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.

[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.