re: “But he goes astray IMO in two directions:
1) Backing and sucking up to GOP players like the Bushes, right or wrong,”
This is incorrect. I can’t speak for what Rush said about Bush 41 in the 1988 election because I didn’t start listening to him until 1989, but yes, he did support Bush 41 against Bill Clinton - there was no Republican primary in 1992 because Bush 41 was a sitting president. So, I don’t think it’s quite fair to say Rush “supported only Bushes” in 1992 since Bush 41 was the only Republican candidate against Clinton.
In 2000, I don’t recall him preferring any candidate during the primary process (nor in any election for that matter) - he did support statements from all the candidates when those statements supported conservative values. I do recall Rush questioning Bush 42’s so called “compassionate conservatism” early on in the primary, but other than that - he waited until the primary was decided before he openly supported the Republican candidate.
Bush 42 ran against Algore in 2000. I didn’t want Algore to be president. I preferred Bush 42 over Algore. So did Rush. I much preferred Bush W leading our nation after the 9/11 attacks rather than Algore. Yes, W blew it big time on other issues - would Algore have done better?
Rush has consistently supported conservative values and principles. You support the candidates that are closest to those values over the one who is furthest. I know this always angers the conservative “puritans” who always take their ball and go home if they don’t get the pet candidate they wanted.
All I remember on Free Republic during this time (and in the last election) was many “puritans” bashing every single Republican candidate as not being a “true conservative” or being “unelectable” or “couldn’t stand their own in a debate”, or this one is a “quitter” or that on is too “immoral” and not Christian enough, etc.
Conservatives always shoot themselves in the foot because they argue so much with each other that a strong, solid unity usually never occurs. I honestly believe that if Reagan had run in 2008, there would have been many on this site claiming he wasn’t a true conservative.
You could argue about whether or not Reagan was a true conservative.....but Reagan had a gift that won over people that didn’t necessarily agree with him on all of the issues.....currently there is no such candidate in the GOP. They don’t have nearly the political savvy that Reagan did. It’s not enough to be right on the issues, they also have to project themselves as a good leader. And there was nobody in the GOP fold the last campaign that fit that.
Rush has consistently supported conservative values and principles. You support the candidates that are closest to those values over the one who is furthest. I know this always angers the conservative “puritans” who always take their ball and go home if they don’t get the pet candidate they wanted.
—
doesn’t sound like you were happy here in a past life, maybe it’s just me, you should study some history of track records of folk like Rush and such.
-JMO-
—
I think back to the 2003 Recall in California and how Rush just couldn’t openly endorse McClintock or say his name, something Hannity and Hewitt and other “conservatives” talk show hosts had no problem with doing as they backed Schwarzenkennedy openly.
Would Reagan have lost in 2008? Is FR full of ‘scoundrels’ (as you describe more than a few here)? obviously you prefer a nice clean process.. so would more than a few here as well. damn ‘puritans.
but then, I invoke Hillary.. ‘What difference does it make?’
as for the Bush dynasty.. when is enough enough? until the
NWO is official and globally established? sorry, rusty, your dog don’t hunt.