Posted on 11/08/2006 4:50:12 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Republicans lost control of the House, and perhaps the Senate, because they abandoned their conservative principles and in the end stood for nothing, Rush Limbaugh said today.
In his Wednesday broadcast, America’s top talker said that until Republicans begin asking themselves what’s wrong with themselves they are never going to fix their problems.
When things go wrong, Rush said, "you must look inward and ask first, ‘What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes did we make?”
Commenting that although Republicans lost, "Conservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night.”
The Democrats, he said "beat something last night with nothing. They advanced no agenda other than their usual anti-war position. They had no contract — they really never did get specific. Their message was one of ‘vote for us; the other guys have been in power too long.’”
Rush further admonished, "There was no dominating conservative message that came from the [Republican] top and filtered down throughout in this campaign.”
He added that if there was conservatism in the campaign, it was on the Democratic side: "There were conservative Democrats running for office in the House of Representatives and in a couple of Senate races won by Democrats yesterday.” He cited James Webb as an example.
He also said it was conservatism that won fairly big when it was tried yesterday, but it was Democrats who ran as conservatives and not their GOP rivals. He added that the Democratic leadership had gone out and recruited conservative candidates because they knew liberals could not win running against Republicans in red states.
Rush quoted Thomas Sowell as explaining that the latest example of election fraud is actually what the Democrats did — they nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative candidates for the express purpose of electing a far-left Democratic leadership.
"The Democrats could not have won the House, being liberals,” Rush said. "Liberalism didn’t win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost. Conservatism was nowhere to be found except on the Democratic side.”
The root of the problem, Rush said, is that "our side hungers for ideological leadership and we’re not getting it from the top. Conservatism was nowhere to be found in this campaign from the top. The Democrats beat something with nothing. They didn’t have to take a stand on anything other than their usual anti-war positions. They had no clear agenda and they didn’t dare offer one. Liberalism will still lose every time it’s offered.”
Republicans, Rush said, allowed themselves to be defined. "Without elected conservative leadership from the top Republicans in the House and Senate republicans are free to freelance and say the hell with party unity.”
That leads, Rush said, to the emergence of RINOs — Republicans in name only.
Republicans in Congress, Rush explained, were held captive by the party’s leadership in the White House. They were put into a position of having to endorse policies with which as conservatives they disagreed.
"The Democratic Party,” Rush went on to say, "is the party of entitlements; but the Republicans come up with this Medicare prescription drug plan that the polls said that the public didn’t want and was not interested in. That is not conservatism. Conservatives do not grow the government and offer entitlements as a means of buying votes. But that’s what the Republicans in Congress had to support in order to stay in line with the Party from the top.
"It is silly to blame the media; it is silly to blame the Democrats; it is silly to go out and try to find all these excuses,” Rush said. "We have proved that we can beat them … we have proved that we can withstand whatever we get from the drive-by media. Conservatism does that — conservatism properly applied, proudly, eagerly, with vigor and honesty will triumph over that nine times out of 10 in this current political and social environment. It just wasn’t utilized in this campaign.”
Rush also blamed the failure to embrace conservatism on Republican’s fear of being criticized from those in the so-called establishment. Republicans, he charged, go out of their way to avoid being criticized, fearing they will be characterized as extremists and kooks.
As a result conservatism gets watered down, and the GOP loses the support of the nation’s conservative majority Rush stated.
Anything can beat nothing, Rush concluded, "and it happened yesterday.”
Lake Eufala territory. I spent a long while in McAlester for the US Army and came to appreciate the serious lack of anything other than Wal-Mart shopping.
But rattlesnakes....they grow 'em big down there.
And fish....the same.
No, it'll be someone we don't suspect, possibly someone most of us aren't aware of. How many were aware of Perot when he first showed up on the scene? He can be manufactured and manipulated.
Why don't you find and paste right here the post where I said libertarians and strict constructionists were too insignificant to worry about.
I can wait till you find it.
Somehow, Rush admitting that he's been "spinning" to us for 2 years really doesn't make me feel any better.....
"Somehow, Rush admitting that he's been "spinning" to us for 2 years really doesn't make me feel any better....."
Of course you are correct but I would say that the first step towards fixing the problem is recognizing it as such.
I certainly hope that I "do well to quote you", because I can honestly say that I have always believed that your approach to War is correct (or at least as "correct" as War ever can be). And you are also correct in saying that you have maintained your Argument consistently from Day One; you are the One Honest Arminian, as I have always admitted.
I reserve the right to disagree with your "Sherman's March" analogy (I personally believe that Lincoln was possibly the worst of all American Presidents, and Sherman was a War Criminal), but I agree with your sentiments as I understand them -- if War must be Done, let it be Done quickly.
They will also find me saying that there is nothing "morally or logically wrong" with Pres. Bush's desire to build a democratic state in Iraq. I followed that: (1) I voted for him, (2) That he gets to set the policy, and that (3) I'd add my support.... That's the way it works with commanders and kings, and a Cdr in Chief is owed that.
Yes, you have said that "there is nothing 'morally or logically wrong' with Pres. Bush's desire to build a democratic state in Iraq".
There is also nothing "morally or logically wrong" with a desire to transmute Lead into Gold, or a desire to transmogrify Farts into Perfume, for that matter.
There's nothing wrong with the desire, philosophically.... it just Can't Be Done.
President Bush can desire Democracy for anyone he damn well pleases... as long as every Sunni, Shi-ite, and Kurd tribe in Iraq is engaged in revenge-killings against eachother, as they have been for 1,000 years and it's only getting worse, "Democracy" is a fool's errand. A fool's errand costing the Republic thousands of Dead Americans, tens of thousands of Wounded Americans coming home with their limbs blown off, and hundreds of billions of dollars in new Deficits, new Debts, on top of the Trillions that Bush Junior has already Bankrupted the Nation's future.
Now, what would I do at this point? The time is past for us to break things in Saudi, Yemen, Pakistan, and Egypt. We might be able to justify a foray of sorts into government overthrow in Iran and Syria.
SIX MORE WARS?!?! Respectfully, Xzins, that is insanity. Are 3,000 Dead and 20,000 Wounded not enough? Are Half-Trillion Dollar Deficits not enough, with the U.S. Government literally BANKRUPT thanks to Bush Junior's spending and the American Consumer nearly bankrupt as well? And now, six more Wars? How much MORE Blood and Treasure must the Republic spend?!
No, I say. NO.
"Go in, Cuss, Break some Stuff, and then LEAVE." We must either Leave Now... or else End it Now. I could tolerate either option, as long as it means that we bring the Troops home by Christmas, and go back to the Old Republic ("no entangling alliances").
In only one major world religion does geography have fundamental consequences.
There is one target with such enormous strategic importance that for it be taken out is so unthinkable that literally everything hinges on it – not just today, but permanently. This target is ground zero of a balance of power strategy that has been operational for 1400 years. It is a granite cubicle called the Kaaba. Inside it is a black stone, which Muslims believe was found by Abraham and Ishmael. For hundreds of millions of Muslims, this is the holiest of relics. If these two religious objects inside Mecca were ever obliterated, the survival of Islam might be called into question... That would make The Bomb more powerful than Allah.
~~ (Gary North, "Nuclear Agates in a Marbles World")
Orthodox Presbyterian Gary North just recently put into words what this Orthodox Presbyterian, yours truly, has been saying since September 12, 2001 (check my cites that far back, if you want).
END IT, NOW and FOREVER... or else go home.
I'm Anti-War. End the War. If Islam must be destroyed forever as a World Religion in order to accomplish that... Well, as long as US Troops can come home to their families without having to spend one more damn week in Iraq, I'm okay with that.
D'oh.
Sorry, we'all was in Southwestern Oklahoma.
Like I said, Quartz Mountains (rising out of the flat-earth Wheat and Cotton country like an unexpected blessing); but I mis-typed the directions.
Try "Lake Altus" territory. My bad. (humph)
[]
SIX MORE WARS?!?! Respectfully, Xzins, that is insanity. Are 3,000 Dead and 20,000 Wounded not enough? Are Half-Trillion Dollar Deficits not enough, with the U.S. Government literally BANKRUPT thanks to Bush Junior's spending and the American Consumer nearly bankrupt as well? And now, six more Wars? How much MORE Blood and Treasure must the Republic spend?!
I concur entirely.
If Islam must be destroyed forever as a World Religion in order to accomplish that...
That would be an atrocity of unbelievable depravity. I would, quite frankly, seek to overthrow anyone who did this in any but the most extreme need.
It is an act of "unbelievable depravity" to destroy the False Idols of an Enemy in self-defense?
Since Osama Bin Laden has declared a Religious War upon the Christian West, the Magistrates of the Christian West should act according to the Laws of Christian Chivalry, and -- Rather than seek to overthrow Muslim Nation-States and murder hundreds of thousands of Muslim Civilians in "Total War" Counter-Attacks as we have done -- we ought to respond with a Religious Counter-Attack. A period of Three Days Grace, during which we advise all Muslims to evacuate Mecca and Medina, should be sufficient. After that, let Mecca and Medina be erased from the Earth forever, that all Muslims may know that Mohammed is a False Prophet.
Remember, if you will, that Judicial Israel, as dictated to the Israelites by God Himself, was very probably the most ANARCHIST-LIBERTARIAN Government ever established amongst the Sons of Men -- there was no Executive Branch at all (save God Himself). There was no Legislative Branch at all (save God's Law). The Judicial Branch, which was the whole of "Government" such as it was, depended upon Community Affirmation and Community Enforcement. Even the Taxes were purely Voluntary, a matter of faith and devotion.
And even in this most anarchistic state of Theonomic Libertarianism, God commanded His People to destroy the False Idols of their Enemies for their own self-defense -- "to Cut off their Hope, and remove their lines from the Earth" (Rev. Steve Schlissel)
I am an ANTI-WAR THEONOMIC LIBERTARIAN.
I am Against War, for God's Law, and for Liberty.
I want the Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan home by Christmas.
If False Idols must be destroyed, so be it. I am a Theonomic Libertarian... and so, I would happily burn down a THOUSAND False Idols with Nuclear Fire, rather than send one more American kid off to a bloody useless war.
Call that "unbelievable depravity" if you will, Friend Jude. I call it: BIBLICAL LIBERTARIANISM, Book of Judges-style.
Best, OP
You are being niggardly with your logic.
He seldom is, IMO. I also think the Republicans had too much disarray, infighting, and self-styled "independence" -- for which read "stupid prima donna tendencies" (McCain, of course, but he ain't the only one)!
Idols, no. Innocent civilians? Absolutely.
# Since Osama Bin Laden has declared a Religious War upon the Christian West, the Magistrates of the Christian West should act according to the Laws of Christian Chivalry, and -- Rather than seek to overthrow Muslim Nation-States and murder hundreds of thousands of Muslim Civilians in "Total War" Counter-Attacks as we have done -- we ought to respond with a Religious Counter-Attack. A period of Three Days Grace, during which we advise all Muslims to evacuate Mecca and Medina, should be sufficient. After that, let Mecca and Medina be erased from the Earth forever, that all Muslims may know that Mohammed is a False Prophet.
At least for now, Osama Bin Laden is sort of the Jack Chick of Islam - he uses propaganda which recruits only those who are already psychologically predisposed towards violence. Islam is incidental to their sociopathy. As it stands now, the overwhelming majority of Muslims have no desire to wage jihad against the United States. Even in Iraq, the bulk of the insurgents only want us out of there. They have only the most tenuous relations with the (foreign) crazies who are there to die for jihad. (Most of the Al Queda and affiliated crazies are using suicide bombs which attack American and Iraqi alike. As such, Al Queda is actually less popular in Iraq than we are. Most of our casulties are sustained in the course of IED attacks by people who believe - for secular reasons - they are repelling an American occupation.)
Theoretically, if we were engaged in a war against Islam, I'd have no problem with taking out their sacred shrines. We are not, however, engaged in a war against Islam any more than the British Crown was engaged in a war against Catholicism simply because the IRA terrorists were Catholic. Would you advocate nuking the Vatican to humiliate the IRA?
Additionally, were we to take out Mecca and Mediana, I assure you - this would become a war on Islam. We would no longer be fighting a few mentally disturbed sociopaths and their brainwashed acolytes. Instead, we'd be fighting every Muslim man, woman, and child old and strong enough to hold a gun - and probably most of the rest of the civilized world. That is a fight we could not win, and one we should not use.
And even in this most anarchistic state of Theonomic Libertarianism, God commanded His People to destroy the False Idols of their Enemies for their own self-defense -- "to Cut off their Hope, and remove their lines from the Earth" (Rev. Steve Schlissel)
With all due respect to Rev. Schlissel, we are not in the same position as Israel. Israel had an explicit divine mandate to exterminate the surrounding nations. We have no such mandate.
Finally, you ignore the doctrine of proportionality. Christian theologians have always believed that war is the lesser evil when it is utilized to prevent some sort of injustice from proceeding. That can only be true when the means used are roughly proportionate with the evil threatened. No one has actually obliterated our civilians. We don't want to be the first person to throw that punch.
I think because he supported Specter. JMHO, real conservatives were very angry and I imagine they wondered if Santorum's conservatism went down to the bone or was just a convenienc because if you're a rock, solid conservative, and I mean conservative and not Republican, how can you support Specter?
I think Allen lost because he put his foot in his mouth and never came up with a coherent explanation or apology.
I can see that this sentence could be read, "It's long past time we get this started."
But, it can also (English is so funny) be read, "It's past time and we've lost the bubble for it ever to be started."
I meant the latter and not the former.
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.