Comments

What do those “Republican elites” want? — 80 Comments

1. The thing with dots is you can connect them in just about any way you like. This may be more of a case of pundits with too much time to fill in their daily punditry over the course of an interminable election process. Given less time, I’m thinking they might have gotten to the point more succinctly and sooner i.e., the Party elite, the movers and shakers, the money men, the execrable Karl Rove, would rather the Party back anyone electable rather than someone conservative. It’s that simple — the rest is filler.

2. Hmm, interesting question. Looking where the money comes from would be one starting point. I’d certainly put Rush, Krauthammer, and Will somewhere among the establishment, but I don’t know that they are at all involved in planning. OTOH, I pretty sure there is behind the scenes coordination within groups: there was a big Romney push back in Dec, IIRC, all along the “he’s the only grown up candidate line”. It dribbled away after a week or so. Bacj in the 90’s, I also remember Will regurgitating a coordinated talking point and, believe it or not, blushing while blurting it out. Another place to look would among the campaign advisors, who must have some influence one way or the other. So, money, voice, and hanging out at the right parties would probably be traits of the influencial 100.

   This reminds me of a professor who taught a community organizing course back in the seventies. On the first day of class she wasn’t there, but written on the board was the assignment, “Find out who runs Logan.”

3. It’s not that there are elites acting as puppet masters. The fact they get their arses handed to them by the Donkey Party in every negotiation proves that.

   It’s that there are entrenched mediocrities with a strong interest in the status quo. This status quo includes 6 years or so of favors exchanged on the presumption of a Romney nomination. Newt has no connection to this status quo and the mediocracy is blowing a gasket over it.

   d(^_^)b
   http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
   “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

4. Who knows, its the liberals who tell us what non liberals think… so they will tell us what their opponents think and then we will know…
   (after all, we wait for feminists to tell us what men think… race orgs to tell us what whites think, and so on… no?)

5. There are multiple factions within these elites. Republican is not conservative, party big wheels are not necessarily electeds with seniority and they each overlap with the lobbyist factions in different ways and different places.

   Never discount the possibility that some or many of these people may be wrong or pointing fingers in mistaken directions.

   What comes to mind, and what I find the handiest, is Codevilla’s distinction between ruling class and country class.
   (although I haven’t made the time to read his whole treatise…)

   Gingrich can claim to be an outsider, even though I see him as the consummate insider, because he hasn’t been inside for a few years. He lectures and consults to the ruling class, having abandoned his country class upbringing.

   Limbaugh, despite all the bluster and the power the lefties ascribe to him, sees himself as country class. As a regular listener, I have come to understand him as a radio guy more than a political activist. He’s a disc jockey spinning rants instead of singles. He plays the records he likes and that his audience wants to hear.

   I like to say that if you can’t see the Republican establishment, you’re part of it.

6. Limbaugh is speaking of a fight for control of the direction of the Republican Party. THE issue of conflict: how do you win independent voters?

   The parties at war:
   1. consultants/Repub establishment, who believe you win independents via pandering to them, versus
   2. Tea Party hoi polloi, who believe you win independents via persuading them of the truth that small government conservatism is a superior system of governance.

   Limbaugh’s argument is that consultants/Repub establishment consider themselves enlightened moderates who lean slightly slightly towards the political right. Consultants/Repub establishment exist in exclusive company: are not of the hoi polloi who shop at Walmart; are embarrassed by the racist, uneducated, unnuanced hoi polloi; are afraid that the racist uneducated hoi polloi will frighten independent voters, and therefore create unnecessarily large margins of electoral defeat.*

   Limbaugh’s argument is that consultants/Repub elite believe the 2012 Presidency is truly a lost cause: Obama wins b/c Obama is black and has good will amongst the electorate. Secondarily, b/c of national mood re Dem actions while power, and b/c of numbers of Dem Senators and Congresspersons who are vulnerable this election season (or who have already announced they will not run again), therefore these nuanced circumstances mean Repubs can gain power in the Senate, and can retain power in Congress.

   Note the argument: Repubs will win – not b/c small government conservatism is superior – but rather b/c of nuanced circumstances of the 2012 Election cycle. Therefore, from the point of view of consultants/Repub elites: how to best take advantage of this set of nuanced circumstances? The answer, of course, is to elect the least threatening losing candidate: Romney. Ann Coulter has bought into this argument. She stated, months ago, that Romney would be the nominee and Romney would lose. Now, Ann Coulter loudly supports Romney.

   From a hoi polloi perspective: consultants/Repub establishment have a long term strategy to hang around D.C. for decades, and to take advantage of the cyclical circumstances which bring Repubs into various states of Congressional and Senatorial power. Consultants/Repub elites do not have true reverence for first principles of conservatism. They mainly want power. They sort of believe the nation is better off under their slightly slightly to the right stewardship, yet they MOSTLY believe the nation is better off under the stewardship of their superior skills and talent and wisdom.

   We hoi polloi do not buy into either argument, but, maybe especially, we do not buy into the argument about the superior skills and talent and wisdom of the consultants/Repub elite. In our opinion, the true superiority resides in small government conservatism. The rest is delusion.

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   *this is the argument which I, lovingly yet frustratedly, accuse you and many others on this blog of having bought into. This argument is popular amongst Dems, the left, media (even so called conservative media). This argument is in the air; is in the culture: we breath it in. You guys are buying into the propoganda which Nancy Pelosi and Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer are incessantly selling you.

   And, one reason you buy into the propoganda … is that it is absolutely true that some moderates truly would have stayed home in Nov 2012, yet truly will become frightened of a perceived extreme Repub candidate, and will therefore go to the polls in 2012.

   My argument: the above demographic of Democratic voter does not decide elections. When we attempt to thread a needle with the above demographic of Dem voter: we simultaneously, and inevitably, alienate much larger demographics of voters whom 1) we could be attracting to the cause of small government conservatism 2) are FAR more likely to decide any election.

7. In advance, sorry for such a long post. I can’t speak for Rush, but my thoughts are as follows. There is a Washington ruling class. No matter what they say in public, they all pretty much have the same goal in mind, which is keeping the status quo. It WORKS for them. They all get wealthier, and stay in power. Now, when push comes to shove, the R’s will TALK like conservatives, but they are all part of the same ruling class. For example, Bain executives contributed millions to Democrats. Democrats used that to get elected, they cut deals that work for Bain, and make a lot of statements about those horrible rich people. Then they all, Republicans, Democrats, and the wealthy, go hang out at their Washington parties. Now, *I* have no problem with that. I pretty much think that as long as I am able to meet my basic needs, I’m good. I have a few nice things, but overall, I’m not wealthy. I can afford a few beers, dinner out, some movies. Where I begin to have an issue with it is when they start mismanaging things, and we end up bailing out rich corporations, unions, and the like, while I’m get screwed from every direction. (My house is worth WAY less than I owe on it, my taxes inevitibly will be going up to pay for all of it, and then *I* can’t even get help, because I’m paid up on my mortgage.) I NEVER thought the banks should loan money to those who don’t deserve it, but builders made money off that, bankers made money off of that, congresscritters got elected off of that. Who DIDN’T benefit from it? ME! Who’s gonna pay for it? ME! These people have no interest in having Newt among them. He’s not one of them. They’d rather have Romney, because Romney IS one of them, or Obama, because like Romney, Obama IS one of them. The answer to your question about when did Newt become one of us? He’s ALWAYS been one of us. Go read the contract with America. It deals with many of the things you talk about today. Balanced Budget, it’s in there. Forcing people off of welfare? It’s in there. Making Congress play by the same rules? It’s in there. Term limits, IN THERE. These are the EXACT kinds of things the Washington elite DON’T want, because it takes their power away, which in turn robs them and their buddies of their wealth. It also returns power where it rightfully resides, with the people.

8. …Why would a losing but moderate candidate be more likely to help Republicans hold onto the House and win the Senate, while a winning-but-conservative candidate would be more likely to hurt Republicans and cause them to lose the legislature?
   Because of what is already set to happen!
   A moderate is an impure animal… like a Liger, being a tiger and a lion. They are a inconsistency waiting for a choice. They burn both ends against the middle and ignore contradictions. While a winning conservative is a pure beast… there is no conflicted other side to blame the bad on, and is too competent to create responsibility doubt.
   And this statement: Looking at the bigger picture… Are you looking at the bigger picture? With the details included, or is your bigger picture not all that much bigger?
   …looking at Romney not because he can beat Obama but because he can limit the damage in the Senate and House races, which is what they really want.
   Ask yourself, what damage needs to be limited?
   What damage is coming that Romney changes the image of? Note that they didn’t say that he would more competently handle it… they didn’t say that newt would cause it. they said that a losing moderate candidate can help hold the house and win the senate.
   The DAMAGE coming has to do with the laws over the past 4 or so years being written to create a bomb shortly after the election!!!!!!!! You see, the dems played it that they would still be in power… so they made a bomb… they dated the laws and most egregious acts and taxes for the year after the election. Figuring that they would be in power, they could easily use their majority to diffuse the bomb
   However, since the republicans broke that up, and can not insure control, there is no one who can diffuse it. Whoever gets the presidency, will have to deal with the bomb. Obama will just use his soverign acts to do it… and everyone wanting the thing not to go off, will just let him.
   So strategically speaking… a moderate loser is better… he will throw the game to potus, who then they will hope to make the big tax and other law explosions register and be associated with who actually created them. (This is why I have been saying its obvious they are going to throw it and why!!!)
   A winner who is a conservative will be eaten up and chewed up for four years for whats going to happen and will not be able to show that it was not he that did it, but they who did it years ago!!!!!
   To those that can actually see strategy and so on, and outcomes and remember all these little laws, rules, and changes… and can put them together without making stuff up to fill in the areas, but also distract from the fact… can see that the set up was made years ago, and that whomever wins will get that hot potato.
   We all may remember that the most onerous things in the healthcare law start in 2013
   new Medicare tax on unearned income will take effect January 1, 2013
   Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act to Take Effect in 2013
   The withholding law enacted in 2005, mandates that federal agencies, states, and certain local governments withhold three percent of nearly all of their contract payments, starting in 2013 (the provision will cost more to implement than it is estimated to raise in new revenue, which completely defeats its intended purpose)
   In the health care bill is a provision – all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% “Sales Tax”
   Did they repeal the payroll tax? Or will it return to the old 6.2% rate in 2013?
   Bush-era tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, 2012
   Draconian defense cuts also go into effect!!!!!
   Super Committee’s failure triggers a process called “sequestration,” under which automatic spending cuts of $1.2 trillion are implemented over ten years beginning in 2013.
   Congress must pass legislation known as the “doc fix” to avoid a scheduled 30% reduction in reimbursements received by doctors who see Medicare patients (did they?)
   There are lots of other “forcing events”

   The big point I constantly make is that if your not paying attention to the REAL things your going to be confused with what they do, the tack they take, and so on…
   And we refuse to look or discuss those things!!!!!!!!!
   We muse rather than share facts… we don’t want to go over signing statements, past laws, and so on. we want to be like marx or the image of it, where we sit in a room and know the world from our intuition. While great for our ego, its useless outside our own minds and like minds
   Laws from 2005 are going to have an effect… just as CRA was from Carter, and adjusted.
   When the winning conservative steps up to plate, all that stuff that THEY know and discuss, and we refuse to, will all come into play…
   Kind of why I keep trying to point to history, law, and such.. and ignore msm debates as dog and pony shows for the idiots… because that is what they are, given the ignorati wont remember whats in place, when its enfoprced, whats expired, who wants what, and so on…
   They are going to throw the election since they cant defuse the stuff that’s coming.
   This plays into the control freaks hands as they are not going to be subject to the thing if they change the very nature of the state, and the peoples ability to respond… you know, in a sovereign let them eat cake and screw the little people kind of king despot authority based manner
   The first years of that despotic Austrian fellow who changed his name was spent aligning things to his power base and so on… well that’s the same here..
   But I would pay attention to the other pieces arranging themselves fvor a big conflict with a small (8th grade) mind, who wont step down, and who will completely screw things up following the stuff he has been programmed to follow and never deviate from
   How would WWII have turned out if we had Obama?
   Would Obama have won a conflict over nuclear missiles in cuba?
   In a REAL conflict, not a police action with others much less capable…
   and large numbers, how would he do?
   Would he sue for peace and merger right away?

9. Neo – your original post is confused and begs its own questions – obviously the RINO elite does not want to lose. They *disagree* with the Tea Party about what will win. So it’s disingenuous to use Tea Party theories about what will win to judge RINO motives.

   The RINO elite has long suffered culturally and intellectual inferiority complexes. These are the folks who’ve attended elite universities where Left is cool and Right is nerdy – or evil. They participate in the technocratic class that is overwhelmingly Left-liberal in its outlook.

   Even without nefarious profit motives – which are never too far from politics – the RINO discourse is clearly marked by an apologetic tone. This emotional/intellectual stance produced phrases like “compassionate conservatism”.

   It’s also why RINOs compromise and fold – basically slowing the imposition of the Leftist welfare state, instead of opposing it on conservative principle.

   RINOs sincerely believe that the American people are not interested in Reagan-style small-government Federalism.

   At least, not the *cool* Americans living rent-free in their minds…

   These are the folks who were scandalized by Reagan – before they grabbed onto his coattails.

   Unfortunately the track record is clear: moderates do not win elections for Republicans.

10. The Republicans were the “permanent minority party for a very long time. Since 1931 with the 72nd congress the house has been in Republican hands only nine times. They held the majority in only five elections. Since 1931 they have only held the Senate ten times. They have held both bodies at the same time only seven times.

    Until Newt built the foundation for the Republican take over in 1994, both parties moved ever leftward. Republican congressmen and Senators often were willing to compromise to bring home pork. They also did not want to get “targeted” by the Democrats when they came up for reelection, so out of a desire to stay at the trough, were “bipartisan” and compromised on liberal legislation. With the ability to more and more effectively gerrymander districts and 90%+ reelection rates for incumbents of both parties, a “political class” established itself.

    There are still many Republicans, especially in the Senate that would like to return to business as usual. Crony deals with lobbyists and various allies. Retaining their privilege, without regard to their oaths of office. This is the establishment. The establishment left is much worse for the nation, but the Republican establishment would far prefer not to have to deal with tough issues.

    It is important to remember that many establishment Republicans support policies that are to the left of the Democrat party when JFK was elected. The establishment is also very effective at co-opting newcomers.

    The Republicans failed to win two Senate seats simply because the NRSC pulled out of races where a conservative won the primary over the candidate it selected.

    The newly energized conservative core, part of which is the TEA party, is more conservative than the general Republican party of JFK’s time. They make the “moderate” Republicans nervous, and they are bent on shaking things up and ending the dominance of DC.

    Them and us. It’s very real and will take a long time and many election cycles to change.

11. your original post is confused and begs its own questions

    Oh come, it was a little roadside bomb set out to catch the unwary un-Mitts. But we sniffed it out.

12. Here’s my take, in a few short blasts:

    1. The “elite” “establishment” (let’s just call them “EE” for short) consists mainly of GOP officeholders, consultants, and journalists who have been around a long time and know a thing or two about national politics.

    2. They tend to support Mitt not because of some shared, secret agenda (e.g., a desire to tank the prez election in order to save Congress) but because Newt is has ALSO been a member of the EE for the last 30 years, they know him well, and they know he’d make a terrible nominee and president. They’ve simply concluded Romney is the best overall candidate among those choosing to run.

    3. Newt is trying to run as an outsider because he lacks the support of the EE insiders. He has no choice but to pretend he’s an “insurgent” candidate running against the EE. Naturally, this theme resonates with folks who really ARE outsiders and relative novices to GOP politics, which describes a lot of the Tea Party movement.

    4. The EE constitutes a group of at least thousands of people who pour out their thoughts and ideas on a daily basis, often in ink or over the airways. There is simply NO WAY that this group, AS a group, could have decided that Obama is unbeatable and we need a mushy moderate to lose to him in order to save our hopes of a somewhat Republican Congress and kept this dumbass strategy and the supposed reasons behind it a complete secret. Enough with the conspiracy theories, already.

    5. Neo is right as usual: In an electoral primary system, the EE can’t select a candidate and force him on the people. If a candidate wins or loses, blame the voters, not the EE.

13. Ben David: it’s Limbaugh’s argument that’s confused. My post is an attempt to track his confused argument.

    He is saying that the “elites” have given up on winning the presidency, and that they think neither candidate can win, but they are backing Romney anyway because they think he has the best chance of letting them keep Congress. But I’m saying there would be no problem at all with that if they really think it’s the case–why shouldn’t they try to maximize Republicans’ chances of at least stymieing Obama by keeping Republicans in control of the House and taking control of the Senate? But Limbaugh isn’t conceding that; he’s positing much more nefarious motives for them.

    In order to buy his theory of the nefariousness of their plans (that they even prefer Obama over Gingrich) they would have to believe that Gingrich has a good chance of actually winning the presidency and losing them control of Congress at the same time. That’s his “logic,” and it’s illogical.

    If I sound confusing, it’s because I’m trying to explain a very confusing bit of supposed reasoning. And no one has yet answered the question of how Limbaugh’s reverse-coattails theory could possibly make sense. If Republicans want to retain the House and get control of the Senate (and we all agree they do, for reasons both political and personal), and they don’t truly think Romney would actually draw more votes than Gingrich and have longer coattails, then why would they support him?

    Perhaps a lot of readers have not followed the links and actually read Limbaugh’s arguments.

14. As a longtime observer of Capitol Hill, my belief is that–depending on your personality, and unless you have a really strong personal identity, and a set of strong, central, core beliefs–becoming a member of Congress–becoming a member of that exclusive club–and having all that power, all those perks, and being the object of all the bowing and scraping and adulation (absolute control, for instance, of your staff–you as a Congressman deliberately exempt from all wage and hour, labor, anti-discrimination, and working condition laws, rules, standards, and regulations that apply to everyone else in the U. S., and thus able to hire and fire and pay as you will–talk about a “motivator” for your staff (to cause them to fear and stroke you) , moving in rarefied circles, being sought out (by all sorts of powerful people and celebrities, who are “stroking” you, asking you for favors, and who can, in return, donate to you and help you retain power), and being told continually how smart and wonderful you are, turns most congressmen’s heads, and is a very powerful, seductive, and addicting thing. And, thus, many people who come to Washington–no matter what their originally good intentions and plans–are sucked into this vortex and “transformed,” so that the goal of getting re-elected (and that means raising money from day one after the last election that put you in or kept you in power), and staying in the vortex, eclipses all else; as I see it, it is a very corrupting atmosphere.

    Thus, many Congressional Republicans want to stay in power, and for things to basically stay the same–same programs and general spending trend, same people running the show, same donors, and institutions, and goto experts setting the agenda and calling the shots.

    As I see it, Congressional Republicans likely estimate Mitt to not be that combative or strong a personality, and likely “manageable.”

    Newt, on the other hand, is known and viewed as a much stronger personality, a “maverick” and a “loose cannon,” who is not averse to conflict, in fact, someone who apparently relishes confrontation and conflict, and what’s worse, a guy who is a lot more knowledgeable and smarter than most. Newt a person who has his own ideas, who will really change the landscape in very significant ways–a major earthquake to Mitt’s likely strong breeze, and a person who is not “manageable.”

    As President Gingrich a person whose policies will be much more likely to require a restructuring of the current power structure and its membership, disrupt current programs and spending trends, heightened confrontation and conflict with the opposition, call for a tremendous amount of personal political risk and the expenditure of political capital by individual members, and a lot of new work, and the current congressional Republican establishment is terrified of that prospect.

    Moreover, if Newt, on balance seemingly much more conservative than current Congressional Republicans, gets elected, his election may also result in a lot of new, more conservative, “down ticket” Congressmen and Senators being elected along with him, and new power accruing to what may be viewed as more” radical” Tea Party types and formerly apolitical and uninvolved “ordinary folks.”

    Thus, as I see it, Congressional Republicans are not afraid of Newt losing, they are afraid of Newt winning, and the massive and radical changes he would inevitably bring if, as President, he tried to implement the programs he has outlined in his” Contract for the 21st Century.”

15. Wolla Dalbo:

    Yes, I understand that argument very well—that they might be afraid of Newt winning. I have no problem with that argument at all.

    But that is nothing like the argument Limbaugh is actually making. He is saying they do not think Newt can win, and yet at the same time they are supporting Romney as a candidate (who also cannot win) because they think he’ll pull in more votes for them to retain Congress, and they are doing this only for selfish reasons.

    And at the same time he says they’d prefer an Obama victory to a Gingrich one (see the second quote of his in my post), which makes no sense at all. Obama would be far more likely to veto whatever they wanted to pass than Gingrich would, and be far less under their control.

    If Limbaugh had merely said that Republicans in Congress are afraid of Newt winning the presidency rather than Romney, that would make perfect sense (and is in fact rather obvious), and I wouldn’t have written this piece. But that is not what he’s saying here, although I’m sure he’d agree with the sentiment. But then, I’d agree with it, too.

16. Today, Jim Geraghty mentions Tom Coburn’s take on the revolt against Gingrich because he was giving up on the principles they were elected to uphold. (You can also search inside Coburn’s book at Amazon.) It does show how the power structure works and how Newt used his power. But we the people keep returning the congressmen to office. The Tea Party did some good work in supporting changes.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/289249/when-gingrich-tried-and-failed-intimidate-tom-coburn

    WRT pundits, I find them all over the map on so many issues, certainly not a consolidated dictatorial elite. I am willing to learn from anyone and willing to reject any opinions they put forth. I think the failure of pundits to jump on candidates’ bandwagons prompted some of the anger we see today. Certainly some were dismissive of Palin, but others seemed to be pointing out weak spots she needed to work on. I think the latter is valid. Christine O’Donnell is a completely different case. She was simply unqualified for the Senate. Her appeal was emotional, and some people still feel the pain of her rejection. You still see her name brought up on comments about the elite. Cain was perceived as getting the same treatment, but he had serious gaps and disinterest in foreign policy. He just wasn’t ready for the top job.

    I think the ruling class mentality is real, but it’s not the big conspiracy many think and it can be fought by looking for competent alternatives and making better arguments.

17. Tom: my response to you is more or less the same as my response to Wolla Dalbo (see comment above), which is that I completely understand the idea that Republican “elites” would favor Newt over Romney as president, and why.

    But that’s not what Limbaugh is discussing here, nor is it what he’s charging them with.

18. Sorry for being off topic. 🙂 I normally don’t listen to Rush, because I view him as a major propagandist, and an attack dog. I agree with him regularly, but there’s a lot that I roll my eyes at. We need attack dogs, and he serves that role perfectly, he stokes the base, gets them fired up, and puts them in a fighting mood.

    Expat, I’m not saying there’s some really major conspiracy, although I can see someone going to Coulter, and some of the other major conservative writers and tapping them on the shoulder and sayin, “we want this guy”. I guess what I’m saying is that there’s a REAL loose conspiracy among all of the ruling class. They may not be able to pick a candidate for us, they certainly can’t. But what they CAN do is take some damning piece of evidence and make sure it gets to the right people. Sayyyy for example “Here’s Cain’s sexual harrassment stuff”, and point to place that where a person might some skeletons if one were to dig a little. By the same token, they choose not to point out skeletons that they know about. I’ve gotten off topic again :-(. Sorry!

19. But that is nothing like the argument Limbaugh is actually making. He is saying they do not think Newt can win, and yet at the same time they are supporting Romney as a candidate (who also cannot win) because they think he’ll pull in more votes for them to retain Congress, and they are doing this only for selfish reasons.

    Because they (the R elite) think, with good reason, that if Newt runs people like you will stay home. Obama has no coat-tails, but Romney might have some coat-tails. Newt has negative coat tails.

    The R elite are betting:

    1)the actual conservatives who don’t like Mitt will still come and vote for R congressmen/senators, but still not beat Obama.

    2) Enough squishy moderates and “values voters” will be so turned off by Newt that they will stay home and the House and Senate will go Dem and of course Obama will be re-elected.

    Therefore go for Mitt and at least keep the House and Senate.

    It’s a very cynical calculation, refudiates the largest, most loyal Republicans (conservatives) and plays “prevent defense” relying on the squishy and mercurial “moderates”.

    Rush does not support Newt, nor does he think he can win. Limbaugh feels about Newt the same ways as I do:

    “I approve his occasional courageous conservative message; I wish it didn’t come wrapped in a Gingrich and he’ll go off his conservative message at any moment.”

    Rush, and I, unlike the R party believe that unabashed, consistant, Conservative message and actions win, but Gingrich is both abashed and inconsistent.

    Makes perfect sense to me. Mitt sucks, he just defended the MSM debate moderators. Newt sucks, he just defended OWS against Romney, but at least Romney doesn’t stampede the sheeple away from the voting booth.

    Makes sense to me….

20. Gray: I get it, I get it. The only thing is, if that’s the way they’re thinking, there’s nothing wrong with (or especially selfish) about their thinking. What they would be doing would be conceding a presidency that is already lost no matter which candidate is nominated, and cutting other Republican losses by trying to keep the House in Republican hands and even win the Senate. This could be done for several reasons, including selfish ones but hardly limited to them: stopping Obama from getting runaway power as best they can would be the leading good reason to do it.

    So why would Rush criticize them? He should applaud them! Their calculation would not be cynical unless they thought Gingrich had some chance of winning the presidency without holding onto congress, and that doesn’t make sense.

21. I think Rush is implying that establishment republicans fear a shake up in the core makeup of their their ranks than a shrinking of their ranks.

22. SteveH: they fear it in 2012 if Newt runs for president and loses, vs. if Romney runs for president and loses? Do they think Newt’s nomination will somehow cause some of them to be primaried such a late date, and Romney’s would not? I’m not understanding how this would work.

23. Heh. I finally get your question.

    It’s simpler than you’re making it out to be (which is understandable, as you’d have to listen to Rush for awhile, to “get” his way of speaking …which vocal nuances do NOT transcribe all that well btw: what is fluid and funny auditorily, can and does seem mixed up textually).

    He’s saying that the center of power of the GOP is more likely to move to the Tea Party/conservatives if Gingrich wins than if Romney wins. And that the GOP establishment has their panties all in a twist over that having become a more likely possibility with the SC results, because – again, according to the establishment GOP …of which the GOP elite are a subset btw, so you shouldn’t conflate the two – This Is Not How It Was Supposed To Happen.

    In truth (though I’m only speculating), Rush probably finds either candidate acceptable (and will support ANY GOP candidate against Obama and the Left) but leans Newt, because: 1) they have history, 2) Rush certainly understands the importance of Newt’s Contract with America to conservatism, and 3) Rush is intimately familiar with the bogus ethics charges (Newt pleaded guilty for much the same reasons that Palin resigned from the governorship of Alaska …you could make the case that Gingrich was the model for what the Left and the MSM did to Palin actually).

    Oh …and maybe a 4) it’s not like Rush hasn’t had his own marriage “issues” (if you’ve been through a bad divorce, you tend to be less judgmental about it …i.e., its nobody’s business …and he certainly understands and resent that the Left has a huge double standard regarding extra-marital in flagrante delicto, er, “stuff”).

    Rush doesn’t give a crap about GOP btw: Rush cares about America and Americans, and he believes the best way to sustain the idea of American exceptionalism is through living and supporting conservative ideals.

    The GOP is just the tool of convenience to achieve this.

    He’s been preaching the Gospel of Conservatism for over a generation now.

    As for the conservative movement, and certainly the TP: we understand that Rush is “one of us”, in much the same way we accept the Palins. It’s not about the money (you listen to Rush for awhile, you’ll hear his story: he grew up poor, he failed again and again, until he perservered); he made his fortune the old fashioned way, he earned it.

    (NOTE: That last sentence is not in any fashion a dig at Romney. Romney came from money and power, which may not give him the same home-boy cred’ as a Rush or a Palin, but is hardly an indictment. Rich guys can make money the old fashioned way, too, and while it may be easier to get started, it still shows respectable good stewardship to have grown it by hard work and effort.)

    Does that make it more clear?

24. All inside the beltway politicos want to stay inside the beltway at any cost, including the implosion of the republic. The few exceptions are, perhaps, the new ‘tea party’ folks in the house. Elitists by definition have few or no core principles that they are willing to stand by come hell or hight water. When high water approaches they run to the microphones to get right with the MSM pundits.

    Ultimately, power resides with the people and for far too long the people have wielded their power unwisely. Yet I have hope for change. 😉 BHO has lifted the blinders for a key segment of the voters. If the republicans can field a candidate with a solid, concise message it will be another major victory a la Ronnie Reagan.

25. Neo: IOW the establishment wants the republican party to be a moderate body, period, win or lose. And what people like Rush are pointing out, is the irrationalness of how such a position can never pick candidates who initiate a tide changing groundswell of the not so moderate folk. And tide changing has been desperately needed.

26. I didn’t hear the Limbaugh show in question, but I think uncleFred’s 4:56 pm comment is closest to the mark.

    As I’ve said countless times before, the Republican establishment is content to become like the “conservative” parties of Europe. They want a seat at the table of power and a say in how the bribes, favors, and benefits are divvied up. It doesn’t matter whether they are in the majority at any given time.

    In many European countries, the government changes hands now and then, but nothing important changes. The legitimacy of the welfare state itself is seldom questioned. Dismantling national health care or repealing draconian gun laws are not even topics for serious discussion.

27. SteveH: I get that point. But it’s not what my post is about.

28. rickl:
    January 25th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    “…but I think uncleFred’s 4:56 pm comment is closest to the mark.“

    uncleFred’s history and analysis summary is excellent.

29. davisbr: no, it does not make it more clear in the least.

    I continue to find that very few people are hearing what I’m saying, although I’ve repeated it now ad nauseum. I’ve not sure why this is so hard to convey in a way that’s heard and understood, but I’ll try one more time.

    You wrote in your last comment, “He’s saying that the center of power of the GOP is more likely to move to the Tea Party/conservatives if Gingrich wins than if Romney wins.”

    That is not what he’s saying in the monologues I’m critiquing, or I wouldn’t be critiquing them. I not only understand that thought you stated that I just put in quotes, but I actually agree with it. And I also understand that Limbaugh agrees with it as well.

    But that’s not the argument he’s mounting here. He’s saying very explicitly that the Republicans in Congress (and whatever other elites he’s referring to) believe that neither Romney nor Gringrich can or will win. So the consequences of a Gingrich win in the minds of the Republican elites are not what he’s talking about. The rest of his argument (which I will NOT repeat here, having repeated it too many times already) follows directly from that, and does not make sense given that first premise.

30. The GOP overlords hold that Newt Romney will lose to Obama.

    Newt will polarize down-ballot, possibly even inspiring more loons like Angle and O’Donnell to win their races. The GOP elite loses control of the Senate, either outright or by the election of TEA people wearing the GOP jersey. The establishment depends on compliance.

    Romney will draw squishies to GOP favorites down ballot and increase Republican establishment power in Congress. Romney will not inspire anyone with maverick tendencies who might vote against the establishment’s legislative deals.

    Limbaugh is adamantly against a third party. He advocates for conservatives to take control of the GOP. He wants people like Angle and O’Donnell to win. But at the same time, when the GOP picks a nominee, he will attempt to help drag that person across the finish line, just like he did for McCain.

    Limbaugh’s strategy is aimed at defeating both Democrats and establishment Republicans. If Good Newt won and actually governed like Good Newt talks, I think Limbaugh would be delighted.

31. At the risk of cross-posting…Limbaugh also holds that the GOP establishment wants control of both Houses so they get all the committee chairs and other perks. With a Congressional majority and an Obama second term, the GOPers get the corner offices and a President willing to sign all the spending bills they present to him.

32. Tom,
    My comment about the conspiracy theory was not directed at you. I was think of commenters all over the blogosphere who don’t seem particularly well informed but have just latched on to the enemy of the month.

    I did some searching through the Coburn book on Amazon. Although he criticized Gingrich, he was also criticizing the way business was done in DC and how hard it was to buck the system.

    One difficulty we have as outsiders is trying to distinguish between a tactical move and a sellout. I think some politicians use the first term to avoid confessing to the latter, even to themselves.

33. foxmarks: you are the first person here who seems to understand what I’m trying to get at.

    So let me try to understand your point by asking a few questions:

    (1) So would you say that Limbaugh would prefer an Obama victory and a Democrat Congress to the continuance of the hegemony of “establishment Republicans” in Congress, especially if that Democrat control of Congress and the presidency also includes the defeat of some of those establishment Republicans in Congress and the election of a higher proportion of Tea Party candidates there than before? Even if those Tea Party Republicans are part of a minority party, powerless to stop Obama’s worst excesses for the next four years?

    (2) Who are these Tea Party candidates? Are they already running, or would they primary the Republican old guard in Congress as a result of being emboldened by a Gingrich candidacy, whereas they would fail to do so if Romney were the candidate?

    (3) However these Tea Party candidates are nominated, do you think Tea Party supporters really would fail to come out to vote for their candidates if Romney were the nominee, and would only do so if Gingrich were the nominee? Is that the level of their dedication to the Tea Party cause, that they could be put off so easily? Didn’t they come out in force in 2010, a non-presidential election year? And wouldn’t a Romney nomination motivate them even more strongly to come out and vote for Tea Party candidates to show the Republican establishment how angry they are that Romney was nominated instead of Gingrich? Do you think they can’t figure all that out and vote for their champions in Congress while ignoring Romney?

34. Well, there are the Republican elites and then there is the Republican elite. The Republican elite is Limbaugh. The Republican elites are all the other Republicans who have more power than you do.

35. Neo==Perhaps your assumption, that Rush had indeed–despite appearances– made a logical, coherent point is in error.

36. Then there are the Republican masses represented here by all those who are neither Limbaugh (who just really says blah-blah-blah in order to fill up three hours of a radio show three to five days a week) nor are they the rich Republican elites of Washington. These bizarro-world Republicans are those who spend their waking moments during this silly season doing what hard-core Republicans always do: THIRST FOR DEATH!

37. all the other Republicans who have more power than you do.

    So it’s a power struggle. Big whoop. Not like it’s something new in the world, eh? And those who launch the struggle don’t have the power of those who resist. And Mitt is definitely one of the resisters. He kept the Tea Party at arms length and has been cagey about Obamacare. On top of that, his campaign strategy has been to stand around with a mallet and play whack-a-mole, but one of them made it out of the hole. He had the money, the organization, and years of prep. Sounds like one of the elite to me. And I don’t recall the shrill reaction when he accused Perry of wanting to end Social Security, an attack from the Left if I ever saw one. What goes around comes around. I’m waiting to see how much Santorum loves him 😉

38. Parker “If the republicans can field a candidate with a solid, concise message it will be another major victory a la Ronnie Reagan.”

    But they wont. past two elections they fielded connected insiders who couldn’t/wouldn’t put up a fight that could really win…

    This is what they are up against…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIUYQo

    A better question might be,

    What would progressive democrats and progressive republicans gain if the nature of our republic changes to a different kind of state by letting progressive Obama win?

    Simplified:
    What would the progressives win if the progressive in office wins another term to finish the CHANGE?

    when Beck accused Newt of being a progressive the response was:

    “I don’t know,” Gingrich responded to the charges, laughing. “It depends on what standard you’re using, you know? The fact is that I balanced the budget for four consecutive years. And we did so while cutting taxes and increasing employment so people went back to work, they left welfare, they left food stamps, they left unemployment, they left Medicaid. Who else has a record of that level of achievement? I worked with Reagan in ’79, ’80. I worked with Reagan for 8 years in defeating the Soviet Empire. I think those are relatively conservative credentials.”

    notice he didnt say no, and then gave you this long answer of accomplishments that are credentials. but still dont answer the question given that, that was then, this is now… and a simple no would have been more clearly informative.

    and there is a video of romney in 2002 saying he is a progressive.

    Mitt Romney in Worcester 2002 “My views are progressive” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMcjJEXt9To

    where did the progressives start in the US govt as party? with the bull moose party of roosevelt after taft turned out to be too conservative for him.. and for Senator Robert La Follette (of wisconsin. what did obama say in regards to that place?)

    from wiki
    The Progressive convention and platform
    (in 1912)

    In the social sphere the platform called for

    * A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
    * Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
    * Limited injunctions in strikes
    * A minimum wage law for women
    * An eight hour workday
    * A federal securities commission
    * Farm relief
    * Workers’ compensation for work-related injuries
    * An inheritance tax
    * A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax

    The political reforms proposed included

    * Women’s suffrage
    * Direct election of Senators
    * Primary elections for state and federal nominations

    The platform also urged states to adopt measures for “direct democracy”, including:

    * The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
    * The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
    * The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
    * Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

    so are they still working for the same end from 1912? regardless of party?

    The convention approved a strong “trust-busting” plank, but Roosevelt had it replaced with language that spoke only of “strong National regulation” and “permanent active [Federal] supervision” of major corporations.

    these would evolve over the years as different progressives took office from one party or another… Roosvelt being a republican who founded the progressive party… wilson won as a progressive democrat… so was FDR…

    The fourth and current liberal Progressive movement grew out of social activism movements, Naderite and populist left political movements in conjunction with the civil rights, LGBT (Gay rights), women’s or feminist, and environmental movements of the 1960s—1980s.[47] This exists as a cluster of political, activist, and media organizations ranging in outlook from centrism (e.g., Reform Party of the United States of America) to left-liberalism to social democracy (like the Green Party) and sometimes even democratic socialism (like the Socialist Party USA).

    While many contemporary Democratic party leaders and Green Party leaders have at times called themselves “progressives,” the term is usually self-applied by those on or to the left of the Democratic party,[48][not in citation given] Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Al Franken, Debbie Stabenow, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Mike Gravel, Cynthia McKinney (The Green Party candidate for President in 2008), John Edwards, Sherrod Brown, Kathleen Sebelius, David McReynolds, Ralph Nader (The Green Party presidential candidate in 2000), Howard Dean, Peter Camejo, Al Gore, and the late Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy. At the same time, the term is also applied to many leaders in the women’s movement, cosmopolitanism, the labor movement, the American civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the immigrant rights movement, and the gay and lesbian rights movement.

    Other well-known progressives include Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, George Lakoff, Michael Lerner, and Urvashi Vaid

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

    go ahead.. read the wiki, read the names.. and see how many are communists like Zinn…Dewey and tons others…

39. from wiki:

    The main current national progressive parties are the Democratic Party and the Green Party of the United States. The Democratic Party has major-party status in all fifty States, while there are state Green Parties or affiliates with the national Green Party in most states.

    and

    Significant publications include The Progressive magazine, The Nation, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, Mother Jones, In These Times, CounterPunch, and AlterNet.org. Broadcasting outlets include (the now-defunct) Air America Radio, the Pacifica Radio network, Democracy Now!, and certain community radio stations. Notable media voices include Cenk Uygur, Alexander Cockburn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Juan Gonzalez, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Arianna Huffington, Jim Hightower, Lionel, the late Molly Ivins, Ron Reagan, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Stephanie Miller, Mike Malloy, Keith Olbermann, Greg Palast, Randi Rhodes, Betsy Rosenberg, Ed Schultz, David Sirota, Jon Stewart and The Young Turks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

    see anyone or any paper that we comment on here?

40. neo: My clock is right twice a day, too. 🙂

    1) Defeating Obama is the top priority. Remember, “I hope he fails.” Limbaugh rejects the establishment view that Newt Romney can’t win. Moving the GOP body of electeds rightward is a second-tier goal. Of course he would prefer all-GOP, even it were all-GOP-establishment. But Limbaugh thinks that the establishment softness will prevent them from actually winning all three elected arms of the FedGov. His is an opposite-ish view to the GOP elites who think Newt Romney can’t win the Presidency.

    Running with speculation, I think Limbaugh would take Good Newt and losing the Senate, if the Senate was lost because the GOP lost Snowe or Collins or other establishment moderate Repub seats. Newt’s veto would keep things together until the next election in two years, when more conservatives could extend the rightward push.

    2) I don’t know who TEA candidates are. Limbaugh has not commented on any down-ballot races yet. Even in my own districts, I do not know who the TEA people might favor. It is too early to name names in Congressional races, I think. There is still time to recruit contenders.

    3) The TEA people will vote. They are 100% engaged. The difference is in the campaigning. With Romney at the top of the ticket, TEA people would feel the best they can manage is another holding action, so they’re less likely to give up a weekend on the lake to go door-knocking, even for a Congressional candidate they like.

    It’s the 80/20 rule… the 20% base of support does 80% of the work in a campaign. If the base is not fully inspired, fundraising calls are not made, lit is not dropped and the disengaged voter never hears the message.

    It really is a fight for the middle, and getting the messages out to those in the middle. This is why I see Obama as defeatable. Much of his base is simply not inspired. The movement they were a part of in ’08 has died. And its why I keep saying Romney has no coattails. There is no passion in Romneyville. He does not present himself as leader of a movement. He’s just the new boss.

    Even though I am resolutely anti-party, I spent a decade as a “community organizer”. I think I have some insider perspective on precinct-level campaigning that drives my assessments.

41. Wolla Dalbo: LOL.

42. foxmarks & davisbr: You’re both correct. I typically listen to Maja Rushdie up to an hour each day and for many years. That said, NeoNeocon, he’s been a tad hard to “get” lately.

    Artfldgr: Put the coffee down..Gooood…Now, step away from that mug.

43. neo? Maybe I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. So I’ll go back over this didacticly.
    …first Neo quotes

    Both [monologues] advance a similar and somewhat complicated theory that starts with the premise that the Republican leaders already in power have for some reason decided (incorrectly) that Obama is unbeatable.

    …Why would a losing but moderate candidate be more likely to help Republicans hold onto the House and win the Senate, while a winning-but-conservative candidate would be more likely to hurt Republicans and cause them to lose the legislature?

    …What’s more, why wouldn’t these establishment Republicans, who want so badly for their own selfish reasons to keep control of the House and gain control of the Senate, want to also win the presidency for the party?

    …second Rush qoutes

    I think they believe (deep down in the depths of their souls) that Obama can’t be beat. I think they look at Mitt Romney as the single only hope we have of taking the Senate even if he loses the presidential race.

    They are scared to death they’re going to lose the House and not win the Senate, and I told you on November 10th that’s their primary concern.

    I think they really believe that the 20%’s where every election’s won.

    ..they would rather Obama win than a full-throated conservative beat him, because they don’t control the conservatives.

    And they look at Romney as, “Eh, cool. He’s a moderate; he’s not total ribald conservative,” but they think because sounds intelligent and he’s smooth talker now (he doesn’t have many gaffes), that he can, while losing the race for the presidency, still bring off a number of victorious Senate and House raises.

    Some of our guys, I’m telling you, do not think Obama’s beatable.

    Rush prologue

    Rush always starts from two premises . One, that winning isn’t winning to the establishment GOP if the Tea Party/conservatives win (Rush isn’t just the anti-Leftist, he’s also the anti-moderate and the anti-establishment …he’s a conservative, first, last, and middle). Two, that conservativism will win elections when clearly articulated (because the American heart is conservative, and whether individual Americans know it or not, they can recognize shared beliefs).

    Rush argument.

    First Rush asserts that the establishment GOP truly believes that elections are only won by influencing the 20% …that is, the establishment GOP believe that elections are only won by attracting the moderates (which establishment GOP believe all Independents are).

    Rush also makes an aside that the establishment GOP doesn’t think the party can win against Obama [even with “their guy” Romney], period.

    Next. Rush asserts that the establishment GOP think that Romney will mitigate the potential damage of a conservative candidacy (whether successful or unsuccessful) by not lowering the probability of electoral victory on the down-ticket races (specifically, the Senate races), and perhaps being attractive

    Which, btw, you recognize …

    Limbaugh’s theory would only makes sense if those Republican elites thought that both candidates would lose but that Newt would lose bigger and cause them to lose Congress, or that both candidates would likely win and carry Congress with them but Romney would be the president they could work with better.

    …but then discard.

    ???

    So let’s try this via a linear Q&A tack.

    Q: why wouldn’t these establishment Republicans, who want so badly for their own selfish reasons to keep control of the House and gain control of the Senate, want to also win the presidency for the party?
    A: Rush says the establishment GOP simply doesn’t believe they can win with any GOP candidate (he doesn’t offer, but assumes agreement, with his premise) …so it’s less the establishment GOP “don’t want to”, than they’ve pre-supposed the outcome, and ceded the race.

    Q: And if Gingrich is really more likely to win than Romney (which Limbaugh certainly appears to sincerely believe), why choose Romney?
    A: Rush says that would be a case of winning being not winning …the establishment GOP sees Romney as one of their own (making “control” hardly necessary). Also, though Romney will also lose (according to the supposition that Rush makes about the establishment GOP), he will still attract moderates/Independents down-ticket. But Gingrich would usurp, not consolidate, establishment GOP power (due to Rush’s basic premise). The establishment GOP does not believe that Gingrich can win either (agreed that Rush does), and would also worsen the down-ticket race

    Q: Limbaugh’s argument (of the elites supporting Romney because he is more likely to lead to Republicans keeping control of Congress) only makes sense if Republican elites really do sincerely believe that Gingrich has a worse chance of winning the presidency than Romney does.
    A: Not really, since you’ve conflated two different arguments that Rush was making, into a mash-up. Limbaugh’s first argument is that the establishment GOP believes Romney will positively influence moderates (i.e., Independents), though he himself cannot win (because no one can beat Obama). While his second argument is that the establishment GOP believes that not only will Newt lose (because no one can beat Obama …and yes, I also think Rush does believe Newt will win IF Newt can keep to a conservative path), but that a Newt candidacy pushes the moderates (the “20%”, or the Independents) to also vote Democrat down-ticket. Two different arguments. Both independent. But both consistent with Rush’s assertions about the establishment GOP.

    Q: In other words, Romney would have to represent in their minds the best bet for victory on both fronts, legislative and presidential, although the first would be more likely to be successful than the second. They may or not be correct about this, but it’s certainly a less nefarious motivation for them than the one Limbaugh is pushing. And it has the virtue of making more sense
    A: Really, there’s no answer necessary …as you’ve arrived at the same conclusion Limbaugh did. And nothing nefarious about it (I didn’t understand why you thought it would be nefarious), IF you accept the original premises. Rush doesn’t push nefariousness btw (Rush as conspiracist is counter-factual …he’s more in the debunker camp), he just thinks the establishment GOP are, well, stupid.

    Q: Limbaugh’s theory would only makes sense if those Republican elites thought that both candidates would lose but that Newt would lose bigger and cause them to lose Congress, or that both candidates would likely win and carry Congress with them but Romney would be the president they could work with better.
    A: Ba-da-bing

    Q: But neither situation is what he’s positing.
    A: Here’s where I don’t get your argument. He does actually make that argument. Somehow, you paraphrased it, while not recognizing that he was making it?

    Q: But would “they” control Obama any better? Now, that’s a very odd thought, if he’s the alternative (remember, Limbaugh says they do not believe Romney could win, either).
    A: Yes it is a very odd though, and Rush neither makes that case, nor enters the realm of conspiracists. You shouldn’t presume he does (if you are). How is not controlling Obama (granted) in Party A logically consanguineous with not controlling a conservative candidate in Party B? The parties are different; the control modalities (if you will), are different too: one is interparty, one is intraparty. Rush simply doesn’t make the case that the establishment GOP would ever control Obama (an interparty control), but does that the establishment GOP would not [necessarily] control a conservative president. The latter point is moot though, to the establishment GOP, since they don’t think that will happen either (he loses).

    Q: And wasn’t Newt long one of “them”–a member of Congress, and Speaker of the House?
    A: Uh, one of the things that other Romney supporters rather consistently bring up is the Newt resignation on ethics charges and the huge bipartisan House vote that cost him the Speakership, $300K (and he is not a rich guy), and eventually his seat. He may have been “one of them”, but the greater probability is that (as I’ve remarked in previous comments off-thread), there’s no love lost here. It’s a stretch, I’d agree …but an easier one to get to than attributing “outsider” to Romney. Personally, outsider-hood is a meh issue.

    But here us where I just get totally lost in whatever question you thought you were asking. I mean, you have apparently – and correctly – discerned and analyzed Rush’s argument. But it seems (from your various comments on the comments in the thread) that there’s a missing paragraph at the end?

    Dunno. I guess I don’t understand your confusion.

44. foxmark beat me to it, LOL, and did it more concisely too. Kudos, dude

    I was so damn confused by the confusion I had to work my through it step-by-step in the end. Doh!

    …you can’t believe how long it took me to compose it …actually, it was my third stab at it, as I deleted the first two attempts as hopeless, and finally decided to Q&A it.

    …and I think I’ll put the coffee cup down and slowly back away at this point, too.

45. If you think of Newt, also as a salesman, I see no reason why he can’t win. He’s demonstrated he can sell himself to people who would have never thought to consider him seriously. And he has plenty of serious warts. His product has been demonized…and yet.

    While a great saleman can’t sell everything to everyone, they sell the most of anyone.

    This is not a quality to easily dismiss. Perhaps he hasn’t been able to do so with Neocon, but the point is, can he make the necessary numbers overall to move the votes his way in a general election? I think he’s shown he has the skills necessary.

46. Somewhat off topic, but not completely:

    I saw a great quiz at Ace of Spades: How Thick is Your Bubble?

    I scored “5 to 8” which evidently makes me part of the ruling class elite. Who knew?

    Details of my score are here.

47. davisbr: we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Since this exchange is starting to be absurdly long, I’ll give you the short version of what might have otherwise ended up as an exhaustive answer (you’ll thank me in the morning for keeping it relatively short, believe me). So let the part stand for the whole.

    You write, for example, that I advance the argument that “Limbaugh’s theory would only make sense if [a] those Republican elites thought that both candidates would lose but that Newt would lose bigger and cause them to lose Congress, or [b] that both candidates would likely win and carry Congress with them but Romney would be the president they could work with better. “….and that I then discard it, to your puzzlement (all the question marks afterward). To elucidate: I don’t discard that argument. It’s a good argument. I embrace it. But it doesn’t square with Limbaugh’s theory.

    Let’s take [a] first. My point is that, if you believe [a], then there would be nothing wrong with supporting Romney; there would be no pernicious selfish agenda on the part of members of Congress involved and in fact it would be the right thing to do (although Limbaugh’s theory posits such an agenda; that’s the contradiction). They would be hoping to do whatever they could to (1) stop second-term president Obama from getting too much power, through the mechanism of Republicans keeping control of Congress instead of losing it to Democrats; and (2) also maximize their own power into the bargain by having the leadership of Congress in their hands. It’s a win-win situation. Why on earth would Limbaugh criticize Republican elites for not supporting Gingrich under those conditions if they believed that (a) Gingrich would lose to Obama anyway; and (b) Republicans would lose Congress, too, as a result of the failed Gingrich candidacy?

    Now let’s take [b]. Limbaugh has already said that elite Republicans do not believe [b] because they don’t believe that either candidate could win. So although [b] makes plenty of sense, it can’t be what’s motivating Republicans in Congress if Limbaugh accepts his own argument that they don’t believe it. So although it makes sense (and I believe it’s true), under Limbaugh’s first premise (“they don’t believe either Republican can win against Obama”) it is moot. In addition, even if it weren’t moot (in other words, if Republicans in Congress thought either or both candidates had a chance of winning), it still wouldn’t indicate any pernicious selfish agenda unless, and only unless, those Republicans thought that only Gingrich could win and not Romney. But they most definitely do not believe that, even in Limbaugh’s fevered brain.

48. We are approaching a real, not hypothesized, tipping point. Its 4th grade math. We are now at 100+% debt to GDP and unfunded liabilities are into the stratosphere. And this is only at the national level. Only a fool denies that we are Greece on steroids and meth. Most do not want to face this dilemma although millions realize the consequences of ignoring reality.

    “But they wont. past two elections they fielded connected insiders who couldn’t/wouldn’t put up a fight that could really win…”

    Artfldgr,

    Yes, that is the problem. But the peaceful solution is in sending better people to the house & senate. I am skeptical that the peaceful solution is obtainable. I see chaos and collapse as a distinct possibility. Yet, I grasp for the chance of significant course shifting given enough time. Be of good cheer, we have almost 10 months. 😉

49. (2) also maximize their own power into the bargain by having the leadership of Congress in their hands. It’s a win-win situation. Why on earth would Limbaugh criticize Republican elites for not supporting Gingrich

    Ah! There’s the false premise underlying this confusion. Limbaugh is not criticizing the Republican elites for not supporting Gingrich:

    He is criticizing them for not supporting conservative principles!

    Rush doesn’t support Gingrich and has crapped on him extensively when Gingrich departed those principles.

    Limbaugh is a cheerleader for a philosophy, not candidates. He never endorses anyone, but roots for the more conservative candidate; as he rooted for Romney over McCain.

50. For my own quandary:

    Is supporting the most conservative candidate who may be unelectable “Thirsting for Death” as VDL aptly puts it?

    Or should I support the electable candidate who may lose, but neuter Obama with down-ticket coat-tails?

    Well, put like that, I go for the latter. I don’t Thirst for Death, so I will grit my teeth and betray my principles in hopes of an acceptable outcome.

    But what if I betray my priciples and still end up with an unacceptable outcome?

    Meh… That’s the nature of all choices in This Fallen World. Scotch is a great balm for wounded souls.

51. It seems like Rush has directed attention to the number of angels who can fit on the head of a pin. He is encouraging all the Rove haters to become Rove themselves. And he is taking attention away from how to best solve our problems. In the end, a good command of the issues and effective articulation of how to solve our problems is the best way to find competent candidates and attract voters. We risk becoming like that Obama supporter who thought Obama would pay for her gas. Or like the Paulbots who like libertarian ideas and don’t want to think about Iran. And now we have the Newtonians who dream about colonizing the moon by the end of his second term. The Tea Party started out as a movement of grounded citizens who wanted sound finances and smaller government. What has become of it?

52. I know it’s Ann, and she has fallen out of favor, but this seems compelling…

53. Neo …I finally figured it out. What I didn’t understand I mean, and why your arguments made no sense to me. Frankly, I read it five times over, and it never clicked.

    And yeah, this is ridiculously long too (only the following two paragraphs are important to the “figured it out”). Oh well, I’ll just take a break for awhile and let the blog air out.

    First let’s take the original post: you’re correct that nowhere does Limbaugh say or suggest that the establishment GOP think “both candidates would likely win and carry Congress with them but Romney would be the president they could work with better.”

    But he certainly does make the case that the establishment GOP think “or that both candidates would lose but that Newt would lose bigger and cause them to lose Congress” (in the previous quotes I’ve included). (Whether you accept his points is a different question.)

    I’ve read both those radio transcripts three times now btw, …and I’m sorry I missed that point earlier.

    I only used the two Limbaugh transcripts you linked to (I haven’t listed to Limbaugh regularly in years, and I dunno when the last time I heard any part of his daily show was …I used to listen quite often, but it became more like annoying background noise a long while back, and I just don’t have the time anyways …it was kind of odd finding myself defending him after all this time …reading him is MUCH less pleasant than listening).

    I’d previously skipped other questions you’d asked, because I was so focused on Rush’s logic. But since this took so long to puzzle out, I’ll answer every point, in order.

    1. Rush also made the point, that the primaries themselves have not been successfully manipulated (using SC as an example).

    2. Only conspiratorialists believe in puppet masters LOL (Rush isn’t one, btw). The rest of us see a self-reinforcing and unresponsive party system that begins at the local level and extends through to Washington; we’re successfully attempting to take over the party structure at the local level, and working our way up from there. 2010 is an example of this.

    3. Rush is a conservative (elite, granted, and influential, certainly), but as he remains without political ambitions (it don’t pay enough, and his influence is probably greater doing what he does), so no, he’s not considered “establishment GOP” (which he’s often critical of).

    4. Rush has made the case for awhile that the establishment GOP doesn’t believe the election can be won, regardless of the nominee (you might call this the extremist variation on the “electability” issue that’s been the tangential focus of several threads). The establishment GOP would not be the only persons to be depressed over GOP presidential chances in the fall, if my memory serves.

    5. You ask if Gingrich or some other conservative is more likely to attract votes and win, wouldn’t that be more likely to assure a Congressional win too. Conservatives & Rush would say yes (I’ve heard this enough over the years to be certain) …but Rush’s point here was that the establishment GOP don’t believe the presidential election winnable at all, and fear that a conservative nominee would make the down-ticket less attractive to moderate independent voters. Previous comments expound upon this.

    6. It’s not that establishment GOP don’t want to “also win the presidency” …Rush asserts that they’ve already ceded the race, believing (for whatever reason) that Obama is unbeatable. “Want” didn’t enter into Rush’s discussion.

    7. Rush posits the establishment GOP doesn’t believe the presidental race is winnable, so the “Gingrich as more winnable” question makes no sense to ask in re: establishment GOP positions. Rush says they prefer Romney though he can’t win either, as the establishment GOP believe Romney would attract moderates down-ticket. The “only makes sense if” conclusion you posit is not valid, if you accept the down-ticket hypothesis.

    8. For the same reason (down-ticket attraction) Romney only has to become the [establishment] GOP nominee period to serve a very useful and valuable party purpose …again, there’s no nefariousness nor immorality involved on anyone’s part (I don’t get that assertion). The whole discussion centers upon the establishment GOP pre-election analysis of how the 20% independent vote will break, and what will attract them the most to the GOP down-ticket. There’s no particular virtue involved with either postulate. This is just pre-game analysis; no big deal at our level, but to the players, it’s going to decide where the money is spent, and how resources are allocated, so it’s a big deal indeed. This isn’t exactly unusual planning supposition; someone better be thinking about things like this.

    9. Limbaugh does make the case the the establishment GOP believe both candidates will lose, but that Newt’s loss will also negatively affect the down-ticket, so the “only makes sense if” observation is invalid. (My not paying enough attention to the details of this is what left me so confused as to what point you were trying to get at; my bad. It would have vastly simplified an earlier post.)

    10. Limbaugh does not in particular make the establishment GOP case of an “either candidates can win” scenario (you did). But I have addressed this in previous posts, as in “Obama loses due to the economy, so the GOP nominee wins”. Maybe you were recalling that?

    11. Limbaugh makes the point about the down-ticket, and that the establishment GOP would actually prefer an Obama win over a conservative, because of intra-party power. Rush doesn’t suggest the establishment GOP has designs on “controlling Obama” at all; you introduce that (it doesn’t logically follow), and yes its an odd thought indeed.

    12. It’s only about a disagreement on the best way to win if you rate the probablity that the establishment GOP really does believe Obama is too strong to lose, as improbably low or unbelievable. However, given the size of the Obama campaign war chest, and an over-reliance by the opposition party upon the accuracy of early polling, I can see why GOP political campaign professionals might despair of a win (I personally think that focus is on the wrong metrics, but there you go).

    I also think there are perfectly valid reasons for the establishment GOP to maintain that a losing moderate nominee attracting down-ticket support would be a valuable and worthwhile party asset in the fall (and worth giving RNC financial support to), and vastly more attractive than a losing conservative nominee dampening the down-ticket. Rush asserts this (and down-ticket viability is a necessary requirement for the entire discussion to be plausible); and some of us have been around the bend enough, to buy the analysis as sensible. Regardless, it doesn’t change anything in regards to the primaries at all (well, unless it moves some Romney supporters to Newt); most Newt voters are still going to pull the lever for Romney this fall.

    None of this informed speculation (or wild-eyed speculation, depending upon your POV) has anything to do with nefariousness, with “working against the goal”, with fevered imaginations, or anything underhanded …granted it may be a disagreement over plausability, maybe. As a way to trash Limbaugh, I’m not sure it was at all successful (primarily due to comment number 9), though I could care less one way or the other (my interest was all about trying to understand what the point of all this was …and honestly, I totally missed it as at least a partial Limbaugh hit piece, due to my focus on the logical argument, which as usual fascinated me). I also wouldn’t discount that Limbaugh has at least a second probable source for his conjecture, as Limbaugh isn’t exactly an unknown quantity at these levels either (i.e., he could be riffing off some private conversation or other with a campaign pro, along these lines).

54. Seems to me the bottom line is a frustration voiced by Rush and average citizens in how the current system avoids a superiorly staffed government of, by and for the people. It’s like trying to assemble a superior football team and you are funneled into choosing only players from ivy league schools.

55. the republican elites- almost an oxymoron- suffer from the condition (the political equivalent) of stockholm syndrome- being held captive under the foot their leftist superiors they begin to admire them and just want to tag along in their milquetoast flavor of statism

    conservatism and americans buying into the notion of a government returning to its constitutional constructs is the death knell for the elites who use government as a vehicle to, in the very least, enrich themselves and, at the worst, “reshape the image of america.”

    it is a waste of energy to try and tap into the minds of the “republican establishment” because it involves elements of an abused animal who occasionally can sneak a morsel while his master’s insatiable hunger, in his lust, spills a few crumbs

56. I don’t even have a bubble, YAY ME!

57. Rush Limbo, and others, have made an awful lot of money by attacking Republican Elites. If you listen to Rush Boy enough, and I used to, you soon realize that he attacks them about as often as he attacks the Dimocrats.

    El Rushbo, as he calls himself for some obscure reason, doesn’t consider himself an elite; not even as he jets around the world in his multi-million $$ Gulfstream and rubs elbows on the golf green with others of the rich and powerful.

    Attacking elites is a growth industry if, as I presume, by Elites we mean the people who actually make things happen in the country, as opposed to those who stand on the sidelines and carp. Opposing those Elites are the members of the “Elite Attack Brigade (EAB)”. The EAB also spends a lot of time lamenting those who chose–of their own free will–not to enter the Presidential campaign. One might note that none of the EAB chose to enter the arena either; not even at the minor league, let’s say dog-catcher, level. It is much easier, and more financially rewarding if you have a big microphone, to just Carp.

58. I’m surprised people are investing so much energy trying to make sense of Rush’s speculation as to why the “establishment” is behind Romney. First of all, what difference does it make why anyone else is supporting Romney? I mean, if I personally believe Mitt is the best candidate, then I’m going to support him regardless of the reasons somebody else may be supporting him.

    Second, isn’t it far more likely than not that people are supporting a given candidate for the reasons they SAY they are supporting him? Why can’t people accept that the “establishment” leans heavily toward Mitt because they think he’s “conservative enough” and that Newt has a lot of personal baggage and personal traits that would make him an awful candidate and potential president?

    Another thing: I don’t really understand why Newt is being portrayed as the candidate who would bring radical change to the “system.” Perhaps a Newt supporter can enlighten me, but Newt impresses me as a classic Washiington elite, a guy who arrives in D.C. with no real wealth who 20 years later has miraculously emerges as a multimillionaire. The only thing that really separates him from a lot of other D.C. fixtures is his impressive output of ideas for how government can solve big problems However, neither the ideas themselves nor his profligate appettite for them suggest much of a conservative.

59. “”Why can’t people accept that the “establishment” leans heavily toward Mitt because they think he’s “conservative enough””
    Conrad

    I accept the establishment leans that way for exactly the reasons you stated. The problem lies with people not seeing what a horrible track record for the country such a compromising approach has.

    I mean what are we really talking about as success even? To put bodies in seats with an “R” next to their name or to stop America’s leftward slide into oblivion?

60. @Ricki
    I took the quiz and scored 13-16, but I think that the test needs to be age adjusted, because when you get to be as old as I, you have done many things “once”.

    Underlying all of this is the following. Politicians, of any party, fear activism that they can not control. I’ve mentioned here that a long time ago, I was one of a handful of self selected and self organized conservative activists that unelected what was a very popular “conservative” Democrat, who was considered unbeatable. We were able to do this because he was, in reality, a hard core liberal whose vote was controlled by out of state interests.

    So we knocked this guy out of office, and his opponent, a moderately conservative Republican who was completely acceptable to the establishment, won. You would think that we were local heros to the party right? Wrong big time. So very wrong. Much effort was expended, by the Republican party, to either co-opt us or to muzzle us. They were afraid of us, because we acted out of principle and independent of their control or direction. They knew that we’d act to primary incumbent Republicans who failed to vote along conservative lines.

    That is why the establishment fears Newt, whether he is a real conservative or not, he is an agent of change and if the conservatives adopt him, flaws and all, as their champion, that helps to unify conservatives into a force that is beyond the control of the establishment. A force that they feel threatens them.

    There is a chunk of incumbent Republicans, especially in the Senate, that would prefer to lose the house and the WH, than face another conservative influx. They are betting that influx won’t happen with Romney at the head of the ticket. They fear a successful conservative renaissance than four more years. Sad but true.

61. LAPD And Special Forces Conduct Military Maneuvers In The Skies Above Downtown LA

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/lapd-and-special-forces-conduct-military-maneuvers-in-the-skies-above-downtown-la/

    what DO the elites want?

62. I think it is very simple. what is assumed here is that the independents are not conservative and that to win them, you have to have someone who is not a conservative. That is simply wrong. What is lacking is someone like a Reagan who actually believed in conservative solutions and was able to articulate them in a way that conservative independents and conservative democrats supported. If you run someone who the conservatives do not believe is truly conservative as with Dole, McRino, and Romney, you do not energize the base to go out to vote and the ones you are trying to attrack, liberal independents already have an actual liberal to vote for in Obama. To win the middle you have to win those who are at least not liberals and to win the election you have to have a fired up base. Newt is firing up the base which leaves the question will he be able to secure enough non liberal independents. He needs to demonstrate that. Romney has so fared showed he can’t get more than 25% of the base which is a disaster. If he is the nominee, look for a landlslide for the obama liberal socialist. No fired up base is a disaster.

    You have too many in the Republican Party who if truth be told, still look down their nose at Reagan and also at conservatives in general. We should not be in any way listening to them as they have never brought a winner to the presidency, the house, or the senate. Republicans won when the vast conservative wings get energized and the establishment hates it because it is not their core belief. Truth be told, they are far more comfortable hanging out with far left wing liberals.

63. Conrad: I’m surprised people are investing so much energy trying to make sense of Rush’s speculation as to why the “establishment” is behind Romney.

    If that’s an oblique reference to me, I wasn’t, really, trying to make sense of Rush’s speculation (which seemed like perfectly oridinary Rush riffing), but rather, of neo’s.

    I regard neo as VERY bright, and generally fair, and mostly I was trying to help, by figuring out (after she remarked that people weren’t getting her point) what it was we weren’t getting about her questions.

    I find the way people reason to be fascinating, and I was intrigued by her as “the puzzle”, not Rush (especially when I came to blank wall the second time). I just overlooked her non-sequitur: non-forced error, rookie mistake (I’m talking about my missing it, not her making it).

    Basically, this core confusion (after the non-sequitur) was all drawn from the non-acceptance of what is probably a valid premise, and a mis-attribution of motivation.

    IOW, the usual suspects (and especially when it comes to Limbaugh LOL; it happens all the time).

    …and that it was a slow news day LOL.

    Oh. And your question (what difference does it make) was pretty much the conclusion I came to also: it don’t, really matter …not to the primary, and not at our level of the campaign, at least. Agree.

64. @ steveh:

    I agree with you that we could really use much more conservative policies than anyone seems to be offering.* However, I don’t really see how Romney represents any more of “compromise” with respect to that objective than any of the other candidates, and certainly not when you factor in OTHER qualities that we demand in a nominee (like competence, good character, and of course electability.

    *For example, I’d favor getting the government almost completely out of the health care industry (and a lot of other industries), ending virtually all forms of government economic subsidy, closing down a huge portion of the federal government, massive deregulation, etc. But the people aren’t there yet, and it would be suicidal for a serious candidate for president to adopt such an agenda in 2012.

65. “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

    “It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

    just to be clear…
    that particular change, with the other stuff over years… will allow them to detain citizens en mass as the ability to detain without due process would enable such… and to do so without the hairy problem of using the term “martial law” since our public is ignorant and desires to be so when it comes to re-branding through a name change…

    in effect habeas corpus is dead without actually killing it directly so we believe it isnt

    when you ask for a lawyer, they tell you you dont get one as your declared a threat, or a belligerent… and since there is no measure of what constitutes this, there is nothing really stopping it from applying to speech against the current administration.

    as a interesting aside, ever count the number of “my” in his statements as if he will never leave and what he does is not for the office?
    [23 times in that one signing statement]

    The NDAA places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). The endowment of such a power to the President by the Congress is nothing less than a de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

    which may be why using the military to practice for whats coming in 2013 with the laws that are set to trigger all happening then (And Soros comments too!!!)

    ie… put the pieces all together and ignore morals or ethics, and you can see where this is going… [even imadinnerjacket has gotten his orders to play nice with obama to help insure the next election!!!! nixon may have gone to china (and sold us out), but obama can talk to iran]

    what will happen when the welfare money runs out after the new QE3 (And 4?) – gold is back in the news… being up 154% in the years obama took office… when the cash printing catches up to the value…

    the above law, intended to prevent a counter revolution (as detailed i the catechism of a revolutionary), will come into effect…

    George Soros predicts riots, police state and class war for America
    http://rt.com/usa/news/george-soros-class-war-619/

    with so many working to make his words real, the OWS emboldened to gather idiots who will find themselves in a unintended situation because a few (wearing masks) in the crowd will make it happen dragging them into it by their presence.

    ‘There will be riots on streets of America’: George Soros predicts class war in U.S. as euro triggers collapse of global economy

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091190/George-Soros-predicts-U-S-riots-insists-Euro-saved-global-economy-collapse.html

    [edited for length by n-n]

66. The discussions here remind me of the arguments back on the 70s when people vociferously argued whether WWF Wrestling with all its fancy moves and things was real…

    for those who liked it and didnt want to consider things in front of them, they thought the thing was real and would get into fights over it. (with some people getting really hurt as they tried to show that a move wouldnt cripple someone)

    its the same here..
    everyone wants to ONLY look at the current state of the msm reporting, and not remember the past, not correct revisions, and so on..

    all so they do not have to think about the unthinkable (to them)…

    how many here have lived through the unthinkable or have had family do so?

67. @ greta:
    “I think it is very simple. what is assumed here is that the independents are not conservative and that to win them, you have to have someone who is not a conservative.”

    I don’t agree. I really do not hear very many, if any, Republicans arguing that we need to nominate Romney because we need a moderate in order to win over moderate independents. I really feel that this is a straw man argument that’s being falsely attributed to Romney supporters just to make the point that nominating Romney to appeal to moderates would be an unnecessary and unwise ideological retreat.

    I honestly feel that Romney supporters are generally of the view that while he’s NOT as conservative as we’d like, he’s reasonably conservative, but vastly better qualified as a candidate and potential president by virtue of his executive experience, character, temperament, economic expertise, etc. Now, of course, his perceived “moderation” is bound to appeal to some fraction of the electorate, whatever that is; but nobody I’m aware of is flat-out saying “we need a moderate, ergo, let’s nominate Romney.”

68. Oldflyer:

    El Rushbo, as he calls himself for some obscure reason, doesn’t consider himself an elite; not even as he jets around the world in his multi-million $$ Gulfstream and rubs elbows on the golf green with others of the rich and powerful

    If you got more “Occupy Wall Street”, you’d poop on a police car.

69. Conrad,

    “But the people aren’t there yet.”

    This is what I think Romney knows, hence his Believe in America theme. You can’t just bolt the doors on federal departments and tell the states it’s their job. Aside from a mass of crying unemployed, you would also have state governments that aren’t ready. Scott Walker made some drastic changes, and now cities and counties are finding they are better off. But, the changes were the right size.

    We’ve gone through a very rough time since 9/11, and now we are getting the messages about our decline. I saw the other day that individuals and businesses have done a good job of paying down debts. With a little self confidence and absent the threat of new regulations and taxes and cockamamie schemes, people may be ready to chart their own way forward without relying on Papa Obama and the nanny state.

70. I just got this at Hot Air:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,811507,00.html

    Who do you want handling this? There are more ways to hit us than just with bombs. I want someone who has been thinking about such possibilities. Also note that China is a player. 4D chess anyone?

71. “”But the people aren’t there yet, and it would be suicidal for a serious candidate for president to adopt such an agenda in 2012.””
    Conrad

    Yea. Sort of like our founding fathers were suicidal by picking a fight with England and the people weren’t there yet.

    We’d still belong to England if todays predominant “don’t rock the boat” and “wait for the people” mindset was in place back then.

    But they were brave and forward thinking.

72. Gray, I nearly responded with profanity; but will not sully Neo’s site.

    You obviously misconstrue the point. But, just to spell it out; I will start by stacking my Conservatism against yours or Limbaugh’s or anyone else. Mine was honed over twenty-five years in uniform, and it is well formed at this point. I assume that like any intelligent being, you interpret political Conservatism as adherence to the principles of a Constitutional, Representative, Republic. If you choose to hang a lot of excess baggage on the term we may differ on the particulars.

    Just to be clear; I absolutely support pure Capitalism. But, not crony capitalism in which the government mucks around by choosing favored entities to reward, and others to punish. I do happen to believe that stock holders should get more involved with what goes on in their companies. But, if they choose not to, and choose to let Boards of Directors pay obscene amounts of money to CEOs, that is their business.

    Now. If I have made that clear, I find Limbaugh and several others to be bloviating fools at times. I listened to Limbaugh faithfully for years. Now, I simply turn him off after a few minutes; usually when he get on the anti-GOP rant. You see, I understand that the GOP is the only political mechanism available for the advancement of Conservative and Capitalist principles in the U. S. Does the GOP need improvement? Yes. But, you do not improve an entity by attacking it in a public way, day after day. I recognize, and maybe you do not, that the Elitists that Limbaugh rails against are in many cases the people who were elected to represent the populace in government. They are, in fact, the only ones who can affect the changes we want. Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, McConnell, Rubio, and Romney are a few names that come to mind. Limbaugh and others would be more effective if they identified specific ones who need to be replaced, and work toward that end. It is not helpful to just throw out the term Elitists, as if one size fits all. It is not effective to tar them all with the same brush.

    Get it?

73. Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, McConnell, Rubio, and Romney are a few names that come to mind.

    You can’t really lump those guys together as the “Republican Elite” Rush is banging on.

    Boehner and McConnell exist to roll over for Obama. Don’t forget, our current eviseration of the military is based on a Boehner/McConnell plan that achieved “98% of what we want” said Boehner. Romney is incapable of defending conservative principles. Gingrich is, and always was, too damaged to defend conservative principles.

    I don’t recall voting for Reince Pribus and the rest of the RNC squishes, Bill Kristol or George Will, who simply want to be loved.

    I don’t begrudge Limbaugh a penny of his vast and well earned fortune. I will never have a fortune, I have been in uniform 23 years, and I am still in.

74. Oh, furthermore:

    “But, you do not improve an entity by attacking it in a public way, day after day.”

    Yes you do. That is exactly how you improve a public entitiy in a free society.

    If you’ll notice, the DNC, and powerful democrats fully support and fund its base in Occupy Wall Street while the RNC craps on its base, the TEA party.

    Consequently, they win, and we don’t.

    The RNC acts like they want to win about as much as Boehner and McConnell want to win the budget battle against Obama and the dems….

75. A former successful Republican Presidential Candidate rips Newt:

    In his letter, Dole placed a measure of blame on Gingrich for the loss.

    “In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year.”
    –President Bob Dole

    Oh, wait….

    I wish Bob Dole had fought against Obama as hard as he is crapping on Gingrich.

    That’s what Rush is angry about: The freaking Republican Elite (of which Bob Dole is definitely one) is attacking Newt Gingrich harder than they ever attacked Obama!

76. Tut tut, Gray. You lost all credibility when you tried to equate me with a defecating Occupier because I disagreed with you. Since that immature attack your credibility is suspect.

    But, that aside, your arguments hold no water. When people such as Elliot Abrams, Emmet Tyrell, and Wesley Pruden speak, it carries weight with Conservatives. Yes, and Bob Dole too. He was a conservative stalwart for his entire career, even if he was an aging, long past his prime, sacrificial lamb as a Presidential candidate. He knows what Newt was about during the so-called leadership years.

    Don’t throw George Will and Bill Kristol, up to me. I did not invoke them, and I couldn’t care less about them. Same with Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker or Charles Krauthammer. They are all Georgetown Cocktail circuit Conservatives. But, there are credible voices trying to tell us something, and we ignore them at our peril.

77. I think this is a clandestine move by Rush on behalf of the power elite. Rush pretends he is against Romney at the same time he justifies the establishent Republicans who are for Romney… it is a master manipluation move. People are absolutely furious that a moderate liberal phony like Romney is being forced on them by those who do not share their same values. Rush is the front man for the elite and his job is to keep the natives calm and beleiving he is still on their side all the while carrying out the clandestine operation for the puppet master. That is why you’re having a diffuclt time understand Limbaugh’s theory about why the elites are backing romney…it doesn’t make sense. PS, don’t forget Rush endorsed Romney in 2008 and said he was the strongest conservative. Peace.

78. apocalypse: well now, that’s the most convoluted theory I’ve heard so far, although I’m not sure whether you’re being serious or not.

    Not sure I want to know, either :-).

    But it is an interesting sidelight to this whole sad campaign year that yes, Romney was indeed touted as the conservative alternative in 2008, and it seems he was sincerely seen that way by many conservatives.

79. I am serious Neo. I absolutely believe Rush wants Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee and he is pulling one over on conservatives. Like you said remember in 2008 (only 3 years ago) Rush and the rest of “so-called” conservative talk radio BACKED Romney. They all endorsed him. Now all of a sudden they are against Romney??? That is absurd to the highest degree! Romney has not changed his political views since 2008. No Neo… Rush and Hannity and FOX news… they know EXACTLY what they are doing and it’s evil.

    If you wanna chase the rabbit a little ways down the hole please then read my other post on what’s really going on behind the scenes:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/04/huntsman-on-mccains-endorsement-of-romney-nobody-cares/comment-page-3/#comment-5267615

    Then here: Romney’s Bain Capital Owns Media Giant Broadcasting Limbaugh, Hannity
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10547-romneys-bain-capital-owns-media-giant-broadcasting-limbaugh-hannity

    Then here: in 2008 ALL SIX OF THE MOST POPULAR Conservative Talk Show Hosts Endorsed or Favored Mitt Romney
    http://aboutmittromney.com/talk_show_hosts.htm#Limbaugh

    Full disclosure: PS, I am just a normal biblical Christian with conservative values. Thanks.

80. Oh one final PS, I think you have done a really good job of trying to explain and figure out Rush’s puzzling and very confusing “supposed” reasoning. All I have tried to do is fill in a crucial piece of the puzzle that could explain a lot of the confusion. Much respect Neo.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>