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.
Now if you could get them empowered though a non-corrupt funding source/mechanism to become affordably exposed to those with enough time and energy to act as missionaries.
I had Jehovah's Whitnesses trying to hand me tracts while on my morning constitutional walk this morning!!! I revolted instead of having my usual competitive conversation on my doorstep!!!
I like the mixture of religion and it's missionary zeal with solid conservative politics that retains an arms length between church and state!!! I know that's not what you are promoting, but it's just my personal preference.
It's also a useful conduit when you don't have your own resources and can remain somewhat uncorrupted for a time and dividing of times. Don't worry. These are just idle thoughts, to compliment your well thought out train of thought.
I would suggest that your definition is way too narrow. What you describe might be more appropriately defined as "fiscally responsible," the antonym being "fiscally reckless". By your definition, a "fiscal liberal" would be someone who promotes deficit spending. Frankly, I consider anyone in that category as simply unqualified, not liberal nor conservative.
You wrote: "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)."
The problem with this argument is obvious. You are asserting that what we already have, and have had since the New Deal, is "coercion".
And America since 1940 has worked splendidly.
We are dramatically more wealthy, and freer as a whole, than we ever were before the New Deal.
We live longer and are healthier.
So is Europe, which installed it's version of the New Deal after World War II.
So is Japan, which did the same thing.
The argument that the regulated free market economy with a strong social safety net "doesn't work" is belied by the fact that it HAS worked, everywhere, including here.
Reagan himself never even attempted to unravel the social safety net, and after talking a bit about Social Security reform swiftly came to the conclusion that the existing system needed to be protected.
That is the problem with the whole "conservative" line of thinking that wants to dismantle the regulatory state. The regulatory state has made us more stable, more prosperous, richer, more long loved, than the laisser-faire free market capitalism that preceded it. By a wide margin.
America is a lot more democratic and free today, too, than it was in the heyday of the unregulated free market.
Actually, ALL of the most advanced and prosperous economies GOT THAT WAY post-Depression and post-World War II with a strong regulatory state overlaid on a free market, and a strong social safety net. States without those things are not as prosperous. Even WITHIN the USA. You can't argue with success. That's the problem with the argument.
I agree with you: "Fiscally responsible" is a better term for Bloomberg, et al.
By your definition, though, the Bush White House and Congress are "fiscally reckless". I don't think you really want to fire them all, as your comment about the fiscally reckless would suggest.
They're fiscally reckless, but there's a war on which we have to win, and that is more important than mere money.
I agree that Rumsfeld should resign, because of his pantywaist, P.C. pathetic "skirmish on terror". We never took the gloves off, and I blame his sorry ass for it.
I wouldn't put the war in the "fiscally reckless" category. I might put the prescription drug program in that category though. ;-)
It was a hoot to watch, but by gum, he sure herded all them FL Seasoned Citizens with his act!!! There is so much, maybe way too much theatrics in politics these days!!!
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.