-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
My conservative colleague in arms Jay Homnick has a great piece today titled “And the Winner in Iowa Is… Rush Limbaugh.”
Jay is correct… and I (ahem!) pointed this out here a while back in terms of the 2010 elections.
I will confess to writing along these lines with some frequency. About Rush, who is the irreplaceable original here. And about Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.
A word about these three people that needs to be said again post-Iowa.
The other week I wrote a piece about the need to make the case for a conservative in the 2012 race. One of the points in there is that time, alas, always moves on whether we want it to or not… and there is always a generational hand-off of, well, everything.
In the case of the modern conservative movement, this moment has arrived — and actually been here for a while. The Goldwaters and Reagans, the Buckleys and Rushers and Kemps are gone.
Who will replace them? Strictly speaking, that’s impossible. They were — as with every human being who ever walked the planet — unique.
But that said, there is in fact a “next generation” of conservative leaders who have picked up the baton and moved forward. Without question, Rush Limbaugh is, if you will, the new William F. Buckley. The man acknowledged by his colleagues and peers in the talk radio business as the man who sets the pace, the man with The Voice, the man American conservatives look to at moments like Iowa.
And, thankfully, he isn’t alone.There have always been these gritty tangles over the direction of conservatism right from the get-go. Buckley had them. Goldwater had them. Reagan had them. They are had today. The current fight has been with Ron Paul and the attempt by his followers to hijack the conservative movement and steer it leftward, labeling one and all who opposed this abandonment of conservative principle “Neo-Cons.” Which is to say, under the guise of the Paul campaign these people (decided non-conservatives, perhaps we should just call them henceforth the “Non-Cons”…take a look here as but one example) were going to redefine everything and everybody they didn’t agree with. Which, as it turns out, is both conservatism itself as expressed from Burke to Buckley — not to mention a lot of prominent conservatives as well.
They can’t stand Ronald Reagan. (Paul himself flounced out of the then-Reagan led GOP in 1987 saying that Reagan’s Cold War policies had made America “less safe today” — this as Reagan was in fact forcing the collapse of the Soviet Union itself, an event that by then was a mere four years distant.) They despised William F. Buckley — and they cannot abide Rush. From Justice Scalia to William J. Bennett, on and on and through a whole list of conservative household names (yes, Rick Santorum is on their list too) these folks have been out there trying to undermine and disparage one and all.
This includes, but of course, both Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Each of whom has had buckets of vitriol dumped over their heads for picking up the Reagan conservatism baton.
A word here about Mark Levin. This is someone who stepped out on the Ron Paul issue right from the get go. Levin is one thoroughly grounded conservative, as his friends and fans well know. He had a keen understanding of exactly what was afoot with Ron Paul and said so — out loud and frequently. The inevitable abuse poured in, and he never relented in pointing out the intellectual and moral flaws of the Ron Paul brand — a brand that, as noted here, is on foreign policy decidedly leftist. Straight out of the George McGovern “Come Home America” playbook, its leftist roots are deep. Which is why so many liberal kids followed him in Iowa.
Sean Hannity took his own tack — not taking sides but providing a respectful platform for all these candidates to come and talk — at length — any time. As a Reagan conservative he openly, candidly and respectfully disagreed with Ron Paul on foreign policy — while making plain his areas of agreement on other issues. Time after time, if one was paying attention, he questioned each candidate about their weaknesses or area of controversy — Romney’s health care issue, Newt’s marriages, Herman Cain’s sexual harassment problems… and yes… Ron Paul and his controversial newsletters. For the latter he took tons of grief, including from Ron Paul himself — and in true Hannity style persisted anyway.
So post-Iowa? Whatever else comes down the pike this primary season, one thing is crystal clear.
The base of the Republican Party — the conservative movement — wants a conservative on this ticket. And they look to Rush to help them do the vetting they don’t have the time or ability to do.
They look to Sean Hannity — they listen, they watch. They pay attention.
And they have listened intently to Mark Levin on Ron Paul.
Last night, as we have noted, the combined vote for the non-Ron Paul foreign policy candidacies far out-distanced that of Mr. Paul. The Santorum and Romney vote alone was twice that of Mr. Paul.
There are doubtless several reasons for this. But make no mistake, millions of conservatives were listening to Rush. They listened to Hannity and Levin. Why? Because in fact these people are among the next generation of conservative leadership. Scratch next generation. They are the current generation.
Ron Paul’s campaign will go on for a while. But his far left foreign policy ideas were a distinct no-sale.
Iowans were paying attention. So Jay Homnick has it right.
The real winner in Iowa is in fact Rush.
And Sean and Mark didn’t do so badly either.
A lot of conservatives owe them all a debt of thanks.
