Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Limbaugh: Caller Wants Sarah to Lead Conservatives
The Excellence In Broadcating Network ^ | July 29, 2013 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 08/02/2013 2:28:06 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Greg in Nashua, New Hampshire. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Based on what you're saying about the Republican Party abandoning a large chunk of the American population -- including conservatives -- or even being any real opposition to the Democrats on Obamacare and apparently everything else, I'm wondering whether Sarah Palin's recent gambit that if the GOP... I think she calls them the GOP brain trust on the Greta show. If the GOP is indeed abandoning her as well as a large swath of American voters, she's going independent. Palin is a prominent Republican. Even beyond what Ted Cruz or Mike Lee has said, she's broached the topic of going outside the GOP if need be, and maybe she's right on target there. Maybe she can lead the way out of this conundrum of the Dems and the GOP, apparently, being joined at the hip, at least on Obamacare and probably a lot more.

RUSH: Well, you mean by going third party?

CALLER: Yeah, or thing if... Turn the party over to her she'll go third.

RUSH: Now, wait a minute. I think I mighta missed something. Nobody is gonna turn the party over to anyone.

CALLER: Well, what I mean is she's saying if they don't give the party to the conservatives to run this, then the GOP is gonna run into another disaster like they did with Romney, like they did with McCain, like they did with Bob Dole. And that basically this is a time, she's saying, laying down the gambit (sic) now saying that she'll go third party. She'll go independent, and maybe this is a time when an independent third-party run can win.

RUSH: Oh. Oh. I see. Back to that. There is no evidence that a third party wins.

CALLER: Rush, can I tell you something? Maybe don't call it a third party. Call it "the new second party." Just like when the Republican Party was born, when the old party went the way of the Whigs, that basically the conservatives... What you really got here is --

RUSH: You know what that is? That would be taking over the Republican Party --

CALLER: That's what I was just kind of saying.

RUSH: -- which is what has to happen.

CALLER: That's what I was saying initially. In other words, you really got Washington, the establishment, against the American people. The current Republican establishment is tied at the hip with the Democrats. So basically you've got a new second party, really forming around what Sarah Palin is saying, and she could be the titular leader. She's the head of it.

RUSH: So you're excited about Sarah Palin maybe providing the impetus and the leadership at least titular for a new Republican Party?

CALLER: I think she's the most prominent one. I keep saying if she gets out there, like when she was on the Greta show the other day talking about it... If she can get out there, I think... I mean, obviously she provokes a lot of emotion in people pro and con, but if she can get out there and get her message across, I think they're afraid of her in Washington.

RUSH: I don't doubt that.

CALLER: Republicans and Democrats are afraid of her and what's got a new --

RUSH: They're not gonna cede -- c-e-d-e -- anything to her, or to anybody else, for that matter.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Issues; Parties; State and Local
KEYWORDS: conservatives; gop; palin; republicans; rushlimbaugh; sarahpalin; talkradio; teaparty; thirdparty
Comments?
1 posted on 08/02/2013 2:28:07 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Comments?

Its probably a better idea to rally behind someone who is serious about running.

2 posted on 08/02/2013 2:30:50 AM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah is the only person who can stand up to Hillary.

No male can defeat the Hillabeast.

But Sarah can.

Preferably as a Republican, but if the party leaders abuse her again, she must form a third party.

She has about 1 year to make the decision.

In the meantime, I'll pray for her and for our beloved country.

3 posted on 08/02/2013 2:44:31 AM PDT by eCSMaster (Palin was right (again)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Create a whole independent party-within-a-party. Its own recruiting, its own fund raising, its own leadership councils, its own GOTV, its own public relations and spokespersons. And yes, if they are able to secure ballot access - just in case- then go for it.

Then the GOPe would probably listen a bit more.


4 posted on 08/02/2013 2:59:08 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster
No male can defeat the Hillabeast.

It is the male role to lead.

Get behind me Satan!

5 posted on 08/02/2013 3:05:00 AM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Rush is a soft Wiener until he can admit Sarah is a Conservative. So far he can’t admit it.


6 posted on 08/02/2013 3:09:47 AM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP
It is the male role to lead.

Get back to me when that actually happens in the Republican Party.

7 posted on 08/02/2013 3:24:27 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If Sarah Palin runs only her rabid fans will care. Her opportunity was 2012. We need new blood for 2016.


8 posted on 08/02/2013 4:34:59 AM PDT by EagleInGA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleInGA

This constant confusion of wishes and dreams with politics. Rush understands politics. For anybody to even utter the words “turn the Party over to her” reminds me how POLITICALLY stupid most conservatives are. Especially libertarians.


9 posted on 08/02/2013 4:39:04 AM PDT by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The most important thing about Sarah for me back in the ‘08 campaign was that she was an outsider. So much was made of her “lack of experience” (as if Obama’s resume was strewn with stars), but that was deceptive. The KIND of experience she lacked was exactly what was and is needed. No familiarity with “insiders,” no connection/obligation to PACS, she brought her own ideas unadulterated/uncontaminated by power-brokers constantly whispering in her ear. We send too many up to Washington that are quickly devoured by the political infrastructure of the GOP (which is more about playing the game than it is about serving its constituency).

I believe she is still that way. I believe Ted Cruz is that way. I look at Marco Rubio and I see someone who has been turned into the very thing he was sent to oppose, a man being bought and paid for right in front of our eyes. I believe that without a significant “outsider overhaul” where citizen-servants are sent to Washington in massive numbers, one person just won’t be able to accomplish much.


10 posted on 08/02/2013 4:49:46 AM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It is too bad that people on the right, this caller being a good example, know so little about politics.

If someone is going to “take over” a party, the process is pretty simple. Enlist precinct delegates to serve at the local level. Vote your people into office. Vote for your people to when positions become available at the state level.

And vote for your people for National Committeeman or National Committeewoman.... those people who go to the National Convention and become an Electoral Vote.

We have done this in Michigan for the last 20 years and control the legislature because of it.


11 posted on 08/02/2013 5:26:02 AM PDT by Alex in chains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex in chains

This is precisely the tactic the TP is using. It is working, precinct by precinct. Because the TP is a loosely knit confederation of like minded citizens it operates under the radar.


12 posted on 08/02/2013 6:04:03 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster

In the meantime, I’ll pray for her and for our beloved country.

***
As will I. Thank you.


13 posted on 08/02/2013 6:07:32 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Let me hear what God the LORD will speak. -Ps85)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

If disgruntled Republicans are too lazy to get involved in their local party and make a difference, they will be too lazy to do all the additional work necessary to start a new party from scratch.


14 posted on 08/02/2013 6:12:11 AM PDT by Alex in chains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alex in chains

Laziness may be a part of the problem of retaking the GOP, but in most conservative’s defense, how to work inside the GOP to change it from grass roots upward, is a super mystery for 99%.

Its not much different than if we wanted to start a grass roots movement within the Masons.

Hard to get anywhere when those inside the secret society keep the how, what and where to themselves.


15 posted on 08/02/2013 6:34:23 AM PDT by X-spurt (Ready for the CRUZ missle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I think if Sarah wants to be president, she can be, so far I’ve seen no indication (from her), she wants it.

I do know she wants to be heavily involved in promoting conservatives, and is loyal, respected, and confident towards that goal.


16 posted on 08/02/2013 6:58:13 AM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

A good place to start is to walk into the local Republican headquarters and say, “I want to get involved. What can I do?”

Of course it is easier to sit home and complain that the GOP doesn’t listed to us.

The process of becoming a precinct delegate is pretty simple. Mot precincts do not have delegates. So get the paperwork. Obtain a few signatures of neighbors and if there is not one in your precinct you are in..... then you get to vote on officers of the local party, issues, etc.

Many of the people who are officers end up running for public positions. So choose good people for president, vp, treasurer, state board of regents, etc. Many of them will be the next state legislators or the next members of Congress, who go on to run for Senate or the Governor’s mansion.

Building for change within the GOP is a long process. But starting a new party takes even longer.

Look how long the Libertarian Party has been around and I don’t think they have ever had ONE person elected to Congress.

The Constitution Party has been around for DECADES. Yet their presidential candidate was on the ballot this last election in only 33 states.


17 posted on 08/02/2013 7:04:22 AM PDT by Alex in chains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Agreed. Use the scaffolding of the GOP until the new party is strong enough to stand on its own, but start building now.


18 posted on 08/02/2013 7:20:05 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Not a Thatcher fan, are you?


19 posted on 08/02/2013 7:21:03 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarDav

Except Rubio was a Bush-property, pro-amnesty type in FL. He just disguised himself a bit to get elected US Senator.


20 posted on 08/02/2013 7:22:13 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Sarah is the only one


21 posted on 08/02/2013 8:18:57 AM PDT by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

I agree.

And if Palin runs as an independent, her endorsement will automatically become worthless in any Republican primary.

And she better be ready to be criticized by Tea Party conservatives including Ted Cruz.

So I don’t see that happening.


22 posted on 08/02/2013 8:31:11 AM PDT by Alex in chains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Sarah, as the new leader of Conservatives, sounds great to me. Don’t say third party or independent, just say Conservative.

Sarah can run or support whomever is chosen to run.

I’m on board.


23 posted on 08/02/2013 9:03:01 AM PDT by jch10 (The greatest threat to America is the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

yes


24 posted on 08/02/2013 12:51:03 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; onyx; Abbeville Conservative; abigailsmybaby; afnamvet; alley cat; antceecee; ...
Ping to Sarah's Awesome List!!

Even mentioning Sarah's name sends the Democrats, Republicans and PDSer's Palintations.

GO SARAH!!!!

Where She Leads I will Follow.


25 posted on 08/02/2013 12:57:09 PM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Assuming for the sake of argument you are relying on the NT passages concerning the role of the woman in the home and in the church, you cannot transform those general rules, however you interpret them, into an absolute prohibition against women as public leaders, because

1) The rules given pertain to home life and church life, not public life.

2) God always does what is right, and it was He who put Deborah in charge of Israel. Her “judgeship” was clearly a national leadership role (attempts to downplay it notwithstanding), and it was clearly ordained and blessed of God.

So there can be no absolute prohibition even under the most restrictive system of interpretation.

Furthermore, if your argument is that Deborah’s rise to public leadership only occurred because there were no men around up to the role, in effect a chastisement for the lack of Godly male leadership, then how does that differ from now?


26 posted on 08/02/2013 2:03:55 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Thank you.


27 posted on 08/02/2013 2:22:47 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

We could call it “gopC” (For “C”conservative )


28 posted on 08/02/2013 3:15:40 PM PDT by JaguarXKE (1973: Reporters investigate All the President's Men. 2013: Reporters ARE all the President's men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion
I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Where she leads, I'll follow ;)

29 posted on 08/02/2013 3:28:42 PM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs stay silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EagleInGA

I support Sarah because I trust her as being a real outsider and honest.

I trust Ted Cruz and half trust Rand Paul who is at least an outsider if not always 100 percent right on all issues.

Over 90 percent of the GOP elected officials are business as usual untrustworthy people from Pat Toomey here in PA to Marco Rubio in FL, Chris Christie in NJ and the list goes on and on.

WHEN IT COMES TO ‘FRESH BLOOD’ MY LIST IS VERY SHORT AND IT STARTS WITH SARAH PALIN.....


30 posted on 08/02/2013 8:49:30 PM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE AT THE TOP OF MY LIST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alex in chains

Elect all the people you want but the machinery of the party remains in the hands of the big money establishment and that money flows to support business as usual politics.

They won’t allow real outsiders to take over and when Ron Paulistas threatened to do so in 2008 and 2012 primary season, the GOP-E changed meeting locations and rules to keep them from doing so in certain places.


31 posted on 08/02/2013 8:54:32 PM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE AT THE TOP OF MY LIST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
So there can be no absolute prohibition even under the most restrictive system of interpretation.

Did you even read the comment that I responded to?

Some pathetic mangina was trying to prohibit any man from challenging Hillary.

Secondly Palin in teasing and refusing to run in 2012 has proven herself to care more about her own publicity than anything else.

32 posted on 08/02/2013 9:27:20 PM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP
Did you even read the comment that I responded to?

Um, yes. But please tell me you realize a human political calculation is not a prohibition, and certainly not on the same level as your proposed divine prohibition. The poster's belief, not unreasonable, is that a woman may have an electoral edge going up against another woman in the coming election. In no way does that prohibit the right *man* from coming along and beating Hillary on pure merit. So you're just shadow-boxing with that one.

Secondly Palin in teasing and refusing to run in 2012 has proven herself to care more about her own publicity than anything else.

Now here I am really baffled. Based on your first argument, that somehow a woman politician was against the divine order, I figured you to be a person with deep religious convictions, misguided perhaps, but sincere.

But then you throw me into doubt. Palin was very clear when she decided not to run that she believed she was doing exactly what God was leading her to do. I remember it clearly, the following morning she mentioned something about an event which was a sign to her she was doing the right thing. I would think this was exactly what you wanted her to be like, submissive to the will of God.

