Rush Limbaugh's Prediction

Darth Rotor said:
Some of my friends did for the core reason of BushCo's betrayal of Reagan Conservatism.
Click to expand...

DR, I agree that the vote cannot be construed to be that liberalism has risen ascendent in American politics. Such a conclusion would be incorrect IMO.

But if I may derail for a bit, what exactly is "Reagan Conservatism"? It sure wasn't smaller govt as evidenced by his budgets and huge deficits.

Lurker
 
Mephisto said:
Why does anyone listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore? He's a shameless, drug-addled hypocrite who has been pissing on liberal Americans (who are now the majority)
Click to expand...

Actually, many people have pointed out this is hardly a victory for liberalism. It's an anti-Bush vote, which is not the same thing by any means. As George Will points out, nobody is talking about nationalized health care. Nobody is talking about restoring the 70% top tax rate that was in effect when Reagan first took office. That these things are off the Democrats' table is a conservative victory, regardless of the failure of the Republican party itself in the recent election.
 
Darth Rotor said:
WTF are you talking about? Are you channeling Z-N here? Damage control? How about my unemotional analysis of an election. I am not a Republican. You can take your attempt to tar me with some straw brush and shove it where the sun don't shine. I don't need some talk radio jagov to think for me, I do fine on my own. Shills like Hannity or Limbaugh aren't men of substance, they are all flash, no boom.
Click to expand...
And yet, this is exactly the same song those shills (at least Hannity and the local guys) are singing now that the election is over.

Darth Rotor said:
The swing vote, which the Democrats captured in this election (good for them!) is hardly "liberal." Or, maybe it is, if we establish what a liberal is before we examine Mehpisto's assertion, and in doing so, find it to be right or wrong.
Click to expand...
And yet, when the Republicans won by narrow margins in the past few elections, it was generally trumpeted as a win for conservatism. Correct?

Why are the swing voters conservative when they swing Republican but "hardly liberal" when they swing Democrat?

You are correct that the terms are ambiguous and slide around depending on perspective of who is using the terms. However, using the generic definition of the words, the US has always favored liberalism over conservatism. Even the Reagan Conservatism ideas of free market and less government are liberal, anti-authoritarianism ideas.
 
There must be a word or a phrase that describes someone who is basically irrelevent but tries to keep promoting themselves as someone meaningful and important ....

Charlie (ah yes, that would be a "Rush Limbaugh") Monoxide
 
Lurker said:
But if I may derail for a bit, what exactly is "Reagan Conservatism"? It sure wasn't smaller govt as evidenced by his budgets and huge deficits.

Lurker
Click to expand...
Depends on who is talking, doesn't it? ;) IIRC, the school voucher program was one of the Reagan Conservatism initiatives. (Not one I am too keen on, personally.)

He spent more money on defense to fix the Hollow Force. He reformed the tax code (for better and worse), sold a platform of "smaller government," set the stage for closing out the Cold War, attracted conservative Dixiecrats away from the Democrat party, initiated considerable deregulation and privatizatiopn (airlines, electric power for example) and opened the door for a swing back to the Right when "the Pendulum" had, for 20 years, been swinging to the left. His Sec Def, Casper Weinberger, crafted the most coherent policy for use of US Armed Force that I've ever seen, called "The Weinberger Doctrine" that BushCo shredded and burned in their zeal for the Iraq war. (The FY87 DoD budget was, as I recall, the first of a series of Defense Budget reductions that Cheney carried forward as Sec Def under Bush. )

IIRC, Reagan did began the first drawdown in the size of federal government, but that took some years to reach fruition. (Rome was not burned in a day.) His team unloaded a number of programs onto "the states," but that was a mixed bag. While the idea was "get Washington out of your knickers" unfunded mandates are still a pain in the arse to states and localities that have to find funds for their implementation. He took steps toward reduced protectionism. He was working with a hostile congress, so his actual reach was a bit reduced.

I tend to agree with you that some of his "greatest hits" grew in the telling. ;)

Reagan gave away massive quantities of "Gubmint Cheese." :D The strategic dairy reserve was pillaged, for promotion of the general welfare. ;)

A lot of "protect the border" folks seem to forget his 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants.

DR
 
Beerina said:
Actually, many people have pointed out this is hardly a victory for liberalism. It's an anti-Bush vote, which is not the same thing by any means. As George Will points out, nobody is talking about nationalized health care. Nobody is talking about restoring the 70% top tax rate that was in effect when Reagan first took office. That these things are off the Democrats' table is a conservative victory, regardless of the failure of the Republican party itself in the recent election.
Click to expand...

I am hearing some strong liberal initiatives. Some seem OK, others not, so I will try not to be bias, just state the liberalism I am hearing on NPR and CNN, etc.:

1) Withdrawal of Iraq to start in 6 months
2) Taxing big oil and removing its loopholes
3) Raising taxes in general to pay to reverse global warming effects
4) Increase dependence on nuclear
5) Exploratory committees to form to examine non-bid military contracts
6) Push toward gay marriage
7) Push toward government funding of embryonic stem cell research

I currently drive a lot for my work, and this seems to be what I am hearing getting airtime.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Not much will change in the next two years. Not really. The Executive Branch of the government is in charge of conducting war. And every report I have read from every source says it is not rational to think that we can pull our troops out right away.

But Rush Limbaugh made a prediction yesterday. He said that the media isn't going to be so harsh on the government for the next two years because they want to paint a rosy picture now that the Democrats are the majority so that Hillary will become president.

I wonder if his prediction will be true. I wonder if the press will start being nicer to our national government while the government really has not changed overnight like it seems.
Click to expand...

I predict that, regardless of whether Rush's pathetic paranoid prognostication comes true in any quatifiable way, he'll claim, without evidence or by spinning the evidence, that it has. Where do I sign up for the million?
 
steverino said:
I am hearing some strong liberal initiatives. Some seem OK, others not, so I will try not to be bias, just state the liberalism I am hearing on NPR and CNN, etc.:

1) Withdrawal of Iraq to start in 6 months
2) Taxing big oil and removing its loopholes
3) Raising taxes in general to pay to reverse global warming effects
4) Increase dependence on nuclear
5) Exploratory committees to form to examine non-bid military contracts
6) Push toward gay marriage
7) Push toward government funding of embryonic stem cell research

I currently drive a lot for my work, and this seems to be what I am hearing getting airtime.
Click to expand...

Obama was on his book tour here in Seattle, and did speak about a national healthcare program. And then there is the minimum wage increase, a liberal initiative.
 
Upchurch said:
And yet, when the Republicans won by narrow margins in the past few elections, it was generally trumpeted as a win for conservatism. Correct?
Click to expand...
Was it? Are you trying to hold me accountable for that rhetoric? Go fish. Since I prefer moderates (right side Dems and Left side Reps) to Reps and Dems, I fail to see why you are trying to lay that on me. Take it up with the shills.

Please try to pigeon hole me, Upchurch, if you can. I am pro choice, pro intelligent use of contraception, pro legalizing marijuana, pro gun, pro personal accountability, anti-victim status, anti cult of the victim, pro free speech, anti hate speech laws, anti hate crime laws, and pro getting the government the hell out of my business in general. I am pro balanced budget, and pro debt reduction. I have been anti Walmart for about 15 years, and anti McDonald's since 1984. I have been anti Disney since about 1994 (when I read Hiassen's first book. :) ) I am pro nuclear power for power plants, have been for 35 years.

I am increasingly disdainful of the UN as a collective security organization -- I used to be a UN fan -- but it's a necessary body, warts and all, and better than NOT having one. I am for adding Russia to NATO, and for tossing the French out of NATO unless they return to the integated command structure.
I am for pointing and laughing at the WEU and Eurocorps fantasies. I am for getting all US troops out of Okinawa and South Korea. Our task is done there. I am for another massive reduction in the US troop footprint in Northern and Central Europe, but for increased base and logistic investment in the Mediterranean region within the NATO partnership. I am for a nuclear armed Japan. I am for a nuclear armed India. I am indifferent to a nuclear armed Iran. I am anti draft. I am for defending our southern border with a permissive RoE. I am for shooting foreign drug runners on sight on the border. I am pro death penalty, and pro swifter application of it. I am anti War on Drugs policy as implemented, it is an abject failure. I am anti "Three Strikes and you are out" and anti "Federally mandated minimum sentences." I am anti DHS, a bureaucracy that never needed to be made. I am pro Posse Comitatus. Empowerment of governors is a good check and balance, Blanco's screw ups is not excuse to pre empt governorial discretion. :mad: Louisiana got the governor they deserved. (We didn't get Kinky in Texas, which sucks, so we get Rick "The Hair" Perry for a few more years. *Gag*

PS: I am a Christian, and I find Falwell and Robertson to be jagovs, and the Pope a political meddler who needs to get back into his lane.
Why are the swing voters conservative when they swing Republican but "hardly liberal" when they swing Democrat?
Click to expand...
According to whom? As I am not the one who makes those claims, I ask you to take it up with whoever did. Swing voters are those closer to the center in either party, and those who are not party affiliated. I am pro pointing and laughing the Green Party, until they get serious about broadening their platform.
You are correct that the terms are ambiguous and slide around depending on perspective of who is using the terms. Even the Reagan Conservatism ideas of free market and less government are liberal, anti-authoritarianism ideas.
Click to expand...
Which is why, in my opener, I closed with:
"Liberals" at the moment may be a plurality in America, but I don't believe they are a majority. If you count the patronage vote in the Rio Grand Valley, for example, you've got a blue band of socially conservative, ethnically bound bloc voters. These people are hardly "liberals."

Perhaps if you more clearly define what a "liberal" is your assertion would sell better.

The classical "liberal," the TR-Progressive liberal, the FDR liberal, the Adelai Stevenson liberal, or the post JFK "liberal?"

Who are you talking about?
Click to expand...
So, with my having opened the door to consider "liberal" you accused me of spin doctoring, and then insulted me with charges of being some sort of Limbaugh/Hannity apologist.

I suggest you get that notion out of your head.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Likewise in Ohio.
Click to expand...

I'm an Ohioan and the exact type of voter DR is talking about. Voted a straight Democratic ticket this time around in protest to the big-spending, socially intrusive "conservatives" in the current Republican party.

Obviously, one ancedote doesn't prove the trend, but we are out there.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Not much will change in the next two years. Not really. The Executive Branch of the government is in charge of conducting war. And every report I have read from every source says it is not rational to think that we can pull our troops out right away.

But Rush Limbaugh made a prediction yesterday. He said that the media isn't going to be so harsh on the government for the next two years because they want to paint a rosy picture now that the Democrats are the majority so that Hillary will become president.

I wonder if his prediction will be true. I wonder if the press will start being nicer to our national government while the government really has not changed overnight like it seems.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the usual Republican tirade about the media.

Republicans love to state how the "media" treats Democrats better than Republicans. While such statements serve to get the Republican base motivated, they seldom have any basis in fact.
 
Beerina said:
As George Will points out, nobody is talking about nationalized health care.
Click to expand...

Hillary is...

She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care _ a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."
Click to expand...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/13/D8LCB6GO0.html
 
steverino said:
I am hearing some strong liberal initiatives. Some seem OK, others not, so I will try not to be bias, just state the liberalism I am hearing on NPR and CNN, etc.:

1) Withdrawal of Iraq to start in 6 months
2) Taxing big oil and removing its loopholes
3) Raising taxes in general to pay to reverse global warming effects
4) Increase dependence on nuclear
5) Exploratory committees to form to examine non-bid military contracts
6) Push toward gay marriage
7) Push toward government funding of embryonic stem cell research

I currently drive a lot for my work, and this seems to be what I am hearing getting airtime.
Click to expand...
I hear a lot of this too, but mostly it's from speculation, pundits, etc. In other words, I have yet to hear one elected Dem tout "raising taxes in general," for example, but rather a lot of speculation, spin, and all that on the subject.
 
Crossbow said:
Sounds like the usual Republican tirade about the media.

Republicans love to state how the "media" treats Democrats better than Republicans. While such statements serve to get the Republican base motivated, they seldom have any basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Only fools believe the media is liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom