The Legacy of Compassionate Conservatism [Rush Limbaugh on the Campaign Reform SCOTUS fiasco]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121003/content/truth_detector.guest.html ^ | December 10, 2003 | by Rush Limbaugh

[Lazamataz]

The mainstream media is protected from the campaign finance law. Yes, Congress has limited the right to free speech of "We the People," but left the media's power intact. In fact, it's actually enhanced the media's power by letting them dominate the airwaves 30 to 60 days before an election.

But let me ask you a simple question: "If the Supreme Court can limit free speech today - under, I cannot believe, a GOP president, House and Senate - why can't it limit freedom of the press tomorrow? Once you amend the Constitution this way, anything goes!

Those who don't respect liberty - and by that I mean the left, these phony political reformers, most editorial pages and five Supreme Court justices - can't have it both ways. If the Constitution can be amended on the fly like this rather than through the 3/4ths majority in both houses of Congress and the states, then no aspect of the Constitution is safe from this kind of manipulation. All it's going to take is somebody in Congress to write a law saying, "We're going to put some regulations and restrictions on the broadcast and print media," and bingo...

Will that ever happen? No. The Congress is afraid of the media, but they are not afraid of you. Thus they felt free to pass a law taking away your most basic freedom: political speech. Why? What did you do wrong? Why, you corrupted the process! Yes, the way this ruling came down and the way the law was written, your rotten, dirty money is corrupting out courageous and brave elected officials. Why, as soon as they take a dime, they turn from angels into corrupt monsters! You're ruining their morals! So if you try to buy an ad, well, now there's a law to stop you rotten jerks!

I took some calls on this story, which you can hear below. These came from the same sort of people who were so sure Bush would veto the bill, or that the Supreme Court would overturn it, "So why fight it?" Frank in Auburn, Maine asked, "How long do you think it's going to be before we have a midnight session to overturn this in the Congress?" I gently told Frank that the very Congress that passed this abomination, and that is now insulated as incumbents from the annoying voices of you idiot voters, is not going to now right what it did. Hello?

They're overjoyed about this! So is the media - which debunks another caller's claim that the press would miss the ad revenue they'll lose from political ads. They'll still get the cash from all these other groups who've weaseled out of this law. This is worthy of more than a "whine," folks. After all, members of the House and Senate can easily get face time on TV. That's why I called this the "Incumbent Protection Act." This is a day of darkness, folks. We may as well be Hobbits, with dark cloaked figures looking for our rings.

Michael Barone, a brilliant guy, wrote the other day that this president is redefining conservatism from limited government to a government of choice and accountability. I disagreed with Mr. Barone for the first time in my life about something. Not only are we not advancing limited government, we are now limiting choice and accountability by restricting freedom of speech. We're not expanding anything that's conservative, here. We're not expanding liberty or expanding freedom - which is choice. That is the antithesis of what happened in the Supreme Court.

When all is said and done, when it comes to domestic issues, it looks to me like the legacy of the Republican control of Congress and the presidency for the first time in 50 years is going to be the largest entitlement in modern times, the greatest increase in domestic spending in modern times and one of the greatest set-backs for liberty in modern times. That's the legacy of Republican control of government. This may be "compassionate" conservatism, but it's not "conservatism" at all.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

The number of posts on this thread is now 98. I just did a search: No where is the ACLU (the alleged independent guardian of our free speech rights) mentioned in the commentary. I'm shocked, shocked.

[hchutch]

We are one justice away from overturning this monstrocity.

I think a lot of why this was driven was because conservatives have, for the most part, not had enough positions in the media and entertainment industries, and that allowed the Left to gain some very important tactical high ground. That needs to be changed. Both avenues influence people - and the people they influence often don't pay attention until the last month of a campaign.

There is more than one way to deal with this BS ruling until a reconsideration can be forced upon SCOTUS. I hope we are beyond the point where tactical disagreements are seen as sufficient reason to attack another person's commitment to reaching the ultimate goal.

[Starwind]

Why not demand of incumbents that if they want our vote in 2004, they overturn this law.

Instead of giving them our vote in advance of their presumed conservative actions, they should earn their next vote in advance of the election.

Personally, I would not give credence to the argument that 'we need 4 more years to fix this'.

Show me the conservatism.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Bush has "stolen" the liberal issues by adopting them. He is unable and unwilling to go to the wall for any nominee that the Rats oppose.

Exactly how is a Republican president with a Republican Congress who advances 90% of the liberal issues better than a Democrat president with a Republican Congress that opposes them?

If it weren't for the war on terror and the possiblity that 3 SC justices (two conservatives and O'Connor) would retire in the next 5 years, I would fire Bush.

[Lazamataz]

We are one justice away from overturning this monstrocity.

I wish I could believe you. The Justice Bush is likely to get on board the SCOTUS will probably be more of a David Souder than an Anton Scalia.

I think a lot of why this was driven was because conservatives have, for the most part, not had enough positions in the media and entertainment industries, and that allowed the Left to gain some very important tactical high ground. That needs to be changed. Both avenues influence people - and the people they influence often don't pay attention until the last month of a campaign.

Agreed. How do we get more Conservatives in the media? Fox News has been a dynamite success; how about in broadcast and entertainment?

There is more than one way to deal with this BS ruling until a reconsideration can be forced upon SCOTUS. I hope we are beyond the point where tactical disagreements are seen as sufficient reason to attack another person's commitment to reaching the ultimate goal.

I've refrained, so far, from attacking people as Bushbots or the like. It hasn't been easy, but I just fall back to reasoned debate no matter how personal they might become.

[little jeremiah]

Scalia is great - I'm picking this statement out:

It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national party use of soft money to fund issue ads that incumbents find so offensive."

I agree with you, Laz, and also that Rush is sharper than ever, the soft edges are *gone* and he's extra funny too.

I apprecitate his comments about sodomy is a protected act, and free speech isn't anymore. And his wondering about whether it's legal for candidates to get sodomized 60 days before an election?

[B Knotts]

Yep. That is why I will vote for Republican constitutionalists, not mere Republicans.

[Lazamataz]

Important article by Rush Limbaugh. This is a must-read.

[Lazamataz]

This is an exceptional piece by Mr. Limbaugh.

[Lazamataz]

Please read this well-written piece by Rush Limbaugh.

[proud American in Canada]

"one of the greatest set-backs for liberty in modern times."

bump to that!

We have got to work to get this repealed. There is an excellent idea in the original thread from yesterday announcing the news.

[proud American in Canada]

"If you are so partisan that all you care about is a slim and temporary edge in exchange for fundamental liberties, then you are absolutely no better than a Clintonista."

very, very well said.

[jjm2111]

But Bush signed the Godd*ammed bill. It wouldn't matter a whit what Sandy Day opined if GW didn't vote for it.

[Lazamataz]

A wonderful must-read by Rush Limbaugh.

[proud American in Canada]

" Why not demand of incumbents that if they want our vote in 2004, they overturn this law."

Congressman BillyBob is trying to get 1,000 people to add their names to a t.v. ad that he will buy (as a candidate), that will violate this law.

I believe we need to put the heat on all congressmen & senators up for re-election next fall who voted against CFR to put their money where their mouth is and do the same.

Next session, on the FIRST DAY in January, one of those congressmen should immediately introduce a bill to repeal CFR. I don't want any "promises to repeal if you vote for me in 2004"... if they're sitting members now, do it NOW.

And I would also like the President to come out firmly in support of such a law, since he broke his campaign promise in not vetoing CFR.

Can someone find/post a list of politicians who voted against CFR? WE can start to pressure them now.

I don't know how to organize this but I am going to get in touch with Senator McConnell today.


We have GOT to get this law repealed.

Like the waves on the ocean erode massive rocks, one grain of sand at a time, if we don't "stop the tide," so to speak, soon we'll have no Constitution left.

Sorry for the semi-mixed metaphor--I'm quite disturbed by this.

[proud American in Canada]

"Why not demand of incumbents that if they want our vote in 2004, they overturn this law.

Instead of giving them our vote in advance of their presumed conservative actions, they should earn their next vote in advance of the election.

Personally, I would not give credence to the argument that 'we need 4 more years to fix this'.

Show me the conservatism."

I just saw this... bump!

[DustyMoment]

"When leading politicians and the Supreme Court favor restricting peaceful political speech, it is clear that the Republic is dead and that those in power have no other interest beyond protecting their own power."

I disagree, the republic may be on life support today, but it is NOT dead. There are things we can do:
a) Write your Senators early and often and DEMAND that the first order of business of the new Congress next year is to repeal this odious POS law in its entirety.
b) Start writing President Bush and letting him know that if he does not begin applying pressure to have this law repealed first thing next year, there won't be an election in '04.
c) Withold any and all political contributions to any political party. This POS law had bipartisan support, it can get a bipartisan response from the voters.

We can (and will) take our country back and get this administration back on track. Many of us on this forum have expressed support for Bush but have also been dismayed by some of his decisions. Well, folks, the time for talk is over. It's time to act. Our very freedoms are at stake and the stakes could NOT be higher. We need to begin protesting EVERY political appearance and witholding every dime of political contribution to drive home our point.

Remember what Rush said about the SC's ruling: WE are responsible for corrupting our politicians by donating to their campaigns. If WE are responsible for it (and not the politicians) then WE need to make sure that they remain pure as the driven snow by NOT contributing to their campaigns.

By making this ruling, the SC has also violated the first rule of our system of government: innocent until proven guilty. In essence, by implying that WE are the cause of political corruption, the SC has tried and convicted us all. This is as repugnant as the ruling that limits our free speech rights.

If WE do nothing to force this law to be repealed, then we deserve what we get. A conservative at any price, if he brings with him a loss of freedom, is NOT worth the price. I like Bush as much as the next person here but, in light of some of his decisions (TSA, Dept. Homeland Security, CFR, steel tariffs, agriculture spending, medicare prescription bill, education bill) we may need to consider that, in Bush, we have a wolf in sheep's clothing. I also agree that in order to get Bush's attention, we might need someone like Rush to run as an alternative Candidate to Bush and shake him up.

If we take no action at all, Congress will be emboldened to write more laws like CFR that erode our freedoms.

Welcome to Cuba, ladies and gentlemen. Today is the first day of the rest of our lives in a 3,000 mile wide gulag.

[Lazamataz]

I am no longer convinced. Like the person who is repeatedly promised, and repeatedly denied, his promotion or raise -- I no longer believe when people say Republicans are the answer.

We were told all we needed was a Republican Congress. In came Newt's revolution. Yet freedoms kept being diluted.

We were told all we needed was a Republican White House. In came Dubya. Yet freedoms kept being diluted.

We were told all we needed was to give the Senate to the Republicans, and retain our hold on the House. We got that. Now they are overturning fundamental rights outright.

[international american]

"Will that ever happen? No. The Congress is afraid of the media, but they are not afraid of you. Thus they felt free to pass a law taking away your most basic freedom: political speech. Why? What did you do wrong? Why, you corrupted the process! Yes, the way this ruling came down and the way the law was written, your rotten, dirty money is corrupting out courageous and brave elected officials. Why, as soon as they take a dime, they turn from angels into corrupt monsters! You're ruining their morals! So if you try to buy an ad, well, now there's a law to stop you rotten jerks!"
This about says it all, does it not? This is the type of brilliant ascerbic wit that I remember from Rush in Sacremento in 1988. Thanks very much for the ping! This one is goin round the world!
Best, IA

[Valin]

Ok, now that we've all expressed our admiration for Rush and vented our spleen. Now what?

To get this started my suggetion, Start putting pressure on your local rep. and senator to undo this monstrosity. Everytime you see them, ask them, What are you going to do about this?
another idea, let them know that you are cutting back by 1/2 your contribution to them as a protest.

Pressure Pressure Pressure!