The outcome of the GOP “Civil War”

After last night’s round of primaries, David Frum issued the definitive statement on the GOP’s short and largely meaningless civil war. His tweet:

Post-primary GOP deal: donors choose the candidates; Tea Party writes their message.

Texas and a few other pockets of the South may be exceptions, but across most of the country that’s the deal. “Established” political figures like Mitch McConnell get to keep their spots as long as they let the party’s craziest extremes hold a veto on policy decisions. The lessons of 2012 have been trumped by the lessons of 2010. Why should I care about the party’s future chances of holding the White House if doing something about it might cost me a carefully gerrymandered seat?

Good to have that cleared up.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Republican Party
156 comments on “The outcome of the GOP “Civil War”
  1. geoff1968 says:

    Big Government
    Big Business
    Big Education
    Big Labor

    Big, Big, Big, Big.

    I’m pretty much screwed in any case.

    Once upon a time I believed. I even have my Pat Buchanan buttons from ’96. Now, I tend to think something is going on far above our heads. Here we are. Proxy soldiers in a proxy war.

    They just created matter out of light. That’s important. When they find the G-d particle…the portal from the other dimension will open and Cthulhu will step through.

    • CaptSternn says:

      You have actually touched on the reason for the tea party movement. Something I have said before, the establishment wants the two parties to be virtually the same so it doesn’t matter which party has control. The only difference is in how fast the agenda is acheived. Faster with democrats, a bit slower with the GOP establishment, but moving in the same direction.

      More socialism, more spending, more government control, more dependence on the federal government, less individual liberty and rights. Tear down the constitution and all it stands for. More central planning, more central government. No States, just one State. No borders, open borders.

      Capitalism and private property has failed, move toward socialism and communism. Health care is in a crisis, have the government take over. Health care is an entitlement. Raise taxes, punish successful people, reward those that choose not to work with a basic income that exceeds poverty levels, housing, food, clothing and video games.

      Welcome to Lifer’s blog and the world he advocates, as well as those like him. Though even the far leftists here sometimes wnt to hold back a bit from the idea of, “From each according his ability, to each according his need.”

      Then again, Lifer doesn’t even think that we should demand “… from each according his ability.” Just give, give and give. No reasonable or realistic explanation where it comes from.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Speaking of big, are you Big Willy?

  2. fiftyohm says:

    The problem with the “Tea Party Movement” is not its ‘platform, or even its central values. On those, many of us agree. The problem is the riff-raff that has attached itself to it.

    As long as the religious right uses it as whine-pulpit to spew about abortion, gay rights, same-sex marriage, Christian ‘persecution’, and all the other crap so near and dear to their hearts, the ‘movement’ is doomed. So willing are these nut-balls to insinuate their wacky views into a debate that is essentially an economic one, the religious right will continue to shoot themselves in the crotch.

    Oh well – I guess that’s a form of birth control with which they can get on board.

    • CaptSternn says:

      The tea party movement is only about fiscal responsibility and a constitutionally limited federal government. Others try to put all that other stuff on it, and it looks like you bought their garbage.

      • DanMan says:

        yep

      • Turtles Run says:

        It isn’t hard when that is all we hear from these fools. Have some government broccoli.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Unlike many on the left, Turtles, we are not single issue folks. We do have opinions on other matters outside the tea party movement. That’s another thing the left can’t grasp.

    • fiftyohm says:

      Waddya talkin’ about, Cap? Are you saying my observation is not representative of the public’s perception of the TP? Are you nuts? I quite specifically said the movement was an economic one. Now try again for the class: What did fifty say that suggested he “bought ‘their’ garbage”?

      • CaptSternn says:

        The religious right isn’t using the movement for those things, they are just the religious right. It is the left that attempts to make them one in the same.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Ah! I understand now! The cretins aren’t really hitching their wagon to the TP. Their high. moral standards would never allow such a secular thing as an economic philosophy to divert them.. I guess that’s why they’ve disavowed them on so many occasions. And why TP proponents, in general, have so many times tried to distance themselves from the Religious Right. Of course, the Left has buried this news; hidden it from my prying eyes. Thank you Cap for the enlightenment.

      • DanMan says:

        fifty wants to discount the deleterious fiscal realities that arise from loose social policy and demanding the TP ignore such effects is his way of doing so.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Fifty, grow up some. The media portrayed TEA Party and the candidates for president as social issue folks which is not true. Only committed leftists think this. By your standard, all liberals think like SJL and Pelosi.

      • fiftyohm says:

        “…abortion, gay rights, same-sex marriage, Christian ‘persecution…”

        Yup – there’s a passel of ‘financially deleterious social policies’ fer ya.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fifty, I consider myself part of the tea party movement and I am strongly against abortion on demand for any reason under the sun. TThor is also part of the movement and he doesn’t support making abortion on demand illegal. But we do agree on fiscal responsibility and a limited federal government.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Grow up? Buzz, was it just my imagination or were Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and many more not principle spokesmen for the movement?

        And let’s get a tad closer to home, shall we? Of the countless dozens who frequent this blog, with whom, with which ‘movement’, would they most likely associate our own Capt. Sternn?

      • fiftyohm says:

        Buzz – Just reread carefully what I wrote. I said, effectively, “You’re judged by the company you keep.” If there were to be, in some organized fashion, (and of course, that’s really the problem), a statement from ‘the movement’ officially distancing themselves from the riff-raff, people might actually listen to their message.

      • DanMan says:

        yeah fifty, abortion rights and the funding mechanism it delivers for the dems is fantasy

        same sex bennies won’t have any impact on already unsustainable public pensions, m’kay

        That moral people might also gravitate towards financial realism shouldn’t come as a shock.

      • DanMan says:

        anybody else remember cop car shatting democrats being denounced by other democrats? yeah, me neither

      • fiftyohm says:

        Cap- It’s ironic that I wrote my last entry before I read yours. Listen: At some point, political reality has be considered. If you want to be some kind of public spokesman for the TP, you can’t wear your underwear outside your pants to a speaking engagement. Maybe you’re also a part of the ‘underpants on the outside movement’. So be it. But you have to decide.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fifty, you just got several such statements from tea party members.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Dan- No, funding abortions is far less costly than funding children – especially unwanted ones. Insignificantly so. And same-sex bennies are also a tiny drop in the bucket.

        I’d say, “Nice try”, but it wasn’t. BTW: how do you wear your underwear? Inside or outside?

      • CaptSternn says:

        We don’t need to be funding either one, Fifty, especially at the federal level. Maybe some local safety nets because the more local the better controlled they can be.

      • John Galt says:

        The Tea Party movement may have had fiscal issues as the starting point, but 50’s point about how the movement is perceived today is entirely correct and in politics, perception and reality are one and the same. The number of social liberals who claim to be TP members is very, very small and the number of TPers who are social conservatives is quite large. And this is true regardless of how many denials Sternn mistypes. This has made the TP a libertarian movement when politicians find that convenient and a theocratic one when they find that convenient.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It’s how many on the left percieve it because that is what they want to believe and what much of the media pushes on them. But the left never has had much depth, just going on headlines, short soundbytes and bumpersticker slogans.

      • DanMan says:

        well let’s see fifty, your crowd is demanding open borders because of all the labor y’all declare we don’t have and then want us to kill babies to the tune of over 50 million since Roe v Wade in order to save all those dollars those unwanted babies will put on you and you want to take economics off the table in that circular logic of the left

        and don’t even assume that same sex bennies are a motive of a slice of the left because its so insignificant it would be ridiculous to even consider it, so we’ll make it a specious civil rights issue just to be sure

        I sure don’t wear my underwear on my head like you do fifty.

      • DanMan says:

        Cuffy logic…”The Tea Party movement may have had fiscal issues as the starting point, but 50′s point about how the movement is perceived today is entirely correct and in politics, perception and reality are one and the same….and… This has made the TP a libertarian movement when politicians find that convenient and a theocratic one when they find that convenient.”

        We are what we say we are and politicians can use you however they want to. And all of this is your fault! You guys are funny.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Holy cow! Through the leg hole of his tightie-whities, Dan just called me “the Left”! An interesting perspective indeed – though considering that particular “point of view”, perhaps not surprising! (ICMU)

        Hey Owl? Turtles? Rucas? Bubba? crogged? Any ‘o you guys think I’m Left? Most put me right of Attila the Hun…

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Fifty, if you are conservative, then you of all people should know that people can walk and chew gum at the same time. People can be part of the TEA Party movement and have completely different views on other issues including social issues. Since most here have not attended rally’s or have read material from rallies, that means you have gotten your info on who makes up the TEA Party from the media. So, that explains your stand which is unfortunately, one of ignorance. Captain, DanMan and I know better because we participate. Asking us to change your view is asking us to change the media’s angle.

      • rucasdad says:

        Fifty has always come across as a “middle of the road” type person to me….but that’s my opinion. However, it doesn’t matter what I say since me speaking up for Fifty is like Sternn and Dan defending the tea baggers – it won’t change minds.

      • DanMan says:

        well rucas its more like a flea screaming at a locomotive to stop but you’re right, what you say doesn’t matter

      • John Galt says:

        I’ve always thought you were a closeted liberal pinko commie, 50. I guess Dan has smoked you out.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Crap, JG! Guess the jig’s up.

      • Crogged says:

        Fitty and The Left would be a good band name.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Fifty, TEA Party people are for fiscal responsibility and accountability in our government. These same people may have other opinions on other subject that have nothing to do with the TEA Party. It is so simple, I think even the liberals here can grasp it.

    • Crogged says:

      Publishers put spin on reporting and coverage because readers demand it.

      http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-media-market-and-truth.html

      • Intrigued says:

        Interesting article Crogged. Personally, I would rather read the news I care about in the form of unbiased facts. However, I would rather hear the news I don’t care about from Colbert or SNL. If it’s going to be inaccurate, biased, and sometimes just made up crap it better be funny:)

      • CaptSternn says:

        And there it is, the left gets the news from comedy sites and shows. No wonder they think Palin said she could see Russia from her house. The Onion is their reliable news source.

      • Intrigued says:

        And there it is, hot head neglects to read cited article and makes a dumb ass assumption. Stern if you would have read the article you would realize the author’s point was that media is so biased to consumer interests that they basically make shit up. It wasn’t even a politically biased article. The real idiots think their news source, whether left or right leaning, are . accurate.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Dang Intrigue! I see he’s got you to cussin’ too…….=)

    • Crogged says:

      And apparently all my fellow travelers were lulled to sleep about blogger world peace due to a surprising unanimity to the author’s prior blog post.

      I want to weigh in on the supposed ‘economic’ argument presented by the tea party, which boils down to Baby Boomers got ours, you later dudes are hosed. In a prior post a chart from the GAO showed govt expenditures as percentage of the GDP going from 22 percent to 26 percent. Not a tiny increase, but then the time frame has to be added, which is this occurs during the next 40 years. So WTF is the Tea Party so up in arms about, why is that most ‘economic’ arguments you get from Tea Partiers are an apocalyptic metaphor race in describing really huge numbers with complete lack of context?

    • 50ohm, your observation is trenchant. Still, one must ask: Are you really content to continue to vote for fiscal ruin so as to avoid potential exposure to the silliness of a minority of social conservatives whom you’ll blithely ignore behind the privacy of closed doors no matter what? If so, you might want to reexamine your priorities.

      As several of us who actually actively participate in local Tea Party activities have attested, the raison d’être of the Tea Party is fiscal responsibility. That said, some social conservatives have striven mightily (and with some success) to hitch their caboose to the Tea Party wagon. Naturally, the mainstream media is only too happy to portray the Tea Party as beholden to the religious right. I might suggest that prudent individuals ought not to take such ravings too seriously.

      Although Chris appears to have his cranky pants on regarding primary outcomes, I’m a little bit more sanguine. The GOP establishment tacked rightward for the primaries, as it always does, and established GOP establishment candidates did well. They’ll be back to their accustomed country club crony capitalist, corporatist shenanigans post-November, no doubt (along with their partners in crime on the other side of the aisle). The whackier Tea Party candidates got whacked this time around, which is probably a good thing. Serious Tea Party candidates did quite well.

      It remains to be seen whether any semblance of fiscal sanity will be achieved should the GOP be so fortunate as to reclaim the Senate. I don’t plan on holding my breath; the public trough beckons, and it is both wide and deep.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Tracy – You obviously understand what I said.

        It bothers me no end, actually, that the TP seems to have been hijacked by the religious right and their croneys. On the other hand, I vote candidate by candidate. If one is a loon leftist, or a loon religious goofball, he won’t get my vote. My misgivings about the movement stem from the absolute denial the majority of members seem to be in; that their movement is also in line with a nutball social agenda. They just can’t seem to keep their eyes on the ball.

        Ruin came come from many quarters – both financial and fanatical.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fifty, do you vote for democrats if you don;t like the republican? Do you understand the difference in party platforms?

      • fiftyohm says:

        Cap – Tell you the truth, I can’t say if I have ever actually voted for a Democrat in a state or federal election. Local, yes.

        But I’m also not so naive to believe the ‘platform’ means squat anyway. Ask Chris about that…

      • fiftyohm says:

        And further, Cap – I’d never vote for anyone based on the platform if I thought him unworthy of the office. And I hope to god you wouldn’t either.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, I am asking you about that. Can you not answer for your own choices, decisions and actions?

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, I vote based on platform and how the person follows it. If they do not, I will vote the LP ticket.

      • fiftyohm says:

        To your first question, ( to the extent I understand it), I just said I don’t recall ever voting for a Democrat. To your second comment, I tend to vote for the LP candidate as well. If he’s not a lunatic. If they’re all lunatics, I don’t vote for any of them.

