Posted on 05/13/2002 3:12:19 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
On Monday's show, the Doctor of Democracy made a sad diagnosis: "If the Reagan Revolution is not dead, then it's dying." If there was a model that the Bush administration used in establishing itself, it was the Reagan presidency. But now Bush is advancing the Democrats' most liberal agenda items - something particularly frustrating at a time when Bush's popularity would make it easy for him to recruit new conservatives.
Many of you have been critical of Rush's reactions to Bush's actions on spending over the recent months, and we took more calls of this sort on Monday - people who'd convinced themselves that the farm bill made sense or that Bush had some grand strategery at play. Now, Rush could throw his beliefs out the window for a day or two and say things that you might want to hear - like when he endorsed Clinton back in 1992 - but that's not what he does.
Rush can only give you his honest reaction, even when he doesn't like those reactions. That's honesty, folks, and it goes to disprove a key criticism many of the nation's liberals have made of Rush over the years. They've said that Rush is a party hack, and that he'd support the Republican Party no matter what they did. They charged that the EIB Network was simply a tool, that we were in daily contact with the powers that be to get marching orders. Well, that has pretty much been dispelled here: Rush is disgruntled.
Thanks for the compliment; I am honest. But you missed the point. My vote is for both principle AND punishment. Rewarding the principled (Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and some rare conservative Republicans) and punishing the Slade Gortons, Lamar Alexanders, Richard Riordans etc. of the world. The GOP loves to preach competition and free choice but hates to practice it. When I exercise my free choice they insult me and claim I'm helping the Democrats. If they were really honest with themselves and the people they would do what they encourage business to do; see the err of your ways and make changes to keep your customers. Instead they act like the offended party when THEY are the ones who are selling us out. That's why there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between them and the Democrats; they think they're doing you a favor by driving your car off the cliff at 85 miles an hour instead of the Democrats' 95.
Of course, but if he was to start a big argument with the Dems and give them a chance to start demagouging he might lose the votes of some middle of the road voters who change their minds more often than actresses' hair styles. He would also boost turnout amongst the Democratic base. He has no risk free decision.
I believe he feels he's taken a conservative stand on enough things, like his judicial appointments, tax cuts, missile defense, oil drilling in Alaska to name a few, to motivate conservatives to show up. For some conservatives nothing short of 100% is acceptable, but any Republican who wastes his time trying to convince them has rocks in his head. True Free Republic type conservatives are not the majority of the electorate. Bush has to live in the real world.
Gee whiz and golly, political naifs, such as yourself, think that losing is " honorable ", and winning an election is just a " game ". No wonder you and your ilk were looked down on, by the FFs. How correct they were, in their assumption !
First, Republicans claim to be like Libertarians all the time, especially around election time when they want to blur the differences between themselves and the Democrats (an increasingly difficult thing to do, lately). I agree that the Libertarian Party is far from perfect but they are still head and shoulders above the Republicans. For example I disagree with my fellow Libertarians on abortion (I'm pro-life, most of them are pro-choice) and open borders (I'm opposed, especially in light of 9/11, most of them are more dogmatic about it). I'm sorry to hear that you have stopped supporting the party financially; I'd like to know what made you stop contributing. As far as the Cantwell/Gorton situation, I wasn't BRAGGING about getting Cantwell elected, I was BRAGGING about Gorton losing because he turned his back on hunters and sportsmen. Contrary to what you said the only people that were PUNISHED by Gorton's loss were the Republicans because they're the ones who keep selling us out and don't seem to realize how sick people are of their scams. The one thing they know how to do very well is blame other people (and parties) for their self-inflicted wounds.
I'd say the people punished are anyone who benefits from a conservative judiciary, because Daschle now has the power to tie all his nominees up and he'll do that for another 2 years if the GOP doesn't get the Senate back.
Happy to... without the support of Bush and other top Republicans Jeffords could never have been elected and reelected. If Jeffords had been challenged by a conservative in the primary again do you doubt for one moment that GWB would be supporting him against the challenger? Of course not. By supporting these RINOs conservatives are setting themselves up for betrayal. Jeffords won't be the last.
Libertarians ,wrapped in their vaunted principles, and misrepresentation of the FFs and the Costitution, prefer to be outcasts . In 30 plus years, the LP has actually LOST voters and supporters. The GREENIES and the LP , have more in common, than Libertarians and Republicans do. Then there is the little eye opener, that so many Libertarians, on FR, keep claiming that they don't agree with oh so many points of the LP platform. Well, since principles are SO important to you, then you are unprincipled, because you support that which you disagree with. Such hypocracy !
For ALL of the screaming, about NOT supporting the GOP, because of the RINOS ... those RINOS, are from many different states. You can ONLY vite for the Representatives and Senators running in YOUR state. By claiming that you won't ever vote for the GOP, as a " punishment " against RINOS, is irrational , when you can't vote for / against them anyway !
Common sense is now such a very rare commodity !
You may have a point here, but I have to call you on your dishonesty.
Jeffords was a Senator from Vermont while Dubya was still governor of Texas. He is in no way responsible for this. Top Republicans may be, but Dubya is not.
A vote for a Libertarian is just that; a vote for a Libertarian. It's not a vote for a Democrat or anyone else. Why is it that the Republican Party, the self-appointed guardians of free enterprise can't admit this? When I dine at Burger King instead of McDonalds am I doing this to hurt Wendy's? No. I don't want A, I don't want B, I want C. C is not A or B. Libertarians are not Republicans or Democrats. A RINO is not the lesser of two evils. And settling for less by voting for a Republican you don't want is just as bad as not voting at all.
Actually I wasn't being dishonest. I never said that Bush supported Jeffords directly. As you point out he wasn't President at the time of Jeffords' last campaign. I said that if Bush II was President during Jeffords' last campaign (which his father was) do you have any doubt that he would have supported this RINO against a conservative challenger? If you do have any doubt, check out his recent interference in the Iowa, California and Tennesee statewide primaries.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I blame insufficient fiber in their diets.
You said, and I quote, "without the support of Bush and other top Republicans..." Which Bush? Today it implies Dubya, not G.H.W. Bush.
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.