Welcome to Rush-Matters.com. Rush Limbaugh is our only focus here. All we do is discuss Rush Limbaugh and topics related to him. That's why we are "all Rush, all the time." Everything you want to know about Rush Limbaugh is right here. If it isn't, let us know and we will find it for you. Whether you love him or loathe him you have to admit that Rush matters to the American people. So, why not write and tell us what you think about him. We want this to be where you come to talk about Rush. Take your time and look around. We appreciate having you here.

Author Archive

All of us at Rush-Matters.com applaud Rush Limbaugh for caring about animals and animal rights. Kudos to you, Rush, for doing this.

We welcome your comments on this PSA.

Categories : Current Events
Comments (0)
Close political adviser to Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, John Weaver, is reported to have said:

“If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout.”

Do you agree or disagree?

Categories : Current Events
Comments (2)

Does Rush Have What It Takes?

Posted by: admin | Comments (0)

Do you think Rush Limbaugh has the temperament to be president of the United States?
Why or why not?

In his new book, Joe Scarborough had this to say:

“Conservatives always like to talk about Ronald Reagan,” said Mr. Scarborough. “They remember Reagan’s ideology but they forget his temperament.”

“Reagan temperamentally was incapable of hating,” said Mr. Scarborough. “If people wanted to fight, scratch, claw and yell, he always rose above that. That’s what the Republican Party needs to do. … If Reagan were alive today, he wouldn’t be calling Barack Obama a communist. He wouldn’t be calling the next Supreme Court justice—what did he call her?”

Discussion jumping off point:

Ronald Reagan’s temperament is contrasted with Rush Limbaugh’s in Joe Scarborough’s new book The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America’s Promise
Categories : Discussion
Comments (0)

For an opposing viewpoint click here.

In a recent television interview, former Vice President Dick Cheney endorsed Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell, saying that in terms of being a Republican, he’d go with Limbaugh. This statement by Dick Cheney really hit a nerve. Why, some might ask.

Well, it is simple. Let’s dissect Colin Powell’s service to his country, as opposed to Rush Limbaugh’s.

First, Powell earned an MBA from George Washington University after his second tour in Vietnam. He was a captain, then was promoted to major while serving in Vietnam. He also served in South Korea and in Frankfort, Germany. He assisted in the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the 1986 airstrike in Libya.

Ronald Reagan selected him as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He went to second lieutenant in 1958 and to general on April 4, 1989. Today, he is a four-star general. He also served as secretary of state under George Bush.

Now, let’s review Rush Limbaugh’s record. First, he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State after high school and dropped out after only two semesters. His mother said, “He flunked everything, even dance class.” Basically, that’s it. He then became a radio guy.

To read what Joe Scarborough thinks of Rush Limbaugh calling Colin Powell a “liberal” click here.

“When I hear Rush Limbaugh and others calling Colin Powell a ‘liberal’ I just have to laugh because there is nothing liberal about Colin Powell’s approach towards foreign policy,” he said. “So what is a conservative? A conservative conserves taxpayer dollars. A conservative doesn’t engage in military adventurism. A conservative doesn’t add seven trillion dollars to entitlement programs that are already going bankrupt. A conservative shows restraint.”

Categories : Discussion, Videos
Comments (1)

Rush Limbaugh and the Founding of America

Posted by: admin | Comments (0)

and Will E. Mack

Thank God Rush Limbaugh was not around to lend his political philosophy to the earnest men who huddled in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787.

rush-with-flagOf late, Rush has made a point of emphasizing his belief that Republicans should oppose Democrats at every turn and never compromise with “the enemy”—namely, liberals.

Imagine if that attitude had prevailed at the Philadelphia convention scheduled to begin on May 14, 1987. Because Rhode Island boycotted the convention, a quorum was not reached until May 25, 1787 when 12 delegations from seven states arrived.

Though 55 delegates total had come to Philadelphia, there was only between 30 and 35 delegates at any one time, sealed in a stifling hot small room no larger than the largest schoolroom in Philadelphia’s state house. Under guard, and sequestered away from the prying eyes of the press and the public, they took a vow of secrecy.

For the next four months, they hammered out compromises that laid the foundation of this nation that has withstood the test of over two hundred years of change. Their goal: devise a strong national government yet somehow limit its power.

Without a doubt, there were deep divisions amongst the delegates. They wrestled with whether the president should stand for reelection. When they hit an impasse, they appointed committees to seek solutions and bring them to the convention as a whole. This was a precursor to the division of labor scheme now used in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

The issue of slavery threatened to destroy any hope of consensus among the delegates on more than one occasion. Though the word “slave” appears not once in the original Constitution, slavery was afforded important protections in the document in order to preserve the fragile union. For example, the Three-fifths clause—it counted only three-fifths of the slave population in apportioning representation—was created to give the South additional representation in the House as well as in the Electoral College. Furthermore, the Constitution forbade the outlawing of the Atlantic slave trade by Congress for twenty years. Also, a fugitive slave clause was added to mandate the return of runaway slaves to their owners. Finally, the federal government was endowed with the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections. These were all compromises that were grudgingly forged after much heated debate.

“The framers of the Constitution believed that the concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government.”

But slavery was not the only thorny issue with which they dealt. It was only one of many. Among the myriad of difficult decisions that were debated:

  • Would the federal government be permitted to veto state laws;
  • Would states be totally abolished in favor of one large nation/state;
  • Would the executive branch consist of a single executive or an executive committee.

Consensus, through compromise, was arrived at on these tough topics:

  • The new nation would have a republican form of government divided among three separate branches—legislative, executive, and judicial;
  • This central government would have the power to levy taxes;
  • The House of Representatives would be elected directly by the populace;
  • Periodic elections would be held;
  • Only the national government would have the power to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade.

Not surprisingly, no one was completely satisfied with the finished product.

Benjamin Franklin said:

I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve…. [But] the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others…. I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.

And, so this nation’s birth was forged through that long hot summer.

Without these critical compromises, and many others like them, America would not exist today as we know it.

I can’t help but wonder if Rush would call Benjamin Franklin a turncoat for accepting compromises on the single most important document in our history, our Constitution.

America today is strong enough to withstand a bovine blowhard like Rush Limbaugh. As a young democracy it is likely America could have died a crib death at the hands of dittoheads and Rush Limbaugh if they had their way. At the very least, America would have failed to thrive under his political philosophy.

Rush Limbaugh’s approach to problem solving would have been bad for a young America. He can’t be good for America today.

[1] Digital History http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=293

[2] Digital History http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=291

Categories : Articles
Comments (0)




Legal Disclaimer

This site is not an official Rush Limbaugh site. It is not affiliated in any way with the Rush Limbaugh Radio show.
© 2008, Rush-Matters.com
All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on this site are the property of their respective owners.