If Newt Gingrich is the Answer, Tea Party has Failed

I am just posting a new article. This is what I stated in a thread last week how the Tea Party has left true conservatism. They have changed.

http://www.businessweek.com/politics-po ... ailed.html

The Tea Party failed long before Newt....

The Viking wrote: I am just posting a new article. This is what I stated in a thread last week how the Tea Party has left true conservatism. They have changed.

http://www.businessweek.com/politics-po ... ailed.html

I dare Perry to make a statement like this...

TAPPER: “How do you respond to Republicans who say if you don’t draw distinctions with Mitt Romney and others who are attacking you, if you don’t point out their perceived vulnerabilities, Barack Obama and the Democrats sure aren’t going to share that same reluctance and you are doing Obama a favor by staying positive?”

GINGRICH: “They are not going to be the nominee. I don’t have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who are not going to be the nominee. They are not going to be the nominee.”

TAPPER: “You are going to be the nominee?”

GINGRICH: “I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee. And by the way I don’t object if people want to attack me, that’s their right. All I’m suggesting that it’s not going to be very effective and that people are going to get sick of it very fast. And the guys who attacked each other in the debates up to now, every single one of them have lost ground by attacking. So they should do what they and their consultants want to do. I will focus on being substantive and I will focus on Barack Obama.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/01/g ... e-nominee/

If Perry was answering these questions he would have to say "No... I'm polling at 4%... I'm not going to be the nominee... it's not very hard to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high that I would even come close to being the nominee" Evidently the Tea Party doesn't hold the power you think they do... Newt is polling quite well without them so far. Backing Perry, waving the Tea Party flag... my goodness Viking, you're batting zero.

Failed at what, exactly? The ideas supported by the Tea Party are only accepted by a tiny fraction of the population. It's a splinter group and doesn't come anywhere near representing mainstream America, in spite of the delusions of Tea Partiers that they are the only "real Americans". Last I heard, to win a general election you need more than 10 or 15% of the population to support your candidates. The Tea Party had it's fifteen minutes in 2010, but people have wised up fast that the knee-jerk election of nutters to "send a message" has a nasty way of backfiring. Most people really don't want to cut off old people's Social Security or let poor kids die of preventable diseases or attend schools with leaking roofs and 1 teacher for 60 kids, even if in a moment of frustration they can be persuaded to vote for people who DO.

If the Republicans nominated anything resembling your "ideal" Tea Party candidate, they would lose with the biggest margins ever recorded.

I vehemently agree with LJ and AV here...Good work ladies

AspenValley wrote: Failed at what, exactly? The ideas supported by the Tea Party are only accepted by a tiny fraction of the population. It's a splinter group and doesn't come anywhere near representing mainstream America, in spite of the delusions of Tea Partiers that they are the only "real Americans". Last I heard, to win a general election you need more than 10 or 15% of the population to support your candidates. The Tea Party had it's fifteen minutes in 2010, but people have wised up fast that the knee-jerk election of nutters to "send a message" has a nasty way of backfiring. Most people really don't want to cut off old people's Social Security or let poor kids die of preventable diseases or attend schools with leaking roofs and 1 teacher for 60 kids, even if in a moment of frustration they can be persuaded to vote for people who DO.

If the Republicans nominated anything resembling your "ideal" Tea Party candidate, they would lose with the biggest margins ever recorded.

Your statement proves the mainstream media has done a fabulous job of demonizing the tea party. No tea party person I know wants to "cut off old people's social security or let poor kids die of preventable diseases or attend schools with leaking roofs and 1 teacher for 60 kids" That is a complete lie, regardless of whether or not you realize that. The Tea Party is all about living within your means. We just don't happen to have a Tea Party person running anymore (Cain will be out soon). This would make sense though...since the Tea Party just began, you can't expect the cream to rise to the top yet. Guys like Marco Rubio are the essence of the tea party, and hopefully whichever person ends up being the candidate, they will pick him as VP.

The status quo won't work....we need true change. If you ask the avg person if they agree with Tea Party ideals by line item, without mentioning the Tea Party, most people agree.

RenegadeCJ wrote: We just don't happen to have a Tea Party person running anymore.

That should tell you something...

RenegadeCJ wrote: ...since the [Occupy Wall Street movement] just begun, you can't expect the cream to rise to the top yet.

Ditto... Ignore the OWS movement at your own peril...

Frank Luntz wrote: I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," Republican strategist Frank Luntz told the Republican Governors Association. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism." Luntz said that the sentiment is so bad Republicans need to stop using the word capitalism. "They think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem," he said.

The American people's opinion of the TEA movement is at an all-time low, too... 24% approval, vs. 68% approval of the OWS movement. And you wonder why you don't have any candidates running?

Here is why I think this happened. First to have so many freaking debates was a disaster just waiting to happen. When politics is a game of who can stay 'clean' long enough to win and have no skeletons in your closet, having all those debates took out each candidate one by one because few can keep that up with out making some mistakes. Newt has experience speaking in that sort of venue and he has come out looking smart. He also looks like a "change" type of guy because he comes up with different ideas. The problem is, he is not presidential enough to win the whole thing. And he has a million skeletons in his closet because he has no common sense. He will do anything at the time and have to pay later. I remember him talking when he was majority leader about women and evolution. I can't remember it specifically but it was crazy and he was just trying to be different. The guy is not clean enough to run. Romney had the best shot at going after Obama. Unless Newt can win on some sort of "Change" campaign. It was done last time and everyone knows now the change did not happen.

I saw the Dems do this too when Bush was pres. Everyone thought it should have been easy to win that election and they all shot themselves in the foot by taking each other out. Newt is winning by default and that is not going to win an election. And Obama's camp seems to have wised up. They have finally just shut up and said nothing at all so he can't screw up. The republican party is screwing this up BAD. However, Newt is good at debating. Maybe that will be what wins for him if he can keep his head and if he has good smart managers around him. And a solid strategy.

Everyone sees the TEA Party differently, but I see OWS and them have similar visions on both hating the current crony capitalism that both "W" and Obama practice.

The more the Left vilifies the TEA Party and the TEA Party people condemn the OWS, the more likely we are going to get the current strategies of bailing out banks and solar companies that have too many lobbyists to fail.

It's not over till it's over.

If you assume that Newt is the man- then maybe the tea party has failed- because one of the tea parties goals is to get the career politicians out and replace them with conservatives who are not a part of the Washington DC establishment.

Newt has been and still is establishment.

But hey- Herman's women have destroyed him- Perry's stuttering / memory loss and the media destroyed him- and No conservative wants RINO Romney - we are whittling down the possibilities.

Ron Paul remains the sole non-establishment conservative and I'd be pleased as punch to have him as president. Hard to find any dirt on Paul- he's pretty clean as fas as politicians go.