Limbaugh Defends Newt from Un-Conservative Conservative Media

It will be an added joy of the end of the Gingrich Moment to see it bring the loose media right-wing movement to some crack-up. Conor Friedersdorf listens to Limbaugh so we don't have to and finds:

himself and fellow talk radio hosts the only true conservatives...[because] some conservative journalists are criticizing Newt Gingrich. "No matter where you look in the Republican establishment media today, there looks to be a coordinated attack on Mr. Newt," he said. "I'm not gonna mention any names because you know when I do, all I do is elevate these people." If that quote and the excerpt above are any indication, Gingrich and Limbaugh have now bonded over their unseemly, egomaniacal delusions of grandeur. 

As Friedersdorf notes, this has Limbaugh reading out of the conservative movement:

National Review,The Weekly Standard, the Fox News Channel, The Claremont Review of Books, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, The New CriterionHuman Events, and every other right-leaning magazine, website, and newspaper.

Reason's Peter Suderman doesn't like Gingrich either.

UPDATE: Commenters have convinced me my original headline was hyperbolic beyond the facts, in that it described Rush as "all in for Gingrich." I have changed it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Joe M||

    This makes it all the more delicious that Ron Paul cites Limbaugh in his Gingrich attack ad.

  • Max||

    It's delicious only for that small sliver of the population that gives a flying fuck what Ron Paul says about anything. Don't forget to lick your fingers.

  • Joe M||

    Oh, and this is a fucking scene-for-scene replay of 2007-08 with Limbaugh's take on McCain. Bashed him early in the primaries, then started carrying as much water as those brooms in that Magician's Apprentice story.

  • ||

    Say, why isn't Paul a conservative? Religious, anti-abortion, wants lower taxes and limited government, pro-business. . . .

  • My Opinion||

    Conservatism as a political movement has been intellectually and morally bankrupt for at least 50 years. Ask a conservative what it is that he is trying to conserve and he will respond with a cold mush of old time religion, xenophobia, patriotism and country-music lyrics. The principles of capitalism are as foreign to him as borscht. They have nothing to offer on the economic front but a minimally less offensive Keynesian hybrid.

  • ||

    It's not nearly as universal as you're implying it to be. I'm one guy in a barely decent sociopolitical environment, and I encounter people that are strongly religious and identify themselves as traditionalists or conservatives who are genuinely Ron Paul-esque.

    Generally, the mainstream conservative movement is full of shit, just like the progressives, yeah, just from other angles.

  • k2000k||

    Like any political movement it really changes where you go. A conservative in Texas isn't going to agree with a lot of things with say a conservative in Washingington state. Another thing is that many neo-conservatives are actually nothing more than proto-liberals. Take that Michael Medved guy on the radio, whose historical segements actually are interesting, he used to be a hard core liberal but certain changes in the political landscape led him to the republican party. The core concepts of getting goverment involved is still there it only changed in where it is applied.

  • Spiny Norman||

    He's not sufficiently warmongery.

  • ||

    Exactly! Limbaugh is actually spot on with libertarians when it comes to fiscal matters. He's the same as Paul on immigration and abortion. It's just that pesky love of all military spending where Limbaugh (and most conservatives) go off the tracks.

  • ||

    He does not recognize that America is at WAR! We can't bring the troops home until the war is won, and anyone who says otherwise is clearly lacking in FAITH.

    FAITH AND DUTY. FIGHT IN HIS NAME!

  • fish||

    WAR.....Dammit I USED ALL CAPS!!!! IT"S WAR....THERE I'VE SAID IT TWICE! WE WILL FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN AND LAST DOLLAR I PROMISE YOU FOR OUR CAUSE IS RIGHT NOBLE AND HOLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (dick)

  • ||

    MAIM.KILL.BURN.MAIM.KILL.BURN.

    SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE.

  • Double D||

    Affirm. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

  • ||

    Paul isn't quite nationalistic enough. Criticizes military operations from more than just the opposing party. Doesn't take "America can do no wrong" approach.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "why isn't Paul a conservative?"

    Two words: Global Hegemony.

    Some of your old school paleocons are closer to Paul on foreign policy than they are to the new neocons though. It's getting to be a tougher sell to the american people though.

  • k2000k||

    I don't necessarily think the global hegemonists wont support Paul. Many of the ones I talked too think Pauls ideas make sense. That the US is focusing too much time spending its resources in conflicts and areas of the world that have little to do with our national interests. They wouldn't want to go the full route that Paul does, but many believe, from those I've talked too, think the US could certainly pull back quite a bit and then us the time to reasses where its geopolitical priorities lie.

  • cynical||

    Unfaithful to Pluto and Mars, the current gods of the establishment GOP.

  • ||

    Teh Drugs, I think.

  • juris imprudent||

    Which doubles the irony that the big-mouth pill-popper should be against that. Apparently he didn't get enough govt boot shoved up his arse.

  • ||

    What will be really fun is when Palin endorses someone who isn't Gingrich.

  • Joe M||

    Any guesses as to who that would be? The only choices are Bachmann, Paul, and Perry.

  • ||

    I can see her endorsing Paul, but there's no telling with Sarah Palin.

  • Sudden||

    That may very well do Paul more harm than good.

  • ||

    I doubt it. Palin is still popular among "rank and file" Republicans. It could get spinned into a general election attack ad, but there is no way that it sticks. Paul's positions on the drug war and militarism draw too stark a contrast to President Luthor.

  • SIV||

    It would be very good for Paul. Particularly is she made the circuit explaining why.

  • ||

    Dunno about that. Aside from his lack of WORLD POLICE cred, I don't know Paul has enough social con cred.

    But, hey, its Sarah. Who the fuck knows what she'll do? If she does plump for Paul, I think it will help him.

  • SIV||

    I'd bet SoCons make up at least 25% of Ron Paul's support.

  • k2000k||

    Never been divorced, a christian, thinks abortion is wrong. Other than drugs his record, both political and personal should resonate very strongly with social conservatives. It is something I point out to my family members whenever Newt Gingrich comes up. He is a liar who flip flops as much as John Kerry and he is a Clintonian scumbag to boot.

  • Colin||

    No surprise here. I think they both have had the some number of wives.

    True conservatives.

  • ||

    Conservatives don't believe in divorce? I was unaware.

  • Uncle Joe||

    It's like prostitution and homosexuality.

    They don't believe in it, they just dabble in it on occasion.

  • Uncle Joe||

    It's like prostitution and homosexuality.

    They don't believe in it, they just dabble in it on occasion.

  • dope||

    and drug abuse

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I think Limbaugh has it backwards. Anyone who supports Newcular Titties isn't a real conservative.

  • Ska||

    If I support 70's style missile shaped tittes, does that mean I support Newcular titties?

    Or does it just make me an old bra?

  • SIV||

    1970s missle shaped titties? You're off a few decades there whippersnapper.

    See what happens when I stop linking my blog?

  • ||

    Weird primary. Several candidates who might've won aren't running (fear of presiding over a bad economy and, possibly, the slashing of government "benefits" may be the main reason), and the GOP tends to avoid publicly hating the candidates that you know they do hate.

  • ||

    That's a good point. Who the hell would want to be president now? No matter what you do things are so fucked up, nothing will improve until you are out of office. And anything you might want to do to actually improve the economy will be ignored or over-ridden by Congress because they are more interested in buying votes.

  • ||

    We're in trouble, and the people in place to do anything about it are moral cowards of the highest order.

  • Richard||

    I think things will get much worse before they get better, and "better" is decades down the road.

  • Sudden||

    Nope, decades down the road will be much worse than today or the immediate future.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Given enough decades, eventually you'll both be right.

  • ||

    Once the American fiscal/monetary/banking crackup happens, things will get pretty damn bad. Globally.

    How long it takes to recover depends entirely on what the response to the crackup is. If the Statists hold the high ground post-crackup, the recovery will be sloooow. If people conclude that too goddam much government was a big part of the problem and vote accordingly, less than a decade.

  • ||

    If we still retain the huge military advantage and our economy completely tanks, well, I think it's pretty predictable what will happen.

  • ||

    Invade Canada! It's not even a real country, anyway.

  • ||

    There are your seven states right there!

  • k2000k||

    We will. I don't see any real rival to the US any time soon militarily or economically. The EU is a never was and China is starting is in the beginings of their own financial crisis. Now you'd think I'd be happy about the US still being top dog but I can't be considering that whether or not we are a super power has little bearing on our quality of life, which will most likely be worse.

  • robc||

    Someone who is old enough that one term would be enough?

  • newshutz||

    I was listening to that broadcast. Limbaugh is not supporting Newt, but rather claiming that much of the "conservative" media is really the Republican establishment media.

  • SIV||

    Look at the source, Conor Friedersdorf.

