Did the TEA Party get President Obama Re-elected?

Richard-H

Gold Member
Aug 19, 2008
10,879
3,820
315
It seems to me that if Mitt Romney had not been forced to pander to the TEA party in order to get the nomination, he could have presented himself consistently as a moderate conservative.

Instead he appeared to be a flip-flopping B.S. artist which made many Americans feel that they did not know what type of President he would really be. This uncertainty surely caused an awful lot of 'undecideds' to vote for President Obama.

So it seems that the single most important goal of the TEA Party - to prevent the President from getting re-elected - was undermined by themselves!

The irony is incredible!

:badgrin:
 
Absolutely. Willard had two choices, be moderate Mitt or radical right wing teabagger Mitt, he chose the latter.
 
It seems to me that if Mitt Romney had not been forced to pander to the TEA party in order to get the nomination, he could have presented himself consistently as a moderate conservative.

Instead he appeared to be a flip-flopping B.S. artist which made many Americans feel that they did not know what type of President he would really be. This uncertainty surely caused an awful lot of 'undecideds' to vote for President Obama.

So it seems that the single most important goal of the TEA Party - to prevent the President from getting re-elected - was undermined by themselves!

The irony is incredible!

:badgrin:

Either way he would have lost. If he had not pandered to them, they would have not shown up.

There needs to be a divorce in the GOP, Between the More Moderate Fiscal cons, and the Rabid Social Cons.

Whether you blame the former or the latter for losing, clearly the marriage is not working.
 
Moderate Conservatism is the mirror image of Moderate Liberalism.

Compromising with socialist policies is the problem, not the solution.

The fact that the left fears the Tea Party should rally support for its message.

But like Sarah Palin, the Tea Party has been successfully demonized by the main stream media.
 
It seems to me that if Mitt Romney had not been forced to pander to the TEA party in order to get the nomination, he could have presented himself consistently as a moderate conservative.

Instead he appeared to be a flip-flopping B.S. artist which made many Americans feel that they did not know what type of President he would really be. This uncertainty surely caused an awful lot of 'undecideds' to vote for President Obama.

So it seems that the single most important goal of the TEA Party - to prevent the President from getting re-elected - was undermined by themselves!

The irony is incredible!

:badgrin:

Actually, your reasoning is incredible. Despite all the invented racist BS, the Tea Party was almost entirely focused on budgetary reform. Romney's biggest gaffe was to pander to the xenophobic "social conservatives" on illegal immigrants, suggesting that they "self-deport." The real irony is that conservative Rick Perry had the most reasonable position on this issue.
 
jwoodie is talking nonsense. We the responsible part of the GOP, as made clear by Jindall and others, need the women and the minorities more than we need the wack loonies on the far right. The loonies are on notice: change.
 
jwoodie is talking nonsense. We the responsible part of the GOP, as made clear by Jindall and others, need the women and the minorities more than we need the wack loonies on the far right. The loonies are on notice: change.

Do you realize how pathetic your response is?
 
Absolutely. Willard had two choices, be moderate Mitt or radical right wing teabagger Mitt, he chose the latter.

You think Mitt was radical right wing? Please, explain to me your definition of right wing, because it must worlds apart from what I consider right wing.
 
The pathology is yours, jwoodie. We are looking forward not backwards. You can join us, or we will throw you out of the way. You better believe that Jindall is telling you the way it is and will be.

jwoodie is talking nonsense. We the responsible part of the GOP, as made clear by Jindall and others, need the women and the minorities more than we need the wack loonies on the far right. The loonies are on notice: change.

Do you realize how pathetic your response is?
 
Being Moderate is what hurt Mitt. Mitt lost because Republicans did not come out and vote more than anything else. We were fucked either way.
 
Moderate Conservatism is the mirror image of Moderate Liberalism.

Compromising with socialist policies is the problem, not the solution.

The fact that the left fears the Tea Party should rally support for its message.

But like Sarah Palin, the Tea Party has been successfully demonized by the main stream media.

Oh wow, do we have another one?
 
The pathology is yours, jwoodie. We are looking forward not backwards. You can join us, or we will throw you out of the way. You better believe that Jindall is telling you the way it is and will be.

jwoodie is talking nonsense. We the responsible part of the GOP, as made clear by Jindall and others, need the women and the minorities more than we need the wack loonies on the far right. The loonies are on notice: change.

Do you realize how pathetic your response is?

Forward? Backwards? WTH are you talking about? What is Jindall's way? Are you having a seizure?
 
Jindall is telling folks like you, LL, if you want to be in the GOP you better get your act right.

We need women and minorities more than we need you to win. Tis what tis.
 
The right failed to learn the lesson of Reagan, Romney tried to be left lite instead of pointing out the stark differences between the left and the right. Reagan said no pale pastels and that message was forgotten.
 

Forum List

Back
Top