I'm not the only one.
Rush Limbaugh said today:
I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life.
I'm not a big Rush listener, but his concerns and my concerns seem to line up on this race - that McCain, Romney and Huckabee are all big-government nanny-state liberals claiming to be conservative.
I wonder if he shares my frustration that so many otherwise well-intentioned conservatives are falling for it?
I'm telling ya. It's time to vote third party this election.
Perhaps the Consutition or Libertarian Parties would be more worthy of your vote?
I listen to Rush fairly often, and I haven't heard him talk about Romney as a big-government nanny-state liberal. In fact, he argues that the media liked Huckabee and now likes McCain because they are not conservative. But Romney has not gotten similar treatment. And for what it's worth, Ann Coulter sees Romney as fairly conservative.
"I listen to Rush fairly often, and I haven't heard him talk about Romney as a big-government nanny-state liberal. In fact, he argues that the media liked Huckabee and now likes McCain because they are not conservative. But Romney has not gotten similar treatment."
Well, then Rush is a sucker, too.
"And for what it's worth, Ann Coulter sees Romney as fairly conservative."
Ann Coulter's opinions are worth very, very little to me. She's an awful humorist and an awful political analyst, and when she tries to combine the two, she's beyond awful.
the NRO endorsed Romney.
He is putting out a largely conservative platform. You may not believe him, but that is a different issue.
I did hear Medved defending McCain today - there are obviously some well-intentioned conservatives that are willing to accept McCain's flaws.
The Huck's support is largely from the evangelicals - he will fade soon enough.
Weird... I just got done writing a blog post about Rush's RINOs... I'll put it here because it seems to adaquately address this issue as well:
This is supposedly from Rush's latest “Rush in a Hurry” e-mailing on the election:
First off, I sure as heck won’t let Rush unpick my candidate any more than I'd let the media pick my candidate. These theories that McCain is somehow getting supported by the media (is he watching/reading the same media I am?) is preposterous. The idea that McCain and Huckabee aren’t conservatives because they aren’t ideal conservatives is equally preposterous.
It's not just liberals voting for these guys... it's actual conservative voters who seem to disagree with him. Rush thinks these candidates are out of touch with conservatives, but the primaries so far suggest that he is the one who may be out of touch with conservatives along with many of his devout dittoheads.
To drive this point home, here are the entrance/exit poll breakdowns of conservative voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina:
If you're like some conservatives and include Rudy in the RINO list then the "true conservatives" have yet to beat the so-called RINOs in any of the major primaries so far. If you do include Rudy then it's close, but the so-called RINOs are roughly even with the "true conservatives" among actual conservative voters.
People need to make up their own mind, not let the talking heads, Rush included, do it for them.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
If you do include Rudy then it's close, but the so-called RINOs are roughly even with the "true conservatives" among actual conservative voters.
That is a fear of conservatives everywhere - that we don't even make up a majority in the GOP.
"That is a fear of conservatives everywhere - that we don't even make up a majority in the GOP."
Those numbers are the conservatives. And they do make up the bulk of the GOP. The numbers for Republicans generally are as follows:
Rush's RINOs: IA: 48%, NH: 47%, MI: 44%, SC: 63%
Rush's picks: IA: 44%, NH: 46%, MI: 50%, SC: 34%
Extremely similar to that of conservatives in general. Republicans were only slightly more likely to support these candidates than conservatives, but very slightly.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
IP, you and Rush, and way too many others, think that the Republican Party is a conservative party. Why? History? Was T. Roosevelt "conservative" enough for you? How about Eisenhower? How about Nixon, who opened up China?
You see, the marching to the drumbeat of "conservative" is exclusionary, foolish, and a prescription for failure. Litmus tests to determine who has "conservative values" is pigheaded; we need to elect people who lean conservative instead of defaulting to the middle of the road democrats who appeal to more voters.
The Republican Party, my party all my life, is NOT the party of the big tent. It may have factions, country club conservatives and social conservatives, eco-conservatives and fiscal conservatives, but all of them are being more and more marginalized by their respective "litmus tests" for acceptance in the Republican Party.
To re-invent the Republican Party to not only court the mainstream, but also to govern mainstream, should be the goal.
I used to be a conservative Republican. I haven't changed, but the party has, demanding fealty over issues the public generally rejects. I feel strongly have been rejected by the party, I do not feel welcome. If I try to speak about universal health care for children, I am rejected. If I speak about a woman's right to choose, she can meet her Maker and expalin things later, I am vilified. I am no "Rockefeller Republican", a true "RINO", but without bowing down to the neocons, I am a modern day RINO now.
And damn proud of it.
When the conservatives in the Republican Party are supporting John McCain and Mitt Romney is such overwhelming numbers, I'm disappointed.
Neither of those men have conservative records, or are running as conservatives now.
Neither of them recognize the power of limiting government.
Neither of them has a philosophy whose bedrock is the greatness of American individualism and opportunity.
Their core philosophies are that government is the solution to our problems, and even their current pander-tastic campaign positions reflect that. Just last week, Romney was promising a $20 billion government bailout for the auto industry. McCain is awful on the notion of limited government. And Rudy, my preferred candidate, has run a terrible campaign for six months or more based upon none of the ideas on which I'd hoped he would campaign.
And these are the "conservatives" that I'm supposed to feel bad that I'm not supporting, as if I'm not really conservative, and they are?
No, thanks. I'll keep waiting, and working for local candidates in whom I can believe, rather than invest anything in these candidates who so clearly don't share the same philosophies that are the bedrock of American conservatism over the past century.
Maybe a brokered convention will cause one or more of them to espouse something of a conservative philosophy rather than just more of the same day-to-day "government is here to help" pandering that they've given us so far.
"I used to be a conservative Republican. I haven't changed, but the party has, demanding fealty over issues the public generally rejects. I feel strongly have been rejected by the party, I do not feel welcome. If I try to speak about universal health care for children, I am rejected. If I speak about a woman's right to choose, she can meet her Maker and expalin things later, I am vilified. I am no "Rockefeller Republican", a true "RINO", but without bowing down to the neocons, I am a modern day RINO now."
I am starting to feel that way, given that I feel more strongly about Constitutionally limiting the Federal government than I do about trying to pass a Federal law banning abortion.
If only there were a libertarian candidate who wasn't nuts, and whose supporters weren't obnoxious conspiracy theorists.
anon, do you think the Dem party is a big tent party? How do they treat pro-lifers? What about those who support the President during this time of war, or those who have problems with affirmative action?
A party has to stand for something, or it is no value. Not everyone is going to agree on every issue, but you need to line up more than not.
The big philosophical question going around is whether small gov't conservatism is dead as a viable political position in America. Has it been replaced by big gov't conservatism, where gov't is used to push family-value social positions? This is Huckabee, and GW, though probably to a less extent. Is federalism off the table, are states irrelevant?
Anon-and darn crazy to.
Well if Rush isn't going to vote for the nominee lets throw him out of the party you can’t have him saying that crap people listen to him you know.
After all people are voting here we can't have them being informed they might be moved to do something else then they would of or maybe just ignore old Rush.
Actually I think we are almost done if Rudy hasn't closed the deal after being in Florida for 40 days then a few more isn't going to do it, besides Cal, NY and New Jersey look bad for him. I guess Fred has dropped out of the debate releasing even more conservatives to vote for Huckabee or McCain. Romney still has money but people for some reason don't see him as conservative.
I thought the only important thing here was to beat Hillary if McCain can do it fine let him, at least that was what they said about Rudy and he's no conservative.
"The big philosophical question going around is whether small gov't conservatism is dead as a viable political position in America. Has it been replaced by big gov't conservatism, where gov't is used to push family-value social positions? This is Huckabee, and GW, though probably to a less extent."
This is exactly the question. We've gone from rejecting the idea of having the left legislate its values to the right aspiring to do the same.
And then those of us who want those decisions left to individuals are now chastised by "conservatives" for not having the right values, as has happened in this thread.
"Is federalism off the table, are states irrelevant?"
Yes, and have been for some time.
anon, do you think the Dem party is a big tent party? How do they treat pro-lifers? What about those who support the President during this time of war, or those who have problems with affirmative action?
1) I have have seen no problems for pro-lifers who understand the historical class realities of abortion.
2) Why is supporting a horrible president part of being big tent? This shouldn't be a qualifier and you know it. There are plenty of anti-withdrawal democrats.
3) There are plenty of anti-affirmative action folks in the Democratic party, just not as many "ignore race and it'll go away" folks. There are certainly plenty of people who see problems with the racial component of affirmative action.
"I thought the only important thing here was to beat Hillary if McCain can do it fine let him, at least that was what they said about Rudy and he's no conservative."
No - that's what you errorneously thought was the motivation of all Rudy supporters. I've told you that you're wrong about it every time you start bashing him, and you keep ignoring me. I don't know why I should expect any differently now.
And being pro-life alone isn't enough to make someone conservative when they believe in the government intervening in every other avenue of American life, from political speech to health care to industry bailouts to tax increases to diet regulations.
Being pro-life does not equal being conservative. Being conservative is about more than being pro-life.
"There are plenty of anti-withdrawal democrats."
I don't disagree with the rest of your statements, xian, but I must disagree with this one.
redstatewannabe, I am not speaking about the democrats, I am speaking about the disappoinment I have with today's Republican Party. Speak all you want about the dems, I would rather not.
run4cvrlib, I am NOT darn crazy, thank you.
Shall I insult you, too?
Well, if you are not labeling me a Democrat, that's fine, but I have talked to many folks who are concerned about the potential aftermath of a withdrawal following the total gutting of the country by our current administration.
Furthermore, when I present this view--that I would just like to see a decent, non-deceitful plan that appreciates both our responsibilities at home and in Iraq, I've never met any hostility.
Then again, except on this board, I rarely even meet much hostility of any kind, including from horselovers.
I'm more concerned with the opposite issue--how can fiscal conservatives whine about government spending programs while we dump many magnitudes more into wars, inefficient reactionary health care, and on and on?
It's like me clipping coupons while sitting around my Benjamin fueled campfire.
"Well, if you are not labeling me a Democrat, that's fine, but I have talked to many folks who are concerned about the potential aftermath of a withdrawal following the total gutting of the country by our current administration."
Sorry - I understand there's a difference between you and I and others outside the Beltway, and those who are the more prominent representatives of our parties.
If there are any, I would love to see some of the many Democrats on the national stage who share this concern, and are willing to discuss it publicly.
I know IP I am the issue not Rudy, your attempts at intimidation are getting tiresome. Now that he is running for Prez he has to act conservative. I guess you left out that he is anti-Gun to the point he wanted to sue to put gun manufacturers out of business, I guess that’s your definition of pro-business or a good example of government allowing the individual to protect themselves and their family the way they think they should.
I know I would like to have a stronger candidate, but hey we don’t but we sure had a cow when the Dr. Dobson part of the base said they might not get the candidate they wanted. Now when it looks like the small government side (which I am a part of) doesn’t get their candidate they want to bolt and that’s ok?
By the way are you saying McCain is for bigger government because he wasn’t for Bushes tax cuts without spending cuts?
"I know IP I am the issue not Rudy, your attempts at intimidation are getting tiresome."
Intimidation? What are you talking about? Please resume your regularly scheduled Rudy bashing, even though I don't think anyone on here is willing to defend him. On this subject, you're like a dog passing a fire hydrant - you can't let anything Rudy-related pass without at least raising your leg.
"I know I would like to have a stronger candidate, but hey we don’t but we sure had a cow when the Dr. Dobson part of the base said they might not get the candidate they wanted. Now when it looks like the small government side (which I am a part of) doesn’t get their candidate they want to bolt and that’s ok?"
I don't think I'm bolting. I think I'm being told my philosophy is not welcome. Go re-read the thread. I expressed disappointment that there are no conservative candidates (including Rudy, btw). The response has been that the candidates are conservative enough, but rather that my philosophy is the problem. Now that's a party of principles, eh?
"By the way are you saying McCain is for bigger government because he wasn’t for Bushes tax cuts without spending cuts?"
Before I answer that, I need to check if John McCain given us his permission to discuss federal candidates this close to an election.
"If only there were a libertarian candidate who wasn't nuts, and whose supporters weren't obnoxious conspiracy theorists."
Amen to that!
"And then those of us who want those decisions left to individuals are now chastised by "conservatives" for not having the right values, as has happened in this thread."
I hope this wasn't in response to my post. If so I can't stress strongly enough that is not how I meant it. I apologize if it came off that way to you and anyone else who thought I meant it like that.
As far as Rudy goes, with Thompson dropping out he's probably my #2 pick now as Huckabee is just way too socially conservative for me, and Romney seems to have the integrity of a used car salesman. McCain is still my first pick, but mainly because he's independent in ways that appeal to me. I can see how conservatives might be driven up the wall by him. But it seems that many conservatives think he's tolerable at least.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Intimidation? What are you talking about? You ask this question and then you attack calling me calling me a dog that can't pass a fire hydrant without raising my leg, I hate Rudy on and on, that’s friendly?
" don't think I'm bolting. I think I'm being told my philosophy is not welcome. Go re-read the thread. I expressed disappointment that there are no conservative candidates (including Rudy, btw). The response has been that the candidates are conservative enough, but rather that my philosophy is the problem. Now that's a party of principles, eh?" Who told you your philosophy is not welcome? I think people are voting for what is there, trying to find who is the best candidate with the best possibility to win. I think Fred was/is the small government states rights prez. Candidate he didn’t work out.
McCain Feingold is bad law I was told by someone it would be overturned by the Supreme Court, it wasn’t.
I was listening to the program when he said that. It was Rush's way of saying that he does not endorse. It was a way of his unendorsement of McCain and Huckabee. He said flat out that he supports Romneyl over McCain because: "I believe his conversion on the choice issue was genuine." From where I stand, it was the first time he was making an endorsement and that endorsement was for Romney if you read the whole transcript that will be on Romney's web site tommorrow.
"You ask this question and then you attack calling me calling me a dog that can't pass a fire hydrant without raising my leg, I hate Rudy on and on, that’s friendly?"
When was the last time Rudy was mentioned on this site that didn't feel some strange compulsion to attack him? The first step in beating an addiction is admitting that you have one...
Tommorrow?
"He said flat out that he supports Romneyl over McCain because: "I believe his conversion on the choice issue was genuine." From where I stand, it was the first time he was making an endorsement and that endorsement was for Romney if you read the whole transcript that will be on Romney's web site tommorrow."
Well, like I said, then Rush is a sucker, too.
I don't know how anyone can expect small government conservativism (or anything other than transparent pandering) from a guy who promised a $20 billion taxpayer handout to the auto industry just last week. That's principled leadership, right there. That's a guiding, core philosophy of limited government. Clearly Romney's conversion to conservatism must be genuine. Yessirree.
"From where I stand, it was the first time he was making an endorsement and that endorsement was for Romney if you read the whole transcript that will be on Romney's web site tommorrow."
That's some nice spin if you can take the statement I quoted above, which was the only quote Rush used to lead his email newsletter, and claim it's an endorsement of the frontrunning candidate.
