I finally cast my vote against the GOP Establishment [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : I finally cast my vote against the GOP Establishment


beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 04:48
With pride and perseverance, I finally cast my votes today for Ron Paul for President of the United States and Richard Mourdock (vs. Dick Lugar) for Senator of the United States.

Now, it's up to the rest of you to make a difference.

Glock30Eric
05-08-2012, 05:02
Whooooo!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Restless28
05-08-2012, 05:37
In before the hater squad!

Well done!!!

lethal tupperwa
05-08-2012, 05:40
not the squad,

but remember what Perot

did for clinton.

eracer
05-08-2012, 05:44
not the squad,

but remember what Perot

did for clinton.Perot didn't do anything for Clinton. People who didn't vote for Perot failed to elect Perot.

Same with Ron Paul. Those who vote for Obama Lite are voting against Ron Paul (and the change we need.)

Ruble Noon
05-08-2012, 05:45
not the squad,

but remember what Perot

did for clinton.

Remember what a weak republican candidate did for Clinton and Obama.

Restless28
05-08-2012, 06:21
Remember what a weak republican candidate did for Clinton and Obama.

Mitt Romney is a younger, hipper Bob Dole. I can't include McCain even though he was a terrible candidate. He is a patriot.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 06:38
With pride and perseverance, I finally cast my votes today for Ron Paul for President of the United States and Richard Mourdock (vs. Dick Lugar) for Senator of the United States.

Now, it's up to the rest of you to make a difference.

When the results are in, please let us know how the candidates you voted for did.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 07:02
not the squad,

but remember what Perot

did for clinton.

What did Perot do for Clinton in the primary?

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 07:15
When the results are in, please let us know how the candidates you voted for did.

Will do. The Indiana results will be interesting and telling. In the Senate race, Mourdock was 10 points ahead four days ago in a very reliable local poll. Unfortunately, this news only served to stimulate a lot of last minute mud slinging and probably dirty tricks by the establishment in a desperate attempt to save Lugar's career.

On the presidential side, we had three candidates on the ballot: Romney, Gingrich and Paul. It will be interesting to see if our relatively conservative Republican population caves in for the frontrunner or lodges a protest vote as I have.

ted1
05-08-2012, 07:30
What did Perot do for Clinton in the primary?

He took away enough votes to cause the Republicans to lose the white house the same thing will happen with Paul and give Obama his second term.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Chuck TX
05-08-2012, 07:41
He took away enough votes to cause the Republicans to lose the white house the same thing will happen with Paul and give Obama his second term.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Not by running in the Primary.

creaky
05-08-2012, 08:12
With pride and perseverance, I finally cast my votes today for Ron Paul for President of the United States and Richard Mourdock (vs. Dick Lugar) for Senator of the United States.

Now, it's up to the rest of you to make a difference.

Excellent. The wife and I, after a period of reflection cast ours for Rick Santorum, as his platform most closely represented our thoughts on some of the major issues of the day. He lost of course, but we made our choice known.

Ain't America great?

svtpwnz
05-08-2012, 09:09
With pride and perseverance, I finally cast my votes today for Ron Paul for President of the United States and Richard Mourdock (vs. Dick Lugar) for Senator of the United States.

Now, it's up to the rest of you to make a difference.

Glad to hear you made it out to vote! I find myself leaning towards Ron Paul in the upcoming election in November. As much as many here hate to hear about him, he is the better cantidate hands down. People just aren't going to support him in fear of the hype that he can't win. So, they fall into the "Romney is still better than Obama and can win" crowd.

Romney is just a watered down version of Obama. I hate the fact that this flip flopping, gun grabbing, big government liberal is out there attempting to represent a party that is supposed to be promoting the direct opposite!

Gundude
05-08-2012, 09:23
So, they fall into the "Romney is still better than Obama and can win" crowd.The only quality Romney has over Obama, the fact that he's not Obama, is a quality all the candidates have.

It still baffles me how he was the one who was chosen as "able to win." Out of all the candidates except Santorum, including the ones who have dropped out already, Romney's probably the least likely to win.

It's McCain all over again. It's as if Obama has been given the option, in both elections, to hand-pick his opponent.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 09:28
The only quality Romney has over Obama, the fact that he's not Obama, is a quality all the candidates have.

It still baffles me how he was the one who was chosen as "able to win." Out of all the candidates except Santorum, including the ones who have dropped out already, Romney's probably the least likely to win.

It's McCain all over again. It's as if Obama has been given the option, in both elections, to hand-pick his opponent.

We should not let the little blue states go first, ever again.
1. Let the 10 most populous red states go first, by at least 2 weeks.
2. Reverse the current order.
3. Have all the states vote on the same day.


The current order almost insures that the most liberal candidate is chosen for both parties.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 10:30
The only reason Santorum, Gingrich et al dropped out is that they couldn't keep pace in the money marathon. You get a bottomless money pit organization like the Mormon church behind a candidate and truthfully, they can't lose. Sad but true. Think about that next time you choose to stay at a Marriott.

svtpwnz
05-08-2012, 10:35
The only quality Romney has over Obama, the fact that he's not Obama, is a quality all the candidates have.

It still baffles me how he was the one who was chosen as "able to win." Out of all the candidates except Santorum, including the ones who have dropped out already, Romney's probably the least likely to win.

It's McCain all over again. It's as if Obama has been given the option, in both elections, to hand-pick his opponent.

I am just as baffled as you are my friend. I really don't get how Romney is the nominee given his record. He is truely in every sense of the word a RINO. The Republican party has steered so far away from the foundation that they were set upon by true conservitaves.

I am really having a hard time dealing with the thought that Romney is the one that the republican establishment has put in front of us. This is just an 08' rerun.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 10:39
I am just as baffled as you are my friend. I really don't get how Romney is the nominee given his record. He is truely in every sense of the word a RINO. The Republican party has steered so far away from the foundation that they were set upon by true conservitaves.

I am really having a hard time dealing with the thought that Romney is the one that the republican establishment has put in front of us. This is just an 08' rerun.

The real question is, what are you going to do about it?

svtpwnz
05-08-2012, 10:56
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?

As much as I hate to admit it, I really haven't done much to this point besides voting. I really need to get out and more involved in throwing these establishment RINO leeches on their asses.

G29Reload
05-08-2012, 10:57
I can't include McCain even though he was a terrible candidate. He is a patriot.

No, he's NOT.

He's a lousy pilot who couldn't execute a slow rolling double scissor and sat his #$% in jail for it.

Ok, he sucked it up while there. That's about where it ended, My Friends.

He came home, got elected and drew up McCain-Feingold. Thrown out by the SCOTUS.

Despite all his so-called reputation as "Feisty", the one time he needed to fight, he didn't, and condemned us to the human wrecking ball.

He helped define the term RINO.

Just because you served honorably doesn't give you the right to come home and act dishonorably. I get nauseous everytime I see the bastard, and he's sticking his head up a little too much lately to remind us why we are where we are.

F him.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 12:15
As much as I hate to admit it, I really haven't done much to this point besides voting. I really need to get out and more involved in throwing these establishment RINO leeches on their asses.

Now you're talking!

Gundude
05-08-2012, 12:51
We should not let the little blue states go first, ever again.
1. Let the 10 most populous red states go first, by at least 2 weeks.
2. Reverse the current order.
3. Have all the states vote on the same day.


The current order almost insures that the most liberal candidate is chosen for both parties.If I remember correctly, McCain did horribly in the first few primaries last election. At one point it seemed he didn't have a snowball's chance. Then, some time later on, the other guys started dropping out like flies all around him.

I might be remembering incorrectly. I definitely remember being baffled as to how he ended up the eventual nominee. I don't think it was because the first few little blue states loved him.

Woofie
05-08-2012, 13:12
We should not let the little blue states go first, ever again.
1. Let the 10 most populous red states go first, by at least 2 weeks.
2. Reverse the current order.
3. Have all the states vote on the same day.


The current order almost insures that the most liberal candidate is chosen for both parties.

This is a huge problem with the way we conduct the primaries. I'm sure the schedule is somehow planned to maximize campaign contributions.

The media also plays a big part in choosing the candidate. They worked hard for McCain in the primaries last time and turned on him as soon as he won the nomination.

They are being so sweet to Mitt right now. That will soon change.

Woofie
05-08-2012, 13:15
No, he's NOT.

He's a lousy pilot who couldn't execute a slow rolling double scissor and sat his #$% in jail for it.

Ok, he sucked it up while there. That's about where it ended, My Friends.

He came home, got elected and drew up McCain-Feingold. Thrown out by the SCOTUS.

Despite all his so-called reputation as "Feisty", the one time he needed to fight, he didn't, and condemned us to the human wrecking ball.

He helped define the term RINO.

Just because you served honorably doesn't give you the right to come home and act dishonorably. I get nauseous everytime I see the bastard, and he's sticking his head up a little too much lately to remind us why we are where we are.

F him.

One of the few times I've ever agreed with you.

Alizard
05-08-2012, 13:54
With pride and perseverance, I finally cast my votes today for Ron Paul for President of the United States and Richard Mourdock (vs. Dick Lugar) for Senator of the United States.
That's probably why Obama will be reelected. It's a "third party effect". If a significant percentage of republican base vote for Paul, that takes away enough from Romney to make him lose.

Gundude
05-08-2012, 13:59
That's probably why Obama will be reelected. It's a "third party effect". If a significant percentage of republican base vote for Paul, that takes away enough from Romney to make him lose.How is that possible when Obama wasn't even an option on the OP's ballot?

Alizard
05-08-2012, 14:01
How is that possible when Obama wasn't even an option on the OP's ballot? Simple math. Eventually, Romenye will be against Obama for the presidency. If a significant chunk of GOP supporters are for Paul, many of them won't vote or will do a write-in. Whatever support is siphoned off from Romney means he will lose.

Gundude
05-08-2012, 14:07
Simple math. Eventually, Romenye will be against Obama for the presidency. If a significant chunk of GOP supporters are for Paul, many of them won't vote or will do a write-in. Whatever support is siphoned off from Romney means he will lose.
But it's not really a third-party effect when Paul is a Republican. It's more of a "one party eating itself" effect, and I'd say Republicans are long overdue for that.

Alizard
05-08-2012, 14:09
But it's not really a third-party effect when Paul is a Republican. It's more of a "one party eating itself" effect, and I'd say Republicans are long overdue for that. Maybe, but it's more of a third party when a section is so far off center like the Tea Party for example. They are so radical that most in the party can't support them. It's a "fracturing" of the party which means you end up with two incompatible pieces.

Woofie
05-08-2012, 14:32
Maybe, but it's more of a third party when a section is so far off center like the Tea Party for example. They are so radical that most in the party can't support them. It's a "fracturing" of the party which means you end up with two incompatible pieces.

Depends on what you mean by "off center." If you mean it in the sense of being moderate, then you're correct.

However if you mean "missing the target" then it's the Romney supporters who are the radicals and are fracturing the party.

Gundude
05-08-2012, 14:40
Maybe, but it's more of a third party when a section is so far off center like the Tea Party for example. They are so radical that most in the party can't support them. It's a "fracturing" of the party which means you end up with two incompatible pieces.I'd say they're far less radical than the folks from whom they co-opted their name, but that's probably tangential to this thread.

The Republicans as they stand today represent very few people that the Democrats don't already. There are elements within the party rightfully trying to effect change from within the party. Removing a cancerous tumor isn't going to be painless in the short term, but the sooner it's done the better. Different Republicans have different ideas about which element is the cancerous tumor in the party, but most Republicans agree there is one.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 14:51
Maybe, but it's more of a third party when a section is so far off center like the Tea Party for example. They are so radical that most in the party can't support them. It's a "fracturing" of the party which means you end up with two incompatible pieces.

Radical? In what way? Seem like reasonable people that are tired of paying too much in taxes to support the rest of the country.

Alizard
05-08-2012, 15:10
Depends on what you mean by "off center." If you mean it in the sense of being moderate, then you're correct.

However if you mean "missing the target" then it's the Romney supporters who are the radicals and are fracturing the party.The secret to winning any general election is capturing the most from the moderate centrist independents. Remember the "Big Tent" used in the Reagan era? The trick is to project the illusion that the party is moderate enough to include the middle. Reagan did it better than anybody. Tea Party is so radical they don't even care about moderates.

Alizard
05-08-2012, 15:15
I'd say they're far less radical than the folks from whom they co-opted their name, but that's probably tangential to this thread.

The Republicans as they stand today represent very few people that the Democrats don't already. There are elements within the party rightfully trying to effect change from within the party. Removing a cancerous tumor isn't going to be painless in the short term, but the sooner it's done the better. Different Republicans have different ideas about which element is the cancerous tumor in the party, but most Republicans agree there is one.OK, my point was that a divided party is usually the losing party. Check 1976 when Reagan challenged the incumbent and there was a bloody fight. The dem peanut farmer inherited the election because of the GOP blunder. Similar situation this time.

Gundude
05-08-2012, 15:25
If I remember correctly, McCain did horribly in the first few primaries last election. At one point it seemed he didn't have a snowball's chance. Then, some time later on, the other guys started dropping out like flies all around him.

I might be remembering incorrectly. I definitely remember being baffled as to how he ended up the eventual nominee. I don't think it was because the first few little blue states loved him.Since nobody is volunteering a memory better than mine, I figured I'd try to unfog myself. From wiki: (Relatively long-winded. Skip to my executive summary at the end as desired)McCain had fundraising problems in the first half of 2007, due in part to his support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which was unpopular among the Republican base electorate.[197][198] Large-scale campaign staff downsizing took place in early July, but McCain said that he was not considering dropping out of the race.[198] Later that month, the candidate's campaign manager and campaign chief strategist both departed.[199] McCain slumped badly in national polls, often running third or fourth with 15 percent or less support.

The Arizona senator subsequently resumed his familiar position as a political underdog,[200] riding the Straight Talk Express and taking advantage of free media such as debates and sponsored events.[201] By December 2007, the Republican race was unsettled, with none of the top-tier candidates dominating the race and all of them possessing major vulnerabilities with different elements of the Republican base electorate.[202] McCain was showing a resurgence, in particular with renewed strength in New Hampshire – the scene of his 2000 triumph – and was bolstered further by the endorsements of The Boston Globe, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and almost two dozen other state newspapers,[203] as well as from Independent Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman.[204][205] McCain decided not to campaign significantly in the January 3, 2008, Iowa caucuses, which saw a win by former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee.

McCain's comeback plan paid off when he won the New Hampshire primary on January 8, defeating former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney in a close contest, to once again become one of the front-runners in the race.[206] In mid-January, McCain placed first in the South Carolina primary, narrowly defeating Mike Huckabee.[207] Pundits credited the third-place finisher, Tennessee's former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, with drawing votes from Huckabee in South Carolina, thereby giving a narrow win to McCain.[208] A week later, McCain won the Florida primary,[209] beating Romney again in a close contest; Giuliani then dropped out and endorsed McCain.[210]

On February 5, McCain won both the majority of states and delegates in the Super Tuesday Republican primaries, giving him a commanding lead toward the Republican nomination. Romney departed from the race on February 7.[211] McCain's wins in the March 4 primaries clinched a majority of the delegates, and he became the presumptive Republican nominee.[212]So I guess what I was remembering was his abysmal showing at the polls in the seven months leading up to the primaries. Once primaries started, I guess he did do reasonably well in the early states. Still not sure how, looks like it might've been entirely the media's doing (hmm....), but there it is.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 16:20
OK, my point was that a divided party is usually the losing party. Check 1976 when Reagan challenged the incumbent and there was a bloody fight. The dem peanut farmer inherited the election because of the GOP blunder. Similar situation this time.

