politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Romney's Rise Challenges Tea Party's Clout In GOP
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic ... /10/15/national/w061539D99.DTL
Published: Oct 15, 2011
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2011-10-15 12:55:58 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 5261
Comments: 14
Mitt Romney's early success in the Republican presidential race is challenging the tea party's clout. Will it continue to pull the GOP sharply right? Will it slowly fade? Or merge with mainstream Republican elements in a nod to pragmatism, something it's hardly known for? On the surface, Romney's strength seems at odds with the tea party's fiery success in ousting Republicans seen as compromisers, and in making the House GOP caucus more ideological, even when its leaders plead for flexibility. Romney defends the government's 2008 bank bailouts, plus the mandated health insurance he initiated as Massachusetts governor. He says he can work with "good Democrats." Although he later changed, Romney once supported abortion rights, gun control and gay rights. These positions run counter to the beliefs and goals of many tea party activists scattered throughout the country. Yet Romney is faring better in polls, fundraising and debates than are contenders with stronger tea party credentials, including Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. Several Republican strategists, and even some tea party leaders, say they aren't surprised or alarmed. Their overarching goal is to defeat President Barack Obama next year, they say, and if Romney is best-positioned to do that, they'll endure his shortcomings. "The perception that tea partyers are ideological purists is wrong," said Sal Russo, a long-time Republican strategist in California and a leader of the Tea Party Express. "We are a broad-based movement," he said, "and we are looking to win in 2012." Danny Diaz, a Washington-based Republican strategist unaligned with any presidential candidates, agrees. "The tea party movement is an anti-Washington movement," he said. While Perry and Herman Cain might make a more dynamic claim to that mantle, he said, Romney has never lived in Washington, and tea party activists won't rule him out. "Many of them are pragmatists," Diaz said. They desperately want to oust Obama, he said, and "they need a candidate that's electable." A CBS-New York Times poll found that tea partyers are more satisfied with the GOP presidential field than are Republicans in general. Cain was the top choice among tea party activists, with Romney second. Some campaign veterans see bigger problems ahead for Romney. Polls of Republicans show Romney holding steady at about 25 percent, while Bachmann, Perry and Cain take turns making surges. "That tells me that 75 percent of the primary voters would really rather have someone else," said GOP lobbyist and consultant Mike McKenna. Many tea party activists have little or no loyalty to the Republican Party, and McKenna predicts big problems next year if they feel their conservative values were sacrificed for political expediency. "Romney would cause enormous numbers of tea party-type voters to simply not show on game day," he said. The chief question, he said, "is whether one candidate will be able to aggregate the anti-Romney Republicans before it is too late." Perry seems the likeliest choice, McKenna said, "but the clock is ticking." Jenny Beth Martin of Atlanta, who is active with Tea Party Patriots, said several groups are having informal talks about whether they should try to coalesce behind an alternative to Romney. Tea partyers cherish their independence, she said, and "over the next eight to 10 weeks, it'll be interesting to see how it all shapes up." Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh repeatedly criticized Romney on his radio show last week. "Romney is not a conservative," he said. "The Republican base doesn't want Romney." For now, Romney seems willing to run some risks, hoping to attract independent voters who will be crucial in the 2012 general election.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: LF (#0)
"Many of them are pragmatists," Diaz said. They desperately want to oust Obama, he said, and "they need a candidate that's electable." The last sentence reveals the conundrum ALL sane Americans will face. Most WILL be pragmatic upon contemplating an 0bama/Holder Regime from 2013-2017. The consensus if that happens is a bloody CWII, riots, anarchy, and suspension of the constitution in the US during those years, but also probably ratcheted-up instability throughout the world, and perhaps even an Armageddon or two of sorts. 0bama is doing Satan's work. The truth of the matter is the entire primary field of Republicans can beat 0bama - and I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE. But the RNC elites know they can now run the most liberal Republican puppet in history and get away with it. Now for all of you insisting that there is no difference between 0bama and Romney, there most certainly is... Though Romney IS a liberal, he's NO Commie, NO Muslim, NO racist, NO America-Hater, NO parasite, NO, Destroyer of American Business, NO ignoramus, NO Anarchist.
“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” ~ Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist author of 'Rules for Radicals', Saul Alinsky
Though Romney IS a liberal... There it is. We've already moved so far left there may never be a rebirth of true American founding ideology. And even knowing that, we're actually considering voting for a liberal? I just don't think I can do it.
That's what it is going to take. Have you considered - since the FDR Administration at least - the constant of the US moving ever leftward? Oh the speeds vary - from fast (FDR,LBJ,W Bush,Obama) to slow (Eisenhower perhaps, Reagan certainly) - but the DIRECTION never changes. It's all a game - and while I'll make the pretense of voting (for some minor 3rd party candidate) - I'm not voting for someone simply because they're less statist/evil. Obama and his merry band of Marxists have done what their puppet masters wanted - they've imposed Obama-care on us. It's not going to go away (Romney will supposedly issue executive orders for states to "opt-out", but states like NY and California will "opt-in". Then what? And the Marxists aren't going to just "lie-down", anyway. If they can find a way to bend the "living, breathing Constitution" to impose it in the first place, they will find a way to keep it. The Oba-marxists have been the "special forces" - the "shock troops" if you will. They have taken ground behind the so-called lines. Now they are expendible. This is where the so-called republicans (statists with a smiley-face) come in to solidify the gains. Fifty years of NEA approved indoctrination in the public schools has done the trick. The last remnants of anyone who values American History and the Constitution can be seen in the Tea Party. We're old, and dying out. The OWS freaks are the future. And the future is anarchy and chaos. Might as well bring it on sooner rather than later.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ I just don't think I can do it. I know, brutha. I can respect the principle of rejecting Romney. I just can't accept seeing 0bama tear this nation up for another 4 years. Since Poppy infected the WH, the elites have destroyed and checkmated us.
What utter nonsense. First, Romney's rise means what exactly? He's stuck between 23% and 27% of the vote. 75% of GOP primary voters are looking for another candidate. Second, the GOP ALWAYS nominates the person who came in second during the previous Presidential primary. The 2008 primary happened before their was any real Tea Party.
Have you considered - since the FDR Administration at least - the constant of the US moving ever leftward? Oh the speeds vary - from fast (FDR,LBJ,W Bush,Obama) to slow (Eisenhower perhaps, Reagan certainly) - but the DIRECTION never changes. The Oba-marxists have been the "special forces" - the "shock troops" if you will. They have taken ground behind the so-called lines. Now they are expendible. Fifty years of NEA approved indoctrination in the public schools has done the trick. The last remnants of anyone who values American History and the Constitution can be seen in the Tea Party. We're old, and dying out. The OWS freaks are the future. And the future is anarchy and chaos. Great post Dodge. You're on target 95% with your assessment. Might as well bring it on sooner rather than later. Here's where I disagree; Under Republicanism (even under Romney), rabid statism slows down, giving constitutionalists and conservatives at least a chance to infiltrate the machine and hopefully reverse direction. I realize it's a long shot, but there's NO way this happens under a continued 0bama regime.
It's not going to happen under a Romney regime, either. To restore any semblance of a Constitutional Republic via the ballot box would take (IMHO) a mega-billionaire to run for POTUS. One who's love of country and patriotism was not questioned. The best shot we had at that scenario was Ross Perot in '92. I don't have time to go back and look up all the stats, but if memory serves he was actually polling better than GHWB for a while. Then - he mysteriously flipped out. I've always believed it was because his family was threatened. No, things are right on track as far as the puppetmasters are concerned. And they're not going to let a little thing like an election (or another billionaire) get in the way.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ We've already moved so far left there may never be a rebirth of true American founding ideology. And even knowing that, we're actually considering voting for a liberal? I just don't think I can do it. The founders ideology would be considered leftist by the current foolish crop of East Indies Company loving 'conservatives'.
