Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney in 2007. Mitt Romney endorsed Nikki Haley in 2009 when she was running in the SC-GOV primary and was fourth in the polls. They obviously have a personal relationship, and there’s more than a good chance that Nikki Haley honestly believes  Romney is the best person for the job. Maybe if there was a viable conservative alternative who was the perfect candidate it may have been different, but that candidate isn’t running and it sure as hell isn’t Rick Perry.

Anyone seriously hurt by the Haley endorsement, thinking she did it for a job, or thinks that she’s “done” with conservatives needs to change their diapers, back away from talk radio and pick up a book or at least go for a walk. There are more important issues facing the country than people’s Arbitron ratings, and the Republic is not going to fall because [Governor X] endorsed [Candidate who less less conservative than I approve of Y].

Rush (http://bit.ly/qYYb84) and Levin (http://bit.ly/nZuZul ) circa 2008.

In today’s New York Times, there was a glowing review of Paul Ryan’s budget plan…same as there was yesterday on The Rush Limbaugh show. I’m willing to bet a majority of NYTimes readers will take the opposite position that Rush’s takes purely on the principle of doing so, yet here was a columnist from the newspaper in near total agreement with one of the top talk radio hosts over a conservative proposal. That’s an entire audience who agrees with Rush Limbaugh, who normally doesn’t agree with Rush Limbaugh, without realizing they agree with Rush Limbaugh.

Brooks also makes a very important point concerting Ryan’s plan and the 2012 election…

The Ryan budget will not be enacted this year, but it will immediately reframe the domestic policy debate. His proposal will set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion. It will become the 2012 Republican platform, no matter who is the nominee. Any candidate hoping to win that nomination will have to be able to talk about government programs with this degree of specificity, so it will improve the G.O.P. primary race.

Do I agree with every column he writes and every comment he makes on every news show? Of course not. I don’t expect to agree with anyone 100 % of the time. I also don’t think people should be thrown overboard for not agreeing with me 100% of the time.

There’s nothing wrong with having people on our side that can take basic conservative messages and principles and present them to a different audience who doesn’t realize it. How many New York Times reader’s do you think read his column today, agreed with him, and realized that so do most of the conservatives they thought they didn’t agree with?

It’s in response to Daniels speech at CPAC.

Now, could I have done without some of the speakers and anything Ron Paul related? Of course. You don’t boo Dick Cheney at anything that has the word “conservative” in it, and if Campaign for Liberty is going to pay to have people shipped in to disrupt CPAC on behalf of Ron Paul, it can be solved by no longer inviting C4L or Ron Paul. That stuff was such a small part of the event; I thought the rest of it was a success.  I digress…

The problem with Daniels, and the part they have an issue with, is that after talking aboot conservative health care reform, conservative education reform, conservative tax reform, conservative entitlement reform, and conservative economic reform…he insinuated that in order to beat Obama, we need to reach out to voters other than just those who listen talk radio. Rush and Levin saw that as an attack on talk radio, pandering to the mainstream media, and selling out conservative principles.

Me? I see it as simple math. In order to defeat Barack Obama, we need more voters than we got last time. You don’t need to have read Danica’s McKeller’s “Math Doesn’t Suck” to see that. That leads me to think one of two things, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are either:

a) dumb, and can’t do the math and think there are enough people who agree with them on every issue to take back the White House.

b) a couple of RINOs who aren’t serious aboot defeating Barack Obama and are more concerned with their ratings.

And if anyone would turn down the volume to think for themselves, they would see that when you have groups of students like “Students for Daniels” who got caught up in Obamamania when they first registered to vote, in two years have made a political transformation it takes most adults ten years to make, that’s something that needs to be encouraged and cultivated. That’s a good thing. That’s a new crop of voters who are being drawn into the party…and would be even if it were Citizens for Bachmann (who I personally think is half a wack job).

All addition by subtraction does is gin up outrage so that people keep listening to the radio. That might be good for someone. I’d rather a Republican President who can actually repeal Obamacare.

Of course the media being the media, all you’ll hear from his interview was this quote, taken out of context, aboot if he sides with Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell:

I — yes, if I had to pick between the two.

Of course, this is just another Bush crony throwing Colin Powell under the bus and siding with Rush Limbaugh, who you and I all know is the real head of the Republican Party. Yet if you look at the whole segment, Rove is hardly anti-Powell…

Anybody who says they’re a Republican is a Republican. There is no membership committee that designates whether you are or not. If you say you’re Republican, you’re Republican. Look, Colin Powell has a right to advocate this view. I defend his right to do that. I don’t agree with it, but I defend his right to do so. I would hope that he would back up that vision by finding candidates who represent his vision of the future of the Republican Party and actively working for them. That’s what it ought to be about.

I don’t like this thing where people – and Powell is one them – who said, “Rush Limbaugh, shut up.” I mean, that’s – we believe, as Republicans in the marketplace of ideas, let that marketplace decide. Let everybody with a competing vision find the kind of candidates they want to support and work hard for them. I want Colin Powell to go out there and lay out his vision, and then I want him to back it up by finding people who share it and working like heck to get them – and that’s how you win the party – the party’s intraparty battle of ideas.

And THEN when asked if he’s pro-Rush…

I – yes, if I had to pick between the two. But you know what? That’s – neither one of those are candidates. Neither one of those are going to be people who are offering themselves for office. Again, that’s – this is a false debate that Washington loves. The real debate takes place out there in the real world by people getting out there and encouraging and helping the kind of candidates who represent their vision for their party, Republican or Democrat.

This happens every election after the party loses. It’s a healthy thing. I say go to it. Find the people that you think represent your vision, outline it, and work like heck for them, and the country and the party will be better off for it.

I think Karl Rove touches on something very important, when he says Colin Powell should search out Republican candidates who share his vision of the party. My problem with these self loathing Republicans is that they seem to enjoy the media attention they get for being the self loathing Republican du joir, yet do nothing to actual help the party they claim to love and have a vision for. All going on MSNBC and saying how much Rush Limbaugh sucks does is give Chris Matthews a leg tingle, and lets them run twenty more commercials aboot the “Republican civil war.”

If cats like Colin Powell actually backs up his criticism by supporting candidates who he feels represent the Republican Party that he claims is waiting to emerge, and engages in an actual debate with other R’s that have a different vision, awesome. Let’s get it on.

But making the media rounds just to complain…we’ve seen this movie before, and quite frankly, I’m bored.

Barack Obama: More of the same as George W. Bush.

If the Bush Administration acted like this (which they did), the media would say it was a distraction from real issues (which they did, and which is was). When the Obama Administration does it however…here’s Minority Leader John Boehner with some of what you may have missed:

The administration requested $350 billion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program even though neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has adequately answered questions about where the first $350 billion went and what strategy Treasury officials have developed to get the government out of the private sector. President Obama signed “stimulus” legislation that costs twice as much as the House GOP’s alternative bill but that will create only half as many jobs.

The president apparently plans to sign the $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill, even though it is loaded with some 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks and the largest increase in discretionary spending — save for a brief increase after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — since the Carter administration. And the Obama administration has proposed a budget blueprint that increases taxes on every American, to the total tune of $1.4 trillion. Each of these policy proposals is meant to lay the groundwork for a new era of big government — and neither Main Street nor Wall Street likes what it is seeing.

Markets are plunging, businesses are cutting jobs and families are growing more anxious every day. Moments like this demand the kind of cooperation and new way of doing business that Obama has promised. Instead, those around him are taking to the airwaves and the pages of our nation’s newspapers to carry out a campaign intended to change the subject and divert attention from what matters most: finding a way to work together to get our economy moving again.

So my suggestion to you is this, any time you hear any prominent Democrat leaders like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Andrea Mitchell, Stephanie Miller, Rachael Maddow, Norah O’ Donnell, David Schuster, Larry King, Harry Smith, George Stephanopoulos, Matt Lauer, or Rahm Emmanuel talk aboot Rush Limbaugh…take a look at where the DOW is at.

You know, the meaningless number that is as relevant as a daily presidential tracking poll.

Like what you read? Join Citizens for Brodigan to get all the latest updates!

1. The Dow Jones fell to its lowest level in almost twelve years.

2. All the Obama Administration, the Democrat Party, and by default NBC and CNN wanted to talk aboot was Rush Limbaugh.

Of course they were ignoring the parts where he said he wanted American to succeed and wanted us to all prosper, or where he wants the policies to fail because he thinks they are bad for America. He just said something yucky aboot President Obama, and needs to be destroyed accordingly. Good luck with that.

It’s a shame because they missed a great speech. Former McCain Adviser Nicole Wallace even has her favourite part…

The real news that Limbaugh made was that he put his finger on Obama’s “original sin”-the error that will ultimately lead to the Democrats’ demise if Republicans can get their act together and begin a more basic philosophical debate about the role of government in people’s lives. “All politicians,” Limbaugh said, “including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.”

If Americans turn their backs on Obama, and at this point that looks unlikely but possible if the economy continues in its downward spiral, it will be because he tried to remake America in his own image. We didn’t sign up for a new founding father. We did not abandon our belief that despite our imperfections, America is the solution-not the problem-to every challenge facing the people in this country and, in many cases, the world. Most of us did not come to the same conclusion Obama did that America behaved badly and now we are being punished.

Most of us love this country for the opportunity she provides. We love her for the decency of her people. And we believe that our president’s job is to cheer her on not talk her down.

Nicole Wallace is hardly what you would call a far right ideologue; I mean she worked for the McCain campaign. She’s even wrote aboot how moved she was during President Obama’s inaugural and how even former Bush advisers were on board. She’s not someone who does things just because Rush Limbaugh tells her to.

So if Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, the Democrat Party, NBC News et al want to turn Rush Limbaugh into a straw man to hide the fact that the market has fallen close to 3,000 points since Dear Leader was anointed, so be it.

Not all of us buy it though, and I’m not even that big of a Limbaugh fan in the first place.

UPDATE: That’s my Jindal…

UPDATE DEUX: Somewhat related…oy.

UPDATE TRES: I rarely ever call someone the c-word…

Like what you read? Join Citizens for Brodigan to get all the latest updates!

Anytime I can work Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove into the same blog post, it’s a good day to be me.

This has actually been something that has been burnin’ my biscuits since the day after Inauguration, because it appears part of the Obama Administration’s game plan is to sell their agenda by either taking out of context or straight up lying aboot what Republican’s stay and what they’re position is. And when everyone in the media except for Fox News and Joe Scarborough not only refuse to call them on it but help them get away with it…who can blame them?

Seriously, what do you think will be the top talker of the day: the dow falling under 7,000 for the first time since 1997 (and close to 3,000 points since Dear Leader’s anointment), or the faux feud between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele?

Karl Rove, your hero and mine, wrote aboot this recently. Here’s one of the examples he gave from a recent Dear Leader speech…

Mr. Obama also said that America’s economic difficulties resulted when “regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.” Who gutted which regulations?

Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?

Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd’s threat to filibuster Mr. Bush’s needed reforms.

Now, I know some of you might find this blog post trolling for things to insult and complain aboot in the comment section, and will say, “How is that any different that what the Bush Administration did?” You know what, you’re right. It is not different.

Barack Obama is just more of the same as George Bush.

Like what you read? Join Citizens for Brodigan to get all the latest updates!

And the MSM, ironically enough behaving exactly how Limbaugh said they were going to in his speech, had their marching orders to question every Republican on what Rush had to say.

You know, the same way they took the Democrats to task for the past eight years when one of them said they wanted the Bush Administration to fail…I kid, I kid.

Here’s what I’m wondering, prominent voice of the Democrat party Keith Olbermann was on MSNBC last week stating how black Republicans were self loathing and suffered from Stockholm Syndrome. Is President Obama going to be questioned if the official Obama position is the same as Olbermann?

Will President Obama call on MSNBC to fire him for these racist comments, the same way Senator Obama called on MSNBC to fire Don Imus?

Why are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid scared to denounce Olbermann’s comments? Or any other comment he’s made on A FREAKIN’ NEWS CHANNEL AS A PAID EMPLOYEE OF A FREAKIN’ NEWS NETWORK?

Keith Olbermann is the defacto leader of the Democrat Party.

(As a disclaimer, I didn’t actually watch the episode where Keith said this and I might be taking him out of context. But I did see something on the Internet, and since I’m trying to be a journalist, I didn’t think it was necessary to research further).

Like what you read? Join Citizens for Brodigan to get all the latest updates!

At first glance it might appear to be your typical liberal attitude that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously  too stupid to know any better.  But, since Obama is The Man who’s going to bring people together, I’m sure he didn’t mean it like that. You know, because of change and stuff.

As for that “typical liberal attitude,” Stephen Kruiser (known to us on Twitter as @stephenkruiser), had a few thoughts on the matter…

I hate to keep thrusting needles in the Hope and Change bubble (OK, I really don’t) but not every conservative in America listens to Rush Limbaugh. It’s safe to say that I am exposed to a greater variety of Republicans than the average Democrat is. Even the beltway freaks. I’ve traveled this country for two decades doing shows in huge cities and the Middle of Freakin’ Nowhere (don’t try to MapQuest it, I’ll give u directions). When I’m not traveling, I’m interacting with thousands of people from the right online every week. Neocons, Paleocons, Socons, Crunchy Cons, Moderates, Libertarians…are we getting this yet?

Contrary to any frenzied stereotyping being done by our friends on the left, very few of these people hang on every word that Rush says…In the real world, not everybody listens to hours of talk radio every day. And Rush certainly isn’t dictating every move to the GOP, as President Obama derisively implied the other day. If he was, John McCain would never have been nominated.

I live in New York, so having to deal with liberals thinking my difference in opinion is some type of character flaw and that I need to be indoctrinated accordingly is nothing new. So when it comes from them or fair and balanced journalists like Keith Olbermann and Andrea Mitchell, I could give a damn. They’re all irrelevant to me.

But if MY PRESIDENT thinks that – that I disapprove of his $850 Billion boondoggle to liberal special interest groups for no other reason than an entertainer told me to – I find that somewhat insulting.

Actually, no.  I find that grossly insulting.

Like what you read? Join Citizens for Brodigan to get all the latest updates!

They say that dissent is the truest form of patriotism, and by “they” I mean every liberal for the past eight years who would put that bumper sticker next to their “Bush is a War Criminal” one. So taking these progressives at their word, for the next four years it would appear that Rush Limbaugh is the most patriotic man in America.

And apparently, since George Bush isn’t around to rally the troops against, President Obama has apparently decided to make Rush Limbaugh the new boogie man. Obama met recently with the Republican leadership to discuss the 2009 Fiscal Suicide Plan, and this report of the meeting found its way to reporters:

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

Byron York from “National Review” got Rush to respond:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly…to make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Here’s what I don’t get, other than the fact that our most recent candidate is one who DIDN’T listen to Rush…and we all see how that turned out. Obama doesn’t need the Republicans to get FSA09 passed. There are enough D’s in the House and Senate for it to pass without a single Republican vote. If the Democrat party believes that spending $1 TRILLON is the way to jump start the economy, than so be it. Grow some testicles and stand on your convictions. Vote. It could pass today in the senate 59-41.

But they don’t want that. Instead they want to guilt Republicans to vote with them to give them “cover” with the voters if and when this thing goes down in flames, and guilt them with “bi-partisanship.” And of course they’ll have the media to back them up. You see when a Democrat takes a principled stance, they’re being true to their convictions. When a Republican takes a principles stance – as they should be doing against the Fiscal Suicide Act – then they’re being decisive. They aren’t acting bi-partisan.

Folks there are two ways to define bi-partisanship…

As defined by the American people – both parties working together to craft the best legislation they can, and meeting somewhere in the middle to do so.

As defined by NBC News and friends – Republicans bending over and doing whatever the Democrats want.

Like what you read? Join Citizens for Brodigan to get all the latest updates!

–>Uncle Pat wants to know “Who Killed Detroit?

–>Why the left needs Obama to be FDR

–>Al Franken steals more votes

–>Operation Chaos 2: Electric Boogaloo

–>Mike Huckabee has been a baaaaad Christian

–>Debating Robert Gates

I’ll take Steele with a Newt seal of approval. Steele fills my first two requirements for RNC Chair, and with Newt behind the scene as the idea man, they’ll be a strong duo. And as much as I hate “identity politics,” having Steele, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal as three of our top voices in the party isn’t a bad thing.

Add to that Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint in the Senate. Add to that Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, and Pete Sessions in the House. Add to that everyone Republican Governor eyeing 2012. Anyone who wants to tell me the Republican Party is in shambles can suck it.

The only question now is direction. David Brooks fired the latest salvo of the moderate vs. traditionalist war. I’m more with Stephen Hayes in that I find myself somewhere in the middle. It annoys me the way people think it has to be either the red pill or the blue pill. Personally speaking, give me some of that old time conservatism with a side order of the realization it isn’t 1987 anymore.

I think the key is more of a focus on conservative solutions to kitchen table issues like the economy, education, healthcare, and energy. As for the more divisive social issues, we need to find a way to make them less divisive. There has to be a way to take a stand against illegal immigration without the vitriol and animosity towards illegal immigrants. Let’s stop looking at global warming as nothing more than a liberal media conspiracy, while not rushing into bad policy and staying to the right of the nuts who consider it to be “treason” to ask questions.  We need to be able to articulate the sanctity of life in a way other than “Jesus said so.”

More importantly, let’s stop treating each other like heretics because we might disagree with Rush Limbaugh or the “National Review” on any one single issue. Some of us prefer Joe Scarborough and “The Weekly Standard.” That doesn’t make us less a conservative.

Anyway, wherever we go from here, Michael Steele running the RNC is definitely a step in the right direction.

UPDATE: Fred? Apparently he told the crew at NRO that he wasn’t, but a lot can change in less than a week.

.