Posted on 02/08/2008 5:09:06 PM PST by newbie2008
RUSH: I want to go back to the archives of this program. I want to illustrate for you my prescience. When I tell you that you are on the cutting edge of the societal evolution if you are a regular listener here, this will establish it. October 18th, 2006. This is prior to the November elections, the midterms, and I was getting phone call after phone call from conservatives saying they were not going to vote. They were mad as hell. They were sick and tired of the Foley thing and Macaca. They were sick and tired of Republicans not governing as Republicans, and to hell with it, and this is what I said to them.
RUSH ARCHIVES: This notion that it doesn't matter who wins because the Democrats aren't going to have a big enough majority? That's going to lead to another thing that I will share with you. It's going to lead to the nomination of John McCain for the Republican presidential candidacy. In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
My new hobby is watching disaster movies. My life looks a lot better in comparison. :P
Vice President NEVER mattered , I think people know that . It looks good on a bumper sticker and nothing more.
Vice-President never mattered ? Tell that to John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford.
I remember hearing him distinctly in May of 1996 saying, “Dole will be elected President!” He said it very emphatically and then went to a break. He also predicted Hillary would not run for the Senate. Of course, he doesn’t play those back.
I don’t remember Rush ever supporting Rudy. Did I miss something? He did come out very strongly for Fred.
Sheana, that is a great line. You posted it to me saying perfect. I hope you didn’t post to me by accident, thinking you were complimenting the person who coined it. I didn’t.
If you were just posting it to me because you heard it and liked it, I appreciate it. It is a great line.
D1
LOL Well, I’m not going to knock it until I’ve tried it. ;-)
Kevmo:
I think you and I got this straightened out earlier, but I'll go ahead and answer here, too.
I never said anyone must support the team if for any reason they don't feel they should. It's not relevant to my point to keep pointing out that people who are bailing on the team think they have a good reason to do so.
My point, which I think you agree with to some extent, is that, regardless of what justifies quitting, it's still a gamble for the individual and the country. That's because, just like in football, if some players quit, the team still has to play the game. So it may try to get the players back, it may look for new players, but whatever it does it tries to find a way to win with what it's got.
Interestingly, this thread (link below) about something Rush said illustrates my point perfectly.
Rush made my point a year ago:
RUSH ARCHIVES: This notion that it doesn't matter who wins because the Democrats aren't going to have a big enough majority? That's going to lead to another thing that I will share with you. It's going to lead to the nomination of John McCain for the Republican presidential candidacy. In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it. And right now, that looks like McCain, above anybody else -- who, I must tell you, is not a conservative. And so what are you probably going to end up doing? You're going to be so frustrated by 2008, and the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming president so obnoxious, so abhorrent; that in 2008 you will flush your precious principles down the drain and elect a Republican, precisely the kind of Republican you think you're running against now -- or you will at least nominate one. Who knows how that election will go? So the very principle that you are fighting here, if you succeed, you will be given a candidate who fits the very thing you're angry about: somebody who's not conservative enough but probably has the best chance of winning.
When we began this conversation, that's what I was addressing: WHY McCain is the nominee. It's not because of anti-Christian bigotry.
It's because conservatives bailed on the party in 2006 and now they're saying they are going to bail again. It's because conservatives barely voted for the more conservatives candidates in the primaries when they had every opportunity to do so.
So the party, which must has a nominee, and which exists for the purpose of winning elections, has no choice (from their point of view) but to try to find a way to win with what they got. And McCain has always said he's the man to bring in Independents and Reagan Democrats---IOW, he's the man who can provide some replacement players so the party can try to win this thing.
As Rush said:
In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it.
This is WHY McCain is the nominee. Political parties exist to win. When the conservative way doesn't deliver, then the party (meaning: the majority of people voting in the primaries and lending support to candidates) does something else. That's all.
Rush goes on to make a point about voting for congresscritters, not president. But his analysis (and my analogy) is certainly something to think about.
Again, quitting may be justified, but the risk that the team will truly move on without those who quit (which would not be good for the country, IMHO) is real. That's all. Whether it's the coach or the players to blame, that's all.
Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford
They only mattered WHEN they became president . So you’re looking for a great vice - Presidents now in the hopes he will be president in 20012 ? Don’t bother .
I hope you’re not comparing ANY Republican candidate we have out there to the likes of Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman ?
As Rush has said, vote for conservatives in Congress.
When we put our faith in a man -- or woman -- to do what's right for us we we always be disappointed.
When we seek to advance an agenda, however, we will always be successful.
McCain won't setback the conservative agenda anywhere close to what Hillary. So he is getting my full support
Now, if the Dems gain in Congress -- as Rush expects -- and McCain works with them -- as Rush expects -- the economy will tank, badly. Will Republicans get blamed? McCain will. The Dems will. Conservatives won't.
For the conservatives to advance, we have to have an agenda, articulate it and advance it.
I agree.
Too often I hear what sounds like the refrain of old “give us a king!”
IOW, the idea that our only hope, the only way to make headway against evil is through, not only a political process fraught with the usual perils of human nature, but through “one man,” the president.
Yes, we must use the tools at hand to do good in this world-—and one of those tools, to whatever extent, is the installation of an administration. But that’s not the be-all and end-all of any cause or ideology.
I hadn't thought of it like that but you're right. Good point.
Well, we’re at the point where we can see eachother’s point, but yikes, that’s no reason to get so long-winded
;-)
I knew you didn’t write it. I just think that is the best line I have ever heard to explain McCain.
tear gas, were you a self-righteous wanker before or after you signed on to Free Republic?
I completely agree.
It is a good one and I appreciate seeing it. It describes how I see the man. Thank you.
I disagree. Too many people equate the party with the agenda. The party doesn’t stand for anything anymore. They will recognize the Democrat as an enemy, but they won’t necessarily recognize someone who is ostensibly Republican as the enemy.
Because of McCain's age and health issues, the selection of the VP is of paramount importance. There is more than an even chance they will become President before the end of the term.
"So you’re looking for a great vice - Presidents now in the hopes he will be president in 20012 ? Don’t bother."
I don't know about 18,004 years from now. ;-) But to say we shouldn't bother looking for a great VP, that's just crazy. The VP should be of a quality that he (or she) can easily step into the Presidency in case of the incumbent's death or incapacity. I don't know about you, but having Cheney as VP has been reassuring. He is BETTER and more experienced than the incumbent. I'm sorry he's not the one running this year.
"I hope you’re not comparing ANY Republican candidate we have out there to the likes of Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman ?"
I'm not a big fan of either of those two. TR was a divisive, liberal, and egotistical force in our party that resulted in the election of Woodrow Wilson, one of the worst Presidents in US history. As for Truman, who wasn't a Republican, his finest hour came with the ending of WW2, but otherwise, domestically, he was mediocre and his 2nd (full) term was a fiasco (nevermind he did little about the infestation of Communists in the federal government -- his own Ag Sec and predecessor as VP was one). I'd say Fred Thompson has the potential to be one of the best Vice-Presidents in the past many decades (though Cheney currently has that title).
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.