It is much too early to declare the GOP divided for the general.

Most will do a 'Doc' and choose the lesser of two evils. I don't know yet what I will do in the general as I've been very focused on this primary where our local Tea Party is really flexing it's muscles (much to my delight). Most loyalists of either party will reunite after the bloodiest of primary fights. Just look at 2008 and Obama vs Clinton.

Woofie
05-08-2012, 17:09
The secret to winning any general election is capturing the most from the moderate centrist independents. Remember the "Big Tent" used in the Reagan era? The trick is to project the illusion that the party is moderate enough to include the middle. Reagan did it better than anybody. Tea Party is so radical they don't even care about moderates.

It is a sad state of affairs when supposed conservative think that a group advocating responsibility is radical.

aspartz
05-08-2012, 17:34
That's probably why Obama will be reelected. It's a "third party effect". If a significant percentage of republican base vote for Paul, that takes away enough from Romney to make him lose.
Obama will win because the GOP failed to produce a candidate that enough people support.

Tea Party is so radical they don't even care about moderates.
Who are you calling the tea party, the fiscal conservative yet morally centrist folks who started the movement or the Bachmann/Palin folks who claimed to be their leaders yet drug the movement back to the Bush/Cheney Fiscal left leaning moralists?

ARS

Alizard
05-08-2012, 17:57
It is much too early to declare the GOP divided for the general. Not when they are knee deep in the blood letting and all the major candidates slammed Romney as a liberal and basically said he was an Obama clone.

What next.... the old saturday night live routine:

Never mind what I said before.... I didn't know what I was saying, just listen to me now....

The Tea Party people are NEVER going to sign aboard the Romney Titanic.

Alizard
05-08-2012, 17:58
Who are you calling the tea party, the fiscal conservative yet morally centrist folks who started the movement or the Bachmann/Palin folks who claimed to be their leaders yet drug the movement back to the Bush/Cheney Fiscal left leaning moralists?

ARSExactly... whatever it is you just said (?)

Alizard
05-08-2012, 18:00
Obama will win because the GOP failed to produce a candidate that enough people support.Or put another way, they produced a bunch of loser candidates similar to the old dem days with Jesse Jackson, Mondale/Ferraro, Dukakis, etc. If the crop they dragged out is the best they could muster, that really is the problem.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 18:27
Lugar has conceded defeat to Richard Mourdock!

Tea Party flexing it's muscle BIG TIME!

Another RINO bites the dust!

Alizard
05-08-2012, 18:37
It is a sad state of affairs when supposed conservative think that a group advocating responsibility is radical.
You don't think the tea party is radical?

I doubt Ronald Reagan would even be allowed into their view of "conservatism". And the TP seems to have forgotten that women have the right to vote too... when Obama gets re elected, just remember why.


Conservative Republicans speak out against the radical Tea-Publicans' War on Women


There was a My Turn column in the Arizona Republic on Sunday by Linda Binder (Lake Havasu): Susan Gerard (Phoenix); and Roberta Voss (Glendale), each a former Republican state legislator.
Each legislator was considered a "solid conservative" Republican in their day, but in today's radicalized Tea-Publican Party would be vilified as a "Republican in Name Only " (RINO), or worse: (choose one) a socialist, communist, Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, secular humanist, "librul" Democrat -- disparaging terms used interchangeably without regard to meaning by Tea-Publicans to refer to anyone who disagrees with their radical extremist agenda.


