[headstamp 2]

“And don’t tell me that Mitch McConnell or John Boehner aren’t “real conservatives.”

chortle

[Viennacon]

“there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Labor and the Conservatives back home.... But there are many dimes’ worth here.”

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[headstamp 2]

“But it is a safe bet for conservatives that they should prefer, sight unseen, whomever the Republicans nominate in 2016, “

Yeah right. Groupthink is for the liberals.

[piytar]

Ted Cruz does not belong in that list. JMHO.

[ansel12]

One of Mitt Romney’s stated positions after winning the nomination was his opposition to the GOP’s pro-life platform.

Romney wanted to turn the GOP into the democrats, and contribute to moving the democrats farther left, and eliminate conservatism from American politics entirely.

Romney had plans to finish us off and eliminate conservatism.

[Jacquerie]

But while I am sympathetic to the view that what currently ails the United States may be beyond the power of elections to reverse . . .

Mr. Williamson obviously reads my posts to FR.

So, since elections alone cannot cure what ails our republic, the solution is . . . ?

[Georgia Girl 2]

This guy is still clinging to the theory that the GOP will restore the Constitutional Republic. Not in a million years.

[marron]

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.

As others have noted, Ted Cruz doesn't belong on that list.

If you are looking for someone to secure the border, and stand reliably against butchering our marriage laws, and reliably against abortion, then there is no point to electing a Repub who isn't strong on those issues.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This is a bait and switch article. Don’t headline UKIP and Nigel Farage if you plan to write about something else.

Especially something vapid.

[Yosemitest]

What an IDIOT!

I'll take out(vote AGAINST) an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time I get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.

You got it?

"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS"SHALL NOT PASS !


It's SIMPLE.

Vote AGAINST "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !
Vote FOR REAL CONSERVATIVE "Tea Party Candidates" !

[Yosemitest]

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:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

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 !

[TADSLOS]

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.

I'll bet he is.

[BlackElk]

I am so old that I can remember when National Review was a conservative magazine and not a fortnightly apology for the despicable likes of the US Chamber of Crony Socialism and a serial liar like Mitt Romney.

If the GOP wants to win elections it will have to nominate candidates WORTH voting for in their own right.

Kevin Williamson, by this article, proves himself an incurable airhead and a counterfeit "conservative." Bil Buckley would be soooooo ashamed. More likely, Williamson and others of his ilk would be fired.

[Billthedrill]

...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.

Clearly the author does not understand the degree of disaffection toward the establishment GOP that would motivate conservatives to do precisely that. It is not simple stubbornness, it is the complete loss in faith that the difference between the two parties is anything other than the difference between a swift and a slow poison. That's a few dimes, to be sure, but not a dollar's worth.

Barack Hussein 0bama and his merry band of crooks, racists, and bullies, are not moderates, they are not compromise candidates, they are not bipartisan, and yet they occupy the highest reaches of power. The counter to that is not a smirking chumship. These people are at war with the country and have behaved in that way, perhaps the only honest thing about them.

The truth is that pandering to the media or to the racial or economic pressure groups that constitute the backbone of the Democrat party is futile and counterproductive. We are not going to win these people over. They have to be defeated, to the degree to which it becomes they, and not we, who will be reaching out for common ground. We saw in the brutal, partisan imposition of 0bamacare how they intend to operate, where they have attempted to set the bar. To accept that as the new baseline, which all of the candidates mentioned with the exception of Cruz appear willing to do, is to accept a creeping surrender. No more.