Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement

Click here to pledge your support! ^ | May 4, 2012 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

My FRiends, we might as well face the reality that we the combined pro-life conservative movement and tea party coalition have lost this round (the presidential election) in the larger battle to reclaim our constitution and our inalienable rights. Rove, Romney and the GOP-e have successfully destroyed and driven off each and every pro-life conservative tea party candidate from the race and all have surrendered to the Romney camp. It is no secret that Romney is not one of us. There is absolutely no doubt that he has never accomplished a single conservative thing in his entire political career (one term as liberal governor of liberal Massachusetts and six years campaigning for president). In Massachusetts, he undeniably championed abortion, gay rights, global warming, gun control, big government statist mandated/socialized health care programs, liberal judges, TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending, debt limit increases, etc, and even though he's recently claimed a complete reversal in political beliefs and no longer despises pro-life conservatives or the time of Reagan-Bush, I still don't trust him. He still stubbornly holds on to some of his statist beliefs, like global warming, gays in the military, RomneyCare, stimulus spending, etc, so there is no way I can vote for him or join Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Newt or any others who are endorsing him. But I will not act on my prior promises that I would actively campaign against him if he wins the nomination. Our combined movement is already torn and splintered and is going to have to be mended if we're going to have any impact whatsoever against the liberal/progressives and statists after the election. To that end I propose a TRUCE among our conservative forces during the remainder of this election cycle.

We conservatives have already lost the presidency to either the Dems or the GOP-e, and if we tear the tea party apart, if we tear the pro-life movement apart, if we tear FR apart then we lose it all. It's far more important that we re-unite and live to fight another day. Even if we can't vote for a true conservative for the presidency, it's doubly important that we all turn out on election day or sooner and drag our friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, etc, to the polls to vote straight conservative for every slot on our ballots. The only way we can win our freedom back is to vote out the liberal progressives and vote in as many liberty loving conservatives as is humanly possible into every elected office at every level of government all across this great land. To prevent a total loss to the dems or GOP-e, we must continue the tea party rebellion into November and beyond. Whatever else you may do, you must turn out and vote straight tea party conservative down ticket!!

We must continue expanding our inroads into the state houses and into every elective office in the land. We must continue building on our majority in the house and we must retake the senate!! We must help the conservative governors and state legislatures to fully restore the ninth and tenth amendments and reclaim the real political power away from the federal usurpers and return it to the states and the people per the constitution!! This way, regardless of who wins the presidency, we can cut his unconstitutional expansionist movements off at the knees. And if any executive, civil officer or judge dares commit impeachable offenses, we must hold the majorities so we can impeach and remove them from office!!

And we must salvage and rebuild and continue strengthening our conservative pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-borders, pro-constitution, pro-small government, pro-defense, pro-liberty movements and our tea party coalition. And we must stop ripping each other apart!!

Therefore I hereby propose a general truce among our conservative forces!!

The Republic we save may be our own!!

As far as FR's finances go, we're in the same boat as the rest of the economy and will have to make do with what we can raise. Fortunately, the big debts we ran up a couple years ago have been paid off. We borrowed approx $20,000 a few years ago from two FReepers to fund our national convention, plus we ran up another $20,000 in legal fees during the last couple of years fighting off Righthaven. But those are now behind us and paid off. We also did quite a bit of traveling each year for the last three years on cross country tea party tours, but I think we can now cut that back and remove it from our budget requirements. If we're fortunate enough to not incur any additional legal costs or equipment costs (other than what we've already planned), and cut the travel and a few other areas, we should be able to tighten our belts enough to weather the storm even if we fail to reach our short term fundraising goals.

Whatever the outcome of the elections, we are prepared to roar into 2013 with the tea party chewing up liberal/progressives and RINOs and raising hell in our never ending fight for liberty!!

We are the resistance!!

Let's take the enemy head-on instead of fighting each other!!

Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!!

[Finny]

I think most folks would also agree that #1 is the lesser of the two evils.

I think human nature and history illustrate that #1's moment would be so fleeting before its enforcers began adapting the approach of #2, that any remembrance of "lesser evil" rationalizing peoples' so-called "forced" support of #1 in desperation to avoid #2, would prompt manic, hysterical laughter, as it should.

Fear is being used to bully and terrorize people into going against their better judgment and common sense, which has been telling the majority of Republicans since 2007 that Romney is a poison lemon, bad news. When people surrender their better judgment to fear and desperation, disaster usually results. I PRAY that American conservatives and American Republicans all heed their better judgement, reject Romney, and face the fight ahead with minds, hearts, souls, and feet firmly planted in courage founded in the steadfast strength and promise of COMMON SENSE.

[Finny]

Newt lost because Romney pointed out that he was against capitalism ...

... which was a lying, deceitful tactic, as Newt is obviously PRO capitalism. Romney is bad news, FRiend. He is ruthless, deceitful, and arrogant. As illustrated above, and YOU and RUSH dove right into it with lust, loving the chance to block your ears to what Newt was really saying about Romney's crap-"capitalism" at Bain and chortling like flocked hens about how Newt was "anti-capitalist."

Romney EATS people like you and Rush and you don't even know it because you're enjoying yourselves too much "attacking" a non-enemy.

[In Maryland]

With all due respect, I think this cabinet lineup would assure Romney's defeat. Palin, Coulter, Cheney and a few others are favorite targets of the MSM. In Cheney's case the ability to capitalize on his "Darth Vader" image and make him frightening as the CIA Director could be devastating. Whether Romney should give private assurances to conservative leaders is another matter - I have no problem with exacting every conservative appointment possible as a price for support. But that is my opinion and is mainly based on election tactics (although I don't think Coulter or Levin are remotely qualified for the Court (is Borkh too old at this point?) Let the Dems attack him and lets allow the public to compare his opinions to those written by Kagan and Sotomayor. Is there another Scalia on the horizon?

Meantime, we need to try to force the election to be about Obama's record - cause there ain't no there, there.

[Agamemnon]

I think this cabinet lineup would assure Romney's defeat. Palin, Coulter, Cheney and a few others are favorite targets of the MSM.

You are missing the point completely.

The MSM will do what they do anyway. Instead of allowing the MSM the ability to focus on and besmirch one target, let them spin their wheels and waste their resources on trying to do so to 15+ targets.

The only reason any of the elections since at least the 1986 congressionals were lost to liberals and with them control of congress, or when the Presidency was lost to (D)'s isn't because there were no conservatives there to vote.

We outnumber libs 2 to 1.

The problem was this: There were not enough conservatives motivated to get out to the polls to vote.

It is all about vote motivation on our size and depressing the voter motivation on their side.

Very simple. The concept is no more difficult than this: "We win, they lose" (R. Reagan).

It's like fighting the Soviets back during the Cold War:

Don't surrender to the MSM more power than they actually have.

Don't allow the power you perceive them to have to depress or discourage you.

Discourage THEM, Mock THEM, Destroy THEM

Claim the power you already have and go for their throat asymetrically.

FReegards!

[Agamemnon]

I can’t remember if it was Rush or Jay Severin but someone said that Bolton would be Romney’s Sec of State. I don’t know the source of the comment.

Well, if it was Rush he might have got that idea from me since I sent this same posting to him and to Hannity separately several weeks ago.

Not taking credit at all. Just sayin'. If either of them mention these names for these slots as I have, you might have more certainty as to where they got the idea from.

FReegards!

[TexasCajun]

Ann Coulter is still on Double-Secret Probation.

Suggest Mark Levin.

[Agamemnon]

Ann Coulter is still on Double-Secret Probation. Suggest Mark Levin.

Mark is the 1st choice I proposed in my posting. I'd actually make David Limbaugh my second and then Ann Coulter 3rd choice for USSC.

Once the investigation into Obama gets going and quickly concludes, all he ever signed or appointed is without any merit or force-in-law; I see Kagan and Sotomeyor's seats vacated immediately, and Ginsberg rolling over with age related dementia or something.

Iamgine the possibilites ....

FReegards!

[In Maryland]

Actually, I think the number one thing we should be pushing for in the future is SATURDAY elections.

I perceive our turnout problem is the fact that we conservatives tend to have JOBS; many run their own businesses and the hours are long. The leeches just have to stroll down the block to vote to keep the gravy train rolling.

Vote on a day when more conservatives have free time and more leeches are hung over, and we wouldn't need to worry about the rest!

[itsahoot]

There will be no 2016 election. And it matters not who wins in 2012.

Something I have sad since November of 08. We are now in the bargaining stage of the destruction of the Constitution, and the GOPe is at the front of the pack.

[neverdem]

I hope the sign doesn't offend you, but ABO!.

The Dohrn Connection, it's like they're giving America the middle finger.

Rumors about low turnout could well be true. When I voted for Newt in the NY primary, I was the only voter at the poll at that time, about 5 PM in Riverdale, a Bronx neighborhood.

Take heart! The Tea Party movement helped to knock off three members of Democratic Socialists of America/Congressional Progressive Caucus in 2010.

Hat tip to LucyT. It's near the end of comment# 30 on that thread. I would have thought that those moonbats were in safe seats.

[itsahoot]

Thank you for being gracious as well as intelligent. We need to all do what we can to ( ultimately) save this Republic.

Ever notice how much more intelligent you get, the farther left you move? Commonly known as intellectual growth, especially if you abandon Christianity and embrace homosexuality.

[cuban leaf]

—We are now in the bargaining stage of the destruction of the Constitution, and the GOPe is at the front of the pack.—

And this is why I think there is no political solution. We are about to live Dr. Zivago, but with less snow.

I think we’re also about to live Ezekiel 39. Personally, I’m already in Revelation 18:4, for all the good it will do me.

[itsahoot]

The only reason he gets away with what he does is that the congress does not use their constitutional authority to slap him back into reality.

Ever cross your mind that the reason they don't is because they agree with him? If they don't agree with him, how could you tell?

[Finny]

RUSH LIMBAUGH and you let yourselves accept Romney's lie:

Newt lost because Romney pointed out that he was against capitalism....

True story, Rush and Ari: During WWII when Japanese Americans were interned, many long-time Japanese farmers were put in the position of having to let their farmland go.

Unsung, unheralded generally by their own preference because they were modest, humble GOOD men and capitalists all doing this because IT WAS THE RIGHT AND MORAL THING TO DO, took responsibility for those Japanese farmers' operations, though they were their direct competitiors; these GOOD capitalists kept those farms running for the duration of the war so when those Japanese farmer friends and neighbors returned, they had their land and farming operations intact and waiting for them. I know this is true and that it happened because I personally know people -- Japanese-American and non-Japanese American -- who lived it.

In fact, when the niece of one of those now-gone farmers was in the hospital not so long ago with a very dangerous medical condition and a Japanese-American doctor at that hospital saw her chart and discussed it with his brother, another doctor, he quitely inquired: "Do you know who this is?" And that woman received even better special care and treatment than normal because those two knew that a major reason their parents had been able to send them to medical school, was because of the GOODNESS of her ENTIRELY CAPTALIST uncle, and indeed that uncle was only one of MANY excellent, principled CAPITALISTS who understood so well that pursuing capitalism doesn't justify doing immoral things.

A ROMNEY "capitalist" farmer at that time would have done (and sad to say, many did) what would have been perfectly acceptable in a capitalist system: bought the land at cut-rate prices and kept it for their own profit. It would have been perfect practice of capitalism, totally legal. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG. Having read somewhat in-depth elsewhere about real mechanisms of what some have called "vulture capitalism" of the type Romney practiced at Bain, when Rush very stupidly and destructively criticized Newt's criticism of Romney at Bain as being "anti-capitalist," was very much in spirit THE SAME THING as criticizing those GOOD farmers for doing the right thing and accusing them of being "anti-capitalist" when those GOOD farmers disdained and ostracized their MAMMON-WORSHIPPING "capitalist" colleagues who took stinking "legal" advantage of their interned Japanese-American competitors.

When Rush so totally and disturbingly jumped on the "Newt's an anti-capitalist because he criticized Romney" bandwagon, he burned a bridge that he will have a hard time rebuilding with me. He proved himself shallow to the point of being amoral (as opposed to immoral).

The next time you think about accusing Newt of being an "anti-capitalist," you HAD BETTER REMEMBER that you will be in spirit also criticizing as "anti-capitalist" those GOOD CAPITALIST CALIFORNIA FARMERS who held in righteous contempt other farmers who practiced a particular, legal, and very low form of capitalism and destroyed some excellent Japanese-American farms.

[itsahoot]

Personally, I’m already in Revelation 18:4, for all the good it will do me.

He hideth my Soul
IN the Cleft of the Rock And Covereth me with His hand.

No need to run He has us covered.

[Finny]

MY APOLOGIES, ari-freedom, humbly offered, if I (and I think I did) mistake your post by thinking that you agreed with Romney and Rush in calling Newt an "anti-capitalist." BIG APOLOGIES, HUMBLY MADE if I was mistaken.

It's still, as you can see, a real sore spot with me about Rush. Rush is mostly right, but when he's wrong -- as he was about the "anti-capitalist Newt" charge, he's REALLY REALLY AND DESTRUCTIVELY wrong.

[cuban leaf]

—Ever cross your mind that the reason they don’t is because they agree with him?—

Not only has it crossed my mind, but I think it is at least partly true. It is one reason I say there is no political solution to our current dilemma. The other reason is that I think we are so far gone that the founding fathers themselves could return from the grave and still not get us out of this mess. It is too late. the die is cast. The ship has hit the iceberg and is dead in the water. The flooding has reached C deck. Etc...

[cuban leaf]

But He tells us to.

It sort of reminds me of the old joke about the Christian in a flood. He prayed to God to save him.

So the water gets to his porch and a rowboat comes by to save him and he says “The Lord will save me.” Then its up to the second story and a large boat comes by and he pushes them away and says, “The Lord will save me.” Finally he is teetering on the top of his chimney surrounded by water and a helicopter throws down a rope. He pushes it away and says, “The Lord will save me.”

Eventually he is swept away and he drowns. At heaven’s gate he asks the Lord why He didn’t save him. The Lord says, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”

Revelation 18:4 says to come out of her. I did.

[mvpel]

So here’s the thing - Ron Paul is pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-borders, pro-constitution, pro-small government, pro-defense (an Air Force veteran as well), pro-liberty, and he’s just won his fifth state guaranteeing him a slot on the convention ballot.

Yes, he’s said some things about foreign policy that raise many Republicans’ hackles, but does that trump all his other conservative bonafides? Would you really rather have Romney instead of a rock-ribbed constitutionalist who holds what you consider to be a short-sighted view of foreign policy and military interventionism?

Paul might be persuaded to change his views on foreign policy once he gets the classified CinC briefings, but how likely is it that Romney can be persuaded to change his litany of anti-life, anti-family, anti-liberty views once elected?

Ron Paul is the only candidate left besides Romney in the GOP field. Are we really willing to flush all the Tea Party’s gains, by nominating the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama, over this one issue of a non-interventionist foreign policy?

[APatientMan]

This is great thinking and strategy. If Romney did this I would think twice about voting for him. Unfortunately, asking Mittens to coalesce with real Conservatives is like asking water to run uphill. I’ll wait until I see it.

[Tunehead54]

Ok - here’s the plan. Pay attention.

We push hard for Mitt to take Palin on as his VP. He caves when he sees how McCain’s numbers went up after naming her, they’re elected with strong senate and representative majorities.

Then with our best opposition research we move to impeach him and we end up with Madame President Palin. And for you ladies, we’ll also have the First Hunk for four years minimum. ;-)

Of course, Mitt probably doesn’t even drink coffee so we might actually have to set up some kind of sting along the lines of the recent secret service antics.

Only problem: We have to push for Palin, hide Romney’s weaknesses and then hammer him just after the election.

To all: Feel free to post if you have a better plan. ;-)

[SJackson]

We must continue expanding our inroads into the state houses and into every elective office in the land. We must continue building on our majority in the house and we must retake the senate!! We must help the conservative governors and state legislatures to fully restore the ninth and tenth amendments and reclaim the real political power away from the federal usurpers and return it to the states and the people per the constitution!! This way, regardless of who wins the presidency, we can cut his unconstitutional expansionist movements off at the knees. And if any executive, civil officer or judge dares commit impeachable offenses, we must hold the majorities so we can impeach and remove them from office!!

I might disagree with the use of regardless. If Romney wins, it will be in large part because conservatives take him to the dance. He's no fool, he'll recognize that. My guess he'll build his legacy, that's why you run, on economic issues. Social issues, government expansionism, gun rights, there's no upside in flopping his flips. We'll be far better off with Romney than Obama. Returning power to the states, that's always a problem and wouldn't necessarily be hopeful. Though again, there's no upside in opposition.

[Diggity]

“We must continue expanding our inroads into the state houses and into every elective office in the land. We must continue building on our majority in the house and we must retake the senate!!”

This is our only hope.

[Hot Tabasco]

Therefore I hereby propose a general truce among our conservative forces!!

Pssssst! Over here Ansell......

[Tunehead54]

OK - I like your plan in terms of practicality, very strong approach, in fact, I love it. ;-)

Of course, with my plan we end up with Sarah Palin as president but yours is good too. ;-)

[VeniVidiVici]

Bump for later

[donmeaker]

I am sorry to read that. I regret that FR is becoming more like Little Green Footballs.

It is our duty to vote for the lesser of two evils. We can start the next campaign after this one is lost, if it is lost. If we win, we can encourage our friends to hold more conservative positions.

Don’t have an argument with not trusting politicians. No politician is worthy of trust, yet even Obama paid his union and environmentalist wacko supporters back. Support Romney and perhaps he will support the Gun Rights supporters who gave him a chance.

[Jim Robinson]

LOL on little green footballs. FR is and will remain a pro-life conservative site, thank you very much!

[donmeaker]

Well, thank goodness for that!~

[dajeeps]

This is exactly where the RINOs expected to leave us, with no other choice but to bend over, as they did with Dole, GW and McCan’t. We know where that road leads. It leads to the same kind of selling out of the forgotten men to carry the ever expanding burdens of big government, while the politicians enrich themselves and go on with business as usual doling out favors to their friends and skewing markets for their benefit.

We have accomplished nothing, not even anything close to restoring the extraordinary political work of Ronald Reagan that made the kind of lives we lived from his time up to the crash of mortgage scam possible. It is gone, buried under a layer of RINO guano so think it is out of reach.

Obama didn’t start this, and is not the root cause. His is just the last name on the very long list of politicians that added more to the train of abuses of the forgotten man, and no outcome of 2012 will do anything more than change the names over the doors of power to do so or the inevitable consequences of it. They do not care about us, never have, and will not until we make them care; and that doesn’t just go for the politicians themselves, but the people who are voting these subversives into office in the first place. There is no other way to finally get this over with, and we would not be the first generation to make hard to choices to go full bore into the unknown for the possibility to rid ourselves of the scourges of tyranny, knowing full well what the consequences of no longer capitulating to it mean. With God as my witness, I would gladly go through whatever it takes, if means a possibility to end this madness once and for all. The faster the consequences from what has been done to us come, the better off we will all be, even it means we have the fight of our lives.

[WOSG]

“Reid has stopped the house cold. We need a conservative (notice I didn’t say “republican”) congress or we are, truly, doomed.”

Reid + Obama ... we need to get rid of both of them to fix the problem.

I don’t think Boehner, McConnell and Obama will work out so great for us.

[WOSG]

“Santorum lost because Romney said he spent too much and was for earmarks.
Newt lost because Romney pointed out that he was against capitalism and was associated with Freddie Mac.
Perry lost because Romney pointed out that he was in favor of tuition for illegals.
Moral of the story is we can’t beat RINOs by being more liberal.”

Perhaps.

the moral of the story is that political campaigns are ugly, and we shouldnt fall for the ol’ song-and-dance attacks and buy into attacks on the more conservative candidates.

The other moral is that by rejecting flawed yet-more-conservative guys we end up with the LEAST conservative candidate.

We would repeat that mistake by rejecting Romney and letting Obama get relected

[itsahoot]

The other reason is that I think we are so far gone that the founding fathers themselves could return from the grave and still not get us out of this mess.

You are exactly right IMHO. I think we are going to pay a heavy price for removing God from our culture. Jefferson trembled at the though that God was just.

[itsahoot]

This is exactly where the RINOs expected to leave us, with no other choice but to bend over, as they did with Dole, GW and McCan’t.

Strange how that works. When we have a really weak opponent there always seems to be a "Moderate Republican" that arises to save us. Almost like there is a plan.</sarcasm>

[itsahoot]

The primary system is badly broken, we need to fix it.

They have already Fixed it, that is why we keep moving left.

[cuban leaf]

—I don’t think Boehner, McConnell and Obama will work out so great for us.—

Yep. That is basically what I am saying.

[Mamzelle]

re: There is no line between “evil” and “not evil”. There is only more evil and less evil.)))

The one feature that I believe separates the conservative from the libertarian or any other similar and perhaps allied ideology is the implied belief in Original Sin. Being a Baptist Anglican, we don't use that term--we just behave as if it exists.

Man is born sinful and that's just what it is. Libertarians believe in perfectibility, as do liberals. That leads them to rage and despair and defeat.

When I compare Romney to Palin or West, (Palin/West was my dream team) I feel crushed with disappointment. However, when I compare him to Obama common sense checks in. He's deeply flawed, but not filled with malevolence--hate for America and Americans. That's the clincher. All these progressives hate America.

[free_life]

Ron Paul is the most pro life candidate and a tea party candidate and still in the race and the only way to prevent Obama or Romney from further destroying America. If you don’t want a socialist big govt big spender pro abortion in the WH support Ron Paul. How is it you miss that Jim?

[free_life]

Thank you , seeing your post gives me hope that there are conservatives here that can see thru the lies spread about Paul and there is still a chance to win this as opposed to handing the presidency to a socialist again.

[SZonian]

Unfortunately, the “declared truce” didn’t halt all of the hostilities...

Exhibit A:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2881113/posts

[Jim Robinson]

Go back and re-read my post. Never said declared, said proposed. It’s up to the adults who post here to comply.

[ModelBreaker]

“‘Eating our own’ because we don’t have the POTUS nominee we want is simply self-defeating.”

There is a difference between not getting the POTUS nominee we want and getting one who is on the other side. Romney is a progressive.

I’ll vote for him and then go home and take a shower.

[21stCenturion]

Cherry-picking one sentence and ignoring the context in which it appeared is a defective way to argue.

In my #61, I dismissed Romney as irrelevant to the substance of the election. It is ‘obvious’, in context, that ‘eating our own’ had NOTHING whatever to do with the ol’ Etch-a-sketcher. It DID have EVERYTHING to do with the constant internecine struggles JimR was addressing.

He was advocating banishing the ol’ Circular Firing Squad formation. He was calling on the community to focus constructively on the ‘down-ballot’ because sitting out the whole election because the POTUS nominee was terminally defective is self-defeating.

I don’t care if Mittens is a Progressive, a Jehovah’s Witness or a nudist. He is ‘irrelevant’. The down-ballot, on the other hand, is ABSOLUTELY relevant.

Since I am constructing my vote to ‘oppose’ Iman Hussein and SUPPORT Conservatism and Constitutionalist Candidates, to the exclusion of all others, I don’t have to worry about running home to shower after voting.

One Man’s Opinion

21stCenturion

[TBP]

No way I can support Etch a Sketch and I’ll be happy to campaign against him. You can be a conservative or you can support Etch a Sketch. Not both.

[TBP]

Romney will bend to pressure.

Ther eis NO evidence to suggest that he'll bend to our pressure.

[TBP]

Romney will bend to pressure.

There is NO evidence to suggest that he'll bend to our pressure.

[TBP]

Romney=Obama.

[TBP]

http://www.tomhoefling.com/

[Bainbridge]

With you (almost)entirely. I think it is a terrific idea to run with everyone on board ( like your slate except for Tim Pawlenty, too much of a wienie for me)and the IN YOUR FACE thing is what we need.

[ZULU]

Megadittos to everything you said.

“How about this for starters: http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/
Hillsdale College constitution 101”

If I had a kid today who was getting ready for college, he or she would HAVE to go to Hillsdale. Its a GREAT institution and it STAYED that way by REFUSING Federal moneys and the strings the Washington elites attach to TAXPAYER money.