First I see you support Rudy and comment on other candidates negatively all the time and I don't attack you personally, which is as I said just an attempt to blame the messager for commenting on a bad republican candidate. I have not attacked you personally like this "strange compulsion" and “addiction” I really don't like the personal attacks I think you should stop and you owe me an apology.
You should follow your own suggestions and do searches "Rudy's First TV AD", "Rudy the Tax Cutter" and today “Rudy’s momentum” I did not comment, on the first thread I actually commented on Romney.
http://www.illinipundit.com/2007/12/04/rudy-tax-cutter
http://www.illinipundit.com/2007/12/04/rudy-tax-cutter
http://www.illinipundit.com/2008/01/21/rudys-momentum
"I have not attacked you personally like this "strange compulsion" and “addiction” I really don't like the personal attacks I think you should stop and you owe me an apology."
Uh. You should really read some of the things you've written.
Gordy I was in the car around 1:30 when I heard Rush say that he supported Romney over McCain. If you read his attack on Huckabee you know he has a problem there. The call that was put through was a caller trying to get an endorsement out of Rush. Rush does not endorse. It was in that context. There was a comment that Rudy was running behind McCain in Florida and might be toast if he did not win. There was a press conferance scheduled tommorrow for Thompson. He dislikes Huckabee ("identity politics"). He just says that he may not endorse any. He says he prefers Romney over McCain. How do you interprete that?
"He says he prefers Romney over McCain. How do you interprete that?"
Given his low opinion of John McCain, I'd interpret that as not saying much.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"He says he prefers Romney over McCain. How do you interprete that?"
I don't - I interpret the one quote he emailed out as the highlight of today's show. And if you're the frontrunner, as Romney is, I don't see how you can claim that's an endorsement in any way.
But I'm sure that Romney will try. It's what I've come to expect from him.
I guess your going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong about my constant attacks on Rudy?
"Uh. You should really read some of the things you've written". Maybe you should do a little proving on this one.
I guess the old axiom is true that people in debates with weak arguments best strategy is to start attacking the opponent. I would have thought it a little small for you though.
"I guess your going to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong about my constant attacks on Rudy?"
Yes - because you found three threads in three months in which Rudy was mentioned and you somehow didn't attack him.
Do you really want me to start going through the list? Is this really how it has to be?
One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Nine. Ten.
That was just the first handful. How many more do you want before you'll admit that you you've been doing this for a while?
"I guess the old axiom is true that people in debates with weak arguments best strategy is to start attacking the opponent."
Pot. Kettle. Go back through the threads that mention Giulani, and how you attack him. Now what were you saying about weak arguments?
This is exactly the question. We've gone from rejecting the idea of having the left legislate its values to the right aspiring to do the same.
And then those of us who want those decisions left to individuals are now chastised by "conservatives" for not having the right values, as has happened in this thread.
IP, are you referring to the abortion issue here?
"I see no personal attacks on you on those links.
I think you confuse the comments about your candidate Rudy on the issues with personal attacks on you."
My point is that you have a nearly incessant need to attack Rudy, even though he's a fifth- or sixth-place candidate.
You deny it. I pointed out multiple instances. You change the subject, pretending it's a personal attack.
Have a nice day, indeed.
"IP, are you referring to the abortion issue here?"
No, not just abortion. I'm pro-life, I just don't think abortion is any of the federal government's business.
That's not socially conservative enough for the Republican Party anymore, I guess.
And the same thing goes for free markets, or free speech, or any number of other freedoms. We've become the party also that promises to legislate America to death, just with our values instead of Democrat values. In the process, all we've done is legitimize everything the Democrats have done over the past forty years. Our argument used to be, "that's not the government's role." Now, our argument is, "we'll use the government to force you do things our way instead of their way."
I don't think that thought process is prevalent among our current candidates. We have Huckabee, and to a much lesser extent Romney, proposing things like this. GW expanded Medicare and got the Fed gov't way more involved in education.
If that is your biggest concern, I wouldn't worry too much. I don't think the massive shift in the focus of the Republican party is going to happen this election. As a matter of fact, I think any of the likely candidates will be closer to a traditional "movement conservative" then GW is, and definately a better spokesperson for the cause.
"We have Huckabee, and to a much lesser extent Romney, proposing things like this."
And our dear old friend John McCain.
And that pretty much sums up the remaining candidates with a chance to win, doesn't it?
And, yes, much of this blame lies with "conservative" GWB (and the "conservative" GOP Congress that enabled him).
"If that is your biggest concern, I wouldn't worry too much. I don't think the massive shift in the focus of the Republican party is going to happen this election. As a matter of fact, I think any of the likely candidates will be closer to a traditional "movement conservative" then GW is, and definately a better spokesperson for the cause."
The "values" debate has shifted, from a discussion of the role of government to a discussion of which individual values we need to legislate. Health care. Speech. Markets. All subject to massive, unprecedented government intervention by one or more of these "conservative" candidates.
That genie isn't going back into the bottle, because the Republican Party has embraced that philosophy. Fred is the only candidate discussing the role of government, and his campaign has been a bumbling disaster since the day he announced.
I see speech as kind of a special, independent issue, so I guess I need to hear more of McCain's other policy positions. But remember, he is against ethanol subsidies :-)
"I see speech as kind of a special, independent issue, so I guess I need to hear more of McCain's other policy positions."
So do I - I see it as just slightly less important than national security, because our ability to discuss politics without regulation impacts every other issue. And McCain is so gawdawful wrong on it that it affect my judgement of him on other issues - judges, spending, taxes, etc. If he can get it so badly wrong on something as fundamental and clear as free speech, then how anti-government can he really be?
:-)
Dennis Prager makes a good case for Rudy, over McCain.
I don't totally agree with his theory on the abortion issue, but tend to agree with a lot of what he says.
Fred just dropped out of the race. Bummer.
Now, our argument is, "we'll use the government to force you do things our way instead of their way."
Insightful. You've hit the nail on the head. I could be tempted to say the GOP has finally accepted that limited government is no longer practical, but that would label me a Democrat and I'm equally unhappy with the current state of that party and its philosophy and who it's offering up as candidates. Even when faced with ever-increasing incompetence on the part of the government when it comes to managing just about anything, the consensus seems to be that the answer to all our woes is more incompetent management.
If the general election were held today I would vote for Obama. I would not vote for Hillary because she doesn't represent even the hope for any new approaches. Barack's potential might turn out to be all rhetoric, but at least the potential is there.
I would not be ignoring potential candidates on the Republican side just because they're Republicans. Each of these candidates suffers from his own particular dealbreaker for me: Rudy misrepresents himself every time he utters "9-11." As a veteran candidate McCain is fairly transparent -- some could even say sincere -- but he's stale, for starters. (OK, maybe this is weak as a dealbreaker. If I had to vote for a Republican at gunpoint, it would probably be McCain.) Romney? Insincere and ethically challenged, and even the whiff of an endorsement from Rush would cross him off for me. Huckabee? Would probably try to sneak in James Dobson as his running mate.
"O tempora, O mores!" Cicero. Ralph Langenheim
As a conservative, I am utterly dismayed by the candidates we have to choose from this election. None of them espouse much of a conservative agenda. I truly don't understand how anyone can say that McCain is a conservative--he is pro-military and pro-defense, but on all other issues, I don't believe he's a conservative. This election is going to be tough for me--I can't support McCain, and yet, I can't see Hillary becoming President. What's a conservative to do? (: I guess we'll all be figuring out which is the lesser of two evils from our own individual point of view.
"Please resume your regularly scheduled Rudy bashing, even though I don't think anyone on here is willing to defend him."
I'd be delighted to if any undecided Florida voters are here. I'm not sure there's much point to, otherwise.