RNC Chairman Apologizes to Limbaugh

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Watching it now:

So the big first part was saying about how much Conservatives love you. And for you to have maximum opportunity we have to get rid of the Democrat's big government that is oppressing them and making the minorities dependent, blah blah blah. Then the "punishing for achievers" about taxes. We aren't racists, the black activists are racists. People are poor because government aid destroys their ambition. Women and minorities aren't doing as well in the workplace because they are told they are going to be discriminated against and they need government to help. Government is big and ebil. Clinton caused the sub-prime collapse. People have different outcomes in life because we are all individuals. Socialists want to make us all equal in outcome. Liberals tell the poor people that the rich are evil and are keeping them down. "Drive by media"!!! Biden is bigoted against Jindal. We really love you and love America. Get out of recession with tax cuts. Obama's big spending will destroy liberty. Liberals want control. Welfare breaks up families by kicking out the dads and letting the single moms pop out babies. They destroy people's futures. Not Obama's job to tear apart and rebuild the foundation of the country. Liberals are unhinged and lie to themselves to feel good and say they are compassionate. We aren't the minority. Don't assume way to beat is with better policies. Use Philosophy! Bi-Partisanship is forcing the Liberals to agree with us after we have beat them. It is Liberals v Conservatives. There is no compromise between good and evil. Focus on principle, no compromise. No evidence this TARP stuff works. Obama is elegant, but doesn't inspire and doesn't want freedom. They don't want to lift people at bottom, they want to tear down people at top. Class envy!! Conservatives didn't have humiliating defeat. Don't redefine Conservative. IT IS FOREVAR!! Don't kill Zombie Reagan! "Policies" really are stupid. Don't try to make liberals or media like us. Don't try to get minorities, women, Walmart voters. We are all Americans. Freedom! Tell your kids the TRUTH about morality, politics, etc. Don't be like people in Swing Vote movie. Biden *ha ha ha ha*. We are competitive people. Mrs. Clinton *boo boo boo*. I hope Obama fails. I want America to survive as the country we knew it as. It is under assault from within. We aren't a minority. Be confident.


_________

Wow, they are really branching out of the old white male demographic! So fresh!

Interesting how the social conservatism barely showed.

I watched so you don't have to!

[Whiplash]

Give 'em hell Rush.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I watched so you don't have to!

Thanks. And thanks for providing the verbatim transcript. :D

[Upchurch]

Give 'em hell Rush.
You say that like it's a good thing. Remember that the hell he's describing would be for all of "'em", meaning "us".

[Texas]

You say that like it's a good thing. Remember that the hell he's describing would be for all of "'em", meaning "us". Funny since I feel the same way about Obama,Pelosi and Reid.

[Bikewer]

I notice that the "straw poll" conducted at the conference ended up with Mit Romney on top; a man who didn't make it through the primaries and who is leaning towards the moderate side of things...

The other day, commenting on all this, Dan Schorr said he was impressed by the fact that all he heard was the same tired rhetoric. (and Rush's rhetoric is about as tired as you can get)

This doesn't say much to the advertised intent to become more appealing to the young, the minorities, etc.....

[Whiplash]

You say that like it's a good thing. Remember that the hell he's describing would be for all of "'em", meaning "us".

I know, I know, I admit I was every so slightly trolling in that response. ;)

[Andronicus]

Personally, Rush is both too arrogant and too "ad hominem-ish" for me except in small doses; but he is by no means an idiot.

The transcript of the speech can be found here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/01/transcript-rush-limbaughs-address-cpac/).

YouTube has the speech in pieces, just search for Rush Limbaugh and CPAC.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rush joke to the audience from the above transcript link: Rush doesn't think he's God, God thinks he's Rush.

Wonder why none the Evangelicals in the audience were offended enough to point it out?

We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we areFunny, I thought who they were was demonstrated over the last 8 years. Think we could find much from Rush against Bush Jr during that time period? Rush seems to think we can't see for ourselves and need his interpretation. :rolleyes:

We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness.Of course Rush apparently uses "we" as limited to just that, not "all men" which is what is actually written.

I couldn't stand to read more than that.

[Dr Adequate]

We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and freedom? Oh good, I'd hate to have one without the other.

I presume that only stem-cells have the right to life.

[Cleon]

I do enjoy it when people preach about the Constitution while being completely wrong about what's actually in it.

Here's a hint, Rush: The bit about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the preamble to the Constitution. Nor does it appear anywhere in the Constitution.

That little bit is from the Declaration of Independence.

See, if you're going to say you believe in what a document says, it's a good idea to read it to make sure it says what you think it says.

[Andronicus]

Funny, I thought who they were was demonstrated over the last 8 years. Think we could find much from Rush against Bush Jr during that time period? Rush seems to think we can't see for ourselves and need his interpretation. :rolleyes:

I hate to agree with America's leading proctologist but I generally agree with Mr. Limbaugh on this one. Fiscally, George Bush was not a conservative.

From my viewpoint as a fiscal conservative and social libertarian, former President George Bush's administration was socially overly conservative and fiscally not conservative at all. (President Obama seems just as bad from my political viewpoint as even a bigger spender and wanting more government control of people's lives, but its early and hopefully I'm wrong despite some of his post inaugeration changes in opinion -- in any event a different topic.) Similarly, I think Republicans who point to the feckless President Carter and scream all liberals are like Carter are just as bad, as there are many examples of liberals who were socially liberal from my viewpoint, but certainly good presidents for the country (Truman, arguably Kennedy, probably McGovern if he had been elected).

The fact that Republicans didn't take President Bush to task for the spending spree is one reason the Republicans are no longer in power. (No cite, just my personal opinion.)

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Republican party has a number of people from far right to firm center who get plenty of camera time and press so I don't think it is in the mess that a lot of people seem to think it is but, with Bill Buckley having passed away, if Rush and Ann Coulter are the vanguard of the Conservative movement in America... it's in a lot of trouble.

[daredelvis]

Good job Rush. Keep the 18 percenters riled up. Way to build momentum.


Daredelvis

[MattusMaximus]

Rush said:
Conservatives didn't have humiliating defeat.

Wow, he must be popping the prescription drugs again :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

The Republican party has a number of people from far right to firm center who get plenty of camera time and press so I don't think it is in the mess that a lot of people seem to think it is but, with Bill Buckley having passed away, if Rush and Ann Coulter are the vanguard of the Conservative movement in America... it's in a lot of trouble.

Considering as how they seem to be employing a scorched-earth policy towards anyone in the GOP who doesn't toe the line (i.e. Arlen Specter) and actually tries to work with the Dems, I'd say you're right.

[Texas]

Rush said:


Wow, he must be popping the prescription drugs again :rolleyes:Only if you think he is talking about Republicans but he is talking about Conservatives that may or may not be Republicans. In reality Conservative Republicans lost very few seats in 2008. It was moderate Republicans in moderate states that lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dogs are going to be a real problem for Obama given his lurch to the left since inauguration.

[Whiplash]

Rush said:


Wow, he must be popping the prescription drugs again :rolleyes:

Conservatives didn't suffer a humilating defeat. The Republicans did. McCain is not and was not a Conservative.

Considering as how they seem to be employing a scorched-earth policy towards anyone in the GOP who doesn't toe the line (i.e. Arlen Specter) and actually tries to work with the Dems, I'd say you're right.

So how would you fit Liberman into that? Is he not suffering the exact same treatment from people on his side?

I'm not saying it's ok because they did it to him. I'm saying it's hypocritical for anyone on the left attack it or assume any higher moral ground over it.

[Upchurch]

Conservatives didn't suffer a humilating defeat. The Republicans did. McCain is not and was not a Conservative.
McCain is not a Conservative. Bush is not a Conservative.

Who is the True Conservative?

[Denver]

The Republican party has a number of people from far right to firm center who get plenty of camera time and press so I don't think it is in the mess that a lot of people seem to think it is but, with Bill Buckley having passed away, if Rush and Ann Coulter are the vanguard of the Conservative movement in America... it's in a lot of trouble.


I recall a month or so back, when Limbaugh made his failure comment, and Obama responded with a comment of his own, that some were saying Obama should not have responded at all, as that somehow gave Limbaugh a further spotlight.

In fact, I think it is a genius strategy on the Dems side to give Limbaugh all the spotlight possible. The more he is seen as the vanguard of the GOP, the more that party will continue to fragment, and insure another Dem elected in 2012.

[joobz]

McCain is not and was not a Conservative.
McCain isn't a conservative.
McCain running for President was a conservative.

[Cleon]

McCain is not a Conservative. Bush is not a Conservative.

Who is the True Conservative?

Probably a Scotsman.

[Upchurch]

Are Limbaugh or Coulter True Conservatives?

[quarky]

Why doesn't Rush rhyme with Bush?

[joobz]

Why doesn't Rush rhyme with Bush?
phonetics.

[rdaneel]

So how would you fit Liberman into that? Is he not suffering the exact same treatment from people on his side? Actually, no. There was some talk of him losing his committee chairmanship, but in the end, Reid didn't even give him a slap on the wrist.

[dudalb]

I do enjoy it when people preach about the Constitution while being completely wrong about what's actually in it.

Here's a hint, Rush: The bit about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the preamble to the Constitution. Nor does it appear anywhere in the Constitution.

That little bit is from the Declaration of Independence.

See, if you're going to say you believe in what a document says, it's a good idea to read it to make sure it says what you think it says.

Rush is incredibly ignorant about things you think a political commentator would automatically know.
I wrote Limbaugh off as anybody whose opinions I should take seriously when he spent 20 minutes saying how the left had distorted Civil War History to attack the South and then admitted he did not even know which years the Civil war took place in.
Rush is a freaking DJ; he does not think any study is necessary.
To be fair, I have seen a few people on the left as well whose ignorance of history is shocking.

[dudalb]

I recall a month or so back, when Limbaugh made his failure comment, and Obama responded with a comment of his own, that some were saying Obama should not have responded at all, as that somehow gave Limbaugh a further spotlight.

In fact, I think it is a genius strategy on the Dems side to give Limbaugh all the spotlight possible. The more he is seen as the vanguard of the GOP, the more that party will continue to fragment, and insure another Dem elected in 2012.

I am pretty much convinced that the GOP will be just like the Labor Party in the UK after the first Thachter victory: The Hardliners seize power, decide the party lost because it was not militant and extreme enough, an adapt a policy and a candidate so radical that it guarantees a disaster even if the people are disilllusioned about the party in power.
The Labor party platform in 1982 was so radical that even a number of Labor supporters called it "The most public suicide note in history".

[dudalb]

And now Limbaugh has fired back, accusing Steele of Supporting Obama.
I am not one of these people who sees Racism where there is not any, but something strikes me as sort of "you know how they stick together" in Limbaugh's remarks.
I guess Rush thinks the GOP does not need any minorities, only White Christian Good Americans, who are the Chosen People in Rush's world, anyway.
Or at least his target audience.

[dudalb]

It just shows the GOP can be just as good as the Dems when it comes to forming circular fire squads.

[rdaneel]

It just shows the GOP can be just as good as the Dems when it comes to forming circular fire squads.
Fair warning, I may steal this comment. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hate to agree with America's leading proctologist but I generally agree with Mr. Limbaugh on this one. Fiscally, George Bush was not a conservative....This Republican history rewrite misses one important point. If Bush was such a liberal, why are the Republicans only now saying so? You'd be a lot more credible with this history rewrite had you complained about Bush 4 years ago.


BTW, Reagan also oversaw some of the largest deficit spending in history. Spend but pretend you aren't. Spend but send the bill to the kids so you can give the false impression you are conservative and shrank government.

"See little sheepies, I cut your taxes. I'm a conservative. No, don't look behind that curtain. Nothing to see, go away. Win one for the Gipper. The scariest thing to hear is, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
So how would you fit Liberman into that? Is he not suffering the exact same treatment from people on his side?

I'm not saying it's ok because they did it to him. I'm saying it's hypocritical for anyone on the left attack it or assume any higher moral ground over it.I do believe standing on the stage at the Republican Convention and supporting the Republican candidate for Pres is not the same as working across party lines. Find another analogy. This one is Epic Fail.

[jnelso99]

And now Limbaugh has fired back, accusing Steele of Supporting Obama.
I am not one of these people who sees Racism where there is not any, but something strikes me as sort of "you know how they stick together" in Limbaugh's remarks.
I guess Rush thinks the GOP does not need any minorities, only White Christian Good Americans, who are the Chosen People in Rush's world, anyway.
Or at least his target audience.

I predict a humble apology to Limbaugh from Steele in the next day or so, after Steele gets a good "talking to".

[rdaneel]

I predict a humble apology to Limbaugh from Steele in the next day or so, after Steele gets a good "talking to".Not even that long (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/steele-takes-on-rush-limb_n_171135.html), He just got back from the woodshed apparently. :D

[quixotecoyote]

That's awesome. I mean, on the one hand, half the American political system is in such a sad, sorry state that it has to kowtow to the nut job that is Rush Limbaugh.

