lol. You might want to use this.
Posted on 10/05/2011 5:52:20 AM PDT by radioone
Personally, I see the Tea Party AS the new Conservative establishment.
you need more Bob Turners. Conservative business guys who don’t say or do dumb things.
“Many of those in the Tea Party would rather run principled candidates who lose than elect Democrat-lites who proceed to corrupt both the government and conservatism itself from within.”
Wait until election time and the establishment GOP types will be telling the “principled” supporters how moronic they are. You can’t win by losing but you sure can lose (electing RHINOS) by winning, as we have seen.
They ARE right.
Was [sic] Ronald Reagan running in these primaries, the establishment GOP would attempt to dump him for Romney, the same way they tried to dump Reagan for George H.W. Bush in 1980.
LOL. If Reagan were running today, the Tea Party would be blasting him as a California RINO.
That is like assuming (key word here) that Reagan would have the same viewpoints as most conservatives did then as compared to now. Nice try. BTW, you did get the memo that the world is in fact not flat?
Yes, the 2010 election, and the way Romney and the rest of the GOP field are running, indicates that you are right.
Romney's not my favorite either, but if he were to get the nod, he'd get my vote. I don't think he would lose, there's too much anti-Obama sentiment within the tea party movement for that to happen.
The supposed "rift" here is being built out of proportion. The tea party voted for and elected many an almost-conservative in 2010. Once there is a nominee, we'll come together.
We have to keep a sharp eye. mccain and graham are trying to coopt some of the freshman conservatives like Rubio.
“First, they think that the Tea Party is more interested in principle than victory. They look at Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell and they see a descent back to the losing days of Barry Goldwater.”
They ARE right.”
Yes, they are, to the extent that the descent back to the losing days of Barry Goldwater will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As we see, time and again, there are certain elements in the GOP (and in any party for that matter) that if they cannot be the top dog, they will refuse to back the dog that the rest of the party selects. In other words, they will pick up their marbles and go home.
That is what the conservative wing of the party is faced with.
It is the establishment party of George H.W. Bush that is bringing AGENDA 21 to America at an increasing rate. If you haven't been effected yet, just watch and wait. Or, get smart and start doing something about it.
You may already live in an ICLEI city or county. If you don't you'd better start making sure it doesn't happen. If you do, you should be working to turn it back.
“LOL. If Reagan were running today, the Tea Party would be blasting him as a California RINO.”
I’ve heard this now so many times it’s become trite. It’s like saying that George H W Bush wouldn’t have had to claim he would create a ‘kinder, gentler nation’ if Reagan hadn’t been such a mean man.
Reagan reestablished America’s position in the world, brought the Soviet Union to it’s knees, and initiated significant prosperity in the nation. I’m sure the Tea Party would be most happy with such policies and results.
Why would you be so interested in separating the Tea party and Reagan? Agenda driven?
And I look at Rick Perry and see a descent back to the days of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and both Bushes, all of whom "won" but while pandering to "Democrat lite" their policies maintained socialist majorities in Congress and the Senate FOR DECADES.
Equine feces. He would be freer to speak and choose as he would have preferred.
It all depends on what your definition of “winning” is.
Leave it to the MSM to misrepresent the issue.
The Tea Party is more about instituting Constitutional principle than the norm of pay to play political establishment corruption.
In other words, if Reagan took actions other than what he actually took. I’m talking about the actual Reagan, not some idealized version. The actual Reagan, according to Tea Party standards—was a RINO.
There's a reason for that.
Reagan reestablished America’s position in the world, brought the Soviet Union to it’s knees, and initiated significant prosperity in the nation. I’m sure the Tea Party would be most happy with such policies and results.
He would have had to win the nomination first. Former union president. Voted for FDR four times. Passed an abortion bill. Clearly a RINO.
Why would you be so interested in separating the Tea party and Reagan? Agenda driven?
The Tea Party started out OK, but now it bugs me.
Those are your words, not mine.
The actual Reagan, according to Tea Party standards—was a RINO.
No, not in total. They would however, consider him "squishy," particularly when he raised taxes in California. OTOH, that he rebated tax-receipts to payers would have made him a TEA Party hero. But remember, at no time did Reagan ever have anything other than a progressive/leftist legislature; he had to work with what he got out of the likes of Tip O'Neil. Hence, your assertion about "the actual Reagan," is essentially bogus.
lol. You might want to use this.
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.