View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/04/conservatism-and-talk-radio-io
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Her Unrequited Letter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
William R| 1.4.12 @ 1:29PM
You're the dumbest MFer I've encountered in cyberspace. You don't even know what limited government conservatism means. You're an embarrassment Lord
Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They’re wrong. Ask any historically-minded conservative who the most conservative president of the 20th Century was, and they’ll likely say Calvin Coolidge. No president tried as hard to make the federal government irrelevant. It’s said that Coolidge was so terrified of actually doing something as president that he tried his best not even to speak. But in 1925, Silent Cal did open his mouth long enough to spell out his foreign policy vision, and what he said could be emblazoned on a Ron Paul for President poster: “The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want.”
Small government conservatism, the kind to which today’s Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement’s efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war.
Even after World War II, Mr. Republican—Robert Taft—opposed the creation of NATO and called the Korean War unconstitutional. Dwight Eisenhower worked feverishly to scale back the Truman-era defense spending that he feared would bankrupt America and rob it of its civil liberties. Even conservative luminaries like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater who embraced the global anti-communist struggle made it clear that they were doing so with a heavy heart. Global military commitments, they explained, represented a tragic departure from small government conservatism, a departure justified only by the uniquely satanic nature of the Soviet threat.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-2012.html
I'm sitting listening to Hush Bimbo right now and he's defending Big Government conservatism. Too much HillyBilly Heroin for Rush.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 2:06PM
Big Government Statist Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.
Social Conservatives Won't Be Able To Carry Santorum ,The Big Government Statist.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.
Josh| 1.5.12 @ 1:05AM
Dear Clint,
I am a proud member of a Tea Party group, and not a single one of us support your man. Stop trying to hijack our movement, you big dope!
James Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 7:29PM
The American Spectator is nothing more than a neo-con Zionist mouthpiece. Here you will find an excellent expose on same:
http://www.catholicintl.com/in.....-santorum.
Eric Sanders| 1.5.12 @ 1:09AM
A "neo-con Zionist mouthpiece"?
James, do you happen to have daddy issues or something? Do you need counseling? It's easy to use the Jews as a scapegoat. Here is this novel idea: get off of your lazy behind and do something with your life. Typical PaulBots....
Nick| 1.4.12 @ 7:49PM
William R.,
The Daily Beast?
Really?
Yes, this is where all the top conservatives get their news. I think NOT!
Do you have a Tina Brown pin-up in your bedroom?
Leonard Polk| 1.4.12 @ 1:46PM
Your mistake was taking Jeff Lord seriously.
He cites Sean Hannity and Mark Levin as examples of conservative thinkers. Enough said.
William R| 1.4.12 @ 1:59PM
Never took the man seriously. Never heard of him until some idiot gave him a job at the Spectator.
Leonard Polk| 1.4.12 @ 2:11PM
Lord was a coffee-fetcher for more important folks during the Reagan Admin, and he wrote a book about Robert Bork that nobody read.
This somehow qualifies him to write about Conservatism in an online mag.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:46PM
Nice job, Jeff.
Hey, Bill. Paul finished third. Rhymes with turd. Sorry for your judenhass fantasies.
William R| 1.4.12 @ 2:00PM
Actually siht for brains. He tied for first. Paul Romney and Insanatorium all ended up with seven delegates.
SM1313| 1.4.12 @ 4:23PM
Tool... The strawman anti-semite argument is getting old... some of the most influential people behind Ron Paul's philosophy were Jews. Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand (non practicing), Robert Nozick, Walter Block, etc... Several of them were/are close friends with RP.
If you happen to win an argument with Lord or Levin, be prepared to be called an anti-semite and have any logic be ignored and replaced with this nonsensical name calling.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 2:00PM
Get a grip Lord, while there were losers there was no winner. Paul comes away with the same # of delegates as Santorum and Romney.
"Trounced"? Paul was within 3800 votes of 1st out of 122 thousand. That's what you call trounced? You are delusional.
You are doing an end zone dance on the 10 yard line, I don't think Paul is done yet.
Oh yeah, you can discard that stand by column you had ready in case Paul had won, the one about the irrelevancy of Iowa.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 2:10PM
We're The Pennsylvania Gun & Bible Clutchin' Conservatives, Who Helped Throw Little Ricky's Ass Out Of The Senate, After He Stepped In The Last Weeks And Propped Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy,Arlen Specter Against Our Republican Primary Guy, Pat Toomey.
Now, Little Ricky And Specter Have Been Chased Away And Our Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey Is In.
If Little Ricky Comes Back To Pennsylvania,We'll Throw His Big Government Israel Firster Ass Out Again,
Make Our Day Little Ricky.
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 4:30PM
You carry the Neo-Nazi Bible perhaps, but it sure isn't the one most of us carry.
You have created your own Jesus and your own god, it isn't the one in the Bible.
Your in an anti-christ cult in more ways than one.
SM1313| 1.4.12 @ 5:26PM
Strong accusations for someone who supports the candidate who wants to start a perpetual WW3 for no reason as soon as he is voted in.
Have you read his book? The only big government that Santorum is against, is a big government that he doesn't control.
He says today that medicare is crushing the entire health care system. Hmm, but he voted for Medicare part D in 2003?
Today he goes along with the fad of getting government out of education. Hmm, but he voted for No Child Left Behind? Did you know that he advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools? I guess as long as it is approved by himself, he would love for the government to have this power!
Question, did Rick Santorum vote yes or no on the "Bridge to Nowhere" bill?
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 5:58PM
So Rick Santorum wants to start a "perpetual WWII", does he?
Wow~ and you want to talk about strong accusations?
LOL.
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 5:58PM
Make that WWIII.
SM1313| 1.5.12 @ 2:17PM
Any response to my points about his voting record and book? I hope you wouldn't pass by an opportunity to defend your candidate on his record.
Dai Alanye | 1.4.12 @ 2:30PM
Santorum is the best candidate conservatives have available this election cycle, and we're fortunate he's a solid one. Rick's speech, following what must be called a victory, was a masterpiece, and not a teleprompter in sight. I expect Obama's attack squad has been running around in panic since early this morning.
SM1313| 1.4.12 @ 3:53PM
Haha, Lord cracks me up every time. He just loves to kiss up to Rush, Levin, and Hannity. All these radio hosts, along with Savage, Medved, and Hewitt starting calling Paul a leftist at exactly the same time. It's funny how the so called conservatives adopt the liberal ideas from decades ago, name it conservatism, and then call those who want to return to original conservatism "leftists". All of a sudden Rick "medicare part D and no child left behind" Santorum is their conservative idol.
I also love how he acts like the Ron Paul movement is dying, when he has more than doubled his support from 2008, and crushes Romney and Santorum among young voters and independents. Since the number of independents in the last couple of decades has went from like 10% of voters to about 30%, I would be a little worried if I were him.
The only arguments that they have against the logic of Ron Paul is calling him "left of Obama" and an anti-Semite... both of which couldn't be further from the truth.
Jeff, I look forward to reading more of your nonsense. Hey if you get some time, google "Robert Pape" and take a look at the study he did on suicide terrorism. It was the biggest study ever done on the matter and was funded in part by our own department of defense. Conclusion? 95% of suicide terrorism is the result of foreign occupation.
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 4:32PM
I'm not going to give the credit for this to Rush, as much as I love him, but to Rick Santorum.
He deserves it.
Nick| 1.4.12 @ 4:39PM
Yoo-Hoo Margie,
I'm still waiting for those answers to my questions.
Do you believe that infants can sin?
Did Paul mess up when he wrote, in the same chapter, that "many have sinned"?
Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Old Testament authors to write that Enoch and Elijah did not die, and then inspire Paul to write that "ALL [pantes] have died"? If He meant ALL, as in everyone who ever lived?
Until you can answer these questions, your argument, or, rather, your flawed interpretation, doesn't have a leg to stand on.
God Bless!
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 5:56PM
Yoo-Hoo Nick!
How are you, today? Fine I do hope.
And just what is "my interpretation?"
Nick| 1.4.12 @ 6:38PM
Is this reeeeaaally Margie? Or, did we celebrate a little too hard over New Years?
I've been asking these same questions for almost 2 weeks, now. I am great, though, to answer your question. Thank you for asking. I hope all is well with Victor?
Your flawed interpretation of Romans 3:23 and 5:12 is as follows: When Saint Paul used the word pantes (all in Greek) he did not mean everyone who ever lived. He was speaking generally, because, as I have proven, over and over again, there were exceptions to "all have sinned."
Exceptions, such as Christ. And infants. And the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God.
Our Lady's Solemnity was this past Sunday, January 1st, by the way.
God Bless!
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 7:22PM
You're as nasty and supercilious as usual, Papist!
But then, it is as to be expected.
For, YOU are the one who just interpreted (to your very own liking) those verses.
As it is CLEAR for ALL, speaking of the word ALL, to see!
Nick| 1.4.12 @ 7:30PM
Margie,
In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What'd I say? What'd I say?"
I made a little joke. I thanked you for your inquiry. And I asked how you were doing.
This is being nasty and supercilious?
Now, do infants sin against Almighty God, or not?
It really only requires a simple yes to no.
God Bless!
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 7:45PM
"Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death, is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I am only joking!" Prov. 26:18 & 19.
Now: Tell us how it is that you have just got done interpreting to your own liking, along with the Vatican, the Words of God?
Nick| 1.4.12 @ 11:15PM
Margie,
I've defended my interpretation many, many times. If Paul had meant everyone who ever lived, which would include Our Lady, he would have used the Greek hapas, not pantes. Look it up in Strong's.
My questions concern your flawed interpretation, which you have yet to even try to defend. Why won't you defend it? Why do constantly try to deflect and obfuscate?
These are three very simple questions. If your interpretation is correct, it should be fairly easy to lay out your case? I'm still waiting.
"For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins." - 2 Peter 1:9
God Bless!
James Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 7:26PM
The American Spectator is nothing more than a neo-con Zionist mouthpiece. Here you will find an excellent take on same. http://www.catholicintl.com/in.....-santorum.
Margie| 1.4.12 @ 7:46PM
Your Earl is broken.
That's my word for URL, in honor of my friend. LOL.
Now: why do you so hate the Jews?