Thursday, November 09, 2006

Rushing to Carry Water



Conservative Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show on Wednesday, November 8, 2006:
Now, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people have been asking me how I feel all night long. I got, "Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow! Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show! Oh-ho. I'm so glad I'm not you." Well, folks, I love being me. (I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it.) The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

See Rush’s entire diatribe.

With this, Rush speaks for me at this time. I sometimes don’t agree with Rush, but I have clearly stated in my prior posts how I feel that George Bush has abandoned his conservative principles, especially on immigration and spending. Plus, the toleration of corruption is not a conservative value.

In fact, to clarify, I would define myself as mostly conservative on several issues, but not mostly Republican. As one of the evangelicals who voted Democratic said yesterday, “We vote values, we don’t vote party.”

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Candor and Action

I notice that Democrats have a different tone today than pre-election. They are less yap-dog, less screeching. They actually sound sincere. I guess the power they now have is sobering them.

Republicans too sound different. The appeaser, George Bush, sounds terribly chastened. He got rid of Rumsfeld yesterday, surely in response to the electorate’s rebuke. Plus, he actually said (paraphrase) “The election’s over,” using this as the reason for his new candor on several issues.

This is a flawed strategy, Mr. President. The time to have fired Rumsfeld was two months ago. The time to have been honest was—all the time, not just after the election. Truth. I say it again and again. Just be honest. Explain what you believe, and why, now and always. Trust the voters to accept or reject who you really are and what you really believe.

The Need to be Liked

The Republican strategy in Iraq has been a failure, as has been their conduct in office. They abandoned their conservative principles in order to be liked. Bush is the leader of this kind of approach. Did it come from Carl Rove? Now Bush, with his instincts as an appeaser, will try even harder to be liked, leading to his being even less popular than he is now.

Rumsfeld, the Iraq War, and Political Correctness

I am glad that Rumsfeld is gone. He was not effective, and never was. I still feel that invading Iraq was right, and that we’ve done a noble thing there in liberating the people. We fought a politically correct war there, though, just like in Vietnam. Again, this is because Bush wanted to be liked.

Did it work, George? You should have just won the war, and ignored the leftist sniping. You’d be popular now. People would have ignored the sniping. Democrats would still not have loved you, but they never will. They never loved Reagan either. You usually can’t have love and respect from your opponents. These opponents, too, were not just opponents. They were enemies.

The Architect and the Evangelicals

So, the great Carl Rove, the “genius,” the “architect,” masterminded an historical defeat for the Republicans. He made the mistake of trying to fool his base instead of listening to it. He threw them some bones immediately before the election, while ignoring them the last six years. Even 29% of evangelicals this time voted Democratic. Why? They felt used. They were deeply unhappy with Republican pork barrel spending, the lack of immigration reform, and the botched war effort.

The Job of a Good Politician

I think the way you get liked and loved and respected is to sincerely try your best to help the people. If you believe in conservatism, then you explain it, promote it, teach it, propagandize it, and enact it. If the electorate then don’t want it, even after you’ve done your best to sell it, that’s their right. You don’t appease them. You respect them, but you stand your ground. You let them choose whether to accept or reject you. In order to be a great politician or president, then, you have to be willing to let the public vote you out of office for your sincerely held beliefs. Yes, listen to your electorate. But don’t hold your finger up in the air to test the blowing wind.

The Wimp Factor

Before the first Iraq war, George Bush Sr., Bush 41, was labeled with the “wimp factor.” He got this reputation by raising taxes after having promised not to. (“Read my lips: no new taxes.”) I accuse this Bush, Bush 43, of being a wimp.

Get a backbone, George. It may be too late to save this country from liberal values, from future terrorist attacks, and from a generation of Democratic control now, because of you. If you change course now, do it in the direction of courage, not appeasement.

Principle versus Appeasement

The models are Reagan versus Schwarzenegger. Principle versus appeasement. Reagan proudly proclaimed his conservativism and championed it with the American people. As a result, he won, big time. Bush now has lost the House and the Senate, with appeasement. California governor Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, did win with appeasement. I respect Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum more, though, who lost in this election by sticking to his conservative values. That’s the kind of man or woman I want in office. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, running as an independent, won without appeasement. It can be done.

Leadership

I think the difference is leadership. If you are a great leader, you listen to the people, and adjust to their desires and needs. You also, though, use the bully pulpit of the presidency to lead. If you are FDR, you try to urge America into the battle against world domination by the Nazi’s. If you are Reagan, you try to promote conservative values and get Mr. Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” If you are Bush, you do invade Iraq, but you fight an all-out war to win, and you ignore your critics until the job is done. Plus, if you are Bush, you teach the American people the lessons Reagan began about the values of conservativism. You don’t sign pork, and you don’t tolerate corruption. You do not put loyalty to your friends above the good of the country.

The American People Have Spoken

The American people announced they were no longer willing to be the water carriers for people who did not deserve to have their water carried. Conservatives voted for conservatives in this election, not for Republicans.

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone


click to hide most of this post



2 comments:

paz y amor said...

Oh boy, where to begin?

Well, I began writing a long comment disagreeing with your last post, but I can't- because I agree with just about everything you said...(the world must be ending!!!!)

I think you missed a couple points though:

a) Polorazation doesn't work. Using wedge issues (abortion/gay marriage/the war) to motivate the base has backfired it seems. No one is purely conservative (as many liberals ALSO have "conservative values"- like me) and no one is purely liberal (as many conservatives have liberal values- like you) Those old arguments to drive voters are giving way to real issues (hopefully...)
A lot of people started voting across party lines and cast ballots for PEOPLE (finally! (although Lincoln Chaffee caught a bad one in R.I.)
As with good wine- moderation.....

b) Americans aren't dumb- but the government of the last 4 years has treated them as if we were. Unfulfilled promises, ineptitude, corruption, overspending, untruths (outright LIES) all made the Repubs look downright BAD. It's hard to argue "values" when the government shows they have little if any.

c) I don't think you can blame the "boy genius" (Rove) for the Repubs losses. He's not the one who pulls the strings or makes the stump speeches. You can only blame the individuals politicians for following his lead and getting lumped in with the rest of them in the process.

My question to you is, what are your predictions? Do you see the Dems making the same mistakes as the Republicans or do you see them actually taking advantage of their new found power and doing something with it?

Rock said...

paz, nice to hear from you. You said:

Oh boy, where to begin? 

Well, I began writing a long comment disagreeing with your last post, but I can't- because I agree with just about everything you said...(the world must be ending!!!!)

I really am seeking the truth, paz, nothing less. I am honestly not biased towards Republicans. I am biased towards conservatism, which I believe comes closer to truth than liberalism, but only on some issues.

I think you missed a couple points though:

a) Polorazation doesn't work. Using wedge issues (abortion/gay marriage/the war) to motivate the base has backfired it seems. No one is purely conservative (as many liberals ALSO have "conservative values"- like me) and no one is purely liberal (as many conservatives have liberal values- like you) Those old arguments to drive voters are giving way to real issues (hopefully...)

Republicans, I agree, ignored their base and threw “bones” to them just before the election. This strategy has worked in the past. This time it didn’t. I think people are getting smarter. You and I are mixed in our values, conservative and liberal, but there are some who are “pure,” like Rush Limbaugh. At least, he thinks he is “pure.” I define him as “meddling” on issues like abortion, which I don’t consider a purely conservative position. So, I guess you’re pretty much right on this point.

A lot of people started voting across party lines and cast ballots for PEOPLE (finally! (although Lincoln Chaffee caught a bad one in R.I.)

Chaffee switched parties the day after the election. He should not be honored by either party, since he even stated he only stayed a Republican the last few years so he would have access to power. He’s not a very principled man.

Americans aren't dumb- but the government of the last 4 years has treated them as if we were.

I agree 100%. This was insulting, and they deservedly were shown the door.

Unfulfilled promises, ineptitude, corruption, overspending, untruths (outright LIES) all made the Repubs look downright BAD. It's hard to argue "values" when the government shows they have little if any.

Again, I agree.

I don't think you can blame the "boy genius" (Rove) for the Repubs losses. He's not the one who pulls the strings or makes the stump speeches.

On this I find you inconsistent. If I remember correctly, you previously lauded him as the genius of the Republican Party, responsible for their success, with Bush as the puppet. I don’t think that was entirely true, yet he had influenced the Republicans in how to campaign. Bush was even clearly angry at Rove at a recent press conference when he said (paraphrase) Rove had been reading more than Bush lately. “Obviously, I’ve been working on the campaign more than he.”

My question to you is, what are your predictions? Do you see the Dems making the same mistakes as the Republicans or do you see them actually taking advantage of their newfound power and doing something with it?

I think corruption will go down dramatically, as Dems will be on their best behavior, so this is a good thing. I think Pelosi is a pro, so she won’t force her what I believe are far-left policies on congress. Instead, she will steer the Party to the center, in order to get re-elected in 2008 and win the Presidency. This is also good. In fact, she might be more fiscally responsible than the Republicans during this period.

I also don’t mind that she’ll open a dialogue on health care, the environment, minimum wage, college tuition and so on.

I do believe, however, that, because of her constraint these next two years, she will guarantee the Democrats get elected in 2008, including the presidency. After 2008, that’s when I fear the overspending will come, and the Democrats leading us into socialism.

I think Iraq is going to go better now, because of the Baker commission. They’ve already come up with two what I believe are great solutions. The Democrats will sign on to these, and Bush will have no choice.

So, I give mixed reviews. I expect the next two years, though, to go great, and I have to admit, this is because of the election of the Democrats. I just want them to be restrained in their spending, and remain strong on defense. Then, I’m fine with them.