Rush Limbaugh: I Think There’s a Commitment to Romney at the Upper Levels of Republican Party
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, December 30, 2011, 5:12 AM
Rush Limbaugh told Greta Van Susteren last night, “They have their hearts set on Romney… I think there’s a commitment to Romney at the upper levels of the Republican Party.”
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Rough Night… Obama Loses 36 Arkansas Counties to Unknown Democrat – Loses 67 Kentucky Counties to “Uncommitted”
Published May 23, 2012 at 4:57 am - 64 Comments
Joe Blow commented:
That’s been pretty obvious from the beginning, just like they ignore what the majority of the “regular” Republicans want them to do in congress.
Sickofobama commented:
I didn’t watch Greta last night and I know the Rush segment was not recent – it was prerecorded awhile ago.
This is my fear and probably Rush’ fear (although I cannot speak for my conservative sentinel):
I myself am against Romneycare because I believe he is a liberal at heart. He has used the lame excuse over and over again that he had to do all the bad he things he did to MA because he had a liberal Senate and Congress.
Romneycare knows conservatives are not behind him. That means he is counting on Republicans, liberals, independents, moderates to vote for him. So to me that means he will want to please all of the above. With a RINO Senate and Congress (which unfortunately we have right now), Romneycare will give us a lot of liberal legislation.
With him saying just TWO DAYS AGO that the individual mandate is conservative, why would he repeal all of Obamacare?
He was on Bill Bennett yesterday and Bennett told him the waivers Romneycare said he would hand out to the states would be unconstitutional. Romneycare said his handlers said they would. I tend to believe Bennett.
That is my dilemma. How about the rest of you?
Rose commented:
The GOP is always totally committed to the Gerald Fords/Robert Doles/John McCains regardless of what their voting base tells them.
If the voting base follows the GOP committee off the cliff this time, America will go down the drain, too.
Rose commented:
#2 – Agreed. If the GOP goes as Marxist as the DIMS, what is there for America? They’ll be the frog leg dinner special without a Stand.
Tyranny's Bain commented:
Rush is exactly right. The Republican establishment, including alleged conservative columnists, bloggers and pundits, have been enlisted to destroy anyone they consider “fringe” aka anyone espousing traditional conservative values and policy positions.
They are hell bent on Romney, even it means the loss of their personal credibility with the conservative base, i.e. Ann Coulter. Have they been bought?
They are desperate to maintain the status quo. Conservative reformers like Palin, Bachmann, or Cain are the enemy because they threaten their way of life. The largesse must be maintained at all costs. Ad Hominem attacks are leveled en masse. They attack their intellect, their religious convictions, their looks, their marriages, their families, their fashion sense, and etc. Personal destruction is their goal. It is also designed to send a message to potential conservative reform candidates. That message is don’t even think about challenging us or we will destroy you personally. We will drag your spouse, your children, your parents, your friends and anyone else in your life down with you.
Quite frankly, I am disgusted by the behavior of many of these alleged conservative columnists, bloggers, and pundits. They should be ashamed at how they have behaved.
I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around. Their day will come.
Bill Mitchell commented:
One thing that can give Conservatives some comfort on Romney:
He is a bit of a pussy.
That is, he tends to become a chameleon and govern like his legislature. In Romney’s case, there is a high likelihood his legislature will be Conservative so Romney will govern as a Conservative. The liberal stuff he did as Governor was is MA with a far left legislature.
There is also the possibility that with Romney on the ticket, Independents might feel more comfortable giving him big Republican majorities in Congress. he same might not be as true if we had a far right candidate.
Sickofobama commented:
#6:
With pussies like Bonehead in charge expect no conservative legislation.
Romneycare and Bonehead – two peas in a pod.
RedBeard commented:
1. Romney is far too liberal to be my ideal candidate.
2. If he is the nominee, I will vote for him in a heartbeat, because as imperfect as he is, he is orders of magnitude better that our current Quisling-in-Chief.
3. If Romney becomes president, and if we elect a more conservative Congress at the same time, he will be swayed to go along with conservative legislation. At the very least, he will be unlikely to veto it, while Obama most certainly would.
Pragmatic commented:
If the Republican Party chooses Romney, it will mark the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. Romney will lose BIG TIME time to whomever the Democrats put forward. I will vote down-ticket for only conservatives on the ballot but Romney will NEVER GET MY VOTE! I know many, many Republicans and conservative independents who will do likewise. The nomination of Romney will be a HUGE MISTAKE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
squeaky commented:
none of these candidates are perfect but the guy currently sitting in the front seat is heading the family car towards a cliff.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatandreds/598944056/
darwin commented:
Hey, Rush. Fire is hot. Water is wet. Ice is cold. Pelosi uses botox. 0bama is a Marxist.
Ipso Facto commented:
I agree that the Republican blue-bloods want Romney. At this point, I’d prefer Newt, however, he is a bit volatile and I do not think he’d be a total shoe-in against Obama.
We need the independents to beat Obama this time.
All of this noted, the Legal Insurrection blog by Prof. Jacobson of Cornell has a great plan called Operation Counterweight. This plan is about getting enough REAL conservatives in the House and Senate to keep a President like Romney from veering to the left.
Let’s realize that beating Obama is the first and highest priority NOW. Can you imagine the damage alone that will be done if he brings in even one more radical Supreme Court Judge? Although I abhor what the blue-bloods of the Republican party are doing, I don’t think taking them on now will be productive. Lets get the primary over with ASAP so that we don’t have to listen to all of the nonsense about Ron Paul anymore and then lets start taking it to Obama ASAP.
After a Romney term or two, I believe we can next bring in more of the Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, Allen West type of Republicans and stick it to the blue-bloods once and for all. Face it, they are dying out – we don’t need to waste anymore energy pushing the river there. Lets first make Obama toast in 2012 and lets get the ball rolling in that direction ASAP!
Old ONE commented:
The party of stupid’s drive to ram cucumber & mayonnaise sandwich Mittens down the throats of conservative voters will send the repubics party down the rsame oad as the Federalists & the Whigs.
#1AMERICAN commented:
I fear we are doomed and odumbass gets another 4 years…
Calamity Jane commented:
For as much as I dislike Romney as a candidate, I HATE Obama as POTUS. Obama’s 1st term has given us 2 Supreme Court Justices with more than questionable ideologies. Another Obama term will , most likely, allow Barry to appoint 2 more justices to the Supreme Court.
This to me is the single most serious issue conservatives face and the only chance we have of avoiding that scenario is by voting Obama OUT! These nominations still must be approved, but that’s always a crap shoot.
I’d vote for a can of dog food before I’d cast a ballot for Obama. If Romney gets the nod, he’ll have my support…..I won’t like it, but he’ll get my vote.
Paz commented:
That Northeast Liberal flip-flopping RINO piece of excrement will never get my vote!
Bill Mitchell commented:
If Romney gets the nod and picks a conservative VP (my guess would be Christie since Christie has been his boy of late and that this was the likely deal struck), we could be looking at 16 years of Republican rule – I can live with that.
Also, since Republicans pretty much own the South whoever the nominee is, a Romney/Christie ticket gives us at least a shot in the NE.
Jerry C commented:
I held my nose and voted for McCain, the lessor evil. Then, low and behold, he was one of the co-sponsers of the indefinite detention of americans on american soil bill. So, screw it. I’m not casting my vote for another “lesser evil” who turns out the same or worse than who I was voting against. As a result, by default, whether I like his foreign policies or not, I’m voting Ron Paul. At least I can say I voted for a politician who I think actually cares about America.
Ron Paul 2012 or BUST.
Friendly commented:
Romney is more conservative than Perry and Gingrich. Plus, he is on a trajectory to be more conservative, while Perry and Gingrich are going the opposite direction. The lower levels have already decided on Romney too – Tea Party folks like me. I would love to see some competence in the White House, is that too much to ask? Let’s not do another round of experimentation. Please.
Friendly commented:
Oh. And Ron Paul is DEFINITELY not conservative. Yikes. Legalize prostitution? Legalize drugs? Does he even grasp the problems our country faces right now? No more ideologues.
hhb552 commented:
No RINOs period. Romney can’t beat President Obama because of Romneycare, but hey let’s nominate Romney, so he can go down in flames like McCain.
hermie commented:
The ‘elitists’ in the GOP chose Romney because it was ‘his turn’. That’s the usual SOP and we got Dole and McCain for nominees.
Also the ‘elitists’ have done their best to slam other candidates instead of focusing on Obama. In 2008 the Dems ‘debated’ each other but always concentrated on George Bush. They relentlessly attacked President Bush instead of each other, minimizing damage to the future nominee.
Obama’s disasterous policies are hardly noticed because of the internal fighting and vicious negative attacks on each other.
The ‘elitists’ are also responsible for not taking the Senate in 2010. They slammed all the tea party affiliated Senate candidates and in the case of Alaska, promoted the loser of the GOP primary. Other tea party affiliated candidates were ruthlessly attacked not by Dems but members of the GOP elite. This gave the Dems further ammo and the GOP elite’s attacks were picked up and amplified by the MSM.
The ‘elitists’ have picked Romney and will fight to the GOP’s death to prop him up as the nominee. Unless Romney wants to have a 2012 disaster, he will need a strong conservative VP pick and not another ‘electable’ VP approved by the ‘elitists’.
RedBeard commented:
Question for the naysayers: If Romney is the Republican nominee, what will you do next November?
The choices are simple.
1. Vote for Romney even though he’s not ideal, in order to deny Obama 4 more years to tear this country down.
2. Write in some goofy 3rd party doofuss as a protest vote against Romney and thereby help Obama get 4 more years to tear this country down.
3. Stay home and thereby help Obama get 4 more years to tear this country down.
Jenny commented:
How long did it take him to figure that out????? Geez.
hermie commented:
The only thing I can do is to vote for Romney…if he becomes the nominee. But I’ll fight like hell to get a more conservative Congress in there as well. Both the House and the Senate.
A halfway attractive conservative/moderate 3rd party candidate will hurt the GOP chances. If that 3rd party is liberal then no harm will be done to the GOP.
Mikey commented:
The worst part of a Romney nomination will be the dispirited base. I voted for McCain and I will vote for Romney, but NOT with enthusiasm. The only candidate that excites me is Newt.
GINGRICH 2012
RedBeard commented:
The only candidate that would excite me is George Washington, and he’s not currently available.
He was a man who knew how to be the chief executive, understood his constitutional role and limits, and served this country as well, or better, than any who have come since.
donh commented:
Romney is a Massachusettes DEMOCRAT just like Scott Brown. The Republican party is FULL of democrats . That is why the Republican party defended Obama so well from Birthir issues. Democrats in the Republican party like to throw feces at their comrads over in the Democrat party . Its a sick game….. all fake bluster as in a pro wreslting match. In the end it is understood Republicans have only one agenda and that is TO TAKE A DIVE. Yes some true believers will get through and try to move conservative values but as you see now the leadership is doing everything possible to disappoint the common republican voter so that tea Party reps in marginal swing districts get FIRED 2012. That is why the Romney nomination is so crucial to them…to flush Tea Party victories of 2010 down the toilet.
Bonanza driver commented:
Take heart folks who don’t care for Romney…Think of what we have now in the Indonesian imbecile. The American apologist who gave speeches around the world denouncing his own country. A President who insults our allies…He gave the Queen an Ipod as a state gift. He is a closet muslim who fails to make a Christmas statement yet celebrates Rhamadan in the WH. He has a “body man” whatever that means. I guess he couldn’t get away with calling Reggie Love his gay lover. He has spent nearly twelve trillion dollars in three years while running a four trillion dollar deficit. He has no qualifications for executive leadership at all other than an ability to read a teleprompter. We are not even sure he meets the constitutional standard to be our President. He probably has dual citizenship in Indonesia. Do the American people deserve a President with dual citizenship and divided loyalties? Solyndra, Karma, the GM takeover where he stole the company from bondholders and gave 17% to the UAW…Think about it? For those who say Romney is no different I suggest you think again…
donh commented:
Again #30 all you have to offer is baboons in the zoo throwing feces at Obama…Nothing credible to offer me in the way of conservative policy . Oh wait a better supereme court nominee? as if a slightly better judge is any use in a fascist dictatorship like North Korea.
retire05 commented:
#20, Friendly, can you actually be serious? Romney is more conservative than Gingrich or Perry? When did that happen? While I was sleeping? Or is it that you just haven’t invested the time to actually research Romney’s record as governor (and please, don’t insult our intelligence by saying he had no choice but to be a liberal because of his state).
A conservative governor has a responsibility to show his state that conservatism and free market values work. Instead, Romney turned his state farther to the left, losing 30,000 registered Republicans and gaining 31,000 registered Democrats. He nominated twice as many Democrats to the Massachusetts bench than Republicans, including nominating two gay same-sex lawyers who were pushing for more gay rights. He pushed for the first “global warming” legislation in the U.S. hiring John Holdren and Daniel Foy as his “climate” gurus, both who now work for the Obama administration. The same advisors to Mittens for Romneycare advised the Democrats on how to construct Obamacare. Is throwing your state into massive debt conservative? Is teaming up with the likes of Ted Kennedy to enact legislation that violates our Constitutional rights as a free people, conservative?
Oh, yeah, Romney is NOW a conservative, now that he is no longer in office and has to prove it, but some of us know that words are cheap and Romney simply turned right in January, 2007, when he decided to run for POTUS the first time, and when he no longer had to put those conservative beliefs into action as governor.
And please, don’t presume to speak for TEA Partiers. You are ONE person, not representative of any body politic. TEA Partiers, like me, would not vote for Romney for dog catcher.
I would like to see your scale for measuring “competence” because there is a reason that Mitt Romney is NOT running on his success as a governor or how he was able to promote conservative values during that tenure. It is because he ran, and won, as a northeastern “progressive”, i.e. socialist.
Romney is nothing more than a vanity candidate, running to prove that a Romney CAN win the nomination (his father failed miserably at getting nominated) and that a Morman can be elected in a nation that pretty well views Mormanism as a cult. But please, do NOT place the label of “conservative” on Mitt Romney.
Terry commented:
If Romney is the candidate, I’ll stay home and I expect many conservatives like me will too for four reasons.
1) We know that our skills and livelihood can get us through. Ultimately, America will endure and if it takes another 4 years of Obama-Romney for the rest of the country to come to its senses, so be it.
2) Yes, Romney is the same as Obama just a different race. He will continue Obama’s policies; that’s why every donor from the “Blue dog” Democrats to Wallstreet that contributed millions to Obama is now contributing to Romney. Follow the money. The same geniuses who helped get Obama elected are now trying to get Romney elected.
3) Make no mistake. If Romney doesn’t win the nomination, the GOP “moderates” will do everything in their power to sabotage the “Not Romney” winner just as the GOP establishment tried to sabotage Reagan by running a third candidate in the 1980 election.
The only thing that would prevent the moderates from running a third party is if the conservative Republican is likely to win IN SPITE of the sabotage (like Reagan did).
4) Knowing this, why would we [conservatives] want to vote for a “moderate” (read: liberal) establishment apparatchik presidential nominee. ESPECIALLY when we know those “moderates” will backstab our candidate whenever they lose in a fair primary? – even setting aside the fact that the primary is heavily weighted to the establishment candidate.
I got one final question for fellow conservatives:
These “moderates independents” – having inflicted Obama on the rest of us – insist that conservatives MUST vote for Romney if he wins the nomination.
But do you think – FOR EVEN A SECOND? – that these brainless Obamaphile “independent/moderates” would vote for Santorum or Ron Paul or Bachman or – heck – even Gingritch?!
Don’t make me laugh.
Terry commented:
If Romney is the candidate he will lose the same way John McCain lost spectacularly (and McCain BEAT Romney!).
Don’t get fooled by the “moderates” who gave us Obama. They’ll vote for Obama – again – when the chips are down and the Obama ads hit the airwaves to sway the weak-minded back home in the liberal corner. Just like 2008.
The only way to win in 2012 and rebuild America is to go after voters who aren’t swayed by liberal propaganda and bullying. Attract Conservatives – we outnumber liberals in this country after all. The “moderates” can stay home or vote for Obama all they like, they won’t make anymore of a difference than they did in 1980, when they voted for Democrats and a Republican “Independent”.
Reagan’s conservatives slaughtered both the established Democrats and the “moderate” independent voters. And by the time 1984 rolled around, even the “moderates” voted for Reagan in a fit of “me too” syndrome.
Moderate/independents = suggestive minds and weak willed. Don’t pander to it.
RedBeard commented:
Terry, you lay out a good plan to attract conservatives, presumably in hopes of beating Obama, but then you also say you’ll stay home and refuse to help beat Obama if Romney is the nominee.
What is more important to you, throwing Obama out or helping him stay in?
retire05 commented:
RedBeard, what is the difference between having an Obama administration that can be thwarted by a Republican majority in the House, and hopefully the Senate after November, 2012 or having a liberal in the office of POTUS who will have the full backing of the Congress simply because he has an (R) behind his name and the Congress is too weak spined to oppose him (after all, he will be one of them)
Is it better to have a Democrat in office knowing the Republicans will fight against him or having a “progressive” Republican in office that will gain comity because of party loyality? Which one will complete the total destruction of the nation given us by the Founders and that we grew up in?
Is it better to watch our total downfall under a Democrat, or a liberal Republican?
Rose commented:
Every time the RNC flex muscle to get the nominee THEY want, funny thing! THEY LOSE! Because there is NO percentage in it for AMERICA if they win, over the top of the disgusting Dim candidates.
How pathetic is THAT!
Rose commented:
#37 December 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm
retire05
~~~~~~~~~
PRECISELY! For instance, it took McCain NO TIME AT ALL to PROVE he would have gone FURTHER LEFT than Odrama Queen, and he continues to confirm that fact on a regular basis.
Ditto Robert Dole.
RedBeard commented:
Retire, your question takes as a given that Romney is as bad as Obama, a point that I will agrue against strenuously. Romney is WAY too liberal for my taste, but Obama is a vastly greater threat. Orders of magnitude greater.
Bush was far too liberal for me, but I would take him back in a heartbeat. And Romney is no worse than Bush.
What would happen if a conservative bill, say one that would strengthen border security dramatically, made it through both houses of Congress? Obama would certainly veto it. Romney would most likely sign it, rather than start a fight within his own party. One of the criticisms of Romney is his maleability, but that trait would work to our advantage if he is confronted with a conservative Congress.
Nothing in this presidential race is anywhere near as important as sending Barry Soetoro Obama (or whatever alias he’s using this month) back to Chicago, unemployed.
Steve Cakouros commented:
I get the impression that Romney is a bored millionaire with way too much time on his hands. Why not seek the presidency then?
Here is why he should not seek the presidency. He is a liberal. There is no difference between Romney and Obama. Romney is trying to pass himself off as a conservative. Is anyone fooled by this?
If Romney is what the big boys want in the Republican party then all true conservatives should head for the exits. I and my freinds will never vote for Romney, never, never, never.
retire05 commented:
RedBeard, you are assuming that Romney has values. I would disagree with that. Name ONE social value, important to conservatives, that Romney has not been on both sides of the fence on. Do you think a man who was willing to climb into bed with Teddy Kennedy would not sell out his own party to get what he wants and who has already shown he is willing to work with the far left to get what he wants (Romneycare)? You would only be fooling yourself if you do.
The one factor that you are not taking into account is that Republicans will be less willing to thwart a Republican president. If you think our voices are ignored now, just wait until we have a “progressive” Republican in office.
No, Romney is nowhere near as conservative as George W. Bush. Bush never waivered on his pro-life position. Never. Romney, well, it all depends on which crowd he is talking to and what year it is. Bush, unlike Romney, right or wrong, had convictions. Romney has poll takers to decide if he is pro or con against a social issue depending on the wind. A man who has supported abortion rights doesn’t just wake up on his 55th birthday and decide he is pro-life, as Romney did.
I will not vote Romney. Even if he is the nominee. I will do a write in or vote down ticket. If this nation is going down the tubes completely, let it be under a Democrat and let the Democrats carry that burden. I will not add to our pain by voting for a liar and basically dishonest poseur who only became a “conservative” in January, 2007.
RedBeard commented:
I’m sorry to read that, Retire. No sarcasm intended there, but just sorrow that you plan to aid Obama in getting a second bite at the apple, and give him another 4 years to tear down this country.
In my opinion, a mule for a candidate, or a tree stump, or a rotten wolverine carcass would all be vast improvements over Obama. He has to go. Period. And if Romney is the nominee, I won’t be overjoyed, but I will most certainly vote for him, without hesitation.
Rhoda R commented:
I agree with everything Retire said. The ‘but’ is this: Our current President has no affection for the US. His entire administration has been directed toward destroying this nation. I have no evidence that Romney is anti-American – if he is the nominee then I’ll vote for him on just that alone. And work to create a third party – a Conservative party because our current republican party is demo-lite.
retire05 commented:
RedBeard, when the doctor tells you that you have a terminal disease that is not curable, does it matter what disease it is? Is one more preferable over another? In my mind, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Mitt Romney and the current poseur. So why should I have to live with knowing that I have contributed to the continuing down spiral of this nation?
I am of the belief that the TEA Party started mainly because Obama violated everything true conservatives, and true libertarians (like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison) believed in. With the election of Romney, the establishment Republican Party will have shown Americans that they, not us, will choose our president, along with a complicit “conservative” news media. The TEA Party will lose its voice (if it hasn’t already).
Remember, we spoke out, we marched, we protested and we contacted our representatives by the hundreds of thousands. In 2010, we elected those like Marco Rubio, Allen West, Francisco Canseco and Mike Lee. We put Republicans in almost every state house in the nation by numbers not seen in the past 70 years. Has it made a difference? Are we any better off that we were before the 2010 elections? Are more Americans working? Is your paycheck going farther? Has gas, groceries and utilities gone down?
Romney had a chance to govern as a conservative. He had the chance to move his state farther into the red column, but instead, his state became more liberal under his guidance.
There is not ONE person standing on that debate stage that doesn’t want to try to heal our ailing nation (well, except for loonly Ron Paul) except for Romney. It’s not for this nation he runs, its to bring to his family name what his father could not do. It’s not patriotism that drives Mitt, its paternalism.
Vote for Romney if you choose. That is your right. But when the sh!t hits the fan because Romney is nothing you hoped for, don’t come back at me. There is an old adage “I would rather die on my feet fighting that die on my knees submitting.” That is where I stand.
kay commented:
If its Mitthead, then there is no republican party anymore. How can we say we’re for less government when he’s always voting for MORE. I’ll vote for strong conservative representation down ticket but the schlubs in the AZ redistricting commission just let my district go from republican to meh (fight for the death equalization). Quayle has moved his home from the zip code he was in to one right next to us so he’ll be safe. If we get a democrat in here and its likely given that the city went for a all out loser democrat who promised the unions everything under the sun vs. a republican guy who likes to garden potted plants – I have no hope of holding this district to red.
Molon Labe commented:
Romney-Christie + Obama-Biden.
Heads we win, tails you lose. Who cares.
The GOP is broken if they can support a loser like this. They are incapable of learning after Dole, Bush and McCain.
HTS commented:
Every thinks that the upper levels of the republican party control everything. The VOTERS have to pick romney for him to be the nominee. I suppose everyone on this forum thinks that voters are mindless sheep that do whatever they’re told. Romney has not been a media darling. He has taken an enormous amount of heat. Just because he is winning, those who are dissatisfied that voters don’t have a choice.