  • nah-nah||

    exactly

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Yes, I second this read. Mr. Freidersdorf is not accurately representing what Rush Limbaugh said in that broadcast (I, too, was listening). Over his broadcasts the past couple of days, Limbauigh has simultaneously said that these attacks on Gingrich by people like George Will evinces a Beltway mentality (because Will has never called the President a Marxist, for example) AND that conservative fears of Gingrich are justified.

    This piece by Mr. Friedersdorf is a failure to parse at best and a total fabrication at worst.

  • Jim Treacher||

    That's our Conor.

  • ||

    I'm just glad I know what to think, now.

  • SIV||

    Unless I missed something Limbaugh has not, in any way, endorsed Gingrich. His main substitute host of late, Mark Steyn, is making the talk radio rounds politely trashing Newt

    Why the fuck are you using Conor Friedersdorf as a source for anything but ridicule?

  • Sarah Palin||

    Well then please tell us who Rush (King of the Rednecks) Limbaugh has endorsed.

    I want the jump on my Intrade rivals.

  • ||

    Whoops, was spoofing Sarah earlier.

    Good for nothing bitch.

  • Joe M||

    It kinda works as her anyway.

  • Fluffy||

    What Rush means by this is that he thinks it's obvious Newt will be the nominee, so he's trying to get started getting everyone's ducks in a row for the new gameplan of pretending that Newt isn't a total douche.

    Because if Newt somehow does become the nominee, it will be critical to Rush that we all agree to forget that he re-endorsed cap and trade YESTERDAY, and re-endorsed the individual mandate THIS WEEK. Those events will be ancient history that no one is allowed to mention. Either that, or we will all be obligated to agree to pretend that all of us always thought that cap and trade was great and the individual mandate was great.

  • Gojira||

    If you mention those things, then you are helping to tear down republicans instead of helping to defeat democrats.

    How the republican would be substantially different from the democrat, or how defeating democrats whose policies are endorsed by the repulbican you're not supposed to trash, is a forbidden topic of conversation.

    You're not a liberal who wants democrats to win, are you?

  • ||

    yeah! Don't mention them things!

  • nah-nah||

    How the republican would be substantially different from the democrat, or how defeating democrats whose policies are endorsed by the repulbican you're not supposed to trash, is a forbidden topic of conversation.

    If you believe that these things are not mentioned by talk radio hosts, then you do not listen. Talk radio spends way more time critiquing the positions of potential GOP nominees in every election cycle than does any other media, unless you consider smears by partisan Democrat media to be critiquing.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    What Rush means by this is that he thinks it's obvious Newt will be the nominee, so he's trying to get started getting everyone's ducks in a row for the new gameplan of pretending that Newt isn't a total douche.

    Uh, what? Rush may be many things, but he is not stupid. I highly doubt he thinks anything is obvious about the nomination. Nobody does.

    Either that, or we will all be obligated to agree to pretend that all of us always thought that cap and trade was great and the individual mandate was great.

    I have a lot of criticisms of Rush, but I doubt that words that look like this will ever pass his lips.

  • ||

    Lord Gawd. You're a Dittlehead. And to think I wasted the time trying to educate you.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    I have a lot of criticisms of Rush

    Quoted again because you obviously missed it.

  • nah-nah||

    Limbaugh All in for Gingrich, Says All Who Are Not Are Not Conservative

    That title is incredibly deceitful. Limbaugh is not "all in" for Gingrich. He is simply noting, as he has for other potential GOP nominees and for certain other members of the GOP over the years who gain some publicity, that the Republican establishment spends more time trashing fellow Republicans than it does going after Democrats.

    Of course, this blog post is based on an article in The Atlantic, a publication which goes out of its way to be fair to conservatives.

    Another quote from the article:
    Can staffers at those places now stop giving his nonsense a pass, and start pointing out his serial race-baiting, factual errors, and questionable logic?

    So, Conor Friedersdorf just regurgitates the standard talking points that liberals have used against Limbaugh for 20 years. That doesn't say much for his credibility. The only major talking point that Friedersdorf leaves out is the accusation that Limbaugh just makes stuff up - the least credible talking point since, at least until the last couple of years during which Limbaugh has mainly just reviewed the major stories headlined on the Drudge Report, Limbaugh always referenced the media reports that he commented on and usually provided original source audio clips.

    Also in Friedersdorf's piece, he gives a list of people that he implies are part of a conservative movement media subculture:

    Roger Ailes, Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Michele Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Kristol

    Ailes, Malkin and, perhaps Lowry might legitimately qualify. O'Reilly is a lightly old-style liberal commentator who never sees a Constitutional obstacle to any legislation that he supports. Krauthammer and Kristol are both reformed liberals of questionable conservative ideology and Will is a "pragmatist" who constantly advocates compromising with liberals, certainly not a firm conservative ideologue.

  • Fluffy||

    Saying that Krauthammer and Kristol aren't conservatives is like being a Bourbon in exile in 1805 and saying that the Bonapartes are not the rulers of France.

    Au contraire, Pierre. Times have changed.

  • ||

    Kristol? So Davids Frum and Brooks are also "conservatives"?

  • SIV||

    And Megan McCardle is a libertarian!

  • ||

    Kristol is establishment neo-conservative. CK is a little unsteady at times, but you have to give him 10/10 for his nightly evisceration of Obysmal's daily fuck-ups and lies.

  • SIV||

    Krauthammer is a solid anti-liberty PoS in every way.

  • juris imprudent||

    Don't confuse Kristol with Kristof - though it is certainly easy enough to do.

  • nah-nah||

    The question is: "Are they movement conservatives?" The answer is "No."

    Bush the younger called himself a conservative and the conservative base didn't like him very much, to say the least.

  • nah-nah||

    To clarify, many people call themselves conservative or are called conservative because the label "conservative" polls well. Bill Kristol is a "big government" conservative who has openly stated that America's political leaders should ignore what The People want and should instead lead the country toward a great national purpose. Those aren't the kinds of positions that most people think of when they hear "conservative".

  • robc||

    Disagree on Kristol. Neocons are neither new nor conservative.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Tell that to Fox News.

  • wef||

    No, it is like being a Bourbon in exile in 1805 and saying that the Bonapartes are not legitimate, conservative rulers of France.

    It might indeed by futile, but it is correct.

    By the way, speaking of the later consequences of the usurping and warmongering regime of that bloody Corsican: Joseph de Maistre was a true prophet.

  • Arthur Wellesley||

    Not that futile.

  • Esteban||

    Rush Limbaugh said that Obama was sending the American military to hunt Christians in Uganda. He didn't know what the Lord's Resistance Army was and yet was very certain in his position. That's probably true for most of what he says.

  • sure||

    Rush Limbaugh said that Obama was sending the American military to hunt Christians in Uganda. He didn't know what the Lord's Resistance Army was and yet was very certain in his position.

    Ever hear of facetiousness? Irony? Ridicule? Satire? What Limbaugh refers to as a "media tweak"?

    That's probably true for most of what he says.

    So you don't actually listen to him and what he says, you just judge him by what others in the media say about him? Very reasonable. That way you can't distinguish satire from seriousness, evaluate his actual knowledge of issues or judge the context in which he makes statements.

    Limbaugh has yakked for 15 hrs. a week for well over 20 years. It's not hard to pull a few sentences out of context in all that yabbering in order to try to make him look bad.

  • Tony||

    Limbaugh's gotta know that Newt is poison in the general election, and will win the primary only by virtue of there not being enough time for him to collapse first.

    Limbaugh probably doesn't want to spend the next 4 years defending Romney, and is quite comfortable spending them being hysterical about Obama.

  • ||

    You're giving the bloated one too much credit. Rush is an act. I checked out his FEC records and he had donated to exactly one GOPer - a Missouri Congressman - Blount, I believe.

    He sells his radio swill to the hicks and uneducated angry Dittleheads he has created over the years. He deserves his riches - he gained them the old-fashioned way - duping the ignorant.

  • ||

    I think he's mostly pretty sincere, and he doesn't contribute to candidates because he doesn't want to a variety of good reasons, business and personal.

    And, of course, he is an entertainer first and second. Maybe an ideologue/activist third.

  • ||

    You were one of those who believed his lies about Barney Frank forcing banks to make sub-prime loans (or one of the many variations of that lie).

    Its OK - that lie didn't make it into the mainstream myth of America. It suckled at about 10% of the Idiocracy.

  • nah-nah||

    his lies about Barney Frank forcing banks to make sub-prime loans

    I'm fairly certain that Limbaugh has never made that accusation. Limbaugh has pointed out, legitimately, that Frank has had his fingers in the workings of Fannie and Freddie, has played audio clips in which Frank, back when the Bush admin was warning about a housing bubble, claimed that F&F were not in financial trouble, has pointed out that Frank had placed a lover in a high level position at one of those agencies and has ridiculed Frank mercilessly over the years.

    Limbaugh has blamed the Carter administration (and Kennedy IIRC) for starting the housing bubble problem with legislation of that era and the Clinton administration for accelerating the bubble by bullying banks to make bad loans.

  • ||

    nah-nah,
    Just so you know. Around here, it's well known that shrike has emotional/mental issues regarding his ultra-christian family and he projects his family's personalities onto anyone who isn't a liberal. Arguing with him is a complete waste of time.

  • nah-nah||

    Arguing with him is a complete waste of time.

    Now you tell me!

  • anti-shrike||

    It is not an exaggeration to say that Rush broke the ideological monopoly which the left enjoyed over the national broadcast media. In doing so, he has been attacked in every way imaginable. He has been repeatedly tax audited. He has been lied about. He has been deliberately misquoted. He has had a number of lawsuits filed against him alleging a bunch of things. He has been criticized for how he spends his money. He has been called every name in the book. President Clinton specifically targeted him. Clinton whined about Rush during a radio interview. Clinton tried to have Rush's show removed from Arm Forces Radio. Clinton even went so far as to have the secret service confiscate the tv camera of the Rush Limbaugh Television Show while tv crews for the major media outlets filmed it happening. Rush was even cut out of an NFL ownership deal, probably because of his politics.

    Through it all, Limbaugh has survived and his show has remained popular and on the air. Rush's explanation for his success is that he filled a media niche by doing the job that the Old Media should have been doing in criticizing liberals and liberal policies. Rush's explanation for his survival is that the Old Media didn't make him so the Old Media can't destroy him, no matter how many smears it perpetrates against him.

    I checked out his FEC records and he had donated to exactly one GOPer - a Missouri Congressman - Blount, I believe.

    You seem to be implying something about Rush because he does not make political contributions. What exactly? That he doesn't generously open his wallet and stuff money into the pockets of candidates? Does that mean he is not sincere in the political stances he takes?

    Here are two other reasons that Rush might not make political contributions: Rush doesn't want to associate himself too heavily a candidate in case that candidate becomes tainted in some way and then used to tarnish Limbaugh or the candidates don't want to take donations from Limbaugh because they might think that such a contribution would be used to smear them.

    In any case, Limbaugh can help or hurt a candidate far more by giving them some quality time on his radio show or by speaking about them then he can by making a monetary donation. Rush may even think that by hosting his radio show he is fully fulfilling his duty to the cause of his ideology. That would be consistent with his view of Steve Job's lack of charitable giving.

  • SIV||

    This "Tony" is hittin' 'em out of the park. A-

  • wef||

    Conor Friedersdorf? WTF?

    Win the Future with Conor Friedersdorf!

    As far as I can tell, Limbaugh is simply complaining about the power suck-ups and gamers in the Repubparty who are running interference for Romney. I suspect that if they were cheering for Nancy P's carbon-buddy, Limbaugh would complain about that too. Maybe a little less, because Limbaugh might not like Romney, but he has smoozed with Newt and remembers fondly those days of House special order talks by the then minority GOP.

  • Rhet Orical||

    Who knew there were so many ditto-heads in the commentariat?

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Listening to what people actually have to say and urging those who have problems with major radio commentators to actually be honest does not a "Dittohead" make.

    I apologize if you are so broken that honesty on the part of one person requires you to file that person away into your conceptually-flawed categorizations.

  • ola||

    If there was any Reason contributors or Reasonoids who needed another reason to run Newt out on a rail, get ready for "Singapore style rehabilitation" centers for drug users and people who won't quit doing illegal things. Yea...........

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

    Did anyone listen for themselves? I did. His main point was that he being Rush believes any Republican can beat Obama an perhaps those Rep's who dislike newt are just saying neg things to sway other Republicans. Fredindorf what his name that Dorthy cites misses the point entirely

  • ||

    Perhaps you should actually listen to the people who are supposedly being quoted before blogging about it. After all, the site is called Reason.

    As others have noted, Limbaugh hasn't endorsed Newt. He hasn't endorsed anyone.

  • robc||

    He never does. He is going to get behind whoever the GOP nominates.

    Its going to be interesting if Paul wins to see what he does.

  • SIV||

    I think he'd push for the nominee even harder. If Paul got it look for Independent/3rdb party opposition and "Republicans for Obama" to get 24/7 news coverage.

  • nah-nah||

    If Paul were to win, Limbaugh would champion him as a vastly better choice than Obama. Limbaugh has never made a secret of the fact that he is a loyal Republican. He also does not shy away from criticizing Republicans, and, so, he would criticize Paul for not supporting Israel, a policy which Limbaugh heavily supports. I imagine Limbaugh would downplay Paul's foreign policy positions until after the election.

  • k2000k||

    That is very true. Which makes me chuckle when they say Paul isn't electable. Because I have a lot of hard core republican family members, and they will vote for a republican against a democrat, whether or not its Paul or Newt doesn't make a difference. On the flip side all my brothers and cousins have already loudly stated we will vote for Paul and only Paul (considering that Johnson really doesn't have a shot this go around).

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    Drink!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yes!

  • ||

    Paul is in an interesting place right now. All the other pretenders are probably done for at this point, and its just him, Newkular, and ROMNIAC.

    ROMNIAC has what looks like a hard cap on his support at somewhere south of 30%. But, he's the Establishment Choice, and all he has to do is still be credible at the end of the Super Tuesday primaries, and he's got it.

    Newkular can be guaranteed to self-destruct; its only a question of when. I think that's why Paul went after him in his ad; knock off Newkular, and its Paul v. ROMNIAC.

    If that's really a hard cap on ROMNIAC's support, then Paul could just win this thing. Especially if Bad Things Happen over the next six months and the Repubs get themselves into a mood for a real shakeup.

  • Joe M||

    Fingers crossed. I don't see how Paul's amazing anti-Gingrich ad doesn't strike a chord.

  • Tim||

    I think Rush isn't getting invited into the conservative inner circle, so he's picking a fight with them. Gingrich-Romney is all secondary.

  • nah-nah||

    rubbish

  • Tim||

    I think since WFB passed he hasn't gotten the respect he was accustomed to.

  • nah-nah||

    still rubbish

    The Republican establishment likes advantaging the Party with Limbaugh's influence, but doesn't like it when Limbaugh points out the ideological impurity of or the compromising done by most of the "golden boys" chosen by the establishment.

    This has always been the case. Limbaugh has condemned the establishment for not really liking Reagan and for assisting the Democrats in destroying the Gingrich revolution in the 1990s. He condemned the establishment for derailing Clinton's impeachment trial. He routinely condemns the establishment for embracing the political premises of liberals rather than challenging those premises.

    He has always been at odds with the Republican establishment, even before WFB's passing, while firmly supporting the RP and what he considers to be conservative ideology.

  • ||

    Rush has never been in the Conservative inner circle Tim. He's not all-in for Newt, he also spent many days defending Herman Cain, and he says frequently that ANY of the candidates would be 1000 times better than Obama.

  • Tim||

    Have you listened to him recently? He harps on a conspiracy of "insiders" who secretly plan to lose with Romney as part of some plot to not lose senate and house seats.

  • err ... ehh ... iah ...||

    I don't think that it is too unreasonable to believe that the people in control of the RP would rather lose elections than relinquish their hold on the RP.

    Does Limbaugh really think that the insiders want to nominate Romney so as to lose?

    As far as guarding house and senate seats, the insiders were pretty rattled by having incumbents and insider-anointed candidates defeated in the primaries last time around. Having their chosen Presidential nominee bumped off in the primary this election would surely unnerve them even more.

  • ||

    Actually, that was a listener that suggested that theory and Rush just politely said it wouldn't be all that hard to believe.

  • No Newts is Good Newts||

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Commenters have convinced me my original headline was hyperbolic beyond the facts, in that it described Rush as "all in for Gingrich." I have changed it.

    Good work guys.

  • bwahahahahahaaaa||

    score another win for the vast clandestine right-wing conspiracy

  • Skip||

    Newt sucks and all but he is no worse than the hypocritical Dems.

  • SIV||

    Let's pray we never find out.

  • ||

    I can only say that I find myself now having to question content here, beyond my normal filter. That sucks.

  • SIV||

    That's what happens when they link to The Atlantic.

    Watch Gillespie posts too. His links often don't support what he is writing and sometimes outright contradict it.I think it's more lazy than disingenuous but who knows?

  • A Conservative Teacher||

    Rush is amusing and trying to get ratings, but he doesn't speak for all conservatives or tea party people Romney is a good candidate and so is Gingrich- either will be a better President than Obama- but we on the right need to grow up and stop the circular shooting squad.

  • SIV||

    lol
    I think you're commenting on the wrong blog.

  • Double D||

    ^^This. Beat it, Team Redster.

  • Nike Dunk Shoes||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement