RUSH: BROKERED CONVENTION Chatter on Rise

www.RushLimbaugh.com ^ | January 20, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise
January 20, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me tell you, I mentioned this yesterday, I mentioned this some time ago.
There are rumblings in the Republican establishment of a brokered convention now.
There is unsettledness and disquietedness in the conservative establishment, quote, unquote, in the Republican establishment, quote, unquote.

Both camps have prominent people who are unhappy with the way all of this is shaking out.
And they talked about it on Scarborough's show today on PMSNBC.
For the conservative establishment it's Newt.
"Oh, no, we don't want Newt. We gotta do something about Newt."
For the Republican establishment, they're getting a little queasy about Romney.
I think the term is brittle.
That's the term Scarborough used, that the establishment is concerned about what a brittle candidate Romney is proving to be.
It's said to be scaring the Republican establishment.
It's something I said back on January 11th, the day before my birthday.
There was a Jonah Goldberg columnz in which he mentioned the possibility of a brokered convention,
but according to Scarborough, top conservative leaders, the Republican establishment, want to keep Newt in the race
so they can get a brokered convention where they can pick the nominee.



Now, the Republican elite is notZ conservatives.
There are two different establishments that we're dealing with here, I think, the conservative establishment, the Republican establishment.
There is some overlap.
But the scuttlebutt is -- and it was on the "Morning Joke" show today -- the scuttlebutt is keep Newt in this.
Keep everybody in this.
Don't let this nomination get decided in Florida.
Keep it going 'cause nobody's happy right now.
I wonder how many of you, "Yeah, yeah," agree with that premise, "Yeah, yeah."
This is something unsettled, something not quite right here.
So there's that scuttlebutt.

Then we had the Marianne Gingrich interview last night on Nightline, and what a thud.
It was a dud. And I asked a lot of people to watch this and share with me their feedback, and beyond the clip that ABC aired yesterday...

this is why they didn't air any more clips than what they gave is there wasn't anything.
I think it was kind of pathetic. I actually felt a little sorry for her.
She's being exploited, I think probably willingly, if there's such a thing.
But there wasn't any bombshells.
There was nothing new that came out of this thing last night.
So the fallout, the damage, no news.
I don't think there's gonna be anything any more damaging to Newt than there was yesterday when it all happened, when it all came out.

Right-Click on the photo below and open in a new window to watch the Fox News video, or go to RushLimbaugh.com's Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise and watch it at the bottom of his article.

Reagan's 1976 Republican Convention Speech
Jan 31, 2011 - 7:25 - Ronald Reagan addresses crowd after narrowly losing nomination to Gerald Ford

Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford for the 1976 Republican Presidential nomination, and lost a close race.
At the close of the convention, President Ford asked Governor Reagan to make some impromptu remarks.
Transcript of Reagan's 1976 Republican Convention Center Remarks, August 19, 1976

Thank you very much. Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President to be,
the distinguished guests here, and you, ladies and gentlemen:

I am going to say fellow Republicans here, but also those who are watching from a distance,
all of those millions of Democrats and Independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally
and which I believe we can give them.

Mr. President, before you arrived tonight, these wonderful people here, when we came in, gave Nancy and myself a welcome.
That, plus this, and plus your kindness and generosity in honoring us by bringing us down here
will give us a memory that will live in our hearts forever.

Watching on television these last few nights,
and I have seen you also with the warmth that you greeted Nancy,
and you also filled my heart with joy when you did that.

May I just say some words.
There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read
and it doesn't very often amount to much.

Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before,
I believe the Republican Party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades.

We have just heard a call to arms based on that platform,
and a call to us to really be successful in communicating
and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party,
which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a running of a late, late show
of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.

If I could just take a moment; I had an assignment the other day.
Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to be opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now,
on our Tricentennial.

It sounded like an easy assignment.
They suggested I write something about the problems and the issues today.
I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other,
and I couldn't help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now
as it was on that summer day.

Then, as I tried to write -- let your own minds turn to that task.
You are going to write for people a hundred years from now, who know all about us.
We know nothing about them.
We don't know what kind of a world they will be living in.

And suddenly I thought to myself,
if I write of the problems, they will be the domestic problems the President spoke of here tonight;
the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country,
the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy.
These are our challenges that we must meet.

And then again, there is that challenge of which he spoke,
that we live in a world in which the great powers have poised and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction,
nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each other's country
and destroy, virtually, the civilized world we live in.

And suddenly it dawned on me,
those who would read this letter a hundred years from now
will know whether those missiles were fired.
They will know whether we met our challenge.
Whether they have the freedoms that we have known up until now
will depend on what we do here.

Will they look back with appreciation and say,
"Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom,
who kept us now 100 years later free,
who kept our world from nuclear destruction"?

And if we failed,
they probably won't get to read the letter at all
because it spoke of individual freedom,
and they won't be allowed to talk of that or read of it.

This is our challenge;
and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before,
we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other
and go out and communicate to the world
that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been,
but we carry the message they are waiting for.

We must go forth from here united,
determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true:
There is no substitute for victory, Mr. President.

[Yosemitest]

Thanks, Rush.

And thank God, our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ,
for what we have because of Ronald Reagan.

[JSDude1]

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!

[Yosemitest]

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.
Don't doubt me on this.
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 games
letting 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!"

[InterceptPoint]

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?

[Lockbox]

Appears some group does not really believe accepting the “Will of the People”

[SMGFan]

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."

[peyton randolph]

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.

[RoosterRedux]

Eff the establishment.

They gave us John McCain and, because he refused to fight, we got that malignant jungle rot known as Obama.

[Venturer]

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

It’s a two man race this year, and Gingrich will win. No need for a brokered convention.

[Yosemitest]

"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, 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.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[no dems]

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?

[CainConservative]

Bravo, Rush!

[Yosemitest]

I think you might want to read this.

[CainConservative]

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

[martin_fierro]

Aw crap.

I thought this meant Palin was running.

[Yosemitest]

Palin would pull a lot of power in a "Brokered Convention".

[Impy]

Sounds like the ideal situation we could get a candidate better than any of the ones running.

[Scotsman will be Free]

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.

[wita]

“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.