Rush Limbaugh Identifies "Phony Conservatives"

Here is audio of Rush Limbaugh today identifying several "phony conservatives," and saying it is just "stupid" for anyone to say there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Limbaugh said there are several "phony conservatives" who like to "dump on" conservatism, and use their opportunities to advocate changing the conservative message to fit polls and what seems to be popular at the moment. He specifically mentioned David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Frank Luntz.

Limbaugh also said people are "naive" who think there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. He said the crowd that showed up to protest at the 9/12 March were not there to "protest Republicans. He said it is Obama and the Democrats that have them afraid. . . (VIDEO)

You’re out of your mind, as usual.

Obama has spent four times as much as GWB did, when GWB had to deal with a Dem congress.

Obama and the Dems gave 787 billion (yes, that is billions) to their base.

The house has passed a cap and trade bill that will destroy our energy security.

The Dems are fixing to pass some god-awful health abomination quickly followed by real amnesty for illegals.

We have communists, marxists, animal rights activists, tax cheats, econuts and outright liars running the Obama administration.

Obama has apologized to our enemies, stabbed Israel in the back, insulted our allies, and cut our military.

NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITH REPUBLICANS IN CHARGE AND NONE OF IT HAPPENED WHEN GWB WAS IN OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone that could watch what has happened in the last eight months to our nation, and not be able to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats is either blind or insane.

Apologist my ass, I have a brain. I watched purists like you tear the Republican Party apart and hand my nation to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

Screw you and the rest of your paulite peers.

I don’t remember mentioning Phil Gramm

Tell you what, apologist boy - I'll go through your blather post and shoot it down as well.

and by the way, Spitzer going after AIG’s ceo for no reason had more to do with their collapse than anything...you remember Spitzer dont you...A DEMOCRAT!

Uh, I was talking about the entire CDS fiasco, moron.

Loser!

Funny ... during the 2006 election exit polling, the leading issues voters had with the GOP was ... corruption.

So apologists like you for GOP transgressions are the real losers ... you helped the GOP lose the last two elections by not holding their feet to the fire.

And the consensus among the Tea Party types? They want the GOP to hold to values, not be Dem Lite. So if you want that energy harnessed by the GOP, the GOP needs to get their house in order, not just try to regain control of the public purse for their own agenda.

He also was responsible for NCLB and Medicare part D, but both have been successes.

The point is, the fedgov has NO PROPER AUTHORITY to do either. And Medicare was going broke as it was - and seniors are the wealthiest segment of the population. Bush was President - to claim the Dem proposals were worse ignores the fact that he could have VETOED any proposal coming across his desk, basically killing it. Instead, he didn't find his veto pen for spending until it was a Dem Congress spending the money.

So you have revealed yourself to be a RINO, not a conservative, with this very sentence. Since this is a conservative website, get lost. FR is about shrinking government, not doing a better job than the Dems in expanding it.

With Obama and the Democrats having shown their true colors on spending the last three years, it is time to quit trying to paint GWB and the Republicans spending as somehow the same.

And here is your strawman. NO ONE is doing that. NO ONE. However, conservatives expect the GOP to hold the line on spending increases. Instead, during Bush's two years, spending increased at the highest rate since LBJ - and discretionary spending rose at 27.7 percent his first term and at 29 percent his second term.

And the concluding line from that report:

But on big government spending, it was hard to see how a Democratic administration could be worse than the Bush administration’s eight years—until Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States.

We don't want the GOP to be merely ply less bad than the GOP. Neither does the larger public.

We were warned.

------

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

President George Washington, Farewell Address

In my opinion, there are three main things worth salvaging from the wreckage of the formerly grand old party:

1. The constitutionalist, personhood pro-life, peace through strength, moral conservative, Reaganites within it.
2. The Reagan pro-life plank, which recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb and their protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Their ballot access.

Since the Republican Party's leadership despises the first two, they don't deserve to control the third anyhow.

It only seems odd if you you haven't yet taken a close look at what we're actually doing, and therefore think we're like any other party that has ever been created in America. We're not. We're a meta-party, one that makes its political associations, all of them, based on a core set of American principles, not on mere party label.

Washington's wise words are one of the key premises of our work.

* Main Entry: meta-
* Variant(s): or met-
* Function: prefix
* Etymology: New Latin & Medieval Latin, from Latin or Greek; Latin, from Greek, among, with, after, from meta among, with, after; akin to Old English mid, mith with, Old High German mit

1 a : occurring later than or in succession to : after b : situated behind or beyond c : later or more highly organized or specialized form of
2 : change : transformation
3 [metaphysics] : more comprehensive : transcending —usually used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one

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.