Posted on 04/26/2011 1:55:16 PM PDT by FR_addict
In response to a caller's comment, Rush names Allen West, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio as people he’d like to see run for President.
+1
“Very few Freepers seem to remember Rush as an illegal alien advocate.”
I remember that very well. During the Prop 187 campaign Rush was approached many times to give us a hand, and he refused to do it. He wouldn’t even take phone calls on the subject of illegal immigration.
I’m always fascinated by his ability to reinvent his past and portray himself as a leader in the fight against illegal immigration. But then he has shown over the years a great capacity for reinvention.
Several diehard Rush fans are finding that a bit hard to swallow, Pel. However, "We take you now to those thrilling days of yesteryear," in California. It's as if their radio hero, The Lone Ranger, is suddenly found to have made a secret deal with the bad guys.
But really, that is not the case. It's just radio marketing. Rush's deal is to recognize trends and capitalize upon them, not lead them. He perceived the "anti-illegal-immigration" people as a nutty fringe, and went main-stream Republican. It did him a world of good with the GOP Establishment. Several years later, he had to make a course adjustment. BTW, he is now with becoming totally anti-GOP-Establishment via a TP flirtation. Good for him! Perhaps some day, the Republican Party will do the same on immigration and government and Rush can claim credit.(With my blessing!) He had the charming effrontery to take a flying leap at the Birther bandwagon a couple of weeks ago and came up woefully short. Not a pretty picture. But, he'll correct course again on that, I am sure.
In fact, I anxiously await Rush's discussion of Article II and the "Natural Born Citizen" concept. I wish George were here to guide and educate the man in his tough but gentlemanly way. In the meantime, his show is great, cum grano salis.
That is correct, his vast conservative audience doesn't remember hearing something that wasn't, evidently you two can't dredge up those shows either, but you do seem willing to lie, smear, and whine because you can't make him accept your amateur, show programming suggestions.
(2) I have no programming suggestions for Rush. I had a TOPIC suggestion in asking for coverage of the Obama-in-Kenya Story, viz the facts concerning his support for Raila Odinga, and how Odinga's losing campaign turned into a massacre of his Christian opponents. Rush was certainly not alone in his ignorance of the situation, nor in his choice not to make it a show discussion point. To this day, otherwise informed Americans know nothing of it. I was not in the category of disgruntled listener then, nor am I now. There are dozen of other topics I have heard discussed through the years on Rush Limbaugh's show with which I am in general and quite happy agreement with his pronouncements.
Rush is a broadcasting phenomenon, not a saint. And, very often he is not a particularly well-informed, even if immensely entertaining, commentator.
I live in California and was a big supporter of prop 187 and was involved in 3 campaigns that election, two paid, and one as a volunteer, you are lying about Rush and I don’t know why, except you seem peeved that he would not accept your programming of his show, or as you describe it, giving him his “topics”.
Excuse me a minute while I wipe off the mud.
Now, good friend Ansell-Mudslinger, you may not like to hear that your idol has feet of clay, but he most definitely refused to help the anti-illegal immigration movement. Instead he sided with his good friend Bill Bennett, who had the bad taste to fly out to California with Jack Kemp and lecture us xenophobes and vigilantes on how evil we are, and how wonderful illegal aliens are.
Now feel free to return to your mud puddle to re-arm. I’m sure that there are a few more infidels who merely see ol’ Rush as a very talented radio talker rather than the demigod of your imagination. You may want to pop them a few good ones to straighten them out in your most persuasive fashion.
That was a pretty silly post, it sure didn’t back up your silly claim.
It should be very easy for you to prove that the claim is baseless.
All you have to do is find even one Prop 187 group that lists Rush as a member or a supporter. Or that he endorsed.
Take all the time you need. Maybe your fellow true believer null and void can help you find that elusive evidence.
Trying to tell Rush’s audience of anti-immigration conservatives that he was selling them pro illegal alien advocacy instead of the anti-illegal immigration position that they were actually hearing, and that some how they missed it, is a childish game, grow up.
The anti-illegal alien activists I worked with to pass Prop 187 back in 1994 are well aware of how much help we got from Rush Limbaugh. We got nothing.
The fact is that Rush was MIA for years. He never took up the issue until late in Dubya’s Presidency, when Dubya tried to ram amnesty through and ran into a groundswell of angry grassroots opposition. That’s the time that Rush climbed onto the bandwagon and announced that he was our leader.
Well, better late than never, I suppose, he’s welcome to pretend to be a leader if he wants. It doesn’t do much harm, other than to encourage a few gullible dimwits to make asses of themselves by insisting that he was always a stalwart in the cause.
Great post.
Straw dogs, I only corrected you for your stupid claim that you remember that Rush was an illegal alien advocate.
Childish stuff that, now you seem to have abandoned that, good.
Thanks.
I’ve been watching West recently....Like him alot...but he’s honest enough to admit he’s not ready “yet”..and he is correct IMO. But he sure has his act together in my book. Good man and doesn’t flench when put on the spot.
‘Stupid claim, childish, liar.’ Did I leave out any of your greatest hits? You’re a regular wizard at debate, not to mention a class act. High IQ?
As for a ‘straw dog’, feel free to point it out. In my experience those who spot a straw dog quote it. Those who don’t are simply trying to hide behind the charge.
I suspect that what you want to pretend is a “straw dog” is my request that produce one bit of evidence that a Prop 187 group was supported by Rush, had him as a member, or even received a positive comment by him.
Prop 187 was the major illegal immigration control initiative of the 1990s. There was no other. The campaign went on for well over a year, in the state that Rush had recently called home. We got all sorts of publicity, he can’t claim that he was unaware of it.
The fact is that he never supported Prop 187. This was his big chance to separate himself from his pal Bill Bennett and Bennett’s vile attacks on Prop 187. And Rush said nothing.
This supports your claim that Rush has always been an opponent of illegal immigration in what way, exactly? Rush has “always” been an opponent of illegal immigration only after Dubya’s attempt to force amnesty, which I admit surprised me considering his decade plus absence on the issue.
When you get around to showing us that in spite of us all listening to him and knowing his show, that he was “an illegal alien advocate” which is the subject, then page me, until then quit wasting my time.
Lol. Posting to you is a waste of time all its own, so you have little to worry about.
Your bizarre claim is that you “remember Rush as an illegal alien advocate.”
When you can prove that he was “an illegal alien advocate” then share that with the world, prove to us that you weren’t lying when you claimed that.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis16.htm
Phyllis Spivey
April 20, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has joined the ranks of Americans calling for strict enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Or has he? True, he has lately given the subject lots of air time and, true, he’s been sounding more like a Minuteman than a Republican diehard. But his passion is new.
Limbaugh seemed hardly aware of the issue until it became too big to ignore. When hundreds of thousands of Hispanics took to the streets to demand citizens’ benefits and rights, many waving Mexican flags and promising to reclaim U.S. land for Mexico, Limbaugh had to weigh in.
Better late than never, some would say of Limbaugh’s recent awakening. But others remember how Limbaugh has for years – under Democrat as well as Republican administrations – supported the very policies that led to the current immigration crisis.
Consider his support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Negotiated under the first President Bush, approved in 1993 under President Clinton, NAFTA garnered steadfast Limbaugh support. Never mind that illegal immigration had been skyrocketing since the amnesty of 1986 and that NAFTA specifically mandated wholesale cross-border movement.
From the beginning, NAFTA was structured to open borders, permitting the “temporary” entry into the U.S. of just about anyone who wanted to come. Clinton’s NAFTA Implementation Act classified the temporary entrants as non-immigrants and welcomed spouses and children as well. The agreement defined temporary as “entry into the U.S. without the intent to establish permanent residence” and failed to mention that children born to so-called non-immigrants while in this country would, under U.S. law, be accorded automatic citizenship.
If you’re thinking this sounds a lot like President Bush’s guest-worker plan, you’re catching on. NAFTA also specified that in most cases eligibility for entry would be established at the border and would require scant documentation. Not only were numerous categories of border-crossers authorized, they were to be grandly accommodated. Service providers, for example, were to receive “treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment...” accorded to our own service providers.
The agreement not only authorized numerous categories of border-crossers, it ordered far-reaching accommodations for them. Service providers, for example, were to receive “treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment ...” accorded to our own service providers.
The pact also prescribed continent-wide standardization of credentials, while prohibiting anything that might be construed as an unnecessary barrier to licensing or certification. Participating countries were to eliminate any requirements for citizenship or permanent residency within two years and work toward liberalizing or lifting any numerical or quantitative restrictions as soon as possible, including limits on visas.
It wasn’t as if Limbaugh didn’t know. Even proponents admitted that NAFTA would cause a “temporary” escalation in illegal immigration, and Clinton’s immigration chief, Doris Meissner, defined “temporary” as 20 years.
But Limbaugh thought NAFTA was keen. Ditto with another border-opening, sovereignty-killing trade pact – the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), passed December 1, 1993 by a lame duck Congress. For days, if not weeks, preceding passage, the agreement was the major topic on radio talk shows and in legislators’ offices. Senate leader Robert Dole admitted receiving 2,000 calls a day, mostly against.
But on Limbaugh’s show, GATT scarcely existed. Concerned callers reported on other talk programs that Limbaugh’s screener wouldn’t let them through. Then, the week of Congress’s vote, a handful of individuals breached Rush’s GATT gap.
A woman from Aurora, Colorado told Limbaugh he had let everyone down. He had spent more than a year detailing flaws in Clinton’s healthcare plan. Why so silent about GATT, the most important trade agreement of the century?
Why, she wanted to know, does GATT approval mandate that U.S. babies have taxpayer I.D. numbers at birth? Why should an international trade agreement dictate changes to U.S. pension plans and interest rates on savings bonds? What else had been slipped into GATT and why was an ousted Congress rushing it into law before people could find out?
Rebuffing Limbaugh’s attempts to intimidate her, the woman reminded him that, after all, it was he who had encouraged Americans to analyze issues according to conservative principles. In her view, GATT-WTO in no way conformed to those principles.
Other callers raised questions about GATT’s powerful World Trade Organization that gave the U.S. one vote and no veto and about U.S. workers’ ability to compete with slave labor in China. They decried Congress’s fast-track process that allowed no amendments to the 26,000 page agreement, and accused pro-GATT Republicans of jeopardizing U.S. sovereignty and of reneging on their “Contract With America.” Like NAFTA, the GATT stood in stark contrast to the philosophy usually proclaimed by the radio personality.
Limbaugh, clearly uncomfortable, admitted he hadn’t read the agreement, but had trusted the advice of “friends.” Unable to field questions competently, Limbaugh’s good humor evaporated in hostility and condescension. Obviously frustrated, sputtering at times, he dismissed GATT opponents as fringe, conspiracy theorists – just a bunch of kooks, in other words.
But nine days later, GATT approval secure, the old Rush returned. He lambasted The Summit of the Americas, saying it should be renamed the “Anti-America Summit, because that’s what all these things are.”
“We had the Rio Summit on the environment,” he said. “You know what that was? That was just a place where all the Third World countries could go and rape and rob the United States for money ... and this is the same thing we’re going to have at the Summit of the Americas ....”
Right! How, then, could Limbaugh support sweeping trade agreements that blessed the Rio Earth Summit and the Summit of the Americas? Why has he kept silent about subsequent border-opening, redistribute-the-wealth summits and agreements, e.g., the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)? Until he fervently exposes and opposes them, his apparent outrage about the invasion of America is so much empty rhetoric.
We can put the protestations of hypocritical politicians in the same category. In recent weeks, many have taken to the talk shows to assure voters of their fidelity in the fight against illegal immigration. But if, like Limbaugh, they have supported the trade agreements of the last 15 years – and most are guilty – they’re not good bets for staying the course. When faced with the granddaddy of all Western Hemisphere trade agreements – the Free Trade Area of the Americas – they’ll line up to launch the ultimate and final immigration avalanche, the one that will forever bury a free and independent America.
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.