Posted on 10/27/2005 10:03:31 AM PDT by Ben Mugged
Rush Limbaugh began his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday with an interesting spin on the news of Harriet Miers withdrawal from Supreme Court consideration.
Limbaugh turned his attention not to Miers, President Bush or his own largely conservative radio audience, but rather, to liberal politicians in Washington D.C.
"Pity the poor liberals, Limbaugh said. "They all bought new suits and ties and got ready for the cameras today thinking that CIA Leak indictments were coming down and they would get to talk about it on TV. Instead WHAMO! Harriet Miers withdraws her nomination and the liberals are having a conniption.
~snip~"Liberals have to learn that there is no extreme right wing, he said. "There is a conservative movement and these are the people who are the majority in America, and they elected President Bush. Limbaugh said people such as Senators Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Diane Feinstein and Reps. Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi must be having fits over this news.
"The conservative movement today showed its size, Limbaugh said. "This is an illustration of what the Left faces and they know it. They are scared to death and already talking about filibusters again.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
This president has all the courage he needs to get his job done. But he's also a realist. He just can't decide something and have it so. The founding fathers made certain that the different branches had to negotiate with each other to get what they wanted. President Bush knows what he's up against in the legislature. Personally, I think that Reid played him for a fool. I doubt that he will be seriously consulted the next time around.
You're right about the drift in meaning of the word "liberal" -- and probably will be right about the other terms.
The notion of a "left-right" spectrum in politics is misleading in its simplicity. Politics is not two-dimensional. In any "first-past-the-post" electoral system, successful political parties are colitions, rather than expressions of a coherent ideology. All the more so in the U.S., where there can only be one President.
Similarly, there is no one-to-one mapping of "liberal" to "Democrat", nor "conservative" to "Republican" (different names -- same principles in Canada). As the ingredients in a winning colation change over time; so too will the meanings of all the convenient labels we attach to the parties and driving ideologies.
(great graphic from Slings and Arrows - FReeRepublic)
Ping -- it fit right in! Thanks!
I sincerely hope Bush challenges the gang of 14 and gets Brown or another strong conservative confirmed. It would be the best that could happen.
Thank you very much - I'm flattered.
He only has to deal with seven Republicans. Make that six because McCook doesnt count. Make that five because Graham can be had for a "nickle". The Dimorats are never going to do anything to help Bush or America so they do not count.
He probably stole the analysis from Cubby Hannity...
I just watched Brit Hume and Fred Barnes just said everything almost word for word of what I posted in post 31
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.