Grassroots groups still battling for the heart of the Republican Party

posted at 3:45 pm on March 21, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In his endorsement of Mitt Romney today, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made it perfectly clear that he thinks now is the time for all Republicans everywhere to fall in line, but at least one major Tea Party group is still not ready to accept Romney as the all-but-inevitable nominee:

The tea-party-aligned organization FreedomWorks is not ready to coalesce behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney yet, an official told The Daily Caller.

In fact, they’re still holding out hope that another Republican can still swoop in and beat him.

“We never got our natural candidate,” spokesman Adam Brandon told TheDC on Wednesday. “We’re focusing on the Senate, but watching the [Republican presidential] race to see if it heads to a brokered convention, and it looks like it might, to see if we can get someone else in.”

As Ed wrote this morning, Jeb’s endorsement essentially eliminates the possibility that he himself will emerge from a brokered convention as a last-minute White Knight nominee. Along with Mitch Daniels and a few others, Jeb Bush has been one of the most-mentioned “hopes” of those who favor calling in outside help. Now, that particular hope is gone.

It’s understandable that Bush and others would seek to reconcile themselves to Romney at this point and to urge others to do the same. Realism compels us to face the delegate math and accept that Romney might reach a majority of delegates before the convention yet — and that, if he doesn’t but he does far outpace his competitors, the justification for a brokered convention will be practically nonexistent.

Still, FreedomWorks and grassroots resistance to Romney continues to have its place in this election. It serves as a vital reminder that Romney still has to earn the votes of grassroots conservatives by proving that he will be a real alternative to Obama — not just a watered-down, slightly-less-liberal version of him who carries the added risk of setting the conservative project back if he proves to be as liberal a Republican president as the grassroots fear.

It also serves as a reminder that grassroots activists don’t have to deploy their resources on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate. In general, they’re committed first and foremost to ensuring electoral victories that will advance conservatism. Let Romney prove his presidential victory would do that and maybe they’ll go door-to-door for him. If not, they can always focus on down-ballot races that, in the long run, are just as critical as the White House.

The two top minds behind FreedomWorks ask profound questions of Republican candidates and Republican voters in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal:

Establishmentarians once more are lecturing activists and candidates—those who, in the words of Rand Paul, “actually believe in limited government and individual freedom”—on the practical limits of principles in politics. Sen. Lugar, facing a serious grass-roots challenge from Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, recycles the arguments once used by Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter: “If I was not the nominee it might be lost.”

What is the point of politics anyway? Is it really about power for power’s sake? Or are we trying to fix the very real economic problems facing Americans trying to find jobs? Is it about “holding a seat”? Or about whether we can still provide better, freer futures for our children and grandchildren?

Does anyone really believe that settling for more of the same will create a Republican majority with the principles and practical skills required to replace ObamaCare with a patient-centered approach? To stop the EPA’s destruction of American energy markets? To scrap the tax code, reform our broken entitlements, and balance the budget? Can 36-year incumbents now dismantle the big government they helped build? Are we going to once again do the same thing, expecting different results?

Last night, the Illinois presidential primary seemed to suggest that Republicans are going to do the same thing they did in 2008 — nominate the guy who’s been making the rounds on the presidential circuit for more than four years. But another Illinois primary proves the grassroots are still strong — and still determined to vote for the most conservative candidate they can:

The freshman upset of a 10-term member in a key Republican Congressional primary in Illinois has given the new anti-incumbent super PAC, the Campaign for Primary Accountability, another notch on its belt.

The super PAC had backedAdam Kinzinger against veteran Don Manzullo in the newly consolidated, banana-shaped 16th district west of Chicago.

Mr. Kinzinger was endorsed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, whose independent super PAC ran about $50,000 in radio ads touting Mr. Kinzinger. (As we note in a related Washington Wire post, Mr. Cantor’s role has alarmed other Republicans.)

But another key factor was the role played by the Campaign for Primary Accountability, which showered the district with $ 211,500 in TV and radio ads, robo-calls, and mailers in the last three weeks, slamming Mr. Manzullo for voting for spending proposals backed by Democrats.

For that matter, it is also a grassroots victory of sorts that the default Republican presidential option in 2012 is significantly more conservative than was the default option in 2008.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Who? Who is that shining knight on the white charger?

Speakup on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

In his endorsement of Mitt Romney today, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made it perfectly clear that he thinks now is the time for all Republicans everywhere to fall in line, but at least one major Tea Party group is still not ready to accept Romney as the all-but-inevitable nominee:
====================

Problem is,the Right aren’t Lock/Steppers,like
the LeftyVoterBots!!

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

The freshman upset of a 10-term member in a key Republican Congressional primary in Illinois has given the new anti-incumbent super PAC, the Campaign for Primary Accountability, another notch on its belt.

Good news.

I do not want Jeb running, I hate political dynasties.

rbj on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

grassroots rule

gatorboy on March 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM

So,the Tea party in question,are luke warm,er,are
tepid towards Mittens!

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Sorry, I’m not falling in line.

I’m a conservative that’s independent of the GOP because they keep angling for obama lite. Besides, anyone named ‘Bush’ in politics is now instantly painted as a republican progressive in my mind. Gee, wonder who could have caused that….

Wolfmoon on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Who? Who is that shining knight on the white charger?

Speakup on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

There’s always Mrs. Palin…

Time Lord on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Obooba’s a$$ is grass, and Romney is the lawnmower.

Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Grassroots groups still battling for the heart of the Republican Party

You betcha!

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

For that matter, it is also a grassroots victory of sorts that the default Republican presidential option in 2012 is significantly more conservative than was the default option in 2008.

Really? Could have fooled me.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Jeb’s endorsement essentially eliminates the possibility that he himself will emerge from a brokered convention as a last-minute White Knight nominee.

Thank God for small favors.

squint on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

For that matter, it is also a grassroots victory of sorts that the default Republican presidential option in 2012 is significantly more conservative than was the default option in 2008.

Yes, but by the time the Republicans get it right in 2016, it might be too late.

LoganSix on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Maybe its time again for Purity Purgation!!!!!!!!
(snark).

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Congress Spinelessly Hands Over Power to the American Caligula: President sends money to Egyptian military that Congress denies. The only thing missing is the Horse Senator.

Mutnodjmet on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It doesn’t matter what Mitt Romney writes on his Etch A Sketch before he shakes it for the general, and again after winning.

It’s better to focus on down-ballot races where modest but definite improvements can be made.

David Blue on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Obooba’s a$$ is grass, and Romney is the lawnmower fertilizer.

Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

FIFY

Romney is just an extension of Obama’s policies.

Norwegian on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

For that matter, it is also a grassroots victory of sorts that the default Republican presidential option in 2012 is significantly more conservative than was the default option in 2008.

I don’t see that as the case. Not at all.

Wolfmoon on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Wolfmoon on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Finally the far left and the far right can agree on one thing: a distaste for Bush. Doubya the uniter… Who would have thunk?

Time Lord on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The freshman upset of a 10-term member in a key Republican Congressional primary in Illinois has given the new anti-incumbent super PAC, the Campaign for Primary Accountability, another notch on its belt.

It should be noted that Erick Erickson and his crew went all-in for Manzullo, smearing Kinzinger as a RINO while defending a ten-term old-guard Republican.

And just down the site, they say it’s time for Orrin Hatch to go because he’s served for so long. Some things are beyond parody.

KingGold on March 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM

The only thing missing is the Horse Senator.

Mutnodjmet on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Ever seen a profile shot of Sen. Kerry? I’m just sayin…

Time Lord on March 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Congress Spinelessly Hands Over Power to the American Caligula
Mutnodjmet on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Well that should simplify things!

squint on March 21, 2012 at 3:57 PM

In fact, they’re still holding out hope that another Republican can still swoop in and beat him.

“We never got our natural candidate,” spokesman Adam Brandon told TheDC on Wednesday. “We’re focusing on the Senate, but watching the [Republican presidential] race to see if it heads to a brokered convention, and it looks like it might, to see if we can get someone else in.”
=========================

So,they are trying to avoid another 2008 Mc..Cains,Capt’n Queeg
Mutiny!!

canopfor on March 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Who? Who is that shining knight on the white charger?

Speakup on March 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM
There’s always Mrs. Palin…

Time Lord on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM

There is a PPP poll out today but it doesn’t fit a agenda this time so no one is using it but when they want it they sure us the PPP pollls

KBird on March 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Id vote for Satan himself rather than Obama, the problem is, they would be running on the same ticket.

Machismo on March 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Romney is just an extension of Obama’s policies.

Norwegian on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Romney would keep Holder as AG to keep Fast and Furious in business? Romney will stand in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline? Romney will try to tell you what light bulbs you can have in your home?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Last time it was the Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee sent the message that resistance was futile…

It is time to unite behind John McCain to be the nominee of our party.

The leaders of our party have a responsibility to do the right thing when the time has come. Friends, the time has now come.

Sorry, that didn’t work last time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. We’re not falling in line this time.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 4:00 PM

“Does anyone really believe that settling for more of the same will create a Republican majority with the principles and practical skills required to replace ObamaCare with a patient-centered approach? To stop the EPA’s destruction of American energy markets? To scrap the tax code, reform our broken entitlements, and balance the budget? Can 36-year incumbents now dismantle the big government they helped build? Are we going to once again do the same thing, expecting different results?”

That’s why I want Newt…

… He’s the only one who would forcibly hold the political elite ruling class down by the neck, and rip out their teeth with a rusty pair of pliers.

Mittens…

… not so much.

Hang in there Newt…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on March 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Sorry to go off topic here, but aren’t we going to talk about the Zimmerman shooting?

Time Lord on March 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Romney is just an extension of Obama’s policies.

Norwegian on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I would expect more and better from you.

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Romney would keep Holder as AG to keep Fast and Furious in business? Romney will stand in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline? Romney will try to tell you what light bulbs you can have in your home?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Romney will have a whole new pack of cronies to fluff. The lightbulbs and Soros’ rail line would probably go to the wayside to be replaced by others of the same calibur and overall agenda$$$. The fast and furious thing could be a tossup being that mittens was for the 2nd amendment before he was against it and for it and against it again depending on his audience.

Wolfmoon on March 21, 2012 at 4:03 PM

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 4:00 PM

If Palin was in the race and sitting where Romney was at and the vice-chairman on the RNC sent that message then your reaction would be the same, right? Or are you just projecting?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Romney will have a whole new pack of cronies to fluff. The lightbulbs and Soros’ rail line would probably go to the wayside to be replaced by others of the same calibur and overall agenda$$$. The fast and furious thing could be a tossup being that mittens was for the 2nd amendment before he was against it and for it and against it again depending on his audience.

Wolfmoon on March 21, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Yay for supposition.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 4:06 PM

My last comment really should have included a quote from the post as a preface… I’ll repost with it…

In his endorsement of Mitt Romney today, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made it perfectly clear that he thinks now is the time for all Republicans everywhere to fall in line

Last time it was the Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee sent the message that resistance was futile…

It is time to unite behind John McCain to be the nominee of our party.

The leaders of our party have a responsibility to do the right thing when the time has come. Friends, the time has now come.

Sorry, that didn’t work last time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. We’re not falling in line this time.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Romney is just an extension of Obama’s policies.
Norwegian on March 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You should pay closer attention.

Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM

And just down the site, they say it’s time for Orrin Hatch to go because he’s served for so long. Some things are beyond parody.

KingGold on March 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Lugar should go, too. I’m sick of these people who stay more than 3 senate terms. 18 years is plenty.

At least Olympia Snowe got this correct. She served 3 terms, feels that was long enough.

matthew8787 on March 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM

ROMNEY: The simple truth is that this president doesn’t understand the genius of America’s economy or the secret of the American economic success story. The American economy is fueled by freedom.

SUPPORTERS: (applause)

ROMNEY: The history of the world has shown that economic freedom is the only force that has consistently lifted people out of poverty. It’s the only principle that has ever been able to sustain prosperity. But over the last three years, this administration has been engaged in an all-out assault on our freedom.

RUSH: The crowd ate it up. We hope he means it. Watching it last night, that’s how I reacted: “This is good. This is good.” I turned to Kathryn and said, “This is his best victory speech yet. I just hope he means it.” Here’s the next bite…

ROMNEY: Under Barack Obama, those pioneers he mentioned would have faced a very difficult time trying to innovative and invent and invest and create and build jobs. You see, under Dodd-Frank, they would have found it almost impossible to get a loan from their community bank. And, of course, the regulators would have shut down the Wright Brothers for dust pollution.

SUPPORTERS: (laughter)

ROMNEY: You know? (chuckles) And of course the government would have banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb. Oh, by the way, they just did, didn’t they? Right now! Yeah.

SUPPORTERS: (cheers and applause)

RUSH: I mean, it’s right there. Even the people on the other side of the glass here at the EIB Southern Command are smiling and laughing at this. That’s dead-on right. “[R]egulators would have shut down the Wright Brothers for dust pollution [and] the government would have banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb. Oh, by the way, they just did.” Here’s the next one…

ROMNEY: Every great innovation, every world-changing business breakthrough, begins with a dream, and nothing is more fragile than a dream. The genius of America is that we nurture those dreams and the dreamers. We honor them. And, yes, we reward them. That’s part of what’s uniquely brilliant about America. But day by day — job-killing regulation by job-killing regulation, bureaucrat by bureaucrat — this president is crushing the dream and the dreamers, and I will make sure that finally ends.

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Gas 4.00 a gal. Not in Calif., Not in New York, But in stinkin N.E. OHIO!!!!!! The Republican Party Is DOOMED!!!!

lisa fox on March 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Romney would keep Holder as AG to keep Fast and Furious in business?

No, he’s not that foolish.

Romney will stand in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline?

He might. He’s sympathetic to the “greens.”

Romney will try to tell you what light bulbs you can have in your home?

Yes, this is the kind of thing I would expect from him actually. I am envisioning Bloomberg on a national scale.

Doomberg on March 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Romney would keep Holder as AG to keep Fast and Furious in business? Romney will stand in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline? Romney will try to tell you what light bulbs you can have in your home?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Romney is already on record as being anti gun and a believer in Global Warming.

Campaign rethoric aside, do I expect him to dramatically alter the course that Obama has put us on if elected president?

No.

Norwegian on March 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM

John the Libertarian on March 21, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I guess some people think that sounds just like Obooba…?

Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Gas 4.00 a gal. Not in Calif., Not in New York, But in stinkin N.E. OHIO!!!!!! The Republican Party Is DOOMED!!!!

lisa fox on March 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Forget the sarc tag? /

Bmore on March 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I’m a registered republican and I will NOT vote for Romney the RINO!

America will suffer another four years….

JihadKiller1s1k on March 21, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Sorry, I’m not falling in line.

I’m a conservative that’s independent of the GOP because they keep angling for obama lite. Besides, anyone named ‘Bush’ in politics is now instantly painted as a republican progressive in my mind. Gee, wonder who could have caused that….

Wolfmoon on March 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM

So don’t fall in line. Don’t register as a Republican, don’t vote as a Republican, and–on a site frequented mainly by Republicans–politely refrain from deriding others for being Republicans. Join one of the ineffectual protest parties like the Libertarian Party and do your best to make it not ineffectual. That’s the beauty of political parties and religious denominations: they are purely voluntary associations, at least in this country.

Meanwhile, the rest of us–those of us who vote–are going to do all we can to prevent the stealth transformation of our country into yet another failed socialist superstate, so either help or shut up and stay out of the way.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Still waiting to see how that grand BIG TENT is working out for us. Oh wait, nevermind, it’s gotten us more Big Government and less liberty. You can take your GOP Big Tent and shove it.

search4truth on March 21, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Someone tell me how Romney got more tea-party votes in IL than santorum (43-37). Is it because many don’t believe santorum is that conservative, or is it that many want to have the most electable candidate?

Ta111 on March 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Sorry, that didn’t work last time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. We’re not falling in line this time.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 4:00 PM

and who is ‘we’??? I hope you don’t mean you :-)…then who mandated you to talk on their behalf?

jimver on March 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Romney would keep Holder as AG to keep Fast and Furious in business? Romney will stand in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline? Romney will try to tell you what light bulbs you can have in your home?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Romneycare…that’s the last nail in the coffin for our economy and our liberty.

Portia46 on March 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Romneycare…that’s the last nail in the coffin for our economy and our liberty.

Portia46 on March 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM

why, do you live in MA?

jimver on March 21, 2012 at 4:42 PM

We need all 3 branches here guys for some serious shakeup…

We have the house and might lose a couple seats just bc we have such a big majority there…

We need to take back the senate, if we gain 6 or 7 senate seats, we will be in great shape…

MGardner on March 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

O/T: Meanwhile Jay Carney all but calls Paul Ryan “aggressively and deliberately ignorant” for Ryan’s budget proposal.

totherightofthem on March 21, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Jay Carney: America’s answer to Gollum.

squint on March 21, 2012 at 4:48 PM

We need to take back the senate, if we gain 6 or 7 senate seats, we will be in great shape…

MGardner on March 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

yep, that should be priority no 1…

jimver on March 21, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Obooba’s a$$ is grass, and Romney is the lawnmower.

Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I am nowhere near being a Romney supporter…yet….still that is one of the funniest things I’ve read this whole month…stay sharp!

RedLizard64 on March 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM

ELECT RICK SANTORUM

While the troops have been name calling and letting the media lead them by their noses on such issues of import as losing an election in Pennsylvania 20 years ago, contraception and pornography, the gas war has been water torture for the Dems.

There are good connection between Goldman Sachs and Washington. Bernie Sanders was pounding the lectern today about an estimate of 56 cents of every gallon of gas being the result of speculators. According to CNBC, the GS estimate was 10 cents a gallon (and that is over a year by my estimate) but was warped to the higher figure bu Forbes magazine.

Why am I saying this? Crude jumped from $95 to $125 from October to March (six months) but they are now calling for only another $5 for the rest of the year followed by….drumroool..prices of $200 a barrel early in 2013!!!

Now who would want to keep prices low now and then jack them up in 2013?

Golly, I hope that this has nothing to do with the election.

Want to elect Rick Santorum? Let the market run gasoline to $8 by June which is where it is headed under the present circumstances.

If this administration keeps it low, fine, just no games, please. We have had enough of them in energy policy over the last three years.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM

O/T
TINA
Ask Allah if we will get a Tebow traded to the JETS thread soon.
Thank you! ;-)

angrymike on March 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Bmore, No sarc In a time when we have the worst presidentin ever, We have the worst canidates ever! I CAN NOT stand any of them! Voting day I am going to have to drag myself by the collar and go vote! WE HAVE NO FIGHTERS!!!!

lisa fox on March 21, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Someone tell me how Romney got more tea-party votes in IL than santorum (43-37). Is it because many don’t believe santorum is that conservative, or is it that many want to have the most electable candidate?

Ta111 on March 21, 2012 at 4:32 PM

If you recall, the Tea Party crossed party lines and counted among its adherents those who are largely indifferent to social issues but consider themselves strong fiscal conservatives. Santorum is the King of Social Conservatives but is also perceived as a big government Republican who does not, paraphrasing Rick Perry, ‘want to make the federal government inconsequential in our daily lives.’ Santorum wants to make the federal government as consequential as he can on those issues he holds dear; e.g., contraception, gay marriage, DADT, abortion, et al. Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are not synonymous. One can be one and not the other.

Romney has repeatedly promised to repeal ObamaCare, and to renege on that promise would make him an instant one-term president. Romney also has extensive executive experience in both the public and private sectors. He knows how business works. He knows how government works. Santorum, in contrast, only knows the lobbying business. Hence, Romney’s slightly greater appeal to fiscally conservative Tea Party voters.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Oh and I hope it is a Brokered convention! At this point what do we have to lose? Maybe a certain Alaskan would have a change of heart!

lisa fox on March 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Do people still take the tea party seriously? After they gave away 2 senate seats by running a couple of idiots who had no chance of winning? They seem to be doing the same thing here, making Romney waste money he could be using against Obama by somehow having to prove himself to this tiny, loud minority.

Oh ya, I won’t their close to non existent support of Fiorina against Boxer, we had a real chance to get rid of one of Cali’s biggest scumbags but the GOP chose instead to throw its weight behind Chrissy the witch to appease these People.

1984 in real life on March 21, 2012 at 4:59 PM

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Since so many writers lie on the subject, check me on the CNBC site. Goldman may yet be calling for $130 a barrel for 2013 but then they are nuts or see peace breaking out or the greatest dilatory strategy in history. If you want to see 200, just read an article in blue on the page or extent the chart of the last year. Wow.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2012 at 5:00 PM

lisa fox on March 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Lisa, I grew up In Geneva, then Andover…relatives in Chardon and Cleveland…whereabouts are you? Is there a big difference say between Ashtabula and Cuyahoga counties…which is higher city or rural? Currently living in Southern California right next to the Ocean yet we have about the highest price in the lower 48!

RedLizard64 on March 21, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Romneycare…that’s the last nail in the coffin for our economy and our liberty.

Portia46 on March 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Ok, were you going somewhere with that statement? I mean Mitt doesn’t want to do anything like that on the national scale and he’s committed to repealing Obamacare at just about every speech he makes, so bringing up Romneycare in reference to Romney continuing Obama’s policies is…. how to say this politely…. not the best argument.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Paul Ryan could come out of a brokered convention. He would dismantle Obama in the debates. He took Obama apart in those fake budget round tables the the ONE was suppose to show his brillance at.
Paul Ryan is the man.

Thicklugdonkey on March 21, 2012 at 5:08 PM

So don’t fall in line. Don’t register as a Republican, don’t vote as a Republican, and–on a site frequented mainly by Republicans–politely refrain from deriding others for being Republicans.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Check out the title of the site in your browser title bar or in the code. The word “Republican” doesn’t appear.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Realism compels us to face the delegate math…

I refuse to accept your reality, or ever cast a vote for the Democrat Mitt Romney. Worthless gun-grabbing statist.

SilverDeth on March 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Still waiting to see how that grand BIG TENT is working out for us. Oh wait, nevermind, it’s gotten us more Big Government and less liberty. You can take your GOP Big Tent and shove it.

search4truth on March 21, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Yup. It’s time for a new political party.

SilverDeth on March 21, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Do people still take the tea party seriously? After they gave away 2 senate seats by running a couple of idiots who had no chance of winning?

1984 in real life on March 21, 2012 at 4:59 PM

How many House seats did they win? And let’s see….they catapulted Rubio to a win…meanwhile the squishies gave us the brilliant campaign of Carly Fiorina, who lost to the dimmest bulb in US politics.

Let’s see how Mitt does without the energy of the TP behind him.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:17 PM

When tea party candidates won in 2010 they lacked a strategy of how they were going to pursue the budget. They blew the wad on a fight over a few million dollars in a trillion dollar budget, given to the PP organization, a fight better left to when the pieces were in place.

This time we need the priorities in order, a list, in what order things have to happen, it can’t be a free for all, it can’t be like Judy has a barn, and Mickey has some props let’s put on a play.

What constitutional priorities come first? What permanent solutions come first? What budgets are cut, what is consolidated and what is the effect? Some of these things are the things the congressional candidates needs to run on. And make no mistake, your members need to know that they need to elect the republican candidate first, and then control the flow of serious reform.

One thing I would suggest is, returning to the idea of advertising bills in public for 5 days, and Single Issue legislation. Without stuff plopped in that nobody wants. Bills that are READ. AND, an abolishing of seniority as privilege in the House and the Senate, except for first year people. That would solve the term limits problem immediately. Everyone wants their representative to be equal to the rep that has been there 10 years/ 27 years.

When we get the nominee, let the feelings of sourness go, and commit to moving forward and making the best, a majority no longer want Obama, a large number of people want to return to simpler more constitutionally true government, less of it, less spending, and the important things returned to the states.

Fleuries on March 21, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Romney is already on record as being anti gun and a believer in Global Warming.

Campaign rethoric aside, do I expect him to dramatically alter the course that Obama has put us on if elected president?

No.

Norwegian on March 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Even if I accept the premise that Romney is anti-gun (really I think he doesn’t care about the issue and with the gun control fight moving into a court battle right now indifference from Washington is just fine) that doesn’t mean he will carry on with the kind of policies Obama has. Just last night Mitt talked about getting Keystone XL built and was critical of the light bulb ban. With everything he has said if he gets elected and is half the liberal you make him out to be then he will be a politically isolated lame duck by the end of his first hundred days.

Besides, Keystone XL, Fast and Furious and the light bulb ban are peripheral issues at best in this election. Focus on the big stuff. Obama gave away billions of taxpayer dollars to his union buddies under the guise of an economic stimulus package that didn’t do anything to help the economy. Do you think Romney is an extension of that Obama policy?

Look, I voted earlier this month and it wasn’t for Mitt because there is a lot wrong with the guy but when you go totally overboard with broad statements like “He will just be an extension of Obama’s policies,” you don’t persuade anybody and you hurt your own credibility.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Let’s all get behind Willard’s “etch a sketch”, reset campaign. Another slate of principles for Willard will be a game changer.

wraithby on March 21, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Yup. It’s time for a new political party.

SilverDeth on March 21, 2012 at 5:16 PM

So ABRs are going to be the sorest losers since Al Gore?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The only thing missing is the Horse Senator.

Mutnodjmet on March 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Well, there is the horse’s @ss JFK. But a horse would be smarter….

ScottG on March 21, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Check out the title of the site in your browser title bar or in the code. The word “Republican” doesn’t appear.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I wrote, ‘…mainly frequented by Republicans.’ There are also apparently fringe idiots, such as Ron Paul true believers, who think fluoridated water is a government mind-control program, as well as self-styled conservatives whose beliefs–like those of, say, Pat ‘Hitler was a great man’ Buchanan, aren’t conservative at all. And then, of course, there are members of the Conservative Purity Brigade, for whom no moderately electable Republican candidate is acceptable, and–because they are possessed of an unwarranted sense of self-importance–think they should be fawned over and catered to, and constantly threaten not to vote out of pique and spite and would rather condemn this country to malaise and decline rather than actually doing something other than whine.

Writing as a Republican myself, you know who you are, where you can go, and what you can do when you get there.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 5:30 PM

When we get the nominee, let the feelings of sourness go, and commit to moving forward and making the best, a majority no longer want Obama, a large number of people want to return to simpler more constitutionally true government, less of it, less spending, and the important things returned to the states.

Fleuries on March 21, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Won’t happen. Here’s the dynamic: the moderates in the GOP are and have been for along time embarrassed as hell to have to share a party with those inbred toothless morons down South. They think if they just could find a good moderate who would get the votes of left-leaning indies, moderates and disaffected Dems, they could sit with the cool kids; the media would love and respect them; and they’d be rid of the dependence on those despised rednecks.

Romney will be the nominee, will lose by a fairly big margin, and the GOP could very well go up in flames. The fissure is that deep.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I wrote, ‘…mainly frequented by Republicans.’

And as it says between the lines of what I wrote, “SO WHAT????”

And then, of course, there are members of the Conservative Purity Brigade, for whom no moderately electable Republican candidate is acceptable, and–because they are possessed of an unwarranted sense of self-importance–think they should be fawned over and catered to, and constantly threaten not to vote out of pique and spite and would rather condemn this country to malaise and decline rather than actually doing something other than whine.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 5:30 PM

So then when they DON’T vote for your favored moderate, be sure not to whine about it, OK? The blame is YOURS. Romney is YOUR GUY.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:34 PM

RedLizard64 Tallmadge, Stow area, Used to live in Cali, Upland Ontario area. Have a son stationed in San Diego. Grew up in Tuscarawas Co. New Phila, Gas 4.02 there. It SUCKS!! Cut back after the cut back on groceries for Gas!

lisa fox on March 21, 2012 at 5:36 PM

For your amusement, click on the quotes and watch them change!!

http://www.etchasketchmittromney.com/

karenhasfreedom on March 21, 2012 at 5:40 PM

So then when they DON’T vote for your favored moderate, be sure not to whine about it, OK? The blame is YOURS. Romney is YOUR GUY.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I wrote, ‘…moderately electable’, not ‘electable moderate’. Personally, I would prefer a staunch fiscally minded conservative like Ryan, but he isn’t running. Neither are the other A-list candidates who seemingly lack the drive, ambition, or ‘worm in the belly’ to be president that Lincoln talked about. We play the cards we’re dealt.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM

If Palin was in the race and sitting where Romney was at and the vice-chairman on the RNC sent that message then your reaction would be the same, right? Or are you just projecting?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I have consistently said, in numerous comments, that I don’t think it is anyone’s place to tell other people:

1) To get out of the race, or
2) Who to vote for

Are you just projecting?

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I guess some people think that sounds just like Obooba…?

Akzed on March 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Not at all. We just don’t believe what he says. His past history makes us doubt his sincerity. Maybe he shouldn’t have cried liberal wolf all those times if he didn’t really mean it.

dominigan on March 21, 2012 at 5:55 PM

What is the point of politics anyway? Is it really about power for power’s sake? Or are we trying to fix the very real economic problems facing Americans trying to find jobs? Is it about “holding a seat”?

I hate to say it, but for both the GOP and Dems it is exactly this.

Cutting and shrinking government, simplifying the tax code, and returning to an actual Constitutional government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, will reduce the wealth and power of members of both parties and the lobbying parasites who feed on the government trough.

Would you vote contrary to your own personal interest in your job, even if it was better for your employer’s overall health?

gravityman on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I wrote, ‘…moderately electable’, not ‘electable moderate’.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Distinction without a difference in Moderateville. Moderates are by definition the more “electable” types out there. And please, enough with this “conservative purist” garbage. Moderates are the most purist, least tolerant element in the GOP. By far.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Sorry, that didn’t work last time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. We’re not falling in line this time.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 4:00 PM

and who is ‘we’??? I hope you don’t mean you :-)…then who mandated you to talk on their behalf?

jimver on March 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

The “we” to whom I refer is:

Grassroots groups still battling for the heart of the Republican Party

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 6:01 PM

And please, enough with this “conservative purist” garbage. Moderates are the most purist, least tolerant element in the GOP. By far.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM

How very tolerant of you.

talkingpoints on March 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM

O/T
TINA
Ask Allah if we will get a Tebow traded to the JETS thread soon.
Thank you! ;-)

angrymike on March 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I think you may have missed both of these:

NFL suspends Saints coaches, fines team $500K for “bounties”
Mar 21, 2012 2:30 PM by Ed Morrissey
159 Comments »
Plus … T-T-T-Tebow and the Jets.

Hallelujah: Tebow trade to Jets hits a snag
Mar 21, 2012 4:15 PM by Allahpundit
107 Comments »
Salvation.

Those two taglines are the epitome of both Ed Morrissey and Alahpundit

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Distinction without a difference in Moderateville. Moderates are by definition the more “electable” types out there. And please, enough with this “conservative purist” garbage. Moderates are the most purist, least tolerant element in the GOP. By far.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM

No, I haven’t gone after ‘true conservatives’ nearly enough for the rank hypocrisy that’s been on display throughout the GOP primaries. You and yours of the Conservative Purity Brigade have backed, to greater and lesser degrees, a succession of candidates–Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum–not necessarily because they were conservatives (although Bachmann and Perry are legitimately conservatives by any measure) but because they were Not Romney. Gingrich, for example, runs to the left of Romney on central issues such as immigration and entitlement reform. Santorum promises an even greater role of government in the daily lives of American citizens.

Your brand of ‘true’ conservativism can’t be taken seriously if you’re going to support a less conservative candidate over another, at least equally conservative and certainly more electable candidate with more substantial private sector business bona fides and proven executive experience. I can guess why so many of you oppose Romney so much–and so could Newt Gingrich, which is why Gingrich played up the class warfare aspects against Romney earlier in the campaign, to some effect.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I have consistently said, in numerous comments, that I don’t think it is anyone’s place to tell other people:

Are you just projecting?

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I’m not projecting at all, I was just asking a question and it’s been answered. I was just wondering is all.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 6:18 PM

No, I haven’t gone after ‘true conservatives’ nearly enough for the rank hypocrisy that’s been on display throughout the GOP primaries. You and yours of the Conservative Purity Brigade have backed, to greater and lesser degrees, a succession of candidates–Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum–not necessarily because they were conservatives (although Bachmann and Perry are legitimately conservatives by any measure) but because they were Not Romney.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

You just demolished your own argument and with it the term “Conservative Purity Brigade”. There’s no such thing. And conservatives have had to hold their noses to vote far more frequently than those in the Moderate Purity Brigade. When there’s a conservative candidate they do nothing but squawk about what unelectable jokes they are. We’re just going to return the favor.

Favoring one candidate over another simply because one feels that that candidate is more conservative and reflects more one’s own convictions doesn’t make one a “purist”…certainly no more so than the moderate purists whose purity test consists of seeing how the NYT and WaPo editorial boards feel about a candidate, along with Gallup polls about 3 years out.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM

And please, enough with this “conservative purist” garbage. Moderates are the most purist, least tolerant element in the GOP. By far.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 5:56 PM

How very tolerant of you.

talkingpoints on March 21, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Illustrating the point.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Your brand of ‘true’ conservativism can’t be taken seriously if you’re going to support a less conservative candidate over another, at least equally conservative and certainly more electable candidate with more substantial private sector business bona fides and proven executive experience.

Romney’s neither conservative, by the way, nor is he provably electable until November. He’s won one election in his career, gathering under 50% of the vote. At various times, other candidates in the field have had better numbers with various groups than Romney, yet that mythical “Romney’s the most electable out there” crap is held onto tenaciously by the ‘bot brigade.

I can guess why so many of you oppose Romney so much–and so could Newt Gingrich, which is why Gingrich played up the class warfare aspects against Romney earlier in the campaign, to some effect.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I don’t want to hear more whining about “class warfare” after Romney’s minimum wage class-warfare shtick followed by loads of ‘bot rationalizations. You folks have no credibility on the subject.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM

If I may be so bold:

Why doesn’t Rick or Newt or Paul do something really constructive and pretend that they know what in blazes they are doing. Like failing to get on ballots and some other master strokes doesn’t really lead to comfort about operating an empire surrounded by enemies.

I wrote the post above about oil prices since the economy is important. A friend asked what that had to do with two loser Republicans.

Rick, to take one example, is virtually sunk. He is underwater and needs something to pull him to the top. Like putting a line on a whale, he needs an issue to pull him up. The stuff he talks is not going to do it although I don’t know if anything can.

He needs to grab an issue like the suppressed oil prices and do a Bernie Sanders. It is fundamental politics.

Crying like a baby about money or harping about the inconsistent positions of probable future President Romney doesn’t make anyone think that they need him. Newt at least has the idea that he is Winston Churchill to sell.

Please, please drop the hate of people who don’t think like you as it is a filthy bigotry. If I can think of the positive aspects of Mr. Soros or our President, all is possible with the help of God.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM

That the Tea Party, which is supposedly about fiscal restraint and Constitutionalism, didn’t and doesn’t support Ron Paul shows how phony they are.

Dante on March 21, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Favoring one candidate over another simply because one feels that that candidate is more conservative and reflects more one’s own convictions doesn’t make one a “purist”…certainly no more so than the moderate purists whose purity test consists of seeing how the NYT and WaPo editorial boards feel about a candidate, along with Gallup polls about 3 years out.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Somebody call the police! A strawman has been viciously murdered!

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 7:57 PM

For that matter, it is also a grassroots victory of sorts that the default Republican presidential option in 2012 is significantly more conservative than was the default option in 2008.

Until Mitt shakes the Etch-a-Sketch and again starts collaborating with the Teddy Kennedys is the Democrat Party.

RJL on March 21, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Romney would keep Holder as AG to keep Fast and Furious in business? Romney will stand in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline? Romney will try to tell you what light bulbs you can have in your home?

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Answer to all 3 ….. Highly likely.

cableguy615 on March 21, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Favoring one candidate over another simply because one feels that that candidate is more conservative and reflects more one’s own convictions doesn’t make one a “purist”…certainly no more so than the moderate purists whose purity test consists of seeing how the NYT and WaPo editorial boards feel about a candidate, along with Gallup polls about 3 years out.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Should I use smaller words? My point is you and yours–those whom I choose to call the Conservative Purity Brigade–are not supporting the most conservative candidate(s). You’re supporting Not Romney, whomever is fulfilling the role at the moment, largely because many of you believe some evil cabal of Country Club Republican Establishment types are sitting around a pool, sipping martinis and plotting ways to force you to accept the candidate of their choice.

Here’s the truth: Ronald Reagan successfully governed California as a middle-of-the-road Republican. Later attempts by Democratic and Republican opponents to portray him as a right-wing extremist didn’t work because such tactics couldn’t work: there was nothing in his record to indicate that he would later be idolized as the paragon of Republican conservativism against whom all later conservatives would be compared.

In short, Reagan wouldn’t pass your litmus test. Thus, your idea of the conservative ideal is wholly subjective, based solely upon what you personally think conservativism might be at any given moment. Ron Paul, whose ideas are genuinely radical and sometimes extreme, is extolled as a conservative by his supporters. Is he? No, he isn’t. What about Santorum? Nope. Santorum is as mainstream Republican as it gets on most issues, especially when it comes to spending. What about Gingrich, the guy who called Ryan’s initial plan for entitlement reform ‘right-wing social engineering’? Get outta town.

So my take is those of you who aren’t voting aren’t voting because the candidates aren’t conservative enough. You’re not voting because you’re deep-down insecure, angry no one seems to be paying attention to you. You’re worried you don’t matter in the scheme of things. The sad part? Unless you vote, you’re absolutely right: you don’t matter.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM

cableguy615 on March 21, 2012 at 8:16 PM

You got it and he would have more cooperation from the Republicans!

Nominate Rick or stay home!

A Democrat told me to say that.

BTW, Didn’t just cutting off Iran’s oil have a reduction in supply as a result?

And speculators and oil companies drive the price up?

Let us nationalize them like Bill O’Reilly, Maxine Watters and Bernie Sanders want.

IlikedAUH2O on March 21, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Grassroots groups still battling for the heart of the Republican Party

…smoke grass in groups…then vote!

KOOLAID2 on March 21, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Ok, were you going somewhere with that statement? I mean Mitt doesn’t want to do anything like that on the national scale and he’s committed to repealing Obamacare at just about every speech he makes, so bringing up Romneycare in reference to Romney continuing Obama’s policies is…. how to say this politely…. not the best argument.

alchemist19 on March 21, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I reference Norm Coleman, Romney advisor and probably head of HHS in a Romney administration:

Mitt Romney adviser Norm Coleman, a former senator from Minnesota, predicted the GOP won’t repeal the Democrats’ healthcare reform law even if a Republican candidate defeats President Obama this November.

“You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president,” Coleman told BioCentury This Week television in an interview that aired on Sunday. “You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-come-on-obamacare-wont-ever-be-repealed-in-its-entirety/

and Romney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom said on CNN this morning:

HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?

FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/21/448804/eric-fehrnstrom-etch-a-sketch/?mobile=nc

Romney says one thing. His advisor says the opposite. The opposite happens to be congruent with what he was saying before he decided to run for president. And the person who is supposed to make sure what he means is what gets out says functionally that as soon as the nomination is clinched, all prior statements and promises are inoperative.

What basis is there to believe his promises about Obamacare/Romneycare, or any other thing he has said to Conservatives are true?

Subotai Bahadur on March 21, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Favoring one candidate over another simply because one feels that that candidate is more conservative and reflects more one’s own convictions doesn’t make one a “purist”…certainly no more so than the moderate purists whose purity test consists of seeing how the NYT and WaPo editorial boards feel about a candidate, along with Gallup polls about 3 years out.

ddrintn on March 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Convictions aren’t convictions if you can change them on a whim. And no, I don’t consider myself a moderate Republican. Until this election cycle, I considered myself a conservative Republican–that is, until I found out conservative means whatever one wants it to mean, a label one can arbitrarily apply to those policies and candidates one happens to like.

Many of you claim you won’t vote for Romney if he’s the GOP nominee because he isn’t conservative enough or not conservative at all. However, I haven’t heard any Romney supporter threaten not to vote if Gingrich or Santorum wins the nod. Thus, when confronted by a stealth socialist takeover of the federal government, Romney supporters like me evince a willingness to trust in the process and the will of the party majority and pull the lever in the general election for the eventual nominee. As it happens, I loathe both Santorum and Gingrich–Santorum because he colluded with the far-Left in Michigan to undermine a fellow Republican in a Republican primary; Gingrich because he’s grandiose and delusional and pathologically self-serving and dishonest. But I’ll vote for them anyway should they win the primaries.

You and yours, on the other hand, are willing to see the country spiral into the abyss rather than vote for Romney if he’s the nominee. Why? No good reason. Because you’re sore losers. Because you have daddy issues or trouble at home. Because Romney reminds you of the rich kid king of the prom in high school who dated cheerleaders and caught all the breaks while you didn’t. Who knows? I do know if you don’t vote then you’re of no use to anyone but President Obama and the cadre of socialist weasels currently running the Democratic Party. You’re of enormous use to them. They’re counting on you to do nothing, just like last time.

troyriser_gopftw on March 21, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2