        Party platform. Piffle.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I tend to question a person without a platform or basic ideas and beliefs.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Actually, you tend to believe a party platform is illustrative of a person’s ‘basic ideas and beliefs’. In fact, you seem to see them as one in the same. A curious point of view there, Cap.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I would not vote for a candidate that stood for a socialist platform even if the candidate of the platform I supported did not abide by that platform. I would rather throw my vote away onb a candidate that stood for a very similar platform, like voting the LP ticket instead of the GOP ticket. I don’t see myself voting for the communist party because I disagree with a republican candidate. But there have been republicans that have basically done so when losing the primary vote.

      • John Galt says:

        Tracy, you are welcome to believe whatever you wish regarding the fiscal sobriety of one party versus another, but there is next to no evidence that the GOP has ever supported fiscally sound policy except when in opposition and I see no evidence from the Tea Party that they have a serious and economically literate commitment to it either. Loud rants about paying too much in taxes and the moocher class is not a substitute for serious policy.

      • Crogged says:

        Please provide concrete examples of this fiscal emergency we are supposedly facing.

      • John Galt says:

        I am both horrified and not the least surprised that Sternn would vote for someone based on their adherence to the Texas GOP platform, which has been deservedly mocked, even by conservative media sources.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, the TEA Party starting rising when GW Bush started spending like a drunken sailor and also wanted to add amnesty to illegals. So, please read something other then talking points. You embarrass yourself.

        Fifty, you stated you get tainted by the company you keep yet Obama met with Ayers a home grown terrorist and Rev. “God Damn America” Wright. So your theory is bogus.

        Also, even if religious people get involved in politics, are you actually saying they do not have the right to do so? Although I disagree with some of their points as I do liberals, I recognize their right to have them and work hard to legislate them.

        Bottom line, the TEA Party is totally opposite of what you think.

        The Captain’s point on a platform comes down to core beliefs. If someone doesn’t have a core belief or guidance, they are a wandering generality. They are worthless. Like pinning Jello of the wall.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “The Captain’s point on a platform comes down to core beliefs.”

        The fact that such an idea eludes them is horrifying and yet not suprising.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Buzz- Did you bother to reveiw the GOP platform in place at the time of W’s spending spree? How’d that work out?

        And who said Obama didn’t get any on him as a result of the Ayers affair? Of the Wright association? Damn man -to whom are you listening? Apparently not to me…

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fifty, have you missed the point that the tea party movement started while Bush43 was in office? That many of us would not vote for the GOP after he took the oval office? That we weere against Medicare “reform” and federal spending?

        The congressional republicans were doing pretty good in the later 1990s, even came close to having a balanced budget. But they lost their way when Bush43 became president.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Ah right, Cap. The 107th congress with Tom Daschle as Senate majority leader and Bill Clinton as president was the last to balance the budget and run a surplus. Your timeline is fantasy land. This is what JG has been saying. You just haven’t been listening.

  3. texan5142 says:

    I see the same tools are here spouting the same shit……………lather, rinse, repeat.

    Carry on.

    • DanMan says:

      You still defending the lies of this administration?

    • desperado says:

      Twas ever thus, and ever thus will be.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Are you still defending the lies of the last administration?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Do you mean the lies about Iraq being in violation of the cease-fire? Or would it be the lies about al Qaeda’s role in 9/11/2001? Would it be repeating the lies of the Clinton administration finding ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?

        The republicans under Bush43 messed up on domestic issues, which is why I voted for another party three elections in a row. Can you say the same about you not voting for democrats because of the mess they are making both in domestic and foriegn policies?

  4. kabuzz61 says:

    The TEA Party has been around quite awhile now even though most of the liberals on this site have written them off yet here they are. But the liberals also said the GOP is dead, gone.

    Now with such foresight the liberals practice, why would we even read what they have to say? It is obvious they haven’t a clue about politics. Even John Galt said taking more then 60 house seats in an off year election is NORMAL. That says it all my friends.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      Each side always says the other side is “dead” or “gone.”

      American politics have always had what we think of as a more “centralized” idea of government and a more “distributive” idea of government. The parties have shifted over the years over which side of this spectrum they sit and the “center” of this spectrum has also shifted back and forth sometimes but there will always be those two, standard ideas of how to run a goverment. Jefferson and Hamilton were having similar debates. That is not going to change.

  5. johnofgaunt75 says:

    I think this reflects the continuing current in American politics and frankly politics in general in the West. Populists and unconventional candidates (generally from the right) seem to be growing in popularity. In the US we have the Tea Party. In the UK they have UKIP. Geert Wilders and the Party of Freedom int The Netherlands. The Front National in France. The Lega Nord in Italy (from the right) and Beppe Grillo and the Five Star Movement in Italy (more from the left).

    Basically what we are seeing is a push back against traditional politicians who are being blamed for the increasing economic instability in the West. This leads a significant portion of the population to resent the current situation and blame the traditional leaders for their situation (which they may or may not be to blame).

    Anyway, the Midterm election this fall should be interesting. Perhaps the European Election going on right now will be a preview of what we will see.

    • John Galt says:

      Great comment. Sometimes voters opt for fringe parties simply as a protest against the status quo. It’s not necessarily a vote for the policies of those parties.

      • Tuttabella says:

        I was thinking along the same lines, that I would love to escape the clatter and bickering of the 2 main parties and find a “Respite” party, but just any party won’t do. Policy does matter. I certainly wouldn’t sign up with the KKK Party, if such an entity existed, just because I was unhappy with the status quo.

        I admire pure libertarian philosophy, but even the Libertarian Party places a bit too much focus on discouraging diversity of culture and thought.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I agree that the status quo of both parties are not being supported by the masses. But I wouldn’t consider it a fluke since the 2010 elections and if predictions are correct, the 2014 elections will boot more status quo politicians. I think it is good to shake them up.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Not a fluke. Just a general trend that, frankly, is understandable given the economic uncertainty and the changing nature of the country. This is nothing new and has happened several times in American history (see the Know Nothing Party, the Bull Moose Party, the rise of Eugene Debs, the support for the KKK in the 1920’s, the American Independent Party and George Wallace, the Black Panthers, etc.).

      • DanMan says:

        I just don’t get democrats supporting all of the lies associated with this administration. Do y’all think you are in on something? The liars in charge have as much contempt for those that believe them as those that don’t.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        ???

      • DanMan says:

        that all you have 75? do you think Obama didn’t know what was happening at the VA? He sure knew back in 2008 when he was campaigning.

        If Obama didn’t know anything about Fast & Furious why did he give Eric Holder the shield of immunity?

        Obama got on TV and declared there wasn’t a smidgeon of corruption at the IRS regarding suppression of groups on the right asking for the same privilege those on the left were getting. Do you believe that?

        Does it bother you that billions have been wasted on green energy initiatives that appear to be nothing more than paybacks for campaign cash bundlers?

        Not all parties and political movements have attempted to govern by such tactics as we are watching come out of DC right now but there are a few that come to mind.

      • John Galt says:

        Dan, I’m reminded of an old joke that asks how you can tell whether a politician is lying (by whether his lips are moving). I’m disappointed by a number of things the Obama administration has done and some of them definitely involved some, ah, liberties with the truth. What I don’t get is how you have deluded yourself into believing that some administrations don’t lie and, strangely, the ones that don’t all seem to share your political views.

      • DanMan says:

        We know you have already excused all of Obama’s lies as politics as usual.

        Please give me a political lie that comes close to Obamacare. This ought to be good.

        How about the “It was a video” Benghazi lie. Care to give us an instance when any politician pulled off anything like that? I can’t think of one but feel free to refresh my memory.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG is running defense.

        How about Obama saying the NSA does not scan emails of our citizens. Lie.

        You Obamabots are incredibly smitten.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        What does Obama have to do with this discussion?

        The discussion is in regards to insurgent movements and the reasons. Not a litnay of “Obama is a liar” complaints.

      • DanMan says:

        the most aggressive insurgent movement is the cult of you democrats that carry on as if we are supposed to merely accept all of the lies you people peddle

      • John Galt says:

        What’s the Obamacare lie? That a small number of people actually can’t keep their doctor? Would you like to read my lips? Or, perhaps, you could try screwing the Iranians to fund Central American rebels. Either way, “Mission Accomplished!” As political lies go, Benghazi doesn’t even rate a mention.

      • DanMan says:

        more of that sweet, sweet Cuffy logic

        Obamacare forces a paltry 6 million off their existing insurance and then counts that same number signing up under the Obamacare mandated policies as showing such a surge in sign-ups it demonstrates how successful it is.

        Hey Cuffy, did you hear Obama has a $9 billion slush fund he’s giving to the formerly evil insurance companies to try to buy down policies through the mid-terms? You’re so good at covering for Pookie’s cousin let’s see you justify that.

  6. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Sit boy, sit. Jump boy, jump. Speak boy, speak. Good doggie.

    They view themselves as outsiders, yet they are the most reliable segment of GOP voters. Outside of Texas and maybe two other very southern states, you are just going to vote for who the GOP powers tell you to vote.

    But hey, somehow it makes you folks feel better (more important?) to believe the GOP fears and detests you, so knock yourselves out with that.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Total bull Homer and a dash of wishful thinking. The conservatives learned their lesson well in 1991 and put their support behind Perot. All that resulted was Clinton.

      Now conservatives are working within the system from the precinct level to state wide. It is working despite what you think will happen.

  7. tuttabellamia says:

    We need a strong Libertarian Party, more choice in politics. This either/or scenario leaves much to be desired.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      You’re not going to get ANY successful third party without reforms to at least our balloting systems, if not also our primary process and redistricting methods.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That’s why the libertarian leaning conservatives are working within the two party system, to take over the GOP and bring it back to the right of center. It is also why the left so desperately wants us to break off and try a third party route, it would keep them in power by default.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Sternn – What the heck do you care about libertarians? You are a neo-con thru and thru. Sure you can call yourself a libertarian or conservative all you want but your comments and beliefs point otherwise. .

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Turtles, I have never been a liberal.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Owl – Two thumbs on that.

    • Turtles Run says:

      I thought we had three parties. Isn’t the tea party an independent group? Surely they are not just Republicans that are putting on some charade of independent thinking. Look at all the tea party democr…..errr never mind. It is just a charade

      • CaptSternn says:

        I am sure Lifer likes you putting him in with the tea party movement. That’s just rich.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I believe Turtles is saying that not all Republicans are Tea Party members, but all Tea Party members are Republicans.

        It’s simple logic. But fools like you don’t get it. Or perhaps you deliberately misrepresent him just because such asinine hackery is all you’ve got.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Not exactly republicans, Owl. Many of us have voted for other parties in the past.

      • Actually, Owl, a pretty significant percentage of Tea Partiers are libertarians.

  8. CaptSternn says:

    Not to worry, the tea party movement is working to clear out the craziest extremes and pull the GOP establishment back to reality and the right. That’s why the crazy extremists hate and fear us.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Also, you should learn from the lessons of 2010 and 2012. In 2010, the tea party movement and tea party backed politicians gave the democrats a serious “shellacking”. In 2012 the GOP establishment overpowered the tea party movement and failed to gain the oval office, the senate and even lost a couple of seats in the house. Seems you would rather have democrats win than real conservatives running as republicans. Reminds me of the republicans that lose to a tea party backed conservative in the primaries then endorses the far left democrats he was supposed to be running against in the election.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, are you *really* claiming that any of the Tea Party’s favored presidential candidates would have outpolled Romney in 2012’s general election?

        Wow, you really *are* denying reality.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Sternn actually wrote: In 2012 the GOP establishment overpowered the tea party movement and failed to gain the oval office, the senate and even lost a couple of seats in the house.

        How did the establishment overpower the tea party? Did they jump all the tea baggers as they were putting up their tri-cornered hats? As I remember it the way voting works is that each person gets one vote. So unless you are claiming the establishment gave you guys atomic wedgies then it seems the tea party candidates were losers from the beginning.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Oh look, Turtles resorts to the 2nd grade level of debate, like a child on the playground that really has nothing to say so he points a finger and yell, “You’re gay!” Real mature, Turtles.

        FYI, how did the primaries go in Texas in 2012? Oh, right, the left got them delayed over and over, basically removing Texas from the mix.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        The lesson of 2012 was that Tea Party candidates lost the Republicans the Senate because of their crazy comments and positions (see Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, Josh Mandel among others).

        The establishment had nothing to do with these walking train wrecks.

      • John Galt says:

        In 2010, the party of the president lost seats in Congress. This fits the pattern of almost every mid-term election in the last 100 years. The GOP over-interpretted this as some sort of mandate, again fitting the pattern of every election winner in history. In 2012 they put up the same spectrum of candidates, including a “severe conservative” for president, and lost. The Democrats over-interpretted this win as some sort of mandate. The GOP will likely do well this year in mid-term elections and they will once again declare a mandate that does not exist. The GOP could screw this up, by nominating extremists (who are not, by definition Sternn, the establishment Republicans) who can’t help themselves from making stupid comments about the female reproductive system or how evolution and embryology are lies from the pits of hell.

      • DanMan says:

        Always amusing to have liberal democrats opine on the condition of the opposite party. Richard Mourdock was probably the only true Tea Party loss. Todd Akin, despite demedia attempts to paint it otherwise was not Tea Party but was the candidate most favored by demedia to survive that primary. Had either of the TP candidates (Sarah Steeleman or John Brunner) survived that open primary McCaskel would be sitting home. Over the past couple of cycles the TP has supported the election of Rubio (over Crist), Cruz (over Dewhurst), Mike Lee, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul. Meanwhile Rove’s group lost running Tommy Thompson, Carly Fiorina, George Allen, Denny Rehberg and several other moderate candidates.

        It takes work to change a party but at least with the GOP they haven’t resorted to outright lying as a form of political discourse.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, John, usually the party opposite the president gains seats in midterm elections, but not on the scale seen in 2010. And no, Romney is and was not a “severe conservative”. I wonder what kind of extremist would consider him so.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG calling Romney and extreme conservative just shows you the depth and breadth of his knowledge of politics. In this case, consider the source.

        You know the democratic party is in trouble when most of the media is covering an owner of a basketball franchise instead of the failures of the dem’s and Obama. Tick, tick.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Dan,

        As a former Virginian, I can tell you that George Allen is not a moderate. He may be more of an establishment candidate but there is nothing about his social or economic policies that are moderate. Tom Davis is a moderate. George “Macaca” Allen is not.

      • John Galt says:

        It was Romney himself who used that term. I knew you would not agree with that characterization.

      • Turtles Run says:

        So cappy – You claimed the establishment overpowered the tea party? Exactly how did they do that? If the establishment has more supporters then that means they did not overpower anyone. They simply voted in their preferred candidate.

        If the tea party had more supporters then how did the establishment candidates win?

        Please explain your comment or is that to 2nd grade for you?

      • John Galt says:

        The president’s part has lost more than 45 seats in the House in mid-term elections in 1910, 1914, 1922, 1930, 1938, 1942, 1946, 1952, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1994, 2010. Three of these were by more than 60 seats. But other than that, you’re right, it never happens. Must be a clear mandate for the TP.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Do I need to type slower for you Turtles? Delaying the Texas primaries helped the GOP establishment.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…I’m curious…if Texas had held primaries earlier, who would have been the GOP candidate in November?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Good question, HT. One we will never know the answer to. By the time Texas got to hold the primaries, severral candidates had already dropped out. Candidates that would not have dropped out if Texas primaries had not been delayed.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Which candidates would have been to the liking of the TP?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Romney got 69% of the primary vote. More than tea party favorites like Santorum or the leader of the tea party caucus Michele Bachmann. Why would any candidate drop out if they knew Texas would swing their way. Why wouldn’t they get votes in other states besides Texas. Sounds like you are smoking some of that Colorado high.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Good question again, HT. I don’t have an answer for you.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Well Stern…we can look at the candidates that did drop out…and let’s see which one you would have endorsed.

        It seems that the dastardly Democrats kept you from voting for your TP favorite, but let’s look at the contenders.

        Bachmann dropped out before Texas, but she dropped out before the originally scheduled Texas primaries…but hey, she is/was a Tea Party darling, so maybe you vote for her?

        Hermann Cain also dropped out before the originally scheduled Texas primaries, but hey, he now knows who is the President of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan is, so maybe you would have voted for him?

        Perry also dropped out before the originally scheduled Texas primaries, and there are three things he’d like to remind you…ah never mind.

        So, the only two people the dastardly Democrats affected were Newt and Santorum.

        Do we believe that either of those folks would have won a state that Romney didn’t win? If so, I’d be really curious which state that would be.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Quite possibly so, HT. And the others might have stuck around a bit longer if Texas hadn’t delayed.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…I know you were around in 2012…Perry and Bachmann dropped out in January…three months before TX was originally scheduled and at that point no one knew Texas was going to be delayed. Cain dropped out before any primaries.

        So exactly how did the dastardly Democrats take away your folks? Unless Newt and Santorum were your favs…Newt wasn’t all that TP loved and Santorum was awfully socially conservative for the fiscal-only focused TP.

        I am curious which states Newt or Santorum would have carried that Romney didn’t. Their polling was consistently worse than Romney’s in lots and lots of states.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Everybody knew the Texas primaries were going to be delayed due to the lawsuits filed by democrats. They succeeded in making Texas next to irrelevant. But that’s how democrats operate, like when the Texas democrats fled the state to avoind a vote, or when federal democrats physically changed the locks on doors to keep republicans out, when Obama called his signature legislation a “prop” and while Reid still won;t allow dozens of house passed bills to even be negotiated in the senate.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        And all of that relates to which states again that Newt or Santorum (or Perry, Cain, and Bachmann) would have won that Romney lost?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Romney was the 2nd worst pick of the bunch. Well, maybe not even 2nd. He was the one democrats were praying for.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Come on Stern…you saw the polling…Romney outperformed Santorum, Newt, Perry, Cain in every national poll and in all of the key states.

        As someone who was voting Democrat, Romney was the only one that was concerning. None of us at the Communists for America meetings were fretting over a Santorum/Newt ticket. Plus, we all know that Democrats are godless heathens, so there was little praying going on.

        Santorum couldn’t even win his own state.

        Cain and Bachmann were not serious candidates for anything, and if you think they were, then you were not being serious.

        Newt was the only other viable candidate, and that was only going on historical name recognition. He was/is a horrible campaigner, and people just simply do not like him (hard to overcome as a candidate).

        The electoral college would have been an even bigger debacle, and anyone but Romney might have cost the GOP more House and Senate seats.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Democrats and liberals wanted Romney for Romneycare, the best weapon they had against the GOP candidate to counter Obamacare. And they wanted a candidate that would turn off tea party conservatives, regular conservatives and republicans in general. It worked, so why are you trying to deny what happened?

