Defeatist GOP Elites Quit on Mitt

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | September 19, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Viennacon]

These elite turds may be fine with another four years of Zero destroying the country and being “flexible” with our enemies.

I’m not

[svcw]

So, the GOPe shoved this liberals Republican down our throats, and now they are surprised he is who he is?

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Bill Kristol says Romney was "stupid and arrogant ..."


Rush ... that's right ... Myth (from the "Severely Conservative" Planet Kolob in the Constellation Cancer) Romney ...

is "indeed" STUPID and ARROGANT ...



Myth alienated his "political infantry" (Christain Tea Party members) at the 2012 GOP Tampa Convention ...

Myth alienated his "political infantry" (Christain Tea Party members) at the BLATANT Slanderous campaign against Sarah Palin (starting in 2008) ...

Myth alienated his "political infantry" (Christain Tea Party members) at the BLATANT Slanderous campaign against Newt Gingrich, Rick santorum, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain in the 2012 GOP primaries ...

Myth alienated his "political infantry" (Christain Tea Party members) when he successfully STOLE (for a few crucial weeks) the Iowa Caucus vote in 2012 ...



Myth Romney is a "Pathological Political Liar" (as I stated to NBC News during the 2012 GOP Convention) ...

Myth's thoughts, words, speeches, PROMISES are as worthless as trash ...

appropriately so, I might add, as Myth considers the rest of us "little conservative bitter-clingers" as Trailer Park Trash that he needs to kiss-up to in this election ...




.

[dfwgator]

If Romney loses this, the GOP belongs on the ash heap of history...as Clint said, “...we got to let them go.”

[Yosemitest]

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't caren if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped out.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, ... well at least he's not as bad as McCain was.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Theodore R.]

If Bill Kristol says something or someone is “arrogant”, he should know. He is the expert poster child for arrogance.

[Theodore R.]

But how are you going to fire all the Republican primary voters? You can’t just say they are too uninformed to vote in the next primary. The same ol’, same ol’ primary people will surely be back again in 2016 and again nominating the wrong candidate.

[libbylu]

Kristol can kiss my grits. I could care less about anything he has to say.

[colorado tanker]

I thought since I heard this that it will help Mitt. More people need to know how few people in this country are paying income taxes. That’s the real “fair share” issue.

[Andrei Bulba]

Gee being so great, why doesn’t Bill Kristol run for president?

F him, why should anyone have respect for a “republican” who disses their own candidate toward the end of a tight race?

[INVAR]

Thank you for posting that.

Bears much repeating especially when there are a cadre of Romney supporters here spewing vitriol at those who refuse to support their guy - on a level they do not dare engage in with Obama’s drones.

As I said several times, the “anti-purists’ as you call them - they hate principled Conservative Christians more than they do Obama and the leftists.

[GeronL]

You know the GOPe elite are getting bad when Mitt Romney is too rightwing for them.

How insane is that?

[Don Corleone]

If Romney loses this, the GOP belongs on the ash heap of history..

Correction: If Romney looses this the USA belongs on the ash heap of history...and a new millennium of world wide Dark Ages will be upon us.

[LaybackLenny]

Republicans, meet the Whigs.

[af_vet_rr]

Correction: If Romney looses this the USA belongs on the ash heap of history...and a new millennium of world wide Dark Ages will be upon us.

This country and its people are a lot tougher than people like you think.

[nascarnation]

This country and its people are a lot tougher than people like you think.

Unfortunately it's an increasingly small fraction of the people that fit your definition. I'm worried we're past the tipping point.

[af_vet_rr]

So, the GOPe shoved this liberals Republican down our throats, and now they are surprised he is who he is?

"Trust us, he's a conservative, just ignore everything he said prior to 2006 and ignore his record as Governor, you're going to like him, he's great!"

These people were scared of real Conservatives, they go and get their precious little abortion, gun control, and homosexual-loving New England liberal through the primaries and into the nomination, and now they decide they don't like him?

I don't believe it one bit. The liberals in the party, and that includes the GOP elites, wanted Willard to win this badly. They are not going to abandon him privately. They wanted somebody even more liberal than McCain, and they trashed a lot of Conservatives along the way to get him. You don't get within a few feet of the finish line and then decide you want to walk away.

[JediJones]

When I saw Kristol on Fox in the primary, he was not supporting Romney. So he didn’t flip-flop. He was one of the few I saw who did not like any of the primary candidates. If I recall correctly he was pulling for Chris Christie or Jeb Bush to enter the race. So, yeah, Kristol’s squishy on conservatism, but I think he’s been intellectually honest about where he stands.

[longtermmemmory]

I think the effete elites are petrified that conservative values will carry the day. If that happens then there is no more reason to support RINO BS.