Why Win If You're Going to Wimp Out? (Rush Limbaugh asks Republicans)

rushlimbaugh ^ | January 2, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

Why Win If You're Going to Wimp Out?

January 2, 2003

There is no reason for going soft on the Bush agenda, yet we're doing that more and more on everything from ending racial discrimination (aka: affirmative action) to tax fairness to Saddam. If we'd already dealt with him, we wouldn't be faced with this supposed dilemma over whether North Korea or Iraq should be our primary focus. It's not a dilemma, anyway. They're both going to be dealt with, so there's no reason to create these openings.

Reuters reports that President Bush plans to unveil an economic stimulus package expected to reach up to $300 billion, including "targeted" tax cuts, but only a 50% cut in taxes on corporate dividends to shareholders. The original proposal was to eliminate them, because it's immoral to tax earnings twice. It's double taxation. It's ridiculous. For crying out loud, why do you win the White House and Senate if you're only going to water down your agenda?

I love this administration when it comes to foreign policy and protecting us from terrorism, but I continue to scratch my head over some of this on the domestic side. If this Reuters story isn't just wishful thinking, the White House is going to shelve tax cuts because they fear the Democratic lie that it's "for the rich." They don't have the sand to go out there and cite the IRS figures we have on this site, proving that only the rich are paying income taxes.

Who are "the rich," anyway? It used to be millionaires. Today it's any family that earns $100,000 a year - and we have multimillionaires like Kerry and Edwards and Rockefeller and Kennedy saying, "I have my wealth, so I don't favor a wealth tax, but I'm going to tax income so you can't get wealthy."

The White House is also said to be staying out of the Supreme Court case of a woman kept out of the University of Michigan because of her skin color: white. Admission based on race is wrong, but the administration fears taking the woman's side because it would damage White House counsel Alberto Gonzales' Supreme Court confirmation.

They're also ready to extend unemployment insurance yet again – which means paying people not to work by taking the money from those of us who are working. Folks, the Democrats are going to criticize us no matter what we do. It's absurd to back down on our agenda. As Senator Mitch McConnell told me in our upcoming Limbaugh Letter interview, the Senate only has six months to get things done. The Democrats want to bottle things up so they can have issues. Why help them out?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"This begrudged pass has come to haunt the RP."

You think so?

The RP has the WH, and control of Congress.

[Jorge]

But I also understand what Rush is: he is first and foremost, an entertainer. His job is to sell airtime, and generate income for the radio stations that purchase his syndicated shows.

I agree with him most of the time, other times I don't.

Same here.
But besides being an entertainer, I also think he is one of the most informative political commentators around.

Still, when it comes to his criticisms of Bush...I have to take him with a grain of salt. Bush could never be successful as a politician and take the positions Rush advocates half the time.
Bush is much more tactful and pragmatic than Rush.

[Stew Padasso]

Lott's ghost spooked the RP after the elections.

I don't think it really is that big of a deal with Lott.

However, Bush governing (domestically)like a centrist is an issue worth raising.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"However, Bush governing (domestically)like a centrist is an issue worth raising."

Because....?

[Stew Padasso]

Because...Conservatism is supposed to be about small government. And to borrow a quote from Rush Limbaugh "the right to be stupid."

However, what we have is status quo or better known as a Centrist.

You tell me, is Bush making a solid argument for small government?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't want reduction in the size of the Federal government as a knee-jerk reaction to some "conservatism is supposed to be" poorly defined, and poorly planned agenda.

I believe that the perception created by the left about the right, is a trap, set to go off the second we move to implement our ideology on the country.

If Bush sets about the task of significantly reducing government in his first term, he won't have a second one.

The hoi polloi would bounce him, and anyone who projected even a hint of conservative ideology, out of public office faster than the Florida Supreme Court can piss on the State statutes.

A true and lasting reduction in the size of government, will require the promotion of conservative ideals slowly, and spread out over a period of time.

Yes, I believe in incrementalism, and I am convinced that it is the only possible way to go here.

The GOP needs to go to the center to gather the masses, then carefully, and slowly herd them to the right.

[Stew Padasso]

Well lets make a deal. If you are willing to pay for my share of taxes of what I feel is excessive and wasteful then I am willing to turn the other cheek. ;)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Do you think your taxes would be less with Democrats in power?

[Stew Padasso]

Who is talking about the Democrats? The RP "won in a landslide." IYO who is effectively making the argument for small government?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The RP won in a landslide."

Do you truly believe that your basic, run-of-the-mill voter out there has any opinion on smaller government?

Nope.

They barely recognize the names of the people involved in the main event, and guess at the undercard. Meanwhile, they keep voting bigger, and bigger government in via laws and referendums.

[Stew Padasso]

"Do you truly believe that your basic, run-of-the-mill voter out there has any opinion on smaller government? "

Oh hell no, not with that opinion representing the RP. And at the same time, what are you doing to correct their thinking?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let me give you Florida as an example.

Jeb Bush is the first Republican governor to be re-elected in the history of the State (I am pretty sure of that), so you would think that Floridians are ready to embrace conservative principles, wouldn't you?

In fact, they also voted in every single referendum, and law in the ballot...including a class-size reduction mandate that will cost the State nearly a billion dollars to implemement, and more entitlements for senior citizens.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"And at the same time, what are you doing to correct their thinking?"

What??!?!?

Who are you to ask me what I am doing?

When the hell did I enlist in your army?

[Stew Padasso]

ITs a simple question, nothing to get worked up over. Maybe I should read your profile page before I ask questions?

BTW - IYO who in the RP is making an effective argument for small government?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Maybe I should read your profile page before I ask questions?"

Yes, maybe you should.

[Stew Padasso]

"Yes, maybe you should."

Or maybe not? I'm a little tired.

[Jhoffa_]

From the article:

Legalized inequities eat away at human beings, breeding the resentments of favoritism, and the self-doubts of patronization.

Absolutely, let's take this issue on and put it to bed once and for all.

Thanks Jwalsh.. If you catch any updates on the UM situation, a quick ping or something would be great.

[Stew Padasso]

Hey, I was thinking of looking over your profile page tomorrow night. Is there anything I should know?

[Jorge]

True, Rush would never get used to all the a$$-kissing and "wheeling-n-dealing" that must be done to stay in power. But isn't it fun to dream? ;-)

I really like Rush doing what he is doing...where he can say pretty much whatever he wants to say.
I think he's a powerful political influence.