"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana
I am beginning to think this National Tea party movement may end up doing serious damage to the Republican Party's efforts to unseat Obama in the Presidential election of 2012. In the aftermath of recent primary victories by "Tea Party" candidates across the nation, to me, it is troubling that some of these candidates are actively campaigning more vigorously against Republicans than Democrats.
The Tea parties were a great idea in the beginning, when Americans across the country began to realize how dangerous the Obama administration's policies are. They served as an resounding wake-up call to those who were in the middle of the road and still unconvinced that electing Obama was a colossal mistake.
The Tea Party movement served it's purpose at the time.
Now, it's time to get back to the business of throwing the Liberal Democrats out of office. It will take a concerted effort by Republicans to accomplish that goal. But, sadly, we cannot do that with a "Tea Party".
I sense a split in the Republican party, and that isn't a good thing.
Third party candidates, for whatever reason, never win.
All they manage to do is insure a victory for the party that didn't split.
In 1912, Former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt attempted to wrest the Republican nomination from William Howard Taft* , and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson, who, many feel, was among the worst Presidents in our history.
Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace ran for President as an independent in 1972, effectively splitting the Democrat vote between himself and George McGovern. If you remember, Democrat George McGovern was defeated by Republican Richard Nixon as a result.
Republican John B. Anderson ran for President as an Independent in 1980 against President Jimmy Carter and Republican Ronald Reagan. Although Anderson was a Republican, he was endorsed by many Liberal Democrats, which probably split the vote among Democrats, many of whom obviously felt that Jimmy Carter was an atrocious President, but could not bring themselves to vote for a Conservative Republican.
Likely, many Democrat voters felt that a Liberal Republican was preferable to a Conservative Republican, and Conservatives owe them a debt of gratitude for that, since Conservative Republicans hold Ronald Reagan up as the paradigm of Conservatism to this day.
In 1992, George H.W. Bush probably would have retained the Presidency had it not been for a Republican-turned-independent candidate, H. Ross Perot, who successfully pulled enough Republican voters away from Bush to insure Clinton a victory despite his numerous scandalous distractions (Gennifer Flowers, etc).
If, in 2012, the choice of Conservative candidates for President is split between the Republican party and the Tea Party, Obama will win the Presidency again.
This is something that Conservatives cannot allow.
Even a RINO President is preferable to a Marxist President.
If a Tea Party candidate is selected to run for President, he must be selected to run by the Republican National Convention, and not as an independent third party.
*Taft was as big as two men, so it was fortunate that he had two names, both William and Howard.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
How refreshing, a conservative who speaks the truth about the tea partyers!
Obama is certainly not a Marxist, and God help us if we have an incompetant RINO in the White House in 2012, is that what this country needs??
In 1992, with the majority of the country feeling betrayed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and seeking a change, George H.W. Bush probably would have won the Presidency handily had it not been for a Republican-turned-independent candidate, H. Ross Perot, who successfully pulled enough Republican voters away from Bush to insure Clinton a second term despite his numerous scandalous distractions.
Better read that paragraph again and rethink or consult your history books. (or just stop smoking dope ;-) )
I fully supported Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. However, by the time I got to the polling place, the TV was on and it was already a forgone conclusion that Reagan (having conspired with Iran to hold the American hostages) was going to win. So I voted for Anderson so he could get federal campaign money to cover some of his campaign debt.
I think people are beginning to see that the "Tea Party" people are just mad. They're really not FOR anything real; just mad. And they don't realize that people like Dick Armey are using them for their own financial purposes. So they glom onto somebody like Rand Paul because he's anti-government until they find out what "anti-government" means in reality instead of theory.
I don't know what you're talking about, Jim. According to Wikipedia, "Perot's candidacy received increasing media attention when the competitive phase of the primary season ended for the two major parties. President George H.W. Bush was losing support, and Democratic nominee Bill Clinton was still suffering from the numerous scandal allegations made in the previous months"
"In the 1992 election, he (Perot) received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election."
This is a matter of public record. Unless you disagree with my assessment that the nation was disappointed with Clinton. Of course, coming from a state populated with flakes, fruits, and nuts, it's easy to see how your perception of reality could be skewed.
And...Your "full" support of the worst President in history (not counting the current one) speaks volumes about your judgment.
I don't know what you're talking about, Jim. According to Wikipedia, "Perot's candidacy received increasing media attention when the competitive phase of the primary season ended for the two major parties.
He's talking about what you said...
In 1992, with the majority of the country feeling betrayed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and seeking a change, George H.W. Bush probably would have won the Presidency handily had it not been for a Republican-turned-independent candidate, H. Ross Perot
Clinton was not president in 1992 and the "majority of the country" was thus not feeling betrayed by him. He was a relatively unknown Governor in Arkansas and GHW Bush was president, and many conservatives were feeling betrayed by HIM.
Jimmy Carter, the worst president in our history?
Show me any real historian who thinks that. Just because you don't like someone's politics does not make them "the worst."
Scholarly surveys over the years have placed Carter consistently in the worst half of 'best presidents' listings, but nowhere near bottom.
I'll note that in those surveys, it's looking like W is doing worse than Carter, and rightly so.
Right, Dan, and thanks.
And in 1996 when Clinton WAS running for re-election, the "majority of the country [was] feeling [so] betrayed by Democratic President Bill Clinton" that they re-elected him over Bob Dole by 8.5 million votes and 220 electoral votes.
Oh yeah, I got it. I read it wrong. And, I remembered it wrong. I'll go back and fix it.
Be that as it may, the point is still made, that H. Ross Perot's entry in the race divided the Republican party and led to a victory for the democrats.
Jim and DT are so adept at catching the slipups of your post and sideslipping the point, which is what liberals shine at.
A divided Republican Party is a guarantee of a Democrat victory.
Given the number of conservative Democrats in the Tea Pary movement, this becomes a real possibility UNLESS there are sufficient numbers of voters to overcome both the Democrats and the RINOS...an unlikely scenario.
Thanks Joe for pointing out our supposed "sideslipping." However, there is no sideslipping needed since I don't think anyone would argue with the point. The one paragraph weakened the point because it was factually incorrect.
A divided Republican Party is a guarantee of a Democrat victory.
Yup, probably so. But it need not be a separate Tea Party candidate running in a GOP/DEM race. Look at Rand Paul in KY. He's running as a GOP, yet calling himself a Tea Party guy and already, less than a week after winning the primary nomination, he's had TWO fairly big goofs.
In case you missed them...
1. He came out AGAINST the civil rights law that criminalizes work place discrimination. Even in Kentucky (my home), I don't think that's gonna fly amongst the masses.
2. Yesterday, he came out against Obama on the side of BP, saying Obama is being too tough on the poor multinational corporation who's spilled/spilling millions of gallons of oil in OUR gulf stream waters.
Really? Coming out on the side of the group that is even now despoiling our beaches? Again, I don't think that's going to fly amongst the masses.
It may well be that the first "tea party" candidate is going to single handedly kill the tea party. I hope he doesn't. Run all the tea party candidates you all can find.
The Tea Party is a movement, not a party. It has no leader. I has no candidate for president. And at this point if it did become a party, it would probably break up. Let's get through 2010 before we worry about 2012
I can see November from my house.
All of these things are true, LR, but I've heard rumblings. There are people out there who are talking about running a Tea party candidate, and that's ok if he runs as the official Republican candidate, but what concerns me is the possibility that a grassroots group will form an official Tea party, and run a candidate independently.
I can see LR's house from my house, but I can't see November...
Post a Comment