        My guess is that people in the GOP establishment (DNC Lite) and the DNC were happy to have Romney as the candidate, just like they were happy to have McCain in 2008 (though Palin did give him a short and small boost). That only helps Obama, democrats and the DNC Lite.

        You pretend that you don’t believe it. To me that says you are being decietful, like when Obama said, “If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.” Either you believe the lies or you are trying to cover for them.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Hmmmm…so as someone who voted democrat…telling you that Newt/Santorum/Perry did not cause concern for losing an election…doesn’t jibe with your preconceived notions…so I must be lying.

        Okiedokie.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer plays that nuance game to forget the main point as always. The tantrum throwing democrats had to take Texas to court to keep the primaries from happening in a timely manner. Why would they want to do that? Only Homer has no curiosity. Grown ups know why. A cheap political trick.

        Here’s another from the vast array of lies: “The shovel ready jobs weren’t really ready,” laughter in the back ground. You dem’s are stooges.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…just what did the dastardly Democrats accomplish by delaying the primaries? I’m generally a curious person, so I’m curious who you think Texas would have anointed given everything that happened up to that point?

        Stern…in reference to the above points between you and 50…those candidates you seem to have preferred (e.g., Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, etc.), all from the very right social issue fringe.

        You all seem to find this the most remarkable coincidence in the world, and must be shocked that it keeps happening over and over again.

        These TP fiscally focused favorites just all happen to love transvaginal ultrasounds and amendments against gay marriage.

        Huge, huge coincidence.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      The Tea Party movement has precious little to do with reality: more with the retreat of frightened, elderly, conservative voters FROM reality and into unhinged fantasy.

  9. kabuzz61 says:

    I am detecting a pessimistic tone. Could it be that the dem’s have lost the Senate as well as adding to the House? I think so. TOO many scandals. The problem isn’t the TEA Party, the problem is Obama and his VA debacle, IRS debacle, Benghazi debacle, not enforcing laws debacle, and more executive actions to come.

    Chris, you and your party have attached yourself so close to Obama, you can’t shake him. He is you and you is he.

    • DanMan says:

      Carrying the baggage of a serial liar can get taxing at times.

    • texan5142 says:

      02/27/2014: U.S. Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Thursday that would have expanded federal healthcare and education programs for veterans, saying the $24 billion bill would bust the budget. […] For example, it called for 27 new medical facilities to help a healthcare system that is strained by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

      Yep! The VA debacle is all Obama fault.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Governemnt run health care, what the left wants for all of us.

      • DanMan says:

        How about citing the senate bill so we can see what else was tacked on it. Yes, Obama is responsible. He appointed the man who has held the reigns at the VA since 2009 and according to his own spokeshole only learned of the problems last week by reading a newspaper.

        Like Lois Lerner at the IRS.

        Like Eric Holder with Fast & Furious.

        Like Hillary Clinton with Benghazi.

        Like Lisa Jackson (aka Richard Windsor) at the EPA.

        And on and on and on. All special people with special agendas that match with the guy that lies about everything of consequence. And you dems just adore him.

      • desperado says:

        You two need your own show on Fox.

      • DanMan says:

        despo’s having another truth-ache

      • Turtles Run says:

        texan5142 – I find it interesting that instead of addressing your comment on Senate Republicans he once again deflects. It is truly telling that the far right can never directly address an issue or if they do they need to invent conspiracies. Weak minded people are funny.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “How about citing the senate bill so we can see what else was tacked on it.”

        Why don’t you? You are insinuating there was a valid reason for denying veterans health care dollars.

      • DanMan says:

        hey turtlehead, Harry Reid hasn’t allowed a single vote in the senate that doesn’t benefit him.

        So you too say the repubs killed an increase in VA funding? I say you’re a liar.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I know, according to Texan and Turtle, it is still Bush’s fault. Gosh! These guys are immature.

        Desp continues with his perpetual hatred tour.

      • DanMan says:

        well kabuzz, they are carrying Obama’s water is all. The famous Murray-Ryan budget negotiation was signed buy Obama on Dec 13, 2013. it removed the sequestration limits and set the deficit fueled spending through March 2015. That bill cut $6 billion of increases in military pensions and Harry Ried’s solution was to inject $24 billion back in under the guise of restoring those pension cuts 5 weeks later.

        They did end up restoring those pension dollars btw.

      • So tex, a fairly interesting op-ed in the WSJ today suggesting that the VA debacle is the fault of non-discretionary spending, i.e. non-discretionary spending is gradually crowding out all discretionary spending: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304198504579572573016514060

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: