The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Rapunzel on December 14, 2013, 05:24:13 am
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/13/freedomworks-matt-kibbe-fires-back-at-john-boehner-civil-war/
FreedomWorks’ Matt Kibbe Fires Back at John Boehner: ‘Civil War’
Dec. 13, 2013 11:33pm Erica Ritz
President and CEO of FreedomWorks Matt Kibbe fired back at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday over accusations that unnamed conservative groups are “misleading their followers” in opposing the Ryan-Murray budget deal.
“They’re pushing our members in places where they don’t want to be, and frankly I think they’ve lost all credibility,” Boehner told reporters Thursday.
Speaking on the Glenn Beck Program with guest host Oceander Loesch, Kibbe seemed relieved that Boehner “finally went public with something that’s been going on for well over a year.”
In the past, Kibbe said, the “attacks” have always been “behind the scenes.”
“I think this is a civil war, and I think it’s a fight we have to fight right now,” Kibbe said frankly.
FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe Fires Back at John Boehner: Civil War
Though many are concerned about infighting within the GOP with midterm elections around the corner, Kibbe argued that “we’re going to have to fight the Republicans before we ever beat the Democrats.”
“So many of these guys in the House in the Senate … They’re worried about one thing,” he said. “They’re not worried about the Republican Party. They’re not worried about balancing the budget. They’re worried about their re-election, and I think we need to come to terms with the fact that there’s a lot of self-interest that we need to beat in this party.”
“But we had these same fights in 2010,” he added, “and the Tea Party and the grassroots trumped the insiders then, and I think we can do it in (2014).”
-
“So many of these guys in the House in the Senate … They’re worried about one thing,” he said. “They’re not worried about the Republican Party. They’re not worried about balancing the budget. They’re worried about their re-election, and I think we need to come to terms with the fact that there’s a lot of self-interest that we need to beat in this party.”
Did Kibbe write this with a straight face? LOL!!
All YOU are about, Mattie-boy, is raising money and you're worried now about your next fund-raising issue.
Self-interest indeed.
-
Did Kibbe write this with a straight face? LOL!!
All YOU are about, Mattie-boy, is raising money and you're worried now about your next fund-raising issue.
Self-interest indeed.
Stopped clock, my friend. The source may be in it for the cash, doesn't make the point wrong.
-
Advocacy is cheap. What is truly difficult is governing a nation made up of 300+ million sets of competing advocacies.
Someone should explain that to Mr. Kibbe.
PACs (all PACS) and advocacy groups function under the notion that they can purchase governance, with the extra added benefit of non-accountability. If politicians they fund support failed policies that they advocate, they are not held accountable for the failures. The politicians are.
Groups like this need to concentrate on funding T.E.A. Party candidates that will defeat sitting Democrats. Instead they come after GOP candidates seeking re-election then whine about how the GOP doesn't "like" them.
-
The Republican Party embraced the strategy of Heritage Action and FreedomWorks in September as advocated by Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. It turned out to be a miserable failure.
They won't make that mistake again. The shutdown weakened DeMint and Company to the point that very few House members are afraid of them any longer. Threats of "scoring" this vote fell on deaf ears.
Next year's election will be about the failure of Obamacare, not the budget. On that, the Tea Party advocacy groups and mainstream Republicans agree.
But there's no money in agreement, so look for the pot to get stirred by something else (ANYTHING ELSE!) by Misters Kibbe and DeMint.
-
But there's no money in agreement, so look for the pot to get stirred by something else (ANYTHING ELSE!) by Misters Kibbe and DeMint.
So Cornyn, McConnell, etc. don't raise money - or do you only object when it is a CONSERVATIVE raising money instead of one of your precious progressive's. All you do is complain about Cruz raising money, Palin raising money, Freedom Works raising money, DeMint raising money??? NEVER do you complain about your precious candidates raising money.
-
Advocacy is cheap. What is truly difficult is governing a nation made up of 300+ million sets of competing advocacies.
Someone should explain that to Mr. Kibbe.
PACs (all PACS) and advocacy groups function under the notion that they can purchase governance, with the extra added benefit of non-accountability. If politicians they fund support failed policies that they advocate, they are not held accountable for the failures. The politicians are.
Groups like this need to concentrate on funding T.E.A. Party candidates that will defeat sitting Democrats. Instead they come after GOP candidates seeking re-election then whine about how the GOP doesn't "like" them.
The GOP Candidates selling us out deserve to be primaried - that is what primaries are for!
I guess this little progressive cabal that has formed on TBR has forgotten why the GOP lost BOTH the senate and congress in 2006? They are repeating the same things that lost them both houses and when they pass amnesty - and Boehner WILL pass it the GOP will once again lose the one house they currently hold and they ONLY hold thanks to the Tea Party the few of you here have decided to give the big Alynsky treatment.
-
So Cornyn, McConnell, etc. don't raise money - or do you only object when it is a CONSERVATIVE raising money instead of one of your precious progressive's. All you do is complain about Cruz raising money, Palin raising money, Freedom Works raising money, DeMint raising money??? NEVER do you complain about your precious candidates raising money.
Politicians aren't skimming money off the top and stuffing it into their pockets as these PAC execs are.
EVERYTHING IS A PERSONAL ATTACK WITH YOU!!!! Can you not discuss something without attacking me?
Apparently not.
-
Politicians aren't skimming money off the top and stuffing it into their pockets as these PAC execs are.
EVERYTHING IS A PERSONAL ATTACK WITH YOU!!!! Can you not discuss something without attacking me?
Apparently not.
That was not an attack it was the truth - all you do is complain about Kibbe, Freedom Works, Cruz, Lee, Palin, etc., raising money - never a word about your guys doing the exact same thing.... and everyone has a PAC and they all have to report how they spend the money in their PACS. How on earth do you think people like McConnell goes from law school to congress and not from a wealthy family and is now worth 90 million dollars? Get real!!!!!!
-
What's funny (possibly ironically sad too) is that the positions and values that Kibbe is espousing were mainstream Republican values not even a decade ago. They are what ushered in Newt's contract with America. They are what helped us take back the House in 2010. They are the values of the Reagan Revolution. What the RNCe has failed to overlook time and time again is when they embrace and communicate these values, they win in landslides. When they become all 'play nice', ball-less, game players, they lose. Look at Ted Cruz who came in against an establishment candidate and cleaned his clock. Then, his non-filibuster turned out to be exactly correct (to everyone but those who are still nursing at the propaganda of the MSM).
What's even sadder is they also aren't that far off of Democrat values of Kennedy.
The establishment has become more and more of an inept ruling class and so many are satisfied to just let them act like teenagers in a mall with their credit card.
-
Advocacy is cheap. What is truly difficult is governing a nation made up of 300+ million sets of competing advocacies.
Someone should explain that to Mr. Kibbe.
PACs (all PACS) and advocacy groups function under the notion that they can purchase governance, with the extra added benefit of non-accountability. If politicians they fund support failed policies that they advocate, they are not held accountable for the failures. The politicians are.
Groups like this need to concentrate on funding T.E.A. Party candidates that will defeat sitting Democrats. Instead they come after GOP candidates seeking re-election then whine about how the GOP doesn't "like" them.
Needs to be repeated over and over.
-
That was not an attack it was the truth - all you do is complain about Kibbe, Freedom Works, Cruz, Lee, Palin, etc., raising money - never a word about your guys doing the exact same thing.... and everyone has a PAC and they all have to report how they spend the money in their PACS. How on earth do you think people like McConnell goes from law school to congress and not from a wealthy family and is now worth 90 million dollars? Get real!!!!!!
I AM NOT THE ISSUE!! These advocacy groups are the issue, and Ted Cruz was the issue when he was leading the GOP over the cliff in the shutdown.
The air is bleeding out of these Tea Party PACS. The House GOP is no longer afraid of them, and Senators showed they weren't back in October.
If they can't scare anybody, they have no power.
Go ahead and primary as many of these guys as you want. Spend all your money in anger against them.
But don't get your hopes up.
-
I AM NOT THE ISSUE!! These advocacy groups are the issue, and Ted Cruz was the issue when he was leading the GOP over the cliff in the shutdown.
The air is bleeding out of these Tea Party PACS. The House GOP is no longer afraid of them, and Senators showed they weren't back in October.
If they can't scare anybody, they have no power.
Go ahead and primary as many of these guys as you want. Spend all your money in anger against them.
But don't get your hopes up.
Like I said above - you and those like you are the reason the GOP lost BOTH houses in 2006. There is only ONE reason Boehner is speaker today - the Tea Party - not the Chamber of Commerce - the TEA PARTY........ the very people he and you and your buddies are giving the big get lost middle finger today... so when you lose big in 2014 look in the mirror the reason for the loss will be staring back at you when you shave.
-
Like I said above - you and those like you are the reason the GOP lost BOTH houses in 2006. There is only ONE reason Boehner is speaker today - the Tea Party - not the Chamber of Commerce - the TEA PARTY........ the very people he and you and your buddies are giving the big get lost middle finger today... so when you lose big in 2014 look in the mirror the reason for the loss will be staring back at you when you shave.
The GOP lost both Houses because Bush was unpopular, just as Obama is unpopular now. And there were a couple of scandals in the House (Foley).
Yes, yes, we all know about what the Tea Party did in 2010 and we also know that they helped put up idiots like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell that kept the GOP from winning the Senate. So it was a mixed bag.
Nobody's giving the Tea Party PACS the middle finger; THEY are the ones who opposed the budget before it was even released. They gave away the game way too early, which is why so many GOP House members voted for it.
The GOP will win the Senate and retain the House unless the Tea Party brats decide to stay home out of spite. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if your crowd did exactly that.
But, I doubt that will happen, given that Independents hate Obamacare, and THAT is what the mid-terms are going to be about.
-
Nope they did not lose in 2006 because of George Bush. They lost because they spent like drunken sailors and the people were fed up with the spending and the growing deficit... the same deficit your precious progressives just added another 4 - 5 trillion to with this so-called budget..
-
The GOP Candidates selling us out deserve to be primaried - that is what primaries are for!
I guess this little progressive cabal that has formed on TBR has forgotten why the GOP lost BOTH the senate and congress in 2006? They are repeating the same things that lost them both houses and when they pass amnesty - and Boehner WILL pass it the GOP will once again lose the one house they currently hold and they ONLY hold thanks to the Tea Party the few of you here have decided to give the big Alynsky treatment.
Rap... don't cast the first stone then complain when I unload the catapult on you.
Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a progressive.
-
Nope they did not lose in 2006 because of George Bush. They lost because they spent like drunken sailors and the people were fed up with the spending and the growing deficit... the same deficit your precious progressives just added another 4 - 5 trillion to with this so-called budget..
If voters were concerned about spending and the deficit, they would never have re-elected Barack Obama.
Try again.
-
If voters were concerned about spending and the deficit, they would never have re-elected Barack Obama.
Try again.
Obama won that election thanks to Hurricane Sandy, Chris Christie and a whole lot of fraud as well as the color of his skin.
-
Obama won that election thanks to Hurricane Sandy, Chris Christie and a whole lot of fraud as well as the color of his skin.
In other words, voters weren't concerned about spending and deficits.
Just as I said.
-
Obama won that election thanks to Hurricane Sandy, Chris Christie and a whole lot of fraud as well as the color of his skin.
IMHO, Obama won because he played the role of Santa Claus promising free presents to everyone while Romney sold personal responsibility. We have a lot of work to do in the US to get our self-sufficient spirit back..
-
If voters were concerned about spending and the deficit, they would never have re-elected Barack Obama.
Try again.
I've discussed the deficit and the debt with friends who are not into politics as much as I am, and their attitude toward both is similar. They don't worry about the debt because they think that no harm would come to the US if we default on it. So in turn they don't worry about the deficit.
Their theory is that at one point or another we will renegotiate the debt and that our creditors will have no choice but to accept our terms. Then life will go on as usual.
Non-political junkies see the world differently than we do. Federal spending and deficits are not important to them.
-
IMHO, Obama won because he played the role of Santa Claus promising free presents to everyone while Romney sold personal responsibility. We have a lot of work to do in the US to get our self-sufficient spirit back..
Never EVER attack your customers.
Calling 47% of the country "Takers" killed Romney's chances, no matter what else he did or said.
-
I've discussed the deficit and the debt with friends who are not into politics as much as I am, and their attitude toward both is similar. They don't worry about the debt because they think that no harm would come to the US if we default on it. So in turn they don't worry about the deficit.
Their theory is that at one point or another we will renegotiate the debt and that our creditors will have no choice but to accept our terms. Then life will go on as usual.
Non-political junkies see the world differently than we do. Federal spending and deficits are not important to them.
When you owe the bank $10,000, the bank owns you.
When you owe the bank $17 trillion, you own the bank.
-
Never EVER attack your customers.
Calling 47% of the country "Takers" killed Romney's chances, no matter what else he did or said.
He wasn't wrong, but it was wrong to say it.
-
When you owe the bank $10,000, the bank owns you.
When you owe the bank $17 trillion, you own the bank.
That is true.
I just don't know that what we owe China qualifies as bank ownership yet.
-
That is true.
I just don't know that what we owe China qualifies as bank ownership yet.
If you could see the Asian real estate buyers in the Washington, DC region....no matter the price...you'd wonder just where the money originates.
We wonder if the Chinese government is providing the cash. It's incredible the number of cash Asian buyers out there.
-
This sort of thing captures what is wrong with attitude here: The GOP will win the Senate and retain the House unless the Tea Party brats decide to stay home out of spite.
So I and others like me are "brats" because we might choose not to vote for a candidate who doesn't represent our opinions and wishes? Interesting, that. I always thought the very purpose of voting was to put someone in office who would reflect my beliefs instead of someone who was a pale copy of the other guy.
And this from the guy who constantly rags on Rapunzel for "making it personal":
And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if your crowd did exactly that.
-
IMHO, Obama won because he played the role of Santa Claus promising free presents to everyone while Romney sold personal responsibility. We have a lot of work to do in the US to get our self-sufficient spirit back..
Romney lost because of Orca and a bad ground game (among other things).
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php
-
Never EVER attack your customers.
Calling 47% of the country "Takers" killed Romney's chances, no matter what else he did or said.
Obama attacked his customers as well. It's basically who he is as a politician.
-
Lest anyone forget, civil wars are particularly vicious and both sides end up losing.
-
Obama won that election thanks to Hurricane Sandy, Chris Christie and a whole lot of fraud as well as the color of his skin.
If Hurricane Sandy, one week before the election, was able to cause voters to jettison Romney for Obama, the support wasn't that deep to begin with. Did Virginians vote for Obama because of Christie's actions? Doubtful. Did Romney lose Ohio because of Sandy? Doubtful. Did Floridians jump S.S. Romney because of fraud? Doubtful.
What's not doubtful is the shrinking, reliable Republican voter base. Stop fighting the last election. Oh, yeah, boyemperor also had history on his side. Very few American Presidents are not elected to a second term. Did Bob Barr cost North Carolina in 2008? I don't even believe J "FR" The King Maker Rob-ns-n could have changed the course of the election.
-
If Hurricane Sandy, one week before the election, was able to cause voters to jettison Romney for Obama, the support wasn't that deep to begin with. Did Virginians vote for Obama because of Christie's actions? Doubtful. Did Romney lose Ohio because of Sandy? Doubtful. Did Floridians jump S.S. Romney because of fraud? Doubtful.
What's not doubtful is the shrinking, reliable Republican voter base. Stop fighting the last election. Oh, yeah, boyemperor also had history on his side. Very few American Presidents are not elected to a second term. Did Bob Barr cost North Carolina in 2008? I don't even believe J "FR" The King Maker Rob-ns-n could have changed the course of the election.
Romney targeted (and won) the groups that his team wanted to target and win, unfortunately mathematically, they weren't enough to win the election. He won the Independents, but that's no longer enough to win an election.
The GOP needs to vastly improve their numbers with blacks, Latinos, and people with incomes below $50K/yr, as well as work to improve their get-out-the-vote small game or it will not win many elections in the future.
How to do that is the key to everything.
-
The GOP needs to vastly improve their numbers with blacks, Latinos, and people with incomes below $50K/yr, as well as work to improve their get-out-the-vote small game or it will not win many elections in the future.
How to do that is the key to everything.
It seems you do that by giving things away, something most Repubs oppose.
-
It seems you do that by giving things away, something most Repubs oppose.
Personally, I don't want to give away anything. I want to figure out how to get our people who have walked away back into the booth.
You don't even have to give away anything, people will always vote their interests. Their people, our people.
-
The GOP needs to vastly improve their numbers with blacks, Latinos, and people with incomes below $50K/yr, as well as work to improve their get-out-the-vote small game or it will not win many elections in the future.
Are you sure about that?
In major flip, House Dems now represent richest regions
Updated 10/14/2009 12:47 AM
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Democratic members of the House of Representatives now represent most of the nation's wealthiest people, a sharp turnaround from the long-standing dominance that Republicans have held over affluent districts.
A USA TODAY analysis of new Census data found that Democrats represent a far different constituency today than they did in 2005, when they were the minority in the House, or in 1990, when they were the majority.
The Democratic-controlled House is now an unusual combination of the richest and poorest districts, the best and least educated, and the best and the worst insured. The analysis found that Democrats have attracted educated, affluent whites who had tended previously to vote Republican.
Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm
Another myth down the tubes. :doa:
-
Romney lost because of Orca and a bad ground game (among other things).
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php
Romney lost because 3 million people who voted in the previous election decided to stay home in that election. You can assign whatever reason to that you may choose but I think it was simply because Romney is a [[[[[GULP]]]]]] Mormon.
And he lost because, for reasons I will NEVER understand, he stopped attacking Obama after the first debate when he CLEARLY had him on the ropes!
-
And he lost because, for reasons I will NEVER understand, he stopped attacking Obama after the first debate when he CLEARLY had him on the ropes!
I will never understand that...that and the fact he could have attacked him on Bengazi when all the info was emerging..but he let that go too!
-
I will never understand that...that and the fact he could have attacked him on Bengazi when all the info was emerging..but he let that go too!
There is something at the bottom of Benghazi that is so horribly bad that I think they are ALL conspiring to cover it up!
-
I will never understand that...that and the fact he could have attacked him on Bengazi when all the info was emerging..but he let that go too!
Maybe he didn't really want to be POTUS and was acting as a front for the RNC because they had nothing else to offer. :shrug: Kind of like a major league player "throwing the game." :shrug:
-
It seems you do that by giving things away, something most Repubs oppose.
Hard for me to believe that, in light of things like No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug entitlement.
-
Personally, I don't want to give away anything. I want to figure out how to get our people who have walked away back into the booth.
You don't even have to give away anything, people will always vote their interests. Their people, our people.
That's why (in my opinion) we need to clear the smoke and knock down every tree that Democrats try to raise in the path of a clear view to the piece of s#it legislation that is the ACA between now and election day.
That is why I am not all that concerned with Ryan's budget deal. A budget fight would have turned attention away from the Obamacare debacle.
The GOP needs to stay on point here.
-
That's why (in my opinion) we need to clear the smoke and knock down every tree that Democrats try to raise in the path of a clear view to the piece of s#it legislation that is the ACA between now and election day.
That is why I am not all that concerned with Ryan's budget deal. A budget fight would have turned attention away from the Obamacare debacle.
The GOP needs to stay on point here.
A definite necessity. One backslide, one tangent, one idiotic response to a coordinated questioned can ruin the whole thing.
Actually, one thing that really bothers me. If McConnell or any other incumbent pulls a "Murkowski" if they are beaten in the primaries.
If they lose, a picture of them with a kid, a lollipop and a compromising position goes out the next day. Make them toxic.
-
That's why (in my opinion) we need to clear the smoke and knock down every tree that Democrats try to raise in the path of a clear view to the piece of s#it legislation that is the ACA between now and election day.
That is why I am not all that concerned with Ryan's budget deal. A budget fight would have turned attention away from the Obamacare debacle.
The GOP needs to stay on point here.
As a purely strategic matter, I agree that it is preferable for the Republicans to avoid a budget showdown so that they may face the ObamaCare debacle head-on.
That said, I have three suggestions:
1. Republicans should make it clear that they are acquiescing on budgetary matters only because they lack enough votes to stop the Democrats and more to the point, because ObamaCare is an unfolding disaster of great magnitude, and must be addressed immediately.
2. GOP leaders should stop bickering with conservative organizations and instead offer to convene a national summit on how they can work together to achieve their objectives. Both sides need to compromise. The results of such a meeting ought to constitute a basis for nationalizing the 2014 congressional elections and developing a strategy and a cohesive message to attract more voters to the GOP.
3. Thinking ahead to 2016, the GOP should begin to consider a package of bold government reforms aimed squarely at supporting the interests of the middle class, which the party now represents. These ought to include global tax reform, the elimination of ineffective and counterproductive government programs and departments, and the beginning of a national effort to restore values, virtues, and volunteerism to American life, specifically by helping people rebuild their connections to one another through family, neighborhoods, communities, membership groups, and religious organizations.
-
As a purely strategic matter, I agree that it is preferable for the Republicans to avoid a budget showdown so that they may face the ObamaCare debacle head-on.
That said, I have three suggestions:
1. Republicans should make it clear that they are acquiescing on budgetary matters only because they lack enough votes to stop the Democrats and more to the point, because ObamaCare is an unfolding disaster of great magnitude, and must be addressed immediately.
2. GOP leaders should stop bickering with conservative organizations and instead offer to convene a national summit on how they can work together to achieve their objectives. Both sides need to compromise. The results of such a meeting ought to constitute a basis for nationalizing the 2014 congressional elections and developing a strategy and a cohesive message to attract more voters to the GOP.
3. Thinking ahead to 2016, the GOP should begin to consider a package of bold government reforms aimed squarely at supporting the interests of the middle class, which the party now represents. These ought to include global tax reform, the elimination of ineffective and counterproductive government programs and departments, and the beginning of a national effort to restore values, virtues, and volunteerism to American life, specifically by helping people rebuild their connections to one another through family, neighborhoods, communities, membership groups, and religious organizations.
That sounds sensible.
-
That sounds sensible.
Thanks. I'm not quite as angry when I haven't been drinking. :beer:
-
Thanks. I'm not quite as angry when I haven't been drinking. :beer:
Considering something while drunk, and then while sober, might be a way of giving yourself some extra perspective you might not otherwise have had the benefit of.
-
Hard for me to believe that, in light of things like No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug entitlement.
Amen to that. Pubbies sometimes talk a good show but in the end, it's always the same cave.
Did Charlie Brown EVER figure out Lucy and the football??
-
Amen to that. Pubbies sometimes talk a good show but in the end, it's always the same cave.
Did Charlie Brown EVER figure out Lucy and the football??
Nope
-
Considering something while drunk, and then while sober, might be a way of giving yourself some extra perspective you might not otherwise have had the benefit of.
Well, I wouldn't advise it for everyone. But it's always worked for me.
-
Well, I wouldn't advise it for everyone. But it's always worked for me.
:thumbsup:
-
Nope
He must have been a pubbie.