EIB Interview: Tom DeLay

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 16 March 2007 | Rush Limbaugh

[amchugh]

I thought that the deal on McCain-Feingold was that it banned soft money and doubled the hard money contribution limits? Previously to the passage of McCain-Feingold from what I can gather (I'm not a political funding expert so bear with me) the Republicans and Democrats collected about the same amount of soft money, and the Republicans collected about twice as much hard money as the Democrats. Shouldn't McCain-Feingold have damaged the Democrats more than the Republicans? Does anyone have data on campaign receipts and spending broken down by party? I was under the impression that Republicans always collected more money than Democrats.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-26-01.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-14-98.html
http://www.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/richie2.html

[Miss Didi]

I think we'd all agree that this interview got us pretty nervous. I hope and pray that someone at the WH, at least Tony S., heard Tom's message. Communication is key. After '06, Rummy, Libby, AG, and now this Plame fiasco, I am ready to scream.

I love W, and have fought for him for 6 years. But come on, he's got to take command here. He finds himself in a position where even his own base is tired of being kicked in the gut every day. How is the RNC even raising any money these days, most of us don't send a dime.

Which brings me to Rush's conclusion, and that of this interview, that we are hungry for a leader, a fighter. And why if Rudy or Fred or someone comes forward and shows this strength, we will have our candidate and the WH.

[Hostage]

You got it! Keep spreading it around.

[tanuki]

Thank you. Would never have gotten to it.

[LS]

Just guessing, I'm betting Fred favors the Bush amnesty plan.

[Still_Sorta_Sane]

Hi all,
Regarding the Delay interview on Rush. Rush doesn't give up time on his show lightly ever, and this was a giant soapbox for Delay to , in effect, trash conservatives, essentially.
We all lament the utter lack of ability of current WH, and the leadership (?) in general, of being unable to counter any dem charges. But, could someone help me out here......... WHY, so publicly trash fellow conservatives, virutally on the eve of the summer conventions, in a rather tawdry display of personal venom, when we need all the cohesion we can muster ?
I'm stunned, and I want to believe that Rush has the best interests of the party in mind, but this interview was all about how strong and formidable the dems are, and how much $$$, grassroots, etc, etc they have, and how petty and small minded the Right is. Delay made the dems seem unbeatable. Not what I wanted to hear/read.
Anyone else get a sour feeling from this ? I'm reeling here.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Oh Christ, scratch my vote.

[LS]

There is not one electable person on either side, right now, who favors tough immigration enforcement. You'll just have to get over it. The way to fight this is through Senate, where only one vote can stop things.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Well then I guess we will just have to inform the rinos that we want Duncan Hunter huh? We will need to defeat the rinos first and then go after the demorats.You gotta have your army in order first in order to defeat the enemy. Having a rino(go along to get along type) will just hand the election to the rats. Lead from the front.

[LS]

If Hunter is on the ballot, and voting for him will NOT elect John McCain, I'll vote for him.

But Hunter won't get out of two primaries, let alone come close to get the nomination, and that's reality. That's politics.

Jesus said, however, that you don't undertake building a structure until you count the cost. One thing the starry-eyed idealists always ignore is that politics is a game of preparation, and DH (and Tancredo, and Brownback, among others) have NOT come anywhere close to preparing themselves. This is about far, far more than issues. A candidate is NOT a serious candidate who has not spent a couple of years laying down a grassroots network of support; who has not aligned MANY state organizations and endorsers; who has not ALREADY developed enough funding to pretty much compete in a general election; who has not established already a NATIONAL presence. Reagan prepared for more than 12 years!!!

People lament the narrow circle of candidates in most elections, but the fact is that these candidates have all paid a price to take stands on controversial issues (not just a congressional vote that can be hidden or explained away, but ADMINISTRATIVE stands); they have allowed themselves to be in the public eye for years and thus have already been vetted, in a sense. Say what you want about Rudy, but we know all there is to know about him. Ditto Hillary. This is one reason congressmen don't get anywhere in national elections: they don't have a national presence, haven't been vetted, and haven't displayed their abilities in a way that is completely attributable to them.

Actually, this, as much as his stand on issues, is why McCain lags so far behind---his votes are just one vote of 100, and there are pieces of legislation where you have to vote against something you want in order to keep it alive for the next vote. (Procedurally I'm not sure how that works, but I've seen it done many times).

So, reality is that we can all vote in the primary for DH or Newt or whoever, but barring Fred Thompson getting in the race, this is Rudy's to lose.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

"Conservatives" will not vote for a lib. We will just stay home.Sounds to me that the rnc better wake up to that fact.I think the 06 elections proved that.

[LS]

Here in OH, it was quite the opposite. The turnout was as high as ever, and the conservatives lost. Conservatives like Santorum were creamed; conservatives like Allen and Talent and Hayworth all lost. Sorry, you can't use 06 as an example of anything to support the notion that "more conservatism" is needed.

What was missing was leadership and combativeness, and you can show leadership over any issue or in any direction. Churchill retained his support throughout the war, despite not sharing any of his constituents' views on social policy. If Bush early on would have PUNISHED anyone in the GOP who didn't fall in line on ANY issue, and if he had crushed the Dems who crossed him on every issue, there wouldn't have been an 06 upset.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Damn good points. May I say the reason bush didnt do these things is because he is not really a conservative? I think the administration was quite happy to lose control in the house and the senate so that the AMNESTY bill will just scream through now.And yes spinlessness on the republican side.

[LS]

I do not think for a minute that is true. While Bush wants amnesty, losing control of both houses was the last thing he wanted. As for "he's not really a conservative," well, compared to whom? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? In fact, if you take out RR---the ONLY person anyone around here wants to bring up as a model---Bush has been more conservative than Nixon, Eisenhower, or any other president until you go back to Coolidge.

People need to get off the RR train insofar as he's dead. Folks, we are starting to resemble the Dems in their nostalbia for FDR, rather than developing NEW candidates who can cut the mustard. Let's stop looking for the "new" RR and start looking for the new Mr./Ms. X who will lead in the 21st century.

[bmwcyle]

My question is after hearing it. Did Newt just talk to fast for Tom?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Well, it has worked really well for the demorats hasnt it. So holding the republicans up to RR seems just fine with me. And in so doing No, bush is not a conservative. Oh,and by the way I voted for him both times.And what is your idea for the leader of the republican party in the 21 century?

[LS]

My idea of a leader is someone who, on the issues where there is widespread agreement on our side---say, taxes, WoT, Gitmo---you absolutely squash the Dems and impose Draconian discipline on Republicans who don't toe the line.

Agree to disagree about, say, abortion or guns, and just DON'T ACT on them, one way or another for a few years; but utterly and completely crush the Dems on every other issue.

Now, so much the better if there is nearly complete agreement on the issues (abortion, education, illegals). But in no way allow ANY of those issues to divide Republicans until the Dems are a destroyed party.

In other words, my idea of a leader is someone who fights his ENEMIES and controls his party, not one who agrees with me on issues but who refuses, or is too politically weak, to fight.

[LS]

And by the way, WHAT has worked "really well" for the Dems? They lost every congressional election but one in the last 12 years and barely won this one (I think it was shown that 15,000 votes tilted Congress). They've lost 2/3s of the presidential elections since 1968. Only a defector kept them from having lost the senate for half the time since 1986.

So appealing to FDR really did them a lot of good. (sarcasm) It kept them focused on the past, and ONLY Clinton was able to ignore FDR and run like a Republican and win.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Hot damn! I like the way you think.We are not getting this action with the current admin.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

My point was how they are unified since fdr(lefties). The republicans are anything but. Remember clinton won because of ross perot and the indictment of casper weinberger a week before the election causing bush 41 to lose 5 points right there. Remember clinton won a plurality not a majority. People (women put clinton in office) looked at clinton as a kennedy and the women voted acordingly.