Thinking Man Responds: Is Co-Opting the Big Spending Agenda Sound Strategy?

Rush Limbaugh ^ | May 28, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

Is Co-Opting the Big Spending Agenda Sound Strategery?

If you missed Wednesday's program, you missed a watershed moment in American history: the detailing of the once-great Democratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson and FDR's collapse. (See: The BIG Theory) I praised a caller named John in Pennsylvania, who did something rare: he used his brain to think about the examples of the trend of co-opting the liberal big-spending agenda as a way to GOP victory. John rightly pointed out that if Tom Daschle had "co-opted" our agenda in the 90s, we'd have claimed victory for the conservative movement.

In fact, we did claim victory when Clinton signed welfare reform. The Democrats could claim victory on things like the education bill that Ted Kennedy wrote, but that's simply not in their DNA. They can't cite things like those 2002 census numbers on African-American families doing better than ever, because they need misery to have jobs. The last thing all these disparate, extreme left-wing groups want is for us to solve environmental and social problems. If they're not complaining and painting the nation as one paycheck away from the Great Depression, they're not happy.

If people are satisfied with the whole spectrum of life, they vote for the guy in power: and right now, that's Bush. John absorbed this, and asked me how we can claim advancing one-third of the Democrat agenda as a "victory," when that doesn't broadcast our agenda. I do love a person who thinks, my friends! I have never characterized the fruits of this socialism-lite as a victory. I've been on the record as being upset ever since this domestic agenda offensive started. In fact, I took a lot of heat in the first year of the Bush administration for criticizing its big government programs and spending initiatives. I'm pure on this one, folks, and 100% consistent - can you say the same?

[TLBSHOW]

You have to love and respect Rush since he isn't fooled by the liberal and socialism agenda that we are seeing Bush promote here at home. Bush has no business doing it and it is a disgrace. Like Rush, I am not fooled by the liberal/socialist agenda being shoved on us by so called republicans. Well more like socialist lovers!

[TLBSHOW]

Did you hear Rush today?

[Lysander]

I have said on this forum many times, we have not seen a conservative take-over of the nation, but a liberal take-over of the Republican party. The transition is complete. Left and far left.

[MACVSOG68]

I disagree with your title (Rush slams Bush) and your conclusion. I did not take that away from the discussion on Rush this afternoon. He concluded the discussion by saying he was convinced that the President is a true conservative, and that his method is incrementalism. While he indicated that there were programs Bush signed into law that he did not agree with, including Campaign Finance, among others, he certainly did not "slam" the President as you indicated.

Feel free to vote against Bush in '04 as a protest, and enjoy real socialism!

[supercat]

The only way I can see the increased government spending as being a good thing is iff the new spending competes with certain entrenched monsters like the NEA and can lead to their dismantling without them being replaced by something worse.

[Gary Boldwater]

Rush is right!

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by Bubba_Leroy

[TLBSHOW]

So you like socialism lite I take it?

[TLBSHOW]

Feel free to vote against Bush in '04 as a protest...

lol

it is really simple really, stop promoting the liberals BS!

[votelife]

I heard Rush today. I don't think he was slamming Bush. I heard him say he disagreed with Bush's domestic policy (CFR, Teddy Kennedy...) while commenting that Bush's goal seems to be the destruction of the Democrat party. If that is truly Bush's goal, and he gets a bigger working margin in '04 and starts pushing serious conservative reform than Bush could really realign the country.

Basically, Bush is pushing incrementalism. I see him accepting some socialism to get more Congressional control. We'll see what he'll do if we give him more GOPers. For me, getting conservative control of the Supreme Court is worth compromising somewhat on the domestic agenda. I think the biggest thing domestically for Bush is the judges. Witness the fear over Estrada.

Just my opinion.

[conway]

If this were being done under a democratic president we would be in an uproar. It was smart to get a so called "conservative" man in the seat to keep us all quiet.

[votelife]

One more honest opinion. I don't think we can expect one person (GW) to change the culture of DC. I see 535 elected officials there. It's not just democrats voting for this spending, it's republicans too, as Rush points out. I think conservatives need to pressure their congressmen and Sentors more. GW cannot shoulder the entire conservative movement himself. Moreover, many people don't even consider Bush to be conservative.

[TLBSHOW]

Don't get me started on the Judge problem.

[votelife]

one final thing. I'm glad that caller called in bc I'm very sympathetic to your argument. I was waiting to see if Rush recognized that Bush was pushing a soft democrat agenda and if this was truly a victory. The way Rush talked about it at first he seemed to like the strategery. I contend it is a victory if it destorys the Dem party and Bush then push good conservative legislation.

[votelife]

Don't get me started on the Judge problem.

lol

[narby]

I didn't hear Rush slam Bush on this subject.

If anything, he thought it was pretty cool that it looked like Bush was about to completly co-opt the democrat issues and make their party irrelevant.

If Rush is anything, he's a Republican first, Conservative second.

Although, I kind of agree with him that it looks like a great victory in the offing, if everything hangs together. Once the Dems are in the dustbin of history, then conservatives can take back the Republican party. A much easier goal than ever changing the hard left mindset.

[ricpic]

By the time Bush gets more congressional support (if that happens, no certainty) he'll be in his second term: a lame duck!
The time to have pushed the conservative agenda - hard - was now, in his first term.
Face it: He's no conservative.

[the_doc]

While he indicated that there were programs Bush signed into law that he did not agree with, including Campaign Finance, among others, he certainly did not "slam" the President as you indicated.

I didn't hear all of today's broadcast, but I think it was a kind of "slam" when Rush pointed out many months ago that President Bush figured CFR was unconstitutional and yet signed it anyway.

(This is not Consitutionally proper policy for the White House. The POTUS is under solemn obligation to uphold the Constitution. It follows from this that he is supposed to veto legislation which he regards as unconstitutional. He had no right to pass the buck to the Courts, but he did it because it was a politically popular dereliction of duty. This pragmatic approach used to be considered un-Republican.

)

[TLBSHOW]

Rush is conservative first then republican....

Check out this 1999 Article:

Conservative talkmeister Rush Limbaugh blasted away at George W. Bush with both barrels today, stoking a possible clash between grass-roots conservatives and the front-running candidate who is already pursuing a centerist general election strategy.

"He's really wandered off the reservation here lately folks," Limbaugh intoned, before making the case against the recent Bush positioning.

"In my mind," he told his listeners, "no conservative running for president would make the kind of statements that he's made. No conservative running for president would leave his philosophical brothers and sisters dying on the congressional battlefield the way Bush did with that EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) thing. And now he's done it again with the speech at the Manhattan Institute. He's done it twice in seven or eight days time."

"This obviously is a carefully crafted strategy." Limbaugh continued. "What it means is that solid conservatives from Tom DeLay to Dick Armey, who are doing all they can to eke out small majorities and beat back Clinton and all his Big Government schemes-issue after issue-end up being emasculated by Bush's comments."

"Who wants a Republican moderate as president?" Limbaugh asked, a question the Bush camp must hope that other conservatives don't begin asking.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/647952/posts

Point is with the issues at home we do not need to keep promoting the liberal agenda! Unless of course you are a liberal promoting the agenda....

[Howlin]

If you missed Wednesday's program, you missed a watershed moment in American history

I don't know who is more bombastic, you or Rush.

We all know you think Bush is a traitor and a commie; you've said so many times. Posting stuff like this, with your altered title, just proves it.