Posted on 03/17/2012 8:34:10 PM PDT by true believer forever
Along with the realization that Conservatives can win in a Conservative-leaning country, comes the ugly truth that the “establishment” Republican apparatus is – just like the Chicago politician – more concerned with maintaining power and “selecting” candidates than doing the hard work of administering to a bottom-up organization – such as the Republican Party was chartered to be.
Today’s Republican establishment is, for all practical purposes, a mirror (or converse) image of the Democrat Party; an organization structured from the top-down. This power-hoarding of the hierarchy is evidenced by the ridiculous move to award convention delegates proportionately, a move more in line with the abolition of the Electoral College than with the preservation of the Republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Heads up if you haven’t noted matthew:
Obama signed order today.... gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate... energy,.. production,... transportation,... food,... and even water resources... by decree... under the auspices of national defense and national security. The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order’s functions.... “includes” the command and control of resources in “peacetime determinations”.
There’s a thread up about this...I am livid!
And half of the rest is ready and willing to sell their freedom to the government in return for more regulations, more restrictions, and more *CONTROL*.
They eagerly salivate for the opportunity to give up their freedoms.
(I never thought I live to see so many conservatives want to bum-rush themselves into slavery.)
Very!
It depends what you mean by success. Barry Goldwater had some success shaking up the Republican Party. He got the nomination, but was soundly defeated in the general. His biggest contributions were to the movement. He showed a new path, and inspired a new generation of leaders. Ronald Reagan defeated the establishment in 1980, and won the general. He advanced the movement through words and deeds (but wasn’t very successful at rolling back government for a variety of reasons) Newt’s revolution began in 1994. Again some victories some setbacks. Overall the government grew (like under Reagan)
It should be noted that under your system of government only so much change can be affected. For instance, Reagan couldn’t just reform entitlements by waving a wand.
No apology necessary. I just want to hear what other people think about third parties etc...
I think this is what mark levin was talking about, Reagan taking on a sitting President..
from Wiki:
The 1976 National Convention of the Republican Party of the United States met at Kemper Arena in Kansas City, Missouri, from August 16 to August 19, 1976. The convention nominated incumbent Gerald Ford for President, but only after narrowly defeating a strong challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan. The convention also nominated Kansas Senator Robert J. Dole for Vice President. The keynote address was delivered by Tennessee Senator Howard Baker.
Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, as well as plurality in popular vote, he did not have enough to secure the nomination, and as the convention opened both candidates were seen as having a chance to win. Because of this, both Ford and Reagan arrived in Kansas City before the convention opened to woo the remaining uncommitted delegates in an effort to secure the nomination.
Reagan benefited from his highly committed delegates, notably "Reagan's Raiders" of the Texas delegation. They and other conservative Western and Southern delegates particularly faulted the Ford Administration's foreign policy of détente towards the Soviet Union, criticizing his signing of the Helsinki Accords and indirectly blaming him for the April 1975 Fall of Saigon.
The pro-Reagan Texas delegates worked hard to persuade delegates from other states to support Reagan. Ford, meanwhile, used all of the perks and patronage of the Presidency to win over wavering delegates, including trips aboard Air Force One and personal meetings with the President himself.
As then President Richard M Nixon was the previous nominee in 1972, the nomination of President Ford in 1976 meant that a major party had nominated the sitting President for the second time in a row, the first time this has happened since the Democratic Party renominated Franklin D Roosevelt for a third term in 1940.
I read that last nite- maybe early early Sat AM. That EO is very scary, I don’t think anyone knows what it’s about.
Yeah. Reagan challenged Ford from within the party in 1976. He lost, but then won in 1980.
This is amazing. did you write it? Because it could be ghettoed up a little bit and make an amazing rap... could I use it for that?
amazing.
Bull, the establishment are the delegates, always been that way, horse traders looking for payback..
Just like nationally, the proportional vs. winner-take-all assignment of delegates/electors doesn't make much of a difference. If you calculate all the state wins so far as pure winner-take-all, not much changes and Romney only moves from about 500 to 550 delegates. And if you count his expected wins going forward, under pure winner-take-all rules, he still wouldn't get 1,144 delegates and the nomination until June.
There is also the fact that the states have a mix of rules. About half the delegates are awarded under some form of winner-take-all rules, and about 2/3rds of those are coming up in the next half of the primary, with 1/3rd having already taken place.
Q: You know what’s sadder than the GOP-e taking over the nominating process in a brokered convention?
A: You believing that a brokered convention will turn out otherwise.
Our power is in our votes, not some mythical fight on the convention floor.
Why conservatives failed in this presidential primary is something that has to be looked at. It seems like none of us expected so much of the "conservative" media to be working against us, e.g. Drudge, Coulter, radio hosts like Medved and Hewitt, most of the FOX analysts, National Review, etc. Names need to be named and lists need to be made. We need to remember who we can trust and who we can't.
We also had no way of combatting the false advertising blitz by Mitt Romney. I'm not sure how you do that unless you raise that kind of money on your own and run your own ads. If the Tea Party is nothing but a splintered group of disorganized local groups, they'll never have that kind of power. There should be a stronger, national, central Tea Party structure. Not one that dictates to the local factions, but one that follows their lead. It might be unlikely, but short of something like that I don't see how we play on the big, national level.
Of course, we have some Tea Party people endorsing Romney or Paul. But at least the few larger straw polls done by Tea Parties went for one of the good candidates.
You always have something valuable to offer JJ. As I said I don’t have the answers. I do, however, tend to lean in your direction. I think that a very large grassroots movement (Tea Party) can effect change within the Republican Party. IT NEEDS TO STAY INDEPENDENT THOUGH! We can’t let it be corrupted by the Republican establishment.
Instead of Rush saying I don't have to do anything in life I don't want to, he needs to realize that he is maybe the only one who could do this, finance it, make it happen. He needs to be the godfather of a true conservative TV network, either cable or whatever. But I am not sure Rush is really conservative enough, and I don't think Mark Levin has the money. and I doubt that any of them are really interested. It would take the heart of a patriot. And willingness to leave their comfort zone.
That is such a great idea. TeaPartyTV.
I figure somebody will say it is really stupid and naive. But it would take money, and someone like Breitbart, but with a conservative bent... And the TParty grassroots could remain just as independent as they now are, but like any media endeavor, a Tea Party TV could certainly give its imprimatur to certain candidates, certain causes, and, most importantly set the agenda, which others could follow, to whatever degree they wanted.
Hardly stupid. We need to be setting the agenda.
Between Mark Sean and rush, there are probably others, that I don’t know about... that would probably pretty much cover most of the conservative base. They could dittocam their radio shows that’s 9 hours of programming right there...
There’s all kinds of possibilities. There is great stuff online like Breitbart etc. There’s all kinds of great stuff on the radio like Rush etc. I’d really like a network devoted to conservatism. Fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives. Foreign affairs.
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.