Rush Limbaugh: Caller Wants Sarah to Lead Conservatives

The Excellence In Broadcating Network ^ | July 29, 2013 | Rush Limbaugh

[2ndDivisionVet]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Greg in Nashua, New Hampshire. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Based on what you're saying about the Republican Party abandoning a large chunk of the American population -- including conservatives -- or even being any real opposition to the Democrats on Obamacare and apparently everything else, I'm wondering whether Sarah Palin's recent gambit that if the GOP... I think she calls them the GOP brain trust on the Greta show. If the GOP is indeed abandoning her as well as a large swath of American voters, she's going independent. Palin is a prominent Republican. Even beyond what Ted Cruz or Mike Lee has said, she's broached the topic of going outside the GOP if need be, and maybe she's right on target there. Maybe she can lead the way out of this conundrum of the Dems and the GOP, apparently, being joined at the hip, at least on Obamacare and probably a lot more.

RUSH: Well, you mean by going third party?

CALLER: Yeah, or thing if... Turn the party over to her she'll go third.

RUSH: Now, wait a minute. I think I mighta missed something. Nobody is gonna turn the party over to anyone.

CALLER: Well, what I mean is she's saying if they don't give the party to the conservatives to run this, then the GOP is gonna run into another disaster like they did with Romney, like they did with McCain, like they did with Bob Dole. And that basically this is a time, she's saying, laying down the gambit (sic) now saying that she'll go third party. She'll go independent, and maybe this is a time when an independent third-party run can win.

RUSH: Oh. Oh. I see. Back to that. There is no evidence that a third party wins.

CALLER: Rush, can I tell you something? Maybe don't call it a third party. Call it "the new second party." Just like when the Republican Party was born, when the old party went the way of the Whigs, that basically the conservatives... What you really got here is --

RUSH: You know what that is? That would be taking over the Republican Party --

CALLER: That's what I was just kind of saying.

RUSH: -- which is what has to happen.

CALLER: That's what I was saying initially. In other words, you really got Washington, the establishment, against the American people. The current Republican establishment is tied at the hip with the Democrats. So basically you've got a new second party, really forming around what Sarah Palin is saying, and she could be the titular leader. She's the head of it.

RUSH: So you're excited about Sarah Palin maybe providing the impetus and the leadership at least titular for a new Republican Party?

CALLER: I think she's the most prominent one. I keep saying if she gets out there, like when she was on the Greta show the other day talking about it... If she can get out there, I think... I mean, obviously she provokes a lot of emotion in people pro and con, but if she can get out there and get her message across, I think they're afraid of her in Washington.

RUSH: I don't doubt that.

CALLER: Republicans and Democrats are afraid of her and what's got a new --

RUSH: They're not gonna cede -- c-e-d-e -- anything to her, or to anybody else, for that matter.

END TRANSCRIPT

[The Wizard]

Sarah is the only one

[Alex in chains]

I agree.

And if Palin runs as an independent, her endorsement will automatically become worthless in any Republican primary.

And she better be ready to be criticized by Tea Party conservatives including Ted Cruz.

So I don’t see that happening.

[jch10]

Sarah, as the new leader of Conservatives, sounds great to me. Don’t say third party or independent, just say Conservative.

Sarah can run or support whomever is chosen to run.

I’m on board.

[GeronL]

yes

[KC_Lion]

Ping to Sarah's Awesome List!!

Even mentioning Sarah's name sends the Democrats, Republicans and PDSer's Palintations.

GO SARAH!!!!

Where She Leads I will Follow.

[Springfield Reformer]

Assuming for the sake of argument you are relying on the NT passages concerning the role of the woman in the home and in the church, you cannot transform those general rules, however you interpret them, into an absolute prohibition against women as public leaders, because

1) The rules given pertain to home life and church life, not public life.

2) God always does what is right, and it was He who put Deborah in charge of Israel. Her “judgeship” was clearly a national leadership role (attempts to downplay it notwithstanding), and it was clearly ordained and blessed of God.

So there can be no absolute prohibition even under the most restrictive system of interpretation.

Furthermore, if your argument is that Deborah’s rise to public leadership only occurred because there were no men around up to the role, in effect a chastisement for the lack of Godly male leadership, then how does that differ from now?

[SoConPubbie]

Thank you.

[JaguarXKE]

We could call it “gopC” (For “C”conservative )

[Jane Long]

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Where she leads, I'll follow ;)

[Nextrush]

I support Sarah because I trust her as being a real outsider and honest.

I trust Ted Cruz and half trust Rand Paul who is at least an outsider if not always 100 percent right on all issues.

Over 90 percent of the GOP elected officials are business as usual untrustworthy people from Pat Toomey here in PA to Marco Rubio in FL, Chris Christie in NJ and the list goes on and on.

WHEN IT COMES TO ‘FRESH BLOOD’ MY LIST IS VERY SHORT AND IT STARTS WITH SARAH PALIN.....

[Nextrush]

Elect all the people you want but the machinery of the party remains in the hands of the big money establishment and that money flows to support business as usual politics.

They won’t allow real outsiders to take over and when Ron Paulistas threatened to do so in 2008 and 2012 primary season, the GOP-E changed meeting locations and rules to keep them from doing so in certain places.

[ClaytonP]

So there can be no absolute prohibition even under the most restrictive system of interpretation.

Did you even read the comment that I responded to?

Some pathetic mangina was trying to prohibit any man from challenging Hillary.

Secondly Palin in teasing and refusing to run in 2012 has proven herself to care more about her own publicity than anything else.

[Springfield Reformer]

Did you even read the comment that I responded to?

Um, yes. But please tell me you realize a human political calculation is not a prohibition, and certainly not on the same level as your proposed divine prohibition. The poster's belief, not unreasonable, is that a woman may have an electoral edge going up against another woman in the coming election. In no way does that prohibit the right *man* from coming along and beating Hillary on pure merit. So you're just shadow-boxing with that one.

Secondly Palin in teasing and refusing to run in 2012 has proven herself to care more about her own publicity than anything else.

Now here I am really baffled. Based on your first argument, that somehow a woman politician was against the divine order, I figured you to be a person with deep religious convictions, misguided perhaps, but sincere.

But then you throw me into doubt. Palin was very clear when she decided not to run that she believed she was doing exactly what God was leading her to do. I remember it clearly, the following morning she mentioned something about an event which was a sign to her she was doing the right thing. I would think this was exactly what you wanted her to be like, submissive to the will of God.

But instead, you take her clear, honest, godly statements and twist them into an accusation of crude self-interest, without, BTW, a stitch of real evidence. Now if you are knowledgeable of how God wants us to live, and if that is really important to you, I urge you to recall the OT commandment which teaches us not to bear false witness against our neighbor, and its NT equivalent, which is not to spread false information about people in the form of gossip, innuendo, defamation, etc.

Face the truth here. You are not God. You do not know her heart. She kept the option of running alive as long as she could, as any reasonable politician would, and without ever lying to her supporters. And yet she waited for God to give the green light, and He never did. Isn't that what you wanted? How then does her faithfulness to the leadership of God prove to you she was acting out of base selfishness? It really makes no sense.

[ClaytonP]

But then you throw me into doubt. Palin was very clear when she decided not to run that she believed she was doing exactly what God was leading her to do. I remember it clearly, the following morning she mentioned something about an event which was a sign to her she was doing the right thing. I would think this was exactly what you wanted her to be like, submissive to the will of God.

Sound like a typical modern churchian where feeling is all that counts.

But instead, you take her clear, honest, godly statements and twist them into an accusation of crude self-interest, without, BTW, a stitch of real evidence. Now if you are knowledgeable of how God wants us to live, and if that is really important to you, I urge you to recall the OT commandment which teaches us not to bear false witness against our neighbor, and its NT equivalent, which is not to spread false information about people in the form of gossip, innuendo, defamation, etc.

I subscribe to the view of direct confrontation with evil, where most churchians are too cowardly to say anything and have subscribed to the false liberal doctrine of non-judgementalism.

Fortunately the Ned Flander's churches of the world are dying out.

[Springfield Reformer]

Presumably a “churchian” is one whose affiliation with an institution is more important than their personal relationship with Christ. While it is doubtless true there are such people, it’s quite a leap to say that about Sarah. Again, you do not know her heart before God,

Now you speak of the doctrine of non-judgmentalism as if it were a liberal invention. I guess that makes Jesus and his apostle Paul liberals, because they clearly did teach some form of it.

Now, to be fair to you, I agree there is a liberal *perversion* of said doctrine, and it is a devilish inversion of the truth. But like CS Lewis says, the devil is really lacking in creativity; all his perversions are based in some way on God’s own truth.

Here are the two forms as I understand them:

1) Liberalism’s Non-Judgmentalism: “There is no moral truth, so no act, no matter how vile, can be condemned. Except of course being a conservative.”

2) Christian Non-Judgmentalism: Don’t play God. Judge with righteous judgment. If you must judge at all, judge others the way you would want to be judged, because that is how God will judge you. The judging condemned by Christ and Paul is not “confronting evil,” but presuming evil where only God could possible know the truth, in the private thoughts and motives of a person.

So if a person does an evil act, such as sexual perversion, and there is good, objective evidence of that, then by all means confront that evil act. Or if a person does something apparently good, but openly reveals their motives as being evil, with sound, objective evidence to back it up, then by all means confront those evil motives too.

But nothing in Scripture permits you (or me or anyone) to just make up stuff out of thin air, out of what we, with our own evil imaginations, imagine about the inner workings of another person. That is exactly why Jesus and Paul focus on our own sinfulness. It blinds us to the hearts of those around us. It increases the risk we will simply project our own evil motives onto the acts of the innocent. The left does this all the time. We should not emulate them.

We must judge righteous judgment, yes, but it must be righteous. To be righteous it must first of all be based on truth. If we do not know something is true, and pronounce judgment on someone based our warped imagination rather than on truth, we violate the royal law of love, we violate the command of God to not bear false witness against our neighbor, and if we direct this malicious falsehood against a fellow believer, we do needless harm to a brother or sister for whom Christ also died.

So righteous judgment is good, but false judgment cannot be pleasing to God, and a wise person will avoid it at all costs.

[EagleInGA]

I understand that Sarah Palin has some fans, and if she won in 2016 I would be thrilled. I just think it is delusional to believe she can win or even that she intends to run. It is not going to happen. She chose a different path and the rest of us have moved on.