Rush Limbaugh: I hope Perry stays in

Washington Examiner ^ | January 4, 2012 | Charlie Spiering

[VicVega]

It's simple Mr. Sheesh. Same shtick he had prior to me unplugging him. Just the names were changed to fit the tim.

He is successful and I truly applaud him for that.

[VicVega]

It's simple Mr. Sheesh. Same shtick he had prior to me unplugging him. Just the names were changed to fit the tim.

He is successful and I truly applaud him for that.

[zerosix]

Rush did mention that by Perry staying in the pack, he would draw votes away from Santorum (or other conservatives still in.)

He said that Romney didn't mind the splitting of the conservative votes (the anti-Romney) as it makes Romney look stronger (my words not his but that's what I gleaned from hearing him.)

[VicVega]

I can tell you listen to Rush because of your ASSumptions. He needs useful idiots like you to buy his BS and books. Bet thats what you have on your coffee table in trailer you share with mama.

[pogo101]

I don't disagree with ALL of that. But regardless, I (and many other conservatives) are bewildered why Santorum has not come out and explained, now that it is crystal clear that Arlen not only has betrayed and left the GOP but also has been defeated and sent off to pasture. Why will he NOT explain [the things you pointed out], and add, indignantly, that he never thought Arlen would so horrifically betray his (Santorum's) support by switching parties, etc., etc.

Such a mea-culpa would go a long way with me -- sorta like how Newt, to his credit, rightly described his "on the sofa with Pelosi" advertisement as incredibly stupid.

[Windflier]

It’s too early to put all our faith in santorum.

I concur.

I say wait about 3 more primaries before we start wanting perry to drop out.

Why? He's been polling in the single digits for nearly six months. He spent more money per vote than any other candidate in the Iowa Caucus, yet all he could manage was fifth place. What possible rationale does he have for remaining in the race at this point? I can't see any.

On top of that, I read last night that he's polling at about 5% in South Carolina right now.

If he appears on the S.C. primary ballot, he's going to suck away some portion of the conservative vote, and help to propel Romney forward. How is that possibly serving the greater good of the conservative cause, and America?

[DoughtyOne]

Sheeesh!  2% of the states have made their preference, 2%, ONE of FIFTY!  Yes, that's true.

Based on that very strange caucus, which allowed D’s to vote, we should dump all but the top two candidates?  Point 1, it's your take that the D's are the reason Perry came in fifth?  Really?   Point 2, Perry has dumped a lot of cash in Iowa.  That didn't garner him more than fifth place.  I suppose there's an outside chance he might do better in South Carolina after skipping New Hampshire.  I don't see that happening.

NO, that caucus has NOT selected the national candidate reliably, it’s doubtful they speak for the majority this time. That may be.  There's still a large hurdle to overcome, and that's that Rick Perry isn't catching on.  He led for a while.  Folks learned more about him, and he tanked.  I don't remember seeing anyone recover from being in the lead, then tanking.

Rotney will NEVER be my candidate, Paul lost any chance after I witnessed his zealots attempted putsch at the last Nevada convention.  I agree with regard to these two.  Unfortuantely, Perry appears with these two on my short list.  His amnesty bull-carp, his gardasil decision, and his decision to act as Gore's campaign chairman in Texas rather that support a continuance of the Reagan Legacy, prevent me from considering him as someone I could support.

Santorum? Virtually unknown and not even taken seriously until last nights peculiar caucus! A caucus which settled NOTHING for anyone who is not addicted to jumping aboard the band-wagon of the MSM anounced leader of the moment!  "A peculiar caucus?"  If Perry had won that caucus you wouldn't have seen that as a good victory?  Why was he there contesting the caucus if it was such 'a peculiar caucus', and you seem willing to dismiss the guy who virtually tied for the victory there?

No western state has chimed in yet, it is WAY too early to be pronouncing who is a legitimate candidate and who should drop out.  I'm curious which western state you'd like to hear from?  Would that be California, Oregon, Washington, perhaps Arizona?  California, Oregon, and Washington are Leftist states.  Arizona was stupid enough to return McCain to W., D. C.  I'm not sure I really care what they have to say, and I live in California.

The MSM are giving each candidate a day in the sun, the real race will be decided by a majority of citizens, not one or two open primaries.  Here you go again dissing the Iowa Caucus.  Rick Perry and Bob Santorum virtually tied for the win there.  That's a full blown Lefty and a guy most folks think of as a Conservative.  Open caucus or not, Rick should have fit in there somewhere.  The full spectrum was represented in that virtual tie.  Rick finished fifth.

Perry should stay in until a clear consensus emerges, he may yet take the nomination, he should not quit at the first opportunity to become a future trivia question.  IMO, Rick is already a trivia question.  What real Conservative was Al Gore's Texas Campaign Chairman in 1988, ignoring the Reagan policies and trying to advance them into the future?  What real Conservative issued an executive order that would have forced every girl in the state to have a Gardasil regimine, before they could attend classes, unless they could talk their parents into signing a waver?  What real Conservative has telegraphed that he wants to keep all 20 to 35 million illegal aliens here, and put them on a track to citizenship over time?  What real Conservative wants to see those illegals bring over five to ten family members each, as soon as they become citizens?

I think it's reasonable for you to support Rick staying in longer.  It is premature for me to advocate otherwise.  I'll admit I don't have any affinity for Perry's candidacy whatsoever.

None the less, I would like to see him drop out.  The idea that he is a Conservative, a Tea Party member, are things I find laughable.

[VF-51vnv]

no trailer, no books...mother has passed long time ago.now whats your excuse lol

[VicVega]

So listening to Rush not only made you a fool, but a homeless fool. Not a laughing matter.

[Mountain Mary]

“This is one time I’ll have to disagree with Rush.”

El Rushbo messed up with Operation Chaos too.

[Hogblog]

Name ONE thing sanitarium has done...... exactly, nothing...flavor of the week done by Florida....

[patriot08]

>Rush a while back that Perry is his dream candidate.
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/rush-limbaugh-on-the-record-3/

[Windflier]

Rush did mention that by Perry staying in the pack, he would draw votes away from Santorum (or other conservatives still in.)

That's exactly right. Perry's internal polling numbers HAVE to be telling him that South Carolina is a fool's errand, yet he's going to risk helping Romney pull out a victory there anyway.

That, in my opinion, is an ego trip of the First Order, or a back room sell-out deal to the establishment RINOs. No other ways to read it.

[DoughtyOne]

We’ll see how it goes. I understand the reasoning behind your comments. I’m not convinced Santorum can’t stay connected though. We’ll see.

[pogo101]

Some good points there, but some bad ones. For example: You bring up Perry's 1988 support of Al Gore. This isn't nothing, but it ain't much, either, considering the political changes between 1988 and this century. In 1988, Perry was a "southern Democrat" and already rather conservative. Al Gore specifically ran as a conservative, DLC-type anti-abortion, pro-Israel Democrat (which is why he lost the nomination to a liberal). By the time Al Gore had been VP for 8 years, of course (in 2000), Al Gore had gone far left, whereas Perry had become a Republican, like millions of other conservative southern Democrats have done.

I think these are hugely important qualifiers, yet you appear to imply that Perry's support in 1988 was for a lunatic leftist like Gore has since become. What I notice you don't bring up is a much more recent endorsement of a leftist, namely Santorum's 2004 support for Benedict Arlen. At the very least, I expected Santorum -- now that Arlen has not only fully betrayed the GOP but also been sent out to pasture -- to issue an explanation (and a rebuke of Arlen), but to my knowledge, Santorum hasn't done that. I'd say a 2004 endorsement of Arlen Specter is at least as much of a negative for Santorum as is Perry's 1988 support for Gore. I have other issues with Santorum, primarily that he "hasn't ever run anything" other than his Senate office and campaigns, whereas Perry has extensive executive experience (albeit, unfortunately, none in the private sector).

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. I didn’t agree with that either.

[CodeToad]

“Is that old windbag still on the air?”

Why not, you are still on FR.

[MayflowerMadam]

“This is one time I’ll have to disagree with Rush. Time to start focusing on Santorum.”

Yup. Bachmann and Perry both need to go home and throw their support to Santorum.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Why aren't we worrying about Newt getting out? He's probably toast as he has not shown much of an ability to raise money. Lately, he sounds like a whiney, angry, bitter person.

He says he's willing to team up with Santorum to stop Romeny, so when he Newt going to drop out?

[Windflier]

I could’ve sworn I saw Perry stepping down last night? Didn’t he?

Perry's announcement today makes no sense in light of his comments just last night. He had all but abandoned the race last night, and was "going home to Texas" to consider whether there was a path forward for him, and now this.

You've got to ask yourself: What changed between last night, and this morning? His polling numbers? Nope. Campaign donations? Unlikely. A phone call from the establishment RINO back room? One wonders...