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?

[Libertina]

BTTT Right.
Anybody hear Peter Wiseback's excellent piece yesterday when he filled in for Savage?
1. Thesis - An eggagerated, untrue attack on a targeted group/person
2. Antithesis: Horrified rebuttal of the lie. "No I did NOT, we are NOT!"
3. Synthesis: "Here, let me PROVE myself!" Unfortunately, now the "accused" embraces the "accuser" and tries to prove he is not racist/uptight/bad/crazy/hateful by coming closer to the accuser's philosophies and beliefs.

Example:
1. Trent Lott YOU are a RACIST and the entire Republican Party as well!
2. No. It's not so. NO NO NO I never have been. blah blah...
3. Here, I'll prove it to you - I am FOR affirmative action. I will CREATE a race relations committee. I will tour the South with my liberal black accuser!

And so the left edges incrementally forward. BEWARE Conservatives!Beware this tactic!