Replies

As you can see, I'm not running anywhere, whiner. I'm right here. I've been debating you for the last eleven days. For the umpteenth time, you don't like what your hearing. You've been dodging the truth and the facts. The truth and the facts don't sway you. That makes you a malcontent, and a big mouth loser too boot. Nuff said.

You obviously don't like hearing the truth from me. So lets post what Rush Limbaugh and his brother David Limbaugh had to say about the election outcome. Maybe this will sway you and relieve your rockheadedness.

The antidote for what ails the Republican Party and the nation today is not to surrender to the destructive policies of the Democratic Party. But in the next few years, conservatives need to resurrect a defining, unifying message, which might result in some realignments. The guiding philosophy should be Reagan conservatism applied to today's set of similar (and different) problems. As the elections proved, Republicans cannot rely on the Democrats' bankruptcy to bail them out -- and they shouldn't.
--- "GOP: Back to the Basics" by David Limbaugh, November. 13, 2006

When things go wrong, you must first look inward. You must ask, "What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes did we make?" It would be foolish at this stage to start assigning blame either to the media or to liberals or Democrats or the voters or the American people. I'm not going to fall into the trap that the liberals and Democrats fall into every time they lose an election and start blaming everybody else. Republicans lost last night but conservatism did not, and that is, to me, one of the fundamental elements of last night's results. Conservatism did not lose; Republicans lost last night.
--- "Republicans Lost, But Conservatism Did Not" by Rush Limbaugh, November. 8, 2006

"For the umpteenth time, you don't like what your (sic) hearing. You've been dodging the truth and the facts. The truth and the facts don't sway you." For the umpteenth time, please tell me what "truth" I've dodged? Please cite for me what "truth" I have denied. I've asked you repeatedly to cite specifics and all you do is dodge. For the umpteenth time, please answer my specific questions beyond, "He did it as a last resort". How did he appoint O'Conner "as a last resort"? That is not a "fact" -- that is a cop-out. For the umpteenth time, please explain to me how Bush "ignored" conservatives when he jumped through hoops to please them on the Supreme Court (appointing more far more conservative judges than Reagan's O'Conner), the Dubai ports and the fence legislation. Explain to me how "clear" the message was when Santorum lost and Bush was allegedly punished despite giving conservatives what they demanded. I'll even give you a bonus question in this round: Refresh my memory as to why Newt Gingrich was kicked to the curb after the 1998 elections.

So then you quote Limbaugh to make your argument! ROFLOL! What a surprise. Why, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to learn that Limbaugh would be invoking Ronaldous Maximus! Isn't it an amazing coincidence that you would come to the same conclusion as the Limbaugh brothers? And I'm sure it was just an amazing coincidence that you and he both have the philosophy that "Conservatism works every time it is tried." Do you suppose he was surfing Free Republic and picked up that little nugget of wisdom from you? Maybe you can get some royalties from him every time he uses it! ;-)

Seriously, there is nothing new or insightful in anything either Limbaugh had to say about the election. (Which is not to say Rush isn't an insightful guy. He's been a pioneer in many ways. He has literally altered political discourse by introducing his own terms into the vernacular.) It was the same predictable response most of the talking heads on the right have been offering to spin the GOP loss into a "victory" for conservatism and, in turn, parroted here. The fact that you think you need to quote them to "sway" me illustrates that you still don't get it. My dispute isn't about whether or not we need to get back to conservatism. My dispute is with the Wonderland-Queen-of-Hearts notion that we need to "punish" republicans for doing the very same things Reagan did and with the mindless notion that Reagan is the embodiament of uncompromising conservatism. He wasn't. He compromised and that helped make him the success he was.

Now, I'm taking a break for Thanksgiving. That gives you a whole 5 days to come up with answers to my specific points. The reality is, you can't explain how Reagan did the things he did without admitting that he compromised his conservatives principles. The reality is, you can't explain why conservatives like Santorum lost when conservatism, according to Rush, er I mean you, works every time it is tried. The reality is you can't explain to me how conservatives sent a coherent "message" to Republicans when those who opposed amnesty lost and when Bush was allegedly rebuked, despite the fact that he reversed several decisions to satisfy them.

The reality is, this election was far more complex than conservatives merely sitting home. But, to the extent that conservatives did have an impact in close races, they held Republicans to a standard that even Reagan could not meet. Why can't you simply acknowledge that you have a double standard where Reagan is concerned?

Again, I'm taking a break for Thanksgiving, so you have plenty of time to answer the specific questions, or you can save yourself the trouble by simply admitting that you're giving Reagan a pass for the same things you hold against current Republicans. In the mean time, I have more exciting things with which to concern myself - the USC-Notre Dame game! The only question is, will Reagan be similing down on the school he represented as the fictional Gipper, or the school he loved in reality, USC. I'm proud to say that I was a student there when Reagan addressed our school, shortly after his retirement. My alma mater is the only school Reagan addressed gratis, as a gesture of thanks because he knew how much our school loved and supported him. So neener, neener, neener.