WFB v. Rush
In light of the way Buckley v. Limbaugh rule, it's worth noting that Bill never presented himself as a political horse-picker. Second, he cheerfully admitted as much in Miles Gone By. I don't have the book in front of me, but here's an excerpt from a review I did for the New Criterion about a revealing anecdote about the Gipper:
It is a tribute to [WFB] that not all the events recorded here show him to advantage. Far from using the memoirs to take full credit for Ronald Reagan, whom he first met in 1961, Bill cheerfully concedes that he was “way behind in apprehending his potential.” Even after the Gipper had secured the governorship of California, Bill opined to Nelson Rockefeller “there’s no way a former actor could go for President.” Rockefeller demurred: anyone who won a California election with a million-vote margin, he declared, was definitely presidential material. A pity Rocky is no longer around to read this, for I suspect it is the only recorded public admission from a Reagan Republican ceding superior wisdom to Rockefeller Republicans.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: WFB v. Rush
I suspect that it won't be long that people will be applying the Limbaugh Rule inappropriately as the Beltway Establishment in the Republican Party is now in regards to the WFB Rule, which by the way was in referrence to Presidential Campaigns only.
Jul '10
Re: WFB v. Rush
Is it just me, or is anyone else growing irritated by radio and television hosts, former Alaska Governors and South Carolina Senators competing to be "kingmakers" in Republican primaries?
The Tea Parties sprang up spontaneously in response to Rick Santelli's marvelous rant. Once they gained mass, all these celebrities came out of the woodwork, seeking to be the Voice of the Tea Party.
Fine, they have a part to play. But this competition to see who can pick the primary winners is unseemly.
Not to mention that it's a lot easier for the Left to demonize "Rush Limbaugh's Tea Party" or "Sarah Palin's Tea Party" than it is to demonize a truly-grassroots organization that looks and sounds just like your neighbors (unless you happen to live in San Francisco.)
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 12:53pmRe: WFB v. Rush
Kenneth, Good point. Few seem to mention that turnout in GOP primary was twice what it was normally -- and no one saw it coming. (My college roommate ran in 2008 as GOP and got creamed in the Biden tsunami, even though he's very conservative).
May '10
Re: WFB v. Rush
In response to Kenneth-As far as I am aware neither Rush or SP are trying to claim ownership to the Tea Party movement. It's the puteride punidts in the MSM that are giving it to them. I agree that it was Rick that got the idea started. SP is just simply advocating for the most conservative candidate as she sees it and most of the time they happen to also be supported by the TP as well. As for Rush he is just doing what he has always done for the last 20 + years and that is promote conservatisim. You are right to describe the movement as you do, and that is exactly why the libs in the MSM and other places haven't been able to stop it because they can't Alinsky it. So they have to put a face and name to it, destoy that person(s) and as a result destroy the movement. WF Buckley was the face of the conservative movement and now RL and SP so they go after one of them and unfortunately for the MSM the TP isn't got one so they are trying to create it.
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 2:08pmMay '10
Re: WFB v. Rush
In fact the Rep establishment doesn't like either SP or RL and wish they and the likes of them would go away. As it so happens the Tea Party people embrace them because the are embraced by people like SP and RL and others. The libs and the establishment hate them and us because we don't wish to control others or be controlled. The libs and the establishment in general love to be in control of others. Hello Big Brother. Just call me Winston.
May '10
Re: WFB v. Rush
I agree that neither Rush nor Beck is trying to become the leader of conservatives or the Tea Party movement. Demonstrating leadership is not the same as taking control or credit (trying to become leader). Rush spoke at the Republican convention because he hopes Republicans will advance the views he has expounded all along. Beck headlines Tea Party rallies and speaks directly to Tea Party conservatives on his show for the same reason.
But a reasonable person can doubt their motives. I'm saddened that Diane felt pushed out of the Tea Party movement for her discomfort with such figures. That problem probably begins no deeper than the tensions in our Delaware threads. Conservatives of all origins and views are trying to discern who their allies really are, so we're not surprised in November or the first months of the new Congress.
Jul '10
Re: WFB v. Rush
The whole "Rush Rule" v. "WFB Rule" thing annoys me.
The WFB Rule applies during normal times. This is not a normal time. Now is the time to push the envelope and see what happens. We may never get another moment quite like this.
Do not underestimate the degree to which the American people are thoroughly disgusted.
Re: WFB v. Rush
I think Patrick is absolutely right.
On the flight home today I read David Limbaugh's Crimes Against Liberty, a well-referenced, comprehensive indictment of the president's policies. Seeing Obama's many assaults against our Constitution detailed thematically in book form reinforced the certainty that he is behaving strategically.
Obama is committed to moving the ball forward towards statism, whatever tactical price he pays in 2010 or 2012.
We need to be equally strategic in effecting a Constitutional Restoration.