WHY RUSH IS DISGRUNTLED (Bush is advancing the Democrats most liberal agenda )

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 can't tell you about California. In Pennsylvania, a GOP controlled house, senate and governor have managed to cut taxes and ease regulations. No where near as much as they should have-- I believe we are still higher taxed and in many ways more regulated that Calif. -- but the last eight years have seen a huge improvement in overcoming our union/Democrat legacy.

If Rendell wins in November, the gains may very well be squandered. And we can kiss any chance of desperately needed school or tort reform goodbye. I see the Democratic Party as irredeemable. I don't feel that way about the GOP. I wish you luck anyway.

It seems too many Libertarians would rather argue amongst themselves about who is most philosophically pure than come on to a site like this and mix it up with people who think a little differently (though not all that much, in my opinion) than they do. Their loss, definitely.

Milton Friedman is in my opinion the smartest man in American. He describes himself as a libertarian, although I think that's with a small "l." If you guys would put the drug debate on the back burner and stick to economics I think you would have more success. Or, if you can't, at least limit the drug debate to Constituional matters (sort of as Buckley does) rather than the let's legalize everything and party as one often gets the impression. I'm sure the postition expressed in that last clause is not a fair depiction but that is the impression many have and with reason considering.

Gary Johnson, who from what little I know, appears to be a very good governor. And hes a R of course.

Likewise I'm not familiar with the Penn. situation however I must ask you this: when you do the math in terms of what the GOP has given you through tax cuts, less regulation etc. in some areas and compare it to what they have taken from you in other areas do you really come out ahead? Take a long hard look at what their agenda has really accomplished at both the state and federal level; sure they cut SOME taxes and reduce SOME regulations (one could argue the Democrats do the same in other areas) but my contention is they give with one hand and take with the other, so you really don't make any progress at all.

In fact you actually LOSE ground when you add up the programs like the War On Drugs that both parties support. The costs of that war (like the Democrats' war on business) are passed on to each and every one of us, whether we use drugs or not.

Contrary to both parties' anti-drug propaganda they are not protecting us from the ravages of drug abuse. The black market their War On Drugs has created costs us an incredible amount of money and of course even more in terms of lost freedom. This is why the Libertarian Party emphasize the decriminalization of drugs as much as it does, and I believe should continue to do. Contrary to conventional wisdom this is our best wedge issue to use against both parties since both are equally to blame for the War On Drugs. Democrats have an (unearned) reputation for being more sympathetic to personal freedom while Republicans have an (equally unearned) reputation for being sympathetic to economic freedom. In truth, Democrats have little use for personal freedom outside of the abortion issue which is not an example of personal freedom anyway since it involves taking an innocent life, the ultimate deprivation of that unborn child's freedom. Republicans are equally contemptous of economic freedom as they bestow lavish subsidies and tax breaks on favored industries while helping them restrict competition. The success of both parties has a lot more to do with fear and disinformation than with principle.

Both are masters at controlling various interest groups by doling out political favors, making each group think they're getting something for their constituents when in reality these people would do a lot better for themselves with a Libertarian government. Then they wouldn't have to waste so much time, money and energy keeping the other guy (Christians vs. gay rights activists, blacks vs. whites, rich vs. poor) from using government power against them. It is not the abuse of government power but the power to abuse that is the problem for these groups and ultimately all of us.

The result of your brilliant strategy would be that the next President, maybe a Democrat, would get to fill the vacancy. It would then be appropriate to blame you for the fact that the liberal justice was sitting on the court for the next 30 years or so, just as you blame Republican presidents for their appointments when the Democrats control the Senate, most of which are still preferable to the Democrats' appointees like both of Clinton's who voted against the Boy Scouts.

It sure seems like we go round and round in circles on this point. Just to clarify perhaps my previous posts and replies haven't been hard enough on the Democrats. I blame both Democrats and Republicans for the Supreme Court we have today. Unlike some of my left-wing friends in the Libertarian Party I do not think Reagan was the worst president ever and as I have said in a previous reply I actually have a great deal of affection and respect for most Republicans, including our current President and his father.

Also as I have pointed out on many posts lately it's time for the Republican Party to behave like the business that it is. When you lose customers to your competition because they're providing your customers with something you're not giving them the solution is to give your customers what they want or at least more of it. The solution is not to attack the motives, patriotism or morals of the customers who have left you for your competitors as too many people on Free Republic do. I have never attacked the patriotism, morals or motives of the politicians I have mentioned in my posts. If I have done so in your opinion or anyone else's here please point it out to me so I may apologize accordingly.

I have attacked and will continue to attack their policies and their tactics/strategy. I believe those are all fair game.

Gary Johnson, who from what little I know, appears to be a very good governor. And hes a R of course.

Like Ron Paul and others Gary Johnson has decided to work within the Republican Party to advance the libertarian cause. I don't quarrel with their strategy; in fact I endorse it in conjunction with my strategy which is to advance that cause within the Libertarian Party. "Pressure from within and pressure from without," was one of the mottos of the Communist/Socialist revolutionaries who did so much damage to our country during the last 40 years. While I despise their message, I take great pleasure in using their methods against them. Also I want to make it clear that under no circumstances have I ever nor will I ever vote for a Democrat; I do not believe their party is redeemable. Compare the size of the libertarian contingent within the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. With the Democrats, it's basically nonexistent while with the Republicans I see it growing (too slowly for my tastes, but growing nonetheless).

My only real point is that it matters whether the Senate and White House are Democratic or Republican. Nothing you've said so far has really been able to refute my point that there are Supreme Court decisions which would have gone the other way. The BSA was one of the more high profile ones but there's been quite a few others too.

You continue to hold to your position that it makes no difference which party is in power. If you think the liberals on the Supreme Court are also right alot of the time, which I absolutely do not, then I could understand your point. What are some SC decisions where you were on the side of the liberals?

I must ask you this: when you do the math in terms of what the GOP has given you through tax cuts, less regulation etc. in some areas and compare it to what they have taken from you in other areas do you really come out ahead?

Honest answer is yes, although not by much. (At least in the last 8 years when the GOP has controlled all three branches.)

Take a long hard look at what their agenda has really accomplished at both the state and federal level;

The Republicans held the House and Senate in DC between 1995 and 2002. The conservatives controlled the Republican caucas and were able to get some fairly good people in high ranking positions such as Delay and Armey. They never, however, held a majority. Country club Pubs and Dems combined to defeat many issues near and dear to both our hearts.

I think good people have much influence in the GOP which is why I'm reluctant to abandon them for something new.

Maybe, more significantly there is something very evil in Washington. I strongly suspect Gingrich was subject to blackmail. Certainly Livingstone was. I don't know that Libertarians would be less immune to corruption. On another thread I posted the dictionary definition of liberal." Check it out. It will make you depressed. If the leftists, socialists, authoritarian types can co-opt this very nobel word (which, as defined, is fairly synonymous with your beliefs) they can do the same with "libertarian."

In fact you actually LOSE ground when you add up the programs like the War On Drugs . . .

I understand the arguments and know that Buckley and Friedman are both harsh critics of WOD, and I'm not unsympathetic to your views. On the other hand, drug abuse is very bad. I would not want to encourage my worst enemy to abuse drugs. I suspect you generally feel the same way. There is a perception that Libertarians want to encourage recreational drug usage. The more sucessful Libertarians -- think Ron Paul -- have emphasized an anti-drug stand while maintaining their principles concerning individual liberty.

Both are masters at controlling various interest groups by doling out political favors

My own cynical belief is that any group who gets power will ultimately be corrupted. That's why I have more interest in advancing specific issues such as abortion restrictions, school choice and term limits rather than a particular party.

I certainly wish you well and in no way think you are a traitor to any cause.

Honest answer is yes, although not by much. (At least in the last 8 years when the GOP has controlled all three branches.)

How much exactly?

I respect your committment to issue-orientated activism; in fact I share it. However I don't think it's enough by itself. One of the political parties is going to hold power in this country; the realist in me accepts this which is why I work to promote the LP as a viable political alternative.

I'm trying to get into the habit of referring to them as leftists instead of liberals because that's what they really are. Like their Marxist peers they have done a brilliant job (unfortunately for us) of hijacking our language and turning it on its head. I can't think of any SC decisions off the top of my head where I would be on the side of these leftists. My point is that Republican appointees (with the exception of Thomas and Scalia most of the time) have not been much good when it comes to interpreting the law as opposed to legislating from the bench.

A couple of things are becoming apparent:

1) You have no idea how anybody really votes on the Supreme Court and don't really follow SC decisions.

2) You simply can't get it through your skull that the Senate has been controlled by Democrats when most of the appointments have been made, which was my original point at the beginning of the whole discussion. And no, I do not think simply having one appointee after another shot down for their entire Presidency is an intelligent option. It's brainless.

The large number of 5-4 SC decisions in recent years should clue you in that there must be one group of 4 or 5 justices who usually vote conservative, and another group of 4 or 5 that usually votes liberal. In fact Rehnquist has been one of the most conservative justices. Here's a rating of justices' liberalism that I found on a website: Supreme Court Justices Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Cases 1937-1994

JUSTICE	Civil Liberties	Economics
Rehnquist a	19.3	42.2
Stevens	62.8	58.7
O’Connor	34.6	42.7
Rehnquist b	23.1	46.5
Scalia	29.7	44.1
Kennedy	36.5	45.4
Souter	54.0	53.8
Thomas	27.0	36.5
Ginsburg	61.4	59.0
Breyer	63.4	42.9

aRehnquist Votes as Nixon Appointee
bRehnquist Votes as Reagan Appointee

I assume the Civil Liberties category includes the Boy Scouts case, and the gun control decision next month would also fall under that category.

"If the Reagan Revolution is not dead, then it's dying."

There was never any such thing; and that is Rush's first mistake. The idea that a sizeable part of the electorate was really behind the notion of a purely capitalist system is unbelievably naive. The electorate always wanted medicate, social security, etc. If there is any chance of establishing a truly conservative party and ideology it lies with future generations, not past or present ones.

Note to Rush: face the reality; the electorate is in favor of an eclectic form of rule; substanitally capitalistic but socialistic as well.

you haven't disproved anything I've said about Scalia, Thomas or any of the others and these ratings only prove what I've been saying all along. In fact I have less respect now for Scalia and Thomas after seeing this.

Whatever you've said about any of them is meaningless, because you don't have any idea what the hell is going on anyway. I doubt you even knew who all the justices are. Based on your previous posts, I thought you approved of Scalia and Thomas. Now your saying I haven't disproved that? You're a complete airhead.

What is it that you've said about any of them other than a bunch of vague generalizations which you can't illustrate with any specific examples, i.e., they legislate instead of interpret the law, they don't enforce the constitution or whatever? There's no burden of proof on me to "disprove" those inane statements. You have no way of backing them up in the first place. For someone to credibly make statements like those they would have to know some specific examples and also be conversant in constitutional theory. I've given specific examples of votes which would have gone the other way. You have yet to give an intelligent response to that. I could say "all libertarians are retarts" and then say you haven't "disproved" it.

To me what matters is, based on what I know about some of the key decisions over the years, Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Kennedy have generally prevented liberal overeaching and legislating from the bench, often by a single vote. Your opinion of whether they do that or not means nothing as you know nothing.

I was thinking about this part of your answer. Why doesn't the LP go after Dem constituents? There are many blacks who won't even consider voting for the GOP due to a largely irrational bias, but may consider voting for a third-party with free market values mixed with suspicion of government. If blacks would start voting for the LP it would be good for the LP and good for the country. It might even cause the Dems to shift a tad in the free-market, school accountability direction.

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.