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.

[Southack]

"A lot of folks who fought for Bush are now alientated by the last few weeks. But instead of listening to our concerns, we're being told to just suck it up like we always do. We should learn from black Democrats - the only thing you get from unquestioning loyalty is continuous neglect."

You have to ask yourself if Bush has aliented you because he simply spent too much, or has he aliented you because you don't like what he has accomplished with his spending (read: ideology).

Do you dislike Bush's push to install our ABM defenses? Do you dislike his stance against abortion? Do you dislike how he's handled the War on Terror? Do you dislike Bush's cuts of income, estate, capital gains, and dividend taxes? Do you dislike the types of judges such as Bill Pryor, Owen, and Estrada who Bush has nominated for appointments?

Do you dislike Bush's death-blow to the U.S.-CCCP ABM Treaty that prohibited us from defending ourselves from nuclear attacks?

Do you dislike Bush's disdain for the International Criminal court and the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming?

Or do you simply think that Bush has spent too much?

Does your complaint reside in how much Bush has spent, or in what Bush has accomplished?

[Lazamataz]

My complaint is that Bush has not bought me a shining red Porsche, so I can dust your Corvette.

[Southack]

Speaking of which, I had the old Vette out today. Man she runs sweet and smoothe!

Life is good!

[Lazamataz]

I stand in DEFIANCE of the mob. You only wish to be at the head of the mob.

The thing that gives me the greatest pause over supporting Bush, is that Dane does.

[Lazamataz]

Life is good!

Well I gotta admit -- life sure is getting better. :o)

It ain't quite GOOD yet, but it sure don't half-suck. I'm rebuilding pretty nicely!

[WRhine]

We should learn from black Democrats - the only thing you get from unquestioning loyalty is continuous neglect.

You couldn't be more right. When a politician knows that he/she can do just about anything in the realm of politics and still have a certain voter block in their pocket you can be assured there will be little attention paid to those voters. It's human nature. Respect is always earned.

[miloklancy]

Remember folks this is the same commentator that helped hand Bill Clinton the presidency, by saying the exact same thing about the President's father. This myth of a "conservative agenda" that Rush has been spewing about for years is the product of an ideologue, who has the luxury of not catering to the wims of an often gullable electorate. I think if you asked a handful of conservatives, what the conservative agenda is, you would get some very different answers. Rush has never understood that conservatives are not all one stripe. Sacrafices have to be made and I'm not completely happy about what has been sacraficed either. For example this medicare thing is a disaster. Some conservatives support this and fail to recognize that our country is over-medicated. Rush and others spend so much time going after illegal drugs and continuing to sing the praises of a failed drug war, while not stepping up to the plate to examine the overuse of legal drugs.

[Miss Marple]

You know, I have been trying to explain to you my point of view. Southack has written a good analysis of the spending and why it makes sense from the point of view of accomplishg other goals. Dane has given a cogent discussion of the political reality.

To have all our efforts reduced your version in which we tell you to "suck it up" is really rather insulting.

I cannot do anything about your atitude. But if you wish to discuss the issue, I am always available. You don't have to agree with me; I am just giving you my analysis. Did you expect me to say, "Oh, you're right, dirtboy. We're doomed!"

[Amelia]

as Reagan said

Govt is the Problem not the solution.

You know, Reagan said that, but Federal spending doubled under President Reagan, and so did the Federal deficit.

For that matter, Reagan supported raising the earned income tax credit from 10% to 14%.

Can you explain that?

[Dane]

The thing that gives me the greatest pause over supporting Bush, is that Dane does

I would request that if you mention my name in one your replies that you would ping me to that reply.

It is basically called common courtesy and avoiding the stigma of talking about someone behind his back.

[Zack Nguyen]

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.

More than that, he is trying to destroy the Democratic Party as a potent political force in America. He wants Republican Party rule for decades, ala Roosevelt in 1932.

Unfortunately, in destroying the Democrat Party, Bush may be destroying conservatism in the process. Bush wants to remake the Republican Party in his image. He may succeed, but I question whether this will lead to long-term good for our country, economically and morally.

[Lazamataz]

It is basically called common courtesy and avoiding the stigma of talking about someone behind his back.

Feh. You can pretty much count on nearly everyone on FR talking behind your back. You have established a real name for yourself here. It shouldn't be a big surprise to you at this point.

Besides, you sure seem to ferret your name out pretty well.

So: No, thank you.

[Dane]

Feh. You can pretty much count on nearly everyone on FR talking behind your back. You have established a real name for yourself here. It shouldn't be a big surprise to you at this point

No big surprise there.

The big surprise is when a person when talking or mentioning me in their reply has the courage to say it to my face(i.e ping me in their reply line).

[habs4ever]

You really don't have any understanding of the dynamic nature of economics, do you? Your anger about tax cuts, and deficit spending is all wrong, and while it may have some intuitive appeal, it is very flawed and failed in its analysis.

[deport]

Can you explain that?

---

Not unless he can find some cut/paste to link you to. He can't explain anything haven't you noticed. He refuses to answer question directed to him.... but then gifts work in many ways....

[Sabertooth]

Here’s the problem:

Implementation of any privatization trigger will depend on continuous GOP control of the Executive and Legislative branches long after Bush has left office. Until and including such time as the Democrats take back control, and eventually they will, there will be calls to save the prescription drug entitlement for seniors, by abolishing any privatization trigger. One of the Democrats’ first orders of business upon regaining control will be make prescription drug handouts a permanent part of their get out the vote efforts.

With every passing year until then, there will be more seniors whose votes are being bought by this and other entitlements. The case against entitlements will only get harder to make, the longer we wait to make it.

So, prescription drugs socialization is a huge gamble, whose odds against success are raised by the very logic of the arguments being used to justify the risk. The politicians currently holding office will be long gone by the time the full weight of their failure falls on the taxpaying shoulders of our kids, so none of them wil be accountable..

No one’s arguing that Bush try to privatize Medicare and Social Security tomorrow, but it’s important to get on with the business of making the actuarial train wreck looming in the late 2020s. The prescription drugs handout accelerates the train with the promise of starting to brake it at some point in the future, even though we have no idea if a Republican will be at the helm when the promised time arrives.

The likelihood of success is remote, and the likelihood that the entitlement problem will be made worse, by making it worse, is certain in the short and mid-term, and very probable in the long term.

And for what? For political gain?

The constituency against socialized medicine was pivotal in the GOP landslide of 1994, the greatest conservative outcome in our lifetimes. There is no evidence that Bush can’t be re-elected without plunging into socialized drug benefits, so what is the urgency to do something politically unnecessary, and economically disastrous?

Socializing prescription drugs would actually make the case against unearned government subsidies harder for Republicans to make. It's a retreat in the wrong direction not only economically, but also rhetorically and politically.

Can things be changed for the better overnight? No, but they can be made immeasurably worse in a hurry, and we're a House vote and a signing ceremony away from doing just that.

[Sabertooth]

Can you explain that?

Reagan never had a GOP House.

[Sabertooth]

#357 is for you too.

[TLBSHOW]

Until proven otherwise we owe Bush NOTHING

BUMP

zip zero nothing but to try and hold his feet to the fire..

fyi

not that he cares what conservatives think....but not to try is stupid.

[Lazamataz]

The big surprise is when a person when talking or mentioning me in their reply has the courage to say it to my face(i.e ping me in their reply line).

Oh please.

I'm going to do it (not ping you) because it annoys you. :^D