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.
I agree with your second statement ; the one where you say that one can throw away one's vote, on the dog catcher and nothing higher. : - )
Exactly!!! I don't want rulers, I want leaders. Since the GOP seems determined to be the former, I choose the latter (Libertarians).
What I mean is you prefer the Democrats to control things over the Republicans. Is that what you mean by "Exactly!!!"? That would explain why you make ludicrous statements like no one's hurt by the GOP not controlling the Senate except the GOP.
What's an example of a conservative decision which violates the Constitution? I assume you know a great deal about the Constitution?
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 a couple of years ago that the Boy Scouts of America can't be forced to make homosexuals scout leaders. The 4 conservatives all were in the majority side. The four liberals were in the minority. The Boy Scouts won because the swing vote, O'Connor voted with them. So I take it you think that they should have been compelled to make homosexuals Scout Leaders, since this wasn't an economic issue. If dingbats like you had their way it would have gone the other way, since the conservatives who were all appointed by Republican Presidents wouldn't have been there.
What exactly are these states where libertarians win legislative seats? I was using those as examples because they're very sparsely populated. They're also much more conservative thatn the country at large. A state legislative district in some of the western states probably has about 10,000 people. These states are not evidence of libertarian viability. The Presidential races are a measure of Libertarians' real viability nationwide.
If I lived in Massachusetts I'd probably vote for some third party candidates for legislature and governor. For one thing, the GOP is so hopelessly behind in seats in the legislature that it can't be plausibly claimed that voting for a third party is tantamount to giving Democrats control. Secondly, the Republicans in Massachusetts would be considered very liberal in many other parts of the country, like their current Republican Governor. If Mitt Romney runs, I'd vote for him if I lived there.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
To some extent yes. However, the playing field on the federal level is not even. The RP and DP have used the force of government to stifle competition making it difficult to progress on that level.
I'd suggest reading What we're up against, by Harry Browne. It details some of the obstacles placed in the way of third parties.
...the Republicans in Massachusetts would be considered very liberal in many other parts of the country, like their current Republican Governor. If Mitt Romney runs, I'd vote for him if I lived there.
By Libertarian standards most Republicans in the country are considered liberal. Often times they differ little in the way they vote from their counterparts in the legislatures. I've been encouraging people to vote for Carla Howell, the Libertarian candidate for governor in Mass.
Seems to me the libertarians are left wing in many ways. The Libertarian platform would abolish the FBI and CIA I believe. Browne opposes the war in Afghanistan. They wouldn't have a draft under any circumstances. Then there's support for all abortion, including partial birth. What kind of vehicle is that for getting the country in a more conservative direction?
It's true the libertarians are far more conservative on economic issues than most Republicans, but so what? They'd abolish the income tax. They'd abolish all pollution laws. There's no chance of getting those things done. I couldn't support alot of the Libertarian economic platform.
Take your pick of any decision relating to the War On Drugs,for starters. Or any of their many decisions supporting the never ratified and unconstitutional federal income tax. There are many more but those are a decent sampling. Remember that with conservatives in charge instead of liberals you will lose your freedom slightly more slowly; that's the only difference.
I guess I haven't been clear enough about Libertarianism or maybe you're just too used to the Republicans making you choose between economic OR personal freedom. Let me spell it out as clearly as I can: The Libertarian Party is the ONLY party that defends all of your freedom, all of the time. That means economic AND personal freedom. No excuses, no compromises. So our Supreme Court judges will allow the Scouts (and everyone else) to decide who gets to be leaders in their organization. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats and every other party, we don't allow ANYONE to use government power against you or your organization.
I'm really having a hard time understanding this, so let me try it again: I don't want the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, the Reform Party or anyone else to control the Senate EXCEPT the Libertarian Party. Put another way, I don't want to serve on any of their plantations. I want my birthright back and I want it now! Not when someone else thinks I've earned it, not when I've kissed the right behinds and paid off the right people. Today! Since I know that will never happen with the Republicans or Democrats in charge, I assert my right to choose another way, the way that I know will work.
You said conservative justices are no good on personal freedom. Remember that? That's what the Supreme Court case was about.
Your point that libertarians are for freedom is beside the point. You claim that it doesn't matter what judges we have if they're Democrat or Republican appointees. If all the justices were Democratic appointees, the BSA would have essentially been taken over by the federal government by now.
Give me a specific decision in the war on drugs that was unconstitutional.
Let me get this straight, you're saying Bill Clinton browbeat you into voting for his opponents. That's crazy! And the only reason you would've been ashamed if Gore won is because shame is all the GOP has left. They can't keep people in their party anymore by being right on the issues so they use the same tactics (fear, shame, good cop/bad cop) they correctly accuse the Democrats of using.
Finally someone who has Limbaugh's number. Hooray!
Better represented at tax protests than the GOP? How can that be? I thought we were so IRRELEVEANT.
By decision, I assume you're referring to Supreme Court decisions. So take any of them. If any of those justices were doing their jobs they would have struck down ALL of the drug laws that have come before them. They're supposed to be a check (as in checks and balances) not a blank check for the tyranny of the legislative and executive branches.
Then, review the numerous assaults on the Fourth Amendment given to us by conservative judges.
Crumbs from the master's table... so conservatives would keep the BSA from being taken over by the federal government. So what? To review, the compassionate conservatives of the GOP WON'T let the Democrats take over the Boy Scouts. However, they WILL: 1) Throw the scouts in jail with hardened criminals if they get caught smoking a joint; 2) Will do the same thing to the scouts' parents, grandparents, nieces, nephews, cousins, priests, rabbis, teachers, friends who are dying of AIDS, suffering from glaucoma, nausea, etc. 3) Will deny those people financial aid for said drug offense while using the tax code and regulations to make the cost of higher education prohibitive. But the important thing is at least they won't have gay Scoutmasters. What a relief!
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.