RBB:

I must be great not to have a life.

Most honest confession I’ve seen from RBB, even if the grammar is a bit broken.

Carrick, I find your post quite reasoned and I agree with a lot of it.

Still some of these guys are going to be taking the country in the wrong direction almost as much as Hillary would. If I believe that how can I support them?

Now maybe they’d be less bad on judicial appointments, one factor in their favor.

On the other hand it won’t matter a bit if I support Huck or not. He’s unelectable.

Shouldn’t I point out his negatives now before it’s too late?

As an independent moderate…I’d like to request that you GOP pussies continue to whine like fat pig Rush///

You are not vitors…you are victims. I love competing against victims.

Wa Wa There is a war on Christianity…in a couuntry that is 82% Christian.

Wa Wa I’m a millionaire who wants more tax breaks…in a country that is almost 10 trillion in debt

Wa Wa I’m a victim of the liberal media…which is owned by huge, mostly conservative conglomerates…who by the way…own the rest of the world and lobbyists.

Wa Wa This country sucks to live in…well who the fuck controlled the house, senate, executive branch, and supreme court for six fucking years?

Look in the mirror you deuchebags…you’re going down in ’08. But that’s what victim’s love….to lose so they can claim persecution….

Rob and Whistler, my short answer is “too much principle” ends up with few people left. There is no such thing as an ideal person.

I vote based on which candidate is more likely to move the country in the direction I think it needs to go. For example, a Republican president (regardless of who he is) is much more likely to oppose large-scale expansion of social programs. I’m assuming a Democratically controlled House and Senate, and without the balancing of a more conservative president, I’m worried that the Democrats are going to end up really f-ing up the country.

And no it’s not worth it just so the morons on the left can blame the rest of us that we didn’t allow them to go even further down the road to socialism for the failure of their ideas. That is the pattern, btw, for lefties. I am a hell of a lot more worried about regression to socialism (the biggest threat our society faces) than I am e.g. about illegal immigration, right to life or a plethora of other “principled” issues.

If you look at the shift in entitlement spending, we’re at the 2/3′s mark in our total budget. We’re already at the 50% mark on socialized medicine. Let the Democrats take control, drop our military spending in half, leave us in a weakened position internationally in these troubled times, and just see how bad things will get.

I figure (first order) any President will represent his core constituency, so any Democrat will try to continue to bloat our budget with social programs (while blaming military spending of course), will raise taxes multiple times, etc. And of course on the core conservative principles? Guaranteed to move against them 100% of the time.

Given somebody who may occasionally flounder and not act on the principles we would like them to, and what we are likely to look at from the left. It isn’t even a matter of “holding my nose”. I know what I will be getting if we get a Hillary for president. Thing is, with her high negatives (comparable to GWB after five years of war), she shouldn’t even stand a chance in a general election.

Robert108:

He’s an angry guy who now has the power to destroy his “enemies”(anyone who disagrees with him). You ain’t seen nuttin’ yet.

Well that’s what Rush is saying anyway. So it must be true. LOL

I want to thank BHP for the link. Great work, I was looking for it on the archive tape.

Robert108:

Entirely false; Rush recites his record and his stances on the issues, which is neither attack nor distortion.

No, Rush is just full of bullshit. Like his comment about McCain having an animus towards the Republican party and trying to destroy it.

There is no record that Rush is reciting. He’s just pulling this out of his ass.

Whistler, let’s assume for arguments sake that Huckabee gets the Republican nominee. I don’t think that has any chance of happening, but let’s suppose.

You can sit here with a straight face and assert to us there’s little or no difference between Huckabee and Clinton? I think that’s nonsense, but that’s just my take.

The real point though is there’d be one big difference: He’d be on a Republican ticket and that would be a moderating influence by itself.

Doustoi: I worry a little about McCain’s possible court appointments too, but not as much as I worry about Hillary’s or Obama’s, because I know what kind they will make.

the invasion from the south

Thank you Mr. Raygun.

(Hey, r-Gumby — big day today! You’re gonna pass 15,000 comments!)

The thing is that the Republican party is a coalition. Us paleo conservatives shouldn’t push a candidate unacceptable to the evangelist conservatives. Because when we come to it we have to have a coalition candidate to win the general election.

But that would also go with Huck or McCain.

I imagine if Huck were to get nominated and susequently creamed in the general the backers of Huck would blame us Paleo’s.

Of course they would be wrong because Huck is unelectable and they need to have a candidate that is acceptable to the coalition.

Goon and Robert108, people often create their own reality.

If conservatives treat McCain as an enemy, he will rightfully regard them as enemies. You can call this self-fulfilling destiny or whatever you want, but that’s how things work in reality.

I pretty much agree with Robert that McCain would be an unreliable ally. So there are reasons to be skeptical. But we need to start with the assumption that we’re basically on the same side. To do otherwise is to predetermine an unfavorable outcome, which is basically my worry about Limbaugh’s demagoguery, were one to take it seriously (I acknowledge taking it seriously may be a mistake).

You can sit here with a straight face and assert to us there’s little or no difference between Huckabee and Clinton?

Hucks a native born Arkansasian and Hillary was a transplant. (Said without a straight face).

Huck has good motives for his stupidity and Hillary’s doing the same thing out of lust for power? Maybe.

The real point though is there’d be one big difference: He’d be on a Republican ticket and that would be a moderating influence by itself.

This gets to the crux. In North Dakota we have a Republican Governor who’s worse for the state than if he were a Democrat. The conservatives in the legislature are neutered with him up there since he can draw the Dems (every single one) and the moderates.

So my final question in the voting booth would be would the judicial appointments outweigh a person in office that will be destroying the Republican party as a conservative voice.

The new Republican empty-tent policy. Nobody fits in it now.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.The fantasy of moral absolutism. The same act in different contexts can be moral or immoral. Context is everything.

Spartacus: Yes, “We”!! There are many, many people, including some on SAB, who think that Rush has crossed the line.

“We” is all inclusive. I didn’t give anyone permission to speak on my behalf, I reserve that right for myself. “We, with the exception of Spartacus” would be acceptable to me although a few others may want to sound off as well, remember that in the future.

R-Gumby you da man…just look at that comment count!
I must be great not to have a life.

I’m sad to see how successful the Dem Ministry of Propaganda has been in dividing Republican voters. Divide and conquer…
Don’t be suckers, people!

Always the victim, huh r-Gumby?

Yep it was us. The pinko commie liberal tofu eating tree hugging gay loving liberal drive by media (owned by republican supporting corporations) who chose each and every gop candidate and made them say thing things they said.

Hey, r-Gumby didja find any good Ace of Spades headlines to borrow from today?

Butt Voters.

HAHAHAHAAAA

Thanks Gene!

Rush and Beck are entertainers, nothing more nothing less, along the lines of Don Imus and Howard Stern. I think Rush has actually said as much. Somewhere I heard a clip of him saying something to the effect that his job is to get as many people to listen for as long as possible so the advertisers get their moneys worth. Didn’t el rushbo say something after the 2006 thumping that he was tired of carrying water for gops? He is a carney barker a drug addicted barker. Beck, Beck is bovine excrement you invite into your living room.

I realize that sometimes you have to take the bad with the good,

(I love using the word nefarious)

Hell, I feel better just READING it!

You know, I think the real problem here is that the Republican party had been getting ready for a split between the Social Conservative/Fiscal Liberal, and Social Liberal/Fiscal Concervative wings of the party. I strongly suspect, had the Republicans not lost to 2006 election, that that split would have reach full fruit now. However, being put into the minority has interupted that; both groups felt that they needed unity with the other in order to not be overwhelmed by the Democrats.

HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING HERE.

You can tell it’s true! He typed it in all caps! /sarcasm

Carrick: Well put; it is worth mentioning that besides the obvious, one of the big problems with the invasion from the south is the plethora of welfare spending on them, including education and medical care. Having a Dem President would make it much worse than it already is. Ditto abortion.

I listened to a good portion of his show today and never heard him say that either.

I hate those stupid embedded links in your post as well.

I believe that G.W. Bush has done more to kill the Republican party than 8 years of Clinton or anything a Dem could do. Conservatives got burned really bad electing an electable person when they rallied behind Bush. My thoughts are… never again! It was Bush and the Republicans who just couldnt spend enough ever. Every time something happened we were treated to Bush speaking and telling people that the full force of the Federal govt would be at their every whim. It was Bush who pushed twice for complete amnesty for illegals. Now it’s Bush pushing for Israel to give up more land for peace. Not to mention the whole prescription drug and no effort social security, and voucher push he alluded to. It’s just one disappointment after another. What’s funny is that he still gets negative reviews from Dems and the media no matter how far to the left he goes from Bill Clinton. Never again. There really isnt anyone I feel I could vote FOR. Frankly, its better to just vote in a Democrat liberal and have Conservatives find their voice than to elect another liberal GWB who trashes the party into nothing. I dont think I’m alone in this thinking either. Who knows where it will lead, but if Hillary wins I would seriously look for a black party split from the dems and a new minority party formed. It’s going to get much worse either way. Kinda makes you not wanna turn on the alarm clock anymore hunh? Sweet dreams.

