Just like TEA Party favorite Nikki Haley before him.
Evidently, the TEA Party movement we all supported — and whose message we have worked tirelessly to promote — was in favor of state-run health care, TARP, stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, federal minimum wage increases tied to inflation, the necessity of higher gas prices, the right of a state bureaucracy to overrule religious conscience, and the prudence of an individual mandate that will turn citizens into subjects, and create a Kafkaesque committee of 15 political appointees wielding calculators and profound power to determine our health needs.
Oops. Do I ever have egg on my face!
Re: everything I’ve written since Dec 2001. Never mind.
Actually, they’re in favor of beating Barrack Obama. And Rick Santorum will not in any version of the current reality.
Romney MIGHT not, but Santorum definitely WILL NOT.
And you know this because of course, you do. Because. Of course.
See, none of the rest of us want to beat Barack Obama. We’re practically traitors.
It is depressing Jeff. Romney is a tool. Santorum is increasingly saying stupid shit. And Gingrich…well he is Gingrich. This is the best of the GOP has to offer?
You would think this fight is rigged or something…
We’re only into the first steps on the road. And those the steps where no one knows what’s coming save that it’s going to be different. The Roman empire wasn’t built in a day though it did last a few hundred years after the Republic was buried and gone. Of course, with history as a kind of guide combined with modern communication methods, other nations observing from outside the grip of the illusion probably can imagine their own fate once we get on a roll.
Can’tcha, Canada?
Funny, I heard him on Beck and Levin and he sounded great.
In fact, one of the things he talked about with Levin was how we always say we want candidates who are straight shooters and who are willing to take on substantive questions, and yet we look for excerpts from their remarks to pin to them and make them look bad, preferring gotcha politics to asking for clarification. And this is why we get completely managed, poll-tested candidates who give 6 minute speeches and take no questions.
We get what we deserve.
The tea party went down the big disappointment road with the ‘blue dogs’. The most I here of them mentioned for a while now is in being blamed by the dems for everything under the sun, and their own infighting among themselves.
Seems they couldn’t resist the siren song of fame.
If we the people can’t be bothered to consistently hold people and groups accountable, then it’s just a matter of time before they start cutting their own deals.
Come on, now, Jeff–Lee’s just taking one for the team, which is laudable. Unless criticizing it would benefit Mitt Romney. In which case–“look at the big government Republican–boo!”
P.S.–glad to read your son’s doing better.
The most I here (sic) of them mentioned for a while now…
The only thing most people were going to hear what was the Dems, the establishment GOP, and their allies in the MSM wanted them to hear. Unless you’re personally involved in local efforts, you’re probably not going to realize that the Tea Party is still quite active, and is likely to enjoy considerable success in the 2012 elections at the local and state levels. They’re doing it by identifying and promoting good candidates, and by mobilizing at the district level.
If you get all your news from Jon Stewart and Matt Lauer, then you’ll be aware that the Tea Party is currently in a gigantic internecine fight between the crazy God-botherers and the God-bothering crazies over which one of them will take over and enslave all the women in America. Because that’s what Jon and Matt think the story is all about, and because that’s the narrative that focus-tested the best when the comfortable kings of Washington decided that the upstart reformers needed marginalizing before they upset any more of the old order.
The big rallies in 2010 were great for getting our complaints out in the open, and for revealing that we’re part of the mainstream, even if our betters would like to paint us as ‘black helicopter’ loonies living in isolation. The media campaign since 2010 has tried to put the genie back in the bottle, and has succeeded to a depressingly large extent, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’ll have more impact by putting candidates in office than we will by putting crowds in the National Mall.
I look forward to the news stories at the end of the year, where all the Really Smart People opine on “where did all of this anti-incumbent sentiment come from?”
I think we’re long past the “purity” arguments, in regards to the current GOP candidates. I think Romney will do OK if he is elected. Here’s some of his words in meetins with current Congressional leaders:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294230/romney-ryan-and-more-robert-costa
Theres also some good columns about how Reagan operated differently as Governor of CA than when he was President. I think it gives good perspective.
