Principled Conservatives, Not Clever Strategery - Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh ^ | July 1, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

Principled Conservatives, Not Clever Strategery

by Rush Limbaugh

One of the conspiracy theories evolving out there has George W. Bush and Tom DeLay working together, while appearing to be at odds, to kill certain legislation conservatives don't like. The prescription drug bill would be a prime example.

Bush gets the opportunity to say publicly that he's for it, and gets the credit from Democrats for trying, but ultimately it doesn't happen. The close vote in the House of Representatives on their version of the prescription drug bill had no wiggle room in there, but there's all kinds of wiggle room in the Senate. So whatever the conference committee between the House and Senate produces, if it's not almost exactly what the House came up with in the first place, the House could vote it down, meaning there would be no prescription drug benefit added to Medicare at all.

Conservatives win when the votes are counted on the legislation, and Bush wins too, because he's been all over the map demanding it. There's not a person in this country who does not know that George W. Bush wants this prescription drug benefit on his desk now and wants to sign it. This is by no means, a slam-dunk, but it's a theory that more and more people are glomming onto. This is either a very fortunate accident or it's one of the most clever bits of maneuvering and strategery that we have seen yet.

I discuss the ins and outs of this in a little further detail in the audio link below, but I do issue this warning.

Some of you out there may be assigning mythic proportions to this man, George W. Bush, much like the liberals did with Bill Clinton, assuming he's doing everything for a reason, and that in the end, he's always going to snooker the other side.

I'd be a little careful about that, folks. I don't necessarily believe that there is any strategery going on here. If this bill dies, it won't be because of a secret plan.

It will be because of principled conservatives in the House of Representatives, conservatives like Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who went to the White House and told the president in person that he could not and would not support this bill.

[Carolinamom]

You do too have some principAls! LOL

[Howlin]

Your problem is that it's a requirement that anybody who actually likes Bush come on FR and declare everything they disagree with him about, day after day.

I have said a thousand times I don't agree with everything he does -- but I never expected him to do everything single thing I wanted him to do.

Evidently you all did; if you had paid attention, you would have known he wasn't an extreme right wing conservative like you guys wish he would be -- and now you'll all up in arms because he doesn't do what "your guy" would do IF he could get elected, which, of course IS your problem -- you have no candidate.

I will say again that George W. Bush is NOT just the president of the conservative wing of the GOP, he's the president of ALL the people now.

And I most certainly do remember your hoping that Bush would lose in 2000.

[Howlin]

Then vote for somebody else.

[deport]

I wish I could feel confident in voting for him for 2004.I don't.
Goodness knows, I am sick and tired of holding my nose while voting for POTUS.

---

Not to worry..... Either it will be President Bush or the Democrat candidate that will be elected.... Don't hold you nose.... not a big thing as it's only the future you are helping to decide whether it smells good or bad.

[redangus]

The problem is that sarasmom is not alone in her feelings. And if all those who feel the same do vote for someone else then Mr.Bush will not win re-election. Like it or not Bush needs the sarasmoms more than they need him.

[Howlin]

The problem is that sarasmom is not alone in her feelings.

I am sure she is not; now what is your advice for Bush, pander to every single person on the face of the earth?

[DoughtyOne]

Howlin
Your problem is that it's a requirement that anybody who actually likes Bush come on FR and declare everything they disagree with him about, day after day.

Howlin, I believe you meant:
Your problem is that it's not a requirement that anybody who actually dislikes Bush come on FR and declare everything they disagree with him about, day after day.
So I'll respond to that.

Howlin, I don't think it's a good idea to come on the forum and dump on Bush every day.  But on the other hand I'm not going to dump on someone for continuing to say the truth even if I don't like it.  If it's the truth, it's the truth.  I would avoid this person if I disagreed with him.  I stay off many of the Bush threads for this very reason, because I don't agree with you folks all the time, and I think it best to avoid scrapping.  Here is a thread that you disagree with.  Perhaps you could implement the same type of policy.  I don't think you're about to, but I think you do appreciate me staying off the 'praise Bush' threads and I don't mind.

I have said a thousand times I don't agree with everything he does -- but I never expected him to do everything single thing I wanted him to do.

Do you really think that we expect Bush to do everything our way?  I don't criticize him for things that aren't significant.  I take him to task on immigration, Israel and now the Medicare Medicine proposal.  I have criticized a few other things on occassion, but I don't come here every day to damn Bush.

Evidently you all did; if you had paid attention, you would have known he wasn't an extreme right wing conservative like you guys wish he would be -- and now you'll all up in arms because he doesn't do what "your guy" would do IF he could get elected, which, of course IS your problem -- you have no candidate. 

Howlin raising the red haring "EXTREME RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE" ploy isn't going to work with me.  The issues I have touched on here are not extreme right wing issues by any stretch of the imagination.  The issue with Rush on this thread is not one of EXTREMISM and I believe you realize that.

I will say again that George W. Bush is NOT just the president of the conservative wing of the GOP, he's the president of ALL the people now. 

Yes that's right.  He is the President of all the people, so why would you say I have no candidate and that is my problem?  As long as Bush is the President he is the person whose actions I will address.  The same went for Clinton.  Did you think that because I voted for Bush Sr. and Dole I couldn't address the problems with Clinton?  Did you refrain from talking about Clinton's foibles while he was President?

And I most certainly do remember your hoping that Bush would lose in 2000.

Despite what your reference says there in the fine print, this is not only uncalled for, but not exactly accurate either.  We have already touched on the reason why it's appropriate for me to address political issues and Bush's positions on them.  So even if your short statement was entirely factual, what difference would it make?

I supported a different candidate.  Well escuse me for hoping he would win instead of Bush.  What has that to do with my right to address issues nearly three years after the campaign?

You stated that I hoped Bush would lose.  That implies against all comers.  It's a blanket unqualified statement.  For the record, after election day I organized rallies in Los Angeles that supported Bush's candidacy and installation as President.

We were discussing the Rush article and TBLSHOW's right to post it.  Would you care to return to that issue?

[Jhoffa_]

Some of you out there may be assigning mythic proportions to this man, George W. Bush, much like the liberals did with Bill Clinton, assuming he's doing everything for a reason, and that in the end, he's always going to snooker the other side.

I'd be a little careful about that, folks.

[Howlin]

We were discussing the Rush article and TBLSHOW's right to post it. Would you care to return to that issue?

Exactly where was I discussing that? I never once said he didn't have a right to post it; and once he does, I have a right to comment on the article AND why Todd continues to post anything and everything that he believes might be detrimental to George W. Bush.

I supported a different candidate. Well escuse me for hoping he would win instead of Bush.

If I am not mistaken, the remarks you made about Bush losing were AFTER the primaries.

[ewing]

Im assigning mythic proportions to Karl Rove, the guy is a political genius.

[Jhoffa_]

Im assigning mythic proportions to Karl Rove, the guy is a political genius.

You know, that's a good point..

I don't think I even like Karl Rove.. Not even a little bit..

But HE IS a political genius.

No one can take that away from the guy.

[deport]

showboy... here's another thread that maybe worth checking out..... Word is getting out.....

---

Bush-Cheney Surpass Fund-Raising Expectations
Fox News ^


Posted on 07/01/2003 6:49 PM CDT by Recovering_Democrat


WASHINGTON — The money is not all counted yet, but President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's latest fund-raising swing has helped propel campaign contributions (search) to more than $34.2 million, the campaign said Tuesday.

[ewing]

Rove is always 20 moves ahead on the chess board.

[DoughtyOne]

We were discussing the Rush article and TBLSHOW's right to post it.  Would you care to return to that issue?
47 DoughtyOne

Exactly where was I discussing that?
49 Howlin

Howlin, you came on this thread calling TBLSHOW a disrupter from the get-go.  I did not address you.  You came to me because you didn't like my comment regarding TLBSHOW and what people implied that it meant for him to post Rush's comments here.

TBLSHOW didn't do anything wrong on this thread other than post a commentary you and they didn't like.  In reponse you started tossing the disrupter charge "AGAIN".

I never once said he didn't have a right to post it; and once he does, I have a right to comment on the article AND why Todd continues to post anything and everything that he believes might be detrimental to George W. Bush.

I thought you asked, "Exactly where was I discussing that?"  Just above you're defending the right to do it, and you did.  You called him a disrupter in a comment to me.

BTW, since you seem to know you have the right to comment on the article, who don't you to it and leave the name calling behind?

I supported a different candidate. Well escuse me for hoping he would win instead of Bush. If I am not mistaken, the remarks you made about Bush losing were AFTER the primaries.

Yes I voted for someone else in the general election, but that should be there in your notes.

[Howlin]

I am sick and tired of being called an unprincipled conservative, a blind conservative, a socialist, a liar, etc., and I will defend George W. Bush when ANYBODY posts an article intended to smear for THE purpose of smearing.

TBLSHOW didn't do anything wrong on this thread other than post a commentary you and they didn't like.

Spare me. He called everybody who doesn't agree with him blind in the third post on this thread.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

' On balance he has a lot of respect for G. W. "

I believe that Rush despises George Bush . Rush has become a demagogue and never hestitates to use ad hominem attacks on the President.Calling the President, "George W. Clinton" on NBC Nightly News, does not show respect. Calling President Bush, a " socialist" does not show respect. Stating that President Bush " has no principles", does not show respect. Stating that " Bush is no different than Clinton", does not show respect.Rush has resorted to Democrat tactics when it comes to President Bush. He will read a portion of an article, choosing only the most negative aspects, so as to leave his listeners with a different impression than the story conveyed. Case in point. When the President issued a statement about the SCOTUS decision on AA,Rush read the first line and refused to read the rest of the statement,leaving the impression that the President was applauding quotas and racial preferences. If Rush had bothered to read the rest of the statement,his audience would have gotten a totally different view-the polar opposite. He repeats often that President Bush was " rah, rah" over the decision-again a falsehood.Rush claims that " Ted Kennedy wrote the education bill" Here's a quote from Ted Kennedy,via USA Today ,on the education bill- "It isn't the bill I would have preferred. It isn't the bill that President Bush would prefer. But it's a good bill."
Rush claims that " Bush dropped vouchers out of the education bill." Tonight on Fox News, Brian Wilson reported that President Bush was at an inner city school today, promoting his school voucher program-"which Congress eliminated from the education bill ".I actually took the time to plow through the No Child Left Behind Act and have no idea why Rush is so upset. Rush states that only 2 people like the prescription drug bill-President Bush and Ted Kennedy,neglecting to mention how outraged the liberals were,that Kennedy came over to Bush and not vice versa. He neglects to inform his listeners about the editorials from the Washington Times urging Congress to support the bill,he only quotes the WSJ editorial because that was the one that was most abusive to the President.Yesterday,one of the majors had an article about how some conservatives were upset with the growth of the government.Rush only read the negative comments,editing out all the complimentary comments. Stephen Moore, of the Club for Growth said that he was upset that Bush was supporting the prescription drug bill, but,then stated that he had no intention of abandoning Bush,because of the tax cuts and Bush was his guy.You can't get more fiscally conservative than Stephen Moore.The article detailed how Bush,Rove and the head of the President's re election campaign are in weekly contact with 60 prominent conservatives nationwide for feedback and advice. The WH also attends weekly conservative conferences on Capitol Hill.Here's a quote from a Washinton Times article 6/30, on the increase in spending. "The rumblings are beginning to be heard a little bit more, on the radio talk shows," said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. "They really don't blame the president for the increases in the deficit. They know it's the Congress that is doing the spending, especially the Senate" where Republicans have a one-vote majority. " Much of the spending increases have been for defense and the war on terrorism at home and abroad, according to White House and congressional budget analysts."
Rush has taken himself out of the political loop, with his bitter and hateful personal attacks on President Bush.Rush could have disagreed with any of Bush's policies by acting in the style of Brit Hume, John Gibson,Neil Cavuto,Tony Snow,Fred Barnes, et al,gentlemen all. He could have stated his opinion on the specifics of the legislation,bringing all the facts out,describing the pros and cons of a specific piece. Instead he makes untrue and blanket assertions and does not do his homework.Rush had no idea the prescription drug plan was voluntary and he made false statements that "it was free". Today Rush declared that if the prescription drug bill passes, "he hopes we lose the House." What kind of person would wish for that?

[nyconse]

Absolutely correct, Bush must represent all the people. There is a need for medicare; I expect there will be privatization. I don't always approve of Bush's plans, but I would not vote for a Democrat. National Security alone is a good reason to vote for President Bush. Also, does anyone believe President Dean or President Kerry would be better? I have no doubt that more Americans would be slaughtered if a Democrat were to be elected.

[rintense]

And some of you inject mythic proportions of lies into the truth to make it something it's not.

Stop using Rush to bolster your own opinions. You're as bad as the alleged Bushbots you accuse of not thinking for themselves. Clearly, you have been proven to twist Rush's words to fit into your cozy little attacks against Bush. Proof is here.

I don't have a problem with anyone saying Bush is wrong and using thoughtful reasoning, facts, and logic to state as such. But when you have to constantly use someone else's words as your own opinions, it makes you intellectually shallow.

[rintense]

DO, my friend, Todd *did* do something wrong. He took Rush's words and completely changed the meanings and totally misrepresented what Rush said. No wonder Rush doesn't like freepers.

[DoughtyOne]

DoughtyOne

I am sick and tired of being called an unprincipled conservative, a blind conservative, a socialist, a liar, etc.,

I didn't call you any of these things.  As a matter of fact nobody called you any of these things in the first fifty posts of this thread.  By that time you'd attacked TBLSHOW a number of times.  Why?  Why couldn't you just address the article by Rush and support or criticize it?

and I will defend George W. Bush when ANYBODY posts an article intended to smear for THE purpose of smearing.

Howlin, the Rush article made some points.  If you had a beef with the article I would support you stating why.  Heck I might not agree with you, but I certainly would defend your right to assess the article by your own values, then express those views.  Why doesn't TBLSHOW deserve the same treatment from you?

When you leave this thread and move on to others, in your mind this thread is going to be a perfect example of why TBLSHOW is a disrupter.  And I've got to tell you, TBLSHOW has not been a disrupter on this thread.  He posted an article for forum participants to discuss, and a number of people did.  A number of other people came along just to comment on TBLSHOW based on their perceptions from other threads.  If this is how you folks treat him on a thread where he did not disrupt, why should I think you're accurate about the other threads you say he disrupted on?  Mind you, I'm not making that accusation.  I am only saying that is a valid question based on what took place on this thread.  It's going to occur to others.

TBLSHOW didn't do anything wrong on this thread other than post a commentary you and they didn't like.

Spare me. He called everybody who doesn't agree with him blind in the third post on this thread.

To: Diddle E. Squat

I do think he is speaking to the blind freepers out there.

3 posted on 07/01/2003 3:51 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (The Gift is to See the Truth)

This is not a damnation of everybody who disagrees with him.  It's not a direct damnation of you.

As for sparing you, you could spare yourself quite a bit if you didn't go looking for trouble across the forum.

55 posted on 07/01/2003 6:27 PM PDT by Howlin