The 2012 Election was a Fraud (Yes it was)

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | December 4, 2013 | Rush Limbaugh

[Iron Munro]

It wasn’t the 90% of the black vote that killed republicans, it was the 100% of the dead voters and 100% of the virtual voters.

[Yosemitest]

We don't want or need the "Establishment Republicans".
I agree with Cringing Negativism Network that Romney was no choice at all.

If the "Establishment Republicans" keep pushing LIBERAL RINOs on us, they'll keep losing!

I've had it with our stinking "Establishment Republicans" who keep blaming conservatives for THEIR LOSES.
And yes, I DID cast a vote for LOSER and "Establishment Republican" Romney, and AGAINST the Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro),
the one guilty of TREASON !
That last caller should have told Rush that Conservatives have little in common with "Establishment Republicans".
Every time "Establishment Republicans" tell us what to do, WE LOSE !
Every time "Establishment Republicans" sell us a COMPROMISING LIBERAL, we lose !
Don't you get it ?
No more MONEY or VOTES for "Establishment Republicans" !

Jack Kerwick's article May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican was right.

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.

Mitt Romney and the "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Theodore R.]

True, but we had a few elections in November 2013, and there is NO INDICATION at all that the American people are turning away from their socialist dreams.

[Old Sarge]

The 2012 Election was a Fraud

[Theodore R.]

Wendy Davis is working full speed to turn TX blue too, and I wonder if Greg Abbott is aware of any of this.

[Yosemitest]

You're welcome.
Someone has to keep throwing the links with the FACTS up and into their faces !

[SoConPubbie]

Sorry all,

But trying to analyze the failure of the 2012 election without taking into consideration the lousy, rotten candidate we had, is the height of ignorance and completely myopic.

[trisham]

Of course he stank, but there was still fraud, and probably massive fraud, just as there is in every election.

[Yosemitest]

Too many of them don;t even know the WAR is going on.
They're too busy "trying to make 'ends meet' ", and don't have the time to weed out the truth from the lies the LAME Stream Media is spinning.

[Brad from Tennessee]

[Massive voter fraud, enough to push zero over the edge is considered fringe conspiracy nonsense in mainstream circles, but probably actually happened.]

The Beltway media also claim that traditional criminal bribery—a briefcase full of cash being handed off in a parking garage—no longer exists in Congress or the other branches. BS.

[Yosemitest]

"The Beltway media also claim that traditional criminal bribery—
a briefcase full of cash being handed off in a parking garage
—no longer exists in Congress or the other branches."

Or with John Roberts and the Supreme Court!

[Yosemitest]

I hope he was.

[SoConPubbie]

Of course he stank, but there was still fraud, and probably massive fraud, just as there is in every election.

Yes, and given the Democrats are Godless Marxists there will always be massive vote fraud.

The only way to overcome this is to run a candidate that actually can articulate conservative principles and values and who, when compared to the Democrat Nominee, can be seen as widely divergent in his/her policy positions.

Sadly, Romney was never that guy.

[353FMG]

Next time it should not be up to the GOP to provide a candidate but up to the Tea Party unless you want a Christy or a Bush.

[trisham]

No, Romney never was. If he runs again, I just don’t know what will become of us.

[ExCTCitizen]

Fraud... Yes and I knew it was/!

[no-to-illegals]

You are a very good someone, Yosemitest.

[fivecatsandadog]

No sh*t, Sherlock. Took me a minute... lol.

[353FMG]

Next time we should have UN observers present at every voting booth just as they have in other 3rd world countries.

All dhimmicraps can vote with a blue thumb.

[Gritty]

If voter fraud isn’t a factor, how come the entire Left, all the unions, the entire Administration and the DOJ, the DNC, and the entire Demoncrap Party is hell bent to stop any kind of voter I.D.?