Posted on 04/11/2014 10:01:47 AM PDT by lowbridge
The Tea Party zealots who haven’t learned from their mistakes in 2010 and 2012 are trying their best to screw up the GOP’s chances to win the Senate this fall.
Where does the Tea Party find these people to run in primaries? Most important, why do they offer them up as legitimate Republican candidates?
The Tea Party bosses have been listening to too much talk radio. They seem to think that what makes a good Republican candidate is someone who sounds like a talk radio host.
But talk radio is all about bombast and attracting callers, not about winning elections.
If Republicans are going to win general elections in 2014 and beyond, we’ve got to put up principled conservative candidates who sound like senators, congressmen, and governors — not kooks.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
LOL two word answer: Todd Aiken
Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about...
...sounds like a lotta Coulter-ish GOPe disinfo-speak.
Sorry.
First of all, you can’t base your premise on a single Rand Paul quote…hes all over the place all the time. But more to the point: the libertarians are more conservative than social ONLY cons on all but two issuess primarily…and really, one, gay marriage. Lot of libertarians are pro life, lot are not. But frankly, they are the most conservatvie on other issues of liberty.
The problem with the Tea Party is there’s no official organization, so there’s really no way to vet the candidates, or even make sure that the Dems aren’t bankrolling trolls like they did in Virginia. Nobody should get to run as a TP candidate without somebody’s blessing, like Palin or Cruz.
The “Tea Party” is nothing more than a term the media uses to bash conservatives with.
I agree. The term should have been left to only apply to the grassroots movement, not be used by politicians.
“Didn’t your mom visit fortune tellers?”
Nancy was/is a elitist shallow whack job, but not Michael’s mother. I never understood what RWR saw in her, although she seemed to take very good care of him, and that’s a big deal.
Years ago I heard or read an interview with her. Paraphrasing, but she said she loved him because he had made it possible for her to have a high-society (not her exact words, but similar) lifestyle. She didn’t say it was because he was a patriot, or a wonderful person, or anything like that. I thought it seemed narcissictic and shallow. I could be wrong.
But wasn’t Nancy the one who convince RWR to change his party affiliation to Republican?
What does Todd Akin have to doe with that post defending the tea party, since he wasn’t the choice of the tea party and Sarah Palin?
As far as you pretending you couldn’t make out the rest of the post.
You must have caught the part about you lying when you said.“GOPe fixation on Tea Party religious affiliation”, since that has never happened, there is no fixation.
You had to understand this question- “Why would it bother you that tea party members and supporters, know that they are typical for true conservatives, and are more religious and more social conservative than typical republicans, and much, much, more so, than the libertarians who are always trying to move the GOP even farther left than the one the tea party is fighting?”
You just described a Nancy Reagan that we don’t recognize, it sounds more like you were describing the idiot, Ann Romney.
Unlike the 16 year old Ann, who was converted for her husband by the Governor of her state, Nancy Reagan was an accomplished woman, and a Hollywood success when she married Reagan.
“Her godmother was silent-film-star Alla Nazimova.”
“her mother married Loyal Davis (1896–1982), a prominent, politically conservative neurosurgeon who moved the family to Chicago.”
“attended Smith College in Massachusetts, where she majored in English and drama and graduated in 1943.”
“After passing a screen test,she moved to California and signed a seven-year contract with Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios (MGM) in 1949; she later remarked, “Joining Metro was like walking into a dream world.” Her combination of attractive appearance – centered around her large eyes – and somewhat distant and understated manner made her hard at first for MGM to cast and publicize. Davis appeared in eleven feature films, usually typecast as a “loyal housewife,” “responsible young mother,” or “the steady woman.” Jane Powell, Debbie Reynolds, Leslie Caron, and Janet Leigh were among those that she competed with for roles at MGM.”
Nancy was still acting after marrying Reagan and her last film was Hellcats of the Navy.
“After her final film, Davis appeared for a brief time as a guest star in television dramas such as Wagon Train and The Tall Man until 1962, when she retired as an actress. During her career, Davis served on the board of directors of the Screen Actors Guild for nearly ten years. Decades later, Albert Brooks attempted to coax her out of acting retirement by offering her the title role opposite himself in his 1996 film Mother. She declined in order to care for her husband, and Debbie Reynolds played the part.”
“During her Hollywood career, Davis dated many actors, including Clark Gable, Robert Stack, and Peter Lawford; she later called Gable the nicest of the stars she had met. On November 15, 1949, she met Ronald Reagan, who was then president of the Screen Actors Guild. Nancy had noticed that her name had appeared on the Hollywood blacklist and sought Reagan’s help to maintain her employment as a guild actress in Hollywood, and for assistance in having her name removed from the list. Reagan informed her that she had been confused with another actress of the same name. The two began dating and their relationship was the subject of many gossip columns; one Hollywood press account described their nightclub-free times together as “the romance of a couple who have no vices”.”
First off, yes we can use Rand Paul’s political positions against him, especially the ones we oppose, his libertarian/rino ones.
I’m not aware of any big ‘social issues only liberal movement’ threatening American conservatism, but I am aware of the deadly threat of the left wing libertarians who are only conservative on economics, which is a silly position anyway, since libertarianism destroys any chance of having conservative economics.
It looks like your veil is being lowered, you are now openly out coming out for libertarianism and against conservatism.
no, you misunderstand some things I fully understand…..if you don’t see the dangers of the pro life liberal movement - the Huckabee/Santorum coalition, then you are blind. The dangerous part is that you are certainly correct in a lot of your assertions, but some of your conclusions are just counter reality.
The “pro-life liberal movement”.
No, I don’t see that as being any big threat since it doesn’t even seem to exist, unless you mean just rinos.
Libertarians are real, they not only run the third largest political party, but they are also the most aggressive element of the left within the GOP, and are breathing fresh life into the rinos, who are adopting the same language as their social liberal fellow travelers.
Only the conservatives are true.
See Rand Paul, he is a much hotter property than Huckabee or Santorum, who were only transient figures of desperate primaries, Paul has Romney’s passion to complete his father’s vision and as article after article points out, as does he himself, he is the social liberal who can bring in the social liberals.
“”I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.””
Well, normally the Santuckabee contingent is not called RINO - but I suppose it fits. You also continue to deny the vast over lap between libertarian philosophy and conservative philosophy because for whatever reason you are obsessed with the group of libertarians who are extremely liberal on social issues. That part of the puzzle is there, but it’s not the only part, something which apparently escapes you.
You should look up Reagan and libertarians…..and learn.
Not “the group of libertarians”, libertarians. You keep trying to sell a phony product, by trying to convince conservatives that libertarians are merely conservatives who want to be known by the name of social liberals for some reason.
Reagan was no libertarian, don’t even try to sell that nonsense.
Okay, you’re obsessively paranoid….. now I get it…….you think I’m some sort of undercoever paul bot trying to sneak up on you and “sell you” something. Get effen over yourself!!!
I”m talking political philosophy and reality, and you’re having a paranoid tantrum, sticking your finger in your ear and yelling “lalalalalalala” - so afraid I’m trying some Jedi mind trick. REally, get over yourself.
And I never said, or even hinted, that Reagan was libertarian. He did however recognize the common ground between Reagan conservatism and libertarianism….which is very much the same on taxes, regulation, liberty, free markets, the size of government, etc. And he also knew some libertarians were pro life, for reasons of the the “right to life, liberty….” et al.
That you think all libertarians are out to “get you” is just mental m-st-rb-tion on your part.
I identify more with the Tea Party, than the GOP. Sad to see Michael Reagan dissing me. Shame on you, Michael...shame on you.
Geez, lighten up on the personal stuff and the rage, there isn’t any paranoia, but after a few days of being posted to by you, it is easy to see that you are very firm about pushing libertarianism, while at the same time, denigrating and marginalizing conservatism and Christian voters.
Reagan? “”You should look up Reagan and libertarians…..and learn.””
There is nothing to learn, Reagan was no libertarian, he was a conservative.
Your trying to give the impression of him being libertarian if it went unchallenged, is yet another example of your doing this over selling and trying to leave impressions, that don’t fit truth.
I’m not pushing anything you paranoid bitter old curmudgeon. You have pigeon holed the TP into your own little fantasy about what it is…..which is fine, tha’ts your right….and my right to call you out on it.
But I’m no libertarian and it’s not pushing libertarianism to speak the truth about their role in the emergence of the TP. It is obvious you are obsessive compulsive and paranoid and cannot think anyone would hold a real opinion….unless there was a self serving agenda behind that opinion. That’s a loser way to go thru life.
Rather than rage and attack, why not just point out the falsehoods or the “fantasy”.
You are the one who seems to be relying on opinion and misleading sales pitches, for instance the Reagan feint, you have tried the Huckabee/Santorum bit, you have tried creating a “pro-life liberal movement”, pretending that social liberalism is only for “the group of libertarians” rather than what defines libertarians as not being conservative, trying to say that we can’t hold Paul to his campaign statements.
When you first started posting to me on this thread, it was the start of the theme that you have stayed with, play down the Christian conservatives that make up the tea party (naturally), and to play up libertarians.
Bookmark.
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.