The Vast Dubya & DeLay Conspiracy

Rush Limbaugh ^ | June 30, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

The Vast Dubya & DeLay Conspiracy

June 30, 2003

Depending on where you go and in what circles you travel, conservatives are livid with the Bush administration. Some, more so than others, are furious over the size of the federal budget, the failing to rein in any kind of spending, tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the list continues - and there’s a great deal of head scratching going on.

I came across an Associated Press story over the weekend that attempts to shed some light on what’s happening, which you can hear me read in the audio links below. However, the story seems to imply there’s a conspiracy between the White House and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Here’s just one excerpt: “DeLay has become the most identifiable representative of the party's right wing, and the two Texans have had a sometimes scrappy relationship. Clashes may become more frequent as Bush moves beyond his current phase of fund raising among loyal Republicans and shifts his attention to the general electorate, analysts suggest. At the same time, Bush and his advisers are mindful that if they go too far, they could alienate conservatives whose support he needs. ‘Bush is carefully picking and choosing his fights,’ said GOP consultant Scott Reed. ‘There's a healthy back and forth between the White House staff and DeLay that is mutually beneficial to both.’”

The story continues to suggest that Bush is telling DeLay to go ahead and stop what he’s trying to do - on purpose. The idea being that Bush can thus claim credit for supporting whatever measure, while DeLay and other conservatives can point to victory for blocking its ultimate passage. A caller later asked: “Isn't this the same strategy that Bush used on campaign finance reform, only he is counting on the Supreme Court to shoot it down?” You can hear my answer below.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Do I want ALL illegals caught/ stopped and deported ? Of course I do ! Is that within the realm of the possible ? Not now and probably not ever.

OTOH, not once, NOT ONCE , have I , or YOU ever heard President Bush say that our borders are wide open , everyone come on in. Do at least attempt to be rational and factual. Please ?"

Well you have certainly done all you can to call attention to the situation and put and end to it. Gad

Are you deaf or what? I heard Bush say, our borders are wide open, everyone come on in, when he tried to sneak 245i at least twice past panicky citizens after 9-11 that would have given cover to any terrorist here without a pass.

I heard him say it in a speech and I quote yet again, "When you can make 5 an hour in Mexico and 50 an hour in Detriot, your going to come aren't you" (wink)

Have you even bothered to do any reading on how a Free Trade western hemisphere is proposed to be set up and who will be in charge? And I quote, yet again, "I would like to see a free trade zone from the north of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn". All plans call for open borders.

You haven't heard him say come on in? Clean your ear wax and sharpen your understanding. If you think these illegals will not eventually be allowed to vote you don't know top from bottom.

[cyncooper]

I see my suspicion of "deceit" coming from MAP was right on target.

[MissAmericanPie]

I could care less about your "sharp criticism". What he said came to mind during the discussion. Without a tape of the event seen with your own eyes your in no position to judge how serious he sounded or not. He did not chuckle, he did sound serious.

I remember thinking at the time, why put everyone through this if he is considering not running again. It made me a little mad in fact. There was no humor in the interview at all.

[Captain Beyond]

ROTHFLOL!!! Good analogy. I will have to remember that one. It will work with a number of other things.

Welcome to Free Republic

Don't let them get you down with that newbie stuff or the sophomoric, ubiquitous sign up date crap. Always remember that having a sign up date pre-dating yours does not necessarily translate into wisdom or intelligence and you will do just fine.

[nopardons]

Tsk, tsk, tsk ... name calling and telling others to " clean out you're ear wax ...." isn't refuting what I posted. Neither is your pitiful allegations about the president's factual statement proof of your delusional assertations. You're getting very good at Clintonian twisting and revisionism.

Who is the last person responsible for changing American immigration policy and when was it done ?

Who was the last person to extend FULL amnesty to illegals and when was that done ?

Did your forefathers come to America on the Mayflower, or any of the other early ships ?

If they didn't, did they come through Castle Garden ?

If not Castle Garden, Ellis Island ?

If you are a full blooded Indian, then your ancestors not only came here from someplace else, they slaughted the indigenous peoples who were already here and they were Caucasoids.

Ever hear of the KNOWNOTHINGS ? If not, read up on them, dear, you sound just like them ... with a triffle more tinfoil. LOL

Okay, so you're against Free Trade. Does that mean that you also want to not only close ALL borders, but you also demand that America can only make , sell, and buy things here ? If not, then explain ... IN FULL.

You're coming quite unglued, dear; do get a grip. :-)

[nopardons]

You see and hear through your own filter. Facts don't matter to you ... only your own view of things are relivant. Is that it ? If not, then you need to learn how to better express your positions. :-)

[john the bowler]

Thanks!

[MissAmericanPie]

You are making me laugh. Facts? How many facts do I have to present, mr facts difficent? You are the one that is hysterical/ranting, and you have been through about ten posts, not with facts but hyperbol. You would make a good rat.

I'm not going to wear out my keyboard on an individual who already knows the truth of what I say yet continues to lie both to me and himself. You wouldn't even be posting to me if you were not desperate to bury the truth I put forth with your personal attacks and no facts.

Go help the cat with it's litter box, bury that for starters before you work your way up to my facts. So far it's looking pretty sad for yourself, I'm embarassed for you.

[ODDITHER]

"Those posting the bashing threads seem to be working with an agenda and are posting ANY thread that is the least bit critical. Good to see this pragmatic, realistic view"

I always turn to my garden for the lessons of life. Take my roses for example. It takes time and patience and years of tender care and the proper watering to enjoy big beautiful blooms. If I expected to get these results the first summer, I would be very disappointed. What if I did expect these results, and when I didn't get them ripped them out of the ground and put in another instead? It would be far wiser to prune, feed, mulch, and water the existing plant until I achieved those beautiful big rose blossoms. Once they bloomed I would have to remember to cut off the old blossoms.

And then there are weeds..... the worst of which is the bind weed. It's roots can travel underground 75 feet to spring up near my beautiful roses. It attaches itself to my roses and if I don't get it out of there, will literally choke the rose bush. It requires constant amd vigilant weeding to ensure my roses are bindweed-free. The same weed plant might take cutting off just below the ground, at least 4 times before you kill the plant. If you chop it off wrong, it will branch out into many more weeds going in other directions. It is the most persistant, strongest, devious weed that exists.

To me conservatism is the rose, liberalism is the bindweed. We are the gardeners. We will reap what we sow. If we sow nothing, the ground will be taken over by weeds. So being an inconsistent gardener is better than not planting at all. If we don't tend our garden it will be nothing but weeds. If we expect roses without thorns, roses without hardwork and constant tending we will get weeds. If we expect instant results we will be sorely disappointed, and full of weeds.

The bushbashers expect instant results when it took 30 years to get where we are now. It will take much longer to get back to where we were. It will never happen without hard work and unity.

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[justshe]

A beautiful analogy in your post #309. Thank you for posting it as a a VERY realistic view of 'how things get done'.

---

The bushbashers expect instant results when it took 30 years to get where we are now. It will take much longer to get back to where we were. It will never happen without hard work and unity.

---

YOU, ODDITHER....get it!

[Miss Marple]

The garden is an excellent analogy. Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

[TLBSHOW]

So ya think bush will get us a liberal or a conservative?

Galvanizing the Right

A concern of many people on the right is the rumor that White House Counsel Al Gonzales could be a nominee for a Supreme Court seat. The worry is that Gonzales would be a judicial activist in favor of affirmative action, abortion, and other liberal ideas. The hope is that President Bush will see the actions of wishy-washy Republican-appointed justices and realize the mistake he would be making in putting Gonzales on the high court.

Conservatives hope that Bush will stick to his guns and nominate someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as he indicated in his campaign for the White House.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1107

[Amelia]

---

So ya think bush will get us a liberal or a conservative?

A concern of many people on the right is the rumor that White House Counsel Al Gonzales could be a nominee for a Supreme Court seat. The worry is that Gonzales would be a judicial activist in favor of affirmative action, abortion, and other liberal ideas. The hope is that President Bush will see the actions of wishy-washy Republican-appointed justices and realize the mistake he would be making in putting Gonzales on the high court.

---

Isn't this called 'counting your chickens before they're hatched'? Or maybe 'borrowing trouble from tomorrow'?

There's not even a vacancy on the Supreme Court yet, much less a nominee.

[TLBSHOW]

A trend? Naw, it's bigger than a trend Miss Marple, it's becoming clear this is much larger than a mere trend or minor fad. It's an event, an event that is drawing a whole bunch of real conservatives to an idea of a different party, a party that may decide to put America, it's people and our sovereignty first for a change. A party that's more concerned with our own people and our own borders than those in Outer Mongolia, and a bunch of Somalis.

A party that actually cares about it's people, a party willing to reduce the size of this monstrous, ever growing government, yet keep our military strong. The two beltway parties are driving this country into a ditch IMHO.

This is no passing trend Miss Marple. Trust me, just looking through the daily threads this becomes inordinately clear. The American people are trusting and patient, but those qualities are wearing very thin.

.......

From the stories I have read the last few weeks I believe conservatives are waking up and they are not happy in the least with what is going on.

[eyespysomething]

Since I am too lazy to read through 314 posts, here is my 2 cents:

I think the narrow victory in the house was planned, for different reasons for different people, but I think for Bush it was to be able to absorb some of the more conservative approaches the House had in their version. He wants to appease to the conservatives while appeasing the liberals. Is this right? No. Does it work? We shall see.

My husband says if I run for political office, which I want to do, I will quickly become jaded and cynical, and although I may have altuistic reasons for running, they (politicians) all do, and it would be no different for me.

I don't think so.

Defense, courts, law-enforcement. Not much more. Someone needs to raise a stink, right?

[TLBSHOW]

Better safe than sorry with the way things are going. Anyways ask Human Events if they are borrowing trouble from tomorrow. You know? That Conservative Magazine that Ronald Reagan loves.

[eyespysomething]

altuistic = altruistic

[Marysecretary]

And who should we vote for, TLBSHOW? Do you want a liberal president? Bush is not perfect but he's the best man for the job at this point in our history. I see no one better. Do you? Inquiring minds, you know....

[cyncooper]

His little cut and paste also assumes Gonzales is not conservative.

Never too soon to start the harangue, you know!