In response to:

Rove Vs. the Tea Party

Ed52 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 12:32 PM
It won't be enough to replace the RINOs and Dem with articulate, conservative people. The replacements have to be strong enough to (a) avoid being sucked into the elite social culture of the Washington aristocracy and (b) hire staff members that can be trained to function differently than the current system of "that's how things get done here", "compromise means giving the Dems what they want", "the public won't like that", etc. that has solved no problems and created many more.
Jerome49 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 1:06 PM
When Democrats call for 'compromise' what they really are calling for is capitulation. When someone wants to steal all you have, but agrees to settle for stealing just half, are you willing to accept that 'compromise'? If not, you must be a right-wing conservative.
nametabs Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 1:04 PM
I think our guy Mick Mulvaney fits your bill.
During the 2012 election cycle, Tea Partiers were told by their supposed betters that their ignorance of everyday politics meant that they should take a back seat to the Republican Party establishment. Brandishing the so-called Buckley Rule with quasi-religious fervor -- the notion that Republicans should run the most conservative candidate who can win -- the establishment GOP proclaimed that the only presidential candidate who could win was Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. They suggested that four-term former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson was a shoe-in for the Senate. They explained that the Tea Party was responsible for failed Senate candidates...