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.

[Miss Marple]

Ah, I see that you have won the vulgarity award, which went to Apes for Evolution last night.

Congratulations. Pick up your prize at DU, where that type of post belongs.

[Southack]

"By acting like liberal Democrats who want to force taxpayers to fund new entitlements, Bush is in essence saying, "I'm your guy."

Rush still doesn't get it. It's like back in 1999 when Rush was claiming over and over again that Hillary Clinton wouldn't run for Senate.

"Liberal Democrats" wouldn't have killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't have pulled the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't have killed the U.S.-CCCP ABM Treaty, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't have gotten the 1st largest and 3rd largest tax cuts in world history passed into law, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't arm pilots or order Aschroft to inform the U.S. Supreme Court that the official U.S. government position is that the 2nd Amendment supports individual rights to bear arms, not group or state rights (soemething that was too Conservative and controversial for even Ronald Reagan to do).

Liberal Democrats wouldn't sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, either, but Bush will sign it this very year.

So comparing Bush to "liberal Democrats" misses the mark.

Rush's complaint, which is a valid one, is actually that Bush is letting Congress spend too much.

Well, that's all fine and well, but someone as articulate as Rush should simply *say* that, rather than confuse the spending issue with being a "liberal Democrat".

Once the conversation is accurately focused on Bush letting Congress spend too much, then a real debate can proceed.

What is Bush getting for this spending? Two conservative Supreme Court Justices, one would think (perhaps even three), as the Justices won't survive another 6 years of Bush being in office (and Bush will easily win re-election in 2004 due to his current strategy). Bush also gained the right to fire bad teachers in Ted kennedy's education reform package, and Bush is getting tort reform passed that immunizes gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, among others). Bush has carte blanc to re-vamp our military, too.

It's a good bet that Bush will get Social Security privatized in the next 6 years, as well as get school vocuhers passed so that the power of the public school teachers' unions will be broken by private schools. Bush is also getting our ABM system installed in Alaska.

These are *historic* achievements, and the history books will marvel at how one politician was able to accomplish so much with the government and nation so evenly divided.

Consider that in 8 years of Clinton, old Bill still can't point to any legislative achievement of his own. What a contrast between those two Presidents!

But there is a price to be paid. Bush is buying Congressional votes with our tax Dollars.

Lots of Conservatives may have very valid reservations about this price, and that's a fair topic to debate.

But Rush is missing it just like he missed that Hillary would run for the Senate.

Rush is calling Bush a liberal Democrat, but that's clearly not true as no "liberal Democrat" would sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. What Rush actually means is that Bush is spending too much of our money.

Well, how much would 30 years of a future *conservative* Supreme Court worth?!

How much is protecting our nation from nuclear ICBM's worth?!

How much is it worth to re-vamp our military and kill the Kyoto Treaty?

Let's debate those real issues. What are we willing to pay to achieve those things in a divided nation with a divided Congress?

[Satadru]

The federal govt is spending over 2.2 trillion dollars this year. That is a huge amount of money. There has been a net increase in govt spending this year, even adjusting for defense and homeland security needs. On every issue of efficient governance - from fedralizing airport security to voting for a bloated education and farm spending - Bush has been terrorizing the conservative agenda. He is a ticking WMD when it comes to bursting the federal budget. Govt spending should go down with increasing GDP, except only the opposite is happening.

[habs4ever]

If there was a broad demand to curtail gov't, it would be cut, so direct your ire at the electorate at large.It likes large gov't.It likes having the top 5% pay for most of it.Hopefully, the top 5% can get more bang for its buck under Bush than it can under anyone else.Until the laws of diminshing returns kick in and any further tax rate cuts stop bringing in greater reveunues, then there is ample room to cut taxes and no reason in the world to vote for a Democrat.I doubt Bush has the misty eyes about gov't programmes being run by Republicans, that say...Jack Kemp possesses, but he does know that maybe getting taxes down to 18% of GNP is about all that anyone can do to cut the scope of the Federal Gov't.

[Sabertooth]

Bush can't do the same because he doesn't have any balls.

I think that's a little harsh, and aside from is foreign aid spree and Israel policy, Bush has been very good in his foreign policy. Domestically, though, he is quite a disappointment.

[Miss Marple]

I didn't say Rush was responsible for President Bush's defeat. The Republicans ran a poor campaign for a variety of reasons.

However, Rush made little contribution until it was too late to help.

[Satadru]

I am glad you side-stepped the David Souter issue.

[Sabertooth]

If there was a broad demand to curtail gov't, it would be cut, so direct your ire at the electorate at large.

No, I believe in holding politicians responsible for their policies. No one forces them to pander.

When Bush is wrong, it's plain silly to ignore it and blame the voters to whom he hasn't made the case against government expansion.

[Lady Eileen]

bump...thanks for the post.

[Dane]

JMO, Sabertooth, could you can the vein and bandwidth hogging jpeg signature.

We know you who are, by your screen name, no reason to waste bandwidth on vanity, IMO.

[habs4ever]

I have been hearing that same kind of rant going on 22 years, and the dire predictions during the Reagan era never materialized, and they won't under Bush, as well.

You don't know as much about economics as you think.

[Satadru]

If you are so sensitive, maybe you should stay all day surfing the Disney website. Don't try to teach any of your twisted logic to children though.

[Dane]

I am glad you side-stepped the David Souter issue

No reason to, you all are doing a two step about Reagan appointee, O'Connor.

[Sabertooth]

Rush made little contribution until it was too late to help.

President George HW Bush put himself beyond help very early. He brought on his defeat (and Clinton's victory) all on his own. That buck stops there.

[Satadru]

If following polls and voting for big govt is the proper way to govern, then why do we need leaders? We need leaders who can teach the marginal voter why his/her principles of big/small govt is good for the nation. Lack of consensus is no excuse for lack of leadership. Bush has failed to lead in extremely key issues. I am sorry, he has struck out a long time ago.

[habs4ever]

Sure, do your own thing, as ineffective as it will be.

The reality is that large Gov't is here to stay.How can you best mitigate its influences? I say by pushing more tax cuts, and by getting a right leaning judiciary.Until the majority of the elctorate sees the light and demands less gov't, just what will your acts of pique accomplish?


If you think YOUR views are vastly popular, dream on.Bush is giving the people what they want.

[onehipdad]

It's either that, or wait for democrats to get smart all of a sudden...

[WhiteGuy]

Oh, I see we have our evening Bash Bush thread up and running..................

It appears the bashing is not directed at Bush the man....
but at Bush's actions as President.

[lepton]

However, Rush made little contribution until it was too late to help.

I have to say, it was a bit difficult to get behind a candidate that wasn't running.

[Dane]

President George HW Bush put himself beyond help very early. He brought on his defeat (and Clinton's victory) all on his own. That buck stops there.

Really and with no help from Ross Perot I am surmising on your part.

Look we can go over the machinations of the 92 election to your vain hearts content, but the facts still remain. Clinton won and presided over the country for eight years.

Now in your mind was that good thing or a bad thing.

I will wait for your wishy washy answer followed by your vain picture signature.