Skip to comments.Don’t You Go Away Tea Partiers- The GOP Establishment Is Fighting Back
Posted on 11/27/2010 9:06:15 AM PST by Wanderer659
Next week here in my county well have a Republican County Convention, and for those of you who cant make it, Ill give you a taste of what it is going to be- a battle between the Tea Party and the Establishment. Although many people in the Tea Party think this is some sort of new battle, it is in reality an old battle in the GOP, one that has pitted the libertarian/conservative/teaparty wing of Taft/Coolidge/Goldwater/Reagan/Palin vs the moderate/establishment/progressive wing of Roosevelt/Hoover/Nixon/Bush/McCain. For many years, the teaparty wing cowardly left the field of battle and stayed home while the establishment types ran thing, or would win a victory and then go home to pat themselves on the back while their victory was watered down by the establishment, but hopefully today will be different, because although the establishment has suffered some defeats lately, they dont intend on going home either.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehideout.com ...
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
McCain wasn’t the whole election. In fact, he was a small part of it. (And he had a doofus of a primary challenger.)
The woman has taken many bold actions. No executive scores 100% in his decisions and I’ve yet to see a pol do so either.
There were other duds besides McCain.
And there are fundamental problems with her positions. Remarkably like the fundamental problems with McCain’s positions. In areas that should be non-negotiable for conservatives. Like the defense of the unalienable right to life. Like the sovereignty and security of our borders and our country. Like the proper role of each branch of government under our Constitution.
There’s also a huge dog that doesn’t bark:
Can you name me one existing agency of this national government that Governor Palin thinks should be done away with?
Any programs that she thinks just might be unconstitutional?
Hey, if she’s supposedly such a big “TEA Party” candidate, surely you can point to something, right?
Please enlighten me, other than when she was campaigning in ‘08, when has she been soft on our sovereignty and borders? The branches of the government?
You’re right, she hasn’t to date enumerated federal departments or agencies she wants to eliminate.
As to abortion, which I expect is the core of your issue with her, she has of course personally walked the walk far more than most. She has probably also worked harder to persuade than most—wasn’t it after all Piper as a baby on that poster up in Alaska? Her constitutional view on federalism and states rights in your opinion is unwise, but in my opinion is the most likely route, grandstanding aside, to getting abortion reduced and eliminated in the country. She has actually been the most effective and consistent prolife advocate on the national level in decades. How many speeches has she given on it just in the last year?
But we’re of course both entitled to our differing opinions on Palin or any other prospective candidates.
“Can you name me one existing agency of this national government that Governor Palin thinks should be done away with?”
Can you name a single VIABLE GOP candidate for President that has named even one department he/she would try to do away with?
*Viable is defined as haveing a realistic chance of winning.
Nope. "Path to citizenship" types are instantly nixed - including Palin.
I’m with you on the severity of the issue and IMO Palin was too lax on this up at least as far as earlier this year, when she said she and McCain agreed totally on illegal immigration and she seemed to intimate that once the border was ‘sealed’ she’d be for amnesty as well.
My sense is that she’s toughened up on it through her support for Jan Brewer and the strength of the tea party movement, but I would like to see her coming out more strongly once she rolls out her campaign and positions.
But Romney, Pence, Daniels, Barbour, Rubio, Huck, etc., have all been bad on the issue historically. DeMint is the only leading pol whom I believe has been strong on it all along.
I really want Palin to be tough on it. At least she’s been sounding better in recent months, but I want clear, unambiguous positions on it.
Sounds to me like none of them are worth a crap, then. Not if they won’t even do this most basic thing. Time to make someone else “viable.”
Her support as Governor for the Law of the Sea Treaty is a MAJOR attack on our national sovereignty. During the '08 campaign she supported McCain's immigration position, including a "pathway to citizenship," which every sentient American knows is amnesty. She made it clear at that time that she had no desire to deport those foreign nationals who have invaded our country. And her support for McCain in '10 was a reiteration. Don't fool yourself.
You do know that her top foreign policy adviser is a McCain man, a DC lobbyist who to this day is still on the payroll of George Soros, right?
The branches of the government?
When she was running for Governor of Alaska she didn't want to talk about abortion. She made it clear that in her view that was entirely up to the Supreme Court. Sorry, but all officers of government, in every branch and at every level, take the oath of office, not just judges. And the branches are supposed to check one another. And just because one branch breaches their oath, that doesn't give any other officer of any other branch leave to breach their oath. Exactly the opposite is true. When one branch breaches their oath the other branches have no choice but to oppose them unless they too want to be in breach of the promise they made to God.
Another thing: When she became Governor she was immediately faced with a constitutional crisis of sorts. The top court in her state had ruled that the state had to give "same sex" benefits to homosexual state workers. The legislature had moved to check that activist court and put legislation on Governor Palin's desk that basically told the court to go to hell. After consulting with her RINO Republican lawyers, who told her that it was the court who got to decide what was "constitutional," she sided with the court and checked the legislature by vetoing the legislation. The radical homosexuals got their way.
THAT, my FRiend, is someone who doesn't understand the way our form of government is supposed to work. That is why I call her a judicial supremacist. She is one.
By the way, she changed her tune when she decided to run for national office. Suddenly, abortion wasn't just "up to the Supreme Court" any more. It was "up to the states."
This pro-choice for states position is one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution's own stated purposes, and the clear imperative requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. It is also not compatible with the Reagan pro-life plank that has been in the GOP platform since 1984.
Youre right, she hasnt to date enumerated federal departments or agencies she wants to eliminate.
That's a pretty big admission. Can you explain to me how she can be considered to be the candidate of the "TEA Party," this being so?
As to abortion, which I expect is the core of your issue with her, she has of course personally walked the walk far more than most. She has probably also worked harder to persuade than mostwasnt it after all Piper as a baby on that poster up in Alaska?
What, because she didn't kill her own kid? Since when is that a pro-life credential? Have we fallen THAT far? I guess Obama is pro-life too, since he didn't kill his two girls, eh?
Her constitutional view on federalism and states rights in your opinion is unwise, but in my opinion is the most likely route, grandstanding aside, to getting abortion reduced and eliminated in the country.
It isn't just "unwise." It is destructive of every important core principle of this country. States don't have a "right" to alienate unalienable rights. Sorry. That is NOT "federalist." It would be more accurate to call it "confederate."
She has actually been the most effective and consistent prolife advocate on the national level in decades. How many speeches has she given on it just in the last year?
Not really. She often uses the language of choice, and talks about how much she respects those who think it's "okay" to butcher babies. I guess people hear what they want to hear. To me, her "pro-life" speeches are a bunch of cotton candy meaningless rhetoric. especially in light of her known "states' rights trump unalienable rights" position.
But were of course both entitled to our differing opinions on Palin or any other prospective candidates.
Of course. But we're not entitled to our own facts.
Thank you for that surprisingly honest admission - It is but a very few Palin proponents who will not try to beg off on Palin's prior stance. How refreshing!
My sense is that shes toughened up on it through her support for Jan Brewer and the strength of the tea party movement, but I would like to see her coming out more strongly once she rolls out her campaign and positions.
See, here is where you and I must part company:
First of all, while she did endorse quite a few (25?) Tea Party candidates, her total endorsement list is somewhat north of 40, to include notorious RINOs, and the Traitorous Bastard, McCain't himself...
So any "TEA Party credz" she might have must summarily be offset by her participation in electing establishment RINOs.
Secondly, which of her immigration positions shall we believe (if removing a desire for hope and change)? Considering her bi-polar approach, and the bare fact that there is *nothing* in her record to buttress her true position (one way or the other), my tendency is to take the skeptical view... Primarily because a Conservative would not have had to waffle in the first place.
But Romney, Pence, Daniels, Barbour, Rubio, Huck, etc., have all been bad on the issue historically.
Not to defend Pence too much, but he has been reasonably good on the issue historically (no Hunter/ Tancredo to be sure):
* Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
* Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 92% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
* Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)
OnTheIssues: Mike Pence (Immigration section)
Now, while the KBH/Pence bill was an atrocity (Phyllis Schlafly describes my opinion better than I could myself), I have to wonder why Pence did what he did, when it is in direct opposition to his previous record, and overall solid Conservative record.
To be sure, he will have to explain his actions if he runs, and it better be one helluva good one... But it is easier for me to overlook a roadkill moment in an otherwise excellent record than it is for me to take the uninsured word of Sarah Palin. So if it is a choice between the two, It would be Pence in my book.
But without a doubt, I want DeMint.
Every politician can't be on their game all the time. I realize they all mispeak at times, but she is the best thing that has come down the road of positive grassroots politics in a long time. We need to give her a chance at least as a Tea Party supporter in general. We need to trust somebody, and soon, otherwise we might as well ask someone like 'Big Bird' to throw his hat into the ring or just throw in the towel altogether. I know there are other great candidates we can nominate. Let's give ourselves a wide range of choices, then we can crush the useful idiot leftists.
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.