Posted on 02/13/2012 7:00:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A strong case could be made that Rick Santorum owes much of the credit for his recent surge to Rush Limbaugh -- whether Rush wants that credit or not. Events of this past week seem to indicate that Senator Santorum would concur. In the past few days his campaign has wisely exploited some of Rush's words and they are proudly featuring them everywhere.
The implication -- if not the explicit language -- is that Rush prefers Santorum to either Newt or Mitt.
And beyond doubt, there are a couple of show segments which could fairly be interpreted just that way. And it may be true for all I know.
Which begs the question, if Rush is not endorsing Santorum, will he sit by and allow Santorum to use snippets of his show to lend that impression? It also begs the question about how thoroughly Rush has checked Santorum out -- given the unusual disparity between the reality of Santorum and what Rush has said about the former Senator.
I submit that upon further review, Rush might not really want ownership of this fast rolling train.
Now to be clear, Rush has not overtly endorsed Santorum or anyone and has expressly said many times that he will not do so. A review of his show will verify that he has had various segments that were friendly to Newt Gingrich and at times to Mitt Romney as well as his positivity for Santorum. Meanwhile, Rush has been -- consistent with Limbaugh doctrine of many years -- critical of both Newt and Mitt on numerous occasions. In fact he has criticized Mitt's moderate moments for many months.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Did some one give you Idiot pills to take?
If he endorses anyone before the Primary is over I will send you a couple Tow if by Tea.
RE: Not so. In 2008, he waited until the primary field was narrowed down to Romney and McCrazy, at which point he endorsed Romney.
It’s not like he had any choice then. He had to choose the lesser of the evils.
Did some one give you Idiot pills to take?
*******************
Stop it. If you’re a “Ditto head” then you should engage in the “arenas of ideas”- And if you will not, or lack the intellectual wherewithal to make an effective argument in defense of Rush and conservatism— then, you do him no favors by your support. In fact, your comment diminishes him because you reflect on his audience-
He would be VERY disappointed in your juvenile comment— “don’t doubt me on that!”
Vin
http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/38787/
In answering questions about how he feels about the election results, Limbaugh said, “I feel liberated. … I no longer am gonna have to carry the water for people who I think don’t deserve having their water carried. … If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future both in Congress and the administration are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that’s liberating.
There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress. Some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at. And it has been difficult coming in here trying to make the case for it when the people who supposedly in favor of it can’t even make the case themselves."
So he cringed but he went ahead and made the case anyway. Thanks for supporting a RINO agenda Rush, worked out real well for everyone.
So, why hasn’t Sarah Palin wholly dispatched Romney, and urged the candidacies of Rick and/or Newt from Day One?
*****************
Clearly, she has dispatched Romney- she has affirmatively stated that “she is not convinced he is a conservative”. Which is exactly what Rush should have said, if he wanted to be consistent with his ideological claim that only Reagan conservatives can win the general. But, he has not!
As he would with yours He does not support Romney and never would, unless it comes to him or O, and that is the same position as every talking head. But I will not, Period.
You have not answered the argument- because you can’t, my friend.
Romney is a moderate, at best— Rush purportedly has disdain for moderates— but yet, not once, has he come out and said vote for Newt/Santorum/Perry, anyone but Romney. Why????
She has not clearly dispatched Romney as you imply, and there is a reason for that, he may be the last man standing.
She certainly has called into doubt Mitt's conservative creeds, but she has not done any irreparable harm. I have no doubt that she hopes Mitt is not the nominee, but she is a realist, and Mill is certainly not dead.
I personally would never pull the lever for Mitt but I have the misfortune to live in a state where my vote will never matter,
Maybe you should listen to him more, he has repeatedly said he has nothing to gain from doing that. If he had jumped on the Cain wagon or any other for that matter, how would he look now. Unlike the freepers that post here he makes a good living by trying not to make an a$$ of himself.
It sometime maddens me but as far as he and his show is concerned it makes sense for him not to endorse, until the race for all practical purpose is over.
Having said that he has done all the attacks on Obama for them, they mostly haven't taken advantage of it.
True. A lot of us did.
She certainly has called into doubt Mitt’s conservative... I have no doubt that she hopes Mitt is not the nominee
**********
Precisely! By listening to her, you have concluded that you have “no doubt” that Romney should not be the nominee.
Now, can you say that about your buddy?
Do you want Rush to sue him? Probably. LOL! BTW, where's the link to your article concerning Newt's use of Michele Bachmann sound bites in radio ads, although she has not explicitly endorsed anyone. Once something is out in public, is borrowing it a case of fair usage or not? Whichever way the conclusion falls, the rules should apply equally.
Which is only half the rub anyway.
Ok, setting up for the rest of the rub....
No one in either the Romney or Gingrich campaigns has ever played the sanctimonious purity card that has been the centerpiece of Santorum's 'look at me' campaign.
"The Purity Card." Now THAT'S funny. Thank God for You Tube!
Which is why I am puzzled that Rush obviously thinks Santuckabee -- er Santorum -- is the purest conservative in the field. Upon review, that is not an opinion I would want to own.
And you don't have to own it! LOL! On the other hand, Rush wants to own it, does own it, accepts the responsibilty of owning it, and has a basis in reality for owning it. This is freedom of speech in action! As Rick Santorum says, "Isn't this a great country?"
Furthermore, the people who proudly own that opinion are not confused or puzzled at all by Rush's evaluation of Santorum. They note that Rush is of the same opinion, and do not feel the need to waste brain space obsessing over others who think differently.
Nope, I watched all the Palin threads where we already had her nominated. I will be patient and wait until she says what she says. Hints won't do, otherwise with all the hints and tells thrown out here, she would be on the ticket.
Still plan to vote for her, in any case.
Yes it’s my projection - it’s called a commentary - not a hard news story. Get back to me when you learn the difference.
And FTR, the buyers remorse would likely kick in with a disastrous Santorum candidacy - or maybe if he were to be President - at that point - because any one with a brain has buyers remorse over Bush.
I won’t cut him that slack because he has snottily not cut others that slack during the campaign. Now why Perry and Newt and Mitt were too stupid to call Santorum on it is beyond me - other than they foolishly didn’t consider him worth responding to - but he has refused to acknowledge that Perry has realities in Texas and Mitt in Massachusetts and Newt with a Democrat President - so I’ll damned sure not cut him any slack for Pennsylvania.
Pious is as pious does .
Thank you for your intelligent and respectful disagreement with some of the points of my article - totally unlike the ignorant and snippy and frankly not very intelligent comments some others have posted.
As to your points, there was a longer version of the article that did not run that answered them, because they are valid points. Quickly, on two of your points:
As to Santorum wandering off “less” than the others: maybe true, but mostly because he has a much shorter career. By percentage, his “wanderings” are as high or higher than the other two. ALSO, remember, it is Santorum who claims the purity card, which the other two do not.
Now, as to Newt’s dalliances -and I really wish this paragraph was not left on the cutting room floor - they have not beep part of his legislative record or part of a campaign for him. They have mostly been in the non political part of his career (books, speeches, etc).
This is not to excuse them, but to contrast them with Santorum’s dalliances, which have all been part of his legislative record and his wimpy 06 campaign.
For Rush to miss these two huge differences just floors me.
Go to his website, I am not going to write a three thousand word article.
What is irrational about it?
Then again, Rush back peddled today and made it clear he was unsure of all of them. Don’t think this is a coincidence.
And get back to me when you are published, and not before.
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.