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.
I realize it's your opinion but I could just as well accuse you of giving free votes to Democrats by voting Republican instead of Libertarian. But, that wouldn't make a very compelling case for voting Libertarian now would it?
" Non sequitur " ? Hardly ! If, as many FR Libertraians claim, they don't agree with many LP platform stances, but then say that they are voting for the Libertarian " on proncile ", that IS hypocritic ; the candidate doesn't share their oh so vaunted principles at all. So, where is the " principled vote in that ? It's similar to saying that 1 + 1 = 3 . Saying that over and over and OVER agian, doesn't make it true.
How about ending the Cold War, cutting taxes , lowering tax brackets , and engendering the massive , cross country roaday susystem, for starters ? Now, go do your own research; I usually get paid, and paid well, to tutor the ill / under educated . : - )
ME: I'd say the people punished are anyone who benefits from a conservative judiciary, because Daschle now has the power to tie all his nominees up and he'll do that for another 2 years if the GOP doesn't get the Senate back.
YOU: The GOP would not have lost the Senate in the first place if they had run candidates who believed in the Constitution.
Since you've changed the subject to why the GOP lost the Senate rather than whether anyone has been hurt by it other than the GOP, I take it you are admitting you're original assertion is wrong. So presumably you won't be making that erroneous assertion anymore.
As for losing the Senate because they "don't run candidates who believe in the constitution" whatever you define that to mean, I assume they've never run such candidates in your rocket scientist judgement. Therefore, they never should have controlled the Senate in the first place.
Perhaps what's really going on is you actually prefer that they don't control the Senate or anything else.
Over 1 million people voted for at least 1 Libertarian candidate in the 2000 election cycle. That's the most people ever to vote for Libertarians. The LP ran over 1400 candidates nationwide in the 2000 election cycle. That's the most LP candidates that have ever run simultaneously. In 2000 the number of registered Libertarians was roughly 265,000, up from around 100,000 four years earlier.
I looked up the numbers. You didn't.
" Non sequitur " ? Hardly ! If, as many FR Libertraians claim, they don't agree with many LP platform stances, but then say that they are voting for the Libertarian " on proncile ", that IS hypocritic ; the candidate doesn't share their oh so vaunted principles at all. So, where is the " principled vote in that ?
Many Libertarians disagree with portions of the LP platform but vote Libertarian on principle. This is hypocritical how?
How were you able to determine that the candidate doesn't share their principles at all?
It's similar to saying that 1 + 1 = 3 . Saying that over and over and OVER agian, doesn't make it true.
It is in no way similar. Your analogy is unrelated.
yep, the liberal agenda advances....ever leftward...
Oh yeah, the punk Bush gave us away to the UN in Monterrey, Mx ... promising BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars for the expansion of the UN.
"Cogent", you say? Your line of BS makes me want to throw your mouth of bile into the toilet bowl.
Oh my, you people keep claiming that those who vote for Republicans don't vote with principles intact, because none of their candidates do the right thing ; not ever. Well, then it is safe to say ( and more factual ! ) , to say that Libertarians, who supposedly vote their " principles " , in voting for a candidate / party patform, that they don't agree with , on many, many issues , are hypocrites and unprincipled. Pity, that you don't understand logically stated refutation. You can't have it both ways .
No, my analogy works well. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.
Actually, Republicans helped prolong the Cold War by giving foreign-aid to the USSR since the 1940's. It started during WWII and has continued until present day. It has included everything from cash payments to military hardware.
Although Republicans reduced taxes they did not reduce government. In fact, they've done nothing to reduce government since Warren G. Harding was president during the 1920's. Republicans run the printing presses to obtain additional money to spend. That's where the national debt came from. Inflation is a form of taxation. It creates additional money for the government to spend at the expense of the peoples' purchasing power. Federal budgets actually increase more with a Republican in the WH than a Democrat.
Thank goodness for Republicans or we wouldn't have an Interstate highway system. It's as though but for Republicans we wouldn't have such a system. Ridiculous.
No, that's not what you said. In post #251 you stated, "In 30 plus years, the LP has actually LOST voters and supporters.
Name three elected Libertarian governors, three mayors ( of major cities ) , three Representatives, and three Senators. You can't ! You can't even name one !
I have a better idea. Name one Republican governor or mayor who has left office with a smaller budget, fewer government employees, and less regulations than when he entered office. What's important is making a difference, not just winning elections for the sake of winning elections.
As to your challenge of naming one, Art Olivier is the former mayor of Bellflower, CA. That's a major city. While in office he cut taxes, repealed regulations, and privatized city services.
...Libertarians, who supposedly vote their " principles " , in voting for a candidate / party patform, that they don't agree with , on many, many issues , are hypocrites and unprincipled. Pity, that you don't understand logically stated refutation. You can't have it both ways .
Initially you said that Libertarians who disagree with portions of the LP platform and vote for LP candidates on principle are hypocrites. You also made the claim that Libertarians vote for candidates with whom they don't share principles (post #303). After I challenged you to explain yourself you've now changed your phrasing to "candidate/party platform."
Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that nobody sees what you're doing? Do you think you can deny saying things and play switcharoo with words and nobody will notice?
I disagree. I think Rush is quite sincere. And his criticisms aren't all bad. I think he has gone overboard in the last few weeks, especially since CFR, but I believe he believes what he says and has no hidden motive.
I'm becoming more and more of a Dubya fan -- despite CFR --as his term progresses. I think God was really looking out for this country in Florida in November 2000.
But I guess I could turn on Dubya too, especially if he starts appointing pro-aborts to the bench -- something he has courageously refrained from doing.
Congrats, you twist / rewrite historical facts, better than most professional spinners !
No, I didn't change what I wrote, from post to post. Yes, everyone can see what's what. LOL
Bellflower, Ca. is a MAJOR city ? Not if one considers N.Y., Chicago, L.A., Atlanta, and Boston to be MAJOR cities. Heck, Buffalo, Pittburgh, and New Orleans are more " major " , than Bellflower is. I've never even heard of Bellflower and I think that it is fairly safe to say, that the vast majority of people, in this country, have NEVER heard of it either.
Is making a government smaller, the ONLY prerequisite , of good stewardship ? Hmmmmmmm ... Rudy was a moderate / Liberal GOPER ; however, he lowered taxes, made N.Y.C. safer and cleaner ( vastly improved the quality of life) , got Times Square cleaned up, increased the tax base ( made a much more favorabe climate, so that businesses stopped leaving / came into N.Y.C. ) , increased tourism ( see quality of life , as well as lowered crime ),and got porn, prostitues , and gang activities out of many areas of the city. Gee, that all sounds marvelous to me. Yet, to you, that apparently would count for little to nothing.
You have blinders on. Libertarians, here, continuously claim that only they have principles / vote with principles intact. When there are MAJOR differences, between what a party and its candidate stand for, and what the voter believes in, that isn't a principled vote ! Oh, but you don't see that as hypocritical. We disagree. If a party's platform calls for such things as neutrality on abortion ( which is the same as pro-abortion ) , children's right to vote , children's rights, takes a pro stance on pornography, prostitution, and anything else I don't agree with, but is for a few things , with which I do agree, that IS unprincipled and hypocritical. That is precisely, what so many FR Libertarians are claiming as " principled "; it isn't !
Libertarianism isn't workable ; it's UTOPIAN and not what this country was founded in, no matter what you say / think / post . Political purists , are political naifs, who don't see a 1/2 filled glass as either 1/2 full or 1/2 empty ; they see an EMPTY glass. That's just what they are forever going to get ... N-O-T-H-I-N-G !
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.