http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2012/04/conservative-republicans-speak-out-against-the-radical-tea-publicans-war-on-women.html

Alizard
05-08-2012, 18:44
You seriously think they can sell this agenda to mainstream America?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/tea_party_constitution.html


Social Security and Medicare

In a speech to the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, Texas Gov. Rick Perry listed a broad swath of programs that “contradict the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us.” Gov. Perry’s list includes Medicare and “a bankrupt social security system, that Americans understand is essentially a Ponzi scheme on a scale that makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur.” ////// Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who engineered the House of Representatives’s dramatic reading of the Constitution earlier this year, claimed that Medicare and Social Security are “not in the Constitution” and are only allowed to exist because “the courts have stretched the Constitution to say it’s in the general welfare clause.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said we should eliminate Medicare because “that’s a family responsibility, not a government responsibility.”

Education

Education is also on the Tea Party’s chopping block. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) routinely grills education secretaries at congressional hearings, insisting that the Constitution does not authorize any federal involvement in education. Similarly, Rep. Foxx insists that “we should not be funding education” because she insists doing so violates the Tenth Amendment. And Sen. Coburn does not “even think [education] is a role for the federal government.”
Antipoverty programs, federal disaster relief, and other help for the less fortunate

Sen. Lee would go even further in cutting off assistance for low-income Americans. In an interview with a Utah radio host, Lee claimed that the framers intended all antipoverty programs to be dealt with exclusively at the state level. //// Sen. Lee claimed that federal relief for hurricane, earthquake, tornado, and other disaster victims is “one of many areas where we ought to focus on getting that power back to the states,” a position that would kill the Federal Emergency Management Agency and prevent the nation as a whole from rallying to the support of a state whose financial resources are overwhelmed by a major natural disaster.
Food safety

Sen. Lee also claims that “the framers intended state lawmakers deal with” food safety in this same radio interview. This position would not simply endanger the residents of states with inadequate regulation of their food supply, it would also create costly and duplicative state inspection programs and impose logistical nightmares on food-importing states.
Child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime, and other labor protections

Nearly 100 years ago, the Supreme Court declared federal child labor laws unconstitutional in a case called Hammer v. Dagenhart. Twenty-two years later, the Court recognized that Hammer’s holding was “novel when made and unsupported by any provision of the Constitution,” and unanimously overruled this erroneous decision.
Sen. Lee, however, believes that, while Hammer might “sound harsh,” the Constitution “was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh,” and thus we should return to the world where federal child labor laws are unconstitutional. Moreover, Lee has a very powerful ally prepared to sweep away nearly all national protections for American workers.
Civil rights laws

Shortly after he won his party’s nod to be a U.S. Senate candidate, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) revealed that he opposes the federal bans on whites-only lunch counters and race discrimination in employment. In a rambling interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Paul explained that, while he believes that Congress may ban discrimination from “public institutions,” he does not support antidiscrimination laws that regulate private business.
As Sen. Paul suggested in that interview, these basic civil rights laws—like national laws banning child labor and establishing a minimum wage—can be snuffed out of existence if Congress’s power to enact commercial regulations is read too narrowly.

beforeobamabans
05-08-2012, 18:58
You don't think the tea party is radical? the TP seems to have forgotten that women have the right to vote too... when Obama gets re elected, just remember why.
This statement right from White House talking points discredits all of your observations. If you really believe that the Tea Party somehow diminishes women, then you under estimate your opponent at your own peril.

Ruble Noon
05-08-2012, 20:24
Lugar has conceded defeat to Richard Mourdock!

Tea Party flexing it's muscle BIG TIME!

Another RINO bites the dust!

:woohoo::dancingbanana::devildance::rock:

G-19
05-08-2012, 20:28
Deleted, started new thread

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 20:36
Obama will win because the GOP failed to produce a candidate that enough people support.


Who are you calling the tea party, the fiscal conservative yet morally centrist folks who started the movement or the Bachmann/Palin folks who claimed to be their leaders yet drug the movement back to the Bush/Cheney Fiscal left leaning moralists?

ARS




It will certainly be interesting to see what happens if Paul runs third party and Barry wins. The conservatives will blame the libertarians for not voting republican, and the libertarians will blame the republicans for not nominating a libertarian.

It's all rather weird, and yet interesting at the same time.

Oh well, it's too early to blame anyone for anything yet. The contest is far from over.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 20:37
Lugar has conceded defeat to Richard Mourdock!

Tea Party flexing it's muscle BIG TIME!

Another RINO bites the dust!

Good job!!! :supergrin::supergrin::supergrin:

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Ruble Noon
05-08-2012, 20:44
It will certainly be interesting to see what happens if Paul runs third party and Barry wins. The conservatives will blame the libertarians for not voting republican, and the libertarians will blame the republicans for not nominating a libertarian.

It's all rather weird, and yet interesting at the same time.

Oh well, it's too early to blame anyone for anything yet. The contest is far from over.

Paul won't run as a third party candidate. Romney might be forced to though.

aspartz
05-08-2012, 21:21
Exactly... whatever it is you just said (?)
The question was: Who are you calling the Tea Party?

The TEA party was an offshoot of the GOP which wanted to minimize the influence of the big government moralists and instead focus on the cost, size, and power of the government itself. These were the economic conservative, yet morally left of center republicans who for years have been out shouted by the fundamentalists of the religious right.

More recently, people like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin have claimed to be the voice of the tea party, yet espouse the values (big spending moralists) that the founders had attempted distance themselves from.

The founders were closer to Libertarian than Bush/Cheney neo-cons.
The new self proclaimed leaders ARE Bush/Cheney neo-cons.

ARS

Alizard
05-09-2012, 00:25
This statement right from White House talking points discredits all of your observations. If you really believe that the Tea Party somehow diminishes women, then you under estimate your opponent at your own peril.
Right, whatever. Direct quotes from GOP candidates are somehow Whitehouse propoganda.


You got lunatics saying health care plans should not provide contraception because that "encourages" bad behavior and you can't see the lunatic fringe label?

Whatever. Just keep telling yourself that mainstream America is with the Tea Party and wait for the election. I am sure that the red (neck) states will love them and I predicted the GOP may even pick up a few congressional seats, but they are not going to take the white house.


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Good luck selling that crap.

beforeobamabans
05-09-2012, 04:23
Final results in Indiana:

U.S. Senate
Mourdock-61%
Lugar-39%

President
Romney-65%
Paul-16%
Santorum-13%
Gingrinch-6%

Ruble Noon
05-09-2012, 04:42
Right, whatever. Direct quotes from GOP candidates are somehow Whitehouse propoganda.


You got lunatics saying health care plans should not provide contraception because that "encourages" bad behavior and you can't see the lunatic fringe label?

Whatever. Just keep telling yourself that mainstream America is with the Tea Party and wait for the election. I am sure that the red (neck) states will love them and I predicted the GOP may even pick up a few congressional seats, but they are not going to take the white house.


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/



Good luck selling that crap.

You do know that Santorum is no longer in the running?

Gary W Trott
05-09-2012, 06:19
With pride and perseverance, I finally cast my votes today for Ron Paul for President of the United States and Richard Mourdock (vs. Dick Lugar) for Senator of the United States.

Now, it's up to the rest of you to make a difference.
Good work!

m51
05-09-2012, 07:30
When the results are in, please let us know how the candidates you voted for did.

LOL, Doc you hit the nail on the head, glad he voted, but a waste of gas money.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 07:33
LOL, Doc you hit the nail on the head, glad he voted, but a waste of gas money.

I disagree. Lugar is out. That's an accomplishment he can be proud to have assisted in.

nmk
05-09-2012, 07:52
Right, whatever. Direct quotes from GOP candidates are somehow Whitehouse propoganda.


You got lunatics saying health care plans should not provide contraception because that "encourages" bad behavior and you can't see the lunatic fringe label?

Whatever. Just keep telling yourself that mainstream America is with the Tea Party and wait for the election. I am sure that the red (neck) states will love them and I predicted the GOP may even pick up a few congressional seats, but they are not going to take the white house.


http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/rick_santorum_is_coming_for_your_birth_control/



Good luck selling that crap.

Does anyone associate Santorum with the Tea Party?

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 08:29
Does anyone associate Santorum with the Tea Party?

Thanks to the media and people like Bachman and Palin yes I would say the general public does.

beforeobamabans
05-09-2012, 08:38
I disagree. Lugar is out. That's an accomplishment he can be proud to have assisted in.

Thank you.

I have to admit that Romney's results were impressive given three others still on the ballot. Mourdock is much more conservative than Romney and yet they polled about the same number of votes. This tells me that the GOP rank and file are accepting of Romney as their nominee.

My 25 yo daughter, who of course has been inundated with my RP propaganda, unapologetically voted for Romney. She told me, "He's going to be the nominee. Let's get on with it."

G19G20
05-09-2012, 12:36
He took away enough votes to cause the Republicans to lose the white house the same thing will happen with Paul and give Obama his second term.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Actually, Paulites wouldn't vote for Romney anyway so Romney loses nothing to Paul. If you removed Paul from the race entirely, Paulites would just stay home. No gains for Obama or loses for Romney. Just loses for Paul.

aspartz
05-09-2012, 13:02
Actually, Paulites wouldn't vote for Romney anyway so Romney loses nothing to Paul. If you removed Paul from the race entirely, Paulites would just stay home. No gains for Obama or loses for Romney. Just loses for Paul.
If the GOP would nominate a decent candidate, we "Paulites" would be out in droves to vote for him. Don't blame us when your guy loses because we refuse to hold our noses AGAIN.

ARS

lethal tupperwa
05-09-2012, 13:46
if you don't vote AGAINST the re-election of the one

will you be happy with more change?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 13:47
If the GOP would nominate a decent candidate, we "Paulites" would be out in droves to vote for him. Don't blame us when your guy loses because we refuse to hold our noses AGAIN.

ARS

Other than Paul or Romney, do you have anyone in mind?

aspartz
05-09-2012, 13:49
if you don't vote AGAINST the re-election of the one will you be happy with more change?
Are we ever going to have a GOP candidate that people want to vote for? This lesser of the evils mantra is a loser's game.

The change that another big spending moralist would bring is not an improvement either.

ARS

Con43
05-09-2012, 14:58
Mitt Romney is a younger, hipper Bob Dole. I can't include McCain even though he was a terrible candidate. He is a patriot.




Explain how or why Bob Dole is not a "Patriot".

norton
05-09-2012, 18:22
OK, my point was that a divided party is usually the losing party. Check 1976 when Reagan challenged the incumbent and there was a bloody fight. The dem peanut farmer inherited the election because of the GOP blunder. Similar situation this time.

No Republican candidate was going to win the White House in 1976. Too much Nixon and Watergate fallout.

The Republicans represent both center and right. Sometimes the power shifts from one part of the center to the end. Right now because of the Kenyan's actions, no Republican is going to vote for BHO. The "shiver down the leg" is gone for BHO. Moderates have been awakened. They voted for a Socialist last time because they were fooled. Not again.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 18:23
No Republican candidate was going to win the White House in 1976. Too much Nixon and Watergate fallout.

The Republicans represent both center and right. Sometimes the power shifts from one part of the center to the end. Right now because of the Kenyan's actions, no Republican is going to vote for BHO. The "shiver down the leg" is gone for BHO. Moderates have been awakened. They voted for a Socialist last time because they were fooled. Not again.

I think that was a tingle up the leg, the only thing down the leg was the tinkle.