Rush Defends Sarah Palin's Choice to Campaign for McCain

The Economy Colapse ^ | 1/16/2010 | Rush Limbaugh

[SoCalPol]

I see the Obama supporters hit the thread early.
Again it proves Sarah Palin is the Conservative Republican who can beat Obama and they are first on to bash Sarah and Conservative talk show hosts.

[crunk]

I agree with Rush about Sarah. She had no choice. As for Fred...I suspected it then, and still believe, that Fred was McCain's stalking horse. How else do you explain that non-campaign campaign? Still like Fred though....and love Jeri.

Now McCain is trying to trap Romney into campaigning for him too. It will be a tightwalk for Romney to get out of that one without unleashing McCain's vindictiveness.

[Man50D]

I don't think you ever answered me about why you keep dissing all the conservative Republicans in the Tea Party movement.

Why do you?

I suggest you review your posts to me You never asked that question in any posts. Your question proves you don't concept of the Tea Party movement. It was formed to be independent of either faction of the socialist Republicrat party because Tea partiers are disgusted with both. The OP is worried the Tea party movement will over power them and therefore have become desperate to latch onto the movement.

[ansel12]

What is with the personal attacks?

[ansel12]

The Tea Party movement is nothing more than a laugh to you. Spoken like a true Republicrat.

Don't make up posts for other people, that is lying. You keep claiming that the GOP is dead and gone, and that is just beyond silly, they are doing great.

[Man50D]

He gave birth to her as a national force.

LIEberman was McAmnesty's first choice. Nobody put a gun to Palin's head to be the VP running mate to a socialist. he made that choice all by herself just as she has made the choice again to support a socialist.

Palin is the only conservative capable of beating Romney.

Romney maybe joining forces with Palin to endorse socialist McAmnesty! LOL!!!! The Mac Is Back, Again

Excerpt from the article: He would also like to bring in Mitt Romney, his former opponent for the GOP presidential nomination. “I’d really appreciate it if Mitt Romney came,” McCain says. “We’d really like to have him. We haven’t made any specific arrangement yet, but I’d like to see that. He is a man I respect.”

[mentor2k]

As always, when closet liberals, posing as “conservatives” are cornered on their own HYPOCRISY, they must resort to name calling. It's truly pathetic. Idiots are all over this thread defending compromise on principle through Palin. She's a fool and we need LESS of them. We need people with conservative backbone not willing to keep RINOS in office, like McPain.

Oh Brother . . . pot meet kettle. How transparent the hypocrisy becomes in this guys own words, LOL LOL LOL

He calls everyone who has a different take a hypocrite saying THEY are the ones doing the name calling, YET, just look at his own words. No more time to waste on this one.

[ohioWfan]

OK. I didn't ask it directly, but I implied it. My apology.

The point that I have continued to make, as a conservative Republican who has been part of the Tea Party movement from the beginning, is that we are not, as Republicans opponents of the Tea Parties, as you continue to imply, but rather are an integral part of the movement.

Who spoke at the National Tea Party in DC on 9-12? Conservative Republican, Mike Pence. Many Republicans (including my own Congressman) are in total agreement with what the movement is saying and doing.

Your curious anger at the entire Republican party and not the liberals within it, makes your points all invalid. The "leadership" of the party is NOT the party, and we are trying to fix that. The majority of Republicans are fed up and are fighting back. To disassociate conservative Republicans from the Tea Party movement is to be dishonest with your broad brush accusations.

The fact is, Man, that the movement towards conservatism in this country is re-energizing the Republican party, the victories in '09 were Republican victories, and the victories in '10 will be as well.

There are obviously people of all stripes within the movement, including Democrats, but the people I've rubbed shoulders with all have the primary goal of getting rid of the Marxists who are destroying the country.

And the only way to accomplish that is to elect conservatives in our Republican primaries, wipe out the liberal incumbents, and the wipe out the Marxist majorities in both house of Congress.

[rbmillerjr]

“Nobody put a gun to Palin’s head to be the VP running mate to a socialist”

LOL, you’re just silly.

[pissant]

Why don’t you quit your damn lying about sh*t you know nothing about.

[Man50D]

Don't make up posts for other people, that is lying.

My post 312: Amazing you think the OP is the driving force while refusing to accept the Conservative Tea party movement is the reason for the resurgence of Conservatism.

Your post #313: LOL, which is it, is the GOP dead and laying on the scrapheap, or is it on the ascendancy and having a great year and a great 2010 resurgence coming?

Your LOL reference was directly at my statement the Tea party movement is the driving force, not the OP. Who's lying now?

You keep claiming that the GOP is dead and gone, and that is just beyond silly, they are doing great.

It is for Conservatives. That's why people formed the Tea party movement! The OP is now running scared of the Conservative Tea partiers and is desperate to save face with Conservative.

[AuntB]

“Why don’t you quit your damn lying about sh*t you know nothing about.”

People who misrepresent do it for one reason. Because they can! Just like John McCain.

[ohioWfan]

It is for Conservatives. That's why people formed the Tea party movement! The OP is now running scared of the Conservative Tea partiers and is desperate to save face with Conservative.

You are right. The Tea Party movement is for conservatives- which is why so many Republicans have been active in it since Day 1. That's why so many Republicans have spoken at the events, why so many Republicans in Congress have supported it, and why we have had Republican victories, and will have more.

Some of the 'moderate' Republicans may be running scared, but people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman among others, are embracing it as a grassroots movement that supports what conservative Republicans have always stood for.

[ansel12]

Seriously, do you think that Duncan Hunter is a candidate for President in 2012?

Did you not know why, after 28 years in office and in the year that he was retiring from politics and his son was running for his seat against a Navy SEAL, that Hunter made that minor run for President?

If Hunter is a viable candidate, don’t you think that you could persuade him to run against Meg Whitman for Governor of California?

Is the fact that he served in an Airborne Ranger LRRP unit a reason that you keep going to personal insults, using women’s names and such?

[ansel12]

People who misrepresent do it for one reason. Because they can!

If you aren't misrepresenting, then tell me where I am.

[DoughtyOne]

I am a Conservative.   I make no apologies for being one.

I support Conservatism and all of it tenets.  I support the most Conservative candidate.  I support solid Conservative policy.

I respect our Founding Fathers and what they tried to achieve.  Our guaranteed rights are rock solid.  Our Constitution is a very important document, it's early form prior to 1800, a very wise well thought out set of tenets.  Some modifications since then, are problematic, but not beyond repair.

It is always my intention to support Conservatives and avoid supporting people who join it's detractors to help marginalize or defeat it, by design or ignorance.  I am not two faced about it.  You won't find me explaining away the past antics of some person I want to support, because I don't want others to hold those antics against them.  I will be frank about what they have done, and ask others to weigh those negatives as part of a comprehensive wise decision that takes everything into consideration.  Not surprisingly, that's precisely the policy I will ask folks to abide by, if I object to a candidate.

If I make a mistake and back a policy that was wrong, you won't have to come and tell me what I have done.  I will come to the forum on my own and explain what I did and why I think it was a mistake to have done it.  I'm not perfect.   I make the occasional mistake.  That being said, you won't go back and find literally hundreds of things I have said and done on different matters over fifty years, that were completely 180 degrees off the mark as it relates to Conservatism.

I came by most of my beliefs naturally.  I didn't have Republicans telling me what to think in my teens.  My parents didn't talk to me about Conservatism, Democrats or Republicans.  And when I did register, I registered in the party that most closely represented my beliefs.  And truth be told, I didn't grasp all tenets of Conservatism until the early 1990s, but that being said, I was 95% of the way there by then.  I mention this, because I don't want folks to think they have fully arrived at Conservatism by their mid-twenties.  A full comprehensive understanding of Conservatism on all tenets will come to folks at different times in their life, but we should not put ourselves into a position of thinking we have arrived at a full understanding at any point in our life.  There is always time and a reason to ask ourselves if we need to think something out more thoroughly.

Most kids think they have arrived at adulthood and full understanding at 21.  Most people at fifty plus understand what a fallacy that is.  It's no difference with politics.  And in truth, some people will never grow up intellectually, even at 100.  That's why I always question my own understanding and motives.  I am open to changing my mind at all times, if it is truly warranted.  I am obligated to question everything.  That being said, I have come to the place that I have questioned all my beliefs to the point I accept all but views on current issues to be just about beyond question.  Even then, my core beliefs generally make those decisions very easy.

Our Founding Fathers and our U.S. Constitution are examples of men and documents that were as close to perfection as they could be as it relates to sound governance.  There are no finer documents that have been handed down prior to or since by mortal men, at the establishment of a new nation.  There is no finer intent on display by mortal men, that casts them as more dedicated to doing what was right, than that of our Founding Fathers.   And those who seek to defeat their desires and the Constitution's tenets are enemies of our nation.  If you try to abridge our rights, if you try to push things that damage our sovereignty, if you just don't get it time after time after time, you are unfit to lead.  You will never get my support.  And those who run against you with higher values will.

Our nation is in the death throws fighting for it's very life.  Leftists have pulled no punches and are trying to overturn our Constitution, to turn this nation into a socialist bicameral or unicameral government, the fewer checks and balances the better.  There has been an effort to silence those who object to bad policy.  And every time the lights of Conservatism are turned out on one more available public office, those who object to bad policy are quieter by one voice, and those who support bad policy are louder by one voice.  And as that takes place, the total objectives of the left come one step closer to realization.

Along the way, we have come to the conclusion that many in our own party have lost their way.  We lament daily those who front for leftist ideology.  We have come to the conclusion that we must return to our founding principles, if we are to turn this nation around.  We look forward to the next election, sometimes for as much as six years, with the knowledge that we must replace a person on our side who has gone astray, so that we can move the entire body of Conservative office holders and thus the nation back toward the right.  It goes without saying what our goal needs to be with Democrat office holders, but it isn't said enough what we must do with our own.

Seeing the intransigence of Republican leadership, we have embraced the Tea Party movement.

Folks, do Tea Party movements pop up when they are not needed?  Do good solid Conservatives rush out to support such causes when they are not desperately needed.  Do they shun an organized leadership to back an effort with very little organized leadership, for no reason?

As a group here, we realize that something is not only terribly wrong with our nation's leadership, but there is something terribly wrong with the leadership we have chosen to represent us as Conservatives.  All too often our leadership has been willing to reach out across the isle in a bipartisainship trip down the road to destruction.  And so it is said here frequently, we must turn this ship around if we are to save this nation.  This isn't just an empty phrase.  We have come to this determination after decades of observation, and the realization that our nation has moved dangerously, almost terminally left.

Our party leaders say that Reaganism is dead.  They express views that mirror the left, that Conservatives are something akin to damaged people, their desires some manifestation of well-meaning (or not) lunacy.  In the most extreme cases, they say things like, "I like the Democrat Party and their goals.", or "You have nothing to fear from a devout Marxsist administration, led by someone who has socialized with people who absolutely despise our Founding Fathers, our Founding Documents, and the United States as it existed at the end of Reagan's administration."

How can I possibly stand up for a person who would fit the model I described in the last paragraph?  How can I stand up and defend someone who would stand up for such a person?

Folks, we have a number of boards and organizations in my city.  You do too.  Some of those boards and committees may be run by bad people.  None the less, if a bad leader of a group asks you or me to join, wouldn't we be obligated to weigh the benefits of joining in an effort to help turn that group around?   Would we be wrong to join with that goal in mind?  Of course not.  After joining such a board, would we be an ungrateful individual if we voted against the bad leader who asked us to join?  Of course not.   And if that leader were to run for public office after bringing us on a board, would we be obligated to support them as a flawed individual?  Of course not.  It would be our moral obligation to support sound people and policies and retain our moral obligation to vote for them.

Can someone seriously tell me they think it would show character to back a person whose policies were bad for my community, just because they brought me on a local board?  Can someone tell me with a straight face that it would show moral character to support them for public office, knowing their goals were detrimental to my community?  To the contrary, I would be a moral relativist to explain away this person's poor policies, and back them just because they brought me on the board.  And if they tried to use my name as a person who supported their activity,  I would have to stand up and differentiate my views with theirs.  I would be morally obligated to do so.  And if another more solid person were running against them, I would have to support the views and candidacy of the better person.  That would be the moral thing to do, the only path to the expression of a wholesome character.  And if neither candidate were of high moral fiber, it would be my obligation to weight heavily supporting either one.

One of the best ways to break down an issue, is to take certain views and blow them out to the extreme.

We are told today that it shows character to back people who helped us along the way.  If that is true, then we can never expect replacements of our current party leaders to be more sound on policy than the person they replaced.  The people who supported the candidate that is leaving office, will more often than not be the people who make the decision to support his replacement.  So when they come a calling, the very act of them supporting the new candidate, would obligate that candidate morally to back their views.  And that is what has taken place, isn't it.  We have good people go to Washington, D.C., and they have been coopted.

