Skip to comments.
RUSH: BROKERED CONVENTION Chatter on Rise
www.RushLimbaugh.com ^
| January 20, 2012
| Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 01/21/2012 4:52:20 AM PST by Yosemitest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
Thanks, Rush.
And thank God, our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ,
for what we have because of Ronald Reagan.
To: Yosemitest
Screw a brokered convention when ANOTHER moderate can be foised upon us! You talk about rebellion-there would be SO much rebellion that it would threatend to split or destroy the Republican Party if this happened: GUARANTEED!
2
posted on
01/21/2012 4:57:14 AM PST
by
JSDude1
To: All
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.
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 gamesletting 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!"
3
posted on
01/21/2012 4:59:04 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple, fight or die!)
To: Yosemitest
And they talked about it on Scarborough's show today on PMSNBC. I heard this. My immediate reaction: Scarborough????. Our new trusted source?
Have we heard this meme-candidate anywhere else? Or is it just Scarborough stirring the soup based on a few conservations over drinks with nervous Romney-bots?
To: JSDude1
Appears some group does not really believe accepting the “Will of the People”
5
posted on
01/21/2012 5:01:13 AM PST
by
Lockbox
To: Yosemitest
I consider myself so fortunate to have been at Liberty State Park in Jersey City on September 1st, 1980 and to have seen RWR speak about Jimmy "I'll Never Lie to You" Carter.
"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."
6
posted on
01/21/2012 5:05:15 AM PST
by
SMGFan
To: Yosemitest
These are the same morons who demanded Reagan take George H.W. Bush as his running mate at the 1980 GOP convention. A decision that has hurt the party for three decades.
You can be damn sure their “solution” will involve a Jeb Bush nomination or something else equally stupid.
7
posted on
01/21/2012 5:05:18 AM PST
by
peyton randolph
(Sad sack of Mitt = Obama)
To: Yosemitest
Eff the establishment.
They gave us John McCain and, because he refused to fight, we got that malignant jungle rot known as Obama.
8
posted on
01/21/2012 5:05:31 AM PST
by
RoosterRedux
(Newt: "Why vote for the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?")
To: Lockbox
If Newt is seleected by the voters and the RINO’s decide to interfere, they may as well shoot the Republican party in the head and kill it. It will be dead.
9
posted on
01/21/2012 5:05:31 AM PST
by
Venturer
To: Yosemitest
It’s a two man race this year, and Gingrich will win. No need for a brokered convention.
10
posted on
01/21/2012 5:06:01 AM PST
by
ClearCase_guy
(Nothing will change until after the war.)
To: JSDude1
"You talk about rebellion-
there would be SO much rebellion that it would threatend to split or destroy the Republican Party if this happened:
GUARANTEED!"
"Establishment Republicans" wouldn't care.
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 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, isnt looking too terribly promising.
This, though, isnt 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 GOPs 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.
Lets 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 isnt an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, dont 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 Partiers rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.
Every election seasonand at no time more so than this past seasonRepublicans 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 Partiers 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 countrys 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 conservativesand the countrywill ultimately win.
If he didnt 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!
11
posted on
01/21/2012 5:06:54 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple, fight or die!)
To: JSDude1
The only thing good about even the prospect of a brokered convention is that the present candidates have pretty well destroyed each other for Obozo in the Fall. Can you imagine what it would do to the psyche of this nation if out of the GOP Convention came a young, fresh face (hopefully with a Conservative brain) and flushed down the toilet all the crap we’ve had with the present, and past, GOP candidates for the past year? Someone like Bobby Jindal of LA or the young Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez........ America would sigh a sigh of relief and probably go viral for that candidate.
Am I right or wrong? Anybody?
12
posted on
01/21/2012 5:10:35 AM PST
by
no dems
(I'm more concerned with America's future than I am Newt's past.)
To: Yosemitest
13
posted on
01/21/2012 5:11:55 AM PST
by
CainConservative
(Newt/Rubio 2012 with Cain, Huck, Petraeus, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Bachmann in Newt's Cabinet)
To: DeusExMachina05
I think you might want to read this.
14
posted on
01/21/2012 5:15:39 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple, fight or die!)
To: no dems
The Establishment would try to shove Daniels, Christie, or McDonnell down our throats.
I’m taking Newt FTW!
SC + FL = Newt Will Be Our Nom
15
posted on
01/21/2012 5:16:41 AM PST
by
CainConservative
(Newt/Rubio 2012 with Cain, Huck, Petraeus, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Bachmann in Newt's Cabinet)
To: Yosemitest
Aw crap.
I thought this meant Palin was running.
To: martin_fierro
Palin would pull a lot of power in a "Brokered Convention".
17
posted on
01/21/2012 5:20:53 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's simple, fight or die!)
To: Yosemitest
Sounds like the ideal situation we could get a candidate better than any of the ones running.
18
posted on
01/21/2012 5:23:42 AM PST
by
Impy
(Don't call me red.)
To: no dems
Wrong. All liberals would vote for obama. Independents would vote for the name they recognize the most. obama. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t. Those names you mentioned are foreign to too many people.
19
posted on
01/21/2012 5:25:06 AM PST
by
Scotsman will be Free
(11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
To: SMGFan
“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”
...and inquiring minds should be interested in who’s speech writing fertile brain that line was hatched in. Of course delivery counts too, and RWR was the best. As a cold war player, “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall” still brings chills and a tear to my eyes.
20
posted on
01/21/2012 5:26:15 AM PST
by
wita
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson