Posted on 04/11/2014 10:01:47 AM PDT by lowbridge
The Tea Party zealots who haven’t learned from their mistakes in 2010 and 2012 are trying their best to screw up the GOP’s chances to win the Senate this fall.
Where does the Tea Party find these people to run in primaries? Most important, why do they offer them up as legitimate Republican candidates?
The Tea Party bosses have been listening to too much talk radio. They seem to think that what makes a good Republican candidate is someone who sounds like a talk radio host.
But talk radio is all about bombast and attracting callers, not about winning elections.
If Republicans are going to win general elections in 2014 and beyond, we’ve got to put up principled conservative candidates who sound like senators, congressmen, and governors — not kooks.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
I will say this….when my columns appear at Breitbart or American Thinker, and then get linked or printed a lot of other places - in about 99% of the cases the header is kept exactly as written in the original publication. These headers for this piece are shameful...
Good, prescient point.
The best way to answer that is this way: the TP movement was started as a reaction to government gone wild - spending, instrusion, bureaucratic control, and taking from the producers and giving to the takers. The Santelli rant was over a mortgage program making payers foot the bill for the derelict mortgage clients. That ignited a building movement, that started 3 years or so earlier with frustration with Bush/Hastert/Frist spending and then really reaching critical mass with Obama’s election and his Obama Care dreams on the horizon - with of course TARP and Stimulus and GM Bail outs along the way. It had almost nothing to do with social issues at this point. It built on the Town Hall obama care protests.
But of course, a lot of people got swept up in it who never saw the Santelli performance and didn’t really know how it started. And, naturally, many of these limited gov folks were Christians. As you said, that is the core audience. Some others were hard core Paul bots. That group had been early to the anti Bush movement. Others still were part of that shifting sand world known as Glenbeckistan.
As some of them wanted to start their local chapters, etc, they put their preferred issues on it, and often, in the small local chapters, those were social issues. In some othrs, it was the more secular libertine type emphases. Most, especially the bigs, were more in the Santelli anti obama care anti big gov mold - which is true to how it was started IMO.
Whatever you were answering, that wasn’t a good one.
What was the question that you were answering?
Your analogy is fine, but as political parasites and con men, the libertarians try constantly to hijack the movement’s image and demographic make-up.
I have never said the tea party was focused on social issues, but they will if called to, and they will not embrace social liberalism, which is the call of the libertarians, who also try to portray the Christian tea party as a collection of the libertarian non-Christians.
The tea party is not very libertarian at all, they are to the right of republicans on social issues, and that can’t be said enough.
Cruz just wrote a bill and got the senate to approve it that bars terrorist’s from being assigned diplomatic posts in the U.S.
Thankfully, none of em are passing any laws at the moment, or very many.
“The Tea Party zealots who haven’t learned from their mistakes in 2010 and 2012....”
Yes that mistake of the Tea Party winning back the House in 2010 and that mistake of the GOPe nominating loser Romney in 2012.
Some tea party groups are rather libertarian, and the Paul bots were some of the precursors to the TP - railing againt Bush on several issues.
LOL, that’s nice, but the tea party as a whole is what conservative politics usually is, Christians and conservative, not libertarian.
Precisely. Claire was running ads in the primary touting Akin as the “true” conservative. And when you’ve got both Palin and Allen West telling you to get out of the race, you’ve lost any and all “tea party” bonafides you may have tried to lay claim to.
If you don’t win, you can’t play.
You can laugh all you want - but you are choosing to ignore several realities…first, that there is a large area of common ground between libertarians and conservative Chrsitians - and that a lot of the libertarians were early to the TP movement, especially the movement prior to 09 before it was widely called TP - but was the anti spending movement. These are both undeniably true.
But yes, libertarian paul bots - and those in the media who want to discredit the TP - will both parrot the line that TP is a Ron Paul movement. And that is not correct at all.
All true - and I think you can add Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin to those calling for Akin to get out. What really irks me is how so many of the social ONLY cons fell for Akins schtick, fell for McCaskill's psych operation ad campaign, etc. We have some real lo fo folks on "our" side it seems…..
Michael has transformed himself from a fighter to an establishment lackey. At the Pa. Leadership Conference last week, he was a big disappointment. He is NOT the man whom I listened to on talk radio years ago. Maybe he was a phony all along, and now he is willing to do the bidding of the establishment. Bob Grant had said that he is not to be trusted.
Reagan went from the guy who said that Sarah was his own father, only wearing a dress this time around, to a establishment shill who trashes her! What’s up with that? Bob
God willing, Ted Cruz will be our nominee. He is head and shoulders above the rest of the field, IMO. Bob
GOP puts up two losers for President and they want to lecture us on viable candidates.
MR jumped the shark a while back!
“But when you think everyone has “jumped the shark” maybe there is something wrong with you eyes and ears.”
Is that the same Michael Medved who led antiwar rallies during the Vietnam War?
Thought so.
Is that the same Michael Medved who worked for Red Ron Dellums, the Castro supporting Democrat?
Thought so.
It fits that you consider him a ‘stalwart conservative” I suppose.
I read once that Jane Wyman was a Republican long before Ronald Reagan, but she had little interest in politics.
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.