RUSH LIMBAUGH LIVE THREAD, WEDNESDAY August 23, 2006

Reuters

[angcat]

SOME WEDNESDAY SPIN! Most in US see no tie between Iraq, terror war: poll Tue Aug 22, 10:29 PM ET A majority of Americans no longer see a link between the war in Iraq and Washington's broader anti-terrorism efforts despite President George W. Bush's insistence the two are intertwined, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Tuesday. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said the war in Iraq was separate from the U.S. government's war on terrorism. The findings were a considerable shift from polls taken in 2002 and early 2003, when a majority considered the two to be linked, The New York Times said. As recently as June, opinion was evenly split, with 41 percent on both sides of the divide. Now only 32 percent considered Iraq to be a major part of the fight against terrorism, the newspaper said. According to the poll, 46 percent said the Bush administration had concentrated too heavily on Iraq and not enough on terrorists elsewhere. Fifty-three percent said going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July, The New York Times said. Bush's approval ratings remained unchanged at 36 percent. His popularity has been damaged by the unpopular war in Iraq, in which the U.S. military death toll is 2,610. As recently as Monday, Bush defended the invasion of Iraq as crucial to preventing more domestic terror attacks. "If you believe that the job of the federal government is to secure this country, it's really important for you to understand that success in Iraq is part of securing the country," Bush said during a news conference. The unpopularity of the Iraq war has many Republicans nervous about the party's chances in the November midterm elections in which Democrats are seeking to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The Times/CBS News poll of 1,206 adults was conducted Thursday through Monday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[HonestConservative]

Afta' nooon, Sensei

[TexasPatriot8]

I guess it would depend on how liberal the Democrat was. Giuliani isn't even as conservative as Benator Nelson, the Democrat. It would be the choice between a Democrat liberal, and a Republican lib-lite RINO. With Giuliani as President, the liberal social agenda will receive no opposition from the White House. And that will create a Republican minority in the Congress in 2010 because MILLIONS of REAL conservatives like me will be so disgusted with the GOP abandonment of the party plank by Giuliani, they just won't vote. I guess if I had to I'd vote for Giuiani to defeat a Kerry or Gore or Clinton type. But I'd be disgusted afterwards that I just voted for a RINO that doesn't reflect the conservative majority. I'd just as soon not vote than vote third party because it's a wasted vote.

But how about you? Would you vote for a moderate Democrat (if there was such a thing anymore), just because he supported the war, and vote against a REAL conservative Republican like Senator Allen or Congressman Tancredo or Newt Gingrich? How about you??? Are you a RINO, or a conservative Republican? Because most most Republicans are conservatives, and Giuliani is a RINO. It's just that simple.

[HonestConservative]

I don't agree with him, but I understand.

[StoneWall Brigade]

ohhh yeah Rush is going off

[sono]

Sheryl and I watched Rudy Giuliani tonight on Hannity & Colmes and were impressed. The two hosts, both of whom rate way up on the blowhard platitude scale, seemed to keep their mouths relatively shut for once, sensing they were in the presence of man with a certain amount of real, even good-humored, gravitas.

As of now, Giuliani appears to be leading in the polls for the Republican nomination and for the presidency. But every time I post about that, a number of people, usually more traditionally conservative types, jump on here to point out how Rudy will never win the nomination, that his views on abortion, gay rights, etc. are too liberal or that his private life (as opposed to JFK's, FDR's, Eisenhower's, etc. ad nauseum) is too louche for the Republican faithful.

Well, I have to say to those commenters, with all due respect, get over yourselves. If today's events have taught us anything - and I think most of us already knew it - we are, alas, only at the beginning of the Global War Against Islamofascism. More than ever we need a wartime leader capable of uniting as much of the country behind him as possible. For whatever his pluses and minuses, Bush has been weak in that regard. Giuliani seems to have more abilities in that direction, although that is not to say it will be remotely easy for him. But as of this moment, there is no one else but Rudy with the vitae and the charisma to do it.

And as we also all know, all those other issues that people clutch to their bosoms like so many sacred icons - from the economy to stem cell research - pale by comparison to the victorious resolution of this war. In fact, if we don't succeed, they are all completely and forever irrelevant.

www.rogerlsimon.com

[Pyro7480]

You forgot a word: a RINO Italian New Yorker.

[RasterMaster]

It was a DUmocrat caller...more than likely a union goon.

[Pyro7480]

I love it when Rush gets like this. :-)

[StoneWall Brigade]

me too

[StoneWall Brigade]

yup

[HonestConservative]

And being Italian means what, with all love and respect?

[StoneWall Brigade]

i respect your views but i look at records and not what people say period.

[TexasPatriot8]

I can't believe I'm even having this argument with a Republican. If a RINO like Giuliani gets the nomination for President just because he supports the war, which ALL real conservatives do just as well, then the GOP has sold out to the RINO minority. I mean, Giuliani hasn't said anything profound about the war. He supports what REAL conservatives have been doing to prosecute the war. Giuliani hasn't done anything about the war that all the real conservatives haven't been doing for five years. The only reason he's so talked about as a GOP Presidential contender in 08 is because the liberal media knows good and well that Giuliani is a social liberal that disagrees with the key social conservative issues that created the GOP Majority in the 90s in the first place so the Media loves him. He's a RINO. It's so clear and obvious. Lord help us. If the Republican voters choose Giuliani just because he's a the one Republican media darling other than McCain who supports the war, and he becomes President just because he's one of the few RINO war supporters, while abandoning the key traditional social issues that make the GOP what it is, it will be the biggest case of buyers remorse in the years following the 2008 election in recent history. For that to happen, tens of millions of real conservatives will have to forget about the values that they hold so dear, and vote for a man who they know opposes them on those important issues. And there is no evidence to support that premise.

[Pyro7480]

I wasn't the one who said that originally. Angcat did. I was just modifiying. But you ask a valid question.

[paulat]

You obviously have never had a serious health problem. I have had seven surgeries for breast cancer.

Rush is totally out-of-touch.

Also...does he even have a clue how much obstetric care costs?

I'm gettting sick of his golf club mentality.

[ChicagoConservative27]

I bet that caller and his kids have cell phones and other crap, like Rush said.

[angcat]

It's true how much cable TV is in his house. Give up the non-essentials and he probably could pay his bills.

[Pyro7480]

He's right though that it's the government tinkering and inaction on the illegals that is causing a major problem in health care.

[StoneWall Brigade]

ohhhhh please give me a break

[KevinDavis]

No, he is telling the truth....