The American Spectator : The Tea Party Needs Allies

Text Size

The Tea Party Needs Allies

By William Tucker on 2.22.12 @ 6:10AM

Someone like Mitt Romney and not someone who'll end up like Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle.

Toward the end of the Civil War, Robert E. Lee became so worried about the morale of his troops that he appeared on the battlefield several times, ready to lead his men into action. How did his troops react? They surrounded his horse and forced him to the rear, refusing to go into battle until they were sure he was out of danger.

America was then -- and was for most of its history -- what sociologists call a "deferential society." People were willing to follow a leader not of their own class. Lee was a Virginia aristocrat married to Martha Washington's great-granddaughter. He was personally opposed to slavery, he backed his wife's efforts to set up an illegal school for African-Americans on his estate, and he finally liberated the family's own slaves in 1862. Yet Lee still felt indebted to his Southern heritage. He had little in common with the journeymen and backwoods farmers who made up his army, yet they were more than willing to defer to his leadership, and it was his military genius that kept them in the war for so long.

Deference to leaders who do not necessarily share your background or agree with you on everything is in the fiber of representative government. It is enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, there probably never would have been a Constitution if the Americans of 1787 hadn't been willing to defer to the "assembly of demigods" (as Jefferson described them) that convened in Philadelphia, closed the doors to the press, sealed the windows to eavesdroppers, and privately debated the future of the nation.

We now live in an age when people are less and less willing to defer to leaders who are not of their own class and kind. Exhibit No. 1 is the current rejection of Mitt Romney by Tea Party Republicans and the subsequent elevation of Rick Santorum, a man who has none of the qualities of temperament suitable to a President, but who perfectly expresses the anger and sense of exclusion that is fundamental to the Tea Party.

And of course Tea Party Republicans have plenty to be angry about. They perceive, quite rightly, that they are the principal victims of President Obama's coalition of bureaucrats and government-dependents that is slowly strangling this country. Almost without exception, they are small-business owners, independent professionals, heads of families, people of modest means and backgrounds -- just as Rick Santorum describes them. They play by the rules and believe in the old America of effort and opportunity, but they perceive -- correctly -- that the game is not going to last much longer. With nearly half the population paying no income taxes, with the unemployed languishing for two years on government checks, with ranks of "disabled" swelling on Social Security, with construction cranes dotting the Washington skyline, and with congressmen holding seminars on how to apply for government jobs, they know there is very little room in this economy anymore for free enterprise. Their job -- as President Obama so eloquently explained to Joe the Plumber -- is to "share the wealth" they have earned through hard work and self-discipline, so someone down the street with no job and four illegitimate children can live on the dole. They are angry, and rightfully so.

What they do not perceive is that they are no longer a majority of the country. In fact, they are a minority of a minority -- a minority in the Republican Party, which is itself a minority party. They may be furious as all hell, but the general public does not share their anger. Most people are concerned with paying less taxes and maybe getting a part-time job with the school district, so they can get good benefits. If Tea Party Republicans succeed in nominating Rick Santorum, it will be like when the Populists nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896: a magnificent triumph for a rump faction, but a disaster in the general election. Once Santorum starts spouting about banning birth control and abolishing public schools, he will be like those Populists who were suddenly heard sprinkling their calls for free coinage of silver with vegetarianism and mystical interpretations of the Bible -- the things that historian Richard Hofstadter said reflected "too many long nights on the prairie."

In his current best-seller, Coming Apart, Charles Murray talks about how the liberal intelligentsia has isolated itself from the rest of America, with its own cultural icons and reference points that have little or no meaning to the mainstream. That is true. Unfortunately, it is also true of the Tea Party. They have a private vocabulary of Hayek and von Mises, rent-seeking and marginal tax rates, "elitist" and "fungible," that lights up the neurons of fellow conservatives and libertarians but has little or no meaning to the general public. Take home schooling. Santorum can talk breezily about home schooling his children in the White House, because as a 53-year-old autodidact, he thinks he knows everything. But lots of people in this country -- millions upon millions, in fact -- don't think they know everything and want their children taught by people who know more than they do. Granted, they aren't getting much of that in public schools these days, but that doesn't mean people aren't willing to try. They see schools as their children's opportunity for advancement. If Santorum thinks he's going to form a majority out of home schoolers, he's likely to end up as the first candidate in history to lose all 50 states.

What the Tea Party needs to do is look for allies. There are other people in the country who share their concerns, if not their bitterness. Who are some of those natural allies? The most obvious are people who have been successful in the private sector but who have remained true to the system that made them. They may have achieved wealth but they haven't gone aristocratic, become environmentalists, celebrated the "era of limits," talked about "sustainability," decided that we've got enough wealth in this country and the time has come to divide up what we already have (excluding my part, of course), and settled down to live gracefully on wind and sunshine.

In other words, a natural ally might be Mitt Romney, or someone very like him.

When the alliance of labor unions, urban Catholics, and Southern rednecks combined to take over this country in 1932, they didn't do it by nominating Huey Long or Al Smith for president. They did it by choosing a Hudson River aristocrat who had so much blue blood in his veins that he didn't mind becoming a "traitor to his class" and trashing a few Wall Street plutocrats along the way. They chose someone outside of their class who was willing to speak for them, yet someone prominent and successful enough to become a national hero. And it worked. Cue John F. Kennedy in 1960 for the same result.

Tea Party members seem unwilling to do the same. They don't like Mitt Romney because he is not "one of us." He had a rich father and went to Cranbrook and Harvard Business School. He lives in Massachusetts and doesn't feel revulsion while visiting an Ivy League campus. He probably even reads the New York Times. How can he possibly represent us? He doesn't share our background, our hatred of the press, our disdain for New York and Washington.

What they don't see is that Romney already is a traitor to his class. He didn't smoke marijuana at Harvard. He didn't participate in student demonstrations -- he was married and raising children, for heaven's sake! He's made lots of money, but he hasn't tried to deflect envy by joining the Sierra Club, hobnobbing with movie stars or celebrating Occupy Wall Street. Romney has lived among the liberal intelligentsia but never become part of it. He's a natural leader for those struggling independent Americans who make up the Tea Party. Yet they refuse to see him that way.

No political movement or candidate has ever gotten anywhere in this country without finding its natural allies. When Ronald Reagan went to the 1976 GOP convention with a chance of stealing the nomination, he took the bold step of naming an East Coast Republican, Sen. Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, as his Vice President. He knew he wasn't going to get anywhere without uniting the party. He reprised this in 1980 by choosing his strongest rival, George Bush, the quintessential Connecticut Yankee. (Bush later did the opposite by choosing a nonentity in Dan Quayle, and it probably cost him the 1992 election.)

So ask yourself this: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, do you think he'll pick Santorum or Marco Rubio or some other Tea Party stalwart as his Vice President? I would bet the house on it. And if Santorum is nominated, do you think he will choose Romney, or Senators Richard Lugar or Lamar Alexander, as a stabilizing force from the Old Guard? I wouldn't count on it. And, if not, how can he help from becoming the next Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle?

About the Author

William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (213) | Leave a comment

betwyan| 2.22.12 @ 6:23AM

Again with slams against O'Donnell and Angle. But these establishment, moderate, Neocons never mention all the moderate Repubs who also lost in 2010. Curious.

Jack in Wi.| 2.22.12 @ 7:57AM

Mitt Romney is everything the Tea Party was formed to put an end too. He is a big government guy who pushed Romneycare, and other big government solutions. He is a Bush clone, and not a very good one either. The Party is too divided to win this year. No one can sell Romney as anything but more of the same.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.12 @ 1:03PM

I don't recall O'Donnell and Angle being anti-Israel.

Anthony| 2.22.12 @ 3:01PM

Wow! what a nasty piece of work this Mr. Tucker is. I quite agree betwyan, Mr Tucker reveals to us his own arrogance and elitism, along with a premise that is flawed, thin and pathetic.
This is not a class warfare thing between the Tea Party and patrician Romney, Mr. Tucker. However, you, with your snide comment about
Santorum having "none of the qualities of temperment suitable to a President", have revealed that you have learned Republican politics at the feet of John Snob McCain.
Who the hell are you kidding, and what Rick Santorum have you been watching, Mr. Tucker?
You, like the rest of the sniveling elites, have it ass backwards; it's the R establishment that has to reach out to the loyal base, not the other way around. It's the R establishment that needs to make friends with its own solid base.
Exclusion is the speciality of you R elites and the D party, a lesson you have failed to learn.
If you and the beltway boys want to win in November, try this novel approach, join us.
If you want to remain the pathetic RINO losers that you are, go with McCain II.
Class warfare my ass!!!

macwell| 2.22.12 @ 7:37PM

While I agree with you that the manner in which he wrote it was a joke worthy of HufPo. Problem is, he has a point. It's simple really, there are advantages to backing Romney, even if you have to hold your nose to do it.
The real reason America is in the crapper is that band of lawyers and thieves we jokingly refer to as Congress.
Congress was never meant to be a career.
Congress was never meant to be a career.
Congress was intended to be 2 separate bodies within 1 body. The House and the Senate.
We all know that.
The House was intended to be made up from a cross section of Americans. People from all walks of life.
NOT all lawyers.
We the people have sat silent for too long.
We must dismantle the good old boys club.
If America is to survive as a free Republic we must put and end to 2 aspects of our present government.
1) Career politicians.
2) the end of the lobby.

Until we the people resolve to stop being lied to, stolen from, and made fools of daily by that bunch in the Capital, America will continue to decline because they,(congresscritters) allow it to happen, year after year. These representatives continue to allow people who do not love America to be in control. People who want to "fundamentally transform" America into what? He hasn't been very clear as to what he thinks America should be.
Yes, we must defeat Obama.
We must also rid America of career politicians.

Todd Powers| 2.22.12 @ 7:41PM

Quit beating around the bush,Anthony. Tell us what you really think.

Todd Powers| 2.22.12 @ 7:43PM

Why is it that we must reach out to elist and not the other way around?

PaulC| 2.22.12 @ 9:49PM

You're right, the Tea Party's antipathy toward Romney has absolutely nothing to do with class, and Mr. Tucker needs to rethink his premises, assuming he isn't being intentionally dishonest here. Just how many times do we have to say that the problem with Romney is his utter lack of conservative credentials before Mr. Tucker and his cohorts believe us?

Mike Hawk| 2.22.12 @ 6:28AM

Wrong. Establishment Republicans like Mitt Ronmey have nothing but distain for Tea Party Patriots. Angle and O'Donnell might have won if the Establishment types had not pulled the rug out from under them. Sharron Angle furthermore was running against Reid and that was a long shot anyway. We need fewer Mitt Romney RINOs and more people willing to take them on. Case in point is here in PA where Sam Rohrer is bucjing the state GOP and running a primary campaign that is geared to defeat the Obama supporting RINO Jack Welsh, the endorsed candidate. Tea Party will be a factor in this one.

richard ryan| 2.22.12 @ 11:13AM

Right on. Conservatives do not dislike Romney because he seems blue blooded, they simple want simple, bold solutions. Not 150 point plans for fixing the economy. 9-9-9 is bold, it is simple. It is the type of solution conservatives and Tea Party Patriots want. Our problem is simple: too much government, taxes too high, spending more than we take in. Romney and his 59 point plan will only confuse and alienate.

vtwin| 2.22.12 @ 3:45PM

...and keep it simple because anything that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker is going to go over the head of most conservatives.

Riff Raff| 2.23.12 @ 10:47AM

They say you shouldn't give a dog a name with more than two syllables to make it easy for the dog to remember and respond to that name. This puts a dog ahead of most liberals who can't understand much beyond monosyllabic utterings.

Bo Darville| 2.22.12 @ 11:52AM

You really think the non-witch, perennial losing candidate O'Donnell lost because she had the rug pulled out from under her by "the establishment"? You really believe that?

Mike Hawk | 2.22.12 @ 3:14PM

Definately. She trounced Mike Castle the LIberal RINO/ neo Democrat jockstrap in the primary by getting Conservatives (gasp!) to vote for her and for that the RINO party in DE hated her. Rove, and the rest promptly went ballistic. It was Castle's turn ands she got in the way, so they ran over her. Suck it up..

Tommy Frisco| 2.22.12 @ 3:43PM

You're right, Mike. Rove went on Hannity's show the night O'Donnell won the primary and bet Hannity that O'Donnell wouldn't win in the general election. Talk about Republican on Republican. I'd never seen anything like it. Before Hannity's show was over, I had sent a donation to O'Donnell's campaign and emailed Rove later that night to express my disgust. I've despised him ever since.

brad| 2.22.12 @ 5:13PM

You are so smart. Please, lead us. ... HA!!!

brad| 2.22.12 @ 5:14PM

sorry. meant for vtwin the village idiot.

brad| 2.22.12 @ 5:16PM

Felt the same way after Rove's appearance on Hannity. I emailed him too - makes me wonder how much negative email he got after that.

TrueBlue| 2.22.12 @ 12:45PM

The direct statements by the establishment Republicans saying they wouldn't back Angle or O'Donnell didn't help either. If they had gotten the backing they would have won, but when their own party refuses to back them how can anyone expect the rest of the population to support them?

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 3:20AM

Angle might have been able to win with more support, although Reid is one tough bird, and if you recall he picked his opponent by running ads during the primary. O'Donnell lost by a landslide and couldn't be saved. The Establishment really screwed up by letting the Delaware primary happen instead of clearing the way for O'Donnell to run for the House seat being vacated by Castle.

Seek| 2.22.12 @ 2:33PM

There is no way that candidates as stupid and unqualified as Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell could have won, with or without GOP establishment support. These are classic "dumb broads"; they have no business running for county dog catcher. It says a lot about the Tea Party, none of it good, that it would endorse such women.

Call me an old-fashioned male, a "right-wing elitist" or a "conservative snob," but we on the Right need high standards and at least some base of support among moderates. Winning in politics is about addition, not subtraction.

Riff Raff| 2.22.12 @ 3:42PM

I agree that we need high standards, but that does not seem to be a requirement on the Left. One simply can not get "dumber" than President Bozo. The President of the USA is easily the stupidest person in politics today, and Candidates Angle and O'Donnell are clearly more intelligent and qualified than he is. President Bozo is a puppet for people a whole lot smarter than he is, who tell him what to do, what to say, and how to act. And his handlers are all people who have publicly declared their opposition to representative government and free people, and their undying support for centralized authortarianism. It is nice to say we need better candidates, and indeed we do. If Romney is the answer, it was a dumb question. But given that, how can one get lower than our current "President?"

I would also take issue with Mr. Tucker's assertion that we desire to be ruled by aristocrats. If that were true, then elected office would have been restricted to aristocrats. It isn't. The real problem is not aristocracies vs. the common man. The real problem is the US government, composed largely of self-styled "aristocrats," operates in open violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. And the common people vote for this, as they receive their illegal government checks. The problem is elitists BUY votes with other people's money, and right now, ONLY the Tea Party is raising this as an issue. The Tea Part avoids Romney because we don't believe he will do anything to stop it.

PaulC| 2.22.12 @ 9:52PM

I completely agree. To claim that Mitt Romney is a natural ally of the Tea Party movement is preposterous, which is why I seriously question Mr. Tucker's honest intentions in writing this piece.

Andrew P| 2.24.12 @ 3:22AM

Mittens will NEVER be our ally. Everyone seems to know it except those fools who seem to be enraptured by his wealth, organization, and appearance.

Kenny| 2.22.12 @ 6:33AM

"Rick Santorum, a man who has none of the qualities of temperament suitable to a President,"

What a brainless comment.

And for your information Mr. Tucker, the reason the Tea Party isn't behind Willard has a lot more to do than that he's not of the middle class. It has something to do with Romney's lack of both substance and inherent conviction.

TrueBlue| 2.22.12 @ 12:51PM

Romney can't even explain the positions that he holds. He keeps deferring to his marriage or his business experience, but can't convince anyone that his past decisions were good ones, and since he keeps changing his mind it's no wonder. Santorum has his beliefs, and has stuck with them, regardless of the crowd in front of him.

As for Santorum standing up and saying to abolish birth control, etc. that is a silly statement. He has made it quite clear on several occasions that those are his BELIEFS, not that he would force those beliefs on others. The fact that he is willing to stand up and defend his beliefs against government overreach should be proof enough that he isn't going to try to infringe on others, but instead he keeps getting portrayed as a religious kook.

The entire problem we are having in this country is based in the lack of morality that has infused itself in our society since the hippie generation. Maybe, just maybe, getting someone in the White House who actually holds to a consistent and moral upbringing is exactly what the country needs. If the one who is supposed to be leading us is a lying sack of $%^& why is anyone surprised that the rest of the country thinks it'd be okay for them to be the same?

macwell| 2.22.12 @ 7:52PM

Well said and I couldn't agree with you more. In that regard both men are equal. Santorum is a Christian and Romney is a Morman, to me that is fine. Romney's Mormanism isn't my problem with the man. I don't think Romney has what it's going to take to go against the Axelrod machine, and you know it's coming. As soon as the Republicans have their man, and he has to go against Obama, enter Axelrod. This man is downright dangerous. I guess there are people born without a conscience and Axelrod is one of those people.
Do not break the first rule of war, never underestimate your opponent.
Whoever we end up with, we must back at all costs.
We must defeat Obama.
But, to defeat him, we must defeat Axelrod's machine. We must band together like our very lives are at stake.
The only thing we have to loose by griping,
Is America!

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 2:25PM

Kenny see my comments below - agree with you 100% - I messed up the post wanted it here not independent :) ;)

steve talbot| 2.22.12 @ 6:39AM

My post is not spam.

steve talbot| 2.22.12 @ 6:40AM

You're a goofball

Lawrence Boccardi| 2.22.12 @ 6:44AM

With condition of USA as bad as you describe, might just be time for a Santorum.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.22.12 @ 8:08AM

Exactly, Lawrence. Jimma Carta paved the way for Reagan. Mr. Tucker has a man-crush. He is in love with Mittens.
But he is also an elitist snob who apparently knows jack sh*t about Hayek and Von Mises of whom he speaks. I do understand the volcabulary of Austrian Economist. And I belong to several TEA Party groups and AFP. And the good people who understand "American Exceptionalism" know that Obama and the progressives, nor the liberal RINO Romney are it.
Mr. Tucker, you are a condesending know nothing. We bitter clingers watched our home values and stock portfolios plummet due to the elites subprime plans. Now, whether they understand Agenda21 or not; people know the government is going to tell them what they can and cannot do with their property. You don't have to be a love sick, ruling class bootlicker to know that the ruling class is not the benevolent administrators you perceive.

Al Adab| 2.22.12 @ 10:31AM

Fascinating that someone like Tucker could make the case that the GOP is a class ridden group. Mainstream republican distrust of Romney stems mostly from the fact that he represents the party types we have followed to defeat time and again. He holds no core values, only pragmatic positions. When we seek after leadership, we long for those who embody the cause not those who, like his father before him, oppose the resurgent Conservative Movement within the GOP.

That the Tea Party itself is not aligned with either the Conservative Movement or the GOP per se is a fact. Nonetheless, it represents a broad react6ion against a central planning, ever mor4e intrusive federal government. It is a great disservice to the nation to judge it by its mistakes or failures rather than by its successes. Use the same standard on the GOP and the names of Ford, Dole, McCain, Rockefeller and G. Romney show also.

The issue is the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the Federal centered social welfare state. It is whether this nation still holds the liberty of its citizens as its highest priority or whether we have become so dependant that our birthright of freedom is lost to a bowl of government pottage.

rightasrain| 2.22.12 @ 7:03AM

I'm an ardent tea party supporter and I want to beat Obama. That's not going to happen if we nominate Santorum.

JKS| 2.22.12 @ 8:28AM

Why?

Big Tony| 2.22.12 @ 11:04AM

Because Santorum's social conservatism and religious rants scare the crap out of not just progressives but libertarians too. With the country in rapid economic decent, social conservatism will have little or no meaning if the USA becomes just another country in the world government. Santorum may be a good man but he will lose big time. I believe Tucker is right, but the upshot of Tucker's perception is that there is no longer any hope for the USA. You'd better get on board the government gravy train or have the money you need to get out of here. Middle class working stiffs are being bleed for both those looking to buy votes from freeloaders and for the sake of making sure the ultra rich stay that way. The vast majority of people don't understand, don't care and would rather spend their time watching Dancing with the Stars or American Idol than educating themselves to the extent needed to have an informed electorate that is needed for self government.

richard ryan| 2.22.12 @ 11:19AM

The country is in decline Tony. Culturally, economically, socially, you name it. Christianity has been the foundation of our nation and our way of life. If Santorum's strong faith "scares" people, we are in trouble and will never emerge as the great America we used to know.

Bo Darville| 2.22.12 @ 11:54AM

The country is in decline. That's why it's probably not smart to throw gas on the fire and nominate somebody that will repulse everybody except the most ardent conservatives who make up about 20% of the electorate. Nominating Santorum isn't the solution to the problem, it's worsening the problem.

Josh| 2.22.12 @ 2:09PM

I'm not a social conservative, nor am I religious or spiritual, and if anyone in this primary repulses me, it is Mitt Romney. It is clear we need to make a leap of faith with either Rick or Mitt. We need to trust Rick when he says he will not push a big government social agenda and we need to trust Mitt when he says he will repeal Obamacare and push back the tide of Obama's destructive policies. The thing is, Rick is trustworthy, Mitt is not. Mitt continues to morph into whatever he needs to be and that is a dangerous characteristic. I'd rather the imperfect candidate I trust than the "severely" flawed candidate I don't. I live in California and am not interested in another Schwarzenegger-type candidate running as one thing and then governing as another.

Seek| 2.22.12 @ 2:36PM

We're not in decline -- not so much anyway that the Rx for our alleged ills is a dogmatic theocrat like Rick Santorum, whom, by the way, Michael Savage can't stand. Or is Savage just a liberal in disguise?

TrueBlue| 2.22.12 @ 12:55PM

How many times have social conservatives been told to just bite their tongues and vote for the fiscal conservative while ignoring their social stance?

Despite the media rhetoric Santorum is actually VERY good fiscally. I mean hell, the way he runs his campaign should be evidence enough. He does nearly twice as many events as the other candidates and has run his entire campaign on less than half of the amount of money his opponents have, while they all throw money around like... well, like it's not their money. THAT is the attitude that got us the government we have today.

We need someone that is going to respect the money they are given and spend it wisely, which Santorum has proven he is.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.12 @ 1:06PM

I dunno. I sat in a Minnesota classroom with a precinct of random GOPers and they voted overwhelmingly for Santorum, and all of them liked his social values.

The media supported McCain, too, at first. They hated Reagan throughout his Presidency. I say, let the voters decide and support the candidate that comes out of it, as long as he isn't from Texas. LBJ and W were both very problematic, and paul would be a long, national nightmare.

ejp| 2.22.12 @ 2:05PM

Libertarianism has scared me for decades and the fact that a flaky crackpot like Ron Paul has been among those still staying in is a testament to how that, and not traditional social conservatism from the mainstream as Santorum is, is what Republicans should worry about.

Frank Natoli| 2.22.12 @ 3:16PM

Tone: you're absolutely right that Santorum's social conservatism scares progressives and libertarians. But that fear is irrational. Name me one thing, just one thing, that President Santorum, and say 100 Senator Santorums, and 400-something Representative Santorums, and nine Justice Santorums, will do on day one in office, that will stop people from doing something socially that they can do today, or compel people to do something socially that they are not compelled to do today. One thing. And if you cannot, then admit the fear is irrational, and the cure is to enlighten the little children, not cater to their bigotry.

rnd| 2.22.12 @ 11:38PM

Frank Natoli, thank you and grazie. You are absolutely right and perhaps one of Rick Santorum's best lines in the Arizona televised discussion (it's not really a debate) was, "What liberals don't understand is that if I am elected, I will talk about these things (solid moral values in our lives, in our homes, in our families) but I don't go out and legislate for it or MANDATE it." This what -- yes, irrational -- thinkers and liberals have glued in their heads.

Folks, we cannot have any semblance of fuctionality in our townships, cities, counties when half the kids are illegitimate, half of all marriages end in divorce, married adults are seeking "hook ups" on Ashley Madison websites, drug use is out of control, alcohol is reguarly abused by 35% of the adult population, and we're aborting one out of every 10 - 15 children.

No amount of national wealth, overabundance of jobs, energy independence, or lack of national security issues will still save society. Society is doomed with the BAGGAGE and dead weight of failed homes, failed couples, failed kids, failed lives.

It is perfectly legit -- and frankly superb leadership -- to be talking the moral failing and decline of our country.

JRC| 2.22.12 @ 4:44PM

Tony,
Have you ever heard of Ronald Reagan? Check out the article here by Paul Kengor comparing the speeches given by Reagan and Santorum dealing with Satan and Evil. Nobody thought Reagan could win as as strong social conservative who was not afraid to say how he felt. Things were pretty bad economically in 1980 and Reagan won 49 states. If you tell me someone scares the crap out Progressives then that is who we want.

macwell| 2.22.12 @ 7:55PM

Well said Big T

Clint| 2.22.12 @ 7:19AM

" Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, singled out Romney's Massachusetts health care plan as a primary reason why the national front-runner for the Republican nomination "clearly has difficulties" with members of the movement.

"He's attached to RomneyCare and has done a poor job of distancing himself from that," Meckler told reporters at a breakfast in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "I think he probably squandered an incredible opportunity and was probably the best guy to say, ‘I tried this and it failed,' and he has not done a good job of that. So he has taken positions that are contrary to what the average Tea Partier would take -- positions on man-made global warming, positions on energy efficiency. So I think he's in real trouble with the Tea Party base."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Tom| 2.22.12 @ 7:23AM

When Romney held elected office he was the beta-tester for Obamacare, for goodness sake! That alone renders his big government statist credentials secure. He was also pro-abortion, pro-gun control and pro-homosexual marriage.

The premise that he'd be an "ally" of the Tea Party is, on its face, fallacious.

The "conservative" VP shibboleth is also a fraud. GH Bush didn't make Reagan govern moderately, and the presence of Dan Quayle didn't make GH Bush govern conservatively. Neither did the presence of Dick Cheney make GW Bush govern conservatively. VP's are irrelevant, at least until their consigliere is about to leave office.

Proud Mormon| 2.22.12 @ 7:23AM

Romney doesn't drink any tea hence he doesn't need any right-wing rabble rousers mucking things up for him. Beating the Tea Party and winning the the nomination is Priority #1 and that will give me more satisfaction than beating Obama.

Melvin| 2.22.12 @ 7:37AM

These right-wing rabble rousers mucking things up. What has members of the Tea Party done to earn this description?
Your post gives the impression of a Proud Progressive than a Proud Mormon.

Carol| 2.22.12 @ 7:51AM

Who knew Mormons could be plants?

Oh that's right, I did and his name is Romneycare.

Truth to Power| 2.22.12 @ 9:11AM

Mormons don't call themselves Mormons. There are quite a few leftist stooges trying to make mischief on this site. What kind of person wants to beat the Tea Party more than beating Obama? The answer is a liberal pretending to be a proud Mormon.

Al Adab| 2.22.12 @ 10:34AM

I would like to ask how any devout Mormaon could support, let alone propose, a universal health care plan including paid abortion.

Why does anyone propose "beating" ones own ally instead of strengthening the coalition which can defeat Obama?

Lesser Weevil| 2.22.12 @ 1:14PM

Proud Troll is a habitual noise source here.

Lyneuss Fields| 2.22.12 @ 9:48AM

Romney, like his daddy, is the offspring of 19th and 20th century molesters (e.g., murders, rapists, polygamists and extortionists). Additionally, he is not liked because he is a phony. Do some research in Mormonism's Journal of Discourses and Comprehensive History publications and save yourself, your family and America.
But Rand Paul has gotten it right! If the any president wants to put boots on the ground (spending billions of dollars to do so) in a foreign country, get a declaration of war from Congress. Then when the Jane Fonda's act out, America can burn their ass.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html

Riff Raff| 2.22.12 @ 3:47PM

To: "Proud Mormon": What you say epitomizes the problem. You see the Tea Party as the opposition, not the Socialists who run the government. You see the Tea Party as the enemy, people who only want to be left alone by government to pursue prosperity, yet you ignore the Socialists who want to take everything you have. You really have your priorities out of whack and I fervently hope you go unsatisfied.

benny havens| 2.22.12 @ 7:33AM

The reason conservatives and Tea Party members don’t like Romney is not because he is rich or that he went to Harvard. The reason is because he has no plan, no vision and no solutions. Platitudes will not defeat Obama

martin j smith| 2.22.12 @ 7:38AM

Mr Tucker--You must be joking--are you or are you not ? Mitt Romney does NOT connect with the Tea Party Sentiment ( not the Political Party of which there is none ). He believes in business as usual in Washington which is exactly what the Tea party Sentiment opposes. Romney does not believe in capitalism but is willing to make compromises with Socialists to appear to be a less stringent candidate than Obama. But I can only say Romney shows and continues to show very weak support because he is not genuine about whatever he believes. I would say the best slogan for him and his ilk is " Let's make a deal" with the Socialists To that I say: No thank you.!!!!!!!!!

Conserdude| 2.22.12 @ 7:40AM

There you go repeating falsehoods about santorum on contraceptives and public schools, mr tucker, just like some leftist smear merchant. Shame on you. If Romney is so worthy then he needs to prove it by giving voters a reason to be excited about him, like having a heart- felt idea or two.

Old Soldier| 2.22.12 @ 7:46AM

Thoughtful article. We do have a long tradition of people leading across class-lines. Teddy Roosevelt leading his Rough Riders comes to mind.

Of the three mainstream Republican candidates, Romney probably is the most fiscally conservative (not saying much) and probably the best ally of the Tea Party. Barely.

Opponents have had years to successfully paint Romney as a Rino. When the negative ads are done exposing Santorum, he'll be done. His Senate record is an embarrassment.

Santorum is also more likely to distract himself with social nonsense instead of attacking the deficit.

SUBVET| 2.22.12 @ 10:15AM

GEORGE SOROS........."We think either obama or romney's fine, but Gingrich, he would change things".

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 10:47AM

Old,

Really? Did you miss 1994? The only candidate who GOVERNED conservative was Newt and for his trouble the Liberal Democrats and the Republican Establishment banished him.

I was reading Frank Lunz's book Winning the other night and Frank referenced Newt & Newt's work ethic he used to get the Contract with America through Congress.

I completely understand why lazy liberals want to keep Newt on the outside.

Santorum is a Party hack who's pro-life principles stop at the water's edge of his political ambition -Santorum is how we got our illustrious Supreme Court Justice Sotomyor...at critical points Santorum could have stopped her but he did not.

Old Soldier| 2.22.12 @ 12:49PM

I remember '94. I remember '78 when Congressman Newt thought creating the Department of Education was a good idea. I remember Newt 2000's cheer-leading for healthcare mandates and Medicare drugs.

Newt does left-right like a Drill Sergeant calling cadence.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 2:27PM

His record still beats St. Rick's and he lately has developed humility on the campaign trail explaining hi revised view of mandates & global warming

macwell| 2.22.12 @ 8:03PM

I wish more people understood what you're saying NVA. I believe Newt is the only one who can, and will take on the Axelrod machine that's coming.
We the people, the silent majority, cannot remain silent. We cannot sit back and continue to allow the few, (sometimes less than 1%) dictate to the rest of the country.
We can, and should elect Newt. while we're at it, we should start to rid DC of all career politicians.
Congress was never meant to be a career.

Carol| 2.22.12 @ 7:48AM

So the author is claiming that we the tea party need Romneycare?

I don't think so.

He needs us but we don't need him.

There are plenty of RINOs in Washington making decisions against our will.

With RINOs for enemies, who needs Romneycare?

TommyFrisco| 2.22.12 @ 7:49AM

Mr. Tucker, it takes a lot of audacity to compare Mitt Romney to Robert E. Lee. Those of us in the south do not trust north-eastern blue-state RINOs for very good reasons and we can tell when pundits like you who are trying to deceive us.

John - TMF| 2.22.12 @ 7:49AM

This is nonsense. The dead give away was the gloss over of Lee's personal history with regard to slavery; it was far murkier, and less magnanimous than presented. Note: When using preface statements before declaring your thesis do not declare disputable topics for other papers.

Santorum is only unacceptable to the elites because they cannot fathom the concept of an outwardly religious man being privately moral. To the Establishment faith belongs in a closet, along with the raincoat and gloves to be brought out only when absolutely necessary, and then worn as stylishly as possible.

The entire "Santorum is unelectable because he is a Religious Zealot" theme is beginning to wear on many of us out here. Rick Santorum perfectly capable of running the Executive Branch, and doing it with a good deal of common sense and moral uprightness.

Santorum is scary. He's not an Ivy League, prestige school man. His kids are home schooled instead of being sent to private tony prep schools aimed beyond inferior hoi polloi institutions. He actually believes "that faith stuff".

It would be truly nice to see Newt and Rick shake hands, work out their very minor differences, and have Newt serve as a senior advisory official in a finalized Santorum campaign push.

What this race does not need, and what would be the final nail in the GOP coffin; Willard Milton Romney.

The graveyard of political entities has a hole and a tombstone waiting for it:

The Republican Party
1854-2012
Here lies the GOP, killed by its own hand by cravenly nominating a Liberal Democrat to run in an election that meant everything.

I wonder what political grave the shovels are digging next? The tombstone has already been laid against the old Liberty Tree for carving.

The Pledge:

Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican; therefore I WILL NOT vote for him, EVER!

r/John - TMF

Seek| 2.22.12 @ 2:37PM

If anything kills the GOP, it will be the gradual increase of nonwhite voters. It's time to shut off all immigration from Mexico and other Third World countries.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.12 @ 7:48PM

John,
arsehole.................anybody but Obama!

John - TMF| 2.22.12 @ 8:59PM

Ken,

You aren't listening.... Obama ain't in charge... He's a plastic banana, and as old Georgie "the Kapo" Soros said, Romney is acceptable to him.

If Romney wins, nothing at all different happens. He will just sit on what is happening right now. Except that when the economy finally completely collapses, he will be at the wheel. If he even wins, which he can't because he's owned by the same people as Obama.

The anybody but trap is why we can't get back to a Conservative.

Willard Milton Romney is a Limousine Liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican, therefore I WILL NOT vote for him, EVER!

-TMF

chuck| 2.22.12 @ 7:56AM

We are looking for someone to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

Do you really believe Mittens will do this? Mr. Romneycare?

gearjammer| 2.22.12 @ 9:24AM

Hey stupid, Romney was quite budget conscious in Ma. He cut taxes. Even his loony left successor has left well enough alone. Women will desert GOP big time with Rick. So will moderates. These people do exist and do vote. His religiosity makes too many queasy and even sick to their stomachs.

Nolann Ryann| 2.22.12 @ 10:25AM

No he didn't and no amount of baseless caterwauling by the Rombots will cover the truth. From CATO:

Romney likes to advance the image of himself as a governor who has fought a liberal Democratic legislature on various fronts. That’s mostly true on spending: he proposed modest increases to the budget and line-item vetoed millions of dollars each year only to have most of those vetoes overridden. But Romney will likely also be eager to push the message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 [million] in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code. He announced in May 2004 that he wanted to cut the top income tax rate from 5.3 to 5 percent, but that was hardly an audacious stand. Voters had already passed a plan to do just that before Romney even took office. In his budget for 2006, he proposed $170 million more in business tax hikes, almost completely neutralizing the proposed income tax cut.

Cato concludes, “If you consider the massive costs to taxpayers that his universal health care plan will inflict once he’s left office, Romney’s tenure is clearly not a triumph of small-government activism.

Your problem is that the base isn't as stupid as Romney's staff believes.

flyovermark| 2.22.12 @ 11:36AM

We aren't trying to nominate a "women's candidate" or a "moderate's candidate", gearjammer. We are trying to nominate a REPUBLICAN candidate. What good is it to nominate someone who "women" and "moderates" will vote for, if he isn't someone for whom REPUBLICANS will vote for?

Mr ED| 2.22.12 @ 8:00AM

"Deference to leaders who do not necessarily share your background or agree with you on everything is in the fiber of representative government."

Yes, we did so well with the Doles and McLames, Romney the latest "electable" leader selcted by the Ruling Class LibLite RINOs is sure to be a winner! Deference to any leader should be dependent on more than their supposed ability to be effective. If they are effective in doing the wrong things, what benefit is that? I have no allegience to or sympathy for the connected who desperately wish for their turn at the gub'mint trough again and will do or say anything to have "their guy" in charge of the gate to that trough.

Old Soldier| 2.22.12 @ 8:08AM

I agree with you - but all 3 of the mainstream candidates left are fiscally liberal Rino's. Gingrich seems to lurch left and right randomly. Santorum was a reliable Rino big spender a decade ago, and Romney was a Republican Governor in the bluest of states who managed to slow down the state Democrats somewhat.

All the conservatives except Paul were eliminated months ago. Be mad about the lack of choices - not the unwillingness to support Santorum or Gingrich.

Dai Alanye| 2.22.12 @ 9:53AM

Santorum was the most conservative Senate Republican from a blue state, and more conservative than a majority of Republicans from red states. His ratings prove this. So enough with the distortions of his record. He was neither a RINO nor fiscally liberal.

But I'll agree with Ole Sojer that RonPaul should be eliminated.

Old Soldier| 2.22.12 @ 10:05AM

Here is his voting record. You can point of the conservative parts to me.

http://libertycounselaction.or.....ing_record

Al Adab| 2.22.12 @ 10:41AM

Here gentlemen is a major part of the problem for the GOP. We are doing a wonderful job on behalf of the DEMS by cutting each others throats and damaging our own candidates. Anyone who emerges from this bloodbath as the nominee will be hopelessly damaged and as a result, more likely than not to lose the general election. The States of FL, NC, VA and Ohio (possibly PA) will determine the outcome. The Obama margin was 70 electoral votes in '08. Those four have 75. Which of the three can win those States?

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 10:50AM

Mitt loses VA

Old Soldier| 2.22.12 @ 12:51PM

A link to his Senate voting record is throat-cutting?

Al Adab| 2.22.12 @ 1:28PM

No O/S, I'm referring to the attack ads the candidates (or their respective PACs) are airing against each other. The damage they do to each other only aids the incumbant.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.12 @ 1:11PM

I think Rick has a good shot at PA, VA, NC, and Ohio. His strong pro-Israel position may help in Florida. But NC and VA are pretty solid.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 7:08PM

Santoum has problems in VA - not down state but up in his new home town area NVA - 50/50 at best adn only if he treads carefully.

Many in VA know Rick has said v. diparaging remarks about the Tea Party and has not come out in Support of the Tea Movement when and where it counted next to his home town.

These things get watched up here.

NVA is next to the most political city in the world - lots rubs off - both good and bad :)

Occam's Tool| 2.22.12 @ 1:09PM

You know, Rick also has a JD/MBA. Not as prestigious as Romney's, but solid.

W| 2.22.12 @ 10:13PM

University of Pittsburgh is one of the top public universities. Its philosophy dept is in the top five in the world, and its medical school, law school, and MBA program are outstanding.

Indy| 2.22.12 @ 8:02AM

Poor article, those in the Tea Party movement are divided in who they support -

Ron Paul - lots of TP supporters
Newt - also has TP backers but has issues some of us are concerned about (Green Conservatism, Futurist Conservative, supporter of FDR)
Rick - has TP supporters but many are concerned about some of his positions
Mitt - I think has the least support because of RomneyCare, not just that it was the blueprint to ObamaCare but we just don't believe he will fully repeal it (Norm Coleman, Pam Bondi comments are troubling) He also supporte cap / trade, has not ruled out the VAT and he seems to have disdain for the TP movement, he remained silent on too many issues when the TP was on the frontline (debt ceiling debate as an example)

and then there are others like me who do not support any of the candidates and we are focused on Senate / House races, in the end we will vote ABO but we are not happy with the players on the field. I would argue, Mr. Tucker knows very little about the TP, bringing up Angle, O'Donnell is typical, writers like these never mention Allen West, Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, etc. We are busy with local projects, Verifying the Recall (Scott Walker) we are not out in the streets carrying signs, that time has passed.

If Santorum won the nomination and was stupid enough to pick Lugar / Alexander (SOPA) game over, the base would be outraged, we are trying to unseat Lugar, he's a RINO, picking another senator on the ticket would be a disaster, we need people outside of DC someone from the private sector or a governor perhaps.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 10:54AM

Amen - and the right R for VP this cycle in my assessment is Congressman Allen West.

No matter who is at the top it would be fun to turn Allen West loose on Liberals and watch them tear down a military hero who just happens to be on of "their" demographics

Tommy Frisco| 2.22.12 @ 4:11PM

I really like Allen West, but he's only been in office for one year. As with Rubio, he needs more experience in politics before we should consider him for becoming VPOTUS. I also want to see a lengthy voting record.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 7:10PM

yep - on the other hand with either Newt or St. Rick on top it's OK. Could you imagine Joe & Allen in a debate?

Wow - better than Newt and Obama I think :)

Melvin| 2.22.12 @ 8:07AM

Benny Havens pretty much nailed it. I'm not a card carrying member of the Tea Party, but I do associate with them on their principles at the grass-roots level.
I could care less about Mitt Romney's money, he earned it legally albeit I don't agree with how he did it, but that is beside the point.
President Reagan spoiled me, and my wife. When he gave speeches and his vision for this Country, he made Americans, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Liberals, not Progressives, not Independents, but Americans stand up and be proud of our Nation again. We all stood up in unison rolled up our sleeves and worked ourselves out of the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years.
Bankers, brick layers, Computer Programmers, Janitors and every American felt like they were contributing something.
I guess if this feeling could be summed up with one phrase, "We earned our self-respect back."
This Nation followed President Reagan's vision and it was good.
Behind the scenes President Reagan took care of the petty bull-squeeze, of keeping the Republican Party unified because the Progressives in the party loathed President Reagan like there was no tomorrow. They knew the couldn't compete with him, but they loathed him nevertheless.
So what does this have to do with Mitt? Mitt needs to speak like a President and not a manager. He also needs to speak like he wants the job and not merely owed the job by the party elders.
When I heard candidate Reagan speak, I stopped what I was doing and listened to this man. He was full of fire, and conviction, and he spoke to me and not at me.
When I hear Mitt speak, I don't feel anything, He doesn't instill the passion in me to be the first in line to vote.
I can relate to members of the Tea Party, Mitt just drones on and one with the same message he said last night, and the night before and last month.
When Mitt comes up to the podium to speak he speaks like he has 20 pounds of ice shoved up his nether region, of being cold and aloof.
I dunno, maybe Mitt Romney needs to bust the mold of candidate Romney and speak like citizen Romney and speak what is really on his mind, instead of what his handlers tell him to say.
"Mitt, we're not members of the board of directors, we don't care about your charts and graphs, we only want to know your vision in how we are going to extricate ourselves from this pile of crap that we are in."

Les Panek| 2.22.12 @ 8:08AM

Yes, the TEA Party needs allies. Just not someone like Romney who has no foundation that anyone can define in specific terms without tearing down the opponents. Funny Bill, you bring up Angle and O'Donnel, but not Ford, Bush 41 ("No New Taxes" lost in '92, not Quayle), Dole or McLame: The great moderate, rudderless, won't-offend-anyone invertebrates that the Establishment loves to foist upon the electorate. How would Democrats get elected without the GOP moderate candidates? You ignore that these crazy ideologue protestors on the right got Senators Rubio, Paul, Pence as well as Congresspeople like Col. West elected. In a historic election, no less. Weird. It's almost as if you're obfuscating to get a cardboard cut-out into the Oval Office.

albert constantine jr.| 2.22.12 @ 8:22AM

I still think Christine O’Donnell’s primary victory and general election loss is misunderstood by pundits such as Mr. Tucker. To truly understand why she prevailed against Mike Castle, it is probably more important to look at Mike Castle and his record with the conservative base of the Delaware Republican party.

Castle was generally more concerned with winning independent and Democrat votes than keeping conservative Republican ones. His occasional moderate and liberal votes in Congress pandered to those across the aisle, but he would try to separate himself from his party base, figuring there was no other place for them to go. He rarely had a serious challenger in a general election, and when he announced first he would run for Biden’s old Senate seat, even Biden’s son (the Delaware Attorney General) decided not to throw his hat into the ring.

His problem was that the first time he got a primary challenger, even in the form of an attractive but flawed candidate such as Christine O’Donnell, who articulated conservative positions, the neglected base left Castle in droves. In beginning his campaign by appealing to moderates and independents before he secured the base, Castle’s campaign made a critical strategic error that led to his demise. Conservative primary voters were more willing to take a chance on a conservative candidate who would more likely lose than a winning moderate one who did not take their concerns or support seriously. That Castle would not then support his party’s primary victor (despite his proclamations of the importance of this when he thought he was a shoo-in) confirmed his lack of suitability for support.

There are a number of parallels between this race and the current presidential primary campaign. It is hazardous for any candidate or “kingmakers” behind the scenes to take the support of any bloc of voters for granted. Some voters are less concerned with supporting a candidate they believe in who might lose than helping one to victory who will ignore their concerns.

It also bears mentioning that in this primary cycle, Christine O’Donnell has endorsed Mitt Romney.

JimW9| 2.22.12 @ 8:37AM

Mr. Tucker: Grow up.

Marco2| 2.22.12 @ 8:58AM

Mr. Tucker: Bravo. Someone has to speak the truth to these historical and political neophytes. A few of them may come to see the light before a reelected Obama has condemned us all to a mean, poor socialism.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 10:59AM

Yep - us neophyte Hobbits suck; we just cleaned the clock of the Dems in 2009, 2010, 2011 - not much go'n on here move along now

1 and only troll feeding of the day :) \;)

PS - How long did you search the dictionary for the word 'neophyte' - most trolls spend their time using mono-syllabic language towards the tea party. Based on the Occupy anything crowd I'm guessing you got your orders from a Soros funded outfit like all good useful folks for the cause

POST American| 2.22.12 @ 8:43AM

---Just as there was no change whatsoever
under Obama (--same CFR age-enda)
----likewise if 'SUB-Mitt ROME--knee' manages,
however incredibly, to unseat the sitting
--------'BAR-Rockefeller' H. Obama---------.

You want to STOP the planned takedown?

---Takedown the ultra rich, TAX FREE
'benny violent' foundations, NGOs and FED
and bring them to justice for a full century
of cultural degradation --conspiracy
against the Republic and economy
----EUGENICS mongering and sponsorship
----------and HIGH TREASON----------.

"The Federal Reserve has pumped
to many BILLIONS into [--NAZI--]
Germany that they dare NOT name
the TOTAL."
-Rep Charles McFadden
1935

AS Albert Pike's long, long, long ago
dreamt of Third World War (---the showdown
of the monotheisms --and their destruction)
apparently looms ----AND as the 4 decades
on CFR RED China build up, handover and
TREASON OP consolidates -------NO TIME
for squeamishness.

NONE

"Traitors are the plague."
-Cicero

The TAX FREE foundations --ARE--
the poison.

The ANTI-Constitutional FED
--is-- the prime instrument.

"Understand, EVERY world leader who signed
the UN charter back in 1945 --pledged themselves
to undermining their nation's sovereignty
and to the creation of an AUTHORITARIAN
World Government. EVERY one of them
committed TREASON against their own
people."

Likewise those with Rhodes credentials
--those belonging to the CFR and Trilateral etc.

----------------Traitors ARE the plague----------------

Cicero KNEW!

Road Kill| 2.22.12 @ 8:53AM

Santorum speaks from his gut, more than can be said for Romney. Romney does nothing for the Tea Party, at least Sanatorum tells us like it is, and we had best listen. A malaise, an evil, has taken over this Protestant nation. And whether you like it or not, or Nation was formed by Protestants. Now the Protestants have watered down their message to the point it is a "feel good" sermon every Sunday. No longer do the ministers, who helped form this nation, speak of politics or current events and how Christianity relates to the train wreck happening around us. Yes, Sanatorum is correct in his assessment. As far as asking for Romney to build a bridge to the Tea Party it would be nice, but don't hold your breath Mr. Tucker.

Seek| 2.22.12 @ 2:39PM

Our Founders were nominally Protestant. Substantively, they were Deist. And it's a good thing. As for "Sanatorum" (a novel spelling, if I say so), he's a Catholic, hardly a model Protestant.

WG| 2.22.12 @ 8:54AM

You began your article noting deference to Robert E. Lee by those of a different background. However, you don't really dwell on exactly why they adored him. First, he genuinely cared about his men and second he won battles. Thus, his leadership was reinforced by his victories and steadfastness regardless of what he did in his personal life.

The current problem with Mitt, Huntsman, McCain, possibly Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie with a significant portion of the Republican party is the sense that these individuals will ultimately shrink from what needs to be done to save the country from becoming like Greece. Mitt's re-election team actually has attacked Rick and Newt on this basis that they are big government conservatives too.

If the times were more normal, such as 1996, the Republicans could nominate someone like Bob Dole without the fear that our republic might be lost if he didn't become president. Instead, this election appears more like the apocalyptic 1968 election where Nixon eked out a victory against Hubert Humphrey combined with the intra-Republican nastiness of the 1964 Goldwater-Rockefeller fight.

Against a dreary backdrop of crony capitalism, soaring national debt, higher and higher energy costs, threats of nuclear terrorism, an overstretched military, our failure to control our borders, the culture war, failures in our schools and universities in educating students, etc., many on the right simply want someone who says what they mean and mean what they say.

A key test of government overreaching at home is marked by Obamacare and the stimulus which animated the Tea Party. It is to Mitt's discredit as a candidate that the Tea Party does not believe that Mitt will actually try to repeal it and Mitt's staunch defense of his own Romneycare does nothing to ameliorate this fear. This is Mitt's weakness, perhaps fatal, that he refuses to see that his health plan provides a guidepost to what Obamacare will actually do in practice. Result in even more deficit spending, reduced choice in doctors, hospitals, etc., financially stressed health insurance companies, mandated types of insurance policies that require politically driven benefits, long delays in seeing doctors, and in Masscare's case, large federal subsidies to make the system solvent. Just like Tenncare before it, Masscare is ultimately not sustainable without hollowing out the budget of governments. When people like Norm Coleman, a Romney advisor, casually mention that not all of Obamacare will be repealed, it accentuates the subliminal message that Romney will try to repeal Obamacare but not be too upset if he fails. If Romney wanted to send an opposite message, he would have disowned his health care plan, blamed it on the Dem's in the state, and admit his grave error in moving it forward. At the very minimum, he should have fired Coleman as not representing his views.

Please note, it is true that Mass is predominately Democrat. However, if Romney was only going to run for one term, why didn't he fight Masscare lock, stock, and barrel. Instead, he still boasts of it as an achievement. This gives many pause because the sneaking suspicion is that is how Romney would act in the White House. Just like H.W. Bush who repudiated his flexible spending freeze, Reaganism, failed to support Shiite rebels in 1991 in Iraq, and tossed aside his pledge for no new taxes. Those who wear their convictions lightly will ultimately make choices in the search for compromise that will infuriate and repudiate their base supporters. Tea partiers, and other concerned citizens believe that the hour is too late already and if Obamacare is not repealed, a nation like Greece will follow in the near future, soaring taxes, soaring debt, soaring inflation, and ultimately resulting in crushing depression. It is not clear that democracy will survive such times and we can look to Europe's increasingly disfunctional political system as a warning that our system might not be stable itself facing such hardships.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 11:49AM

Nor does he say that that deference got them all killed for a failed rebellion.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.12 @ 1:15PM

Bobby Lee was the only graduate of West Point to emerge from that institution with NOT ONE behavioral demerit, ever. He also graduated number 2 in his class academically, I believe. Yet he was not thought of by his fellow cadets as a stuck up prig.

He was something else. I don't agree with his fighting for Virginia over his country, but he was something else.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.12 @ 2:35PM

Doctor, it was a different time. In those days it was "these United States."...not
the United States".

Right or wrong...Robert E Lee felt his ultimate loyalty was to Virginia. I feel much the same about Texas in these days....and we have no slaves.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.22.12 @ 8:58AM

MR Tucker: "(Santorum) he's likely to end up as the first candidate in history to lose all 50 states." I've got one question for you, what are you smoking? Just Say No To Drugs!! You cannot force feed Mitt Romney on us, he's not our guy!!

Edward Cropper| 2.22.12 @ 8:59AM

The gentleman speaks the truth, but from the wild responses of the disengaged it is obvious his words will basically fall on deaf ears.

Nolann Ryann| 2.22.12 @ 10:31AM

Yeah there are quite a few wild responses touting Romney as a conservative which he has never been and won't ever be. CATO nails your guy as a big government advocate that raised taxes not once but twice. But hey we're the ones that are disengaged from reality. PHHTT.

Tommy Frisco| 2.22.12 @ 11:51AM

Edward,
This author and people like you absolutely disgust me. You think anyone who disagrees with you is "disengaged" and incapable of considering other viewpoints.

One of the reasons we don't like Mitt Romney is because many of his supporters are pompous, arrogant, condenscending as*holes like yourself and William Tucker.

How's that for a wild response? Eh? What's that you say?

Bob K.| 2.22.12 @ 9:10AM

Mr. Tucker,
Your analogies are wrong. Roosevelt was the last of the true aristocrats to be president. There will not be any more of them.

Kennedy was not an aristocrat. He was the first true celebrity to be president. Obama is the most current one.

Romney is not an aristocrat or a celebrity. And he is not regarded by the public as either one. That is part of his problem. The other part is his cement headed insistence on not admitting that his health care plan was and is and will forever be a disaster.

sjccoach| 2.22.12 @ 9:12AM

Another CINO trying to push the RINO down the throats of conservatives. Romney is Obama lite. A Democratic Socialist as opposed to a full blown Socialist. These articles are becoming very boring.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 9:26AM

Tuck - I could not agree with Kenny more. Santorum is not my guy; I think Newt is better because he's done once what needs doing; that said your unsubstantiated comment regards Santorum is ignorant at best.

Mittens is the one without the temperment to be President. He can't hold a consistent position longer than one election cycle. I judge that to be more tempermentally unfit than a big government pro-life, union loving candidate who did not support socialized medicine EVER.

And your condescending writing does more to hurt Mitt Romney with Tea Party and other conservatives than you realize.

Are you secretly on Newt's payroll? Because if you aren't Newt's team should pay you for the damage you do to Romney.

As far as Santorum is concerned - all you have done is harden Santorum's supporters against Romney. St. Rick may or may not hold his lead, but one thing for sure, all the Star Wars analogies about Mittens Deathstar attaking St. Rick will only make the 'not romney' candidate stronger in the end.

And, if Mitt does survive and get to the top of the ticket you are going to find that hatred for Obama is relative - compared to Romney Obama is not that much worse; both support socialized medicine (Citizen control law); both attempt to disarm America (2nd amendment was put in place to allow citizens to police themselves AND fight Tyrannical governments); neither is truly pro-life and both wll appoint pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court; Obama is a Crony Capitalist in the Oval office; Romney is a crony capitalist in the corner office; Romney's is as cynical as Barack on issues; Romney is as cold hearted as barack - Barack hates his future Grandchildren and doesn't want the burden and Mitt tortures his Dog...I could go on and on.

To turn out the vote you need positively motivated volunteers. McCAin tried to win without positively motivated volunteers and his campaign floundered. He nominated Palin and his campaign flurished until the establishment refused to defend her; they then HELPED the Media destroy her and with that destruction went the McCain campaign. NO committed, effective volunteer will go through that again. How do I know? Because in NVA I organize a lot of them. Mitt is the fastest way to end George Allen's campaign for the Senate because nobody loves George enough to commit themselves; and Mitt treats Tea Partiers the way he treats his Dog.

THESE ISSUES are why Tea Partiers will NEVER embrace Romney. Even if he refudiates his positions now, who would believe him? Would he even believe himself?

Occam's Tool| 2.22.12 @ 1:18PM

You know---I would vote for Santorum first, Newt second, Romney a distant third. But I would vigorously support Newt if he won the nomination (I would resign as local precinct captain if Paul won, but that's not happening.). Does this sound familiar?

Al Adab| 2.22.12 @ 1:34PM

OT:
Makes it interesting to reflect that in 1964, the old guard wing of the GOP, represented by Rockefeller and Romney, not only sat out, but activly opposed, the election of the Republican because of the nominee.

PattyMor| 2.22.12 @ 9:28AM

Romney is NOT conservative. No matter how many times his backers and cheerleaders say it, it does not make it so. For no conservative would pass something as unfreedom loving as Romneycare. And nothing he will say will make me want him as my candidate. Romneycare is game, set, match. I will not willing go into slavery under the communism of "great" ideas perpetuated by Demoncats or RINO's.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.22.12 @ 9:35AM

Correct, Patty. And where is Mittens going to raise all his campaign donations? Wall Street.

Obama has used them as a foil, or as Falstaff would say "Why Hal, is there no honor among thieves?" So they will take their chance with a RINO crony capitalist instead of the Democrat flavor in this election cycle.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 11:47AM

Also apparently Romney spent twice as much money in January than what he took in. That makes him just like Obama, a big spender with no sense of perspective. To save his hide he will spend other peoples money for meager results. Watch his campaign and realize that it reflects the way he would be as a President.

He gets credit for saving the Utah winter olympics, but he did it with federal funds. It was the tax payers who saved those olympics for Utah.

PaulC| 2.22.12 @ 9:37AM

It seems to me that Tea Party Republicans' rejection of Mitt Romney has less to do with his class and more to do with his utter lack of conservative credentials. On the other hand, Romney's inability to relate to people outside his class is probably fatal to his chances of becoming President.

Bill| 2.22.12 @ 9:47AM

The only viable GOP candidate was Rick Perry, and GOP voters dumped him, favoring Romney and Santorum, and that makes Obama a shoe-in incumbent in 2012.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 2:31PM

Sorry Bill - Perry dumped Perry with a poor campaign - he had his moment and messed up.

Robert Stacy McCain saw it coming and I defer to him - he was right

Stroker97| 2.22.12 @ 9:53AM

Yet another shill for Romney! The Tea Party needs an ally alright. And the best one of the bunch is Newt Gingrich. Who will go to Washington and play along to get along? That would be Romney, Santorum, and Paul. Who will not play along to get along? That would be Newt Gingrich. He's the one that most closely intimates the conservative principles. He has the track record to prove it and his ideas concerning the most important issues facing this country are dead on in alignment with the Tea Party. Some say his stance on Global Warming or his talk about TR and FDR is worrisome. Please don't be fooled by the shills here on the AS and other so-called conservative web sites. Gingrich sat on the couch with Piglosi to show conservatives that they need to get involved to shut down this ridiculous movement. He touted TR and FDR for the way they got things done, not for their policies! Don't be fooled Tea Party members. We have one shot to get this right this time around to reverse this socialist radical course we're on. And that shot is Newt Gingrich.

Big Tony| 2.22.12 @ 11:47AM

Your average uninformed woman won't vote for Newt. And if he can't be faithful to his wedding vows what gives you confidence he will be to his oath of office. I can see Obama playing Newt's I cheated on my wives because I was such a patriot comment now. Newt has more baggage than Samsonite.

Stroker97| 2.22.12 @ 12:32PM

As has been said many times already, we are not voting for the Pope. We are voting for someone who has the experience and the ability to lead this country back to greatness. Newt has lead revolutions in Washington and he has never reneged on any of his promises to the American people, i.e., Contract with America. Your LSM talking points are old and irrelevant at this point.

Big Tony| 2.22.12 @ 3:07PM

My comments don't matter because Newt won't win the nomination. Being a Georgian I serious doubt he'll even win Ga. He's great when he's out of power but can't lead when he's in power. Clinton played the man like a fiddle.

Martin | 2.22.12 @ 10:03AM

Romney was at Harvard Business School, not Harvard College. Not smoking weed was not a significant act of rebellion, since very few of us who were there around that time were weed-smokers. Going to HBS was itself an act of rebellion against the 1960s consensus.

Dai Alanye| 2.22.12 @ 10:08AM

People, people, people! Quit arguing with Mr Tucker. He is your better, even if his ideas lack all but a smattering of rationality.

Listen to him when he compares Mitt Romney with Robert E Lee. Never mind that Lee won most of his battles against stiff odds, while Romney has lost most of his election runs despite grossly outspending his opponents. Never mind that Lee hid a fiery personality under a calm exterior, while Romney needs to take lessons in how to appear passionate. Never mind that Romney needs the Tea Party far more than the Tea Party needs him. And never mind that Mitt has made no effort to engage with the Tea Party, or that he seems uncomfortable around ordinary Americans.

Simply listen to Mr Tucker, and shut up.

Al Adab| 2.22.12 @ 10:45AM

Absolutely. How could we be so blind? We must listen to our betters as they are the ones who nominated or raised up such luminaries as Tom Dewey, Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Of course we MUST listen and follow their successful lead once again.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 11:42AM

Never mind that Lee caused the death of 400,000 confederate soldiers.

Old Joe| 2.22.12 @ 1:16PM

What a stupid comment. Lee caused the death of about 400,000 northern troops and Lincoln caused the death of about 400,000 southern troops. It was a war dummy and it was not started by Robert E. Lee but he sure prosecuted it well. Get over it stupid. We have quit fighting that war here in the south, why don’t you damn Yankees do the same.

Occam's Tool| 2.22.12 @ 1:21PM

Actually, Old Joe---Stonewall Jackson was Lee's great tactician. Lee was inspirational and magnificent, but he was outgeneraled by Meade at Gettysburg. He was not a tactical genius---if he had followed Stonewall's Tactical and Operational advice, the South would have won. Check out Jackson's Valley Campaign and Lee's response to it.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 3:27PM

Lee was an American. He then joined the war against the US to protect slavery. He inspired confederate soldiers to walk into gunfire by the thousands. Do you really want to follow a LEE?

Butch| 2.22.12 @ 3:29PM

If my memory of history serves me, the South lost 200,000, and the Federals lost 400,000.

Seek| 2.22.12 @ 5:37PM

Well, the most widely cited body counts are 360,000 and 260,000, respectively, North and South. Way too many, but I can;' undo what's been done.

Bubba T.| 2.22.12 @ 10:15AM

Let's see it I understand ol' Willam: "Nominate Romney and save the country." Is that about right, Bill? Great. I hadn't looked at Mitt in that way. But ...

Oh, wait a minute. I think that deal was already tried before. Do the names Dole and McCain ring a bell? I thought so.

So far, this current collection of ... "candidates" have pretty much demonstrated only one obvious ability. The wounds in their feet are proof.

This current collection of "choices" have been (mostly) gutless when it comes to calling out the mainstream media, and calling a spade a spade. Of course, that last analogy might be considered a bit edgy, and end-up bringing out the Al Sharpton Rent-A-Mobs. And we all know RINOS are afraid of the dark.

As my wise ol' momma used to say: "Son, ain't nothin' gonna change ... but the changes." And I believe that to be true. Only my generation tends to apply the blunter description: "SOS; different hat."

tsd| 2.22.12 @ 10:23AM

Lets face it, the Republican choice in this election is cause for some major concern. In the end who ever is the choice is still waaaaayyyyy better than the Democratic option !!!

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 2:34PM

Not if it's Mitt on any issue; and not if it's Paul on Foreign policy.

Santorum gets points on foreign policy as does Newt; both are infinitely better than BHO on every other issue

Robert| 2.22.12 @ 10:24AM

This author should win an "out of touch with reality award." We don't dislike Romney because we are unwilling to defer to someone from a different social class, we don't like Romney because there's nothing about him to give us any hope that he's substantially more conservative than Obama.

Citizen Jerry| 2.22.12 @ 10:31AM

Why does the writer think Willard Romney is such a shoe-in against Obama? Look what happened to the past two moderate squishes the GOP establishment foisted on us.

The Big E| 2.22.12 @ 10:44AM

So in other words, Mr. Tucker, those of us who stand for something, who believe in something, who have convictions, we should simply set those aside and get behind someone who shares none of those qualities with us, simply because you, and so many like you who deem themselves to be so much smarter than everyone else, says so.

Of course, YOU would NEVER be willing to do the same yourself, right? That road is like reaching across the aisle in the Congress, it only goes one way.

I'll vote for Romney against Obama, but then, I'd vote for a steaming pile of dog poop over Obama, but I will not support Romney in the primary because (A) he is not the leader we need at this time in history, and (B) he is the least electable candidate - i.e. - he cannot energize his base, and he does not draw a sufficient distinction between himself and Obama to attract moderates.

A Romney nomination equals an Obama re-election.

No thanks.

Tommy Frisco| 2.22.12 @ 11:26AM

Well said, Big E.

Sue| 2.22.12 @ 10:44AM

Let's face it. Romney represents a meritocracy America. The problem is, did he achieve success because of his connections or in spite of his connections? The established Republicans want to continue down the path of pretending to bash liberal spending priorities while using the politically connected system they've invented to feather their own nests and the nests of their offspring. Hence the elites' cries for lower taxes on the masses and the suspension of the inheritance taxes on the new elites.

I don't like class warfare and I especially don't like the well-heeled and well-connected continuing to prosper because of crony-capitalism. I don't perceive Romney to be a crony-capitalist, but I don't perceive him to be an unconnected success story.

Think about it: The government makes regulations and rules affecting certain industries, industries struggle, go bankrupt, and the bottom feeders come in and reap the benefits of the government noose. a.k.a. Warren Buffet. Then, he's held out to be all for paying more taxes - of course, all of his wealth is tax-sheltered. We're being played like a precious, ancient violin, but the strings are breaking.

The other issue with Romney is how he was sucker-punched by the Democrats into passing MA healthcare reform and believed their lies about the "bonding" requirements being in the bill. Excuse me? Millions were supposed to go get a "bond" instead of insurance and that's called "freedom?"

There's no such thing as "freedom from want." That's a lie foisted upon us by Democrats to elicit feelings when voting instead of intelligence when voting. You purchase health insurance for catastropic illnesses to cover risk not because you suffer from "freedom from want."

Romney had better understand this or he will fail as people love to vote for "freedom from want" politicians.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 2:39PM

Sue - Romney is the worst Crony Capitalist because he leverages government to assume liabilities of weak comapnies he buys. Once the liabilities are transferred from the company he buys to we the people via the PBGC, Tarp, or the Fed, Romney extracts the remaining company value; distributes it to his friends and associates (collaborators - his word not mine) and then leaves the communities desolate.

No Thnaks - Romney is only a better liar than Barack in the Crony capitalism arena

Peppermint Tea| 2.22.12 @ 10:46AM

Tucker's right. Romney would choose a Tea Party VP such as Bachman, Santorum, Rand Paul, or Rubio.
Santorum would chose ???
I think Mitt's modus operundi will be to get in the White House, tackle the budget, make layoffs, repeal Obamacare and Bushcare (err, prescription drug give-away). Hopefully, that will postpone the hyperinflation debacle with a crash. He will look for what works--not what his Communist Manifesto says should work. Maybe Santorum would do the same, but he hasn't convinced me yet.

Sam Vaughn| 2.22.12 @ 10:59AM

How could you possibly know what Romney would do?

loulou| 2.22.12 @ 11:06AM

Because he's a Romneybot.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 11:40AM

Who cares who the VP nominee is? Its like caring that Joe Biden is VP. Nobody cares about Biden, because we know he is a joke.

Al Adab| 2.22.12 @ 11:58AM

Gore was the reason the Senate refused to convict Clinton in his impeachment trial. Biden is Obamas job security.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 3:29PM

Well then the author must be suggesting that Romney would pick a tea partier for VP so that Romney has the same kind of job security.

Robert| 2.22.12 @ 11:55AM

What has Mitt Romney ever done in his political life that makes you feel that he would restrain spending. His resume shows him to be a true believer in big government spending and in big entitlements. He's not going to undo ObamaCare because he invented it.

Lesser Weevil| 2.22.12 @ 1:31PM

Are you sure that's peppermint tea you are drinking?

Floyd Looney| 2.22.12 @ 10:49AM

TEA Partiers would stay home in November than vote for a worthless POS like Romney.

Sam Vaughn| 2.22.12 @ 11:00AM

Floyd, you are wrong. Porky Pig could be the nominee and I'll walk through ten foot snowdrifts to vote.

loulou| 2.22.12 @ 11:08AM

That's YOUR decision. Are you really a tea partier?

Tommy Frisco| 2.22.12 @ 11:31AM

Ah,...you must be Looney, Floyd. We must vote for whomever becomes our nominee.

Dave Williams| 2.22.12 @ 12:45PM

Amen, my brother! If ONLY to keep more Kagans and Sotomayors off the Supreme Court!!!!

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 2:42PM

Floyd - you are partially correct - some willnot vote Mitt. However as I try and tress it's teh volunteers who work teh polls and do teh nitty-gritty calling and door knocking who will stay home - Mitt drives those folks under teh covers. without them; paid union thug get-out-the-vote gets its chance to put Barack back into office

Ward Bond| 2.22.12 @ 10:57AM

Mr. Tucker,before reading your article I was going to vote for Romney if left with no other Republican alternative. After now understanding the contempt in which the Ruling Class Republican Establishment holds me and my ilk I will turn what ever support I can towards Congressional candidates. In my Backwoods opinion, Mitt Romney will never or would never have been elected president. His weakness is not just with conservatives. Romney's positions are dictated by whatever voting group he is attempting to sway. A generation ago he would have made a splendid Democratic nominee. I suspect many of the"Establishment Republicans" are content to lose the presidency if they, themselves, can retain a position of power in obama's new regime. I hope it's worth it. Oh, and by the way, Bush 41 lost because of Bush 41, not Dan Quale.

Sam Vaughn| 2.22.12 @ 10:57AM

Mr. Tucker, I'll be voting for whomever the nominee with all the passion of somebody who believes if I don't my freedom is lost. That being said I'm tired of having RINO's foisted upon us. Yours is just another in a long line of arguments to compromise our values away. So much so that they've nearly disappeared from the national norm. You are wrong sir.

loulou| 2.22.12 @ 11:06AM

With idiot friends like Tucker, who needs enemies??

Talk about clueless.

loulou| 2.22.12 @ 11:10AM

Robot Mitt and other RINOs had a chance in 2010 to "reach across the aisle" to the Tea Party.

It's too late now.
The establishment GOP took the power they gained thanks to the Tea Party and bit the hand that fed them.

1ConservativeUSA| 2.22.12 @ 11:36AM

Sorry, Mr. Tucker, you have it wrong.

I don't see Mitt Romney as not being "one of us". In fact, if he is the nominee, this Tea Party activist will be glad to pull the lever for him.

The root problem is that our minority sees a direct threat to the nation that was founded in individual liberty. Our government has become a soft tyranny, injecting itself deeply into our families and economics. It has spent too much money in an effort to pander and pacify. Obama, sure, but many others before him have contributed to this mess.

Therefore, when we see a man like Mitt Romney, we understand that he is not as unworthy to lead as Mr. Obama. We wonder, though, does he understand the severity of the problems we face and does he have the conviction to move us towards correcting them?

So, its not a matter of excluding Mr. Romney from consideration because he is not us, but of searching for a leader who gets us.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 11:36AM

Robert E. Lee was largely responsible for over 300,000 Southern troops. That is where that deference got them. He intentionally sent waves of troops at the North using his troops as cannon fodder.

What this author fails to realize is that the Tea Party is not willing to be the troops. It has said that it can pick the leaders rather than be used by the GOP establishment's hand picked leaders. I would guess that this author never attended a tea party rally and does not hob nob with us ordinary citizens. He thinks we are being uppity and don't know our place. He is obviously part of what the tea party revolution is all about.

teflon93| 2.22.12 @ 11:44AM

Hey nitwit---has it not dawned on you that a large and growing number of "independents" are Tea Partiers who've left the GOP since the betrayals of 2010?

The GOP just had its largest Congressional election victory in a century--bigger even than 1994---and you honestly think that in a little more than a year since the Tea Partiers became liberals?

Just another Establishment hack drawing a paycheck courtesy of the conservative majority they claim doesn't exist...

teflon93| 2.22.12 @ 11:46AM

And the obvious problem with your daft Civil War analogy, Tucker, is that the Confederates had no doubt whatsoever that General Lee was on their side and intended to lead them to victory.

loulou| 2.22.12 @ 11:52AM

Brilliant, teflon93!

The Big E| 2.22.12 @ 12:30PM

Comment of the day, Teflon, comment of the day!

WalkingHorse| 2.22.12 @ 11:52AM

If author Tucker's characterization of the Tea Party being a minority within a minority is accurate, then he and others should be obligated to explain why this nation should not split along the fairly obvious geographical and political boundaries. If the prime directive for this government no longer consists of protecting individual rights and staying well-defined boundaries, the rationale for the continued existence of this nation degenerates to an argument not unlike that employed to justify the existence of the Berlin Wall.

Dick Nome | 2.22.12 @ 11:52AM

We are fed up with the moderate McCainiac "reach across the aisle" approach to getting screwed. We want to defeat the left in the arena of ideas, not get along with them or manage the damage.

Paul from SA| 2.22.12 @ 11:52AM

What kind of article is this? It's another Mitt Romney wishful thinking crapola.

Nonsense. We are a force. Romney and the Tea Party are like oil and water.

I think the author is incorrect about the size of the Tea Party. I'm a secret, unofficial member like most Americans, and am unknown to Republican insiders. They don't recognize or acknowledge my existence.

Ann Coulter (R) said in public, a few months ago live on Fox News that, "The Tea Party people are nuts and all they care about is Obama's birth certificate."

John McCain (R) said we're subhuman (Hobbitts.) Reminder: John McCain is the national spokesman and leader of the Republican party by virtue of his last nomination.

Ask these Repbulicans, Karl Rove what he thinks about us. Also, David Frum, Colin Powell, David Brooks, Rich Lowry, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, Mike Murphy, Dick Morris, Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Mitch McConnel, John Boehnor, etc., and the rest of the snotty establishment. They think we're inferior. We can't count. We can't do political calculus. They say we can't read. They think they can pass increases in the debt ceiling without our knowledge. They think they can raise spending without us noticing. They think we don't see thru their biased and slanted reporting against conservatives. They want Mitt Romney so bad, they turned into liberals and I don't understand it.

I don't want to belong to the same organization that those above belong to -- AND I don't what them in my Tea Party.

The Tea Party belongs to any American who wants smaller gov't and more individual freedom. That's it.

I have two top priorities for a candidate:
1. cut gov't spending -- and you have my vote.
2. attack the liberal media -- and you have my vote.

Doctor Right| 2.22.12 @ 5:28PM

NICE!!!

Clay Moore| 2.22.12 @ 11:53AM

Tucker opines:"What they (Tea Party Conservatives)" do not perceive is that they are no longer a majority of the country. In fact, they are a minority of a minority -- a minority in the Republican Party, which is itself a minority party.

Ah, more propaganda from GOP NeoCons, parroting the "Borg" (Star Trek) trying to convince us that resistance is futile.

Stipulated that the RINO's have the money to buy media message of hopelessness but the truth is that Romney cannot consistently capture more than 30% of the vote while the "anybody but Romney" candidate du jour gets 70%.

Nice try Tucker .... but No Sale!

Nick099| 2.22.12 @ 12:32PM

Mr. Tucker....misses the greater point: Washington, FDR, Kenedy, Reagan, TR, Jackson, and so many others lead by their ability to communicate their message in a way that inspires the common man. It is no so much that the leader come from the common....a leader is by definition uncommon, but they are able to boil down vision and direction down to simple ideas and emotions.

Romney is incapable of doing that. Santorum has potential but misses the mark with his cloudy vision which ultimately comes out as extreme.

Sorry Tucker....there is only one man this cycle who can do what other successful Presidents have done....Newt Gingrich.

Blame the Tea Party all you want....it is not their fault....it is Romney's failure....probably because he sputters what he does not actually believe in his soul or even really understands.

Santorum believes in what he says. It is practically tattooed on his forehead. I just do not think his message is clear and focused. He muddies up his own message by falling into Leftist traps and addressing their mischaracterizations of the arguments. Instead of focusing on Freedom and F1rst Amendment, he is drawn into contraceptive arguments. He is drawn into pre-natal testing arguments ( a loser by the way that will turn off most of the Electorate).

Sorry Tucker, hate to disappoint you, but Gingrich makes the case. Sure he is feisty and responds to attacks ( you clowns get all hot and bothered by that) but he is focused on the larger message and the larger issues and does not fall into the language of the Left. Newt made the case long ago about a war on religion. But he deftly keeps out of personal beliefs. Rick can't do that. he is the bull in the china shop.

David| 2.22.12 @ 12:38PM

Hey William Tucker, I read about one-fifth of your article and could stomach it any more.

How can you f_cking write that Santorum would ban birth control when, first, Santorum has said that he does not believe in banning it, AND SECOND, the Supreme Court's Griswold v. Connecticut decision said that it is a privacy issue. So, even if Santorum wanted to ban it, he cannot based on current law.

You are a dishonest pig William Tucker.

Pat| 2.22.12 @ 12:40PM

What our beloved numbskulls among the Conservative media “don’t get” is that voters must perceive there is a clear and attractive choice to Obama. Professional political scientists will tell Conservatives each and every day it doesn’t matter whether you feel personally betrayed by the Republican Party, they’re the only game in town for Conservatives.

There are also third parties to choose from of course and there are powerful grass roots movements like the Tea Party organizations who can make or break a candidate but there is no feasible alternative for us voters than choosing from among one and only one candidate from either the Republican or Democratic Party. If we don’t want 4 more years of Obama, we need to lighten up and grow up – it’s past time to pick a viable candidate and go after Obama with torches and pitchforks – his ridiculous record, his failures, his financial deals and his various friends who have learned to depend on taxpayer funding for their failed businesses and insider deals.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives will sling plenty of mud during the forthcoming campaign but the Liberals are far better at mud-slinging than the Conservatives – they have the mainstream media solidly behind them, they currently control the U. S. Treasury which provides enormous vote buying resources and they easily put Obama into office, a phenomena which Conservative pundits are still attempting to explain four years later.

Perhaps we could forego all the delicious joys of bickering among each other over which Republican is more Conservative than Ronald Reagan or more true to Conservative principles than Abraham Lincoln. It’s true we have plenty of time before November - time in which to trade insults and properly denounce every potential Republican candidate for every conceivable reason - or we can allow the Tea Party folks to perform their sniff test and tell us how to vote. There’s time to do all these fun things but then there will certainly be four more years of an Obama presidency to properly mourn.

teflon93| 2.22.12 @ 12:48PM

Then you RINOs hold your nose and vote for Santorum this time. We conservatives voted for McLame at your behest---it's your turn.

Sam Vaughn| 2.22.12 @ 12:59PM

What you're saying is we (non-RINOs) have no say in the matter. Sorry, but I reserve the right to vote in my states primary, let the chips fall where they may.

Big Tony| 2.22.12 @ 3:02PM

The republicans put Obama in office. Bush with his compassionate conservative crap, multiple undeclared wars, and his lies about no nation building in his bid to get himself elected in the first place. Al Gore wouldn't have been much worse than GW Bush. McCain blew the election by abandoning his campaign to go up to Washington to sit around the table with Bush, Pelosi and Obama lobbying for TARP. Had McCain shown an ounce of backbone or shown he was something other than the puppet for the money men on Wall St. that he is, things would have been dramatically different. As it was McCain simply looked like a fool. And what politcal genius even let the Jr. Senator for IL (Obama) in the same room with the President and leaders of congress? Democrat are evil but republicans (at least the leadership)are STUPID!

Pat| 2.22.12 @ 5:50PM

You folks are right of course and I salute you. Stand on your principles and vote for whomever you believe in. Our government doesn’t ask for your opinion very often, only once every 4 years in presidential elections, but if the majority of voters don’t agree with your personal choice for president, what does it matter, at least you voted your conscience.

The bizarre thing about our system is that a majority of voters must also agree with your choice of candidate or the winner take all candidate could easily ruin each of our lives – but, then again, don’t sacrifice your principles based on that minor quirk in our election rules. And if your personal choice for a Republican candidate isn’t given the nod, there are third party candidates who would be honored to receive your support – some might call it wasting your vote, but it’s your vote to do with as you will – no one disputes that.

Should you allow real world issues to influence your choice such as massive federal deficits or a Washington kleptocracy stealing us blind – probably not if it means voting for someone you don’t like – isn’t that what it’s all about – taking a stand and damn the consequences? Don’t allow irrelevant facts of life to influence you – show those old guard Republicans what you’re made of, even if you have to vote for a third party candidate to drive your point home. Or, there is always that presidential candidate offered by our other major political party.

teflon93| 2.25.12 @ 7:30PM

Have you ever opened a history book, Pat?

You might want to look to see what happend to the Whigs when they refused to take a stand on the most important issue of the day---the abolition of slavery.

The Republican Establishment is sticking its well-coifed heads in the sand regarding the most important issue of our day---the welfare state which is destroying our economy and our most treasured national institutions. They are doing so because as charter members of the Ruling Class they benefit from a large, intrusive, paternalistic federal government---just as the Whigs benefitted from the slave trade.

The Republican Party at its founding was the Tea Party of its day.

People like you can't stem the tide of history nor stave off the reckoning. It is here.

Choose your side wisely.

The American Hitman| 2.22.12 @ 12:59PM

The Spectator Needs a Clue.

Isn't this the same clown who recently tried peddling Willard as the second coming of Ronald Reagan?

Tea Partiers don't need or want "allies" like this.

Bruce| 2.22.12 @ 1:29PM

This article is a joke right? We don't like Romney because he's "not one of us"? No, we hate Romney because he's as phony as a $3 bill. He stands for nothing except the ambition to be president and is only strength is his outstanding organization and financial backing. Don't we already have that person in the White House?

Joe D.| 2.22.12 @ 1:36PM

Mr. Tucker, yada yada yada. We are a majority in a majority party. Most indepentants are conservative, therefore more republican. So no thank you Mitt Romney.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.22.12 @ 1:47PM

I think it was last week that NVA Patriot & I had a good discussion about the party elites & their foisting of lame assed candidates like Dole, McCain & now Mitt on us. The thrust of the argument was this:

Should we have asked some of the recently elected Tea Party Repubs like West, Ryan, Toomey, Pence (although he's not newly elected) & Rubio?

If we had done so, then the same argument we used on Obama during his campaign would hold true to us. That argument being that Obama was only 2 years into a Senate term, almost all of which he spent either preparing to run for President or actually RUNNING for President. In other words, NO EXPERIENCE.

Mitt's a joke of a conservative, but if he's the nominee, I'll hold my nose & pull the lever for him, while also praying for a CONSERVATIVE Senate majority. Newt's not my guy, but I'd pull the lever for him as well. In the end, y'all, the mission remains the same. GET RID OF OBAMA. PERIOD. If we fail in this, the consequences will be very dire for our Republic.

Santorum's the only one who can illustrate the principles of conservatism well enough to resonate with the ever elusive "Reagan Democrats" in places like PA, OH & IN. These places are hardly bastions of conservatism. And Santorum will resonate LOUDLY with the conservatives in Dixie as well. Take that to the bank.

ejp| 2.22.12 @ 2:10PM

One other question for the Romney fawners. Is a President Romney more likely to give us good conservative judges on the bench or is he more likely to saddle us with more David Souters?

teflon93| 2.22.12 @ 2:34PM

Given that one of Romney's major domos is John Sununu, who sold Bush Pere on Souter's "conservatism", the answer is the latter.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.12 @ 2:41PM

Mr. Tucker
I REJECT your entire premise!

As for me, I am still supporting Gingrich. He has PROVEN that he will reduce government overreach. Kiss my tea-party ass.

NVA Patriot| 2.22.12 @ 2:45PM

Amen and I am with you - Ron Paul for VA to Deny Mitt the delegates!!

Tommy Frisco| 2.22.12 @ 4:38PM

I'm with you, Ken. Newt did what we need done again. Everyone else is just talkin'.

All this "baggage" that everyone wants to talk about is mostly lies and distortions brought to you by the MSM and Republicans who want to maintain the status quo. Newt's enemies are my enemies.

I'll take Newt's baggage over Romney's baggage any day.

Kevin G| 2.22.12 @ 2:54PM

Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell lost because the GOP Establishment Elites withheld their support and votes. The GOP-Es have a lot of nerve expecting us to fall in line for THEIR chosen candidates. As far as I'm concerned, the GOP-Es can go to hell.

JJ| 2.22.12 @ 3:33PM

I will never forget Karl Rove immediately on O'Donnell's victory in the primaries of the RINO Castle. Rather than congratulate her, he went into a 5 minute attack on her credentials. Want a tip off of how the GOP establishment thinks just watch Rove. He goes into the same kind of attacks against anyone who may beat Romney. Romney may as well have a KICK ME sign on his back, because Rove is the tip off to the rest of us that he is a RINO.

Paul from SA| 2.22.12 @ 4:10PM

I will never forget that either.

He kept saying there's a lot of really bad stuff about her that's about to come out, so it's not wise to support her candidacy or send her money. And he kept insulting us saying we don't know how to figure out what's best.

Karl Rove endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison for Texas governor. She ran a campaign using liberal tactics -- lies, deceit and spin. Rick Perry won in a landslide.

Seek| 2.22.12 @ 5:39PM

They lost because they were shockingly poorly informed. O'Donnell in particular is a foxy-looking woman, but sex appeal doesn't translate into U.S. senator.

teflon93| 2.22.12 @ 6:59PM

Okay, I'll bite---how well-informed is Barbara Boxer?

albert constantine jr.| 2.22.12 @ 10:28PM

Point of order, Mr. Chairman: Barbara Boxer is a foxy-looking woman? (I dare not say Madam Chairman when the subject is SENATOR Boxer).

teflon93| 2.25.12 @ 7:31PM

Well, she did work so hard for that title...

jstwndring| 2.22.12 @ 3:01PM

Ok. Ok. I submit. I'll vote for Obama. Er, I mean Romney. Wait! It's Romney I want, right? It's so hard to tell the two apart. I know one is white and the other is black.......which is from Massachusetts?

Garfield| 2.22.12 @ 3:58PM

That's why I'd have to flip a coin if Romney is the nominee.

realdealtpa| 2.22.12 @ 4:40PM

I'm sick and tired of these rino windbags like Tucker who keep pushing Romney as our only savior. He'll never get the nomination, the tide is turning. Just like the lib media I tuned off 25 years ago, I'm tunning out these cino's. I know who gets it , and I know who don't!

LibertyHawk| 2.22.12 @ 4:43PM

What did Mitt Romney do as Governor of Massachussetts? Oh yeah, out-0f-control spending, more taxes, & Romneycare...

Where was Mitt Romney when Gov. Walker was being beseiged by unions & government workers? Where was Mitt when Gov. Brewer was standing up to the federal government on existing federal immigration law? Where's Mitt on Operation Fast & Furious? Where's Mitt on the shut down of the Gulf Coast oil industry? Where's Mitt on the devastation of California's Central Valley farmland? Where's Mitt on the personal violation of our civil rights by the TSA? Where's Mitt on the economic devastation wrought by the EPA? Why should we respect his ability to buy an election? Simply put ... where's Mitt?

Tearing down other candidates, is in no way similar to charting a clear course away from the devastation brought about by the democrat party. Mitt's campaign is showing us nothing but complaining and whining about other republican candidates via tens of millions of dollars of advertising spending.

What Tea Party members are looking for is courageous, constructive, principled, leadership. Someone willing to fight the eighty years of socialism and marxism that has been embraced by the democrats, recently evidenced by the lawless destruction of the union financed, democrat party supported, and democrat mayors accomodation of "Occupy Wall Street".

To quote an excellent Wendy's advertising campaign during the 70's ... Where's the Beef ???? Nowhere to be found in the entire Romney campaign. We are tired of being told to "get our asses in line".

We recognize that after November, there may not be a republic left. Consequently, we are looking for a political commander - Washington, Jones, Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Patton, Nimitz (to name a few) to rise to the occasion. The Tea Party is in the fight, and we are fighting to win.

Where's Mitt ?????

Doctor Right| 2.22.12 @ 5:26PM

Mr. Tucker,

With all due respect, you're an ass.

We don't like Mitt Romney because he is NOT a Conservative. Period.

It has nothing to do with his father, or his faith, or his upbringing.

He is NOT the guy to take the fight to the Democrats and try to roll-back 60+ years of ever-encroaching socialism.

The only benefit to a Romney Presidency is that he's NOT Obama...or a Democrat.

And frankly, to say that Rick Santorum "has none of the qualities of temperament suitable to a President" is simply idiotic. On what do you base this assertion? Is it because Santorum doesn't roll-over in a debate and kiss the posteriors of media elites? Is it because he's not afraid to speak the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be?

Or is it simply because Santorum isn't part of YOUR cozy little club?

Truth be told, the GOP-establishment weenies, the Rockefeller-wanna-be's who never win a thing on their own are treating Santorum the same way they treated Reagan in '76 and '80. That's because they're scared-stiff of being locked-out of power if Santorum wins, because unlike Romney he doesn't owe a thing to the GOP-establishment.

So go sell crazy, and your silly Robert E. Lee analogies somewhere else, Bill.

And just between you and me, the scarf makes you look like a poof.

Doctor Right| 2.22.12 @ 5:30PM

Might I add, Mr. Tucker..?

You're article is proof-positive that the self-appointed pundits don't know anymore about politics than the average man-on-the-street.

In your case, it may even be less.

Bill X| 2.22.12 @ 5:46PM

It doesn't make any sense. Romney is an ENEMY of what those of us in the Tea Party believe in.

blahblahblah| 2.22.12 @ 6:09PM

'Rick Santorum, a man who has none of the qualities of temperament suitable to a President'. Says who, you? I guess you think Obama did. The reason we don't like Mitt Romney has nothing to do with his wealth. It's the simple fact that he is not a Conservative. No conservative would propose and push a State Health Care system. period.

ER| 2.22.12 @ 6:36PM

Nice try pal....Tea Party has plenty of allies. Try the majority of voters. See November 2010. Only journalists can be SHOCKED by what is obvious to us dummies. Tea Party are PRODUCING Americans that value values....See you when the real polls come out, Mr. Tucker, ...the actual VOTES!

mjs_pa| 2.22.12 @ 7:38PM

I guess when Santorum wins the nomination we'll see whether you are right or wrong!

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.22.12 @ 8:11PM

If Romney is a man of conviction............

As a Mormon he is a GOD IN EMBRYO!

HE GETS AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE TO BE GOD OVER ONE DAY.

I don't know if I want a future god to be president.

Cpm| 2.22.12 @ 8:34PM

The whole point of the article is that the democrats unite despite their differences to vote for their nominee. Republicans sulk with their principles and allow Clintons and Obamas to be elected. You utilize your principles in the run-up to effect changes in policy or direction, but once the die has been cast you support the decision. The voting booth is not the place to exercise your principles it is the place to defeat your opponent.

PCP Smoker| 2.22.12 @ 9:43PM

"How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey"

Green Revolution, eh? How is that garbage going? Go back to backing your Green Revolution and quit pushing Romney.

Big Hurt| 2.22.12 @ 9:54PM

Mr. Tucker,
I tried to avoid piling on here. But, this article was so wrong, I couldn't resist. I agree with many of the posts above - your article was misleading and based on false premise. That being said, here's a question for you, Tucker. Since you so strongly believe Mitt "Severely Conservative" Romney is the Tea Party's best friend, can you please write an article on the level of Mr. Romney's effort in reaching out to the Tea Party? Oh wait, that article wouldn't be very long now, would it.

The reality is that no real conservative would have to tell people that he's "severely conservative" in order to convince them. They would clearly see it in the way he carries and expresses himself, in addition to his record. And, Mitt Romney just doesn't have it.

I bet you support Ford in 1976 and Bush in 1980, huh Tucker?

Todd Powers| 2.22.12 @ 9:56PM

Mr. Tucker, such mean-spiritedness will not win you independents.

POST American| 2.22.12 @ 10:54PM

--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------

That lead in wreaks of co-opt OP.

REALLY

Meanwhile, as RON PAUL is being cheated
in the caususes and in the Globalist press
---FORGET that neutralizing term
'Tea Party'.

START reaching for and demanding
the 'ANTI-Treason Party' ---the Constitution
Party ---the American Liberty Party
----the American FREEMEN Party.

NO TIME left for patience with equivocations
and 'you--femm-isms'.

----------------HUAC/Nuremberg 2012---------------

David Dean| 2.25.12 @ 12:39PM

Where to begin? I do not have $250 Million. After a lifetime of work and taxation, my worth is barely $3 Million. I am deeply grateful to Mr. Tucker for pointing out, that this means I am not smart enough to learn how to tie my shoes. If I will just show proper deference to those demigods of the land such as Mitt Romney and, of course Mr. Tucker himself, then all will be well.

We should not bother our tiny little brains about important issues. We should rest easy that Mas’r Mitt and Mas’r Wilum will be looking out for us.

How frustrating it must be to the aristocracy that we; who are in reality nothing more than livestock, try to have some say in the way we are stabled.

Mr. Tucker and Mr. Romney and the rest of the elite might consider the fact that if people like me do not do the work, people like Mr. Tucker and Mr. Romney will not have the lives of effortless privilege and luxury that they enjoy.

This election is about slavery: nothing more and nothing less. If Mr. Obama wins, the ruling class will continue to have those wonderful lives at the expense of the livestock. If Mr. Romney wins, nothing changes except, perhaps, the efficiency of the machinery of confiscation and enslavement.

If someone like Mr. Santorum wins, the ruling class might not be able to co-opt him. We might shed some light on the complete corruption of the ruling class. The livestock might be angry. Everyone knows, angry livestock can be dangerous.