May 25, 2010

"Now, Limbaugh has a mantra: 'Real conservatism wins every time it's tried.' "

"By 'real conservative,' he means Reaganite conservatism. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. But it looks to me like it's going to be tested in 2010. And if the Republican Party, having moved to the Limbaugh-Reagan right, scores a big victory, I think that's going to be interpreted in the Republican party as vindication of Limbaugh's belief."

So says Zev Chafets, who has a big new book about the big man. Nice excerpt from the book at the link. And here's an Althouse-blog-supporting link for buying the book.

24 comments:

GMay said...

I'll predict north of 200 posts. I'll speak for Jeremy:

"Stupid racist teabagging idiots. FOX bad!!"

Now that that's out of the way....

former law student said...

So Reagan's borrow-and-spend philosophy -- under his administration National Debt as a percent of GDP stopped decreasing and started increasing -- is "real" conservatism?

I always thought real conservatism was pay-as-you-go.

ET1492 said...

Reagan talked the talk...

mesquito said...

Perhaps this is the book that should have been written years ago. A calm, fair look at Rush Limbaugh. Lord knows there was a market for it, but it could not be written for the obvious political and cultural reasons.

I first became aware of Limbaugh in the late 80s in a tiny mention in National Review. I made a pint when driving across the South to find his show. My first reaction was: what a jackass. But I couldn't trun it off.

Back then, he did a lot of meta material about radio, and broadcasting, and hosting, and communication in general. He literally had to explain the medium while he was building his audience. And he did it in such an amusing way that it became addictive.

He eventually found a home on a station in Corpus Christi, where I lived at the time. What had been a dying medium there -- a.m. radio -- suddenly flowered. His station needed to fill the other 21hours so they got some more syndicated shows, and dropped locals in for drive-time. Suddenly Berney Seal, a local real estate figure, die-hard Democrat, transplanted Alabaman, became a dominant local media figure through an excellent, funny, lively morning show. Rush created an industry.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I've recently been considering giving up conservatism and becoming a liberal as being responsible and following the rules doesn't really seem to pay off anymore.

Scott said...

"Real conservatism wins every time it's tried."

LOL

So, if it doesn't win, it's because it wasn't "real" conservatism!

That's the same tautological mindset that leftists exhibit when you trot out dozens of examples failed socialist and communist societies as evidence of their philosophy's miserable failure:

"But that wasn't REAL socialism!"

Freder Frederson said...

I've recently been considering giving up conservatism and becoming a liberal as being responsible and following the rules doesn't really seem to pay off anymore.

And of course "following the rules" in Rush's world includes doctor shopping for prescriptions, having your maid as your pusher, and sex tourism in the Dominican Republic (with a suitcase full of someone else's Viagra prescription).

Hoosier Daddy said...

Freder I don't care about Rush's world as much as you evidently do.

Scott said...

Maybe Freder could move next door to Rush. That seems to be the trendy thing for a journalist to do when writing about the object of his desire.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I'm writing a book review about it; it just came in the mail yesterday (I love free books!). To someone who really doesn't know much about the man, but loves over the top personalities, it sounds really interesting.

- Lyssa

edutcher said...

That's not Rush's mantra, it's Ann Coulter's.

Every time freder/Montagne/Alpha/HD go after Rush, they seem to think it negates all the corruption and incompetence we've seen in DC since '92.

That's so James Carville.

Scott M said...

The greatest threat, as I see it, to a GOP sweep in November are social conservatives. This isn't to say that a social conservative can't also be a fiscal/policy conservative. It's to say that those conservatives who's main issues fall into the abortion/gay marriage/no dancing on sunday areas can upset the apple cart by firing up the opponents.

As much as I do care about abortion and don't care about gay marriage, my advice to the social conservatives would be the same stance the right in general takes on the border issue...you must put out the fire first before you can rebuild the house. It doesn't make any sense to fix the washer while the walls are burning around you.

Keep focused on fiscal issues and power grabs. It's highly unlikely the economy and jobs outlook is going to change for the better in the next few months.

Sky Lawyer said...

FLS, the idea that Reagan was a "borrow and spend" guy is ridiculous. The man made a judgment call, facing a House full of institutional leftists. He traded the spending freezes/cuts away in order to get his tax cuts from O'Neill.

But go look at GDP growth and the Dow Jones, circa 1983-2007, or even 1983-today for that matter. Would Reagan still cut that deal if he could see 29 years into the future?

Yeah, I think so.

He also had a big hand in staving off the entitlement collapse, but that gets omitted from every shrieking, ignorance-laden, anti-freedom, "Reagan is bad" diatribe from indoctrinated nitwits like FLS.

Save that stuff for Kevin Phillips.

Bruce Hayden said...

So Reagan's borrow-and-spend philosophy -- under his administration National Debt as a percent of GDP stopped decreasing and started increasing -- is "real" conservatism?

I love the moral relativism. Reagan borrowed to build our military, which was very useful when we went to war when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Obama borrows far, far, far more just to pay off his political constituencies. And this is morally equivalent.

He also ignores that Reaganomics actually worked, while Obamanomics is an abject failure. Note the unemployment rate, after all that massive spending and borrowing over the last year and a half. We were promised that the "stimulus" bill was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. Instead, what it managed to do was hire more government workers and give a lot of them raises (which is where a lot of those "jobs saved" came from - as if those government employees would have somehow given up their gold plated salaries, pensions, and benefits without the raises).

The left has spent the last 20 years trying to prove that Reaganomics failed. Yet, they cannot overcome the fact that despite the tax cuts, tens of millions of jobs were added.

former law student said...

FLS, the idea that Reagan was a "borrow and spend" guy is ridiculous.

Reagan cut taxes; National Debt as a percent of GDP went up. Coincidence?

Consider that under every President since FDR, National Debt as a percentage of GDP went down -- until Reagan.

Interestingly, under Bill Clinton, National Debt as a percent of GDP went down.

But, under Reagan and the two Bushes, National Debt as a percentage of GDP went consistently up.

Twenty years of GOP borrow-and-spend means that when we really could use the money, we find ourselves overdrawn at the bank, and we've reached our credit limit.

What's "ridiculous" is Voodoo Economics. What's ridiculous is cutting taxes and then going to war. What's ridiculous is ignoring cause and effect.

peter hoh said...

Sounds like the "True Scotsman" story.

See also, Texas Sharpshooter.

Sky Lawyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sky Lawyer said...

FLS let me ask you this...this is a very important question, now, and I have yet to hear any good response from any leftist who moans about Republican borrowing:

Do you think we would be in this debt mess now if either of the following two events had occurred:

(a) Tip O'Neill and the House Democrats agreed to Reagan's first proposed budget in FY '82; or
(b)Clinton had relented to Gingrich's proposed budget cuts for FY '96.

How would things be different without those two episodes of rank demagoguery?

But no, blame it all on voodoo economics

Hoosier Daddy said...

FLS let me ask you this...this is a very important question

Hey I got a better question for FLS:

Who controls the purse strings;

a) President
b) Congress
c) Bugs Bunny

This should be easy even for you.

Chase said...

wow!

A post on Limbaugh and I'm only the 20th comment after almost 11 hours?

What's happening to this blog?

former law student said...

Bruce -- I don't doubt that borrow-and-spend was good for the economy -- Keynesian stimulus usually is. I question the wisdom of trying to spend our way out of a recession when there is no recession.

Shouldn't the GOP be in favor of putting something aside for a rainy day?

In the fable of the grasshopper and the ant, does the GOP really want to be the grasshopper?

former law student said...

Clinton? The National Debt as a percent of GDP started dipping again while Clinton was President. Best President we've had in the past fifty years.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (Graphical presentation)

Fen said...

FLS: The National Debt as a percent of GDP started dipping again while Clinton was President.

Thats so cute. You think that since it occured while Clinton was in office, Clinton was the one responsible for it.

Fen said...

And then you'll turn right around and blame Bush for something that happened on Obama's watch.

You're due for a meltdown, FLS. I for one cant wait to see your head explode.