For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Rush disagrees with Newt's view of the Reagan Era being over...
Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are. One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that? That's not who we are!
Who do you agree with: Rush or Newt and why?














Comments Policy
And now, today's Shrub
January 15, 2008 - 11:26 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
499 years ago today, Elizabeth I was crowned queen of England. More importantly, today is the 41st anniversary of the first Super Bowl.
Did you know that the guy heading the opposition to the elections in Kenya is Obama's cousin? Neither did I.
Greenpeace weenies claim they "chased away" Japanese whale hunters. Huh? Who in the world is afraid of Greenpeace, aside from rival tree-hugging enviro-weenie groups? Could the whaling ships have left the area because of this? Great work, AP!
The Pork King Keeps His Crown. Oddly, his district's unemployment rate is a whole percentage point higher than Pennsylvania as a whole. Here is another snapshot of the "benefits" of Murtha pumping millions of our tax dollars into south-central PA.
Meanwhile, Pittsburgh and the Penguins run into socialist nutjobs (check out the t-shirt in the photo). Only the Left would protest having economic development in their WORST neighborhood in town, where the last grocery store closed down nearly 25 years ago. The demands by these idiots are amazing. Luckily the boy mayor did not back down.
Today would have been the 79th birthday of Martin Luther King Jr, the 62nd birthday of Vince Foster, and the 60th birthday of Ronnie Van Zant. On the opposite side of the spectrum (in terms of impact on our world), Hollywood legends Mario van Peebles and Chad Lowe celebrate birthdays today.
Partner with Islam!
Speaking of the Religion of Peace, UK is full of hatemongering like this.
Keith Olberman:hard-news journalist.
Interestingly, nobody seems to be asking if the government-mandate ethanol fiasco is "fueling" the huge rise in inflation?
Here's today's time-waster.
And, finally, happy birthday, Cronos!
499 years ago today,
January 15, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Jack BauerOff with your head Sir Roger of Shrubber! Varlet!
How dare you point out the
January 15, 2008 - 12:29 ET by Airforce_5_OHow dare you point out the worst of Islam Roger!
Earlier today the regime in Iran condemned President Bush for the dreadful torture techniques at Gitmo.
Do as we say, not as we do.
And now for today’s
January 15, 2008 - 13:58 ET by TruthMongerAnd now for today’s Anti-defamation™ report…
Islam
Partner with Islam…
http://progressivemuslims.org/
Interfaith
Intl' Red Cross / Red Crescent
http://www.unitedway.org/
The Mormon Faith
Mormon's are groovy
Christian service to humanity
http://www.redcross.org/
http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf
TM there is no defamation
January 15, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Dan The Man 2TM there is no defamation when one reports the facts. And the facts are that Islam is a brutal sexist religion in th Dark Ages.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
right on man - no
January 15, 2008 - 14:32 ET by TruthMongerright on man - no defamation there - and don't forget - Jews are cheap b*st*rds too:)! It's a fact...
TM I said the facts, and
January 15, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Dan The Man 2TM I said the facts, and sometimes Jews are cheap bastards. But we all know most of the ME countries are ruled by Islam and have barbaric prctices from teh top down. You know like flogging a woman because she said it was ok to call a teddy bear Mohamed. Little things like that.
The facts TM, are hard to hide from.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
15% of the world's Muslims
January 15, 2008 - 15:19 ET by TruthMonger15% of the world's Muslims reside in the ME...
In this remarkable parable, by making a hero out of a despised Samaritan, Jesus cut to the heart of religious pride to teach us that individuals should be judged on the content of their character, not on their race or, yes, even their religion.
The good Samaritan
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/1051/Parable-of-Good-Samaritan.htm
TM those barbaric practices
January 15, 2008 - 16:10 ET by Dan The Man 2TM those barbaric practices are done here in the USA and other places too as evidenced by that cabbie who murdered his daughter. Only after generations in a truely free society are their ideas changed. And ebven then as in Canada and England and even trying in the USA to silence the truth, they try.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
so every religion has it's
January 15, 2008 - 17:36 ET by TruthMongerso every religion has it's freaks - and your point is?