I would vote for any of them, despite my misgivings I have about each of them and past support of things I don’t agree with. Hopefully Congress can be taken by the Tea Party candidates and make it easier for Conservatives to control policy.
I think a Romney hate attitude is also kinda drama queeny. It is not like we haven’t had worse fields to choose from. Think Bob Dole and the folks who lost to him in the Primary. The only difference from 2008 is we don’t have Captain Queeg shooting holes in our own boat by sucking up to the leftwing press, who adored their pet “maverick” up until he got the nomination.
Oh the most important thing: You can’t influence a moderate GOP President with a conservative GOP congress if you don’t vote him into office because you have lost your perspective and think that he is no better than Obama.
ABO!
Oh and until we see the results of TP organizing in the 2012 election, we won’t know how ineffective they have become, if at all. I think the “ineffective” talk is leftwing wishcasting and a preference cascade propaganda meme to try and defang the Tea Party in any way possible.
There’s also that other problem when a man can’t find his ass with two hands because he hasn’t got hands.
Squid; I don’t get any of my news from TV or radio. I was speaking of the perception that the tea party has largely faded in organized activity on the national level.
I’ve heard / read various things in line with your post. I consider that a good thing that they are more involved in fixing things on a local/state level. I always felt it would be what that type of organization/ movement would be best and most effective at. They made a splash, now they need to evolve to what’s next?
The blue dog Dems were a ploy by the Pelosi wing of the House in the 2006 election to exploit the movement, “pork-busters”, against the Republicans who loved big earmarks.
The left recruited and ran so called “blue dog” conservative Democrats against big spending earmarking Republicans and managed to retake the House by this means. They were intended to be sacrificed once there was the possibility of putting through a bill which would cement in place the progressive power.
With the election of Obama, Obamacare was that bill and they were used and coerced until it could be passed then tossed aside as unneeded. The blue dog base has now been thrown aside even by Obama as no longer useful idiots.
The big tea party rallies were mainly useful to bring people together to meet each other in person and see that they are each not alone. Most of the activity now that I see is through internet, phone and smaller more local meetings. They haven’t gone away just they are not on the MSM radar since they don’t cover this type of thing.
That’s a good analysis Geoffb. And from reading a lot of conservative sites over the years, it seems to me it worked. There were a lot of conservative posters – Hot Air for one example- who were all jacked up about the ‘blue dogs’, and how they were gonna be such a problem for the dems.
Same people were shocked- shocked, I say!- when many of the dogs didn’t hunt.
Again, to me , it’s a great thing that the tea party is focused on local and state issues. It would play to their natural strength.
Curious, but to those here directly involved with a tea party branch in your area. Do you feel your group is isolated, or do you feel they communicate well with other state and regional groups?
And, on the OT (in two senses of the abbreviation) lighter side: Jimmy Carter has a Study Bible. E-I-E-I-O.
http://www.amazon.com/NIV-Lessons-Life-Bible-Reflections/dp/0310950813
I eagerly await his introduction to the Old Testament.
“I ask the reader’s patience, because the first 3/4 of the Bible is just crawling with Zionism. And even where it’s not, it’s still pretty Jew-y.”
It’s not Romney hate. It’s a warning that he will not reverse our direction. Having said that, I have always maintained I would vote ABO. I gladly will vote for Romney over Obama. I would even vote for Herr Doktor Ron Paul, if he were somehow to become the nominee, which is more than I can say for some of the Romney supporters like Hugh Hewitt. It’s guys like that who would accept Obama over any Republican, if it meant voting for crazy uncle Ron. I’ve heard him say so. I would vote for a ham sandwich over Obama.
It’s guys like that who would accept Obama over any Republican, if it meant voting for crazy uncle Ron.
To be absolutely clear, I’ve heard many “practical” Republicans swear they will vote for the nominee no matter who it is… except if it is crazy Ron. Seems like a foolish position to state, given that there isn’t a chance in hell, thank Gaia, that Luap Nor will be nominated.
The idea of “group” is not exactly what the tea party is.
I comment here. Does that make me part of a protein wisdom “group”? If I also comment at other sites am I then part of their “group”?
Group has the implication of a pyramidal hierarchic structure. What the tea party seems more like is a mesh which is more fully connected locally. Email, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, talk radio and more are used for connection. Not large group meeting so much.
Then it’s back to the most important question. How does it all come together as an agent of influence and change?
Nothing to do with purity. More to do with not wanting to vote for a guy who backs the things he’s backed and believes the things about the role of government he believes.
Right. So why bitch? It’s not like trying to change things has ever changed things.
Deal with your fate.
I would vote for a ham sandwich over Obama.
Me, too. The big difference between us is that I will write in “Syphilitic Camel/Ham Sandwich” before I pull a lever for “Romney/Tea Party Bridesmaid” in the coming election. The GOP needs to understand that they can’t tell me to go screw myself all year long, and then expect me to support them come November.
I’m not that kind of girl.
Do you feel your group is isolated, or do you feel they communicate well with other state and regional groups?
A fair bit of isolation, to be honest. Mixed in with a bit of faith that other groups are working hard in their areas, along with a sense of wonder that our system allows such small groups to have so much influence.
We can drive ourselves crazy discussing the national race and bemoaning our lack of influence (or even a voice) in the midst of such a circus and all its attendant noise, but there is hope to be taken from the fact that the local races are so much more responsive.
The Republic may fall, but our scattered bastions of freedom and functioning civilization will remain.
Personally, I’d rather spend the next four years criticizing Obama than defending Mitt Romney. From my perspective it’s not a “purity” thing so much as it’s the Republican establishment’s insistence on adulterating the Republican brand. I think the differences between what the Republican party stands for (or rather, it used to) and the what the Democrats stand for are real and those differences ought to be made clear.
Clarity, however, is the last thing the politicians and hangers-on (the guys who make there living serving politicans consultants, staffers, lobbysists, etc.) in either party want, because it’s in their collective interest —perpetuation of power and priviliege— to blurr those differences.
If wanting a choice rather than a echo makes me a purist, then so be it.
Be of stout heart , Squid. You’re doing important work. It was always about ‘grass roots’ and politics being local. Hell, originally we weren’t even supposed to vote for POTUS.
Two points:
Oh the most important thing: You can’t influence a moderate GOP President with a conservative GOP congress…
A conservative Congress need not be a GOP Congress. Indeed, since the GOP decided long ago that adherence to the principles of individual liberty and limited government was outdated and inconvenient, I see no reason why there need ever be a ‘conservative GOP’ Congress. I care only about the former adjective, and find the latter a hindrance nowadays.
…if you don’t vote him into office because you have lost your perspective and think that he is no better than Obama.
My perspective is just fine; I will grant you that Romney is better than Obama. My quarrel is with those who assume that “marginally better than the worst president in history” is somehow a good enough qualification for my vote. You may give your vote as cheaply as you like, to as unqualified a candidate as you like, committing all of our children and grandchildren to the tender mercies of a strong central authority run by an executive who is not quite as bad as Obama. I will not.
If the GOP wants my vote, they will nominate a candidate who is as committed to liberty as Obama is committed to class war and ‘wealth redistribution.’ If the GOP does not want my vote, they’ll nominate a strong executive who can whip the bureaucracy into destroying my life and liberty as efficiently and effectively as possible.
This ham sandwich that you speak of, I’d like to know more. It sounds good to me and I think I have all the elements to make a good right here right now. It could have tomato lettuce onion and cheese. It could have sourdough bread. It could have bacon or sliced uncured ham or both. I even have my own mustard which is quite good, smashed from little seeds.
I vote for ham sandwich.
Ditto, though I’d rather not have been put in a position of having to make that choice.
I’m going to vote myself off the island so I can watch from afar.
Mine is with people who think it’s effective to open, as the Romneyrrhoids did, with the accusation that anyone not supportig him is helping re-elect the Teleprompter. They started with the inevitability trope, and they insisted their man who’d only won a single election in his whole life was more Electable™ than rivals who’d run and won on multiple occasions — hell, Sarah Palin has won four times as many elections as Etchy has.
The air of Entitlement that has hung over the Romney campaign like an L.A. smogbank from the very beginning, is the foulest attempt at a “vote for me” argument I have ever seen a Republican use. How it can not prove fatal I cannot begin to imagine.
Enjoy the oblivion America: you’ve earned it.
“Better than Obama” is necessary, but hardly sufficient.
Mitt Romney is as likely to prove himself a “better” technocratic manager of the welfare state as he is to prove himself “better” at protecting and promoting liberty and Consitutional constraint of government.
We unhelpfuls just have a bad habit of noticing that Mr. Romney has yet to comprehend “promoting liberty and Constitutional constraint of government” — as if he’d have to do that before he could begin to accomplish it willy-nilly. More fools we, he tells us.
I would vote for a big ole bowl of hot wings and a pitcher of cold beer over Romney.
I think I might have to vote early this year…
Do you think George Zimmerman acted maliciously? From what I know now, I could not say that. How could anyone (unless you knew more) tell one way or the other from the limited facts available? That statement was stupid by Santorum.
I will vote for Santorum over Romney. But that is not saying much.
Then you’re a fucking idiot.
Or maybe i’m more cantankerous than usual.
Santorum was put on the spot. Had he relied entirely on media buzz, he’d have assumed Zimmerman did. But I forgive him, because he’s busy running for President and has to fight off lies directed at him from the Romney people. Can’t be expected to fight every battle at once flawlessly.
But hey, looks like the media ambush worked on you. Your takeaway is that Santorum said something stupid, rather than the media created a powder keg, then helped light it, and is now standing back pretending they didn’t, asking people to respond to their provocations.
a romneycare review
link
I’m torn, I’d rather not vote for Mitt, but here in Mass? It’s conceivable that a few votes here and there COULD swing it…
I’m a Gingrich fan, like but am not convinced by Santorum. I Nor Laup was nominated? WOW that ham sandwich couldn’t even beat the SMOD
The media have been contemptible in general about the Martin-Zimmerman matter, but Santorum walked into that statement. It was not some gotcha question. Santorum starts by saying he does not know what happened and then keeps going on about what Zimmerman’s state of mind was–parroting the left’s narrative.
My takeaway is the left is making specious arguments (without the facts) and one of the GOP candidates bought into it.
thanks for your thoughts on this matter. that and $5.00 will buy you a gallon of gas.
You are welcome new router. You can thank Obama for the $5 gas.
Here is Crack Emcee’s Romney take down.
The only problem with telling the GOP that you’ll vote for anybody but Obama is that the GOP will give you the candidate that is as close to Obama as they can get. After all, the ninnyhammers that voted for Obama last time might vote for the GOP version if he’s close enough (well, except that he’s white) or think that it won’t be so bad if he does get elected so they don’t bother to vote. They won’t lose your vote, right? Go team GOP!
Rick Santorum is not Sarah Palin. I share the concerns about Romney, and support the vetting of Romney. I believe that Romney will need his nuts held to the fire if he does win the nomination, and that vociferous and substantive criticism of him from the right is essential to keeping him from veering too far in the direction his instincts are likely to take him.
But I still can’t get (back) behind Santorum, and I can’t shake the sense that strong support of him on the part of TEA Party/classical liberal types is directly related to one’s distaste for Romney.
I read the Spengler piece in which he rescinds his earlier criticism of Santorum’s manufacturing oriented protectionism. Clearly there is an economically informed case to be made for propping up the manufacturing industry, though it isn’t clear that this would be successful. Only perhaps that trying it ought not to disqualify someone on the grounds that they’re economically illiterate protectionists. No matter how laudable the goals of this protectionism, I’m inclined to think that someone pushing it has too high of an opinion of his ability to control the allocation of investment capital.
But Santorum also voted for all kinds of tariffs and opposed NAFTA while in office (though he did support other pro-trade measures). In sum, there are different things that can be read into his voting record. I see a person with excessive faith in the govt’s ability to manipulate our markets and our lives, someone whose instincts seem to move in the interventionist direction (even if it’s the “right” kind of interventionism, and justifiable). Contrast that with, say, Palin, whose instincts seem to run in the opposite direction. But sadly she was never in the race, and there never was anyone who shared these instincts, besides (arguably) Rick Perry, who sadly acquitted himself poorly.
I’m sympathetic to the preference of a principled person, which Rick Santorum appears to be, over a clearly unprincipled one such as Romney. I just can’t buy that Santorum’s principles make him the clear-cut choice for a proponent of limited govt.
Great. You’re going to vote for the unprincipled guy. Because maybe he won’t fuck you.
Don’t know who I’ll vote for in the primary (though I know who I’ll be voting against in the general. Known it for years). Strong principles, particularly if they’re basically orthogonal to my own, aren’t obviously a great feature in a presidential candidate.
Well, since I’m not a libertarian or libertarian leaner, I don’t really get the objection to Santorum on he’s unsufficiently principled towards limted-government grounds. Santorum is upfront about where and when he’s willing to let out some slack on the leash. And in that respect, he’s the opposite of Obama and Romney. Obama, we know, doesn’t believe in keeping government on a leash, and Romney seems content to run the leash all the way out and only shorten it up here and there.
At any rate it seems to me that at the very least Santorum gets the conversation redirected towards the right ends.
I’m not crazy about Santorum, but I’d vote for him just as a way of sticking my finger in the eye of the GOP kingmakers.
And, as has been said a hundred time already: Santorum was an imperfect Senator, but he was still far better than almost any other Senator he served with. It still irks me that those who argue that I have to “take one for the team” are trying to use a handful of instances when Santorum “took one for the team” to convince me. Is playing along good or bad, guys? Are there different criteria if you’re voting on legislation versus voting on candidates?
A fine justification for voting for Santorum. It’s worth pointing out that the kingmakers have settled on Romney this go around, but that certainly wasn’t the case in 2008.
They settled on the Etch-A-Sketch this go-round for the same reason they settled on McMaverick in 2008 and Bob “Bob Dole” Dole in 1996: it was his turn.
Evaluating candidates on their actual merits is too much work for people who think “kingmaker” looks good on a resume in a constitutional republic.
And given the trackrecord of the kingmakers when they go with last-tine’s runner-up, why would we want to go 0-3?
“I think a Romney hate attitude is also kinda drama queeny. It is not like we haven’t had worse fields to choose from.” SGT Ted
“Right. So why bitch? It’s not like trying to change things has ever changed things.
Deal with your fate.” _Jeff G.
No, this isn’t an “either/or” issue, nor is this about bending over and taking it. It’s about being patient while you continue to fight for what you believe in. If the nominee isn’t to one’s liking, you have a number of choices.
I don’t consider sitting out and giving Obama a better chance for re-election to be a move in the right direction. Because if you can’t hold your nose for a Republican, you give Obama better odds by sitting out or giving your vote to a cartoon character, rather than someone who is much better than the current WH occupant. Thats the reality.
And it’s not like Romney was shoved down our throats without approval from the rest of the party. Just because he is touted by that portion of the leadership that is moderate doesn’t mean anything when it comes to GOP voters. Republicans are voting for him more than the other guys in the Primaries. The voters have found the other candidates lacking. Are the voters now too stupid? I hear that alot from the left. Do I think Romney is abit of a squish? Yes. Most City People are a bit squishy, so I expect it. Gingrich is a swish when it comes to Big Ideas sometimes; he can’t resist the intellectualizing. Santorum is a go-aong, get along who voted for the worst elements of the Bush era. Again, the rest were found lacking. By GOP voters.
There is no “kingmade” candidate this go round.
There are preferences by SOME of the party leadership, who may style themselves “kingmakers”, but they are just trying to get in front of the parade so they can tell people that they led it all the way.
But, its the voters that are selecting Romney. No king is being pimped and no insider deals are being done for Romney. Talking about “kingmakers” ignores this. Or are we going to go down the leeftwing road of calling the GOP primary voters “stupid”?
In fact, the Democrats are going to be playing up Romneys “moderate” and “liberal” status, precisely because they hope guys like you and Squid will stay home, butthurt that the True Conservative didn’t get the Nomination.
It’s like refusing to shoot the Jihadists because you don’t like the company that manufactured your rifle.
Reagan left office in 1988. That’s nearly a quarter-century ago now. “Patience” isn’t what we need. We’re reaching the tipping point.