Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will the Tea Party Stay Home if Romney Wins the Nomination?
Anyone would be preferable to four more years of Obama, seems to be a near ubiquitous sentiment in the right-of-center blogosphere. Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit is on record saying he’d even “vote for a syphilitic camel over Barack Obama in 2012.”
But it looks like the FreedomWorks branch of the Tea Party isn’t down with Glenn’s “Syphilitic Camel Rule”. In fact, if Romney is nominated the GOP’s candidate, FreedomWorks warns (threatens?) that the Tea Party may just forget about showing up to the polls.
If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination for president, Tea Party activists may not show up at all to vote in the general election, one leading group associated with the Tea Party movement is warning.
“I think that’s a potential problem,” said Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks’ president, during a wide-ranging interview with reporters at The Daily Caller.
He also warned that if Republicans nominate another “John McCain,” activists might even vote third party in 2012.
“I believe in redemption, but at some point, you sort of give up,” he said. “And we’ve given up on Mitt Romney.”
On the other hand, Amy Kremer, Chair of the Tea Party Express recently asserted that the Tea Party will indeed support Romney if he turns out to be the nominee.
So will the Tea Party stay home on Election Day if Romney turns out to be the Republican nominee or won’t they? At this point, what the head honchos of FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Express have to say about the matter is pure speculation. Very few Tea Partiers I know identify with either of these organizations, and even if they do, they definitely don’t take their marching orders from a FreedomWorks or Tea Party Express organizer.
Here at Ricochet, we have quite a number of self-identified Tea Partiers, so instead of paying too much heed to someone else’s irrelevant speculation about whether or not you will vote, I’ll ask you directly: Is there any candidate, whether Mitt or someone else, who would cause you to forgo voting in next year’s election?
Published in General
No, we will vote for the Tea Party candidate and Romney will come in third.
I voted for Romney in the Calif primary in 2008 because it was down to him or McCain, and Romney’s strain of camel syphilis seemed less dangerous to me at the time.
I hope I have better choices in the primary in 2012.
I would vote for Romney over Obama in the general election, but I’d vote for any Republican with the exception of Ron Paul over Obama.
I would probably vote– holding my nose.
But really, come on. Can’t we do any better than Romney!?! This is pathetic!
They have a point. The last time we had a nominee that forced conservatives to vote holding their nose– we LOST.
Has anyone vetted the syphilitic camel? Sounds like it needs to be vetted…as it were.
Let’s hope that we don’t have to worry whether some parts of the Conservative movement will “pick up their toys and go home” if they have to play with a kid they have mild disagreements with. Especially since this move will require us to play with a kid who will destroy our lives.
This, of course, is a highly unlikely scenario, but just to clarify — are you saying you’d abstain from voting in this scenario, or would you actually vote for Obama if it came down to Paul v. Obama?
Romney is pretty bad, but I can’t imagine not voting for him over Obama. It will not be a “Let’s send a message” election.
Who the heck are these self-promoting people who presume to speak for the “Tea Party”? The Tea Party is a populist uprising of everyday Americans, not some top-down political organization.
In any event, the question of who stays home or votes for a third party only matters in a handful of battleground states.
Out here in California, it doesn’t matter who I vote for. But I’ll go on record as saying I certainly wouldn’t vote for Palin, Cain, Gingrich, Christie, Romney or the other pretty boy from Utah. Instead, I’d vote, as I have every time since Reagan left office, for the Libertarian candidate.
The most alarming effect of The Great Society and the massive growth of the federal government has been that generations of citizens have been deactivated. As we prospered, we were content to let the Central Planners grow their bureaucracy. Our private lives became far more important than our public roles as citizens.
The Tea Party is the beginning of the reawakening, the reactivation.
The Tea Party will vote, just not for Romney.
He may be a decent man but fortunately he does not stand a chance. No matter what the polls say now, there is no way he wins the nomination.
In any event, the question of who stays home or votes for a third party only matters in a handful of battleground states.
Out here in California, it doesn’t matter who I vote for. But I’ll go on record as saying I certainly wouldn’t vote for Palin, Cain, Gingrich, Christie, Romney or the other pretty boy from Utah. Instead, I’d vote, as I have every time since Reagan left office, for the Libertarian candidate. ·Jun 10 at 2:56pm
…and if the syphilitic camel was a Libertarian?
Nathaniel Wright: Let’s hope that we don’t have to worry whether some parts of the Conservative movement will “pick up their toys and go home” if they have to play with a kid they have mild disagreements with. Especially since this move will require us to play with a kid who will destroy our lives. ·Jun 10 at 2:51pm
A half cocked technocratic pretty boy whose chief accomplishment in office was to accelerate Massachusetts’ mad rush to fiscal collapse to improve the medical insurance coverage rate 2% is not the leader America needs to put the ship right after the Obamanation. Aside from Reagan, there has not been a good Republican president since Eisenhower, and they recruited outside the establishment for him as well. Throw in silent Cal and you’ve summed up the high points of Republican presidential selections for the last century.
Romney is just another kid that destroys lives. He would make America nostalgic for the days of Bush’s unfunded Medicare Part B.
Kenneth: Who the heck are these self-promoting people who presume to speak for the “Tea Party”? The Tea Party is a populist uprising of everyday Americans, not some top-down political organization.
In any event, the question of who stays home or votes for a third party only matters in a handful of battleground states.
Out here in California, it doesn’t matter who I vote for. But I’ll go on record as saying I certainly wouldn’t vote for Palin, Cain, Gingrich, Christie, Romney or the other pretty boy from Utah. Instead, I’d vote, as I have every time since Reagan left office, for the Libertarian candidate. ·Jun 10 at 2:56pm
This is where the Libertarian Party fractures into the Anarcho-Capitalist Party, the Unreformed Whig Party, the Friedmanite Party, and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Party. Not a pretty picture.
Brian Watt
Kenneth: Who the heck are these self-promoting people who presume to speak for the “Tea Party”? The Tea Party is a populist uprising of everyday Americans, not some top-down political organization.
In any event, the question of who stays home or votes for a third party only matters in a handful of battleground states.
Out here in California, it doesn’t matter who I vote for. But I’ll go on record as saying I certainly wouldn’t vote for Palin, Cain, Gingrich, Christie, Romney or the other pretty boy from Utah. Instead, I’d vote, as I have every time since Reagan left office, for the Libertarian candidate. ·Jun 10 at 2:56pm
Oh? So you’re an expert on libertarianism?
Sorry, but you left out 10th Amendment libertarianism, which is what separates true conservatives from so-called “social conservatives”.
I will not vote for David Frum. Or David Brooks.
Other than that, I’ll vote for a ham-sandwich over BHO. Any of these dudes/dudettes running or thinking of running would be a massive improvement over the current occupant of the oval office.
I held my nose and voted for John McCain, I would do the same for Romney. But McCain did not win, and I doubt that Romney would either. How can the proud father of Romneycare make a compelling case against Obamacare? And what would prevent so pliant a politician from selling us down the road?
I don’t think there is currently anybody in the Republican field that I wouldn’t vote for over Obama. Trump would have fallen into that category, but thankfully I don’t have to face that awful choice.
As for the Tea Party, of course they won’t do anything en masse, it’s a question of percentages and intensity. If Romney is the candidate, I don’t doubt that some measurable number of Tea Partiers will vote elsewhere, and some number who would have worked for a better candidate will not work for him. I wonder if he could still win? I hope we don’t have to find out.
Sisyphus
This is where the Libertarian Party fractures into the Anarcho-Capitalist Party, the Unreformed Whig Party, the Friedmanite Party, and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Party. Not a pretty picture. ·Jun 10 at 3:15pm
Sorry, but you left out 10th Amendment libertarianism, which is what separates true conservatives from so-called “social conservatives”. ·Jun 10 at 3:23pm
That’s the Unreformed Whig Party, they wrote the 10th Amendment.
I’m both a fiscal and a social conservative and I freely admit to seeing candidates through that prism. My first impulse is to vote Republican, but I have voted for Ross Perot twice when, in my view, he was the more acceptable candidate.
Next year, I hope I can vote for a Republican, but one that gives me hope for winning. I believe Romney carries too much negative baggage and cannot win a national election. I will not vote for a Bob Dole or John McCain again; that’s an option for slow learners.
I’m not a member of a Tea Party group, but I wish them well.
Interestingly, it’s coming down to matter less about Obamacare — at least in intensity — and more about the unemployment and deficit numbers. This will help Romney a lot if these trends continue.
Paul, can’t you at least admit that Romney had a bipartisan, (fairly) constitutional approach to this problem? This is a huge difference. You must be honest on this comparison, please.
I agree with others who say Romney would be unlikely to do well in the main election. But I would sooner vote for a Democrat than not vote at all.
If Romney becomes President, I’ll expect the worst and pray for a miracle.
Many American voters are looking at politics in a fundamentally different way than they were even in 2008. Obama was a wake-up call. It’s no longer as simple as Democrat vs Republican. It’s Big Government vs The Constitution.
As a result, many are demanding far more than they did in past elections. Others have lost hope already. Without a strong candidate intent on reforming American government at its core, there’s a strong likelihood that many Republican voters will not vote in the main election next year. Hopefully, the Tea Party influence will turn an unusual number of swing voters our way and coax more conservatives out of their chairs.
I did the same, and I share your doubts. It would be nice to be enthused about a candidate for a change.
So, is it too early to ask to see the syphilitic camel’s birth certificate?
I’m not making my mind up yet, but I think there is an element out here that is fed-up with being presented with a certain type of candidate from the GOP.
The split is between those who want to apply brakes vs. those who want to stop and reverse.
The bus is going downhill. Obama’s got his foot on the accelerator, Republicans want to gingerly apply brakes, and the rest of us want to come to a full stop and reverse.
Applying brakes isn’t the answer. Everyone knows that. The numbers don’t bear it out. After four or eight years of coasting with Huntsman doesn’t work, while things keep getting worse, we’ll get another Lead-footed Democrat to deliver the final blow.
So, it’s betweenStop and Accelerate for some element.
Applying brakes? Well, that would be great but it won’t solve, or even really address, the problem. This would mean that things would continue at a much slower rate, but in the same devastating direction.
Do people have to undergo a near Soviet State to recognize the creeping loss of freedom in this country? Gimme a stop and reverse candidate.
Not to take issue with Aron who had a great post. I would just say that the 2012 presidential election is as simple as Democrat vs Republican. Because the winner will be either the Democrat (Obama) or the Republican (whoever).
2012 is absolutely not the year for a self-indulgent protest “send-em-a-message” vote that could easily end up tipping Florida or Ohio into the D column giving Obama 4 more years.
Yes, the Republican Party stinks like a dead dog. Yes, if Romney is the candidate I’ll vote for him with the full expectation that he will backstab the people who put him in office early and often.
But I have been, and will continue to, jump on anybody saying “3rd party” as early and hard as I can. We just can’t afford it.
There is only one reason why I support a Syphilitic Camel over President Obama – In 2007 I actually posted on the long-term strategic benefits on voting for President Obama over John McCain here.
My key point, “Barack signals a bad short term for conservative principles, but long term strengthening of them.”
I judged McCain would, “In the short term, he will ‘reach across the aisle’ and make deals that sacrifice clear conservative principles; any subsequent failures will be blamed on Republicans. Thus long term, conservative principles will not re-emerge”
I voted for McCain.
Why? Dennis Prager. He had a show that I was able to listen to sometime after Feb 3, 2008 where he convinced me that I should do what was right at the time, rather than try to game the long term strategy. John McCain would not have done the worst of what Pres. Obama has done.
There is no way a Syphilitic Camel could do worse than Pres Obama, therefore he has my vote.
Oh, in that post in 2008, I did support Romney over McCain… I stand by that, but I will work actively against Romney until the primary is over.
I still have more questions about the syphilitic camel:
1. Does he or she have a nice hairdo?
2. Does the camel sweat profusely during televised debates?
3. How many spouses has the camel had? Please no hump jokes.
4. Does the camel believe in man-made global warming – does he/she even care?
5. Does the camel believe that it’s really easier for him/her to go through the eye of a needle than for Donald Trump to enter the kingdom of God? Has it tried?
6. What is the camel’s political action committee: SyphCamPAC?
7. Will the camel spit on Obamacare? Romneycare?
8. Has anyone on the Gingrich team gone over to the camel?
9. Can the syphilitic camel be interviewed on the next Ricochet podcast?
(I confess…Ed Rollins wanted me to ask these questions.)
Oh? So you’re an expert on libertarianism?
Sorry, but you left out 10th Amendment libertarianism, which is what separates true conservatives from so-called “social conservatives”. ·Jun 10 at 3:23pm
Oh, so you’re an expert on “true conservatives”?
Are conservative social values incompatible with states rights? If so, how? Could you unpack that a bit? I fail to see the connection, unless you use a very special definition of social conservatism.
The people you so delicately refer to as “so-called social conservatives” have at least as much right to the name as you, especially considering that many if not most social conservative voters are also fiscal conservatives, and support states rights as well.
I find it entertaining that someone who takes such a narrow view of conservative values is so enthusiastic in his desire to toss other, less narrowly focused conservatives under the bus.
…and if the syphilitic camel was a Libertarian? ·Jun 10 at 3:00pm
I think that was the case in a previous election. 1992?
Duplicate post
Romney is making a number of very elementary errors. He’s doubling down on his liberal stances to avoid being a flip-flopper. He’s avoiding Iowa entirely, which mayallow a challenger to emerge. He’s looking bad in interviews.
What won’t happen is a third-party candidacy or tea party voters not voting.
What will happen is that a lot fewer people will stuff envelopes and man phones for Romney. Usually those people in the Republican party are social conservatives. This time around, there’s a whole Tea Party movement that will do it and I don’t see them eager to doing it for Romney.
Are conservative social values incompatible with states rights? If so, how? Could you unpack that a bit? I fail to see the connection, unless you use a very special definition of social conservatism.
The people you so delicately refer to as “so-called social conservatives” have at least as much right to the name as you, especially considering that many if not most social conservative voters are also fiscal conservatives, and support states rights as well.
I find it entertaining that someone who takes such a narrow view of conservative values is so enthusiastic in his desire to toss other, less narrowly focused conservatives under the bus. ·Jun 10 at 4:26pm
Yeah, true conservatives leave social issues to “…the states, respectively, or to the People.”
Social “conservatives” want their views imposed at the federal level. Which is why they impose litmus tests on presidential candidates – just like liberals do.