That's the moral conundrum those who support a person backing an extremely flawed individual for re-election, because that person once did them a favor, have to come to terms with.

Are any of us morally obligated to completely ignore our own moral standards simply because someone who doesn't share them once did us a favor no matter how big?

If the answer to that is yes, then check your Conservatism at the door.  Similar claims of obligation will be claimed at every election, and Conservatism might just as well fold up it's tent and die.

If we can't support a man like J.D. Hayworth against a man like John MeCain today, then when can we?

We will never see a worse candidate to represent Conservatism on a Republican national ticket than John MeCain.  And if we can't stand up to him, then Reaganism IS truly dead.

Rush, I don't say this often, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

Folks, don't come on this forum to say that we need to turn things around anymore, if you support MeCain today.  This is your opportunity to strike a blow against the status quo.  This is the time to turn things around.  This is your opening.  Use it or lose it.

If you can't work up the muster to oppose John now, you never will.  And if you can't oppose an extremely flawed individual today, then how can you be expected to do so in the future?  And if you cannot object to an extremely flawed individual today, how can you be expected to object to someone who is flawed to a lessor degree at another time?

This is a defining time for Conservatives.  Either you are one and can only support people and policies that advance your cause, or you are a leftist and can only support people and policies that advance your cause.

Anyone who thinks John MeCain's candidacy is an example of middle-ground, at the very least, has temporarily lost their way.

Character?  Morality?  Loyalty?  These are all good words, but even good words can be bastardized to destroy their wholesome meaning.

I will oppose the candidacy of John MeCain with every fiber of my being.  I will weigh heavily the implications concerning those who can't.

Left or right folks?  Which path is it to be over the next six years?

Morality is calling.  So is moral relativism.  Whose call will you answer?

By the memory of Ronald Reagan, I have made my determination clear.  He is not dead to me.

[AuntB]

You are a disruptor and a fool, who insults way too many good people on this forum. You and I agreed to not post to each other because of your insults, so STOP.

[Man50D]

The point that I have continued to make, as a conservative Republican who has been part of the Tea Party movement from the beginning, is that we are not, as Republicans opponents of the Tea Parties, as you continue to imply, but rather are an integral part of the movement.

You still don't get it. The Tea party movement wasn't formed in support of either wing of the socialist Republicrats. it was created as an outgrowth of disgust for both because they have been moving the country towards socialism.

Who spoke at the National Tea Party in DC on 9-12? Conservative Republican, Mike Pence. Many Republicans (including my own Congressman) are in total agreement with what the movement is saying and doing.

The OP is riding the coattails of the Tea Party because the OP realizes the Conservative Tea party movement is the driving force for Conservatism, not the OP.

Your curious anger at the entire Republican party and not the liberals within it, makes your points all invalid. The "leadership" of the party is NOT the party, and we are trying to fix that.

My anger is with both wings of the socialist republicrat party. They are both to blame for the slow erosion of freedoms over decades since they are the only groups to have been in power for more than 150 years!

The fact is, Man, that the movement towards conservatism in this country is re-energizing the Republican party, the victories in '09 were Republican victories, and the victories in '10 will be as well.

The fact is the OP is dependent on the Conservative Tea party movement. The OP will not be able to shake their incremental socialist tendencies so long as OPer's endorse politicians like McAmnesty! That includes Palin!

And the only way to accomplish that is to elect conservatives in our Republican primaries, wipe out the liberal incumbents, and the wipe out the Marxist majorities in both house of Congress.

Is that why Palin is endorsing McAmnesty? LOL!!!

[CAluvdubya]

Ya know, there are some that don't think Republicans winning in the next election s a good thing. Some have forgotten that Conservatives are Republicans and the way to have a more conservatve party is to keep supporting and electing Repbulicans.

One conservative, that I have great respect for, Duncan Hunter (the elder), has said just this when he was recently pressed about the tea party movement splintering off and forming their own party. He was completely against it. I totally get that type of thinking.

[ansel12]

post 250 The OP elite caused its collapse long ago by removing Conservatism from the OP to appease the socialist left in order to expand the voter base.

No what I am responding to is your continual claim that the GOP is dead and destroyed, that is laughable, they are having a great year and a better year is coming up.

Your lack of knowledge about the current status of the GOP being in ascendancy is startling.