Dick Morris Restates "Big Theory" (Rush Limbaugh)

Rush Limbaugh ^ | June 24, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[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.

[hchutch]

How much is a conservative SCOTUS worth to you? How far are you willing to go for it?

How far would you be willing to go for a flat tax?

How far would you be willing to go to win the war on terror?

How far would you be willing to go to get a working missile defense system?

I'll cut whatever deal it takes on other issues to secure gains in those areas - they are the most pressing right now. If you want to call it bullcrap, that is your right, but don't think it will win any friends.

[dirtboy]

Actually its 2026, but that's OK...no need to confront those annoying little facts..

That's funny - you say I don't have a grasp of the facts, but you buy into the notion that the so-called trust fund actually represents real assets. Seems like YOU need some work on reality - when outlays exceed tax proceeds, somewhere between 2013 and 2016, that is the day of reckoning. The trust fund has already been spent.

[Area51]

Oh, BTW, for the historical record, if Clinton hadn't been elected in 92 , it is very doubtful that two of the five votes in the recent Supreme Court recent ruling on affirmative action(written by Reagan appointee, O'Connor) would have been there for that vote(Ginsberg and Breyer), thus nullifying Reagan appointee O'Connor's vote.


19 posted on 06/24/2003 4:03 PM PDT by Dane

---

Wake up call... Bush 41 Nominated that Pillar of Conservative values David Souter. Remember him?

Care to share how he has consistantly voted on the court?

[dirtboy]

How much is a conservative SCOTUS worth to you? How far are you willing to go for it? How far would you be willing to go for a flat tax? How far would you be willing to go to win the war on terror? How far would you be willing to go to get a working missile defense system?

So, in other words, you cannot even remotely defend Bush's actions as conservative in this matter - yet you chastise Sabertooth for whining about not getting EXACTLY what he wants. What a hoser.

I'll cut whatever deal it takes on other issues to secure gains in those areas - they are the most pressing right now.

The point is, we don't need to cut any friggin' deal right now. The GOP controls both houses of Congress AND the White House. This isn't like last decade, where a GOP Congress had to deal with a Dem president. It would be very simple for the tax credit for nontaxpayers to never happen - by Bush and the GOP Congress to simply say NO. Likewise with the expansion of Medicare.

Folks like you were running around saying that things would be different when the GOP was in charge. In the fiscal arena, it isn't. It's that simple. And if we're blowing cash giving money to someone who hasn't earned it, HOW THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR MISSILE DEFENSE?

[Southack]

"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."

I don't see it like that.

The Dems would portray Bush in the media as "ramming through" all of these "uber-Conservative NAZIs" if Bush had fought tooth and nail from Pickering to Pryor on the lower federal court nominations, and the *perception* that they created would cause politicians, pundits, and the media to *justify* the Dems' fight against a Supreme Court appointment unless she was more Liberal than Peolosi.

Instead, Bush has kept the high ground and it is the Dems who have wasted their ammo by fighting the lower federal court judges. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster, Bush can point out against Owen, Estrada, and probably Pryor. "Now I've got one decent man/woman up for the Supreme Court, and Dems want to filibuster her too?! I won't stand for it."

And you know what, the public will back Bush on it because he saved his ammo for that more important fight.

[dirtboy]

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.

So tell me exactly how giving a tax credit to someone who doesn't pay taxes, or a Medicare prescription drug benefit to the wealthiest segment of the population, most of whom are quite capable of paying for their own drugs, promotes that truly necessary national self interest.

[Mo1]

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.

I've just been lurking in the back ground and though I agree with Southack .. I just wanted to say that the civil and spirited conversation has been very pleasant. Something I haven't seen around FR in a while ..

So before I go back into the land of Lurkerville .. I just wanted to say thank you to both of you.

[unspun]

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.

Well put, MM. I think we have a very wise man in the White House.

BTW, everybody, look at how W. has held the line on court nominations!

[hobbes1]

No. That is not entirely accurate.

Firstly, Medicare consists of 2 parts, A & B.

Part A is the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. It is Financed by payroll taxes. 2015, is when the TRUST FUND assets, MAY be depleted, leaving only incoming Payroll Taxes to finance part A.

And P.S. that is under High Cost assumptions, under Low Cost assumptions, annual trust fund income would continue to exceed costs for at least the next 75 years.

The truth is probably somewhere in between...


Part B is the Supplemental Medical Insurance part of which Federal general revenues finance about 75 percent of Part B costs while
beneficiary premiums cover about 25 percent. Income from the federal government
is adjusted each year to ensure that all expenses are covered, so, by design, the
SMI Trust Fund will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future.

[hchutch]

Why don't you read Southack's Post 244?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/934881/posts?page=244#244

And I'd appreciate answers to my questions, if you've got the guts to answer them.

Or will you continue to cop a holier-than-thou attitude?

[Southack]

"And if we're blowing cash giving money to someone who hasn't earned it, HOW THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR MISSILE DEFENSE?"

Surely you aren't claiming that we are spending so much that we don't physically have the money for our ABM system.

[TLBSHOW]

You cannot at this date abolish Medicare, nor can you allow it to go broke.

...

oH REALLY Did you know that FR wants medicare gone 100%?

What is our mission? Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic. Listed below are some of the issues we feel strongly about.


snip

This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed

http://www.freerepublic.com/about.htm


with Bush its MORE MORE MORE govt

[hchutch]

Last time I checked, it was still being built.

[Dane]

Wake up call... Bush 41 Nominated that Pillar of Conservative values David Souter. Remember him?

Care to share how he has consistantly voted on the court?

Not one person on this board will state that Souter was not a mistake, but what is interesting from the Bush bashing malcontents on this board, is the "silent praise" for Bush 41's second appointment to the Court, Clarence Thomas.

We can go on about the machinations of Souter's appointment, the fact remains that Bush 41 was snookered.

Just as Reagan was snookered by appointing O'Connor.

And BTW, the historical fact still remains that two of the five Justices(Ginsberg and Breyer) who voted affirmative for the Univ. of Michigan Law School affirmative action program, would have not been on the court to cast their votes, if Clinton hadn't been elected in 92.

[hobbes1]

The point is, we don't need to cut any friggin' deal right now.

Can you really be so oblivious to the need for Reelection to maintain the ability to wield Political power?

That is a pretty childish vision of American Politics ......

[dirtboy]

Surely you aren't claiming that we are spending so much that we don't physically have the money for our ABM system.

Hmmm - let's see, the deficit is projected for $500 billion this year. So if we're going to build an ABM system, we'll have to put it on our VISA cards.

Hey! I have a radical idea! What if we scrapped the Medicare expansion, no, actually rolled back much of Medicare, got rid of the tax credit for folks who don't pay taxes, cut all other kinds of nonsense, and actually paid CASH for an ABM system? And saved using our national VISA card for emergencies, such as waging war? Only idiots use a charge card to live beyond their means for something such as giving a welfare benefit to people who don't need it.

[Miss Marple]

I do think you shouldn't assume that all of FR wants Medicare and Social Security repealed.

And regardless of what you want, the fact remains that it isn't going to happen any time soon, nor is it going to happen in the manner you wish.

[dirtboy]

Can you really be so oblivious to the need for Reelection to maintain the ability to wield Political power?

Can you be so oblivious to the fact that if we keep cutting deals in this manner, this country is heading for friggin' fiscal oblivion? Oh, that's right, you believe in the trust fund - that somehow you can spend money and simulatenously treat it as an asset. Never mind.

[TLBSHOW]

It sure isn't unless we all get together and demand that Bush stop his pandering for BIG GOVT.

as Reagan said

Govt is the Problem not the solution.

[dirtboy]

And I'd appreciate answers to my questions, if you've got the guts to answer them. Or will you continue to cop a holier-than-thou attitude?

You're the one who tried to bleat that we were complaining because Bush wasn't doing exactly what we wanted. You're really not worth the trouble of debating, if you are starting out with such a dishonest approach. Miss Marple was honest enough to concede that Bush's approach to Medicare is not a conservative policy. You, however, try to raise OTHER points to deflect from that reality. So, if you retract your insane point that we're complaining because we're not getting EXACTLY what we want, when what is being done CANNOT be considered conservative by any sane definition, then I'll debate your other points. Until then, go suck eggs.