What Will Rush, Hugh Say if McCain Wins?

[Mr. Kotter]

What will our local Limbaugh/Hannity drones say????

Heh. :hmmm:

http://www.observer.com/print/64232/full


What Will Rush, Hugh Say if McCain Wins?
by Jennifer Rubin | January 29, 2008
February 4, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.

Certain conservative opinion makers are not pleased.

Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, much of the roster at the National Review and many (but certainly not all) of their more conservative talk radio and blogger colleagues are beside themselves at the prospect that one of the Republican contenders they deemed to be “not conservative” might be nominated. As Mike Huckabee won Iowa, John McCain took South Carolina and Fred Thompson bestirred himself to draft a note withdrawing from the race, the fretting has intensified. How could the voters reject their advice?

There are a few explanations the dismayed conservative punditocracy might use to explain their apparent disconnect with Republican voters.

One is that the electorate has not rejected their advice about what constitutes an unacceptable candidate. Voters are simply rejecting the flawed candidates who were poor standard-bearers for conservatism. This scenario seems eminently reasonable given that the pundits’ favored contenders were in fact so terribly hobbled by their own shortcomings.

Mr. Thompson’s ideas were not a problem. His own indifference and lack of organizational prowess were. He had Social Security and national security plans. He unfortunately lacked the energy and the willingness to put up with the indignities of campaigning.

As for Mr. Romney—who may still win, but who has underperformed in the early going—he certainly was a dutiful spokesman for every possible item on the conservative wish list, but perhaps he was a bit too dutiful. His penchant for pandering grew to ludicrous proportions as he not only reversed himself on a long list of policy positions but cooked up a distinctly unconservative proposal for rescuing Michigan’s auto industry just in time for its primary. When he finally reverted to the “real” Mitt Romney—an optimistic businessman with no compunctions about directing an activist government—it was clear that even his newly minted conservative persona was in a Bain-like turnaround.

Who could blame voters for failing to rally to either of these causes?

Another would be that the conservative punditry actually “won.” Mr. McCain has been getting stronger, they would argue, by embracing conservative positions in order to gain the nomination. Mr. McCain confessed that he had learned the lesson about immigration reform, that border control is essential before pursuing any legalization plan for those already here. He promised to retain the Bush tax cuts. He embraced his support of gun rights and touted his pro-life voting record. This, the conservatariat could contend, and not Mr. McCain’s global-warming ruminations or his role in the Gang of 14, is what helped him win.

There is some truth to this. We saw that starting with his South Carolina victory speech; continuing with his Florida ads, Mr. McCain did stress conservative themes and reach out to the base on many of its favored issues. (This explanation does, however, leave open the question as to why the conservative pundits opposed Mr. McCain so vehemently in the first place.)

But it may simply be that the Republican electorate (or at least enough of it to select a nominee) may not be as ideologically pure as the conservative pundits might prefer. Perhaps many Republican voters really do think global warming should be addressed. It could be that lots of Republican voters like tax cuts but want them accompanied by good old-fashioned budget cuts. It may be that when they’re not in the throes of an impassioned immigration debate, many Republican voters wouldn’t mind eventually legalizing millions of immigrants, so long as the border is sealed first. And frankly, G.O.P. primary voters simply may find Mr. McCain’s heretical support for campaign finance reform a lot less significant than personal character traits like honesty, courage and persistence.

Now, nervous pundits may be spared their embarrassment if Mr. Romney can survive Florida and Super Tuesday. However, if he does not, they will have to mull over the choices to explain why their favored sons failed. I suspect that rather than confess that Mr. McCain was not so bad to begin with, or that Republican voters as a whole are less ideologically rigorous than their core listeners and readers, they’ll suggest that the outcome was all due to their endorsees’ personal and tactical shortcomings.

A few may even author rebuttals to their own endorsements. After all, pundits always get the last word.

[jAZ]

Rush can't go back on his words... he said he'd rather let Hillary win for 4 years than McCain destroy the GOP.

There's no wiggle room there.

