AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Freedom, Self-Reliance & Achievement, Not Whining and Moaning and Complaining

YOU MUST READ AND LISTEN TO THIS!!!

I am SO glad to have Rush pounding home the point that this global warming stuff is all a hoax. It is fantastic and so inspires me to keep pounding that point home, when I hear his passion on this.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: John in Pinehurst, North Carolina, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Man, Rush, I never thought I’d be picking a fight with a guy that I’ve listened to since I left the Army active duty in 1989, but sometimes, boy, you confuse me like you’ve never confused me before.

RUSH: Well, let me see if I can straighten it out.

[ … ]

CALLER: There you go. Look, the auto industry was not… I own an automotive recruiting company. For 13 years I’ve worked this industry. The government does not destroy the auto company like you said a few minutes ago. The auto industry was destroyed by exactly what Dick Lutz [sic — Bob Lutz] said. He’s the product czar at General Motors. He’s the guy that’s really in charge of styling for all the vehicles, and I believe he’s a former president or head of Chrysler Corporation. But Lutz said in the eighties Ford, GM, and Chrysler made junk — and I mean, they made junk.

RUSH: I’m not denying that. Look, I’ve talked about this, especially General Motors. They had Chevrolet. They had Cadillac, and every model in these brands looked alike, just different pricing, a little different trim. They were making cars that nobody wanted, but they’re coming back.

CALLER: One more thing. Go back to 30 years ago when CAFE standards were initiated. If General Motors, in fact, if — Where I think — I’m not calling you a hypocrite, but darn it, you really are missing it from a Republican, and I don’t want to be called a seminar caller by you because for 20 years I lived by the Republican Party, and today you could hold a gun to my head and I’m not voting for a Republican. I’ve never in my life voted for a Democrat, and I don’t want to begin, but the Republican Party betrayed people like me.

RUSH: I understand that.

CALLER: But the Republican Party doesn’t understand people like me.

RUSH: I also know Bob Lutz, who you’re talking about at General Motors. I met him last May. I met with him. I’ve known him a long time and I talked about these problems, and, believe me, he has a different story than you do about this.

CALLER: One more thing, can I mention…?

RUSH: But a lot of people aren’t going to vote Republican this time around, and I understand why, but that’s not why you called.

CALLER: Well, that’s kind of what — here’s the last thing. When a man of your wealth — yes, your wealth — no matter what happens, you can afford it. What about guys like me out there? I’ve had years where I’ve made big six figure and years that I haven’t, and, all in all, me and my wife are fairly financially stable, but do you know how expensive life is, or how much it costs to pay for health care, and why…?

RUSH: Yes, I damn well do because I do pay for it myself!

CALLER: Well, exactly.

RUSH: Let me tell you something.

CALLER: But when I talk about your wealth —

RUSH: No, no, no. Let me tell you something about this wealth business. I’ve been broke twice in my life. When I was 31 years old, I was making $17,000 a year. I have been fired I forgot how many times. Seven times! So I’ve been there. This constant refrain that I’m “out of touch,” is just bogus. That’s another thing that really bugs me: this movement within the Republican Party to claim that the middle class is in great suffering and pain. I understand if you own a house, and your value of your equity in your house is plummeting, that you’re worried, and I understand that totally. What you need to hear is the truth of why it happened, so that you can make plans in the future. These are cycles, and everybody in every country and every society goes through them, and ours are not nearly as bad as people around the rest of the world are. I know health care is expensive. That’s why I’m focused not on making it more expensive, but on making it cheaper, and how do you do that? You do it with conservatism! I’m by no means out of touch on this. If the health care industry were priced like every other industry is on the patient’s ability to pay, then we’d fix the problem, and that’s the direction we have to head in.But if we’re going to keep this notion that everybody’s entitled to have whatever they want medically paid for by their neighbors, then we are finished. We are finished as a country; we are finished as a society. You can talk about my wealth, but let me tell you something, sir. I don’t depend on anybody else for anything, and it was one of my objectives when I grew up. I didn’t want to be obligated. I didn’t want to be dependent. I didn’t want to owe anybody. I don’t buy into insurance plans because it’s a hassle! Now, I know a lot of people don’t have that freedom. I used to not have that freedom, either. But I do now because I worked for it — and if I can do it, a lot more people can do it than think they can, and that’s conservatism again. People are much better than they know. They have much more potential than they know. But when you’ve got a Democrat Party and a movement telling them they suck, telling them they can’t get anywhere because the deck is stacked against them and the people stacking the deck are Republicans and so forth, then you are diminishing the country; you’re diminishing the future, and you’re destroying people’s lives.

That’s what today’s liberalism and Democrat Party is doing. You want to fix health care? You make it like buying a hotel room. We have all kinds of choices. You can go to a Motel 6 and you can go to a Ritz Carlton. Depends how much you want to pay. Why is health care any different? Health care’s different because the government’s been involved in it for so long. They’re trying to make people dependent on government and people in government for power, and wait ’til they start doing that with other businesses, too — with energy, and everything else. We’re faced with real, real challenges here, and the debate over health care is not how “we Republicans” can best make sure everybody gets insured, because that’s just accepting the Democrat proposal and their position. Our target ought to be: How do we make this reasonable? How do we reduce costs? And there are countless proposals out there. It’s the same thing with public schools. Most people despise ’em. Most people, particularly in urban neighborhoods, would love to get their kids out of these rotten schools — and every time they have a chance to send ’em to a private school, they jump at it.

Who stands in the way? The Democrat Party, the teachers unions, who are interested in maintaining substandard schools with substandard education so they will have jobs. I’m not the problem, sir. I’m not the one standing in anybody’s way. I’m trying to tell people how to get out of the rut. I’m trying to show them that they can. I’m trying to demonstrate that it’s possible, and it’s possible if you understand certain conservative principles that are indeed rooted in freedom, self-reliance, and achievement. Not whining, not moaning, and not complaining. Because you can whine, moan, and complain all you want, and then what are you going to do after that? Wait for somebody to come in and tell you that they’re sorry and offer you some solution to it? The solution to the health care mess is just out there, the same as the solution to public schools: vouchers. People are spending property tax money through the nose to prop up a worthless education system!

Let ’em take the money that’s being taken from them; give them control over how to spend it on their own kids’ education, and you watch how it changes. Ditto health care. The solutions to the problems that ail this country are found in capitalism and the free market, the true agent of change. Not from Washington with people despising policies rooted in nothing fundamental, policies that are simply designed to make people think Washington cares and Washington is “doing something.” Well, how many years have you heard politicians run for office whining and moaning and telling you they hear you, on the mess that is health care? The Clintons in the nineties. “We got 37 million uninsured. We’re going to fix this.” Today it’s 47 million uninsured, they tell us. A lot of that, people are choosing to be uninsured because they’re young, and they want to spend their money on other things. But that’s not good enough for Democrats! They’re going to be mandating coverage for everybody, if they get their way. Has the problem been solved? Or is it getting worse?

The health care problem in this country is getting worse, while people are voting for people who are making it worse because they hear these people saying, “I’m going to fix it.” Well, the people in charge of fixing it have no interest in it getting fixed, because, if it gets fixed, you don’t need them. You can rely on yourself. This health care debate is one of the most infuriating things I witness every day, because I get so sick and tired of people buying hook, line, and sinker a lie. “I’m going to get everybody covered. I’m going to make sure everybody gets health insurance in this country. We’re going to make sure it’s not just the rich.” It doesn’t happen, does it? When you have government telling private industry how to operate, this is exactly what you get, and it’s going to happen in energy. It’s already happening in a number of other industries, too. It’s happening in the auto industry. You bring the auto industry up. I’ll tell you what Mr. Lutz told me: He can’t make the cars he wants to make, because of these CAFE standards! (sigh) It’s frustrating as hell.

I said, “Well, why don’t you fight? Why don’t you guys, all you auto companies get together and fight this hoax?”

He said, “Because we gotta give the customers what they want.”

I said, “What do you mean?”

“Well, the customers believe this stuff.”

That’s right. The American people have bought hook, line, and sinker this hoax of manmade global warming. Carbon dioxide, which we exhale, is a pollutant! How stupid can anybody be to believe this? The Good Lord created us. Are we pollutants? We are destroying the earth? That’s what the Democrats and liberals and environmentalist wackos want you to believe. The very fact of our existence pollutes the planet so we are sinning and we have to be made to pay! What’s that? Higher taxes. More liberals in power telling us how we must atone. Well, screw that, and screw them! You want to revive the auto industry? Let people, that ought to make cars people want, build them.

January 16, 2008 , 11:52AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Auto Industry, CAFE, Conservatism, Global Warming, Liberalism, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Freedom, Self-Reliance & Achievement, Not Whining and Moaning and Complaining

Rush Limbaugh vs Newt Gingrich on the Future of Conservatism

I understand that Newt did some good things for conservatives back in the 1990s, but the fact that he is either (1) buying into the global warming hoax and pushing for big government based on it or (2) is trying to gain politically from the fact that a large portion of the American public is ignorant and is buying into the global warming hoax, shows me that he is no longer a leader for conservatism.  Anyone who buys into the global warming hoax loses all my respect.  So I am very glad that Rush nailed him on it.

Rush ripped into Newt on his show yesterday when Newt said that the Reagan Coalition was dead. Today, Newt was on his show to discuss Conservatism: Rush and Newt on Conservatism

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: [ … ] We need to straighten this out, because from what you’ve said since Sunday, I don’t think we’re that far apart on things, but when I heard you say the Reagan era is over, and then you confirmed that again today on Fox, this morning, I had a reaction to that that I wanted to explain to you, because I don’t think the Reagan era is anything other than conservatism. And I don’t think conservatism is over. I don’t think it’s finished.

GINGRICH: Well, no, look, we’re old friends and we’ve been in a lot of good fights on the same side for a long time. If you mean by Reaganism, conservatism as a philosophy, it’s not only not over, it is timeless, it is enduring, and it is the core organizational principles for a successful country. So I couldn’t agree with you more.

RUSH: Why is it abandoned then? Why is it not to be found in our campaign except with maybe one candidate?

GINGRICH: I think a couple reasons, and this is part of what I was trying to get at. I don’t know how you feel about this, but I think people who try to use Reagan as a mantra rather than as a mentor make a huge mistake. When somebody stands there and prattles on, says, “I’m really for Reagan. I really love Reagan,” you say, “Fine, so what would you do about our energy policy?” And I tend to agree with you, there are sound, free market, incentive-based entrepreneurial models that will fix almost everything that’s wrong in this country today. But I don’t hear these guys out there saying that. And I think we need, in 2008, the same kind of commitment to solving problems — and this is the one place where maybe you and I do have a slight disagreement here, but I just find it very intriguing, because Reagan, back in 1966, when he was first running for governor, made the case that it is the job of candidates for election to think through how to solve problems.

Reagan gave a speech on the creative society. He said, “Public officials are elected primarily for one purpose, to solve public problems.” Now, that’s what I was trying to get at. We need a 2008 agenda that is as bold for us as Reagan was in 1975 with CPAC. We need a willingness to be either for a flat tax as an optional approach or something like the FairTax. We need a willingness to say, “If you’re really serious about getting energy independence, how fast can we start building nuclear power in a big way?” We need a willingness to break out of the bureaucracy, whether it’s the education bureaucracy that’s failing in Detroit, or frankly the Department of Education bureaucracy that’s failing in Washington. I think there are a number of steps we can take that suddenly become twenty-first century conservatism with twenty-first century solutions. That’s why I wrote Real Change. I wanted to put an entire book full of ideas that allow people to look and realize that we have, from Social Security personal savings accounts to abolishing the capital gains tax, to an entire array of changes, including taking on the problems of places like Detroit, which I think are symbols of how government destroys the future for its own citizens.

RUSH: Well, precisely. But in the litany that you just went through, the one thing that was missing, to me, and the one thing that I most took from Ronald Reagan, was that he understood that it’s the people who make this country work, not politicians, not elected officials. They get in the way. The thing about Reaganism that’s inspiring to me is that he went and told people, “Look, this you can do. We are America, shining city on a hill,” and all. He motivated; he was inspirational. He had three legs to his stool. He was going to beat the communists in the Cold War, he was going to cut taxes, and rebuild the military. He kept it very simple and delivered on all three things. But he led a movement, Newt. Every speech he made he was telling people what conservatism is. We don’t have that anymore. We’ve got people running away from it. And when you say that the Reagan era is over, people are going to get — the Democrats never say the era of FDR is over, that the Great Society is over. They never say that the war on poverty is over. We never hear about the Churchill era being over. What replaced Reaganism if it’s over? Nothing has.

GINGRICH: That’s right. I think the challenge is, Rush, and maybe you and I just disagree, I think the challenge is for our generation to come up with a platform that is as bold, a set of solutions that are as bold, as Reagan was in 1979-1980. Reagan didn’t go around and say, here’s what Eisenhower would have done. He didn’t go around and say here’s what Goldwater would have done. He went around and said, look, here are the core, unchanging principles. Freedom works, bureaucracy strangles, lower taxes give you more freedom and give you more choices, you’re better at creating jobs than government is, and he walked through a series of things like this, and then he turned those into very specific, very practical programs. And maybe part of what I was trying to suggest on Sunday is, and, again, this is why I wrote Real Change and this is why I spent the last few months trying to build American Solutions as a real movement — and I don’t mean this as an attack on these guys, they’re all hardworking, they all mean well — but I don’t sense any of these candidates out there right now have a firm and clear grip in the way that Reagan did in ’79-’80. You knew by then, because he had matured since the 1964 speech, he’d had 16 years to think this through, and he really had a program, in working with Ed Fullner at Heritage and others, he really developed a momentum that significantly moved America back towards a more conservative society and away from where Johnson and Carter and the welfare state had tried to take us.

RUSH: No question about it. By the way, when I say Reaganism and we need to go back to it, I’m not talking about reliving the eighties. I’m talking about applying the existing core principles of conservatism because they work every time they’re tried, to the existing problems that we have today. Now, you said on Stephanopoulos’ show on Sunday — I’m going to have to paraphrase because I don’t have the transcript in front of me — but you said something, if you were a candidate, I think you were speaking as a candidate, “I need to find a way to see to it you don’t need as much home heating oil.” That sounds like the way liberals talk to people, “I’m going to find a way you don’t need so much home heating oil.” And my reaction to that, was, where’s the concept of growth? Conservation is all well and good, but it’s not going to grow us anything and it’s not going to expand the economy. Plus, all this environmental stuff related to climate change is a bit of a hoax and everybody is jumping on board this bandwagon. Senator McCain is making it a central part of his campaign, and all these guys seem to want to use the offices of Big Government to make people think that they don’t have to do anything for themselves. They have to sit around and just wait for these problems to be solved and things are going to be hunky-dory, and —

GINGRICH: Let me stick with the one you just mentioned because it’s an important one. We have a section called The Platform of the American People, and these are all ideas, by the way, that have a majority Democrat, majority Republican, and majority of independent support. We say flatly, entrepreneurs are more likely to solve America’s energy environmental problems than bureaucrats. If we use technology, innovation, and incentives, we do not need to raise taxes to clean up our environment. We talk about the notion, for example, and I don’t know if you’d agree or not, but we support giving tax credits to companies that can cut carbon emissions as an incentive to cut pollution. We then go on to say that we ought to build more nuclear power plants; we go on to talk about the idea of developing more oil refineries in the United States, and we also say that we ought to look seriously at drilling for oil offshore and lay off the notion that it’s a little bit irrational for us to be relying on Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and Russia while blocking ourselves from even knowing whether or not offshore we have enough oil and natural gas not to need to rely on these guys. If you look at the Platform of the American People in here, I’ll bet you will agree with 95% of it.

RUSH: I probably would, but the thing about dependence on foreign oil, there are a lot of myths about that. Our number one importer, we import most from Canada. Number two is Mexico. We’re not totally dependent on Venezuela or the Saudis. There’s so many myths about this, the carbon mess. Newt, this country is being sold down the river on a hoax! Carbon dioxide, you and I exhale it. There’s no way we can cut that back. It’s not a pollutant. This is a mechanism whereby liberals want to grow government and have people with less freedom, and I don’t hear freedom or inspiration being talked about in this campaign. That’s what Reaganism is to me, and it’s not being discussed. We have too many Republicans running away from it, as though they are afraid of it. He won two landslides. It led you to capturing the House of Representatives in a huge landslide, and everybody wants to abandon it and apply policy today based on the liberals setting the table.

So we’re reacting to what liberals want to do. If they say we got an energy problem, okay, we have to admit that and come up with a better plan instead of telling the American people, “Look, oil is the engine of freedom. It is and always will be, we’re not running out of it, get used to it. The price of gas has gone up $2.80 in 40 years. Stop complaining.” Instead, we want to respond to all these complaints, because the liberals do. We’re trying to out-liberal liberals. We got candidates thinking they can win the presidency by picking off a couple liberals in New Hampshire, a couple liberals in Pennsylvania, California. That’s not the way Reagan did this. You go to the country and you tell the American people they’re the ones that make it work. You tell ’em how great they can be, that they’re better than they even know they are. None of this is in our campaign right now, and it’s frustrating as hell.

GINGRICH: Well, listen, I agree with you, it’s frustrating. I think we ought to be much more aggressive in taking ’em on directly, and one of the places I take them on directly is what government has done to destroy Detroit and to cripple Michigan. You’re having a primary today in a state which is having an artificial recession caused by the state legislature and the governor raising taxes and driving business out of state.

RUSH: And destroying the auto industry. Newt, there are a couple people in this campaign, if they win, California is just an example of what this whole country is going to end up being.

GINGRICH: I think that’s exactly right. Part of what I’m worried about, I’m very clear about this in Real Change, is that I am very worried about the degree to which if you look at Sacramento and you look at Albany, you have cities where the governors preside but the interest groups govern. And the truth is, Arnold Schwarzenegger lost his effort to try to change California when the unions beat him in the series of initiatives.

RUSH: Yep.

GINGRICH: And, as a result, he has since basically compromised with the people who beat him.

RUSH: Gotta take a quick break. Can you hang on for a couple more minutes? If not, no big deal.
<br>GINGRICH: No, but listen, I’ll be glad to come back sometime. I’d love to keep talking with you. Thanks.

RUSH: Does that mean you’re going or staying?

GINGRICH: I’ve gotta run, unfortunately, but I’ll give you a call back.

RUSH: Thanks for the time.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Thanks to Newt Gingrich for joining us today. Look, folks, I want to tell all the rest of you out there that are just getting in on this, the reason that we don’t cite Eisenhower — you know, you don’t hear us talking, “We need to go back to the Ike era.” And we never say we need to go back to the Nixon era. We never say we need to go back to the Ford era. We don’t cite those three because they were not consistent, they were not principled conservatives in the way Reagan was. The mistake people are making, I think they think that people like me are worshiping a cult of personality with Ronald Reagan when, in fact, those of us who view Reagan the way I do stress conservative principles and the success that comes with it. It’s fine and dandy to come up with scores of proposals, and to have policy this and policy that for dealing with various issues, but that only scratches the surface. A list of policies to take to the American people without a core principle underpinning to justify those policies and explain why they will work, is senseless. To get into a policy contest with the Democrats, okay, here’s their health care plan; well, here’s ours, and we end up reacting to what theirs is.

We think we gotta come up with a health care plan because they are saying we need health care, universal coverage. Rather than argue the merits of their proposal, we make the mistake of running around, coming up with an alternative that has a little conservatism in it, but it really is nothing more than an attempt to stay in the game with the rules and the terms defined by the Democrats and the liberals. And frankly, this is what the campaign has been, and it’s frustrating as all get out to me. You can’t find one shred of conservatism in the amnesty bill, for example. There wasn’t one conservative point, philosophy in that at all. It was pure 100% liberalism. The Democrats were engaging in the amnesty bill to destroy the Republican Party; and Republicans, for some blind reason, were going along with it. A laundry list of policies, folks, without a fundamental theme is just that, a long list of policies. Reagan wasn’t a policy wonk. He was an idea guy.

Policies and ideas are two different things. Policies emanate from government. Ideas are what you take to people, and they hear and process the ideas, and then things happen, and the American people make things happen. Capitalism, the American people engaging in commerce, that’s the single greatest agent of change in this country, not what happens in Washington. Well, they can change things, but it’s not great. Nobody’s out there saying we should continue to fight the Cold War and the Soviets. But we do have another war, and we can’t even get everybody to admit that. We’ve got a war against militant jihadists of the Islamofascist stripe. The era, the Reagan era, is not over because conservatism is not over. If the Reagan coalition is dead, what replaced it? Somebody tell me that. Nothing has replaced it and that’s why so many people are scratching their heads, why so many people are a little nervous because there isn’t any real leadership out there that causes people, inspires people to get behind it, go rah-rah, and make certain things happen. That’s what’s missing. Reaganism is leadership. Reaganism is conservatism. It’s not a personality cult.

Vincent in Rhode Island, great to have you on the program, sir, thank you for calling.

CALLER: Rush, this is a tremendous honor. I’ve been a fan for — a big conservative raised in this liberal state here. I just wanted to comment that I think what Newt — I think he kind of means that, I don’t think Reaganism is dead as much as it needs to evolve maybe to encompass some of today’s issues that weren’t around back in the day, you know, some of the things that we’re going through today.

RUSH: Wrong. Wrong. They’re always around.

CALLER: Oh, they’re always —

RUSH: The biggest enemy, the biggest enemy we face in this country is liberalism.

CALLER: Oh, definitely.

RUSH: Conservatism is the answer to it. The second biggest enemy we face is ignorance. It’s the most expensive thing we pay for in this country. Conservatism fixes ignorance. We have different events happening, but we don’t have to adapt conservatism. Do you hear the liberals talking about, “Well, you know, the era of liberalism is over. We’ve gotta adapt.” They talk about maybe appealing to the values of voters after they lose an election, but they don’t change anything, and we never hear ’em talking about it. Nobody ever suggests that they do. We’re always being told, “Abandon this Reagan stuff, Rush, it’s old hat.” It’s not old hat. It’s freedom.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Stephanie in Columbus, Georgia. Hi, Stephanie. Welcome.

[ … ]

CALLER: Good. I want to tell you, I was in the car and I was listening to your conversation with Newt, and it got me so cranked up. I think that’s what people need to hear. Everybody’s too “middle” right now. I agree that we’re trying to appease liberals and just kind of step over to the edge a little bit to “let’s appease everybody,” and that’s the wrong direction, and what you said I feel like is exactly right. It sounded presidential.

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: It’s what people need to hear. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, it’s dead on.

RUSH: I appreciate that. You’re very kind, and I appreciate that very favorable review.

CALLER: Hey, let me ask you one thing, if it’s okay.

RUSH: Sure.

CALLER: I don’t know a whole lot. I mean, I follow this campaign. I follow politics with my son for several years now, but I don’t know really a whole lot. I’m totally against Hillary. I don’t really want a woman president anyway. Maybe Condi Rice is someone I would consider, but I don’t know a whole lot about this Obama guy. What do you know about this?

RUSH: I know all I need to know about Obama. Obama would wreck the country. He’s a liberal!

CALLER: He’s way out there.

RUSH: This stuff is not… He’s a perfectly nice guy, and I’m sure that he’s well-intentioned, and I’m sure that he believes what he believes, but he’s just wrong. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference, policy-wise, between him or Hillary, or Edwards.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: They’re all liberals! We know what liberals are going to do. They’re gonna raise taxes. They’re going to take away your freedom. They’re going to put thermostats in your house and control them from the utility company. They’re going to tell you what car you can and can’t drive. They’re going to tell you what food you can and can’t eat.

CALLER: Oh, yeah.

RUSH: They’re going to take away liberty under the guise of protecting you and making you safe and secure. I don’t care where he went to school. I don’t care who his parents are. I don’t care about any of that stuff. It doesn’t matter to me.

CALLER: Right. He is what he is.

RUSH: He’s a liberal!

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: He’s a Big-Government liberal. He doesn’t trust the individual to make the right decisions in life to enjoy it. He believes that the central problem in America is “inequality,” like all liberals believe, and their solution to inequality is not raise people up, but go punish the achievers. Screw that! Achievement needs to be motivated, inspired, and rewarded, not punished! That’s all I need to know about Obama.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Greg in San Antonio, you’re next, great to have you here.

CALLER: What in the cornbread hell is wrong with Newt Gingrich? Did I just hear him say cutting carbon emissions?

RUSH: You heard him say that, yes.

CALLER: I mean, I thought for years that this man was the anointed leader of the movement, and I gotta wonder where the hell he’s coming from.

RUSH: Well, that, I think, in the call, that’s what fired me up, that’s when the blood started circulating. I’ll tell you, look, I don’t know how to — I didn’t have a chance to ask him —

CALLER: That was the only thing I picked up on, and I heard it, and I said, “Has he been listening, has someone been talking to him?” What in the world is going on, Rush? I gotta believe that —

RUSH: No, I’ll tell you what — look. Here’s what it is. This is a guess. I’m going to tell you, it’s the same thing, the same story I just told you about the auto industry. The American people are customers. And the American people want cars that don’t pollute, and they want cars that get good mileage. That’s understandable. But it’s rooted in the fact that they’ve been sold and they have purchased a bill of goods on a climate change hoax to the point that they think the car they’re buying is going to save the planet rather than being something they genuinely want. Okay, you look at a guy like Newt or anybody like him, he looks out, he surveys the American people, “Wow, these people are really buying the global warming stuff,” and they’re voters. And democracy happens. If a majority of people are made to believe that global warming is being caused by them, and you have politicians that want to get elected by them, then you respond to what those people think, instead of telling them how wrong they are and trying to educate them. This is what Newt Gingrich did, starting in the 1980s.

I haven’t changed. I have remained rock-ribbed steady in my beliefs, principles, conservatism, and other things. But politicians look out and they see people buying this stuff, and they say, “Okay, well, I better come up with a carbon reduction proposal,” because this is what people care about. I’m not saying I pander to people, but politicians do. They’ll say whatever they have to to get elected. If a majority of people think that the sky is green, the politicians are going to tell them they’re right somehow, rather than educate ’em. It’s a really frustrating thing. Now, I can’t compare myself to politicians, Mr. Snerdley, because getting an audience and keeping it is different than getting votes. The countryside is strewn with the carcasses of media people who thought they could get elected to anything. I have no desire to get elected to anything, I don’t want to run. I don’t want to ask anybody for a dime if I were to campaign. But that’s beside the point. I’m just telling you, back to Reaganism. Back to conservatism. Conservatism doesn’t bend and shape. It remains rock steady, and it tells people what is. But they’re just — I don’t know. Guts are in short supply on the American political scene these days. Sad thing to note, but it seems to be true.

January 16, 2008 , 11:47AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Auto Industry, CAFE, Conservatism, Global Warming, Newt Gingrich | Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh vs Newt Gingrich on the Future of Conservatism

A McCain or Huckabee Nomination Will Destroy the GOP

If McCain or Huckabee Gets the Nomination, It Will Destroy GOP

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mark in Standish, Michigan, I really appreciate your holding on. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hello, Rush.

RUSH: Hi.

CALLER: Sorry to deviate from your monologue for just a minute, but you had a woman call yesterday that just frosted me to no end that if either Huckabee or McCain won the nomination she was going to sit the election out.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: People like her, I coined a term, a call them TV Republicans, and it doesn’t stand for television, it stands for tunnel vision, because they need to take the blinders off and see the bigger picture. If they sit out the general election, the Democrat wins it by default, whichever one of the Three Stooges wins it. Guess what? In the next four years, there’s going to be probably one, maybe two Supreme Court vacancies come up. Do they really want one of the three bozos over there appointing the next two Supreme Court justices? Is Clinton gonna appoint another Ginsburg, or is she going to do another Scalia? Is Obama going to appoint another Justice Thomas or is he going to do somebody like Breyer or Stevens? Do they really want a liberal appointing the next two Supreme Court justices? They need to take the blinders off, Rush. They need to look at the bigger vision and quit being Tunnel Vision Republicans.

RUSH: I understand what you’re saying. I hate to tell you this, but she’s not alone. I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren’t going to vote. You watch.

END TRANSCRIPT

Cross-posted at my MySpace blog where I left these comments in response to comments left there:

I don’t necessarily agree with you on Rudy destroying it. If he is fiscally conservative and strong on foreign policy, then the GOP will remain strong. And if he doesn’t push the homosexual agenda or the abortion agenda and nominates judges who aren’t liberal activists, he will be fine.

But, he is my last choice among Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Those are the only 3 candidates I will consider. Mike Huckabee and John McCain will simply never get my vote. To me, they are just liberal Democrats who reside in the Republican Party. They will not get my vote.

Now, I will not be encouraging anyone to not vote for them. However, I will not be campaigning for them and I will not be supporting them either. And, when they end up doing exactly what everyone said they would do in office, enact liberal policies and help the Democrats more than the Republicans and conservatives, you won’t find me having any sympathy for the people who voted for them.

Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on 16 Jan 08 Wednesday at 02:08 AM

*****

You know, I forgot about the gun issue with Rudy and that is a HUGE one with people. I’m blaming me overlooking that on the fact that it is late and I should be sleeping for work (at this rate, I am gonna get less than 3 hours sleep UGH), because the 2nd Amendment issue is the 1 issue I hear about people not supporting Rudy. And the sanctuary city issue is a close 2nd, with abortion and homosexual marriage being 2b and 2c.

His main support comes from people who believe he is tough on crime and tough on The Long War. I really don’t think that he is any tougher on The Long War than any other candidate. He just has the benefit of being the mayor of New York on 9/11 and helped the city recover from that. I give him credit for that, but that doesn’t mean he understands The Long War and what we face with Islam.

But, the big things for him are the 2nd Amendment and his socially liberal stances. I do believe that will hurt him with the social conservative base of the GOP right now.

So while I am rethinking the effect he would have on the GOP and tnd to lean towards your theory more now, I still think Huckabee and McCain are worse, because they are trying to move the GOP to populism and basically want to end conservatism. Rudy doesn’t seem to want to do that. He admits he is no conservative and doesn’t claim to want to transform the party from its conservative principles. He just states that he has other strengths that qualify him for the Presidency. I can get behind that honesty, rather than someone who wants to transform the party away from conservatism.

But your points are well taken. As I said, I will consider him, but I would rather only have to vote for either Fred or Mitt. If Rudy gets the nomination, I would have to think long and hard about whether to support him leading the GOP and the nation in the future.

Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on 16 Jan 08 Wednesday at 02:52 AM

*****

I dunno, Jake. I know I am somewhat unique in my take on things sometimes, but I have to believe there are a lot more people out there who see Huckabee and McCain as I do: just as bad as Democrat. Not to mention that a McCain or Huckabee Presidency would be worse than a Democrat Presidency, because we would have failing liberal Democrat policies being enacted by a Republican, and so the Republican Party gets blamed for their failures. Not to mention that nominating a populist would be spun as the end of conservatism.

I know there has to be many, many more people who are seeing this as I do, Jake. McCain and Huckabee would not only be as bad for America as a Democrat, but worse, because they could lead to the end of the GOP and the end of the conservative movement, as it would be attacked from the populists, the Democrats, the liberals and the mass media.

People are focusing too much on policy and not enough on ideology. Rush, God Bless him, is trying his best to get people to see the big ideological picture here. But people don’t seem to be listening. They are focusing on “popularity” and “beating Hillary” or “beating Obama” or “populism” or “momentum” and they are simply missing the whole bigger picture that we are dealing with and that is conservatism. Policy is based on ideology. It is not good enough to just “be right” on policy, there needs to be a reason why one is right on the policy. The person needs to explain where the policy position came from. Rush is pounding home conservatism as the answer. But people seem to want to run away from that.

I agree with you that the 2 groups who will be most inclined to not vote if not happy with their choice are the “religious right” and the 2nd Amendment folks. However, don’t discount Reagan conservatives, such as myself, who are looking at the big picture here. There are a big block of people who are not just talking the talk about Reagan conservatism, but are prepared to walk the walk. (or, in this case, NOT walk the walk to the polls to vote for a populist/liberal Republican)

Posted by Michael in MI (Thompson ’08) on 16 Jan 08 Wednesday at 11:36 AM

January 16, 2008 , 11:38AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on A McCain or Huckabee Nomination Will Destroy the GOP

Conservatism is Alive and Well

Another brilliant example of why I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

[ … ]CALLER: Number two, you used a term “mystified” a couple of times today, and I’d like to say that Thomas Paine wrote that without an informed electorate, democracy would surely fail — and if you substitute “uninformed” with “misinformed” with the way the mass media is giving out all this information, that’s the reason we’re so confused.

RUSH: Well, there’s no question, but look here. I will admit that I am among those of you who are frustrated and angry over a bunch of ridiculous things happening that are not needed. We don’t need Republicans traveling off the conservative reservation to win. We don’t need people who are willing to abandon conservative principles for whatever reason, in order to win. But it’s happened. Okay, so it is what it is. Things are cyclical. I read a piece today. I forget who wrote it. I’m not intentionally forgetting this. It’s in the American Spectator on their website, and it’s about how maybe conservatism does need to go through some changes here. A lot of people on our side are starting to say this. The premise here is that the Reagan era is over. We’ve got a bunch of young people who are coming of age now in the political spectrum, who weren’t alive during the cold war. They have no idea. The Berlin Wall falling? Yip, yip, yahoo. “They didn’t live through it — just like you, Limbaugh, didn’t live through the Great Depression, you know, so you don’t care about another depression happening. You don’t care what the politics were back then.”

Au contraire, by the way, but have people telling me this. So these young people couldn’t care less, just like young people today are not imbued with any sort of romance over the Clinton era, because they don’t really remember it. They’re 18 and 20 now, but back then it wasn’t any big deal. I profoundly disagree with this notion that conservatism is somehow fading away. It can’t. It’s immutable; it is a set of principles. It survives. It’s not a scheme, as I keep saying. There are people who are constantly… Look de Toqueville, 149, 120 years ago, spelled out the basic challenge between liberalism and conservatism. Conservatism was present at the founding of the country. Liberalism has been around forever, and it’s not going away. Conservatism isn’t going away. These are ideas, these are battles of ideas — and nobody’s going to be able to erase conservatism as an idea. It isn’t going to happen. One of the things that’s happening, you talk about young people? Nobody talks about it because, of course, the Drive-Bys and people outside this universe are not even aware of it, but it’s the phenomenon known as Rush Babies. Look at all the conservative Republican clubs at major institutions of higher learning. Look at Berkeley. More Republicans enrolled than liberal Democrats at the University of California at Berkeley.

Now, these things are cyclical, and it may well — There are consequences, by the way, to actions, and if the Republican Party is going to end up nominating somebody who is going to try to steal voters from moderates, independents, and Democrats and liberals, and gets elected or loses that way, okay. We’re gonna get either Mrs. Clinton or Obama. The odds are, if they do what they promise, we’re going to get another four years of malaise at some point. We’re going to get another Jimmy Carter-type administration — and that, guess who, is going to awaken a whole lot of people, particularly young people who are now inspired by conservatism, forming clubs, going to universities, and living their lives based on these principles. So it’s unfortunate, but sometimes it takes a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan. There’s another reason for it. (sigh) As you know, I love President Bush, but he’s not been leading a movement. Had there been a genuine conservative movement being led these last eight years, we wouldn’t be in this situation. But, again, that’s what it is.

He never said he was going to, so you can’t really sit here and blame him. He’s a Republican. He’s conservative on certain things, but he’s not “a” conservative — and we haven’t had one of those, you know, since the Republicans took over the House in 1994. But it’s there for the asking, if somebody just wants to assume the mantle of leader in a forceful and powerful way. It’s going to be tough because the Drive-Bys and Democrats will line up. You see the Drive-Bys. You can see who they’re propping up on our side. You can identify who the conservatives are if you’re questioning it, if you’re confused, by looking at who the Drive-Bys tear down on our side and who they support. I guarantee you the people they support –the Drive-By Media, the people they support on our side — are not conservative. The Democrat Party, the liberals in this country, the media would love nothing better than for the conservative movement to be made defunct, a nonfactor. They would love for the Republican Party to go back to being dominated by a minority of country club blue bloods, who didn’t have to suffer the embarrassment of being in the same party with people who are pro-life.

END TRANSCRIPT

January 16, 2008 , 1:27AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Alexis de Toqueville, Conservatism, Liberalism, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Conservatism is Alive and Well

Liberalism, Nanny Statism, is the Most Gutless Choice You Can Make

While most of the so-called conservative blogopshere talks about polls and news articles focusing on “momentum” and superficial nonsense, Rush Limbaugh is talking about Alexis de Tocqueville. Know who he is? I bet you know the latest stories on Jessica Simpson or the latest winners of American Idol. And I bet you know who is leading the polls in South Carolina and what each paper is saying about each of the polls out nationally. But do you know anything related to principles and conservative principles? Are you reading up on history and conservatism and democracy and its pitfalls?

Well, if you are listening to Rush Limbaugh every day, or reading blogs like Power Line, you get these kinds of lessons: de Tocqueville on the Nanny State

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the book. He passed away 149 years ago. He came to the United States, traveled around, wrote a book. Parts of this book — well, all of it is amazing, but parts of this book are so prescient. I got this excerpt from the Power Line blog yesterday. He concludes in the book, Democracy in America, “with a warning of the kind of despotism to which democratic societies are usually and especially susceptible. He warns that the passion for equality will give rise to a certain kind of degradation in which citizens will surrender their freedom democratically to a tutelary power.” Now, tutelary power, think protector, think guardian, think Nanny State. Here’s the excerpt.

“Above these [citizens] an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens. It does not make them desperate, but it constantly thwarts them and brings them to renounce the use of their wills. Thus little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls.”

This is Alexis de Tocqueville, died 149 years ago, and when he writes — it would be one thing if the Nanny State prepared people for adulthood and manhood, but it doesn’t. It wants to keep us perpetually childlike. They, the government, want to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of happiness. They want to provide for our security, they foresee and secure our needs, they facilitate our pleasures, conduct our principal affairs, direct our industry, regulate our houses and homes, divide our inheritances. Can all this not take away from us entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? By the way, it doesn’t take government to make this happen. Oprah Winfrey has made it happen for many in her audience, the Oprahfication. We expect this on the left, but there are Republican candidates who are now running under this basic idea, life is too complicated, we’re going to fix it for you, we’re going to make you happy, we’re going to make you dependent, and we’re going to make everybody equal, and we’re going to divide up your inheritance. And we’re going to regulate your homes, as in, where you can and can’t smoke, what you can and can’t do with your land, what kind of car you can and can’t drive, and we might even regulate the thermostat to tell you how cold and warm and hot and so forth you can and can’t be.

Then we’re going to tell you what kind of lightbulbs you can and can’t use. We’re doing all this for your pleasure. We’re doing all of this for your own good. One of the tenets of his book here is to spot the pitfalls of democrat societies. Remember, we’re not a democracy, we’re a representative republic, and that also is being attacked as well. This will resonate with a lot of people, especially during primary time, because primary time, folks, is not really where elections are devoted to substance. They’re devoted to perception and image and feel-good type things. When you get to the presidential election, contrary to what the libs like to say, contrary to what the Drive-Bys like to say, presidential elections are about issues. But will that change? Who knows. The point is, the antidote for this is conservatism, and there just isn’t anybody on the front burner that is explaining and leading with these principles.

Instead, way too many people are trying to water them down and redefine them so as not to have to deal with them. It’s hard. I’ve always said, conservatism is hard, conservatism does not baby people. It doesn’t do what de Tocqueville was describing here. It doesn’t keep you a perpetual child. Conservatism doesn’t try to find a way to keep you happy. Conservatism is about making yourself happy and productive and fulfilled and making sure that there are as few obstacles in your path to all that as possible. But liberalism, Nanny Statism, why, it’s easy. It’s the most gutless choice you can make. Just tell everybody you care about them, understand that they can’t survive against the odds and they’re going to punish the people who do. We’re going to try to make everybody equal, and we’re going to make sure you’re as happy as you can be, and we’re going to make sure that you don’t do any damage to the country, you don’t do any damage to the planet, you don’t do any damage to the neighborhood, you don’t do any damage to your house. If you engage in fraudulent or mistaken practices that cost you econonically, don’t worry about it, no harm, no foul, because you were too stupid to know what you were doing in the first place, so we will fix it and make you indentured servants of ours, constantly owing us in the government for whatever pleasure and happiness you find in life, and that will keep you dependent on it and will keep you looking everywhere but yourself for contentment, for happiness, for satisfaction, and for pleasure. That, my friends, is what he’s talking about. That’s what liberalism is, and it pains me to say, we have Republicans running on the same premise for the presidency in this campaign.

END TRANSCRIPT

January 16, 2008 , 1:25AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Alexis de Toqueville, Conservatism, Liberalism, Nanny State, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Liberalism, Nanny Statism, is the Most Gutless Choice You Can Make