Rush is Wrong
I heard Rush Limbaugh asking someone if they would stop eating at Cracker Barrel because he ordered something that he didn’t like. I don’t even remember hearing anything else from the small portion of the show that I listen to while I’m on lunch.
His analogy is way off the mark. An accurate analogy would be to ask if he would keep going to a restaurant that had nothing he liked, but did manage to have one or two items on the menu that he was able to cram down his throat and manage not to vomit back up.
Let’s get one thing straight, and this means you too, Rightwing Prof, the Republicans are not a party that mostly represents me, but has made me feel let down. They are a lesser of 2 Socialist agendas that I detest.
Tax cuts? Do you realize the tax cuts they passed have a sunset clause. What kind of weasel move is that? They didn’t have the guts to pass a tax cut that would have to be repealed, only not renewed. I want more tax cuts, or better yet, a fair tax or flat tax. The Republicans will never offer that.
Cut social spending? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Borders? That one’s not even funny, otherwise I would say “see above.”
Term limits? “Excellent question.”
War on Terror? We’re fighting a half assed war, and making special exceptions for Palestine, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Half assed effort=half assed results.
I could go on, but I won’t. The point is that I can’t name one thing that The Republicans have to offer me, other than the fact that the Democrats are worse. Even Misha can’t think of a good reason to vote for the Republicans.
It’s funny how Rush and others have criticized the Democrats for running on the platform of “We’re not the Republicans,” and how it’s not a winning strategy. And it’s not, but it’s basically all the Republicans have.
Rest assured, when I vote, it won’t be for the Republicans, but against The Democrats, except Jim Gerlach, who I will vote for and that’s an entirely non-political reason.
Maybe the Republicans should go all out in ’08 and actually make their slogan, “We’re not Democrats.” On second thought, if they did that, I’d be inclined to think their reason for doing so would be to attempt to convince me that they aren’t actually Democrats. That’s something I’m having a hard time believing already.
You may now attempt to persuade me that I’m not always right.
**
Trackbacked on Friday Free For All
Category: Politics [Yawn]
2004–2012
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fitch Is Always At Least Kinda Right…
While I won’t make such wild claims as to think I can persuade him that he’s not always right, I will give my two cents.
……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you whine more about republicans than democrats do
=P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FIARO
Fitch
Is
Always
Right
Occasionally
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Agreed, but I think that they would not be so mealy-mouthed were it not for the Democrats’ constant attacks and spin.
If the GOP had a greater hold on Congress like the Dems did before 1994, they would be as ideologically pure as the Dems were then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, Fitch. You were always right until now. While there’s so much I could argue, I’ll just grab one point.
Term limits are not a good thing. In fact, it stands against what America stands for. Creating term limits is just a cheap way for the opponent to win. Instead of having a better plan than the incumbant, “just wait until he hits his term limit.” If a group of people want to elect idiots, that’s their problem. Who are you to say that their vote isn’t as important as yours?
Good or bad, term limits are not what America should be about. Yes, I know that would most likely have meant another 4 years+ of Clinton, but it would have been what the majority of American voters would have wanted…
…which is exactly what America is about.
Sorry, Fitch. You’re not always right.
*sigh*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmm…I’ve received pay raises over the past four years-some, a couple of hundred a year; one year, a thousand…got my soc. security statement that we all get. My income has decreased steadily. (In the voice of the Church Lady… Geeeee? Could it be taxes????)
I haven’t seen the benefits of the highly promoted tax cuts. I have to support my mom because she got laid off of her job two and half years ago and can’t find another job (she’s in her 60s, so we know how well that bodes for her). She had to take early soc.security. It just covers her personal bills. I was almost out of debt; however, I ended up living off my credit cards, and well…back in debt…shrinking income and increasing responsibilities equals not enough money to pay the bills.
I’m pissed at all of the politicians. Whenever I see one on tv I feel grimy…like I have to shower after I listen to them…they all make me sick these days. I’m a registered Republican, btw (14 years). I heard a campaign ad today and was for certain it was for a Democrat…it was a Republican.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh..and no politician will ever secure the borders…It would piss off too many special interests.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Redneck, what you are saying is that term limits are like not keeping score at our kids sporting events so there aren’t any losers. That just burns me up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RT, the border thing is exactly what I was talking about. The House passed a border security, and enforce existing laws bill. The Senate wanted the president’s bill. My Republican Senator, David Vitter, voted against that piece of crap. I blame W for that one. 100%
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have enough post credentials, criticizing the Republican party, to say that supporting the cram down your throat option is all we have after the primaries.
We do not want to start the seed of a Venezuelan style democracy here in the U.S.A. That is not punishment. It is genuine suicide.
Republican and Democrat aside, how many liberal policy decisions by both parties, plague us now?
Where do most of the liberals thrive?
Once you walk over the hill and start rolling the entitlement snowball down the slope, it will never be purged.
The Democrats will completely end all attempts to secure that Mexican border. They will pull all funding for the GWOT. As bad as things are, they will put size 16d nails in our coffin, with an air nailer set to 120psi.
What is worse, they will blame all the fallout on the ‘last administration’. Their buddies in the press will back them up 100% on that effort. So, there will be no lesson to be learned. It won’t teach anyone, standing on the blissfully ignorant middle ground. Propaganda may be dying, but it still has plenty of life left.
I’ll put up an old one. If you have lemons, make lemonade, then put booze in it to kill the pain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Redneck, what you are saying is that term limits are like not keeping score at our kids sporting events so there aren’t any losers.
No, I’m saying term limits are another political process that takes the choice of the people out of the equation. The only point of the election process is for the majority of people (or electoral college votes) to vote in representatives that they think will best serve their interests. Term limits only limit the power of the people to elect their officials, which makes it (in my view) unconstitutional.
It just seems to me that those that scream for term limits are those that want to kick out their representatives but they’re in a minority and they know they’ll get stuck with a Pelosi or Kennedy for another six years. So instead of trying to garnish more votes for their candidate, they want to cheat by proposing term limits.
I may not like the idea of Pelosi, Kennedy, or Kerry in office for another term, but I absolutely abhor the idea of cheating to get what I want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, actually what I’m saying is that it’s more like saying, “The blue team was league champion last year, so they’ll start every game 3 scores ahead.”
That’s what it is to be the incumbent. Redneck, you’re pretending that candidates for office are competing equally, but they are not.
People are adverse to change. You usually don’t get an incumbent out until they do so poorly they get fired. Just as people stick with a crappy job until they can’t take it anymore.
There may be better opportunites, but people stick with the security of what it is that they know until it becomes unbearable. The same goes for politicians. Most people go in the voting booth (Excepting partisians) and say, “Does my guy deserve to get fired?” If the answer is “No,” then the incumbent gets the vote.
It’s rare for a challenger to beat out an incumbent for a reason other than the voters collectively saying to the incumbent, “You’re Fired!”
Our country never had a President for more than 2 terms until our “benevolent” socialist dictator, FDR. This was based on the idea that we were not to have a ruling class, but rather, people acting in service of the country. After Franklin Dictator Roosevelt’s reign ended, we put a cap on that ever happening again. “Benevolent” dictators go against what this country stands for, not term limits.
To use your comparison, Clinton would most likely still be President if term limits were not imposed on the Presidency. It’s even conceivable that he would remain President so long that people born during his Presidency would grow up knowing know other President, even as they grew old enough to cast their vote, for President Clinton.
And why should they vote otherwise? He’s been President for as long as they know, and as far as they know, things are just fine in America. No reason to change what ain’t broke. Even if the “ain’t broke” is merely a faulty conclusion based on never having learned differently.
The same applies to other positions as well. How many people vote for Arlen Specter again and again, simply because he’s “always” been Pennsylvania’s Senator, and as far as “I” know, he’s doing just fine? you and I may not vote that way, but most people do.
Incumbency is a dangerous advantage when there is no limit to it. It is power that remains unchecked until such time as people decide, “Well, no one could be worse than the incumbent.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with you to a point, but what if the incumbent is the best man for the job? Is it then more fair to force people to vote for two lesser candidates than to let them vote for the best man for the job?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One of these days, I’m going to respond to this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even with Term Limits there is still plenty of time for career politicians to stay in Washington. Three terms in Congress and two terms in the Senate is a long time. And there is always the possibility of a return to State politics. Before WW2 DC was a political backwater where politicians went to get experience before returning to the states where the real politics happened. I don’t think Term limits would return us to that happy condition, but it couldn’t hurt.
Also – incumbant retention rates have skyrocketed since the entitlement state settled in. Incumbents on both sides have learned to milk the entitlement system for community goodwill by “championing” the little guy against those impersonal agencies.
How often have you heard someone talk about how calling their congressman’s office “fixed” the problem they were having with a particular agency. “Likely Voters” are the most likely to use their congressmen’s office this way, since they are more politically aware, and are thus more likely to continue to vote for the incumbent who “helped them out of that bind” regardless of that incumbents voting record.
But that is a topic for it’s own thread…