Posted on 10/10/2016 1:58:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's the bottom line. I note that Paul Ryan has all but concluded that Trump is gonna lose. He's not pulled back his endorsement, but he's not gonna go out and fight. That's right. He has not pulled the endorsement. But he's telegraphed he thinks Trump's gonna lose and now he's working on saving the House majority and so forth. Right, he won't defend Trump and won't campaign for Trump. Okay, fine and dandy. But I have to tell you something, folks.
See, when you get down to the nut-cracking time, here we are. For those of you who are Never Trumpers, those of you who just can't bring yourself to support Trump, how can you support Hillary? How in the world can you do that? And don't tell me you're not. "I'm gonna sit it out or I may vote third party." BS. Anything you do besides vote for Trump is essentially electing Hillary Clinton, and the thing I want to know is, if you're going to suggest that Trump is unsuited, unfit, not qualified, and if you are conservative and saying this is about Trump, then how can you not say it about Hillary and her candidacy? If Trump is unfit, why is she not?
On the basis that people are determining Trump is not fit, she's even more unfit, if you ask me. She's got a 30-year track record that tells us the damage she wants to do. She's got a 30-year track record of the kind of dishonesty and misdirection that tells us exactly what we are headed for. So if you can't bring yourself to support Trump on some basis, it's the exact same stuff with Clinton, only just as bad, if not worse. I can't help it that the election manifested itself the way it did, but for me it's always been about one thing: defeating Hillary Clinton and the Democrats and the Obama agenda.
And for the life of me, I don't understand why -- well, sadly, I do. It just really bothers me, and it has for a long time, irritates me, why we, on our side, can't set aside the things that separate us and unify about one thing. If we can't even unify around the concept of defeating Democrats, what good are we? What good is there a Republican Party if it cannot even unify around the concept of winning? For crying out loud, do you realize the left have factions that hate each other? They've got different coalitions that despise each other. There's all kinds of coalitions, and they're all competing for as much of the federal money as they can get. The Democrat Party parcels it out on who knows what basis.
But when it comes to stopping us, they forget all of that and they unify around the singular objective of defeating us. We, on our side, apparently do not have even one thing in common that can unite us, not even the desire to win. It boggles my mind, and I know from where it comes. It comes from political posttraumatic stress disorder. It comes from years and years of fear of what the American voter thinks of you. It comes from a never ending desire to somehow convince the American voter that you're not the reprobate that Democrats have portrayed you to be. A losing proposition.
You got an R by your name, they're gonna hate you no matter what you do and what you say and how you do it. Ask John McCain. Can't even unify around the concept of winning! And that's what they do. If you can't see clear to support Donald Trump because -- well, if it's this Access Hollywood audio or if it's his supposed coarse and rough personality, I don't care what it is, the same things exist with the Clintons.
The Clintons have a known 30-year agenda and track record that any other year would be opposed. So we have people on our side who know how bad it is, and they know how much they disagree with it, but in this one instance, they would just as soon lose. Somebody explain it to me.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: No, I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand... Well, that's not true; I do understand. Let me put it this way. It's very frustrating to see all of these Republican leaders act like the most important thing they have to do is make Democrat voters happy. They have to say things, they have to do things that are gonna meet with Democrat voter approval. I don't get it! That's the thing in all of this that's the most, I guess... I was gonna say "perplexing," but it isn't perplexing because I know exactly why. They've got PTSD. They're on defense.
They think that the media, Democrats have been successful for generations, defining conservatives, so they think their mission is to do things and say things to convince these Democrat voters that they're not all these horrible, rotten things. To what end, I don't know, because they're not gonna change the way people vote. Look at Paul Ryan, for example. Paul Ryan is not going to convince Democrats. (sigh) He can take whatever position he wants on Trump in order satisfy, please, whatever, Democrat voters.
But how's that gonna him keep the Republican majority? "Well, you're mixing the point, Mr. Limbaugh, as usual! What he's doing is trying to make sure that angry Republicans don't abandon the party." Angry Republicans? Look, I just do not believe that the vast majority of Republicans want to see Hillary Clinton elected. I just don't believe it! Do you, Mr. Snerdley? Am I off base here? Do you think most mainstream Republican voters coast to coast, in order to save the party want Hillary to win? (interruption)
I don't either. I don't think they do, either. So I don't...
What is to be gained by saying things, doing things that are aimed at pleasing and satisfying Democrat voters? Well, it's two things. We can never forget the donors, because it is the donors who are really determining what Republican leaders are saying about Trump. And, there's the... This is also inarguable, if you ask me. I think most of what I say is inarguable, but there is the posturing for losing. If you are a Republican in the leadership of the House or Senate -- if you're just a consultant, if you're a Republican in politics -- and if you are convinced that the election is over, that Trump cannot possibly win, then what do you want to do?
You want to have a position that you can claim you occupied all along, and say you knew so. If there is to be a defeat, you want to be able to say you knew it all along and you tried to prevent it and you stood up to it! You tried to tell people that Trump was gonna lose. You tried to tell people it was a mistake to nominate Trump. So there is this post-defeat posturing that's going on. In neither case, is there any energy being expended toward winning, and they still are trying to figure out why Trump got the nomination in the midst all of this.
END TRANSCRIPT
I support term limits too. Of course it is term limits for all.
Some liberals have gone after politicians who supported term limits, saying they should self-limit. In effect, term limits for thee, but not for me. Again, term limits for ALL Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents.
Stupid GOP politicians think they are going to stay in power if they abandon Trump
Forget it
GOP voters will stay home and the democrats will take their seats
In fact if Hillary wins we have seen the last election in this country
Since its probably impossible to do away with the concept of a “political career”. I throw in a “sweetener” to maybe get it passed. Consider:
1. Two Senate terms (12 years) you have to sit out a year in order to return to the Senate for another two terms.
2. Five House terms (10 years) you have to sit out three terms (6 years) before you can return and restart the cycle.
For those who just have to have that career “serving the people”, go back and run for governor , county commissioner, or mayor. Would it be so horrible for them if they actually go a job in the private sector? Even McGovern learned a thing or two from his retirement job owning and managing a small hotel & restaurant.
If the Republican Party can’t change & switch to honest & real Constitutional values,then maybe the Constitution Party is the way to go. I just don’t see a majority of dimwit voters voting for that particular party just because it’s change in status quo.
Besides the “structural problems” of our system not supporting the long term viability of third parties. The other problem is “legal”. Over the years citizens of their respective states have allowed the major parties to attain quasi-governmental status. In most states (maybe all that have primaries!) the taxpayers foot the bill for primaries. It’s important to remember these are private organizations, how its leaders etc are picked should be in the members hands and paid for by the members. That’s why I never had an issue with party conventions. I still think its how candidates should be chosen for better or worse. There are all sorts of state laws that embed the major parties into the system and keeps them “alive” usually at taxpayer expense. If they were pushed back into the realm where they were completely private organizations they not only would be more cognizant of the wishes & views of its members. They would be more likely to go out of business and be replaced when they failed to do so.
I can’t argue with anything you wrote in the last two posts to me.
It should not be too hard for people to see that if it is a good idea to limit a President, then it should be a good idea to limit Congressmen and Senators.
George Washington provided a great service by limiting himself to two terms. The great man’s EXAMPLE protected us until FDR’s 4th election to the Presidency. Thank goodness for human mortality, or FDR would still be President.
For some reason, we have not taken the next step and term limited Congressmen and Senators.
I pick number close to a decade because that seems to be the magic number of years in DC when “the good” become “the bad”.
That’s easy.
1. Establish a strong leader who doesn’t pull punches (guess who)
2. Then, the most powerful estate (the people) gets behind him
3. The followers and the weaklings, like Ryan, Chaffetz, etc. either fall in line or eventually fade away due to losing all political support.
Wish Rush had a little more courage. He could blow the GOPe apart.
Ryan is a vile, stinking, thieving rat fink. And he’s pussy-whipped by his heiress wife.
He wants to be remembered for working with Herself! to pass bi-partisan legislation "for the good of the country".
If there's a 'rat majority he can't do that.
The NEVERTRUMP crowd and the Democrats are all one party- it's called the uniparty. This uniparty is beholden to business interests who have for decades raped the taxpayers of this country to get not only cheap labor, but pay for all of the other bills associated with this cheap labor- public assistance, education for their children, medical care in our hospital emergency rooms, crime, increased rental costs, increased traffic, etc, etc.
I agree 100% .. so who is going to win the election??
Democrats are LAW-LESS because Republicans are BALL-LESS!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.