He's accurate to an extent.
But one day later, to do what really ammounts to lambasting the gop is hardly going to help.
He was in a sense scaremongering that the president is about to do a u turn on things like stem cell research and gay marriage which is nonsense.
The issues at stake were iraq, and corruption. Conservativr america DID NOT reject conservative principles.
The democrats played a dirty game through their left wing buddies in the media and put out one or two conservative candidates to take the house and a couple of senate races.
They abandoned their principles to do so, where as the GOP has stood by its, even at the cost of the election.
Once iraq recovers, I wonder what the democrats are going to do with all these 'semi' conservatives on their cards.
My guess, is more infighting.
I disagree. Bush has a long and storied history of not vetoing anything that crosses his desk. Even the McCain-Feingold abomination was signed by Bush, for cryin' out loud!
If the Dhimmicrats pass it, expect Bush to sign it. He's been rubberstamping their runaway spending this long. What the hell makes you think he's going to change his approach now??
I really think Rush went on this rant in response to W's very weak, defensive and apologetic news conference. It was pitiful. He sounded like his father whom I'm convinced really didn't want to be re-elected in 1992.
I'm afraid that I agree with Rush that W and many other Republicans will now be all too anxious to cave to the Dems on most policy issues. They didn't earn any kind of mandate -- they ran on NOTHING and got away with it because of the support of the MSM. Most of the Democrats that won meaningful races ran as fiscal conservatives, gun-loving conservatives, God-fearing conservatives. Yes, almost all ran against Iraq and that reflects another failing of the Bush Administration: making the case to the American people.
iraq isn't going to recover.