Posted on 06/06/2002 3:07:53 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
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.
I don't know what all the venom directed towards him is about. I hear from some Bush supporters that "No one will EVEr be Conservative enough for some people, they will always find fault" and that's true as far as it goes, or it's true as long as we keep electing men to lead us. They will always be a little flawed.
What I don't understand is why they haven't turned their mantra around and figured this out for themselves instead of always just shooting the messenger.
We are "family". You, me, Rush, and Dubya. WE can tolerate in-fighting and name-calling. WE can call each other "sombitch" and laugh about it later. Well some of us can ;-)
The Democrats have NO such dynamics within their party. They completely ostracize dissent. Heck -- Ever take a peak at the DU forum?
At the end of the day, I'm sure we'll be covering each other's heineys if someone on the outside attacks us. For now, I would still maintain dissent is healthy amongst our "family."
I want Rush to express his true opinions; but he has become obsessive, suspicious of Bush, quick to jump to conclusions, too much a pawn of the liberal press and Drudge (when he, of all people, should know better).
He has also lately been ranting, defensive, and the cardinal sin ... boring.
And he has lost his good humor and been rude to callers. No one was a more faithful Rush person than me; yes, my husband taped him every day for me, and still does. I want Rush to be Rush; I want to be able to enjoy listening to him. So, if he's lost me, he's lost his base.
Frankly, I don't care that he criticizes President Bush and I certainly wouldn't want him to lie to his listeners, but the degree to which he does it is completely unnecessary and probably harmful in many ways. For one thing, the time he wastes could be better spent talking about liberals!
One of the things I always liked about his program is that he could always look at things in an optimistic way. I don't mean in a naive way, but just able to look at the positive side of things. Now, when I listen to his show I feel depressed. There is enough going on without needing to be depressed about exaggerations on how Bush is flip-flopping.
When he believed the Washington Post story about how we weren't going into Iraq (2?) weeks ago, I couldn't believe how little faith he had in the President. The next week, he tried to pretend that he hadn't really believed the story, but he was back-pedaling and not being honest. This EPA issue is almost exactly the same to me (although a much more minor issue, IMO!)
I just don't enjoy listening to him anymore. I'm not saying I won't ever listen again, but I need a break. I miss having the radio on during the day, but at least summer is here and I won't have to feel like I am missing something if I go outside.
He lost it a long time ago. When your a talking head it's easy to ramble piously about anyone that has to garner a majority vote to accomplish anything.
BTW, I asked you this on another thread, but never received an answer, if the administration does not issue a report stating that humans are a major factor in the bogus global warming theory can the NYT write a story about it? While you're at it, when can I expect the administration to push for a ban on partial birth abortion?
Narcissist's like yourself and rush usually do love their own opinions. No surprise there. I thought it would take you at least two posts to accuse me of reading the New York Times, but you did it in one!
Wow, you discern so much from your "wisdom".
I promise I will never underestimate you again.
Thank you I never underestimate the hubris of the "know all, be all" conservatives for their myopic mores.
I'm not going to bother spelling out for you that my post had nothing to do with lying under oath and everything to do with the unrelenting baloney that if you criticize President Bush's policies, you must (a) hate him, (b) hate America, (c) read the New York Times, and often (d) all of the above. Thanks for helping me prove that.
Yep all coming from a hyped up and distorted NYT article. Don't worry you have spelled enough.
First, it is easy for you to make such an assertation(but what the hey, it makes you feel good, the onus is on you to prove it true). Second the NYT would never write a story that may put Bush in a good conservative light, that is not their objective.
While you're at it, when can I expect the administration to push for a ban on partial birth abortion?
When there isn't a dashole led Senate.(i.e when it has a chance of getting to the Senate floor).
Leave Marple alone, I'll mop the floors!
As someone on another thread suggested, he could have 100% so long as the pollsters don't call Rowdee! LOL....
Miss Marple, have I told you lately that I love you? LOL this was Rush's best evaluation yet.
My thoughts exactly.
Part of a "triangulation" strategy perhaps? I don't know why, but being a DFW local I am reminded of a recent flap between Mark Cuban and a local "D" magazine reporter that generated some pub for both sides.
hhhhrrrmmmmmmmm.....
If the Pubs controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, he would go out of business.
If the dems had the Presidency, his income would vastly improve.
To be fair, I'm sure Bush himself had nothing to do with the report and, judging by his reaction, knew nothing about it before it was issued. Unfortunately that's what happens when you make Christie Todd part of your administration, another move that conservatives were critical of and were assailed as "Bush-bashers" for questioning.
It's really hard to stomach the vitriol directed at conservative voices like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Drudge for voicing opposition to absolutely inexplicable acts by this administration. Who has done more as a voice for conservatism over the past decade than Limbaugh? He alone delivered the message to millions who otherwise never would have heard. What voice on a major news outlet has been a more valuable ally than Hannity? Who did more to cripple the Clinton administration, Drudge or the Republican Senate?
Ah, but they dared to utter a word in oppostion to this administration and now are consigned to the ash heap of history as far as many of you are concerned. You demand unwavering loyalty to the administration, but your loyalty to champions of conservatism has the shelf life of cottage cheese.
For the record, there are still enough Democratic votes in the Senate to pass a ban on PBA, but I'm sure it won't happen before the mid-term elections and more likely, never.
"a" primary cause, or, something natural may be a primary cause. Nobody knows.
Rush painted himself into a corner by saying there's no possible way that humans could be a cause of warming. That's a far cry from saying that it's not KNOWN whether humans are a major cause of warming or not.
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.