Voting for the most conservative candidate gains popular acceptance in bid to halt the Left.
(Page 2 of 5)
Why not go for it? The stakes dictate it, do they not?
Here’s the Limbaugh Rule: In an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism and socialism, when voters are clearly frightened of where the hell the country is headed, vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary, period.
The day Rush announced the Limbaugh Rule, the Delaware GOP Senate primary was being decided. It featured, of course, Congressman and former governor Mike Castle against Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell. Ms. O’Donnell won in an upset — and yes, she lost in November.
But without being formally named up until that September 14th, the Limbaugh Rule was effectively already in play elsewhere in 2010. Notably, in Florida and Kentucky, where Marco Rubio and Rand Paul both upended seriously major GOP Establishment figures against long odds — with various Republicans in each state essentially invoking the Buckley Rule even when unnamed. In Florida the Buckley Rule favorite was GOP Governor Charlie Crist, in Kentucky, Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
And so it went across the country that fall of 2010, with the Limbaugh Rule, publicly annunciated or not, re-shaping American politics.
Let us not forget Mark Levin here, either. It was he who first began to give an unknown Marco Rubio exposure on talk radio. Ditto O’Donnell, ditto Sharron Angle in Nevada, a practice of singling out conservative candidates that he has continued in 2012. Others have as well. And, of course, on both radio and television Sean Hannity was giving these conservative underdogs exposure.
Oh, yes. There was that small thing called the Tea Party. Before there was a Limbaugh Rule publicly formulated, there was a Limbaugh Rule in action — and it was and is called the Tea Party
The central point here is that in the evolving determination to, in Rush’s words, “vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary, period,” whether the resulting conservative candidate won or lost, a determined effort to stop the Liberal/socialist/Obama agenda in its tracks was moving forward. Big Time.
In fact, while Barack Obama deserves considerable credit for energizing and mobilizing the electoral power of the conservative base (as here in New York when Republican Bob Turner took Anthony Weiner’s House seat) as perhaps no one else since Ronald Reagan, in fact the real drama here is to be found in another part of Rush’s monologue — this part:
My point was that we’ve never had, never, ever — I mean we’ve got the Democrats ready to run off a cliff. We have got liberalism and socialism set up to be destroyed…
Stop here a minute.
Rush is right — but why is he right?
In one of the biggest ironies of American history, the nation’s first black president — a devout Leftist — has effectively been left holding the bag by generations of white Liberals. As the actual final end game of Liberalism plays out, one Liberal program or government intervention after another has either failed outright or teeters on the brink of disaster. To rephrase Obama’s onetime pastor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright:
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?