Rush Limbaugh: Bush's FDR Example

Washington Post ^ | 11/28/2001 | Rush Limbaugh

[AlGone2001]

As an aside, I had the surreal experience of speaking with Gov. Maddox for half an hour in his garage last week.

I just met him at my nephew's funeral on Sunday. He is a nice man.

[LTCJ]

I just met him at my nephew's funeral on Sunday. He is a nice man.

I'm very sorry to hear of your loss.

Yes, he is a very nice man. He has an extremely strong faith and it shows.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager if you spent any length of time talking with him he managed to mention his wife, Virginia. She's been gone the better part of a decade and he still speaks as if they just got back from their honeymoon.

I don't think it will be too much longer before he's back with her. They've taken him off all treatment for his cancer. I'm praying for an easy time for him and a happy reunion. He showed us the draft of his funeral service bulletin. I have to admit that put a lump in this old soldier's throat.

[calmseas]

I agree with you that there are times when Rush appears to be squarely sided with the GOP even though he contradicts earlier stances he has taken. From my perspective, it seems like these times are few and far between; but when they happen, they are very uncomfortable. All in all, though, I will give Rush a 99% approval rating. Even on the few times he isn't right, he still manages to rattle some cages--and that is always a good thing when you are dealing with government.

Pat, on the other hand, I just can't abide anymore. And I voted for Pat a couple of times in Michigan primaries. I don't believe Pat to be a conservative--at least in the sense that most conservative would define themselves today. These days, I tend to think of Pat as another sort or Harry Browne, "out there" somewhere.

I hope I haven't offended. This is just the way I see it. I appreciate the dialog.

[calmseas]

See post #63, which was meant for you. Some how it ended up referenceing #20 instead of #30.

[duckln]

crack me up with their honest belief that the "next election is ours!"

You got that right, as long as we have the Alan Specters, Hollywood and the 'amen corner' holding sway, the rank and file don't have a chance. But with Pat, there's a strong voice and message that keeps coming through, as true today as it was yesterday.

But his own party done him in, just like they did Reagan when they picked Ford the first time around, rank and file be dammed.

[holdonnow]

Good points. For some reason, this thread has degraded into another pro-Buchanan rant by his 3 supporters. Buchanan supports John Sweeney's domestic policies, George McGovern's foreign policy, and has the delivery of Hugy Long. In other words, he's no conservative. And neither are those who support him. What offends me in particular is that Buchanan blames the U.S. for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor with his revisionist crap. Too many red-blooded Americans lost their lives fighting that war to tolerate that kind of intellectual dishonest. Buchanan is also a big government-type, as he supports the federal government intervening in all kinds of domestic issues. In these views, he holds common ground with Ralph Nader. Rush is a solid Reaganite. Buchanan once was, but is no longer.

[Phantom Lord]

The next election will not be Pats. And you can take that to the bank. Or maybe you would like to put your money where your mouth is. Ralph Nader has more support for gods sake!

[duckln]

Lyndon La Rouche, who has pretty much become a joke
Comparing Pat to La Rouche is the joke. La Rouche never was a top advisor to 3 presidents, written any best sellers, syndicated columnist, CNN & PBS regular taking head, or weekly magnet on FR.

Pat has been 97% right on all issues and is America's Churchill plus.

[duckln]

No offense taken, well stated, but country first Pat is no Libertarian screwball (Browne)

[holdonnow]

Buchanan was an adviser to 3 presidents, including Nixon. Now, Nixon created the EPA, OSHA, imposed wage and price controls, and supported affirmative action. I don't blame that on Buchanan, but saying he was an advisor to 3 presidents tells us nothing about his views today. And his views today are not the views he held when he worked for Ronald Reagan. Buchanan even admits that his views changed after he campaigned in New Hampshire while running in the Republican primary against George Bush. Oh, Gore Vidal has written many books and essays; he used to also appear TV shows. But that doesn't make him a conservative either.

[duckln]

The next election will not be Pats. And you can take that to the bank. Or maybe you would like to put your money where your mouth is.

Well, I'll put my money on the pen, the word and the truth. Kinda how Reagan operated.

Ralph Nader has more support for gods sake!

Not on FR. After 'unsafe at any speed' in the 50's, Nader became a guru in a suit. Go figure, good indication as to how many little guru's we have running around.

[Paulus Invictus]

He is not doing what FDR did! Did you read the article or not? FDR not only jailed all those Japanese, most were US citizens, Californians "appropriated" most of the property of the displaced people and they never got it back. FDR was not the hero the dumos make him out to be.

[wcdukenfield]

You know, I'm more than a little confused as to how Pat Buchanan became part of this semi-intelligent discussion of Rush Limbaugh's article today in the Washington Post. Buchanan is, at best, a mere shadow of a credible figure in public life today.

Rush cited FDR to show liberal dishonesty. It worked. His article is a very literate and cogent discussion of the validity of President Bush's actions to fight terrorism. It constantly amazes me how some people who think of themselves as conservative will snap and snarl at someone like Rush, who is probably the most articulate voice for our values on the scene today.

As for the shots at Rush and the slavering over Pat Buchanan, I would like to quote the immortal William Shatner on "Saturday Night Live."

"Why don't you people get a life!"

[Paulus Invictus]

Ridiculous! The Buchanoids never sem to get it. He lost and deserved to lose!

[TN Republican]

The only way Pat would be against the tribunals is if he saw it as a wedge issue. Clearly, it is not.

[Rome2000]

FDR was a socialist who's policies screw up our nation to this day, but he at least knew enough to round up potential saboteurs.

I would love to see Ashcroft refuse to appear in front of Leahy's committee.

Why should he dignify with his presence someone who leaked classified information?

[Rome2000]

What matters is whether or not Bush's actions are Constitutional. They are not.

No, in your opinion they are not.

If any terrorists or their friends in the Democratic party would like to bring a court case, the Supreme Court will decide the issue.

[lawdude]

"So if it was wrong when FDR did it, why are we doing it now?"

Your knowledge of history is lacking. What President Bush is doing is LEGAL and has been declared so by the courts. What FDR did was to hold CITIZENS. He held them in compounds for 4 years! No hearings, no bail. Then he allowed some younger Japanese-Americans (I hate - designations) to join the military. They formed a unit which served in Europe and were one of the most if not the most decorated unit in WWII.

Oh, when the CITIZEN prisoners were released after the war, they had to fight to get their legally owned property back. Geeee...wasn't FDR a PEACH?

[wcdukenfield]

Buchanan is Churchill plus? Are you painting in an unventilated room again?

[duckln]

Gore Vidal has written many books and essays; he used to also appear TV shows.

You really got me giggling with that one. Whow, what a stretch. Vidal wrote tranvestant(?) trash, insulted W.F. Buckley on prime convention TV time, to the point of live 'fisticuffs. And that junky guy is still around, in Switzerland(?).

But that doesn't make him a conservative either.

Absolutely right! Because he's not a 'conservative'. Pat is, and has all the 'kudos'to prove it.