LIMBAUGH RIPS BUSH WHITE HOUSE OVER GLOBAL WARMING 'FLIP-FLOP'

Drudge Report ^ | 6/3/02 | Matt Drudge

[hchutch]

Just the headline

[Reagan Man]

To be fair, Reagan faced a hostile, Democrat-controlled Congress.

WRONG! Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1985.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

Most people in the US voted for OWLGore. Your point?

A lot of Bush supporters believe global warming is real. From what I can see, the non-believers are in the minority in the country.

[Mo1]

Guess they would rather have a pomposs jerk for President that won't compromise on anything -- their way or no way!

Listening to some of these folks it seems to me what they want is a Dictator in Office who with a sign of the pen will do away with every thing and every one they don't like

Hmmmmmmm ... I am thinking this is the kind of thing our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid when they wrote the Constitution

[EternalLife]

"He (Bush)has made a political, strategic miscalculation about all this!"

Bush knows exactly what he's doing. He is trying to be all things to all people. He knows, or feels confident, that he has the conservative base in his pocket due to a recent poll. He also knows that he needs to pick up as many seats in the Senate and House as he can to have any hope of pushing through his conservative agenda before 2004. This is why he is leaning to the left on such issues as global warming and illegal immigration. He's hoping Hispanics and moderates will put the republicans over the top in the mid-term elections.

However, this 'strategy' will all far apart if his base abandons him over passing most of the democrat’s agenda.

In November we'll see if his strategy has worked.

[Dane]

To be fair, Reagan faced a hostile, Democrat-controlled Congress.

Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years.(1981-87)

[wcmcgr01]

I didn't say he did, and again, this report in a vaccuum is no big deal.. The point is, how much is Bush willing to sacrifice in order to win? I honestly can't say with any amount of certainty that Bush would remain pro-life. If a politically sensitive bill was in the senate like Campaign finance in relation to abortion, I can pretty much guarentee Bush would side and take up the Democrat view point to some degree. The point isn't this report, the point is his entire agenda is based on taking up democratic issues before democrats make issues out of them. And to that end, what is the point of having a republican in the white house if all he is going to do is forward the Democratic agenda?

[SteamshipTime]

Come to think of it, I could just vote Republican.

[truthkeeper]

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[B Knotts]

Yes, it is true that the Republicans controlled the Senate for six of his eight years. But the House was solidly in Democrat hands for all eight years. I'm just trying to point out that Reagan faced even more of an institutional bias towards government growth than either Bush did.

[garv]

Neither. I just find it illuminating to see how quickly you adopt the language of the left to attack conservatives when defending your man.

[marajade]

Alan Keyes?

[borkrules]

Vast Far-Right Wing Concerted Conspiracy (VFRWCC)?

Look, I voted for Bush. Wholeheartedly. I think he's a decent, moral, responsible man. But I ain't gonna agree with everything he says and does as President, and I knew that going in. He's far preferable to Algore, and everyone here SHOULD know that.

But that's no excuse for being a synchophant and doing an imitation of our left wing boot licking opponents.

I'm not only a movement conservative, I'm a proud member of the GOP. And I'll stay and fight for conservative principles within the party. Even if that rubs the "power for its own sake, at any price" types.

[marajade]

honestly can't say with any amount of certainty that Bush would remain pro-life.

Then you shouldn't vote for him because you don't know who he is at all.

[gramho12]

To be fair, Reagan faced a hostile, Democrat-controlled Congress. By comparison, Bush has a Republican-controlled House, and a Senate that is only barely controlled by the Democrats

And who was one of Reagan's best friends? None other than Tip O'Neill. They opposed each other politically, but had respect for each other. Also, congress confirmed Reagan's nominees because of the respect for the presidency and its administration. Like I said, times were different.

[Mo1]

Oh good grief listening to him on TV is enough for me thank you very much

[Deb]

Do you have any idea how many "Saudi princes" there are? Tens of thousands. Are the ruling Saudis resposible for everything their idiot relatives do?

The Saudi ruling family has kept the region balanced and US-friendly since they took control. Without them history in the region and the world would have been very different.

They have supported and financed every mission asked of them and have condemned bin Laden from the beginning of his hate campaign in the early 90's.

The radicals of 9/11 became radicalized in German and London mosques...not Saudi.

[marajade]

I just find it illuminating to see how quickly you adopt the language of the left to attack conservatives when defending your man.

You are doing a much better job than the left ever dreamed of...

[Dane]

Yes, it is true that the Republicans controlled the Senate for six of his eight years. But the House was solidly in Democrat hands for all eight years. I'm just trying to point out that Reagan faced even more of an institutional bias towards government growth than either Bush did

Huh? Bush41 had a Jim Wright(then a Foley) led House and a Mitchell led Senate to deal with.

[wcmcgr01]

I also voted for him because he was against stem cell research, mccain's version of campaign finance, and drilling in the Gulf. Your right, I didn't know him at all in 2000. Im seeing pretty clearly what the score is today.

[marajade]

Who listens to him on TV? I thought his ratings were in the tank?