The Vast Dubya & DeLay Conspiracy

Rush Limbaugh ^ | June 30, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[Miss Marple]

An astute opinion, oldtimer. Thanks.

A lot of people seem to think Bush has been crowned emperor and can simply wave a wand and change the opinion and fabric of American political opinion.

As he has often said, he plays the cards he's been dealt.

[Miss Marple]

Personally, Fred, I think you could use some Prozac. But thanks for your helpful comment.

I am 54.

[Fred Mertz]

They hate America, and they couch it as loving the Constitution and some imagined America that has never existed.

You couldn't be more wrong, bucko.

[NeoCaveman]

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.

Triangulation so vastly superior to those amatures the Toe Sucker and The Impeached Bent One.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Whether you are disgruntled third-party types or DNC test marketers, your goal is the same."

I am sure you like to tell yourself this and believe it. Surely no die hard conservative could question the conservative credentials of GWB nor question the direction he is taking the nation and the party in.

Well your wrong, and it is not I nor any other "Bush basher" that divided the conservative base. Wasn't it Carl Rove that invited conservatives in California to leave the big new socialist republican tent if they didn't like the leftward leap of the Republican Party? It wasn't me who said it, it wasn't you who said it. And I refuse to take the blame for anothers actions.

You cannot sit there an deny that Bush has kidnapped the Republican party on a wild socialist ride left. So stop blaming the victims for daring to complain, I thought only rats, rapists and the judical system did that.

[Miss Marple]

Go right ahead with your ranting. Regardless of whether you are truly a conservative or merely playing one on the internet, the fact is that Bush has a huge base who supports him. No matter how you try to portray it here, the facts are otherwise.

And as far as California goes, I am smart enough to know that there are so many competing factions that nothing about what has transpired is unaffected by the factional competition.

[Fred Mertz]

I always liked Tom DeLay. He really gained my respect when that government hit man went after him with a gun. Do you remember that?

[TLBSHOW]

Tell it loud and clear........the truth as in your post!

[ladyinred]

Why don't you go get a good text book and learn the real meaning of Socialist dear, then we will talk okay?

[MissAmericanPie]

I never said Bush doesn't have a huge base that supports him, I said they shouldn't support him. It's a mistake all may live to regret.

And here's another little thing, just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are ranting. I think your reading your own emotions into the discussion.

[Dolphy]

You guys are actively trying to divide Republicans. Whether you are disgruntled third-party types or DNC test marketers, your goal is the same.

Well said. I'm not sure why those who now attack Bush ever supported him in the first place. For my vote he is delivering exactly what he promised.

[deport]

Wasn't it Carl Rove

---

Who is this "Carl Rove" you as a 4th generation Texan keep talking about?

[Fred Mertz]

Regardless of whether you are truly a conservative or merely playing one on the internet, the fact is that Bush has a huge base who supports him.

Bush treats "true conservatives" like the Dims treat their black constituents. Well, I ain't no gimme vote, I'll tell you that.

[mickie]

My whole family voted for Bush.
I was surprised to hear my brother, 72 year old long time conservative say the other day that he thought GWB would be a 'one time president'.

[TLBSHOW]

the fact is that Bush has a huge base who supports him

...

so did Clinton and your point was?

[TLBSHOW]

Now ask him why, because that is just what Bush's fate is if he doesn't get back on the right track.

[Fred Mertz]

My whole family voted for Bush.

Word of advice: never violate the sanctity of the ballot box; never tell anyone who you voted for or who you plan to vote for.

[Miss Marple]

Gee, Fred, you aren't a "gimme" vote? What a surprise!

I would guess that if President Bush issued executive orders to outlaw abortion, packed the Supreme Court with conservatives, ordered Ashcroft to indict Clinton tomorrow, and cancelled both the Education and Farm Subsidy bills, you would STILL find him unacceptable.

[MissAmericanPie]

Bush himself said it. That he might not run again. What a relief it would be if he didn't. I cannot, not vote for a Republican, so I'll just end up writing one in I guess.

[Southack]

"You cannot sit there an deny that Bush has kidnapped the Republican party on a wild socialist ride left."

"Wild Socialists" or "liberal Democrats" wouldn't have killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't have pulled the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't have killed the U.S.-CCCP ABM Treaty, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't have gotten the 1st largest and 3rd largest tax cuts in world history passed into law, but Bush did.

Liberal Democrats wouldn't arm pilots or order Aschroft to inform the U.S. Supreme Court that the official U.S. government position is that the 2nd Amendment supports individual rights to bear arms, not group or state rights (soemething that was too Conservative and controversial for even Ronald Reagan to do).

Liberal Democrats wouldn't sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, either, but Bush will sign it this very year.

So comparing Bush to "liberal Democrats" or "wild socialists" misses the mark. Your complaint, which is a valid one, is actually that Bush is letting Congress spend too much. Well, that's all fine and well, but someone should simply *say* that, rather than confuse the spending issue with being a "wild socialist".

Once the conversation is accurately focused on Bush letting Congress spend too much, then a real debate can proceed.

What is Bush getting for this spending? Two conservative Supreme Court Justices, one would think (perhaps even three), as the Justices won't survive another 6 years of Bush being in office (and Bush will easily win re-election in 2004 due to his current strategy). Bush also gained the right to fire bad teachers in Ted Kennedy's education reform package, and Bush is getting tort reform passed that immunizes gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, among others). Bush has carte blanc to re-vamp our military, too.

It's a good bet that Bush will get Social Security privatized in the next 6 years, as well as get school vouchers passed so that the power of the public school teachers' unions will be broken by private schools. Bush is also getting our ABM system installed in Alaska.

These are **historic** achievements, and the history books will marvel at how one politician was able to accomplish so much with the government and nation so evenly divided.

Consider that after 8 full years of Clinton, old Bill still can't point to any positive legislative achievement (of his own). What a contrast between those two Presidents!

But there is a price to be paid. Bush is buying Congressional votes with our tax Dollars.

Lots of Conservatives may have very valid reservations about this price, and that's a fair topic to debate.

But you are calling Bush a wild socialist, while that's clearly not true as no "wild socialist" would sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. What you actually mean is that Bush is spending too much of our money.

Well, how much would 30 years of a future *conservative* Supreme Court worth?! The Socialists in the Senate aren't filibustering Bush's judicial picks because they're too far to the Left, I assure you!

How much is protecting our nation from nuclear ICBM's worth?!

How much is it worth to re-vamp our military and kill the Kyoto Treaty?

Let's debate those real issues. What are we willing to pay to achieve these things in a divided nation with a divided Congress?