Rush Limbaugh: Why Republicans Lost

news.com.au ^ | 9 November 2006

[Aussie Dasher]

Republicans lost control of the House, and perhaps the Senate, because they abandoned their conservative principles and in the end stood for nothing, Rush Limbaugh said today.

In his Wednesday broadcast, America’s top talker said that until Republicans begin asking themselves what’s wrong with themselves they are never going to fix their problems.

When things go wrong, Rush said, "you must look inward and ask first, ‘What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes did we make?”

Commenting that although Republicans lost, "Conservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night.”

The Democrats, he said "beat something last night with nothing. They advanced no agenda other than their usual anti-war position. They had no contract — they really never did get specific. Their message was one of ‘vote for us; the other guys have been in power too long.’”

Rush further admonished, "There was no dominating conservative message that came from the [Republican] top and filtered down throughout in this campaign.”

He added that if there was conservatism in the campaign, it was on the Democratic side: "There were conservative Democrats running for office in the House of Representatives and in a couple of Senate races won by Democrats yesterday.” He cited James Webb as an example.

He also said it was conservatism that won fairly big when it was tried yesterday, but it was Democrats who ran as conservatives and not their GOP rivals. He added that the Democratic leadership had gone out and recruited conservative candidates because they knew liberals could not win running against Republicans in red states.

Rush quoted Thomas Sowell as explaining that the latest example of election fraud is actually what the Democrats did — they nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative candidates for the express purpose of electing a far-left Democratic leadership.

"The Democrats could not have won the House, being liberals,” Rush said. "Liberalism didn’t win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost. Conservatism was nowhere to be found except on the Democratic side.”

The root of the problem, Rush said, is that "our side hungers for ideological leadership and we’re not getting it from the top. Conservatism was nowhere to be found in this campaign from the top. The Democrats beat something with nothing. They didn’t have to take a stand on anything other than their usual anti-war positions. They had no clear agenda and they didn’t dare offer one. Liberalism will still lose every time it’s offered.”

Republicans, Rush said, allowed themselves to be defined. "Without elected conservative leadership from the top Republicans in the House and Senate republicans are free to freelance and say the hell with party unity.”

That leads, Rush said, to the emergence of RINOs — Republicans in name only.

Republicans in Congress, Rush explained, were held captive by the party’s leadership in the White House. They were put into a position of having to endorse policies with which as conservatives they disagreed.

"The Democratic Party,” Rush went on to say, "is the party of entitlements; but the Republicans come up with this Medicare prescription drug plan that the polls said that the public didn’t want and was not interested in. That is not conservatism. Conservatives do not grow the government and offer entitlements as a means of buying votes. But that’s what the Republicans in Congress had to support in order to stay in line with the Party from the top.

"It is silly to blame the media; it is silly to blame the Democrats; it is silly to go out and try to find all these excuses,” Rush said. "We have proved that we can beat them … we have proved that we can withstand whatever we get from the drive-by media. Conservatism does that — conservatism properly applied, proudly, eagerly, with vigor and honesty will triumph over that nine times out of 10 in this current political and social environment. It just wasn’t utilized in this campaign.”

Rush also blamed the failure to embrace conservatism on Republican’s fear of being criticized from those in the so-called establishment. Republicans, he charged, go out of their way to avoid being criticized, fearing they will be characterized as extremists and kooks.

As a result conservatism gets watered down, and the GOP loses the support of the nation’s conservative majority Rush stated.

Anything can beat nothing, Rush concluded, "and it happened yesterday.”

[dirtboy]

Can you give me the exact issue that was in the Contract that the republicans drifted away from?

Gawd, try any notion of fiscal conservatism, for starters.

You obviously ain't serious about curing what ails the GOP, are you? You'd rather just pretend this was the fault of the base, not the pubbies who went hog wild on the public's dime.

[OldFriend]

So you would not spent one dime on recovery after 9/11?

Not gone to war?

Have you ignored the huge increase in funds TO the treasury thanks to the tax cuts?

These are different times.

Was there a time when unemployment was 4.4 during Newt's presidency? /s/

Balanced budgets were projections, not realities during slick willie.

Would you rather we not build up the military that slick willie decimated?

Time to wake up and see that the world changed drastically after 9/11.....and will never be the same.

Reagan wouldn't even recognize the Reagan being deified around here.

[dirtboy]

So you would not spent one dime on recovery after 9/11?

Like the bridge to nowhere and countless other earmarks?

Cut me a break. You are in denial. And are part of the problem, not the solution.

[syriacus]

And your point is?

My point was that those elections you previously mentioned as examples did not involve wide margins and were in blue states.

Thanks for correctly presenting examples of wide margins now.

You can try and put whatever spin you want on it if it makes you feel better,

I'm not the one who was saying narrow losses were big losses.

[OldFriend]

What does the bridge to nowhere have to do with 9/11 reconstruction.

Are you suggesting that there was no pork in any budget while Newt was president. Sheesh.

[dirtboy]

What does the bridge to nowhere have to do with 9/11 reconstruction.

My point exactly.

Are you suggesting that there was no pork in any budget while Newt was president. Sheesh.

Look up the massive growth in earmarks over the last six years and get back to me.

[syriacus]

we have a third party here in the US. Talk radio hosts who criticize endlessly

To say nothing of the fifth column here, the MSM.

The talk show hosts actually perform a service by countering the media lies. The GOP leadership has done poorly in countering lies.

[redhawk]

Rush can point the finger of blame right back at himself. He complained yesterday of "carrying the water" for these RINOs, so why did he do that? Conservatives depend on these talk show hosts like Rush, Hannity, etc to be objective and honest. When they choose to cover up and make excuses for RINOs this type blood letting is the result. If they had been calling these jokers out and turning up the heat the RINOs in Congress and the WH would have been forced to come to terms with the conservatives that put them in power. Thanks a lot Rush!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I think these political dynasties are a bad habit for voters to indulge. Look at how many were up for election this year. It sees positively un-American to me.

I think that you are entirely correct.

I also think that it doesn't matter. You're arguing the "Ought", as against the "Is".

The Kennedys, the Prescott-Bushes, the Caseys of Pennsylvania, the Daleys of Chicago -- I suppose that many examples could be multiplied -- it seems that without a robustly-republican (if not downright regicidal!) Reformed Mindset (as existed amongst the Revolutionary Americans, if not perhaps since), the Electorate seem almost to prefer a devolution to Aristocracy.

I suppose that there's even a sociological rationale therefore -- "better the Devil you know", et cetera. I'm not saying it's Right, but it seems to be the case.

Democrats are worse than Republicans in supporting homegrown aristocracy.

Surely you jest.

If not for Republican Party nepotism, we'd all have been gunning for a Forbes or a Buchanan in 2000. On his merits, Bush Junior was at best the third or fourth choice of many on Free Republic, if that... certainly including the Founder.

To: Freedom Wins So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful indiscretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?

Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrites! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!

And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!
2 Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson

If not for Bush Senior's "golden rolodex", the partying frat-boy from Texas never woulda made it past the Primaries. Republicans elected him based on his Money and his Name -- Bush Junior.

And, sure enough -- just as Jim Robinson expected and predicted -- we've all been screwed over royally by the Prescott-Bush Establishment GOP Dynasty.

Massive expansion of Federal Powers, abrogation of the Bill of Rights, drunken Government Spending, vast Fiscal Deficits, a sucking chest-wound of foreign policy, abandonment of the Border... other than his Supreme Court appointments, I can't think of one issue where I'm happy with Bush Junior (and he even tried to screw us on that, also, until we made such a stink about the Harriet Miers idiocy that he threw us Sam Alito as a bone).

The Democrats hung Bush Junior around the necks of the GOP Congress, and they managed to kill off a lot of good Congressional Conservatives by doing so. And how did the GOP get into this mess in the first place?

Dynasty.

[IrishBrigade]

...Santorum has been in this 'liberal; state as a Senator since 1994...he wasn't all of a sudden voted out by a bunch of liberals...he was voted out primarily because the media joined him at the hip with Bush and Iraq, and because Casey has the PA bloodlines...

[kevao]

Why did Rick Santorum (rock solid conservative) lose?

Because he had an '(R)' after his name, not because he was conservative.

[hgro]

Rush is entertaining but assumes too much importance to his personal influence in the politics of the country.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

No. I mean an accurate picture of what was taking place in Iraq, insurgency, economy, Korea, Katrina, any issue.

IMHO, what's "taking place" in Iraq is a bleeding suck-hole which is already costing the Republic more Treasure per month than the Vietnam War, and which is demanding a vicious tribute in Blood as well -- yes, I am aware that we have suffered "only" about 3,000 dead; but that's largely a function of superior US Kevlar over the key head and torso areas... we have suffered over 20,000 wounded already, kids coming home alive (thanks to body armor and the heroic efforts of combat medics) -- but with their arms, legs, and faces blown off.

Wars are seductive as women in the night. Past midnight in February of 1967 we stood, the platoon and I, on the flight line at El Toro Marine Air Station, gateway to Asia. On the tarmac big jets howled and moaned. The smell of burned jet fuel blew in the Pacific breeze. We felt the exhilaration of being part of something huge moving in the darkness, of going to the action, of leaving the mundane. The attraction of war verges on the lascivious. It gets into your blood. And so we went. Young men always go.... Yet the wounds will remain. Arms do not grow back. For the paralyzed there will never be girlfriends, dancing, rolling in the grass with children. The blind will adapt as best they can. Those with merely a missing leg will count themselves lucky. They will hobble about, managing to lead semi-normal lives, and people will say, “How well he handles it.” An admirable freak. For others it will be less good. A colostomy bag is a sorry companion on a wedding night.

I once watched the first meeting between a young Marine from the South, blind, much of his face shot away, and his high school sweetheart who had come from Tennessee to Bethesda Naval Hospital to see him.

Hatred comes easily.

These men will come to hate.
It will not be the Iraqis they hate.
This we do not talk about.

(Fred Reed, USMC [retired], SCUBA Editor Soldier of Fortune: "War", "Wars and their Aftermath")

I have a certain pastor friend, a former combat medic as I recall, with whom I disagree on several important Theological matters; but whom I nonetheless respect as quite a bit wiser and more experienced in life than myself (a young Civilian pup barely out of my twenties). He once disagreed with a lawyerly young Calvinist, who maintained the necessity of Occupation on the basis of the Colin Powell Doctrine ("You Break it, you Buy it"), by arguing instead that the best way to deal with an aggressive, anti-American Tyrant was to "go in, cuss, break some stuff -- and then leave."... with the understanding that the New Government could do whatever it wanted, so long as they were aware that America had plenty more Daisy-Cutters in the arsenal if we had any more trouble from them.

I think that most Americans feel that my pastor friend -- let's call him "X" -- was pretty much correct: "go in, cuss, break some stuff -- and then leave."

By contrast -- 3,000 Dead and 20,000 Wounded later, "Mission Accomplished" feels like a bloody fraud... an unconscionable Bait and Switch.

George W. Bush did not win the Republican Majority of 1994 -- Conservatives did. But George W. Bush did lose the Republican Majority of 2006... he hung like an albatross 'round their necks, and they suffered for his "No Confidence" Vote.

[ichabod1]

Rush is deaf, that's why his voice is different.

[xzins]

So far as Dynasties are concerned, we have seen one run its course, I think, here in Ohio. The inevitable result of any dynasty was spelled out by John Calvin fairly well in his doctrine of total depravity.

Taft is a household name in Ohio that has been devolving from descendant to descendant for about a century now.

This latest iteration was nothing more than a petty sneak thief liar who finally got caught. The difference in Ohio is that we don't tolerate (apparently) our ruling class being criminals. Massachusetts seems to revel in the same, so the Kennedy's have a few more generations of murderers, drunks, and cokeheads to put up with until someone sees the light.

This Taft owes Ohio a big apology, but Taft was never here for Ohio in the first place. We'll never hear it.

I hope someone prosecutes his ass now that he's out of the governor's seat.

[ichabod1]

Santorum may have come out of this with more than I thought he had. The perception is that he put up a valiant fight and came out on the wrong end, as opposed to Allen who came out looking like a bumbler. If Santorum can mend fences with those who are still furious about his support for Specter*, he could be a formidable contender for the White House. I think I might support him if he were to try. His baggage train is shorter than the rest.

[ichabod1]

1) A well financed and dedicated insurgency
2) A terrorized population that can't afford to be too much on our side
3) Safe havens for the enemy and above all
4) Not fighting to win.

I'm afraid we HAVE made the same mistakes we made in Vietnam. I'm not sure the electorate believes these things are winnable, and I'm not sure they're wrong.

[xzins]

You do well to quote me, because I still believe the strategic and tactical execution of the war has been different than I would have done. I have from the beginning favored a "Sherman's March Approach" followed by a partitioning of Iraq. Anyone willing to research these pages back to the beginning of this war can find that I was saying those things 4 years ago.

They will also find me saying that there is nothing "morally or logically wrong" with Pres. Bush's desire to build a democratic state in Iraq. I followed that: (1) I voted for him, (2) That he gets to set the policy, and that (3) I'd add my support. That is no different than a military commander's staff having a difference of opinion with him on how to take Hill 517. The boss gets to make the final call. If he chooses a method other than your own, you loyally go out and attempt to take Hill 517 HIS WAY. If his way fails, then you loyally inform him of the obstacles, and THEN you loyally present him with new options.

That's the way it works with commanders and kings, and a Cdr in Chief is owed that.

That said, 3000 dead 'IS' a tiny casualty count. It simply is, and any historian will tell you the same. We lost more in the first hours of WWII's D-Day that that.

There is no doubt in my mind that a great Information Warfare (please study this relatively new Information Operations take on an old military concept) Battle has transpired between the liberal power elite and the Republican power elite. It is clear that the liberal forces, with their ownership of vast media resources, have won resoundingly. Additionally, they were able to MAGNIFY a relatively minor casualty count through Information Warfare techniques. They were able to energize and give hope to the Iraqi insurgents and keep them fighting.

They have been proven successful.

If the President had had the media support that Roosevelt had in WWII, we would be polishing tanks in Riyadh in about a month, and this would all be over except the shouting.

Now, what would I do at this point? The time is past for us to break things in Saudi, Yemen, Pakistan, and Egypt. We might be able to justify a foray of sorts into government overthrow in Iran and Syria.

But, the easiest thing at this point is the partitioning of Iraq. We will have to pay off Turkey in some way to keep them from attacking the Kurds.

[Starboard]

The Democrats, he said "beat something last night with nothing. They advanced no agenda other than their usual anti-war position. They had no contract — they really never did get specific. Their message was one of ‘vote for us; the other guys have been in power too long.’

The Dems will self-destruct, and it will be far worse that what happened to Republicans IMHO. They have virtually no agenda, nothing at all, except some vague feel good ideas that are going to collide with reality. Sooner or later the Dems are going to have to get specific, and the devil is in the details. I see lots of infighting down the road. Its going to be fun to watch.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Incidentally, it's very good to see you, GWB.

I was disappointed that I was unable to accompany you to Colorado late September (in addition to the opportunity for our fellowship together, my Episcopalian friend in Denver was very much looking forward to my joining him for the Great American Beer Festival); I was really looking forward to hanging out together. However, as I explained, previous family obligations intervened.

I am, at least, happy to report that the lonely Quartz Mountains of southeastern Oklahoma offer delightful camping -- a small, over-priced local carnival for the kiddies, plenty of big fish in the lake (if the local cotton-farmers don't drain it dry), and you really can't beat thin-cut steak barbecued over an open fire (screw the grill. If you want "smoky BBQ", rub in the sauce and stick it in the coals!).

Other than that, my Wife and I recently enjoyed our First Anniversary -- we were, of course, married on Reformation Day, October 31; at my insistence. (Who the f*** gets married on Halloween, anyhow? -- "The Crow") Therefore, I say, One Anniversary down, One Hundred to go (alright, perhaps I am optimistic).

I must call you soon. I know that I say that, and then fail to follow through; but I shall try to do better. I'm happy to say that things have been turning up for me lately; and since I can scarcely credit my own severely lacking patience, I must credit my Wife's prayers on my behalf.

"If you are suggesting, Sir Edward, that my position in society owes anything to my wife, you are utterly mistaken. It owes everything to my wife."
~~ Oscar Wilde, "An Ideal Husband"

Best, OP