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.”
PA_Country
Since Jan 17, 2008
Welcome to FR. While your guy Ron Paul has a few interesting ideas, we're primarily conservative here, with an admixture of Libertarianism thrown in. In the way that Ron Paul is off the reservation somewhat in one direction, McCain has been well off the reservation in another direction, and rubbing our faces in it for years.
This forum is going to be pretty vehemently anti-McCain. You're welcome with your RP position here, but be prepared for mighty fine intellectual fights.
I’d love to see a brokered convention where Cheney emerges as the consensus candidate.
That would drive the drive-by’s over the edge, having Cheney seen as the GOP “uniter”.
As for running mates, the choice would immediately become the front-runner for 2012.
I think Obama will be ineffective, and easy to oppose. I think McCain will destroy the Republican Party for conservatives.
I been a delegate to county and state R conventions, a candidate, a contributor, etc. to Republicans for decades. A little research will prove that out. Be careful challenging someone’s bona fides.
Is this on you tube?/Just Asking - seoul62..........
Yes, but somehow voting “liberal” and voting “Hillary” are not the same. She’s liberal AND pure evil. Obama is just liberal. I don’t want to take the chance of doing ANYthing to possibly aid in her winning.
Quote of the Day!
I would have to disagree.
Obama has a hidden evil.
(have)
.....dropped a word in haste
I think Rush is only stating what many of us know factually and feel.
The MSM has worked SUCCESSFULLY (so much for death of the MSM) to direct the most left wing candidates.
Even the hunter fans have to realize the rabid entusiasm on the new media was only worth 2,000 votes in the last two primaries.
We also have kook paul being financed by CFR manipulation as a spoiler.
The fix is in, Rush knows it SAME AS WE DO, only the MSM can’t see it in the mirror.
I don’t care if you agree with me or not. What makes you think I do? Whether you agree with me is not high on my worry list.
hey, no need to get nasty. LOL
can’t folks “respectfully disagree?”
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Tell me about that. I don't know him very well.
What I see is an honest but very liberal guy. I disagree with him on every policy position.
Hillary hasn't uttered an honest word in her life, so I easily agree she's just pure evil.
But I don't see the double crossing, lying, vindictive, mean, anti-human in Obama. Maybe it is there, and I'd be happy to be alerted. Show me.
Reread my previous post. It still stands. I haven’t changed my thinking in the past two minutes.
Obama is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever
By Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.
He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede — as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor — that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.”
“Persons,” of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.
In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.
State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of “induced labor abortion.” This is usually performed on a baby with Down’s Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.
Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how “induced labor abortions” were handled at her hospital.
“One night,” she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, “a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.”
In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby’s rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a “homo sapiens” wholly emerged from his mother with a “beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles” should be treated as a “’person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.’”
Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was “unfazed” by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.
On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted “present” on each, effectively the same as a “no.”
“Number one,” said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section.”
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the “amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade.”
On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.
That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted “no.”
In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding — word for word — the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.
A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: “At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.”
In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.
Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews
Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
That's because Republicans have shown that they will vote for the lesser of two evils to keep a Democrat out of office. I can certainly understand that type of thinking, but the result is that traditional Republican issues are becoming watered down.
well, if you can’t be respectful and polite to me;
then don’t post to me.
Got it?
Good!
you’d a thought that after a career in the Army;
you would have learned some polite manners!
gezzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Although he believes the Second Ammendment recognizes an individual right, he also believes in such things as the assault weapons ban. His position is apparently similar to that of Bush (see the recently-submitted amicus curiae brief that the DOJ submitted in the Heller/Parker case.)
PO
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.