RUSH REMAINS ROCK SOLID (WHO HAS SOLD OUT? RUSH ASKS)

Folks, many of you have been calling into this show to rip into me for criticizing President Bush on any number of issues. I'm going to tell you what I think.

You guys that are ripping me apart act like the president's approval numbers are down in the forties and that I've caused it. Last time I looked, his approval numbers were in the high 70s and among Republicans he has a 90% approval rating. I think that with most of you, this president could announce a tax increase today and you'd think that it was great, you wouldn't criticize it and you'd say something like, "Well, yeah we're in a war, got to raise taxes," You'd come up with some sort of a means to support it. If I questioned it, you'd have at me.

Some of you are asking of me something I can't do. You're asking me not to be an honest broker. Some of you remember the primary campaign of 1992, when I endorsed Pat Buchanan. The specific reason I did that was because I was of the opinion that not enough conservatism was in the White House then and I thought conservatism in the primary debate would go a long way toward reminding George Bush 41 what it was that got him elected - and if he was going to be reelected he had to remember his conservative roots.

Now, when I'm simply standing for the same things that I have always stood for and not wavering a bit, I'm accused of selling out conservatism. I'm a conservative, but I'm not beholden to the Republican Party. I'm always going to remain loyal and devoted to my ideals. I will guarantee you this, folks.

Previously on this program we listed eleven or so issues on which the administration has flip-flopped. You can name any issue, but take campaign finance as an example: If I had come out and said I'm all for campaign finance reform, that John McCain is right, you would have called here in droves and accused me of selling out, and asking me what had become of my conservatism. Some of you might have even asked me if I was trying to ingratiate myself with liberals to be invited to their stupid parties - like one such caller did on Wednesday's program. You can hear a whole bunch of callers' opinions in From Across the Fruited Plain: Embattled El Rushbo Battles Back.

I am simply saying that I oppose all of these things and disagree with them, yet I'm the one that's accused of selling out. All I've done is remain rock steady, folks. What I have done is remain in lockstep with my conservative values, beliefs, and principles. I haven't wavered from them at all. I am not the one who changed my mind on campaign finance reform or steel tariffs or education or spending or global warming or on anything I believe. Those of you who are angry with me for standing by these principles obviously have.

This is a followup to my previous post #135 above.

Following is a transcription of a portion of the first segment of the second hour from Rush Limbaugh's show on Thursday, June 6, 2002, where he appears to suggest that new taxes may be necessary to fund the President's proposed Dept. of Homeland Security. This follows similar comments from his first hour on Thursday. I was unable to listen or tape hour 3 that day. He sounded serious. No joking around.

He made no suggestion to fund the new Cabinet level department by cutting spending instead of imposing new taxes on the already overtaxed producers in this country. Here's what Rush said:

I just want to reiterate too that I wouldn't be surprised if there's a call for new taxes to pay for this on the Democratic side of the aisle. It may be necessary you don't know, depending on how widely - or wide the scope of this new department is going to be, what they're going to do, I mean the money is going have to come from somewhere [pause] and it'd be an excellent opportunity for these [pause] and you know how they are, for these Democrats to make a move on taxes, as I said in the last hour, the economy is starting to come back, and they don't have that as an issue, and I can just see them trying to make this an issue out of the fact that the president wants this new cabinet level department but how's he going to pay for it? That's their question for everything, well how are we going to pay for it? Especially when tax cuts are proposed.

After listening to this several more times, and the way Rush said it, I am convinced that he was attempting to soften up the audience to accept new taxes, for the good of the country, and to demonstrate our support for President Bush. I'm convinced he did this as a result of his conversation he told us he had with Karl Rove on Tuesday or Wednesday, ostensibly about the EPA Global Warming fiasco.

I say there is no way that Rush is going to support a tax increase to fund the new agency.

I also say there is no way whatsoever that President Bush will support or sign a tax increase. That's veto bait for sure.

We should know where Rush stands next week. It will be interesting to watch.

If I am wrong on either of the above points, I will happily chow down on a large helping of crow!

Cheers!

"Amazing how Rush and Alan Keyes can be 'chewed up and spit out' for remaining firm in the principled stands they take..."

Remaining firm on "principled stands" is easy, so long as you don't have to actually DO anything other than talk about them.

I bet you that if O'Reilly starts eating up Rush's numbers, we will see a major shift towards populism by the Maharushie.

As for Keyes, I guess his next test will be to see if he can beat the primetime guy for a better slot.

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.