Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh Live Radio Thread. 04/16/07
Posted on 04/16/2007 8:47:59 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Rush supposed to be back today?
What It Means to be a Conservative
April 15, 2007
I touched on this in an earlier post, but I'm disheartened by conservatives who continue to lecture that we must ignore serious defects in a Republican candidate's record. Conservatism is about more than tax cuts and the war on terrorism, it's about more than abortion and illegal immigration. These are certainly important policy aspects of conservatism. But conservatism is about a way of life, a way of governing, and a way of bettering society. When a pundit or candidate demands that conservatives limit their critical thinking to one or two subjects or positions, that's self-serving. They're usually putting their own political preferences and motivations ahead of serious analysis. That's not to say that a candidate must be a "perfect" conservative, as there is no such thing. But a candidate who has a long record of rejecting fundamentally conservative principles such as those protected by the Bill of Rights (from free political speech and gun ownership to property rights and federalism) or pandering to populist demands with big-government solutions, can't logically be said to be a conservative. That doesn't mean he's a bad person or doesn't have intriguing things to say or recommend him, but he's not a conservative. And now is the time for conservatives to think and act like conservatives, rather than Republican committeemen. If we dont, then the Republican party and the movement will suffer more setbacks.
There's a vacuum in the conservative movement, certainly at the political level, because the last two Republican presidents have been largely centrist Republicans who've viewed conservatives skeptically. They've done some conservative things, but they've never nurtured the movement, let alone adopted it. They've rarely used the presidential pulpit or the machinery of the Republican Party to teach and promote conservative principles, as Ronald Reagan did almost every time he spoke. Yet, most conservatives have supported both presidents and the Republican party throughout, which I attribute in significant part to the detestable nature of their political adversaries. Its important to defend an incumbent, lame-duck Republican president against the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Moveon.org. After all, we want to win this war and they dont. But we must not lose sight of our principles as we prepare to select another president.
Yhello! Yhello! Yhello!
Saw that last night.
Rudy to Pro-Lifers: Get Over It [Rich Lowry]
Wow. Rudy puts a Pete Wilson/Arlen Specter spin on his own candidacy:
Giuliani made his sharpest case for moving beyond social issues this weekend in Iowa, telling The Des Moines Register, "Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against."
Asked about abortion, he said, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that."
Got that pro-life Republicans?
Loud and clear
Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart Have Most Well-Informed Audiences (Pew Poll)
Morning, everyone (and afternoon to you east coasters!). Thanks for the ping, Chicago.
Ah yes—taxes. GRRRRRR
Rush seems a little randy today.
Patricia Aldyn Austin Taylor Buckley Pat Buckley, as so many knew her, WFBs beloved died last night at Stamford Hospital in Connecticut.
She died of septic poisoning following a vascular operation on her left leg.
Pat had been married to WFB since July 1950 and is mother of the acclaimed writer Christopher Buckley.
Shes been a core part of the NR family hosting editorial dinners in her home, among many other intrusions since its conception and her loss will be felt by many.
Bill and Christopher are in so many of our prayers today. R.I.P, Mrs. Buckley.
UPDATE: Best wishes and memories of Mrs. Buckley, too send them to email@example.com. Please include your name, city, and state.We'll start publishing them Monday in a memorial section.
Hey all! New church building dittos!
Gotta share this:
Our church, Laurel Baptist Temple, was located in Laurel, MD for 25 years. We sold our building in February for $800K, which was appraised three years ago for $250K.
We figured we would sell it, and move into a new building that suited our size more. Sounds reasonable.
EXCEPT TO A ANTI-CHRISTIAN CITY COUNCIL that passed an ordinance a few years ago that prevented churches from neither building new structures nor moving into locations that were not already housing churches.
We had several places in mind, and some fell through because as a church we had to meet and vote to buy property. THat meant we had to react faster. So as a church, we gave authority to the pastor to sign intents topurchase, and require the church vote at the final signing.
We finally got a decent place, only to find out that the above ordinance prevented us from making the purchase. Something about the fact that churches do not pay taxes.
However, the city(I wanted to write something that sounds like city but more accurately describes the contents of their skulls, but that would be wrong) council failed to realize that many of our congregation are not Laurelites, but rather come as far away as 20 miles to attend.
Now, we found a place in an area that has no such ordinance. What does that mean?
It means the $10K each person spent in Laurel, on average, annually, for gas, food, and shopping at the mall and Walmart, are now going to a town five miles away.
Thanks to Laurel’s lack of insight, they just lost a lot more taxable income than they would have taken in by a for-profit business. Also, now God has much more leeway to go Sodom and Gomorrah on them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.