Ping....sad, putrid ping....
Sorry, but if us RINOs leave then we take 70% of the money and funding with us, so you think the tea party faction can run the entire Republican Party? If anything it was the tea party faction (the fringe) that caused some of our losses in this past election and even lost in this election (ala Walsh, West, Murdouck, etc). We are a divided party right now- so you want to unite or fight among ourselves? We fight then we’re screwed for years to come. However BS articles like this where you want to attack us within the party is just fine - we’ve held the power long enough with you and without you. Remember, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Sr and Jr were not tea partiers - all were centrist conservatives who compromised within reason.
We have to find a way to stop the Democrats from crossing over and voting in the Republican primaries. I know it’s legal for them to do it, but it violates the spirit of having the primaries. They have been selecting both candidates.
I can tell you exactly who to blame:
Go to a crowded mall, stop, and look around you.
Bush 1 lost because of a third party candidate.
So that is what we want now isn’t it, another Ross Perot to make sure the Democrats stay in power.
The Democrats all hate each other but come together so that they win elections. The Latinos hate the blacks, the blacks hate the Cubans etc. Republicans because all the factions want it their way or no way. Until we grow up and realize nobody is perfect we will not win elections. All the people who say they will settle for nothing less than a “TRUE” conservative just don’t get it, Ronald Reagan would not have won on Tuesday.
The Kentucky motto, “United we stand, divided we fall”, we just had a big fall.
Ordered a don’t tread on me flag today...it will be flying proudly over property that has been in my family for generations. We must fight..make it the tea party GOP.
What was the biggest difference between 2012, when we got our butts kicked, and 2010, when we kicked butt?
Who did the Establishment Republicans shove to the background and bury?
The Republicans fear the Tea Party. They would rather lose than let the Tea Party gain power.
Was was the old saying, those who don't work, don't eat?
Not anymore FRiends. We work, they eat no matter what.
The Tea Party represents me. The GOP no longer does. It has proven to the be the backstabbing enemy of the Tea Party. So very telling, how the GOP convention even outlawed the very words “tea party” from being spoken.
I wish there were a big building somewhere which housed the entirity of the GOP-E/RINOs, because I would love to set it afire and watch it burn to the ground.
That is not true. The party does stand for a couple things. Not those that you'd expect it to stand for, though. Both parties stand for one thing: for power, for control of the country. Not for much else.
And yet, time and time again, ever since Reagan, they're all the Republican party offers on the presidential stage.
They offer "their men." If they win - good. If not then it's still OK. The party still gets seats in Congress and can do things. When you have only two parties, and when those two parties only struggle for the *exact* division of the pie between them, then we have this problem. The party lost because it didn't really want to win. It didn't have to.
To this day, I still have no idea what any of the above folks ran on.
They ran on something that does not go against the interests of both parties. Ron Paul made some waves, where is he? Herman Cain made some small waves, where is he? A "radical" candidate cannot be nominated. The secret is simple: only the candidate who nobody cares about is going to be nominated. Who took Herman Cain out? Was it D, or was it R?
We the People need to take back the Republican party before we do anything else.
It's minimally possible. The party does not belong to the members of the party. It belongs to the functionaries of the party. It's their plaything.
There is a deeper problem, though. Regardless of the party, the popular vote is still for Obama. It means that people of this country want Obama's money. He just bought them. If the party suddenly comes to its senses and nominates a great candidate (say, Sarah Palin) the end result will be exactly the same: 51% of the country will vote for free money. Why shouldn't they? Especially if Sarah immediately announces that her government will make people work! Imagine that audacity, make them WORK! They don't need your WORK, they are doing fine living on Obama's money, thank you very much. Obama voters will stop voting for Obama only when they will be better off with someone else. But Obama opened the spigot of national debt and offered the proceeds to the people. How can you outdo this? Especially when a responsible leader will call for tightening of the belt, for working harder, for making products - not for printing money as if there is no tomorrow.
So there are two problems: first, existing R's are no good, and second, people don't want R's of any sort anyway. You have to solve both problems at the same time, otherwise Sarah will lose to a newcomer who promises to open Fort Knox to the rabble. (I guess that would be perfectly safe, though, since there is nothing inside.)
I personally suspect that there are only the following solutions. One is in political separation; another is letting the illness take its course. Eventually the government runs out of other people's money - and then the same rabble that elected it will happily burn it down. That always happens when you pander to the crowd.
Interestingly enough, the same problem - incompatible view on life - is seen in marriages. Divorces are legal, and that's the most popular solution. But a divorce on the scale of the USA is practically impossible. The conservatives are just a minority, on par with Indians or immigrants. Why would anyone care what the minority wants? In other words, I think it can't get better until it gets worse - much worse. If you look at USSR, they were never a healthy society. But it took the system almost a century to rot and die. The new system, somewhat more sane, was able to rise only on the rubble of the old one.
Romney was a excellent candidate, but the GOP can not unite like the Dems do.
There’s just too much analyses and hand-wringing going on. There’s essentially one simple reason conservatives lost: we were out lied.
But let me put an alternate viewpoint to you, based on practical politics.
The simple fact is that, barring divine intervention, only about ten of the fifty states were "in play". Only ten, tops, had any chance of going from Blue to Red, which is what would have had to happen if Romney was going to win. Similarly, only a few of the individual counties and voting districts in those ten states have any real chance of changing their minds. Most of the rural areas will vote GOP, most of the urban areas are solid democrat. Its a few counties on the borders in suburban areas that change.
The simple fact is that, in spite of all the ads and rhetoric, the high-blown analyses and criticisms of policy, the US election is effectively decided by a small number (less than 20,000) independent, undecided voters who happen to live in a few key districts in a few key States. The key to victory therefore is to appeal to them.
Now that is not easy, as many of them are swayed by very ephemeral things, like the color of a candidate's skin, or how nice a smile he has, or whether he's going to give me free stuff or not. I'm afraid that rigorous application of the constitution, or ideological Conservative purity, fine though they are, does not cut the mustard with these people. This is a very sad state of affairs and a major weakness of democratic systems - rule by the people assumes the people care enough about the real issues to make informed decisions - but unfortunately it doesn't seem this is so.
What I am asking is this. True conservatism appeals to people in general, of that I have no doubt. But does it appeal to the ones in the middle who basically are the ones who decide who wins? I don't know.
All this mind numbing analysis and GOP navel gazing is getting old fast. No. It got old fast. I am still waiting for the pundit or Freeper to say “See, I told you we should have nominated X.”, and then explain how candidate X would have done better than Romney. Identifying problems without offering solutions is so simple anyone can do it. Blaming the candidate without offering an alternative is equally simple, and equally pointless.
Be prepared to hear all about lots of voters staying home...the Bipartisan Oligarchy would rather we all stew in that mess..than having us all bothered, and deciding to investigate, about all the voters voting who never voted...
Listening to descriptions of how Democrats got out their ground game with superior ability to bring those to the polls who normally would never go by the commentators on Fox election night..made me realize..what they actually have done is track names that HAVE NOT VOTED IN MANY, MANY elections cycles....and vote them.
A well-funded project, county-by-county..to examine the names signed in at at the polls..and going out to find those individuals..youll find they were never physically at he polls..or they themselves never filled out the absentee ballot....or their names in the death registers.
Did you see this? The 10 richest counties in the U.S. and 8 out of 10 went for jug-ears!!! Heard this on local radio and found this link. White guilt? I give up trying to *get it*.
Great essay as usual, AN.
Here’s a bump, even if you did leave out voter fraud.
They will only move more to the left.
They are done.
When they nominated career liberal Mitt they signed their own death warrant.
If by some astronomically remote odds defying hell freezing over chance they somehow become conservative again I would be glad to support them, but I cannot fathom them stopping their free fall Wile E. Coyote plunge into the ravine they have tricked themselves into diving headlong into.
Chris Christie, Jeb Bush anyone?
Go conservative or go home like Mitt, John and Bob.