Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHY RUSH IS DISGRUNTLED (Bush is advancing the Democrats most liberal agenda )
Rush Limbaugh ^ | 5/13/2002 | rushlimbaugh

Posted on 05/13/2002 3:12:19 PM PDT by TLBSHOW

WHY RUSH IS DISGRUNTLED

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.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: bush; rush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 481-486 next last
To: Lightnin
I think you have a huge case of sour grapes.
421 posted on 05/20/2002 11:41:33 AM PDT by Scarlet Pimpernel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: seanc623
The closest anyone ever got was Ross Perot, and that would have been a disaster.

That's something we can both agree on; Perot would have been a disaster for a lot of reasons. He's a fraud and a tool of the same New World Order types he was supposedly running against.

422 posted on 05/20/2002 12:43:58 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Keep religious beliefs out of politics and you just may be able to re-create the argument about our nation concerning our liberties.

As a Libertarian and someone who is not religious I have to take your side on this issue, which may come as a surprise. I don't believe that it's possible or desirable to keep religious beliefs out of politics. In fact Christians are natural Libertarians (see the excellent post on my home page, "Is Jesus A Libertarian?") Libertarians object only to using government power to force religious beliefs on others.

423 posted on 05/20/2002 12:52:57 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Lightnin
He's also becoming more and more irrelavant. His stuff, which used to be fresh and provactive, has become nothing but a rehash of news and information that his staff gathers from the internet and other sources and simply recycles it. I used to hate it when Rush took a day off; now I almost welcome it. I think success has begun to spoil the great man.

May I suggest giving Larry Elder a listen? The Sage of South Central is anything but stale.

424 posted on 05/20/2002 12:57:52 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: seanc623
Maybe you can't remember your original point.

It was that nobody but the GOP is hurt by not having a GOP controlled Senate. I gave the Boy Scouts of America case as an example of something which would have gone the other way if not for Republicans. You didn't seem to think that amounted to much then asserted that the conservatives are no good on other things, like drug laws, and that they'll lock up drug users which you didn't think was a good idea. I said that drug laws are passed by the elected representatives of the people and not the courts. You in turn said that the conservative judges refuse to rule that all the drug laws are unconstitutional so they're at fault. I asserted that drug laws are not in themselves unconstitutional. You cited the Tenth Amendment and the preamble to the constitution. I asserted that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to outlaw drug trafficking across state lines and that the preamble was just a general philosophical statement and doesn't have any specific application and challenged you to cite a case where it did.

So, I reiterate, cases like the Boy Scouts of America's (successful) attempt to retain their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion are at stake when the U.S. Senate (and White House) changes hands.

425 posted on 05/20/2002 1:08:28 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
So, I reiterate, cases like the Boy Scouts of America's (successful) attempt to retain their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion are at stake when the U.S. Senate (and White House) changes hands.

Republican president will sign CFR which will OBLITERATE First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion... how many Republican Reps and Senators voted for CFR?

426 posted on 05/20/2002 2:19:14 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Beg God to make what all better? I'm enjoying this. It's been awhile since I dialogued with libertarian.

I'm a Libertarian and I'll be happy to dialogue with you.

427 posted on 05/20/2002 2:21:34 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
For the record I don't think the Boy Scouts amount to much when weighed against the numerous examples of GOP indifference to the Bill Of Rights. However as I said in a previous post or reply the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude whomever they please; if we had Libertarians on the Supreme Court they would not have been in the crosshairs like this in the first place. I can say that with confidence because Libertarians and others who obey the Constitution would not cite the flawed precedents their Republican and Democrat peers always do, nor would they legislate from the bench. Libertarian judges would be bound by their oath to point out the fallacies in previous precedents rather than use these precedents as guidance.
428 posted on 05/20/2002 2:29:38 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
So, I reiterate, cases like the Boy Scouts of America's (successful) attempt to retain their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion are at stake when the U.S. Senate (and White House) changes hands.

Wasn't that decision 5-4? If so how many of those on the losing side were appointed by Republican presidents and/or confirmed by Republican Senates?

429 posted on 05/20/2002 2:36:59 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: seanc623
Souter and Stevens were in the four who voted against the BSA. Both of them are consistently liberal. Stevens was appointed by Ford in 1975 when there was a huge Democratic post-Watergate edge in the Senate. Ford wasn't a conservative anyway, but even if he was he probably couldn't have gotten someone much more conservative than Stevens.

Souter was appointed by the first Pres. Bush, also when the Senate was solidly in the control of the Democrats. Souter's views on everything were kind of mysterious at the time, which was a large part of the reason Bush appointed him. He had a lot of trouble getting confirmed, ironically because most of the Democrats voted against him. He refused to say in his testimony how he'd vote on the Dem's litmus test issue, abortion. Bush's other appointee, Clarence Thomas, probably couldn't have been confirmed if he hadn't been black. As it was he had to go through hell you'll recall.

430 posted on 05/20/2002 3:22:23 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: gramho12
If a Clinton gets back in the white house soon, it will be a Bush that did not not a Rush.

Bush has done some good things - but the Kyoto Treaty was a bit of nothing. The left did a lot of h and-wringing but it was purely for the media. There is a reason only one other nation had ratified it. It was going nowhere.

Bush is not perfect and if we all line up behind him and echo what he is doing, we will have another Clinton. We have to have the courage to tell him when he is wrong. And he is wrong on many things - immigration is the most dangerous problem we have in this country. It cannot be separated from terrorism and it is destroying this country.

He outdid the democrats on the education bill.

The farm bill is corporate welfare for the big agribusinesses who cross the palms of all politicians.

He 'out-toleranced' the Arab-American League shortly following 9/ll.

He is still allowing middle eastern men to come to this country and take flying lessons.

Didn't he back down on the arsenic in the water thing?

Remember this man works for us and he holds the future of this country and of our children in his hands. It is ludicrous to just stand back and clap our hands over everything he does.

431 posted on 05/20/2002 3:41:49 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: seanc623
if we had Libertarians on the Supreme Court they would not have been in the crosshairs like this in the first place.

The same could be said for conservative Republicans. Actually it was the Boy Scouts who brought the case to the Supreme Court. Originally the New Jersey courts ruled they had to accept gay scoutmasters. It was that court that put them in the crosshairs. They then appealed to the federal courts and they lost in those too until the Supreme Court.

The conservatives on the SC have been doing lots of good things like paring back the excesses of alot of laws like the Americans With Disabilities Act, which has had alot of bizarre consequences. I guess libertarians would rule the whole thing is unconstitutional but there's not likely to be a libertarian president in the foreseeable future. The Bush Justice Dept. has just advanced the argument in a major gun control decision that will come in July that the Second Amendment does not apply only to state militias but to individuals. It's the first time any administration has made that argument in a gun control case. I'll be interested in seeing how that comes out.

432 posted on 05/20/2002 3:45:09 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
With the exception of Thomas and sometimes Scalia Republican presidents have consistently given us those kind of justices--- Souter, Stevens etc. (including Sandra Day O'Connor most of the time). Thomas was actually a happy accident for constitutionalists because I don't think anyone including the first President Bush realized just how dedicated he was to the Founders' vision. I think if George H.W. Bush had realized how different Thomas really was from Souter he wouldn't have nominated him.
433 posted on 05/20/2002 3:50:51 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: seanc623
As a Libertarian and someone who is not religious I have to take your side on this issue, which may come as a surprise.

No, it doesn't. I really don't have anything against libertarians or Libertarians. I like Ron Paul quite a bit. Sometimes when I'm feeling really ticked at the stupidity of the GOP, I'll tell my fellow Republicans I going to bolt to the Ls. Maybe one day I even will.

Plans of salvation are in no way the government's business but all nations need a common morality if they have any hope to survive.

Jefferson and Franklin -- neither of whom believed in the Resurrection -- both vocally believed our values should be based on the teachings of Jesus. For most of our history they were.

I, of course, believe in the Resurrection but it would be an act of great evil to make this belief -- or any belief -- a requirement for citizenship.

434 posted on 05/20/2002 3:58:26 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: seanc623
I'm a Libertarian and I'll be happy to dialogue with you.

And I would be honored -- although I don't think it would be quite the same as discoursing with Buck at 2 o'clock on a Saturday morning. :-)

435 posted on 05/20/2002 4:00:34 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: ricer1
Living in Texas, I voted for "W" in his 1st bid for governor. After that, I had seen too many things that convinced me "W" was no "C" (as in conservative)... In the 2000 presidential, I voted for Howard Phillips.

Howard Phillips is a conservative giant compared to Bush. Nice to see a Texan that sees beyond the two party lines.

436 posted on 05/20/2002 4:08:03 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phillip Augustus
'Tis truth!! It happened right here in little ole Texas.

Now that policeman 'took a bite out of crime' with the help of the Supreme Court.

If I were a police officer, I would be ashamed to give a seat belt ticket, or a 10 miles over the limit (on a highway) speeding ticket. This is not law enforcement, it is revenue gathering. And I don't see them giving tickets to old, beat-up carloads of people who cannot, and will not pay the fine. They pick and choose their 'victims.'

437 posted on 05/20/2002 4:10:52 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
I do respect the difference between conservative Republicans and the RINOs that so often sabotage the formers' efforts. One of the reasons I left the GOP is that I finally realized the RINOs always have been and always will be in control. I know of many people who came to the same conclusion I did and like me took a lot of time (even 20 or 30 years) to come to it. I think the title of this forum really says it all; the Republican president advancing the liberal agenda all the while assuring his conservative supporters it's a brilliant tactical move to outflank the leftists. We've seen it all before; the only people being outfoxed ultimately are the conservatives who continue to support the GOP.
438 posted on 05/20/2002 4:16:21 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: seanc623
Well, they don't need a libertarian dog catcher in Florida, because Governor Bush has signed (and was proud of it) that makes it illegal to kill a domestic animal.

Of course, that can be interpreted to mean any domestic animal. What if I choose to raise chickens, rabbits, cows, hogs, etc. for my own comsumption and do the butchering. I could be afoul (no pun intended) of the law in Florida. Now you may think Gov. Bush didn't mean that!! Well, remember, the laws are not just for the length of time Gov. Bush in in office, but forever.

I can just see a lot of havoc caused by this bill that was meant to garner the votes of all Fluffy and Fido owners.

439 posted on 05/20/2002 4:17:43 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
No I don't suppose it would be but I think we could benefit from fewer insults and more substantive debate (I find myself guilty on that count, too).
440 posted on 05/20/2002 4:18:32 PM PDT by seanc623
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 481-486 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson