Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[mrjarrell]

Looks like a new super PAC has been formed, with the blessing of Saint Rove, to take on the TEA Party unelectables in future elections. The gop is just eating itself alive and things aren't looking good for them, at all. The implosion and panic are going strong and don't look to be subsiding.

Karl Rove launches initiative to keep tea party candidates out of elections | The Raw Story

 

[kludge]

Apparently they think that Richard Lugar is still the "most conservative" candidate that can win.

I agree the GOP is/has imploding/imploded. The communists/marxists/national socialists/progressives - every form of socialists (many of whom have been Republicans) - have done a very complete job over the last 40-50 years to root out every semblance of republican government in schools, media, higher education, law, and the courts. We are past the tipping point I fear, and there are few that remain who are not deceived. Actually it started with Roosevelt (the first, yep he was a progressive) and our fate may have been sealed by Wilson and the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act. It continued with Roosevelt (the second), and Johnson; many of those programs have been in place too long, and the money manipulators have brainwashed so many generations of Americans and the progessives/socialists have brainwashed so many "useful idiots" that there can be no recovery. It has been far too many years that the American economy has not produced enough wealth, only paper and digital bits. The economy has spiraled out of even currency manipulators' ability to control it, and that signals the end. At this point the only thing left for them to do is to manipulate it by any means possible to extract the last measure of wealth and control of land and resources before the worldwide depression settles in.

 

[moltke]

Not a shocking development. The most vehemently anti-government folks are inherently anti-establishment and thus out the reach of the power players like Rove and the party foundation. It really comes down to a majority of the population and especially recent generation’s adjustment and acceptance of government handouts in all forms. Americans are becoming ingrained or welcoming to the flow of responsibilities being funneled through (or essentially by) the feds. I believe that relates to those for and against the rights of gun owners, as that is one of the few things a large number of people have not been able to accept is completing surrendering control of you and your children’s protection over to a government appointed employee. It's really the last frontier as our medical lives, our housing, our food, our jobs (subsidies) our heating, all basically are not quite normal to be provided by the government. I think the mental or philosophical battleground is being waged, and sadly individual freedoms are on the losing end and likely to be so.

 

[buckstopshere]

Not at all surprising really. This is how the GOP "base" votes anyway. It doesn't matter as much what you stand for as long as you have a shot at winning.

 

[Liberty1911]

Great. Looks like I can resume not voting for republicans again.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Victory Project spokesman Jonathan Collegio told CNN that Republicans lost six Senate races in the last two election cycles because they nominated “undisciplined candidates” rather than Republican veterans.

In other words, they were imitating the LP stratedy.....

Seriously though, this is correct. People like Mourdock made comment that sunk his election that a "seasoned politician"--the kind that we all despise, that can sound like he's agreeing with you when he's not--would not have made or would have answered the question in an entirely different manner.

TV stage-presence is an art that the really conservative/libertarian folks must become adepth at, if they are to have a chance of gaining a foothold on the national stage. We just can't keep putting half-senile candidates like Ron Paul or Charlie Manson/lunatic-looking candidates like Boneham out there and expecting the widest possibile cross section of the public to vote for them.

The visuals are just as important, probably more so, than the actual message of the candidates. I think it's unfortunate, but its folly to disregard it.
​

 

[hornadylnl]

This coupled with the 2016 Anybody But Hillary campaign, restoration of liberty is guaranteed.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This coupled with the 2016 Anybody But Hillary campaign, restoration of liberty is guaranteed.

Nah....BHO will run again. Haven't you heard they entered a bill to repeal the two term limit on the POTUS.

The people of the "greatest generation" (or at least their parents) voted for a flaming progressive like FDR 4 times. I could see the BHO legacy getting re-elected at least a couple more times.

 

[hornadylnl]

Nah....BHO will run again. Haven't you heard they entered a bill to repeal the two term limit on the POTUS.

The people of the "greatest generation" (or at least their parents) voted for a flaming progressive like FDR 4 times. I could see the BHO legacy getting re-elected at least a couple more times.

So the Anybody But Obama campaign again. Third times the charm, right? Maybe we can bring GW back for a third term. I'm still wallowing in the increased liberties and debt reduction he brought us. One more term of him and we'll be right back on the path of our founding.

 

[chraland51]

There just ain't no political parties out there that represent half of my values, not the repukelicans, the democraps or the liberteens. In my opinion, they are all bad and the two biggies only worry about gaining and holding onto power. We really do need to have only representatives who have some skin in the game that are will be in the same health care and retirement plans that they are now shoving down my throat and trying to tell me that they are good things when I know that they are not.

 

[steveh_131]

There just ain't no political parties out there that represent half of my values, not the repukelicans, the democraps or the liberteens.

 

[rooster]

Republican career politicians are just feeling threatened thats all.

 

[2A_Tom]

lib·er·tar·i·an [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn]
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian ).
adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.
Origin:
1780–90; libert(y) + -arian


lib·er·tine [lib-er-teen, -tin]
noun
1. a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
2. a freethinker in religious matters.
3. a person freed from slavery in ancient Rome.
adjective
4. free of moral, especially sexual, restraint; dissolute; licentious.
5. freethinking in religious matters.
6. Archaic. unrestrained; uncontrolled.

There is a difference, isn't there.

 

[Liberty1911]

lib·er·tar·i·an [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn]
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian ).
adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.
Origin:
1780–90; libert(y) + -arian


lib·er·tine [lib-er-teen, -tin]
noun
1. a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
2. a freethinker in religious matters.
3. a person freed from slavery in ancient Rome.
adjective
4. free of moral, especially sexual, restraint; dissolute; licentious.
5. freethinking in religious matters.
6. Archaic. unrestrained; uncontrolled.

There is a difference, isn't there.

Yep, so it looks like Libertarians are Libertine then. Just read their party platform.

 

[Hosshauler]

Well until the Republicans get their act in order, I'm sure as heck not voting Democrat.

 

[mrjarrell]

lib·er·tar·i·an [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn]
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian ).
adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.
Origin:
1780–90; libert(y) + -arian


lib·er·tine [lib-er-teen, -tin]
noun
1. a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
2. a freethinker in religious matters.
3. a person freed from slavery in ancient Rome.
adjective
4. free of moral, especially sexual, restraint; dissolute; licentious.
5. freethinking in religious matters.
6. Archaic. unrestrained; uncontrolled.

There is a difference, isn't there.

Yep, so it looks like Libertarians are Libertine then. Just read their party platform.

So say the socons.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_7.pdf

 

[Meezer]

Well until the Republicans get their act in order, I'm sure as heck not voting Democrat.

The republicans will never get their act in order

 

[mrjarrell]

The people on the other side of this battle for the gop are speaking out, too. Unfortunately, they do manage to miss one salient point. Republicans beating republicans in primaries does not equal republicans winning in the general, as we saw all too often over the last few cycles. The general public doesn't like the TEA Party, (as it stands now) or their message. And the socons have managed to get their pasty little hands into it, as well, and pretty much ruined any chances that many good TEA Party candidates had. Not only are people rejecting the messengers of the gop, they're rejecting the message, too.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/conservative-groups-mock-crossroads-effort-87101_Page2.html

 

[VN Vet]

Lugar is not the man many people thinks he is. He owes me alot of money and will likely never pay me. Oh, he owes you money too.

 

[Liberty1911]

The people on the other side of this battle for the gop are speaking out, too. Unfortunately, they do manage to miss one salient point. Republicans beating republicans in primaries does not equal republicans winning in the general, as we saw all too often over the last few cycles. The general public doesn't like the TEA Party, (as it stands now) or their message. And the socons have managed to get their pasty little hands into it, as well, and pretty much ruined any chances that many good TEA Party candidates had. Not only are people rejecting the messengers of the gop, they're rejecting the message, too.

Crossroads effort mocked on right - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

I think you're right. People reject sound Federal Republicanism if part of that message includes banning abortion or restricts gay marriage.

So be it.

The only freedom people care about nowadays is the freedom to be immoral. They will gladly let government tell them what to drive and what to eat, and gladly submit to violations of 1A, 2A, and 4A rights at the whim of the government, but as long as they can marry their sodomy partner or get an abortion at will, then they think they have freedom.

The problem isn't the GOP, or even the Dems. The problem is that the voters elect a government that reflects who they really are.