Posted on 12/07/2009 5:44:38 AM PST by TomGuy
Ideally, yes. You are right.
I’m voting for a conservative republican in my district’s congressional priomary race. However I won’t be voting for the carpetbagger the NRCC recruited to run against him.
I do agree that a 3rd party needs to grow from within a party.
LMAO!
and what did you gut-filled folks learn from Jeffords and Specter? That two more democrat senators made America a better place?
That calling a common sense observation “gutless” makes other folks with common sense enamored of your political views?
Go for it Quixote ... I see a windmill you missed over the next hill.
It’s up to the GOP to embrace the TP and us conservatives.
The sermonizing from the old guard is starting unusually early this time around, I think.
Granted, I'm no expert on California politics, but I've read that Fiorina explicitly identifies herself as pro-life. I've also heard that Chuck DeVore has some problems with telling the truth, which makes me question how much conservatives really want to support him, regardless of how conservative he might be. Part of having moral leadership is having leaders who are moral, which lying is not.
Would you care to address these issues in a reasonable manner, without screeching about RINOs and whatnot?
Exactly.
the tea party does seem to be having more influence on the blue dogs than on the GOP, in terms of making men look over their shoulders at their sinking poll numbers
Ive heard radical libs and RINOs slam Sarah Palin, but not blue dogs?
Course some of them “blue dog” democrats instead turned out to be “blue dress” democrats...with Rhambo’s stains on their chins to show for it
Not the point being addressed. You stated: "And...Rahm and Axelrod and Carville and Obama and Wright and etc etc positively jubilant."
The logical follow-up query, then, becomes: "... and whose fault is that, ultimately? That of the actual conservative voting base, themselves... or a craven and thoroughly compromised Republican party leadership?"
You appear to be leaning towards the former, rather than the latter. There's a time-honored, deadly accurate technical term used to describe political parties which no longer reflect -- and are even openly contemptuous of -- the concerns and desires of their respective bases.
That term is: LOSERS.
Think about it. Hard.
"Gutless"
If your aim is to convince us to support your third partyism, then you've failed.
If your aim is to convince us that you're a retard, then mission accomplished.
Did they poll the Reform Party too. That really shook up the GOP. ;-)
“The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.”
Best case scenario, the two sides work out their differences and together, whoop the Dems’ collective ass.
“The important thing here is that the GOP needs to realize that with a RINOectomy, they are the Tea Party.”
So the logical conclusion would be that the GOP needs both sides in order to win.
“If republicans are willing to swallow their pride, and their core ideology”
They have nothing of the latter and an over abundance of the former.
If we jettison Snowe etc, we could pull together solid support for 25-30 Tea Party compliant conservative senators, and make Reid-Pelosi into a zombie Tip O'Neill-monster for the next 30 years. It wouldn't matter who wins the White House, they would control the government and won't have to worry about who sits home on election day anymore. This is what Graham and the other RINOs are probably assuming will happen. Mayhap, maybe not.
It’s good news if the leadership decides to get with the program, since it unites the 23% and the 18%, and will attract a lion’s share of the 22% undecided.
Is that really likely? The 23% are not going to participate in party functions whether Steele and the GOP RINOs are ejected or not. What percentage of the 23% actually showed up at more than one T-party rally? And the 18% of NE "non-Democrats" in the NE are continuing to embrace the gimmee-gimmee handout-bailout cut-n-run era, not individual liberty and personal responsibility.
Ronald Reagan couldn't win election for dog catcher in this post Constitutional Statist era.
Were the socialists chatting amongst themselves to start running their own candidates in a serious manner, it would make sense to factor them in separately. However, for them to try to split from the Dems would be silly, because they're "winning" at the moment. As it is now, the only possible split is on the right.
What's needed is an independent conservative organization that is intensely focused on the primaries.
Look at the Dems -- they have MoveOn.org, ACORN, the Kos kids, etc, etc, who are intensely focused on making hard-line Leftists be the Dem candidates, and making sure that the DNC knows that their funding and activism support is dependent on keeping these groups happy.
The way to gain control of the Rep party is to make support independent of the RNC, and focus it exclusively on conservative candidates.
We learned that relying on the GOP to protect America from the evil designs of the Dems is like relying on the French to protect Europe from the Nazis.
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.