Posted on 04/10/2002 10:27:24 AM PDT by Risky Schemer
(The following is PARAPHRASED - not exact quotes, from a discussion that covered a couple of segments.)
Rush got a caller during the last part of the first hour of his show, who wanted to complain about Rush's "Bush bashing."
"You're always bashing Bush. Every time I tune in you are bashing Bush," the caller said. Rush protested, "Not every time."
The caller said,"You've criticized him on campaign finance reform, the education bill, taxes, Israel policy . . . I just don't think that now, since we have a conservative in office, that we ought to be giving the left material they can use against him in the nest elections - 'Look, Bush let you down . . .'. You don't believe Bush should compromise, that it's necessary?"
Rush said, "I've said before, I'm all for compromise when it advances the conservative agenda. I am tired of compromise that advances the liberal agenda."
Rush then asked the caller, "What is my job here?" Rush then explained his job was not to act as a mouthpiece for the Republican party, but to advance conservatism and resist liberalism.
"Look," Rush said, "Bush said he was opposed to campaign finance reform, said it was wrong, and then he signed it. During his campaign he said he that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel and now he has come out for a Palestinian state."
"Let me ask you something, all you people who think I am Bush bashing. What if it were Clinton. What would you people be calling me about now?"
Amazing how one man could screw everything up. If it weren't for Jeffords, there would more than likely be no CFR. The only reason there has had to be 'compromise' is because the Dems were unwilling to bend. It's the pubbies who had to 'compromise', unfortunately. This is why it is vital that the Senate becomes Republican led in November.
Unbelievable. Rush almost comes out and says Bush=Clinton and you're trying to tell us that he's "a mouthpiece for the GOP"? Exactly what does one have to do to gain your respect?
Rush has said it numerous times over the last ten years. It does not read, "Though shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican, unless he or she disappoints you in some way," or even, "Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Conservative."<<
Rush *quoted* this, and even praised it, as Reagan's policy. But he NEVER said it was holy, inviolable writ. And he never said it was his own policy, as he has criticized many Republicans (McCain, Gingrich, Olympia Snow, etc., etc., etc.) MANY, MANY times.
Nice try, though.
since you accused me of being a liberal because i disagree with a liar ,
then maybe you would like to share your sanctified wisdom on this thread also.
Nope. You're a fraud for posing as a freeper.
You beat me to it. This is a rapidly evolving situation with a number of variables, more like 3D chess than poker. Israel only has one ally - us - and one adversary - the Arabs. Bush has to balance any number of conflicting interests in just this one area, and he has constraints we don't know about, or don't sufficiently acknowledge. Among these are logistics - our military isn't ready to strike yet - and strategy. Bush and his military advisers are mindful that the best option is not to start an offensive with hostile or potentially hostile forces on your flanks or across your supply lines. His priority in keeping "the coalition" in line is avoiding just this lousy state of affairs.
"Well look what Bush did to you!" And, "I bet you don't vote for Bush again, do you?"
The left wing scumbags of this country know Bush has snookered his base, and the very core which elected him.
A bit over histrionic, aren't we? Sure, he could have vetoed it. And what? Have it be another thorn in the side and tied up Congress- blocking other more pertinent bills? His signature pretty much got it off the table, and into the SCOTUS, where it will be challenged, and more than likely shot down. The bill that no one cared about is off the table, out of the public eye, and in the hands of the courts. The parts that will get shot down leaves a CFR bill that was exactly what Bush campaigned for. So, call him unprincipled all you want. I call it well-placed strategy.
Now, if the SCOTUS do not revoke parts of the bill, then I will join you in the public flogging of Bush. But I will still support him, because no matter how bad you think he is, he is still a damn sight better than Clinton or Gore. This country would be much, MUCH worse if Clinton or Gore were in charge. And I think deep down, you know that to be true. And so does Rush.
1. The Afghanistan situation would be much more stable and the needed 10,000 troops would have taken on Al Queta instead of leaving most of the fighting to the Northern Alliance.
2. Al Queta sanctuaries in Pakistan would have been hit by USAF daisy cutters, leaving the terrorists no place to run.
3. Sharon would be mopping up the West Bank; and a joint Israeli-American commando unit would be erasing all forms of Hammas and Islamic Jihad.
4. Saddam Hussein would be dead and Osamma Bin Laden would be awaiting trial and eventual execution on Gitmo.
Bush is a Bush. What's amazing is that so many pro-lifers voted for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.