On the other hand, that half is going to be significantly weakened so long as they have such a horrible person as a public face of the party, rather than a fringer that can be brushed away as non-representative.

[MattusMaximus]

Conservatives didn't suffer a humilating defeat. The Republicans did. McCain is not and was not a Conservative.

Yes, that would explain why Sarah Palin repelled so many people away from the GOP ticket :rolleyes:

So how would you fit Liberman into that? Is he not suffering the exact same treatment from people on his side?

I'm not saying it's ok because they did it to him. I'm saying it's hypocritical for anyone on the left attack it or assume any higher moral ground over it.

I happen to agree with you on this point. I am starting to get a bit annoyed with the ultra-partisans on my side of the fence for adopting a similar kind of strategy. I think one reason why the Democrats have done so well in recent elections is because they are truly the big tent party, but if these folks keep pushing that won't last long.

[MattusMaximus]

Limbaugh vs. Steele

:catfight:

[MattusMaximus]

I recall a month or so back, when Limbaugh made his failure comment, and Obama responded with a comment of his own, that some were saying Obama should not have responded at all, as that somehow gave Limbaugh a further spotlight.

In fact, I think it is a genius strategy on the Dems side to give Limbaugh all the spotlight possible. The more he is seen as the vanguard of the GOP, the more that party will continue to fragment, and insure another Dem elected in 2012.

Agreed, and Limbaugh will play right into it, because the more rhetorical bombs he throws the more money he makes. You see, it's all about him.

Unfortunately for the GOP, I think they are just now beginning to realize that when they hooked their cart to Limbaugh, they grabbed a tiger by the tail. And now they dare not let go for fear of getting bit.

Fyi, it looks as if the Democrats are already using the "Limbaugh runs the GOP" angle to hit the Republicans. And the fact that Steele and other major Republicans are kowtowing so much to Limbaugh just reinforces it.

This is like watching a trainwreck in slow motion.

[dudalb]

The key to Limbaugh is that he is basically a DJ, and is only concerned about reaching his White Male target demo. He does not give a damn about anybody else. That might be a winning strategy for a radio program (in fact ,it is..in radio,narrow demos are the name of the game) but a lousy one for a political party.
It is interesting the Rush showed no interest in politics...in fact did not even bother to vote..until he came up with the idea that an over the top Right Wing talk show host might pay better then the gigs he was getting.

[Tricky]

Rush Limbaugh spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/limbaugh.speech.cpac/index.html)in Washington Saturday, and he killed! Man, he had 'em on their feet and cheering with his message of "I want Obama to fail". Then man can play a crowd. And the Dem's know it.
Limbaugh's rollicking speech came the day after Obama supporters put out a political ad implying that the conservative radio host has become the de facto head of the Republican Party in the absence of a clear GOP leader.

Of course, not all Republicans are toeing the line on their new mouthpiece. Take for example the No. 2 Republican leader in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxDhf3ih3pg3s69ZTdvps4KpU10gD96M61SO0).

"Nobody — no Republican, no Democrat — wants this president to fail, nor do they want this country to fail or the economy to fail," he said on ABC's "This Week."


And then there's Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele.
"I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party," Steele asserted. "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."

There's not doubt that Limbaugh is a charismatic figure among conservative. He is a firebrand who gets them all excited. He's also a lightning rod for criticism who alienates moderates and bridge-builders. Will the GOP get in their Kamikaze planes with Limbaugh and Palin at the stick and dive bomb the Democrats into submission? Something tells me this is not exactly the course they should be plotting if they wish to retake national power.

[Alareth]

Rush used to market some very nice ties.

That's really the only nice thing I have to say about the guy right now.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Will the GOP get in their Kamikaze planes with Limbaugh and Palin at the stick and dive bomb the Democrats into submission? Something tells me this is not exactly the course they should be plotting if they wish to retake national power.

Can you imagine some of the attack ads against a Limbaugh-Palin ticket?

Just taking sound bites from Rush's radio shows could make him unelectable.

[Tricky]

Can you imagine some of the attack ads against a Limbaugh-Palin ticket?

Just taking sound bites from Rush's radio shows could make him unelectable.
Oh, Rush will never run for anything. His radio business is too lucrative, and besides, he doesn't have to make any tough decisions. Besides, being a draft dodger and a former drug addict might work against him too.

But he can be a spokesman. They don't have to do any real work.

[negativ]

Maybe, just maybe, the GOP's many fractures will finally deepen to the point where the pseudo-Maoist** faction forms its own party, leaving the less insane to rebuild it into something less appalling.


** according to this faction of the GOP, anyone from any party who doesn't follow lock-step with the ultra-conservative dogma is an Enemy of the People, etc.

[Andronicus]

This Republican history rewrite misses one important point. If Bush was such a liberal, why are the Republicans only now saying so? You'd be a lot more credible with this history rewrite had you complained about Bush 4 years ago.

Rewrite? I don't need no stinkin' rewrite.

1. Generally, a fiscal conservative believes in smaller and less expensive government. (There are much better definitions but this is a decently simple and short one.)

2. President Bush expanded government and greatly expanded the deficit. ("Greatly" from a pre-Obama viewpoint).

3. President Bush failed to act as a fiscal conservative.

4. Therefor President Bush is not a fiscal conservative.

The above proof also works if you exchange Republican Senate for President Bush.

"You'd be a lot more credible with this history rewrite had you complained about Bush 4 years ago." -- Mere ad hominem. Many A few conservatives did protest the spending spree with Ron Paul (unpresidential and arguably unhinged fringe candidate that he was) as the best example. And even if no one called Bush out on his lack of fiscal conservatism (and I agree to the extent that precious few did) it is irrelevant. An idiot is idiotic, a hero is heroic, and a fiscal conservative is fiscally conservative, whether the crowd timely issues the correct labels or not.

[dudalb]

Not even that long (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/steele-takes-on-rush-limb_n_171135.html), He just got back from the woodshed apparently. :D

Yeah, Rush LImbaugh is now the most powerful voice in the GOP without a doubt.
I saw footage of his speech at CPAC. The gestures and tone were so over the top you could make Limbaugh the picture in the dicitionary for "Demogogue".
I agree with David Gergen that the Democrats are very happy over this tonight.
The GOP is not interested in expanding it's base, apparently. Looks as if they need a few more disasters at the polls to get the message.
I really now think they are going to a 1982 UK Labor Party crash and burn before they learn their lesson.

[dudalb]

I agree with David Gergan that Steele should have kept out of this . Politicians should NEVER get directly into a fight with somebody who has a endless supply of paper and ink or a microphone with hundreds of outlets.

[Tricky]

Merged my thread with the one I didn't notice.

[rdaneel]

I agree with David Gergan that Steele should have kept out of this . Politicians should NEVER get directly into a fight with somebody who has a endless supply of paper and ink or a microphone with hundreds of outlets.
Plus, even if he's trying to take the high road by apologizing, he and his party still end up looking weak.

[shecky]

Rewrite? I don't need no stinkin' rewrite.

1. Generally, a fiscal conservative believes in smaller and less expensive government. (There are much better definitions but this is a decently simple and short one.)

2. President Bush expanded government and greatly expanded the deficit. ("Greatly" from a pre-Obama viewpoint).

3. President Bush failed to act as a fiscal conservative.

4. Therefor President Bush is not a fiscal conservative.

The above proof also works if you exchange Republican Senate for President Bush.

The above proof demonstrates the most conservative president of at least the last forty years was Bill Clinton. Tell me again what conservatives stand for? God? Guns? Gays?

[quixotecoyote]

"fiscal" shecky, as opposed to "social"

[shecky]

"fiscal" shecky, as opposed to "social"

Sure. But certainly one can see the kind of problem this makes for Republicans and conservatives in general. The only party with actual conservative creds at all is the Dems. The Repubs are left fighting a (losing) culture war, having given up the pretense of fiscal conservatism. Even if they wanted, there's no fiscal credibility left for the Right to claim.

When you hear stuff like this from the guy who seems the de facto voice of the American Right:

One thing we can all do is stop assuming that the way to beat them is with better policy ideas right now. ~Rush Limbaugh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKjY3gEaLMQ&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/)

You have to wonder where the heck this is all going. Is it really as dire for the Right as it's looking right now? If the Right can't or won't compete on policy, all they have left is God, guns, and bashing gays, immigrants, and of course those filthy hippies. Ratchet up the "Obama is a socialist" meme, because it worked so well last November.

[Puppycow]

The new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, apologized to Rush Limbaugh on Monday after describing him in a television interview over the weekend as an “entertainer” who made incendiary and sometimes ugly remarks, party officials said.

Mr. Steele called Mr. Limbaugh after the radio host belittled Mr. Steele on his show, questioning his authority and saying the new Republican leader was off “to a shaky start.”

“It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off,” Mr. Limbaugh said, in a transcript of his remarks he posted on his Web site.

“Mr. Steele: You are head of the R.N.C.,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the R.N.C. and right now they want nothing to do with it.”

The fight broke out at a time when Democrats have sought to portray Mr. Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a line that has been pushed in television advertisements financed by labor, as well as by the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Steele bristled after a questioner on CNN referred to Mr. Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican Party on Saturday.

“No he’s not – I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party,” Mr. Steele responded.

“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer,” he said. “Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary, yes, it’s ugly.”

Mr. Steele told Politico on Monday that he had called Mr. Limbaugh to apologize.

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Mr. Steele told The Politico. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

Democrats reacted with glee to the exchange. “Michael Steele has denounced himself for renouncing Rush,” said Paul Begala, an ally of Mr. Emanuel and one of the Democrats presenting Mr. Limbaugh as the face of the G.O.P. “Can anyone seriously argue now that Rush is not the unchallenged leader of the Republican Party?”
:popcorn1

ETA: here's the linky (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/rnc-chairman-apologizes-to-limbaugh-in-flap-over-his-role/)

[Policenaut]

Lame.

[Puppycow]

Lame.

I agree. They are both quite lame. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rewrite? I don't need no stinkin' rewrite.

1. Generally, a fiscal conservative believes in smaller and less expensive government. (There are much better definitions but this is a decently simple and short one.)

2. President Bush expanded government and greatly expanded the deficit. ("Greatly" from a pre-Obama viewpoint).

3. President Bush failed to act as a fiscal conservative.

4. Therefor President Bush is not a fiscal conservative.

The above proof also works if you exchange Republican Senate for President Bush.

"You'd be a lot more credible with this history rewrite had you complained about Bush 4 years ago." -- Mere ad hominem. Many A few conservatives did protest the spending spree with Ron Paul (unpresidential and arguably unhinged fringe candidate that he was) as the best example. And even if no one called Bush out on his lack of fiscal conservatism (and I agree to the extent that precious few did) it is irrelevant. An idiot is idiotic, a hero is heroic, and a fiscal conservative is fiscally conservative, whether the crowd timely issues the correct labels or not.

It's not an ad hom to point out hypocrisy related to the discussion. Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative either. Reagan and GW just spent government money on different priorities. If it was military, then spend away.

Fiscally conservative also means pay with cash, not credit. But in order to get elected, both Bush and Reagan lowered taxes without decreasing spending.

Clinton, OTOH, was fiscally responsible with the federal budget. Yet Republicans were loathe to admit it.


It is not just rewriting history to claim Republicans practice what they preach, it also demonstrates how sheep-like the far right can be when it comes to believing the fantasy they actually support fiscally conservative leaders. In the last few decades, it seems the majority of Republicans vote for slogans and the ideals which they identify with rather than candidates who actually act on those principles.

Actually, Rush proves it. People cheer and follow him as if he represents fiscal conservative ideals. It's all slogan and perceived image. It is not factual.

What he actually represents is hypocrisy. Of course he wants lower taxes, he benefits. He ranted about slimy drug addicts all the while he was one. Then he claimed his addiction was different. :rolleyes: He became addicted because he suffered real pain. Those of us who have worked with prescription drug abusers know there is little difference between that scenario and other addicts. Denial is part of the disease.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In all fairness, Democrats should probably be voting for Kucinich if we followed our ideals. But we are afraid he couldn't win the election if nominated in the primary.

[Denver]

The more I see Rush in the news, the more I expect him to break into that speech from a Few Good Men:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? ... my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!

[Upchurch]

The more I see Rush in the news, the more I expect him to break into that speech from a Few Good Men:
Which would be terribly ironic.

[Tricky]

Looks like the Reps are backing down from their criticism of Rush, which just plays into the Dem's hands (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/03/dnc-chair-limbaugh-is-the-godfather-of-the-gop/).

“I thought that was a courageous statement for (Steele) to make,” Kaine said. “The fact that he kind of abjectly went back and apologized yesterday demonstrates that it is Rush Limbaugh who is the titular head of the party right now.”
And it does indeed appear that way. Maybe you can call it "solidarity" or obeying Reagan's 11th commandment, but they sure do look silly now.

One bit of ironic humor was that Steele apologized for calling Rush "an entertainer". I'm sure many would agree with him on that.

[dudalb]

In all fairness, Democrats should probably be voting for Kucinich if we followed our ideals. But we are afraid he couldn't win the election if nominated in the primary.


Wow, just wow.
So all Democrats all as far to the left as Dennis the Menace.
I guess for all his bombast Rush is correct about the Dems after all.

Notice how the most extreme elements of both parties claim to be the only "Real" Dems/Repubs will all the rest being phonies?

[dudalb]

Looks like the Reps are backing down from their criticism of Rush, which just plays into the Dem's hands (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/03/dnc-chair-limbaugh-is-the-godfather-of-the-gop/).

And it does indeed appear that way. Maybe you can call it "solidarity" or obeying Reagan's 11th commandment, but they sure do look silly now.

One bit of ironic humor was that Steele apologized for calling Rush "an entertainer". I'm sure many would agree with him on that.

David Gergan on CNN..who is becoming my favorite commentator on politics...made that point last night. The Dems are just rejoicing at this.

I am amazed the way the GOP does not realise that Rush is a freaking Radio DeeJay who probably has not real beleifs beyond getting ratings and the big bucks.

[Snide]

Or at least his target audience.This can't be overstated.

If, by and large, you get a 5% market share in the major markets, you will be very wealthy. Regardless of whether the other 95% of the people find you deplorable, laughable, dismissible, or a useful tool to their own cause of rounding up the idiots, as long as you have that 5%, you will be very successful.

(The number is admittedly arbitrary, I don't know Rush's actual numbers market-to-market, but they are just a small piece of the pie. The point is, it's a bigger piece than most others' individual pieces.)

Much of liberal radio is boring radio, and thus will not reach Rush's popularity. But a huge reason for Rush's success is that from the start of his rise to success, he positioned himself against the rest of the media, which he called "liberal." So the rest of the media "wins" with a cumulative 95% share, but Rush wins because he's alone with his 5%. A big reason Liberal radio has struggled is because its representative voices identify the enemy as right-wing radio. Rush, however, has done a masterful job of identifying the foe as, generally, all of radio and media.

Liberal shows like Stephanie Miller's have a good chance because she 1) is talented, and 2) battles the mainstream media in some instances. It's all about finding that niche, and you don't need 5% either.

It would be interesting to see how the ratings dispersion would be if Rush went in the same time slot as Hannity, Savage, etc., plus an equal number of the top liberal voices, like Miller and Schultz. (I don't think I'd throw Hartman in with the liberal side as a "top voice"...he's one of those that I just think is not a dynamic enough talent to compete no matter what his agenda is.)

[jnelso99]

I predict a humble apology to Limbaugh from Steele in the next day or so, after Steele gets a good "talking to".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/index.html

Wow. That was easy. Let's see...Wednesday's PowerBall numbers will be 3 14 16 23 32 (18).

[Dave31]

Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment to Americans who actually care about the country.

[dudalb]

Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment to Americans who actually care about the country.


He is just a media blowhard, and every country has a few of those.

And someone who buys into the Zeitgeist nonsense is an ebarrassment to real skeptics.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, just wow.
So all Democrats all as far to the left as Dennis the Menace.
I guess for all his bombast Rush is correct about the Dems after all.

Notice how the most extreme elements of both parties claim to be the only "Real" Dems/Repubs will all the rest being phonies?Kucinich is not an extremist, he just recommends policies that are generally not feasible.

For example, many liberals feel Bush broke the law and ignored the Constitution. That would be Democratic ideals. But not so many want to see Bush charged with treason or crimes against humanity or anything that extreme. So in terms of ideals, yes, Kucinich does represent those.

It's the same with Republicans. You really don't want all government out of everything except defense. When the excess of Wall Street reared its ugly head once again, even Republicans were claiming they never said 'no' regulations. Well what is government interference then if it isn't by regulations?

And if you read the Libertarian Party platform, wow, talk about extreme. They'd have every street in private hands. So you could pay a toll every time you stepped off your property.

These are ideals that can't exactly be put into practice in any party.

The point I made was Republicans are now disowning Bush after 8 years of cheering him on and that is BS. It wasn't the fact that during those 8 years Republican actions didn't match their ideals. That is the usual state of affairs for all three parties noted here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

He is just a media blowhard, and every country has a few of those.

...For being "just a media blowhard", Steele certainly appeared to be kissing Rush's ass in that public apology.

[Grizzly Bear]

The point I made was Republicans are now disowning Bush after 8 years of cheering him on and that is BS. It wasn't the fact that during those 8 years Republican actions didn't match their ideals. That is the usual state of affairs for all three parties noted here.

I think that process started much sooner than the extent of the 8 years. Personally although I was too young to vote in his first term I was optimistic about his policies. You could argue that 2006 was when the balls started to really roll concerning the ideals -- at least that was my position from then to now.

[dudalb]

And my point is it is a sad case when one of the two major political parties has to kiss the ass of a media blowhard.

[GStan]

For being "just a media blowhard", Steele certainly appeared to be kissing his ass in that public apology.

I would bet that alot of party leaders feel that he is just a blowhard, but they are happyneed to have the blowhard's supporters when its time to push an issue, raise money or get elected.

[dudalb]

Kucinich is not an extremist, he just recommends policies that are generally not feasible.

Uh, I thought advocating policies that will not work is one of the sure signs of an extremist.
Or maybe extremist only exist on the right end of the political specturm. Ain't no such animal on the left wing.No sirree,no way.

[MattusMaximus]

In all fairness, Democrats should probably be voting for Kucinich if we followed our ideals. But we are afraid he couldn't win the election if nominated in the primary.

I disagree. I am a Democrat and I don't necessarily agree with Kucinich on some issues. Plus I think he's just a bit nutty, but that's me.

[MattusMaximus]

Uh, I thought advocating policies that will not work is one of the sure signs of an extremist.
Or maybe extremist only exist on the right end of the political specturm. Ain't no such animal on the left wing.No sirree,no way.

If Kucinich were a 9/11 Truther, then I'd call him an extremist. That said, I think he's just basically a slightly nutty idealist.

[jj]

Seems more like the GOP wants to get the midwest to secede and declare the United States of God.

[dudalb]

Seems more like the GOP wants to get the midwest The South to secede and declare the United States of God.


Fixed that for you.

The Midwest has it share of fundies, but the South is worse. A lot worse.

[Cleon]

Fixed that for you.

The Midwest has it share of fundies, but the South is worse. A lot worse.

No kidding. There are people in my state who molest poisonous reptiles because God told them it was a good idea.

There's fundies, and there's fundies.

[MattusMaximus]

Fixed that for you.

The Midwest has it share of fundies, but the South is worse. A lot worse.

Dubalb is correct. The GOP cannot count on the Midwest anymore since most of it went for Obama (including Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio). And they can't even count on all of the South either, since the Dems won Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.

That said, there is definitely a... different... culture in many parts of the Deep South. Though many here, myself included, like to trash certain aspects of that culture (such as its amazing level of fundamentalist Protestantism), there are nice things about it. "Southern hospitality" is more than just mere words.

[Texas]

No kidding. There are people in my state who molest poisonous reptiles because God told them it was a good idea.

There's fundies, and there's fundies.Yes they are a force to be reckoned with:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html

While a number of churches with small congregations around a dozen members survive throughout the heart of Appalachia, the faith is also practiced in adjacent states of Ohio and Alabama.

Family Faith

Churches survive and grow not by attracting new members, but because of enduring family traditions. "Serpent handling is maintained through powerful families whose children have carried on that tradition for up to four generations," Hood said. "There are a small number of converts, but they generally maintain themselves through these families, and by people marrying into the tradition."

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would bet that alot of party leaders feel that he is just a blowhard, but they are happyneed to have the blowhard's supporters when its time to push an issue, raise money or get elected.Ya think?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Uh, I thought advocating policies that will not work is one of the sure signs of an extremist.
Or maybe extremist only exist on the right end of the political specturm. Ain't no such animal on the left wing.No sirree,no way.Can you point to an era when Republicans actually carried out their 'extreme' ideals? Lowered taxes, smaller government, prosperous times and no growing deficit?

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, here are the Kucinich stands (http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=4&id=13&Itemid=48) which I think represent the Democratic Party ideals. You'll have to go to the link to open each title to see the specifics.
Friday, 01 February 2008 Universal Health Care
Friday, 01 February 2008 Environment
Friday, 01 February 2008 Workers' Rights
Friday, 01 February 2008 Right-to-Choose
Friday, 01 February 2008 Social Security
Friday, 01 February 2008 The Patriot Act
Friday, 01 February 2008 Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
Friday, 01 February 2008 US out of Iraq, UN in
Thursday, 03 January 2008 Animal Welfare
Tuesday, 01 January 2008 Farm Policy
Wednesday, 09 May 2007 Education

I don't think his policies are all feasible. It would be nice, but reality says no. I was talking about what people stand for in their image of themselves, not what they actually vote for when the time comes.

[kallsop]

The fact that Republicans didn't take President Bush to task for the spending spree is one reason the Republicans are no longer in power.

... and replaced by much bigger spenders. How's that working out?

[Skeptic Ginger]

... and replaced by much bigger spenders. How's that working out?Don't know yet, give it a couple months.

It's not just more spending though so don't try to compare it to Bush's buying spree. For the Republican deficit we got shoddy construction in Iraq and Afghanistan, lots of richer Bush cronies and $600 toilet seats in military aircraft.

For Obama and the Democrats' spending we should be getting road improvements, better schools, better health care including an updated health information exchange system, some state tax relief or continuation of services that would need to be cut without the federal money, extended unemployment insurance during this important time.... There might even be some money in there for New Orlean's levies that had they been properly upgraded before Katrina would have had a return on investment even Republicans would have to admit made it worth it.

We are also still stuck paying Bush's bills. The wars cannot just be abandoned. The bank bailouts might not have been needed if Bush hadn't had an atmosphere of vacations for everyone in any regulatory position and whatever you do, don't fill any vacant positions. I know you'd all love to blame Clinton for passing the legislation that contributed and claiming Freddie and Fannie were required by the government to grant loans to people who couldn't afford them. I blame complete and utter lack of enforcing regulations on any business.

Then there's that little problem of lowering taxes on the wealthiest citizens using all sorts of excuses and reasons. Looks good in a campaign. No one pays attention to the fact no one's paying for the war on terror. The idea was supposed to be lower taxes and richer people pay more because they are wealthier. Funny, that. Seems that ol' deficit got real big anyway.

Yep, we've had great fiscal responsibility under those 8 Republican years. Must have been Clinton's policies that left us in the state we are currently in.

[Upchurch]

Odd synchronicity we have here. Both the Democrats and Limbaugh want the same thing: Limbaugh to be the face and voice of the Republican party.

The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh’s name in a survey and found that many Americans just don’t like him.

“His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.

Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident who Republicans sought to tie to Obama during the campaign.
(source (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html))

The bad part for the Republicans is that Limbaugh is embracing the role. He won't shut up. He's Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

[ponderingturtle]

I am pretty much convinced that the GOP will be just like the Labor Party in the UK after the first Thachter victory: The Hardliners seize power, decide the party lost because it was not militant and extreme enough, an adapt a policy and a candidate so radical that it guarantees a disaster even if the people are disilllusioned about the party in power.
The Labor party platform in 1982 was so radical that even a number of Labor supporters called it "The most public suicide note in history".

I predict a Palin-Joe the Plumber ticket in 2012.

[ponderingturtle]

Don't know yet, give it a couple months.

It's not just more spending though so don't try to compare it to Bush's buying spree. For the Republican deficit we got shoddy construction in Iraq and Afghanistan, lots of richer Bush cronies and $600 toilet seats in military aircraft.

Lets not forget tons of cash simply going missing.

[Beerina]

Very few people at that level of political power would not be cognizant of the difference between being a behind-the-scenes operative (or public show piece), and a guy with millions of followers.

One doesn't play power games with such people, especially when that is the exact nature of the power game they're playing.

[Tricky]

Rush may have been trying to "energize the conservative base" but according to the Wall Street Journal, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612000246123253.html)Obama's approval ratings remain high, at over 60%. Of course, it is expected they will drop, since the economy is not a "quick fix" and the honeymoon can't last forever. Still, either Rush didn't do a very good job of energizing, or there's just not enough of a base to make a big difference.

[dudalb]

The real problem is that the GOP cannot win with just "the base" anymore.
The trick for both parties is to enerize the base but not to the extent you scare off moderates. The Dems were pretty bad at this for a number of years.
But now the GOP is worse. And it will take a few more defeats for them to come up with a winning formula.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lets not forget tons of cash simply going missing.That was included in the Iraq and crony categories. :) Billions in untraceable cash, literally.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you point to an era when Republicans actually carried out their 'extreme' ideals? Lowered taxes, smaller government, prosperous times and no growing deficit?I'm still waiting for my answer, dudalb.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The real problem is that the GOP cannot win with just "the base" anymore.