The point is that Islam is
January 15, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Dan The Man 2The point is that Islam is contriolled by freaks who want to convert you and me or die trying. By convert I mean in the way Mo did it starting in 7th century AD. Islam is stuck in the Dark Ages. You brush off the problem with "so every religion has it's freaks - and your point is" and demonstrate you dont understand the point or refuse to do so. Sometimes with your love Islam you remind me of WWII and the Tokyo Rose, so what ya say Rose?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
When the 1 billion+
January 15, 2008 - 18:58 ET by TruthMongerWhen the 1 billion+ Muslims of the world are controlled by freaks we won't be having this conversation, Dan:)...
Same deal with Christianity, incidentally - the Nazi's of WW2 last time I checked - they sure came close - Islam has quite a ways to go yet...
Help spread the religion of
January 15, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberHelp spread the religion of peace!
Indonesia
Iran
Egypt
Israel
France
Malaysia
Norway
Jamaica
Turkey
Netherlands
surface nicely scratched, Rog:)!
January 15, 2008 - 15:19 ET by TruthMonger...look at all the help the vast majority of progressive Muslims need! I'm there...
good samaritans unite!
In this remarkable parable, by making a hero out of a despised Samaritan, Jesus cut to the heart of religious pride to teach us that individuals should be judged on the content of their character, not on their race or, yes, even their religion.
The good Samaritan
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/1051/Parable-of-Good-Samaritan.htm
The last I heard about the
January 15, 2008 - 13:06 ET by BruzillaThe last I heard about the Hill District was that it was a bunch of welfare dependent handout seekers, and that was back in 1979. Looks like nothing has changed.
As for the casino ruining the look of the river front on the Northside, are they on drugs? The riverfronts throughout the Greater Pittsburgh area have always looked heavilly industrial. They even kept the industrial look alive when they transformed Station Square from a defunct train station into.. a shopping mall built inside a defunct train station. Who are these folks trying to kid?
Bru, here is a pdf about
January 15, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberBru, here is a pdf about violence in Pittsburgh.
Here is a breakdown of where 2006 homicide victims lived:
Northside (12%)
Homewood (8%)
Penn Hills (7%)
Wilkinsburg (7%)
East Liberty (5%)
Hill District (5%)
Hazelwood (3%)
Braddock (3%)
McKeesport (3%)
Garfield (3%)
I am sure you remember many of these neighborhoods. all poor, all full of angry young black males (population is 97% black in the Hill District), all sparkling products of The Great Society. The 1960 population was over 40,000. today, less than 12-14,000 live there. People have fled that neighborhood faster than Baathists from Baghdad.
Who do you agree with: Rush
January 15, 2008 - 11:41 ET by NewsbusterbrownWho do you agree with: Rush or Newt and why?
Rush is 100% correct. What has changed in 20 years that we need to redefine conservatism?
Principles are principles.
January 15, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Chris NormanPrinciples, if sound are are supposed to last. They can guide one through all kinds of problems. One doesn't abandon one's core beliefs to adjust to diferent circumstances. Newt sounds like one of the "The Constitution is a living and changing document" crowd. As we were discussing several weeks ago, Newt has been sounding a little weirdly messianic with his "American Solutions" and his criticisms smack of sour grapes, sometimes.
I, for one, am glad to see
January 15, 2008 - 14:10 ET by motherbeltI, for one, am glad to see that Rush has "seen the light."
For too long, he carried Bush's water when the President betrayed conservative principles with the senior drugs program, Kennedy's education bill etc. He rationalized by calling it "taking the issue away from Democrats." In other words, doing what the Democrats wanted so they couldn't run in '04 on the fact that he didn't do it, and to keep them from beating him up over it.
Maybe hearing Newt succumb to the same caving in has rung a bell in his head and awakened him. Apparently his own rationalizing doesn't sound so convincing when he hears it from someone else's mouth.
Rush disagreed with all of
January 15, 2008 - 14:24 ET by NewsbusterbrownRush disagreed with all of those things that you posted and stated so at the time, motherbelt, so I don't understand what you mean by carrying Bush's water. Rush did not agree with the "taking the issue away from the Dems" argument, BTW.
Rush did announce after the
January 15, 2008 - 15:18 ET by Chris NormanRush did announce after the last congressional election, that he would no longer "carry the water" for the GOP. I never quite understood if he was being satirical or not. Without getting into specifics (I rarely have the chance to listen to Rush anymore) he did defend Bush - to the point of maybe excusing some of the administrations weak points, I don't know. I think the principles of "Reaganism" are broad enough that they're applicable to current - and future problems. Perhaps Newt gets so wonkish and technical sometimes that he can lose sight of a broader philosophy.
Rush did try to explain why
January 15, 2008 - 16:26 ET by NewsbusterbrownRush did try to explain why Bush was doing what he was doing due to the Republican margin of power, but he didn't defend those actions that appeared to counter conservatism.
Did Rush try to place Bush's actions in the best possible light? Sure. He's smart enough to realize that whatever wrongheaded things the president inacted or said, he was still superior to anybody from the other side of aisle. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is nuts. But Rush never failed to state emphatically the areas of disagreement he had with Bush.
NBB, I know that, since the
January 15, 2008 - 17:20 ET by Chris NormanNBB,
I know that, since the early days, Rush has sometimes been critical of the Bush Administration. I don't object to the fact that he defended Bush against the Democrats either. I think he's been the standard of how conservative radio commentators should treat the GOP. I was just pointing out that Rush did say he would "no longer carry their water". He may have said that out of frustration over the GOP's abandonment of Reaganism (and conservatism. in general) over the years. As many of them have drifted away from the core principles, the party has been that: adrift.
I don't think we're in
January 15, 2008 - 18:37 ET by NewsbusterbrownI don't think we're in disagreement, Chris.
I don't think so, either.
January 15, 2008 - 18:46 ET by Chris NormanI don't think so, either.
NBB he most certainly did
January 15, 2008 - 16:31 ET by motherbeltNBB he most certainly did not disagree with all those things..not at first. That was leading up to the 2004 elections, and they knew the Democrats were going to run on the promise of a drug plan, so Bush did it ahead of the election. Rush said, at the time, that Bush was smart to do it; they wouldn't have that issue to run on for the election. Ditto the education bill that he virtually let Ted Kennedy write. And he most certainly did agree with "taking the issue away from the Dems."
If you heard him disagreeing with that stuff before 2004, then you didn't hear the same programs I did. I can't even tell you how many times I punched my finger numb on my phone trying to get through to him to talk about it. It used to infuriate me!! It got so I wouldn't listen to him for a while, I was so mad.
Sometime after the 2004 election he changed his tune back again. I'm not sure exactly when, or why. Maybe it was after the 2006 elections when it didn't seem to matter much any more, and maybe thought Bush should at least govern as a conservative for the last couple of years.
NBB he most certainly did
January 15, 2008 - 16:45 ET by NewsbusterbrownNBB he most certainly did not disagree with all those things..not at first.
With all due respect, I listened to Rush during all of those events you mentioned before and I know for a fact that he wasn't happy with any of them. There was no doubt as to where Rush stood in regard to those positions.
The one thing that might be construed as "carrying Bush's water" was his attempt to state that the president was still a true conservative from private conversations that he had with him despite non-conservative actions by Bush. But I haven't heard Rush say that for a while.
delete
January 15, 2008 - 17:38 ET by motherbeltdelete
Rush said, at the time,
January 15, 2008 - 16:40 ET by NewsbusterbrownRush said, at the time, that Bush was smart to do it; they wouldn't have that issue to run on for the election. Ditto the education bill that he virtually let Ted Kennedy write. And he most certainly did agree with "taking the issue away from the Dems."
Again, he was trying to explain the president's actions, not that Rush agreed with them. If he had, I would have turned Rush off myself.
Well if he wasn't carrying
January 15, 2008 - 17:38 ET by motherbeltWell if he wasn't carrying water for them why would he say he was going to stop doing it?
OK, you win. When he said Bush was smart to do it, I foolishly took that to mean he agreed that it was a good idea.
Since you know "for a fact," that he disagreed (reading his mind?) I must be wrong.
Motherbelt, if you have a
January 15, 2008 - 18:56 ET by NewsbusterbrownMotherbelt, if you have a transcript of what Rush said back then, then I will retract my statements. But I can't see or remember Rush endorsing the education bill, not vetoing McCain-Feingold, etc.
Motherbelt: I have
January 15, 2008 - 16:33 ET by BDMotherbelt:
I have always suspected that Bush's acquiessance to larger social spending during time of war was simply an attempt to remove the one club from the opposition parties golf bag of choice... that being "This war is costing us education (Or healthcare, or housing, etc)"
In fact, the left cannot in good conscience claim that the war is infringing on social spending in any way since both have risen at like pace.
The theory being that the if social spending had not risen at an equal pace, the democrats long ago would have pulled the plug on the GWOT financially.
That is just my guess and I assume we will find it to be so in the out years as the administration's history is written.
BD, I have the same idea
January 15, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Dan The Man 2BD, I have the same idea and hope it is right. But in the meantime President Bush has created a rift in the party and allowed McCain and Guliani and Romney to rise in prominence while Thomson is in the dregs. What is sad is he had to acquiese to the special interests and social programs the kleft wanted to get the funding.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I agree with Rush, but it
January 15, 2008 - 11:49 ET by William PhelpsI agree with Rush, but it makes me nervous. First off, an era is only over when everyone decides that it isn't best for the country. I think Reagan principles are still the best.
BUT, Newt is a very smart man, and that's why I'm nervous. I've heard Newt speak several times, and he knows his stuff. He sees so many more angles than other politicians.
I'm sticking with Rush on this one, though.
Rush...
January 15, 2008 - 11:52 ET by Clear thinkerI don't always agree with Rush, but on this one, he is 100%, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, dead on accurate!
Conservatism has done this country quite well for that last couple of hundred years, and if we continue following the principles that has made this country great, this country just might make it through the next couple of hundred years.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Oil under $92 a barrel! Will we hear this?
January 15, 2008 - 12:09 ET by PawpawNOil under $92 a barrel! Will we hear this? Why is it we only hear when it goes up! It's like saying it never rains, except when it does you never hear about it! We get only gloom and doom, never get the stories of what is good that is occuring, unless it is something a DIM candidate for Pres does, so not much news!
I am holding my breath until
January 15, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am holding my breath until gas prices drop...
Oil now under $92, getting close to $91
January 15, 2008 - 14:10 ET by PawpawNDropping, dropping-ever since Pres Bush asked for more production, the price started dropping!
Betcha Dims will vote for McCain in Mich just to keep Romney dow
January 15, 2008 - 12:20 ET by PawpawNBetcha Dims will vote for McCain in Mich just to keep Romney down, since they've been told not to vote for Hillary, since their vote won't count anyway. Talk about disenfranchised voters, any DIM in Mich is being held hostage by Nat'l Dim Party! MSM & DIMs do not want Romney to get Repub nomination. But, if I'm not mistaken, Romney has more delegates at present than any Repub candidate!
This is indeed a troubling
January 15, 2008 - 14:39 ET by Gary P JacksonThis is indeed a troubling situation. You could see McCain win this, because of libs voting for him. And yes, Romney has the most delegates. The pundits keep talking about how it's do or die for Romney, but another strong second would keep him competitive.
Rush!
January 15, 2008 - 12:25 ET by aagjmbI'm with Rush on this one. How can you go along with a guy named Newt?
But then again...how many guys are named Rush?
Talking past each other
January 15, 2008 - 12:37 ET by KC MulvilleI have to read Newt's book before I decide. I need more details and more specifics. But from his website.
Rush sees that as an invitation to centrism for centrism's sake. And I agree with him that the impulse to embrace the center is a bad impulse. Resist it.
I hope, however, that this impulse is not what's driving Newt. Newt's argument, really, is that if you got rid of parties, most people would flock to basic conservative principles on their own. We also want some practical solutions to national problems, and we're (collectively) not opposed to using government if it helps. That's really an ideological self-contradiction, but it's one the country is willing to accept if the results work out.
At the moment, I think Rush's instincts are on target, but I think Newt makes legitimate points. I'll say this: I'd like to hear more from Newt. I'm going to read his new book to get more details.
History buffs
January 15, 2008 - 13:29 ET by AgnosticSomebody remind me please how much discourse there was between the political parties when it came to setting up the nation and what would constitute state and federal rights. If I remember my reading correctly it was out of fierce debating (and some brawling if I recall) in the papers and in the offices of government whereby compromises were reached that fulfilled the needs of the nation. The problem is not cynicism and heated rhetoric in politics but the ultimate goal is no longer the betterment of the nation but to appease some special interest group, power individual, corporation or in some cases foreign interest.
Parties
January 15, 2008 - 15:06 ET by KC MulvilleI've argued this often before. The Founding Fathers made no provision for political parties. Remember, these were people who were fundamentally united, and went through the experience of the Revolution together. They thought that congressmen went to Congress strictly to advocate for their states. Virginians voted for Virginia's interests, and they simply assumed that all Virginians would see things exactly the same way. Their idea of a typical congressman was simply a respected landowner, and whose only quality was integrity. They incorporated no ideology at all, since there hadn't yet been any separation of ideology into parties yet. True, parties sprang up quickly, but the constitution was written before they took hold. Our political system was originally built on individual representatives, not on political parties.
Now, parties have almost completely replaced ideology. I think that changes our political system. Nowadays, when you vote for someone, you're inevitably voting for a party, not for a person. The person only matters if he's so reprehensible that you can't stand him. But unless the candidate is a complete disaster, that candidate's vote will inevitably be controlled by the national party anyway. I believe that national parties have destroyed the last vestiges of local representation. Your representative might do local people favors, or steal some pork for local businesses, but their vote belongs to the party, not what's best for local interests.
On the subject of political
January 15, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Dan The Man 2On the subject of political parties, people being the social animals they are will clump together in groups of like minded people. I believe the formation of the parties is just a human reaction to calm the chaos. The system that the USA has and is set up in the Constitution works and works well. All one has to do is look towards Europe to see chaos with their many parties forming coalitions and such to rule over the masses. Most of them have constitutional monarchies or parliamentary governments which may be more conducive to these coalitions from many. I see that being a detriment to the way government works now.
But if you wish and anyone can do this, form a new coalition party to challenge the established ones. The trick is getting enough people to make a difference. Then when you get in having enough elected representatives to make a difference, Mr. Phelps if you accept this mission…..
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Coalitions
January 15, 2008 - 15:53 ET by KC MulvilleIn game theory, the art of forming and maintaining coalitions is a huge topic. It's the real world example of mixed motive game with open-ended iterations, so it's a game theory dream. If we tried it in this country, coming from a pure two-party system, we'd surely screw it up at first. But then we might come up with something useful.
Our problem is that we have a three-dimensional conflict that we only address in two dimensions. We have two ideologies (liberal and conservative), fighting over two separate spheres (social issues and economic issues). That leaves four possibilities: social conservative; social liberal; economic conservative; economic liberal. But we only have two political parties, so we force half of the possible ideologies into parties that don't represent their chief interests. That forces both parties into repressing a significant portion of their "followers."
If we had a truly representative political system, we would have four political parties, each representing the different ideological pairs. You could be a social conservative and an economic liberal, as apparently Mike Huckabee is. You could be a social liberal and an economic conservative, like perhaps Giuliani is. At the very least, with more parties, you'd more precisely reflect how Americans truly feel (as long as it doesn't become a circus). And, with that, you could negotiate some nuanced bargains between the parties, and have the flexibility to address real concerns. It would give the pundits something more interesting to talk about, don't you think?
But you're right. Good luck with that, I know.
Son in Law
January 15, 2008 - 12:38 ET by ricklailYesterday my son in law was called to his COs office. He was told that there will be 3200 Marines goiug to Afganistan did he want to go. He immediately volunteered. He has been teaching Signal Intellignce at Corry Station in Pensacola for the past 2-1/2 years and has been wanting to get back to hands on work. He will be coming back to Cherry Point for training and to rejoin his old unit by June. The 2nd MAW provides air support for the 24th MEU from Camp Lejeune which is providing the bulk of the Marines. Others are coming from Camp Pendleton.
My wife has been praying that he would be transferred back to Cherry Point so our daughter could come home. One pray answered but in God's way. She gets to come home but he has to leave.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” General George S. Patton.
Good luck
January 15, 2008 - 12:43 ET by KC MulvilleI understand the ambiguity you might feel. I will say, however, that you can be proud of your son-in-law. My prayers go out to you and your family.
Rick
January 15, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Airforce_5_OYou give him a big thanks from me Rick. I know someone doing that just confusses the hell out of the libs. They don't get it sometimes.
Glad you get the daughter back home but I wish it was on better terms for her. It takes a great woman to stand behind a husband in the military. It is a tough life but I can tell you that if it had not been for my wife on the home front it would have been alot tougher on me when I deployed. Give her a hug and a thanks too for her support.
Ditto, We will pray for
January 15, 2008 - 18:02 ET by USA4freedomDitto,
We will pray for his safe return. As well and a thanks for doing the hard lifting for this great country.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Rick... My gratitude is
January 15, 2008 - 18:09 ET by bigtimerRick...
My gratitude is sent to all....
I pray everything will be fine for all.
Liberalism eroding the Constitution
January 15, 2008 - 12:43 ET by LionKingAnother effort by liberals to destroy another part of the Constitution.
New Jersey intends to yield its electoral college votes based on the popular vote, not the voters of New Jersey. In essence, California, New York, Florida, Texas have more to say about the New Jersey electoral votes than the voters of New Jersey.
Liberalism at its best!!!
Corzine is the worst
January 15, 2008 - 13:22 ET by SouthJersey1953I can't wait until he gets out of office (if NJ still exists by then). That idiot has caused so much damage in so little time....
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
Corzine
January 15, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Cool ArrowGuess he can keep his chauffeur. The guy sure can pick and choose when it comes to enforcing the law.
I ♣ My Seal
I have not heard of this. I
January 15, 2008 - 18:07 ET by USA4freedomI have not heard of this. I think I keep up with things. Have they flown this under the radar? It's shocking.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I have two questions, is
January 15, 2008 - 16:07 ET by Dan The Man 2I have two questions, is this legal and when will it be challenged in court? At the moment it seems 2 heavily Dim states have opted to let the majority choose and boy are they dim. The popular vote is a killer regulating itself to highly populated cities in a few states.
It seems unconstitutional, but it probably is not. How the electors were to vote were never spelled out and left ..up to the states. Be afraid very afraid. I also wonder how the thing plays if a Republican is voted in. Anyone say disenfranchise?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
So, in other words, New
January 15, 2008 - 17:32 ET by motherbeltSo, in other words, New Jersey has decided to just go along with the winner in the rest of the country?
Gosh, why do we even bother with individual states?
I agree with Rush for two
January 15, 2008 - 12:46 ET by BruzillaI agree with Rush for two reasons: first, I don't trust Newt, and havn't for some time now. I think he's become as much of an opportunistic bottom feeder as McCain, and everything he says needs to be read through the filter of "what's in this for him?"
Second, and more importantly, I think Rush's statements go to what I see as a huge problem with the Republican party. I keep hearing all about how we are straying away from the Reagan/conservative model, that we must adhere to our conservative values, how Republicans are mad because we're not being conservative anymore... then when I ask them who they are voting for, they say "I like Huckebee because he has a great personality" or "I like Romney because he a great businessman" or "I like McCain because of his stand on the war", etc.
I can't help think of the comment attributed to Marian Berry where he said "take away all the murders, and DC is a great place to live." In this case it's "take away his stands on abortion, gun control and immigration, and Rudi makes a great conservative" or "take away his stands on immigration, taxes, and freedom of speech, and McCain is a wonderful conservative" or "take away his stands on taxes, gun control, and abortion, and Mitt makes a great conservative", etc. Folks, someone who's only a conservative sometimes is not a conservative! Then, when I mention someone with an excellent conservative track record like Thompson, I hear all about how he doesn't want it enough, doesn't have fire in his belly, or doesn't have great presence. Well, I'm trying to see a conservative president elected, not President Wants It, or Fire-in-Belly-in-Chief, or President Presence. I want a guy who is going to protect our rights for eight years, not protect some of them, but also sacrifice some on the alter of moderation if needed to get some bogus legislation passed.
If you want a conservative Republican president, vote for one. If you want to vote for a RINO that's fine, just quit catterwalling about how the conservative movement is straying from its principals because you're one of the folks who's enabling the straying.
..and some more on who is a RINO and who is not!
January 15, 2008 - 13:45 ET by vrwc13"In this case it's "take away his stands on abortion, gun control and immigration, and Rudi makes a great conservative"
or "take away his stands on immigration, taxes, and freedom of speech, and McCain is a wonderful conservative"
or "take away his stands on taxes, gun control, and abortion, and Mitt makes a great conservative", etc." Bruzilla
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Like I said, anyone can vote
January 15, 2008 - 14:57 ET by BruzillaLike I said, anyone can vote for anyone they want. I just don't want to hear the whining that'll come from folks pulling the lever for a RINO. It's not like we live in an era where there's no way to figure out what stands a candidate has taken or voiced in the past. And if people are willing to help sell conservatism down the tubes by voting for someone for reasons other than his being a conservative, then they shouldn' gripe about the results.
Great opening statement
January 15, 2008 - 12:45 ET by AgnosticGreat opening statement in front of the Human Rights Commission
Read it all here
"My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement…"
"I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com. I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state…"
"For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values. It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust…"
"I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians."
Rush is right
January 15, 2008 - 12:46 ET by candanceThe GOP has been redefining itself for the last 20 years and if we keep going silently along, they will never do the work of finding us a better leader.
Look to prove just how out
January 15, 2008 - 13:03 ET by USA4freedomLook to prove just how out of touch the inside the belt waypeople are with the average conservative, just look at the last election.
I think they buy the whole MSM spin on it. THE MSM IS OUR ENEMY!
I’m stumped by Newt, I would be pulling for him if he had run but now, I think that they all have some type of mental illness.
Newt, what the hell happened in 1994. Was that a goof? Did some how Reagan cheat to win 49 STATES?
I am soooo sick of the talking heads as well as the top Republics from Bush on down to telling us that we have to “change with the times”. So, we should be for: big spending, health care for everyone including who ever the hell can get in, big government, including a nanny state (Bloomberg), abortion at any time, larger welfare state, more national control on schools.
I have a news flash: whey in the hell don’t you change with the times, you lost the last election! You will loose this election if this isour choice.
Bush has run us down a rat hole, the only way out is to TURN AROUND AND RETURN TO OUR ROOTS.
The whole idea of: where.. else.. can.. they.. go.. line, they will go to IHOP or Denny’s, not to the voting booths. It happed last time, it will happen this time.
Bring a compass it could be a long time in the wilderness.
After the last race and I gave and gave, but have gotten to the point that I don’t give a dam about the Republican party. For all of that has worked and gave money to be called names because we did not want our country taken over by everyone that wants to come it. I care and love this great and wonderful country. I expect the Democratic party to RUIN this country. Not the Republicanparty, but every day more and more they are.
Get a set of balls, run the country like it should be. Stop trying to buy our votes with our own money.
The government that governs least..
It explains some of the reasons why Ron Paul is doing so well even though at times he sounds like a lunatic.
Small Government, period..
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
CitiCorp/I must have failed economics
January 15, 2008 - 12:46 ET by PawpawNCitiCorp/I must have failed economics, as I just read "CitiCorp is lowering their dividend from 54 cents to 32 cents.." I'm thinking if you are not making monies, you pay no dividend! Am I economically challenged? You're going to get paid 32 cents per share dividend while the news says CitiCorp is going to bottom out! Please help me understand!
I've noticed a slow shift to the center by Mr. Newt.
January 15, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Iowa BoyOver the last decade, I've noticed a slow slide to centrist ideals by the former Speaker of the House. I read Newt's new book. (Got an advance copy at the radio station where I work.) I find that Mr. Gingrich seems to hold less and less to the ideals he held as Speaker. Many of us change over the years, for whatever reasons. Our own Ronald Regan was once a New Deal Democrat but, when he saw the slow erosion of freedoms to which the New Deal eventually led, he changed his ideals to one day support Senator Barry Goldwater. I read the text of the speech he gave on natioanl television during the '64 campaign. It remains a fascinating treatise on Conservatisim.
I disagree that Americans want to be less partisan. Our founders hoped we could avoid the formation of political parties. Trouble is, people are partisan by nature. Ask a Red Sox fan if he would ever root for the Yankees or if a Cub fan would root for the Cardinals. It ain't happening. So people are drawn to groups which are more like themselves, politically, socially or otherwise.
In my lifetime, the Republican and Democrat parties have changed because they are fluid with the political realities of the day. Conservatism has not. It remains a rock solid. It's virtues are as old as the American Revolution, the United States Constitution, even the Magna Carta.
So one again, Rush is right.
"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
Katie Couric video!
January 15, 2008 - 13:14 ET by balboahttp://www.mydamncha...
I love stuff like this.
Press and Surge
January 15, 2008 - 13:27 ET by BuzzguyIt's just not true that the MSM hasn't noticed the success of the surge.
Any time they use the term "recession," it's a sign they know the surge is working.
"It's the economy, stupid." And they do think we're stupid.
Anyone got the dope on Clinton?
January 15, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Jack BauerClintonInc is still desperately using surrogates to get Obama's druggie past out there.
But has anyone ever asked the Mrs C word what she dropped at college. And I don't mean subjects.
We've all seen the pictures of her in the stripey pants, permed white-afro, and big glasses.
Are we to believe that this gal who, three years earlier, was an Eisenhower Republican didn't FREAK OUT.
That she didn't rebel against her square parents by smoking a little Mary Jane. Hitting the bong.
Someone should infiltrate one of her events and shout it out Maccaca style:
Jack
January 15, 2008 - 13:43 ET by Airforce_5_OI heard she liked cigars. Especially the ones in the oval office. She said they had a great taste to them.
35w Bridge collaspe in Minnesota defined
January 15, 2008 - 13:49 ET by JayTeeDoesn't look like it was lack of Highway infrastructure Maintenance that casued the Interstate Bridge Collaspe, and susequent push for higher Taxes to fix the non-problem...it was actually the maintenance itself..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322849,00.html
"Barack Obama is a Powerful Speaker—And so is My Bose Bass Amp" Doug Giles
Limbaugh's brain and Newt's heart sense
January 15, 2008 - 13:51 ET by Lame CherryOn Star Trek one has Spoc Limbaugh's brain with Doc Bones heart.......one logic, the other emotion.....but both making up James T. Kirk when put together.
America faced what Rush Limbaugh is in James Madison at the Constitutional Convention where he wanted it only his way defined and in the end the pragmatists of State's rights improved Madison's original intent and the nation won.
It does not have to be either Rush or Newt. It can be both, but Mr. Limbaugh is not finding the way to keep Reagan on course WITH SOLUTIONS and these dolts who do not know economics, foreign policy and understand that Americans are tough, but they like to be whined over are changing the party into a socialist orb of the Democrats.
It takes LEADERSHIP MR. LIMBAUGH and not just being grated like all Conservatives are when we hear Huckabee or Paul spouting such nonsense which will bankrupt America and bring certain nuclear war to our shores as certain as if Obama was in control...........in that Mr. Gingrich is right and wrong as the leaders abandoned Reagan as they have no understanding his policy, but the way to fix this is not being a Democrat, but as I stated FINDING SOLUTIONS REAGAN WOULD EMPLOY.
I blog here and contact Newsbusters in email attempting to put into play SOLUTIONS based upon Milton Friedman whom Reagan was a disciple of in economics. Reagan did not use nuclear missiles in a war, he used MONEY as his war and the missiles were the threat to keep the war from starting.
Economic weakness is what gets people bombing Iran with nuclear missiles and starts wars.
I posted here today exposing the idiot David Gergen is in stating the Republicans do not want to get caught in between the economy and the green movement. What utter rubbish which is something Newt Gingrich would state and Rush Limbaugh would dig in his heals and command that we must be true to our principles.
I provided the solution to this. Take the billions in grant money lining the privileged few's bank accounts and grant that money to homeowners to build disaster shelters. The building will cause an economic boom and American will be prepared for any cold, warm, storm or Russian nuke.
That is how Ronald Reagan would solve this for it stimulates the economy in a short term 5 year bubble to give us time to implement the long term. People have good jobs and it ALL makes Americans more independent and secure..........and gee whiz housing prices regain and it fixes the big subprime problem that Pat Buchanan is whining about.......another GOPer with plenty to say and no solutions.
All of this is fixable, but I have no idea why none of the brains and hearts of this America ever have asked God for Wisdom to fix these things........that is my source and He gets all credit and this will all work, because John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and now the Baltic nations are all making it work.
I will offer again to any GOP candidate my services free of charge to explain this plan so they get it and America can get it. Tell Americans they are going to benefit, show them it will be easy and it will be taken care of and they will vote for that person every time.
The problem is not the party, not morons who do not understand Franklin Economics, nor Rush or Newt.........the problem is there is no God given common sense directing any leadership in this nation so it is being leveraged by the cartels to be so weakened that Americans will agree to a CanAmMex union with a Amero for a dollar.
Fix the problem Mr. Limbaugh...........and people will follow Conservatives 24/7 as Americans are not dumb.......they are frugal though to the point of being sloven in not being fooled in following ideals that have not gotten them their share.
Be glad to discuss this with Mr. Limbaugh too as America is at stake here.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Little Johhny's Mom
January 15, 2008 - 14:08 ET by ricklail