The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

The Limbaugh Rule Is Changing America

By on 6.5.12 @ 6:09AM

Voting for the most conservative candidate gains popular acceptance in bid to halt the Left.

(Page 3 of 5)

Liberalism’s chickens have come home to roost.

Three Liberal programs in particular are wreaking havoc on the U.S. economy:

  • Fannie Mae — Created by FDR in 1938, it is credited with blowing up the entire U.S. economy 70 years later in 2008. Millions lost their homes, their jobs and their investments.
  • Social Security — Entitlement created by FDR in 1935, the program is teetering on the edge of insolvency, according to a report issued by Social Security Trustees in April of 2012.
  • Medicare — Entitlement created by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, it is expected — again according to its trustees — to be insolvent by 2024.

In the Obama era, of course, there are two gems of Liberalism that have attracted considerable anger — the “stimulus” (or, in Rush’s apt words, the “porkulus”), the laughably titled “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Our friend James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal directs attention to the Obama predictions of where unemployment would be were the “stimulus” adopted. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute has nicely recalled all of this using — gasp! — the original documents issued from Team Obama as they geared up to sell the stimulus in 2009.

The Obamaites insisted the stimulus would currently — at this very moment in 2012 — have Americans at an unemployment rate of 5.7%. In fact, as we now know, the rate is 8.2% — and on the rise.

Then, but of course, there is Obamacare. The attacks on religious liberty, the death panels, the still rising costs that were supposed to not rise, the business of keeping the same doctor — already not the case — the exceptions for this or that set of political pals.

Let’s not forget the Obama appointees on the National Labor Relations Board who tried to bar Boeing from building a plant in South Carolina as a sop to union allies.

There’s more…much more.

In fact, there are all manner of Liberal nostrums out there that have nothing to do with Obama per se.

  • New York: Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to ban “the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts.”
  • New Jersey: The state — isn’t this the state where potential Romney running mate Chris Christie is governor? — is now going to fine drivers if — buckle in — the driver has a pet in the car not wearing a seat belt. Question: Does this apply to goldfish? Turtles? Ferrets? Gerbils? Just asking.
  • North Carolina: A state inspector tells a grade school child the lunch the child’s mother prepared — a turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, a banana and apple juice — doesn’t meet U.S. Department of Agriculture standards. The lunch was replaced — with chicken nuggets. All class lunches were being inspected that day.
  • Massachusetts: The state, which Obama aide David Axelrod proclaimed as “Obama Country” in a recent visit, bans school bake sales. Outraged parents get the bill overturned.

And let’s not forget the banning of incandescent light bulbs — by the Bush administration!

It is precisely this kind of thing — what our own Bob Tyrrell calls “Stealth Socialism” in his book The Death of Liberalism that has so infuriated millions of Americans.

So with the governmental effects of all these Liberal ideas either turning one by one into disaster — or infuriating Americans who once never thought twice about buying a Big Drink at the movies, taking the family pet for a ride in the car, sending their child off to school with a turkey sandwich and selling cupcakes as a school fundraiser — what is the political result?

The Limbaugh Rule.

Page:   1 23 4 5  

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) |

DTOM| 6.5.12 @ 6:55AM

And if Mitt Romney does not keep his "moderate tent folded up" in 2016 there will be three parties in the primaries: Tea, FatCat moderate Republican, FatCat Democrat Socialists.

Why? Because all of the non-socialist Democrats will join their brother big government types in the moderate Republican party. Leaving the true Tea Party only one road - out of the big government morass.

The sooner the Tea Party realizes that they will always lose to the professional inside-the-beltway politicians, the better.

Face it, Democrats and Republicans have more in common with each other than they do with the Tea Party.

It won't be pretty, but that's what it'll be, methinks.

Don't Tread On Me.

.

chuck| 6.5.12 @ 7:23AM

And it is up to all of us to keep him away from the mushy middle. How?

1. Elect the most conservative Senators and Representatives to Congress.

2. Elect the most conservative people for Governor and state legislators.

3. Most importantly! STAY ON THEIR ASSES! Never let them forget they represent US! We are the bosses, and we can fire them at the next election.

Brooksifier | 6.5.12 @ 7:02PM

Rush has been divorced more times than Ted Kennedy was!

chuck| 6.5.12 @ 8:34PM

Yes, but the body count is Ted 1, Rush 0.

Brooksifier | 6.5.12 @ 8:40PM

But Laura Bush killed a boy in '63-- so killing is fine if you're GOP.

tonypal| 6.5.12 @ 9:54PM

Your point is what?

Brooksifier | 6.5.12 @ 11:08PM

Rush Limbaugh is a womanizing draft dodger.

Sounds familiar?

Bob K| 6.6.12 @ 10:12AM

Conscription (that's the draft) ended in 1973 when Rush Limbaugh was 22 years old. He had his marriages and divorces after that. So, chronologically it was not possible for him to be a "womanizing draft dodger" or even conversely a draft dodging womanizer as he did not have the time to do both in the same time period.

Brooksifier | 6.6.12 @ 10:35AM

Pettifogger.

Quartermaster| 6.7.12 @ 8:36AM

And Libtards have murdered millions in abortuaries. Murder is just peachy to Libtards.

BD57| 6.6.12 @ 8:15PM

squirrel!!!!

Fulgurator| 6.8.12 @ 9:42AM

Amen.

Dick Nome| 6.5.12 @ 8:17AM

Hey doofus. Tea Party is not a political party. It is a grassroots movement within the citizenry to change the parties. It is not a party and does not run candidates per se.

Doctor Right| 6.5.12 @ 7:48AM

I wanted to get here first and pre-empt the Alex Jones fans and assorted Paul-bots who will want to call Rush a tool of the neo-cons and a fake Conservative.

Rush IS the Conservative movement. Period.

...but go ahead, guys. Paranoia is fun to read.

Dick Nome| 6.5.12 @ 8:18AM

Rube Paul is a fringe Libertarian and not a conservative or a Republican. Paulistinians are generally kooks.

Surly Curmudgen| 6.5.12 @ 9:57AM

What is truly sad is that Ron Paul would be a better president than Romney.

Harry the Horrible| 6.5.12 @ 11:08AM

At least domestically. What a scary thought!

Quartermaster| 6.7.12 @ 8:37AM

Mittens will not do what is desperately needed. FedGov needs a meat ax taken to it before it takes the entire country down with it.

Mittens doesn't have the stones for it. Alas, Paul does.

Slacker| 6.5.12 @ 1:19PM

The neo-cons are the modern-day conservative movement, period. Paul and his supports got kicked out. They are in good company. An awful lot of good people have been pushed aside.

Why you chose to gloat over it is beyond me.

Occam's Tool| 6.5.12 @ 4:22PM

I choose to gloat over it because Paulbots are insufferable people, and because they also support the spread of Sharia law. I'm, I admit, a GLOATER. Gloat, Gloat. Perhaps it was hearing about how my face was going to be stepped on by one deranged Paulbot, and endless screeds about evil Joooos fom another one.

Maybe that's the reason.

chuck| 6.5.12 @ 8:40PM

I really don't miss them at all.

Do you think that that gay cannibal guy from Canada that they caught in Berlin might really have been Clint? Haven't seen him since that whole affair.

tonypal| 6.5.12 @ 9:56PM

I'll add to the gloating. Your guy lost. Actually, your guy got destroyed. Wasn't even close. Congressman Paul is and will always be a fringe character within the party. Now it's time to face reality and grow up.

William R| 6.6.12 @ 2:08PM

Ron Paul and his movement is the future of the Republican Party. With shifting demographics the one and only way for the GOP to win in the future is being the party of liberty. Freedom crosses ethnic lines. This means being for small government at home and abroad.

Quartermaster| 6.7.12 @ 8:40AM

Neocons are not conservative. They are Wilsonians that got run out of the Democrat party because they were too hawkish.

Mr. Tool, you are just as insufferable as the Paulbots. You have become what you hate .

JimH| 6.5.12 @ 8:50AM

Assume El Rushbo’s prescription is correct. How then to choose the most conservative candidate? During the primaries all the candidates, with the possible exception of Huntsman were all over each other, each claiming to be the most conservative genuine article. And in a sense they may each have been correct. Conservatism is less an ideology and more a set of values and attitudes. While terms such as Neo-con, Paleo-con or Socio-con are generalizations they do embody different emphasis of the values that are conservatism. I will support the candidate that I think best embodies support for limited government, rule of law, secure property rights and a strong defense and has chance of being elected.

Bill84728| 6.5.12 @ 9:49AM

Just remember, with all this voting for the most conservative politico, that there is, and has been, throughout Western history if not all of history everywhere, a constant friction between the urge for liberty and the urge to be told what to do so that one does not have to think in the civil sense.

The middle ground of voters vacillates endlessly between the two extremes, in one election voting one way and in the next voting another. One year they vote for personal responsibility and liberty, in the next, they vote for the Big Tit. That is the only thing that explains the series of national elections that have been nearly 50-50 for so long.

There is a revolutionary theory that preaches trashing the system as much as possible in order to hasten the day of reckoning and insure that any change will be as great as possible.

For us righties to attach ourselves too firmly to the Limbaugh Rule is to ask for trouble and possibly to play into the hands of the leftist extremists.

Doctor Right| 6.5.12 @ 9:49AM

Webmaster:

Check your site; I think you've been hacked.

I can only access spectator.org on my mobile. A near-blank screen appears on my desktop. It's not my computer, all else is functioning perfectly.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.5.12 @ 11:13AM

I had the same issues from around 7:40 a.m to around 8:10 a.m.

Pecos Pete| 6.5.12 @ 11:25AM

I had the same exact issue starting yesterday at about 3 PM and lasting until this morning at about 9 AM ... all times are Mountain Time.

Appleby| 6.5.12 @ 3:34PM

Me too.

Bob K| 6.6.12 @ 10:17AM

Same for me. I wasn't able to access it until this morning--June 6th.

Surly Curmudgen| 6.5.12 @ 9:54AM

We have the twins Obama and Romney and then we have Virgil Goode, clearly the most conservative candidate.

LeoInTheWoods| 6.5.12 @ 10:28AM

Margaret Thatcher: I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they don't have a single political argument left.

Let me modify: a single political argument or record of accomplishment left.

Al Adab| 6.5.12 @ 11:24AM

A restatement of the Buckley rule. Sadly now we are faced with an echo, an accomodationist republican not a Conservative as the likely nominee. The GOP continues to snub the Conservative Movement and we continue to follow them to defeat. The long line from Dewey through Ford and Dole to McCain takes us to failure time and again. When will we reject the premise of the administrative social-welfare state rather than simply promise to manage it better?

Controse| 6.5.12 @ 11:25AM

Shouldn't Sarah Palin's name have appeared someplace in this article?

Who Knows?| 6.5.12 @ 1:14PM

Ah, Rush Limbaugh. No longer the new kid on the block, is he?

Can it really be 18 years since the Contract With America spurted Gingrich onto the top of the House hill, and we had Limbaugh addressing all the newbies just elected to congress? The kingmaker speaketh!

When Romney wins in November, and his coattails increase the next class of scoundrels, labeled “conservative Republicans”, into congress, will we have a replay of Rush’s triumph?

The more things change….

Who Knows?| 6.5.12 @ 1:17PM

Ah, but consider S Kierkegaard---what a True Man! I just found “Purity of Heart is To Will One Thing.” It’s essentially a 200-page heart felt sermon addressed to the “solitary individual”. What shock therapy!

Since politics is the field within which apparently separate humans endeavor to work out their differences, and debate is omnipresent, read and ponder the following raw insight, which I think applies with power and pith to Obama, et al—

“…a man can, to be sure, have an extremely different, yes, have a precisely opposite opinion from ours, and one can nevertheless deal earnestly with him if one assumes that finally there may be a point of agreement, a unity in some universal human sense, call it what you will.

But if he is mad, then one cannot deal with him, for he shies away from just that final point, in which one at last may hope to find agreement with him.

One can dispute with a man, dispute to the furthest limit, as long as one assumes that in the end there is a point in common, an agreement in some universal human sense: in self respect.

But when, in his worldly strivings he sets out like a madman in a desperate attempt to despise himself, and in the face of this is brazen about it and lauds himself for his infamy, then one can undertake no disputing with him.

For like a madman, and even more terribly, he shies away from this final thing (self-respect) in which one might at last hope to find agreement with him.” Pages 182-183

Who Knows?| 6.5.12 @ 1:18PM

If you’re still with me, here, note the deep insight.

To debate in good faith, there must be, dare I write it, manifest in both participants “love thy neighbor as thyself”, or mutual self-respect.

Now, consider the “madmen” like Reid, Pelosi and Obama, who’ve had going on four years to demonstrate that they DON’T respect their Republican opponents.

Kierkegaard unmasks them---they DESPISE themselves, and are brazen and laudatory ABOUT IT ALL!!!

We have real madmen running the Democratic Party.

Compromise is impossible, as we’ve seen in spades.

I have a dream---

Picture Senator McConnell reading into the record, before the full senate, and broadcast to all Americans, the above quote, and for added emphasis, have John Boehner do the same to a packed House of Representatives. Hey, why not take this fantasy to infinity, and imagine president-elect Mitt Romney reading the same “sermon” to ALL the people, even those outside America.

Certainly in our MAD times, much more is needed that a “Limbaugh Rule”, however beneficial and necessary it is.

I can dream, can’t I?

Maybe I’m the One, who’s mad.

Who Knows?

Interested Conservative| 6.5.12 @ 2:14PM

A few stray thoughts:

1 - What of Utah - where does Sen. Hatch fall in this rule, and what of Gov. Palin's endorsement of him?

2 - Is this really separate from the Buckley doctrine, or simply a more aggressive restatement of it. Arguably, the Buckley doctrine would have chosen both Rubio and Paul in their primaries. Perhaps not the Del. and NV selections, but the Buckley rule is not identical with "establishment" or "mainstream" GOP proclivities.

3 - Gov. Romney's hand will not be shown with a Veep selection, but with his cabinet. That's where he'll have to set policy and need the staff to do so.

mjs_pa| 6.5.12 @ 2:44PM

This rule only makes sense if at least one of the choices is actually a conservative and/or there is an abundance of time to waste.

In the case of romney vs. obama, we are faced with two progressives. One traveling at 50mph and one at 100mph. We're not miles away from the cliff. We are mere feet. Speed doesn't really matter at this point. We are going over the cliff.

In such circumstances, voters must be willing to look outside the box and seek an alternative that is not only conservative, but Constitutional, bold and exhibits great leadership capabilities.

Seeking a lesser of two evils at this point in history is simply a failed strategy.

Drunken Sailor| 6.6.12 @ 4:33PM

And your solution is what then?

Appleby| 6.5.12 @ 3:32PM

And look how many people who post here, or used to before the gates were erected, have hurled abuse at those of us who cannot vote in good conscience for Romney!

Occam's Tool| 6.5.12 @ 4:23PM

You know, I think Romney may be a bit more flexible toward the Right than you think. He crunches numbers and loves data; he will have to be.

JS| 6.5.12 @ 5:13PM

This argument is utterly inane: "Three Liberal programs in particular are wreaking havoc on the U.S. economy:"

The US economy is in dire straights in part because of the housing crisis, which can be blamed on a collection of many actors: from the government to business to normal homeowners. But the housing crisis also brought several severe structural problems to bear, such as growth based on debt or structural unemployment due to globalization and automation.

Ryan| 6.6.12 @ 8:37AM

Government incentivizes growth based on debt, and companies large and small run to it.

The playing field should be leveled - lowered and simplified overall tax rates, removal of government guarantees, and the re-establishment of a true free market.

I would add in removal of automated speed-trading - no trades outside of stops set by human hand, not by computer algorithm.

Quartermaster| 6.7.12 @ 10:10AM

All Libtard programs have our nose in the dirt. Not one has ever worked according to the original intention. If the real intention was to foster dependence and destroy the US, then they are right on target.

JS| 6.5.12 @ 5:14PM

Blaming the economy on liberal governmental actions is ridiculous and completely and utterly wrong. It destroys the credibility of your article, which brings up many examples where the government has invaded personal liberty and privacy.

I address each example in detail below:
Fannie Mae -- this organization was poorly run and was a disaster for taxpayers. It helped contribute to the housing crisis by giving out loans with too little scrutiny. But Fannie Mae was not the only group giving out loans--and their loans where not as bad as the predatory adjustable rate ones that were specifically designed to make ridiculous loans seem affordable (you take out a loan with .2 % interest, but it jumps to 5 % at the whim of the bank or with a change in the Prime Interest Rate)

Also, the crisis could not have happened without extraordinarily risky financial deals where investment banks compiled bad loans into incomprehensible "securities" and then sold them back and forth, generating boatloads of money backed up by nothing but smoke and mirrors. Fannie Mae was a disaster- but it is unfair to blame it for the housing crisis.

Medicare -- Medicare is not insolvent yet, but it will be soon because the baby boomers are retiring. In no way does it damage the economy right now, and by financing tons of medical procedures and research, it actually STIMULATES economic activity.

Ryan| 6.6.12 @ 8:34AM

Partially correct, but leaves out a good portion.

The problem is the implicit and explicit government guarantees, and the idea of bailing out and "picking winners" at ALL levels of income.

Those securities wouldn't have been packaged and sold if they weren't more or less backed by taxpayer dollars...because they wouldn't have been made in the first place. The banks PRACTICE of selling the securities is fine; the problem is the outright fraud of the ratings companies, and the government guarantees and backings whish the banks received through TARP, stimulus, etc.

The government props up bad businesses, and incentivizes their business models, resulting in corporatism.

NONE of which are true free-market practices.

JS| 6.5.12 @ 5:14PM

The service is going insolvent because of incredibly expensive procedures in the last few years of life, as well as an unfunded prescription drug service that was created (WITHOUT FUNDING) by George W. Bush. Also, when End Of Life counseling that would actually prevent such wasteful spending was suggested at the beginning of the Obamacare debates, Sarah Palin cried "death panels" and no Republican would touch the issue again, much less a democrat.

Social Security -- Social Security, like medicare, is not yet insolvent and therefore has no effect on the economy, except perhaps as a stimulus, by borrowing money against the future and giving it to seniors to consume now. The program is the easiest thing in the world to fix: the retirement age must be increased. Its insolvency is nothing more than a math problem: we do not have enough young people in the country to pay for all 65+ year olds to have SS. We need to increase to 70. If that doesnt work after a while, 75. We can means test it if we want, but that defeats the purpose of a program that is supposed to be universal, where you get what you put in. It will also discourage people from investing for their own retirements. The best solution is to simply pay for what we can pay for. Doesn't seem so hard?

Appleby| 6.5.12 @ 6:31PM

If you were one of those being given End Of Life Counseling ("Why don't you just sign this form that says you agree to die when we decide you're no longer of any financial use to the world?") you might have a different viewpoint. But you, of course, will never get old....

obadiah| 6.8.12 @ 8:36PM

I suggest that you look at actual forms, like California's statutory Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. I'm old and have seen a lot of money wasted on semi-conscious people who would have avoided prolonged misery if they had been better informed. Thanks Sarah. Thanks Foxsnews. Thanks Republican demogogues.

philippic| 6.5.12 @ 9:14PM

absolutely! the taxes and borrowing that pay for it all? no impacts at all! no opportunity costs!

marque lunettes de soleil | 6.5.12 @ 9:19PM

It is most unfortunate what is going on because in my mind, you know, I was telling you about this dinner party I went to on Saturday night where the host threw out the question: "On a scale of one to ten, ten meaning the country's finished, one meaning, hey, we're in fat city, where do you think the country is?" And a prominent person said, "I think we're at an eight." I was telling the story to other people, who asked me, "What did you say?" I said, "Well, a six or seven," but I wanted to focus on a different aspect of this, and that is, how to arrest and how to stop this.

maillot de bain pas cher | 6.5.12 @ 9:23PM

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, and the frustrating thing is that half the Republicans in this country don't see it, or they're afraid of it, or they don't want to go there, and that's the thing that bothers me about it. We still have people who want to compromise with these people! We still have people who want to walk across the aisle and be reasonable and get along with them

David| 6.5.12 @ 9:51PM

To anyone even thinking about staying home or voting for a third candidate, remember, Romney is the one for no other reason than the federal courts. We can hold his feet to the fire just like we did Bush. Bush wanted Harriet Meirs and Alberto Gonzales, and because of our revolt, we got Roberts and Alito.

It is not just the Sup Ct. It is the district and appellate court jugdes, too, where the vast majority of issues are decided.

Fewer than 100 of the 10,000 cases filed with the Sup Ct every year are heard by the Sup Ct.

There are 179 federal appellate court judges spread over 13 districts/sections/geographical areas of the 50 states.

There are 677 federal district court judges chosen by the prez. For each district court there is a corresponding bankruptcy court (another 677 judges, which are chosen by the appellate court judges in the corresponding section/area of the country.

Please recall the BS Bam Bam pulled a couple of years ago by screwing secured creditors and rewarding his union folks in the big bankruptcy.

Bam Bam will have the opportunity to appoint hundreds of district and appellate judges, along with at least two Sup Ct justices.

He will no doubt force any liberal judge over 45 or 50 to retire so he can appoint younger judges. Remember, all of the above serve for LIFE.

Obadiah Plainman| 6.6.12 @ 10:38AM

This is precisely correct. And it's also one additional validator to the Rush notion of pushing for the most conservative positions possible. The stakes of the WH, especially for judgeships, are immense.

The Republican primary season was an ugly debacle but that's exactly WHY we have a vetting process, a thorough push, a slog, and yes, even sometimes ugly internecine fighting. IRON SHARPENS IRON. Romney has come through it perhaps more conservative. Or if not--which is a distinct and likely possibility--he at least knows that he's going to be surrounded by, flanked by and immersed in conservatism from all corners. It's why the Tea Party is so instrumental in building grassroots, in putting up true conservatives with spines and brains. So I think that if Romney starts to go soft, he'll be under immense pressure from his own side to stay to the right. If I'm Boehner though, I'd be nervous as hell. Might even start bawling.

After having seen what courage and true resolve will do in Wisconsin, we should all follow this direction. I know Buckley is smiling up there this morning.

drudge ette obama| 6.6.12 @ 6:50AM

While in the process of reading a collection of Buckley essays - which has been an amazing middle of the night adventure this past week - I think that Limbaugh and Buckley would probably agree with Limbaugh's Rule in today's environment.

I still delight in the losses of 2010, especially Jim Marshall of Georgia, who straddled the fence of ideology with the precision of Obama as he navigates the teleprompter. Georgia voters ran that inbred bureaucrat out of D.C. - no more jogging during D.C. snow storms, Jim.

Does anyone else find Nancy Pelosi "so yesterday"?

Obadiah Plainman| 6.6.12 @ 10:39AM

Which Buckley essays are you reading? Or which compilation/title is it?

Petronius| 6.6.12 @ 11:49AM

All this signifies Nothing unless and until The pen of a Conservative President signs the repeal of all the onerous liberal laws and diktats from their Judges that afflict Real Americans. # 1 GCA'68 #2 Inetrnal Revenue Code #3 repeal all liberal social engineering by declaring their doctrine what it is; a Religion and invoking the Separation clause #4 eliminate the EPA, Dept. of Education and HHS. Collar all spending by invoking the old Constitutional limits #5 impeach, try, convict, and defrock any Federal Judge or Justice who breaks his or her Constitutional Oath and acts as a Despot on the bench, and last but not least, #6, yes, there is a rule #6, legalize the Code Duello. Bringing back the duel can rid us of the Bill Mahers and his fellow miscreants in appropriate fashion. The list is longer but I'm off to the airport to pick up friends who were behind the cheddar curtain.

William R| 6.6.12 @ 2:13PM

Limbaugh is an establishment Buffoon. He repeatedly said Ron Paul isn't a conservative. Never mind the fact that Ron Paul has the most conservative voting record over the past 75 years.

http://www.thestreet.com/story.....torum.html

Hush Bimbo, cut taxes and fight endless war!! Now that's real conservatism.

Simon Templar| 6.6.12 @ 7:11PM

Ron Paul is not a conservative, he is an extreme non- interventionist libertarian. He is what he is.
Did you not know that?

William R| 6.7.12 @ 11:49AM

And you're dumber than a load of bricks.

maillot de bain pas cher | 6.7.12 @ 4:18AM

We still have people who think that professional Washington politicians are the way to fix this, and clearly it isn't. Some of these people are citing the Buckley Rule. Now, I can honestly say that I know what the Buckley Rule is. I can honestly say I knew William F. Buckley and Buckley was a friend of mine. The Buckley Rule is, ostensibly, that you vote for the most electable conservative option against a Democrat in November. You vote for the Republican, slash, conservative who can win. To me, this requires clairvoyance…

maillot de bain pas cher | 6.7.12 @ 4:18AM

We still have people who think that professional Washington politicians are the way to fix this, and clearly it isn't. Some of these people are citing the Buckley Rule. Now, I can honestly say that I know what the Buckley Rule is. I can honestly say I knew William F. Buckley and Buckley was a friend of mine. The Buckley Rule is, ostensibly, that you vote for the most electable conservative option against a Democrat in November. You vote for the Republican, slash, conservative who can win. To me, this requires clairvoyance…

Fulgurator| 6.8.12 @ 9:37AM

Despite some of the comments here this article strikes me as an excellent analysis and overview of what is, and has been happening the last few years. It not only is consistent with my own experience and observations, but fills me with encouragement and hope--even after taking into account the occasional disappointments and losses. Press on!

More Articles by Jeffrey Lord

More Articles From Special Report

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

Obamacare Implodes

May 15, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want

May 14, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)

May 13, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/05/the-limbaugh-rule-is-changing

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|147 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|82 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.