You Say You Want a Revolution? We’d all love to see the plan.

Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party paid National Review a visit last week, and two things stood out: First, he is an extraordinarily charming man, almost suspiciously so; second, he is a man of the Right who is manifestly more excited by the prospect of beating Conservatives than by anything else he spoke about. In this, he reminded me of any number of conservative figures here in the United States. I do not follow U.K. politics especially closely, and Mr. Farage may in fact be absolutely correct that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Labor and the Conservatives back home.

A strange phenomenon on the right is that many of the same people who believe Barack Obama to be not a mere feckless academic progressive but a conspirator against the interests of the United States and an active malefactor are precisely the same people who vow to stay home or write in Donald Duck if the Republicans should be so crass as to expect them to go to the polls in support of . . . Mitch McConnell, or Marco Rubio, or Rick Perry, or Ted Cruz, or Chris Christie. It is one thing to believe that Barack Obama is Antichrist Lite or to believe that Mitt Romney was something less than a vision of perfection from a conservative point of view. But while I am sympathetic to the view that what currently ails the United States may be beyond the power of elections to reverse, to believe that in terms of the presidency that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are roughly interchangeable is poppycock. To believe that, in terms of the Senate, it makes no difference whether we have Mitch McConnell or a fairly fruity Democrat is unsupportable.

My own belief is that such changes as we are likely to be able to achieve through winning elections and passing laws (as opposed to dealing with economic reality per force when the bill for those unfunded liabilities lands on the budget with a meteoric thud) is likely to be marginal, but that, over time, an accumulation of marginal changes can make a substantial difference. I do not see how those marginal changes can happen without electing Republicans and passing laws.

Which is to say, it is possible to be uncompromising as a matter of philosophy while at the same time taking a good-enough view of operational politics. Is Paul Ryan’s budget something that satisfies my every fiscal priority in a way that is absolutely consistent with my values and preferences? Not by a long shot. Is it good enough? Yes, it is. Enacting it would represent an important step in the right direction. And not a baby step, either. I like Rick Perry and Rand Paul. Marco Rubio? Good enough. Scott Walker? Double-plus good enough.

Organizations such as the Club for Growth and the various tea-party groups do important work keeping Republicans honest, and I am all for challenging incumbents in primaries. That’s why we have primaries. But when defeating conservatives becomes more important to you than moving conservative reforms forward, you become part of the problem. And don’t tell me that Mitch McConnell or John Boehner aren’t “real conservatives.” Either one would have been well on the right side of congressional leadership in the Reagan years. If you cannot figure out why you’d rather have Speaker Boehner than Speaker Pelosi, you need to take a deep breath.

Conservative critics of Republican leadership have two options for advancing the cause: First, come up with conservative proposals that can move forward in the current political environment, which includes a Senate run by Harry Reid and an Oval Office occupied by Barack Obama. That is not easy. The second option is come up with a plausible program for changing that political environment.

It’s there that conservatives, particularly conservative populists and media figures, go spectacularly wrong. We are constantly hearing from talk-radio and Fox News pundits that the United States is just waiting to rally behind a right-wing candidate who can articulate the conservative agenda in a persuasive way with a smile on his face. But both experience and our best research suggest that that is far from the case. The American public is decidedly mixed in its political views: Americans think taxes are too high, but they also think that the minimum wage is too low. They think that there is too much regulation of many businesses but that free trade is a net loss for the country. They are not simply waiting for a conservative who is conservative enough.

But it does not follow that they are necessarily waiting for a moderate. They have short attention spans. Barack Obama, no moderate, was elected president twice, once as a repudiation of George W. Bush’s foreign policy (which is not looking nearly so bad in retrospect, though, is it?) and sundry Republican congressional shenanigans, and a second time when Republicans nominated an excellent man who carried the baggage of being a gazillionnaire private-equity guy with the common touch of Thurston Howell III. But Barack Obama did not fool Americans — not the first time, and certainly not the second time. They knew what they were getting. And now, as H. L. Mencken would appreciate, they’re getting it good and hard.

Reform is a long-term project; elections, unfortunately, are about what is happening right this minute. But it is a safe bet for conservatives that they should prefer, sight unseen, whomever the Republicans nominate in 2016, because historical trends suggest that we already have a good idea who it is that the Democrats are going to select to replace President Obama: Someone worse.

What a DISAPPOINTMENT!
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO ~~CONSERVATIVES~~ "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising. This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing. Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them. It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement. But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected. That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush, which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party. It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party. And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party in the event that the GOP continues business as usual. If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise, they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections. First, they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate. Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party, they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats. Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous. At any rate, they are easily answerable. Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming. No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate. Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist. This, after all, is what makes them ideal. This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit. But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it. A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse. In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing; “I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely. As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions, it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first. Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth. Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail, those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.” Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory, he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics. My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist. But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term. For example, as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric, had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis, the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama. McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift, but because this movement would have been slower, and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain. It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win. If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics. Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

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.