Skip to comments.
GOP leaders betting that conservative rage will sputter out
washingtonpost.com ^
| 12/4/14
| Greg Sargent
Posted on 12/05/2014 4:34:32 AM PST by cotton1706
With conservatives working themselves up into cries of rage and betrayal over the GOP leaderships emerging scheme to avoid a government shutdown, it seems increasingly likely that House Republican leaders may need Democratic votes to pass something that funds the government for the next year. The question now: How will Democrats respond?
For now, Democratic leadership aides signal, they are content to let Speaker John Boehner twist in the wind. In other words: This is your problem; you deal with it.
The emerging House GOP plan is to hold a vote to condemn President Obamas executive action, to allow conservatives to vent. Then Republicans will try to pass year-long funding for most of the government, except the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration enforcement. The DHS would be funded through only February, at which point Republicans could try to defund Obamas action.
Conservatives egged on by the Three Amigos, Ted Cruz, Steve King, and Michele Bachmann say this isnt good enough, so passage of the bill funding the government remains in doubt. Indeed, GOP leaders have reportedly reached out to Democratic leaders to see if Dems would help pass it. Nancy Pelosi responded by declining to answer, saying only: Its immature. They should make a decision that this is what we need to do to keep the government open.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
To: dontreadthis
To: Liz
He isn’t next in line and is being challenged for the post by some guy whose name I cannot right now remember.
22
posted on
12/05/2014 5:16:57 AM PST
by
Excellence
(Marine mom since April 11, 2014)
To: Excellence
Sessions is next in line according to Senate protocol-—but Sen Mike Enzi is challenging Jeff.
23
posted on
12/05/2014 5:23:34 AM PST
by
Liz
To: Ghost of SVR4
It has been this way with the District of Criminals for a very long time.
24
posted on
12/05/2014 5:30:21 AM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
To: Wilhelm Tell
25
posted on
12/05/2014 5:31:30 AM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
To: puppypusher
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
When are conservative going to wake up?
26
posted on
12/05/2014 5:37:22 AM PST
by
Bulwyf
To: cotton1706
Betting hell! They know that it will before the next election. They[Elite Republicans] have fooled them [Conservatives] one more time. It seems like the Conservatives would learn because this has been happening for a good number of years, but the evidence shows that they don’t.
27
posted on
12/05/2014 5:37:45 AM PST
by
sport
To: Ghost of SVR4
You are clueing in, what are real Americans going to do about it?
28
posted on
12/05/2014 5:38:54 AM PST
by
Bulwyf
To: sport
IDIOTS. Did they not pay attention to this past election.
I despise the GOP elite as much as, if not more, than the Democrats.
To: cotton1706
Though it is tempting to give up, NO, we have to keep fighting the limp wristed power grabbers. WE won’t go away.
To: cotton1706
31
posted on
12/05/2014 6:32:21 AM PST
by
hal ogen
(First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
To: cotton1706
That’s as stupid a prediction as “eventually they’ll settle down and learn to like Obamacare”.
To: cotton1706
"GOP Leaders Betting Conservative Rage will Sputter Out"I'll take that bet......
33
posted on
12/05/2014 7:12:20 AM PST
by
CAluvdubya
(<------- has now left CA for NV, where God and guns have not been outlawed! Molon Labe)
To: cotton1706
How long will it take for people to realize that there is no working with Barack Obama?
He is thoroughly evil. He does not deserve to be in the White House.
To not fight him is to support him.
What Would Ronald Reagan Do?
34
posted on
12/05/2014 7:12:46 AM PST
by
Slyfox
(To put on the mind of George Washington read ALL of Deuteronomy 28, then read his Farewell Address)
To: RummyChick
I despise the GOP elite as much as, if not more, than the Democrats.I am with you 100%. I have concluded that the ONLY way this Republic can be saved is for Conservatives in-mass to form a new Party.
The GOP is truly an enemy of limited government and our Constitution.
35
posted on
12/05/2014 8:55:38 AM PST
by
sand88
(We can never legislate our way back to Liberty)
To: cotton1706
GOP leaders betting that conservative rage will sputter out.
Hillary yells YES 2016 is mine Obama part two will ensue.
36
posted on
12/05/2014 8:56:33 AM PST
by
Vaduz
To: cotton1706
ANY VOTE FOR an
"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" What a DISAPPOINTMENT!
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !
"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!
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.
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." '
These
"Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.
"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, 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.
Take a good long look at where
"Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.
The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !
37
posted on
12/05/2014 9:03:06 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: cotton1706
These MF’ers are going down hard.
38
posted on
12/05/2014 9:12:34 AM PST
by
VRWC For Truth
(Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
To: Yosemitest
“The “Establishment Republicans” can GO TO HELL !”
Right on!
39
posted on
12/05/2014 10:57:31 AM PST
by
Obstinate
(Pack the Constitution & build Mayflower II; this place is toast. Going Galt? Going Constitutional.)
To: Patton@Bastogne
Ted Cruz is the closest thing to Sam Damon we’ve got. Everyone else are Courtney Massengales, with a very few exceptions.
40
posted on
12/05/2014 11:09:14 AM PST
by
Night Hides Not
(Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! Remember Mississippi!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 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