Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EIB Interview: Tom DeLay
Rush Limbaugh ^ | 16 March 2007 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/16/2007 4:34:55 PM PDT by radar101

RUSH: All right, I’ll give you a few names, and you give you your impression of them if you want, your impression of them as conservative leaders and potential presidential material

RUSH: Fred Thompson.

DELAY: Fred Thompson is a good, solid conservative. I disagree with him on immigration, but he was distinguished in the Senate. He certainly has a persona about him that people like and he could communicate a message.

RUSH: Duncan Hunter. You know him well.

DELAY: I love Duncan Hunter. The only thing I disagree with Duncan on is trade policy. He's a protectionist. But as far as having a commander-in-chief, he couldn't be any better. I mean, he's the best.

(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: tdelaybk; tomdelay; tomdelaybk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: I still care

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


21 posted on 03/16/2007 6:51:42 PM PDT by amchugh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick; All
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.
22 posted on 03/16/2007 6:56:35 PM PDT by Miss Didi ("Good heavens, woman, this is a war not a garden party!" Dr. Meade, Gone with the Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

You got it! Keep spreading it around.


23 posted on 03/16/2007 8:14:54 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marway

Thank you. Would never have gotten to it.


24 posted on 03/17/2007 12:43:23 AM PDT by tanuki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: imahawk

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


25 posted on 03/17/2007 6:21:59 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: I still care

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.


26 posted on 03/17/2007 9:15:38 AM PDT by Still_Sorta_Sane (Republicans eating their own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LS

Oh Christ, scratch my vote.


27 posted on 03/17/2007 8:02:22 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: imahawk

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.


28 posted on 03/18/2007 6:09:27 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LS

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.


29 posted on 03/18/2007 6:50:12 AM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
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.

30 posted on 03/18/2007 7:01:46 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LS

"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.


31 posted on 03/18/2007 11:33:15 AM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
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.

32 posted on 03/18/2007 12:33:17 PM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LS

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.


33 posted on 03/18/2007 8:20:04 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
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.

34 posted on 03/19/2007 5:51:14 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: radar101

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


35 posted on 03/19/2007 5:53:06 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Freep Fox they drop the ball on GOE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

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?


36 posted on 03/19/2007 8:21:40 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
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.

37 posted on 03/20/2007 5:19:49 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
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.

38 posted on 03/20/2007 5:22:31 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LS

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


39 posted on 03/20/2007 9:02:18 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LS

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.


40 posted on 03/20/2007 9:12:12 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson