One poster accused Rush of losing whatever skill he had at understanding the political zeitgeist and the political context.... and....never having anything uplifting to say, just whining all the time.
It's about time we all started whining (and preferably loudly and long), because those who hold the federal (executive, legislative, and judicial) reins in this country are not listening to those of us who know what their power is supposed to entail (and where it should end). Not only are they not performing that relatively small list of services which they are called to do, but they are, instead, doing all manner of things which they are forbidden to do by the very document which serves as their blueprint.
I stopped listening to Rush many months ago, so am not really familiar with his latest pet peeves, favorite sports stories, cigar recommendations, or causes du jour. But, from the sounds of it, I may have to begin listening to him again (or at least begin re-testing the E.I.B waters).
As for Mr. Limbaugh losing whatever skill he had at understanding the political zeitgeist and the political context....There's entirely too much political everything being considered these days (zeitgeist and context notwithstanding). It's time to put political considerations aside and start focusing on two concepts....and two concepts only: (1) reclaiming a consitutional republic form of government, and (2) survival.
No more sitting back and stroking one's figurative beard and deciding what the (so-called) civilized thing to do is. America is concerning herself with (so-called) civilized behavior moreso than she is with her own, and the free world's, survival.
Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt, North Korea, Saudi Arabia....political correctness, concern for world opinion, the practice of global civility (and maybe even the valuing of human life and liberty) are not a part of their lexicon. So, at least during these most perilous times, neither can they (other than the life and liberty thing) be a part of ours.
This country is desperately in need of Reagan-esque leadership (the kind that places America first, and governs based on right rather than politically correct, or politically expedient, decision making). Such leadership is not forthcoming from G. W. Bush.
The man is seeking a negotiated peace with people who believe their destiny is to kill those who do not share their religious (*cough*) views, and who will not stop the killing until their neighbor state (who merely wants to be left alone) is eradicated.
The man is preaching conservative governance, and then supporting or signing every unconstitutional/pork-laden/liberty-destroying/dollar-hungry bill that is brought to his attention or laid upon his desk. Not one veto since taking office a year and a half ago. Not one.
All one needs to do is take a good look at Bush's stance on the (either already signed by him into law, or pending) education bill....farm bill....partiot act....homeland security....campaign finance reform....immigration.... federalization of airport security....healthcare entitlements....Hardly anything contained in any of them that promotes government the likes of which the founders envisioned. And lots of big-government spending and regulating which will result in increased federal power over the states and individual citizens, the greatest increase in federal government spending in history, and more incremental loss of God-given, constitutionally-insured liberties for all of us.
I'm not (nor are most of the other 'whiners' on this thread) a Bush hater. I voted for him, and will again, if he once again represents the lesser of two evils. Those on this thread who are using that term fail to see the difference between hating a man and voicing the fact that you are being betrayed by him.
My friend (he who alerted me to this thread :) calls Bush's political philosophy of governance 'stealth conservatism' --- it's there, but you can't see it, touch it, taste it, nor feel it. I think he's got it nailed.
All one needs to do is take a good look at Bush's stance on the (either already signed by him into law, or pending) education bill....farm bill....partiot act....homeland security....campaign finance reform....immigration.... federalization of airport security....healthcare entitlements....Hardly anything contained in any of them that promotes government the likes of which the founders envisioned. And lots of big-government spending and regulating which will result in increased federal power over the states and individual citizens, the greatest increase in federal government spending in history, and more incremental loss of God-given, constitutionally-insured liberties for all of us.
BINGO !! No one could explain that any better. Great job!
btw, it is true, isn't it, that mr. bush promised to not drill off the florida coast? isn't that another cave-in to the environmentalists? i'm not counting chickens before they hatch, but i expect a change of mind on anwar next.
BLAM!!
Our agenda is in there. It is really a conservative using Bill Clinton's techniques AGAINST the Clinton party. The irony is quite delicious, IMHO. I have never liked CLinton's morals or politics, but I have ADMIRED his political skill, and felt that there were things we could learn from it. It looks like Bush has begun to apply some of the techniques.
Actually it would be more accurate to recognize some basic facts about George Bush.
1. He has committed himself to advancing major parts of the conservative agenda i.e. tax cuts, conservative judges, missle defense, privatize Social Security, etc.
2. Bush trys to reach out to the soccer moms and other non-political types by making some sort of warm and fuzzy liberal-sounding statements (like speaking to the NAACP, that wasn't to get their vote it was to get the soccer mom vote.) These upset and annoy conservatives, but do very little harm to the conservative agenda.
3. Bush is so desperate to regain control of the senate. That he is willing to sign many bad bills, in order to deny the democrats issues.
4. Bush is trying so hard to set a high standard of Presidential behavior (to repair the damage that Clinton has done.) That he is failing to engage in the politics necessary to advance the conservative agenda. (e.g. fighting for his judges.)
Hear hear!! Very well said, my FRiend.
"This country is desperately in need of Reagan-esque leadership (the kind that places America first, and governs based on right rather than politically correct, or politically expedient, decision making). Such leadership is not forthcoming from G. W. Bush."
The pity is I absolutely believe Dubyuh is capable of the kind of leadership we seek. Somehow, though, I sense he's being misled by advisors who would willingly sell conservative principles down the river in exchange for a couple points bump in the polls. Long-term, I think Dubyuh and the GOP could do major damage to their credibility with the Party's base.
"The man is preaching conservative governance, and then supporting or signing every unconstitutional/pork-laden/liberty-destroying/dollar-hungry bill that is brought to his attention or laid upon his desk. Not one veto since taking office a year and a half ago. Not one."
IMHO, Dubyuh is "preaching conservative governance" because deep down he believes in conservative governance. However, perhaps an effort to retain universal support for our War on Terrorism, he seems willing to take the Right's base for granted will attempting to "broaden his support" supporting pork-spending legislation that he never would have supported were we not locked in the battle with Islamic Radicals. Just like when Reagan abandoned domestic fiscal conservatism to obtain the military support to win the Cold War, Dubyuh's deal-making will be used against him by the same RATS he aims to appease.
The "whining" of Fiscal Conservatives needs to be appreciated by the Bush Administration as the CONSTRUCTIVE Criticism it is...we're not trying to undermine Dubyuh's success, we're trying to save him and the GOP from the Milquetoast Moderate wing of the Party that wouldn't know Conservative Principles if they bit them on the behind!!
FReegards...MUD
I've been following the debate. Some may not quite "get" what is meant by "stealth conservativism" --- that conservativism not passing the other litmus tests, is not [t]here, in spite of all the FRPRs who keep lauding Bush's "achievements" in the name of "we, on faith, really just have a feeling we know what he's up to and therefore because we ... think ... we ... know, ... he's ... done ... quite ... a ... lot" ---> like Clinton's "accomplishments" which were the feelings of having attained something --- feelings ONLY in the hearts and minds of liberals ---- based upon their sensitivity to Clinton's use of various socialistic jingoisms.
Which is a brief comment on how I've noticed other folks saying, not only myself saying it, that Bush is sort of the Republicans' version of Clinton.
Depends upon what the meaning (as Bush uses meanings) of what the term "compassionate" "is;" or it gives new meaning to it (pick either or both).
In spite of the list of Bush's giving away our VAST RIGHTS in exchange for attaboys from Daschle --- construed to be conservative accomplishments for all to see --- Bush is viewed by his apologencia as a master at political compromise(!) ... while he uses a formula whereby he gives quite a lot of other peoples' money and property in exchange for "beads of bi-partisanship;" not to mention his utter failure to prosecute for violations of the law(s), Clinton Administrators' (and "Executive Administrators Associates'") transgressions.
To wit: when the Bush apologencia go to Yellowstone Park and pick up some fallen eagle feathers and takes them back to the motel and / or awaiting bus, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of at least one politically-correct government agency's skewed imagination. While leftists handling feathers go free --- chalked into the category of political capital to be used at some future date.
Which goes to Bush's incredible "selective integrity" --- his failures, many, to uphold the equal application of the law(s).
I'm sorry, but in my book, and in George Washington's, you've either got integrity or you do not, and George W. Bush is wanting.
Except for the simple fact that my relating where Bush is falling down, on matters of defense, would reveal what I wish not to, here stateside, I can only say that he is darn near an embarrassment at how far behind the curve he is.
The statements of his administrators are laughable at how SERIOUSLY they regard the public for not knowing much and how, therefore, the Bush [still running the Clinton] Administration has as its first objective in this war, the coverup of, and immunity from prosecution pertaining to, MAJOR LEAGUE as well as MINOR LEAGUE SCREWUPS!
Bush is an executive boss but not a leader who leads by awareness of our might, our resources, and our freedoms.
Because frankly, they are not put forth to him on a one-page list.
"If only he had seen the threat," (presumably on yet another one-pager) he says, "he would have done something about it."
That is the most irresponsible of Presidential statements I have heard since "I did not have sex with that woman!"
There's a bunch of bull floating around the public eye, fed by the media, that "something must be done" about our intelligence problems vis a vis our concentration of the flow of info.
Well I'm here to tell you that the requirement is as old as military ventures and many times in the past, Ray Cline, who wrote the outlines for the C.I.A., etc., has addressed the matters.
And Ray and George's dad "go way back."
So please do not try to tell me that George W. Bush was "in the dark," and that the flow of intelligence is not concentrated because of the government not having the power (it needs MORE(?! <--- NO!!!!!) ... nor within the power of the President to correct!
It would not be the truth.