Posted on 02/22/2012 3:32:24 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
......Deference to leaders who do not necessarily share your background or agree with you on everything is in the fiber of representative government. It is enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, there probably never would have been a Constitution if the Americans of 1787 hadn't been willing to defer to the "assembly of demigods" (as Jefferson described them) that convened in Philadelphia, closed the doors to the press, sealed the windows to eavesdroppers, and privately debated the future of the nation.
....What the Tea Party needs to do is look for allies. There are other people in the country who share their concerns, if not their bitterness. Who are some of those natural allies? The most obvious are people who have been successful in the private sector but who have remained true to the system that made them.....
In other words, a natural ally might be Mitt Romney, or someone very like him.
When the alliance of labor unions, urban Catholics, and Southern rednecks combined to take over this country in 1932, they didn't do it by nominating Huey Long or Al Smith for president. They did it by choosing a Hudson River aristocrat who had so much blue blood in his veins that he didn't mind becoming a "traitor to his class" and trashing a few Wall Street plutocrats along the way. They chose someone outside of their class who was willing to speak for them, yet someone prominent and successful enough to become a national hero. And it worked. Cue John F. Kennedy in 1960 for the same result.
Tea Party members seem unwilling to do the same. They don't like Mitt Romney because he is not "one of us." He had a rich father and went to Cranbrook and Harvard Business School.....
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Yes!
And that's why Romney doesn't "click" with the base. But like this author, much of the GOP-E see the base as an angry reactionary block, not as thinking individuals (from all walks of life) who have come together because they want a conservative government.
If anyone is angry, it's the party elites who are getting very upset at the base for not listening to their educated and connected "betters." The more Romney supporters "reach out" like this, the more they resemble leftist intellectuals.
Romney doesn't share ours. I could care less about whether he is wealthy or not. I do care that he has no core convictions other than feeding his own ego and pursuing political power.
I read a borrowed Wall St Journal...yes, the paper version...a couple times per week. Not the whole thing, mostly the opinion pages.
At first they were all about Mitt, either supporting him or at the least advising him on how to do better than he was doing.
Now they are all about Mitt and Rick Santorum. Long articles in general defense of Rick and the social issue comments becoming such a big part of the campaign. This, from the WSJ Romney wing.
There’s an old saying, “Any port will do in a storm”.
If it’s going to be Santorum somewhere on the GOP ticket, they either pretend not to be bothered, or they truly are not bothered. They appear to be trying to smooth over any rough spots for him.
If he weren’t surging in polls, this wouldn’t happen.
But his surge in the polls has been greased...let’s face it.
First Romney destroyed Newt Gingrich. Only South Carolina stood up for Newt. After that, the deluge.
Romney’s bazillions were joined by GOP E Media attacks.
Rush and Levin, especially, helped Santorum’s rise...Levin openly endorsing Santorum, Rush tacitly helping him while stopping short of endorsing.
All the media from all spectrums have generally treated Newt as if he had a catching disease and needs to be quarantined.
At this time, he two most qualified candidates are nothing but faint asterisks. Perry and Gingrich.
I am angry...not on behalf of my own personal picks, but on behalf of this nation.
Do you believe the party wants the base left with the notion that Mitt will pick Rick as his VP? As this OpEd suggests to the reader?
This is another one who does not, or does not want to, understand the TEA Party. And after being told I am bitter (no mention of my guns or religion or it could be Obama writing this), I had read enough.
Rush was saying yesterday that this long primary was good. That for one thing — look how it’s pushing Mitt to the Right.
I really find that annoying! Why applaud conditions where time and resistance pushes some numbskull moderate in the right direction — some establishment pick who can’t see where he needs to be (and most likely will never remain)?
Hmmm ... Mitt refuses to renounced Romneycare and has come out in favor of minimum wage increases. That's hardly being pushed to the right.
It’s not an official, single OpEd...rather a series of articles this week by various WSJ people that write for the opinion pages.
They also had a very loooooooong guest piece by James Tarantino on how the social issues COULD work for the GOP, or at the very least, not hurt them. It was based on Santorum’s rise and the felt need for the writer to weigh in on some people’s concerns about that.
But to your question, you couldn’t miss how they reached out to Santorum and people planning to vote for him.
Glaringly, instead of trying to help Mitt by dissing Santorum, their tactics were to treat Santorum with kid gloves.
I think they realize Mitt is in bad trouble and they have to be careful how to play this.
Therefore, saying all that to say, one could not help but conclude that the WSJ Romney E is wide open to a Santorum candidacy whether the top spot or the VP.
Very interesting.
This is the same Rush who said that each conservative candidate had committed SOME departure from conservativism, in their histories, EXCEPT Santorum.
Just flat out false.
That Rush “endorsement” is being quoted on various threads to bolster Santorum’s bonafides.
So the same Rush says a long primary season is good because it pushes Mitt to the right?
Is this the same Rush who has treated both Perry and Gingrich so shabbily?
His premise as to why the rebellious ones - the Tea Party - reject Mittens is totally wrong. Mittens is an out of touch Mormon rich guy who runs around in limos but that is not why he is not popular with the tea party. He is a croney capitalist; a limo liberal, both culturally and economically. I don’t think “maybe” he is that. He has demonstrated that when in power as Gov. He pushed the radical gay agenda on families and children and he enacted socialized medicine in the State which came to haunt the whole nation.
The way Newt grew the conservative movement to toss the limo libearls out of leadership in the Republican party was to create a platform of reform that connected groups of people into a majority. We need that today.
The only message from the Tea Party that has made it’s way out is that they want to “cut spending.” That is not totally true. They want to cut the scope and size of government and although that will reduce spending; less spending is the result of main goal of cutting government influence and operation. So Ryan’s effort to cut social security with no government reform is off the mark. And it is not a popular message.
Other issues I have learned weaves the Tea Party together are:
Reclaim our individual constitutional rights from homeland insecurity and the Department of Justice. The domestic war on terror is for Muslims - not the elite’s American political and social enemies. Seriously, turn back the KGB. Street crime is rising and the criminal justice system is not keep the thugs in prision. The elitists have made too much of life illegal.
Bring the elite under the rule of law; both the government and Corporatists. No more bail outs. No more corruption; influence buying for foreign interests, monopolies and US Treasury access.
Bring the globalists and their agenda to heel. Kill their dreams of creating a global government to transfer wealth and bring nations under their legal rule. Stop transfering our wealth to foreign countries and enterprises in the name of foreign policy.
Stop pushing smut, thugs and other garabage on the American people as if immorality, disease, crime and welfare it is the defination of freedom - the American dream. The elitists’ culture is currently, downright dark and scarey. We are a majority Christian nation. We are not thugs, queers, sluts and whores and don’t want the elite pushing that ghetto crack on the public through entertainment, advertising and power. We are not morally relative; there is right and wrong and the elitists are generally aggressively wrong today.
Redefine progress as American constitutional freedom; not change to centralized power - National or international communism or fascism. That is for the Europeans. Not Americans.
Stop with the poltical correctness in the “war on terror.” Either we are fighting a war against a wacky religion - Islam - that has targeted us and our allies for destruction, or pull out of it. Don’t switch the war to focus on Americans and worship Islam in the name of political correctness.
Stop the watermelons. We have seen them in action before and know their central purpose is communism. They hate human life and freedom. Smack around some destructive globalist billionaires.
Something has to be done to stop the transfer of our jobs and opportunity to India and China. Global trade is not working to our advantage and we have the right to have our own economic interests as a nation even if the international corporatists and elitist global ruler wannabes don’t like it.
We have borders; keep them and enforce them. We are overwhelmed with too many needy people from illegal immigration. We are crashing.
There are many more issues upsetting the American public. The Tea party must reach out; but reach out in a productive way and not to the Rinos like Mittens who have wrecked everything they touch. They are the ones who have brought the GOP to a permanent minority devoid of American constitutional ideology, moral principals and reform ideas. They are a minority of losers. They won’t reach out because we are their only poltical and social enemy. They have to be defeated and sidelined again.
So the author is saying that we should choose leaders from the groups that are causing most of our problems. Maybe the elitists that are involved in crony capitalism should select tea partiers as their leaders.There are other people in the country who share their concerns, if not their bitterness.
When the alliance of labor unions, urban Catholics, and Southern rednecks combined to take over this country in 1932, they didn't do it by nominating Huey Long or Al Smith for president. They did it by choosing a Hudson River aristocrat who had so much blue blood in his veins that he didn't mind becoming a "traitor to his class" and trashing a few Wall Street plutocrats along the way. They chose someone outside of their class who was willing to speak for them, yet someone prominent and successful enough to become a national hero. And it worked.Yes. But the key difference is that whereas FDR was a “progressive” (until the “progressives” wore out the welcome of the word) and a “liberal” (after the 1920s when “progressives” had coopted that word which had previously stood for exactly what they actually opposed), Romney has no track record of believing in anything Reagan ever stood for. We aren’t wanting a king who would say, “Paris is worth a Mass.” A little lip service is not what it’s about. And Romney is incapable of projecting anything else.Although Reagan had humble roots, you wouldn’t have been able to just walk up and talk to him on the street; he was a star long before he was a politician. It was the patriotism and love of economic freedom which made Reagan a governor, a president, and an exemplar of what a president should be.
It is.
But there was Mitt saying "I don't care about the poor (they have their safety net and I'll fix it if it needs it) or the rich (they are fine...) but the middle class (I guess us yahoos this writer is addressing in his piece who don't know a "good" thing when it's offered) they need me." Hardly the same thing as Newt who will pull the country together -- who knows all have worth and that all are needed in order to succeed.
Rush and Levin agree with the WSJ Romney E to this extent...
They have been hostile or non-supportive or dismissive of the two candidates that none of them felt they could deal with on THEIR terms, not the two candidate’s terms...
Perry and Gingrich.
Think of it.
Also, those two are not lawyers.
Romney, Santorum, even Michelle Bachmann for whom Levin and Rush had very kind words despite her obvious problems...attorneys all.
Rush has attorneys throughout his family.
Levin IS one.
The WSJ Romney E and the supposed conservative radio talkers are meeting in agreement, no matter how they claim otherwise.
They certainly agree, no Rick Perry, no Newt Gingrich.
And are busy as bees spinning for anyone but those two, who has a shot to win.
“When the alliance of labor unions, urban Catholics, and Southern rednecks combined to take over this country in 1932, they didn’t do it by nominating Huey Long or Al Smith for president. They did it by choosing a Hudson River aristocrat who had so much blue blood in his veins that he didn’t mind becoming a “traitor to his class” and trashing a few Wall Street plutocrats along the way.”
Remind me again how that worked out?
There is definitely something they’re not expressing honestly about why they have gone to bat for the others but not Perry and Gingrich. It is very odd.
It is mainly because the GOP E comes from the same class and culture as the DNC E. They live in the same areas, went to the same schools, and have a very similar world view. They truly don’t understand the non elite culture or worldview, and look upon most of us with disdain.
The GOP E doesn’t understand the TEA party people, because they are so different they might as well be from Mars. The article is spot on in that if you want to advance the TEA party agenda, you need someone in the elite to go to bat for you. Otherwise you are not going to get the traction needed to continue. Look at all the GOP freshmen congress men. They have been shunned and shut out by in large because they are to far away from what the Elite believe.
The sad thing is we have and have had a noble class for some time now. If you don’t win converts among them, you will not be able to advance your agenda.
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.