Rush Limbaugh: I hope Perry stays in

Washington Examiner ^ | January 4, 2012 | Charlie Spiering

[txrangerette]

I suppose those backing Newt would say that he polls better than Perry and finished ahead of Perry in Iowa. Therefore it wouldn’t occur to them that he should get out.

If you go only by how many ways the vote is split, though, you have a point.

Newt says he would team up with Santorum to stop Mitt. But if Newt left the race and endorsed Santorum, that would do it better than if he continues to run.

I think that’s your point.

[Windflier]

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.

Why is it that some people who don't like Rush, feel compelled to insult those who do? It's all too easy to simply state that he's not your cup of tea, and move on, but no, you've got to body slam a fellow Freeper for have the temerity to admire one of conservatism's leading voices.

That was disgusting, and you ought to apologize to VF-51vnv for saying it.

[mamelukesabre]

I don’t give a ratsass about any poll.

I really wish you and everyone else would shut the hell up about polls. They don’t mean shit. How many times do you people need to be smacked down by REAL elections before you shutup about the stupid polls?

Where was santorum polling, ya dolts? huh?

[VicVega]

Go read the initial post before jumping in Windflier. And don’t wear someone else’s feelings on your sleeve.

[Loyal Sedition]

Re: Point “1”. No, it’s my take that this caucus was as much a random event as an actual valid sampling of the electoral will.
You have to personally witness the zealotry and willingness to engage in ACORN type tactics of the RP brigades to truly understand how far from normal American values many of them are.
Some are sincere, some are nuts.
Then remember that it is also an “Open” caucus, so the results are even less meaningful.

Point “2”. We are fortunate that “a lot of cash” does not directly translate into success, else the rich guy would always buy the election.
As I said above, I feel this caucus result was too random due to wild card factors to be taken seriously.

Perry may begin to “Catch on” again, it’s still very early in the race.

You appear to mistake me for a strong Perry supporter, not true, I’m more a strong Rotney/Paul opponent.

Gingrich and Perry come up about equal in my view, both have issues they need to address in strong terms.
I would probably give Perry a slight edge among those two, Gingrich has made some major blunders over the years.

I will have to do some research on Santorum, now that he is the “Leader” of the moment it will probably be harder to find unbiased information on him.

As to western states, Nevada goes first, not Kalifornia.
Sadly Rotney did very well here last time, mostly due to the too strong Mormon influence (the same influence that saves Dingy Reid each time he has to run).
RP also did very well here, we have two major universities and he has genuine zealots.

Hopefully the Nevada electorate learned from the last NV caucus and will vote a bit smarter this time.
I am sure the party structure will be on guard against RP zealot disruptions such as they carried out last time.

My main point is that too much emphasis is being given to the result of this one small caucus, so far as I am concerned even Bachman could have stayed in a while longer.

[seekthetruth]

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/04/everything-you-heard-last-night-was-bull-crap-rick-perry-might-want-to-stay-in-and-prepare-for-a-newtlear-attack/

FROM THE ARTICLE:
If Rick Perry drops out of the race it will be the ultimate failure of the tea party movement to see the race come down to two or three big government conservatives. Romney and Santorum both hide behind compassionate conservatism to expand the state to suit their purposes. Only Rick Perry has run a campaign to make Washington “as inconsequential to our lives as possible.”
If I were Perry, I’d wake up tomorrow, say I refuse to surrender the Republican Party into the hands of big government conservatives after all the gains the tea party has made, and then announce I’m firing all my political staffers and communications staffers and ask South Carolina to help me reboot to victory. Make it an Alamo stand and, if like at the Alamo Perry goes down, perhaps there’ll at least be a rallying cry for small government conservatism left over.
That’s just me. Perry’s policy people have been phenomenal. The comms staff and political staff so badly bungled this that Rick Perry just suffered the first political loss of his career.
Don’t count on it happening though.
As you wake up this morning, the tea party has failed because it has surrendered itself into the hands of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich — all of whom would use government to suit allegedly conservative ends, which is not conservative in and of itself. But by God Mitt Romney may now get the political beating everyone has been expecting him to get. Newt Gingrich has nothing left to lose. He can go Newtlear against the guy he sees as having destroyed him. Newt Gingrich can unleash unmitigated hell against MItt Romney and just like the attacks on Newt were true, they’ll all be true about MItt Romney too

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Yea, let Newt put his money where his mouth is. Talk is cheap.

[marty60]

Dedicated to Rick Perry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv8AVi44NIc&feature=related

[pogo101]

Well, I’ll settle for Perry’s “taking it to” Super Tuesday. If he is still struggling even in what should be more Perry-friendly southern states by then, well perhaps it will be time to stop. But not yet!

[Windflier]

Go read the initial post before jumping in Windflier.

Alright. I've got to agree that the poster's initial comment to you was out of line. I'll admit that I didn't stop and backtrack to read the exact post you were responding to. There were a few posts belittling Rush upthread, hence my post to you.

I don't like to get in the middle of firefights. You just pushed a button on me.

[pogo101]

I largely agree. Perry’s made some policy mistakes by my book (seems to be soft on illegals-who-are-already-here, if not soft on border enforcement to prevent new illegals; opposes E-Verify) and certainly some campaign gaffes.

But look at what his state has done!, while most of the rest of the country is crumbling. (And yeah, “government can’t create jobs,” but he has done what he could to create the right job-growth environment.)

[marty60]

I agree. It seems like some hysterical cat fight in Iowa yesterday. The media hyperventilating over nothing. (not votes that matter)

[PAConservative1]

Looks like the loser 5th placer is jockeying for Romney’s VP slot...he knows he has no chance in hell, he only wants to divide the vote to help Slick Willard.

[VicVega]

"I don't like to get in the middle of firefights. You just pushed a button on me."

No worries, Winflier.

And where you jumped in at, yeah, I may have had the same reaction.

Windflier, I look forward to agreeing and arguing with you on FR.

I promise to keep it civil with you.

[Irish Eyes]

I agree. It seems like some hysterical cat fight in Iowa yesterday. The media hyperventilating over nothing. (not votes that matter)

Isn't that what the media does best>

[DoughtyOne]

Some good points there, but some bad ones.   Okay, lets see.

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.

To me this has been the boiler plate response to someone backing Gore in 1988.  It doesn't sell.  "Oh Gore was rather Conservative back then."  If so, why wasn't Gore running as a Republican?  I'm told he ran as a Conservative in 1988, tried to win the South by scoring big on the new Super Tuesday event, and yet, the South was almost a solid lock for Republicans by this point.  The Democrats weren't wining the south by the late 1980s.  If Gore truly was a Conservative, why wasn't he a Republican?  The fact is, Gore was not a Conservatve.

Gore's environmental polices had already take shape by this time.  If Gore was a Conservative, why wouldn't he get behing George Bush?

I remember very well the Left vs the Right during the Reagan years.  Probably very few times had Left vs Right been as clearly defined as they were during the Reagan years.  The real question when Reagan left office was, "Should we continue the Reagan legacy, or should we move back toward failed Leftist policies?"  Al Gore was so enamoured with Conservatism during these years, that he actually thought it was best to run against Bush.  He distanced himself from the Demcrats on the Republicans to advance his own candidacy.

Was Gore's voting record more like leading Conservatives of the day, or more like Ted Kennedy?  My take is more like Ted Kennedy.

Perry didn't know this stuff in 1988?

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.   Gore was a devout Leftist in 1988.  He was registered in a party that skewered Reagan with each passing day.  This didn't bother Gore at all.  He was a Democraty loyalist during those days.  There's no ambiguity here.  Perry joined his team to get him elected as the follow-up to Reagan.  How can anyone construe that as the actions of a Conservative.

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.  So what you're saying is that you actually wish the Republicans had lost the Senate in 2004, rather than 2006?  Okay.  Interesting, but okay.  I'm not a Specter fan.  I do not think that support for a Sentoral candidate is comparable with supporting a Presidential Candidate, particularly when the President is not moderated by 99 other individuals in his branch of the government.  In all truth, I seriously doubt the person Specter was runing against was a figure or comparable to a figure that had served admirably at the side of Ronald Reagan.  George Bush was such an individual.

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).

If Perry had taken on a state in a dire situation and turned things around, I might be more sympathetic to your argument here.  I'm not all that impressed by Perry's leadership.  From what I've head from Santorum, I am impressed by his grasp of Conservatism.  He truly gets it.

During the last week or so I saw some Perry folks post things that Santorum had voted for over the years.  It was a shameful display of character assassination.  You can find contemptable things to say every Senator or Congressman voted for, because bills are loaded with a myriad of things you have to vote for if you wish to support the main emphasis of the bill.  This is an old tactic that politicians use when they're desperate.  It didn't reflect well on Perry and his team when they tried this.

I'm just not impressed by Perry.  I have developed a healthy case of contempt for him.

Thanks for the comments.  BTW check out these ACU ratings for Gore in 1988.  Al Gore / Tennessee = 9, Alan Simpson / Wyoming 92.  Check out some of the other players too.  LINK

[DoughtyOne]

She left but I don’t think she threw her support yet.

I think that will be a natural though. At least a few more percent to Santorum IMO.

As for Perry, we’ll see in time. I agree with you.

[pogo101]

Most of your comments are given in good faith (thanks), even though I still disagree with many of them (to the extent I can read them; your use of gray and blue text makes your posts hard to read).

But this? Not so much:

So what you're saying is that you actually wish the Republicans had lost the Senate in 2004, rather than 2006?

No. I prefer that Toomey had been nominated over Arlen Specter, and I suspect you know perfectly well that is what I mean -- and further, that I believe Toomey could and would have won.

I deeply resent your insinuation that I wanted one less Republican in the Senate. (If you are simply badly misunderstood -- in stating that I wanted a Democrat to win in 2004, when it's rather plain that I wanted a more-conservative-than-Specter REPUBLICAN to win, then I apologize. But I do not take kindly to accusations like the one you seem to make here.)

You also avoided my critique that Santorum's got no organizational leadership experience outside of his political office. But thank you for your comments that were in good faith. Have a care about accusing me as you did, however.

[DoughtyOne]

Re: Point “1”. No, it’s my take that this caucus was as much a random event as an actual valid sampling of the electoral will. You have to personally witness the zealotry and willingness to engage in ACORN type tactics of the RP brigades to truly understand how far from normal American values many of them are.  I can only imagine.  I am sympathetic to your views here to a degree, but we can't join in the process and hope for a win, then trash the whole process because we didn't show well.  That's pretty much all I am saying.  If a guy takes a stand on principle and takes a pass on the event, I would have more respect for this position.

Some are sincere, some are nuts. One only has to ponder the Paul constituents to grasp the truth of this. Then remember that it is also an “Open” caucus, so the results are even less meaningful.  IMO, the RNC should decertify any primary or caucus that is open, that is involved in the selection process for the Republican candidate.  Republicans should be the only people who are qualified to vote in our primaries.  I would try to find a way to make sure that only Republicans who had been registered that way for more than 24 months could participate in a Republican primary too.

Point “2”. We are fortunate that “a lot of cash” does not directly translate into success, else the rich guy would always buy the election. As I said above, I feel this caucus result was too random due to wild card factors to be taken seriously.  Well, I've had my say on that.  California is now an open Primary state for the first time.  This angers me.  What's more, it angers me that the Republican leadership expended very little energy to defeat that initiative on our ballots.

Perry may begin to “Catch on” again, it’s still very early in the race.  In most years, I would probably be more inclined to agree with you.  After all these debates, I think most folks who wanted to know about these candidates probably have a very good idea who they are by this point.  It's going to be very hard to turn things around to the degree Perry has to, to overcome his current deficit.

You appear to mistake me for a strong Perry supporter, not true, I’m more a strong Rotney/Paul opponent.  Okay, good to know.  That's basically me too, except I add Perry in.  I'm not a big fan of Gingrich either.  In fact you can consider him in my list for the time being.

Gingrich and Perry come up about equal in my view, both have issues they need to address in strong terms. I would probably give Perry a slight edge among those two, Gingrich has made some major blunders over the years.  The negatives for these two are about the same for me.  I'm not sure either is worse, but your early comments here have a lot in common with my view of them.

I will have to do some research on Santorum, now that he is the “Leader” of the moment it will probably be harder to find unbiased information on him.  Just make sure you let us know what you find.

As to western states, Nevada goes first, not Kalifornia.  Okay.  Then Nevada it is.  Nevada sent Harry Reid back to the U. S. Senate.  Hopefully they have a closed primary system and the Republicans can maneuver their way out of a paper sack better than they did that year.

Sadly Rotney did very well here last time, mostly due to the too strong Mormon influence (the same influence that saves Dingy Reid each time he has to run). RP also did very well here, we have two major universities and he has genuine zealots.  If Romney's values were better, I wouldn't mind about his Mormon faith.  As for Dingy, good grief what a post hole.

Hopefully the Nevada electorate learned from the last NV caucus and will vote a bit smarter this time. I am sure the party structure will be on guard against RP zealot disruptions such as they carried out last time.  IMO, about all you have to do is look at what Paul's supporters do, to realize what a wing nut he is.  Almost every debate his supporters are the sophmores in the room, unable to compose themselves for an hour at a time.  I guess it would help if he'd break loose some funds for baby-sitters, but it's a shame he needs to.

My main point is that too much emphasis is being given to the result of this one small caucus, so far as I am concerned even Bachman could have stayed in a while longer.  I don't generally give credence to these early caucuses and primaries either.  This year I don't know how anyone could lose to Obama, and I think it's more important than ever before that we get someone in that won't just go staus quo, but will actually go to work dismantling the Leftist infrastructure in this nation.  I do not see Mitt, Newt, Perry, or Paul doing that.  Paul might be the closest on some issues, but on others he would advance the Leftist agenda by leaps and bounds.  No fricken way.

Thanks for the additional comments.

[pogo101]

You raise a good point about Gore already being liberal by 1988. I had drunk the Kool-Aid on that issue and would have guessed that his ACUs were in the 40s or 50s. Mea culpa.

I still believe, however, that (1) Gore has moved much further to the left since 1988, and (2) it’s a very, very distant marker by which to judge someone 24 years later, particularly when that someone has been a reliable GOP stalwart in the years since.