Posted on 07/27/2011 7:41:18 PM PDT by sickoflibs
RUSH: "Tea Party Members Are Suggesting Speaker Boehner Be Replaced." I can't tell you how I knew this was coming, but I knew it was. I knew it was coming. The Tea Party people are serious. There's about a hundred of them in the House. Well, close to a hundred of them, 57, somewhere in there. But rank-and-file Tea Party voters understand something. Despite the massive landslide that occurred last November, both parties still have the same leadership. Nothing has changed. I knew this was coming. When I say I knew it was coming, because I have been told I can't tell you by how many people who consider themselves Tea Party people, Tea Party members, short leash. Leadership doesn't reflect what the election results indicated, get rid of 'em.
Now, the leadership thinks the Tea Party is a bunch of kooks. The leadership in both parties thinks the Tea Party's a bunch of kooks. It's not that they're Tea Partiers, it's that they're outsiders, they're not of the establishment. In Washington it's really not that hard to be a kook. You want the word "cut" to mean cut. When you start talking about cuts, you mean cuts. That makes you a kook within the ruling establishment in Washington. It's really no more complicated than that. Now, I don't know how this is gonna manifest itself, but I do know that this has been effervescing out there and it's now effervesced, or for those of you in Rio Linda "bubbled up," to the surface.
RUSH: We have an opportunity here. The frustrating thing here is it's Obama's who's on the ropes. If they called me and asked my opinion -- which they don't, by the way. I may be the titular head of the party, but they don't call me and ask me my opinion. If they did, I'd say, "I think you guys ought to stop going up there. You know, you did the right thing when you didn't return the phone call. You did the right thing. They're the ones that need this! It's Obama who needs to pull his irons out of the fire.
"It's Obama's reelection we're talking about here; that's what all this is about. This is not about anything other than Obama's reelection. Why help him. Why be his lifeline to that? He doesn't present a plan. Make him pay a price for this! Make him put a plan on paper. Who is this guy? He's the least qualified guy when he walks into any room he's in, and he gets to be referee, and he gets to act above it all? After running up all this spending, after practically personally doubling the debt ceiling himself with his spending, he now gets to sit there and tell us what's approvable and what isn't and what will work and what won't and what he'll sign and what he won't? I know he's president of the United States; I understand that. But it's his reelection that all this is about.
"Obama's reelection has been cast here as 'saving America.' It is Obama's defeat that saves America, not Obama's reelection!" Now, anything that is a lifeline to Obama on this that gets him out of a mess... There's month moral victory to be had here. "What do you mean by moral victory?" I'll give you an exact definition of a moral victory. It's the Super Bowl. Your team qualified by virtue of a bunch of quirk plays in the playoffs. There are five teams better than yours, but you make the Super Bowl, and you're playing the best team in the NFL -- and for three quarters you keep the game close but then in the fourth quarter you get blown out. At the end of the game the coach says, "You guys, this is a great moral victory. You showed the world something today! You show that you don't give up."
It's a loss! There's no such thing as a moral victory, and you don't get credit for moral victories. Voters do not credit losers for moral victories. Now, we won the election in November, and as such, we don't compromise. Winners don't compromise. Loser compromise. We are compromising with ourselves, because we are scared, because we are afraid we're gonna get blamed for whatever calamity that might befall the country. There is no way, in real terms, we get blamed for this because we didn't do this! I'm talking about all this reckless spending, the loss of jobs, this economic disaster. This ain't us. We didn't do this. (interruption) Mr. Snerdley, I am fully aware that the press goes ape every time somebody says, "Don't compromise." (interruption)
Which line? (interruption) Oh, the media is playing that line? Oh, I didn't know that. I didn't know that. I've been too busy playing with OS X Lion. I didn't know. They're replaying that line, that losers compromise; winners don't? That line is being played out there? (interruption) Oh, that's why! That's why they're calling me the titular head. That's why they're now all of a sudden saying these guys are listening to me, because I'm the architect of no compromise? Well, then I wear that badge proudly! I wear that uniform proudly. I wear that hat proudly. I told you on this program in Los Angeles last week, "You're compromising with yourself. There's not even a plan!
"You come up with a plan, you go to the White House, and the president says, 'I don't like that, I don't like that, I don't like that, I don't like that.' You go back, you come back, you go back, you come back. He doesn't ever submit anything. He just tells you what about your plan he's not gonna sign or doesn't like." Well, they end up compromising with themselves. Meanwhile, Carney, the press secretary, said yesterday, they don't even have a plan! Somebody tell me what's wrong or what's incorrect about the philosophy "Winners don't compromise"? Let me tell you something: When the Democrats win, show, give me the examples of their compromises when they win.
They don't. They don't compromise when they lose. Why should we? Why is the onus always on us to compromise? And the only reason we have people who think the onus is on us and that we should compromise is because they've been made to believe that whatever it is we want or believe somehow is extreme, when it's not. It's mainstream. We are the mainstream. The kooks in this country are the left. Obama is president of the kooks! You and I, ladies and gentlemen, are not the kooks. The Tea Party is not a collection of kooks. Mainstream conservatives are not kooks. Now, you're gonna see -- if I'm right about this, you're gonna see -- Republicans go after some conservatives, leading conservatives in the House as being "obstructionists" and so forth, standing in the way. That's what will happen. That's the Ruling Class going after the new arrivals.
Where was the compromise on Obamacare?
Somebody tell me.
Where was the compromise on Obamacare? The point is, they didn't compromise anything. I just am saying: Why is the onus always on us? Now, you might say, "Okay, well, Rush, Obama won the presidency. He won. He's the president. He won." What Obama believes, what Obama ran on, what Obama has done lost in the November elections. Obama won nothing in the November elections -- and furthermore, what Obama believes and what Obama wants has been losing at the state level. He lost in Wisconsin. He's losing in Texas. He's gonna lose in Ohio. He's gonna lose in Indiana. He's in big trouble. Obama is not winning. He is not the winner that we're talking about now -- and he's not compromising, either. They lose cap and trade in the Senate. What do they do? Pursue it at the EPA. That's compromise, right?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Who decides what is a real “Tea Party” guy and what is a fraud ala NY? That development shows a great danger to the goals of the Tea Party and Republicans.
Good chart. Thanks
Nah, Joe Kapp.
It may pass the House but Democrats control 2/3rds of government and they will do anything they can to keep it from going into law. And challenging Democrats with this bill is no automatic win on getting it in law, something much, much worse could still be in our future even after they get forced to say 'NO,NO,NO' in front of the world.
Dont forget, Pelosi did NOT try to ram through the stimulus and Obama-care in 2007 when Bush was POTUS, she never would have made Speaker again in 2009 and passed those things into law if she took that suicidal position.
Democrats worked together as a team in 2007-2008 with one goal, to get the power they needed to get their agenda passed with NO Republican votes, and they were somewhat successful.
Democrats actually wanted to win, not make a grand losing stand and get swept out in 2009.
I guess you have to look at their history. Do they have conservative principals? Is there a record to confirm their conservative ideas etc.
I guess we shall soon see where the rubber meets the road.
I don't see how he's Weepy Boner.
Unless you mean he always got to the playoffs and never won the big one.
Cheers!
Their choice and the stability of our country rests totally in their greasy hands.
That does NOT infuse me with a feeling of confidence.
It is like some of these House members only planned on one two year term and it’s ‘fix the entire country or bust’ this year because they dont plan on being around after that.
Democrats were much more determined to win and get their agenda passed when they were in a similar situation in 2007. Pelosi crushed any ideas of liberal suicidal stands those first two years, she ran off Cindy Sheenan and shut down Conyers impeachment hearings. She wanted to win 2008. That was her sole mission then, Rush completely blocked out those two years 2007-2008 of history.
I must say this situation is very interesting and I have no idea how they are going to solve it given the irreconcilable positions of the parties and determined interest groups involved. But we are watching representative democracy at its highest/lowest.
bfl
Absolutely!
A big problem with the “Victors don’t compromise” idea is that we did not win a comprehensive final victory last fall.
2010 was not the Battle of Hastings but a victorious cavalry charge.
See, you are actually thinking of how to win. That is the type of logic I can understand. And as I been posting, they should have started this weeks ago not letting Obama run out the clock in phony negotiations on a deal Obama was never going to make.
This just say 'no' stuff works great when you control neither House or WH, but once they got the House winning becomes a bit more complicated, and Democrats REALLY want to win. That is all they want.
Yes but I hope that Boehner comes to see that we are not in a crisis-rush. Slow it down.
And I saw on another thread an idea to pass BBA in exchange for a debt max increase. Clean and simple.
As long as their are caps like CCB i’d be on board.
More likely when the heat goes up after this weekend Boehner goes to Pelosi offering surrender for her votes to go with RINOs, the Republican party fractures and fights itself whole Democrats cluster-bomb them both, Pelosi takes over as Speaker in 2013 and then voting NO on everything in the House against Pelosi will be a political winner again as with 2009-2010.(Ok, this is the very worst case)
Democrats will be doing EVERYTHING they can to kill this bill, they dont need Republicans help.
LOL. I was thinking of the Vikings too.
“Neither plan begins to solve the spending crisis this country faces.”
Oh so true and add to the mix that no matter what we will see a credit drop which makes things worst, all these cuts are nothing at all.
We need drastic cuts! Wouldn’t it be good for our credit rating to drop tomorrow during the discussion of this junk bill?
They are wasting time playing politics and are not getting serious!
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.