ReadyontheRight
Member
Just like in 1992?
I agree that Sarge nailed it. Dogs are dogs and politicians are politicians.
Rush Limbaugh and the defense of G.W. Bush
- Thread starter RobW
- Start date
- Status
Just like in 1992?
I agree that Sarge nailed it. Dogs are dogs and politicians are politicians.
ojibweindian
Member
Both Limbaugh and Hannity have lost much credibility with me because of their "Better Bush than the Democrats" position. I pretty much only listen to Neil Boortz any more. Those other two are nothing more than republican spin-meisters.
mtnbkr
Member
Limbaugh and Hannity are Republican lapdogs. I stopped listening to Hannity during my evening commute after he boasted about being pro-freedom and later blasted a Libertarian by blaming them if drug abusing mothers killed their fetuses. In the same breath, he began talking about all the laws he'd pass to protect "us" from ourselves.
That, and I can't stand it when he won't let an opposing listener finish a sentence without him interrupting. Yeah, it's his show, but he comes off as more of a pompous ??? than Rush. It's even more insulting because of the way he wraps himself in the American Flag (metaphorically speaking).
Chris
That, and I can't stand it when he won't let an opposing listener finish a sentence without him interrupting. Yeah, it's his show, but he comes off as more of a pompous ??? than Rush. It's even more insulting because of the way he wraps himself in the American Flag (metaphorically speaking).
Chris
Selfdfenz
Member
Having been one for so long I feel pretty secure in saying GW is not, and never, was a Conservative.
GW Bush is not a Conservative most of the time nor on most issues if you go by his actions.
GW is a moderate and his willingness to lean left on too many issues makes him by his own actions, a left of center moderate.
S-
GW Bush is not a Conservative most of the time nor on most issues if you go by his actions.
GW is a moderate and his willingness to lean left on too many issues makes him by his own actions, a left of center moderate.
S-
Waitone
Member
What the esteemed forum is forgetting is we taxpayers // voters have the ability to shut this crap down every two years. Every two years the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the senate must stand for re-election. You want to start change and catch a president's attention? Start offing representatives and senators of his party. Bush's games will come to a screeching halt. No power in the legislature means he is a neutered dog.
Limbaugh's defense of Bush rapidly approaches bootlicking. However, last week he did spend 3 hours pounding the snot out of his policies. Thereafter the media started talking about conservatives being in open revolt against some of his policies.
As long as Bush is convinced "Where they gonna go?" is truth, you can expect the nonsense to continue. The first second he thinks the jig is up and a revolt is in progress, he'll do a snap about face.
Me? I'll get my pound of flesh off Bush by taking out a republican incumbent in my district and by electing a Democrat to an open senate seat.
grnzbra
Member
I've got a hundred dollars that says the next President of the United States will be either a Republican or a Democrat. (There's only $100 on the line here guys. If more than one of you wants to take the bet, the first one to respond can divide the money with everyone else.)
ojibweindian
Member
I've got $100 that says the next Prez is gonna be anti-freedom. It's only $100...
fix
Member
You got that right. Bush is giving the Dems a perfectly good excuse to raise our taxes tremendously the next time they are in power.
Smoke
Member
Here is the Democrats voive on Gun Rights....just an FYI
Candidates take stand on gun laws
Washington Times article
ASSOCIATED PRESS The AP asked the following question of all the Democratic presidential candidates: GUNS — How, if at all, should federal gun laws be changed? •Wesley Clark: "First and foremost, we need to do a better job of enforcing our existing gun laws. I will do better. Next, I will push for a law that closes the 'gun show loophole.' Many states already have laws requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows. This is just common sense. If background checks are a good idea at gun stores, then they're a good idea at gun shows. I will make this a federal law. Finally, we ought to make sure that guns are designed with safety as a priority. For example, trigger locks on handguns would prevent a substantial number of the accidental shootings that occur every year. In addition, guns should feature indicators that show when they are loaded." •Howard Dean: "I favor reauthorizing the federal ban on assault weapons and requiring use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for all sales at gun shows. I support all other existing federal gun laws and would vigorously enforce them. Beyond that, each state can decide if additional gun laws are needed." •Sen. John Edwards: "I grew up in small towns where gun ownership was a way of life. I have deep respect for that way of life, and I believe the Second Amendment protects it. At the same time, I believe we must support gun safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. To achieve these goals, I support modest changes in federal gun laws — closing the gun show loophole and requiring trigger locks on new weapons — which we should take while honoring the right to own guns for hunting, sporting or personal protection." •Sen. John Kerry: "I am a gun owner and hunter, and I believe that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I strongly support all of the federal gun laws on the books, and I would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced. I will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock." •Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: "In this mobile society, national control of guns is necessary, just as it is with pollution. It is the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. However, it is not the right of American felons to arm themselves. As president, I would support legislation to require background checks, identical to the background checks currently required for transfers by licensed gun dealers, for firearm transfers by unlicensed gun dealers at gun shows. Sensible laws to prevent guns from winding up in the wrong hands do not infringe on any constitutional rights." c Sen. Joe Lieberman: "I support common-sense gun safety laws — closing the gun show loophole, enforcing the Brady Bill, and providing better protection for our neighborhoods. We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and provide law enforcement with the funding and tools needed to effectively cut down on gun violence." c Al Sharpton: No response.
Candidates take stand on gun laws
Washington Times article
ASSOCIATED PRESS The AP asked the following question of all the Democratic presidential candidates: GUNS — How, if at all, should federal gun laws be changed? •Wesley Clark: "First and foremost, we need to do a better job of enforcing our existing gun laws. I will do better. Next, I will push for a law that closes the 'gun show loophole.' Many states already have laws requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows. This is just common sense. If background checks are a good idea at gun stores, then they're a good idea at gun shows. I will make this a federal law. Finally, we ought to make sure that guns are designed with safety as a priority. For example, trigger locks on handguns would prevent a substantial number of the accidental shootings that occur every year. In addition, guns should feature indicators that show when they are loaded." •Howard Dean: "I favor reauthorizing the federal ban on assault weapons and requiring use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for all sales at gun shows. I support all other existing federal gun laws and would vigorously enforce them. Beyond that, each state can decide if additional gun laws are needed." •Sen. John Edwards: "I grew up in small towns where gun ownership was a way of life. I have deep respect for that way of life, and I believe the Second Amendment protects it. At the same time, I believe we must support gun safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. To achieve these goals, I support modest changes in federal gun laws — closing the gun show loophole and requiring trigger locks on new weapons — which we should take while honoring the right to own guns for hunting, sporting or personal protection." •Sen. John Kerry: "I am a gun owner and hunter, and I believe that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I strongly support all of the federal gun laws on the books, and I would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced. I will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock." •Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: "In this mobile society, national control of guns is necessary, just as it is with pollution. It is the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. However, it is not the right of American felons to arm themselves. As president, I would support legislation to require background checks, identical to the background checks currently required for transfers by licensed gun dealers, for firearm transfers by unlicensed gun dealers at gun shows. Sensible laws to prevent guns from winding up in the wrong hands do not infringe on any constitutional rights." c Sen. Joe Lieberman: "I support common-sense gun safety laws — closing the gun show loophole, enforcing the Brady Bill, and providing better protection for our neighborhoods. We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and provide law enforcement with the funding and tools needed to effectively cut down on gun violence." c Al Sharpton: No response.
Joe Demko
Member
There's more at stake than gun rights.
grnzbra
Member
Which is another Democrat view.
Smoke
Member
I couldn't agree more. Many on this board seem to vote on one issue.
I don't. I do not like a lot of things Bush has done. He is far to Socialist leaning for my tastes. But every on of the Dems running scare me far more than the incumbant.
Before we get into the "Vote 3rd Party" argument. It is a wasted vote until the 3rd party can put up a viable candidate. No third party has done that yet. When they do....I very well might vote third party.
Smoke
One good sign that Bush's party is not happy with him is the latest news on the budget. Seems like the conservative wing of the Congress is not going to take Bush's budget proposal laying down. Maybe we are seeing some kind of revolt in the conservative Republican Congresscritters. If so, they might reel Bush back in before he marginalizes the Republican Party in the eyes of its members.
Below is a article from today's Washington Times.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040204-121105-6513r.htm
GOP lawmakers plan cuts in Bush budget
By Ralph Z. Hallow and Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Congressional Republicans, in an extraordinary break with the White House in an election year, say President Bush's 2005 budget proposal "doesn't go far enough" to restrain government spending and are considering pursuing further cuts in outlays.
Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee, yesterday said Republicans and the White House should even be willing to trim wasteful spending in the Defense and Homeland Security departments.
"We also have to look at defense and homeland security," Mr. Nussle said, referring to Mr. Bush's effort in his $2.4 trillion proposed budget to eliminate or scale-back inefficient or wasteful federal programs. "My bet is that there is some [waste] going on."
Also in the sights of some congressional Republicans is last year's prescription-drug benefit, which the president's budget team now says will cost $140 billion more than first estimated, angering the party's base at a time when Mr. Bush's approval rating is slipping.
The president is now suffering the lowest job approval rating of his presidency as measured by the Gallup poll, at 49 percent, down from 63 percent just after the capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"Our party's credibility on spending is slipping. We need to get that credibility back," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.
Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican and chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said a bloc of about 90 House Republicans, both conservatives and moderate "deficit hawks," want to cut or freeze a number of discretionary spending programs beyond the reductions proposed in the president's plan.
"I think we need to do a little more," than what Mr. Bush proposed, said Mrs. Myrick — who backs an outright freeze or a reduction of all discretionary spending.
"We're saying his budget does some good things but still leaves total spending too high and won't satisfy the conservative base — the people back home we're hearing from," Mrs. Myrick said. "People back home are very upset with spending."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, said that the theme of controlling government spending was the "real thrust of the conversation" at the House and Senate Republican retreat last weekend.
The Bush budget would boost defense spending by 7 percent and homeland-security spending by 10 percent, but hold all other domestic discretionary spending to a $2 billion net increase, which comes out to a growth rate of less than 0.5 percent over last year.
According to Mr. Ryan, this is "a few steps in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough to limit discretionary spending."
Mr. Nussle said he hopes the administration will be willing to take a look at homeland security and defense for waste and to "find savings."
"We shouldn't be wasting one penny. We're going to look in every nook and cranny," he said.
Mr. DeLay and Mr. Nussle said they are getting many suggestions from Republicans, including possibly trying to save money in the government's massive mandatory spending side, or possibly a "rescission" bill that would essentially take back some of the money handed out in the last round of spending.
Mr. DeLay stressed that all Republicans, including the White House, are willing to work together to craft a 2005 budget that can get 218 votes in the House.
Some lawmakers said on the condition of anonymity that a few colleagues were so angered by the huge disparity in estimated costs and the latest budget projections on the prescription-drugs program that they are discussing a move to rescind the benefits.
Conservatives outside Congress are also picking up the call. Michael Schroeder, former California Republican party chairman, said he and fellow conservatives want to see rescission of the drug benefits passed last year.
"We can't afford another federal entitlement for drug benefits," he said. "Its cost already has escalated from $400 billion in the congressional estimate to $540 billion in Bush's estimate."
"Our voters know that there has never been a federal program in history that didn't end up costing many multiples of the original number, and this one will go into the trillions of dollars," he said.
The chairman of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) gave spending hawks more cause for concern yesterday, saying that the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will require another supplemental defense appropriations bill next year.
Testifying before Mr. Nussle's committee yesterday, OMB chief Joshua B. Bolten said the administration will ask for another supplemental spending bill this year to fund the war on terrorism in those two countries.
He said the administration does not currently know how much it will ask for, though the 2004 costs for these efforts is about $50 billion.
"We have a budget here that you are telling us is incomplete," complained Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat.
Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, said some members of the Republican Study Committee said even conservatives who want further budget cuts are nonetheless adamant about retaining and making permanent Mr. Bush's tax cuts.
In his hearing yesterday, the first on the administration's proposed budget, Mr. Nussle made it clear that he also supports the Bush budget priorities of investing in defense, cutting wasteful spending and making Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent.
"I can guarantee you that we will support that in our budget," he told Mr. Bolten, referring to the permanent tax cuts.
Mr. Bolten told committee members that tax cuts have stimulated the economy and that continuing that tax relief, as well as holding down non-defense, non-security discretionary spending, will help cut the deficit to 1.6 percent of the GDP by 2009.
"This deficit reduction is the combined effect of economic growth and spending restraint," Mr. Bolten said, adding that economic growth will "bring us out" of debt.
Mr. Pence says that is not good enough and some members of the Republican Study Committee want to eliminate the deficit over five years, rather than just cut it in half as the administration seeks.
Back to Nation/Politics
Below is a article from today's Washington Times.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040204-121105-6513r.htm
GOP lawmakers plan cuts in Bush budget
By Ralph Z. Hallow and Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Congressional Republicans, in an extraordinary break with the White House in an election year, say President Bush's 2005 budget proposal "doesn't go far enough" to restrain government spending and are considering pursuing further cuts in outlays.
Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee, yesterday said Republicans and the White House should even be willing to trim wasteful spending in the Defense and Homeland Security departments.