[Chiefnj2]

Rush can't go back on his words... he said he'd rather let Hillary win for 4 years than McCain destroy the GOP.

There's no wiggle room there.

He'd love it if Hillary won. 4 years of daily material for him to bitch about.

[Cochise]

Actually he predicted that liberals like yourself would be asking these questions today if McCain won, since they were trying to cast in advance the race as McCain vs. Limbaugh.

I'm not sure why you care, Kotter, you've got two candidates that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, whom you can choose randomly between for no particular reason.

[Cochise]

Rush can't go back on his words... he said he'd rather let Hillary win for 4 years than McCain destroy the GOP.

Well, if she were only going to get one term, and if his losing would somehow remind the base that it needs to demand actual conservatives rather than people who are just conservative in a couple of areas, then I would probably agree.

Unfortunately I don't think people are going to wise up anytime soon. We have values voters, who will vote for liberals as long as they appeal to their values. We have fiscal conservatives who will vote for liberals as long as they make fiscally conservative overtures. The base is too apt to compromise and maybe it needs a wakeup call. I can see the point.

[Mr. Kotter]

Actually he predicted that liberals like yourself would be asking these questions today if McCain won, since they were trying to cast in advance the race as McCain vs. Limbaugh.

I'm not sure why you care, Kotter, you've got two candidates that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, whom you can choose randomly between for no particular reason.

My "warm and fuzzy" candidate isn't in the race anymore....

Obama and McCain are simply the best of the rest.

People are fed up with acrimony and rancor. They are tired of the same old, same old....and the juvenile tactics and rhetoric (from the pols themselves, that is; discussion board banter, OTOH....it's still fun/fair game. Heh)

Obama and McCain seem to be the most "adult" candidates out there. People are voting for "change".....which won't come from Hillary, or probably anyone else.

Is such change "likely?" I'm not confident; just hopeful. ;)

[Cochise]

:Scanlon:

[HonestChieffan]

Ive been a conservative longer than I care to admit. But what gets my goat is how did being a conservative mean I have to be defined by freaking Rush Limbaugh....Rush can pound sand up his keester on about 90% of what he says and his stand on McCain has no bearing on me or millions of others who actually have a brain. To define a conservative or a republican by Rushs definition is pure folly.

[BucEyedPea]

People want change regarding war as well. McCain is not the man for that since he's one of the most hawkish guys out there.

Besides, McCain had a LOT of GOP institutional support here in FL that helped him due to his lack of money. How far can he go when Mitt has a lot more dough? I don't think this is over.

[Mr. Kotter]

Ive been a conservative longer than I care to admit. But what gets my goat is how did being a conservative mean I have to be defined by freaking Rush Limbaugh....Rush can pound sand up his keester on about 90% of what he says and his stand on McCain has no bearing on me or millions of others who actually have a brain. To define a conservative or a republican by Rushs definition is pure folly.

Did you read the article?

...it was referencing blowhard conservative talkshow hosts, like Rush. It wasn't referencing you.

I was also, not refering to you....Cochise and patty are the two primary folks I think of as "dittoheads" (is that what they still call Limbaugh fans?)

[Mr. Kotter]

People want change regarding war as well. McCain is not the man for that since he's one of the most hawkish guys out there.

Besides, McCain had a LOT of GOP institutional support here in FL that helped him due to his lack of money. How far can he go when Mitt has a lot more dough? I don't think this is over.

Change in the war, is one thing. Immediate withdrawal and surrender.....it quite another.

It's a nuance that you Paul fans seem unable to appreciate.

[Cochise]

Ive been a conservative longer than I care to admit. But what gets my goat is how did being a conservative mean I have to be defined by freaking Rush Limbaugh....Rush can pound sand up his keester on about 90% of what he says and his stand on McCain has no bearing on me or millions of others who actually have a brain. To define a conservative or a republican by Rushs definition is pure folly.

Liberals think we get all our orders from him. I like listening to his program to hear discussion of issues from a conservative perspective, but I didn't need him to tell me before I knew McCain was not a conservative. Just common sense. Any conservative voter who's been paying attention realizes that differences between McCain and moderate democrats are in many ways pretty negligible.

[Cochise]

Change in the war, is one thing. Immediate withdrawal and surrender.....it quite another.

It's a nuance that you Paul fans seem unable to appreciate.

Is that why you're spread eagle between two candidates, one who will fight the war for 100 years, and another who has turning tail in Iraq as an applause line in his stump speech?

[Laz]

Rush can't go back on his words...
since when?


By his own words, he should of thrown himself into jail and flushed the key.

[BucEyedPea]

Change in the war, is one thing. Immediate withdrawal and surrender.....it quite another.

It's a nuance that you Paul fans seem unable to appreciate.

Greater majority of American's favor withdrawal from Iraq now or somehow.
I just saying what polls are showing whether you agree with it or not.

As for nuance regarding surrender, it would behoove our leaders to define victory first. Instead they move the goalposts continuously.We accomplished our mission.

What I was mainly referring to is the fact that McCain has never met a war he didn't like and would stay forever in Iraq to police a civil war. No one wants more of this. He also supported the Balkan interventions when the GOP was against. He even went further calling for more bombing or women and children. He wants more wars, even said...that means continuing to create a casus belli for war with Iran with the advisors he has. This is the nuance you didn't pick up in my post...only it was obvious...not nuanced.

The people are tired of war.
The Dems could have a field day reminding them of McCain's stands here.
If people think the Bush Administration was bad here, McCain is worse.

[Cochise]

Greater majority of American's favor withdrawal from Iraq now or somehow.
I just saying what polls are showing whether you agree with it or not.


So what you're saying is that the great majority don't favor a never-withdrawal strategy. Gee thanks. :rolleyes:

That doesn't mean they favor high-tailing it as soon as we can gas up the planes like you are hoping they do.

[patteeu]

Actually he predicted that liberals like yourself would be asking these questions today if McCain won, since they were trying to cast in advance the race as McCain vs. Limbaugh.

I'm not sure why you care, Kotter, you've got two candidates that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, whom you can choose randomly between for no particular reason.

LOL That's the beauty of being "open-minded" I guess. And did you see how white Obama's movie star smile is?

[Mr. Kotter]

....I knew McCain was not a conservative. Just common sense. Any conservative voter who's been paying attention realizes that differences between McCain and moderate democrats are in many ways pretty negligible.

McCain shares moderate views with some Dems on a handful of issues...ones that many conservatives don't place a high priority on. Most reasonable conservative understand that immigration reform will have to include provisions for what alarmists and demagogues will inevitably characterize, wrongly, as "amnesty." The "Gang of 14" issue is a joke; in the end it helped Cons get Alito, and possibly even Roberts, onto the court---and prevented short-sighted Republican types from opening a real Pandora's box (try blocking Obama's SC nominees....IF the Republicans had used the "nuclear" option.) And Campaign finance? Please, who except ideological zealots doesn't think money's corrupting influence in campaigns shouldn't be addressed. Cry all you want about the first amendment issues, the courts have selectively chipped away at the Buckley vs. Vallejo decision....even if they did reject parts of McCain-Feingold as well.

The idea that John McCain is not a conservative is a complete joke. The only people who think he isn't conservative....that I can see, are the right wing equivalents to the moonbats on the left.

[patteeu]

Is that why you're spread eagle between two candidates, one who will fight the war for 100 years, and another who has turning tail in Iraq as an applause line in his stump speech?

Nuance, man, nuance.

[BucEyedPea]

Well he isn't a conservative. He's a moderate that leans conservative would be a correct description of him. He's a fiscal conservative apparently....only he's willing to spend for war. War is another govt program. Spending money always comes down to value....he values that.

[Mr. Kotter]

Is that why you're spread eagle between two candidates, one who will fight the war for 100 years, and another who has turning tail in Iraq as an applause line in his stump speech?

I've made it clear that Obama's position on Iraq bothers me. I've read his official "position"--and it need some more detailed clarification, AFAIC. I want to hear his words....and, more importantly, his plan during the campaign in the general election.

If your characterization of his intentions prove accurate....then I'll be voting McCain in November. However, I'm willing to wait...and listen...and assess what he has to say, rather than believe what his critics have to say about his position.

[Cochise]

The idea that John McCain is not a conservative is a complete joke.

LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

You can't make this stuff up.

[Mr. Kotter]

Well he isn't a conservative. He's a moderate that leans conservative would be a correct description of him. He's a fiscal conservative apparently....only he's willing to spend for war. War is another govt program. Spending money always comes down to value....he values that.

Most Americans are moderate. Though you wouldn't know it.....from the ideological LWNJ/RWNJ/Libertarian moonbat/dittoheads/paulite-freaks that hang out on discussion boards.

;)

[Chiefnj2]

LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

You can't make this stuff up.

He may be more conservative than you realize.

http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/

[Mr. Kotter]

LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

You can't make this stuff up.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/cons.htm

He's middle of the road conservative on fiscal and foreign issues; it's his low score on SOCIAL issues that gets some folks in the Republican party worked up.

That puts in in the company of mainstream, moderate voters....most of who consider themselves conservative. Folks like me. Thompson would have been better; but McCain will do just fine.

[BucEyedPea]

I find it amusing how moderates say most Americans are moderate.
Then conservatives say most are conservative as Cochise said once.

Anyhow, I didn't make a case for how many Americans are moderate or not. You're changing the subject because it doesn't support your view here. I am simply being the messenger that most Americans over 60% favor some sort of withdrawal. Actually, as I recall, an immediate one and that was 70%. So I'll be conservative with it.

Even the so called foreign-policy realists such as Jim Baker and Scowcroft feel the same way and cobbled together a plan. But it required negotiations with Iran and Syria which the real madmen in the WH like Cheney and his AEI crowd of advisors refuse to do. That would be a moderate stand on the issue. I supported that myself.

Now I know that I am not moderate on some issues. But I am in the mainstream on this Iraq debacle, more war and immigration as is Paul.

Since you relied on you usual ad hominem, I know you can't defend the point intelligently. You're the ditto-head to the current WH—the real moonbats. ;)

[Mr. Kotter]

He may be more conservative than you realize.

http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/

He is....it's just sour grapes to those in the party who didn't get their way.

[BucEyedPea]

I was hoping for a Romney win in Florida. I think he is more temperate in regards to war. I don't care for him on tax and spend issues though even if he's the businessman. He won't reduce the spending.

[Flustrated]

Anyone that has followed Rush for more than 10 years like I have might remember the times whan Rush used to spew about how much of a Liberatarian he is. I actually believed Rush might throw his support behind Ron Paul at first because of Paul's anti-IRS stance.
Although he's entertaining to listen to, his opinions more closely follow the noecon agenda more than any liberatarian platform. Basically, you tune into Rush to listen to him bitch about taxes. But he never seems to mention the current Republican establishment as he rants; nor does he ever seem to mention the abolishment of the IRS. In my opinion, that shows he owns an obvious hidden agenda.

[BucEyedPea]

Anyone that has followed Rush for more than 10 years like I have might remember the times whan Rush used to spew about how much of a Liberatarian he is. I actually believed Rush might throw his support behind Ron Paul at first because of Paul's anti-IRS stance.
Although he's entertaining to listen to, his opinions more closely follow the noecon agenda more than any liberatarian platform. Basically, you tune into Rush to listen to him bitch about taxes. But he never seems to mention the current Republican establishment as he rants; nor does he ever seem to mention the abolishment of the IRS. In my opinion, that shows he owns an obvious hidden agenda.

You are exactly right on this especially the bold part. He is now considered a NC by paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians. I really think he's just a pressure valve so the other conservatives can rant and get it off their chest. In the meantime—NOTHING ever changes.

[HonestChieffan]

Kotter my man, you are on your game today...Thanks!

[Mr. Kotter]

I find it amusing how moderates say most Americans are moderate.
Then conservatives say most are conservative as Cochise said once.

Anyhow, I didn't make a case for how many Americans are moderate or not. You're changing the subject because it doesn't support your view here. I am simply being the messenger that most Americans over 60% favor some sort of withdrawal. Actually, as I recall, an immediate one and that was 70%. So I'll be conservative with it.

Even the so called foreign-policy realists such as Jim Baker and Scowcroft feel the same way and cobbled together a plan. But it required negotiations with Iran and Syria which the real madmen in the WH like Cheney and his AEI crowd of advisors refuse to do. That would be a moderate stand on the issue. I supported that myself.

Now I know that I am not moderate on some issues. But I am in the mainstream on this Iraq debacle, more war and immigration as is Paul.

Since you relied on you usual ad hominem, I know you can't defend the point intelligently. You're the ditto-head to the current WH—the real moonbats. ;)

BEP, I didn't mean to be flippant....I'm just trying to multi-task again, and didn't have time for a fuller response.

If you think McCain isn't "conservative" check the link I provided....and, better yet, the one Chiefnj2 provided. They tell the real story.

McCain is a hawk; you are a dove. It's an irreconcilable difference. You distrust him on war issues; I think he's a good guy for what's going on in the world right now. If you think he's a reckless warmonger though, you are mistaken. FWIW, Bush is....McCain isn't, IMO. I honestly think, had he won in 2000....we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. However, I'm also a realist....we are there, let's finish the job, as best we can. And then we can bring our boys home. I think McCain will do that.

[Cochise]

Basically, you tune into Rush to listen to him bitch about taxes. But he never seems to mention the current Republican establishment as he rants;

poppycock

[BucEyedPea]

However, I'm also a realist....we are there, let's finish the job, as best we can. And then we can bring our boys home. I think McCain will do that.
Finish what? That's the issue. And I'll you know I was against a pull-out myself, all the way through 2005 as a realist, until I realized a civil war is a far stickier matter.

The reason I have trouble believing McCain on this is due to his own words:
• He's fine on staying a Hundred Years.
• Said "bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb, bomb Iran" and
• that we have to have "more wars."

Sorry, those are not the words of man who will finish ( still undefined) with Iraq and bring the troops home. It's the words of an escalator. It also fits his personality type...he's known as intemperate and mean. I find it hard to believe he opposes torture.

[Mr. Kotter]

Finish what? That's the issue. And I'll you know I was against a pull-out myself, all the way through 2005 as a realist, until I realized a civil war is a far stickier matter.

The reason I have trouble believing McCain on this is due to his own words:
• He's fine on staying a Hundred Years.
• Said "bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb, bomb Iran" and
• that we have to have "more wars."

Sorry, those are not the words of man who will finish ( still undefined) with Iraq and bring the troops home. It's the words of an escalator. It also fits his personality type...he's known as intemperate and mean. I find it hard to believe he opposes torture.

Okay, fine. You are right. You've convinced me.

We ought to just leaves, so they can get their civil war over with.

:huh:

[GoChiefs]

Bush > McCain

[ChiefaRoo]

BEP, I didn't mean to be flippant....I'm just trying to multi-task again, and didn't have time for a fuller response.

If you think McCain isn't "conservative" check the link I provided....and, better yet, the one Chiefnj2 provided. They tell the real story.

McCain is a hawk; you are a dove. It's an irreconcilable difference. You distrust him on war issues; I think he's a good guy for what's going on in the world right now. If you think he's a reckless warmonger though, you are mistaken. FWIW, Bush is....McCain isn't, IMO. I honestly think, had he won in 2000....we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. However, I'm also a realist....we are there, let's finish the job, as best we can. And then we can bring our boys home. I think McCain will do that.

I got weak on McCain after Campaign Finance reform and he lost me on that crappy Amnesty bill for illegals that the American people rose up against and crushed. He's good on the war, I don't know how well he'd do on spending and budgets.

[Ugly Duck]

McCain.... would stay forever in Iraq to police a civil war.

Dood... he only said 100 years - not "forever." You don't need to exaggerate on this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM