[txrefugee]

If the GOP-e doesn’t want conservatives in the party, conservatives can start their own party. The Republican Party will never win another election.

[One Name]

This is the gop’s last chance to get it right.

Ignore us at your peril.

One last chance. Remember Samson.

[svcw]

Will they? What a ridiculous question, they already have.

[bigbob]

Author has it backwards, the Republican Party is a party of moderates. What evidence is there to the contrary?

The Tea Party, if it survives, holds the promise of a true Conservative Party.

[Fiji Hill]

Romney and Moderate Republicans MUST realize that they NEED conservatives in order to beat Obama and the Democrats.

Every time the Republican nominee gives conservatives the cold shoulder, he loses. Just ask Dewey, Ford, Dole, McCain and Nixon.

At least Nixon learned from his mistake. In 1960, he picked a liberal running mate, made a deal with Nelson Rockefeller, and paid scant attention to conservatives during the campaign despite an enthusiastic and rousing demonstration in support of Conservative icon Barry Goldwater at the convention.

In 1968, he had learned his lesson. He at least pretended to be a conservative, promising Strom Thurmond that he would push for a strong anti-ballistic missile defense system--a promise that he didn't keep--and making an appeal to the "forgotten American," the middle-class voter beset by crime, taxes and an increasingly intrusive government. This time, he won.

[piytar]

Hey GOPe azzholes. I know some of you have operatives who at least lurk here, so I’m going to spell it out for you: without us, obama wins and America dies. All your perks, nice lifestyles, etc die along with America. What, you think the monsters behind obama will bring you along for the ride to power? Read your history, morons. After they destroy their useful idiot base, you’re next.

As for us? It will be ugly, but even the marxist obamascum have learned they need the productive people. We’ll survive.

In other words, YOU NEED US way more than we need you, even in the worst case scenario.

Get it yet? Apparently not. So be it.

[Nifster]

The folks have reached an agreement that made the conservatives happy. Both Drudge and Hotair have been covering it

[RitaOK]

Is Fredricks one who has been stealthly peeled off, or WHAT? You can not compromise liberty in friggin’ fractions when the pie itself is corrupt.

Just read where they are trying to “peel off” the opposition and still trying to inform rank and file delegates.

[piytar]

Ya know, I’d almost talked myself into voting for the GOP rat Romney. Had even risked a zot a few times arguing that point.

No longer. I’m not going to vote for the GOPe after this. Screw ‘em. As I said in my last post, we’ll survive. Guess we’re going to have to go through the fire first. Well, the GOPe won’t survive that conflagaration - which will be dealt to them by their allies (aka the Democrats, not us).

[rhinohunter]

If milt succeeds, you can say bye-bye to the Pro-Life plank in the platform. Probably not right away. What he’ll do is get the rape & incest exception in this year, then do away with the rest of the Pro-Life plank by 2016.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - This is an attempt to mold the Republican platform to his moderate values and also to force state delegates to be completely loyal to him and his moderate beliefs instead of standing for their own beliefs and the beliefs of the people who voted for them from each state and congressional district.”

Sooooooooooooooo, Romney is going to destroy the Republican Party in order to save it?

This won’t sit well with folks that liked a Constitutional Republic.

Looks like a floor fight well worth having.

If the Elites won’t allow a floor fight, they we will fight at their stump speeches, that is, if they want to represent us.

Hmmmmmmmm, one good knock down floor fight, or many, many stump speech fight?

Your choice, Romney.

Tick-Tock.

[jonrick46]

I heard Rand Paul on Fox tonight say that the GOP has allowed input from Libertarians to the party plank. He was satisfied with the unity that was building during this convention. And he was happy that finally there was a policy in the plank that was something his father has pushed for in his years in Congress: An audit of the Federal Reserve.

[zerosix]

This issue has not been dropped as some media/GOPe types would have you believe.

We conservative delegates have not fought this long and hard to hand our right to select our own delegates over not only to a party hack but to the left in our own party that want us shut out of everything-count on it!

Yes, today, this might be about Ron Paul but it can easily be about any pro-life, pro-family conservative in the future.

This is not about Paul, it is about a voice of the people, some might even call it about "choice."

Just as in the pro-life debate vs choice, we are for choice, we just choose life!

[skinkinthegrass]

hope the kitties, are hungry/playful..
give 'em this Fmr. FReeper.

[I still care]

Malkin and Palin are both going at this on FB.

We nee”There is a VERY IMPORTANT BATTLE taking place at the RNC between grass-roots conservatives and party bosses. The GOP brass want to take away the states’ time-honored power to elect delegates.”

Wonder if Rush will take this on tomorrow.

[Yosemitest]

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.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Yosemitest]

"Mitt, It's Time To Quit!"



Mitt. It’s time you quit!
Your credibility isn’t worth spit.
RINOs, the “Establishment”, and Democrats all agree,
But in the General Election, to Obama they’ll flee.
Against Obama, liberals and moderates know you’ll lose.
But conservatives, Romney they’ll never choose.

Mitt, our loyalty you can’t buy.
Back to Massachusetts, you’d better fly.
Just like Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and John McCain,
Nominee Willard Mitt Romney will result in the same.
As a Governor, your record isn’t that great.
Out of 50 states, your popularity was number 48.

Your experience, the “Establishment” types tout.
Defending federal bailouts and FDIC loan forgiveness will find you out.
Democrats and RINOs cower from their liberal wives,
Supporting Romney with nothing but lies.
In 1994 Ted Kennedy showed Willard to be a great bane,
With Mitt’s Bain, and Bain Capital, Obama will do the same.

Damon Corp, with Romney paid $119 million in a fine.
Yet Willard says, for his leadership, it’s time.
He claims jobs he can create and taxes he can lower,
47th out of 50 in growth he rates. Can it get any slower?
$740.5 million dollars a year, fees and taxes under Mitt increased.
Will the half-truths and lies from Romney ever cease?

For Liberty and Freedom, we don’t need “Flakes”,
But Romney says Healthcare responsibilities belong to the States.
Conservatives stand for “Self-responsibility, Self-accountability, and Self-reliance.”
But against these things, Willard’s actions scream in defiance.
“Establishment Republicans” thinks Romney can help take back the Senate,
But they know that for President, Mitt can NOT win it.

Like everything the “Establishment Republicans” try to do,
It leads to failure, and we get the bill, as well as the screw.
In their corruption, little change do they seek,
They don’t want our Freedom to peak.
Their craving for power has pushed their bravery,
To ignore our Constitution, and sell us into economical slavery.

So Willard, don’t lecture us on the need for “patience” and “compromise”.
Romney, be selfless. Conservatism is on the rise.
Choosing the lesser of two evils, isn’t what we desire.
You let them rewrite the language. Where’s your fire?
Romney, they accuse us falsely, and you do little.
Where’s your response, or can you only twiddle?

Mitt, you don’t have what it takes to lead.
So with you I plead.
Do you really want to go from Obama-care to Romney-care?
With you, this nation will pull out its hair!
Go somewhere and quietly think … and sit.
“Know your own limitations!” Mitt. It’s time you quit!



By Yosemitest, Mar 15, 2012

[Diogenesis]

Mr. RomneyCARE for Emperor to replace Emperor Obama.

Two self-declared deities for ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE.
Two self-declared deities against conservatism.

[maine yankee]

pissed ping

[gitmo]

Wasn’t there a third item on the agenda, forcing the first state primaries to be all delegates go for the winner? My state is already irrelevant in the Primary. That would give the choice of candidates to 2-3 states.