Posted on 03/29/2014 4:32:07 PM PDT by don-o
Republican Congressional leaders, less than three hundred miles from Fort Sumter where the Confederates fired on the federal government and launched a horrific four-year American Civil War, are meeting to declare a civil war against conservatives who are the base of the Republican Party.
Since the purpose of the weekend meeting at the Ritz Carlton on Amelia Island in Florida is to raise money and strategizing as to how to defeat limited-government constitutional conservatives in Republican primaries, this meeting is an act of war by Eric Cantor and the Republican Congressional leadership.
By fighting conservatives, Republican congressional leaders are publicly acknowledging they do not share the core values of conservatives and Tea Partyers, including limited-government, fidelity to the constitution, lower taxes, balanced budget, significantly reducing the size, scope and reach of the federal government.
The Republican primary voters will now be able to clearly see who are the principled conservatives verses those candidates receiving support from the Ruling Class, Crony Capitalists such as Karl Rove, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell.
Grassroots conservatives wish Republican leaders could get as angry at the lawlessness of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats as they do at conservatives.
This meeting is proof positive that the Republican Establishment thinks the Tea Party is alive, strong, and a major threat to their existence.
Lol
Bush. Dole. McCain, Romney were all moderate and liberal, by your measure they should win handily.
Well, Bush won. In fact, George W. Bush won twice.
The others cited all lost--albeit as far back as 1996, in the case of Bob Dole.
But please note that these were all presidential nominees. It is nominees for the Senate that is a matter of significance in 2014. And nominees for the Senate that cannot attract votes from beyond their own base are not likely to win in the general election.
Why do you suppose that Harry Reid is now the Majority Leader, and Mitch McConnell is the Minority Leader, instead of the other way around?
Senators generally make poor Presidential candidates.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
It is precisely the same sort of question.
Oh, one significant difference between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell is this: Whereas Harry Reid blocks any sort of legislation that he (or President Obama) dislikes--it is simply never allowed to come up for a vote--Mitch McConnell would act quite differently in this regard, I believe.
What you characterize as "liberal" is not quite the same as what many of us would see as liberal.
Those who usually vote according to conservative principles, according to the Americans for Conservative Action (or its left-wing counterpart, the Americans for Democratic Action) should probably not be tarred, gratuitously, as being just too "liberal"...
I won't vote for someone that hates me and what I stand for.
And Romney was UNELECTABLE. Ipso facto.
This is not about Mitt Romney. Rather, it is about our nominating senatorial candidates--especially in purple states--that are likely to appeal to a wide swath of voters.
Those who would prefer to go down in flames, gloriously, while waving the banner of Philosophical Purity, may wish to remain unconcerned about actually winning...
Well, the GOP could certainly run candidates who stand a chance of winning.
Of the 43 senators who are Republicans, most have a conservative voting record.
But how many GOP nominees from the far right have won the general election in recent years? How many of these 43 were far-right insurgents?
Anyone that supports abortion, is anti-gun, or is big government is a liberal in my view.
Sounds like you're just fine with liberals.
/johnny
/johnny
I’d rather have an adversary in front of me than a traitor behind me.
Unseat the RINOs!
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. - John Quincy Adams.
And Before anyone says "Well enjoy being a Principled Minatory". Again a Majority is useless if they act like DEMOCRATS.
We must change the GOP, right now they are the second party of Government.
The Uniparty.
Anyone who sincerely believes that there is just no essential difference between the two major parties--that Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, for instance, are virtually interchangeable--may feel quite comfortable in voting according to Philosophical Purity. And never mind the consequences (since there really are no significant consequences, ex hypothesai.)
But I reject that fundamental premise. Thoroughly.
Hence, I find the resultant conclusion highly suspect...
Well, I certainly think so.
Evidently, you believe differently...
If you have "never seen an actual purist" on this website, it necessarily begs the question: What, exactly, does philosophical purity look like to you? And could you offer me an example (from anywhere else) of a philosophical purist, as you see it?
He's a liberal. He helps democrats. Just like the speaker of the house helps the democrats.
You are supporting liberals.
/johnny
Well, there are currently 43 US senators who caucus with the Republicans.
How many of those 43, precisely, were anti-establishment insurgents?
If it were the other way around nothing would change
The Argument between Mitch and Harry Reid on whether or Not the Income Tax should be 15% or 25% is academic because their shouldn't BE an Income Tax in the first place.
They Both Belong to the Party of Government, one just wants to do it on a budget.
When in fact the Government shouldn't have the power it has, no matter who is control of it
Not whether or not the ABC Agency has a budget of 8 or 10 Billion Dollars.
> Mitch McConnell would act quite differently in this regard, I believe.
Yes, he would go along to get along, even if it means stabbing us in the back.
Consider the invasion on our southern border that McConnell and Reid refer to with the quaint euphemism, “immigration”.
An instant 10 million new demonRAT voters.
At this point, it doesn’t matter to me if that comes at the hands of Reid or McConnell.
Bump
That’s not what I asked. We were consistently lectured about nominating “mainstream” establishment candidates for the Senate in 2010/12, and yet more of them lost than the Tea Partiers, for whom the media/RINO talking points asserted “cost” us the majority.
If you need a list of those “safe establishment candidates” who lost, I’ll provide them for you.
I almost want to scream when I hear someone type the tripe you posted. I will NOT vote the lesser of two evils again.
“But how many GOP nominees from the far right have won the general election in recent years? How many of these 43 were far-right insurgents?”
Since the term “far right” is usually found in leftist media, I would need for you to give me some examples. Do you consider Mike Lee and Ted Cruz to be “far right”?
How about John McCain and Mitt Romney, who lost the last two presidential elections? Too “far right”?
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.