WHY RUSH IS DISGRUNTLED (Bush is advancing the Democrats most liberal agenda )

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 5/13/2002 | rushlimbaugh

[seanc623]

I'll be the first to admit that Bush II has been a vast improvement over his father and even in some respects over Reagan. But on the most substantial issues he still refuses to take a truly America First attitude. No mention of bringing home our troops from Japan, Korea etc. (blatantly unconstitutional, by the way), a tax cut that amounts to chump change and will soon be eclipsed by the farm monstrosity as grocery prices rise and no plan to get us out of the God awful UN.

[jackbill]

I voted for President Bush, hoping that he would stand by what he promised during the campaign. I, like Rush, would like to give the President some "slack". Perhaps he is doing what he is doing in order to ensure a second term, or get a Republican House and Senate.

However, I am contunually wondering just why it is important to get another term and a Republican House and Senate if the end result is just more big government! I freely admit to being conflicted.

If Algore had been elected, we would have 30,000 more government employees in "airport security", we would have had Campaign Finance Reform, we would have had a massive government give-away in a Farm Bill. We would have effectively had "open borders". We would have had "steel tariffs" to prop up the steel unions. We would have had a massive influx of funding into "public education".

We voted for George W. Bush and guess what?

[TLBSHOW]

So what should he be doing? He is saying to Bush, please teach the people to be conservatives and not liberals but by advancing the liberal bull crap he is not doing it!

[maica]

President Bush has faced what he calls the Trifecta of emergencies since he became President - the recession, the attack of Sept 11, and War. I think he is thinking about using his "capital, his bully pulpit" in saving our country, not just a balance sheet. He wants the right judges on the Bench and a Republican majority Senate is really critical to getting judges passed. Everything else is secondary.

Think where our country will go if the Supreme Court gets any more 'activist.'

[CaptBlack]

Rush has done far more for conservatives than GW has done.

I'd have to second that. I was down on EIB for years, complaining that Rush was just a Republican Party mouthpiece. His recent statements have got me reconsidering.

What is so admirable in sincerely principled men is commitment to truth. I sit here in absolute amazement at people who have gone so far as to say that, essentially, "winning" the Senate and "keeping" the House justifies doing just about anything.

Without a doubt, President Bush has done some great and good things since his election, but I think Rush's point (and it's well taken) is that that performance doesn't exempt the President from genuine criticism. I'm totally baffled by people that exhibit barely controlled hatred for those that criticize Bush.

When I get into these combat conversations with Bush zealots, I like to remind them that Bush courted my vote with conservative talk. Having obtained it, am I worthless to him now? (until 2004, I guess)

Anyone who criticizes Bush for the EXACT, and I mean EXACT same things we railroaded Clinton over is now a "hater" and in favor of "Hill and Bill". I know that I"M not saying I "hate" Bush or any such stupidity; I'm saying that I'm genuinely and profoundly angered and frustrated over his recent flip-flop on the Middle East and this massive Farm Bill.

If that makes me pro-Clinton, well then...so be it if that's how folks want to construe it. As for me and my house, we are trying to observe the same principles that caused us to vote for Bush in the first place.

[zoyd]

But Rush is largely singing the same tune as he started with in 1988.
To my ears his riff is sounding old, tired and boring and Rush is beginning to get on my nerves.
Rush is like a prehistoric insect frozen in amber, forever trapped and ossified by his immediate environment.. He needs to broaden his horizons...

Isn't this the kind of rhetoric liberals use to describe conservatives? I thought conservatives were SUPPOSED to stick to their ideology, SUPPOSED to try and preserve the conservative principles that helped get us where we are... but now you want Rush to become a flip-floppy, unprincipled waffler who becomes more and more PRO-BIG-DADDY-GOVERNMENT? Why, that'd make him just like all the other sheeple in America, slowly accepting increased taxation and reduced freedom, accepting Republican budgets that break the bank and ramp up Big Government spending in key liberal areas -- Health, Education, and Welfare.

So you're upset at Rush because he's being TOO GOOD of a conservative? Maybe YOU need to re-evaluate what a 'conservative' is, instead of just accepting the creeping involvement of government into EVERY facet of your life.

BTW, I think Rush is a big fat windbag most of the time, but I respect the fact that he hasn't completely given in to the complete liberalization of our culture and leaders (and I'm a Libertarian, for goodness sake). I'd think more Conservatives would applaud such efforts, but evidently not.

[MJY1288]

By looking at the House and Senate voted on the bill, looks to me that the American people wanted the farm bill, I don't know enough about the bill to critique it, and I doubt that many of the Bush Bashers here havn't either. They claim they voted for him and "always supported Bush until NOW", That's funny I have seen them on every Bush Bashing thread since day one.

[seanc623]

Vote Libertarian and support a party that won't hurt you at all; better yet help us to keep other people from being hurt. We're the only party that has made and kept that promise because we're the only one that has it in our platform. Republicans and Democrats won't bother because they don't expect us to seek something better. They expect us to stay on our respective plantations and not make too much trouble. Let's show them they're wrong.

[rdb3]

Neo-cons are for Israel first and will never criticize Bibi.

This "neo-con" is for giving paleos like you a vicious right-hook on the left side of your face for telling bald-faced lies.

By the way, Israel has nothing to do with this thread. Why bring it up? Hmmm?

[terilyn]

Not necessarily true. The 1996 Freedom to Farm act appears to be a lot of talk and not much walk.

From the Cato Institute. Farm spending has actually dramatically increased starting in 1998 with huge emergency supplemental farm spending. I guess if they're going to spend my tax dollars to subsidise farming I'd just as soon they be up front about it and pass the bill and sign it publically vs sneaking in the emergency spending while we're not paying attention.

[jackbill]

He didn't really word it that way. These people have to work he said.

Perhaps you didn't pay close attention. Yes, he said that people should work a 40 hour week. That's typically a five day a week job. However, he allowed as to how "two days in education or training" could be substituted.

Now, I've seen very many examples of "education and training" the government way. It's expensive and, in most cases useless. So we are trading welfare benefits to creating another "government training bureaucracy". Great.

[rdb3]

The better question is: will I blame Bush? The answer is no. If we had a GOP-controlled Senate, it might be different.

Thank you, Trib, for posting what should be painfully obvious to most folks. You are absolutely correct. If these things had taken place with a GOP controlled House and Senate, I'd be looking at Dubya funny as well. But this is not the case.

Losing the Senate was HUGE!

[Texaggie79]

Vote Libertarian and support a party that won't hurt you at all(will never make a difference, heck you might as well vote for the toga party)

[zoyd]

That's an interesting graph... duly noted.

We still can't get around the fact that the new Farm Bill represents a 70% increase over the cost of continuing existing programs. Any way you look at it, it's a boondoggle.

From Reason online: For 70 years, the government has been shoveling money into rural America to prop up that most cherished of institutions, the family farm. Like most government programs, this has produced an unbroken record of failure. As columnist Robert J. Samuelson notes, the percentage of Americans tilling the soil has fallen from 21 percent of the population in 1929 to 2 percent today, even as the same amount of land is devoted to farm production.

[MJY1288]

190 Billion over 10 years is 19 billion per year, That's a little less then we are spending now

[zoyd]

Still haven't rid yourself of your LP phobia, I see.

[terilyn]

That's how I figured it. Like I said, I'd rather have them tell us they're going to do it like they did today, (honesty perhaps?), than sneak it in year after year and pretend that they're toeing the line on spending.

[seanc623]

This taxation scheme to do things for which taxation is not meant for, abusing its powers and jurisdictions, is plain toying with communist and socialist rationalisation fire.

I'm afraid it's true that taxation is meant exactly for abuse of power; that's the whole reason to have taxes instead of user fees. The power to tax is the power to destroy precisely for that reason. In the hands of Democrats and Republicans that power will always be abused.

[Tribune7]

Losing the Senate was HUGE!

Yeah! And all this b*tchin' at Bush would be exponentially more productive if it were directed at Dashle et al.