Posted on 01/22/2008 9:14:16 PM PST by kellynla
Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh stunned his listeners by announcing that he might not support the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election.
Limbaugh said on Monday’s show: "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life."
The reason: “You don’t have a genuine down-the-list conservative” among the GOP candidates.
“Wherever you go here in this roster of candidates, you're going to be able to point out ‘not conservative, what he did there is not conservative’” Rush said.
The Republican front-runners want the nomination “because it's their turn,” he also stated. “We tried that in '96 with Bob Dole and now they're running the same scenario…
"I'm telling ya, it's gonna come down to which guy do we dislike the least. And that's not necessarily good."
After Rush’s pronouncements, Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm wrote: “Across the country, people were dropping their coffee cups, choking on sandwiches, fainting and driving off the road. The king of conservative talk radio not supporting the Republican nominee?”
But Limbaugh’s remarks are not quite so surprising in light of statements he made about GOP candidates Mike Huckabee and John McCain last week:
“I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.”
Hey Monk how about this
Maybe Dick don’t run for President or VP okay how about trading Cheney out goes Dick let bring in Lynn Cheney can you imagine that
If you think Libs are crazy now what would happen if Lynn Cheney ran for VP ticket or Presidential ticket
You think libs are crazy now what about first spouse Dick Cheney HMMMM
And RG hates the Dims and the MSM, fought them relentlessly in NY for his policies.
IMO he would have a good chance on getting judges thru.
No?
It’s some what assuming to me that so many of you “Republicans” would put the interested of the ‘not very conservative’ Republican Party ahead of that of nation by not casting a vote at all and there by essentially voting for the Democratic nominee. Accepting that a couple of John McCain’s votes, or any other Republicans for that matter, some how makes them less tolerable than Clinton or Obama. Don’t you think that it might actually serve the interest of the country better if you pick a reasonable third party candidate to vote for, instead of voting for someone that has no interest in being President, i.e. Dick Cheney?
Whst, pray tell, has the ElRushbo suggested to be a solution?
Mrs. Bill, at least, would give us a Republican Congress in 2010.
heard of something called gerrymandering and voter fraud? How about getting illegals to vote? that would pretty much spell the end of any chances for republicans to take control for decades to come.
Like I said before “we could survive 4 years of Chavez” isn’t very convincing, right?
Nam Vet
you are still voting for hillary either way. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that if you tie a string to a gun and pull the string instead of the trigger, that you had nothing to do with firing the gun
Oh so you would support McCain if he were the nominee??
I can’t believe there are Conservatives on FR who would vote for Obama under any scenario. It sickens me.
Independents can be conservative-leaning or liberal-leaning Independents. In addition, many Republicans were not too thrilled with Bush and saw Perot as a third party conservative alternative.
The chart (Click here for larger image) shows that Bush got 37.1% of the popular vote, Perot got 18.8% of the popular vote and Clinton got 42.9% of the popular vote.
By splitting the conservative leaning vote, the Perot candidacy turned what would have been a landslide defeat for Clinton into a Clinton Presidency that had the support of less than 43% of the voters in 1992.
I understand your point and to some degree agree with it. However, by voting for a legitimate 3rd party candidate you’re at least trying to make a positive change in the nation. If enough people actually voted their heart instead of trying to be a part of the kewl crowd by voting for the person they think is most likely to win, things might actually start to improve, or at least the quality and number of candidates for the job would improve. By not voting at all you’re reaffirming your approval for the status quo. Both, the two party system and of the state of the two parties in that system.
Inertia is a powerful force in politics. Once laws are passed, they tend not to be repealed, no matter how harmful they prove to be. If She Who Must Not Be Named gets her paws on the White House, belly up for a slew of awful legislation that will reshape the country we live in. And then we’ll be stuck with it all for who knows how long.
We need to all get together and support the eventual GOP nominee, unless we want to live with Hillarycare for the next 20 years or more. And when I say we *all* need to do that, I mean Rush too. If he persists in this and ultimately refuses to support the GOP nominee, I won’t find it necessary to listen to his show anymore either.
I think he meant “viable” conservative.
Just curious: who did you support that is not on my list? Was it Keyes?
Well I just don’t agree that he betrays “us” and certainly not the Union. But even for someone who does, don’t you agree that’s he’s never said, or done, anything nearly as scary as “unusual lethality” or “living, breathing document”?
Tancredo, early.
OIC
“If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.” Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love
It’s true Rush never explicitly endorsed anyone, but it’s also true that anyone who’s listened closely the past couple of weeks knows he was very positive about Thompson and positive to a lesser extent about Romney. And he clearly thought McCain and Huckabee were unacceptable candidates. Don’t recall much he said about Giuliani.
But after McCain’s win in SC, some columnists and commentators said Rush Limbaugh and talk radio lost in SC because the voters did not follow his advice and give Thompson the win. Rush said about all he could without explicitly endorsing a candidate, and the Rush lost interpretation by many belies the premise of most of this thread.
Also, Hannity made it clear from his remarks that he agreed with Rush. And Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham and others did specifically recommend Thompson. Hugh Hewitt has been pushing Romney for months.
Now, after Thompson’s withdrawal, most all of them are speaking favorably of Romney. I’m glad because I’ve always wanted either Thompson or Romney to emerge as the nominee. And I think most conservatives who’ve compared stances on the most critical issues have favored Thompson and/or Romney (of those who had any chance of winning).
It’s does no good to continually try and tear down Romney by some. He had to hedge some issues to have any chance of election in liberal Massachusetts. He’s conservatives best hope this go round , and I think he’s also the most qualified to be president based on experience. And I believe he’d govern as a conservative, as he says.
Huckabee and Giuliani and McCain are just liberals with a few (too few) conservative stances on specific issues.
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.