What? You mean real America?

The trick for both parties is to enerize the base but not to the extent you scare off moderates. The Dems were pretty bad at this for a number of years.
But now the GOP is worse. And it will take a few more defeats for them to come up with a winning formula.

I feel about the Republicans over the last 10 years the way President Reagan felt about the Democrats. I also have always felt like President Reagan felt about the Democrats 40 years ago.

Let's just say I don't vote along party lines much...

[Whiplash]

In the last few decades, it seems the majority of Republicans vote for slogans and the ideals which they identify with rather than candidates who actually act on those principles.

Wow. The fact that anyone on the left even considers this is what blows me away and makes me realize the futility of these fights. We live in entirely different worlds. That statement makes my irony meter explode before I can even hope to get a reading on it.

How can people like us ever come to a middle ground? Skeptigirl, you talk about re-writing history in another message when people were complaining that Bush wasn't conservative enough in the 2000 primaries! Unfortunately it came down quickly to him and McCain, and then him, and so we were stuck with him and supported him. And from day one the left painted him as Hitler.

Now, in your world, we are all sheep who thought he was conservative and now want to backpeddle from that. It's a fantastic example of ivory towers IMO. Some of you kept repeating the same mantra for so long that you came to believe it as reality. No one on the far right was in love with Bush or wanted to embrace him fully. Rush was hard on him many times. Yet somehow, now we are the ones who are changing our tune? Are you nuts?

[Alt+F4]

Can you point to an era when Republicans actually carried out their 'extreme' ideals?

Reconstruction? :)

[dudalb]

Skeptigirl obviously lives in a world of "Left is GOOD, Right is BAD" and I don't see that changing.

[pipelineaudio]

This Republican history rewrite misses one important point. If Bush was such a liberal, why are the Republicans only now saying so? You'd be a lot more credible with this history rewrite had you complained about Bush 4 years ago.

You are kidding right?

Bush has been attacked from day one by fiscal conservatives. The goldwater republicans hated him for the 1999 attacks on who at the time was "their guy" John McCain. When rebuilding his image as "NeoCon John" the goldwaters and most of the other conservatives here were going to hand Kerry a nearly unanimous victory in part in protest to Bush's brand of republican, until Kerry uttered some very insulting remarks at the Arizona State University rally. You won't even have to leave the JREF to find many complaints by the conservatives about Bush's policies.

[Tricky]

You are kidding right?

Bush has been attacked from day one by fiscal conservatives. The Goldwater republicans hated him for the 1999 attacks on who at the time was "their guy" John McCain. When rebuilding his image as "NeoCon John" the Goldwater's and most of the other conservatives here were going to hand Kerry a nearly unanimous victory in part in protest to Bush's brand of republican, until Kerry uttered some very insulting remarks at the Arizona State University rally. You won't even have to leave the JREF to find many complaints by the conservatives about Bush's policies.
Yes, Bush was attacked by some fiscal conservatives. But mostly it was certain actions he took (or didn't take) that got their rebuke, not just Bush in general. Tax cuts were favored by a great many fiscal conservatives, but not all.

As for the "insulting remark" by Kerry, I followed the election closely, but I don't remember such a watershed moment. But in the end, the conservatives are usually going to find a reason to forgive the more conservative candidate. The same can be said for liberals in the opposite situation. Even without this "gaffe" by Kerry, they would have come back to Bush. Witness, for example, the far right conservatives who hated that their boy Huckabee got booted. Some swore they would never vote for McCain, but a lot still did. Also witness the Hillary Clinton supporters who railed against Obama and pledged to sit out the election, but I don't think many actually followed through. In the end, there is usually a preferred candidate for people who care about politics.

[Dr Adequate]

Have you seen the latest from Michael Steele? First he gets delusions of grandeur and starts claiming to be leader of the Republican Party, and now (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030403791.html?hpid=topnews) he says: "I'm in the business of ticking people off."

No, Mr Steele --- I think you'll find that that is also actually Rush Limbaugh's job.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow. The fact that anyone on the left even considers this is what blows me away and makes me realize the futility of these fights. We live in entirely different worlds. That statement makes my irony meter explode before I can even hope to get a reading on it. I take it you didn't bother reading the very next post where I said, so do the Democrats? You can give your irony meter a rest. I'm not stupid.

How can people like us ever come to a middle ground? Skeptigirl, you talk about re-writing history in another message when people were complaining that Bush wasn't conservative enough in the 2000 primaries! Unfortunately it came down quickly to him and McCain, and then him, and so we were stuck with him and supported him. And from day one the left painted him as Hitler.

Now, in your world, we are all sheep who thought he was conservative and now want to backpeddle from that. It's a fantastic example of ivory towers IMO. Some of you kept repeating the same mantra for so long that you came to believe it as reality. No one on the far right was in love with Bush or wanted to embrace him fully. Rush was hard on him many times. Yet somehow, now we are the ones who are changing our tune? Are you nuts?

For 8 years we've had one of the worst Presidents in history and several major crises that couldn't have come at a worse time. And it was preceded by 8 years of Republicans constantly beating the drums against Clinton and doing everything possible to block as much as they could regardless of whether it was good for the country or not. Paula Jones was paid several hundred thousand dollars by a wealthy Republican to bring her lawsuit against Clinton. Ken Star wasted 54 million dollars of taxpayer money and all he could find was Clinton cheated on his wife.

And that's not even getting into the whole Jerry Falwell push to use the Republican Party to do his evangelical religious bidding. If Rush and Hannity represent the Republican Party, there is no middle ground.

I believe there will come a time when decent Republicans are going to take their party back. Maybe that is happening now and there's still some cleaning out to do of the politicians still in office. If/When that happens, I think you'll find a lot of people you thought were far left were really just against the NeoCon movement and the Bush administration which was the result of it.


Here's the latest author to address the outrage, George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution (http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004488). When the facts become more publicized about what's gone on in the Justice Department, you can count on a lot more people finally noticing what some of us have been talking about for years. Here's what White House operating documents are revealing Bush had in mind about his powers:The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”



In fact, I should dig up some of the threads where I (and others) posted about all this stuff and the right of center folks on the forum just discounted it all as no big deal. Many of them are still clinging to those views today despite the evidence in front of them. This is big stuff. This is not a White House BJ and a trumped up conspiracy theory about a suicide.

Are you prepared to explain why such an important right wing value as freedom really didn't matter because you trusted Bush would never abuse such powers?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl obviously lives in a world of "Left is GOOD, Right is BAD" and I don't see that changing.No. Bush and the NeoCons are bad. There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism. We need a mix. Calling everything the government needs to do, socialism is absurd. I'm quite happy with our socialist police and fire departments, thank you. Would you prefer everyone just hire their own private armies?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are kidding right?

Bush has been attacked from day one by fiscal conservatives. The goldwater republicans hated him for the 1999 attacks on who at the time was "their guy" John McCain. When rebuilding his image as "NeoCon John" the goldwaters and most of the other conservatives here were going to hand Kerry a nearly unanimous victory in part in protest to Bush's brand of republican, until Kerry uttered some very insulting remarks at the Arizona State University rally. You won't even have to leave the JREF to find many complaints by the conservatives about Bush's policies.Oh my, you've already rewritten that history. Unbelievable!

Of course, as Tricky reminds us there was undoubtedly a small minority of fiscal conservatives who complained about both Bush and the Democrats. But that's like saying well there's a Green Party so everyone on the left wasn't in favor of everything Democratic. Of course the country is not that homogeneous. But I'm talking the bulk of the Republicans, the ones who vocalize the party platform on a regular basis. They praised Bush until he crashed and burned with the economy.

[a_unique_person]

I agree with David Gergan that Steele should have kept out of this . Politicians should NEVER get directly into a fight with somebody who has a endless supply of paper and ink or a microphone with hundreds of outlets.

It's a shame when someone can't state the bleedin' obvious without getting caned for it. *Back to the world of realpolitic* Steele is clearly not the right man for the job.

[Chaos]

Oh my, you've already rewritten that history. Unbelievable!

Of course, as Tricky reminds us there was undoubtedly a small minority of fiscal conservatives who complained about both Bush and the Democrats. But that's like saying well there's a Green Party so everyone on the left wasn't in favor of everything Democratic. Of course the country is not that homogeneous. But I'm talking the bulk of the Republicans, the ones who vocalize the party platform on a regular basis. They praised Bush until he crashed and burned with the economy.

You misunderstand.

When Republicans "attack" or "hate" someone of their own party, that means they´re behind him nearly 100% while he´s in office or running for office, but once he´s safely out of office and no longer has any power, they´ll voice the occasional muted criticism of him when they think nobody´s listening.

[Dr Adequate]

The way that conservatives behave in voting booths is reminiscent of the way that they behave in restroom stalls. In public, they say that such unnatural liaisons are contrary to their most cherished values, they explain that they're not really that way inclined, they try to forget each sordid little tryst as soon as it's over --- but they keep on furtively slinking back, bending over, and getting screwed.

[Whiplash]

EDIT: nevermind.. I get too frustrated and start ranting. Believe what you want to believe.

[Upchurch]

It's entirely frustrating trying to reach any of you.
But are you astonished or outraged?

[joobz]

nevermind.. I get too frustrated and start ranting. Believe what you want to believe.
Yup.
You're absolutely right.
Bush wasn't popular with conservatives as all.:rolleyes:

[Cleon]

It's absolutely mind-boggling. I'm really and truly astonished at the way conservatives, who've spent the past eight years defending pretty much everything Bush did, are now trying to pretend they've hated him from day one.

I mean, who are you trying to kid, here?

[leftysergeant]

And that's not even getting into the whole Jerry Falwell push to use the Republican Party to do his evangelical religious bidding. If Rush and Hannity represent the Republican Party, there is no middle ground.

I believe there will come a time when decent Republicans are going to take their party back. Maybe that is happening now and there's still some cleaning out to do of the politicians still in office.

Nope. The Republican Party is dead and the Limpbag Party has taken its place. The purges within the party for the foreseeable future will be of those members who think that the pig man's mouth should be filled with discarded sweatsocks so as not to let him hoist their party on his petard.

[Whiplash]

http://www.womenforjohnmccain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/facepalm-300x259.jpg

[sugarb]

Dubalb is correct. The GOP cannot count on the Midwest anymore since most of it went for Obama (including Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio). And they can't even count on all of the South either, since the Dems won Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.

That said, there is definitely a... different... culture in many parts of the Deep South. Though many here, myself included, like to trash certain aspects of that culture (such as its amazing level of fundamentalist Protestantism), there are nice things about it. "Southern hospitality" is more than just mere words.


I'll agree...although I'm not in the deep South. Funny thing about the South--the stereotypes really just don't work. None of them. And the BEST lesson one could take from the South (were one so inclined as to be objective instead of embracing the stereotypes) is that party labels? Don't really mean a hill of beans.

For example, most people in these parts? Democrats. Through and through, generation after generation. Me and mine? We lean conservative, registered Republican household. However, WE, the Republicans, support gay marriage, voted against the "marriage amendment", and, to be honest, were totally unhappy with our former President before the end of his first term--Bush received no votes from this household.

Our friends and acquaintances who claim to be "liberals", though? No way, they said, would they vote for Obama! "He's not a Christian! He's not an American! I'll never vote for a black man!" They oppose abortion, oppose gay marriage, oppose international aid, supported the "war" wholeheartedly, drooled in delight over Gitmo--I could never understand, given their personal stances, WHY they weren't Rush fans. Many of their comments could have been lifted straight from his show. Sometimes, just for fun, we'll ask them what makes them "liberals"? The answer rarely strays too far from "Democrats are for the working man!" I'm not really sure what that means. Neither are they. However, I'm fairly certain that does nothing to explain defining one's self as a "liberal".

Just from personal experience, I think a Southern "liberal" is actually a fiscal liberal. Certainly not a social liberal. Democrats in the South should have loved Bush!

So...it seems to me there's a huge misconception about the South. If the "Democrats" in this area were any indication, Obama was elected with a lot of help from Republicans. :)

But I do think the South is a great example of why party labels are just stupid. From personal experience, most every insulting thing I read toward Republicans can be applied to a whole lot of Democrats around here. They certainly don't fit the political ideas of this Republican household.

[dudalb]

It's a shame when someone can't state the bleedin' obvious without getting caned for it. *Back to the world of realpolitic* Steele is clearly not the right man for the job.

It is almost always a bad idea for a Politican to get into a fight with a journalist or commentator. THe nature of the battelfield gives a huge advantage to the jounalist.

[Cleon]

It is almost always a bad idea for a Politican to get into a fight with a journalist or commentator. THe nature of the battelfield gives a huge advantage to the jounalist.

Especially when the "journalist" in question has legions of fans who proudly call themselves "dittoheads."