Rush is a drug additic, why do we still listen to him when he has just gone off the edge. We need to look at what is good for our country not just us.

Don’t worry, Rush won’t end up standing on principle, he never does. He will end up “carrying the water” of whoever the Republican nominee is.

No seminar posters like you think he has crossed the line, I want to know if possibly your paid by the McCain campaign to come on here and lecture people who think Limbaugh is right?

Could be a sock puppet too, it’s happened before… in Brazil…need I say more?

Just wait till they nomiated a candidate.

Then Rush will be back to his usual water carrying self.

To a Republican Party run by him. I think he wants to head a Republican Party that “gets along” with the Dems.

That means that if you support that idea that means your giving Democrats legislative gains like Shamesty, McCain Fiengold etc, also against the Bush Tax cuts and against Drilling ANWAR, if that is the party he wants I will stay home.

Olive branch?

Angry arrogance. He wants us to move left to him; he’s not moving to us, other than falsely claiming to be a conservative, which he isn’t.

There is no record that Rush is reciting. He’s just pulling this out of his ass.

Nope. McCain is already going after Republicans in Congress who have opposed him. He’s an angry guy who now has the power to destroy his “enemies”(anyone who disagrees with him). You ain’t seen nuttin’ yet.

If conservatives treat McCain as an enemy, he will rightfully regard them as enemies.

If this is true, then McCain is a follower, not a leader.
McCain is treated as an enemy because of his actions:
McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, Gang of 14, etc.
To assert that he did those things due to conservatives being mean to him is just ridiculous, Carrick.
Another note: This is the primary, not the general election. Conservatives rightly oppose McCain, because he has betrayed us numerous times, and has supported policies that are inimical to conservative principles. If we didn’t oppose him, we would be false to our principles.
In the general election, if McCain ends up the nominee, we will probably hold our noses and vote for him. In fact, we have had only one conservative President, so we are used to holding our noses. It doesn’t make us any less motivated to try to advance conservatives, and we will not stop us this time, either.

Carrick: To clarify; the purpose of the primaries is to select the candidate who best represents us, and conservatives are saying(Rush, Ann, et. al.) that McCain doesn’t represent us.

continues to be America’s spokesman for conservatism.

Quite a few people seem to believe that. However, most people who listen to him, myself included, consider him to be an entertainer. His self glorifying bravado is part of the entertainment, drives the far left up the wall too.

Actually he did say it. From his own website:

Rush’s Own Words

CALLER: Earlier you had mentioned that when the time comes, you’re going to announce or get behind somebody, and I’m just wondering, what’s your selection criteria for picking a candidate, and two, how do you decide when that time is that you’re going to announce? I’m more interested in how you pick a candidate. Because especially this year with — there’s really not a true conservative. How do you narrow it down?
RUSH: That’s an excellent point. I don’t have a time frame, just to address that first. I don’t have a time frame.
CALLER: All right.
RUSH: And I also, I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee.
CALLER: Hm-hm.
RUSH: And I never thought that I would say that in my life.

Rob: I do remember that one sentence out of the entire three hour show, but at the time, I thought he was being hyperbolic. Furthermore, he said “I may not…”, not “I won’t…”.

HG,
MMGW is not (or at least should not be) a political issue, though it has been hijacked by many on the left including Gore, who IMO, has done more to undermine the need for action than anyone to date.

So it must be true. LOL

As McCain gains more and more power, it will become more and more apparent. Nothing to laugh about, at least for conservatives. I think both Hillary and Obama will play his anger like a fiddle, and the “angry white man” will lose badly, unless he can do a master job of deception. All they have to do is to tweak him until he explodes in public.
I feel ashamed to have him as a representative of the Republican Party.

I disagree. All we need is a consensus candidate to be supported by all factions of the party.

The coalition is viable. The leadership we’re seeing not so much.

RBB

Dear fish, thanks for the barrel.

Such a great line, I keep using it (elsewhere) and it’s never a well done as when you do it.

But you are right. Like children who don’t get to pitch in the ball game, they that lose don’t fight but they sit on the sidelines and pout. “I won’t vote and you can’t make me”. Butt Voters.

I’m very disappointed with Rush and Beck. They should have their Republican Revolution Badges revoked.

We now know they were never really republicans. They are ideologues without the political savvy to win elections. I look at how the dominance of Talk Radio has changed the argument from unity and winning to narrow casting top people that have no chance of winning anything.

Carrik is right. This is the party of the tiny tent.

The Village Idiot soils himself again.

Whether Rush said it or not, its a noble but self-defeating stance. Allowing Hillary or Obama to waltz into the White House – armed with an expanded liberal majority in the Senate – because we can’t philosophically support Romney, Guiliani or McCain would only ensure the continuance or expansion of a liberal majority on the Federal bench and the Supreme Court.

The damage to our nation, our liberties and our freedoms would continue and expand over the next 30 years. Me must not let that happen! Anyone to the right of Hillary and Obama will get my vote.

Carrick: I repeat what I have said many times: I hope a Republican wins in ’08; if that means President McCain, so be it. I think he’s marginally better than either Dem, but not much. He will keep fighting the terrorists, which is good, but he will open the borders, which is bad. He seems to be more interested in cooperating with the Dems than he is with fellow Republicans, but I hope I’m wrong about that.
He seems pretty ignorant about economics, and we really need leadership in that area, so I hope he appoints some very good economic advisors, and listens to them.
So far, what he has said about economics is pretty depressing for anyone who favors the free enterprise system.
I hope he wins; I just don’t think he will. I think we need a candidate who provides more contrast with the Dems than McCain does.
My opinion; bookmark it if that makes you feel good.

Interesting update to this thread: Today, John McCain appealed to conservatives to calm down and focus on areas where they agree. Olive branch?

Today, I received an email from the DNC declaring that McCain must be beat! The reasons? He will continue war in the Middle East. He will name anti-abortion, strict-construction justices to the Supreme Court. He will try to roll back the democrat’s progress in helping minorities and the poor. Signed, Howard Dean [I am furious because it came to my spam folder and when I tried to email it to Rob, it disappeared.]

The American Conservative Union gave John McCain an 87.5% rating on conservative issues.

Maybe food for thought.

I wish Rush would take another look at Ron Paul – he outlines his 5 points of conservatism at about 4:15 in this clip, and without a doubt Paul is the only one who really meets all these points.

Bush has really changed the face of the republican party and it astounds me that so many people fail to see this and just continue buy the “party-line”.

Robert108 said: Carrick: I repeat what I have said many times: I hope a Republican wins in ‘08; if that means President McCain, so be it. I think he’s marginally better than either Dem, but not much. He will keep fighting the terrorists, which is good, but he will open the borders, which is bad. He seems to be more interested in cooperating with the Dems than he is with fellow Republicans, but I hope I’m wrong about that.
He seems pretty ignorant about economics, and we really need leadership in that area, so I hope he appoints some very good economic advisors, and listens to them. So far, what he has said about economics is pretty depressing for anyone who favors the free enterprise system. I hope he wins; I just don’t think he will. I think we need a candidate who provides more contrast with the Dems than McCain does. My opinion; bookmark it if that makes you feel good.

I like what you said here robert…

Pparets: Great comments! Core conservative values are terribly important to defend, but so is the need to resist the advance of liberal-socialism by the Democrat candidates.

I would add that it is unfortunate that those here defending core fiscal-small government conservative principles as a virtue do not consider it a virtue at all when Christian conservatives believe Judeo-Christian social-moral issue are their core beliefs and they want to defend them just as passionately, while most of them would also see defeating the advance of liberal-socialism as a critical war as well.

We will no longer get the best conservative candidate for either conservative group; but we know if we don’t vote the eventual Republican candidate into office, we will lose the liberal-socialism battle and perhaps the war this time.

So my final question in the voting booth would be would the judicial appointments outweigh a person in office that will be destroying the Republican party as a conservative voice.

If you really think that’s true, then how do you account for Bush’s defeat over immigration? The public spoke loudly. He listened.

Much harder to do when the person is aligned with the left (and has implicit help of the media to boot).

The new Republican empty-tent policy. Nobody fits in it now.

I don’t see it that way, Carrick. Why support a candidate you don’t like? One who doesn’t match up with what you think a leader should be?

I actually gained quite a bit of renewed respect for Rush as a commentator when he took his stand against McCain.

I have much more respect for him now than I would have if he’d tried to grope his way toward an excuse to support McCain who clearly doesn’t share a lot of his values.

Carrick, here’s the point I’m trying to make.

I realize that politics is about compromise. I realize that sometimes you have to take the bad with the good, but there are certain principles that I don’t think you can compromise on. Basic, bedrock principles that if they aren’t adhered to don’t mean anything at all.

I’m not sure I see a candidate in this field that adheres to my conservative principles. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t, and I’m not going to fall in line just to bring home a GOP victory.

http://www.hermes4sale.biz/“>Hermes Handbags