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.
Actually, it seems the Pubs are afraid of responding to the Dems. Almost as if they've accepted status quo (big government).
Probably the polls are driving the leaders instead of visa versa
Prostitution should be decriminalized, not legalized. Sex with underage children should rightly remain a criminal act under the law and punished accordingly.
Neither. He is playing games with the audience, making himself look independent of the Republican Party. He is not. When the elections come around, he will say vote Republican, when GWB comes up for reelection he will say vote for GWB. He is not off the reservation, he is trying to regain credibility when it is too far off from the elections for it to matter.
Maybe you "settle" for getting at least part of your agenda passed while compromising with the 50% of the people, (that also have a vote by the way), that you disagree with. The other option is "settling" for 0% of your agenda. We're in the minority my friend. 20% of the country would go for a true conservative agenda. I'm sure I'll get flamed here but I'm willing to settle for small steps in the right direction vs standing on the sidelines screaming because I didn't get anything I wanted.
The 50% that voted for Gore could also argue that same point you made. It's democracy at work. It's also why we don't have a king. Lots of people representing lots more people and they each have a vote based on how their constituents want them to vote, (or at least that's the general idea) :)
I'm willing to "settle" for an honest man in the Oval Office that respects the American people, respects his wife, respects the rule of law, and respects the military. After eight years of the draft dodger sticking cigars in an intern and hanging around the Oval Office in his sweat pants eating Doritos and drinking beer, I'd say we're definately taking little steps in the right direction...even if I don't agree with 100% of the legislation that he signs.
You may be, but you have to look at the other side. Who killed the Reagan revolution? Who did the most damage to the conservative cause - George Bush or Bill Clinton? My answer is George Bush. He told the people we don't care what you vote for, we will do as we please. He destroyed the faith people had in Republicans to do the right thing. He told conservatives you will vote Republican and take the crumbs we give you and if you don't like it, you can lump it, you have nowhere to go.
Well I for one have a little more pride in myself to serve as a lackey for someone like that. I therefore stayed home. And guess what, in just 2 years the Republicans were back roaring and would have changed the political landscape of this country if it had not been that Newt Gingrich betrayed them for a little sex on the side.
On NOW at RadioFR!
6pm/9pm - Dr. Mike and "Faith in Action"! Tonight Dr. Mike celebrates the faithfulness of Yahweh's promise. "Who ever heard of such a thing? Before she travailed she gave birth" God's faithfulness is what we are praising tonight. We can surely count on all He has spoken.
7pm/10pm - The "Banana Republican", our own Luis Gonzalez, has a spirited interview with...none other than JACK THOMPSON!
On NOW at RadioFR!
6pm/9pm - Dr. Mike and "Faith in Action"! Tonight Dr. Mike celebrates the faithfulness of Yahweh's promise. "Who ever heard of such a thing? Before she travailed she gave birth" God's faithfulness is what we are praising tonight. We can surely count on all He has spoken.
7pm/10pm - The "Banana Republican", our own Luis Gonzalez, has a spirited interview with...none other than JACK THOMPSON!
I haven't listen to Rush in a long time, and don't think I'll start anytime soon. The reason that Rush and others are bashing Bush is because they simply can not figure him out. He isn't playing the typical game. And, since we know it's much easier to criticize than compliment... well, you know the rest.
False.
...many Libertarians, on FR, keep claiming that they don't agree with oh so many points of the LP platform. Well, since principles are SO important to you, then you are unprincipled, because you support that which you disagree with. Such hypocracy!
Non sequitor. How have you concluded that some Libertarians are unprincipled because they criticize the platform but vote for Libertarian candidates?
He's just keeping his ratings up :)
This is an erroneous belief held by many. It is meant to lay a guilt trip on people in order to get them to vote a certain way.
Kyoto, ICC, the declaring an unborn fetus a person, no $ for abortion clinics for foreign countries, calling the 3 the "Axis of Evil", NEVER meeting even once with Arafat, recess appointments of conservatives that couldn't get a hearing.
Unlike a lot of people, I refuse to judge the man by what his father was or wasn't.
Even I have called him that before, on this very forum. I will admit it, I was wrong. I have a new respect for Rush.
Your replies PROVE that you have a tenuous grasp, at best, of politics. That you fail to understand that the make up of both Houses , matters , is patently obvious. IT MATTERS; GREATLY ! If it matters to you, who sits on the SCOTUS , then having a Dem run Senate , shoud be the LAST thing you want; yet, this isn't the case. Ditto for the House. Of you yearn for more tax cuts, less government, etc., etc., same thing. This isn't rocket science !
Okay, you are no Conservtaive; now, you need to admit to your Marxism, as well . All of this garbage, about the " elits " and " ruling class ", belies certain juvenile thought processes, that you have. Yes, there it is ... you feel oh so powerless, so irrelivant, and you are. The Founding Fathers agreed with you, in that you don't have enough sense / ability , to be able to actually vote for a president. That's WHY they set up the Electoral College, you know. The FFs were ELITISTS !
There has NEVER been a time, when the " common man " decided which candidte should run for president, not anything else. As a matter of fact, until fairly recently, Senators were hand picked , by the states' " INSIDERS / RULING ELITES ", OF EACH PARTY !
You have claimed that you are pro-life, and think that children are their parents' property . So, do you also disagree with the LP, about prostitution, dope, open boarders, pornography, age of consent / voting , isolationism, almost NO military, private ownership of roads , highways, and public property ? If so, that's some HUGE disagreements !
Thanks, my friend. I try to stop by once in a while but I can only take so much.
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.