Skip to comments.I'll Endorse When I Decide, Folks
Posted on 10/12/2011 3:11:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: This is continuing to happen with greater frequency -- yesterday, today -- and it will continue to happen if I don't say something about it. What's happening is people are calling and telling me that I have a duty because of the power that I have and the influence that I have (which, of course, both are considerable) to pick someone right now among the conservative Republican presidential candidates. Pick that person, get behind 'em, and put 'em over the top.
Now, each person that calls (it's very interesting) tells me I should pick their guy. One guy says Cain, one guy says Perry, one guy says Bachmann. I do not endorse candidates until I'm ready to endorse candidates. If I felt comfortable endorsing someone right now, I would. I do it when I personally feel like I can, and I've not decided who I support among the conservatives -- and when people call here who have already made their decisions and insist that I make a decision, what they're really saying is that they want me to back the person that they like. I understand that. Now, here's a fact for you (and I mentioned this at the top of the program today): 70% of the Republicans polled are split all over the map, but they know that they do not support Romney.
The reason is simple: Romney is not a conservative. He's not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn't. What he has going for him is that he's not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he's done it a long time. He's very seasoned. He never makes a mistake, and he's going to keep winning these things if he never makes a mistake. It's that simple. But I'm not personally ready to settle on anybody yet -- and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we've even had a single primary! All we've had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment's trying to nail this down and end it. You know that that's happening, and I know that you don't want that to happen, and neither do I.
Now, as for Romney -- and you should know, by the way, that I've met Romney. I've not played golf with him but I've met him, and I like all of these people. This isn't personal, not with what country faces and so forth. I like him very much. I've spent some social time with him. He's a fine guy. He's very nice gentleman. He is a gentleman. But he's not a conservative -- and if you disagree, I'm open. The telephone lines are yours. Call and tell me what you think it is that makes him a principled conservative, what exactly is it. Is there something that he has said that shows conservative, principled leadership? What did he say? I'm open to it. Now, we're told that governors are better than legislators when looking for presidents for a host of reasons.
Legislators are filled with ego, they sit around and by "yes" men, they're not executives, and they're one of many, and the buck never really stops with them. Governors, it's just the exact opposite. But when we look at the record, and we bring up Romneycare, we're told, "Well, that's been he was a governor, but as president he wouldn't do any such thing." What? What do you mean he wouldn't do any such thing? He did it is the point. He has positions as governor that make it obvious he believes in the concept of manmade global warming. "Yeah, but that was as governor, Rush. It's a liberal state. He had to do things to get elected." Um, there's gonna be a lot of liberal pressure on whoever our president is: Media, Democrat members of Congress that the media's gonna fawn all over.
Every night you'll have Harry Reid and Pelosi on camera commenting on what the new conservative president's doing. There's gonna be all kinds of liberal pressure on whoever our next president is who's a Republican conservative. The Romneycare health care bill has individual mandates, and they're wrong. Individual mandates are wrong whether they're imposed by a governor or a president. Governor McDonnell of Virginia has not done what Romney did in Massachusetts, and neither have most other Republican governors. Governor McDonnell of Virginia is running a very small deficits, but surplus, in fact, I think. His unemployment rate in Virginia is way down. Nobody talks about him for the presidency, because he himself has not put himself out there for it.
But most Republican governors are not having to fall back on the federalism argument to justify what they did. "Well, it's states' rights. You know, we're laboratories. We can do whatever we want to do. I wouldn't do it, of course, at the federal level! I wouldn't do it. But, of course, the governors we gotta experiment with things," and the reason that they're not falling back on federalism is because, as governors, they didn't make terrible policy decisions that they now have to justify. So if we are going to look at a governor's record, what exactly do we find? There's manmade global warming, and Romney has indicated that he believes in it and he has supported laws in Massachusetts built on it. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in the federal government is out of control.
The EPA intends to use carbon dioxide to regulate industry in this country and it's killing our economy, and we don't need somebody who wants that kind of thing to happen. We don't want somebody who thinks that the world is falling apart and the climate is crumbling because of what we're doing as human beings and who will sustain an EPA to get it under control. That's what liberal Democrat presidents do! We don't need to even go there, or to pretend. I was right, Virginia does have a budget surplus. They have a $545 million budget surplus, in this economy. So how does a president who believes in manmade global warming and presumably believes it needs to be regulated cut back the EPA? "Well, Rush, that was Massachusetts. Again, it's a liberal state. He's gotta get elected, and he's gotta stay elected, and he's gotta work with a liberal Democrat legislature."
Well, the same things are gonna happen to a president. There are some liberals in the country, and they're very loud and vocal, and there are gonna be a lot of liberals in the Congress, and they are gonna be making a lot of noise. And he's gonna have to work with them. And, see, that's the rub, isn't it, when you get right down to it? Aren't we tired of working with the opposition? And aren't we tired of saying that the number one qualification for our nominee ought to be to be able to work with our opponents? Isn't the point to defeat them, isn't that what the election results of 2010 were all about? Didn't the American people send a signal loud and clear November 2010, "We don't want Obamaism. We don't want liberalism"? We don't want to cross the aisle and work with these people. There's nothing Chuck Schumer advocates that we want part of.
What's gonna happen on immigration? Right now, as we speak, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are working together on a comprehensive immigration plan that they hope to be able to get passed, that will essentially be amnesty. They're hoping to avoid that word being attached to it. But what will happen? This isn't 30 years ago or 40 years ago where the deficit was too high and out of control. We have reached a tipping point here. I know that you, members of this audience, typify the American people, and you are way ahead of the Washington establishment.
Let me ask you this. The Republican National Committee, when is the last time that you saw an ad or anything sponsored by them attacking Obama, what he stands for, setting the terms, defining the parameters of the upcoming election? You haven't. They're nowhere near caught up with us, where we are and how we view the future of the country and the dangers that lurk not around the corner, but right straight ahead. It's not the day for the politics of old where you just share power every four, eight years with the other party and act congenial with one another, and that's the DC establishment. They all live with the understanding they're gonna win some, they're gonna lose some, but the other side plays that for all it's worth.
They make us think that they're part of that mind-set but they're out to destroy everything we believe in. They're out to destroy the people who personify the politics that we believe in. And I don't mean just destroy 'em at the polls; I mean they're out to destroy them personally. Lives, character, you name it, the evidence is there each and every day. Ain't beanbag. I just don't want a president that's gonna think the EPA ought to be empowered to act on a hoax, or that believes that government should have the ability to mandate that people go out and buy health insurance. That's for the other party to do. That's for the other party to lose on! And they must lose on it. The future of the country hangs in the balance.
RUSH: Here's what Romney said back in June, and it's typical of his comments on global warming in general. He said, "I don't speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world is getting warmer. I can't prove it but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. Number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don't know how much our contribution is to that because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe we contribute to it." And I remember having a cow that day when he said it. I cringed. And I was surprised this didn't come up last night.
Some of this stuff makes me think that the second tier really doesn't think they have much of a chance and that they're running for president for something else. You know, it's great to go on television after this campaign's all over with the moniker "former presidential candidate" under your name if you're guesting on Greta or some Fox show or anywhere else, "former presidential candidate Herman Cain." It's a status symbol. My only point is that there are vulnerabilities with Romney and they're not going after him. Plain and simple. Didn't come up last night. If belief in global warming, manmade global warming will have a huge impact on our economy if it is fully implemented, if we have policies based on the prospect or the concept that human beings, that your car, your lawn mower and your barbecue pit are causing global warming, there's no difference in the current regime. That's what they believe.
And, meanwhile, the media establishment attacks Romney anyway for it for being too timid on the subject. That quote of you I just read, that's too timid, he's not fully committed here. And then some of those candidates might be running for Romney's VP slot. Some people said that Romney really set Michele Bachmann up for that last night by asking her a real softball question that elevated her. You thought that? A lot of people thought that that was all about Romney knows he needs the Tea Party. So get a Tea Party person on the ticket, maybe, Michele Bachmann, or at least be nice, play nice. Play nice to Herman Cain, too. (interruption) That's one way of looking at it, just kicked it out of bounds.
RUSH: Jonathan in Savannah, Georgia, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call, sir. I just wanted to say I'm getting tired of the people calling in asking you to endorse a candidate. I don't find that it's your job or your duty. I think that the duty lies on us to take the information that you present us with to make the best decision.
RUSH: They have their candidate and they want me to move their candidate forward, that's what it is.
CALLER: I don't know. I mean I feel like you're there to educate us on the things that we may not have time to find, examine, and we don't have, you know, the resources, and really, you know, the duty lies on us as your listeners and the American people to get out and vote, and to make the best decision based on the information we get whether it's through your show or through other sources.
RUSH: Well, you know what you're right about? What you're essentially saying is the audience, people like you are not mind-numbed robots. You make up your own mind on this stuff. And I've always had that opinion of this audience. When this show first started, this audience was accused of being just a bunch of mind-numbed robots waiting for me, the pied piper, to tell 'em what to do and think, and it's never been that way. So I appreciate your comments.
CALLER: Thank you, sir.
RUSH: And it's important for me, by the way, to always keep in perspective what I do, who I am, and who I'm not. If you lose track of that, you get in big trouble. Besides, picking the Republican nominee is Colin Powell's job. Everybody knows that. Colin Powell is in charge of that, not me. All of this reminds me of the saying, nobody can make anybody happy. That's your job. You can only make yourself happy. If you're depending on somebody else to make you happy, you are gonna make two people miserable. There's no doubt about that. It's the same way with politics. You have to find your own bliss.
RUSH: D.J. in Gramercy, Louisiana, welcome to the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Yeah, dittos, Rush, dittos.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Look, I wanted to watch the debate last night, but it wasn't available on any of the channels on my TV.
RUSH: Do you have cable?
RUSH: Well, it might not be on your cable system.
CALLER: Yeah. So I was looking earlier this morning, and all the newspaper sources I had to try to find good coverage on it.
CALLER: And I found it on the London Telegraph.
RUSH: Yeah, the UK press is doing a much better job than the domestic press on American politics.
CALLER: They did a marvelous job on it and they praised Herman Cain a great deal, and he was in yesterday's paper also, he was in the London Telegraph yesterday also.
CALLER: Somebody out there likes him very much.
RUSH: Well, did it influence your thinking at all?
CALLER: No, it didn't, because I'm already very much locked into three candidates.
CALLER: Cain is one, Gingrich is the other, and Bachmann is the third.
RUSH: Well. So you are trying to choose between three conservatives?
CALLER: And I like them all very much. I would be pleased to vote for any one of the above.
RUSH: Well, that's great, D.J., look, I'm glad you called. You are absolutely right, the UK press runs rings around our people, including coverage of domestic politics. They really do. Even the liberal newspapers like The Guardian run rings around our people, and it's not hard to understand. They're not personally invested as the domestic Drive-Bys are.
I wish were. I never post anymore.
Romney looks unstoppable with money, org and no unforced errors.
[cue up picture of mcenroe...]
In the PRIMARY, NO.......and please refer to my prior post. Thank you
She wasn't on the scene until it was down to the general election -- McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden. So obviously he'd support the GOP ticket in that instance, no matter who was on it. I'm talking about an early endorsement -- before or at the very beginning of the GOP primaries. And I found the answer: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/05/rush-limbaugh-endorses-mitt-romney/
Rush is.....an entertainer.
It would be nice if he acted like the future of America hangs in the balance for 2012.
Because it does.
Rush has never endorsed anyone in the primarys........
All have room to grow in this primary season, to fill in areas where they are seriously lacking. If Perry made it clear that he grokked the contemporary concern that amnesty to illegales would be a lasting national liberal/Democrat take-over in the making (they’re not going to vote against spoils to themselves) then maybe 20-30% more Republicans would be comfortable with him. It’s OK I suppose to have a heart but it’s foolish to “love” America into a Democrat dystopia.
The problem with Cain’s 999 plan is that when you flip it over you see that the devil is in the details.
9% national sales tax
no more home mortgage deduction
You are wrong too. It was the LSM who nominated McCain. I voted for McCain in the general election. He was not my first or second choice, but I will not waste my vote to vote for someone that does not have any chance to get elected
Yea, and since you dropped into a Rush forum, ya might want to move on..........
Greenspan’s easy-money policies created the dot com bubble in the 1990s. And after that boom went bust, in order to soften the recession, he eased up on credit even more. And all that went into the housing market, creating yet another bubble.
They say that everybody — Wall Street, Main Street — got drunk with greed. But the real question is, Who provided the alcohol?
I don’t think he has any obligation to endorse anyone.
What are ya? stoopid?
Yes, that is what I recall
The day Rush endorses a candidate, two thirds of FR starts screaming "FURL!!! You RINO!!!"
Everyone needs to remember that Rush is an entertainer, not an activist. He says this all the time! His stand on any issue will be the one he thinks will keep people tuning in, and buying that iced tea.
So what was Rush's responsibility in this great debacle you are touting? (your sarcasm noted) The last I knew, he's just a talk show host?
Stock options created the dot com boom, not easy money in the 90s.
Sarbox expensing of options with the Black Scholes model was terrible, since it has killed the incentive to innovate..
What the he!! ????
He is the smartest of them all
I voted for Romney in our primary, and after the primary my choice was Fred Thompson, but after he dropped out my vote went to McCain/Palin
Your question to me was too vague????? I don’t have the luxury nor time to engage in ridiculous banter with you.
I’m only able to chime in occasionally on here, rather than sit at it all day. Thank God I still have a day job.
No it is up to us who we want to get the nomination and we have to make it clear to the GOP it’s not Romney
The not McCain sentiment did not work.
Unless a somewhat electable conservative has active support, it will be Romney now that Palin/Kristy Kreme is out.
I would take Cain/Bachmann/Perry at this point.
Otherwise it is milktoast versus captain kool.
Rush endorsed Romney the day of the California Primary, when it was the last chance to stop McCain. It was more of a “he’s the lesser of two evils folks” type of thing.
And we should not expect an endorsement, per se, but an acknowledgment of whom is currently the strong horse.
Would not surprise me at all.
Good luck with that suggestion............
If we are, then just for the hell of it, we'll blame you...........
You're right, he didn't. But that won't stop people from making things up about him anyway. It's weird.
I’m still thinking about Rush’s response to a caller that asked him why he hadn’t mentioned Palin’s withdrawal.
Rush said it hadn’t crossed his mind. Who believes that?
Later in the conversation he sort of quoted palin, who criticized her complainers by saying if they trusted her to be president, why can’t her on this decision to withdraw.
This sort-of quote by Rush shows he has been tuned into Sarah.
I think Rush’s heart is broken.
lol, of course he didnt.
Rush did NOT like Huckabee the huckster. I remember him criticizing him prior to Iowa.
This is becoming a slo-mo redo of 2008 ... the right gets divided and so we nominate a non-conservative, even though 2/3rds of the grassroots is conservative.