Posted on 09/14/2009 5:01:13 PM PDT by seanmerc
RUSH: And you enjoyed it for all the reasons that you've mentioned. But we've gotta be really, really careful here, Dana, about this left versus right government thing. You mentioned third party, and we've been through this with Perot.
CALLER: I know that. I know that. And I think Perot helped Clinton get in, I don't doubt that. I do believe there has to be a huge movement before people can vote that way.
RUSH: But a third party is not going to do anything other but ensure the reelection of Obama and every other Democrat running for office because even if you come up with a charismatic third-party presidential candidate, still isn't going to have anybody of any significance running in that party for seats in Congress of the US Senate unless this movement happened to become the majority movement in the country, and that's not what's happening. I respectfully disagree with you here. I understand the anger at the Republican Party. Hell, I've got it, too. I've had it for a long, long time. But don't make the mistake of thinking this is not a left versus right thing. This is a conservative ascendancy that's going on out there. You didn't show up and protest like this when the Republicans were in power.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
Many things are WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !
But shouting that from the rooftops will just give you a sore throat and persuade no-one. Worse, it will get you a reputation that will make it difficult to use any more subtle means of argument.
We have to begin with the fact that very few people understand the world, the constitution, or existence itself, probably, the same way you do. You have to work at things from within the way they see things, not the way you do. Your methods and arguments have to begin from where these other people are.
So, in re NCLB, if it gets black politicians backing charter schools, thats a step in the right direction, even if its WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !
“Maybe you should take some time to study the Whig party before holding it up as a paragon to replace GOP.”
LOL... I’ve done nothing of the sort.
The reason to introduce the Whigs is to point out that a third party need not remain one long. It can replace one.
Although Libertarian presidential candidates have not received more than 0.5 percent of the vote since 1980, they have placed their candidate’s name on every presidential ballot since 1972, and have achieved ballot access in at least 36 states in every year since 1980. The Party has won enough votes in statewide races to contribute to the defeat of many Republicans (e.g. Democrat Jim Doyle’s 2002 Wisconsin Gubernatorial win and Democrat Tim Johnson’s 2002 South Dakota U.S. Senate victory).
In U.S. Senate races, third party candidates played King Maker in 7 races from 1998 to 2006. For instance, Washington State Democrat Maria Cantwell eked out a 2,229-vote victory over Republican incumbent Senator Slade Gorton in 2000 as Libertarian Jeff Jared siphoned off nearly 65,000 votes. A Republican incumbent was similarly burned by a Libertarian in Montana’s 2006 U.S. Senate: Democratic challenger Jon Tester upended Republican Conrad Burns by 3,562 votes as the Libertarian Stan Jones won over 10,000 votes.
“But shouting that from the rooftops will just give you a sore throat and persuade no-one. Worse, it will get you a reputation that will make it difficult to use any more subtle means of argument.”
The Republican Party won Congress on a platform that included abolishing the Department of Education. Seems to me that I’m not alone is not wanting government expansion in this area.
“So, in re NCLB, if it gets black politicians backing charter schools, thats a step in the right direction, even if its WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !”
No, it’s not a step in the right direction. You don’t do good by doing evil. The GOP ignores its own platform to do what is “pragmatic” to them - which mostly means agreeing with the Democrats.
Yes I do. The libertarians have a party.
Again, third parties didn’t give us Obama.
The primary voters of New Hampshire, the citizens of Arizona did, and the New York Times did.
You make assumptions about Reagan that aren’t quite correct. He was a canny old guy; he knew the difference between strategy and tactics. And he knew all about limits.
As for pragmatism and weakness, get some years under your belt and then repeat that line to yourself again.
Rush is right 99.8 percent of the time and he is right again. We have the momentum to at least get some Republicans elected. Any signficant third party movement will kill us! And then the communists can move right in.
Gripe about the Republicans all you want but don’t kill the country while you’re at it.
“Yes I do. The libertarians have a party.”
“liberatarian” is a political philosophy, not a political organization.
“You don’t do good by doing evil.”
Interesting debate that. It can only be won in the affirmative by ignoring history though.
I was here eight years ago, when the libertarians here at the time said that we should do nothing against those who blew up the World Trade Center. At that time I learned all I needed to know about Islam and all I needed to know about Libertarians.
“You make assumptions about Reagan that aren’t quite correct. He was a canny old guy; he knew the difference between strategy and tactics. And he knew all about limits.”
I’ve studied his long was with the Soviets going back to the 50s. He didn’t give up even though he started it as an actor.
“As for pragmatism and weakness, get some years under your belt and then repeat that line to yourself again.”
I’m 36. That’s long enough to see things as they are.
That's right but there is today, 54% of voters are female and the republican party is more than a 150 years old not 22 and your nonsense about a "third party" being more conservative and defeating both the GOP and the united democrat party is silly.
The Libertarians are more willing to compromise on issues because there position is the lack of regulation, regardless of the moral consequences. Most conservatives cannot abide that kind of laissez faire type of government. Just look at what happened during the primary, and you can imagine what would happen with a real libertarian candidate. The libertarian might pull off all the so-called "neo-cons", but it would not draw the votes of the social conservatives. It would be disastrous.
“Interesting debate that. It can only be won in the affirmative by ignoring history though.”
History indicates that betraying principles for immediate political ends - or for the presumed safe choice - kills.
Every time.
because they have to survive.
“That’s right but there is today, 54% of voters are female and the republican party is more than a 150 years old not 22 and your nonsense about a “third party” being more conservative and defeating both the GOP and the united democrat party is silly.”
I guess we should just pack it in, then. We are a one party system, now.
What would you guys do without that meager 1975 quote when Reagan was being interviewed by libertarians and trying to woo them to the GOP, the rest of the interview was not so flattering as that vague line.
“At that time I learned all I needed to know about Islam and all I needed to know about Libertarians.”
We won’t defeat Islam by arming them and buying them things, but that’s the approach our government has taken since 9/11.
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.