Limbaugh on McCain: It's Better to Be Right All the Time

Socrtease

Verified User
I am sorry I posted the whole thing but you have to sign up to get on the washintonpost.com and I didn't want you all to have to go through that.

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 5, 2008; Page C01

It may be the best sideshow in presidential politics: the nation's top radio talker trying to take down the Republican front-runner in today's Super Tuesday showdown.

Rush Limbaugh has been relentless in his criticism of John McCain, prompting suggestions that he may have to soften his stance if the Arizona senator wins the nomination and faces off against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But if that happens, Limbaugh said in an interview over the weekend, he would rather see the Democrats win the White House.

"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

When it comes to the McCain mutiny, Limbaugh has plenty of company on the right side of the dial. Laura Ingraham endorsed Mitt Romney last week, saying, "There is no way in hell I could pull the lever for John McCain." Sean Hannity, who also endorsed the former Massachusetts governor, regularly rips McCain. Hugh Hewitt is urging the audience for his syndicated radio show to fight for Romney against what he calls a media-generated "McCain resurrection." But with a program heard on 600 stations, including Washington's WMAL, Limbaugh is the loudest and brashest voice inveighing against the man he derides as "Saint John of Arizona."

Limbaugh dismissed the notion that a McCain victory would be a "personal setback" for him. "My success is not defined by who wins elections," he said. "Elected officials come and go. I am here for as long as I wish to stay. . . .

"Yesterday it was Limbaugh vs. [Donovan] McNabb, Limbaugh vs. Michael J. Fox. Before that it was Limbaugh vs. Bill Clinton. Tomorrow it will be Limbaugh vs. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And I note the media never applies this template to anyone else in media. Not to anyone in cable news, not to any of the endorsements of the major newspapers. Why are the New York Times and Washington Post not asked about the setback they both suffered when George Bush beat both their endorsed candidates in 2000 and 2004?"

Mark McKinnon, a top McCain adviser, called the criticism from Limbaugh and the other hosts "frustrating," saying: "Our question is, 'Isn't it better to get behind a Republican you may disagree with from time to time than work for an outcome that puts a Democrat in the White House with whom you will disagree all of the time?' . . .

"We don't expect Rush to fall in line. We know he's an independent guy, just like McCain. And we know he and McCain will continue to have differences, and we respect those differences."

But McKinnon said he hopes "a respectful relationship can be established" if McCain wins the nomination.

McCain has a history of strained relations with the party's right wing, especially on such issues as immigration, tax cuts and campaign finance reform. Yesterday Limbaugh said the candidate had "stabbed his own party in the back I can't tell you how many times."

McCain's strategists have been quietly reaching out to commentators such as Hannity but don't believe the attacks are costing their candidate many votes, noting that McCain won Florida last week even though Limbaugh broadcasts from Palm Beach. But the campaign yesterday released a letter to Limbaugh from Bob Dole, saying McCain has been a loyal Republican on many issues and that "I proudly wore his POW bracelet bearing his name while he was still a guest at the Hanoi Hilton."

Not all right-leaning hosts are climbing aboard the stop-McCain bandwagon. Bill Bennett, the author and former Reagan administration official, who is neutral in the race, has resisted pressure from his listeners to back another candidate.

"In defending McCain on the grounds that he's a very strong conservative on some issues, I got a lot of flak," Bennett said. "I went an hour and 40 minutes before I got one person who was supportive. I have a center-right audience. A lot of it was very unreasonable. . . . There are more centers of influence now because the party is fractured."

Michael Harrison, a longtime Limbaugh-watcher who edits the industry magazine Talkers, said, "Now that the Bush era is over and the conservative movement has to regroup, Rush has to reposition himself. He's in the game -- that's all that matters." But, Harrison added, "Rush Limbaugh cannot get someone nominated if a critical mass of the public and the tide of history is going in a different direction."

Limbaugh challenged the Republican establishment once before. In the 1992 primaries he helped boost conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan against the incumbent, George H.W. Bush. But after Bush secured the nomination, the president mended fences by inviting the talk-show host for an overnight stay in the Lincoln Bedroom.

During the 1994 midterm campaign, Limbaugh and other conservative hosts launched a crusade that helped the Republicans take control of Capitol Hill. When Newt Gingrich became House speaker, he made Limbaugh an honorary member of the 104th Congress.

After 15 years at the top of his game, Limbaugh ran into a series of personal problems. Deafness nearly ended his career until his hearing was restored by a cochlear implant, and in 2003 he went into rehab after admitting an addiction to prescription painkillers.

Politically, Limbaugh remained loyal for much of President Bush's tenure, but after the GOP lost both houses of Congress in 2006, he declared himself "liberated," saying the Republicans had "let us down" and that "I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried."

After McCain won the New Hampshire primary last month, Limbaugh served notice that if either McCain or former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee got the nomination, "it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever."

As McCain has kept winning, Limbaugh told listeners that the liberal media were boosting the senator and "predicting my demise." It was pointless, he said, "to pretend that Senator McCain is the choice of conservatives when exit-poll data from every primary state show just the opposite." In Florida, for example, voters calling themselves "very conservative" favored Romney 2 to 1 over McCain.

Yesterday Limbaugh took on conservative Beltway pundits, such as the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes, who have written sympathetically about McCain, saying that for them "it's not about conservatism at all, it's about their own personal desire to matter, to have some influence."

Despite this daily barrage, Limbaugh insisted in the interview that he is not leading a political movement.

"I am not a candidate for president," he said. "It is up to Romney and Huckabee to defeat McCain. My objective is to explain and defend the things in which I believe and inform people. What they do with their knowledge and information is their business. . . .

"If a candidate who is asking me and the American people for his vote isn't particularly conservative on a wide array of issues, I'm going to talk about it. It's not my job to get him elected. . . . I'm in the free speech business. I am not a campaign spokesman. I believe it would be a setback for the Republican Party to attract liberals and independents by being like them in order to attract them."

Limbaugh's role is generating plenty of media chatter. CBS's Bob Schieffer told McCain on "Face the Nation" Sunday that "Rush Limbaugh says you're an impostor." Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer predicted that a Limbaugh-led drive to stop McCain would fail. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson offered McCain this advice: "Wouldn't it just be easier to fly down to Palm Beach and take Rush Limbaugh out to dinner and slobber all over him? Why not suck up to Rush Limbaugh?"

McCain, for his part, has refused to engage with Limbaugh, telling reporters: "I don't listen to him. There's a certain trace of masochism in my family, but not that deep."
 
"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

Then why the He** did he support Bush? WTF???!!
 
Michael Medved has endorced McCain. The rest of talk radio has just gone nuts. I know that Ingraham likes Romney, but I'm surprised she'd say such stupid things. That's for less educated people like Rush to say.
 
Then why the He** did he support Bush? WTF???!!

Damo, conservatives are generally dumb. They fell for Bush because of his talk of tax cuts. To them that translates into limited government. But even there McCain blew them off and it had nothing to do with wanting spending cuts as his supporters are claiming.

I kind of think Limbaugh is right, that McCain could destroy the Repub party. But it is people like Limbaugh, Hannity and others that have paved the way. McCain clearly makes the Repubs the party of war and little else. There isn't even the pretense that he supports limited government, except in the minds of really stupid that think our deficits are due solely to pork.

He does little for the social conservatives either, but they might fall in line.

In some ways I think this might be a good thing. Maybe he can create a realignment with limited government folks joining with a more natural coalition of those who support peace abroad and do not believe the government should actively direct matters of culture.

The difficult part there is to get the good lefties to dump the socialists.
 
If he does kill the Republican Party, it will be a welcome death. The two-party has always required drastic change to avoid stagnation, but the current parties have been able to stay in power well past the days they had good ideas.
 
If he does kill the Republican Party, it will be a welcome death. The two-party has always required drastic change to avoid stagnation, but the current parties have been able to stay in power well past the days they had good ideas.

I agree, but the price seems too high.

Another good thing that could happen is that he might become a lame duck right off the bat, if the Repubs in congress have the guts to oppose him.
 
McCain is an interesting candidate to me, because on the one hand I can see severe ideological differences between us, but on the other I also think he has the capability to have a really good Presidency-- or at least an uneventful one.

And after 8 years of Bush, I would settle for uneventful.
 
He should seem interesting to a fascist. His whole philosophy is based on duty to the state. His understanding of rights are collectivist in nature about how they are justified based on the interests of the state. And he is a mean spirited thuggish egomaniac which fascist have a long record of supporting.
 
Damo, conservatives are generally dumb. They fell for Bush because of his talk of tax cuts. To them that translates into limited government. But even there McCain blew them off and it had nothing to do with wanting spending cuts as his supporters are claiming.

I kind of think Limbaugh is right, that McCain could destroy the Repub party. But it is people like Limbaugh, Hannity and others that have paved the way.
Paved the way how?
Maybe he can create a realignment with limited government folks joining with a more natural coalition of those who support peace abroad and do not believe the government should actively direct matters of culture.

Peace through war? War forever. McCain: War Forever. There's a slogan for ya. Think of all the no bid contracts!
 
Damo, conservatives are generally dumb. They fell for Bush because of his talk of tax cuts. To them that translates into limited government. But even there McCain blew them off and it had nothing to do with wanting spending cuts as his supporters are claiming.

I kind of think Limbaugh is right, that McCain could destroy the Repub party. But it is people like Limbaugh, Hannity and others that have paved the way. McCain clearly makes the Repubs the party of war and little else. There isn't even the pretense that he supports limited government, except in the minds of really stupid that think our deficits are due solely to pork.

He does little for the social conservatives either, but they might fall in line.

In some ways I think this might be a good thing. Maybe he can create a realignment with limited government folks joining with a more natural coalition of those who support peace abroad and do not believe the government should actively direct matters of culture.

The difficult part there is to get the good lefties to dump the socialists.
*ugh*... If it continues there will be no place for conservatives to land, because it seems the famous "conservatives", aren't.
 
I keep saying that the first party to embrace fiscal conservativism and socially moderate ideas is the first party to make the other one irrelevent. Centerists from all walks of life would vote for them and I truly believe most people in this country are moderates. I would vote republican if they would just dump the theocratic social conservatives. If we want abortion to go away, which as a pro-choice person I do, then we need to change the behaviors and the habits of teens and others so that they no longer need to seek an abortion. Making them illegal does nothing but create a new class of criminals. We don't need a party that tries to put prayer in school, kids pray in school all the time without repercussion. We don't a government that is in the business of defining or even being involved in marriage.

If the dems did the same thing the same result would occur. I don't need a government that MAKES me buy health insurance. I don't need a government that tries to disarm me and keep me from defending myself, my family and others. I don't need a government that pays for abortions, or even gives out free contraception. NOW, NARAL and dozens of other organizations could quit lobbying congress and use that money to provide contraception, physicals and even abortions without help from the government.

What is so wrong with a moderate pragmatice centerist government that interferes in peoples lives very little?
 
What is so wrong with a moderate pragmatice centerist government that interferes in peoples lives very little?

Liberals thinks that kind of government would hurt the poor.

Conservatives think that kind of government would lead to public immorality.

Both of them are so sure they know what's best that they will never relinquish the power of the government to dictate people's lives.

Until they realize that the only way to solve the conflict is by removing the power to regulate every aspect of personal life, we will continue to see liberals try to use the power for misguided good, and conservatives trying to use it to legislate their personal morals over the entire nation.

Both sides are chock-full of industrial-strength morons.
 
Yeah all these liberal do gooders and Conservative soul savers they should donate to charitable organizations and go to church and let the governement do its limited business.
 
Yeah all these liberal do gooders and Conservative soul savers they should donate to charitable organizations and go to church and let the governement do its limited business.

Exactly.

But they don't view the government the way we do.

They see it as a pulpit from which you can preach about and legislate on either immorality or poverty.

Until they figure out that there are other ways to accomplish both goals (charity & church) we are in for a bumpy ride of Democratic social experiments and Republican theocratic morality.
 
Back
Top