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.

[dirtboy]

Now, I know a lot of people don't like to hear this. I am continually mocked about "Bush's secret plan" and how I am a "Bush-bot" and how I am more interested in flight suit pictures

Then a word of advice - don't come wading into a thread at the onset and start the flaming by using the term "Bush-bashers" - I'm sorry, but I think Bush might have started out with good intentions regarding Medicare and the child tax credit, but those good intensions just landed us in fiscal hell because he caved into the Dems even though the GOP controls the house and he holds the pen and the veto stamp. For all his planning, for whatever reforms he might have wanted to implement, he lost this battle, and his Administration turned tail and ran instead of standing up for sanity. I've tolerated a lot of his nonsense, but this is just going too damn far for this particular fiscal conservative.

[Dane]

Gee, Dane, but the Founders DID proscribe a way to change the Constitution. However, no one bothers with amendments any more. However, there are still a few of us folks who point out that the end result of that lapse is an entitlement system that simply cannot deliver its promises, but you seem to think there's something wrong with that. Speaks volumes about what YOU'RE about.

And those same founders proscribed a legislature called the House of Representaives and the Senate. I know, I know, you will bring out the 17th amendment, which was approved by 3/4's of the states, but how does that matter in 2003.

Please tell me. Like I said before it easy to curse the dark of previous actions, but that still doesn't change the present situation.

But what the hey, that's ok, you can live in the world of the past while some like me deal with the world of today.

[Miss Marple]

Normally I wouldn't do that, dirtboy, but we have had a rather long string of posts by TBLSHOW all of which are bait for ranting and opposition to the President and yes, "Bush-bashing."

If this post had been put up by someone else without that history, I would have simply commented on the article.

[TLBSHOW]

You always blame someone else don't you?

[Miss Marple]

Oh, one other thing. I see that you are one of the "full-steam ahead, charge the fort" types. Thanksfully you are not in charge of political strategy for the Republiicans.

[Sabertooth]

Okay, how about I put it down to one simple question

Fair enough, choose one and answer it.

May I suggest one? Here...

If it's difficult now to make the case for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society because so many voters are so dependent on government handouts, how will we be better positioned to make the case by having far more people dependent on ever greater and as yet uncreated handouts?

Which is more important to you, ideological purity or results?

False dilemma. Without an eye on purity, we don't have a measure as to the value or effectiveness of the results we might achieve. Yet, without being willing to accept compromises that still advance our position, an overdependence on ideological purity will lead to less desirable results.

The best course will see a give and take between pragmatism and idealism. Sometimes the give and take will be harmonic, sometimes discordant.

That's political reality, though some find it uncomfortable, preferring, instead, the security of a dream of conformity.

In any case, I'm rambling. Go ahead and answer my question to you above.

[dirtboy]

Let's see what Bush is standing for:

Tax cuts,

Coupled with spending increases. Not good.

tort reform,

A good thing, although we haven't seen much delivered

victory in the war on terror, national missile defense,

Hmmm - I wasn't alive during WWII, but I have heard the tales of how the citizens were asked to sacrifice so we could wage war. Now, fast forward to 2003 - we're fighting a war in Iraq, and, instead of asking for sacrifices, Bush is throwing tax money around. And, once again, money given to folks who didn't earn it or don't need it is money NOT available for fighting terrorism or building an ABM system.

conservative judges... Need I go on?

Of course, you still haven't managed to say how Bush's cave on Medicare and tax credits to folks who don't pay taxes is conservative, even as you chastize those who criticize such as purists.

I don't like people copping holier-than-thou attitudes with me - I don't care if it's some left-wing nutcase like Michael Moore, or a Freeper by the screen name of dirtboy.

I don't like jerks who try to belittle conservative positions and call someone an ideological purist who is wondering how the hell we're gonna pay for all this.

In either of those cases, I get ticked off. I don't put up with it. In Mr. Moore's case, I will not buy his damn DVDs or books, and I will tell peoiple what I think of the creep. In your case, I decided to call you on it. I'm going to tell you what I think of your attitude on this, and if you don't like it, tough.

Oh, I'm shaking in my boots with fear. You're going to say mean things to me now, I know it. I'd better call my therapist right now so I can cope with the vicious things you're calling me....

[Dane]

For all his planning, for whatever reforms he might have wanted to implement, he lost this battle, and his Administration turned tail and ran instead of standing up for sanity. I've tolerated a lot of his nonsense, but this is just going too damn far for this particular fiscal conservative

That's your opinion, and nothing wrong with that, but this administration has also pushed tax cuts. It is also your right to ignore that and voice your malcontentism over a single issue.

Dirt, I willl look at the whole picture, while you can focus on one part of the picture, as is your right.

[TLBSHOW]

oh and what history is that?

That I am not blinded like you and the Bushbots that think you have to come on any thread and ttack everyone that does not agree that Bush is the greatest thing since baseball and apple pie?

[Sabertooth]

One of the things I appreciate with the President is that he puts a lot of long-term thinking into his policies...

Fair enough, please respond to the following question, with regard to long-term thinking.

If it's difficult now to make the case for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society because so many voters are so dependent on government handouts, how will we be better positioned to make the case by having far more people dependent on ever greater and as yet uncreated handouts?

Any guesses as to the long-term strategery?

[dirtboy]

Oh, one other thing. I see that you are one of the "full-steam ahead, charge the fort" types. Thanksfully you are not in charge of political strategy for the Republiicans.

Thankfully? Cripes, at this rate, the GOP will control government for a decade and spend the entire time pandering to voters and promoting Dem positions so they can stay in power, and we'll have annual deficits approaching a trillion dollars, and lower-income folks will have tax credits for their gerbils. If that isn't a Pyrrhic victory, I don't know what is.

[Miss Marple]

No. I blame YOU for continually putting up these threads with the intent of attracting as many anti-Bush people as possible. You are inconsistent with your position on the President, and you apparently think Rush is the last word on what the correct course is.

You cannot deny that you have been posting these articles in order to get a reaction. Well, you got a reaction from me, only you don't like it much. Too bad.

I freely admit that I did comment that this was a Bush-bashing thread. I also can point you to many, many threads where I didn't say anything but comment on the issues and was attacked with all sorts of epithets.

If all I said was that you were a Bush-basher (and believe me, calling him a socialist and other such things qualifies as bashing) you got off pretty lightly.

[dirtboy]

That's your opinion, and nothing wrong with that, but this administration has also pushed tax cuts.

That's great. But if you're gonna cut taxes, you also should not simultaneously promote spending increases, especially when you're running a deficit. You can't have it both ways. And it is INSANE to carry out a massive expansion of Medicare when you know and I know and anyone with a brain knows that there is no way in hell we can pay for what is already promised. At what point do we either stand up to end this insanity or just roll over and give up on the republic? Because that is what it is coming down to. All your points are politically on-target. And every one is a rationalizion of the destruction of the republic by the mob. Is that what you really want to promote?

[Dane]

That's great. But if you're gonna cut taxes, you also should not simultaneously promote spending increases, especially when you're running a deficit. You can't have it both ways.

In dirboy's world. Oh that's right in dirtboy's world there is no such thing as Katie Couric or a liberal media.

Sorry dirt, but your world doesn't exist, Bush is dealing with the real world, not dirt world.

[TLBSHOW]

Truth is truth and that is what I bring to the table like it or not. If I don't you sure won't post the truth about the problems with this White House.

[dirtboy]

In dirboy's world. Oh that's right in dirtboy's world there is no such thing as Katie Couric or a liberal media. Sorry dirt, but your world doesn't exist, Bush is dealing with the real world, not dirt world.

So, then, you are content to witness the death of the republic at the hands of the mob, as long as the GOP controls the smoking ruins. The GOP won in 2002 despite the best efforts of Katie Couric and the liberal media. And they've taken that victory and undone much of what was accomplished in the previous decade by the GOP. All they had to do was say NO. And all you can do is rationalize that away.

So are you, therefore, in favor of expanding Medicare, even though we can't pay for existing promises with Medicare and Social Security? Are you in favor of giving tax credits to those who don't pay taxes, which undermines the welfare reforms that the GOP fought so hard for last decade? Are you in favor of a $500 billion deficit?

[WRhine]

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.

And just why do the democrats impulsively say such outrageous slander about any judge that has a hint of conservatism in their veins? I'll tell ya why; it's because BUSH and the GOP LET THEM ACT THIS WAY by not fighting back. Where is GOP in telling the public the truth that many of the Democrats’ judicial nominees are flat out commies, socialists and traitors? Where are they on this? It’s no mystery to me why the democrats act like they do.

Hey, look, sooner or later Bush is going to have to get into the mud with the democrats if he is to have ANY chance of moving the country back to the center. And waiting for some political jihad on a SC appointment is just wishful thinking on your part.

Again you are assuming that Bush has some grand strategy and we should overlook his ACTUAL lack of support of lower court nominees because it is part of "The Plan". I can only base my perceptions on what Bush ACTUALLY does. I'd have to be privy to Bush's strategies to be confident that the case is otherwise.

Anyway, we will all know the score when Bush does get the opportunity to name a new justice to the SC. Should be interesting.

[TLBSHOW]

calling him a socialist

what else is it? Is it Conservative that we are seeing?

Wake up!

[Sabertooth]

You are inconsistent with your position on the President

Hey, count me as one who's inconsistent with my position on the President. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong.

How can anyone take anything but an inconsistent view of any politician? I loathe Bill Clinton. but I'm glad he signed welfare reform and made sure the retarded murderer was executed. I'm inconsistent all the time. That's my only claim to consistency.

I'm absolutely baffled that anyone could have consistency as a litmus test. Those in this forum who are consistently in support of the President, with no regard to the context of a given issue, are as much a bane to healthy debate and the advancement of conservatism as are any of those who can only criticize him. Both consistencies are foolish.

[dirtboy]

If it's difficult now to make the case for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society because so many voters are so dependent on government handouts, how will we be better positioned to make the case by having far more people dependent on ever greater and as yet uncreated handouts?

Kinda like dealing with a house fire by throwing 2x4s into the flames instead of water...