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.
All you saw was an illegal act by the US Supreme Court, as the Florida slate was supposed to be acceptable to Congress. It was far from an "act of God."
In 1989 and 1990, Rush bashed Dems, the eccoterrorists / enviros,peacenicks PETA , condoms in schos, abortion rights advocates, and a whole host of others ; he did NOT spend day agefter day, after day, after day after endless, weary day, bashing President GHW Bush, nine ways to Sunday ! Those were the days, that I spent listening to him every day, three hours a day.
When the Senate failed to throw X42 out, Rush didn't spend day after day, week after week, month after month trashing the Senate GOPers ! Why not , if he is oh sooooooo " principled " and upset with this President Bush now ?
OTOH, Sean Hannity has some disagrements, with some of the things that President Bush has done. He talks about them, and then moves on. He also talks about the " good " / right things, which this president has done. Thats the way to do it; that's principled !
There isn't a president who has / will ever do 100 % of what his supporters want him to do . If he manages to get 50 % done, that's a miracle ! Frankly, I can't think of one , NOT ONE , president, who accomplished even 50 % of what his party platform stood for / he said he'd like to do, as a candidate . Can you ?
President Bush has been a GOD send ! If Gore had pulled it off, in 2000 , we might all be agreeing here ( LOL, maybe not. ), but life would be an absolute disaster, with little hope of EVER turning the clock back, on anything .
No, you haven't won, nor bested me. I'm just tired of wasting time on you. : - )
The SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution into meaninglessness at every opportunity. As a result the federal government now has broad and sweeping police powers. Federal law enforcement can essentially do anything they want with impunity and often do. Wether or not the SCOTUS is Conservative is really irrelevant. What's important is how they rule.
No, I didn't change what I wrote, from post to post. Yes, everyone can see what's what.
You certainly did. In post #251 you stated:
"In 30 plus years, the LP has actually LOST voters and supporters."
I responded with facts to prove your assertion false. Then in post #315 you responded with:
"I said PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE for the last three cycles, and how many votes they got...and you're arguing about the number of votes, for ALL LP candidates, for the 2000 election."
In post #303 you stated:
"If, as many FR Libertraians claim, they don't agree with many LP platform stances, but then say that they are voting for the Libertarian " on proncile ", that IS hypocritic ; the candidate doesn't share their oh so vaunted principles at all."
In post #311 I asked two questions. First, the fact that many Libertarians criticize the LP platform and vote LP candidates makes them hypocritical how? Second, I asked you how were you able to determine that the candidates don't share their principles at all to which you replied:
"it is safe to say ( and more factual ! ) , to say that Libertarians, who supposedly vote their " principles " , in voting for a candidate / party patform, that they don't agree with , on many, many issues , are hypocrites and unprincipled."
You didn't answer my questions but instead attempted to obfuscate the matter by rephrasing something you said earlier and pretending the initial statement was never made.
Bellflower, Ca. is a MAJOR city ? Not if one considers N.Y., Chicago, L.A., Atlanta, and Boston to be MAJOR cities. Heck, Buffalo, Pittburgh, and New Orleans are more " major " , than Bellflower is. I've never even heard of Bellflower and I think that it is fairly safe to say, that the vast majority of people, in this country, have NEVER heard of it either.
You challenged me to name at least one Libertarian mayor of a major city. I did. Sorry you didn't like my answer. Too bad. He repealed a utility tax while in office for all property owners in the city and I'm sure they all appreciated it.
Is making a government smaller, the ONLY prerequisite...
No. Preventing it from expanding further is another.
All the accomplishments you listed by Rudy Guliani are fantastic. I'm glad he did those things. However, New York still enjoys some of the strictest gun control in the country, one of the highest tax burdens, and a massive state budget. Republican governor Pataki signed additional gun control into law in 2000.
...takes a pro stance on pornography, prostitution, and anything else I don't agree with...
The party does not take a "pro" stance on these issues and to the best of my knowledge I've never met a Libertarian who has either. It's one thing to oppose criminalization of something and another to be in favor of it. I don't think that failing to brush one's teeth should be a crime under the law. That doesn't mean I favor not brushing one's teeth.
Libertarianism isn't workable ; it's UTOPIAN...
Ah, but your political worldview ISN'T utopian. I see. I'm curious about something. If what Republicans enact in Congress and elsewhere is workable how come it's still not working? How come every year they need new laws, new programs, and new spending?
...and not what this country was founded in...
I'm sure that the government we have now was exactly the kind of government the founders intended. In either case it's certainly the kind of government we deserve.
Either you are a REAL conservative or you are not. I have been on FR nearly as long as you and I thought the concept of FR was a discussion forum about conservatism. Now, I see it has devolved into, "ONE-UPS-MANSHIP" or some similar idea.
A long time ago, in another country, folks gave up their GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS with similar commentary like yours; you seem to have blind-faith in government; if and only if the government is YOUR political party leaning. But this isn't America. This concept has nothing to do with America.
America is about our individual freedoms. To date, no matter which political party is voted into majority power, they operate the steering wheel of OUR nation AGAINST our individual RIGHTS.
When will you see this?
This is the ONLY thing, that I'll reply to you with. All else dear, is an utter, abject waste of my time. Your posts just aren't worth more. : - )
Bellflower, Ca. is NOT a " major " city, dear. It is reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllly stretching the meaning of the word " major ", to the nth degree. How is Bellflower a MAJOR city ? Is it, perchance as large as N.Y.C., or Boston, or L.A., or Chicago; or even Albany or Houston or Seattle ? As I said, I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF IT BEFORE !
I;m talking about what Rudy, as a MAYOR , did ( yep, he did that, and MORE good stuff ! ) , and you throw in Pataki, who's the governor , and you talk about changing topics ? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !
Yes, by its very nature, Libertarianism, IS Utopian. Unlike some Utopian enclaves ( that have been tried out ), it doesn't even strive for a community of like minded souls ; rather it would FORCE ( how VERY unLibertarian, of Libertarians ! ) it down everyone's throat, willy-nilly and expect it to actually work ... totally disregarding the probable consequences . Well, that's NOt totally correct; FR Libertarians talk about " Social Darwinism "; which wouldn't work out the way they all seem to expect it would. LOL
No shades of grey ... either one is for something, or not ; neutrality about a topic, becomes PRO . The LP platform is " neutral " on ALL abortion. Even Partial birth abortion ( infantacide ! ) isn't to be condemned. Tolerance / decriminalization of prostitution ... even child prostitution, is fine and dandy. I have seen, with these two eyes, and so have others, Libertarians, type, on a thread on FR that there isn't anything " wrong " with kiddie porn; that it wasn't porn at all, but " art ". There's far mire that I could cite; but it's not worth the bother. You won't agree to what I write, and WILL manage to turn and twist it beyond recognition.
No, this isn't the same country is was, when it first began. It isn't even the same nation, that it was 50 years ago. The governent has changed, strayed from some of the early concepts, and has indeed overgrown. Though I do NOT think that the government should be this large, intrusive, or over regulated, unlike the Libertarian purists , I know that it is impossible to go back to the way it was in 1800, and don't expect it to do so any time soon. Nor do I agree with a great number of the LP's positions. In that, I am NOT alone, or in a tiny minority. The infinitessimally small minority are the Libertarians !
No, Republicans aren't Utopians. They aren't perfect; not anywhere near ; however, at least they are able to get some of the things done, that I want to get done. The ONLY thing, that fringe parties do, especially on a Federal level, is to be the spoiler. We are a Representative Republic, do NOT have coalition governments ( thank GOD and the Ffs ! ) ; ergo, Libertarians will NEVER , not EVER be in a position to get their more noxious and delitorious positions passed.
Do go on, dear, but as you have managed to bore the socks off me, I shan't. We've done this round, for years here and it's stale ; statist, if you will. The chains, that you drag around , weigh all honest debate down. See , anyone can use the " code words ", if they care to. LOL
Seems to me that a politician that goes back on his promises shows disrespect to the American people (and the whole idea of representative government).
I am not judging him by his father. I am pointing out that a Republican that promotes the liberal agenda is even more dangerous to our cause than a liberal Democrat.
As to GWB doing the 'right thing' when it was within his power and not due to Congressional approval, that is not correct either. He left Clinton's bureaucrats around and hate to tell you, but it is the bureaucrats that are the administration. He also approved all of Clinton's last minute executive orders. More important though, he has refused to exercise his veto power. All Presidents have used it to get their agenda through over a recalcitrant Congress. His failure to use it has allowed the liberals to get their agenda through. His signing of the unConstitutional CFR was totally despicable.
This is spurious logic, because the Libertarians don't have a chance of actually winning.
How nonpardons defines "major city" is really irrelevant to the discussion. The accomplishments of Art Olivier as the mayor of Bellflower are no less significant because nonpardons has never heard of Bellflower.
I;m talking about what Rudy, as a MAYOR , did ( yep, he did that, and MORE good stuff ! ) , and you throw in Pataki, who's the governor , and you talk about changing topics?
I acknowledged the accomplishments you listed of Rudy as a good thing. I would expect no less of Rudy since the purpose of government is to protect people and property and he managed to make some progress in that endeavor. However, it was important to contrast the accomplishments of Rudy with the failures of another Republican in the same venue -- Republican governor George Pataki -- in order to give us perspective. It was not an attempt to change the topic.
Yes, by its very nature, Libertarianism, IS Utopian.
Anyone with political aspirations could be considered utopian, including yourself. So, I don't see how this is relevant. It doesn't really prove anything.
Unlike some Utopian enclaves ( that have been tried out ), it doesn't even strive for a community of like minded souls...
Rhetorical nonsense.
...rather it would FORCE...it down everyone's throat, willy-nilly and expect it to actually work ... totally disregarding the probable consequences.
A Libertarian government would limit itself to doing what government is supposed to do -- protect people and proptert. I don't understand how this constitutes forcing something down somebody's throat.
The LP platform is " neutral " on ALL abortion.
Despite the Republican party supposedly being pro-life it has done little or nothing to stop abortion. In fact, I'd submit that Republican legislators have contributed to the proliferation of abortion in society by subsidizing behavior and lifestyles, through the welfare state, which results in unwanted pregnancies.
...even child prostitution, is fine and dandy.
The LP does not support child prostitution and neither do any Libertarians. Your statement is simply a lie.
Though I do NOT think that the government should be this large, intrusive, or over regulated, unlike the Libertarian purists...
Huh?
Do go on, dear, but as you have managed to bore the socks off me, I shan't. We've done this round, for years here and it's stale ; statist, if you will.
So long as you continue to spread mistruths about Libertarians, Libertarianism, and advocate collectivism and statism I'll be here to make some sense of it all.
Elections aren't decided by chance. If a Libertarian candidate appears on every ballot as his opponents then he has the same "chance" to win. If Libertarian candidates only appeared on half or one-third of the ballots then I'd agree with you. In that case they'd have no chance of winning.
We're you aware that Libertarians have held state assembly seats since 1979? Granted, no Congressional seats yet but it's only a matter of time. Eventually enough people will grow weary of Republicans and Democrats and you'll begin to see more Libertarians getting elected in higher office.
Nothing impressive about that. What states are these in? Montana? Idaho? The Libertarian presidential candidates have never polled above 2% and they're on the ballot in all 50 states.
Libertarians tend to win state assembly seats in more conservative states. I don't believe they've ever won seats in the states you've mentioned.
Although the presidential candidate has never done well in elections other candidates have made excellent progress on the Congressional level. Carla Howell holds the record for the most votes in a Congressional race. She recieved over 300,000 votes in Mass in her bid for Senate against Ted Kennedy (roughly 12% of the vote). In some state assembly races Libertarian candidates recieved over 40% of the vote.
Weaning people off the two incumbent parties is difficult. Both Republicans and Democrats promise a smorgasbord of government programs and handouts. Libertarians do not. Libertarians have managed to place a measure on the ballot in Mass which would repeal the state income tax. There is massive opposition to the idea even from common folk. It's as though people like the feel of leg irons and they don't want them removed.
Do you think Rep. Paul's beliefs are typical of all republicans?
Why?
Just wondering
I define that to mean the 2nd Amendment, for starters. It does not grow or change; it means the same thing today as it did when it was written. By abandoning his support for it, Slade Gorton proved he didn't really believe in the Constitution. Your assumption is wrong; the GOP has run and even today continues to run some candidates who believe in the Constitution. A sampling would include Bill Dannemeyer (CA), Bruce Herschensohn (also CA), of course Barry Goldwater (AZ), Malcolm Wallop (WY), Murray Sabrin (NJ). There are many others I'm sure and feel free to add to this list. My main point here is the Republican Party has changed for the worse and that has allowed my party (the Libertarians) and others like the Constitution Party and Pat Buchanan's version of the Reform Party to take customers (voters) from them. If they would return to their own roots as a party of principle they wouldn't have the problems they're having now. I don't honestly believe that will happen.
I'd say no one benefits from a conservative judiciary because the conservatives have no more respect for our Constitution than the leftists. They treat personal freedom with the same contempt that leftists treat economic freedom.
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.