The tea parties are flexing their libertarian muscles, threatening our GOP candidates. Libertarians in GOP clothing (Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann are forcing cowardly Republicans, who are terrified of the tea party bullies, into pandering to their libertarian cowardly appeasement of our enemies.
There aren’t many real Republicans like Lindsey Graham and James Inhofe left out there. The libertarians are threatening to pick ’em off, and put their losertarian stooges in office.
“…The question, therefore, is not whether Tea Party conservatism is a help or a hazard for Republicans seeking a return to power? To the contrary, it is whether the Republican Party is a help or a hindrance to the Tea Party movement? It will be a help only if it returns to its roots. The mainstream media, overwhelmingly of the Democratic persuasion, will continue to push Republicans to be “moderate,” of course – meaning “Democrat Lite” — to which the proper response is: Why would voters go for that when they can get the real thing on the Democratic line? If Tuesday’s returns showed anything, it is that Independents, a truly mixed lot, are up for grabs; but at the same time, they are looking for leaders who promise not simply to “solve problems” but to do so in a way that respects our traditions of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. When Republican candidates stand clearly and firmly for those principles, they stand a far better chance of being elected than when they temporize. That is the lesson that Republicans must grasp — and not forget — if they are to return to power….”
The don’t quite get the way of the world. So, Orin Hatch must be taught a lesson. How long are we going to put up with this ….?
“…The group says targeting Hatch is symbolic. It signals the beginning of the next wave of Tea Party activists working to replace Republican incumbents they see as too moderate and out of sync with a movement stressing fiscal conservatism….”
There is a fascinating piece in the Atlantic, featuring the great big fat tea party divide. In short, they can’t get along with themselves. It leads one to ponder if the sniping about not supporting one’s party nominee is about “purity” or childish immature hatred one for another?
Hugh Hewitt said it best. He writes of his theory that the Obama Administration is doing everything possible to promote the so called tea party hatred of Mitt Romney (as an example).
“...It is in fact lousy reporting that is easily understood as such by anyone who listens to say Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Mark Levin or me. Quick, Ben, get me a quote conveying such an opinion that from Hannity or Medved who between them cover most of the afternoon drive in the east. One quote will do. You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist. Those hosts come on just before me and I listen to their shows driving to my studio. The fact is they both admire Romney, know his strengths and weaknesses, and would’t say anything like what Smith wrote, which of course completely undercuts Smith’s premise and thus his credibility.
Now it is very true that the most influential talker of all, Rush, blasted Romney’s remarks on climate change last week and is no fan of the individual mandate in Massachusetts, but even Rush’s vigorous criticism of Romney on these issues is a far, far degree from Smith’s lead description –from Smith’s meme. Ask Rush who he would prefer to be the GOP nominee and he won’t give you an answer, yet. But ask him who he’d vote for in a contest between Romney and Obama, and like every other conservative in the country, he’d say Romney. So would every other conservative talker and 95% of conservative bloggers.
The meme that Smith is pushing –that the flip-flopping Romney isn’t popular with conservative influencers– like the meme that Pawlenty is boring and not popular with conservative influencers or that Perry is a secessionist extremist and not popular with conservative influencers or that Huntsman is a liberal and not popular with conservative influencers– is designed to brand the candidates in advance of the general while bleeding them in the primary. It is pure Obama prattle, and one wonders where the editors are at Politico. Does it matter that what Ben Smith writes is simply not true? Romney has some critics of some policies in talk radio but many of the biggest talkers also say great things about him, and some bloggers blast him while others support him. Again, does it matter that the Smith assertion is simply not true? It isn’t an exaggeration for dramatic effect, though one wonders why that would pass muster in an allegedly objective, reported piece as opposed to an opinion column, but flat out false. Does that matter to Politico’s #1 editor, John Harris?…”
According to the latest polling, Republicans are more interested in a “winner” than we are “purity”.
“...One day before a CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader Republican presidential debate, a new national poll suggests that when it comes to the next election for the White House, Republicans put winning over ideological purity. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Sunday morning, three-quarters of Republicans and GOP leaning independent voters say they want a party nominee who can defeat President Barack Obama in 2012, even if that person doesn’t agree with them on every issue. That’s up seven percentage points from January…. Only 24 percent say that they want a candidate who agrees with them on every issue even if that person may not be able to beat Obama next year, down five points from the beginning of the year….”
Even more interesting is that this is directly opposite of what Rasmussen recently found.
Then again, there are many of us who have been saying that Rasmussen is in so deep with the tea parties that his once reliable poll no longer is. There are some interesting stats here:
The Tea Parties are going to re-elect Barack Obama. Evidently that’s the whole purpose behind their existence, re-electing Barack Obama. If not, they are certainly acting very weirdly. No rational entity
“…If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination for president, Tea Party activists may not show up at all to vote in the general election, one leading group associated with the Tea Party movement is warning.
“I think that’s a potential problem,” said Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks’ president, during a wide-ranging interview with reporters at The Daily Caller. He also warned that if Republicans nominate another “John McCain,” activists might even vote third party in 2012. “I believe in redemption, but at some point, you sort of give up,” he said. “And we’ve given up on Mitt Romney.”
The truly sad thing is that tea party princess, Michele Bachmann is NOT a true Republican in the traditional sense of the word. She is another of those closet libertarians who is unelectable to anyone but the libertarian tea party bunch.
“...That’s why, if she were president, she wouldn’t renominate Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman: “I think that it’s very important to demonstrate to the American people that the Federal Reserve will have a new sheriff” to keep the dollar strong and stable.
As for foreign policy, she joined 86 other House Republicans last week in voting for the resolution sponsored by antiwar Democrat Dennis Kucinich to stop U.S. military action in Libya within 15 days. Is she a Midwestern isolationist? “I was opposed to the U.S. involvement in Libya from the very start,” she says. “President Obama has never made a compelling national security case on Libya.”
Even more striking, she says the 1973 War Powers Resolution, requiring congressional approval for military action after 60 days, is “the law of the land” and must be obeyed. That’s a notable difference from every recent president of either party, including Ronald Reagan….”
There are honest tea partiers! Who knew? Amy Kremer has gone on record that she is more interested in the pragmatic defeat of Barack Obama than she is purity.
Evidently the readers on FOX are parroting a Roger Ailes’ dismay that Amy Kremer of Tea Party Express. She is on record as stating she is going to support the GOP nominee, no matter who. This includes, gulp, the Ailes’ nightmare candidate: Mitt Romney.
The GOP doesn’t really need to have infighting with the far right, or idiots on the far right.
David Frum wrote:
“...The U.S. economy strongly recovered in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term as well. By election day 1936, production had nearly caught up to 1929 levels. Unemployment had been reduced as well, although not nearly so impressively. Result: Roosevelt won every state except Maine and Vermont.
More than half way through his term, Obama has no such story to tell. Eight million people lost their jobs in 2008-2009. Two million jobs have been created, net, in 2009-2011. You do the subtraction.
So Obama could lose if — and here’s the big if — Republicans do not blow the opportunity by presenting themselves as Medicare-annihilating racist maniacs.
That seems obvious, right? As Texas Sen. Phil Gramm phrased it on the campaign trail in 1996 to a struggling Republican House challenger, “There are only two issues when running against an incumbent. Her record, and I’m not a kook.”…”
Frum concludes with the following:
The Tea Parties are determined to make mischief and get Obama re-elected. That is the only possible explanation for what they are doing.
“…Still, Meckler admits, “The least popular candidate among the grassroots is Mitt Romney.” Yes, the health-insurance mandate is his heaviest albatross, but his recent comment on global warming is also weighing him down. “He really distanced himself from the tea-party movement — almost in a final blow — by making the statements he made about global warming,” Meckler says. “The response I heard over and over was ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’”
Brendan Steinhauser, director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, agrees: “From our perspective, he is bad on climate change — or global warming, whatever he wants to call it — and ethanol subsidies.”
Steinhauser points to Romney’s endorsement of former Utah senator Bob Bennett over the eventual victor, Mike Lee, in last year’s Republican primary as a source of discontent. He remembers how several tea partiers turned their backs on Romney at his endorsement event.
“Romney’s really stepped in it with the tea-party groups,” he concludes.
FreedomWorks, Steinhauser contends, is looking for “the most conservative candidate that can win.” As for the current crop of candidates, he muses, “I don’t think it’s Newt Gingrich. I don’t know at this point if it’s Mitt Romney — probably not. We worked very closely with Michele Bachmann on the health-care battle. We’ve worked with Herman Cain on tea-party rallies. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have all spoken at various events we’ve organized. We like what Tim Pawlenty is saying on ethanol subsidies, and his economic plan looks solid.”
But would FreedomWorks oppose an unacceptable candidate such as, say, Romney?
“All options are on the table,” Steinhauser warns. “I can’t speak on behalf of the tea-party movement, but tea partiers will not blindly support someone just because he has an ‘R’ next to his name.”…”