When Did the Team Break Up?

RUSH: I hate this. I really hate getting into all this. This is... We all used to be on the same team, do you realize that? I've been doing this for 23 years, and I remember the first ten, we were all on the same team. There wasn't a dime's worth of difference. Now, I don't know... I'll have to think about this. I'll have to think about when the Republican establishment finally gave up and decided they wanted to be Democrat light. I don't know -- or better stated, when did they decide they had to start taking out conservatives? Now, I know they didn't like Reagan. I know you can trace it all back and the Republican establishment always been who they are. I'm not taking that off the table. I'm just telling you that from the standpoint of media, when I started this in 1988, the next ten years, I mean, yeah, there were jealousies.

When Mr. Buckley died, everybody was angling to be the next William F. Buckley to be the leader of the conservative movement, and there were those typical fraternity-type battles. But we were all on the same team. I know the Republican establishment in 1995 hated the government shutdown. But we're not on the same team now it seems. You know, this is what's tough about this. So here's Bill Kristol, who once thanked me for defending him against some attack that had been launched against him at a party at Bill Bennett's house. That would never happen today. There wouldn't be a party at Bill Bennett's house and Kristol wouldn't thank me for anything. Anyway, I'm forced to ask here: How many constituents does Bill Kristol have at the Weekly Standard?

How many readers? What's the reach there? How many constituents do these guys Scott Reed and Vin Weber have, versus the constituents that we know Tea Party has? How many conservatives support Chuck Schumer or read the New York Times? How many conservatives crave being covered by the New York Times? How many conservatives salivate and consider it a career advancement to be quoted in the New York Times? Not many. So essentially, I guess the Ruling Class does not like "the people," and they tell us in this New York Times piece that the people are infantile, puerile, impotent, and can't win. Well, we shall see. They're doing everything they can to force a nominee on the Tea Parties that they don't want. They're trying to limit the presidential choice on the Republican side. We'll see. But I just... I do have nostalgia. I remember, folks, when we were all on the same team.

RUSH: Yep, the Republican establishment doing everything it can to force a nominee on 'em they don't want, meaning the Tea Party. They're trying to limit the presidential choice between a hard-leftist, socialist Democrat hell-bent on taking down the country and a fairly liberal Republican who doesn't want to rock the boat. That's what the Republican establishment wants: Just don't rock the boat.

RUSH: A lot of people as I'm checking the e-mail, are weighing in on, "What was it that caused the breakup of the team?" Everybody's got their own starting point. It's fascinating to listen to some people's opinions on this. I'll share them with you in just a second. But I've got another example media propaganda. Dana Milbank, today's Washington Post: "The Tea Party Loses Another Round -- It was another great day to be a member of the Washington elite," is how Mr. Milbank writes his piece. The article goes on to crow about how the House of Representatives passed three free trade agreements. The piece makes it clear that the Tea Party doesn't like free trade agreements. I thought the Tea Party did. Michele Bachmann has pushed for these free trade agreements.

Anyway, from now on we are going to be getting a steady diet of stories like this, chronicling the demise of the Tea Party's power. I predicted this to you. Everything is coming to pass. Folks, I hate "I told you so's." You do, too. But we predicted this Republican establishment thing, too. We told you they don't like conservatives. (sigh) They don't like rocking the boat. Here's one theory as to when the team broke up: "The morning that George H. W. Bush claimed victory in 1988. Rush, all of the people that you have mentioned in the New York Times piece," Kristol, Scott Reed, Vin Weber] all these names are former colleagues of the gentleman who writes me the note. "The switch from Reagan to Bush carried with it the sense that the revolution was finally over and that the Republican establishment was back.

"It was palpable. They were ecstatic that the eight years of Reagan had come to a close. It wasn't long before Bush White House aides were giving Reagan people grief about wearing Ronald Reagan cufflinks in the White House. The Bush people were saying to the Reagan people, 'This is the Bush White House, not the Reagan White House.' 'This is the Bush White House, not the Reagan White House,' snapped someone I knew well who had been treated very well by the Reagan team and was then a prominent White House Bushie -- and it was said in the New York Times, on the record. There was far more going on than Bush versus Reagan; it was the establishment versus the conservative rank-and-file.

"Rush, you have hit the nail on the head, and by now this sentiment is clearly understood by the Tea Party. This is a considerable undercurrent in the campaign on our side without doubt." Another theory. "Rush: I totally remember the very first time I saw the split between the conservative elites and us. It was over illegal immigration, California Prop 187, 1994. They all scolded us about how wrong we were -- and that if we, the base, were seen as anti-Hispanic, there would be no future for the Republican Party. I remember how shocked we all were at being scolded by our own guys. They all were doing calculations on demogarphics. We were focused on principle. Remember how mad they all got when you emphasized principle over woeful at your CPAC speech?

"Anyway, there might have been earlier cracks but that California passion was one I noticed big time we in the base couldn't believe they be see it our way." That Prop 187, of course, was Californians were simply sick and tired of paying for welfare, health care, education for illegal immigrants and they have to do not to any more -- and a federal judge said, "Hey, you can't do that! That's unconstitutional." So, anyway, it's heating up. One of the reasons I've said that for the Tea Party to ultimately succeed, it's going to have to take over the Republican Party. You can't go third party. Third party's end of the line. You have to take over the party, and the party doesn't exist. Honest to God, can you pronounce the name of the chairman of the Republican National Committee?

You can pronounce it? I can't. Now, I'm deaf, so I've never heard it pronounced. I look at it written, but I can't pronounce it. I don't know how to pronounce it. I don't know what they're doing. I don't know what he's doing. You know, one of the reasons why there is so much attention being focused on this presidential nomination process -- and it's natural that there would be -- is that people instinctively (and perhaps subconsciously) are aware that there is not is any leadership anywhere else and that all of the leadership for what we believe is gonna have to reside in the nominee. Ergo, that's why there is so much angst about it because the establishment is pushing a nominee who is a fairly liberal Republican who has no intention of rocking the boat. That would be Romney.

CALLER: You were talked earlier about the Republican establishment and when it took over after the conservative revolution, and when that was.

RUSH: Well, what I said was that, in a media sense, I can remember when I started this program in 1988 -- which was the end of the Reagan year, the beginning of the Bush years -- I was under the impression that all of us on the conservative media were on the same team. Now we're not, and so the question was, "When did split happen?" I've been trying to think about it and other people have been calling in, writing in with their theories on when the split happened and that's what you're calling about, I'm sure.

CALLER: Right. I'm calling about the realization that I had that the Republicans didn't stand for me anymore, and that was when they didn't follow through on the Clinton impeachment. I thought that they should have taken more action there. I just felt that it showed me that all the elites are gonna stick together.

RUSH: Yeah. That was instructive. That was very instructive. That was the establishment circling the wagons.

RUSH: Yeah. They had a case. They had a case, and look what it did to Lindsey Grahamnesty. He was one of the House managers. He was one of the House managers presenting the case in the Senate for the impeachment of Clinton. I I think, in truth, not just that, but don't forget: Newsweek spiked the whole Lewinsky story. If it weren't to the intrepid Matt Drudge that would have never hit the wires; we'd-a never know about it. I think the elites, the inside the Beltway establishment, they were just... That whole Lewinsky thing embarrassed them. They thought it was beneath them, they didn't want to go there -- and I'm talking about on our side -- and they missed the whole point about Clinton committing perjury and what it meant for a chief executive to do that. Even our guys were saying, "Yeah, it's just sex. Come on, he was just lying about sex! Everybody lies about sex."

I agree with that assessment for the most part.

Perry wouldn’t bring dramatic change, but he would be a competent leader in my opinion.

The real question is do we need more at this point in time than a competent leader, someone who can easily steer the ship of state in smooth waters when times are good.. and if you think we need more than that, then who on that stage do you think is most likely to bring about real change.

Honestly... I don’t know if any of them can actually change much, but I feel that Cain and or Bachmann would try the hardest to change things.

You have a valid point, and if you want more from a leader than we have had since Reagan then Perry is not your man, he would basically govern as W did.

Only Palin could have been what you want.

But since she isn’t running then Cain or Bachmann would be your best alternative.

Palin would of been a great president *sigh*

“Bottom line: I will NEVER vote for Willard. Ever.”

I’m with you, but my never extends even to a general election. If Romney is the GOP pick, then the GOP has left me the way Ronald Reagan said the Democrats left him years ago.

Perry wouldn’t bring dramatic change, but he would be a competent leader in my opinion.

If there is no dramatic change, then the country continues diving into the abyss.

I said this on another thread:

The goal is not to “get rid of 0bama” and therefore anyone no matter how terribly flawed is acceptable or better. The real goal is to “get rid of leftist/socialist/commie/fascist/homosexualist/etc etc crap”.

Replacing 0bama with a leftist-lite figure is little better. It’s not “just” 0bama, it’s the entire Leftist edifice. Romney is at very best a RINO. He is not a conservative. What we need is a restoration of the Constitution - a federal government reduced to its Constitutional duties ONLY.

Saying “Romney is better than 0bama” is like saying dying by a slow poison that kills you in a month is better than dying of a bullet directly to the brain.

Santorum and Bush.

Specter was strongly supported by President George W. Bush. Specter narrowly avoided a major upset with 51 percent of the primary vote. Once Specter defeated the challenge from the right, he was able to enjoy great support from independents and some Democrats in his race against Hoeffel.[4

We were never a true team. The Vichy establishment are traders and have been from day one and they are every bit as loathsome and treacherous as the original Vichy who collaborated with the Nazi’s after France fell in 1940. Their goals and conservative goals are 180 degrees apart. They are liberals, just a cheap ass, snotty version of the real thing seeking power, pure and simple.

We conservatives were as the KGB used to say of western liberals: useful idiots to the Vichy establishment. I have heard for 20 yrs. the conservatives need to take the party back from the Vichy establishment and work from within.

Well, it’s not getting us anywhere. Somewhere down the line those principled conservatives in the republican party are going to have to stand up and say we are walking and start a new party. When this happens the country will pay a terrible price, but down the road a strong conservative party would be there to pick up the pieces when the liberals from both parties run the country into the ground.

This year we have a chance to elect a conservative for the first time since Reagan in 1980 and the Vichy establishment know this, thus their great pains to rig the whole primary process to keep one of their lackeys in place. If a conservative were to actually win, watch what happens. They will butt heads, but undermined and stabbed in the back more by the Vichy establishment than the democrats.

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.