GOPe: Let's Have It Out. Will You Support Cruz?

Self | 10/02/2014 | Uncle Miltie

[Uncle Miltie]

The GOPe wing of Free Republic requires that the Conservative wing of Free Republic swallow our distaste for their Democrat-Lite Karl Rove Approved (TM) candidates in order to win seats labeled (R) at the expense of conservative principle.

Okay, let's put the shoe on the other foot: If Ted Cruz is winning 45% of the Republican vote in early primaries, will you require your Karl Rove Approved (TM) candidate withdraw and unreservedly throw your support behind the winning candidate Ted Cruz?

Slightly differently stated, are you primarily interested in beating Democrats or Conservatism?

[Yaelle]

If a staunch conservative were to capture the nomination, virtually 100% of registered Republicans would give them their vote.

If another RINO wins the nomination, they might draw 80% of the same vote.

Knowing that this is the undeniable, immutable truth of the eventual outcome, WHY do the GOP-e and their apologists continue to insist upon paving the way forward for another Democrat-Lite candidate?

---

This is perfect and if it isn’t stated by heads on Fox News, the channel should shut itself down. Nothing else needs be said by anyone right of center about elections.

[Uncle Miltie]

Bush is good. Or Christie. Maybe, Lamar!

[Uncle Miltie]

That is the strategy by which 0bama won his party and the white hut. 100% of his base showed up. Romney? 80%.

[Fresh Wind]

LOL!

[LouD]

Napoleon once said that “God is on the side of the biggest battalions.” That quote perfectly explains why Mitt Romney was the candidate in 2012. No one else was nearly as organized on the ground. Nobody. He deserved to win. Was he the best candidate, or the most conservative? No, but he was the most organized.

Back in 2012, I read people posting all over FR about Newt, or Cain (who I personally supported) or any of the rest of them were robbed, and how “the GOP rigged the game” and all the rest of the silliness attributing to vast conspiracies what may be adequately explained by insufficient fundraising and/or failure to recruit large enough networks of volunteers. If a candidate is not sufficiently well organized to even get enough signatures to get on the ballot in one or more states, how do you possibly expect them to win?

So, that said, as of right now I do hope Cruz is our candidate. I will likely volunteer for his campaign. Whoever is the candidate, I can predict it will be for the reasons I cited above - and I will line up behind them - because if their opponents couldn’t win the primaries, how could you possibly expect them to win the general election?

I can also tell you what I WON’T do: I will not sit home and sulk, or support some third party candidate who will do nothing but siphon votes from the Republicans, like far too many people did in 2012.

[Yosemitest]

You're out of your mind !
NO MORE RINOs !


It's time we Conservatives changed our strategy.

These RINOs WILL NOT LEAD,
and they WILL NOT FOLLOW (except they WILL follow DemocRATs),
and they sure as HELL WILL NOT GET OUT OF THE WAY.

SO, THEY MUST BE REMOVED FIRST, or else we'll just keep getting Marxists/Fascists LIGHT.
We can start by getting more people to CLEAN OUR OWN PARTY.

Vote AGAINST an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time you get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.

Throw them out!
And keep throwing them out!
And NEVER let an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" win.
Then, in the long run, they'll WAKE UP and ONLY run Conservatives!


The "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" will NOT get the message unless THAD COCKROACH LOSES!

It is VITAL that Thad is removed, or the RINOs will do it again, and they may do it again, anyway.

REMEMBER
MISSISSIPPI

Chris McDaniel refuses to concede: "We're going to investigate" ( 8:40 )
Published on Jun 25, 2014

I'll take out (vote AGAINST) an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time I get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.

"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS"SHALL NOT PASS !


It's SIMPLE.

Vote AGAINST "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !
Vote FOR REAL CONSERVATIVE "Tea Party Candidates" !

[jpsb]

Yeah I hear you, it will be hard to do but I am going to do it.

On a different topic, where is Dog Gone? No posts since 2010. I always enjoyed your and Dog Gone posts.

[DoughtyOne]

I am so bad about keeping tabs on folks.

Someone who is better at it may come along and see your question. I hope you get an answer.

I appreciate you kind comments.

All the best to you.

[SaraJohnson]

Utoh, we are back to the election headaches already?!

I’m going for Cruz and I can not bear another election melt down on FR. Last election broke my heart - so consistently, day in and day out, mean. Everyone gets cranky sometimes, but that was a circle shoot out. Dead bodies everywhere. : (

[SZonian]

Gobsmacked!

Do I really have to say it?

[Fresh Wind]

Nice rant, but Uncle Miltie was joking.

[Yosemitest]

That the one thing that's hard to tell, unless it's followed by " < /sarc> " .

[SZonian]

I hear you SJ...but I won’t be brow beaten into supporting someone just because they have an R behind their name...they had better stand for something other than the status quo and liberalism...the more conservative, the better.

[roamer_1]

I agree that the majority would. However look back at Reagan. The same mentality at work here promoting Rove’s guys fought tooth and nail to derail his nomination and then fought him in office.

But it has always been so. And in Reagan's day, there was no innerwebs, which is a force-multiplier of phenomenal value (if a candidate can use it).

The main hat trick here is organizational. What the GOPe has figured out is that so long as Conservatives are kept separate, there will be no Conservative Juggernaut.

What Reagan did, and left us with, is the idea that a Conservative who supports ALL factions is better for everyone than a factional conservative (no matter how good he may present to that faction he supports).

The GOPe is very good at keeping the factions separate by way of candidates presented in the primary for each faction, and supression of Reaganite Conservatives, who are the ones that could hold the reins of that Conservative Juggernaut. If they accomplish that, they win, !up! the middle, in a plurality.

More than any other thing, FR's job (and yours and mine), should be the education of our base in this singular aspect of Reagan Conservatism: If ANY faction can vote for the man, EVERY faction WILL vote for the man. Necessarily, that means that the man must intrinsically hold, and uphold, the major principles of every faction.

Other than that is not worth supporting, because the numbers will never be there. So if one conservative (not republican) faction here is legitimately upset by your candidate, no matter how good he looks to you, it is extremely important to vet that candidate through their eyes. If they cannot vote for him, he will not win.

If FR will do that one thing, it will come together. Watch and see.

[Norm Lenhart]

“And in Reagan’s day, there was no innerwebs, which is a force-multiplier of phenomenal value (if a candidate can use it). “

Agreed. But the thing is that our guys don’t use it and fight the very idea of using it, while the GOPe has learned to use it. See their squad here for example. They use it to tie up any coalescing and prevent it.

I often said that if our candidates followed Palin’s lead on TeHwEbZ then they could just stop doing ambush media interviews and like Reagan did (with his TV speeches in a time of no TeHwEbZ) go direct to the people. But they don’t. they just don’t.

[roamer_1]

I often said that if our candidates followed Palin’s lead on TeHwEbZ then they could just stop doing ambush media interviews and like Reagan did (with his TV speeches in a time of no TeHwEbZ) go direct to the people. But they don’t. they just don’t.

I see that the other way around - I think Conservative Internet Media should take it upon themselves to vet the candidates with in depth interviews published to Youtube and linked every which way through forums and social media... Not softball... Pointed.

FR could do exclusive interviews - We have folks everywhere. We have folks that do the hard work of vetting (far more efficiently than news outlets, finding problems, finding the truth of an event... take it a step further and sponsor the sort of direct interface with candidates that the other media won't do, with an honest but firm and journalistic support.

Our candidates are dying from lack of airtime, exposure... That is one thing we can fix.

[x]

Look at the schedule: Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Utah, Nevada.

How about if Ted doesn't have 45% at that point he drops out?

Of course the Carolinas come next, but Ted may take some time to get up to speed.

Also, what about the "natural born" crowd? How many percentage points will Ted Cruz's birthplace lose him?

[Norm Lenhart]

Both ways works. I was just looking at the candidates getting their message out like everyother lib does. Our guys have not caught up.

Your way is good as well. But FR isn’t the venue for that until we rid ourselves of the GOPe. Conservative candidates here are just opening themselves to the same MSM snakepit.

See the PDS wing, the Anti Cain wing, and of course the pro GOPe wing for examples. There is even a small and devoted Anti Cruz wing here getting more vocal by the day that goes unchecked. Until our act is cleaned up, we would be no different from the MSM sites doing the same now.

[roamer_1]

But FR isn’t the venue for that until we rid ourselves of the GOPe. Conservative candidates here are just opening themselves to the same MSM snakepit.

Oh, I disagree with you there. I am not advocating the candidate should come here (albeit that would show he had a pair), I am saying take the questions here (including the arguments) and let the proponents conduct a sit-down filmed 1/2-1 hr. interview (pre-staged, questions known), where their candidate will get to make an appeal, and answer those questions. Tough, but fair.

Of course, interviews would have to be approved by JimRob in order to be a 'FreeRepublic Interview'...

But what I am getting at, is that this is a new face of activism that WE are not exploiting.

[Norm Lenhart]

Cleansing nuclear fire!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3210524/posts?page=1#1