Tea party v. establishment in 2012 race: A battle for the GOP soul?

Tea party v. establishment in 2012 race: A battle for the GOP soul?

Tea Party or establishment. That’s the name of the game in the battle for the Republican presidential primary nomination.

But sometimes it’s hard to determine who’s who.

Frontrunner Mitt Romney has never worked in Washington but has accumulated dozens of endorsements from Republican officialdom. Newt Gingrich was House speaker for four years, and has lived in Washington ever since his 1999 departure from Congress, but he’s running as the outsider who knows how to use his experience to crash the corrupt system and rebuild.

The expressions of support are an indicator where the divisions are lining up.

Full Story Here:
Tea Party v. Establishment In 2012 Race: A Battle For The GOP Soul?

I was a supporter of *NONE OF THE ABOVE* in the last presidential election. That didn’t catch on, the GOP ran McCain and Palin, got their asses handed to them, and WE got stuck with Barack Hussein Obama and his pet Wookie, Mooch.

The TEA Party and their choice means very little to me, as long as they don’t endorse Ron Paul, it is what it is.

The local TEA Party organizations lost nearly ALL credibility with me a while back when our Rowlett TEA Party was taken over by Ron Paul Big *L* Libertarians and was run into the ground by them.

Then the TEA Party on the other side of the lake, The Rockwall TEA Party, was co-opted by the GOP and made NO secret of the fact that they were indeed an operational arm of the local GOP.

So, maybe this will state it a bit more eloquently.

I have quite a bit to say about this one, but let me present some great opinion from my friend and blog buddy, Bloviating Zeppelin. His take on the GOP choices are as clear, and as honest as it gets.

ROMNEY: Too slick for his own good. Never a hair out of place. I couldn’t care less about his Mormonism — BUT — his Mormonism wasn’t evidently sufficiently in place for him to object to abortions earlier. Or gay marriage. Or state-mandated healthcare. Or increased taxes. A publicly-hocked lugie wouldn’t stick to his visage. And he has more money than Croesus. On the other hand:

Romney has a private business acumen that is rivaled by few. He took Bain Capital to new heights. He actually DID create NEW jobs as opposed to Obama Spiritual Jobs.

He turned the Olympics around. He is known, to a select few, as an Improver. You give him a private sector problem and he’ll turn it around for profitability. The problem he must overcome is this: profit is now considered EVIL and, with it, himself as EVIL. Bottom line: if anyone can fix capital problems, it’s Romney.

His religion keeps him personally faithful. But is everything else up for grabs? Is he what you wish to be when you wish him to be it?

But WHO is he — exactly??

GINGRICH: Yes, former Speaker of the House. And no one, NO ONE, disputes his innate intelligence. Wherever he goes, no one with a whit of brainpower denies that he’s “the smartest man in the room.”

That said, is he and will he be the most Sensible Man In The Room?

Truly, no one knows. Gingrich is Jekyll and Hyde. One face one day or moment, another face or moment another day or moment.

And like a number of men in power, he went through women like some people go through toilet paper. It’s about the power. No more than that.

If it was terrible for Clinton, it should be terrible for Gingrich. But it isn’t. Because things are skewed. Gingrich married his squeezes. Clinton just fucked them and moved on with impunity and predominantly wasn’t called on it until the very end of his White House.

CLINTON vs GINGRICH: The former wife of Newt Gingrich made reference to an “open marriage” and, now, Newt is taken to task for that.

Contrast and compare: When was the last time, do you think, that Hillary and William actually enjoyed conjugal relations? Or even slept in the same zip code?

RON PAUL: Mr Paul is a Truther and a Nutcase. He associates with white supremacists. He has great ideas about our monetary system and the Federal Reserve. He tends to go Constitutionalist. He is for Less Government. No debt. States’ right.

He thinks drugs should be legalized. He thinks our borders should be porous. He thinks we should have no interest or reference to extra-national affairs.

That crazy crap just can’t stand.

And so: imagine that Republicans haven’t come to a one-focal-length intensity point.

Illuminate me. Tell me where I’m wrong. Bloviating Zeppelin

BZ writes at a level some people can’t comprehend, he uses words that contain 3, 4 and sometimes 5 or more syllables, and it drives libbers totally crazy! I like that. :twisted:

I know we have to settle on one of the GOP candidates in the offering, but I truly cringe at what serves as *The BEST and the Brightest* the RNC/GOP has to offer.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in Decision 2012 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Tea party v. establishment in 2012 race: A battle for the GOP soul?

  1. BobF says:

    Spot on BZ!

    I don’t like Romney or Newt but our nation can’t handle another four years of Obama. Unfortunately, Republicans have been incredibly stupid this primary. They turned away a man whose state has no personal or corporate income tax. A state that has been through its worse drought and wildfire season in history with virtually no federal support or aid. A state that has a projected 1.6 billion dollar surplus while still taking care of its citizens who need assistance.

  2. minuteman26 says:

    Don’t like slick, therefore am voting for Newt. If Mittens wins it four more years of Obama if he survuves that long.

  3. Texasperated says:

    The GOP (non-establishment) conservatives have nobody but themselves to blame, for the most part. In their search for the “perfect conservative,” they took us through Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, USS Caine, and now Newt. If I missed one it is only because I was forced to cringe each time. With each candidate, there was a brief examination to determine the candidate was not perfect and that fish was thrown back. So we are left with the four weakest possible candidates to choose from. Is it Newt’s fault, or Mittens’, or those other two microphone stands? Not so much. Fred, you used to have a cartoon of Pogo on your blog. Remember? We have met the enemy and he is us. Well, as we said back in 1952, “I go Pogo.”

    Keep your powder dry

  4. Bunkerville says:

    Only because I am convinced that Romney has no intention whatsoever to abandon Obamcare, do I favor Gingrich at this point. The former will literally kill us with rationed care. Gingrich? We will at least get a space colony on the moon. :) )

  5. Keoni says:

    Why is there nothing about Santorum? An oversight? Or intentional?

  6. Fred: thanks for the plug indeed.

    Santorum? Can’t even.


Comments are closed.