Posted on 04/13/2012 2:49:52 PM PDT by xzins
Rick Santorum’s exit from the Republican presidential campaign is a win for the Republican establishment, but it is a win that has revealed the desperate weakness of the Republican Party’s Washington insider culture.
Now completely dominated by acolytes of the Bush family, the Republican Party at the national level has no real philosophical core – it is merely about holding onto power.
But this is not power as it is understood in high school civics classes – the ability to use the levers of government by holding elective or appointive office. The power that the insiders of the national Republican Party seek to protect is the power to receive a share of the spoils from the looting of beyond-the-Beltway America.
The dirty secret of Washington’s inside culture is that the lobbyists, influence peddlers, access sellers and professional political operatives who make-up the inside elite of the national Republican Party will get paid no matter who is President.
Indeed, it may even be more lucrative for them if Obama is re-elected while the House remains in Republican hands. While there would be no ambassadorships handed out to bundlers and major donors, imagine the vast fees that can be generated through lobbying and the constant political warfare that are the hallmarks of divided government.
The Santorum candidacy, and those of the other conservative candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, represented an existential threat to the insider culture that now dominates the Republican Party at the national level.
The last thing the Republican establishment wants is a newly elected conservative President arriving in Washington at the head of a vast citizen movement committed to change and to ending earmarks, midnight tax breaks, crony capitalism and other abuses.
The Republican establishment’s commitment to repeating the strategy that led to the defeat of John McCain – appealing to moderate to liberal voters, while ignoring grassroots conservative concerns – is indicative of their desperation to hold on to power and their complete indifference to actually winning the political and philosophical battle about undoing the welfare state and instituting fiscally sound constitutional government.
Interesting website - thanks.
That was Poppy Bush to the core. His only conviction was that "People Like Us" (PLU) should always hold power and control the agenda ..... on class merit .... without any freaking idea about what to do with it, except admit the "pigs at the trough" to the Treasury vaults, to "unlock the value", as investorspeaking periodicals used to say about asset-stripping.
Except for Dubya and Laura, the Bushes are a monument to privilege and high-toned snobbery.
Regardless of party whether GOP or democrat, the Establishment needs to go !
Instant classic.
The GOPE fears no one, thus they put up Romney.
Who on this thread is even mentioning fighting back with Newt?
We see so-called “conservatives” not getting behind Newt at the grassroots, but serving as the GOPE tools for Romney.
So, why would they fear the Tea Party when they are proving as
easy to manipulatie as anyone else?
There is no fight, just obvious capitulation.
Capitulation is rank on FR.
?
It's been obvious since the gutless GOP threw Newt to the wolves back in the 90s. He's the one person who truly threatens their corrupt gravy train and he had to be eliminated as a candidate "by any means necessary." Looks like they succeeded.
Why don't ya pound out on yer keyboard how ya really feel about some of your fellow FReepers, huh???
What's Newt really good at? Debatin, right? Well Obummer would nerver be dumb enough to even engage Newt in a debate and I don't even think he'll do one with Romney.
Is there no room for honest disagreement on FR? Must we all march in lock-step to Newt when he has things in his makeup that some of us can't get over like his formidable stripe of GANG-GREEN running up the middle of his back?
I've had a frustrated dislike about everybody that's run except Michelle Bachman and for a while I had to settle for Santorum. My biggest concern is repealing Obummercare and those two seemed the most committed to smashing it flat. Now you think I gotta depend on Newt to do it when he had a billionaire on his side and he still couldn't slow down the establishment guy.
If you are actually trying to convince anyone of anything then you need to stop thrashing and trashing anyone and everyone that may disagree with you to some degree. But now I'm certain that with your attitude you'll come right back on me, or anyone else that doesn't volunteer to support your favorite with "if ya don't vote fer Newt, yer votin for Obama!"
I and numerous CA FReepers went through this same episode when we had to choose between Tom McClintock and GANG-GREEN RINO Arnold Schwartzenegger who talked as conservative as Newt, yet saddled us here with a massive CONservancy and our own CA Cap and Trade fiasco!!!
So neither your criticism, nor your implied scorn for anyone who doesn't share your lust for Newt is going to make me resign my membership on FR and/or drive me away. My conservative credentials are as consistently strong as any FReeper or other human being and you'll have to settle down to that fact!!!
They want to lose. It confirms their position.
PRECISELY! Spot on! Both corrupt to their core!
The Tea Party - conservatives - are the GOP’s only enemy. Sickos!
Nahh, around here, the ‘Taxed Enough Already’ party is the enemy.
After all, every third word isn’t Jesus.
Or to be more clear, the TEA party was all about reduced spending and reducing the scope of government. They actually made an effort to keep out social issues. And here (for what looks to be the majority of Freepers, nowadays), all that matters is G-d, abortion, and gay marriage.
Which makes the TEA party the enemy.
Heck, there is a blazing flamefest about Romney going on here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2871732/posts
And in it, d@#n near every other post is about how Romney is a homo-loving abortionist. And he is. He’s also a big-government, tax-n-spend, nanny-state loving statist.
But that doesn’t matter. *NOBODY*... *NOBODY*... *NOBODY*... is mentioning that.
Which means that *NONE* of the Freepers give a flying rat’s @ss about that.
And that was a major eye-opener to me. That individualism, states’ rights, and a small government mean jack-s@#t to the current Freeper ideal of conservatism.
:-(
Them too .George H Bush was VP during the Savings and Loan Swindle. And Knowledgible people sounded the alarm when th loss was still small but the elite making a killing off it remained silentLike Sarah Palin said they arrive in Washington of modest means and soon become wealthy.
Nahh, around here, the ‘Taxed Enough Already’ party is the enemy.
After all, every third word isn’t Jesus.
Or to be more clear, the TEA party was all about reduced spending and reducing the scope of government. They actually made an effort to keep out social issues. And here (for what looks to be the majority of Freepers, nowadays), all that matters is G-d, abortion, and gay marriage.
Western ethics and it’s social morality go with individual freedom. People are educated and expected to act morally and ethically in their business and public dealings. One must be moral to survive on your own and permit others to survive on their own. The opposite of morality and ethics is corruption.
For example, Banksters giving out loans to people who were unqualifed was fine in humanism because it made them a lot of money and it met the demand from Leftists that poor people buy property. It was unethical though, because it was dishonest and predictiably crashed the real estate market. They did not have the ethics and morality to resist the urge for quick money in a political deal of fraud. They passed their guarenteed losses onto real estate investors. Given investment is based on truth and honesty in reporting to investors and sound business practices, dishonesty precludes the free market. When people will not monitor themselves and each other, they are corrupt. You can’t have a free market that is corrupted by humanistic or amoral politicans and oligarchs.
Most recently humanism priests, or it’s “bio-ethicists” proclaimed killing already born children is ethical. They advocate China’s State dictated one child policy be imposed by all nations on their people. They demand that all children be sexually groomed in all adult sexual behaviors and that discernment is “hate.” When people resist the State imposition of elitist social demands, they shout them down as “religious.” It’s just the flip side of the Vatican dictating self serving social beleifs, behaviors and norms to the whole society in old Europe. It’s more like the Soviet Union doing the dictating. The humanist temple is the University and government. I’m not a member. Amorality is not my god.
Elitists have not been all that honest and successful at social engineering (cultural cleansing) and should not be using the government to impose their humanistic beliefs about sex, marriage and family on the whole nation. It’s none of their business and they should not have social dictating power anymore than should the Pope. We are not all one thing socially. It’s a many way street.
You have to tolerate hearing about Jesus and I have to tolerate your love of homosexuality and your ideal of amorality in a free society. As long as I don’t make you bow down to Jesus and you don’t wag your ass in my face or my children’s faces, through the power of the state that is fine. Neither of us should have the power of the state to dictate socially. When the State takes up the cause of dicting socially, for humanists or for Muslims say, we end up in conflict or a struggle to impose our social structure over that of others. That is where America is thanks to humanist social engineers.
This is the spirit of the Tea Party. Just because they decided not to be socially active in conservative social issues does not mean they want to be socially dictated to by liberatarians (humanists) instead of Christians or Muslims. They want to be free to be ethical and raise there own children and associate with the ethics (sexual and otherwise) they choose for their own families and walk in life.
So in gentle terms, scew off with your gay sex agenda, mkay? It has nothing to do with freedom or the Tea Party. You yap at me and my children about homosex and I will yap at you about Jesus. You don’t want to be bothered with Jesus and I don’t want to be bothered by gay sex problems and being free, neither of us should be even talking about it in the framework of politics cause neither of us should have the power to dictate to the other. So call off your one-size-fits-all humanist dogs and Christians won’t have to tell you where to stick it. That is freedom.:)
That’s silly, gz. Everyone mentions romneycare and big government as part of the total list of romney’s deficiencies.
I would also submit to you that abortion, gay marriage, contraception, etc. are ALSO all about BIG GOVERNMENT.
That’s why RELIGION is the very first item the bill of rights mentions and LIFE is the very first listed right the Dec of Independence mentions.
If you look at JimRob’s list of Romney’s deficiencies it mentions all the above and his tax and spend policies.
I am a conservative. A conservative knows that cultural values are interrelated, so there’s no true frugality without a regard for life. Why be frugal?
Seriously, look at the responses on that thread.
To a man, the reasons for hating Romney are that he’s a baby-killing, homo-lover.
That’s it out of our Freepers. They don’t like Romney for his social issues... and don’t give a flying rat’s @ss about anything else.
Not anymore. Freepers used to, but all of those guys have probably been zotted now.
And that was just two years ago, with the TEA parties.
I’m coming to the conclusion that the TEA parties were just ‘useful idiots’ for the social conservatives. That they need to be thrown under the bus, now... to push the only issues that matter: Jesus, Joseph, and Mary.
As understood by them, of course.
Would someone name for me five members of the GOP Establishment? My wife wants to know.
Yep.
Where I disagree with you is that if you want to be granted the ability to live your life the way you desire... and want to raise your children the want you believe; then you have to grant that to others that do not live their lives the way you do, nor raise their children the way you would.
And what I see with the majority of the vocal social conservatives here at the Free Republic... is that they most adamantly *DO NOT* believe in that point.
The postings I've seen from them simply boil down to how their social beliefs are right (fine and dandy to me, because I agree with them)... and how everyone else that doesn't have those same values most be made, through the force of law, to comply with them.
Which I don't agree with, as explained in my first paragraph.
Which dovetails nicely into the small-government, states' rights point of view.
Which is why their minions are here on FreeRepublic screaming at principled conservatives, trying to get them to stay on the Grand Old Plantation and vote for Romney. They know that if there were a true conservative revolution in this country they would be out of a job.
Some Romney supporters are motivated out of fear, some are swayed by the Romney/GOPe advertising machine, others out of unquestioning loyalty to the Rockefeller wing of the GOP. All are willing to jettison conservative principles for an ends-justifies-the-means ploy to give power to the GOP.
If principled conservatives hold fast and ignore the harpies who post here, then we can at least continue putting Tea Party candidates in as many areas of local, state and federal power as possible. Hopefully the tide will eventually turn.
And what I see with the majority of the vocal social conservatives here at the Free Republic... is that they most adamantly *DO NOT* believe in that point.
You are brainwashed if you think liberals going into public schools and preaching homosexuality at children is not targeted at cultural cleansing the Christians. It’s Soviet. I don’t want to cuss so I will shut up now.
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.