Gohmert: Newt Gingrich And Jim Demint Pressured House Freedom Caucus To Back Paul Ryan For Speaker

One America News ^ | Oct 23 2015 | Matt Schuck

[Whenifhow]

Congressman Paul Ryan has received enough support from the House Freedom Caucus to secure his nomination for Speaker of the House, and he may have gained some of the support from conservative efforts going on behind-the-scenes.

The House Freedom Caucus, a small but fierce group of conservatives, succeeded in their efforts to oust John Boehner from Speaker of the House, but scrambled to find a nominee for Speaker that would satisfy their list of demands and rule changes to the Republican Conference.

The group initially endorsed Florida Representative Daniel Webster; however, a closed-door meeting pushed them into supporting Congressman Paul Ryan, a person that they saw as only an extension of Boehner.

Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert told One America News that some very familiar names pressured members of the House Freedom Caucus to rethink who they would endorse for Speaker.

“Promises were made and as I understand it, our friend Senator Jim DeMint, now head of the Heritage Foundation was making calls persuading…really shocked me. I don’t guess I was so surprised that Newt Gingrich was making calls behind the scenes to Freedom Caucus members to tell them, ‘you gotta cave and go with Paul,’” Gohmert said.

Gohmert told One America News that he was most shocked that these conservative officials were backing Ryan, given his track record with some conservatives.

“I was really surprised that the head of the Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint was making calls telling conservatives to back off their conservatism and back the guy for Speaker that doesn’t just have a D, he has an F under the Conservative Review analysis,” Gohmert said.

[SatinDoll]

His ex-wife is quite alive and well, thank you. They had decided to divorce BEFORE she discovered the breast cancer. That story was concocted by the Democrats.

[berdie]

I’m not so sure that they were unmissed.

[azishot]

Matt Salmon was on local radio yesterday and said that the HFC was satisfied that Ryan would do a good job based on the answers he gave to their questions. Also said that Ryan will only fill Boehner’s term. After that, they’ll see what kind of job he did.

I’m still bashing my head against the wall. They never listen to us.

[9YearLurker]

Jim DeMint’s main job now is raising money from big donors —if possible, even more so than it was when he was a politician.

Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that he’s fully playing the game.

[9YearLurker]

Why? Newt’s been a GOPe sellout (e.g., pro-amnesty) for two decades now.

[Gene Eric]

Ryan is a delusional idiot desperate for affirmation.

Say NO! to Ryan.

[Gene Eric]

>> the unmissed...

bttt

[Yosemitest]

"COMPROMISE": the Republicans WORST habit !
It's their Achilles Heel !

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ... AND TO DESTROY ANY "Establishment Republican" !
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 2016 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, 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.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[berdie]

Don’t get me wrong. I am no fan of Ryan.

But I don’t think he is desparate for affirmation.

Taking the position of Speaker right now is political suicide.

[wardaddy]

This is my first divergence with DeMint

Hell bring back Tom DeLay

No ambiguity there

[wardaddy]

He wasn’t in 1994

[wardaddy]

That is not exactly accurate and btw

She ain’t dead

[Yosemitest]

We must REMOVE AND REPLACE Jim DeMint as head of the Heritage Foundation, and we MUST do it NOW !

[wardaddy]

No one can satisfy freeperdom completely period

My guess is Newt and DeMint think Ryan is a good face and articulate and can be controlled by the more conservative wing

Dragging it out has a price in their opinion and the caucus guys did not have enough votes

It’s vexing....I’m not happy either

But it appears the GOP in the House is more Peter Than Steve King

The Freedom Caucus is guessed to be around 2/3 old Confederate states...mine.....plus about the same number who are just as conservative but not in the group

I know DeMint has gravitas no doubt with all of them

Wonder how Sessions played it?

They caved but it looks like they lacked the votes....to fill the position

[wardaddy]

Tks

The leftist crap Freepers fall for eh?

[berdie]

I like Newt a lot. I was a Newtser in the last election cycle.

He hasn’t been in Congress for a very long time and really has no power there.

Same thing with DeMint. I like the guy a lot. What leverage would he have at this point?

I call b.s. on this story.

[berdie]

Why?

[onyx]

Altogether a very keen and insightful post, wardaddy and although I'm shocked to learn about Jim DeMint's participation, I watched the video of Louie Gohmert at the linked article and I believe Louie.

You nailed it when you wrote:

"But it appears the GOP in the House is more Peter Than Steve King."

I think DeMint and Newt got together or were put together and determined that the House needed a new Speaker ASAP so that 2016's Election and its agenda could begin to take precedent.


This current Congress will do well to STOP the Moslem Marxist from enacting his anti-American, subversive, Commie agenda.

That's not to say that both Chambers shouldn't pass Conservative legislation to force his vetoes, but that pussy Mitch won't change the filibuster rules in the Senate, so I think the remainder of the Marxist's term for the House is a waste, regardless, save for budgetary wars.

[Jane Long]

Interesting turn, no doubt. I’ve not been impressed, at all, with Heritage’s new director, Michael Needham. He appears to be quite GOPee, imo. I hope dear DeMint is not being pulled to the center by this guy.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

[Yosemitest]

You didn't read the article, did you?

" “I was really surprised that the head of the Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint was making calls
telling conservatives to back off their conservatism and back the guy for Speaker that doesn’t just have a D,
he has an F under the Conservative Review analysis,” Gohmert said.

While the vote fell short of the majority required for the House Freedom Caucus to deliver an official endorsement,
it did provide the party unity that Ryan initially set as a condition for accepting the nomination.

The Republican Conference will meet behind closed doors to continue their deliberation for the Speaker election, which set for Wednesday, Oct. 28th. "

EVERYONE SHOULD BE CALLING THEIR CONGRESSMAN !
LET THEM HAVE THE FULL FORCE OF YOUR DISGUST WITH THIS SELLOUT OF CONSERVATIVE VALUES ! ! !