If the Majority of the American People are Against Obamacare, Why are the Republicans So Afraid to Oppose It?

[DCPatriot]

If the Majority of the American People are Against Obamacare, Why are the Republicans So Afraid to Oppose It?
July 31, 2013


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: In one hour, we're gonna have Utah Senator Mike Lee on the program to explain in detail and in an understandable way what he's trying to do.  As you know, Mike Lee is leading the effort to defund Obamacare in the United States Senate.  The entire Republican establishment has aligned against him.  Consultants, establishment bigwigs, party bigwigs, even some donors have aligned against him because they are convinced that attempting to defund Obamacare at the next negotiation, the end of September, on a continuing resolution will lead to a government shutdown, and that will destroy the Republican Party.

Now, a couple of things.  I'm not gonna get into this too much now. I'll wait for Senator Lee to get here, but at some point, don't we have to start paying attention to the Constitution and have an actual budget?  This continuing-resolution technique of funding the government is a Democrat wet dream.  It is made to order for limitless spending increases.  But more than that, it turns the Constitution upside down.  This is not how the federal budget and this country is to be funded.  It's not how this budget process is supposed to work.  We haven't had a budget in four years, I don't know how many continuing resolutions we've had.



The second thing is, this government shutdown will destroy the Republican Party. I have to opine that the Republican Party is doing that already.  They're already imperiled because of the strategery they have adopted of capitulation with the Democrats and calling that victory, capitulation on amnesty, and now there's a desire on the part of some to capitulate on Obamacare.  And I've heard the objections to it.  Some have said, "Show me where you're gonna get 51 votes in the Senate for this.  Even if you could make a move on this to defund it, show me where you're gonna get 51 votes to win this in the Senate. Where you gonna pick up five or six Democrats to make it happen, and how you gonna get all the Republicans?"  That's interesting to hear that, because what that really means is that people don't even want to try.

What that means so that people do not want to even stand up and declare their opposition to Obamacare.  Let's take as a hypothetical -- it's not actually a hypothetical.  I mean, it may be reality.  Obamacare, no way to stop it, let's say that Lee's wrong, can't stop it, can't be done.  There's still an opportunity for the Republican Party to identify itself, to distinguish itself, to draw contrast with itself between themselves and the Democrat Party, which is leading the transformation and, in the view of many, the destruction of this country certainly as founded.

At some point what's the harm in standing up and saying, "no"?  What's the harm in standing up and saying, "I don't support this"?  No matter what poll you look at there isn't a single poll that shows a majority of the American people in favor of Obamacare.  Every poll you look at, a majority -- and it's sizeable -- oppose Obamacare.  The Republican Party wants votes from people, I assume, they want to grow.  There is a majority of the American people waiting to be connected to.

You know, in politics, media, in your personal life you have to make connections with


more at:   http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/31/if_the_majority_of_the_american_people_are_against_obamacare_why_are_the_republicans_so_afraid_to_oppose_it

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[alicewonders]

I'm glad that Rush is talking about this and I agree with him.  We need to stand up for what is right, even if we get some heat for it - that's what leadership is all about.  The majority of the GOP makes me want to puke.

 

[Scottftlc]

Often it appears that the Republicans are just a worn out party...it is like do we have to actually work up the energy to oppose something because we're just going to lose again.

It does seem like a party ready to give up and just find their comfy spots in the permanent minority.  No energy.

[Bigun]

I'm glad that Rush is talking about this and I agree with him.  We need to stand up for what is right, even if we get some heat for it - that's what leadership is all about.  The majority of the GOP makes me want to puke.

 

Amen sister! Well said!

[sinkspur]

There have been two government shutdowns since 1990:  one in 1991, the other in 1995.  The Republicans were blamed by the press for both, the public held the Republicans responsible for both, and, in both cases, the Republicans folded.

There is a reason there hasn't been a government shutdown in 18 years.

There won't be one this year either.  There is almost no support for shutting down the government among the GOP in the House.

[Rapunzel]

The KEY word being "the press" In fact we had a landslide election that brought in the GOP majority thanks to what Newt accomplished with the shutdown.  The GOP not only did not suffer over the long haul.. they benefited... in fact they benefited so well once Newt was gone they became spending fools under Bush and blew all that good will......  oh, and Boehner was one of the congressmen who was against the shut down that so benefited the GOP.. he didn't have any balls then, either.

[Bigun]

The KEY word being "the press" In fact we had a landslide election that brought in the GOP majority thanks to what Newt accomplished with the shutdown.  The GOP not only did not suffer over the long haul.. they benefited... in fact they benefited so well once Newt was gone they became spending fools under Bush and blew all that good will......  oh, and Boehner was one of the congressmen who was against the shut down that so benefited the GOP.. he didn't have any balls then, either.

Right on Sister!

Right on!

[andy58-in-nh]

It's not rocket science, people.

The GOP leadership has no purpose other than getting themselves elected, and no principles that cannot be sacrificed upon the altar of political expediency.

Their vision extends no further than the date of the next election.

