... How Far Rush Limbaugh Thinks the ‘Republican Establishment’ May Go to ‘Get Rid of the Tea Party’

www.theBlaze.com ^ | Dec. 16, 2013 | Jason Howerton

[grania]

The Republcians know well they have no base except the Tea Party

That's just it. They think they "have" us and blame McCain and Romney losing on needing more hispanic voters. They'll never blame McCain and Romney for not inspiring undecideds who would respond to a constitutional conservative message.

The ptb do think they're superior. Case in point....remember when the big banks collapsed and top management still got multi-million salaries and bonuses? Their argument for that boiled down to nobody else had the superior skills necessary to run complex banks.

The elite has become greedy, insular, and convinced of their own superiority. Bottom line....they think we'll vote for them because we have nowhere to go.

[cripplecreek]

I’m not even a Rush Listener but I pick up enough bits and pieces to know that he does talk about this stuff often.

[thirst4truth]

But the only way we are going to upset these GOP-E’s is to stay registered R. If you are not registered R you cannot vote in the primary, so no tea party candidate can win without registered R teaparty voting. We have to work from within to expand the teaparty base and overwhelm the e’s.

[Colonel_Flagg]

“Republican establishment may in fact be so desirous of getting rid of the Tea Party as its base, they may be willing to lose some elections in order to get rid of their base and put up a new base.”

Some people here are ready to grant their wish. They don't fathom that once their base is gone, there aren't enough liberals left to build them a new one.

[NTHockey]

This is what it comes down to: a) there is a TEA Party candidate opposing Boehner in the primary. Should Boehner lose the primary, expect a Mike Castle response and have GOP-e vote Democratic. OR Should Boehner win the primary, Conservatives should vote Democratic.

GOP-e wants to lose elections, let’s start with Boehner. Boehner must not be allowed to be reelected Speaker.

[Yosemitest]

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.


"Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[redfreedom]

“I don’t doubt they might be this dumb, but where do they think a “new base” will materialize from?”

My thoughts exactly!

I see two general bases, the marxist bunch (Dems), and the ones that want America left alone or returned to what it was (GOP).

From my narrow perspective on this, their new base would have to materialize from the commie sector, proving beyond a shadow of doubt they are democrats with a different name. Maybe they think they can pickup all the illegals once legalized.

If they are successful, goodbye 2nd amendment.

And to be competitive, they’d assume new rolls, such as the Dems becoming full fledged commie’s Stalin style. And the GOP becoming full fledged national socialists, Hitler style.

[RichInOC]

It profits a man nothing to gain the whole world and lose his soul. It profits him even less to lose both.

[Yosemitest]

I agree.
WELL SAID !

[Rock N Jones]

“if he really thinks this country is doomed, he needs to put his money where his mouth is and run for office”

That would be the dumbest thing in the world. As a politician his voice would be limited. The left does everything it can to marginalize him. Why are you knocking him? But Rush is strong and relative as a commentator that is if you are a conservative and that is where he should stay and I am sure will stay.

[NELSON111]

>>>But the only way we are going to upset these GOP-E’s is to stay registered R. If you are not registered R you cannot vote in the primary, so no tea party candidate can win without registered R teaparty voting. We have to work from within to expand the teaparty base and overwhelm the e’s.

You have to work that way perhaps in your state. Not in mine. And this isn't about the primary. I agree...vote conservative in the primary. I am. And if some RINO wins the primary...I STAY HOME.

BTW...I've told my very conservative congressman (Weber-TX) that if he votes for Boehner...he won't get my vote again....no matter HOW far to the right he is. It's like a dem saying he's pro-gun...pro-drill baby drill...blah blah blah. if you vote for Nancy...it doesn't matter HOW far to the right you are...because YOUR agenda and philosophy isn't what will be voted on.

[Carry_Okie]

“Republican establishment may in fact be so desirous of getting rid of the Tea Party as its base, they may be willing to lose some elections in order to get rid of their base and put up a new base.”

"May be"??? They're already visibly working on it. There is a huge recruitment drive going on in colleges right now. I've received at least four phone calls. They're baiting the kids with fighting ZeroCare, and marginalizing conservatives as extreme over gay marriage.

[Yosemitest]

"And if some RINO wins the primary...I STAY HOME."

Bad idea.
Vote AGAINST the RINO, even it it's voting for a nobody.
We MUST take the RINO OUT !!!

[Yosemitest]

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

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 but 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!

[rollo tomasi]

Thi$ i$ what the GOP want$ to attract more of:

WALL STREET DEMS: VALERIE JARRETT LACKS ANY BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3102220/posts

Problem is those Biblical focus along with Politically incorrect Christian Neanderthals and those non-secular as well as back-words thinking Orthodox Jews are in the way of the Republican dynasty.

The new base, the rich immoral jaded democrat voter along with the immoral disinterested citizen (Millions of them) who just have been bitch-slapped in the face and awoken to reality by politics, in this case the ACA.

[VRW Conspirator]

They started shedding Tea Party types last cycle through redisticting.

Bingo. Alan West was an obvious and sterling example of what the republicans need more of. He was my choice as a VP candidate for Romney. Herman Cain said he could draw 1/3 of the black vote. And how many other minority votes could he have garnered? With that in mind, and being from Florida (swing state), Romney choose...Ryan. West was just too conservative for them.

[saganite]

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand?

[Chances Are]

Put quite simply, all we really want is...

A choice, not an echo!!!

CA....

[TADSLOS]

The UNIPARTY is in full swing. The GOP and Dems as political parties are just so much eleborate window dressing- play pretties to give voters something to latch onto like lil’ chil’run and keep them occupied in the back seat. There’s a political class and influence peddlers running things with our money and there’s the rest of us.

[Carry_Okie]

Whatever Reagan did when he ran against George Christopher is what we need to emulate.