RUSH: What Changed Since November 2010? (Tea Party Alert)

www.RushLimbaugh.com ^ | October 13, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

What Changed Since November 2010?
October 13, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: My question to you, after all of this, somebody tell me:
What has changed from November of 2010 regarding the Tea Party?
What's changed?
Chuck Schumer running around, (imitating Schumer)
"We beat 'em back.
Hell, we can't even find 'em, they don't show up anywhere anymore.
Tea Party? They're not professionals, they're just average citizens.
They don't even like government. They don't like politics."
They were fed up for a while, but as far as the Democrats are convinced
you Tea Party are out of energy,
you've had your say, you're watching the Republican nomination,
you're not being listened to, your candidates aren't going anywhere,
you say, "Ah, screw it," and you fold it.

The New York Times has a big story about the Republican establishment trying to marginalize the Tea Party.
So the Washington establishment is convinced the Tea Party's gone.
My question is,
"What has changed since November of 2010 with the Tea Party?"
Now, I understand the power of the media to paint a picture, to create an image.
And they're doing it, and this is what this is all about.
In fact, the Tea Party never really was real.
That's where this is headed, the Tea Party was an aberration.
It was one of those odd things that happens in politics now and then.
You listen to Tea Party people, they're not even as energetic as they were.
There's a school board election (I can tell you this) in Wake County, North Carolina, where every Tea Party candidate got shellacked;
and the Democrat strategy in the campaign was to paint them all as racists.

So the theory is that
the way you beat Tea Party candidates is to call 'em racists,
this from Public Policy Polling. They analyze these elections, which are the essence of local election, school board.
But nevertheless, the theory is that
you can beat a Tea Party candidate by calling 'em racists;
that it's been done in North Carolina and that's the end of it.

So that would be one thing that you might say has changed but aside from that, somebody tell me:
What really has changed from November 2010?
If the 2010 November elections were today, would the results be any different than they were then?
That's what they're trying to tell us.
Chuck Schumer and the Republican establishment are trying to tell us that
if the November 2010 elections were held today, that there wouldn't have been that landslide Republican win.
It wouldn'ta happened.
So the Tea Party is waning when Michele Bachmann has won the only actual vote taken so far, the Iowa straw poll.
Well, Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll, and Herman Cain is leading in most opinion polls --
and Herman Cain's Tea Party.

Seventy percent of Republican voters say they don't like Romney, one aspect or another of Romney. There's the establishment.
The Tea Party's faded away, but somehow their candidates are in serious contention in the polls.
These racist Tea Partiers who have put Herman Cain at the top in the most recent poll.
Herman Cain (you may not know this) is African-American, and he's at the top of the polling data.
And the Tea Party put him there.
But the Tea Party doesn't exist, they're racists and they're fading away.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Brian in Atlanta, great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hello.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, how you doing?

RUSH: I'm okay, sir. Thank you.

CALLER: Well, you said that the Tea Party is shrinking,
and I'm a Tea Party leader here in Atlanta, and I can tell you that is absolutely false.

RUSH: No, I didn't say it.
What I am saying is that
the Republican establishment and the Democrat Party are joined together with the media
in trying to create the impression that the Tea Party's dead.

CALLER: Yeah, wishful thinking.

RUSH: It's still a bunch of racists, but it's dead.
That's what they're trying to do.
And that's been replaced, by the way, in popular culture energy with the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
"Tea Party's gone, this is the real protest movement now, the Wall Street crowd."
That's the impression they're trying to create each and every day in the media,
and it's all being done to dispirit people like you.

CALLER: Well, it's not working.

RUSH: Well, good.

CALLER: You know, people are very jazzed.
I mean we just showed the movie "Agenda" and we almost had to turn people away, and people were fired up.
We were just at an air show, and our booth was constantly busy, people were just telling us keep going,
they wanted to know when the next meeting was, we have people signing up left and right.
It's starting to swell again for the 2012 elections.

RUSH: Well, you and I know this.
I think it's only growing and the passion is only swelling and that's why the ongoing effort here to diminish it.
If the Tea Party had really faded away, they'd be ignoring it,
they wouldn't be reporting it, and they wouldn't have started this Occupy Wall Street.
The whole reason for the creation of the Occupy Wall Street protests is to counter the impact of the Tea Party.
It's all part of a grand design. Stakes are high.
The establishment in Washington, both parties, ruling class, the elites, whatever you want to call 'em, they realize that they face a real threat.
That's why on our side they're trying to secure the nomination for Romney early, get these primaries moved up on the calendar.
They all feel threatened by this.

And what's really odd about it,
the Republican establishment, if it were worth anything, would be looking at the glaring weaknesses of Obama and trying to capitalize on 'em.
And that's not what they're doing. Stop and think about that.
The Republican establishment, I can't find any evidence they're trying to capitalize on this weakness.
The Republican establishment seems to be focused primarily on marginalizing the Tea Party and Tea Party freshmen in Congress.
Now, the Occupy Wall Street crowd, they're down there,
they're demanding more taxes,
they're demanding more freebies,
they're demanding more successful people be thrown in jail.
The Tea Party wants less taxes and smaller government,
who do you think represents real America?
The establishment types know it.
Nothing is changed since November 2010.

Since November 2010 the majority of Americans had not all of a sudden said,
"You know what, we kind of like what Obama is doing.
We like houses being bulldozed in Michigan and now Ohio.
We like unemployment 9.2% and getting worse.
We like the fact that we can't get jobs and nobody is getting raises
and we like the fact our tax rates are gonna go up
and we like the fact that this health care bill that nobody wanted is gonna be implemented."
Yep, yep, everybody, we can see that change.
It's all over the country, right?
That's what they want us to believe.

That's what they want, and if they can't make you believe that,
they want you to believe that the effort to stop this is pointless,
that you're not big enough or strong enough nor large enough to stop it,
and that you don't have a candidate that can stop it anyway.
They just want you to give up.
They want you to pack it in.
They want you to surrender.
They want you to think of yourselves as
totally ineffective, meaningless, and worthless,
that you can't stop 'em anyway
so you may as well stop even caring.
That's what they're after.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, I just asked a question,
the Occupy Wall Street protestors demanding more taxes and bigger government;
the Tea Party wants less --
who do you think represents real America?
Well, continuing with the theme of the day,
I am holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling paper) a TIME Magazine poll:
"Occupy Wall Street Is More Popular Than The Tea Party -- A TIME poll taken on October 9 and 10, with a base of 1,001 people,
has turned up some interesting results about how Americans view the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and dysfunction in Washington."
Now, get this:
"81% of respondents think the country is on the wrong track,
but they're reluctant to place the blame fully on President Obama for the problems;
50% of the respondents disapprove of the way he's handling the job,
but 59% believe that he cares about them..."

What the hell does that have to do with anything?
But they ask it so they can report it.
"[H]alf of the respondents say he has the toughness necessary to see this through.
On an exceedingly grim note, only 4% of the 1,001 polled feel positive about the state of the country today.
The poll asked people to identify which faction of government best represents their views.
30% identified with Democrats, while 17% said Republicans and 12% went with the Tea Party."
So you end up with 29%.
So they admit that their sample is skewed.
So if you're looking for a left-right bias it leans slightly to the left
assuming that designations of Democrats to the left and Tea Party is to the right.

But if you dig even deeper into the numbers, the Tea Party was more hated than Organize Wall Street.
Tea Party had 24% very unfavorable,
Organize Wall Street only 13% very unfavorable,
while Organize Wall Street was more readily embraced,
25% very favorable against the Tea Party's 8% very favorable.
There you have it.
So, according to TIME Magazine, the Tea Party is hated, disliked;
80% think the country's going in the wrong direction, 59% think Obama is about 'em.
And the Tea Party is hated much more than Organize Wall Street.
So it's an-all-out effort now, it is an all-out push.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mark in Houston. I'm glad you called, sir, you're up next the EIB Network.

CALLER: Yes. Thank you, Rush.
"Commandeer" is the appropriate term, and the Tea Party can commandeer the GOP,
especially if you could pronounce the last name of the chairman "Palin,"
but that's not why I called. I believe the Tea Party is very silent because we're just listening.
We're listening.
We got a little bit bamboozled by some of these RINOs in the last election,
but what we don't want to get hit by is some TINOs in this election.

RUSH: So what are you gonna do?

CALLER: We're gonna listen.
We're gonna listen and see
who the guys up there that are talking Tea Party,
and the guys that are up there who are acting Tea Party.
So far, the best guy acting Tea Party is Herman Cain.

RUSH: Well, he's leading in the polls right now.
Newt Gingrich has moved into third place, by the way, in the poll that has Herman Cain at the top of the heap.
By the way, Herman Cain is going to appear on Meet the Press Sunday, it was just announced.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links
• 
  New York Times: Does Anyone Have a Grip on the GOP? - Matt Bai

[Yosemitest]

Rush, you gotta' see the preview of the movie

"AGENDA: GRINDING AMERICA DOWN, Dismantling America’s Heritage.

It's 6 minutes and 40 seconds, and it really is a "must see".
The movie review of "AGENDA: GRINDING AMERICA DOWN" is about a page or two.
The movie can be purchased at Amazon.comAgenda: Grinding America Down, Format: DVD or just click on the photo to the right.

Rush, we must not compromise our values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[YankeeReb]

BUMP for later

[catfish1957]

I still the the left’s demonizing of the tea party will backfire big time. That and this little occupy stunt will be unmasked as the Soros activity it is, and the middle 50% of the politcal spectra will act accordingly.

[NTHockey]

In 2010, three Tea Party candidates for the Senate - Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle and Joe Miller - were defeated because the elites ACTIVELY worked AGAINST the GOP candidates and even crossed over and voted for their opponents.

THAT is how Conservatives are treated in the GOP. Just like the RATs treat blacks. THAT is why I will NOT hold my nose and blindly vote R. And the GOP can KMA if they think I will compromise.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Yosemitest.

[Yosemitest]

We need to start a list of “Establishment Republicans” on another thread, so we can refer back to it,
to identify RINOs we want to replace.

[Yosemitest]

My pleasure, I've only got about 3 hours of formating and linking in this article.
But Rush is the one to thank, not me.

[Yosemitest]

" ... they ask it so they can report it.
"[H]alf of the respondents say he has the toughness necessary to see this through.
On an exceedingly grim note, only 4% of the 1,001 polled feel positive about the state of the country today.
The poll asked people to identify which faction of government best represents their views.
30% identified with Democrats, while 17% said Republicans and 12% went with the Tea Party."
So you end up with 29%.
So they admit that their sample is skewed."

Rush, I'm confused:

30$ plus 17$ plus 12% equals 59%.
100% minus 59% equals 41%.
What do you mean, "So you end up with 29%" ?
I'm trying to understand. Is the poll more skewed, up to 41%?

[radioone]

How come I get this feeling that "Ruling Class Republicans" means the same thing as "we wanna make sure we get our fair share of the "loot" from Washington"??

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[Matchett-PI]

Trent Lott [R] on Tea Party candidates: ‘As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them’

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/07/19/trent-lott-on-tea-party-candidates-as-soon-as-they-get-here-we-need-to-co-opt-them/
12:27 pm July 19, 2010, by Jay

The money quote from a Washington Post piece on the Tea Party and Washington’s GOP establishment:

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”
But Lott said he’s not expecting a tea-party sweep. “I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/17/AR2010071702375.html?hpid=topnews

Republican lawmakers gird for rowdy tea party

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 18, 2010

So who wants to join Rand Paul’s “tea-party” caucus?

“I don’t know about that,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) replied with a nervous laugh. “I’m not sure I should be participating in this story.”

Republican lawmakers see plenty of good in the tea party, but they also see reasons to worry. The movement, which has ignited passion among conservative voters and pushed big government to the forefront of the 2010 election debate, has also stirred quite a bit of controversy. Voters who don’t want to privatize Social Security or withdraw from the United Nations could begin to see the tea party and the Republican Party as one and the same.

(Campaign 2010 map)

Paul, the GOP Senate nominee in Kentucky, floated the idea of forming an official caucus for tea-party-minded senators in an interview in the National Review as one way he would shake up Washington. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), one of the movement’s favorite incumbents, filed paperwork on Thursday to register a similar group in the House “to promote Americans’ call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government.”

In six states — Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, Utah, Colorado and Minnesota — tea-party-backed Republican Senate candidates have won nomination or are favored in upcoming primaries. They are attracting outsize attention not only from Democrats and the media, but from conservative leaders such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Fox News host Glenn Beck.
ad_icon

(Photos: 2010 candidates)

Republicans such as Paul and Sharron Angle in Nevada may hold provocative views, but “they’re our nominees and I think we ought to get behind them 100 percent,” said Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.).

“The candidates are not ours to choose,” said Cornyn, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. “They’re the choice of the primary voters in the states, and I think we should respect their choices.”

Yet some Republicans worry that tea-party candidates are settling too comfortably into their roles as unruly insurgents and could prove hard to manage if they get elected. Paul, who beat GOP establishment favorite Trey Grayson in Kentucky’s primary, told the National Review that he would seek to join forces with GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), “who are unafraid to stand up” and who have blocked numerous bills advanced by both parties deemed by the pair as expanding government.

(Interactive: Campaign 2010 fundraising)

“If we get another loud voice in there, like Mike Lee from Utah or Sharron Angle from Nevada, there will be a new nucleus” to advocate causes such as term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and “having bills point to where they are enumerated in the Constitution,” Paul said in the interview.

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

But Lott said he’s not expecting a tea-party sweep. “I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people,” he said.

Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), who failed to survive his party’s nominating process after running afoul of local tea-party activists, told a local Associated Press reporter last week that the GOP had jeopardized its chance to win Senate seats in Republican-leaning states such as Nevada and Kentucky and potentially in Colorado, where tea-party favorite Ken Buck has surged ahead of Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in their primary battle.

Bennett warned that such candidates are stealing attention from top GOP recruits such as Mike Castle in Delaware and John Hoeven in North Dakota, both of whom are favored to win seats held by Democrats. Nor are they helping the Republican Party to resolve its deeper identity problems, he said.

“That’s my concern, that at the moment there is not a cohesive Republican strategy of this is what we’re going to do,” Bennett told the AP. “And certainly among the tea-party types there’s clearly no strategy of this is what we’re going to do.”

Democrats are hopeful that voters will focus on the potential consequences of tea-party proposals as they decide whether to hand over control of Congress to Republicans. Democratic Party officials said their easiest target, given the recent economic meltdown, is the push to privatize Social Security. A recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 48 percent of voters were “very uncomfortable” with the idea of private retirement accounts, while another 18 percent had reservations.

In Nevada, when state Sen. Joe Heck told a local reporter that he was open to a limited and voluntary version of Social Security privatization, his Democratic opponent, Rep. Dina Titus, declared he had endorsed “Sharron Angle and her radical agenda.” The Senate candidate has said she wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare as government programs.

Democrats also are trying to tarnish Ron Johnson, a DeMint-endorsed businessman who is backed by tea-party groups and establishment Republicans in his bid take on Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). When Paul raised his caucus idea, Democrats put the question to Johnson.

“The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is asking Tea Partier Ron Johnson to tell Wisconsin voters if he would join Rand Paul’s ‘tea party caucus,’ “ read a DSCC statement released Thursday. Johnson’s campaign did not respond to The Post’s request for comment.

The Democratic National Committee seized immediately this week on a billboard sponsored by a local tea-party group in Mason City, Iowa, depicting President Obama next to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. “Republicans keep saying that they aren’t extremists — but they keep doing things like this,” wrote DNC Executive Director Jennifer O’Malley Dillon in a fundraising letter.

The billboard also forced Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who faces a tough challenge from Democrat Roxanne Conlin, to issue a careful rebuke. “I believe that you should always leave personalities out of it and talk policy,” he said in an interview.

But Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) said he’s still not sure of the tea party’s broader political impact. “I don’t know whether it causes a fracture in the Republican Party or provides more energy,” Cardin said. “But there are a lot of Republicans who are uncomfortable, and my gut is, at least in the short term, that will cause some problems.”

[SunkenCiv]

:’) It looks nice.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks. I was trying to make it easier to absorb, plus add links for supporting information.
And I believe pictures always help.