Skip to comments.How the Consultant Class Views the Tea Party
Posted on 12/17/2013 5:07:23 PM PST by COBOL2Java
RUSH: I want to start in Minnetonka, Minnesota, with Andrew. Hi, Andrew. I really appreciate your patience. Thank you very much for waiting. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you, sir. I don't think the Republicans are suffering at all from PTSD. I think it's a classic case of the Stockholm Syndrome. They've been held captive for such a long time by the media, scared to death of them, and along comes the rescuers in the form of the Tea Party, and instead of embracing their freedom, they turn on them in the hopes of currying favor with their captors.
RUSH: Hmm. Hmm! Well, even if I acknowledge -- and that's some good thinking out there, Andrew, I gotta tell you, but there's still some PTSD involved there, there's still some fear involved there. But you've got an interesting take on this. The Tea Party as the rescuers are rejected. Look, it is all over the place. There's a story I have in the Stack here today. I don't think I printed it. Some hack who used to work for McCain. There's video of this guy talking to some Republicans and he's ripping into the Tea Party, and he's warning all these Republicans to stay away from them. They're nothing but anti-government, anti- this, a bunch of Ross Perot types.
Now, that was interesting, because this guy probably represents the thinking of a lot of mainstream establishment Republicans. To them, the Tea Party is no different -- they're called "hordes" by this guy -- the Tea Party is no different than the people who supported Perot, the anti-debt, anti-spending, small government, dedicated constitutionalists. The Perot people were looked at as a bunch of hayseeds. They were looked at as single-issue, tunnel-vision hicks to one degree or another. The Perot types were not necessarily the Christian right or pro-lifers.
Perot, back in 1992, was on an anti-Big Government, government involvement, government getting too big campaign, and he did attract millions of people, and the Republican Party establishment absolutely hated it, despised it, and they equate the Tea Party today with that, at least this guy. I'll have to find that. It's somewhere in the e-mail that I didn't print out. But there's an all-out assault of the Tea Party at the Republican establishment level. Boehner has engaged in it. And it's a fascinating take that the Tea Party are riding to the rescue of these guys that have been kidnapped by the left. And the rescuers are sent away. Stockholm Syndrome. I like it.
RUSH: Here it is. Here it is, folks. Somebody sent me a video of Rick Davis, and the note here: "If you want to get your blood boiling, watch the first five minutes of this with Rick Davis of the McCain campaign, describing the Tea Party movement as burn the government down Republicans, warmed over Ross Perot wing, close-the-market protectionists." Rick Davis of the McCain campaign. And that's an accurate depiction of what they think.
It's the Republican Party base. These are people who've always been out there. I am stunned. I literally am stunned on one hand. On the other hand, I'm not; I understand it all. But people who've been voting Republican all their lives, just simply outraged at what Obama is doing, cannot believe it. They're watching the Constitution be obliterated. They're watching debt pile up. They're watching their kids' and grandkids' future evaporate. They think that their party sees the same thing and is as appalled as they are. They get involved in things in politics besides voting, for the first time in their lives start going to town hall meetings, and in 2010 they deliver, in a midterm election, the biggest landslide defeat nationwide down the ballot the Democrat Party has had in our lifetimes, outside of maybe 1994, when they lost the House.
But this was akin to it, they lost 56 seats, and the Republicans gained the House. And after that, the Republicans made no effort to connect to that group of people, and in fact wanted distance from them. It's been a frustrating and confusing thing ever since. The Republican Party has had I don't know how many chances to connect at a gut level with majorities of Americans. Just take a look Obamacare. There has never been a majority in support of it. There has always been a majority opposition to Obamacare. The Democrats have been sweating this out, scared of it ever since 2010, and the Republicans have made not one effort to connect to that majority.
It's not all just Tea Party types opposed to Obamacare. There's a lot of moderates, independents, Democrats opposed to it, waiting to be led, waiting to be connected to by political party with leadership helping to stamp it out, roll it back, get rid of it, preserve the future. And nothing. Literally nothing. And it's gotten worse now. Now, this Rick Davis is simply speaking for the entire GOP consultant class, folks. "You Tea Party people, you want to burn the government down. You want to burn the government, you protectionists!" That means you are for anti-amnesty and you don't like spending and all. You're the kooks and oddballs and you represent a bigger threat to the Republican Party, they think, than the Democrats do. It's that convoluted.
Oh Rush, Rush..,. you didn't like him either,
You used to ridicule him.
Others may not remember but I do.
Consultants on the Tea Party Express light rail system, 2014.
Unfortunately, the Republicans (and Democrats) are tied to the money shakers and that is the money interests! When you look at this as it is, you begin to understand just why they hate the Tea Party (and their policies)!
We are against big government, big spending, and the supporters are trying their best to get money out of Washington. They are also the big providers of money to campaigns - so who are you going to cater to?
We don’t have government by the people, we have government by the most generous money folks. Do you really think that policy is going to out-do money donated to these politicians? Dream On!! The Tea Party lives for policy but can not control politicians that decide that money for their re-election is king. Not sure that it can every change.
America has become just another corrupt semi-democracy and will never regain their full status until money is taken out of the election system.
I have said it here before, Rick Santelli didn't start the Tea-Party Perot did. It is the same force, common sense people who are pissed off by liars that don't see the train wreck about to happen and they are the engineer driving!
I knew a lot of middle manager tech-types in that time frame that pulled the lever for Perot, Engineers, Draftsman too, no BS types, they felt the other two didn't represent them, it was a protest vote.
The difference this time is it is organic, of the individual, without looking @ a titular head that is a hand grenade with a bad haircut, this time they did themselves.
And that drives them even more nuts, we are one, made from many, but each of us is so unique and we refused to give it up or let someone like "Ross" do it or speak for us. We are so cantankerous we don't get along sometimes with our Tea Party mates, and that is a good thing!
Surprised the IRS isn’t mentioned here also. They still have the Tea Party strangled without tax exemptions and the Zippy regime isn’t about to change that.
Repeal the 17th Amendment. That will remove the need for campaign cash from the Senate. It will also obviate the need for term limits, since it is unlikely that legislatures will continually reappoint a senator for 30 years. The position is much more likely to be rotated through by the local powers that be who are far more beholden to their local voters than they are to deep pocket contributors.
I don’t think Rush was saying anything complimentary about Perot. He was just stating that some establishment republicans equate the Perot voters with the Tea Party groups. I don’t see them as the same either. The Tea Party was willing to work with the 2 party system and get republicans back to being champions of the constitution. Perot voters just split the vote and handed the dems a victory. So some issues may have been important to both groups, but in my view the Tea Party has a better strategy for winning.
The Establishment Republicans are correct. The TEA Party is a bigger threat to them than to the Democrats.
And vice versa.
Oh, sickolibs, sickolibs; Perot was the libertarian version of Joe Biden, who gave a liberal unknown the presidency. You may not remember, but I do.
I was no fan of Perot, in fact by late 1992 I was a Rush-bot.
But Rush NOW talks about how establishment GOP hated Perot, well he was one of them.
Rush was a guest in GHW Bush WH a few times, and he ridiculed Perot on his shows.
He naturally forgot to mention that.
Sorry, but repeal of the 17th Amendment would only change the direction from where the money comes from. Money in politics is a real thing and is causing many problems.
I would suggest an amendment that excludes all monies from anywhere except from the state from where the Representative resides. Then, all of those monies would be public knowledge at least three months from an election. Might not help with the corruption of today’s politicians but it might help.
There should probably be more control but not sure what at this point. If controlled by the government, it would be worthless..
So your solution to out of control government is to give them more control, which you admit would be useless.
The whole point of going back to the original framework is to keep politics local. The 17th amendment essentially nationalized the selection of Senators when it used to be much more of a local state thing.
And money is much less important in local elections for your legislative rep and state senator who would in turn select the US Senator. So to buy a US Senate position requires that you buy the majority of legislators.
This of course makes it astronomically more expensive and with a much lower potential for success for the money interests.
Not at all... Local elections are better than Federalizing it but it still boils down to money - even though you seem to not recognize that fact. Keeping politics local is a grand idea but it still remains that money rules (local or state, or federal). Such is life!
The lower the level the election, the less important money is. It’s also easier to raise the necessary funds because less is needed and having too much funding is viewed with a jaundiced eye by the voters.
Does it cure everything? Of course not. But it’s a darn fine first step in restoring the Constitution and the balance between the states and the fedgov. The 17th amendment was a serious mistake. It should be undone.
Ah yes, you’re so right but of course that means that the higher up the election, the greater the money influence!
Seems to be the major problem and I’m not really sure just how to rid ourselves of that problem (it does have a corrupting influence).
No commandment will really address that problem. It really seems to be a morality problem to me and the morality of most politicians are questionable! Yes, sounds like a comparison of used car salesman to me also.
Aye, repeal #17. You can go down and complain locally. Those a-hats hide behind security in DC.
True and the GOPe is doing nothing about it.