Why The Double Standard, Rush?
On Monday, Rush Limbaugh came close to endorsing Mitt Romney among the remaining contenders for the Republican nomination. In replying to a point made by a caller, Rush stated:
Romney is perceived as a strong fiscal conservative (in spite of his record of raising fees in Massachusetts by $700,000,000). While he certainly has the business background to calm the fears and concerns raised by the Wall Street wing of the Republican party, I would hardly go so far as to say that he "embodies" the social conservative "leg of the conservative stool." Romney is a recent convert to the pro-life camp. Video and text clippings from his past campaigns paint a very different picture on this issue than he spouts on the debate stage these days. He once noted that he would be more beneficial to the gay rights movement than Ted Kennedy. Romney has been no friend to the Second Amendment crowd either. In spite of such a weak record on moral and cultural issues, it feels as if Rush is perfectly content to take him at his word and accept his Johnny-come-lately switcheroo. Romney gets almost no negative commentary directly on the EIB Network.
Contrast this with Rush's discussion and coverage of Mike Huckabee. Yes, he raised taxes during part of his decade-plus long stint as governor of Arkansas. At the end of his term, however, the budget was balanced with a surplus in the bank. It's not as if Huckabee wasted money on dysfunctional social programs and pork. Much of the increased revenue went to such wasteful and terribly liberal things like better roads and educating children - the latter of which should be dealt with most substantially at the state level anyway. God forbid we have fewer potholes and more efficient ways of getting from point A to point B that don't require us to park our own vehicles and risk getting raped or mugged on public transportation.
Even if much of the difference in Rush's approach to these two candidates has more to do with their campaigning style than the actual issues at hand (he doesn't like Huckabee's "populist" attempts at pitting "rich" against "poor"), it still fails to explain why he's perfectly willing to accept Romney as a social conservative while writing Huckabee off as a hopeless, unredeemable tax-and-spend liberal on economic issues. There's clearly a double standard here. I, for one, am disappointed in him.
I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that's Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives.To be fair to Rush, he has pointed out that all of the candidates running this year are lacking in some facet of conservatism. Nobody has truly embraced an entirely Reaganesque set of beliefs, with a strong record to back their talk. With that being said, however, I must pose the question to Rush in regard to his approach and discussion of Romney and Huckabee - why the double standard?
Romney is perceived as a strong fiscal conservative (in spite of his record of raising fees in Massachusetts by $700,000,000). While he certainly has the business background to calm the fears and concerns raised by the Wall Street wing of the Republican party, I would hardly go so far as to say that he "embodies" the social conservative "leg of the conservative stool." Romney is a recent convert to the pro-life camp. Video and text clippings from his past campaigns paint a very different picture on this issue than he spouts on the debate stage these days. He once noted that he would be more beneficial to the gay rights movement than Ted Kennedy. Romney has been no friend to the Second Amendment crowd either. In spite of such a weak record on moral and cultural issues, it feels as if Rush is perfectly content to take him at his word and accept his Johnny-come-lately switcheroo. Romney gets almost no negative commentary directly on the EIB Network.
Contrast this with Rush's discussion and coverage of Mike Huckabee. Yes, he raised taxes during part of his decade-plus long stint as governor of Arkansas. At the end of his term, however, the budget was balanced with a surplus in the bank. It's not as if Huckabee wasted money on dysfunctional social programs and pork. Much of the increased revenue went to such wasteful and terribly liberal things like better roads and educating children - the latter of which should be dealt with most substantially at the state level anyway. God forbid we have fewer potholes and more efficient ways of getting from point A to point B that don't require us to park our own vehicles and risk getting raped or mugged on public transportation.
Even if much of the difference in Rush's approach to these two candidates has more to do with their campaigning style than the actual issues at hand (he doesn't like Huckabee's "populist" attempts at pitting "rich" against "poor"), it still fails to explain why he's perfectly willing to accept Romney as a social conservative while writing Huckabee off as a hopeless, unredeemable tax-and-spend liberal on economic issues. There's clearly a double standard here. I, for one, am disappointed in him.
posted by Vaelin at 7:59 PM
3 Comments:
Rush ran out of stuff about 4 years ago to talk about. To be fair though, the one time I listened to him recently (a couple of days before Christmas) he was kinda tough on Romeny. Regardless, I think all of this is indicative of how much trobule the Republican party is in right now. If there is not some sort of unity soon, they are going to get smoked by the Democrats, who despite being 50/50 on their candidates right now, most people will be happy with either person they put forward. I know you're not a McCain kinda guy (and I respect that) but he's the only one I see giving the Dems any kind of trouble, since he does really well with the swing votes. But, If the Republicans divide behind him. it won't matter. I think in the end though, it's going to be McCain/Huckabee vs. Clinton/Obama. And, I think that's the best case scenario for the Republicans, since McCain brings in the swing votes, and the conservatives ultimately come in to support Huckabee/reject Clinton. Because, as much as a lot of the conservative base threatens to to sit out if candidate A or B is the nominee, I just don't see most of them sitting out if Hillary is the nominee.
By the by, you are officially linked to my site now.
So... Romney's bowed out. It's pretty much McCain on the ballot at this point.
Here, here.
And I agree with Colonel's statements, except the first sentence. I still enjoy his show and find it very informative/thought provoking, though I by no means agree with everything he says or every sentiment that comes across. Still, the best talk radio out there by far.
Post a Comment
<< Home