Posted on 04/20/2011 2:21:08 PM PDT by Lakeshark
RUSH: Movies, books, television shows. The left owns it. He's trying to introduce pop culture conservatism to the fans of pop culture, and so you think Trump might do this. Now: What is Trump saying that might cause people who live in the pop culture to have, say, a favorable view of what you and I believe? It's not a trick question. I want to know what you really think.
CALLER: Well, I think he's bringing credence to the conservative mentality. If they like him as an icon, they recognize his success, they feel like he's a happening guy, and so it's not so --
RUSH: Well, let me jump in here.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: I understand what you mean, but I have some problems with that. I mentioned this yesterday. I've had a lot of people ask me, "You know, you were really hard on Perot, why aren't you hard on Trump?" I'll be glad to answer that. They're really not the same in any way, shape, manner, or form other than they both appear to have an appeal to populists, but let's set that aside for just a second.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
bkmrk
Are YOU a populist or rational..?
Interesting comments from the caller.
“Well, I think he’s bringing credence to the conservative mentality. If they like him as an icon, they recognize his success, they feel like he’s a happening guy, and so it’s not so —”
The Donald is a happening guy. Well, that explains his popularity with the happening crowd. I wouldn’t vote for him on a bet, but maybe he can wake up a few of the idiots.
On another note, I disagree with Rush on one point. It’s not “conservative” to oppose “free trade” as it is currently practiced—biased against us by international committees, and destroying our industrial base. Yes, the Chamber of Commerce likes free trade, but the Chamber of Commerce is not always conservative.
I don’t know about a 25% tarriff, but I think we need at least SOME tarriffs on goods from most countries, if we’re ever going to get our economy back and become self-sufficient once again.
If you look back at 2008, you'll see that both Rush and Hannity did not reject the candidacies of Giuliani or Romney. Two liberals that no conservative in their right frame of mind should ever be defending or supporting.
This is an instant replay with Trump. Hannity’s softball interview with Trump did not fool anyone. And I wouldn't call Rush's interview of Trump a serious effort. That is, unless you've already allowed yourself to be hoodwinked by a professional huckster.
I had liked (and still like) how Trump was taking down Bambi in the media, so I listened. As soon as Trump started talking about "reaching across the aisle", he lost me as a candidate. I'll still cheer when he points out the failures of this administration.
“I’m gonna take him (Trump) aside. I’m gonna say, “Whoever is telling you about conservatism is misleading you a little bit.” Conservatives don’t want a 25% tariff on comported Chinese goods.”
I want a Tariff on Chinese Imports. So does Michael Savage. Ronald Reagan put a tariff on Japanese imports in the ‘80’s and the Japanese built factories here.
I’ve always thought Rush to be the most intellectually consistent guy there is, but Rush is behind the curve on the correlation between deficit spending and the trade imbalance. As long as there is a massive trade imbalance the politicians will get away with spending money we don’t have. (Read Peter Schiff’s book Crash Proof for context).
Yes, Reagan did take that action. Reagan believed in free trade, as long as it was fair trade. IIRC, Reagan slapped 100% tariffs on some Japanese electronics and also imposed a heavy tariff on Jap motorcycles. The latter saved Harley-Davidson stay afloat. Reagan was the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover.
The United States was never self-sufficient - ever. It was always a trading nation and trade was the reason it was settled. Initially the US sold raw materials in exchange for finished products. Eventually it sold and traded both. Basic economics states that nearly all nations will have some relative advantage and trading goods of which one has a relative advantage makes everyone richer. Real conservatives understand economics 101 and know that self-sufficiency is a trojan horse rallying cry of the left.
For what its worth, I will admit that the Native Americans were self-sufficient if that is what you had in mind though.
Not self-sufficient, no. But there were always varying levels of tarriffs, to protect domestic industries. And there were always arguments about how high those tarriffs should be. But it was agreed that the U.S. should be self-sufficient in essentials, and in whatever was needed for defense, even if they had to stockpile some materials.
Complete elimination of tarriffs was something new, and it destroyed numerous industries, such as the clothing makers, TV makers, steel mills, and so forth.
I don’t argue for complete protectionism. But some level of protection is necessary, especially when so-called “free-trade” is really a one-way street, in the other direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.