One Shall Stand and One Shall Fall — the Tea Party vs. the Cocktail Party Enter Thunderdome

HillBuzz ^ | February 16, 2012 | Kevin DuJan

[2ndDivisionVet]

I’m going to an interesting Tea Party event here in Chicagoland that’s going to keep me busy all morning, where I’ll have the chance to meet some people with the true pulse of what’s going on.

I’ve had this visual in my mind for quite a while, of the Tea Party and the Cocktail Party entering Thunderdome in this election — where one shall stand and one shall fall when the dust settles.

Either Willard “Mittens” Romney becomes the Republican nominee (in which case the Cocktail Party GOP establishment wins), or he’s defeated and someone other than the permanent political class’s assigned “it’s his turn!” candidate moves onto the general election (which is a Tea Party win).

I do not believe Mittens can defeat Barack Obama, for the simple fact that Democrats have spent the last four years gearing up to face Romney — and have designed an “Occupy & Persecute” re-election strategy for Obama that specifically targets Romney’s personal weaknesses that are non-transferable to another Republican nominee. If the Cocktail Party wins, and Romney’s the nominee, I don’t even think bringing on someone as spectacular as Allen West as VP could drag Romney across the finish line.

Obama’s re-election would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it because after Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012 conservatives just won’t tolerate the Party of Stupid making the same mistakes but expecting different results. Unless, of course, a Romney nomination is intended as a strategic loss because the GOP secretly (or not so secretly, as the case may be) really wants to lose the election (in the same way that many still think McCain deliberately whiffed it in 2008).

We’re in an economic Depression, though the elite, agenda-driven media refuses to call it that while a Democrat is in the White House. I think if McCain had won in ’08, the D-word would be used aggressively right now (and Obama would be given his second run at the White House, because the Tolerant Left was hellbent on making him president in ’08 or ’12); McCain might have been afraid of race riots in the last election if he had beaten Obama, so he just kind of gave up in September of that campaign. It feels like Republicans have given up already if they’re pushing Romney for the nomination now.

I remember in June of 2008 being at the gay Pride parade here in Chicago and talking to a man named David Valkema from the Log Cabin Republicans — a classic Cocktail Partier. He said — and I will never, ever forget this — “Sometimes we run a guy we just want to get rid of so we can be done with him for good. No one wants McCain to win, and I hope Obama wins, because he’ll be a new Jimmy Carter and then we can have a new Reagan later”. He said that McCain could have his run — and have the “one and done” shot at a national campaign — and then the party would be able to tell him to shut up and go away, much like what it did to Bob Dole after his spectacular loss.

Perhaps the Cocktail Party isn’t a fan of Romney’s so much as they want to make him go away for good, and the best way to do this is to give him the nomination, watch him lose, and then be able to exile him and his supporters from the party. This could involve evangelicals wanting to make villains of Mormons on some level, and perhaps set them up for blame when Obama gets a second term in a year that Republicans should win.

You can spend all day rolling these kinds of scenarios around in your head — and I’ll spend at least part of the morning doing just that with the Tea Party folks I’ll be meeting with.

While I’m up to that, I’d love to know what you think of the above…particularly the David Valkema comment from Pride regarding being eager to “be done with McCain for good” and how that might shed light on all the bizarre efforts (including voter fraud in Maine and Iowa) that are pushing Romney to the nomination when few Republicans on the ground want this born loser to be the standard bearer.

[Old Sarge]

a Romney nomination is intended as a strategic loss because the GOP secretly (or not so secretly, as the case may be) really wants to lose the election

DING DING DING the WINNAH!

Good image of the GOP's resolve to fight:

[ballplayer]

Well the press is going to blame the Republicans in either Case, so according to that we lose in either case,I would rather be in Power and not continue the path to Destruction,Some times a Coach should just sit by and let his Players do the Job and NOT THINK TO MUCH. This plotting and Planning to let the other guy get the Blame is for Cowards and Losers which is exactly what the Crop of Republicans we have been stuck with for a couple decades. I would rather go down fighting than sit by and play according to the other guys rules,WE WILL BE BLAMED ANYWAY. The Tea Party People, me and My Family Included, TWICE marched in Washington with Hundreds of thousands and the result was a Great Election Outcome,I will be Damned if I am going to sit by and say Let this Pig in the White House Win just so We THINK he is going to be Blamed,Case in Point is The Last 3 Years,If the Bastard isnt going to get blamed by Anybody,the Public or the Press after the Fiasco we are Witnessing now, What makes Anyone think that will Change after 4 More years of it!

[SatinDoll]

Did Santorum ever do anything illegal? Yes. He founded a charity which didn’t register with the state of Pennsylvania as required under that state’s law.

Senator Santorum founded the Operation Good Neighbor Foundation, a charity that was actually a bit of a scam. In 2001, following up on a faith-based urban charity initiative around the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, Santorum launched a charitable foundation. While in its first few years the charity cut checks to community groups for $474,000, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation had actually raised more than $1 million, from donors who overlapped with Santorum’s political fund raising. Where did the majority of the charity’s money go?

In salary and consulting fees to a network of politically connected lobbyists, aides and fundraisers, including rent and office payments to Santorum’s finance director Rob Bickhart, later finance chair of the Republican National Committee.

This charity (2001-07), doled out just 36% of income as grants, far less than the 75% of responsible causes. It can only be coincidence the charity which spent most of its money on lobbyists, aides and fundraisers closed after he was defeated for reelection in 2006.

Note: my file on Santorum is now 24 pages long. This is really sad, and most Republicans are getting suckered into believing this man is decent.

I will not vote for Santorum. When a middle-class citizen is elected to Congress and returns home 12 plus years later a multi-millionaire, it is due to corruption in government.

We have to change Washington in order to get our nation back on the right track.

I am a Conservative Republican who will vote for all other Republicans down ticket, but not for either Romney (really a liberal Democrat), Santorum (corrupt), nor for Paul (a Libertarian).