They don't understand you or your problems. Or care to. That would require intellectual curiosity, a desire to learn and then a willingness to take the risk of explaining and defending their beliefs in the face of a hostile culture. And also, it might require not living in Washington, as opposed to the districts that elected them as representatives. But in fairness, that's what has happened to members of both parties: they come from their districts; they live in D.C.

Democrats also don't care. And everything they believe is wrong. No matter. At least they pretend to care, and a lot of people would rather vote for a falsely sympathetic liar than for your average Republican, who is convinced he's wrong even when he's right because the polls and his consultants tell him so.

Republicans compromise. Democrats win - and then immediately set about to procure whatever they failed to get from the last compromise. Democrats always achieve "progress", moving forward in a game they plan to win, while Republicans gratify themselves with the fact of simply being in the game at all.  In this respect, Democrats have become the Harlem Globetrotters, and Republicans, the Washington Generals - there to get their asses kicked... and to be satisfied with the outcome.

[GourmetDan]

The GOP leadership has no purpose other than getting themselves elected, and no principles that cannot be sacrificed upon the altar of political expediency.

The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.

[andy58-in-nh]

The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.

I know, I know.

But the duty of the opposition is to oppose, not to collaborate in their own destruction. I'm sick to death of having to defend the band of invertebrate castrati that presently comprise the "leadership" of the GOP.

In politics, sometimes one does have to compromise. But it matters why.

Democrats compromise so that they may fight tomorrow for what they have failed to win today. Republicans compromise to stop Democrats from insulting them today, so that they may endure worse insults tomorrow.     

[GourmetDan]

I know, I know.

I know you do.  I just keep repeating it until everybody sees it.  That's the only way to attack it.  Make it obvious what's really going on.  Only then can people ask why is it that way and what can be done to change it?  As long as people continue to believe that Republicans are 'stupid', we'll never get the real problem exposed and dealt with.

It's been a problem that Reagan noted over 30 years ago...

[andy58-in-nh]

I know you do.  I just keep repeating it until everybody sees it.  That's the only way to attack it.  Make it obvious what's really going on.  Only then can people ask why is it that way and what can be done to change it?  As long as people continue to believe that Republicans are 'stupid', we'll never get the real problem exposed and dealt with.

It's been a problem that Reagan noted over 30 years ago...

When Republicans stop acting like dummies, people will stop thinking that they're stupid.

Once again, Lucy's holding the football and Charlie Brown thinks he's going to kick it. Until Charlie figures out that he needs to kick Lucy instead of the football, he's going to keep winding up on his ass.

[sinkspur]

The KEY word being "the press" In fact we had a landslide election that brought in the GOP majority thanks to what Newt accomplished with the shutdown.  The GOP not only did not suffer over the long haul.. they benefited... in fact they benefited so well once Newt was gone they became spending fools under Bush and blew all that good will......  oh, and Boehner was one of the congressmen who was against the shut down that so benefited the GOP.. he didn't have any balls then, either.

Check your history.  The landslide election occurred in 1994; the shutdown occurred in 1995.  Newt accomplished nothing with the shutdown since he folded to Clinton.  Clinton went on to win in 1996. 

There will be no shutdown.  The GOP is poised to pick up the Senate, which is why Mike Lee's got all of eight or nine Senators lining up behind his move to shutdown the government.

[Rapunzel]

I know, I know.

But the duty of the opposition is to oppose, not to collaborate in their own destruction. I'm sick to death of having to defend the band of invertebrate castrati that presently comprise the "leadership" of the GOP.

In politics, sometimes one does have to compromise. But it matters why.

Democrats compromise so that they may fight tomorrow for what they have failed to win today. Republicans compromise to stop Democrats from insulting them today, so that they may endure worse insults tomorrow.   

In his "No Pale Pastel's" speech Regan said:
 http://boldcolors.net/about/

Reagan was speaking to a group at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting in the mid-70s, when Republicans and conservatives were out of the White House. Not winning elections. Not capturing the imaginations or the hearts, minds, or even the receptive ear of the people. And the reflexive response from some Republicans and those who called themselves conservatives was to move leftward, and away from the sound social and economic principles — conservative principles — which would move America in the right direction.

    I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” – when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

    Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

    Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

    Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

    It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”

Reagan’s words paid off. Following his lead, Republicans — and conservatives — began to speak like conservatives. Boldly expressing their ideas. Conservative ideas. Plainly, not in pale pastels, bravely, not sugar-coated or watered-down with liberal, progressive-speak.

He repeated this bold colors theme at the 1976 Republican National Convention, when Reagan said in a rousing speech:

    “There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn’t very often amount to much.

As Ronald Regan also said back in 1975:

    “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.”

He was right then. He is right now. We’re right with him.

[andy58-in-nh]

Ronald Reagan had both principles and the courage of his convictions; he also possessed an ability and willingness to explain his beliefs to anyone who challenged him.

[Oceander]

Ronald Reagan had both principles and the courage of his convictions; he also possessed an ability and willingness to explain his beliefs to anyone who challenged him.

He also had a strong sense of which principles were fundamental and couldn't be compromised an inch and which were of secondary or tertiary value and could therefore be compromised more or less at will provided that the compromise provided enough of a benefit to other principles that mattered more.

No one can have their cake and eat it, too.

[DCPatriot]

No one can have their cake and eat it, too.

Unfortunately, Oceander....I believe we've reached the point where compromising with these people at all will have enormous social implications...due to their intentional crashing of the American economy.

They actually need to be terminated with extreme prejudice....if this country is to survive as Founded.

[alicewonders]

Unfortunately, Oceander....I believe we've reached the point where compromising with these people at all will have enormous social implications...due to their intentional crashing of the American economy.

They actually need to be terminated with extreme prejudice....if this country is to survive as Founded.

 

[evadR]

Reagan knew how to connect with the people. He was a leader.
The repubs have no one of that quality and anyone that comes close is vilified by the GOPe and of course, the press.
Today's strategy seems to be. put up a sham opposition, hold for a certain time with all the appropriate bluster, form some sort of gang coalition and then cave to the opposition.
The can is kicked down the road, the debt rises, more underemployment, more phony stats from the establishment...the madness goes on and on.

[GourmetDan]

Reagan knew how to connect with the people. He was a leader.
The repubs have no one of that quality and anyone that comes close is vilified by the GOPe and of course, the press.

Well, they did have to shoot him right away to get him to settle down.

The GOP leadership is not stupid.  They deliberately undermine conservative ideals and ensure that the one-world government program keeps advancing.

[Bigun]

Well, they did have to shoot him right away to get him to settle down.

The GOP leadership is not stupid.  They deliberately undermine conservative ideals and ensure that the one-world government program keeps advancing.

Corrected to read: They deliberately undermine conservative ideals and ensure that the one-world government program keeps advancing and rank and file republicans continue to follow them right over the cliff

[Relic]

It's not rocket science, people.

The GOP leadership has no purpose other than getting themselves elected, and no principles that cannot be sacrificed upon the altar of political expediency.

Their vision extends no further than the date of the next election.

They don't understand you or your problems. Or care to. That would require intellectual curiosity, a desire to learn and then a willingness to take the risk of explaining and defending their beliefs in the face of a hostile culture. And also, it might require not living in Washington, as opposed to the districts that elected them as representatives. But in fairness, that's what has happened to members of both parties: they come from their districts; they live in D.C.

Democrats also don't care. And everything they believe is wrong. No matter. At least they pretend to care, and a lot of people would rather vote for a falsely sympathetic liar than for your average Republican, who is convinced he's wrong even when he's right because the polls and his consultants tell him so.

Republicans compromise. Democrats win - and then immediately set about to procure whatever they failed to get from the last compromise. Democrats always achieve "progress", moving forward in a game they plan to win, while Republicans gratify themselves with the fact of simply being in the game at all.  In this respect, Democrats have become the Harlem Globetrotters, and Republicans, the Washington Generals - there to get their asses kicked... and to be satisfied with the outcome.

This post by you, and many by me are variations on GourmetDan's simple post of:

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party."

I've come to see the wisdom in that. Your comment about the "vision" of the GOP is dead on. What we are witnessing is a political party that has no goal, or ambition beyond keeping their place at the public trough.

I see the posters here, and elsewhere who criticize any mention of a third party. If you honestly believe the corrupt, lazy, rudderless GOP can be reclaimed, then yes, a third party is harmful. What I see is a party that has gone too far, and is so damaged that reclaiming the party would take longer than starting from scratch.

Third party or grass roots take over, we're going to get slaughtered by the communists for the near term. Why not build something that has a chance of working for more than one election cycle? A third party, 'eff the GOP.

[sinkspur]

Ronald Reagan had both principles and the courage of his convictions; he also possessed an ability and willingness to explain his beliefs to anyone who challenged him.

Ronald Reagan also raised taxes three times, granted amnesty to three million illegals, and turned tail and ran in Lebanon after a terrorist killed 240 Marines.

Nobody's perfect.

[evadR]

nobody's perfect
Certainly not. I believe Reagan was beginning to suffer from the onset of Alzheimer's at that time. He was never the same after Lebanon and Nancy probably ran the administration from that point on.
Too bad. That's when the real war on terror should have begun.

[andy58-in-nh]

He also had a strong sense of which principles were fundamental and couldn't be compromised an inch and which were of secondary or tertiary value and could therefore be compromised more or less at will provided that the compromise provided enough of a benefit to other principles that mattered more.

No one can have their cake and eat it, too.

Of course, prioritization is necessary, but to be effective, it must reflect a proper measure of relative values. And compromise is not intrinsically wrong, but rather depends on one's objective and upon the nature of the opposition.

In today's political world, I believe we have a situation where Republican leaders cannot seem to prioritize effectively because their interests and core values have significantly diverged from those of their base voters.

Additionally, Democrats almost never negotiate with Republicans in good faith any more, especially on matters of first importance to them.  And because they are largely devoid of morality in general, it is a mistake to trust them.