The GOP Has Finally Found a Way to Defeat the Tea Party

[Once-Ler]

[Luis Gonzalez]

[Luis Gonzalez]

What good does unelectable ideological purity do for anyone?

Going to respond to myself.

If ideological purity trumps electability, then the ideologically pure should be thrilled to lose campaigns and remain pure.

[Once-Ler]

Going to respond to myself.

If ideological purity trumps electability, then the ideologically pure should be thrilled to lose campaigns and remain pure.

http://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm
Russell Kirk wrote "Chirping Sectaries" about the extremely ideological Libertarians in 1981, but it reads much like the "real conservatives" of today.

[massadvj]

It looks to me like the Tea Party challengers are being good sparring partners, forcing the establishment to rethink strategy and adapt to the new environment.  That's a good thing.  In case anyone hadn't noticed, the party has some serious image issues to deal with.  Primary challenges force our people to get in shape for the general election.  That's the way it works.  No one should step aside and give a candidate a free ride for the sake of "party unity."  If someone's vulnerable, then he needs to fix it, or suffer the consequences of his vulnerability.  That is as true for the conservatives as it is for the moderates.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It looks to me like the Tea Party challengers are being good sparring partners, forcing the establishment to rethink strategy and adapt to the new environment.  That's a good thing.  In case anyone hadn't noticed, the party has some serious image issues to deal with.  Primary challenges force our people to get in shape for the general election.  That's the way it works.  No one should step aside and give a candidate a free ride for the sake of "party unity."  If someone's vulnerable, then he needs to fix it, or suffer the consequences of his vulnerability.  That is as true for the conservatives as it is for the moderates.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

By the same token, once candidates win the Survivor contest that is the primary system, everyone who claims to be a registered Republican needs to work toward the one goal of helping that candidate win the general election.

I get crazy when I start reading all the complaints from one faction of the party or another about the GOP never choosing a "true" conservative to run.

The person who wins the primary is the winner of the votes. If conservatives want a "true" conservative in the general election, they must put up a candidate who can (at least) win the primary.

[MACVSOG68]

It looks to me like the Tea Party challengers are being good sparring partners, forcing the establishment to rethink strategy and adapt to the new environment.  That's a good thing.  In case anyone hadn't noticed, the party has some serious image issues to deal with.  Primary challenges force our people to get in shape for the general election.  That's the way it works.  No one should step aside and give a candidate a free ride for the sake of "party unity."  If someone's vulnerable, then he needs to fix it, or suffer the consequences of his vulnerability.  That is as true for the conservatives as it is for the moderates.

Don't disagree in general.  Primary challenges can have both positive and negative impacts.  Yes they can force a moderate to move closer to his wing.  OTOH, it can devolve into a Keystone Cops free-for-all as it did in the 2012 presidential primary debates.  It also serves to save a lot of effort on the part of the opponents.  But it's better than the alternative.

[Once-Ler]

It looks to me like the Tea Party challengers are being good sparring partners, forcing the establishment to rethink strategy and adapt to the new environment.  That's a good thing.  In case anyone hadn't noticed, the party has some serious image issues to deal with.  Primary challenges force our people to get in shape for the general election.  That's the way it works.  No one should step aside and give a candidate a free ride for the sake of "party unity."  If someone's vulnerable, then he needs to fix it, or suffer the consequences of his vulnerability.  That is as true for the conservatives as it is for the moderates.

Leader McConnell was less vulnerable before millions of dollars were spent by "conservative" groups against him.  How many times have I read "conservatives" write McConnell, McCain, and Graham should step aside? 

[240B]

Leader McConnell was less vulnerable before millions of dollars were spent by "conservative" groups against him.  How many times have I read "conservatives" write McConnell, McCain, and Graham should step aside?

I would actively vote for the Democrat, before I would vote for any one of those guys you listed. And yes, I am part of the 'conservative' groups fighting them.
 
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
 
When McConnell said, 'We will crush the Tea Party', I took that to mean that he was saying, 'To hell with real Republicans! To hell with the American people! *I* am the RULER here!'
 
Well, if that is how he feels, we will just see about that, won't we.

[MACVSOG68]

If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.


Integrity and politics are like oil and water, no matter how ideologically pure one's particular segment of the political environment he walks on.  Both McCain and Romney had their faults for sure, but any suggestion they would have traveled down the same path as Obama is absurd.  And to double down on that absurdity, does anyone think McConnell and Reid would handle the Senate in the same way? 

[240B]

I both supported and voted for Romney. And I would vote for him again today. I tried to support McCain but he is such a freakin weirdo, I couldn't. And everytime I went to one of his rallies, all he wanted to talk about was what a great guy Obama is. McCain was a joke.
 
I do not lump Romney in with the that crowd. It is a national tragedy that Romney was not elected. IMO

[alicewonders]

I both supported and voted for Romney. And I would vote for him again today. I tried to support McCain but he is such a freakin weirdo, I couldn't. And everytime I went to one of his rallies, all he wanted to talk about was what a great guy Obama is. McCain was a joke.
 
I do not lump Romney in with the that crowd. It is a national tragedy that Romney was not elected. IMO

Agree.  Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president.  In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud. 

One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected.  The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!

[240B]

If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.


Integrity and politics are like oil and water, no matter how ideologically pure one's particular segment of the political environment he walks on.  Both McCain and Romney had their faults for sure, but any suggestion they would have traveled down the same path as Obama is absurd.  And to double down on that absurdity, does anyone think McConnell and Reid would handle the Senate in the same way?

Yes. The Republicans once owned the House the Senate and the President, and they did absolutely nothing. Everything stayed just exactly the same. Same IRS, same U.N. same EPA and NEA, same everything. In fact in some ways, it got worse. It was like nothing happened. Everything stayed exactly the same as it has been for decades, with Dems or Pubs running the circus.
 
If you think establishment Republicans are going to do anything or change anything, well then I would have to disagree. They are all DNC/RNC status quo club.
 
Democrats want to rush to off the cliff at 100 miles an hour. Establishment Republicans agree about going the same direction and going off the same cliff, no problem there. The only difference is that they want to do it at 50 miles an hour.

[katzenjammer]

Yes. The Republicans once owned the House the Senate and the President, and they did absolutely nothing. Everything stayed just exactly the same. Same IRS, same U.N. same EPA and NEA, same everything. In fact in some ways, it got worse. It was like nothing happened. Everything stayed exactly the same as it has been for decades, with Dems or Pubs running the circus.
 
If you think establishment Republicans are going to do anything or change anything, well then I would have to disagree. They are all DNC/RNC status quo club.
 
Democrats want to rush to off the cliff at 100 miles an hour. Establishment Republicans agree about going the same direction and going off the same cliff, no problem there. The only difference is that they want to do it at 50 miles an hour.

You may be too generous in your estimate of speed, I'm thinking more like 75-80 miles per hour for the GOPe.  lol

[katzenjammer]

Agree.  Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president.  In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud. 

One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected.  The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!

That is my opinion as well, and I will never be convinced otherwise.

[240B]

Agree.  Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president.  In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud. 

One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected.  The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!

Of course what you say is true. But the fraud will be much, much, worse in the next election. There is so much corruption and secret deals, outright theft, crime, and other skeletons in government under Obama, that 'the establishment' on both sides has to get someone elected who will keep all the bodies buryed. That is why they must elect Hillary. She is just as wicked and corrupt as all of them, and they can trust her to keep her mouth shut.
 
This next election is 'life or death' for the corrupt criminals running the government today. Can you imagine how many 'revelations' and tell-all books would be written after Obama leaves, unless "they" can get an agent in the White House to keep a lid on it?
 
They are going to simply ignore any laws or rules and pump as many fake votes as they can into the election. This next election will see a tsunami of voter fraud, the likes of which has never been seen before in America.

[Bigun]

Agree.  Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president.  In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud. 

One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected.  The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!

Spot on Alice! 

Well said!

[MACVSOG68]

Yes. The Republicans once owned the House the Senate and the President, and they did absolutely nothing. Everything stayed just exactly the same. Same IRS, same U.N. same EPA and NEA, same everything. In fact in some ways, it got worse. It was like nothing happened. Everything stayed exactly the same as it has been for decades, with Dems or Pubs running the circus.
 
If you think establishment Republicans are going to do anything or change anything, well then I would have to disagree. They are all DNC/RNC status quo club.
 
Democrats want to rush to off the cliff at 100 miles an hour. Establishment Republicans agree about going the same direction and going off the same cliff, no problem there. The only difference is that they want to do it at 50 miles an hour.

Part of the traditional conservative ideology is to resist change and reduce the unintended consequences.  No Republican, regardless of where in the party you classify them, voted for Obamacare.  The unintended consequences were obvious from the beginning.  But conservative philosophy doesn't prevent change.  We may well at some point simplify the tax code, but no serious politician is simply calling for abolishing the IRS.  We should put more pressure on the UN, especially some of its commissions, but no serious politician is going to pull us out of the organization.  We should cut back on the vast regulatory schemes hatched by Democrats, but no serious politician is going to abolish the EPA, because clean air and clean water seem to be a priority with Americans today.

As I asked earlier, does anyone think that either McCain or Romney would have governed as has Obama, and in 2012 the conservative forums were full of "No difference between Romney and Obama". And does anyone seriously think that McConnell would be no different from Reid?

[Once-Ler]

I would actively vote for the Democrat, before I would vote for any one of those guys you listed. And yes, I am part of the 'conservative' groups fighting them.
 
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
 
When McConnell said, 'We will crush the Tea Party', I took that to mean that he was saying, 'To hell with real Republicans! To hell with the American people! *I* am the RULER here!'
 
Well, if that is how he feels, we will just see about that, won't we.

Real conservatives vote rat.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There was voter fraud, but to believe that was THE reason why Romney lost the election is very naive.

Romney had a lot to do with Romney losing the election.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php

[Luis Gonzalez]

I would actively vote for the Democrat, before I would vote for any one of those guys you listed. And yes, I am part of the 'conservative' groups fighting them.
 
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
 
When McConnell said, 'We will crush the Tea Party', I took that to mean that he was saying, 'To hell with real Republicans! To hell with the American people! *I* am the RULER here!'
 
Well, if that is how he feels, we will just see about that, won't we.

So, when you voted Democrat five years ago, did you imagine that Romney would have this country where it is right now?

And are you proud of helping give the Democrats the supermajority they needed to shove Obamacare down our throats?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I would actively vote for the Democrat, before I would vote for any one of those guys you listed. And yes, I am part of the 'conservative' groups fighting them.
 
If you vote Democrat, or vote for any of these guys, you wind up with the same thing. At least in voting Democrat, I will have my integrity.
 
When McConnell said, 'We will crush the Tea Party', I took that to mean that he was saying, 'To hell with real Republicans! To hell with the American people! *I* am the RULER here!'
 
Well, if that is how he feels, we will just see about that, won't we.

This is starting to have the feel of  Jeff Foxworthy routine.

You're not a real Republican if ________.

You're not a real conservative if ________.

Jeff's way funnier however.

I love your logic.

It's like thinking "if I walk through door "A" I may get f#^%*d up the a%$, and if I  walk through door "B" I WILL get  f#^%*d up the a%$, but I'll get popcorn... I'LL TAKE DOOR B!!!!"

[Once-Ler]

Yes. The Republicans once owned the House the Senate and the President, and they did absolutely nothing. Everything stayed just exactly the same. Same IRS, same U.N. same EPA and NEA, same everything. In fact in some ways, it got worse. It was like nothing happened. Everything stayed exactly the same as it has been for decades, with Dems or Pubs running the circus.

Have you noticed how Obama kept Gitmo open, resigned the Patriot Act, and extended and made permanent the Bush Tax Cuts?  Do you know why?  It's a rhetorical question. 

[evadR²]

Agree.  Romney was not my first pick, and he is more moderate than I prefer - but in the end I enthusiastically supported him because I knew he would be a good president.  In my opinion, the reason he isn't president today is because of massive voter fraud. 

One only has to look at the cover-up of Benghazi to see one example of fraud - anything - and baby I mean ANYTHING was done to get that SOB bony-assed imposter-in-chief re-elected.  The saddest thing is that so few on our side are willing to call them out on it!

That is my opinion as well, and I will never be convinced otherwise.

W O R D

I will never understand how the number of Potential Voters DECREASED by approximately 10 million in 2012.

Anybody, anybody???  Bueller...

[Luis Gonzalez]