Posted on 06/05/2011 3:07:31 PM PDT by bimboeruption
The Tea Party will support whoever wins the GOP presidential nomination - - even if that person is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. That's the affirmative word from Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer.
Kremer told Fox News on Saturday, "whoever the Republican nominee is will have to have the support of the Tea Party movement, the entire Tea Party movement."
Kremer went on to say the Tea Party is "completely neutral," adding that it "just wants to see the cream rise to the top... If Romney is the nominee I believe that we want to defeat Barack Obama."
Her confidence comes while some Tea Partiers, including some at FreedomWorks, a leading voice in the Tea Party movement, set their sights on stopping a Romney nomination.
Kremer also wants to put to rest the idea the Tea Party would support a third party candidate, insisting the Tea Party can work from within the democratic and republican parties.
"There is no way that we are going to support a third party candidate. It would split the vote and it would guarantee reelection for Obama, and we need to crush Obama we have to get him out of the White House," says Kremer.
Kremer also believes the Tea Party movement will have a "massive impact just as we did in 2010."
In fact, she feels the Tea Party and its elected representatives are responsible for the failure of a clean debt ceiling vote in congress this week.
"We are still having an impact here in Washington. I really believe that if it weren't for the Tea Party movement they would already raised the debt ceiling and the spending would continue to be out of control... The democratic party was completely split.
If it wasn't for this movement, I don't think you would...
(Excerpt) Read more at video.foxnews.com ...
“The “Tea Party Express” and it’s chair really need to stop pretending that they are the Tea Party. This woman has no business making statements about what Tea Party members will do.”
I know.
FOX needs to do some real research on the Tea Party Movement. We have no national leader. Just because Kremer and her buds set up the first national tea party site, doesn’t mean they are leaders.
Part of the patriot radio network, whatever in hell that is. Is that the desert bunch out of searchlight Nevada, you know the black helicopter crowd????
I agree with you.
Patriot network on XM/Sirius satellite radio
I make my fight in the primary.
So what you say - If eight Republicans enter the Primary and only one wins then the supporters of the other seven should stay home come election day. Is that what you’re saying?
How’s that Wise Latina working out for you?
“Whoever this POS is, she definitely doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about.
The Tea Party Has no leader or spokesman who represents us.
We Tea Party Patriots will vote for who ever we want based on individual preference, NOT on any recommendation from some nobody.
Tea Party is Freedom!”
That’s right. The beauty of the Tea Party Movement is we are local and autonomous...just like sleeper cells.
Waffles for breakfast, supper/lunch, dinner 7-days-a-week, anyone?
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?" |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?) |
| 2002-2004 | “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? | Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! | What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine |
| 2006 | April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is still routine |
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life! |
| Summer 2007 | "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
| December 2007 (Anything 'different' from embryos' perspective than June 2002?) | 5.5 years before – June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard | December 5, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such schizophrenic "candidate!" |
Not to worry. Romney will not be the nominee.
I will NOT vote for anymore GD Rinos! Period!
The Tea Party is united in one cause only...
Taxed
Enough
Already
That point needs to be driven home to all politicians who must have Tea Party votes.
Yes.
Agree with her or not, I like the strategery. This article surely causes severe gastrointestinal pain and distress in all the Rats who view the Tea Party as a spoiler they can manipulate to split the anti-Obama vote and get the Dangerous Bumbler re-elected.
Keep saying it, Amy.
And, as I said, not to worry. Romney, no way, no how, will be the nominee. That is all.
I think this is exactly what Sarah was saying when she told the GOP they better back a good candidate or there may be a 3rd party candidate which could kill the GOP for good. If they back Romney it is pretty evident to me that the GOP is dead.
I think that is Amy’s point in the article.
The focus ought to be on the primaries right now.
Palin is doing a good job drop-kicking Romney off the playing field, but she can’t do this alone. We have to have our head in the game as well.
Me and you makes two.
I guess the rest on this thread will sit at home and play with themselves.
That isn’t what I’m saying. If someone who is unacceptable gets nominated it does no good to vote for them. The establishment will just keep craping on you by nominating Democrat-light hacks.
If Giuliani, Romney, or some other liberal hack who the establishment backs gets nominated, conservatives gain nothing by voting for him.
I 08 we had two Soros hacks to pick from. It was a slap in the face to conservatives. Don’t reward them for it. Otherwise they will never learn.
Elena Kagan would not be on the Supreme Court, for starters.
Israel would not have been told to return to its pre-1967 borders, for starters.
Kevin Jennings would not be something called a “Safe School Czar,” for starters.
Obamacare would not be the law of the land, for starters.
And that’s just for starters.
Since nobody tells the Tea Party what to do - who are they/we going to vote for?
Or are we/they going to split the Tea Party vote between three or four candidates allowing a RINO to float to the top?
Kinda’ like last election where the conservatives split their vote and we ended up with McLame?
Just over 25,000 grumpy voters in NC voted for Barr - giving NC to Obama.
Romney’s and Planned Parenthood...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2707737/posts
I will NOT vote for anyone who advocates killing babies.
When it comes to proclaiming who Tea Party members support, it might be a good idea to let them speak for themselves: http://myteaparty.org/results/
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.