How Drama Queens Sabotage the Tea Party
Once I became more active, started my own Tea Party group, and began holding meetings, I quickly found myself on the receiving end of Backdahl’s inquisition. She contacted me, concerned about the name I had chosen for my group because it sounded too much like another which she disliked. On another occasion she questioned my choice of guest speaker, threatening to pull my event posting from the Minnesota Tea Party Patriots website if a Republican candidate was going to be present.
Such antics seemed particularly odd given a sentiment she had frequently expressed about keeping criticism constructive rather then Monday-morning quarterbacking or “effort bashing.” As it turned out, her prescription was for everyone but her. Her rabble-rousing was disproportionately directed toward friends and allies, including the national Tea Party Patriots organization. Eventually, she resigned from her position as state coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, citing its informal association with FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey as evidence of some undefined corruption.
Unfortunately, Backdahl’s anti-activism did not end there. As a group of Tea Party coordinators came together in the aftermath of her resignation to strategize next steps, Backdahl undermined our efforts with wild public accusations and empty threats to sue us for any perceived slight. Like a child in a tantrum before a nap, she flailed about violently until fading into obscurity. The rest of us overcame and formed a thriving coalition, in awe of the fact that our greatest hindrance had been our supposed ally and leader.
That was not the last we saw of anti-activism. One of our coalition’s founding coordinators was similarly inclined. He had a single issue — judicial reform — which he deemed the end all and be all of the movement. In spite of the fact that we largely agreed with him on the issue, the fact that we disagreed on strategy led him to regard many of us as the enemy. For example, he wanted to make non-consensual audio recordings of meetings with legislators. The rest of us thought that was inappropriate and counter-productive. After all, accomplishing something politically depends upon building relationships, and taping someone without their consent does not foster goodwill. But our wire-wearing anti-activist would have none of it. We eventually had to disassociate from him, and almost lost our coalition in the process, a cost he would have comfortably inflicted. The movement be damned.
Such a fancy way to, so indirectly, tell us we must vote for Romney. I won’t, but I will vote conservative for down-ticket candidates.
No, he’s telling you why Romney is so far ahead. The conservative vote is much bigger than the vote for a perceived moderate like Romney, but it has been split from the beginning by drama queens Gingrich and Santorum — because they would rather say something dramatic and provocative to the national press than win the nomination — and before that by Cain and Bachman. Had these four conservative “champions” gotten together at the beginning of the primaries and thrashed out who would be the conservative standard bearer, with only that one running for the nomination, then Romney would have been toast.
Always watch for the hand they keep hard to see.
Of course Romney’s a drama queen as well–the Presidency is a dramatic sort of job, it comes with the territory. There are also distinctions to be drawn among the other candidates, and it’s the electorate’s job to draw them. Santorum honestly thinks in these times, that internet porn is a thing to take the time to promise that if he’s elected, he’ll wreak vengeance on it.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/
He’s not being a drama queen, he really thinks it’s a big problem worthy of his mentioning it now. He’s an idiot.
But he’s still way better than the drama queen from Massachusetts.
The importance of Romney care cannot be easily overstated. There are four people more responsible than any other for the passage of Obamacare. You have Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Then you have Mitt Romney as the fourth most important man to advancing socialism in this country than an at any time since FDR, and he not merely still doesn’t see his grotesque error–he’s still proud of it and claims its working.
It would have been great if the GOP establishment had had the wit to advance some one else the anointed one, but they weren’t that bright.
I hope it is settled reasonably in Tampa.
Gingrich and Santorum are the drama queens, not Romney. Calling Romney a “socialist” is the kind of thing that drama queens do. Saying that there’s no difference between Romney getting elected and Obama getting re-elected is exactly what a drama queen would say.
NO SALE, moira.
Romney’s demonstrated track record in Massachusetts is disgustingly LEFTIST.
You buying his words (selectively) shows your gullibility:
He’s pro-choice! He’s pro-Life!
He’s “progressive”! He’s “severely conservative!”
Romney has it all! (/s)
Moira, I’d like to thank you for publicly demonstrating the lack of functional intelligence common to Rombots. Mitt nationalized healthcare in his state, a classically essentially socialist act. He’s glad of it, proud of it, thinks it’s great and working fine.
It is a failure on your part, Moira, that you don’t see that a donkey with tusks glued on and making trumpeting sounds for a few years, is not still a donkey and not an elephant.
Even if Ann Coulter pinned an R to its butt.
Your Founders wisely allowed your states to do what they want (States Rights) which, like individual rights, are not limited as are your Federally enumerated Rights/responsibilities. Your Mr. Romney didn’t “Nationalize” healthcare, that’s what your Mr. Obama is trying to do; instead he reflected the will of the people of MA and instituted it on a state level. It would be egregiously wrong to force this on your states, which is, again, what Mr. Obama has done. The two are completely diffrert.
Romneycare did not pass despite his veto, he shaped it, and gave his endorsement. He claimed it as his and owns it, in fact he brags about how wise a thing it was.
The will of the people is no excuse for such a crime.
His being just the progressive liberal he has also claimed to be goes far towards explaining it.
all the self-proclaimed conservatives are full of chapter and verse on why Romney’s not one of them, yet none can offer a single reason why Ricky from PA deserves support and no wonder:
–the man voted for every single big govt excess of the Bush years.
If you think a man who supported No Child and Medicare Drug and creation the obscenity known as Homeland Security plus several hikes in the debt ceiling is a conservative, you are experiencing a new type of cognitive dissonance. Or maybe you like porn, in which case Ricky is just the right guy.
Romney’s certainly not perfect but Noot is done and Ricky is the last of the fire-breather types standing because no one wanted him in the first place, but after the Bachmann/Perry/Palin/Daniels train either crashed or went riderless, he was the only moralist-in-chief candidate left. So you are stuck with him. At least many of Obama’s supporters from ’08 have admitted their mistake. Do the same thing.
In August of 2007 Juan McCain was the most hated member of the District of Criminals regardless of office or party. He had a 1% approval rating over his advancement of the marxist/socialist post American Amnesty Bill. A bill that if you read in its entirity damn near made it illegal to be a Natural Born Citizen. A bill that gave AMNESTY to congress and the Presidency for their wrongdoing in the wide open borders. An invasion that was dictated by NAFTA, which the Newt pounds his chest about what a “success” it is and his invovlement in getting passed. An invasion that results in the same number of American deaths every 3 months at the hands of the invaders as were experienced on September 11, 2001. All that in mind, McCain a mere 4 months later, was the annointed candidate. When someone can actually explain that fact to me truthfully, I will look more positively upon the this rounds annointed candidate. Its all a bunch of crap. I totally agree with tea party organizations that kept all politicians at arms reach. Such a far stretch that Newt, Romney or Santorum can be considered as Pro-America to the core is proof that the “establishment” republican party did in fact infiltrate the Tea Party Movement. Thinking any of them is going to actually defend America or Americans job is like thinking that Obama will drill in ANWAR. Our only solution is to elect the republican this time around that we can make FEAR the people just as our founders believed was necessary. IMHO 4 Presidents, 2 political parties and one and only one underlying unified agenda. DESTROY AMERICA. The rest is just noise. Noise to keep the fools believing that they know whats going on and informed. Fools that have never read the full text of NAFTA that layed bare exactly what we are facing today because it became our national policy direction.
BTW. I know personally Reince Pribus and have direct dealings with him. He is not even a republican much less a conservative. He is a democrat at heart that believes in open borders and corporate statism. To hell with America or Americans as long as someone is making big bucks. That is all he cares about. A 1st class globalist a**hat.
You guys absorb nothing and fall right into the wrong argument. This article isn’t about politicians or the gop contenders, it’s about you all. I recognize exactly the people he’s talking about, I’ve witnessed them ruin grassroots groups time and again. They are usually loud, peculiarly paranoid, downright threatening when you don’t line up with their kookiness. They get nothing other than the thoughts that pop out of their own noodle, no matter how long they are exposed to others’ thoughts. They are usually defeatist, and attack you if you speak about pro-active, effective things to pursue. They are worse than the enemy, essentially. Know these people well.
Alex it’s very simple, the other two of the the three aren’t nearly as bad as Romney.
Romney = Obamacare “fixed” and forever or as near as makes no difference.
He’s really bad.
Oh, YEEESSSSSS, “zzz” you’re SOOOO riiiight…
…what a TERRIBLE thing it is to have had so many CONSERVATVE candidates running! (/s)
Most years it would not have mattered much. This year, with all the proportional allocation of delegates (which means almost every candidate gets some and can hope for a brokered convention where he can be part of the drama) it’s bad news.
No, the bad news id how the “proportional” apportionment of delegates gives someone with a plurality of the votes a majority of the delegates. It should be more strictly proportional.
In fact, it should be possible for voters to give 2nd and even 3rd choices, and also indicate whom they can not tolerate.
“No, he’s telling you why Romney is so far ahead.”
And here I thought it was because Romney outspends his opponents 50- or 100-to-1, launches vicious attack campaigns at the drop of a hat, has the overwhelming support of the entire GOP apparatus, and refuses to take conservative positions–or even demonstrate that he is *capable* of taking conservative positions–in order to pander to the mushy, unprincipled middle.
But, yeah–it’s probably because Tea Party activists are too urgent.
This article failed to mention the drama kings. Look no further than Ed Wallis who attacks everyone who posts on this site that doesn’t agree with him.
Romney is a good man and he has spent the last four years working diligently to help republican candidates get elected. He has stayed true to his party and has earned every vote he has gotten. Romney has managed to defeat the millions of dollars the unions have contributed to slow him down along with the liberal media lies. He has also managed to defeat those in his own party who want to take him down.
Santorum failed the test with me when he called on democrats in Michigan to crossover and help him cheat for a win. That didn’t work. Santorum also tries to lead people to believe he is just a poor guy from a coal mineing town – yet he lives in a 2 million dollar mansion in Great Falls, VA. No thanks, I will vote for the intelligent businessman. (watch how soon Ed will be here to attack me)
Good post Debbie! Because I agree with you 100%, of course.
Insofar as the Tea Party is concerned I quit going to their meetings because I kept being told in no uncertain terms that Romney is NOT A CONSERVATIVE and what the hell was I thinking? Of course that was from the guy that considers any progress in our city is a sign that the Agenda21 people have gotten to the county/city commission, completely ignoring the fact that our city faces gridlock in the not too distant future, but light rail is a liberal plot you see, sigh. But it does wear one down, and I only have so much time to devote to political stuff and must make priorities. Electing Romney is my priority.
Thanks Isabella. Romney is polling real well with women. It looks like it will be us that helps him reach his goal. Sometimes I just wonder if certain men are jealous of Romney’s looks and his success. Jealousy really is an evil emotion. The drama kings can rant on – we know a successful man when we see one. He didn’t get that way from being stupid.
Well said.
He writes about zealots and darn if you don’t go prove his point.
I’m not so zealous that I’ll call other people names. I’ll say what I’ll do and will do what I say. People who consider this purist or zealous or dramatic or who use common ad homs, will not affect me in the least with their slanders.
Good point. I had been wondering where this seemingly vague yet highly insulting, whiny article was heading after 3 pages…but you’re right:
it’s just another Obama-tactic of the Romney camp…if you can’t “convince” them by pummelling them with “he’s inevitable! it’s over!” schtick for months, insult and invalidate them with smears of unpatriotic and disloyal behavior.
Insults don’t work for me, either, Mitt. FAIL.
….and you haven’t been insulting at all. You haven’t called anyone names and demeaned their character at all.
You prove the point of the article.
Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, crybaby.
You were the one whining about being insulted and saying “it’s just another Obama-tactic of the Romney camp…if you can’t “convince” them by pummelling them with “he’s inevitable! it’s over!” schtick for months, insult and invalidate them with smears of unpatriotic and disloyal behavior.”
So really who’s whining and who’s the drama queen.
Calling others a ‘crybaby’, Really? What are you 12 years old?
Now you take it upon yourself to attack the author Mr. Ed. The liberal mantra, attack the messenger.
I guess some people would rather watch the country burn in flames for another four years, than compromise their convictions. Gingrich and Santorum are not electable – do you get it?
Whether you like it or not not, Republicans are going to have to appeal to the Independents. They do not like Gingrich or Santorum. They aren’t thrilled with Romney, but they aren’t thrilled with Obama either. Romney is not a shoo-in, but he has electibility. The Republicans will lose the race for certain if Santorum or Gingrich is the nomination.
You ever hear of winning the battle and losing the war? Yep, Romney’s a RINO. But Obama is a Marxist-Fascist socialist bent on destroying the country as we know it. Romney isn’t going to turn the ship around, but he can turn off the engines. If Obama gets elected because the ideologues succeeded in putting up Santorum or Gingrich, you’ll have no one else to blame for the next Obama term. Sometimes a little pragmatism is prudent.
Explain to me why Romney is any more electable, without citing poll data that’s useless until after the convention, and I’ll buy your argument.
Romney is Obama-lite. He proposes spending 70% of what Obama proposes to spend. He refuses to even wink at conservatives. He has the exact same “messaging” strategy as Obama 08′, with the vague generalities and unspecific statements in regard to policy. People aren’t going to vote FOR “generic Republican.”
They simply won’t vote at all.
Romney has had ample opportunity to boost his conservative perception, yet refuses to do so almost stubbornly.
He, like McCain, has already stated that he won’t attack Obama on a personal level.
How does any of this equal “electable”?
I’ve been open to hearing his message, but have received nothing but hucksterism.
Well, poll data is somewhat indicative. Yes, it’s a gut feeling, but I think it’s pretty rational. I considered myself “Independent” for quite a while before going fully over to the Republican camp.
My point always being that no matter how much you may despise them, the roughly 20% of the voters who claim to be Independents have decided at least the last 4 elections. I don’t know a single Independent who will vote for Gingrich or Santorum. But I do know a few who would vote for Romney. Most Independents get their news from the mainstream media, who have waged a war for years on the kind of conservatism exhibited by Gingrich and Santorum. They have been conditioned to fear the what the media labels the “far right” and conversely they never get enough information to see the danger of leftist politics.
My second point being that a RINO would be infinitely better than Obama. If you think that we should still swing for the fence, that of course is your prerogative. However, if the ball falls short, I don’t think there will even be a chance for recovery from another 4 years of Obama. It is clear he wants to change America in a fundamental way. A grassroots internet campaign in 4 years may not even be possible.
I will tell you this, I’m not going to pull any punches after the election, if you ideologues get your way and Obama defeats Santorum or Gingrich. I’ll be “I told you so” everyday until Obama shuts down the current conservative blogosphere.
“Most Independents get their news from the mainstream media,……..”
Absolutely right, Tom. Many independents view Santorum as a “social conservative” and Gingrich as a 1990′s Republican rabble-rouser. I’m not thrilled with Romney. But why should I be more thrilled with Gingrich or Santorum? How can any “conservative” justify the past actions, lobbying or voting records of either of them? They were both lobbyists for large corporations, voted and supported big government policies. What makes them better than Romney? Santorum even voted against Pennsylvania being a right to work state, for unionism. I will vote against Obama, even if Elmer Fudd is the Republican candidate.
Populism is paranoid, finally ineffectual. Hudson’s article is describing not just a histrionic female (there are no drama kings?) but a tendency on the Right to behave like the 1960s counter-culture: mad as hell…. I elaborated how the various political factions in America view each other here: http://clarespark.com/2009/12/16/perceptions-of-the-enemy-the-left-looks-at-the-right-and-vice-versa/. According to Rasmussen, 55% of the polity is populist. This is death to political activism, which must always investigate the art of the possible, as Walter Hudson argues here. Good essay, except for the gendered drama queen.
Which goes far to explain the irrational popularity of Sarah Palin with the Tea Party types. She was the governor of a state with a level of socialism the old Soviet Bloc would envy and her political initiatives, the ACES tax scheme and the AGIA gas line, were a Democrat backed windfall profits tax and a very socialistic venture of the State taking an equity position in an infrastructure project. She spent money and gave money away like a drunken sailor but she had populist pandering down so now the Governor of a socialist state who governed mostly with Democrat backing is the darling of the “true conservatives.”
Sir, exactly how did you derive such a conclusion from this article? An amazing leap of logic, indeed. Allow me to try on your logic and draw a couple of conclusions from your post:
1. You’re a religious bigot who hates Mormons
2. You cannot read.
3. You’re an OWS troll
See how that logic works?
So you’d rather see BarryO re-elected than lower yourself to vote for that awful Romney person. How quaint, how true-to-one’s-self, how holier than thou. How stupid.
Are you sure? I thought his article described Romney whiners to a T. Did I miss something?
So you’re one of the people we can thank for getting Obama the last time, correct? McCain wasn’t your guy, so rather than voting for him you voted for Ron Paul, or perhaps kicked your feet and stayed home (as the author said, disengaged yourself from the process) and guess what? We got Obama. Thanks a lot.
To: Esteban Cafe, K. Hunter, Jeannette, and Anthony Ford
Let’s see…you collectively called me:
1) a religious bigot
2) illiterate
3) an OWS troll
4) stupid
5) a Romney whiner
6) responsible for Obama’s 2008 election
Do you have any other sweet inducements for me to vote for your candidate?
You know, I’m really sorry if everyones’ observations hit too close to home, but what do you think will happen if:
1. You vote for some obscure candidate just to “vote your conscience” or
2. Decide to stay home and not vote because you don’t like the GOP candidate?
Wow, do you think Obama will like you or not? Duh.
If you think opposing Romney has anything to do with wanting Obama to like us, you’re nuts.
No, actually, I think Obama LOVES people who think like you. He’s counting on you to guarantee his reelection. Good job. Maybe he’ll give you a call like he did Sandra Fluke to ask you how you’re doing. Wouldn’t count on it, but you never know.
No he is saying ideology sometimes must giveway to reality. Conservatives love to critisize libs for the echo chamber of their lives and the fact that so many teachers are progressive because their views are never real world tested. the same can be said for some conservatives (IM TALKING TO YOU RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!)Sometimes the best way is many small victories. but too many are ready to loose the war rather than do that. It takes time. there is going to be no third party cadidates and we need to change repubs rather than invent new political parties for every issue. we need to start playing the game of politics and look at the big picture of what we want. we can take a page or 2 from the libs playbook, because like it or not it works well. and if it works that well with the garbage progressives like to lay out, imagine how powerful it could be with the conservative truth.
Will you vote for Santorum – the man who stiffed the taxpayers of PA out of
$55,000.00 who paid for his children to be cyber schooled?
While Santorum kept a small 2 bedroom house in PA, him and his family were living in a 2 million dollar mansion in Great Falls, VA. Thus using PA tax dollars to cyber school his children.
No wonder he calls on democrats to help him cheat – the majority of republicans are on to his lies.
That is among the most creative inferences I have ever encountered. I’m not sure how you came up with that. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
Super analysis. Interestingly, tea party ideals are held by a majority of Americans. The histrionic(and effective)vitriol directed at the tea party by the left demonstrated the potential political power of such a grass-roots movement. The failure of the tea party establisment to go all in and form a 3rd party, the Tea Party, OR to work within the system and vigorously support reasonable Republican pols, was/is its political weakness. The impatience of our more conservatively pure, “religiously” right brethren, is being used(masterfully I might add)against the broader conservative agenda. Romney is far from an ideal choice, however Obama is the NEMESIS!
I think I know these people.
It’s just that have different names and faces in Pennsylvania.
I know those people in PA as well. And the comments relate to many of those who crave power, and are more interested in the power than the results. To that end, I think many of them are akin to the GOP establishment, who also have more interest in retaining power and influence, even if it means they are consistently on the losing end of things. I would definitely point PA Tea Party members to the activities going on in Philly. It is often the source of much that foments in our illustrious state. I think the observations in this piece are VERY astute!!
There are also a lot of these drama queen types in Right to Life, at all levels. Loose cannons. I never realized it til you wrote about it, but now that I think back, it is clear that there was a lot of paranoid suspicion along with the drama.
As I always say, there is a lot to be said for a steady job, and there is a lot to be said for the steady everyday work of organizing, leading and communicating within a small group in pro-life activity.
But it isn’t paranoia if they really are out to get you. And Sandra Fluke has demonstrated that, in spades.
Yes, Gus3, that is exactly what THEY want you to believe. (X Contra grins.)
Yes she is. Her history shows that she searched for a University that met her requirements to sue. She said on her web page that she was going to do so, several years ago. She headed a rabid feminist group and is a member in good standing. She meets the dictionary definition of the names she was called.
my classmate’s sister-in-law brought home $17033 past week. she is making money on the computer and bought a $416500 house. All she did was get lucky and put to use the guide explained on this site m a k e c a s h 4. c o m
My aunt’s hairdresser says your classmate’s sister-in-law is lying through her teeth.
How much does she pay for birth control? I bet it eats up a lot of her profits.
Let me guess, Obama is all in for a $500 Million investment.
I had the exact same experience with my local Tea Party group which started out as a rational group wanting smaller, smarter, more responsive govenment. It turned into what I called the “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition” group with little concept of what conservatism really is or anyway used to be until it was co oped by these folks. Conservatism, classic, has regard for the Individual and I saw no regard for the individual, only people who shared their political and religious views. They are populists who just think they are conservative. I just told them when they could be logical and rational to give me a call. They did some good things prior to 2010 and now they are more interested in defeating Romney than defeating Obama. They consider the entire Republican Party – RINO – maybe they should get a party of their own since Republicans are so unacceptable. Romney 2012
As long as we don’t nominate Romney, it is all but a cinch we will defeat Obama.
That’s one reason this primary is so dearly fought–it’s reasonably likely it is selecting the President, not merely a candidate for that office.
The Republican candidate should be seen as being in the middle of the rightmost 55% or so of the voting public, that means they would be just to the right of the 70th centile. There’s no point in pandering to the leftmost 45% or so, let alone in Romney, having a candidate from those strange benighted realms.
Agreed. I joined the Tea Party movement because I believe in small government and liberty and was willing to work creatively to change the system. After 4 years, I’ve dropped out. I couldn’t stand the ranting and paranoia, the ALL CAPS articles and forum posts, the finger-pointing and name-calling, and the leadership who seemed to enjoy inflaming ignorance and passions. I’d say “when you can be logical and rational, give me a call,” but I know that this will never happend.
I have to chuckle at the image of people saying “when you want to be logical and rational, call me” then leaving in a huff.
Only went down that way in your drama queen imagination.
yeah, but…you just don’t have the stomach for it. Can’t blame you, but read some history about the Continental Congress and the American Revolution, about the great debate on the Constitution, back room jockeying by Charles Lee, the Continental Congress and George Washington….this is the kitchen. it gets hot. You may have bowed out of the Tea Party but can still support it in the hopes that leadership consolidates.
The Taea Party is Fiscal Conservative movement that crosses party lines. It isn’t a SoCon movement.
Anybody But Obama. If you stay home because Romney is the nominee, don’t cry about who gets elected.
Good food for thought. American conservatism today suffers from a lack of solidarity and needless divisiveness. It can take the form noted by Hudson. Rather than “drama queens,” I’d call such partisans “conspiracy theorists.” Any ally who deviates or disagrees is an “x-bot” supporter selling out the true faith.
Another symptom has been seen over the past 2 weeks in conservatives happy to trash Rush Limbaugh. Folks, get real… any comment Rush made about some self-righteous lib-drone is minor compared to the leadership, intelligence, and courage Rush has shown for conservatism for years.
We are far too happy to turn on our own when liberals tell us to. We need instead to dance with the ones who brought us. Liberals show better tactics. When something revolting crawls out of Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, etc. libs don’t turn their backs on them, but attack their attackers.
She talked about shadowy conspiracies by Republicans to co-opt the movement.
If you understood the difference between Political Movements and Parties then you could have saved yourself embarrassment and the needless death of pixels everywhere.
A Political Movement arises from a single issue, in this case that government is too big, too wasteful, and continuing with the same-old, same-old is detrimental to the Country. A Political Party exists to acquire and hold power. Political Parties will always attempt to either co-opt or subvert Political Movements. The Democrats want to subvert the TEA Party Movement because the Movement is detrimental to the Party’s future. The Republicans want to co-opt the TEA Party Movement because they think it will given them a short-term power boost.
I’ll rewrite your 3-page article in two sentences:
The TEA Party is an immediate threat to the Democratic Party, thus the Democrats must destroy it before it can get off the ground.
The TEA Party is a future threat to the Republican Party, thus they must co-opt it and then destroy it from within.
+1
You nailed it!
I guess every new political movement has its own drama queens. But the only way to overcome them is by having LEADERSHIP. Like it or not, major movements need to have leaders. If not, you simply have anarchy without a clear voice stating its demands. The “Occupy Wall Street” people showed that to be true. As a result of not having any leadership, they are just fading away to irrelevancy. But there is a hunger in this nation for the Tea Parties. People instinctively know that Washington is not only run poorly, but that the way it is run now will destroy this nation. That is where leadership comes in. Tea Parties need rational leaders to present their demands to politicians (both Republicans AND Democrats) and to voice our views to the media. In this 24/7 news media culture we live in, manipulating the mainstream media will be critical in achieving our goals. The far left doesn’t need to do this because most of the people in the mainstream media are already on their side. So it will take strong, articulate, leaders who can go on TV and go one-on-one with cable news hosts and promote the issues we care about. It’s just the way it is.
But at least know that the people in the Tea Parties are doing this peacefully and within the boundaries of our political institutions. We are NOT the Occupy Wall Street thugs and criminals and we certainly are not the French Revelution. But the Far Left is that, and THAT is the difference that all Americans should be aware of. We will get our leaders, and perhaps our best one is Sarah Palin. But there are others as well, just average people who want to make a difference. And, in the end, they are the ones who WILL make the ultimate difference in this movement. The Leaders.
You are correct in stating that the tea parties need a leader. There are at least two problems, however:
1) the tea parties’ desire for a leader who doesn’t want much power
2) the large number of tea parties (each with leaders who don’t have much power)
We have drama queens all throughout society. Just look at any bunch of teenage girls. And the homosexual community is dominated by drama queeens. In fact much of the victimization that the left pushes is fueled by drama queens who see the whole world as oppressing them.
The author’s statement “The only sense of purpose in their lives arises from perceived persecution and perpetual emergency. Such people actually avoid solutions and resent those who provide them because a solution removes any excuse for mania.” should be the mission statement of everything on the left. Especially feminism. But also is manifest in the anti war movement, environmentalism and gay rights.
We now have a society where everyone is a victim. Frankly being a victim is being a slave in training. Wonder how the drama queens will react to being conquered. And for all of the drama queens within the libertarians who long for revolution, how long do you think you would last on the battlefield? Maybe three days before it was no longer fun.
You are correct. I don’t really understand what this has to do with the Tea Party unless there is an ulterior motive.
There are drama queens throughout society, in your family, in your workplace, in your neighborhood, everywhere you look. It’s a not-that-uncommon personality type, a type all of us have come across at one time or another. These types often look to take over a group as they need to be the center of attention.
What in the world does this have to do with the Tea Party?
At best just someone casting aspersions, trying to make a splash. No more to it.
Dear Dr. Bones,
Let’s gossip about her freelordship over here, so as not to disturb the pajamaclad kiddies in their dogmatic slumbers.
Happy days.
“It is withdrawal from the process and conservative apathy which gave us President Obama.”
Not so much. A disingenuous MSM (that saw to it that the rather nonobservant masses only saw Obama through the proverbial rose-colored glasses) & Bush fatigue (largely brought on by 8 years of constant battering by the MSM) gave us President Obama.
“It is withdrawal from the process and “punishing the party” which enabled the election of Minnesota’s Senator Al Franken, the sixtieth vote which made Obamacare possible.”
I thought some rather fancy voter fraud gave us Senator Al Franken.
I don’t doubt that there are elements in the Tea Party movement that get too strung out on minutiae & do things which serve to undermine the movement, but it does not appear to rise to the level that you describe, particularly with regard to the elections of Obama & Franken.
bobbcat, this statement, which you seem to disagree with, is EXACTLY why we got Obama:
“It is withdrawal from the process and conservative apathy which gave us President Obama.”
You guys can niggle away at the point and gripe that Republicans are trying to do away with the “Tea Party”, but if you stay home and don’t vote again because the candidate isn’t conservative enough for you (withdrawal from the process) or you vote for some wingnut like Ron Paul who has less chance of beating Obama than my golden retriever does, we’re going to get Obama again. Happy with that? With another four years of that guy, what do think your precious “freedoms” are going to look like then?
Wise up, willya?
You have a taste for assumptions, do you not? To illustrate how misguided you are here, I voted for Romney in the primary in 2008, McCain at the general election. This year I voted Newt in the primary & will cast my vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of who among the standing it will be. Sorry to disappoint you but I am firmly in the ABO camp.
I stand by my assertion that the MSM exercised its capacity to manipulate public opinion to the point that enough people, with the proverbial wool pulled over their eyes, voted for what they thought was going to be a “unifier” & a “centrist.” This factor played a much larger role in slicking Obama’s way to the WH than anything else.
“It is withdrawal from the process and conservative apathy which gave us President Obama.”
I voted for McCain.
I’m not going to vote for Romney, because he is a liberal, I have not one reason to suspect anything else.
So then if you won’t vote for Romney if he is the GOP candidate, that must mean you prefer Obama, correct? Why is this concept so tough to comprehend?
Maybe this won’t be hard to understand. All the available evidence points to Romney going down the identical path to Obama, only slower. The Republican House and Senate which I think 2012 will bring just may be motivated to bring Obama to a crashing halt. I think those same Republicans will give Romney a lot of what he wants, and I don’t like any of the things I think Romney really wants which distinguish him from the other GOP candidates. Santorum is an annoyance, Romney is a cancer.
We are heading for a cliff, and I think a GOP Congress will put a parking brake on if Obama is in the Oval Office, which is better than them letting Romney coast off the edge slower.
You guys are all wrong, at the same time you are all right kind of! Each of the points made contributed to the outcome. The author is writing about minnesota. What was true for Minnesota was/is not true everywhere. What none of you note is McCain was disorganized, uninspiring, and somewhat confused. What you don’t seem to recognize is it isn’t the base that, for the most part, elects the candidate, it’s the independents. Everyone votes! Those that put their vote in the trash can at home are opting for the worst possible outcome. Anyone but Obama is, at least a start.
with all due respect folks, i’ve heard mccain recently on some talk radio and frankly he’s senile. He couldn’t string together a half dozen words. kept perseverating about stuff without being able to offer any supporting statements. like him or not, good campaign or not, it was like having William F. Buckley debate Barney Fyfe….
Doesn’t anybody here remember the stockmarket crash of 2008? McCain was moving ahead in the polls until it happened. If you want a conspiracy theory about why Obama got elected, you might think about Soros’s trillions and whether it would have been enough to drive down the world’s stockmarkets if properly deployed (Soros could also have arranged to act in concert with like-minded Arab oil trillionaires.) Sure, by acting politically rather than following his rational economic self-interest he would have been almost certain to lose money — lots of it. He may, however, have just regarded the loss as, in effect, the biggest political campaign contribution in history, all of it perfectly legal …
Gas prices dropped astoundingly fast shortly after Obama was elected. It looks like gas prices were manipulated in 2008. Look at the 4 year chart at the link.
It wasn’t an election, it was a coup d’etat.
Art, please elaborate Thanks.
Soros put together a financial cabal to manipulate the economy leading up to the ’08 election. First, the gas price run up was pure speculation and the fall was so precipitous that either the participants had to lose a lot of money on it, a cost of doing the business, or they had it well enough planned to be short in the collapse and cure themselves. Then, when it looked like McCain/Palin might actually be ahead, they pulled the plug on both deriviatives and did a run on the Treasury. They might well have whispered something in McCain’s ear about the Keating Five as well, because he sheathed his sword after the campaign suspension gambit and just coasted to defeat. This is the sort of stuff that you’d never be able to prove unless you’re the CIA, and I don’t even know who’s side they were on in ’08 – and have no doubt whose side they’re on now. But I don’t believe in coincidence and usually only wars wipe out wealth like the events of September ’08 did.
Soros is rich, but he’s not rich enough to do this on his own; he had to have co-conspirators, some of whom I suspect have control of soverieign wealth and speak Arabic as their first language, others are US billionaire trust fund babies. If we ever restore a legitimate government, we need to hunt down and hang everyone associated with this and sell their wives and children into slavery. Well, maybe hang the male children too so that the family name is extinguished as well.
Sickening stuff. I note no one even tries to refute what you’re saying. I can’ t wait to see what they have up their sleeves for this upcoming election.
I’m not sure I understood you right, but, if you are saying Soros lost money in the 2008 crisis, you would be misinformed. Money is like water it goes somewhere. The money did not vaporize and there were articles written about 2011 that said who made money during that time. Soros was one of the top three to make money. So if you are wondering what happened to the one-third of your retirement 401K look no further.
(Google it: who made money in 2008)
Us SoCons need to desperately get more practical. And the first practicality is to pick the candidate most likely to defeat the insufferable, pompous ass in the White House. I leave that to the people to decide, but once the decision is made later this spring, whether Romney, Santorum or Gingrich, put your differences aside with Independents and start rowing. Because any of the three listed are infinitely better than what we’ve got now as President.
There are issues of division between social conservatives and Libertarians, Independents, et…There always will be. And there are issues of discussion. And one of those issues of discussion we should all agree with, the most overriding and important issue of this election, is the removal of Barack Obama.
And if Romney wins the nomination, and you believe there is no discernible difference between Romney and Obama, and you’re one of those SoCons saying you’ll just sit out the vote then, you’re a fool and as feckless any moronic liberal.
One example. Who do you want picking 3-4 possible SCOTUS? Barack Obama, who gave us two radicals? Or Mitt Romney who used Roberts and Scalia as his idea of SCOTUS? You want a Supreme Court packed with a bunch of Ruth Bader Ginsburg types?
This man is right. It’s time for us social conservatives to admit we’ve got our share of loons that provide ammunition to the reprobate Left.
The Tea Party has two overriding philosophies, best I can tell: (1) Constitution; (2) Smaller government. Many, if not most of those members are probably social conservatives. That doesn’t mean it’s limited to social conservatives, nor should it be.
I’m no Tea Party member, but I damn sure share their sympathies.
Well said, Hudson.
Some on this thread seem to be living in a different universe and sadly prove your point.
The ONLY practical and long-lasting mission for any and all Tea Partiers is to infiltrate and take over the GOP… thereby getting conservative politicians and presidents elected who in turn will pass and enact real-world legislation and reforms that actually work and appoint judges and justices who respect our Constitution.
And yes, victimization is now a large and thriving cottage industry. And they will fight to destroy you… if you dare to “solve” any of their problems.
For the sake of our loved ones and for America’s future…
Pass the word, November, 2012.
ABO
You don’t have to “infiltrate” the GOP; there’re no locks or gates, all you have to do is show up and do something. About half the precinct committee positions in the Country are vacant; go get one.
What you DON’T want to do is show up with your posse at a district or state caucus or convention and from the floor try to take over the Party; even if you pull it off, you’ll be hated and the people who hate you will do their best to destroy you. That’s how the hard Left first started their takeover of the Democrat Party and the push-back was violent and left the Democrats in the Wilderness as a National party for a long time. They’ve consolidated their power there now but as a socialist party funded by billionaire trust funds and organized labor that can’t actually say what it stands for and get elected outside doughnut cities and university campii.
That’s also why there is so much bad blood between Sarah Palin/Joe Miller and the Republican Party of Alaska; multiple unsuccessful coup attempts tend to leave a bad taste. If you’re planning to be in charge, you’d best plan how to have majority support, and that takes having at least some understanding of people with different views.
Art, didn’t mean to get your pulse rate up.
Perhaps my choice of words as in “infiltrate” could be a little misconstrued. More specifically, I was refering to the process. Many of these Tea Partiers being involved in politics for the very first time should focus and go to where the fight is at, where policy is made and where laws are enacted – which is our two-party system, and not to some third party endeavor which will only split the vote.
If we are to recruit and elect true reformers and difference-makers and have any chance of saving our nation, we have to like you put it “show up” and roll up our sleves and if necessary run for party leadership at all levels.
For several decades now, the Gallup Organization has indicated that leftists are a minority that consistently number somewhere between 18-21%, year after year. Conservatives number twice as many, year after year. And moderates make up the rest. But nothing of any lasting value is going to happen unless this “silent majority” is silent no more and shows up to become active… where the fight is at.
cheers.
I attended my first Tea Party Patriot mmeting last Wednesday for a candidate forum. I was embarassed by the behaviour of several who I certainly agree with politically (in principle, anyway). 3-minute harangues on the 10th amendment (or other pet peeve) during Q&A time, before getting to their questions – actually running out the 5-minute question time clock before getting to the question. this, in spite of being directly asked NOT to give speeches disguised as questions. Giving the British Parliament treatment (hoots and interruptions) to the lone Democrat who dared to enter the lion’s den. At least it wasn’t OWS treatment, but I suspect a larger venue with more anonymity could have devolved to that. Many of the attendees seemed to be the type who would forward and forward again all the bitter and bizarre emails that cross their inbox. No thank you. So glad I didn’t give my email when entering (being from far out of town).
I was sold on the candidate I came to hear (Ted Cruz, US Sentate for TX), but completely dissuaded from joining any organized Tea Party organization. I will not disengage…I am Breitbart.
At the risk of sounding lika “drama queen”, the Republican establishment IS attempting to coopt the conservative grass roots movement which includes the Tea Party. They have to. Otherwise there will be a party split which could lead to the ultimate demise of their entire establishment. This would be terrible for the Republican Party but, quite possibly, great for our country. Like the Phoenix that rises from the ashes to live again, our nation would rise up to be governed by the people, once more. Oh, there I go getting all dramatic again. At least I’m not a party suckup like the author of this crap.
“…enforcing a uniform commitment to an undefined revolutionary goal.” Straight out of Rules for Radicals.
So, let’s see the Orromey camp’s reasoning:
* You should vote for Mitt, of course, even when most voters are resisting him (but divided), and conservative opinion be damned
* If Mitt starts winning delegates: everybody should unite behind him, and conservative opinion be damned
* if Mitt start losing: blame it on people opposing him, conservative opinion be damned
* If Mitt wins is despite the opposing conservatives, conservative opinion be damned
* If Mitt loses the general election, is to blame the opposing conservatives; conservative opinion be damned
So, actually, they are the ones ignoring the conservative warnings about what is going to happens if Mitt wins (low turnout , Obama landslide win) and insisting on putting their darling in the Final ticket.
Therefore, the ONLY solution for Romneybots is this: Vote for Romney now, vote HAPPILY for him, vote for him in the general election -he may win or not but who cares, as long as you are happy with him; then enjoy the ensuing Socialism -happily, because is coming from Romney and not Obama.
I get it: time for Gop to go the way of the whigs, we’re going to have socialism in one way or another, so better with the actual defenders of socialism (the Dems) instead with the fake friends of capitalism.
And if Santorum gets in, w’ll have a different kind of socialism. Big government trying to control what goes on in your bedroom; trying to control what you can read or watch (see the ink above to Santorum’s jihad against “pornography”).
We may be screwed no matter who gets in. Whatever happened to the talk about the annual trillion dollar deficit; the 15 trillion national debt; the need for across-the-board spending cuts? Now all we get from Santorum is talk about contraception; and both Santorum & Gingrich signed the notorious personhood pledge. At least Romney didn’t sign that.
There is more interest from these guys in being “Bedroom Police” than in being “Deficit & Spending Police.”
As you can see, if you read again, I’m not defending Santorum. Yes, I agree, and he is also a lefty in fiscal issues.
You are defending both Gingrich and Santorum through omission. Let’s face it. None of the three are ideal candidates. Far from ideal.
“defending by omission” LMAO. You just ran out of excuses and fallacies?
I will just say you haven’t read me too much here, I have criticized Santorum. Gingrich is my favorite for nominee, but I will not call you a “drama queen” just because you point at his obvious flaws. Yet that’s what Romney camp is doing here and what is discussed in the article.
It’s really sad that the only arguments of pro-Romney camp is just ad hominem attacks against his opponents. Why not run on his records instead? If you think Romney is better, that’s ok. Just don’t be fooled to think he is good. There is a huge difference in that.
Be more demanding of your own candidate instead of attacking people who never liked the guy anyway.
Hey Ed,
You forgot that Mitt Man likes “cheesy grits.” That will put him over the top for sure!
Do republicans really want social issues to be the theme of this election? I prefer to put the economy first and social issues second. We cannot defeat Obama on social issues but we can defeat him on the dire conditions of our economy.
Millions of American’s unemployed
Record deficit and rising
1 in 45 American children homeless and living in shelters
Record home foreclosures
Gas, food, water and electric prices rising
Record poverty rate
The whole Middle East inflamed and on the verge of World War III
That smart businessman Romney is looking real good to me right now, I don’t care what he is called – he can’t be any worse than the current occupier of the Oval Office.
You’re right insofar as the main focus needs to be OBAMA’S ECONOMY.
That Romney is a businessman MEANS NOTHING IN THIS RESPECT (think of successful Leftist businessmen…).
His demonstrated political record is STATIST CRUD.
So whom do you support Mr. Ed? Santorum, the man who endorsed Romney in 2008?
The man who said “Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear.”
The man who stiffed the taxpayers of PA for his children’s cyber schooling?
The man who called on democrats to vote for him and help him cheat?
Santorum – the man who voted against PA being a right to work state, for unionism.
I thought the reason we have DaOne, is due to McCain ran for office like a pussy. It appeared he want to lose to me.
Articles about drama queens tend to make drama queens self-identify in droves. This comment section teems with them. They are so easy to spot: it’s the ones who take reality as a personal affront and make everything all about them. At this stage of the game, such narcissists are deadly dangerous.
I too was a firm Tea Party supporter, and in theory very much remain, but its turned into a religious jihad against Romney and not Obama. And who is leading the charge? A Social Con Catholic who can only get love from Evangelicals (and who claims Romney can only get love from Mormons) and a loose cannon Former Speaker of the House who has been on both sides of the issues just claimed for Romney. You know, I started out against Romney too until it became personal from these guys. They have spilled so much bile toward those who don’t agree with them that its become very hard for me who is very much a conservative to not want to put in a write in candidate. I don’t want Obama and so will push myself not to do that, but I can’t help thinking what others not so inclined would do.
My *goodness*. WHERE to start?
If Romney had problems in the past, it was time to blame the Conservatives.
NOW that Romney is facing the REALITY of his vulnerabilities, it’s time to blame the Tea Party.
Is there ANYTHING AT ALL Romney supporters can offer as a positive as to why to vote for their candidate…or just more OBAMA SMEAR/DEFLECTION TACTICS against “the other”?!?
FAIL. ÜBER FAIL!
If you don’t want Romney supporters in the Republican Party I would gladly leave if you want me to
Another possibility is for the Tea Party to form their own Party.
So you’ll be fine with it if Romney isn’t the candidate?
What is that question supposed to mean? I would have answered positive to that question before, but like I said above at this point I don’t know if I would or not be fine with another candidate. They have proven themselves to be liars and base degenerates; attacking Romney for things they have done in the past with equal fervor. Their followers have proven to be theocratic mobs with only a little more restraint than the OWS bunch of slobs. We who didn’t exactly like Romney to start with, but have a sense of decency, started liking the man after the behavior of the anti-Romney bunch started showing a lack of class. Then they project that lack of class on him by using Alanskey (yes, I said it) name calling and misdirection techniques to win votes. Lets not forget the words of Santorum four years ago when he endorsed Romney as the true Conservative alternative to McCain. Four years later and Santorum says Romney is best buds with Obama. Now who is flip flopping?
Someone who yells “fire!” in a theater when they see a fire might be considered a drama queen by some. Romney reminds me of someone in the theater who would draw up a 59 point plan for how to deal with the raging fire. Our Republic is burning and if we are called drama queens for loudly proclaiming it, then so be it. Burn baby, burn.
if you’re president you need to come up with something like a 59 point plan to pass on to the rest of the executive branch or else nothing happens except a lot of speeches. You don’t want the person in charge dashing around just shouting about what a terrible fire it is — he has to issue actual orders.
time is of the essence. It reminds me of Captain Sully’s co-pilot, who was trying to work thru an engine restart checklist designed for a descent from 35,000 feet. Since he only had 1/10th of that altitude, he never got to the checklist item that would have directed him to throw the switch that would have made his plane more waterproof. Luckily, because there was help nearby in the Hudson, it didn’t matter.
There will be no one to help our Republic when it crashes. Some of us drama queens are already working on our post-crash survival strategy. I believe Romney is getting millions of dollars from the financial community because they are also working on their post-crash survival strategy after their credit default swaps fail (e.g., TARP, the next generation).
The RNC set the primary schedule and the debate schedule the way they did for whatever their reasons. I’d call the RNC the drama queen. The candidates just can figure it out this time and seems they are all adapting. Floor fight…brokered convention looks like how it’s headed. All the candidates will have figured this out by now…and should be headed that way in their strategy. Those are the rules.
Mr. Hudson,
I really liked your article. I stopped taking part in my local Tea Party group due to some very counter-productive nonsense similar to what you experienced.
And after reading so many of the comments to your article on this site, I would say that your drama queen thesis has been well proven.
> She talked about shadowy conspiracies by Republicans to co-opt the movement.
Well, I suppose even drama queens are right once in a while.
This is the RINO legacy: distrust. It comes from years of watching aghast and powerless as GOP politicians negotiated away many of their base’s most cherished principles.
It’s analogous to watching GM and Chrysler flail, thrash and flounder in an desperate attempt to get back buyer trust after squandering a rich legacy by selling expensive junk to millions of once-loyal American buyers. They didn’t lose their reputations overnight, and they won’t be getting them back overnight either. “Come back! We’re conservative too! Honest! I.. I once had my picture taken with Reagan! Really!”
And then, to reinforce the point, Karl Rove trashed Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell on nationwide television, after she had followed all the rules, won the nomination fair and square, and had every right to expect the GOP to back her. Sorry, they’d rather back the likes of Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist, and Arlen Specter — all of whom leave the party as soon as conservatives start to win. Dirt bag.
So don’t come around whining that Tea Partiers don’t trust Republicans. Trust has to be earned.
Walter, I wonder if you considered that the lady was not a Drama Queen, but a communist fifth columnist?
all the people who say “I was a tea partier” who then proceed to dis the tea parties and pretty much everything they stand for. It reminds me of when I listened to NPR while commuting during the Clinton years. Callers would say that they had always voted Republican and then proceeded to read every then-current Democrat talking point. What a farce. It is all propaganda. I feel sorry sorry for those of you who cannot recognize that.
Romney made his own bed..
Welcome to the real world, Mr. Hudson. What did you expect? You have to cling to the original intent and reason for the group. Human nature must be endured. In any group you find yourself dealing with people who are using the group to work out their own neuroses. The group could be a rod-and-gun club, a bridge club, the Disabled American Veterans, a school board, a class reunion committee, you name it. There is always an element of paranoia (sometimes justified) in group-think. But the original objectives and raison d’etre of the Tea Party are as sound today as they were in the beginning, and worth your support. Be cynical if you will, but don’t give up the faith. Work for, and vote for, the lesser evil. That is how humans work things out.
thank Jesus that the tea party needs no “generals” to enable us to do what we do: to pray for our nation and to act as self-selected individuals in her interest. we are individuals who are trying to restore the narrow but straight road to our founding. our goal is to prudently advance liberty and protect our children. our targets are those of opportunity. period.
all of this “politics” is so much sound and fury to me, and irrelevant to my individual actions.
that being said, i’ll gratutiously opine that mr romney strikes me as just another tyrant who is attempting to construct his own cult of personality. as such, i won’t be supporting him.
The words Romney and Tea Party should never be used in the same sentence.
Is this a variance of the Coulter schtick?
Cycle after cycle…somehow, moderates always think they can get the far right to behave if they just insult them enough. “Grow up, crybabies!” they explained.
Feh.
Well Walt, judging by some of these posts and maybe some help from the early season warm weather, it appears to me that your theory has blossomed beuatifully. Likening this unto a litmus test, I’m in complete agreement with you.
Speaking of the TEA party-the Taxed Enough Already party I have a question.
1. Why are they-TEA Party-against raising the taxes of the uber-wealthy like soros or buffett? Why are we as conservatives against raising the taxes of the wealthy when we all know the wealthy mostly vote for and support the left. Hollyweird, MSM, Wall Street, lawyers/law firms, unions and professional athletes pretty much support the left.Is there an irony in here somewhere? We protect the money of those who hate us and are sworn to destroy us and America.
Now the usual rejonder is the wealthy create jobs. Okay then have an exemption for business owners who employ less than 100 employees. But how many jobs does Matt Damon create? And don’t tell me he stars in a movie which employs people who make the movie. blah, blah, blah, They all want to pay more.
How about NBA star King James? Even Buffett? He buys stock in companies but it is the company’s CEO and shareholders who do the job of creating jobs. And if he wants to make more money for himself, even if we tax him more he will still play the game. I say we tax him on his assets or accumulated wealth and that goes for all the uber wealthy; none of this taxing their distributions crap. These people WANT to pay more so why don’t we accomodate them? I say hit the left where it hurts-money. Tax union dues and any charity/foundation which supports political organizations; tax 527s.
S Palin will rise out of her fortress of solitude deep beneath the frozen and snow packed Alaskan tundra, then descend upon the convention one humid tropical night in August in Tampa Bay Fla and accept the draft, the cool draft, that will mend the split between the avaricious Repubs and the crazy Conservatives and give us the one candidate that can defeat their *one* and restore sanity to this nation.
“All the available evidence points to Romney going down the identical path to Obama, only slower.”
I reckon that’s about the size of it, but it’s kinda like the road to death we’re all on. Most of us want to go down that road as slowly as possible.
wow, some interesting stuff here. Putting the disclaimer here that any of the above could be true or untrue, and that anybody and anything could be propagandists or propaganda, some of this is a bit unhinged.
Romney ran for Governor in Massachusetts. Maybe he has just political aspirations but y’know, you gotta appeal to some loonies to be a republican governor in Mass, even if you are a moderate. Why even saddle yourself with the designation Republican? just saying…he may not be Ron Paul but i doubt he’s obama, and IF he has a republican house and senate I don’t see him vetoing too much that comes through. He may well just be able to move to the right in the right arena.
Gingrich is brilliant and has had a bad rap but is starting to sound a little undesirable. This Calista and me stuff….even National Review has put great distance between him and them.
But i am a little confused by this stuff about Santorum? I lived in Delaware during his senate years and he seemed entirely rational to me. Even more importantly, I used to hear him on Bill Bennett’s show subbing pretty much weekly. I was and am pretty impressed. He sounds stable. He doesn’t sound like he wants to restore the inquisition to me (and I’m an agnostic right wing Jew). How anyone can say any candidate is unelectable at this point is beyond me; Reagan was an underdog until well toward the end of the campaign. Clinton was unelectable and feared by the democratic establishment because he had such baggage and was so tainted. Now, the bottom line is that the media is going to go all out against any repub, so even if Thomas jefferson re-apparates at the convention, they’re going to saddle him with his dalliance with Sally (or whatever his slave mistress was named allegedly) rather than his record, so the media is going to control the flow of information about ANY candidate. it is up to us on the right to counter it in forums like this. I get nothing threatening from Santorum. His remarks on college? Well, 2 gals i used to date – one a high school teacher, the otehr a college dean – and I had numerous discussions about how college wasn’t for everyone and that we needed to revise our educational priorities, and they were both libs. His remark on Puerto Rican english? Better than Newt’s suggestion that we admit Puerto Rico, oh, maybe 15 years ago. yeah, I like the idea of more people speaking English. Anything else, wehther it is Spanish or sign language or esperanto just drives us apart. Yeah, Rick’s a real wacko.
Frankly, the only reason ANY of our candidates appear to be unsuitable is because Bill Maher, Janene Garofolo, John Stewart, CBS, NBC, ABC, the DNC, hollywood and CNN tell us they are.
They are less suitable than BHO? Crazy Al Gorkovich? John “I really didn’t throw my medals over the fence” Kerry? Corzine? Arnold? Jerry? Nancy? Harry? Please….if Santorum or Romney or Palin get the nomination, let’s do what the libs do – circle the wagons, wipe the slate clean, and attack.
“It is withdrawal from the process and conservative apathy which gave us President Obama.”
Hogwash!
This is an appeal to consequences. It is also an appeal to fear. It is false. It is also used non-stop these days by alleged conservatives to scare other perceived conservatives into doing what the author wants others to do.
E.G.:
“If you don’t vote for Romney, it’s the same as voting FOR Obama.”; or,
“If you don’t vote for Santorum, it’s the same as voting FOR Obama.”; or,
“If you don’t vote for Gingrich, it’s the same as voting FOR Obama”:
Or any similar formulaic, fear and false consequence-based, non-argument.
It falls far short of a rational, logical, true, and persuasive argument. It’s as weak as argumentation gets.
As does the article as a whole, which is essentially a “can’t we all get along”, moderate, non-argument taking the form of the fallacy of “Middle Ground”.
Lastly, the article presents anecdotes of two individuals as being descriptive, categorically, of anyone who disagrees with the author’s moderate, work-within-the-system, think-INSIDE-the-box, viewpoint.
It’s kinda sad, really.
Politically, we ARE inside the box, all of us. It’s the realty of our two party system. Maybe if the “tea party” becomes a Tea Party we could think/vote outside the box.
Indeed, the Tea Party does have the power struggles going constantly. I think another reason for it is because so many feel so passionately about what is happening, and leadership draws those strong personalities. With that, you get a case of “too many chiefs and not enough Indians.”
The lack of a good national group for coordination is a problem as well. Everyone tried to declare themselves the “official” national Tea Party and it has hurt us not to be moving on some big issues as one movement.
One very big problem I have also seen a lot is a lack of fact checking. Many tend to hysterically pass on everything they get in email without checking anything out. They will be ready to make someone president (remember the day after Scott Brown was elected?) if he says something good about the Constitution. We should know better by now.
BillyB, vote “your conscience” in the primary. Once the GOP candidate is chosen, though, if you don’t vote for the GOP candidate in the General Election, you, and those who think like you, will be putting Obama back in the White House. The ONLY reason he could have won, even if 100% of blacks voted for him the last time instead of what, 96%, is because Republicans had a bunch of people who pitched fits and either voted for Ron Paul or didn’t vote at all because McCain wasn’t “your guy.” Yes, McCain sucked, but do you prefer Obama? So, to alter your statements a bit:
“If you don’t vote for THE GOP CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, it’s the same as voting FOR Obama.”
But hey, you will have “voted your conscience.” Right?
gshhhhs
my name is bond james bond
i like chocolate milk with caviar and yummy spinach
lol