AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Liberalism is Rising in the Republican Party… and No One Cares

They don’t care and they are expediting its rise to power by denigrating, insulting and smearing those who are presenting the facts and the truth about the matter.

Via Mark Levin Fan, Douglas MacKinnon at TownHall: Talk Radio… or Else

Nobody cares. If this primary season has taught us anything, it’s that almost no one really cares. Time and again, we have borne witness to the truth being sacrificed for the greater good of liberalism and a “bi-partisan” agenda as defined by MoveOn.org, Hillary Clinton, and The New York Times.

We have been shown – in the starkest, most frightening detail – what this leftist agenda holds in store for us and our nation, and no one cares. A cabal of left-leaning journalists, Democrat politicians, and a growing number of alleged “Republicans,” are trying to sweep conservatism into the dust-bin of history, and no one cares.

Well, almost no one. Conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, have been desperately trying to sound the alarm, and for their trouble, they have been smeared, misquoted, and demonized by not only the usual suspects in the liberal media, but by surrogates for Republican presidential candidates John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

What crime have Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin committed? They told the truth. In the best interest of their nation and conservative values, they simply told the truth. They pointed out in minute, unvarnished detail, that McCain and Huckabee may be many things, but true conservatives they are not. They stressed, that if conservatives wanted to vote for someone who would uphold their ideals, they may want to look elsewhere. They wondered, why liberal paper after liberal paper was endorsing John McCain? They stood on their principles, and for that, they have been vilified.

In unison, the far-left media now gleefully predicts the diminished influence of hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity. They falsely – what else – base this on the assumption that since McCain has basically secured the nomination (although Huckabee is making him sweat because, as he rightfully says, “this is not a coronation,”) and since the talk-radio hosts opposed McCain, that therefore, Limbaugh and Hannity are about to go the way of the dinosaur. In concert with that fantasy, the mainstream media – as they have since Limbaugh first swung his chair behind a microphone – is telling anyone who will listen, that conservative talk radio is “over.”

Ignorance and fabrication have long been the currency of the left, and their deceitful and ad hominem attacks against the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and talk radio, only reinforce that their treasury is bursting at the seams. While reprehensible, such conduct is to be expected. What is not expected, and what can’t be accepted, is self-described “Republicans” casting the truth aside to recite the talking points of the left.

In listening to Limbaugh the other day, I was alerted to a column by former George W. Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson, that ran in the John McCain supporting Washington Post. In the body of the pro-McCain column, Gerson made some assertions that are flat out wrong.

Gerson said, “…by the summer of 2007, the Republican presidential candidate most closely identified with the war, John McCain, was in serious trouble.” Gerson painstaking painted the picture that McCain fell out of favor with Republicans and conservatives because he was supporting an unpopular surge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives overwhelming supported the surge.

McCain was in “serious trouble” in the summer of 2007 with conservatives and Republicans, because of his partnership with Ted Kennedy to support amnesty for illegal aliens. Gerson knows that, but such facts detract from the rewriting of McCain history now taking place across the communications spectrum.

Gerson next stated, “…The revival of McCain’s campaign was possible for one reason: the revival of American fortunes in Iraq.” Give me a break. The revival of McCain’s campaign came about for two irrefutable reasons that had nothing to do with Iraq. First, because Huckabee upset Mitt Romney in Iowa thanks to the record breaking evangelical vote. Second, with the Romney stumble, the liberal media decided to amuse itself by trying to retrieve McCain from the conservative slag-heap and see if they could install him as the Republican front runner. Timed to help him win the New Hampshire primary, the liberal Boston Globe, Concord Monitor, and the amnesty-favoring Boston Herald, all endorsed McCain. The Concord Monitor then took the unprecedented step of smearing Romney in an “un-endorsement” editorial.

John McCain is a good and decent man. He is a decorated patriot who only has the best interests of our nation at heart. Those who say otherwise, do not know the man. That said, he is not – as all of his ads now proclaim – a “True Conservative.” He is not a “Ronald Reagan” conservative. He is a moderate at best, and he has every right to be a moderate. Blue or otherwise.

Senator McCain has the right to his opinions and beliefs. He paid a steep price in the defense of liberty and must be afforded every courtesy. He warmly and articulately stated some of those beliefs before the CPAC convention last week. Remarks that were generally well received by an anxious and curious audience.

However, thanks to the constitution Senator McCain put himself in harms way to protect, conservatives and talk show hosts also have a right to their opinions and beliefs. Many openly wonder what effect a McCain general election candidacy or presidency would have on the conservative movement. That is their right. They are not the enemies of John McCain nor the GOP. They seek nothing more than the truth.

In the stampede of some “Republicans” to curry favor with the presumptive nominee, they must not subvert the truth for access. For if they do, such actions will prove that the left has won, the nation will be ruled by one ideology, and that basically no one cares.

No one that is, but talk show hosts going the way of the dinosaur.

February 12, 2008 , 8:47PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, John McCain, Liberalism, Republicans | Comments Off on Liberalism is Rising in the Republican Party… and No One Cares

These are the Geniuses That are Pulling the Republican Party and the Movement Over the Cliff

The Left has called me a “Bush-bot” for supporting policies in which I agree with the President. They have also accused me of “drinking the Kool-Aid” when I explained to them why I supported such policies. They also call me stupid and programmed for enjoying listening to Rush Limbaugh. I am a neo-con, right-wing warmonger, right-wing nutjob, extremist Christianist, fascist. I was not a principled man, an intelligent individual thinker, a logical person. I was an idiot who was brainwashed by the government and Rush Limbaugh.

Now, the Right is calling me a communist, a Stalinist, a Maoist and comparable to the North Vietnamese. I am not a principled man, an intelligent individual thinker and a logical person for recognizing and warning people about the liberal socialism of John McCain. Nope. I am now the enemy.

I have gotten accustomed to the insanity, illogic and rabid intolerance of the Left. But to now see it coming from the Right, from people I formerly respected. To now have these people, who called themselves “conservatives”, now consider a principled conservative person to be the enemy.

Simply baffling.

But, as Rush states, these actions by the Left and the Right say more about them than they do about us. As he says, we shouldn’t take it personally. But it is depressing nonetheless.

You Can’t Take it Personally, Folks

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

[ … ]

RUSH: These guys are going to say that. The political class has to join hands. The political class is always going to unite behind the nominee. I don’t take this stuff personally. (interruption) Snerdley asks, “Doesn’t this bother you, all these people repudiating you?” No! This is not a personal repudiation. I don’t take it that way. I learned long ago, folks, I really don’t care what it is in life, if you start taking things personally, you’re doomed. If you think that everything that happens negatively to you or the people say about you is personal, you know what I’ve learned? It took me a long time to learn this. But most of the time when people start ripping you, they’re really telling you more about themselves than they are you. Snerdley can’t believe I’m not outraged and angry by this. No! I take none of this personally. This is all a business. These people are doing what they have to do. (interruption) What was that, Dawn? What did you say? (interruption) Yeah, that’s true. I have so many friends who take all this stuff personally for me. They get so mad, get so outraged. My buddy Mark Levin, I can’t tell you. Every time he reads a rip of me, he sends me a note planning his response attack (laughs) and I appreciate it. Maybe it’s because I know I got all of you taking it personally for me that I have the freedom not to. But in this case, what’s the president going to do? The president of the United States is not going to come out and oppose the nominee of his own party. Boehner is not going to do that, either. So I do not, Mr. Snerdley, take this as a personal repudiation whatsoever. Here, let’s move on. CNN Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post.

KURTZ: I interviewed Rush Limbaugh about this question last week, and asked him whether it was right for the media to cast a McCain victory as a defeat for Rush Limbaugh since he obviously was suggesting that Mitt Romney was the far superior candidate. On his radio program, he read what he said to me. Let’s listen.

RUSH ARCHIVE: “‘My success is not determined by who wins elections,’ Limbaugh said. ‘Elected officials come and go, I’m here for as long as I wish to stay. The media never applies this template to anyone else in the media, not to anyone in cable news, not to any of the endorsements of the major newspapers. Why are the New York Times and the Washington Post not asked about the setback they both suffered when George Bush beat both their endorsed candidates in 2000 and 2004?'”

RUSH: And then Kurtz said to Michelle Cottle of the New Republic, “So is it a little simplistic for those of us in the press to say, ‘Well, Limbaugh is a loser here because McCain’s winning?'”

COTTLE: I actually think he’ll be a winner in terms of it will give him something to talk about and complain about for the next four years. But as far as like getting his policy… You know, as far as being a kingmaker, sure, it makes him look a little bad or a little worn around the edges. But, hey, his ratings should be good if there’s a McCain presidency.

RUSH: (sigh) Tsk, tsk. Don’t take this personally. I have resigned myself to the fact that people in the Drive-Bys are never going to change. I could meet with them individually. I could meet with each individual Drive-By reporter. I could give them an hour. (I know they’ll all call.) I can explain the business model of the program. I can explain my philosophy of broadcasting. I could define my definition of success in a whole bunch of different ways. If what I said did not fit their narrative and template, they won’t even hear it. On next to Jim Geraghty, who is a guest on this show. He’s from National Review Online. Kurtz said, “Jim, I think we may be falling into the trap of saying, ‘Well, these people only have clout if they can influence elections.’ They’re not political leaders. They’re people who to some degree reflect what their listeners believe — they’re obviously playing to their base — who try to have an impact but also try to educate, maybe move their listeners to a certain degree, but they’re not running for office.”

GERAGHTY: Look, Rush would be the first person to tell you his listeners are not mind-numbed robots. There’s a certain degree of irony to the term Dittohead. They are looking for a voice who will represent what they believe, who could be a conservative voice, but they’re not saying, “Rush, tell me who to vote for.” Been listening for — Rush Limbaugh’s audience is about 13, 20 million. Sixty-two million Americans voted for George W. Bush.

KURTZ: Right.

GERAGHTY: There are a lot of Republicans out there who don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.

RUSH: (laughs) That’s from the friendly National Review Online.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. This is Sunday, Fox News Channel’s You Decide 2008. The anchor Eric Shawn says this about Senator McCain.

SHAWN: John McCain has faced a variety of enemies and rivals — the North Vietnamese, some Democrats and Republicans, and now there’s the nation’s biggest talk show radio host. They’ve been lined up against him. Rush Limbaugh says his election will destroy the Republican Party.

RUSH: And there you have it. On Fox News I have just been compared to the North Vietnamese. It’s a great day, folks, and we are surpassing, we’re going beyond all the previously established boundaries here. Ross Mackenzie — and I assume that this is the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Ross Mackenzie is the retired editor of the editorial pages, and he had a piece yesterday, and let me just read to you a brief couple of paragraphs from the piece. “The ultimate ideologues of the 20th century were perhaps the Soviet and Maoist communists, who promulgated the party or dialectical line — however constant or variable. Movement by anyone away from the line — the decreed norm — was deemed deviationism, and deviationists, if incapable of ‘re-education,’ were read out of the movement, sent to the gulag, or shot.” In this paragraph, Ross Mackenzie compares me and James Dobson and Sean Hannity and all the others to the Maoists and Soviet ideologues.

“Early contemporary conservatism, emphatically not an ideology, was a big-tent affair with room for everyone embracing certain key principles, no matter how wacky some of the consequent views might be. No one dictated acceptable positions on any issue. The effort of some ‘conservatives’ to reject John McCain as a deviationist from their decreed line — to judge him by their litmus tests that (in their minds) he fails — attests to a 20-year ideologization of the Republican Party’s puristic wing. But what about McCain-Feingold, immigration, torture, McCain’s participation in the ‘Gang of 14,’ his early votes against the Bush tax cuts?” So on Fox News, I’m compared to the North Vietnamese, who held McCain prisoner. Mackenzie to a Maoist, Stalinist bunch of ideologues. You see, folks, when this all comes shattering down, if it does, there’s going to be guys like this who are going to be to blame for it. They’re going to try to blame all of us, but it isn’t going to flow, it isn’t going to fly, because they’re the ones who have seen to it that there has been no consistent devotion to principle here. They’ve allowed them to become watered down. This is nuts now, some of these people with their moronic comparisons with communism and us.

Me, a communist? We’re now hard-line ideologues? Bill Bennett compared us to Trotskyites. Now this Mackenzie guy compares us to Maoists. I need to go out and get a Mao hat. You know, a little Mao jacket? Hillary’s got these. She wears them. She wears Mao-type jackets. She doesn’t wear the hat, but I’m sure I could find one and put a little red star on it or something. (laughing) Michaele at the website will do it. Michaele will put me in a Mao uniform. And then put me in a North Vietnamese prison camp, and then dress me up like Stalin to illustrate how I am being characterized by people who call themselves conservatives. But keep this in mind, too, folks. While today I am a Maoist, a Stalinist, a North Vietnamese prison guard, when I supported Bush, we were all Bush sycophants. We were putting party before principles. Remember, they’d give us all kind of grief for supporting President Bush on a number of things. They said you’re just a lap dog. You’re just an apologist for Bush. I’m telling you, these are the geniuses that are pulling the party and the movement over the cliff. They have rallied behind the most liberal candidate and the weakest candidate we could have nominated, and they’re trying to act like that hasn’t happened, and they’re blaming me, while they’re out there trying to convince everybody how conservative he is and reminding him how to be conservative before CPAC. By the way, speaking of CPAC, they had a straw poll vote there. You know who won the straw poll vote at CPAC? Romney. This is before the McCain people bought up half the house for his speech.

END TRANSCRIPT

February 12, 2008 , 8:44PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, John McCain, Liberalism, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on These are the Geniuses That are Pulling the Republican Party and the Movement Over the Cliff

Liberalism – Whether GOP Liberalism or DNC Liberalism – is the Enemy and Must be Defeated

I agree wholeheartedly with this caller’s sentiments about being inspired by people such as Rush Limbaugh. After reading blog after blog after blog after article after article of liberal Republicans and McCainservatives and so-called “moderates” all focusing on polls and betraying principles and standing for nothing but political expedience and political power, even when that power is in the hands of liberalism, I get depressed. These people utterly depress me and make me want to just give up. MySpace McCainservatives, people such as Michael Medved and liberal Republican commentators and “pragmatic” people who want to continue the status quo of voting for people who continue to take this country farther and farther to liberalism and big government. It’s depressing. Utterly depressing to see more and more of my countrymen not want to stand up on principle and do what is right.

But then I listen to or read Rush Limbaugh and I am inspired again. A strong, public voice who expresses what I believe deep down in my soul. It is so inspiring and encouraging to hear people not give up.

McCain or the Clintons?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ron in Corpus Christi, Texas. Hello, sir. Thank you for calling.

CALLER: Yeah, hi, Rush. I was calling about something you said on Friday when you said that there really wouldn’t be any difference whether Hillary or McCain is president. I’m sorry, I just can’t buy that comparison, because the Clintons, I mean they’re really immoral and corrupt people, they’ve been their whole lives like that. And I mean, let’s face it, the guy is a predator and she’s his willing enabler. They pardoned fugitives. They pardoned terrorists for their own benefit. All these illegal campaign contributions; all these sleazy money deals. I just can’t see the comparison to McCain. McCain is more conservative than they are. He’s not very conservative, but he’s conservative enough, and on an ethical scale, he’s not like the Clintons.

RUSH: Let me explain the comment to you. Of course, you are correct. There’s no comparison in a moral sense between Senator McCain and the Clintons. I was simply talking about the kind of legislation and policies that will get passed. And here’s why. Let’s assume that with a Democrat president, or even McCain, let’s assume what the conventional wisdom and the polling data tells us, that the Democrats are going to expand their margins in both the House and the Senate. Right now they don’t have enough votes in the Senate to get anything done because there’s a Republican president here who will veto what they want to do. They’ve got 51 seats. They need nine more votes to get to 60 to get anything done. Let’s say the projections are right and they end up with 55 Democrats or 56 Democrats in the Senate, to our 45 or 44. Well, all they need is four or five votes to get to 60, and they’ve got ’em with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and a number of other Republican liberals that are on the Republican side in the Senate. Ditto in the House. They’re supposed to pick up a lot more seats.

Now, let’s say McCain’s the president. Presidents like to get things done. They define getting things done as getting legislation done. The Democrats are going to be in charge of what gets done. They’re going to have the voting majorities. Senator McCain has shown a willingness not to reach across the aisle, but to literally walk across the aisle and make deals with them on any number of things. He opposed tax cuts. Now he’s for their permanence. Campaign finance reform, they’re going to want to expand restrictions on free speech. He can’t very well oppose that because he’d be going against himself. So in order for the next president to get things done, they’re going to have to work with Democrats and do it on Democrats’ terms. McCain has shown a total willingness to do that on any number of things other than the Iraq war. So my only point was that if Democrats are in charge of, if they’re going to determine the direction of the country the next four years, then they may as well get the credit for what damage results. I cited something else. I said, “Ronald Reagan had a worse problem than Senator McCain is going to have if he gets elected.” Ronald Reagan was dealing with a House majority — what was the Democrat majority, 120 seats or something? It was incredible. The House was run by a genuine professional, a real cutthroat professional, Tip O’Neill.

The House and Senate today are run by rank amateur Democrats. They’re just the most incompetent leadership around, but they’re going to be emboldened if their numbers increase. You can stop Democrats, and you can in fact advance your agenda by attracting their voters as conservatives. But that’s not going to happen here. McCain is going to attract Democrats and independents as Democrats and independents. He’s not going to attract them as converted to conservative voters, which is what Reagan did. So Reagan was able to get what he wanted because he had straight down the middle conservative rock-ribbed principle, and he was able to get his agenda advanced because he attracted enough of Tip O’Neill’s voters as conservatives that they saw the light. Reagan held all the cards. McCain is not going to hold any cards. The Democrats will hold all the cards. I’m not comparing them morality-wise. Of course Clinton is a predator and McCain is not. You know, I’m simply talking about legislation is going to get done that’s going to shape the future of the country.

CALLER: Well, Rush, I was just going to say that, you know, whoever gets elected president, they’ll stand or fall in their performance and they’ll have to answer for it in four years, but as far as the Clintons getting back in there, I have respect for the Oval Office, and if McCain or even Obama got there, I wouldn’t feel ashamed. I’m really serious about this. Rush, let me, if you got any more time, I gotta tell you something. The woman a while ago, she said that you inspired her. Well, you inspire me. Because I don’t know if you remember this, I called you back in 2006. I’m the person that found the Murtha Abscam tape, that was me, and it took some inspiration to do it. When I found out how unethical and power hungry Murtha is and was his whole career, I decided to pursue that thing and I was inspired by people like Hannity. I was inspired by people like Woodward and Bernstein. I was inspired mostly by you, and it changed my life forever what I did. I’m a different man.

RUSH: I do remember you, and you did the right thing. You did a great thing.

CALLER: And I really feel very strongly about ethics, and for me it’s just hard to fathom the two of them being back and it would be a package deal.

RUSH: I know. Don’t misunderstand. We want the same thing. I don’t want them in the White House either. That’s what’s gotten me so angry and frustrated. There’s a way to keep ’em out of there, and nobody’s doing it. The way we’re trying to keep ’em out of there is try to attract enough of their voters to vote with our guy. You talk about the four years down the road. You also probably heard me say that if McCain or Huckabee get the nomination and win the presidency, that our party is finished, as we know it. It’s going to take on a different identity. Let’s talk about your four years. Let us say hypothetically McCain wins with these Democrat majorities. Okay, you’ve got a great ethics guy in the Oval Office. You’ve got somebody whose honor and integrity are beyond repute. So you’re good there. But you’ve also got a guy who’s going to want to get things done and does it by attracting Democrats and independents to vote for him, which makes it easy for him to do deals with the Democrats.

Four-years later, what’s to say the Republican Party is going to lose? If the Republican Party is newly constituted by virtue of an expansion of independents who are liberal and Democrats who are liberal voting for it and they’re all happy and hunky-dory with how McCain and the Democrat Congress work together to get Democrat things done, why would that version of the Republican Party lose in four years? See, you and I want the same things. We want the Clintons out of there, we want honor and integrity in the White House, but where we separate is, I’m assuming, I don’t want a liberal Republican in the White House. But odds are we’re going to end up with somebody, whatever degree of liberalism there is, either McCain or a Democrat, we’re going to end up with a liberal, or somebody with liberal tendencies in the White House. This is going to portend some frightening things down the road. I think people are totally misunderstanding my position on this. It’s not personal. It’s not about me. It’s not my way must happen or I’m taking the ball and going. It’s about the country. It’s about the future of the country.

See, I think liberalism needs to be beaten back; I think it needs to be defeated; I think politically it is the enemy; it is the reason that it begets people like the Clintons; it is the reason that people who have no ethics and morality and want to dispense with all of that rise to positions of power in the Democrat Party. I don’t want the country going in that direction. It has to be beaten, not joined, not be reached out to, not be gotten along with, not worked with. It needs to be beaten, and the people running our party right now do not think that. They think we need to reach an accommodation with them, need to appease ’em, bring ’em into our party, work together for a new definition of conservatism that includes a bigger activist government doing whatever they think big activist government ought to do. And I don’t. But it isn’t about me personally. You and I, Ron, want the same things. I just fear that we’re not going to get the — well, I’m over time here, and I’m trying to synthesize this and I’m having trouble. But just don’t think for a moment that we don’t want the same things. You’ve heard me say what I said, and I stand by it. I hope my explanation for what I mean here has resonated with you.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, folks, it’s real simple. You can boil this down to its essence to explain my position in all of this. I do believe liberalism is the enemy of a great future for this country as we have known it. I think liberalism — and most of you in this audience agree with this — liberalism is responsible for the cultural rot. It’s responsible for a lot of the corruption that exists. Look at some of the cities in this country. Look at Detroit. It was a fabulously great city at one time. Look at what years and years and years of liberal leadership did. Look at New Orleans. It’s beyond even ideology now. It’s just the corruption that comes from no boundaries. Talk about ethics and so forth. This stuff is serious. I don’t favor making deals with these people, accommodating them, going across the aisle and incorporating a lot of what they want to get things done. They are to be defeated. Not because I don’t like ’em, and not because I look at this as a personal battle. We’re talking about the country, the direction of the country, where we’re headed. Kids, grandkids, you know, all of that. What are they going to inherit?

Are they going to have any freedom? Are their tax rates going to be so high that it’s not going to be sensible for them to even try to get a decent job? Are we going to have more and more citizens dependent for their needs on the government? I asked a question earlier. “Wait a second, the Democrats are admitting, are they not, with the stimulus package, that putting money in the hands of people stimulates the economy.” Well, we own ’em on that. Yeah we do, except you know what they’re going to say? “The psychology of the government giving people the money is a far bigger winner for liberalism than the notion of people earning it themselves and keeping it.” With liberalism, the more you earn and keep, then somehow more you’re cheating your fellow citizens, the more unfair it is, and so we must take from you to make sure that others don’t feel hurt or embarrassed or humiliated. But when the government decides to give people money, why, that’s perfectly fine, that’s hunky-dory. As long as the money that is in the private sector that’s stimulating the economy comes from government, from liberals, then liberals can say, “We stimulated the economy,” which is exactly what they want.

They’re never going to admit, for example, that they’re giving people money, which is not even really what’s happening. They’re just transferring. They’re never going to admit that giving people money is the same as people’s own money stimulating the economy. They’re never going to agree to that. And look what happened on the stimulus bill. Whose principles triumphed here? Liberals’ principles triumphed. Government giving away money. And, of course, what happened, the Republicans went along. Why? Principle didn’t matter. Reelection mattered. It’s an election year, and all politicians will be happy as they can be to give money away. What a great government we have, why, what a benevolent government, why, they care about our economy. People don’t stop to think that we wouldn’t have a subprime problem if the government hadn’t required certain lenders to lend money to people that were no more qualified to borrow it than an ant. We deal with the emotional on the surface and, “Oh, this is so good,” but it’s not. So I simply think liberalism is the enemy. Politically it’s to be defeated, made a minority. It is not meant to be gotten along with.

END TRANSCRIPT

February 12, 2008 , 8:43PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, John McCain, Liberalism, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Liberalism – Whether GOP Liberalism or DNC Liberalism – is the Enemy and Must be Defeated

Abandoning Reagan Conservatism is the Problem, Not the Solution

Apparently, not voting for John McCain makes me the equivalent of Stalin or Mao. Good strategy, McCainservatives. Call me names. Insult me. Insult my intelligence. Call me the equivalent of our worst enemies. That’s gonna get me to support you and your candidate.

1980 – Ronald Reagan wins in a landslide running on Conservative principles.
1984 – Ronald Reagan re-elected running on Conservative principles.
1988 – George H.W. Bush elected running on Conservative principles.
1992 – President Bush loses half the Republican vote to Ross Perot, because he went back on his promise to govern on fiscal conservatism
1994 – Republicans take back the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years by campaigning on fiscal conservatism
2000 – Governor George W. Bush wins the election running on Conservative principles
2004 – President Bush re-elected based on his execution of the war effort
2006 – Republicans lose both Houses of Congress based on their abandonment of fiscal conservative principles

Notice the pattern…

Again: This Mess is Not Our Fault

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: [ … ] A lot of people, not just my friend in New York, have been writing, expressing this sentiment to me. This is the big point. The failure of establishment Republicans, whether they be members of Congress, Washington and New York editorial writers, even some talk show hosts who live and work and socialize in that community, the failure of those people to uphold conservative principles during the last decade or more has resulted in the mess that they are now complaining about. This mess, this supposed fracture in the Republican Party, where everybody else has seen the light, but the talk show hosts are now Maoists, Trotskyites, Stalinists. We’ve been isolated over here and we’re being blamed for the problems they created. But this mess that exists is a reaction to them and their failures and their false promises. Now, these very same people are now demanding that the people they took for granted continue to follow them, continue to be swayed by their demeaning and condescending lectures. It wasn’t that long ago when these people were on board, but in the past ten years they have sought a new definition of conservatism. They’ve sought to put themselves at the head of it. It is a new definition of conservatism that is not conservative.

This new definition of conservatism cannot be conservative because it requires, it relies on an expanding government to accomplish the so-called big ideas, when in fact, do you know what’s really wrong with this campaign? Bob Herbert, of all people I’m going to agree with, Bob Herbert in the New York Times, he’s a liberal who writes for liberals in the New York Times. We have some conservatives who write for liberals in that party, but he’s a liberal who writes for liberals, and he’s asking basically about the Obama camp. He says, “Where’s the big idea?” But you can ask that about anybody running: Where is the big idea? What is the big idea? Is anybody running on a big idea? Obama clearly isn’t. Hillary clearly isn’t. What’s the big idea? It’s out there. It’s waiting to be grasped, embraced, and turned into a huge majority landslide victory. But nobody wants to embrace it, and that is Reaganism, constitutional conservatism. Instead, people are abandoning that and now blaming people like me for not abandoning it, too. But it isn’t going to be my fault if things go to hell in a handbasket this November, and I have no idea how they’re going to go.

But the truth of the matter is, this isn’t about Rush Limbaugh. It isn’t about any single person. The same people in Washington and New York who like to write op-eds and editorials to themselves to show how smart they are and how in touch they are, are missing what’s going on. I don’t control the real disaffection conservatives are feeling for the Republican Party and for Washington generally. This isn’t some manufactured view that’s turned on and off by me among my audience. This is the result of years of contempt for the grassroots, years of neglect, false promises, pseudoconservatism. McCain became the presumptive winner after Super Tuesday. There have been four primaries since. And other than the state of Washington where the party got involved there, he’s not — you would think, wouldn’t you, that a party excited about the nominee in coming debates, coming votes, coming primaries, would rally behind that candidate to send a signal to the Democrats, to send a signal to the country. That’s not happening. It’s not happening, and it’s not because of me.

Everybody knows these conservatives in our base, they’re independent thinkers. This idea here that those of us on talk radio become isolated, a bunch of Maoists, Trotskyites, Stalinists or whatever, and we’ve abandoned the reservation, the reservation’s abandoned us. So I’m just laying down the marker. Because if McCain loses, the first thing that’s going to happen is that these people who are — and, by the way, I’m going to tell you something else. I’m going to have to go to a break here pretty quick because I’m going way long here. But I don’t even think for these people it’s about McCain. That’s why four weeks ago their favorite candidate was Huckabee. What it’s about is whatever can win that takes us away from Reaganism, and if they think McCain is the best guy to do that, then they’re going to get behind McCain. But these people that I’m talking about are actually supporting McCain because he’s the vessel for them to redefine conservatism the way they want to. If it had been Huckabee, they’d had gotten behind Huckabee as they did four weeks ago.

END TRANSCRIPT

Exactly. Poll-driven. They don’t stand for anything, except political power. Even when having their chosen Party in power means liberal socialism. Brilliant.

And, of course, when their liberal socialist candidate loses, they blame us. Brilliant logic.

February 12, 2008 , 8:42PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, John McCain, Liberalism, Ronald Reagan | 1 Comment