Posted on 06/24/2003 3:28:54 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Dick Morris Restates "Big Theory"
June 24, 2003
by Rush Limbaugh
On May 28th of this year, I issued "The BIG Theory" on my program. I said that President Bush's strategy is to steal away Democrat issues by voting for big government programs. I then asked, "What happens when you get in office, and your goal is getting re-elected? Is there ever a point where you say, 'We have all the support we need. Now we can start rolling back government and expanding freedom'?" I'm deeply troubled by this tactic, because it involves rejecting our conservative principles in order to win elections.
Dick Morris calls Bush's strategery "triangulation," comparing it to Bill Clinton positioning himself between liberals and conservatives on issues such as welfare reform. Morris writes that "President Bush has stolen all the Democratic issues," and lists everything from Medicare drug benefits to Head Start to welfare called "tax credits" for people who don't pay taxes. Morris says that advancing big government in the name of "compassion" has helped to assure Bush's reelection. With the war issue faded, Bush has "gotten his political act together with a speed and sureness that shows what a magnificently gifted politician he truly is." So much for Democrats rerunning 1992.
There's just one thing that Morris did not get. Bush isn't just trying to win a second term. He's trying to attract new Republican voters. By acting like liberal Democrats who want to force taxpayers to fund new entitlements, Bush is in essence saying, "I'm your guy." If he's successful in getting even a small percentage of the minority vote that reliably goes Democrat, in addition to keeping conservatives happy on things like tax cuts, this could end up being a major realignment. A lot of people who've apparently been in the meetings with Bush send me e-mails saying, "No, no, no, Rush! Bush is going to get these huge majorities in the House and Senate, then use them to advance conservatism!" Well, I haven't been in those meetings - but even if that does happen, at that point you can wave good-bye to all those new voters.
Todd, lying ill-becomes you.
Southack and I had a civil and spirited conversation that addressed many of each other's specifics. While disagreeing, we seem to have reached an understanding as to the underlying cause of that disagreement.
It's not clear whether or not you noticed that, though I'll stipulate the difficulty of noticing his or my posts, and also actually reading them.
Precisely.
It's like looking at your wife's checkbook. Some husbands might simply complain that she's spending too much and needs to either change or be dumped, while other husbands will notice that she's managed to get a roof over the family's head, food on the table, guns in the cars and bedroom, clothes on the kids' backs, and help the family next door from being evicted.
What I'm trying to do on this thread is point out that Bush has actually accomplished some rather significant things with all of his spending, such as tax cuts, war on terror, banning Partial Birth Abortion, appointing Conservative judges, etc.
If all that we look at is how much is being spent, then yeah, it's hard to justify. But the money hasn't been spent without buying us any gains. We've got to look at what the spending has bought us.
And perhaps having a Conservative Supreme Court for the next 30+ years isn't worth unlimited spending. Perhaps banning the most hideous of abortion procedures isn't worth spending any amount.
But that's what we should be debating; how much is too much.
And that's the one thing that ALL of the dishonest Bush bashers will forever refuse to do, i.e. publish a precise Dollar figure for where it is too expensive of a cost to trade that level of spending for certain Conservative wishes.
On the other hand, I fully expect the *honest* Bush bashers to be able to print that precise Dollar figure.
How much is too much to pay to ban abortion?
How much is too much to pay to protect our cities from a nuclear ICBM attack by a rogue state?
Seventy-five per cent of the people polled want this. Almost 100% of seniors want it. It is long past arguing about whether this is a conservative position or not (it isn't). What it is is a way to control something that is going to happen anyway.
If privatization is indeed in this bill as has been said, then the net effect will be a conservative direction for Medicare, which would be good.
I fail to understand why people don't try to think of a reason why the President did this and why he talked about it in his campaign. It isn't a surprise that he is pushing for it, since he promised that he would.
My opinion is that this is both a way to help seniors AND a way to reform Medicare. Both will happen gradually, but I will bet you that 10 years from now the program won't be at all what it is today.
LOL GMTA!
Yes, Indeed, but the Malcontents do not clearly understand political processes, and the need for re-election to continue to wield political power....
Indeed. In fact, it is the *BEST* of Free Republic...when a legitimate debate can be thoughtfully explored by both sides.
It makes Conservatives far stronger no matter HOW the arguments ends up, as much wisdom is gleaned from seeing each side posit itself in the best light.
In contrast, Leftists fail to benefit from debate because their forums, such as DU, ban all conflicting viewpoints and posters.
That, quite frankly, is how strong nations are destroyed. Forget the fact that we cannot pay for the entitlements that are already promised. Forget the fact Bush has pushed for both tax cuts AND spending increases (and the tax credit for someone not paying taxes IS a spending increase). The point is, these are toxic to the republic, and the founders created a republic to protect this country from the whims of the masses. And we have a president and GOP leaders who are unwilling to stand up to the masses and tell them what they need to hear - that we can't do that in the name of fiscal and Constitutional sanity.
So now 75 percent of the country wants a new entitlement that we cannot afford, the Constitution does not allow for such a program, but so friggin what? The mob wants it, the mob will get it. And we're getting exactly the kind of country that is subject to mob rule instead of the rule of law. You may be willing to rationalize that stark fact away, but I'm not. And I'm no longer in favor of the approach that we'll change the party from within, because blacks have tried that for years with the dems, and all it has gotten them is being taken for granted - exactly what conservatives are now facing with both the Bush Administration and a GOP Congress. Fooey.
Come on now. That doesn't make any sense. If Bush fought the democrats every time they blocked one of his appointments and correctly painted the democrats as obstructionists the electorate would know by now that the democrats are indeed a bunch of obstructionists. With this trail already blazed would that not make the job of nominating a Conservative to the SC that much easier? Would not the democrats have to be concerned about their public image and credibility if Bush continually took them to task when they blocked his nominees?
If the first Big Showdown with the democrats is when a slot on the SC opens up the public may very well conclude, in the absence of a track record, that the democrats’ filibustering has some merit. That would most certainly not be the case if Bush had in the past put a political price on the democrat’s intransigence. Your ammo analogy is misplaced. Political Good Will is never expended when the truth about the democrats is revealed.
Yeah, the system is scheduled for insolvency by 2013, so that's probably a pretty accurate statement. But rather than dealing with pending ruin, we're adding fuel to the fire.
I thought it was interesting. I was surprised Rush didn't question him more closely.
Well, I think we have been down this road before on other issues. It seems to be the same argument every time, for the very same reasons, from the very same people.
"He should have vetoed the farm bill!" (Never mind that Reagan had a farm bill as well.)
"He should have abolished the Department of Education!" (Of course, Reagan never did that, but what the heck.)
"He shouldn't go to the UN!" (Of course, we would have lost the support of Great Britain for the Iraqi war, but we would have principals, you see.)
Rush wonders why he isn't getting White House invitations, I bet. Gee, you'd thik he would know.
Indeed. Paul Kennedy warns of *precisely* that danger of spending one's nation into oblivion as being the 2nd cause of national decline in his political opus The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
Overspending is toxic medicine. No debate from me on that point.
Paul K points out, however, that the #1 leading cause of national decline is spending too little on the things that count such as on the military, healthcare, etc.
It does a nation little good to have a stellar balance sheet if some enemy rolls an army over your underfinanced military, Mr. Kennedy points out. Likewise for getting wiped out by disease due to spending too little on the right form of healthcare.
So there are extreme dangers from spending too much, and there are even larger dangers from spending too little, per Kennedy at least.
With that said, one might be eager to consider what dangers are confronting us, what things we are getting for our money, and how strong is our society economically so that we can discern what is *too much* or too little to be spending.
Just a thought.
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.