Posted on 05/13/2002 3:12:19 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
On Monday's show, the Doctor of Democracy made a sad diagnosis: "If the Reagan Revolution is not dead, then it's dying." If there was a model that the Bush administration used in establishing itself, it was the Reagan presidency. But now Bush is advancing the Democrats' most liberal agenda items - something particularly frustrating at a time when Bush's popularity would make it easy for him to recruit new conservatives.
Many of you have been critical of Rush's reactions to Bush's actions on spending over the recent months, and we took more calls of this sort on Monday - people who'd convinced themselves that the farm bill made sense or that Bush had some grand strategery at play. Now, Rush could throw his beliefs out the window for a day or two and say things that you might want to hear - like when he endorsed Clinton back in 1992 - but that's not what he does.
Rush can only give you his honest reaction, even when he doesn't like those reactions. That's honesty, folks, and it goes to disprove a key criticism many of the nation's liberals have made of Rush over the years. They've said that Rush is a party hack, and that he'd support the Republican Party no matter what they did. They charged that the EIB Network was simply a tool, that we were in daily contact with the powers that be to get marching orders. Well, that has pretty much been dispelled here: Rush is disgruntled.
Facts aren't name calling; your description of Ron Paul wasn't factual. It was demeaning and insulting to a man who has done a great deal for both of our parties. (I'm assuming here that you are a Republican.) I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself so I won't comment on your views of Libertarians and Greens. I only disagree with a handful (if even that) of platform points, just as I'm sure disagree with some points of the GOP platform. I gave up on trying to change the Republican Party from within because I finally realized that was impossible. They are not a suitable vehicle for constitutional government because they never believed in the Constitution. They believe in power for it's own sake. The ends justify the means; witness their reaction to those who question their authority.
Without splitting hairs too much, the support I mentioned was raising money for the NRSC and other groups which both Bushes have done. That group and others protect Republican incumbents like Jeffords.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051402/content/fruit.guest.html
As I've said before, I'm not a Conservative; I'm a Libertarian. I fail to understand why Conservatives lose when someone like Gorton who clearly wasn't a Conservative loses. The ruling class of the GOP has bamboozled Conservatives for over 40 years now into thinking that your fate and theirs are tied together. They have convinced you that you have to accept their parasitic presence in exchange for political power. But power to do what? To enforce the Constitution? No... to advance their agenda. Piece by piece is fine with them. They have the money and the time to outlast citizen activists so they can play this game forever. Conservatives, Libertarians and Constitutionalists do not. We can't beat them playing their game by their rules. Compromise is a one-way street. It always works to the advantage of the powerful because they can afford to give away more since they A) Have more to begin with; and B) Can always steal more (through more taxes and regulations) when they run low.
You can vote for anybody you want to. It's still a free country last time I checked.
My point was that by voting for a third party, which at the Presidential level doesn't have a chance in Hades to win, you are essentially giving a free vote to the Hillary's of the world.
By not voting period you are giving a free vote to the Hillary's of the world. It's a fact. Deal with it.
The dems do enough vote manufacturing without us helping them by voting for people like Perot.
Unless you get a third party candidate, (like we did here in MN with Jesse), who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal and can capture about 40% of the centrist vote a third party candidate is not going to win. The left here still voted for Skippy Humphrey and the right voted for Norm Coleman. The middle voted for Jesse and voila, we have Jesse the Mind running our state.
A third party candidate that is either far left or far right is NEVER going to get enough of the vote to win. Sure, you're still entitled to vote for whoever you want to, but I stand by my statement that a vote for a third party is a vote for the other major party on the left/right scale.
Didn't mean to yell my answer; I stand by my point that if you settle for less, less is all you'll ever get. Jesse won by talking like a Libertarian but has governed like a big spending Democrat/Republican. My party should have run a candidate against him then and I hope we'll run someone this time. I don't like his typical politician act of late and I'd love to see him tumble from the good graces of the media that first ignored him then tripped all over themselves to embrace him as the Next Big Thing.
I'd like to reply to you but I don't know what your point is. What is it you don't think we get?
The GOP would not have lost the Senate in the first place if they had run candidates who believed in the Constitution.
Roger Moe has received the D endorsement.
Tim Pawlenty and Brian Sullivan are going to end up in a battle for the R endorsement.
Sullivan is the more conservative candidate but IMHO he's not electable. And, if you listen to the more conservative media around here they agree. Still, the true activists will come out for the caucus and Sullivan will very likely get the endorsement. Pawlenty is more of a Norm Coleman candidate. A R but not a hard R. Here in Minnesota where the libs rule sometimes you have to settle for the lesser evil to keep the dems out of office. In this case Pawlenty is definately preferable to Moe. And, word from a lot of R's is that if Sullivan wins the endorsement, they'll vote for Jesse. If Pawlenty wins, they'll vote for him. Sad, but it's a fact.
That's the exact reason why, in today's world, Keyes, Buchanan, Browne, et all don't stand a chance in a national election. There are too many centrists that don't want either a true conservative or a true liberal with that much power.
If you go back and read a lot of the legislation that Reagan passed it's amazing. He's viewed as a true conservative, but a lot of what he passed is very liberal. Farm bills, amnesty, etc. He was a wise man that knew he had to walk the middle of the road on some items in order to get the support he needed for the truly important ones. The only truly important items are support of our military and getting conservative judges on the bench at the apellate level and to the Supreme Court. Everything else, (CFR for example), can be fought in the courts. If we don't win back the Senate and keep the House, we can all expect that the only judges that will make it to confirmation will be centrist or liberal judges. That will be the beginning of true socialism as we know it.
Libertarians have made many accomplishments over several decades. Libertarians in local offices have repealed taxes, repealed regulations, thwarted attempts by Republicans and Democrats to increase spending, and opened public works projects to the competitive bidding process. I'd wager to say that Art Olivier did more to reduce government during his tenure as the mayor of Bellflower, CA than all the Republicans in Congress over the last decade.
All I ever see Republican lawmakers do around the country is raise taxes, increase spending, pass more gun control, and pander to anyone who makes a generous campaign contribution.
The reason the Republicans started life as a third party is because they stood on principle. They should learn from their own history.
Cantwell won and the Republicans lost control of the Senate because of the RP, not Libertarians. When the RP begins running candidates who will steadfastly defend individual rights, limited government, and free-market capitalism then I'll start voting for them and so will many Libertarians. So long as the RP keeps running candidates who sell-out, pander, and support every increase in government spending they'll continue to get pricisely what they've earned -- defeat.
1) Paul lost, when he ran as a Libertarian. ( that makes him a joke ! )
2) He could only get elected, to anything, when he ran as a Republican. ( that makes him a fraud, and a joke ! )
3) He votes , more times, with the Dems, than wth the GOPers. ( that makes him a joke ! )
4) He gets almost no support, from fellow Republican Reps. ( that makes him useless / neutered / a joke ! )
Now , dear, these are truths ... facts . I'll repeat myself, so that you can get someone to expalin this to you: I DID NOT NAME CALL ; I STATED UNASSAILABLE FACTS.
What have Republicans done?
So at what point (if ever) do we stop settling? Please explain to me what settling and compromising have gotten us. How do you advance a principled agenda by always compromising with people who have contempt for you and your principals?
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.