When the people are afraid, that's when the greatest long term money is made.~~~~Clark Howard
Slowing down the rate of Commie-takeover? Rampant statism and intrusion? I disagree respectfully. The best scenario now is to steal TIME. The GOP candidate - no matter who it is - provides it. The conservatives within that governance provides our best opportunity to regain equilibrium. Might not be a great shot, but it's our ONLY shot. The best shot we had at that scenario was Ross Perot in '92. I don't have time to go back and look up all the stats, but if memory serves he was actually polling better than GHWB for a while....Then - he mysteriously flipped out. I've always believed it was because his family was threatened. I agree in both cases, but it's 20 years later. NOT happening right now. Our back is against the wall - we can NOT give 0bama, Holder, Nappy, and a bunch of other Commies and Nazis another four years to turn this nation into Uganda.
Can you give some examples of their ideology that you would consider leftist?
I voted Perot in 92. My second presidential vote. First one was for .....Bush.
That gin-soaked answer ought to be good.
Slowing down the rate of Commie-takeover? Rampant statism and intrusion? I disagree respectfully. Let me put it this way: The most conservative president we've had in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan. On foreign policy matters he was fantastic - he stood up to the Soviets and certainly hastened their downfall. But on domestic policy? A mixed bag, at best. The economy recovered from the inept one's years - but in the end Reagan was snookered by O'Neal and the democrats. The promised spending cuts never came. No federal agencies were abolished or even reduced in size. The government itself grew. Now - if that is the BEST we can do (and Romney is certainly not even close to being the conservative Reagan was), then that tells me that the problems we have are not fixable via elections. I wish they were - I hate saying that. I think it's safe to say that you and I are both conservatives (though I may be more on the libertarian side). We want what all true conservatives want - a much smaller, more efficient government. Less regulation, more freedom. We just disagree on how to get there. You still hold out hope for the electoral process, and I respect that. Part of the problem as I see it is the fact we don't really have a true opposition party. Instead we have the GOP. I had hoped (in vain, as it turns out) that 2008 would spell the demise of the GOP and a conservative party would take its place. The tea-party phenomenon gave me additional hope -- but the hopes have been dashed as instead of the tea-party co-opting the GOP, the exact opposite has happened. Oh well, opportunity lost.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ But on domestic policy? A mixed bag, at best. The economy recovered from the inept one's years - but in the end Reagan was snookered by O'Neal and the democrats. The promised spending cuts never came. No federal agencies were abolished or even reduced in size. The government itself grew. We both agree on your overview of the historical record. But as you note, half way through his second term, Reagan was definitely over-powered and deceived by "trusted aides." Earlier promising proposals to slash goob agencies never came while the goob did indeed bloat instead of being reduced. As Reagan became less detached and less aware of what was going on around him, the SOB globalists conspired to undermine the conservative agenda. In retrospect it was easier to see how The Gipper's administration AND agenda were totally hijacked, with Poppy Bush retaking the mantle on behalf of the pro-New World Order blueblood GOP internationalists. Now - if that is the BEST we can do (and Romney is certainly not even close to being the conservative Reagan was), then that tells me that the problems we have are not fixable via elections. I wish they were - I hate saying that. We ARE on the same page... All I'm saying is ANY Presidential candidate instead of 0bama gives we the people and system a chance and time (though small it may be) to recalibrate the globalist machination already in place. We are not unlike the human body. If we get enough of our OWN fed up people (Killer B Cells) at local, state, and federal levels (instead of the 0bama Cancer Cells), we have at least a chance of staving off the Late Stage 0bama/Commie/Statist Cancer and giving the body the opportunity of creating more Killer B Cells. Stranger things have happened in America History. I think it's safe to say that you and I are both conservatives (though I may be more on the libertarian side). We want what all true conservatives want - a much smaller, more efficient government. Less regulation, more freedom. We just disagree on how to get there. You still hold out hope for the electoral process, and I respect that. Part of the problem as I see it is the fact we don't really have a true opposition party. Instead we have the GOP. I hear ya, brutha and respect where you're coming from. Look, I realize most primary candidates are pre-chosen. The electoral process is now a sham. The ballot box is ostensibly Kabuki Theater. It's not that I even disagree with how this all should shake down at all. I'm waiting till I see the whites of their eyes ;-) If thing were as they should be, federal and state impeachments, indictments, and sentencing should be a daily event. Goobermint needs to be totally disinfected. Malfeasance and irresponsibility is running rampant, but instead of shame, it's celebrated and defended by political partisans. And according to the US Constitution, treason is to be meted out with capitol punishment (yes, misspelled correctly ), but instead it's totally ignored as we're sold out. The Constitution has routinely been violated and abused. By both parties. We no longer have a "representative government." We no longer have checks and balances within the branches of government. We are very close to your solution. Part of the problem as I see it is the fact we don't really have a true opposition party. Instead we have the GOP. True. We conservatives have NO representation. And who knew the Dem Party would become the Commie/aka "Progressive" party, and that the Senate and House would be amenable to Communists operating in DC in full view? I had hoped (in vain, as it turns out) that 2008 would spell the demise of the GOP and a conservative party would take its place. The tea-party phenomenon gave me additional hope -- but the hopes have been dashed as instead of the tea-party co-opting the GOP, the exact opposite has happened. Oh well, opportunity lost. My hopes mirrored your exactly. It just reinforced the strength of the RNC globalist who pull the strings for the GOP and its chosen fellow globalists. And now with no viable conservative Third Party in place (optimists hoped to take back the GOP - NOT happening), we are subject to the whims of another RINO Prez and abandoned at the doorstep once again of Statists.
"The tea party movement is an anti-Washington movement," he said. While Perry and Herman Cain might make a more dynamic claim to that mantle, he said, Romney has never lived in Washington, and tea party activists won't rule him out.
#2. To: Liberator (#1)
The last sentence reveals the conundrum ALL sane Americans will face.
#3. To: Liberator (#1)
The last sentence reveals the conundrum ALL sane Americans will face. Most WILL be pragmatic upon contemplating an 0bama/Holder Regime from 2013-2017. The consensus if that happens is a bloody CWII, riots, anarchy, and suspension of the constitution in the US during those years, but also probably ratcheted-up instability throughout the world, and perhaps even an Armageddon or two of sorts. 0bama is doing Satan's work.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine."
- Abraham Lincoln
#4. To: We The People (#2)
We've already moved so far left there may never be a rebirth of true American founding ideology. And even knowing that, we're actually considering voting for a liberal?
#5. To: Brian S (#0)
The Buffet rule -- you can become the world's largest tax cheat and also become an idol of the left at the same time. Just say the right words and it can happen.
#6. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#3)
That's what it is going to take.
#7. To: Liberator (#6)
I realize it's a long shot, but there's NO way this happens under a continued 0bama regime.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine."
- Abraham Lincoln
#8. To: We The People (#2)
(Edited)
There it is.
#9. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#7)
It's not going to happen under a Romney regime, either.
#10. To: mininggold (#8)
The founders ideology would be considered leftist
#11. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#7)
The best shot we had at that scenario was Ross Perot in '92.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
Can you give some examples of their ideology that you would consider leftist?
#13. To: Liberator (#9)
(Edited)
It's not going to happen under a Romney regime, either.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine."
- Abraham Lincoln
#14. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#13)
Let me put it this way: The most conservative president we've had in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan. On foreign policy matters he was fantastic - he stood up to the Soviets and certainly hastened their downfall.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]