him coming except a few Freepers that noticed this thread. Mike Huckabee is reliably pro-life, pro-gun and anti homosexual agenda. That’s more then can be said about Willard. If Hunter and Thompson go the way of Tancredo, it might be worth climbing on to the Huckabee bandwagon, warts and all. Besides it would make great blowback for Bush Inc., and the conservative and media elites, including Rush, for trying to sell us Willard packaged as shinola.
Duncan Hunter first, Fred Thompson second and Huck third. After that, I don’t care. If the conservative elites had backed Duncan Hunter from the beginning, we wouldn’t be here right now. At this point it might be worth McCain or Huckabee getting the nomination just to see Rush and the conservative elites have a collective fit. If Willard isn’t the nominee, where can they go? Whom are they going to vote for?
Thank you!
Excellent comments.
Thank you for you work and sharing it with us.
*
Good post. There could easily be something there. Hunter seems to have the right enemies as far as I can tell. That little thing about excluding him from the debates was probably historic.
On Poll Results and the End of Conservatism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951282/posts
It does not bode well for our republic.
Good post.
However, I think Huck, though non-establishment, is a more ‘compassionate’ conservative than even GWB. His envoronmentalism for Jesus is too much to take for this conservative.
His campaign may be getting the cold shoulder straight from the top at the RNC.
There is no "may" about it. He has been completely, totally shut out! The fact that only the NH GOP withdrew their sponsorship of the faux NH "debate" and not one of the worthless scum that did participate objected to Hunter's exclusion on the EVE of the FIRST national anything of the election season speaks volumes!!! Not one national spokesperson for the RNC made a sound. Only Dennis Kucinich. Why does no one get it? As I've said before, the fix is in, and always has been.
For Huckabee, I don't know what to make of him. He is a slick-Willard type and, apart from the life issue (which is extremely important), not really a conservative, but more palatable than McCain or Romney.
It would be satisfying to see a meltdown of the so-called "conservative" establishment - but please, not at the considerable expense of nominating John McCain.
Very good post . . . thanks for the ping.