C’mon Now, GOP, Don’t Go Wobbly on Us…

Gadsden_flagPlease read and pass along this article. We send good conservatives to D.C. to fulfill the promises they made to the electorate, and yet when they stay true to their word the permanent political class in their own party punishes them.   This won’t be forgotten come 2014.   Right now the GOP establishment is more concerned about the opinion of the media and the Georgetown cocktail circuit than they are “we the people” who hired them. For all this new talk of how the GOP needs a “populist movement,” it would do them good to remember they already have one; it’s called the Tea Party movement, and it won for them the majority they now enjoy in the House.

- Sarah Palin

About these ads
This entry was posted in Decepticons, John Boehner, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to C’mon Now, GOP, Don’t Go Wobbly on Us…

  1. gretchenone says:

    This should make it abundantly clear to even the most loyal Republican, that the Republican political elite are ready, willing, and able to exorcise the conservatives from the party. They are doing it openly. This is not about Republican and Democrat anymore. This is about the People versus Tyranny. We are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. The ruling class elites care nothing about defending the Constitution.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      …the Republican political elite are ready, willing, and able to exorcise the conservatives from the party.

      Not quite.

      The current leadership may be ready, willing, and able to purge conservatives from leadership, but that’s a caucus problem, that is slowly being addressed, precinct-by-precinct, and district-by-district.

      Keep up the grassroots pressure, and soon we will have enough conservatives to reclaim the party leadership. Boehner and his ilk know it, and that’s why they’e running scared, trying to consolidate power, banish conservatives from leadership, and play footsie with the democrats over the “fiscal cliff”.

      Of course, there’s also the tactic of deposing Boehner and rendering the House Speaker-less in order to send the party elites a message. (Hmm, I wonder if there have been at least 16 conservatives who were removed from committees or chairmanships in the recent purge?)

      Like

      • texan59 says:

        We were talking about your final point last night. What we fear is that for once, Cruella Pelosi would actually back the the bone man and keep him in power. It would certainly be to her advantage to keep her favorite punching bag front and center. :oops:

        Like

      • canadacan says:

        Right on point you are 1 of my favorite contributors. Erik Erikson wrote about this today in red state. the United States was speakeless for a short. time during the Civil War. Jim Jordan is the guy to replace the current Speaker. he is from Ohio and I believe he is the man that Sundance was talking about. January is key for the Republican caucus. Boehner Will sleep with the fishes politically if the grassroots has their way. Absolutely thrilled to see Sarah Palin writing for us. The next person that throws up their hands and says there’s nothing we can do is going to get the curse of the plaid hand from me enough

        Like

  2. CMSIQ says:

    The true elites are propped up and defended by you.

    If Obama is a communist for wanting the tax rate for millionaires at 39.6%….. What does that make Republican Eisenhower when it was 92% or that far leftwing loon Nixon when it was 75%?

    http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550–abc-news.html

    The wealth gap between rich and poor is at highest level since late 1920’s ( leading up to Depression). A large wealth gap is bad for the economy, as someone making $10 mil spends / invests into local markets differently than would 100 people making $100k (multiplier effect is lower). Reducing the wealth gap will actually benefit economy.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      The wealth gap between rich and poor is at highest level since late 1920′s ( leading up to Depression).

      It is also irrelevant.

      Why? Because people move freely between income/wealth brackets. The so-called “wealth gap” might be relevant if the composition of wealth/income brackets remained constant, but it doesn’t.

      Reducing the wealth gap will actually benefit economy.

      That’s just so much Marxist nonsense.

      A large wealth gap is bad for the economy, as someone making $10 mil spends / invests into local markets differently than would 100 people making $100k (multiplier effect is lower).

      And if those 100 people making $100K know that they have no hope of reaching $10MM, because of wealth-redistributive taxes, they’ll hoard what money they do make, rather than risk losing it in an investment only to have their gains taxed away to nothing.

      Also: people making $100K don’t re-invest back into the economy in the form of creating new jobs. They simply don’t make enough to support job creation.

      But please: keep spouting Marxist nonsense.

      Like

      • CMSIQ says:

        The people making 100K will “hoard” their money in Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts, but the one making 10 mil wouldn’t? Right….

        Actually 100 people making 100k are 100 more minds, capital and energy added to capitalist markets. 100 more chances to become entrepreneurs at the grass roots level. As opposed to 1.

        Many of the executives I know making millions get their bonuses because they can ship these 100k job overseas. As with everything else that would be useful, Republicans block all legislation to keep these jobs in the United States.

        And no comment on those communists Eisenhower and Nixon? .Not surprising.

        Like

        • eweturn says:

          Just wondering – how many million making executives do you know?

          Like

          • CMSIQ says:

            I’ve worked at three fortune 100 companies over the last twenty years.

            When given the choice of keeping their cushion 750k a year job + bonuses, but having to lay off 100 US technology workers for offshore workers. The choice is not a difficult one. All legislation to incentivize corporations to keep US employees has been thrown out. Mostly by Republicans but also some Democrats.

            I am all for lowering corporate taxes. Even with the layoffs, corporations employ millions of US employees. The stronger corporations are, the more US employees they can keep, but there is also legislation that can be passed that could help executives make the tough decision to keep US employees. Currently, they will be fired if they don’t lay them off.

            However, for the execs taking home 750k a year after taxes. It is the theater of the absurd to feel sorry for them if they pay a little more in taxes. They are not going to be phased by entitlement cuts.

            Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          The people making 100K will “hoard” their money in Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts, but the one making 10 mil wouldn’t? Right….

          No, the people making $100K are too busy struggling to provide a decent living for their families, and have no extra, disposable income to hoard.

          Actually 100 people making 100k are 100 more minds, capital and energy added to capitalist markets. 100 more chances to become entrepreneurs at the grass roots level. As opposed to 1.

          $100K doesn’t leave enough extra for entrepreneurial activities, or to provide real capital. It provides enough for one to be a participant in the market, but not enough to be a creator.

          And if those making $10M want to “hoard” their money in “Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts”, that’s their business, because it’s their money. Taking it from them, through redistributive taxes because you think others can do better things with it, is immoral and evil.

          Many of the executives I know making millions get their bonuses because they can ship these 100k job overseas. As with everything else that would be useful, Republicans block all legislation to keep these jobs in the United States.

          Er, non-sequitur?

          And no comment on those communists Eisenhower and Nixon? .Not surprising.

          I’m a child of the Reagan era, and had nothing to do with Ike or Tricky Dick. Nevertheless, you seem to conflate the role of President with that of Legislature. Which party controlled congress when both men were in office, and when those tax rates were made effective?

          Like

          • CMSIQ says:

            Multiple years at 100K for an individual, or a husband and wife both making that much is more than enough to start a new business.

            I’m a 40 year old moderate conservative, a big proponent of Chris Christie, and huge supporter of Scott Walker’s battle over the unions. But I will never blindly follow the uber- rich and their blatant (and weak) propaganda, especially when the wealth gap of this country is at it’s highest levels since directly before the great depression. The wealth gap of this country is so large we are now officially classified a banana republic and yet still ideologues from the right refuse to compromise at all costs on tax rates to the top 2% at the expense of 98%.

            You can continue to purge moderate conservatives like myself to stick up for the super-rich, but then you will continue to lose elections. I don’t want the Republicans to continue losing elections. If smaller government fiscal conservatives are annihilated politically, It will only be a matter of time before we have someone much much worse than Obama.

            Like

            • Chip Bennett says:

              Multiple years at 100K for an individual, or a husband and wife both making that much is more than enough to start a new business.

              Way to move the goalposts there. Even so, $200K per year for a husband and wife would support perhaps one job created, if that.

              I’m a 40 year old moderate conservative, a big proponent of Chris Christie, and huge supporter of Scott Walker’s battle over the unions. But I will never blindly follow the uber- rich and their blatant (and weak) propaganda…

              Pop quiz: speaking of “uber-rich” (not that “uber-rich” has any standard definition; it’s used mainly as a straw man): most of them are Democrats, and most of the “uber-rich” political donors contribute to Democrats. The suggestion that the Republicans are the party of the “uber-rich” is Alinskyite demagoguery.

              …especially when the wealth gap of this country is at it’s highest levels since directly before the great depression. The wealth gap of this country is so large…

              The so-called “wealth gap” is still irrelevant, because people move freely and frequently from one wealth bracket to another, up or down, constantly. This is not a “rich get richer, and poor get poorer” country.

              Besides: analyses of such “gaps” usually fail to consider several points, such as the wealthiest among us (retirees) being also the lowest income-earners (because they’re retired); further, such analyses usually obfuscate data by referring to “households” rather than per-capita income and wealth.

              …we are now officially classified a banana republic and yet still ideologues from the right refuse to compromise at all costs on tax rates to the top 2% at the expense of 98%.

              Most small business owners make over $250K per year, with business profits reported as personal income. Guess what: that puts them in your precious 2% bracket of income earners.

              Perhaps you should stop parroting Marxist rhetoric about the rich get tax breaks at the expense of the poor? Consider how much each bracket makes:

              The top 1% make an average of $380K/yr
              The top 2% make about $200K/yr
              The top 5% make an average of $160K/yr
              The top 10% make an average of $114K/yr

              And compare that with how much each bracket contributes to the federal coffers:

              The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of federal income taxes.
              The top 5% of income earners pay over 50% of federal income taxes.
              The top 1% of income earners pay over 35% of federal income taxes.

              How much is enough? How much is their “fair share”?

              You can continue to purge moderate conservatives like myself to stick up for the super-rich, but then you will continue to lose elections.

              Ridiculous. Did Mitt Romney “purge” moderate conservatives? Quite to the contrary, I’d say. Mitt Romney is the epitome of a moderate conservative (whatever “moderate conservative” means; it sounds like a contradiction to me), and look where it got him in the election.

              Again: who is sticking up for the “super-rich”? What do you consider “super-rich”? And how is arguing that the “super-rich” have a right to dispose of their own money however they see fit, and that the government doesn’t have the right to redistribute their wealth through taxation “sticking up” for them?

              Guess what? Take all wealth from those “super-rich”, and the government is funded for a matter of days. And then who will the government come for?

              Like

              • CMSIQ says:

                “Guess what? Take all wealth from those “super-rich”, and the government is funded for a matter of days. And then who will the government come for?”

                All the more reason to compromise. I want to see entitlement cuts across the board. These entitlement cuts will largely affect the bottom 98%.

                Your points are not terrible, but mostly straw man arguments that I do not disagree with. I am taking a bend but not break approach, while you seem to prefer going down in flames. Romney absolutely did not lose because he was too moderate. He wanted to lower taxes on the super rich by 20%.

                Ignore the growing wealth gap at your own peril. Compromise is not Communism, especially when tax rates are at historical lows. Compromise is inoculation from Communism.

                Like

  3. gretchenone says:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/06/why-the-gop-needs-jeb-right-now/

    FTA: the base of the party must be brought into line and made to understand that being right is nice but being victorious is better. The most obvious place for Bush to break with the base is on immigration — a place where he has already pushed aggressively for the party to rethink its approach and where his brother (aka the former President of the United States) has signaled that a change is necessary.

    Wake. Up.

    Like

  4. czarowniczy says:

    Post November credo: “All right guys, election’s over, everyone belly-up to the trough”.

    Like

  5. Sharon says:

    The GOP has already gone well beyond wobbly. My opinion.

    There’s nothing left, apparently, that they consider worth having a fight over. And at this point, it wouldn’t matter. The public talking they’re doing right now (including the conservative voices) is just press conferences after the fact explaining why there’s nothing left but smoldering ashes.

    The few articulate statements being made about finances and tax rates and principles these days would have meant a little more 10 months ago. But no–they wait until the last minute when the outcome is already determined and line up at the cliff shouting “No! No! No!” as the Executive Tree (branch? Ha!) heads for the cliff at full speed.

    Too little. Way too late.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s