Posted on 09/30/2015 3:19:01 PM PDT by VinL
CALLER:...Out of all the conservative candidates that we have, which do you think -- and I'm deliberately choosing my words this way. Which do you think is the most hostile and intolerant toward liberalism?
RUSH: Well, can I rephrase that? Because those words "hostile" and "intolerant" do not describe the person that I would answer that question about. I know what you mean. You really want to know who among other candidates is most anti-liberal, is the most opposed to liberalism as part of his existence, policy and everything else? And there's one clear answer. Put your hand up if you know who it is. Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is the answer to your question, Roberto. If you're looking for the Republican candidate who is the most steadfastly opposed to liberalism, whose agenda is oriented toward stopping it and thwarting it and defeating it, it is Ted Cruz.
If that's your criteria.
Now, if you want to ask, "Does that make him the most conservative?" That's another question. To a lot of people, that alone would make him the most conservative candidate of the bunch, too. The two probably do go together. But it doesn't mean he's the only one. There are some other candidates who are also anti-liberal in our field, both generally and issue to issue. But blanket, overall, I mean, an honest answer to your question would be Ted Cruz, pure and simple. Very clever of you, Roberto. I understand what you're doing out there, buddy. It's a very, very clever maneuver. You are a brilliant, brilliant caller out there. I know exactly what your game is, and I went ahead and played anyway. I answered your question right up front, top to bottom.
Cruz needs to evolve on immigration. If he did, he’d be the guy.
Government is a force -- it is ONLY a force, nothing more, nothing less, which George Washington warned is a "dangerous servant and a fearful master." In politics, we are talking about who we elect to wield that force.
Dear reader -- there two primary definitions of the word "conserve" in non-political application:
a) to keep something safe
b) to use something sparingly
In America today, there are THREE very different ideas of what being "politically conservative" is.
1. To us the force of government (no matter how much it takes, a lot or a little) to preserve and shelter America from change, to keep things the same -- to "conserve" American freedom. This type of conservative RESISTS CHANGE.
2. To use the force of government (no matter how much it takes, a lot or a little) to promote/enforce Christian values. Think "social conservatives" such as Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. This mindset thinks that anyone who is anti-abortion is therefore "conservative," even if the same person may be all for nationalized health care, food stamps, and the minimum wage.
3. To use the force of government conservatively, as in sparingly.
A cook who is "conservative" with spice uses it sparingly; a politician who is "conservative" with government does the same. Just such a politician is Ted Cruz, and just such a politician was Ronald Reagan. Christians, both, with the faith and confidence that LESS government enables MORE people to live Christian lives.
I understand the total futility of resisting change. Change is a constant thing and when things stop changing is when we really have something to worry about. So for me, even trying to be "conservative" by the first definition is a fool's errand because change is going to happen and government has ZERO power to prevent it, thank GOD.
I understand the Founder's wisdom in creating a nation where government was designed to be used sparingly, that is -- CONSERVATIVELY.
God bless Cruz and lead him to victory.
Thanks for the ping — see my post 122!
They don’t mention his vote on the Corker bill. Levin interviewed Cruz a few weeks back, Cruz was waxing eloquent about the bill, Levin never once mentioned his vote for the bill.
“Are you smarter or more informed than Rush and Mark, dawg?”
No, but Levin, yesterday, said the Corker bill was stupid. Levin often almost cusses the bill. The bill did not pass itself. So Levin goes part way in agreeing with me, and my opinion was formed in part by Levin. He continuously lambastes the Corker bill.
Rush Limbaugh, who also helped form my take on the Corker bill, has repeatedly stated that the bill “is a disaster”.
And lastly, no one has criticized the bill like Cruz, and he voted for it, so I guess he knows better than all of us.
Now, have a good day. This conversation is over.
Maybe over the weekend.
Amen — only ONE candidate right now deserves our attention, and his name is Ted Cruz. All others are substandard.
Why don't you tell us all how long ago Cruz was an enthusiastic supporter of such overt leftism?
From your lips to God’s ears. :^)
Amen, Sister FReeper.
It requires the lack of common sense to get behind a candidate "who can win" who philosophically advocates for what you philosophically oppose.
AMP Union ... see my tagline.
I didn’t hear it, Maris, but my husband told me about it when he got home from work. He used to listen to Rush regularly, but he only tunes in occasionally since the show became a three-hour Trump infomercial (I’ve stopped altogether). He was listening yesterday, however.
It’s about time Rush realized the simple truth about Ted.
“It requires the lack of common sense to get behind a candidate “who can win” who philosophically advocates for what you philosophically oppose. “
You are welcome to your own worldview.
I start by recognizing there are no perfect men or women. There are none that are perfect candidates.
From there, you will balance out things in line with your world view.
(see tagline)
In one way, I always admired Rush for advising us not on who to vote for, but what to vote for.
In another way, Rush loses me when he chastises "moderates" and fence-sitters yet declines to state clearly where HE personally stands on which is the best candidate.
Rush, Levin, and many others forfeited a good deal of my respect and trust when they advised me in 2012 to vote for an amoral big-government leftist who advocated for almost every single thing I had been voting Republican for three-plus decades to oppose.
My tagline is true and those who deny it are residents of Wishville. Rush missed the exit to Realville long ago; he just doesn't know it.
Why is that?
WHY is that, AMP Union?
WELL SAID.
“odawg, a mere eight years ago, Trump was ENTHUSIASTICALLY an Obama supporter.”
A mere eight years ago, Trump ENDORSED McCain for president and raised money for him.
I explained that to you last night, and you act as if you never heard different. You have a forked tongue. Flake off.
However, if you are a Trump supporter, you are willing to trust a guy who 16 years ago flatly stated that he was in favor of "universal health care," who only seven years ago was an enthusiastic and generous supporter of Barak Obama in his bid for the presidency, and who donated $25,000 to Clinton toadie Terry McAuliffe to help him win the governorship of Virginia, only two years ago.
One thing you got right -- Cruz is not an idiot. The real idiot is one who shills for a functional, demonstrable LEFTIST on the pretense that he is somehow "conservative."
BUMP
WHY NOT??
You sure as hell should be if you want to make a difference. RIGHT NOW, you should be supporting the right guy so the WRONG guy doesn't end up the nominee.
Wimp.
Excellent post.
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.