Posted on 10/25/2006 4:21:32 PM PDT by goldstategop
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk to you for just a second about Republican Senate candidate Thomas Kean, Jr. in New Jersey. This is a brave man. This is a man who deserves your attention and your support. This is a man who in the midst of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, has demanded the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.
That's so courageous!
I was so moved when I heard this demand from this Republican. It's not many Republicans that have this kind of courage and have these guts -- and he wasn't through there! He then demanded the resignation of Speaker of the House Denny Hastert and any of the Republican leadership -- just off the top.
This is courage!
This is political leadership that the Republican Party has long needed! This is the kind of foresight, this is the kind of vision, this is the kind of independence that the Republican Party needs: to join with others in making sure that the Republicans in power quit. Few Republicans have the kind of guts here being exhibited by Republican senatorial candidate Tom Kean, Jr. in New Jersey, but then he did something yesterday that really impressed me and really demonstrated his bravery and his encourage under fire. Without being asked, folks, he issued a statement denouncing me over "press reports" he had heard -- he had not heard me; he had heard press reports -- regarding my reaction to the Michael J. Fox ad.
He said, "There's no reason for this in our politics, and I don't subscribe to it," and he wanted no part of it, and then spent a lot of last night trying to get himself invited on television shows to announce his distance from me. This is the kind of man we need in the United States Senate! I rarely see this kind of backbone and courage! This is a man whose two feet are firmly planted in the air. He will end up wherever he needs to end up to protect himself, and that's what we need in American politics is more self interest, more politicians and senators on the Republican side who care about themselves than they care about issues or their party or anything else. This is true independence, ladies and gentlemen! People like Tom Kean, Jr., may hold the key to Republicans securing that valued independent or moderate vote!
Thomas Kean, Jr.!
I sent his staff a note last night, to which I've not gotten a reply. I said, "I can certainly understand the panicked, reactionary and opportunistic stance of politicians and their seizing on any chance to distance themselves from what they think is harmful to them, but I thought you might want to see what a actually said on my program as opposed to what's being reported. Here's a link to my website. In the meantime let me know if you'd like me to endorse either you or Senator Menendez in my efforts to help the Republicans hold the majority in the United States Senate, which is not something you seem to be interested in yourself," and that's what we need. We need Republicans in the Senate who don't care about whether Republicans run the place. We need Republicans in the Senate like Thomas Kean, Jr. who have no interest in the party or causes or issues. We need the selfish self-interest of Tom Kean, Jr -- and so today, ladies and gentlemen, I, Rush Limbaugh, officially and proudly endorse Thomas Kean, Jr. for Senate in New Jersey.
Hmmmmm, well, y'know, hard-core conservatives DO present themselves for the Republican primaries up here in the Northeast. They really do. Republicans themselves, the voters, get to pick who will represent them in the general election. And they just don't pick the hardcore conservatives up here. They pick moderate-to-liberal Republicans, of the sort called "RINOs" and much despised elsewhere in the country.
There are a few issues on which MOST Republicans in the Northeast simply don't agree with Southerners and Mountain state folks.
Abortion is one. New England Republicans tend to be libertarian, not religious conservatives. There ARE men and women who present themselves, from time to time, in the primaries up here as pro-life, anti-abortion types. They lose, and don't make it on the ballot. They lose because most Northeastern Republicans are pro-choice. Most of them won't filibuster a pro-life federal judge - which makes them better for the conservative movement than a Democrat in the office, who will - but they represent their moderately pro-choice Republican voters. It's the way it is. I'm not making it up. Republican pro-lifers run up here, and they always lose in the primaries. Republicans up here don't vote for them, and aren't going to change their mind any more than Southerners are going to become pro-choice.
That's the biggest issue right there, isn't it?
Take Chris Shays, here in Connecticut.
He's pro-choice to the core.
He supports the War On Terror to the hilt.
He voted for the 700 mile border fence.
He's a RINO, because he's socially liberal.
Conservatives can challenge him, but they get no traction.
There are more pro-chice Republicans in Shays' district than pro-lifers. This is mirrored across the region.
Pick out for me the staunch pro-life, conservative Northeastern Republican in Congress.
Olympia Snowe? Lincoln Chafee?
Who?
The closest one is Santorum, in Pennsylvania, right on the Mason-Dixon line, who is struggling for his political life. Come a state north, and he'd have no chance at all.
There are fiscal conservative Republicans up here: Bloomberg and Giuliani stand out. But flat out Southern-style conservatives? There's no electorate for that.
All the Northeastern Republicans aren't "RINOs" by accident or conspiracy. That's the way people up here are.
I'm certain of it, because that's the way they always VOTE.
See Post 61.
The key differences between Southern Conservatives and Northeastern Republicans lie in social issues.
Northeastern Republicans are generally pro-choice and favor gay rights.
Southern Conservatives are pro-life and oppose gay rights.
Nobody is going to change his mind on that subject, because each is convinced he's morally right. Each is also convinced the other is morally wrong.
Best that Southern Conservatives can hope for from the Northeast is so-called RINOs who will caucus with the Republicans and not filibuster conservative judges the way that liberal Democrats will.
Northeastern "RINOs" do tend to support the War On Terror: that's a KEY distinction between them and Democrats.
Northeastern Republicans tend to favor the social state. They want it run efficiently; they do not want it dismantled.
Mayor Bloomberg of New York is the quintessential Northeastern Republican: pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-war, fiscally conservative, pro law-and-order.
Jeanine Pirro's another one.
Rudolph Giuliani.
Chris Shays.
All of them.
Except Lincoln Chaffee. He's further to the left and votes against the war and actually filibusters judges. Now HE really is a "Republican In Name Only" - he actually breaks with the Republican Caucus on key issues like Presidential judicial picks.
The rest of the Northeastern socially liberal Republicans are really Republicans, not just "Republicans In Name Only."
They do not agree that being pro-choice is a fundamental requirement to be a Republican. They think that is an issue on which Republicans can disagree.
Same thing with gay rights.
Southern Conservatives think that being a TRUE Republican is synonymous with being socially conservative. Northeastern Republicans completely reject that.
And given that the Republicans have no majority in Congress at all without Northeastern Republicans - and further given that Northeastern Republicans aren't going to choose anti-abortion or anti-gay-rights candidates - the RINO "problem" will continue to bedevil the party...if it is a problem.
Southern Conservatives just need to be satisfied with the fact that Northeastern Republicans don't filibuster conservative (pro-life) judicial choices. That's the "concession" you get out of the North, and it's really the key to the whole ball of wax, at least on abortion.
Why do you add the moniker "Southern"? That definition describes all conservatives. Conservatives are everywhere.
Abortions and Queers are not the only things that set conservatives (and not just southerners) apart from the statist, big government lovin, tax/borrow and spend, Liberal/Rockefeller/RINO/Rotten/Sneaky/Slippery/Super-Pragmatic, GovernMental/EnvironMental Republican phonies!!!
Conservatism isn't just about elections and voting and shallow politics! It's a philosophy, not just sophistry about government by whim!!! It's about we need a constitution to protect ourselves from the government by whim lovers with a bill of rights that works to protect productive conservative individuals, plus everybody else!!!
Sometimes it seems like folks like you and a whole bunch of others have just been totally unable to keep the lessons our founders and good leaders like Reagan instilled in such an inspiring way in our nation!!! Where does that go?
It's not surviving because people like you start this insidious rationalization about how people are, rather than talking up, promoting and seeking out those who have the leadership to get people to vote for conservatives and conservatism.
It's no wonder we begin to question if you and other FReepers who keep this rationalizing going on constantly and with such passion like you do, even have any love for conservative principles at all!!!
Conservatism isn't just about elections and voting and shallow politics! It's a philosophy, not just sophistry about government by whim!!! It's about we need a constitution to protect ourselves from the government by whim lovers with a bill of rights that works to protect productive conservative individuals, plus everybody else!!!
Sometimes it seems like folks like you and a whole bunch of others have just been totally unable to keep the lessons our founders and good leaders like Reagan instilled in such an inspiring way in our nation!!! Where does that go?
It's not surviving because people like you start this insidious rationalization about how people are, rather than talking up, promoting and seeking out those who have the leadership to get people to vote for conservatives and conservatism.
It's no wonder we begin to question if you and other FReepers who keep this rationalizing going on constantly and with such passion like you do, even have any love for conservative principles at all!!!
--
BumP That!
Quite a few of the aRnoids fit that to a tee. They just hang out here haranguing folks rather than foraging in other forums for votes.
Well put, Wasp, very well put.
Isn't Bloomberg the guy that raised taxes shortly after taking office? As to Giuliani, he also strikes me as a big-government kind of guy. What do you consider "fiscally conservative." It seems to differ from my definition--smaller government, reduced taxation, respect for property rights, non-government solutions to social issues, etc.
OMG I'm trying hard to supress that fear impulse!!! (I really don't 'THINK' it will happen that way)
Have faith, it's cheap and refillable too.. :-)
lol.. You don't even want to know what I'm thinking in the back of my mind if they won. :-o
Most of us hear that "small voice", Wasp, but at some point get so damn tired of the party-above-principle GOP/RNC loyalists that we simply can't take it any longer--voice or no voice. The transition point is probably different for each of us. At what point do we get so fed up that we resolve to shed the worse-than-RINOs baggage?
As for me, I am just about convinced there is no way to fix this without some pain. How wide and deep that pain will be remains an open question.
Better.
Kean is not only a Northeastern RINO, but a complete mediocrity. But all Rats in New Jersey are horrible. It's not a difficult choice.
I suppose Limbaugh wants Menendez to win.
The truth is that conservatives have never been in power and yet are taking the blame for their concessions to leftist policies (Arndroids take note; it's your future). The "punishment" from conservatives and upon conservative politicians is to turn the government over to leftists?
No, the real fix is to take control of the Republican Party. Our biggest, and only real beef in California is that the Party effectively canceled the gubernatorial primary and continues to screw conservative nominees. For that our local representatives should fry until they learn how to represent the people who do the footwork.
"No, the real fix is to take control of the Republican Party."
But how?
The Northeast is liberal. Republicans from the Northeast are good on national defense, and usually reasonably good on spending, but they're socially liberal, or at least libertarian. That's the only kind up in New England or the Mid-Atlantic states north of Pennsylvania.
Republicans don't have a majority without the Northeastern Republicans. It's not quite so simple for conservatives to just take over the whole GOP and impose policies. The Northeastern Republicans will rebel.
They won't follow.
And considering that so much of the MONEY base of the Republican party is up in the Northeast, it's not simply a matter of losing seats in Congress. It's also a matter of losing the financial underpinnings of the party.
No, the Republicans have to remain a bigger tent than true-blue conservatives are happy with.
It hasn't been all that bad for conservatives.
The judges are on the bench.
Taxes are lower (Northeastern money Republicans are ESPECIALLY keen on low taxes; THAT rocks their world!).
The war is getting fought.
The Mexican fence got authorized.
Conservative Republicans are getting most of most of their agenda. They're not getting all of it, of course, and they have to compromise with the liberal Republicans (like Specter and Snowe, and really all of the Republican Congressmen North and East of the Mason-Dixon line except Santorum, but that's not such a terrible disaster.
And, lest we forget, we've had two Connecticuters in the White House for 10 of the last 18 years. Bush fils speaks with a Texas twang, but he's from Greenwich and went to Yale and Andover, just like his daddy.
"No, the real fix is to take control of the Republican Party."
But how?
The Northeast is liberal. Republicans from the Northeast are good on national defense, and usually reasonably good on spending, but they're socially liberal, or at least libertarian. That's the only kind up in New England or the Mid-Atlantic states north of Pennsylvania.
Republicans don't have a majority without the Northeastern Republicans. It's not quite so simple for conservatives to just take over the whole GOP and impose policies. The Northeastern Republicans will rebel.
They won't follow.
And considering that so much of the MONEY base of the Republican party is up in the Northeast, it's not simply a matter of losing seats in Congress. It's also a matter of losing the financial underpinnings of the party.
No, the Republicans have to remain a bigger tent than true-blue conservatives are happy with.
It hasn't been all that bad for conservatives.
The judges are on the bench.
Taxes are lower (Northeastern money Republicans are ESPECIALLY keen on low taxes; THAT rocks their world!).
The war is getting fought.
The Mexican fence got authorized.
Conservative Republicans are getting most of most of their agenda. They're not getting all of it, of course, and they have to compromise with the liberal Republicans (like Specter and Snowe, and really all of the Republican Congressmen North and East of the Mason-Dixon line except Santorum, but that's not such a terrible disaster.
And, lest we forget, we've had two Connecticuters in the White House for 10 of the last 18 years. Bush fils speaks with a Texas twang, but he's from Greenwich and went to Yale and Andover, just like his daddy.
"Fiscally conservative" means that you don't run a budget deficit if you can help it, and you don't spend money on unneccessary services.
New York, by its nature, needs a lot of services: police, fire, schools, garbage, sewerage, etc. Let any one of them break down through neglect or lack of funding and you get, well, New York circa 1980, which was a city mired in crime and spinning out of control.
You have to spend money, a LOT of money, on basic infrastructure and government services for a place like New York City to be able to exist at all. The underfunded, underserviced version of New York would be someplace like Detroit, and the comparison is like heaven and hell.
So yeah, Bloomberg presides over an immense budget and an immense payroll. He's a fiscal conservative because he doesn't waste money on crap, but having identified what is NEEDED to keep New York City the Greatest City in the World, he tallies up the costs and insists that realistic taxation be applied which covers those costs, so that the city is not drowning in red ink and living on borrowed time.
That's fiscal conservatism.
"Fiscally conservative" means that you don't run a budget deficit, and you don't spend money on unneccessary services.
New York, by its nature, needs a lot of services: police, fire, schools, garbage, sewerage, etc. Let any one of them break down through neglect or lack of funding and you get, well, New York circa 1980, which was a city mired in crime and spinning out of control.
You have to spend money, a LOT of money, on basic infrastructure and government services for a place like New York City to be able to exist at all. The underfunded, underserviced version of New York would be someplace like Detroit, and the comparison is like heaven and hell.
So yeah, Bloomberg presides over an immense budget and an immense payroll. He's a fiscal conservative because he doesn't waste money on crap, but having identified what is NEEDED to keep New York City the Greatest City in the World, he tallies up the costs and insists that realistic taxation be applied which covers those costs, so that the city is not drowning in red ink and living on borrowed time.
That's fiscal conservatism.
It doesn't work to drone on about lower taxes, reduced regulation, privatization, and limited government when most of the people we need to reach see that pitch as having nothing to do with them. They see Republicans as rich white guys grumbling about paying taxes while Democrats offer a government job with a fat pension. Republicans supposedly don't care about the environment, schools, or to give the less fortunate a fair shake. Unless conservatives can explain in simple terms how our policies do a better job, the majority of people won't ever listen.
Unfortunately, explaining how freedom works isn’t easy. The word doesn't mean much to an inner city single mom with gang bangers for kids, a farm-worker sleeping in a car, or a student at one of our institutes of higher brainwashing. These people have credible reason to believe that they need public help in order to survive, mainly because they can't see next month's rent check or a way to take care of their kids in abstract talk about limited government.
And that's just the problem: Coercion is an easy political sale because it is such a simple concept: If you want somebody to give you what you want, just vote for candidates who will force other people to give it to you. By comparison, it's awfully hard to make a case for freedom to someone who is barely getting by, convinced they are powerless.
The problem with coercion is that it doesn't work, because people are very creative in avoiding compliance, making enforcement hideously expensive. The economy loses the productivity of both the supposed skinflint and the enforcer. It loses competitiveness versus less restrictive governance. Coercion simply costs society too much for it to work, even if it were capable of acting impartially (which it isn’t).
Which brings us to the other problem: not only is coercion inefficient, it is sufficient power to be power for sale. It is regulatory power to put one's competitors out of business, or preclude market entry by innovative new technologies. Corruption is nearly always destructive to capital formation. Thus, not only is regulatory coercion a waste of productivity and destructive to global competitiveness, it costs jobs for those who fall for its false promises while favoring those with sufficient money to buy political favors: the extremely wealthy.
The power to buy favors is of course, the real reason why we have limousine liberals, most of whom didn't personally build the foundations of their vast wealth much less understand how wealth is really created. Controlling the market with political money keeps them from having to compete in a free marketplace of competitive ideas. Coercion, while destructive to total wealth, is reliably profitable (for them).
It is thus no accident why coercive government is the province of the Democratic Party and Republican moderates, because in a democracy possessing coercive powers, all one has to do to control the marketplace is to control public opinion. That is why those same wealthy statist interests just so happen to control the mass media.
By contrast, conservatism's strongest political assets are in their appeal to individuals: the unapologetic desire to profit in business, while expressing consistent moral values of honesty and decency in personal conduct. If conservatives go negative, they MUST do so from a position of credible moral authority. Else they will end up feeding the leftist pitch that conservatives are pompous, mean-spirited rich white guys with few solutions to offer for the less fortunate.
As is always the case with support from the "vast middle" of the political spectrum, their commitment to any candidate is at best ephemeral. So unless conservatives offer truly compelling ideas, those voters will always have divided loyalties. If it is truly the intent of the GOP to take the party to the left, and ignore the base that supplies it its supposed principles, then it will become the party of "We're not the Democrats," thus allowing Democrats to set the agenda to over all political choices.
So, in order for conservatives to win that public debate, it is critical to develop understandable alternatives to liberal governance and show how they work.
So, why don't we solve that little problem?
As I said, it isn't easy. I've been working for five years to introduce free enterprise environmental solutions, and started out speaking to rooms full of blank stares. Criticisms come easy; learning to explain new ideas and how they work in simple terms takes time.
Each solution must be sold on its own, else the pitch becomes overwhelming. It takes a well organized message delivered in small pieces. That takes coordination. Thus the most important thing is to teach a comprehensive set of sound-bites to candidates to deliver that message. Teaching such messages to candates, whether edcucation, transportation, or the environment, is precisely what I'm doing. Coordinating that set of voices into a chorus is what Reagan did particularly well.
Remember that repetition of a consistent message is the one way to both sharpen that message and get people to adopt it as their own. Once that positive image of what conservative ideas can do is set in the minds of the public, a patient, clear, and rational exposition of the disaster that the Slave Party has visited upon the middle class will work to seal their fate. It is high time conservatives operated from the moral high ground rather than believe that half-compromises with archaic liberal programs represent a superior form of governance.
this seat may well decide who votes to organize the senate. Rush needs to just stay quiet.
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.