Pro-Romney Crowd Goes After Limbaugh, Others for “Flip-Flopping”

A Hobson's Choice?

I’m sick to death of the Establishment GOP and all the other Romney shills in the media pretending not to know what they’re doing as they level a disgusting mischaracterization at Limbaugh, Levin, and others on the charge of “Flip-Flopping.”  Worse, they’re aligning with liberals in the media to push Romney.  Consider Mediaite’s attack on Limbaugh.  Here’s the essence of their argument, and yes, they’re serious:  Since people chose Romney over McCain in order to try to stop McCain in 2008, therefore, these people are “Flip-Floppers” because they now say Romney is no conservative.  Excuse me while I call… “Baloney!”   I’ve seen it posted on several sites over the last few days, and frankly, it’s garbage.  As Levin described it Wednesday, he had a “Hobson’s choice” in the matter, and he chose accordingly.  Frankly, Levin is right:  The only choice was to oppose McCain, and that meant supporting Romney at the time, in his view.  That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement.  Nevertheless, this is the premise on which the criticism of Limbaugh, Levin, and others is based, and it’s intended to mislead readers in the out-of-context history they provide.

This is idiotic.  The story by Mediaite seems to insist that one cannot choose between the lesser of two evils, and later, when new choices of lesser evil are added, that one must stick with one’s original choice to the bitter end.  This also assumes that Rush had the full story on Romney in 2008.  It assumes that he was as familiar with Romney as he has since become.  One might argue that Rush was simply endorsing Romney because he liked McCain even less, but what of it?  I find this media tactic despicable, but what is still more disgusting is how many people fall for this obviously fraudulent attack on Limbaugh.  One wonders if such people aren’t inclined to see Limbaugh in a negative light from the outset.

Let’s be honest: Given the choice of McCain and Romney, yes, I’d be inclined to pick Romney.  Now, expand my choices by Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson, and yes, I’m going to re-think my previous choice.  To be perfectly honest, if tomorrow Sarah Palin decided to change  her mind and run, I’d be back back-peddling from any support I might have given any of the rest of these.  NO PROBLEM.  The simple fact is that if you have limited choices, you may choose the best that remains at the time, but not be overly happy about it.  That’s the truth of Limbaugh’s “endorsement” of Romney in 2008.

At the same time, it may also be true that you subsequently learn things about your previous choice that make you rethink your judgment of their qualifications.  In any other context, liberals and moderates would call this “the ability to learn and grow and become more pragmatic.”  In this case, however, it’s being used as an attempt to discredit Limbaugh and anybody else who ever said a nice thing about Romney, but now finds him lacking.  In 2008, I knew none of the details of Romneycare I now do.  I hadn’t even heard of the flap over his hiring a landscaping company that used illegal aliens.  I certainly hadn’t heard of the controversy over his “Welfare Wheels” program.  Had I known that, I wouldn’t have been any more inclined to support Romney in the timeframe immediately before Super Tuesday in 2008.  The truth is, there was a good deal about Romney that we didn’t know then.

To suggest that one can’t change one’s mind upon discovery of new evidence is lunacy.  I’m a voter, and I have a responsibility to take great pains in making my choices because the country and its future demand it of me.   This is also why I disagree slightly with Mark Levin about the choice conservatives faced at that time in 2008:  If anything, the choice between Romney and McCain had been a Morton’s Fork because both were equally bad.  The truth may be in what I consider a false dilemma.  We have one more option beyond all of these:  The assault against Limbaugh is only possible because Limbaugh fell for a false dilemma.  He decided at that point in 2008 to support somebody who was not a conservative, and while he may not have known better at the time, his generosity in his description of Romney in order to attempt the defeat of McCain is now being thrown in his face.

This is why you ought to be scrupulously deliberate in your choices this coming year. Don’t find yourself in the position of having to later say that somebody you now choose is not really conservative.  The only way to do that is to be sure that you choose an actual conservative, or if none are available, to withhold your vote and your reputation, and with it, conservatism’s.  The jury is still out as to whether any of these Republican candidates will pass muster.  For my part, I am still weighing.  I know Romney, Huntsman, and Paul are out of consideration for me.  Their records and positions demand that I must never support any of these.  I am having great difficulties with Mr. Perry, and lesser degrees of difficulty with the others.  What I won’t be told by some leftist or establishment hack in 2016 is that I had endorsed somebody as a conservative who later turned out not to be anything of the sort.

If Rush Limbaugh had a fault in all of this, it is merely that he was too generous in his praise in order to attempt to defeat McCain. You can bet I won’t be making that mistake, and I’ll bet Rush won’t be doing so again either.

Leave a comment ?

10 Responses to Pro-Romney Crowd Goes After Limbaugh, Others for “Flip-Flopping”

  1. Matt says:

    What's being mischaracterized about what Rush said Mark? In 2008, Rush called Mitt a conservative. Granted he pointed out the the field was what the field was at the time. Romney was it because McCain certainly wasn't. But he said he "embodied the 3 legs of the conservative stool". The attack on Rush today is not about whether he endorsed out of necessiity in 2008, but that he is flat-out contradicting himself by what he has recently said, "Romney is NOT a conservative". And that contradiction is one that I hope Rush will honestly account for….w/o the spin.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Matt, Did you read my article? The fact is that Rush may have learned more about Romney that changed his evaluation. He may have had less perfect information when he made his "conservative stool" remark. Do you acknowledge that people can change their thinking based on new information, or are you of the opinion that once a judgment is rendered, it may never be altered or amended due to better information?

      • Keith says:

        Sure. I would acknowledge that ANYONE is entitled to chage their mind on any issue that promotoes moving towards truth and correctedness. Absolutely!
        Questions is…if Rush can be granted latitude for changing his mind on issues – why can't Romney or anybody be afforded the same decency?
        That's a fairly basic, non-evasive and brutally honest question.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          That's true. Romney can be afforded the same decency, but the problem is that his positions haven't changed substantially. His record cannot change. Sure, he can change what he says, but it doesn't supersede what he's done. See the difference?

  2. Keith says:

    Thanks Mark..
    Fair enough – qualify for me specifically what is not conservative about Mitt Romney's record.
    I mean I read that being repeated a great deal but I've yet to find someone qualify "the RINO's" record with any specificity.
    Perhaps – you can educate me on the matter further.
    From my vantage point, I see him as very qualified and potentially one of the best conservative candidates we've had in maybe decades.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Keith, Okay, start with the so-called "welfare wheels" issue. Start right there, and get back to me.

      • Keith says:

        Is that all I'm going to get? Start w/ welfare wheels and get back to me?
        Okay…like I said Mark, don't feel obligated to qualify your remarks. I'll go look at that program that costed taxpayers about $400,000 but saved them over a million in welfare checks. Fine. I'll look at it.
        In the meantime, why don't YOU go check his records for the good, conservative policy decisions he has made in his ACTUAL record and then get back to me. That should be easier to find.
        I'll be here.

        • MarkAmerica says:


          I said "start," and no, that isn't nearly all. The moment we leap into the universe of Romneycare, there will be a good deal more. I have a better way to save money on welfare checks: Don't write them. Period. THAT would be a conservative response. Finding ways to lessen it is still a surrender on the issue. I don't consider it "conservative" to hand over money/goods/services to able-bodied people who claim it based on some alleged "need." I needed this computer on which I'm typing, but it wasn't my need that gave it to me.

          It reminds me of the retort I once heard to the typical liberal laments, "but whatever shall we do about the poor?" The only proper answer to this is: "Who says we should do anything?" In other words, your thinking that the welfare wheels program may have saved $400k is based on the assumption that we would have spent the $1m on welfare checks instead, and I'm telling you that's a statist assumption based on the idea that we will spend the million. I'm saying: "Save the whole million" and that's "conservative."

  3. Keith says:

    Sorry mark. Didn't spot a reply button on your reply to my post.

    You said "Keith, I don’t know whether Romney is pro-Agenda 21, but his previous stances on environmental issues suggest that he’s of a mind to be in agreement with it. I doubt whether Romney ever came out and said “I am for Agenda 21″. Things like that don’t get that form of support from politicians."

    Agenda 21 has a socialist agenda that is evident for anyone to see and scrutinize. Are you suggesting that Mitt Romney, leading frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2012 would support a socialist UN program like Agenda 21? and you mentioned his previous stances on environmental issuessuggest that he's of a mind to be in agreement with it? really? Defend that position for me, will you? Again you should really qualify you're remarks a bit better.

    Thanks mark.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Yes, I'm suggesting precisely that. I'm suggesting that Mitt Romney is a progressive, and that folks of that description have a long history of supporting "smart growth" and "smart development" programs of this sort, and yes, I consider it a matter of socialism. By the way, I thank you for the advice, but I'll be happy to qualify my remarks to that degree to which I believe they should be qualified. Not an iota more.