Posted on 01/10/2012 10:34:33 PM PST by Minus_The_Bear
That was a very realistic post that provides the best solution out there.
My fear is 4 more years of Obama. He would go communist full speed because getting re-elected will not be an issue. I am not comfortable by thinking a GOP Congress could hold him in check. As we speak, he is already practicing the game he will play by doing the end run around Congress and ruling as a dictator. He is getting away with it now, so to think anyone will stop him is naive.
An unchecked Obama with czars and control of all the courts, the media, and the internet, is the end of America.
I could go with that too. Our options are not shut down no matter how much the GOP intends to do so. A taste of their own medicine just might be exactly what is needed.
Minus_The_bear, why are you misrepresenting the position of several of the people in your list, Rush for one, Hannitiy for two?
Why are you misleading people in your post.
Besides, in NH anyone could vote yesterday and the same applies in SC. The whole process is a fraud.
I get it, but I don’t see Mitt as end of the Tea Party but the end of the Republican Party. The Tea Party has not and I don’t think ever would throw support behind Romney, it’s the Republicans, at their peril. I would rather see Romney with the hope of reelection than Obama without a care in the world as president.
If Romney wins and governs the way we fear he will conditions in America will not improve. The voters will be fed up and be looking for a real change and then starting locally the Tea Party could form a third party to rival the Republicans. With a large enough ground swell of support from the Tea Party on the local level it would make it very hard to enact any “progressive” agenda. Our elite would have to take notice or take unemployment.
Or we could just throw up our hands and admit defeat.
“we need to be one force behind Newt - something they don’t want. This is it, there won’t be a next time.”
Now if we can just convince Perry and Santorum people of that. Neither of them, while very good men, have a chance either now or in the general. And their votes are SO needed by Newt. Then he’d be unstoppable.
As long as Soros/Romney tool RuPaul stays in, Newt really has to have the Perry/Santorum voters. Otherwise, I see RP staying in long enough to clear the way for Mittens exactly the same way that Huckabee did for McCain in ‘08.
I think he’s got a lot more problems than just the isolationist rhetoric. There are the conspiracy theories, OWS-style paranoia about banks, coded racist language, drug legalization, pro-secession of states, etc. However I do agree that he is getting Tea Party voters based on his willingness to drastically cut spending. He went up 10-15 points from 2008 in IA and NH. That is significant and makes him more than an easily dismissable fringe candidate.
interesting
i bet the left never disparages their stars when studios lay off the common man
that Media Matters article was pretty much all emo wasn’t it?
thanks for enlightening me
“Paul has to deal with the foreign policy doubts about him and the feelings that he is some sort of leftist anti-war kook if he is to have any breakthrough.”
Foreign policy “doubts”???
As long as people have the kind of thinking reflected in your statement above, that will be why we stay divided and hurt Newt.
RP won’t get the nomination, nor should he. But he keeps hanging around to clear the way for Romney, leaving both him and BHO alone while he relentlessly goes after the conservative candidates. He’s not to be trusted. Please read the following if you haven’t already:
Irrelevancy is a term I’d apply to the Republican party. I’d be embarrassed to call myself a Republican.Republican? What's that? I think of you as a movement conservative.
The only way that could work is with the Tea Party Groups acting as a PAC, playing in primaries only, and staying out of bad races. That's like a Club for Growth type of role.
Still, the problem with that is that it leaves all party leadership down to local and county levels untouched and conceded. The dems are 100% bad. The GOP ranges from 30-80% bad. 3rd parties failed every year since 1856, and it's not changing anytime soon.
Then what is our future? I can't speak for your state, but I have limited influence with the Republicans. As limited as it is, it is more than I would have as an independent or as a democrat. I can do the following as a Republican. As an independent, I can only vote in primaries and donate (or not).
Republican primary voters here vote for precinct delegates. Delegates are often opposed. Delegates choose local party leadership and delegates to state convention. State conventions choose district and state leadership, along with RNC reps for the state.
It's limited influence, but not if I'm at the local convention with an organized group of 50 voting delegates with a slate.
BS. If Mitt gets the nomination, we'll have a bad president. No more. No less. The Tea Party will still be around. There's more races than just the presidential race, you know.
Third parties fail, have failed, and will likely always fail epically because it takes decades to have adequate structure just to get enough people on the ballot and compete for majorities.
Primaries. Primaries. Primaries. That's how the Tea Party can make its mark.
Newt has praised the Tea Party consistently from what I’ve seen. When has he ever disparaged them? The only criticism he’s made of them has been aimed at preventing incidents like Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle. He is a strategic guy and has always supported the most conservative Republican who can win in a given district. That means you can’t always pick an ultra-conservative if the district’s not ready for it. The Tea Party did similar strategy with Scott Brown and that “R” has helped us sometimes. Personally I think we should have a balance, strategic moderate candidates when we need to in most liberal districts but take a gamble on a few longshots each cycle.
Scuzzyfuzzy was not an embrace of Tea Party. She was even more detestable than your average RINO. I never said Newt disparaged the Tea Party, by the way. He just isn’t a Tea party candidate based on the last 15 years or so. He is an insider who isn’t well liked because he is a loose cannon. That can be good for us, or as with Scuzzyfuzzy, bad.
He is a grab bag candidate.
Newt's not attacking capitalism, he's asking people to look at Romney's record and see if he's been honest and if he's presidential material or not. The video was posted above in this thread about how Newt never agreed with cap and trade. The mandate was used to stop Hilarycare and eventually to stop single-payer takeover Obamacare, which only a handful of Dems stopped from passing and replaced with the mandate, which no matter what you think of it, still beats single-payer. Newt doesn't support the mandate now.
Newt has been endorsed by Michael Reagan, Art Laffer and other Reaganites and calls himself a Reaganite. His quote below about the Reagan "era" was a benign remark about how the Reagan/Bush dynasty was over and a new candidate would redefine the party. It had nothing to do with changing conservative positions or policies. You, my friend, are a victim of Newt Derangement Syndrome where every little quote he's ever said is twisted into some freakish, nightmarish distortion to portray him as the opposite of what he really is.
GINGRICH: "I think the brokered convention would pick one of the people who had filed for president, but I think the process, after all, it was... You know, Abraham Lincoln was running third and won the convention. He didn't come in first on the first ballot, and so, I think there's nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining -- as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine -- the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs."
—{The whole process is a fraud.}—
Well I am not making a list, but that makes al least two of us that understand the process. The E-Pubs have made it a lot harder for a Reagan to come onto the field and run rough shod over their playhouse.
BOHICA
And here is the whole transcript from the Newt interview where he is continually misquoted as supposedly saying the era of Reagan is over. He was pushing AN UNMISTAKABLY CONSERVATIVE AGENDA OF CHANGE, NEW IDEAS that were relevant to the nation’s current problems. Stop spreading the DemonRat/Romneybot lies. It is a psy-ops war of radical leftist propaganda that has been hard at work destroying the most consistently conservative candidate on our stage so that we can have an election of left vs. lefter.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x
TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George
January 13, 2008
Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country.
We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And it’s at the back of our book “Real Change.” It’s also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring.
The easiest one is making English the official language of government.
Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If you’ll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing.
Part of — real change focuses — a long section on Detroit.
The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system we’ve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools don’t deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they don’t deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if you’re an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail.
So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change.
So — but let’s take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil.
The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system we’ve used since World War II.
The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil?
The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want.
The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if you’re the mayor of New York and you’re Bloomberg and you’re worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination.
And so, I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era.
We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people have started talking about, we’re starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.
Please get it straight!
"Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities."
"Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul."
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.