[Yosemitest]

Rush, thanks again.
Let's remember what a great man said.

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

September 21, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, this is a little Inside Baseball, but it's important because
he who controls the language ends up winning the debate,
and it might seem like a small thing, but I have learned and I have been given to understand that the "establishment Republicans" hate the term.
They don't like being called "establishment Republicans,"
and they are trying to change the term to "establishment conservatives" and in the process co-opt the definition of "conservative" and conservatism.
It's not something that you'll notice if you watch cable news or even read.
You have to be able to see the stitches on the fastball, you have to be able to read between the lines,
and you have to know some stuff going on behind the scenes
(and, of course, I am in a position to know these kinds of things).

So don't doubt me on this. The establishment Republicans are the ;establishment Republicans.
The Republican leadership is the Republican establishment, meaning the elites.
They hate it and they are in the process of trying to redefine who conservatives are and what it is --
and if they succeed, the conservatism that you and I hold dear will no longer be the definition of conservatism.
If they succeed, the current thinking of the Republican establishment will be what is called modern day conservatism.
Don't doubt me on this.
It sounds like a small thing, but in a daily ebb and flow you'll not even see any news about this,
but it's in important because it's crucial who controls the language, who controls the way words are defined.

You and I know that the establishment Republicans don't like conservatives.
They didn't like Reagan.
They were embarrassed of Reagan.
They were embarrassed of us.
They didn't like the Moral Majority, they didn't like the Christian right, they don't like the pro-lifers.
They don't like the social conservatives at all.
They're embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats --
which combined gives us the Washington establishment,
and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours.
But they know that it doesn't help them to be called "establishment Republicans."
So they're trying to take the term "conservative" and co-opt it
and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics.

END TRANSCRIPT

"Establishment Republicans" are Lying to Us With Threats of a Dire Default

Let's remember:

Never stand and take a charge... charge them too.

Someone on another thread said

"... Constitutional limitations of government power especially freedom of the press and speech, are designed to make government impotent in the absence of a general consensus ..."

But with the press not doing its job, and the LAME Stream Media trying to silence speech they don't agree with,
we're in a real mess and under attack by an evil force rarely seen in this country.
The Republicans and the God-Given freedoms this country has enjoyed so far, are descending into oblivion.
And the "Establishment Republicans" aren't doing a damned thing to stop it.
The "Establishment Republicans" aren't providing "the boots on the ground" to win.
They're trying to put the public back to sleep, lying to them, in order to keep their power, and "wreck the country as it commits suicide".
So now the "Establishment Republicans" have "fractured their base" and,
because they have taught us "that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics",
they're going to lose, and lose big, if they don't swing to the hard right wing of what used to be their party.
How many conservatives have re-registered as "Conservative Party" or "Independent" because they're fed up with being lied to?
We've been "treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience” ", and we're sick of it.
We don't trust them any longer.

Look, Rush said it best....

Now, the fact that the Republican establishment cannot make that case and other arguments
tells me that they may have already surrendered,
and this is a big difference between us and the establishment.
They're in this defensive posture, I've told you,
I said on Greta how many times, a lot of people inside the Republican establishment secretly don't even believe Obama can be beaten.
And that's why they want Romney,
'cause they think at least Romney will help 'em take the Senate.
He'll lose less down the ballot than Gingrich or some conservative will.
But conservatives, you Tea Party activists, you don't want to give up
and you haven't given up,
and you don't want to accept this propaganda from the left.
We insist on challenging it, we insist on fighting it
'cause there's no other way to save the country,
and continually playing these games
letting the Democrats rewrite the language, change the definition of things,
get away with false accusations against us, never do anything about it,
constantly stay on defense.

So now, because of the Establishment Republicans" there's not just a candle lit, but a bonfire lit ...
in the very heart of the conservatives, and it will burn away the dead wood that is "Establishment Republicans."

Yes, it's time to curse the "Establishment Republicans" for every thing they've NOT DONE!
And CURSE THEM for most of the things they HAVE DONE!

"Attack, repeat, ATTACK!"


"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 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped our.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my 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 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!

[Sybeck1]

I pay Rush sixty dollars a year, just for him to defend a rino

[Sybeck1]

I pay Rush sixty dollars a year, just for him to defend a rino

[Utmost Certainty]

Rush misunderstands big time what Newt is really saying. It's an unfortunate reflection on many Republicans that they don't seem to understand it either.

Newt's case is simple:

1) Romney's vaunted "private sector experience", is of a particular kind that's going to represent a huge liability in the general election. Nobody's asserting that Bain Capital's actions were necessarily illegitimate nor unlawful, but it's obvious that Romney was no white knight of heroic, entrepreneurial capitalism.

2) Questions on business ethics are legitimate inquiries that one should have to answer for, especially if they're running for public office—these are not attacks on capitalism, and it's completely goofy that some would construe it that way. Those advocating a "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" attitude towards private enterprise activity, aren't doing capitalism any favors.

[livius]

What the heck is the matter with Rush? This was irrational and I honestly don’t understand what he was trying to say.

Personally, I hold Rush at least partly responsible for electing Obama because of his stupid “Operation Chaos” stuff in the last election. He spent most of his shows talking about the Dems, never focused on the lousy candidate that was being pushed on us by GOP Central, and got people so confused by encouraging them to vote for Hillary in open primaries that the conservative “base,” as he likes to call them, had no idea what to do about getting a decent GOP candidate.

I used to think he was having problems answering callers because he didn’t hear them very well, but now (with the supposed wonder hearing aids he keeps pushing) I have no idea what he is doing.

[CainConservative]

Rush getting mushy.

All the sweeter it will be when Newt wins SC and it becomes a whole new ballgame.

Grassroots versus Establishment.

[Sybeck1]

I pay Rush sixty dollars a year, just for him to defend a rino

[Sybeck1]

I pay Rush sixty dollars a year, just for him to defend a rino

[montag813]

Newt went over the line on FoxNews this morning, telling us when Capitalism is ok, and when it’s not. Telling us the difference between profits which are ok and those which are too much. I thought he would find lots of nastiness in the Bain records. Instead he is parroting Oliver Stone from “Wall Street” and portraying venture capitalists like Romney as Gordon Gekko. Newt actually said that capitalists should reduce their profits to share with the workers “who made the profits”. Isn’t that a Leftist position? This is a VERY risky play. Democrats are giddy today. One of them said that the “greedy capitalists” position is no longer a left-wing one, but a centrist one, because of Newt and Perry’s attacks. I am increasingly convinced that we need someone new to come into this race - perhaps someone who has already refused.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Ping

[Pelham]

In Rush’s imagination ‘conservatism’ often seems to equate to support for the interests of the corporate suite.

This is a far cry from the traditional conservatism of Russell Kirk and the Southern Agrarians, who possessed a healthy skepticism for the world of big business. Not that they were hostile to it, but they certainly didn’t put the mercantile interests of business on their list of first principles.

Try this quote from Kirk’s ‘The Conservative Mind’:

“The United States had come a long way from the piety of Adams and the simplicity of Jefferson. The principle of real leadership ignored, the immortal objects of society forgotten, practical conservatism degenerated into mere laudation of ‘private enterprise,’ economic policy almost wholly surrendered to special interests—such a nation was inviting the catastrophes which compel society to re-examine first principles.”

[elvis-lives]

To be honest, if Newt’s message is that there is a difference between positive, productive capitalism where investors spur growth and innovation to turn a profit for themselves while building a workforce thus producing jobs and a corrupted capitalism that decays the workforce by cynically bleeding companies of wealth and talent before selling off the scraps, then I am for his message.

We knew all along that Obama is going to go full on Class Warfare. Obama will try to paint all capitalists as the latter greedy, evil ilk. Do we want Newt making the counter argument, promoting beneficial capitalism that has historically made this country great, or do we want Romney taking the point on that argument? I go with the gentleman from Georgia.

[PAR]

Haven’t listened to Rush in a while, but as usual, he is right on the mark.

[freekitty]

Rush you know not one of the candidates are anything near the right; therefore a waste of time to try and push. They won’t fit.

Stop now and hold our own election. Elect Scott Walker, the only proven conservative.

[VegasCowboy]

It is fascinating to read about “good capitalism” and “bad capitalism” here on FreeRepublic, all to justify Newt’s attempts to strike a populist nerve.

[familyop]

"Mitt Romney needs to be pushed to the right...So whoever's gonna win this thing has got to be pushed to the right...The Republican establishment is going to have to be pushed to the right...Whoever the Republican nominee is, is going to have to be pushed to the right..."

What a creep. Rush sided with feminists against fathers and families for the divorce/cohabitation industry during the '90s, too, so he would naturally be on the side of more spending from debt for socialists like teachers, building officials, land use regulators, social workers, pensioners from such positions, all. Thus, his support for Romney and dishonesty about it.

There can be no lasting fiscal conservatism without moral conservatism. Thievery--even legalized thievery is not a tenet of conservatism.

Capitalism is a system--not a philosophy. It can be used for good (conservative) purposes or evil ("progressive") purposes.

[faucetman]

Rush was so full of $hit today and this caller wasn't having any.

Today a cabal somewhere told all the minions that it is over. Romney will be the nominee. Everyone get behind him and trash all his opponents. Use the Bain Capital attacks as a vehicle. We can't have our guys attacking Romney, our nominee, any longer.

Rush was first, followed by Hannity. They were reading from the same talking points.

Rush was over the top against Newt. Comments about his ex-wife and Freddie mac were not one bit funny. If I were Newt I'd never talk to Rush again.

Rush making statements about Bain that I doubt he has any real knowledge about. Propping up Romney.

Hannity had Juan McCain on, sucking up to Captain Queeg who of course has endorsed Romney. It was sickening.

Rush and Sean were talking out both sides of their mouths today, so when called on their attacks on Newt, they would point out to the couple positives they had said while really stabbing him in the back the majority of the time.

I guess I am DONE with both of them. (I already fired Beck).

When people have to keep telling me just how Conservative they really are, I begin to wonder.

Our only hope is that the voters don't listen to these pundits and do the right thing. I am not optimistic. Looks like the “FIX” is in.

[Diogenesis]

Rush is a leftist RINO who defended Romney,
while putting down CONSERVATIVES,
during the NH Election.

RomneyBOT Rush = supporter of LIARS,
BACKSTABBERS, anti-CONSTITUTIONALISTS
and VULTURE CAPITALISM.

[Diogenesis]

Backstabber Rush for Backstabber Romney:
"I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney's VULTURE CAPITALISM because he makes Obama's MARXISM MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's liberalism MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's ineligibility MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's IAG issues MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's Sharia issues MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's 911 Victory Mosque MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's RomneyMarriage/Gay Marriage issue MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's bad governmental history MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's AGW issue MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's liberal judge issue MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's ineptitude MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he has a history of the BIG DIG and its coverup.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he has a history of destroying the Mass. Constitution which because he makes Obama's overturning the US Constitution MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he makes Obama's lying as an issue MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he has a history of backstabbing the GOP, itself, and is hated widely.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he has a history of narcissism which make Obama's MOOT.
I, Rush Limbaugh, support Romney because he has a history of destroying evidence while Governor, which because he makes Obama's destruction of evidence also MOOT. "

[TADSLOS]

Conservatives should NEVER be placed in a position to have to PUSH a candidate to the right. Conservatives want a candidate that walks the walk from the right and leads others to him or her.

[Pan_Yan]

I’m still waiting for Rush to apologize for pushing NAFTA and remaining absolutely silent while we got chained to the World Trade Organization.

Of course most of the people bashing Rush on this thread are supporters of the man responsible for both of those passing Congress.