Open Thread ~ #WAR

Uh oh, Tea Party Mad

The Tea Party Patriots declared war on the Republican establishment after moderate establishment Republican Mitt Romney’s loss to President Barack Obama on Tuesday.

I really don’t think the Tea Party “favorites” (Bachmann? Santorum?) would have fared any better than Romney, but clearly it’s the GOP establishment they’re pounding hard here. And, the news today that Boehner’s going to roll over for the Dems agenda, so they can take full responsibility for crashing the country, is not helping either. #War, so what is it good for?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Open Thread ~ #WAR

  1. DeniseVB says:

    Just thought I’d drop a fresh post, lots going on with the election post mortems. Too many good people lost their fights, so we may have lost a couple of battles, but not the War. Keep fighting !

  2. nerdle says:

    I think it can be positive or negative. The Republican party needs to renovate. A war may be exactly what it needs to do in order to realign and discover what it takes to win–that includes getting rid of old attitudes and ideologies with the possibility of gaining new ideas.

    Besides, what the hell are Tea Partiers mad about? It’s not like they came out and gave full support. They and conservatives could have changed the results of this election, but they sat out. Never mind that Obama and his goons cheated, but the conservatives sat their asses at home.

    • 49erDweet says:

      Sat out? What you talking about? It wasn’t TPers who didn’t vote. We held our noses and did our best. Better find someone else to.kick around.

      • Somebody says:

        I think that was a reference to some of the hardline conservatives that sat at home during the past 2 elections. Like the one that called into Rush Limbaugh basically stating that until he had a candidate that passed his conservative litmus test 100% he wouldn’t get out and vote.

  3. DandyTiger says:

    I’m still popping popcorn and watching it all. I don’t have a party. Both parties suck in my opinion. Bush did some cheating in 2000, etc., Bush 3 did some cheating in ’07 and 12. Whatever. They all cheat fair and square I guess. But one thing they can’t do, is keep it all from falling apart. Watch for the blame game. If Bush 3 is lucky, he can keep things together long enough to blame the next person in ’16, but I wouldn’t count on it. Repubs might be smart to give Bush 3 whatever he wants so the Repubs don’t get the blame when it comes crashing down.

    Neither party is on your side. Don’t forget that.

    • angienc says:

      I agree the Republicans should be accommodating to Obama on the tax hike issue & let him prove that his magical solution of tax hikes during a recession is the way to “fix” the economy (even though neither Keynes nor supply side nor any other economic theory I’ve ever heard of advises raising taxes during a recession) by knocking out the “GOP obstructed me” claim he relies on.

      Heck, I say they should let the Dems introduce whatever bill they want on those tax hikes, don’t amend it whatsoever & then just vote “Present” on it — that way it passes but Obama can’t claim it passed “with approval from the GOP” to shift blame when it fails.

      Another good idea that I saw at AoSHQ is for the Republicans to introduce their *own* bill on a special tax on people who make millions during a period of 6 months or less (i.e, a “celebrity” tax as most films, commercial shots, etc take far less time than that) — those Hollywood morons are proud to support Obama, let them put their money where their mouths are not just into his campaign coffers,but into the US treasury. I’d love to see the Dems explain to the American people why that bill wouldn’t be “fair.” .

      • DandyTiger says:

        I really like the vote “present” idea.

        • angienc says:

          Thank you — I originated it in a post at AoSHQ (I don’t post there much but I like to read the comments because those guys are funny) & I see it’s being picked up in some other righty sites.

      • Somebody says:

        I understand what you’re saying…..give them what they want until they realize it’s not what they want.

        However, the republicans still hold the majority in the house of representatives so if they just vote present it doesn’t pass.

        • angienc says:

          I don’t think so — voting Present doesn’t count as a “yae” or “nay” vote. If all the Dems vote yae & all the Republicans vote “present’ the bill passes.

      • I LOVE this idea. Republicans should pass a special tax on Celebrities, Athletes, and those in their Entourage. Watch Obama defend that!

        • Dang, I’m not making much sense today. I mean watch Obama try to argue AGAINST it. We’ll hear arguments about how many in Hollywood and those who play in stadiums really do contribute to society. JayZ, Beyonce, Oprah, Eva Longoria and the Bball players all really do deserve those castles & Escalades.

        • angienc says:

          Exactly — and make it HIGHER than the top tax rate by about 10%.

  4. Somebody says:

    If the republicans picked their nominee in a smoke filled back room then I would say the tea party has a point. However, there were primaries in every state and their favorites were rejected. If the majority of the republican party found them repugnant; what pray tell do they think the general electorate would have thought of them.

    I am so sick of the circular firing squad.

    • 49erDweet says:

      You must have been on another planet if honestly coonsidered those real primaries. I thought the result too safe to succeed, but then thought I was wrong. Turned out I wasn’t.

      • angienc says:

        You must live on another planet if you think Michele Bachman or Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrinch or anyone other candidate in the field would have faired *better* than Romney did — 314,000 votes total made the difference in FL, VA, OH & CO and 2% less in popular vote (as of now).

        I realize it’s loss & it sucks because we all know what a SCoaMF Obama is BUT most voters do not know that because the MSM carries his water, covers up his failures & shuts down anyone who dares to challenge him with smears & lies of their own. Furthermore, the ONLY incumbent presidents who have EVER lost re-election are ones that have faced primary challenges; to put that another way, no president (even ones not as beloved by the MSM as Obama is or with such fanatic, cultish followers) who did not go through a primary challenge has EVER lost reelection.

        And that isn’t even getting into the dog-dammed fraud.

        People need to stop with the revisionist history that Romney had such an EASY TASK to defeat an incumbent president — clinging to that idea makes them as delusional as the Obama supporters.

      • Somebody says:

        No 49er I haven’t been on another planet, in fact I live in a hotly contested swing state so I’ve had a front row seat to the blow by blow throughout the primaries and the general.

      • angienc says:

        PS — in the exit polls Romney “won” in 3 of 4 questions of why people voted for who they did (better on the economy; a strong leader; better on tax issues) but lost the 4th (who “understands people like me more”) by something like a 70 point margin. Never minding the fact that this the DUMBEST reason to vote for a POTUS I’ve ever heard of in my entire life (so no wonder that is what idiot Obama supporters based their votes on) and especially never minding that it is wrong as Obama doesn’t give a SHIT about them, that is 100% a direct result of the MSM carrying water for Obama & smearing Romney. The same would have happened to any other candidate who dared to run against Obama.

      • Oswald says:

        IIRC the Tea Party never united behind a single candidate. The GOP establishment and the moderates stayed with Mitt. He won a turtle race.

        At various times Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann and Cain made a run at it but each one faded after a few weeks in the spotlight.

        Sarah Palin never got in, so we can only speculate how well she would have fared.

    • angienc says:

      The most ironic part about the circular firing squad going on in the right at the moment is that it would make their hero, Reagan, roll over in his grave because he didn’t believe in conservatives attacking other conservatives. He said you can’t have a 100% litmus test on any candidate –he advised a 70% one (i.e, if I agree with the candidate on 70% of his platform, I support him).

      • 49erDweet says:

        Absolutely. The 100% pure hoidouts are stupid.

        • Somebody says:

          Yet they’re out there. More importantly almost half of our voting age population doesn’t even participate in our electoral process. Tap into that demographic, what would motivate them?

        • 49erDweet says:

          I can accept some localized burnout, like here in CA where our votes don’t count. But nationwide? No.

        • Oswald says:

          The Republicans are behaving like Democrats usually do.

      • DM says:

        Somebody, even in CA, there’s no reason for voters not to show up. It’s not just the presidency that’s at stake. We have ballots and local elections going on. Those elections are in many ways more important than voting for the president.

  5. 49erDweet says:

    IMO any rightish leaning voter choosing not to vote this year is an idiot, not a patriot. They’ve totally blown citizenship 101.

    • DM says:

      I agree. And any true liberal who didn’t vote for Romney is an idiot too. Choosing third party was as good as voting for Obama. For even if one saw the two as the same or just close, it was imperative that Obama was defeated. It was important to send a message that failing policies would bring the pink slip.

    • Betty E. Duncan says:

      A Non-Vote was a Vote for Obama and is so doing brings more disaster for our Country. I only hope She along with the rest of us survive Obama. God Bless The U.S.A. We also need to pray we will have a Military & not a Militia that Obama once said he wanted!

  6. DM says:

    • 49erDweet says:

      Classy gent. Too bad he couldn’t get in touch with his inner Newt.

      • angienc says:

        Did you see what I wrote above about the 4 reasons people gave for why they voted for who they voted for? Romney lead on all the “real” ones (strong leader, better on the economy, better vision for country*) but lost by 70 points among those who voted for the guy who “understands people like me.” Finding his “inner Newt” wouldn’t have changed that given the way the MSM serves as the Obama PR team.

        *Previously I wrote better on taxes for the third, but it was better vision for country

  7. 49erDweet says:

    I’m about ready to go for a law that grants 50% discounts for property, sales and income taxes to holders of proof of voting certificates.

  8. Somebody says:

    OK I’m going to play complete devil’s advocate here…..sorry Tommy I know you fancy that your roll.

    Let’s just pretend that the voter results were reversed in the swing states last Tuesday. What would the dems be saying? What would we be saying in response?

    1) They’d surely call Americans racist, right off the bat
    2) They’d probably say the greedy won or something like that
    3) They’d probably say something about defense contractors
    4) They’d probably say something about cheating
    5) They’d probably say something the R’s used scare tactics
    6) Definitely Benghazi would be all the rage
    7) Maybe a Sandy backlash type thing

    Feel free to add

    What would we be saying?

    1) No doubt that their policies and platform were rejected
    2) That they’re sore losers
    3) That we’re sick of the race card
    4) That they’re just mad they didn’t cheat enough or we were better
    5) We simply had a superior candidate
    6) Our message was an American message
    7) Our ground game was better
    8) Probably something relative to energy resources coal/gas
    9) Their identity politics was their undoing

    Go ahead and add to that, there is a method to my madness. I’ll be back later, I’ve got some things I need to do.

  9. DM says:

    Was the woman who reported the harassing emails Mrs. Petraeus?

    It all began a few months ago, when a female acquaintance of the CIA Director received a series of harassing emails, which apparently referenced Petraeus. The woman, who sources say is not a government official, notified the FBI.

    Federal agents quickly traced the emails back to Petraeus’ biographer Paula Broadwell, co-author of the 2012 book “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.”

    A further investigation then revealed evidence of an extra-marital affair, including numerous cryptic emails between the retired four-star general and Broadwell.

    • djmm says:

      Nope — they say she is not Mrs. P.
      My thoughts are with Mrs. P in all this — what a terrible thing for her to go through.

  10. wyntre says:

    Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    – Doug Hagmann (Bio and Archives) Saturday, November 10, 2012

    According to two well-vetted sources with intimate knowledge of the CIA operations and events in Benghazi, the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus is directly related to the testimony he was expected to provide before a closed-door hearing next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources close to the controversy, citing the need for anonymity due to their positions, stated that Barack Hussein Obama was aware of the CIA director’s indiscretions “long before” the November 6, 2012 elections, and knew about the FBI’s investigative findings weeks before the election, but “erected a firewall” to prevent any disclosure before November 6th.

    “What I do know is that an integral part of that firewall involved having information on Petraeus that would potentially damage his career, legacy and marriage. A sort of political blackmail, if you will. What I don’t know, but suspect, is that Petraeus was placed in the unenviable but self-inflicted position of having to choose between providing truthful testimony under oath and having his professional and personal life destroyed while systematically being impeached due to this incident, or keeping quiet before the Senate Intelligence Committee,” stated one source.

    A second intelligence source stated that “the announcement [of Petraeus’ resignation] was carefully timed. It was announced in a Friday afternoon news dump three days after the election, and days before the Senate Intelligence Committee was to hear his testimony, despite the President having knowledge of these events weeks ago. Friday’s announcement served two purposes; it kept controversy from emerging before the election, while allowing the administration to buy time regarding testimony by a federal official about CIA’s involvement in Benghazi.”

    • DM says:

      Petraeus took over the CIA in September 2011. At that time, he would have gone through a rigorous security check, even if he was the head of the Pentagon. Those checks go through the life with a very fine tooth comb of all candidates. Obama knew about the affair. I don’t doubt that. Like I said, the Obama administration is very Orwellian and we don’t know what the truth is.

      • gram cracker says:

        Too bad Presidential candidates don’t have to go through a rigorous security check. What nits would a very fine tooth comb have picked up on Obama?

    • Constance says:

      Thanks for the link I am posting it around.

  11. If social Conservatives think they are going to win big by running more “rape is a blessing” candidates, they are more delusional that I thought.

    Mitt was a good candidate and he ran a good campagne. The problem is… Obama lies, cheats and steals. No upstanding citizen can win against those odds.

    • angienc says:

      I agree that the pro-life without exception position is never going to win & damages all GOP candidates. However it is categorically unfair to call the position the “rape is a blessing” position. The position is “a baby/life is a blessing regardless of the circumstances of conception.” Now, you’re fine to disagree with that but it is not cool to use the prog distortion to describe the position because doing that makes you no better than them.

  12. votermom says:

    I signed this petition. No idea if it’s legit or an email harvest. LOL.

    • angienc says:

      Yeah, that won’t work — recounts are on a state by state basis.You’d have to petition each state’s Sec. of State to get a recount.

      • Oswald says:

        And a recount is not a fraud investigation. They just recount the same ballots they did the first time.

        • yttik says:

          In my state, they just count the same ballots over and over again until they get the result they want.

          We’re not going to over turn any elections, but constantly harping on this crap is a good thing to do. Fraud is now so normal, it’s just the way the game is played. In my own state we’re forever finding outright fraud and sometimes we actually prosecute people, but for the most part it’s just accepted that this is normal. I want that to change. Cheating isn’t normal. Machines losing ballots isn’t normal. This stuff is wrong and we need to start taking it seriously. This is America but our elections are starting to resemble those in a third world country.

        • angienc says:

          yttik — our elections aren’t the only thing resembling third world countries; our leaders are too.

  13. carol haka says:

    Start registering with social security number data base that shows whether or not a person has a picture id, and then politely tell them to go home and retrieve it.

Comments are closed.