About Rush Limbaugh

National Review ^ | March 6, 2009 | the Editors

[SoConPubbie]

When a talk radio host that has never held office, has no intention of running for office, no matter how popular he is, and the movement wants him to be the leader, then your movement is in a very bad way. I am not disrespecting the conservative movement. I am not disrespecting Rush. I am critisizing those who would want him to lead the movement. Yes, that means you.

Sorry, but your post makes no sense.

Holding a political office may or may not prepare you to be the head of a political party or movement.

What is really important are your principles and your ability to communicate those principles and lead others.

Given the current crop of present and former political office holders, very few of them inspire confidence in their ability to lead, nor have they shown themselves to be courageous with regards to their fidelity to conservative principles.

In my humble opinion, Rush, if he decided to, would make an awesome leader of the GOP given his solid and courageous stand on conservative principles, his awesome ability to communicate, and his intelligence. He is also quite capabable of tailoring his message, much like Reagan, to his audience so he would be effective communicating the conservative message to RINOs, and to others outside of the GOP.

[SoConPubbie]

Hell we are rocked back on our heels by the politics, let alone the leadership. RINO is a term that gets thrown out too often I think.

I guess that all depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

IMHO, For the most part, the term is aptly applied by most people on Free Republic.

Sadly, the GOP if full of girly-men who are either afraid of the media, or those who use conservatism as a ploy to get elected while their heart really is not into conservative principles.

[slowhandluke]

And when he does, the Dems pounce and try to turn it into a weapon.

And even when he doesn't make a flip remark, the Democrats will pounce. All he has to do is tell a truth that the left doesn't like, and they will pounce.

'Fair' doesn't enter into it.

[Mac from Cleveland]

NR calling that illiterate racist D.L Hughely a “CNN interviewer” is like calling Rosie O’Donnell a “respected social commentator”

[SuziQ]

His Rush's) views are not extreme and his manner is not, for that matter, particularly angry. (If people liked listening to partisan thuggery on the airwaves, Al Franken would have been a more successful radio host.)

LOL! Oh, so very true!!

This was a good, balanced article. They think Rush might be wrong in his pushing conservative principles, because they think he's not looking at the possibility of 'growing' the GOP. I think he's doing JUST that, by encouraging the GOP to get back to the conservatism that won in the 1980's with Reagan. By doing this, Rush believes that MORE people will be able to see that freedom and personal responsibility are GOOD things, for citizens in particular and for the country in general.

It is clear that the Democrats think folks in some states are still pretty conservative, or Rahm Emmanuel wouldn't have gone out looking for conservative Dems to run against squishy Republicans, thus creating a Democrat majority in Congress in 2006.

[o2bfree]

What has happened to the National Review? The Democrat party has been hoping and praying the controversy surrounding Limbaugh will be prolonged indefinitely... to keep with their desired story line. The National Review article fits the democrats media narrative a little too closely for comfort.

This is article was ordered up by the Democrat party pure and simple.

Rich Lowry, if it hasn’t been said before, you are a putz.

[Bryan24]

You want to know what is wrong with this country, and specifically conservatives?

We’re losing our moral foundation.

RUSH IS RIGHT.

Principle first. “Government isn’t the answer to our problems, government IS the problem.” - Ronald Reagan, first inaugural address.

We need to stop electing “Republicans” that we wouldn’t trust to babysit our dog. Olympia Snowe, Arlen Spectre, Linsday Graham and John McCain come to mind immediately.

Start Electing CONSERVATIVES, not “republicans”.

[humblegunner]

You want to know what is wrong with this country, and specifically conservatives?

The ridiculous deification of talk radio personalities!

[Bryan24]

I’m not deifying Rush.

But we shouldn’t be using “leader” and Spectre, Graham or McCain in the paragraph. These guys are losers.

[Euker]

That says it all.
Tutn out the lights.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But successful political movements always alter their approaches as circumstances change, even if they maintain the same principles, just as Reagan agreed with the Goldwater of 1964 but did not run on his platform. Reagan also courted the voters who became known as “the Reagan Democrats”

Well, here's where the NR is wrong. This is just a thinly-disguised veil that really means that Republicans must reach out the unwashed center by adopting Dem ideas. Same-old hogwash that is exactly the reason why the GOP is in danger of going the way of the Whigs. Reagan won because of his message. The Reagan Democrats came to him, not the other way around.

NR is trying to straddle the fence. They don't want to rile up the grassroots but then again they have to please the cocktail Republicans.

[Delacon]

“It is clear that the Democrats think folks in some states are still pretty conservative, or Rahm Emmanuel wouldn’t have gone out looking for conservative Dems to run against squishy Republicans, thus creating a Democrat majority in Congress in 2006”.

True, which begs the question what should the GOP do to win back voters that went for conservative democrats? And not all the republicans who lost their seats were “squishy”. Rick Santorum comes to mind. So what did Rick do wrong? I don’t exactly know other than he got lumped in with the whole of the republican party that got fat and happy with politics as usual in DC.

[longtermmemmory]

National Review has been pretty weak for years.

I think this is a lame effort to escape their effete elite wuss haven status.

[SuziQ]

Rick Santorum comes to mind. So what did Rick do wrong? I don’t exactly know other than he got lumped in with the whole of the republican party that got fat and happy with politics as usual in DC.

I believe that was a major part of that, but you'll remember that in order to defeat Rick Santorum, the Democrats had to recruit a supposedly 'pro-life' Democrat to run against him. Those Catholics who had not voted for pro-abortion Democrats for years, choosing the pro-life Republican instead, now had a candidate for whom they felt they could vote in good conscience, and they did so.

[Delacon]

“I believe that was a major part of that, but you’ll remember that in order to defeat Rick Santorum, the Democrats had to recruit a supposedly ‘pro-life’ Democrat to run against him. Those Catholics who had not voted for pro-abortion Democrats for years, choosing the pro-life Republican instead, now had a candidate for whom they felt they could vote in good conscience, and they did so”.

Yes, I should have picked up on that. Santorum was defeated 59% to 41%. This was the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980. I’d like to know of that 18% margin, how many switched sides because they felt they were free to do so over the abortion issue.

[SuziQ]

I’d like to know of that 18% margin, how many switched sides because they felt they were free to do so over the abortion issue.

That's the kind of poll research on which the GOP needs to spend time and money, because that same scenario was repeated all over the country in 2006.