Replies

Then there is the Rush story he has up that says conservatism has been hi-jacked! Rush is in overtime it looks like. But Someone is wrong and someone is right. There is something going on what is it?

hijacking of our conservatism

I have a question for you. As you know, we are looking back with 20/20 hindsight at all of the terrorist activities, particularly those on September 11th, and we're trying as hard as we can to learn whether or not we had all the clues we needed to learn of those attacks in advance, and stop them from happening.

My question is this: Looking back now, in hindsight, have we had sufficient clues presented to us that would have told us in advance of the hijacking of our conservatism? Had we looked at them in a different light, would we have known that conservatism was to be hijacked and, therefore, could we have taken action to prevent this hijacking of conservatism?

When I heard about the Bush administration's latest flip-flop - on global warming - I went to the databases, conducted exhaustive research, and concluded that we should have seen this coming.

The evidence that this was coming has been abundantly clear, going all the way back to June, 2001 in this BBC headline, "Scientists Warn Bush On Global Warming." Here's an excerpt, "U.S. president George W. Bush has been told by leading scientists that climate change is real and getting worse. Their White House commission report is now being viewed by the president, as he prepares to face European leaders angered by his attack on the Kyoto protocol."

Let's move to August 4, 2001 - headline Washington Post, "McCain, Lieberman Urge Greenhouse Gas Curbs - Senators Press Bush on Global Warming." That story outlined how Bush was influenced by McCain and Lieberman - two interesting names, when you look at the politics of this. Guess who doesn't have an issue now on this? McCain, Lieberman, Gore and the Democrats. But don't misread any enthusiasm here. I still disagree with this whole business of how you broaden your coalition, because we're taking issues away from them, but we're advancing something that need not be advanced.

Our next story comes from August 6, 2001 in the Washington Post, "Bush: Warming Plan Likely, Says Aide. Card is Optimistic Kyoto Alternative Will be Ready by Fall." Colin Powell is prominent in this story - another interesting political player to pop up on this subject.

We move on to the Washington Post, February 14, 2002, "Bush Touts Greenhouse Gas Plan." Here's an excerpt, "President Bush today will unveil his long-promised proposals for combating global warming." Then on the next day, February 15, 2002, Washington Post, headline, "Bush Unveils Global Warming Plan. President's Approach Focuses on New Technology, Incentives for Industry." It was all right here in front of us, if we had been paying attention, folks.

And in the midst of all this, there's this story in Monday's Los Angeles Times, "A Natural Split with Bush, and Many Quit." This is a story about James Furnish, an evangelical conservative who voted for Bush, and plans to do the same in 2004. He was a deputy chief of the U.S. Forest Service. He left the government last fall at a substantial financial sacrifice because he was frustrated by what he called the Bush team's, "strident pro-development philosophy and unwillingness to even listen to his perspective." He quit because nobody was listening to him. I wonder how he feels today?

So, folks, this is what appears to be the hijacking of conservatism. Could it have been prevented, looking back in hindsight?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060302/content/stack_b.guest.html