[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Yeah...we’re all going to forget everything.

[CASchack]

The GOP really is the stupid party....as if Pelosi would come to the Republicans if the roles were reversed.

[Arm_Bears]

Yeah—That attitude has worked out quite well for President Romney.

Wait . . .

[dontreadthis]

[b4its2late]

They are idiots aren’t they?

[puppypusher]

These RINO’s had better wake up and realize that they can be voted out of office just as fast as they got in.

If I were them I wouldn’t take that gamble.They had better not stab us in the back again.

[Liz]

Capitol switchboard...1-866-220-0044.
Call or write your legislator ASAP.

====================================================

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), has set up an active war room dedicated to undermining Obama's plans on immigration, and is next in line to chair the Budget Committee. From that perch, he would have the power to set spending parameters that undermine the president's moves.

CONTACT
Jeff Sessions
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-4124

EMAIL PAGE AT SESSIONS' OFFICIAL WEB SITE
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/

[Liz]

2016 contender, Rand Paul, calls on conservatives to embrace latinos, which he calls the natural constituents of the Republican party.

I guess Rand means these "natural constituents":

Spanish-Language Campaign Ad Calls Tea Party "Radical Terrorists"
Breitbart ^ | Nov. 2, 2014 | Sarah Rumpf / FR Posted by River Hawk

AUSTIN, Texas -- The Bexar County Democratic Party launched a controversial Spanish-language ad during the final week before the November 4 elections, calling tea party Republicans "radical terrorists."

The Democrat campaign ad begins showing the American and Mexican flags, with a male narrator saying in Spanish that the flags represent "friendship, liberty, opportunity, and justice," then showing a Gadsden flag with its famous "Don't Tread on Me" motto. The Gadsden flag, which the ad calls "muy peligrosa," or "very dangerous," was designed in 1775 during the American Revolution and has since been adopted as a symbol by various libertarian and tea party groups.

The Democrat campaign ad then proceeds to call tea party Republicans "radical terrorists" while showing images of militia members holding guns and wearing camouflage, threatening "our children and families with violence and firearms," urging viewers to "¡Voto Demócrata!"

The full text of the ad, in English: "These two flags represent friendship, liberty, opportunity and justice. This flag is very dangerous. It is the flag of the Republicans of the Tea Party. They are radical terrorists who want to take matters into their own hands, affecting our children and families with violence and firearms on the border and in our cities.

This Tuesday, November 4th, is the day of the election and it’s the only time we can make our voice count. For our common good, Vote Democrat!"

Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Manuel Medina admitted his organization was responsible for the ad, and claimed credit himself for creating it.

Medina went even further in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News, saying, "The tea party is not a political party. They're a terrorist organization."

The Express-News also reported that the ad was running on Univision, paid for by a $25,000 donation from personal injury attorney Thonas J. Henry. (Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

[skeeter]

I can only speak for myself, and I know I won’t. Ever forget.

[Altura Ct.]

They are idiots aren’t they?

But they keep getting elected/reelected

[Wilhelm Tell]

I used to think that the Republican leadership was just spineless. I think really, they are on the same team as the Democrats. The Democrats dream of an expanded underclass of aliens who will eventualy get the vote. The Republicans dream of millions of foreigners on the payroll, who will depress wages. The Republicans must know that this influx of people will almost all vote Democrat. I think the Republican leaders see themsevles in charge of a minority party - they will offer to fine tune whatever the Democrats do (I almost said, what the Democrats make law, but our system isn’t governed by laws anymore).

[txrefugee]

The East Germans had no way of fighting their Communist masters, so when the tipping point came, their simply didn’t go to work. Many simply sat in the street.

Conservatives who have no chance of saving the country through the Republican Party may decide to sit the next election out, which will doom the changes of yet another GOPe “moderate” candidate in 2016.

[sport]

Betting hell! They know that it will before the next election. They[Elite Republicans] have fooled them [Conservatives] one more time. It seems like the Conservatives would learn because this has been happening for a good number of years, but the evidence shows that they don’t.

[outinyellowdogcountry]

Though it is tempting to give up, NO, we have to keep fighting the limp wristed power grabbers. WE won’t go away.

[hal ogen]

gop feckless are wrong.

[Buckeye McFrog]

That’s as stupid a prediction as “eventually they’ll settle down and learn to like Obamacare”.

[CAluvdubya]

"GOP Leaders Betting Conservative Rage will Sputter Out"

I'll take that bet......

[Slyfox]

How long will it take for people to realize that there is no working with Barack Obama?

He is thoroughly evil. He does not deserve to be in the White House.

To not fight him is to support him.

What Would Ronald Reagan Do?

[Vaduz]

GOP leaders betting that conservative rage will sputter out.
Hillary yells YES 2016 is mine Obama part two will ensue.

[Yosemitest]

ANY VOTE FOR an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN"

… is a vote … FOR OBAMA.

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 !