GOP leaders fed up with Rush Limbaugh...

Responding to President Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, the conservative talkmeister said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

ohio county wrote:Phil Gingrey is a GOP leader? I never heard of him until this morning. I'm more fed up with republican leaders than I am with Rush Limbaugh. He'd didn't piss away a Congressional majority. Why do you want even rightwing republicans to get fed up with Limbaugh? Because progressives cannot compete with him? I'm fed up with Al Franken and the sob isn't even elected yet!

"...He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don't show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won't continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we'll know it when we see it.”

sodbuster wrote:"When Republicans listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we nominate George W Bush and Ronald Reagan, who were both elected twice."

Well Sheik surely you are not proud of that.

Reagan ran up bigger deficits and national debt than anyone up to that time.

And then GW Bush went even further and now has the all time record for deficit spending.

Reagan stupidly sent the Marines into harm's way in the mideast and when their barracks was bombed and killed over 200 of them what did he do?

He made a big speech to the nation how he would not cut and run and promptly went on vacation and gave the order to cut and run.

And Bush stupidly got us entangled in Iraq and here we are stuck trying to occupy a country halfway around the world pouring blood and treasure diown a rathole.

Please dont tell me you are proud of that.

ohio county wrote:You mean we shouldn't want to elect presidents? We should probably just be happy with the democrats who get elected.

Can you hear yourself? Surely you understand that we disagree...

sodbuster wrote:Reagan stupidly sent the Marines into harm's way in the mideast and when their barracks was bombed and killed over 200 of them what did he do?

At the same time, U.S. President Ronald Reagan was pressured for a troop withdrawal from Lebanon by Congress. These calls were increased after the Lebanese PM and his cabinet resigned February 5. Shiite and Druze militiamen began fighting outside Beirut on February 6 and threw the capital into chaos. Reagan ordered the 1,700 Marines to begin withdrawing on February 7. The Italians pulled out on February 20; the Marines followed on February 26. The last French troops left on March 31.

Yea, Reagan run up the debt. What you and your ilk seem to fail to mention, it was a democratic congress that went right along and voted for all the increases in spending. Let me remind you that the Speaker of House was none other than Tipp O'Neal (D) . That is the one thing I hold against the Reagan presidency. On the other side of the coin he was a patriot who believed the the greatness of this nation and the ability of its people.

Cato wrote:...................... I'll say this because few others that post here have the guts to. The man (and use the term loosely) just elected to the whitehouse is neither a patriot nor does he believe in the greatness of this nation or the ability of its people. The greatest threat to the well being of the United States of America is not the muslim extremists or North Korea, or China, or Russia. The greatest threat to this nation is the democratic party, the republican party leaders who have abandoned their principles, and the blind idiots, like you, that have sold your soul to the democratic party.

Now what do you think of that Sod!!!! CATO

Yes, Reagan should have bombed the hell out of Lebonan, Syria and Iran for Hezbollah's cowardly acts. Perhaps if he had, we wouldn't be where we are today. But it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Seems you've glossed over some of the facts to support your version of history on this incident.

Sheikben you hit the nail on the head. The problem is that very few politicans have the gonads to stand on principle. It takes courage to do so. Courage is one thing that 99.9% of politicans lack.

I think that is why you see the public swing back and forth between democrats and republicans. The public is looking for someone who will stand on principle and who is ethical. Neither party seems to have anyone of that caliber, so the public swings back and forth looking for such an individual.

Cato

sodbuster wrote:Lovin' eyes never see, Zig.

They cannot deny the facts stated above, so they just rationalize them.

i.e. It's not reagan's fault he ran up record debt, Tip Oneil made him do it.

And it was not really reagan who sent in those Marines into a stupid situation, they were under the U.N.

Cato thinks reagan was some kind of hero because he had that aw shucks attitude and spun a good yarn.

But facts are stubborn things sometimes.

Aaron wrote:What facts Sodbuster?

All I see from your post is the stuff fairly tales are made of.

The nation's budget deficit will soar to an unprecedented $1.2 trillion this year, congressional budget analysts said yesterday, a startling tide of red ink that could dampen enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for some of President-elect Barack Obama's most ambitious priorities.

In the first official estimate of the damage done to the nation's finances by a weakening economy and various financial-sector bailouts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the gap between government spending and available revenue will exceed 8 percent of the overall economy by the end of September, a chasm not seen since the end of World War II.[emphasis mine)