Cantor Rejects Rush Limbaugh Rhetoric

ABC News ^ | 03/01/09

[cc2k]

During our exclusive interview on "This Week," Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., rejected comments made by Rush Limbaugh at the CPAC conference.

<Snip> Limbaugh said Saturday to the conservative conference, "What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundations?"

Cantor today rejected Limbaugh's rhetoric.

"So the Rush Limbaugh approach of hoping the president fails is not the Eric Cantor, House Republican approach?" I asked.

"Absolutely not," Cantor said. "And I don't -- I don't think anyone wants anything to fail right now. We have such challenges. What we need to do is we need to put forth solutions to the problems that real families are facing today."

[Secret Agent Man]

Well I have been here a bit longer than you and I’ve always said what I wanted to say.

Funny how you wnat to make all the people complaining about him the wimps, when he was the actual wimp.

Maybe we’d know (if it is as bad as you say) it was not really an interview show as much as it was - a setup, maybe? - that we would not have been stupid enough to take the bait?

[GBA]

Three up and three down, Cantor.

[hotsteppa]

exactly....

[WOSG]

Real headline: Cantor deflects mis-leading question by liberal in MSM.

Reality is Rush said the same as Cantor.
They want people to succeed and they want real solutions to the problems at hand.

[Repeal 16-17]

I apologise to you both for coming on strong...now that I've gotten done raking you over the coals with a pair of razor-edged tongs? Probably not.

If you posted the first part I would have accepted your apology, but you had to post the second part. You didn't rake me over the coals. All you did was appear immature.

So why do you think Cantor would have done conservatism a service if he'd come out and laid into Obama hard core?

I don't think laying "into Obama hard core" would have made Cantor look intelligent; he would have appeared to be an idiot. My problem is with him wanting the Liberal Messiah not to fail. I believe He is a threat to this country and our freedoms, so obviously I want him to fail.

What people, like Cantor, mean when they say they want Him to succeed (or not fail) is that the United States should succeed in getting out of this economic crisis. What that does is make "Barack Obama" synonymous with "United States," so that if you want "Barack Obama" to fail that necessarily means you must also want the "United States" to fail. That's a highly dangerous mindset. No one person represents the whole of a country. Only a dictator or king thinks of himself in such a way.

[cookcounty]

Mr. Cantor: If a player on your best beloved football team picks up a fumble and with earnest intent streaks in marvelous flowing grace toward the wrong end zone.....

............would you want him to succeed, or fail?

[BlessingsofLiberty]

Let Cantor respond anyway he deems necessary. The only thing that matters to me is how these Republicans vote.

There are three of them that have signed their political death warrants with their votes. Let’s see how many want to join them. We are fighting for the survival of our country and our liberties. Who cares what they say to “Steffie” and all the other trash.

The only thing that matters is their votes and their policies. And I am keeping notes.

Lady Conservatism: “My Heart Is the Constitution” (Larrey Anderson)

[SuziQ]

I said that we can include those for whom those issues are important, but try to convince them of the importance of conservative principles regarding them.

Re: the environment, Republicans care as much about clean water, air, etc. as the libs, we just don't want business to be crippled by draconian and unnecessary laws. It's possible that some can be convinced of that, when the issue is explained.

Re: homosexual rights, Republicans think that everyone should have the same civil rights, and that there shouldn't be any special rights for any group. There are some homosexuals who agree, and who don't go in for activism. They simply want to be left alone. Why not encourage their participation in Republican issues?

On neither set of issues am I assuming any change of principle on the part of the Republicans, just the attempt to convince voters who haven't supported Republicans in the past.

[Barney59]

It didn't take long for the Spineless Jelly Brained GOP suits to start countering RUSH. The CPAC speech, in my mind, is the new pivot point for the future of Conservatism. Get on board or get run over.

[Captain Kirk]

Those weren't trivial votes. They were arguably the most important domestic legislation over the last decade. Hence, your implication that I am some sort of narrow purist doesn't wash. I realize that no candidate is perfect.

I don't just sit behind a screen. How about you? I worked my ass for Ron Paul. Paul is NOT perfect but, unlike Hunter, he voted against No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drugs Bill, and the great leap to socialism (the bailout). BTW, we whipped Hunter's ass in the Alabama straw poll!

[WildcatClan]

Paul is NOT perfect

I agree with that without equivocation. I wasn't expecting perfect in Paul and was only hoping for sane. A lot of people whipped Hunter in a lot of Straw polls. Perhaps if Hunter runs again he can go on the Alex Jones Show or have an ad on Stormfront.

[justiceseeker93]

Cantor does not support the socialization of the US economy. Take a look at his voting record over the several terms he has been in Congress and I think you’ll be convinced. What we have between Cantor and Rush is a difference in rhetorical approach, not ideology.

[ballplayer]

I support the President but not his socialist Policies , There that was easy Wasnt it ?

[SumProVita]

A fairly good analysis....thanks. I was not aware that he had voted for that ominous Omnibus bill. That is most troubling.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

This meme is part of the new McCarthyism liberals are spinning.

"Do you agree now or have you ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh?"

Just as they used to have Red Scares, now they are having a Rush Scare. Agreeing with "Rush" substitutes for being a "Communist" in this game.

It's a "divide and conquer" strategy to split the GOP over Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio. It's also part of the way liberals view the Right and conservatives, thinking the popularity of conservative talk radio is the cause of conservative opposition to liberals rather than a byproduct of that opposition. It demonstrates the confusion of liberals about conservatives and American culture. Limbaugh didn't invent the idea that excessive taxation and Big Government are bad. Cart before the horse mistake. It would hurt your head to get inside the mind of the Carville-Begala-Stephanopolous "get Rush" monster, there's so much confusion, sophistry, and deception to it - making Limbaugh the piñata. Some of the things they accuse Limbaugh of (presumably as being bad) are actually the U.S. Constitution and very basic constitutional principles.

On the other hand, it also demonstrates a vacuum in conservative leadership in the GOP. There isn't a main spokesman who has emerged as an effective leader for conservatives.

[gathersnomoss]

Keep it up, Cantor. You and your Rino friends are the reason that I have gotten off of my lazy ass, and I have become a delegate. Shove it, Eric.

[gathersnomoss]

I see the difference. Cantor has lost his moral ground. I am fed up with “good people” who get corrupted by the political system. Where the hell is his backbone? I will do everything possible to get him replaced!

The time for conservatism is here, NOW!

[gathersnomoss]

It seems that some Republicans here at FR don’t seem to get it either. A shame.

[Captain Kirk]

My we’re getting nasty aren’t we. I must have struck a nerve. When people start implying that great defenders of liberty like Ron Paul are Nazis they have clearly gone off the deep end. You and Al Sharpton ought to get together. You have a lot in common.

[cc2k]

SumProVita wrote:

A fairly good analysis....thanks. I was not aware that he had voted for that ominous Omnibus bill. That is most troubling.

Not exactly. To be clear, Cantor (and Boehner) voted against the Omnibust Spending Binge Act.

However, prior to that, they did abandon one of their principles.

For most of February, they were complaining that the Dems were drafting the Omnibust appropriations act in secret and preparing to rush it through to a very quick vote.

Then, when the resolution for consideration came to the floor, Boehner and Cantor agreed that the Omnibust Spending Binge Act should come to a vote after only one hour of debate. That's where they abandoned their principles. If they thought one hour of debate was enough, why complain that Pelosi was going to rush it through?