But instead, you take her clear, honest, godly statements and twist them into an accusation of crude self-interest, without, BTW, a stitch of real evidence. Now if you are knowledgeable of how God wants us to live, and if that is really important to you, I urge you to recall the OT commandment which teaches us not to bear false witness against our neighbor, and its NT equivalent, which is not to spread false information about people in the form of gossip, innuendo, defamation, etc.

Face the truth here. You are not God. You do not know her heart. She kept the option of running alive as long as she could, as any reasonable politician would, and without ever lying to her supporters. And yet she waited for God to give the green light, and He never did. Isn't that what you wanted? How then does her faithfulness to the leadership of God prove to you she was acting out of base selfishness? It really makes no sense.

33 posted on 08/02/2013 11:50:50 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
But then you throw me into doubt. Palin was very clear when she decided not to run that she believed she was doing exactly what God was leading her to do. I remember it clearly, the following morning she mentioned something about an event which was a sign to her she was doing the right thing. I would think this was exactly what you wanted her to be like, submissive to the will of God.

Sound like a typical modern churchian where feeling is all that counts.

But instead, you take her clear, honest, godly statements and twist them into an accusation of crude self-interest, without, BTW, a stitch of real evidence. Now if you are knowledgeable of how God wants us to live, and if that is really important to you, I urge you to recall the OT commandment which teaches us not to bear false witness against our neighbor, and its NT equivalent, which is not to spread false information about people in the form of gossip, innuendo, defamation, etc.

I subscribe to the view of direct confrontation with evil, where most churchians are too cowardly to say anything and have subscribed to the false liberal doctrine of non-judgementalism.

Fortunately the Ned Flander's churches of the world are dying out.

34 posted on 08/03/2013 12:22:48 AM PDT by ClaytonP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ClaytonP

Presumably a “churchian” is one whose affiliation with an institution is more important than their personal relationship with Christ. While it is doubtless true there are such people, it’s quite a leap to say that about Sarah. Again, you do not know her heart before God,

Now you speak of the doctrine of non-judgmentalism as if it were a liberal invention. I guess that makes Jesus and his apostle Paul liberals, because they clearly did teach some form of it.

Now, to be fair to you, I agree there is a liberal *perversion* of said doctrine, and it is a devilish inversion of the truth. But like CS Lewis says, the devil is really lacking in creativity; all his perversions are based in some way on God’s own truth.

Here are the two forms as I understand them:

1) Liberalism’s Non-Judgmentalism: “There is no moral truth, so no act, no matter how vile, can be condemned. Except of course being a conservative.”

2) Christian Non-Judgmentalism: Don’t play God. Judge with righteous judgment. If you must judge at all, judge others the way you would want to be judged, because that is how God will judge you. The judging condemned by Christ and Paul is not “confronting evil,” but presuming evil where only God could possible know the truth, in the private thoughts and motives of a person.

So if a person does an evil act, such as sexual perversion, and there is good, objective evidence of that, then by all means confront that evil act. Or if a person does something apparently good, but openly reveals their motives as being evil, with sound, objective evidence to back it up, then by all means confront those evil motives too.

But nothing in Scripture permits you (or me or anyone) to just make up stuff out of thin air, out of what we, with our own evil imaginations, imagine about the inner workings of another person. That is exactly why Jesus and Paul focus on our own sinfulness. It blinds us to the hearts of those around us. It increases the risk we will simply project our own evil motives onto the acts of the innocent. The left does this all the time. We should not emulate them.

We must judge righteous judgment, yes, but it must be righteous. To be righteous it must first of all be based on truth. If we do not know something is true, and pronounce judgment on someone based our warped imagination rather than on truth, we violate the royal law of love, we violate the command of God to not bear false witness against our neighbor, and if we direct this malicious falsehood against a fellow believer, we do needless harm to a brother or sister for whom Christ also died.

So righteous judgment is good, but false judgment cannot be pleasing to God, and a wise person will avoid it at all costs.


35 posted on 08/03/2013 9:55:50 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

I understand that Sarah Palin has some fans, and if she won in 2016 I would be thrilled. I just think it is delusional to believe she can win or even that she intends to run. It is not going to happen. She chose a different path and the rest of us have moved on.


36 posted on 08/03/2013 5:24:34 PM PDT by EagleInGA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson