Posted on 01/04/2015 3:40:06 PM PST by cotton1706
It is truly amazing is how hostile the leadership of the Republican Party is to the people who actually make up the Republican Party.
I can tell you first hand that the establishment GOP types dislike the libertarian/conservative coalition aka The Tea Party at least as much as the Democrats do. Probably more.
Why? Because the libertarian/conservative coalition is a real threat to their power. Do you honestly think that the GOP as it is currently constituted wants to reduce the size of government? Not a chance. A d this is why the party has been moving since 2012 to mitigate the influence of average people. Many folks who have “woken up” since Mitt Romney’s defeat may not know of the chicanery at the 2012 convention. The grass roots, primarily represented by Ron Paul and his delegates, were essentially shut out in a very ugly fashion. And this was just the beginning
The Ron Paul people in the states outwitted the establishment people in the primary process to a large degree in 2012. They got small government people elected to party positions long controlled by party hacks. As such the big shot hacks in DC have sought to systematically change the nomination and primary process to mitigate the small government wing in 2016.
The GOP believes that the “rank and file” will vote for their candidate no matter what. That they can get Bush, Christie, or Romney (Romney!) the nomination and that the people will fall in line and shut up because they so fear another Democrat in the White House. It’s a deeply cynical play. It is as obvious as it is callous. But this strategy has one huge flaw.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
Should be no such thing as “taking turns” in the political process. If the will of the people is not followed,it will sooner or later bite everyone concerned.
This is exactly why I wanted the GOP to lose in November: because they will see the landslide victory
as proof that I'm not Democrat
is a winning strategy.
By the time my primary rolls around, the candidate has already been selected. I didn’t vote for McCain or Romney in the primary but that was simply a gesture of disdain since they had already clinched.
Do you think that Ron Paul would have been a better president than Obama?
Sorry buddy, that was in November… and apparently not enough people were willing to go RINO-hunting to dislodge us of Boehner.
GONE hostility to average Republicans is nothing new. It has been going on for decades. This article could have been written 20 years ago.
Ya beat me to it.......
Yep, that Primary thing is where all the folks go out and vote for their favorite guy and those whose guy didn't win decide to stay home and pout and give us an Obama..........
They'll even go so far as to vote for a guy who was only on the ballot in eleven states...That's really sending a message....LOL!
Take away the last Republican party favorite and leave it up to the next 3 candidates, the result would have been the same. The losers would still stay home simply because their guy didn't win..........
We don’t have as much time as you say it will take.
the lengths that you are having to go to try to elicit a positive comment about the squirelly little guy is quite instructive.
“Better” in exactly what way?
“No, but they should. Some states have “open primaries” where RATs and the precious “clueless independents” can help you choose the RINO of their choice.”
Certainly agree there...and we can EXPECT that to happen should Cruz be nominated. Our best hope is that Warren and Hillary have a catfight, which would keep the Dems busy.
No, it was part of a two-part question*; that you are unwilling to say yea or nay is quite interesting.
* The other part was that, since Romney is [politically] Obama's clone (there's no major policy-area where they are different) your allegation may have made no sense.
(i.e. you might essentially be saying A ≥ B ≥ C but not A ≥ C which indicates a problem somewhere.)
Ugghh.
I do not pay attention to Townhall.
“Do you think that Ron Paul would have been a better president than Obama? “
Chavez would have been a better President than Obama.
>> “Do you think that Ron Paul would have been a better president than Obama? “
>
> Chavez would have been a better President than Obama.
*nod* — And I think Romney would have been the same level as Obama, so it naturally flows that I think Ron Paul would have been a better president than either. What I find amusing is the people who object with “Ron Paul is a nut on foreign policy” fail to consider that the reason Congress votes on cabinet position confirmations is to provide a check against the executive packing “nuts” into the executive.
Liberaltarians have more in common with the radical left than us conservatives.
Open borders, homosexuality, drugs etc.
They have their own party and nomination process and the likes of Paul should go there
Liberaltarians have more in common with the radical left than us conservatives.
Open borders, homosexuality, drugs etc.
They have their own party and nomination process and the likes of Paul should go there
Yup. They, like Obama, change the rules when they see fit to ensure that Conservatives are never able to mount a candidate in any primary in any state.
Or did you folks miss where McConnell changed the funding rules to allow a thousand-fold increase in corporate donations to the Ruling Class PACs stuffed in the CRomnibus last month???
Primaries are as rigged and corrupted as the rest of it.
We are not going to defeat tyranny via the ballot box. That ship sailed 20 years ago.
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.