[wku man]

How 'bout:

"Conservatives Won't Win Elections by Refusing To Compromise Knuckling Under to the Commies, or

"Conservatives Won't Win Elections by Refusing To Compromise Until They Actually Do It", or

"Conservatives Won't Win RINOs Haven't Won Any Elections by Since They Began Refusing To Compromise Compromising With The Commies"

Any of those are more accurate.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[CapnJack]

Where are the Republicans that agree with conservative values 90% of the time?

You could probably count them on one or maybe two hands.

That is the problem.

The RINO’s as the author calls them, believe in far less than 50% of conservative values at best. And what they do believe in they are all to willing to compromise just to get an honorable mention in the Washington Post.

[Tanniker Smith]

I don’t agree with RINOs 90% of the time, and they NEVER “compromise” and move to our side.

[ctdonath2]

Compromise?

“Can I borrow $10, but you only give me $5, that way I owe you $5 and you owe me $5 so we’re even!”

Compromise?

“Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?”
“Yeah!”
“How about ten dollars?”
“Whadaya think I am?”
“We’ve established what you are, now we’re just compromising.”

Compromise?

“Eh, she’s just a little bit pregnant.”

Compromise?

“Give me 100% of your income.”
“No! You get 0% of my income!”
“OK, let’s compromise: give me 50% of your income.”

Compromise?

Bill Of Rights: plain meaning, as written, no compromise.
Right To Life: only “bright line” is conception, no compromise.
Taxation: if 10% is good enough for God, it’s good enough for Caesar, no compromise.

Sure, we’ll compromise.
Just not those points.
Don’t demand I back up when my heels are already over the cliff.

[Jim Robinson]

They’re not looking for compromise. They’re looking for unconditional surrender.

No thanks. Our unalienable rights are not subject to debate, compromise or surrender!

Btw, there’s no GOP-e Rino out there that I’d agree with 90% of the time. Not even 80 or 70. Most of them should be democrats. When they start talking about compromise on life, family, borders, guns, liberty, etc, they become the enemy within and can KMA!

[ModelBreaker]

“Perhaps an illustration is in order: Two armies are engaged in a war.”

Trouble is, there are three armies. The yellow army thinks the Red army should support it no matter what. But the yellow army will bomb the Red army every time the Red army advances a little.

A coalition only works when both sides support the other. Moderates take their marbles and go home all the time when conservatives win primaries.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Conservatives Won't Win Elections by Refusing To Compromise

When the parties agree...The People get screwed.

[Still Thinking]

Conservatives Won't Win Elections by Refusing To Compromise

Can't imagine why not. Democrats seem to do fine on the "I'm Going To Ram So Much Government Up Your Ass So Hard It's Going To Come Out Your Nose" platform, and get elected. And then they do it!

[Colonel_Flagg]

Just what I suspected. Classic GOP-E, Mr. Carson.

And for once, my tagline is apropos.

[Revel]

Conservative won’t save America by continuing to compromise. They can no longer compromise. Compromise is liberal word for do it “our way”.

[AFreeBird]

Paging Dr. Ben Carson, paging Dr. Ben Carson, you are not wanted in the White House (a play on a local Indy, and elsewhere I assume, ad to get him to run) if you’re gonna be a Democrat Light. We’ve been compromising out our @$$ since Regan left office. And the country’ seen going down the toilet ever since.

[cva66snipe]

Dr Carson, if the GOP elected especially in the U.S. Senate stood by us even 80% of the time we would not be in a lot of this mess. When you have the likes of McCAIN, Rand Paul, Corker, Alexander, Graham, McCAIN, Collins, Flake {usually siding with McCain}, Hatch who folds when you really need him, McConnell, Rubio, and more I'm sure others can name I see the complaint is just plain surrendering.

Compromise can be done but the GOP doesn't hold the line to obtain a compromise because they're afraid they'll be called mean Conservatives. The GOP Legislative could not get it's collective act together even with a sitting GOP POTUS. No indeed sir they done just the opposite. They wrote laws and sign programs into existence Ted Kennedy alone was never able to accomplish in 50 years.

[stars & stripes forever]

We wouldn’t be having this conversation if pastors would preach on the moral issues of the day, stand against the tide of evil in this land, and tell their congregations to pray, repent, and vote for candidates who line up with their beliefs, not their pocketbooks.

2 Chronicles 7:14 is the responsibility of every pastor, every believer.

[RginTN]

If conservatives decide to take their marbles and go home rather than fight to the bitter end because they feel their principles have been compromised, they will needlessly subject future generations to untold misery.

---

What a fail. Electing politicians who help the Left advance their principles will subject future generations to untold misery.

Dr. CArson has become a disappointment. His willingness to compromise makes him part of the problem.

If elected president this joker will work with Democrats and keep Obamacare intact. All for compromise.

Another contender bites the dust.

[Yosemitest]

What a DISAPPOINTMENT!
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

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 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.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[Finny]

Voting for someone who agrees with you 90 percent of the time is far superior to voting for someone who disagrees with you 100 percent of the time.

What about someone who agrees with you three percent of the time? Is that far superior to voting for someone who disagrees with you 100 percent of the time?

[itsahoot]

I have a hunch we won’t agree with Ben 90% of the time once we peel back a few layers.

[wardaddy]

Ben.

If you sir were not a black man you would have no more national political influence than I do.

[9YearLurker]

I don’t like his repeated ise of the term “secular liberals” as our opposition. I don’t care about the religious beliefs of my political allies or opponents. I simply want limited, Constitutional government. I know enough of the “social justice” movement to know better than to think all liberals are godless anyway.

[trebb]

Well-written piece. Too bad so many will miss the point and see only that which pisses them off - Carson has become unclean in many of their eyes and they will proudly ensure the next Leftists on the ballot wins.