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]

Left? Sounds like you might have been asked to leave.

So you just make sh*t up out of whole cloth. Neat.

Besides making stuff up, what do you do for a living?

[Lazamataz]

So, you won't answer what you do for a living. You are ashamed?

[woodyinscc]

The Bill will be changed, and it will be initiated by the dims. Besides being a horrible decision by the SCOTUS, it is an incumbent protection Bill, and the last time I looked, we hold the WH, the House and the Senate. The dims were using the issue against President Bush at the time, and the press was relentless, as they were a prime benefactor. The dims will have to wake up and smell the coffee, this is not a partisan issue anymore, and if the R's play their cards right, it will help us get our Judges.!

[streetpreacher]

Thanks for the ping.

Yes, it appears the GOP gambled and lost. Bigtime. Congress and the President understood the right action to take, and they decided to forgo that in favor of the expedient. Perhaps now they'll realize that gambling on some things is okay, but the Constitution is not one of them.

Gut level reaction? Anybody who thinks that it is okay to gamble with the Constitution on one of the key provisions, lacks the foresight or maturity to be President of the United States.

And enough of this tripe that Bush is not responsible?!! The man has never met a veto that he liked! I am outraged at this travesty... I was shocked at this decision, though I shouldn't have been! Our beloved "Republican" president just resided over the demise of the Republic! If I hear anymore Ronald Reagan comparisons, I think I'm going to puke!

And for the record, I have been a staunch supporter of this president from day one... that support is rapidly fading... and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[aristeides]

As you say, it's an incumbent protection bill, and the Republicans now hold the White House and majorities in both Houses of Congress (and therefore a majority of incumbents.) I hope they don't conclude it is therefore in their interest not to repeal the ad ban.

[Fledermaus]

Re assault weapons, I see no need for them, but believe in the right to bear arms...I just don't think our forefathers foresaw assault weapons.

I'd like to see your definition of an "assault weapon" because the definition in the federal "ban" isn't correct.

[Lazamataz]

I'd like to see your definition of an "assault weapon" because the definition in the federal "ban" isn't correct.

We got us a wishy-washy "The Second Amendment NEEDS to be limited" big-government-is-good-if-Dubya-does-it type here, fleder. :^/

[John Lenin]

Before everybody jumps off the bridge over Bush signing CFR remember that the RATS were hurt more than the GOP with this bill. Do you honestly think Rove would allow W to sign something detrimental to his own re-election ?

[Aquinasfan]

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.

This has been going on since WWII, at least. Things are just becoming worse.

[woodyinscc]

Like I say, if the R's play their cards right, they can take this to the people, and we can get our Judges. Heck the ACLU will be on our side, how can they not be?

[Aquinasfan]

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.

I voted for Keyes, and I'd like to say "I told you so," but I didn't think it would be this bad.

[Lazamataz]

Before everybody jumps off the bridge over Bush signing CFR remember that the RATS were hurt more than the GOP with this bill. Do you honestly think Rove would allow W to sign something detrimental to his own re-election ?

That should not be the point. It's not about who wins, when the Constitution is abrogated. There will always be a winner and a loser when powers are seized.

I really don't care if Republicans have a slight, fleeting edge. In the long run, we -- free men and women under a Bill of Rights -- lose.

[swarthyguy]

MARK.

[Lazamataz]

I hate you Islamics. ;^)

[John Lenin]

As Scailia said this battle is not over. What can we do if the Supreme Court is loaded up with liberals ? It was the libs on the court who voted this in. Did you really want to hear more from the raving lunatic McCain bashing Bush and the media using him like the useful idiot that he is ?

[RinaseaofDs]

Sorry, but GWB signed it. That is something for which he is going to have to take personal responsibility.

I'll say this on top of it. ONLY GWB CAN FIX THIS. He's on record saying that he didn't agree with the bill, he ran saying that if you vote for him, he'd oppose it, and then he signed it. He should now apologize for having this get so out of hand, and take steps to set it right.

If you call that bashing, sorry. He can fix it today by saying, "I made a huge mistake. I passed the buck, and now I have to fix it. I'm submitting a bill rolling back the 60 day and 30 day rule. There is nothing constitutional about it, and I should have vetoed the bill in the first place. I didn't because I felt like half a loaf was better than no loaf at all, and I actually believed the SCOTUS would never see that the law would pass constitutional muster. I was obviously wrong, and I can't allow this to stand as written."

He's not going to say it, but I think every conservative wants him to. It would show incredible integrity and personal accountability that is absent most politicians.

If you think that is Bush bashing, then I have to ask you where you draw the line? What is the difference between you and the Eleanor Clifts of the world that would back Clinton if he started rounding up people and gassing them in camps.

What is the difference, to you, between criticism and 'bashing'?

Look, I think Clinton was evil personified, and I think he set us back in ways we can't even appreciate, but do you actually believe he would have signed this law? Even his basest instincts would have told him that, tactically, this is bad for him and his party for all the fundraising reasons.

Leave aside any imputed respect he has for the Constitution, he would have killed this for all the wrong reasons and come out ahead of GWB on this one.

Historically, they will go back and say, "It all started with them ramming through CFR in 03 after Enron, and Bush not wanting to veto it, signed it and counted on the law to be hammered by the SCOTUS. After that the 2nd amendment fell, then the 5th - all amended by SCOTUS. That same year, in 2003, SCOTUS basically told the states that it couldn't make laws regarding what someone could or could not do in their bedroom. Well it only took another 15 years for both polygamy and beastiality to be protected by the constitution. Gay marriage is now more common than straight marriage, since the issues that were plaguing fathers in the family court system couldn't apply to same sex marriages - parties were on roughly equal footing from the standpoint of traditional 'gender victim' roles. . ."

You save this and then take a look at things in 2013, and if I'm wrong I will buy you an excellent bottle of wine, very gladly I might add.

[woodyinscc]

I am firmly convinced, that McCain would have become an Independent, like Jeffers. He will never forgive Bush for his defeat in South Carolina.

[Lazamataz]

Did you really want to hear more from the raving lunatic McCain bashing Bush and the media using him like the useful idiot that he is?

Given the choice between hearing McCainiac screech, or watching the Bill of Rights being gutted, I'll take McCainiac.

[M. Thatcher]

You really ARE here all the time.

Yes, Grasshopper - but what is time?

[woodyinscc]

I'm submitting a bill rolling back the 60 day and 30 day rule. There is nothing constitutional about it, and I should have vetoed the bill in the first place.

This is exactly what he should do, it is a win win win situation. It would show integrity and character, it would highlight the idiotic thinking of the activist Judges, and it might just b---h slap Sandra Day O'Connor into retiring.