Mitt Romney Endorsed By Tea Party Congressman (Rep. Grimm of NY)

International Business Times ^ | Oct 11, 2011 | Maggie Astor

[Clairity]

Full Title: Mitt Romney Endorsed By Tea Party Congressman: 'Republicans Need to Understand This Is About Winning'

...what is significant is that Grimm -- who represents Staten Island and part of Brooklyn -- is conservative and a self-identified Tea Party supporter, which is exactly the demographic that Romney has had trouble wooing.

The significance of Grimm's endorsement is the message that came with it: that Republicans should nominate a candidate who can beat President Obama, even if that candidate is not the most conservative of the bunch.

[Clairity]

Has the whole world gone crazy?

Chris Christie endorses Romney, Ann Coulter endorses Romney, Grimm endorses Romney...

and Romney will NOT beat Obama, the other way around.

In the meantime if conservatives would rally around Perry, who has conservative governing experience and record, he could beat Romney and Obama.

[no dems]

Dude is NOT a true Tea Partier if he endorsed Romney. Hope the Tea Partiers in his District remember this in the next Congressional Election in 2012.

[PAConservative1]

None of those people you listed are conservatives. Christie is in the Romney mold of NE Rockefeller Republican, him endorsing Romney was less surprising than the sun rising in the morning. Coulter has been for Romney for years now. Grimm is a random congressman who carries no weight whatsoever, especially since he’s not from an early primary state. Romney probably said he’d reward him handsomely for the endorsement. Oh, and conservatives ARE beginning to coalesce around a candidate to beat Barry, his name is Herman Cain. :)

[RIghtwardHo]

The fix is double in.

[jakerobins]

even if that candidate is not the most conservative of the bunch

Romeny couldn’t be the most conservative person at a Obama Fundraiser! Voters should be carefull of “Self Identified” Tea Partiers. Every Republican and their brother is going to call themselves a Tea Party “Leader”. That should tell you something...The tea party is grass roots and has no real “Leaders”. Be wary of false Tea Partiers...

[Jim Robinson]

Doesn’t sound like a tea party conservative to me.

Romney was for TARP, the bailouts and Obama’s nearly trillion dollar stimulus package and is the chief architect of ObamaCare. All of which were the primary reasons the TEA party sprang into action.

Beyond that, Romney is no conservative. His record includes defending abortion/Roe v Wade, promoter of gay rights, global warming advocate, pro-amnesty for illegal aliens, pro-gun-control, appoints liberal judges and officials, ran to the left of Ted Kennedy and tried to distance himself from Reagan/Bush and he absolutely hates (and fears) the TEA party. And for good reason.

Sounds like the good congressman here is a bit confused or is a go along to get along big government RINO.

[Vendome]

A rather Grim way to announce you’d like to be primaried...

[Clairity]

Speaking of Romney and global warming, did you see this?

Will Romney hire Obama’s climate-change guru Holdren?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2793431/posts

“the Romney administration in 2005 essentially did what Barack Obama’s EPA wants to do now. He imposed CO2 emission caps - the “toughest in the nation” - in an effort to curtail traditional energy production. Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer. As we have seen in RomneyCare, regulation and price controls eventually drive businesses into bankruptcy or relocation.”

It’s looking more and more like Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin.

[Yosemitest]

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

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 by 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! (That includes Romney)

[Washi]

'Republicans Need to Understand This Is About Winning'

You don't 'win' by voting in progressively more liberal Republicans.

If he makes it past the primaries, he will not get my vote.

[9YearLurker]

NY Republicans are solidly behind Romney, but that doesn’t mean Perry is the answer. He’s as much a go-along game player as Romney. (And a little bit dense, too.)

[GreaterSwiss]

Grimm is more of a rino then teaparty member.

And who cares what a politicians thinks?

[4rcane]

We need to remove Obama! Why? Whats the point if another Liberal just take his place. If we must win, we must win on ideology, not simply replace one Liberal with another

[seton89]

Mitt Romney Endorsed By Tea Party Congressman (Rep. Grimm of NY)

Who cares?

[onyx]

New York.

*Sigh*

[EternalVigilance]

[chris37]

If winning is about R0mney, then prepare to lose.

[GunningForTheBuddha]

Listening to Coulter and Ingraham defend Romney and Christie lately I've managed to put my finger on what is wrong with them - they have law degrees. Lawyers are taught that whole "moral vacuum" malarkey that normal, responsible citizens eschew outright. While you and I, as normal people, rightly assume that anyone that defends a person caught raping and killing a child as a first rate @ssh0le - a person with a law degree will go on about how that person is afforded certain rights and whatnot.

I know about lynch-mob mentality and what pitfalls are included therein, but in my book anyone who defends a known guilty pederast rapist murderer is no better than them if they are in on the truth.

[RitaOK]

Grimm is a self proclaimed “Tea Party” member. Caving for Romney is proof he is not. No sweat.

[RitaOK]

Rick is no Romney.