Skip to comments.Tea Party May Be Dead. And Conservative Media is Robert the Bruce
Posted on 04/25/2012 12:44:11 PM PDT by rightjb
We awoke today with news that Mitt Romneys nomination has now risen to nearly 57% of the GOP nationally, and that in the most fervent conservative state in the country, South Carolina, Tea Party membership has dropped from 28% to 11%.
For weeks the supposed conservative media pushed either a disingenuous, social conservative statist hypocrite, or a liberal socialist in conservative clothing ignoring the only man that expanded conservatism nationally and balanced the budget 4 consecutive years with a liberal Democrat President and an overwhelming RINO Republican majority.
I have something to say about that. Am I damn sure aint gonna let Longshanks or the Scottish RINO Nobles take my country.
Or my freedom.
PolitiJim 4-29-2012 Podcast Audio
Continued at: http://www.politijim.com/2012/04/rip-tea-party-long-live-william-wallace.html
(Excerpt) Read more at politijim.com ...
Of course the Tea Party membership has fallen...their national org has endorsed Romney.
That's the "conservative" you wish we had running for us in November?
Meanwhile FOX news has gone full on lefty hiring Jesse Jackson’s daughter and bringing Cornell West in for panels on race.
This afternoon on Megan Kelly’s show they were happily bashing the “If I wanted to destroy America” video.
I have been one of the persistent voices concerned about the Romneyites completely taking over the party in the event of a Romney win.
Since Romney is the likely nominee, and might well eke out a victory George W. style. I think we have to consider Plan 2 now.
Of course, non-RINOs should be pushed at all of the lower levels. That’s a given.
But, looking at 2016, I don’t think it is a given that a President Romney is guaranteed a re-election, any more than LBJ or Jimmy Carter (who could have lost outright in the primaries if Teddy Kennedy had prepped for the question “Why do you want to be president?” on 60 Minutes.
There is ONE good thing about facing an incumbent Romney. The incumbent Romney will NOT draw eight challengers. He will draw one. This will be Reagan v. Ford all over again, if we have the right challenger.
The challenger would have to be more plausible than Pat Buchanan, with government experience, preferably executive. That same candidate would also have to be out of office for some time, or willing to quit, as the number of enemies at all levels will be great. You don’t go after the king unless you can (electorally) kill him.
The candidate would have to be charismatic, well-financed, able to get the base excited, and have a very thick skin. Preparations will have to begin in December, 2012, preferably under the radar, or in an ambiguous manner.
Based on the above criteria, I believe that Sarah Palin could be the right man for the job. Romney’s best bet would be to try to co-opt her by putting her in as Secretary of Energy. He probably won’t do hat, however, as that would further burnish her credentials (she doesn’t fall on swords, either), and because she is a woman who loves her husband, and it might hurt Stevey Schmidt’s feelings.
I understand those who think we cannot take another 4 years of Obama. There is no reason why the deal for such folks has to extend past 1/20/2013.
My sacred honor prevents me from voting for the lesser of two evils since they are both evil. I will not vote for Romney regardless of whom he chooses for his running mate or what lies he tells during the impending national campaign. I'll write-in my preference or vote for a third party candidate.
NO OBAMA. NO ROMNEY. NO WAY.
I feel NO better having to vote for Willard R. than I did for Juan M.
But 4 more yrs of Øbama scares the crap out of me!
While he would certainly make a dashing image for a President, unfortunately, I don’t think Mr. Neeson is eligible to run for POTUS.
I have to give him credit, though; the kilt is not for everyone.
Obama and Romney both support baby killing abortion, both support the radical homosexual agenda, both are opposed to guns, both ignore the U.S.Constitution and both are pathological liars but most of all both are socialists. So, what is the difference to chose between the two?
You two vote for this man Romney, who bought the Republican Party hierarchy, and in short order the Democrats will be blaming the conservatives for the inevitable economic crash and accompanying depression. That will do more to solidly place the communists in power come 2016 than anything else one can imagine.
I say let the Democrats own the forthcoming chaos. Let it be on their heads, and not on ours.
>>>I have been one of the persistent voices concerned about the Romneyites completely taking over the party in the event of a Romney win.
There ain’t no Romneyites in Iowa. Here, the (expletives deleted) Paulists have taken over the state party central committee.
I NEVER said I was voting for Romney. Take back that libel.
It sure sounds like you “implied” voting for that POS!
As it should. This is politics -- not philosophy class or church.
We must get the Marxist and his appointees at EPA, DOJ, TSA, etc. out of there. A Republican Congress is not enough.
Obama must go.
This fellow needs to learn more about Scotland then what one can gain from just watching Braveheart. Robert the Bruce ended up having a change of heart and later led the Scottish to victory in their first independence war from England. My surname ancestors fought for the Bruce and helped to free Scotland, at least for awhile. There is no historic match for Romney. He is a post modern creation.
I agree wholeheartedly, but if that means having to pull the lever for the pandering fraud from Mass then you'll have to beat Obama without me. I won't vote for that trash no matter how much I dislike the man in the White House.
I'll do my best.
You do realize that Reagan didn't win that one.
The challenger would have to be more plausible than Pat Buchanan, with government experience, preferably executive. That same candidate would also have to be out of office for some time, or willing to quit, as the number of enemies at all levels will be great. You dont go after the king unless you can (electorally) kill him.
Where was your candidate this time? I might have voted for him or her if I knew the name.
I don't know if Romney can win or what kind of president he might be. But I'd say, "Wait and see." Don't go taking any kind of hereditary blood oaths of vengeance.
Romney might turn out to be awful or so-so or pretty good. We don't know yet. But if you think it's awful that he's likely to be the nominee, you might consider it a sign of something really wrong in the party or the country.
In that case, hating Romney is scratching the surface, addressing the symptom rather than what causes it. Getting rid of Romney just re-opens up the same void that helped make him the nominee.
Based on the above criteria, I believe that Sarah Palin could be the right man for the job.
Based on what I've seen she doesn't really want that job. I don't fault her for that. You have to be a little crazy to want it as much as you have to want it in order to get it.
UP THE REBELS!!!! Long live Liam Neeson...I mean Rob Roy...William Wallace!!!! Either will do.
Read a book, don't just watch the movie.
Part of the “corrective” (not “collective”) coalition — that’s us.
See my new tagline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.