Posted on 06/14/2011 3:32:13 PM PDT by Tom Mullen
The 2012 presidential election cycle is underway. With the Democratic candidate a foregone conclusion, there is not much uncertainty about where the Democratic Party is going. For better or worse, Democrats will likely continue to “dance with who brung them,” meaning Barack Obama and his brand of 21st century liberalism.
Not so on the Republican side. After historic defeats and victories in the past two elections, respectively, the Republican Party has yet to define itself for the future. It must come to grips with the fact that its miraculous comeback in 2010, after crushing defeats in the presidential and congressional elections of 2008, was due in large part to the Tea Party. However, with that victory came a large group of new Republican lawmakers, many of whom were not ready to fall in line with the Republican leadership. The most striking example, of course, is Rand Paul, who has constantly challenged mainstream Republican positions that do not jibe with his libertarian-leaning constitutional conservativsm.
Critics dismiss the Tea Party as simply a Republican Party publicity campaign rather than a grassroots movement that truly seeks change in Washington. However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the Tea Party did indeed challenge the Republican establishment and defeated many establishment Republicans in primary elections – which means they obviously cared about far more than simply defeating Democrats. So, if not simply a front group for the Republican mainstream, what does the Tea Party stand for?
(Excerpt) Read more at tommullen.net ...
If you are going to get the average Freeper, who war-wise is neocon-ciliatory, then you are at least going to have to excerpt one part of your essay that references your essay’s title.
I hear the high pitched whistle of an incoming Viking Kitty.
They were against a standing army. Big difference.
IBTZ.
I’m looking at this guys post history, very few of anything except libertarian articles in his own blog.
You’ve posted 13 articles, all from your blog, and only three replies. Why do you excerpt? Are you in danger of suing yourself for copyright infringement?
I believe our own ‘humblegunner’ is the “blog pimp” monitor.
Of which you appear to be.
The biggest mistake they made, however, was the screwing of Benedict Arnold - after Arnold (disobeying dumb orders from a political general) won the decisive battle at Lexington.
No imitations.
Hi, Tom!
You seem to have made a huge mistake.
Pity, that.
Snip
I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.
If a blogger can’t or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then I’d just as soon he doesn’t post here. It’s not my job to make his content or his presentation or cooperation acceptable to our readers. That’s his job. And if he cannot do it or refuses to do it and continues posting brief excerpts only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants while loudly complaining about it, then I have no sympathy for his complaints and the more apt I am to ban his account and blog.
Furthermore, I’m not big on “rules.” You won’t see me posting rules for bloggers. The rules for bloggers on FR are the same as the rules for everyone else. If you are a good conservative activist and are willing to work with US on OUR goals and causes and not against US, then you’re welcome to post to FR. But unless we say otherwise your blog material should be posted to our bloggers forum and it would be best if you do not excerpt your own material and if you would actually join in on the discussion here on FR. We’re not really that interested in driving OUR traffic to YOUR blog. But if our readers see that you post useful information then they might start reading your site and that’s fine by me.
Not anti war in the modern sense but it’s true that they did all they could to avoid a war and only fought when there were no more corners to back into.
After all, they were citizens confronted with the most powerful military machine the world had ever seen to that point.
Its a little hard for a real historian to deny divine providence after studying America’s early history.
Ditto, time for MAX ZOT.
Fried Paultard seems to be quite popular on the menu lately... :)
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.