AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

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?


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.


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.



February 12, 2008 , 8:43PM - Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, John McCain, Liberalism, Rush Limbaugh

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: