Posted on 01/20/2015 6:58:38 AM PST by cotton1706
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — The past year has not been kind to the tea party: Its most prized candidates were crushed in primary elections to establishment-backed foes, then it watched in dismay earlier this month as conservatives in Congress failed to block John Boehner from another term as House speaker.
Five years into its existence, the tea party is a movement adrift, interviews with conservative activists at this weekend’s South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention show. Its members are at odds over what went wrong in the 2014 election and on how to move forward in 2016; there’s even disagreement over how to define success. Is it enough to nudge the Republican Party to the right, as it has indisputably done, even if its candidates lose to people backed by the party establishment?
Perhaps, suggested Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)., the tea party’s recent struggles are just the nature of a sprawling, loosely defined grass-roots effort.
“The tea party gets [factionalized] in primaries a lot because the tea party is just really a large group of average Americans who believe in limited government, free markets and are frustrated with Big Government,” said Duncan, a member of the House Tea Party Caucus who was first elected during the 2010 tea party wave election.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I’m not so interested in having Politico define me/ the Tea Party. In their dreams...
Maybe the Tea Party could have a crucial affect on the GOP
nominating process if it chose their own candidate for endorsement, and asked the other Tea Party candidates to exit the field and back their endorsed candidate.
Funneling all Tea Party organization, money to a conservative would send a clear message that Tea Party is not going away until it takes over from the GOPe.
Uniting behind one conservatives is a must to win the primaries.
Nothing from Politico is! See tagline!
Unless the RINOs are planning on building higher seawalls, the Tea Party tide will flood them eventually. And the higher the walls, the greater the flood once breached.
yo dude...
tea party stands for Taxed Enough Already, and at it’s inception had both pubs and democrats in it...
it is a fiscal, limited government movement, always has been, always will be..
go start your own damn movement, and leave this one the way it is...
I question anything from Politico.
You can’t divide conservatism into partitions, cafeteria style. Conservatism is a whole, or it is an impostor.
Trying to differentiate fiscal issues from so-called “social” ones is a fool’s errand. If the whole is not embraced, the whole structure will fail.
well, i guess that is why i left conservatism (as a movement not a philosophy) over a decade ago...
i found that both so called conservatives and liberal socialist communists have the same goal..
control of peoples behavior and beliefs through larger government controls and laws...
other than fubo, who signed the largest government gravy train since lbj??
george w bush.....
which president took away more rights of american citizens since roosevelt and the japanese internments??
george w bush and the so called patriot act...
old man bush believes in the new world order..
so do his sons..
and these people are champions of the conservatives..
hell i had a so called religious conservative ON THIS VERY SITE tell me, and i quote..
“It is obvious to me that you have no morals, therefore, i have no problem imposing my morals, through law if necessary, upon you”
now, here is my question... are you a conservative, or a constitutionalist??
because they are no where near the same thing..
I am starting to move the same way as this. I think my doubt comes from the way conservatives measure other conservatives.
i feel sorry for you...
not because of your beliefs or philosophy..
but because i have been where you are right now..
strict constitutionalism is the only way to save this country..
what is strict constitutionalism???
well, one of our founding fathers said it best ( i do not recall who, or exactly what words were used in this quote, so i will paraphrase, please excuse me)...
this constitution is for a moral people. it will work for no other.
what does this mean?
simple, the regulation of morality has resulted in nothing less but the downfall of civilizations, and the worst of mankind coming through to rule the day..
need recent explainations???
nazi germany, and the killing of those who were “mentally” inferior..
we in this country want to restrict gun rights and civil rights for those that are “mentally inferior”..
the south during the civil war ( this is a whole different subject, and i will discuss this with any rational person ) and slavery...
the middle east and christians...
africa and moslems...
africa and christians...
eastern europe and anyone of religious faith, be it christian or muslem..
the list goes on and on..
here it is, in a nutshell, and you will probably not like it...
morality is subjective..
it is subjective to whoever happens to be in power at that time...
the people of germany subjected themselves to the nazi morality..
as did stalin’s soviet union, the roman empire, the japanese empire, and so on...
the regulation of morality is both the biggest sin and the biggest killer of human beings ever devised..
i am dead set against it...
sooooo... since i have been where you are, i have but one question ( do not feel you have to answer me, you only have to answer to yourself )...
what do you believe???
“I believe that the Republican Party is the party that is adrift.”
It is being steering hard left and full speed ahead by the eGOP.
Yep ;o)
Don’t feel sorry for me, I am actually in a good place. In fact, I started getting better when I turned off all cable news and started to read.
I agree with you about strict constitutionalism. This has to be the basis for our political ideology. We must begin with the protections of individual rights regardless of what we think about the individual person. We must stand against conferring rights based on association.
As for morality, I think that can be judged by the consequences of our actions. I have always believed that people should be left to their own devices as long as they bring no harm to anyone else and they don’t ask others to pay the consequences for their choices.
We have become like drug addicts in this country with all the non-addicted people paying the price for the chaos the addicts create.
It doesn’t help that conservatives so willingly toss aside their brethren at the slightest hint of disagreement.
i like you..
let’s hang...
i am dead set against it...
sooooo... since i have been where you are, i have but one question ( do not feel you have to answer me, you only have to answer to yourself )...
what do you believe???
I have read your posts for years joe and I know that you don't mean you are dead set against the regulation of all morality. You should clarify a broad comment like that. Murder, after all, is still murder and must be prosecuted in a civil society.
fwdude brings social conservatism to the table and he is right about the fact that it works every time it is tried. Killing the unborn human is murder! The left sees that as none of my business. I see it the same as if someone murdered you or me.
CityCenter posted this: I agree with you about strict constitutionalism. This has to be the basis for our political ideology. We must begin with the protections of individual rights regardless of what we think about the individual person. We must stand against conferring rights based on association.
That statement is telling and spot on. I could not care less what two homosexuals do in the course of their 'business' but when I am required by the government to bake them a cake for their homosexual 'marriage', I have a major problem. I say, Keep your crap to yourself and I will do the same! On the other hand, when our government dictates that it is a right to murder the unborn child, well, that goes against the very definition of who we are as a people.
I repeat the words of CityCenter: We must begin with the protections of individual rights regardless of what we think about the individual person.
The unborn child is an individual with his or her own heartbeat. To turn our backs on that means we turn our backs on all life that we hold dear. Whether you are murdered or your unborn child is murdered, it must hold the same consequence for a just people.
I do not see much difference between you, fwdude or me. We are fighting together for the survival of this nation against the tyrannical evil that is LIBERALISM!
May God help us!
-houeto.
bump
Thanks for the bump Geron.
It’s a simple thing really, when you protect the individual against the “tampering with” of their individual rights, then you have solved 99.99% of the problems faced by all religions, races, creeds, etc.
When you confer rights upon groups of people based on their affiliation, you are setting up a big old pot of witch’s brew consisting of bigotry, prejudice, and all the “isms” that serve to oppress people.
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.