Just in case you’ve not noticed, The Pink Flamingo has neither respect nor regard for the tea parties. The reason I have no respect nor regard is because it is essentially a Ron Paul movement.
“...This weekend, the “Freedom and Liberty Conference” kicks off in Louisville, facilitated and publicized by Louisville Tea Party here. It encapsulates all that is right and wrong with what the Tea Party became…and with what the Occupy Wall Street and Everything Else Movement will become.
When the Tea Party began, it wasn’t the Tea Party. It was a Ron Paul 2008 campaign grassroots fundraiser. Go ahead and Google it…we have time.
It reminds me of what the Occupy Wall Street mob wants to be, except we had a message and a candidate, and we were right. The Ron Paul 2008 effort cared about economics and jobs, ending the Fed and getting out of debt. We didn’t care if you were gay, smoked pot, went to church, or didn’t believe in god. The first Tea Party was non-partisan, centered solely around freedom and economic policy. It didn’t matter what party you were in, you were always welcome….”
People are starting to notice that the tea partiers don’t really care about the middle class.
According to David Frum, people like Rush Limbaugh are suggesting the GOP not vote for Romney if he is the nominee.
“...As for Option 3 — back a protest candidate — well, there’s always Sarah Palin. She’s still got a following of about 10 percent of the GOP, enough to cause serious trouble. She probably can raise sufficient money to sustain a guerrilla operation. She hates to feel the spotlight shifting away from her, and she is not one to worry about the real-world, practical effects of her decisions — including siphoning off enough votes from Romney to re-elect Barack Obama. And at least some radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, might well see re-electing Obama as a better outcome than electing Romney. Obama has certainly been a blessing for the ratings and bottom lines of the talk radio industry. Option 3, although tough, cannot be excluded….”
It’s all about pandering to the far right, to the very worst element of the (non racist) tea parties.
Evidently those who have lived by the sword, may end up dying by it. Looks like the tea party frosh who pledged eternal devotion to all things TP, are now being challenged by other TPers because they are no longer pure. If the situation were not so critical it would be laughable.
This headline says it all!
The TPers are so extreme that they are now even going after seasoned, and good conservatives, ruining what had been normal conservative organizations, turning them into such extremist groups that even TP poster child Allen West is starting to denounce them. The Heritage Foundation, etc. are now out of control.
The best part is Erick Erickson is starting to be seen for who and what he is.
“...Other offices say they’ve sometimes received emails from RSC staffers pointing to harshly critical blog posts by Erickson and other blogs, in-case-you-missed-it notes that they felt amounted to thinly veiled threats about their members’ standing among the conservative base.
“These guys are basically an adolescent street gang — they talk you into joining their club saying it’ll be a conservative family working together. Then they beat up their own members. When someone finally gets fed up and decides to leave, they have their bullies in the blogosphere blow you up and call you a liberal or RINO and threaten primaries. They basically jump you out,” said one senior Republican aide whose boss considered quitting….”
Erickson and his little flunkies are nothing but bullies. We all know that. We all know they have prostituted themselves to the likes of the Koch billions, that are no different from Soros billions.
You know something is strange with these people when they threaten their previous ‘poster boy’.
“…In 2010, he was the tea party poster boy. In 2012, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown may not get so much as a nod of acknowledgement from tea party groups.
Brown shocked the country back in 2010 when he beat his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, and was elected to the state’s Senate seat vacated by the late Teddy Kennedy. The Tea Party Express paid to run pro-Brown ads. FreedomWorks activists campaigned for him.
In short, Scott Brown was the tea party movement’s first electoral victory. But now that he’s up for re-election for a full six-year term in 2012, tea party activists tell The Daily Caller they’re not going to bother putting together the same operation that swept him into office the first time.
That’s not to say tea partiers will not vote for Brown, or even put up much of an effort to oppose him since a serious primary challenger has yet to be found. The movement has matured into realizing that sometimes the “least of two evils” — as one activist put it — is necessary in a traditionally blue state like Massachusetts….”
You’ve heard it before.
“...The 87 House freshmen who helped the GOP seize the majority by capitalizing on a deep reservoir of anti-establishment resentment are discovering that anger hasn’t gone away — and it could even threaten their fledgling careers.
Some tea party darlings from 2010 are fearful of tea party challengers in 2012, facing charges they’ve turned their backs on the movement’s small-government beliefs.
The continuing rancor serves as a warning flag to freshmen about the hostile climate likely to rage in 2012.
Once one of the tea party’s favorite sons, Florida Rep. Allen West, found himself facing sharp criticism from the very activists who helped turn him into a conservative icon. New York Rep. Michael Grimm, who labeled himself a “conservative warrior” during his 2010 campaign, has faced similar tea party tensions over his opposition to a spring government shutdown. Neither has a primary challenger yet, but both have sought to ease the tensions surrounding their perceived apostasies by meeting with tea party groups in their respective districts to explain their votes…”
The Pink Flamingo is terrified that the irrational extremists of the tea parties, bought and paid for by the losertarian plutocracy, will destroy the GOP’s chances in 2012. Barnard Goldberg wrote:
“…If Barack Obama wins, I said, it would be because Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It will be because the Republicans picked the wrong candidate.
How would this come about? Let’s start with the fact that there’s a split in the Republican Party. There are two separate and distinct factions. One that demands conservative purity in its candidate for president and one that is far more practical and will gladly accept any candidate who can beat President Obama, no matter how moderate.
The purists want the most conservative Republican candidate to be nominated. They detest moderates. Compromise to them is tantamount to a crime against humanity. Rush Limbaugh and some members of the Tea Party are the loudest voices on the purity side.
The other side consists of followers of the late William F. Buckley, who famously said that he would support the most viable conservative candidate in any race – meaning the most conservative candidate who can actually win.
But wait, the purists say, the most conservative candidate can win. I’m not so sure. Look at it this way: Rush Limbaugh is the most famous conservative in America. He’s smart, articulate and expresses conservative ideas better than just about anyone. But Rush couldn’t win a national election. He’s way too polarizing a figure. So if Rush couldn’t win, why do the purists think that someone like him could?…”
I wonder if I should do another ‘let me count the ways’.
- There are some idiots on the far right in the House who are constantly pushing toward a government shut-down. How did that work out for the GOP when Newt was Speaker? WE LOST! Get it, we lost. It is a losing proposition. Republicans ALWAYS lose when idiot stunts like this are tried.
- The coming GOP Civil War.
“…The result is that the GOP is slowly descending into a civil war. Candidates are now turning their guns on one another instead of attacking the real enemy: Mr. Obama. What is remarkable about the recent debates is how little the moderators asked about America’s swift decline during the past three years. The record deficits, the historic credit downgrade, high unemployment, creeping inflation, economic sclerosis, soaring poverty rates, more than 45 million Americans on food stamps, the pervasive opposition to Obamacare, the abandonment of Israel, Iran’s impending acquisition of a nuclear bomb, the rise of radical Islam in Egypt and Libya – all of this is a direct result of Mr. Obama’s transnational hard-left policies. Yet hardly a question has been asked about any of these issues. Like in 2008, the liberal media is trying to prop him up…”
- Is there a Rovian war on Rick Perry?
“…Despite this, Jeb Bushtold Fox News last month he’s “never heard anybody in my family say anything but good things about Rick Perry.” But he did allow that there might be tension “maybe with Karl.” For his part, Rove dismissed that idea on The O’Reilly Factor as recently as the night before the Reagan Library debate when Perry dismissed Rove’s criticisms as “over the top.” v Assuming, then, the existence of a Bush/Rove/Perry feud, the question becomes whether this will have an effect on a Perry candidacy.For starters, the feud may actually help Perry. Democrats will have a hard time portraying Rick Perry as the second coming of Dubya if he’s being regularly jabbed by the man affectionately described as “Bush’s Brain.” (And don’t discount the possibility that Rove the evil genius knows he’s doing Perry a favor by helping draw a sharp contrast between him and the former president early and often.)Still, like most internecine political disputes, this one may come down to a single concern: money. “There’s probably 100 to 150 extraordinarily rich and extraordinarily conservative Texans,” Ratcliffe says. Access to that many wealthy donors is a unique advantage for a presidential candidate from Texas. “[Housing magnate] Bob Perry [no relation] typically drops anywhere from $4-6 million just in a Texas election,” Ratcliffe says. “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Bob Perry dropped $10 million into a Rick Perry super-PAC.”…”
- Is there a “GOP Establishment” war on Rick Perry, or something else?
- The GOP cannot win the PR War in DC.
“…It seems that the combination of brinkmanship and lukewarm reception to most anything President Obama proposes has caught up with Republicans in Congress. The debt fight caused Washington’s approval ratings to drop to new lows, but new data from a Bloomberg national poll shows that it hit the Congressional GOP the strongest: of the Americans who said they were frustrated with Washington, 45 percent said it was because of the GOP. President Obama got the blame only 20 percent of the time, nearly the same amount of of Congressional Democrats, who 19 percent said were to blame for the dissatisfaction….”
- When the tea party tries to go after established Republicans, like Lugar, then end up nominated flawed candidates who are basically unelectable. In doing so, they greatly assist the Dems.
- Their anti-spending PR disasters are weakening the entire party. It isn’t that they are “wrong” it is the arrogant way they are approaching things.
- “…Congress fared worst in the poll, with 82 percent of Americans disapproving of its performance. Only 15 percent approve of Congress….”
- The Tea Parties, more and more, appear to be ethically impaired.
- Ron Paul
- Then there is Herman Cain. Since he has reached the “frontrunner” status, he is starting to sound like
Ron PaulMichele Bachmann, only crazier. Take his idea to electrify the border fence.
There is a racist overtone to all of this. To deny it, is just plain blind.
The right is dancing around a very sticky issue. We have a very serious racism problem. The real problem is that people refuse to acknowledge there is a problem. Tuesday night on Hannity, it was the perfect storm. This comes from News Hound.
“...On the other hand, Buchanan intertwined white, Republican and solvent. “A Republican can’t win California today,” he said (I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t count). He described California voters as, “Democratic. They depend on government, they believe in government and they vote for the party of government.” He added ominously “And when Texas goes the same way – and whites are a minority in Texas – when it becomes predominantly, overwhelmingly Hispanic, it’s going to become predominantly Democratic.” In other words, people of color equals Democratic equals bankruptcy and doom.
Ordinarily, I’d expect Hannity to embrace such rhetoric but even he questioned why Buchanan broke it down “along racial lines” as opposed to “belief systems.” He also challenged Buchanan’s seeming theory that ethnicity equals political destiny. “Politically, can the different demographic groups move over to limited government, to lower taxes?” Hannity asked.
“Now you’re talking,” Buchanan said. But then he added, “That’s why I say, if you have a moratorium on immigration.” Buchanan said that when Jews, Irish, Poles and Italians came into the country, they all voted Democratic. But when “we shut off immigration in 1924, by the 1950’s” those groups began voting Republican. His theory was that voters “need time” to “move up out of poverty” and into the middle class in order to vote Republican.
In other words, it’s not up to Republicans to reach out to poor and minority Americans, it’s up to poor and minority Americans to “move up” and become Republicans. And in the meanwhile, Katy bar the door….”