Rush: Cromnibus Designed to 'Eliminate the Tea Party'

breitbart.com ^ | 12/12/14

[cotton1706]

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh railed against provisions in the cromnibus that relaxed campaign finance rules on Friday, saying that it was designed to "basically eliminate [the Tea Party] as a viable threat," and "how corporate America is going to defeat the Tea Party."

He explained "that campaign finance stuff...I'm going to tell you exactly what that is...the limits have practically been obliterated which means that corporate donors can just start giving left and right."

Limbaugh continued "This is how corporate America is going to defeat the Tea Party. By allowing limitless donations from that crowd under the rubric that its campaign finance and money is speech and freedom of speech and 1st Amendment, the theory is that Main Street, Tea Party people can't come close to competing with corporate money and so it is a Republican Establishment ploy that kind of dovetails nicely with Obama siccing the IRS on the Tea Party to basically eliminate them as a viable threat by relaxing a regulation in Dodd-Frank that pretty much permits corporations to spend any kind of money they want on politics."

Earlier, he declared "our Speaker of the House [got] in bed with Obama and advances the Obama agenda, takes care of it, amnesty, Obamacare, fully funded, done deal, the election must not have mattered."

[sport]

You were not supposed to remember that. Or bring it up.

[Jane Long]

Love, love love the idea JimRob....let’s roll.

Just wondering....

Doesn’t their newly passed “higher spending limit” apply only to Congressionally controlled fundraising groups (like RNC/DNC/NRSC, etc)? Or, do the higher limits apply to ALL PACS/SuperPACS?

Just curious....I haven’t been able to figure this out, yet. Thanks to anyone who has the answer.

[no-to-illegals]

“Free Republic PAC!”
Jim, Best Idea of the Century and we can beat 'em in a very short time.

[trisham]

:)

[jjsheridan5]

Maybe, but 5 years is a very short time, politically speaking.

Not all years are created equal. A five year period that includes amnesty is a political eternity, especially when coupled with unlimited funding by businesses similarly hostile to conservatism. By the time the conservatives took over the party (or even just had some influence -- since we are in purely fantasy driven hypothesis, it doesn't matter), we would find ourselves presiding over a minority party in a country so far down the left-wing rabbit hole any move to the right would constitute nothing more than a drop in the ocean.

You may pin your hopes on the increase in "tea party" members in the house (how long they stay "tea party" being a relevant question mark). I, however, do not believe that the establishment will ever relinquish control, and will co-opt or marginalize any new members, and, in all of this, they will have the full backing of the democrat party, business interests, the media, popular culture, and education. I would love to be wrong on this, but I won't be.

This was briefly Reagan's party. It won't ever be again, any more than the Democrat party will be his. Third party is the only possible answer.

[Truth29]

"You obviously have not heard of Sen. Cruz."

Senator Cruz is a shining light, but he will not be taking over the Senate any time soon. Mitch McConnell will be running the show with Cruz trying to advocate as much as he can, but his power is limited.

[Boogieman]

“A five year period that includes amnesty is a political eternity...”

Now who is talking fantasy? There’s already an injunction stopping any implementation of that, and it will never get past the courts, so that is pretty much the end of the story on Obama’s amnesty.

“This was briefly Reagan’s party. It won’t ever be again...”

Well, not with that attitude, it won’t.

[meadsjn]

Conservatism wasn’t on the ballot in November.

However, conservatism was on many earlier primary ballots.

The same people clamoring for a third party, and complaining about the RINOs being the same as Democrats, are the same couch potatoes who don't pay attention to the primary campaigns.

McConnell should be gone. Graham should be gone. Thad Cochran, too. Six or seven others in the Senate should have been the TEA Party candidates. In the House, we did fairly, but people like Boehner should be gone.

[JRandomFreeper]

I expect I'll be doing that a lot.

/johnny

[CodeToad]

“A third party is a fools errand....we MUST eliminate the Boner, McConnel, types ourselves and take over the party.”

And the fastest and surefire way to do that is to vote third party. Not voting for them scares the crap out of them. We’ve been doing what you have suggested since at least 1992. It doesn’t work.

[CodeToad]

You get an national organizer for it and I will gladly donate.

[Ouderkirk]

I will concede that the the GOP doesn’t seem to be worth saving at this point.

But I am physicist by training and I look at the probabilities for success. And, in that light the the odds of a 3rd party overtaking the GOP AND democRATS aren’t good. If history is a guide, 3rd party/indy candidates have done OK, but never really knocked off anyone at the top of the GOP. Perot gave us Clinton, and Nader gave us W.

In order for it (a third party) to succeed you would need to take over (or damned close to it) congress in a single election with a right leaning president who would be willing to work with them. You have someone like the mulatto muslim or Fauxcahontas and you’re toast.

It would literally have to be run like a coup in order to get anywhere close, before the establishment lined up to destroy them. It would need the right candidates line up, in advance, and buckets of money since there is no infrastructure to support it in local government(s). And there is here the 3rd party idea fails.

You would have to start at the town/county level and would take years to build a following and power at the municipal/county levels to influence the state levels to influence the national level.

One has to consider the entire spectrum...not just the pin point.

[jjsheridan5]

Look, I’m not trying to start a fight. I’m just trying to be realistic. Right now I see zero signs of the emergence of a third party in this country.

Not to jump in uninvited, but this is an excellent point/question. In many ways, this is like a stock market crash. You can think that all of the elements necessary are present, but until a crash (or emergence of a 3rd party) actually happens, you cannot know whether you are right or wrong.

Personally, I believe that a third party will be one of those things that happens very quickly (in fact, would have to happen quickly, or it would fail), form out of nothing significant (ie - it won't come from one of the existing parties), and will accelerate like, I don't know, something that accelerates rapidly. Let's say that several senators, a couple dozen house members, and several prominent conservatives in the media, were to announce a new party. I believe that such a party would expand even faster than UKIP did (because I believe that the level of fed-up-ness is even greater, here). All it would take is a spark (or, in this case, a few dozen brave conservatives).

It is worth a shot, because all of the options are non-starters, and we will be lucky if we only slide down to becoming a poor man's Europe.

[CodeToad]

“it will never get past the courts, so that is pretty much the end of the story on Obama’s amnesty.”

Same thing was said of the unconstitutional ObamaCare, so we ain’t buying that line of crap anymore:” The courts will stop him!” BS! We voted in the Republicans to stop him and they ain’t!

[lostboy61]

There is no difference between GOP or Dem communist. The only way for conservative (patriots) to win is by CWII to start as soon as it can. We have gone passed voting box and the ammo box is next up!

[TexasGator]

“Senator Cruz is a shining light, but he will not be taking over the Senate any time soon.”

Don’t underestimate his influence and determination.

[jjsheridan5]

Now who is talking fantasy? There’s already an injunction stopping any implementation of that, and it will never get past the courts, so that is pretty much the end of the story on Obama’s amnesty.

Given that amnesty (whatever it is ultimately called) is supported by the Republican party leadership (and, of course, their money spigot), the Democrat party, and the president, I don't believe it is the height of fantasy to presuppose that it may occur in the next five years. We whacked one mole. But, unfortunately, the mole that is amnesty will simply keep popping up. It is not over. Not by a long shot.

Well, not with that attitude, it won’t.

Not with any attitude, it won't. They intend to crush conservatism. And they have the means to do so, at least within what is, for the foreseeable future, their party.

[JRandomFreeper]

Republicans were a third party. Remember the Whigs?

/johnny

[Moorings]

***Snicker***... Don’t worry, they will all be back in 2016 to tell the “purists” how stupid they are.

[no-to-illegals]

Is interesting that the ‘Cromnibus’ is not a done deal. Would prefer it not be a done deal and that leaves me siding with RATs. Dang, I hate that!!!