"We also have to look at defense and homeland security," Mr. Nussle said, referring to Mr. Bush's effort in his $2.4 trillion proposed budget to eliminate or scale-back inefficient or wasteful federal programs. "My bet is that there is some [waste] going on."
Also in the sights of some congressional Republicans is last year's prescription-drug benefit, which the president's budget team now says will cost $140 billion more than first estimated, angering the party's base at a time when Mr. Bush's approval rating is slipping.
The president is now suffering the lowest job approval rating of his presidency as measured by the Gallup poll, at 49 percent, down from 63 percent just after the capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"Our party's credibility on spending is slipping. We need to get that credibility back," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.
Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican and chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, said a bloc of about 90 House Republicans, both conservatives and moderate "deficit hawks," want to cut or freeze a number of discretionary spending programs beyond the reductions proposed in the president's plan.
"I think we need to do a little more," than what Mr. Bush proposed, said Mrs. Myrick — who backs an outright freeze or a reduction of all discretionary spending.
"We're saying his budget does some good things but still leaves total spending too high and won't satisfy the conservative base — the people back home we're hearing from," Mrs. Myrick said. "People back home are very upset with spending."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, said that the theme of controlling government spending was the "real thrust of the conversation" at the House and Senate Republican retreat last weekend.
The Bush budget would boost defense spending by 7 percent and homeland-security spending by 10 percent, but hold all other domestic discretionary spending to a $2 billion net increase, which comes out to a growth rate of less than 0.5 percent over last year.
According to Mr. Ryan, this is "a few steps in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough to limit discretionary spending."
Mr. Nussle said he hopes the administration will be willing to take a look at homeland security and defense for waste and to "find savings."
"We shouldn't be wasting one penny. We're going to look in every nook and cranny," he said.
Mr. DeLay and Mr. Nussle said they are getting many suggestions from Republicans, including possibly trying to save money in the government's massive mandatory spending side, or possibly a "rescission" bill that would essentially take back some of the money handed out in the last round of spending.
Mr. DeLay stressed that all Republicans, including the White House, are willing to work together to craft a 2005 budget that can get 218 votes in the House.
Some lawmakers said on the condition of anonymity that a few colleagues were so angered by the huge disparity in estimated costs and the latest budget projections on the prescription-drugs program that they are discussing a move to rescind the benefits.
Conservatives outside Congress are also picking up the call. Michael Schroeder, former California Republican party chairman, said he and fellow conservatives want to see rescission of the drug benefits passed last year.
"We can't afford another federal entitlement for drug benefits," he said. "Its cost already has escalated from $400 billion in the congressional estimate to $540 billion in Bush's estimate."
"Our voters know that there has never been a federal program in history that didn't end up costing many multiples of the original number, and this one will go into the trillions of dollars," he said.
The chairman of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) gave spending hawks more cause for concern yesterday, saying that the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will require another supplemental defense appropriations bill next year.
Testifying before Mr. Nussle's committee yesterday, OMB chief Joshua B. Bolten said the administration will ask for another supplemental spending bill this year to fund the war on terrorism in those two countries.
He said the administration does not currently know how much it will ask for, though the 2004 costs for these efforts is about $50 billion.
"We have a budget here that you are telling us is incomplete," complained Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat.
Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, said some members of the Republican Study Committee said even conservatives who want further budget cuts are nonetheless adamant about retaining and making permanent Mr. Bush's tax cuts.
In his hearing yesterday, the first on the administration's proposed budget, Mr. Nussle made it clear that he also supports the Bush budget priorities of investing in defense, cutting wasteful spending and making Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent.
"I can guarantee you that we will support that in our budget," he told Mr. Bolten, referring to the permanent tax cuts.
Mr. Bolten told committee members that tax cuts have stimulated the economy and that continuing that tax relief, as well as holding down non-defense, non-security discretionary spending, will help cut the deficit to 1.6 percent of the GDP by 2009.
"This deficit reduction is the combined effect of economic growth and spending restraint," Mr. Bolten said, adding that economic growth will "bring us out" of debt.
Mr. Pence says that is not good enough and some members of the Republican Study Committee want to eliminate the deficit over five years, rather than just cut it in half as the administration seeks.
Back to Nation/Politics
grnzbra
Member
Consider this:
If it's close, vote Republican. However if it's a sure win for either major party, vote for the third party. (for Presidential election, question is if your state is close). My thinking is that in a close race, you could throw the election to the guy you don't want in there. If it isn't close, it won't make a difference in the outcome, but if the Republicans see a lot of votes going to, let's say, the Libertarians, they might just get the message that we shooters do have alternatives. If you just sit out the election, you don't send any message other than appathy.
Look here grnzbra:
I think you've got a point, however my thought is that the libertarians have not earned any credibility. Your approach seems a mite macchiavellian to me. I would want a libertarian president even less than a Democrat one (if you can believe that)!!
The spokespersons for the L party have machine gunned themselves in the foot, imho, as Jay Leno said about Howard Dean.
At least with a R or D you are getting a corrupt SOB who admits it. When you get a lib you are going to get an inexperienced, ineffective SOB who desperately wants to become corrupt so he can pack away some goodies for his future. Mebbe that's a little harsh but I'd take somebody who is honestly corrupt than a pollyanna who thinks a lib president is going to make a dime's worth of difference. YMMV
I think you've got a point, however my thought is that the libertarians have not earned any credibility. Your approach seems a mite macchiavellian to me. I would want a libertarian president even less than a Democrat one (if you can believe that)!!
The spokespersons for the L party have machine gunned themselves in the foot, imho, as Jay Leno said about Howard Dean. At least with a R or D you are getting a corrupt SOB who admits it. When you get a lib you are going to get an inexperienced, ineffective SOB who desperately wants to become corrupt so he can pack away some goodies for his future. Mebbe that's a little harsh but I'd take somebody who is honestly corrupt than a pollyanna who thinks a lib president is going to make a dime's worth of difference. YMMV
Waitone
Member
--100%'er on Managed Trade votes while her district suffered significant job losses in textiles and furniture industries. When Pillowtex closed, she was right up front crying FX tears over the poor slobs who lost theri jobs.
--When asked why she supported the DoD's TIA program, she said, "Hey, if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about!"
--Went to the mat trying to get money for a light rail system for Charlotte, a colossal waste of money.
--I haven't check but I bet she supported Bush's Prescription Drug give-away.
This woman is precisely the kind of politician that needs to be put out to pasture. Talking out of both sides of her mouth. Send Myrick home and Bush will begin to listen.
grnzbra
Member
I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to see a Libertarian as President, only that I wanted to send a message to the Republicans to tell them that they shouldn't take us for granted.
The problem is, if we sit out the election and they lose, they have no clue why. They could make any number of assumptions. However, if Bush loses a state he would have lost anyway and sees the Libertarians pulling some unusually large numbers, he and the other Republicans might just get the message that they have strayed too far left.
If voting for the third party is done selectively, I think we can be very effective at what we want without cutting our own throats.
Remember, the economy and all the other things change, but once the guns are taken away, it's very hard to get them back. (Look at yesterday's vote - 130 years and it's still in place)
The problem is, if we sit out the election and they lose, they have no clue why. They could make any number of assumptions. However, if Bush loses a state he would have lost anyway and sees the Libertarians pulling some unusually large numbers, he and the other Republicans might just get the message that they have strayed too far left.
If voting for the third party is done selectively, I think we can be very effective at what we want without cutting our own throats.
Remember, the economy and all the other things change, but once the guns are taken away, it's very hard to get them back. (Look at yesterday's vote - 130 years and it's still in place)
fix
Member
If that's the strategy, then we'd best leave the Libertarians out of it all together. Otherwise, the Republicans might get the impression that they haven't gone far enough to the left. Considering the stance the libertarians take on abortion, homosexuals, open borders, drugs...well shucks, everything but guns and business...we might end up with 2 left wings. The only question then is, do we fly in circles or crash to the ground?
grnzbra
Member
Fine, pick another party. I used Libertarians because that seems like the third party most often mentioned. I just wanted to suggest a third party voting strategy that might be something other than couner productive.
If you think the strategy is worthwhile, perhaps we should discuss the merits of the various third parties.
Daedalus
Member
I am not going to be bullied into voting for a candidate who does not support my interests just because the other guy is worse. I routinely call, write, and email the RNC as to which positions are important to me and which candidates lose my vote because they do not represent them.
Telling the Republicans that I will be voting for a third party and why is the only way I can try to change the party. Rather than lightly applying the brakes to the slide into totalitarianism I would much rather do my best to try and force the Republicans to throw it in reverse.
ojibweindian
Member
You know, here in Alabama the Libertarian Party is making some inroads. Though they have yet to get a candidate into a major political office, they do have enough voters to potentially play the role of spoiler.
The Republican Party in my state had better pay attention, or they could find themselves out in the cold within a few election cycles.
The Republican Party in my state had better pay attention, or they could find themselves out in the cold within a few election cycles.
- Status