Rush is free

Rod,

Rush has indeed for these past years been complaining about the lack of conservatism in the GOP and White House. WHat he said about being "freed" was nothing new at all; it's simply post-facto. He tried speaking prophetically, making a difference. He supported the GOP nonetheless, for the reasons he gave.

I'm not that concerned for the house, but I am terrified about losing the senate because of the great role judges play in american life. With a GOP senate, one would have had the chance of confirming conservative judges. Now we will have no hope.

Rod, I hope you are happy. Your bitterness and influence have, I fear, led in some small part to the loss of the senate, and thus an increase of secularist influence in public life and a decrease of a life-oriented perspective. So the next time Roe v Wade or something similar gets upheld or pro-life laws get struck down, I hope you are happy. Losing the senate was very bad strategy, even if a housecleaning precipitates renewal.>

I'm almost as critical of the Congressional GOP as you are, but in a country with a 2-party system there's something to be said for party loyalty, even it it always means taking half a loaf.

A guy like Rush is a lot happier hurling lighting at the misleaders than cheerleading for the current crop of pigs at the trough. Conyers, Rangel, Pelosi, Reid et al. are going to deliver grist by the carload to Rush's mill. He can't be too upset about that.>

"I can hardly see how you managed to last any time at all at NR."

me neither.>

Rod, you are a moron.

From Harriet Miers to immigration to spending, Rush has been as angry at the administration as anyone. Iraeneus is right: "Rush has indeed for these past years been complaining about the lack of conservatism in the GOP and White House."

Maybe not your brand of conservatism, but that's no excuse for accusing Rush of shilling for the GOP the last few years.

Either you don't know the record, or you don't care what the record says, or you don't have enough gray matter between your ears to avoid making a complete fool out of yourself. There's no way to look at the steaming pile that is that blog post and conclude, there's a man of wit and wisdom.>

Rod, I hope you are happy. Your bitterness and influence have, I fear, led in some small part to the loss of the senate, and thus an increase of secularist influence in public life and a decrease of a life-oriented perspective.

Geez, I had no idea Rod was that influential. Out here in California we've never heard of the guy. I found this blog purely by accident.

Rod writes exquisitely well, he seems a level-headed and thoughtful person, and reading this blog is a high point in my day. But I really do NOT think he can be blamed (or, praised) for any huge influence on the outcome of this election.>

Supreme Court my eye!

If you're looking to end outrages like abortion by going the politics-first route, you are more deluded, on average, than George Bush or the NR Republoshills.

Face it, we have abortion-on-demand because, in this small-R republican form of government, PEOPLE WANT IT. Check out the South Dakota referendum results.

And going the politics-first, "give us the court" route, you're going to have to be worse than Pol Pot to put a stop to it.

So, if you think Rod is a commie lib, go here: http://revolution-21.blogspot.com/>

Here's what I think is being missed here, related to the different "factions" within the conservative movement. The neo-cons tended to be most critical of the GOP on fiscal issues: size of government, amount of spending, etc. The social conservatives were most critical, obviously, on the party's waffling on social issues: abortion, homosexual rights, etc. The paleo-cons were speaking critically on both (see any of the last 4 or 5 issues of 'Modern Age' for examples). So what you had was the fact that no matter what type of conservative one was, there were failures in the GOP that caused one level or another of disenchantment. To some conservatives, this level was high enough to cause them to sit this election out, or even to vote Dem. For others, they voted GOP as the lesser of two evils. What you have to do here with Rush, Hannity, etc. is put them in the same position as the voters by asking A) which category were they in? and B) were they consistent in that category?
(Of course I realize that there is a measure of overlap in these categories or types. They're not three discrete groups.)

If Rush, Rod, or whoever was inconsistent given their views and predilections, then I think we can criticize them. But if they weren't, we may be critical of them for their views, but not for an imagined inconsistency.

I think what John McCain said yesterday was on the money: the GOP had moved from its conservative values on a lot of issues, and the base didn't like it and stayed home. Fact is, we don't really have a conservative party anymore. We have two liberal ones -- one is just considerably more liberal than the other. Both are cars heading for the cliff, it's just that one is going 60 and the other is going 35. This election may be the wake-up call that the GOP needs. I hope so, but I'm not counting on it.>

Well, don't we have some fine pro life justices appointed by Republicans....Stevens, oh, oops, appointed by Ford. Remeber O'Connor, appointed by Reagan, and Anthony Kennedy, ditto. And then there's Souter, appointed by the first Pres. Bush. Of course there's Scalia and Thomas, not discounting them. Alito and Roberts haven't been in there long enough. But the idea that Republican Pres. & Senate = justices opposed to Roe hasn't borne out.

Of course not all Republican court nominees are "pro-life" (i.e., pro-Constitution). Why would they be? Republicans haven't always claimed to be pro-life (Nixon and Ford were both pro-choice -- Ford adamantly so), and the legal profession as a whole is so deeply corrupted by the absurd idea of a judicially changeable Constitution.

Add to that the fanatical obstruction by Senate Democrats which led directly to the Kennedy nomination (after Bork was disgracefully borked) and indirectly to Souter (the "stealth nominee" from New Hampshire), and you don't exactly get perfect results. But that hardly means a pro-life President and a Republican Senate are irrelevent.

Democrats nominate exclusively far, far left justices -- and no one in the media ever calls them on it. And Democrats in the Senate have blocked nearly every first rate Supreme Court nomination. Scalia, former Chief Justice Rhenquist, Chief Justice Roberts, and Alito are all the result of Republican Presidents working with a Republican Senate.

The only first rate justice confirmed by a Democratic Senate was Clarence Thomas, in a close call. And he wouldn't have made it if not for the racial imbroglio raised by the Anita Hill hearings.

So please drop the notion that party affiliation in the White House or Senate makes no difference in the composition of the Courts. It's a claim commonly made by "pro-life" folks when they want to justify voting Democratic -- but it's either dishonest or completely uninformed.>

The dems run the table and the electorate delivers a stinging rebuke to the GOP and to gutless shills like Limbaugh and Hannity.

The most fun I've had in years was listening to the rightwing radio guys yesterday. Mark Levin was nearly crying on the air on election night.

Sweet.>

>Actually, why is anyone in the least interested in the self-centered ramblings of a self-indulgent drug addict?

Professional courtesy.>

Yes, I had the same question as Dovid: if St. Rushbo has always been a critic of the GOP, why does he feel the need to confess to having "carried water" for them?>