Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Tea Party: Still Coming into Its Own (Reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated)
American Thinker ^ | 01/23/2013 | Sally Zelikovsky

Posted on 01/23/2013 8:16:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind

While the usual wishful thinking about the Tea Party's demise is being bantered about in the left-wing blogosphere, one of our own -- California Republican political consultant Tony Quinn -- recently joined the chorus of prognosticators.  His premise is that because the Tea Party fielded "idiot" candidates like Angle and O'Donnell in 2010 and Akin and Mourdock in 2012, Republicans lost the Senate, and their strident calls for fiscal sanity, limited government, and lower taxes caused all manner of mayhem for Boehner in the House, ultimately empowering Obama and the Democrats. 

Support for Christine O'Donnell was misplaced, even though her opponent, Mike Castle, did not vote with Republicans 100% of the time. His seat was a guaranteed win that we needed. If Republicans and the grassroots had any kind of unified strategy or means of communication, the Delaware senate seat would have been a strategic gain even if it wasn't a principled one.

This battle between candidates whose conservative principles jive 100% with the Tea Party and those who have some differences but could win their liberal states is nothing new. Some of us hold tight to our conservative principles but recognize the importance of strategic alliances to gain a seat in a liberal district -- there's no sense riding your principles over the cliff. Others don't, and so we often find ourselves at odds in primaries.

Tea Party and Republican support for Todd Akin and Mourdock plunged after their absurd remarks (even though they remained on the ticket). But Akin was no more a Tea Party candidate than his primary competitors. He won because of a three-way conservative race that split the votes.


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 01/23/2013 8:16:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

2014 targets on the republican side: McConnell, Cornyn, Cochrane, Chambliss, Collins, Alexander, Enzi, Graham. Oh and Boenher and Cantor and any other worthless House member.

On the democratic side: Rockefeller’s seat, Begich, Hagen, Levin’s seat if he retires, Shaheen, Johnson, Landrieu, Pryor, Franken, and go after Warner in VA. Oh, and every possible democrat in the House.


2 posted on 01/23/2013 8:27:15 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The only thing left to possibly save America is the Tea Party working in each State to get conservative Republicans to take over the Senate in 2014. We cannot rely on most of the current Republicans to do much of anything.
3 posted on 01/23/2013 8:39:08 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Tea Party working in each State to get conservative Republicans to take over the Senate in 2014.

The problem is the majority of the public is not particularly conservative. This is not the 1950's where there was a population of patriotic Americans that could be prodded to do the right thing when the chips were down. This is 2013 America where Hispanics of Mexican heritage are the fastest growing voter demographic and they support leftist policies (there is a reason the socialist PRI was in power for 75 years in Mexico). We are quickly becoming a center left country that wants to go down the road of European secular socialism.

We're just not going to get really pure conservatives in many states, it just isn't going to happen. In some places you can pull that off, but in others we are going to have to settle for less than perfect candidates that can win. As the article points out, supporting ding bats like O'Donnell was a mistake. The Tea Party needs to support the most conservative candidate that CAN win a general election.

4 posted on 01/23/2013 9:07:55 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

....See increase in influence of the red states to grow.


5 posted on 01/23/2013 9:27:04 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Look at red states getting stronger.


6 posted on 01/23/2013 9:28:13 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Always lost in the mix is the fact that once the candidates won the primary to represent the Republican Party in the general election, the Party apparatus refused to support them. THAT is why they lost. They took their ball and went home.


7 posted on 01/23/2013 9:40:02 AM PST by pacpam (action=consequence and applies in all cases - friend of victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“grain of salt” alert. in my experience (going back to the beginning of the tea party in the bay area) this woman is a publicity seeking, clickish san francisco bay area “conservative” wanna be. no influence, following or agreement from me or any of my conservative or tea party friends in this area.


8 posted on 01/23/2013 9:40:23 AM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

LOL, your agenda sucks.


9 posted on 01/23/2013 11:02:57 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Tea Party and Republican support for Todd Akin and Mourdock plunged after their absurd remarks (even though they remained on the ticket). But Akin was no more a Tea Party candidate than his primary competitors.

His competitors were the tea party candidates, not Akin. Akin was Bachmann's choice, while Palin and the tea party express supported the female challenger.

So why is Akin being used as a smear against the tea party, the tea party did NOT support Akin in the primary?

The GOPe on the otherhand has actually supported candidates AGAINST the GOP nominee when needed to, for instance to keep Palin from knocking off Murkowski in her Independent run for the Senate, after losing the primary.

10 posted on 01/23/2013 11:12:54 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
LOL, your agenda sucks.

ansel, I remember reading some of your various comments here on FR and, quite frankly, you're not bright enough to understand a good agenda from a bad one. The article makes my point pretty clearly:

Support for Christine O'Donnell was misplaced, even though her opponent, Mike Castle, did not vote with Republicans 100% of the time. His seat was a guaranteed win that we needed.

Nominating joke candidates like Christine O' Donnell is stupid. She was a dingbat with no chance to win at all. She's a halfwit that wasn't even worth going to bat for.

11 posted on 01/23/2013 1:14:22 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I never saw Bachmann as supporting Akin. Geesh, where do you come up with that stuff?

Bachmann is under fire for trying to point out to Americans how Islam is in the power structure of DC. Is Sarah doing that?

Get your head out of your posterior.


12 posted on 01/23/2013 1:20:21 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dforest

Bachmann endorsed Akin during the primary.

BACHMANN: “I am proud to endorse Congressman Akin in his bid for the US Senate. I’ve known Todd for years and worked well with him in the House. He’s a principled conservative and will make a great United States Senator.”

“Geesh, where do you come up with that stuff?”
“Get your head out of your posterior.”


13 posted on 01/23/2013 1:28:27 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Quite frankly, your troll posting of constantly trying to move the agenda left, is the sign of a guy with a sick/liberal agenda.

You have a single theme, as displayed on this thread, to counter conservatism, to constantly strive to move the GOP to the left.


14 posted on 01/23/2013 1:32:46 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

ansel, you’re just sort of dense - it’s just really evident in your posts. I mean, I kind of feel bad for you because I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but you really might want to listen/read more and talk/post less. You obviously have almost no understanding of political tactics and strategy, and seem to believe that just shouting the most conservative sounding things you can think of somehow translates into a winning path forward. This isn’t complicated stuff here, I’m simply echoing the Buckley rule after all: “Nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable.” Goofballs like Christine O’ Donnell do not fall into that category and aren’t even worth losing with to make some bigger point.


15 posted on 01/23/2013 1:53:43 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Do we look dead? This is this past Saturday in downtown Buffalo!! 3200 strong.


16 posted on 01/23/2013 2:14:23 PM PST by The Mayor ("If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat" — Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Are you in this massive crowd?


17 posted on 01/23/2013 2:38:10 PM PST by The Mayor ("If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat" — Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

RE: Look at red states getting stronger.

By red states, which ones are you referring to?

Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire ( remember, Live Free or Die?), and Virginia used to be Red States.

Look where they went in 2012...

Indiana was a red state, but one remark (yes JUST ONE REMARK) by Richard Murdock destroyed his chances of winning.
One freaking abortion remark and ALL OTHER POLICIES -— The debt, taxes, the economy, a strong military, etc. just got ignored.

Are they really getting redder?


18 posted on 01/23/2013 3:13:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Your posts are sounding more oily and creepy and personal in tone, for a troll that is to be expected.

Your agenda is to fight the tide of conservatism, to try and convert freepers to a more liberal, a more rino preference, to block conservative ascendancy.

Cruz, Rand, Rubio, Toomey, and more, and you guys still struggle to push the Specters and Romneys onto America.

You have a single minded agenda, to counter conservative progress.


19 posted on 01/23/2013 3:19:35 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; The Mayor

This was a rino destroyed election, with no leader at the top except for a democrat posing as a republican, the party in disarray and confused, even baffled that the GOP presidential candidate was the creator of Obama care, was for homosexual Boy Scout leaders, a homosexual military, and was running pro-abortion TV ads in Virginia and Ohio.

In an election against Jimmy Carter’s second term, the rinos not only caused an historic disaster, but may have even broken the GOP, the verdict is not in on that yet.


20 posted on 01/23/2013 3:49:54 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Your agenda is to fight the tide of conservatism, to try and convert freepers to a more liberal, a more rino preference, to block conservative ascendancy.

My agenda is the Buckley Rule - nominate the most conservative candidate that CAN win. Not difficult to figure out. Joke candidates like Christine O' Donnell do not fall into that category. Most thoughtful political analyst and spectators understood she would lose in a landslide and hurt conservatives statewide, people like yourself didn't get that. This article, which is in support of the Tea Party, says the very same thing that I did. I'm sorry you are not capable of critical thought when it comes to these issues, but backing silly candidates that can't win gets us nowhere. Losers like O'Donnell are not even worth using to make a point since they do too much damage to the party and potentially other candidates.

21 posted on 01/23/2013 4:04:24 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Just about everyone who conservatives put their hopes in today for the future, are tea party candidates.

Your agenda is clear because you are attacking conservatism in general, the tea party’s existence.

There is no election going on, no primary, yet your sole purpose at FR is to constantly harp on the same theme over and over, move left, support rinos, choose rinos, prefer rinos, just get used to thinking in terms of rinos only.

You are on a mission to weaken conservatism, period.

You don’t need to know any names of future candidates, or their qualifications or odds for winning, because your mission never changes, your message is always the same, move left, all you know is that someone in some future race will be more liberal than the other, and those unknown rinos are who you are already fighting for, sight unseen.


22 posted on 01/23/2013 4:42:57 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You confuse critical thinking with conspiracy theories. And I am not surprised, your posts have never demonstrated creativity of thought.

You don't have the political insight to understand winning this war against the left requires intelligent tactics and a long term strategy. It means taking stock of where we are and finding unity among enough conservatives to achieve a governing majority. We won't get far by just defaulting to the most "pure" candidate at all times. I understand that approach is simplistic and appealing to you, but it doesn't work very well. That is why nominating the most conservative candidate that CAN win is an important lesson and the right way to go. Being correct is just not enough. If it was, this nation wouldn't be in the mess we're in. In politics, the candidate is often more important than his or her policy positions. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. Speaking out against dopey candidates like O'Donnell is always going to make short sighted people like you angry, but it needs to be done.

23 posted on 01/23/2013 5:22:47 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

You seem to be talking to the wrong person because your arguments don’t apply to me, I worked on Scott Brown’s first Senate campaign, so you can just save whatever all this gibberish about 100% and purity is, for someone else.

You are the purist, you would prevent ‘problems’ like Ted Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, and Toomey, and Deb Fischer, and conservative Governors and congress people.

You have a single, constant message, move left.

I’m pointing out that you don’t need an election, there isn’t an election going on right now, but your agenda is fixed in stone, constantly promote a move to the left at FR, always promoting the idea that conservatism is bad, destructive, a losing effort, and that the democrats have the winning message, the proper politics, the better candidates, that the GOP is not and should not be conservative, that the GOP is only useful and valid when it is closer to the democrats.

There is no election going on, no candidates, but you are already pushing the rinos, whoever they will be, you don’t need to know specifics you just want to make sure that you are throwing flowers in their path.


24 posted on 01/23/2013 5:40:43 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You are the purist, you would prevent ‘problems’ like Ted Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, and Toomey, and Deb Fischer, and conservative Governors and congress people.

Nonsense. Absolute, utter hogwash. I especially supported Rubio, Toomey, and Cruz. Heck, I even supported Mourdoch because I figured he was a reasonably good gamble in a red state to get a much more conservative Senator. It turned out I was wrong, Mourdoch ended up being poor candidate who shot himself in the foot with his rape comments. What I don't do is support joke candidates that have no chance to win like Christine O Donnell. You continue to confuse political reality with some leftwing conspiracy.

25 posted on 01/23/2013 6:27:26 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Romney supported Mourdock also, it is good that you did, what is this hangup you have about Christine O’Donnell, you mention her 2010 race in every post, she won the nomination because the people voted for her, and the night she won, Karl Rove started on a week long campaign to wash away any momentum she gained, but you chant her name as though her loss, in a race that analysis showed Castle would have lost also, is reason enough to send back all the dozens of tea party victories for moving America in the right direction and creating opposition to the democrats.

We need more tea party victories like Cruz and Rubio, and Toomey and Rand Paul, and all those governors and congress people, not fewer.

You aren’t interested in political reality, the biggest disaster of the 2012 election was the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, radical cult leader, Mitt Romney, yet what strategy are you working on? To create more Romneys, to move the party left, to work against the tea party, to move FR left.

No elections going on, no candidates, yet you are already running an obsessive campaign for the more liberal candidates, and to weaken any tea party influence.

Just lay your agenda aside for a few months, take a break, at least wait and see who is running before you start telling us that we have to choose whoever is the most liberal in the race.


26 posted on 01/23/2013 6:52:08 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I say go big.

The time is now. Present a real, live. running competition to the GOP.

Today.

And leading up to 2016. The whole ballgame.

Right now.


27 posted on 01/23/2013 6:53:46 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

not only that but go after the biggest fish in the pond- Boehner

unseating him would mean a lot, but it has to be done in the primaries!!

no one votes in primaries except mayby 10% of the elegible voters, and usually the GOP employees ... JUST FREEPERS ALONE could affect the outcome of primary elections and JUST BY SHOWING UP


28 posted on 01/23/2013 6:57:40 PM PST by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
what is this hangup you have about Christine O’Donnell, you mention her 2010 race in every post,

Part of what the article is about is that Tea Party and movement conservatives need to do a better job of nominating candidates. The article speaks directly to the mistake the Tea Party made in supporting O'Donnell. As I recall, you and I argued this very point years ago. Nominating O'Donnell was dumb, as was nominating Angle and some of the other extremely poor statewide candidates the Tea Party has backed. We are throwing seats away on candidates that aren't skilled enough to win statewide, and it needs to stop. You have consistently been someone who doesn't seem to understand that we need to run the most conservative candidate that CAN win, not just the most conservative candidate.

Romney supported Mourdock also, it is good that you did

I'm not so sure. I thought Mourdock was a good gamble. A chance to get a much more conservative candidate in a red state. He lost by 6 points and was struggling even before his rape comments that killed off his campaign. We lost a seat here in a state we should have easily won. I was wrong about Mourdoch, I thought he'd do better. I think blowing a seat like this requires we make extra sure we are putting a GOOD candidate up before we take these kinds of gambles. Good entails more than just very conservative, it means being a skilled politician who can withstand intense scrutiny.

You aren’t interested in political reality,

Wrong. I am only interested in political reality. That's why I don't rah-rah stupid ideas, dopey conspiracy theories and joke candidates that make people feel great but can't possibly win. You bet people get mad at that. They don't want to hear difficult realities.

the biggest disaster of the 2012 election was the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, radical cult leader, Mitt Romney, yet what strategy are you working on? To create more Romneys, to move the party left, to work against the tea party, to move FR left.

I didn't support Mitt Romney in the primaries, so what's your point? I initially backed Perry - and had to defend him, one of the best conservative governor's in the US, against the dopey Palin brigades who were trying to knock him out since they mistakenly believed Sarah was running. Then when Perry proved he couldn't debate on a national stage I backed Gingrich. I supported Romney only once it was obvious he'd be the nominee. What I did do is defend him from the kind of Mormon bashing you exhibit here. There is no reason to call him a "cult leader" or otherwise bash the man's religion.

No elections going on, no candidates, yet you are already running an obsessive campaign for the more liberal candidates, and to weaken any tea party influence.

Where are you getting this nonsense? Do you just boil over with anger the minute anyone discusses ways to reconcile the fact that the fast growing libertarian(ish) wing of the party is just not interested in focusing on social issues? I got bad news for you pal, this is a real issue that is playing itself out - and not in social conservatives favor. More and more people on the right want to drop the focus on social issues as you can see even among many here on FR. Discussing this, and how we can try to unify the right is not pushing the party to the left. It's being realistic and trying to figure out how to unify the opposition to the left before it's too late (which it may already be).

Just lay your agenda aside for a few months, take a break

There is no break in politics. Ever. That is a mistake too many conservatives already make.

29 posted on 01/24/2013 9:18:05 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

I looked at some of your posting history, it was largely years of you saying two things, one that you are a political Guru, the only person who understands politics, and conservatives are all naive idiots, and not brilliant like you, etc, and always move left, always go for the rino, always resist conservatism.

Exactly what we see you posting on this thread, over, and over, and over, and over.

You don’t know who will run, what the issues will be, what the political climate will be in the future, but here you are, campaigning for the unnamed rinos in advance, fighting the influence of the tea party and the Reagan wing of the GOP.

Your agenda sucks, and when you pursue it without even the cover of any actual races or candidates to hide behind, then it is crystal clear to everyone.

Just take a break from your war against the tea party, at least wait until there is an actual race to argue over.


30 posted on 01/24/2013 10:34:04 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Your agenda sucks,

You're not a serious person ansel. You're right back to the same whining and name calling you began with. When you grow up, at least politically, perhaps you will understand some of what I've been telling you. Until then you are just spewing useless garbage and accomplishing nothing.

31 posted on 01/24/2013 10:57:01 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

I’m very serious, your rino agenda sucks, and is close to destroying the GOP.

Even without a specific candidate or race taking place, you are deeply immersed in moving the future races to the left, weakening the tea party and it’s support, marginalizing conservatives.


32 posted on 01/24/2013 11:53:43 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I’m very serious, your rino agenda sucks, and is close to destroying the GOP.

You just continue on with your diarrhea of the mouth, spouting insults and calling people you disagree with a RINO. That's all you seem capable of. Even on this thread you've added nothing of value to the debate.

By the way, the Republican Party is not going to be destroyed. Overall, the party is probably more conservative now than it has been in modern history - especially when compared to what it was in the 50's, 60's and 70's when it was fine with 70%+ tax rates, price controls, the creation of the EPA, etc. Though we've inflicted some grievous self inflicted wounds on ourselves with some bad nominees (ding bats like O'Donnell), overall we are still succeeding in pushing the party to the right on many issues. It takes time in a system like ours, but the idea that we'd give up now and go make yet another 3rd party is laughable (you already have your choice of about 50 3rd parties). Impatient people who have no grasp of political realities like you will continue predicting the end of the GOP, yet it will almost certainly remain the 2nd leg of our two party system for generations to come.

33 posted on 01/24/2013 4:07:58 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; ansel12

Excellent and thoughtful post, Longbow. It’s the GOP of the 50’s that sat idly by while FDR whittled the Constitution away. We needed the Soviets to keep our side clear.

We’re winning. We hold 30 governorships and look at the eledction map. We lost the Senate due to political incompetence on the part of the candidates. Obama and Co. are going too far. Unless we flub it we’ll take the Senate in 2014. The Dems are the party in trouble. How do they hold their coalition together?


34 posted on 01/24/2013 4:12:54 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Unless we flub it we’ll take the Senate in 2014

Exactly, with the lessons learned in 2010 and 2012, we have a good shot of retaking the Senate in 2014. That means being sure to nominate excellent candidates. Being right on the issues just isn't enough, we need folks with good political skills too.

It’s the GOP of the 50’s that sat idly by while FDR whittled the Constitution away.

The Republican party didn't even really start being a real conservative party till Gingrich's revolution in 94'. Reagan was a conservative, but much of the party wasn't particularly so. And yeah, the GOP of the 50's, 60's and 70's were country clubbers who were mostly fine with the status quo the Democrats created.

The Dems are the party in trouble. How do they hold their coalition together?

We seem to do especially well on the local level where there is vastly less media attention. We've won hundreds upon hundreds of state legislative seats over the last couple cycles. Where the Democrats don't have the media to act as their propaganda arm, they tend to struggle far more. And yeah, we have a great bench now. We've got some terrific governors who may run in 2016. Jindal, Walker, Haley, all have potential.

35 posted on 01/24/2013 4:28:07 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; 1010RD

Like so many of your posts to me, you seem to be posting to the wrong person, I don’t push third parties, don’t support a third party, don’t vote third party, and I know that conservatives have moved the party right in recent decades, it is something that I point out often on FR, one of my themes, and it happened in spite of people like you, that is why your constant efforts to stop conservative progress annoys so many of us.

Dingbats from the self destructing Senate incumbent Scott Brown, to presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the goofy, pro-abortion cult leader promoting the homosexual agenda, the rinos rejecting conservatives, rejecting the tea party, snubbing Christians and the conservative leader Governor Palin, and making Christie their convention speaker, the rinos are willing to lose elections to keep the party from being conservative.

I keep appealing to you to lay off for a while, wait until an election before you start attacking conservatives and the tea party, but your agenda drives you relentlessly.

You aren’t arguing with me about anything other than that you want to promote rinoism even when there is no race or candidate to demonize, that must be why you are trying to make up some fake persona to argue against, so that it doesn’t just sound totally like liberal trolling.

Your only argument against me on this thread, is that you want to fight for rinos unnamed, in an election that isn’t taking place anywhere yet, and against the tea party.

In other words, a chant of move left, moderate, don’t support the tea party, look for the rino in future elections.


36 posted on 01/24/2013 4:52:49 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

>>>The Dems are the party in trouble. How do they hold their coalition together?<<<

The same way they did in 2012.

They take my money and yours and buy their constituents free sh!t with it.

And they are fully supported in, and never challenged by, the national media as regards that strategy.

We have incompetent candidates? Look at Elizabeth Warren. Look at Harry Reid (I know he wasn’t up this time but still...) Look at Nancy Pelosi. Charlie Rangel. Alan Grayson. Barbara Boxer. Robert Menendez. Bill Nelson. Bob Casey.

Need I go on?


37 posted on 01/24/2013 4:59:22 PM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
There is no break in politics. Ever. That is a mistake too many conservatives already make.

I said for YOU to take a break from YOUR agenda.

Quit fighting the tea party and the Reagan wing of the GOP for awhile, especially at freerepublic, at least wait until you can merely fight for some particular rino, rather than just warring against conservatism and the tea party in general.

38 posted on 01/24/2013 5:03:45 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I don’t push third parties, don’t support a third party, don’t vote third party, and I know that conservatives have moved the party right in recent decades

What? You just got done posting that the Republican party was in danger of being destroyed.

You're words:

I’m very serious, your rino agenda sucks, and is close to destroying the GOP.

You're just puking out nonsense that you can't even keep track of. The GOP is in no danger of being destroyed. We've been hearing this hyperventilating that the Republican party was about to be destroyed every election cycle and it isn't going to happen.

Your only argument against me on this thread, is that you want to fight for rinos unnamed, in an election that isn’t taking place anywhere yet, and against the tea party.

What are you talking about? You don't even make sense. You should never have posted to me in the first place. You keep throwing the RINO charge out (which you do against anyone you don't agree with) and it's nonsensical. Opposing nominating bad candidates like O'Donnell and Angle doesn't mean folks prefer moderates. It means go with the most conservative candidate that CAN win - and sometimes that means a far from ideal squish when there is no better alternative that CAN win. The Democrats, for example, are only too happen to swipe seats from us in red states by running fake conservatives. They run a fraud like Manchin who doesn't even vote with them much of the time, but the left doesn't care because they are only using him to deny us a seat. When we can't recruit folks that have a real shot of winning, then we need to sometimes use these same tactics against the Democrats.

You aren’t arguing with me about anything other than that you want to promote rinoism even when there is no race or candidate to demonize, that must be why you are trying to make up some fake persona to argue against, so that it doesn’t just sound totally like liberal trolling.

Again more insults, more gibberish. You seem utterly lost.

nominee Mitt Romney, the goofy, pro-abortion cult leader

What is the point of making fun of the man's religion. There is no reason to call Romney a cult leader. Pretty much no one here on FR wanted Mitt as the nominee, but the hatred toward his Mormon faith is just unnecessary and nasty. You really demonstrate what a shallow, small person you are when you do stuff like that. This is the kind of vileness that comes through in your posts. It doesn't paint a flattering picture of yourself.

39 posted on 01/24/2013 5:39:33 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
What? You just got done posting that the Republican party was in danger of being destroyed.

Now take a deep breath, and think for a minute, you will see how silly it is to think that sentence identifies someone as a member of a third party rather than someone who thinks that the GOP is in deep trouble, that having just run on abortion and homosexualizing the military and Boy Scout leaders and Romneycare and against Christians, Palin, the tea party and conservatives, has put it's future in jeopardy.

Romney managing to lose to Jimmy Carter's second term, proves that.

I know that part of the divide between you and conservatives, is the Christian faith, but Bishop Romney being a leader in an anti-Christian cult, and running on homosexuality and abortion, and rinoism, cost America dearly.

You aren’t arguing with me about anything other than that you want to promote rinoism even when there is no race or candidate to demonize, that must be why you are trying to make up some fake persona to argue against, so that it doesn’t just sound totally like liberal trolling.

Your only argument against me on this thread, is that you want to fight for rinos unnamed, in an election that isn’t taking place anywhere yet, and against the tea party.

In other words, a chant of move left, moderate, don’t support the tea party, look for the rino in future elections (and not in a good way).

40 posted on 01/24/2013 6:10:06 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
who thinks that the GOP is in deep trouble, that having just run on abortion and homosexualizing the military and Boy Scout leaders and Romneycare and against Christians, Palin, the tea party and conservatives, has put it's future in jeopardy.

Do you grasp how idiotic you sound? I mean, you're just leaking out pure nonsensical drivel.

Romney was not a strong nominee and certainly had liberal social positions in the past, but he most certainly was not running against Christians. I mean, that's just dumb. Nor was running on things like abortion considering he won the endorsement of the National Right to Life and most other pro-life groups.

ansel, trading comments with you here is like trying to communicate with a child. You don't make sense much of the time, you think shouting "rino" somehow helps make your points, you think insulting the Mormon faith (a very conservative voting block) gets us anywhere, etc. In short, you don't further the cause of conservatism. In fact when you post dumb stuff like this, you probably do conservatives more harm than good. We could use your vote ansel, but other than that you are a liability.

41 posted on 01/24/2013 6:27:52 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

How can you not know the simple facts about your party’s presidential candidate?

Mitt Romney was anti-Christian in his agenda, without even getting into his leadership in an anti-Christian cult.

Romney ran pro-abortion television ads, on protecting abortion options, he also in a televised CBS interview rejected the GOp pro-life platform, and returned to his pro-abortion position, this was just after locking up the nomination.

Romney restated that he would do nothing about the success of the implementation of his 20 year goal of homosexualizing the military, nor changing his mind about supporting homosexual Scout leaders.

Idiotic would be not knowing those facts, being rino would be knowing those facts and lying to pretend they don’t exist, while attacking the tea party and conservatives.


42 posted on 01/24/2013 6:41:42 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Mitt Romney was anti-Christian in his agenda, without even getting into his leadership in an anti-Christian cult.

ansel, you just sound stupid. This is exactly the kind of idiocy that comes through in most of your comments here. Your statements are absurd.

Romney was a lackluster nominee with a liberal record on social issues in his past, but he most certainly was not anti-Christian and most definitely wasn't running against Christians. Additionally he was absolutely NOT running as a pro-abortion candidate and he had the support of major pro-life organizations including National Right to Life and Susan B Anthony List. Your continued Mormon bashing is just childish and sad. Like I said, you're a liability to conservatism.

43 posted on 01/24/2013 7:29:06 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

You sure are a nasty worded poster, but you don’t know much about Mitt Romney and his campaign.

After winning the nomination, your man was running pro-abortion television ads in Ohio and Virginia, Romney pointedly rejected the republican pro-life platform when asked if he supported it, and came out for abortion on demand, with “health” of the mother.

Are you denying those facts?


44 posted on 01/24/2013 7:40:57 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Yep and I’d take RINO GOP majorities here in IL any day. The GOP needs to find and develop Giulianis in every major city in America. It’s stupid to quit the cities when that’s where people are living and moving to. Small gains in urban environments give us governorships, state houses and build our bench. We need to be high profile and when we win aggressive in moving our agenda forward. Federalism works and we need to practice it and publicize the victories.

Patton was right - Americans like a winner.


45 posted on 01/25/2013 3:58:01 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Longbow1969

The trouble is that O’Donnell is a dingbat and Akin and Mourdock ran like amateurs. Do they really think the media is their friend? We cannot afford to lose winnable races.

In politics it’s a zero-sum game. We need majorities to move our agenda forward. Without a majority it’s a tough slog, trust me I know first hand. So given that we’re a reality-based community what should we do?

In Illinois the best we’ll get is a Mark Kirk-type Republican. Is he better than Dick Durbin? Absolutely. Is Mark Kirk my type of conservative? Not at all and barely close. Would the nation be better off with two Kirks from Illinois or two Durbins? That’s the question to ask/answer.

If I understand Longbow correctly, he’s arguing the same thing. Not that we should reject conservatism, but that we need electable candidates. Given our interests we need to find the most conservative, electable candidate.

Thompson from WI didn’t meet the above criteria. So this doesn’t mean we have to acquiesce to RINOs. It just means that we cannot have O’Donnells in 2014 or Akins and Mourdocks shooting themselves in the foot. Romney won both states. They didn’t. Had they won things would be much sourer for the One.

We need to look at each race/state independently. America isn’t monolithic and kids don’t learn conservatism until reality strikes...and sometimes even then it doesn’t take effect.


46 posted on 01/25/2013 4:12:23 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

The Tea Party is demonuzed by the Left because they are patriots who will stand, fight against, and expose the lies and deception they disseminate. The Tea Party is nowhere near close to dead. In fact they are gathering even larger numbers and solidifying their base and learning to change their tactics by taking the time to study the enemy to see what makes him tick and the strategies they employ. One thing has become clear - Intellectualism is one of the Achilles Heels of the Left. It is not the advantage they believe it to be. In fact it can be used as a weapon against them.


47 posted on 01/25/2013 4:13:03 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
but you don’t know much about Mitt Romney and his campaign.

I know exactly what Mitt Romney was. It's why I didn't support him in the primaries. Once it became clear he was going to be the nominee though, I supported him like most other conservatives did - as the only vote that had any chance of stopping Obama.

After winning the nomination, your man

Do you really want to keep up with the childishness? As Mark Levin said, I'd vote for a soup can over Obama. Once it was clear Mitt was the nominee, it was time to support him. If you voted 3rd party or for some vanity candidate, you were a fool.

Romney ran on a pro-life platform. He had the support from pro-life groups once he became the nominee. He claimed one of his first actions would be to defund Planned Parenthood in his budget. He also declared that he would reinstate the so called "gag rule" which would stop US funded NGO's from doing abortion counseling. You may think Romney was not pure enough on the issue, but he ran as a pro-life candidate. Period. You're claims otherwise are BS.

Personally I don't believe Romney cared one way or the other about abortion or many other social issues. He was a chameleon, which is why I didn't support him in the primaries - because I never really trusted him. Still, he ran as a pro-life candidate and he had the support of pro-life groups. You can fight with National Right to Life, Family Research Council, and Susan B Anthony List, etc, and other pro-life groups if you want because they all supported him through the election in November.

ansel, you're just full of crap. You don't don't know what your are talking about, you resort to childish tactics and namecalling, and you add nothing to the debate.

48 posted on 01/25/2013 7:16:33 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
If I understand Longbow correctly, he’s arguing the same thing. Not that we should reject conservatism, but that we need electable candidates. Given our interests we need to find the most conservative, electable candidate.

We need to look at each race/state independently. America isn’t monolithic and kids don’t learn conservatism until reality strikes...and sometimes even then it doesn’t take effect.

Exactly correct. This is precisely what I am trying to get across at every opportunity. And yeah, it runs afoul of the impatient purist types who think running a Pat Robertson clone for Governor of some socially liberal blue state is a worthwhile endeavor. Some of these people just don't want to hear that their purist firebrand candidates who spout silly conspiracy theories aren't up to the task of winning elections.

The lesson is simple, nominate the MOST conservative candidate that CAN win. That means our candidates have to be more than just right on the issues, they have to have good political instincts and skills as well - AND they have to be able to stand up to intense scrutiny since conservatives are always attacked by the media.

49 posted on 01/25/2013 7:27:02 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Republicans lose many races, and until recently, that was the norm, and now these rinos memorize every loss that wasn’t fully approved by the GOPe and pretend that it is because conservatism is wrong.

In the meantime rinos keep losing election after election, sure incumbent rino Senator Scott Brown lost his Senate seat, but rinos want to talk about Angle not taking the seat of the Senate majority leader, but the biggest rino of all, the most important race in America, a race that was impossible to lose, the presidency, was a rino disaster, so what do the rinos want to talk about? Christine O’Odonnell’s failure to take Joe Biden’s senate seat back in 2010.

Palin’s judgement seems vastly superior to anything that we have ever seen in identifying conservative breakthroughs, her involvement in about 80 races has proven her the greatest endorser in history.

Don’t listen to the anti-tea party rinos. Karl Rove for instance spent 100s of millions of dollars on zilch, in 2012, while Palin gave us Cruz and our only Senate seat pickup, and success in other races, too bad her efforts against Akin didn’t pay off.


50 posted on 01/25/2013 11:33:39 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson