Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Say Goodbye to Tea Party Network News

Say Goodbye to Tea Party Network News

Tea Party Network News just launched yesterday.

A reader alerted me to it, and while I wasn’t thrilled with the layout or design, I was hopeful it would be a valuable resource.  When it linked to one of my posts, well so much the better.  I added it to the blogroll.

Now it’s time to say goodbye because of its endorsement of “None of the Above” in the race between Obama and Romney.

 

 The Tea Party News Network (TPNN) today announced its editorial endorsement for the 2012 presidential race: None of the above.

“We have watched the candidates closely over the past year and are convinced that four more years of an Obama presidency would be disastrous for this country’s economy and for the cause of small government,” Todd Cefaratti, editor of the Tea Party News Network, said today. “We considered an endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney, but concluded that his record raises too many questions about the level of his commitment to conservative principles and limited government. The Tea Party has been burned too many times by Washington politicians who promise change but don’t deliver once elected. As the voice of Tea Party conservatives across America, we are not comfortable endorsing either major party candidate this year based solely upon hopeful rhetoric. Our approach echoes Ronald Reagan’s advice on the Soviet Union: ‘Trust but Verify.’”

That’s right, a website purporting to reflect a movement which has fought a four-year pitched battle to hold back the tide of Obamamania and Obamanomics, has decided not only to sit this one out, but to do so in a publicity-grabbing way of a “None of the Above” endorsement.

 Sitting this one out is voting for Obama.  TPNN is voting for Obama.  That’s all I need to know.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Since its inception, the TEA Party movement has been attacked by this and that person or entity seeking to co-opt the power it presented.

I know of very few people who have served the movement more unstintingly than Bill Whittle, who also has produced a series of videos that sought to define the movement in purely Conservative terms on a ONLY persuasive basis.

In a very timely manner, Bill produced this wise advice…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjBXufufUU&feature=youtu.be

scottinwisconsin | November 2, 2012 at 5:15 pm

They’re right, of course.

Romney is just another fascist, who thinks a few votes gives him the right to steal my money and run my life.

His entire claim to your support is he vows to steal a little bit less than the other guy, and give you a couple fewer orders to follow. Such a deal.
Pathetic.

You guys are fighting over who gets to rape you.
You’re so convinced Romney is going to use lube, you give him money. You rally for him. You love him.
It’s Stockholm syndrome. Battered Voter’s syndrome.
Fools.

I voted Gary Johnson.
At least he knows government is one big gang of rapists, and would try to keep the penetration to a couple inches.

Government is the problem. Not Big Government. Government.
Good government is like good Gang Rape. No such thing.

Wise up.

    What you really mean is that you voted for Barack Obama. Too bad you didn’t thoughtfully consider Bill Whittle’s advice as Ragspierre posted above. Sad, really. While you are standing on principle, Obama is destroying our country. But I guess you can say “I told you so” so that makes it all better. Disgusting.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to terimwal. | November 2, 2012 at 5:35 pm

      Your attack assumes Romney would solve the problem that is government.

      Under President Romney, strangers would stop stealing 30% of my earnings, at the point of a gun.
      Under President Romney, strangers would stop locking up millions of harmless people, who simply choose to smoke a joint, rather than slam a beer.
      Under President Romney, the police would stop murdering people by the thousands every year.
      Under President Romney, Every person would be free to pursue happiness as he chooses, and keep the fuits of his labor.
      Under President Romney, America would stop murdering millions of foreigners, just because we can.

      Romney is only the solution, if government can be good.
      It can’t. Government is men with guns, pointed at you.

      Government is institutionalized theft and murder. It’s a gang with a flag.

      And it has your full support in it’s killing and stealing, as long as your guy is the rapist in chief.

      Obama isn’t the problem, it’s people like YOU, who want desparately to be ruled.

      So you always will be. Enjoy.

        from how you wrote this post I suspect you’re stoned now.
        cause if romney did all that stuff you’d marry him.

        I like Gary Johnson. IMO he did not get the consideration he deserves during the primaries. I signed a petition to put him on the MA ballot. It wouldn’t upset me if someone in a solid Romney or Obama state votes for Johnson as a protest.

        But coming from contested, possibly critical Wisconsin, your “rationale” strikes me as idiotic, malicious, and willfully myopic.

        You are not addressing the current issue which is this: either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is going to be the next president of the United States. Your “principled” protest vote aside, that is the fact. If you are not completely delusional you know this. So your vote means nothing other than an additional vote for Obama who, I guarantee, will institute a lot more of that government that you claim to dislike so much. So tell me again what your vote means?

          scottinwisconsin in reply to terimwal. | November 2, 2012 at 6:27 pm

          Of course my vote means nothing. Your vote means nothing.
          If voting mattered, they’d outlaw it.

          You’re being robbed, beaten and raped. Every day of your life.

          Next week, They are letting you choose your assailant. How good of them.

          I’m sure at some level one rapist might be less terrible than another. I’m just not going to urge people on facebook to send him their money.

          I’m not going to root for him, like he’s some fricken Olympic athlete. Cheer for him like he’s a rock star.

          At least have the sense not to cheer for your rapist.

        Scottinwisconsin:

        Perhaps you should flee to Utopia…

          scottinwisconsin in reply to logos. | November 2, 2012 at 10:23 pm

          Oh, I’m not leaving. I’m just not playing. I’m on Strike.

          I will simply consume my savings for the rest of my life, producing no new wealth for the takers to take. I’m set.

          You can keep feeding the parasites. Paying your jailers. Not me.

          The sooner the system runs out of blood, the better.

          A thing that cannot going on forever, will end. And the ponzi police state cannot go on forever.

        Juba Doobai! in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 3, 2012 at 7:32 am

        Ah, I get it. You’re trying to channel Bastiat’s The Law.

    I guess that makes you better and morally superior to the rest of us.

    Great. That means you won’t like the company here and we won’t see you again. Speaking just for myself, I think that’s FABULOUS news.

    Now go light the candles on your Ron Paul altar and leave the adults to discuss serious matters.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to CalMark. | November 2, 2012 at 5:56 pm

      Not better. Awake.

      I don’t want or need to be ruled.

      You want and need to be ruled.

      So you will be. Either by Obama, or Romney.

      I prefer liberty, like the founders. (NOT the framers, who were fascists.)

    So you’re going with the protest vote. And that solves the problems with this country in what way exactly?

    Seriously, if you have no interest in being part of the solution, the only real solution that faces us under our system of government, you are just one more person sitting around whining and crying because other people aren’t giving you exactly what you want. May as well vote for Barack.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to Sanddog. | November 2, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      You live in a medium security prison, and next Tuesday you get to vote for Warden. Enjoy.

      Again, Romney can’t be the solution to our problem, because our problem IS government.

      You’re so afraid of liberty, and of your fellow man, that you willingly turn over much of your wealth, and most of the decisions in your life, to that small sliver of your fellow man that wants to rule other people.

      Government is the natural place for the worst among us to congregate. Child molesters become boyscout leaders. Theives, murderers and psychopaths work in government.

      Good people don’t want to rule other people, or spend their money.

      As long as you believe there is such a thing as GOOD government, you will be a willing supporter of the evil that IS government.

      We have met the enemy, and he is us.

        NC Mountain Girl in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 3, 2012 at 1:00 am

        Big talk from an anonymous on line name. A lot of on-line blowhards talk big about going Galt. I have yet to meet someone besides myself who actually did decide to live a subistance lifesyle. I am calling your bluff. Can you prove you went from a six figure income to below the poverty line? I’ll compare my tax returns to yours any day and I am solidly for Romney. Oh, by the way, my AGI in 2011 was less than $4,000.

      chilipalmer in reply to Sanddog. | November 2, 2012 at 7:02 pm

      If 13,693 of Bob Barr’s 25,419 votes in the 2008 presidential election in North Carolina had gone to McCain, North Carolina wouldn’t have gone to Obama. Washington Post, Election 2008. This wouldn’t have changed the 2008 overall outcome. But something like this could definitely change this outcome in 2012,

    Ragspierre in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Interesting that you are an enemy of the Constitution, and our Founding.

    Ah, well, there is always the anarchist wing of OWS…

      scottinwisconsin in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2012 at 5:48 pm

      You must be referring to the Constitution that was the product of a dispicable counter-revolution.

      The men of the revolution fought for the Articles of Confederation. That’s what the people died for.

      Then those good men went back to their farms and shops, Jefferson went to France, and the fascist struck.

      You might be interested to know that the only state that put that “sacred text” to a vote of the people, RI, saw it voted down 11 to one.

      The people didn’t want a national government with the power to grow into the police state we have today. The elites who use government to steal, wanted it. And got it in spades.

      As someone wise once noted (Spooner?) either our Constitution permits the police state we suffer under, or it is powerless to prevent it.

      In either case, it’s worthless. It’s the sly misdirection the magicians who rule us, use to distract the masses like you.

      Quite successfully, from reading this blog every week.

        Ragspierre in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 6:02 pm

        My friend, I have been dealing with bright, twisted cranks like you for many decades, as they presented themselves in various guises.

        I am sad you are kinked the way you are, but I cannot control that. You are NOT representative of the TEA Party movement, which is, at its core, Constitution-loving, and which seeks limited government.

        The Articles were a dismal failure, as any student of history and human nature understands.

        Fascism was not defined as a philosophy until Mussolini, although Collectivism was born as a general notion in the French Revolution. The idea that the Founders were fascists just defines how nuts you really are.

        Please never pretend to have any common cause with the TEA Party. That is simply a lie.

          scottinwisconsin in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2012 at 6:19 pm

          I’m not part of the Tea Party. They are a natural, but misguided reaction to the evil government.

          They, like you, believe that there is such a thing as Good Government. Must be like Good Gang Rape (Fewer rapists?)

          History is written by the victors. The Articles were only a failure for the fascists who wanted to use government to support their business, and steal for them. Like Hamilton. The Articles didn’t allow for the national police state we have now, so it had to go.

          If the Articles were such a failure, why did the only vote of the people on the Articles fail 11 to 1?

          And fascism is as old as government, which has always used it’s power to transfer wealth from the many to the few. Often thru government/business “partnerships.”

          Tarrifs, taxes, rules and regulations are the natural tools of fascists, to transfer wealth, and are older the our so-called Republic.

          I know you’re quite pleased with yourself, and imagine your supperior knowledge lets you see more than I. But I graduated with Honors from the University of Chicago Law School, so don’t flatter yourself.

          I’m awake, you’re asleep. It’s that simple.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm

          The fallacy of an appeal to authority, coupled with the fallacy of common knowledge, with a smattering of just dumb ad homina.

          The Articles provided for 13 governments, each of which was, perforce, everything you profess is eeeeeeevvvvviiiiiil. I am astounded you are so rationally challenged.

          The Articles ALSO managed to make it possible for a citizen of one state to be oppressed if he crossed into another state (an alien). And for one state to tax the commerce of any citizen which happened to cross its boundry, even to the point of prohibitive cost.

          I could go on. The Constitution…like the Articles…WAS an experiment in government, as it states.

          Again, I see who you are, and am saddened by the loss of your reason. Stuff happens….

    for all the good that did should have just voted for roseanne barr.
    least then you laugh about it.

    Go ahead, stand on your pedestal, beat your chest, loudly proclaim you are a man of principle, and toss off your vote for Johnson.

    MY principle includes the certain knowledge that either Romney or Obama will be taking the oath of office on January 20th next year (I assume Johnson will be off somewhere getting high) and it had better not be Obama.

    Hell no, Romney’s not perfect, but when you make the perfect the enemy of the good (or even of the “less bad”) you are in fact casting your vote for the worst.

    Politics is about moving in a direction. Sure, I’d prefer more movement away from statism than Romney might deliver, but he is, at the minimum, some movement in the right direction.

    So go ahead and wear your self-proclaimed moral superiority like a halo. It will be of enormous comfort to you if Obama wins a second term and drags us further and irremediably into the pit of statism.

    When your children and grandchildren ask what happened to the free America they read about, and ask what you did about it, you can be proud that you pontificated and backed a sure loser.

    Because of your principles.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to Russ. | November 2, 2012 at 6:34 pm

      Sure, right. End of the world as we know it. I get it.

      Except, dig down in the old memory hole. That is the EXACT same argument they were making for George W.

      Just think what GORE will DO!!

      You mean like run huge deficits, invade Iraq?

      Government isn’t there to do good. It’s PURPOSE is to steal from you, and kill you if you make a stink.

      Government is wildly inefficient == it’s not trying to do the things you think it’s trying to do.

      It’s great at stealing from you, and killing. Because that is it’s purpose.

      And those who use it to steal and kill rely on your living in denial, and thinking voting matters.

      Who ever wins, we still have government. We still have a police state, and live in a prison of our own making.

        If you’re going to be a flack for anarchy, just come out and say so. I prefer an honest anarchist to a dishonest alleged Libertarian.

        Even Libertarians recognize the need for some government. (And many of us TEA party folks aren’t 100% thrilled with the Libertarian agenda anyway. I happen to prefer a robust national defense.) Regardless, the whole point of the process is to get us to the point where we have the government we want and need.

        There’s no way to do it in one step. We’ve fallen towards statism incrementally, and for better or worse, that’s how we will have to go about getting away from it.

        In no small part that’s because your perfect principled protest candidates are generally perceived to be cranks (particularly Doctor Ron Paul, for good reason) and actually are unelectable to national office… as things currently stand.

        Politics is a marathon. You don’t win a marathon by trying to make a standing leap of 26 miles. You do it one step after another. If the country (meaning, the electorate) can be moved by stages in the right direction, then eventually you get where you want to be.

        Voting for Johnson is like that 26-mile leap: you lose the race.

          scottinwisconsin in reply to Russ. | November 2, 2012 at 8:19 pm

          Gary Johnson does believe in government — I don’t — but less government than any other candidate.
          So my vote is a hat-tip to a nice guy, trying to reduce the number of rapists in the gang. Futile, but honorable.
          The two major party candidates want to be part of the raping.
          Libertarians believe in government. I think they are wrong. I’m an anarcho-capitalist.
          All the rest of you believe in using Force to rule others, even those who just want to be left alone, and thus are immoral.
          Evil, you might say.

          Libertarians believe in a robust national defense as well, but development of a second jet engine for the new F-35 goes well beyond “robust.”

        What exactly is your plan here sparky? GJ will not be POTUS no matter how long you hold your breath. Romney was the last guy on my list. I’m sure not gonna roll the dice with The Won. You’re gonna live off your winnings. I hope you have a big ol’ pot of gold coins. If you are going to participate in civilization it will take a bunch of ’em. Good luck. You’re gonna need it.

          scottinwisconsin in reply to texan59. | November 3, 2012 at 10:35 am

          A big pot, enough for 2 lifetimes. All wealth I created. I’ll be fine come what may.
          But I won’t create one penny more, for the looters.
          The longer you feed them, the more there are, and the more they want.

    almost there in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    People, people, please don’t feed the troll. I know it’s hard, but if you don’t, he will leave.

      Oh, I dunno. This is a nerve-wracking time, comparable to watching the models and worrying that Sandy would smite me.

      Normally I’d agree with you, but it’s kind of nice to have something to release my tension on.

      Hope Change in reply to almost there. | November 2, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      Hi everyone.

      hi scott in wisconsin — you don’t seem like a troll to me.

      It seems to me you make some good points. I can appreciate your frustration. I also feel a lot of frustration with the tendency toward tyranny of, seemingly, any kind of government.

      I disagree with your solution to protest vote right now, though.

      I am a huge fan of Newt Gingrich. It was horrible for me to see how lies were told about NEwt in the primary campaign.

      I think the Tea Party energy includes a drive to reduce government in a way that is compatible with your point of view. I support a drastic reduction in the power of government, probably at least somewhat in agreement with your point of view.

      But to me, what NEwt said from the beginning is what I also believe today: a continuation of the Obama regime is a disaster. I don’t want to see that happen to our country.

      And now, on top of all the other despicable things this administration has done and is planning to try to do, we have this appalling, shameful, unbelievable dereliction of letting our guys die in Libya. I am absolutely appalled by the disgusting spectacle of these miserable excuses for public officials letting our guys in Benghazi die while they watched. Impeachment is not enough. Tar and feathers is not enough. They cannot be allowed to remain in office.

      To me, scott in wisconsin, it’s like the house is on fire. We must put out the fire.

      We can redesign the way we do things, after this emergency is taken care of. I hope, with the Tea Party energy, we will be the kind of active and moral people our Constitution is meant for. I hope we will reduce the government to what it is meant to be: almost negligible.

      With the intelligence and energy of the American People, hopefully, more and more of us will study liberty and small government and freedom, and start to implement ways to reduce the tyranny of the current overreaching government.

      We get the government we deserve, WE’ve been lazy and remiss. WE let the unions run our schools. No one knows a thing about civics and American History. We let that happen.

      It’s up to us to be the active and moral people who are willing to pay attention and do the hard work of dismantling the crony money and power centers we have allowed to develop.

      But I agree with Newt, that the absolutely first order of business is to remove the Obama people from power. Immediately. 100%. Period. Now.

      I really appreciate your desire for freedom and liberty, scott in wisconsin. But the Obama people absolutely have to be tossed out. So to me, a protest vote right now is just the wrong decision.

        scottinwisconsin in reply to Hope Change. | November 2, 2012 at 9:55 pm

        Hi, Hope.

        Your view seem based on the belief that Romney will actually be significantly different. I don’t believe that’s likely.

        He truly believes that, if he gets round 70 million votes, he then has the right to take lots of my money, and spend it as he thinks best. He does not have that right, even if he gets 300 million votes. It’s called theft. I do not consent.

        He believes that he has the right imprision people for decades for engaging in consentual economic transactions. He does not. It’s false imprisonment. I resist.

        He believes in Social Security and Medicare and Medicade and Welfare and Foodstamps and AFDC and every other force “charity.” These evil and unconstitutional. Nobody seems to care any more.

        Here’s the worst: In 4 years, when the debt is $20 trillion; the TSA is in every bus and train station, groping small children at sporting events, strip-searching old ladies; war rages in Iran, inflation is 12%, unemployment is 20%, gas is $10 a gallon . . . and the Democrats blame “capitalism” and “free enterprise,” We’re fucked.

        The People will then run screaming into the arms of an even bigger statist than Obama, because “we gave small government a try, and look what we got. Time for real social justice.”

        So you can vote for the lesser of two evils, but then accept that in 4 years, when things have nonetheless fallen apart — because we a broke ponzi police state — then 55% of the folks who are takers, not makers, will sell this country to the highest bidder. And that bidder will be Soros and his buddies. And then it’s over.

        Obama may be a quick collapse, which we can blame on statism. Then we start to dig out. Hope.

        Romney will almost certainly be a slow collapse, which they will blame on the free market. Maybe we don’t come back from that.

        Pick your poison. I’m on strike.

    irwinchusid in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    As a fellow libertarian, I must say, scott, your moral vanity and misanthropy are tedious.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to irwinchusid. | November 2, 2012 at 10:01 pm

      Silly. I’m not a libertarian. Government is a criminal organization with a flag. Good government is like good cancer. No such thing.

      And I don’t hate my fellow man! I just don’t trust him enough to put him in charge of my life. All reason and history shows that’s the surest way to die. Governments have murdered 100 men for every man killed by a criminal.

      You may think government can spend your money better than you can. I don’t.

      You may wish to be ruled. I don’t.

      I can do better.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 3, 2012 at 12:06 am

    Life is full of imperfect choices. Smart people recognize this. Callow, sophist, jejune pseudo-intellectual nihilists vote for Gary Johnson.

    GadsdenGurl in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Sad that people think tea party carries water for the GOP.. SAD. WE DO NOT.

Midwest Rhino | November 2, 2012 at 5:17 pm

That is not MY tea party … whoever ran that must be a Democrat stooge, or just an idiot.

As a Rick Santelli Tea partier … I fully support Romney, and actually have some hope that he can rise above common politics. The morons that think voting “present” is the answer are clearly deluded, trying to play the “we’re so neutral” game.

VOTE ROMNEY … all else is a vote for bigger government, less freedom.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to Midwest Rhino. | November 2, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    The only certain thing is, whomever you vote for, and regardless of who wins, we will have bigger government, higher taxes, less freedom, more murder.

    Until the ponzi police state collapses.

      Darkstar58 in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 9:19 pm

      See, thats just your nonsensical conspiracy mind working overdrive and has no basis in the actual reality around us

      The fact is Romney will remove Obamacare and re-do Dodd-Frank (which already means less government then we have now) while actually balancing the budget (as he has done everywhere he has ever been) and fighting to get a Balanced Budget Amendment, a move which will drastically decrease the amount of Government as shrinking Government is the only possible way to balance it at this point.

      Things he will also do include eliminating most, if not all, Federal Education programs and instead allow the states to keep their money without massive amounts of it being skimmed off the top to feed ever-growing bureaucrats. The EPA will see drastic reductions in power, and many of their regulations will be flat out removed. I would also anticipate a good sized decline in Foreign Aid (esp with the Mexico City policy coming back in play) and likely funding for the UN (which is just throwing money out the window at this point.)

      His plan includes putting a hard $0 cap on agencies “regulatory” abilities, and a situation where each and every new regulation would need to be approved by Congress (which takes the power away from agencies like the EPA and puts it back into the hands of Elected Reps.)

      When all is said and done, Romney may go down as the person to shrink the size of Government more than anyone ever before him – and simply balancing the budget would already put him on track to be just that. States Rights will also increase at unbelievable rates as they once again become nearly completely responsible for Education, Medicaid, Welfare, etc

        scottinwisconsin in reply to Darkstar58. | November 2, 2012 at 10:12 pm

        Stockholm syndrome in action. You identify with your abusers. And you vote for them, and send them contributions!

        The last president to shrink the size of government was Warren G Harding.

        Ronald Reagan exploded the size of government. And you think Romney, a Mass liberal, will shrink the size of government?? Care to make a wager?

        Whoever wins, the national debt will be $20-25 Trillion by 2016. It’s all baked in.

        Ponzi schemes go and go and go. Until one day, someone points out that the emperor has no close, and it all comes crashing down.

        Keep kicking the can that is government. Keep hoping this time is different. We’ll be out of road soon enough.

          huh? You dont even have a response to anything other then your (parroted) canned conspiracy theories which you mindlessly repeat endlessly…

          but in all honestly, I would probably suggest you just do everyone (including, most importantly, yourself) a favor and seriously consider doing yourself in. Really, that is the only way you will ever get away from the ‘little-green men reading my brain wave’ land of la-la like paranoia you obviously create for yourself, and it would simultaneously leave the rest of the world in peace, not having to listen to the mindless rants you parrot and all. Your world just doesnt jive with the reality which actually exists, and that probably is the best option you can take to end your madness.

Just like the Losatarians.

9thDistrictNeighbor | November 2, 2012 at 5:19 pm

Bookmarked it yesterday; deleted it today.

mikefromlongisland | November 2, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Proof that the Libertarian “tin foil hat fringe” has embedded itself into, what’s now called the Tea Party.

HOW can this movement be taken seriously, as a political action movement ?

In other (fake) news…

Van Jones, leader of The Tea Party of America, announced today that not voting for RINO Romney is not enough. It is your patriotic duty to cast your vote for Obama in protest.

Tea Party News Network?

Sounds like something that’s “designed to fail.” Their core audience: Tea Partiers. Factor in personalities, style, and personal preferences and you inherently lose part of that audience.

Now they’ve lost most everyone.

My theory: the Ron Paul’ers are once again trying to hijack the Tea Party. In their own way, the Ron Paul’ers are worse than Obamabots. Obama is MOSTLY a cult, but he’s got a party; Ron Paul: all cult, no substance.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to CalMark. | November 3, 2012 at 12:46 am

    The Paulbots hijacked the Tea Party near me and it largely became irrelevant.

      I know what you mean. Zealots with no jobs or lives did the same thing to the Democrat party I used to belong to.
      AND, I am envious of your dedication, I have only got my AGI down to 8k. Your good work has inspired me to study the rules harder and go lower.

I guess you aren’t as smart as I once assumed…

This post is a real shame, Mr. Jacobson. To begin, no party and no candidate is entitled to the vote of any person. Thus, a failure to vote for one candidate cannot legitimately be viewed as a vote for any other candidate. Only a failure to vote for one candidate by reason of actually voting for some other candidate should be considered a vote for the other candidate. By assuming that Romney is entitled to the vote of conservative-minded voters, as you appear to do, you empower the Republican party to continue ignoring the demands of those conservative-minded voters. Only if the Republican party believes that it must cater to conservatives—and actually implement conservative policies once in power—will the party actually deliver on such policies. The Republican party shouldn’t be permitted to run a candidate like Romney and get away with it.

Second, TPNN can’t vote for anyone, and its failure to endorse does not necessarily mean that any person associated with TPNN won’t vote for Romney. Failing to endorse a candidate is perfectly compatible with personally voting for that candidate as the lesser of two evils. Thus, there’s no reason to believe that any person whose opinion was considered in crafting the above non-endorsement will not vote for Romney.

My own opinion on Romney is this: conservatives will never gain a foothold in government if they insist on voting for liberals like Romney. The Tea Party was formed by people who want to shrink government, and there is no reason to believe that Romney will pursue that end. If a person believes that he is the lesser of two evils, then that person should feel free to vote for him, but that’s no reason for that person (or organization, in this case) to surrender that person’s credibility (with respect to adhering to conservative principles) by endorsing a non-conservative candidate.

    Ragspierre in reply to m87. | November 2, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    The LOTE argument is one of the stupidest I recall ever hearing.

    Is Gary Johnson…or any other conceivable candidate…perfect?

    If not, they ARE…by definition…a lesser of evils. YOU may find them an ACCEPTABLE set of lesser evils, but you are rationally corrupt.

    Cripes…..

      Sanddog in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2012 at 5:58 pm

      I like Gary Johnson. I’ve met him, I’ve talked to him. I’m not voting for him. I learned my lesson in 1992.

        creeper in reply to Sanddog. | November 3, 2012 at 8:51 am

        I voted for John Anderson in 1980. Never regretted it.

        Martin Luther explained that mindset once.

        I understand completely where scottinwisconsin is coming from. Unfortunately, the result of “standing on principle” this year will be the death of our nation. It sounds like scott’s comfortable with that. Hope it works out well for him.

        I expect if Obama is re-elected scott will be back here screaming to the skies about what a lousy president we have, his own squandered vote overlooked or even forgotten.

        scott, sometimes there are no “good” choices…only less bad ones. Wasting your vote in this election is the worst.

      I don’t believe that it’s true that an imperfect candidate is “by definition” the lesser of two evils. There is plenty of room for actually good candidates—at least in theory. And while the least of good candidates would be less evil than any evil candidate, such a candidate would not be a lesser of evil candidates.

      That said, I’m not sure what you mean by “the LOTE argument,” as I made no such argument. I was simply pointing out that a conservative can prefer that Candidate A defeat Candidate B, because Candidate A is less bad than Candidate B, yet still refuse to ENDORSE Candidate A, because the conservative is unwilling to lend his name in active support of what he or she considers a bad candidate. And, moreover, that conservative can VOTE for Candidate A despite not endorsing Candidate A.

      Here, I think I should add (since I don’t think that I can edit my original comment) that it really doesn’t matter to me whether TPNN is linked to from this blog or not. I don’t know the first thing about that organization (except that it won’t endorse Romney or Obama), and it’s certainly possible that it is secretly liberal masquerading as conservative so as to dissuade conservatives from voting for Romney. My original comment was only meant to express my disagreement with Mr. Jacobson’s stated rationale for de-listing TPNN.

        Ragspierre in reply to m87. | November 2, 2012 at 7:25 pm

        “There is plenty of room for actually good candidates—at least in theory.”

        Rationally, no. Any human candidate is imperfect.

        You dodge the rigor of this rationale by positing a “good” candidate (i.e., one who is NOT the lesser of evils).

        Name one.

          An additional note. This is one of my favorite utterances of Abraham Lincoln:

          The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.

          I am not suggesting that our choice between the two candidates is one between good and evil, though there might be some who would make such an argument. I am saying that for me the choice is one of is it more of good that one be President of the United States than the other? For me the answer is “yes” and the man is Mitt Romney.

          Though not generally true, “good” and “evil” are subjective in this context–at least as I understand their use (and antonymous non-use) in the phrase “lesser of two evils.” In that phrase, “evil” refers to a candidate that a voter would rather not vote for, but will vote for in order to register a vote against that candidate’s opposition. Thus, a “good” candidate would be any that a voter will vote for because he or she supports that candidate, rather than because he or she opposes the candidate’s opposition. This distinction, of course, will depend on each voter. Still, given this definition (and, of course, given the ordinary definitions of “good,” “evil,” “perfect,” and “imperfect”), there is no reason to believe that an “imperfect” candidate cannot be “good,” and therefore not a lesser “evil.” For instance, you might consider Romney to be a “good” candidate, because you would vote for him out of support for him, rather than opposition of Obama–I imagine that many Republicans would agree with you. But that still doesn’t mean that a person who will vote for Romney must also endorse him.

          (Of course, this definition of “good” and “evil” does render the trite saying that “voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil” an equivocation, but that’s not important here.)

    turfmann in reply to m87. | November 2, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Clap… Clap… Clap…

    Good for you. Boy, you really told the Prof., didn’t you? Enjoy your smug-dance.

    There are only two choices in this election – the Traitor or the other guy.

    This nation stands at a precipice. We will cease to exist within four year’s time if the current occupant of the White House is reelected. Period. End of story. Gone, just like the USSR.

    This is an existential crisis not seen in this nation since 1860 – and BHO is no Abe Lincoln, hell he isn’t Jefferson Davis.

    The calculus is very, very simple: if you have any brains in your head, any appreciation of the brilliance of the Founders and the legacy they have left us, if you enjoy your freedom both political and economic, you’ll roll in broken glass, douse yourself in epsom salts, punch a wasp’s nest, set yourself on fire, and go out on a hot date with Helen Thomas just to have the opportunity to vote for Romney.

    Mitt is far from perfect, but he does bring excellent skills to the table. He is most certainly a man on a mission – I think that he gets the situation that we are in and truly and genuinely wants to grapple with the problem and put this nation on the right path.

    But you can go ahead and pout that the love child of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan isn’t running this year.

    Me? I’ll pull the lever for Romney gladly and hope he has a very successful eight years in office, and that he trains up Mr. Ryan to take his place for another eight.

      I do not appreciate your sarcasm. I was voicing a position opposed to Mr. Jacobson’s reasoning not because I think I’m smarter than him, but because I think his reasoning is wrong, in this case. I have no doubt, based solely on knowing what he does and for whom, that he is far more intelligent than I am, and far more deserving of any sense of smugness in any discussion with me. So, lose the sarcasm. I posted because I’m interested in serious discussion, not in a misguided and undeserved sense of superiority.

      Now, if you truly believe that the existence of the United States of America four years hence depends on which candidate is elected president in a few days, then by all means, douse yourself with gasoline and roll through glass all the way to Helen Thomas’ house, and vote for Romney. I don’t believe the stakes are nearly so high, and I don’t think that, even if they were that high, Romney’s election would make the difference. Obama’s bad–in many ways–but I’m not convinced that Romney is much better, if at all.

        Ragspierre in reply to m87. | November 2, 2012 at 7:12 pm

        “Obama’s bad–in many ways–but I’m not convinced that Romney is much better, if at all.”

        OK. You are entitled to your opinion.

        I simply and gob-smackedly note in passing that your judgment is profoundly flawed.

        As someone who respects the Constitution and the rule of law, I cannot imagine anyone concluding that Romney would preside over…or abide…a gang of outlaws like those in power currently.

        turfmann in reply to m87. | November 2, 2012 at 7:43 pm

        I do not appreciate your sarcasm.

        I don’t appreciate your sanctimony.

        I was voicing a position opposed to Mr. Jacobson’s reasoning not because I think I’m smarter than him…

        You needn’t worry your little head about that.

        but because I think his reasoning is wrong, in this case. I have no doubt, based solely on knowing what he does and for whom, that he is far more intelligent than I am, and far more deserving of any sense of smugness in any discussion with me. So, lose the sarcasm. I posted because I’m interested in serious discussion, not in a misguided and undeserved sense of superiority.

        I’ll keep my sarcasm. My wife thinks it’s cute. Now, back to your drivel…

        Now, if you truly believe that the existence of the United States of America four years hence depends on which candidate is elected president in a few days, then by all means, douse yourself with gasoline and roll through glass all the way to Helen Thomas’ house, and vote for Romney. I don’t believe the stakes are nearly so high…

        The Balance Sheet of the United States Government, and those of its several states beg to differ. We are insolvent, and unless we move and move quickly to reverse this trend this government will make the Weimar Republic look like a game of tiddlywinks.

        …and I don’t think that, even if they were that high, Romney’s election would make the difference. Obama’s bad–in many ways–but I’m not convinced that Romney is much better, if at all.

        Are you serious? Have you not been paying attention these past four years? This administration has been running amok in every facet of government, from running unfathomable deficits and driving debt to astronomical heights, to utter lawlessness on the Mexican border. And that’s before we even bring up the neo-caliphate that Obama is part and parcel of creating. Benghazi? With each flip of the calender the circumstances become worse and worse, the evidence of his malfeasance more and more damning.

        As to Romney, even the friggin’ Boston Globe had to admit that in stark relief to the cesspool that is Massachusetts politics, he was squeaky clean. An honest and forthright review of this man and his life finds no scandal – other than red underwear.

        I’ll take the red underwear over the red diaper any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

        So, Mr. Sanctimonious, what do you have to say about that, huh?

          turfmann in reply to turfmann. | November 2, 2012 at 7:47 pm

          Sorry about the formatting error, folks.

          Hope it didn’t give you vertigo.

          turfmann, I think you’ve confused me with the guy that ran over your dog. I don’t believe I’ve done anything that merits the kind of treatment I’ve received from you. I have stated my opposition to Mr. Jacobson’s rationale, and—minimally—voiced my own opinion of Mr. Romney. In response, you have called me “sanctimonious”—a word the definition of which appears to elude you—insinuated that I am stupid, and charged that I must be doing a “smug-dance” simply because you and I believe differently. This is not how thinking individuals engage one another in discussion, and I am disappointed to discover that there are individuals like you among conservatives as well as liberals. I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you, turfmann.

          turfmann in reply to turfmann. | November 2, 2012 at 9:42 pm

          turfmann, I think you’ve confused me with the guy that ran over your dog.

          Your karma ran over my dogma? You fiend!

          I don’t believe I’ve done anything that merits the kind of treatment I’ve received from you.

          Sir, you have entered an internet comment forum. They are not cocktail lounges at the country club nor are they places for the faint of heart. Either defend your point of view or stop typing. Moreover, you are under no obligation to reply to anyone who challenges you on a post that you have written.

          I have stated my opposition to Mr. Jacobson’s rationale, and—minimally—voiced my own opinion of Mr. Romney.

          Yes, you did. And just as you have voiced your opinion, I have voiced mine. I rise to oppose your point of view. Are you ready to defend yourself or are you going to allow your karma to be run over by your dogma? Your choice.

          In response, you have called me “sanctimonious”

          Yes, I did. And after a thorough review of your commentary, I stand by my opinion.

          —a word the definition of which appears to elude you—

          No, I’m pretty sure that I know the definition of the word, and I know when sanctimony is being aimed at me. I call ’em as I see ’em. No apology will be forthcoming.

          insinuated that I am stupid, and charged that I must be doing a “smug-dance” simply because you and I believe differently.

          Perhaps it is you that does not understand the meaning of sarcasm.

          This is not how thinking individuals engage one another in discussion, and I am disappointed to discover that there are individuals like you among conservatives as well as liberals.

          Interesting… You engage me, yet on the base level of the ad hominem. You make no mention of the points I bring up in my post, either to parse them or refute them.

          I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you, turfmann.

          I don’t think that’s true – otherwise you would not have bothered to post your response. I don’t think you can defend your point of view. You seem to be content to look down your nose and over your bifocals at those who you disagree and attempt to brush them off with a sniff and harrumph.

          Won’t work with me, bub. Known too many people in my life that have tried – not impressed.

          Patiently awaiting your response…

      Tortuga in reply to turfmann. | November 3, 2012 at 10:24 am

      Well said. It’s been my experience that the zealots of any persuasion will not be logic’ed with, there is something missing in their cognitive brain function that precludes “listening”. It’s not only the scumbags racists like the atheist Maher, Madcow, Schitz, Pelousy, the pedophile Reid, Axrod, Bill “the rapist” and his chohort Hilry and Whatshername Shultz or the wussies like McConnell, Boehmer, Cornyn, Kristol, Powell; that are the bankster ho’s. The rot runs deep and there is only 1 solution. Shakespeare gave us a starting point when he wrote: “First, we hang all the lawyers.”

You made the correct decision on TPNN – they should be tossed into the trash.

Looks like the lunatic fringe is “flooding the zone” with concern trolls today.

People never before seen here, writing long, sanctimonious screeds.

I always wonder: if someone hates someone/something so much, why do they willingly seek it out and engage it with hateful invective?

Back from a power outage and a bit of surgery, I can only say “gutless”!
Not me, but TPNN. They’ll be the first to moan and groan if O is re-elected. Well, I won’t listen to them, because I’ve deleted all bookmarks on my system related to the Tea Party. Maybe, they need to sip on something a bit stronger and “grow some”!

    Tortuga in reply to ALman. | November 3, 2012 at 10:35 am

    Sir, let me dissuade you from severing all links to Tea Party activism. There are no “leaders” or “speakers” or “endorsers” for us, we appreciate those fostering our rallies and news, but they don’t have our “endorsement” to speak for us. Even the original Tea Party had organizers, the principle one being Samuel Adams, if my memory serves me correctly.

Just what we need before this important election: the kooks come out of hiding.

I am more uncertain about the outcome than many LI posters are. I try to express my opinion without attacking morale. Doubt is one thing. Sabotage is another.

Madness. Are they related to Biden?

I’m old enough to have voted in 1992. People were unsatisfied with the republican candidate (Bush Senior) and wanted “change”. Ross Perot offered a different vision and took about 19% of the vote. We got Clinton.

    ALman in reply to Sanddog. | November 2, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    There you go. So, even if Romney doesn’t get all the checks on the checklist, there ought to be far more than you get with O.

    logos in reply to Sanddog. | November 2, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    cheney’s book, In My Time:

    Page 239

    Ross Perot 19%
    George Bush 37%
    Clinton 43%

    Simple mathematics…

      turfmann in reply to logos. | November 2, 2012 at 10:11 pm

      A great read.

      His ghostwriter is pretty darned good too.

      I hope she decides to run for the House seat in Wyoming someday.

      We would all be the richer for it.

[…] just, not here… much) but in reply to a “concern troll” Libertarian commenter at Legal Insurrection I fired an off-the-cuff missive that after due consideration seems to me to be too on-point to get […]

TPNN does not speak for me. Posers

“tea party” types cannot be put into a box–a subset of the electorate– a “demographic”.

That is what leftards do to their electorate.(Hint)

We are individuals first and foremost, and happen to agree with certain governing philosophies. These philosophies were put to pen in the later 1700’s.

But Gary Johnson says MOAR WEED!!!!11!!1!

Not a fan of the crazies. When it comes to government, while it’s always good to have an ideal, when push comes to shove it’s about compromise. To give up and go home when it doesn’t go your way is stupid, irresponsible and suicidal. In this election it’s dramatically clear that the ‘O option will result in the quickest way to national slavery and slaughter. A vote for Romney is a vote for survival, even if he’s not an ideal candidate. He’s the best compromise we got.

Henry Hawkins | November 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm

scottinwisconsin is back! Woo-hoo! Ron Paul’s Worst Salesman of 2012! So, you made parole, huh? Awesome!

—————————————————-

As for the Tea Party Network News, they err greatly when they claim to speak for TP-ers across the nation. This business marketing trick of endorsing none of the above is a clear sign that their Tea Party origins have already been eclipsed by personalities within.

    scottinwisconsin in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 2, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    HH can always be counted on lower the level of discourse in any blog. It’s his thing.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 7:54 pm

      Oh, c’mon, scotty. Don’t sell yourswelf short. Once you join a conversation, it becomes as low as it can get.

      Scott in Wisconsin: You really need to face up to the fact that you are liberal.

        scottinwisconsin in reply to gasper. | November 2, 2012 at 8:10 pm

        Really? I’m a liberal? Huh.
        Are you saying liberals want to dispand the government, and finally stop the endless theft and murder?
        They believe taxation is theft? Regulation is slavery?
        They value individual freedom above comfort, and hate government of any form?
        Weird, I did not know that. Thanks.
        All this time I thought I was an anarcho-capitalist.

          No thanks necessary. I thought it was important that you know where you stand. You just voted for the most liberal President this country has ever had and you want four more years of him. I don’t care who you say you are or what words you write to say who you are..your actions speak for you. And you told us what you did, and you’re proud of it. You are a liberal. No doubt about it.

          scottinwisconsin in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 10:16 pm

          And Gasper, I voted for GARY JOHNSON. Johnson.

          It is true that the Dems are totally corrupt, but if they’ve actually found a way to get that voted counted as a vote for Obama, that’s not on me.

          I voted for Johnson. Johnson.

My response to Tea Party News Network is the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2rXSVF4rk

“There are two paths. One is America the other one is Occupy. …If you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”

Henry Hawkins | November 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm

TPNN says they speak for Tea Partiers across the nation. Follow the link to the ‘special editorial’ on TPNN where they announce their, um, non-endorsement and check out the comment section. It’s 300+ comments and growing and about 95% negative on this idea of theirs.

Wow, talk about a faceplant right out of the starting block.

I think there was one comment I made up thread a lot earlier where the down voter may have missed me.
just an fyi, if you’re gonna do it to me you should do it to me right.

Todd Cefratti, Editor of TPNN, writes on his blog:

Many Americans view the Tea Party as a single, unified movement under one organization’s control. This is in fact far from the case, with the Tea Party existing as a grassroots network encompassing an assortment of diverse organizations with a common goal. The independent groups fighting to restore liberty in the U.S. before it is too late number in the thousands, and this is the strength of the movement. The Tea Party is truly a reflection of the wishes of the American people, with members connecting on local levels to make a difference. Our nation has reached an impasse, and it is imperative that we stand up and make a difference, ensuring that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren inherit a nation as great as it once was. Our core principles consist of limited federal government, free markets, personal responsibility, individual freedoms, and returning the balance of political power back to the states and citizens.

Something must have scrambled his brain in the 18 months since his blog post to make him think that he could speak for all TEA Parties and all TEA Partiers. An aside, I am surprised that John Hawkins from RightWing News is contributing to this new blog.

    logos in reply to gad-fly. | November 2, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    A quick search of Todd Cefratti leads me to believe he writes his own press releases.

    He smells like a con artist and scammer.

theyjustcantstop | November 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm

whos this tpnn,they don’t speak for me.
i would like to ask whoever is representing tpnn,one question,or maybe tell them a very obvious fact that they don’t see,the man running second on this ticket,ryan is probably as tea-party as anyone in congress.
if romney decides 4yrs.is enough,who would be the next candidate,for republican president.
for a grass-roots org.,to have a viable presidential candidate,in 4-5 yrs.of exsistence,thats amazing.
to have the nerve to say you represent anyone in the tea-party and can’t see the difference between another 4yrs. of o’bama,and 4yrs. of romney,is———.

Who are these people? And by what imprimatur do they deem to speak for the various TEA parties and affiliated groups?

They only appeared yesterday?????

Color me a tad suspicious.

This screams of a false flag operation. Either part of a demoralization effort, an effort to discredit grassroots organizations, or both.

My money is on both.

Had the organization existed for some time, and established a credible track record this might be a concern, as it is it is merely an occasion to remind all that caveat emptor applies ever more so when ‘buying’ into news reporting.

False flag operation. I’d check for involvement by the same people that gave us #Occupy.

If this is a false flag op, look for coordinated sound bites along the lines of “even the Tea Party won’t endorse this guy Romney!”

John Hawkins has some ‘splaining to do.

scottinwisconsin | November 2, 2012 at 10:38 pm

The worst rise to the top in politics, F.A. Hayek explained.

To be elected, politicians must appeal to the least intelligent and most gullible.

And because democracy makes politics and power available to everyone, it attracts those seeking status, fame, glory, recognition, attention, appreciation, dignity, and even dominance.

The right people will never be attracted to politics, only the wrong people will.

http://dailyreckoning.com/democracy-is-a-terrible-system-period/#ixzz2B7hczuKE

H.L. Mencken tried to warn us: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    …hummm, I see your point here – we should kill all people in Government and instead everyone should just start governing themselves; that will magically make everything better and is the perfect solution to the world we live in!

    Seriously, just give it a rest already, and honestly, consider my suggestion from above. This world just isnt a fit for you and your extreme level of advanced paranoia…

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Darkstar58. | November 2, 2012 at 11:19 pm

      A hint at the key to scottie is this:

      “To be elected, politicians must appeal to the least intelligent and most gullible.”

      Scott, you see, is above this. Too intelligent and you just can’t fool him. Clearly a generous, altruistic kid, Scott trolls the blogs declaiming, lecturing, and educating us morons too stupid and too gullible to know any better. In other words, Scott’s political philosophy serves to prop up his ego.

      scottinwisconsin in reply to Darkstar58. | November 2, 2012 at 11:25 pm

      Ya, that was my point — killing everyone in government.

      Point of order — it’s you who supports the police state, and the government that murders 10s of thousands. Not me.

      It’s you who fails to recognize that the sole purpose of government is to steal all it can, and murder who resist. Everything else is just a cover story.

      I just want to disband government. Sell off it’s parts, and divvy up the loot.

      But each of us governing ourselves — ya, that part’s right. I don’t need to be told what to do by government, unlike you.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 2, 2012 at 11:37 pm

        You are just SO cute I wanna hug ya and scruff up your precious little head. So earnest! So certain! All the answers, right to hand! You remind me so much of Lee Harvey Oswald when he was 22.

        I’m trying to visualize which anarchist Scott was in “Occupy Unmasked”. It’s a toss up between the “down twinkles” guy and the guy that shiat on a cop car. I’m voting for the latter.

        I’m trying to visualize which anarchist Scott was in “Occupy Unmasked”. It’s a toss up between the “down twinkles” guy and the guy that shiat on a cop car. I’m voting for the latter.

        Ragspierre in reply to scottinwisconsin. | November 3, 2012 at 9:03 am

        Yet you voted. For Johnson. That’s Gary Johnson.

        You are a gross ball of hypocrisy, in addition to a very poor reasoner and crappy student of history, civics, and human nature.

        But we have you dished now. A known…and pitiable…quantity.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | November 2, 2012 at 11:21 pm

Our approach echoes Ronald Reagan’s advice on the Soviet Union: ‘Trust but Verify.’”

I absolutely agree !!!

Although yes, we must vote for Romney to get rid of Obama, we must not be delusional Romney-bots to think that Romney is the next Ronald Reagan Republican to save America.

In fact, I whole heartedly agree with the Tea Party Network News site, regardless of the professor’s disagreement with it.

RINO Romney and company are fighting Tea Party Reagan Conservatives more than they are Obama and anti-American liberal marxist ilk.. This is their arrogant contemptuous attitude and view of these RINO’s from Romney and company- ie; Boehner, McCain, Graham, Rove, etc. Their attitude is they could care less about Conservatives and America, just their own political party power and control. These GOP establishment RINO’s in the Republican Party of Nixon, Ford, Rockefeller, Bush, Boehner, McConnell, have always hated Conservatives from Barry Goldwater, to Ronald Reagan, to William F Buckley, etc.. So much so, that they would collude, cooperate, collaborate with radical anti-American liberal Obamacrats, against grass roots Tea Party Reagan Conservatives, incessantly, 24/7..

This is what happens when you have a GOP establishment RINO as the GOP Nominee, instead of a Reagan Conservative in the first place. This may be a conundrum for us, but we Reagan Conservative Tea Party folks, who by the way do all of the Republican Party’s political battle ground fighting for them, for which afterwards spit in our faces, will not be the scapegoat,, doormat, and stepping stool for these RINO’s anti-Conservative agenda.

How does Romney implement and defend a Ted Kennedy collaborated forced mandated substandard inferior State Socialized Medicine program, aka Romneycare law, that does the very same thing as Obamacare does, even before there was an Obama and Obamacare to begin with, then turnaround and says Obamacare is bad and needs to be repealed, (for politically motivated purposes of course), even though he refuses to refute his own Obamacare / Romneycare forced mandated substandard State Socialized Medicine law, which he created and implemented into law in Mass.

Ronald Reagan would never have created, let alone collaborated with Ted Kennedy on such an unAmerican unconstitutional forced mandated State Socialized medicine healthcare program as Romneycare or Obamacare.

On top of all of his other liberal progressive policies and implemented laws in support of gun-control, pro-abortion, pro-illegal alien, global warming cap and trade policies, etc, etc..

Thus Romney’s past as Gov of Mass., reflects what Romney will be in the future as President, as he has never veered away from what he was and what he is now. He is a liberal progressive to the core, and as he has publically stated he does not want to return to the Reagan-Bush era.. and along with his record as Gov., has never shown any ability, willingness, or propensity whatsoever to be either conservative in thought, policy, or action, ever.

Romney only cares about one thing, Romney. Romney will only act in whatever interest is in Romney’s interest, not what is in the American People’s interest, in America’s interest, in Democracy’s interest, and in Freedom and Liberty’s interest.  Like most anything progressive RINO’s say and do, it’s weak kneed and spineless dribble that is nothing more than ineffectual to not make any stand or position whatsoever, so he can claim him or any other liberal progressive RINO as being perceived as moderate and in the middle, which just another way of saying they’re part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

Romney will win the election of course, but not because Romney is so good, but because Obama is so bad. Thus the election will be the choice of the lesser of 2 evils.

TPNN Editor Todd Cefaratti was the guy behind JoinTheTeaParty.us, a group that reportedly solicited donations to help TP candidates but spent all the money on promoting itself and gave nothing to candidates. ($469k collected/$0 donated).

“So Mr. Backer and Mr. Cefaratti are good at raising money and finding willing suckers to donate to them.”

Full Breitbart story here:

http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/rogues-gallery/dan-backer-stop-insanity/

TPNN Contributor Judson Phillips is listed as founder of TP Nation. He advocates allowing only property owners to vote (!). He’s the organizer of that ill-fated TP Nat’l Convention of Feb 2010 that was judged by many/most as clearly profit-motivated, a scam and an exploitation of TP enthusiasm of the moment rather than anything honestly supportive. Conservative orgs accordingly stayed away in droves (except Sarah Palin, who got $100k to speak, later donated to conservative causes). A later convention organized by Phillips fell apart and a resort casino sued Phillips for $750,000 in unpaid bills plus interest.

TPNN Contributor Jennifer Burke – Found little on her except a self-written Twitter bio: “Community Outreach Director for TheTeaParty.net. Former teacher for 12 years. Defender of Freedom & the Constitution. Football Fanatic!”

TPNN Contributor John Hawkins is “a professional writer who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and PicaQuote. He’s also the co-owner of the The Looking Spoon.” Nothing negative on him, other than my personal opinion that his writing is sort of sophomoric and amateurish, if well-intentioned.

Rather than a false flag operation, this looks more like another cash grab using the Tea Party name. Unclear whether the apparently honest and sincere Hawkins and Burke were duped or have gone all $$$.

[…] The Tea Party Network News appeared yesterday and consigned itself to obscurity today by endorsing “none of the above” for president. […]

NC Mountain Girl | November 3, 2012 at 12:29 am

My first year in law school a left wing activist professor dedicated several lectures to the theme that the world belonged to those who show up in the arena. This sentiment was put in more graphic terms by Saul Alinsky

In the politics of life we are concerned with the slaves and the Caesars, not the vestal virgins.

Scottinwisconsin has has chosen to demur from life in the arena. He wrings his hands about the hopelessness of it all because there is no perfect option. He has thus castrated himself and is thus worthy of of nothing except the our contempt.

    Well, that’s an opinion sculpted to appeal to those who don’t look beyond the romance of it.

    How does competing in the “arena” cause the world to be owned by the competitors?

    That’s like saying the gladiators owned the world because they showed up in the coliseum for a winner takes all fight.

    But who puts on the show and owns the arena? who sits and watches the fight and passes the final judgment? Those are the owners of the world. They aren’t usually people like you or I.

    I think Scott has decided to pass on the whole idea of the arena and owners and fighting for prizes that are ephemeral as it is a limited outcome contest and the so called winners, aren’t.

    It’s a very cynical viewpoint but in this day and age is understandable because on every side the limitations are getting higher and higher and winning is more and more expensive and difficult to come by. (by design)

    The game is rigged and like the lottery; just because you play doesn’t mean you will win and if you don’t play, that money you would have spent becomes yours to spend on yourself a much more positive outcome for you but not for those who run the lottery.

    Which is why those who have a vested interest in the games, spend so much money and effort in convincing everyone why they have to play. Sometimes they’ll even make an extra effort to destroy those who won’t play; they’re bad for business.

    It’s for this reason it was no surprise that Roberts legitimized the taking of property from a citizen to be given to another. After all that’s what government really is all about; picking winners and losers.

    The winners are the ones who have the money and the connections, the losers are the rest of us.

    Anyone who doesn’t see that the game is rigged calls those who do “paranoid”, “smug”, “dropouts” and so forth. the need to feel that they’ve made the better, wiser choice. They still have hope and think they can win the big prize.

    It never dawns on them to examine exactly who really wins and how they came to win.

    It’s never how they say.

    Ragspierre in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | November 3, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    The self-descriptor “anarcho-capitalist” is itself a stupid oxymoron.

    Capitalism ONLY exists in a civic framework, as demonstrated by the history of the collateral development of classical liberalism and market economics. Neither existed in the anarchy of the Middle Ages.

    You could TRY to have a market economy sans government (i.e., the means to determine and enforce contract), but anyone capable of even a meager thought experiment will see how limited and…ultimately…impossible that would be.

    In a culture as complex as ours…the evolution of which was made possible by small government…there simply is no way to manage it without small government. Think for instance of the utility of currency and electronic transactions, and try to imagine those sans government.

    An anarchist is either a misanthrope or a fool who can’t think past the end of his or her nose.

NC Mountain Girl | November 3, 2012 at 12:37 am

There are a lot of people on line who claim they a have gone Galt. How many of them can really prove it. Show me the tax return with a healthy six figure income one year and and AGI below the poverty line the next.

Talk is cheap. Living on the margins of society is not.

    Living on the margins takes a lot of work and preparation.

    1st you have to be self sufficient or know and associate with those that are.
    You have to be able to do your own repairs, installations, construction, design and have the tools available to support that effort.

    You have to live frugally. That means as close to zero luxuries and possible. It can be reduced to zero but only if one has the infrastructure and location to support that. Even then there are taxes and other fees to government that cannot be sidestepped and you have to have some kind of legal tender stream to satisfy those demands.

    Unless of course one becomes a hobo; living by ones wits on the streets and highways and byways. That however is a very stressful path and generally folks either give up or die.

    You have to be satisfied with entertaining yourself or with a select grouping but mostly with yourself.

    You must be willing to sacrifice and to give up people, things and positions that you have long held.

    I doubt that even those who’ve reduced their involvement in the economic side of society really have gone as far “off the grid” as they think they have.

Scottinwisconsinis typical of the drop out crowd, the ones the Tom Lehrer wrote about in his almost lucid moments.

What many folks forget is the TEA Party is an idea,not a clique or organized goup since an idea is just that and it serves well what I believe is its purposes to rally Americans to a cause.

The so called TPNN is, IMHO, a lie, an attempt to hijack a movement for whatever purpose the group behind it wished to promote.

One purpose behind the TPNN is to encourage some people to not support Romney, by default thusly elect Obama.

They did not advocate that TEA Partiers NOT vote for Romney. They also have not been available as a participant in the process so far.

To condemn them in such an off handed manner is counter productive.

I assume by writing them off, you consider them unworthy of future attention? Regardless of their aim or results?

This is as short sighted as the claim that they are acting in such a manner.

Is there no one who has some doubts about Romney’s conservative credibility and his willingness to drive towards conservative goals? I do. I’ve got plenty of reservations but because of the circumstances will vote for Romney. I expect others to do so also for as you say to DO otherwise would be a vote for more of the same from Obama.

That’s not what they have said or done with their non-endorsement.

I’m glad they did this. To do otherwise would be to start out in a very cynical manner as they haven’t the track record yet to be making recommendations or endorsements

I’m glad they’re starting out as they have because perhaps it means they’ll continue to be skeptical of those who attempt to wrap themselves in a mantle of conservativity all the while actually embracing big government, big borrowing, reduced spending at the expense of those in need, spending for big business and no actual reduction in government spending just a shifting of more of the same.

Same ole stuff, different day. Been there done that and am tired of it.

Let’s give them a year along with Romney before condemning them out of hand.

TPNN’s non-endorsement is akin to sitting on the sidelines when our nation is, if not in a national crisis, at a crossroads like few in our history. Their Panetta-like response doesn’t pass muster.

[quote]Sitting this one out is voting for Obama. TPNN is voting for Obama. That’s all I need to know.[/quote]

Exactly.

I saw this, too, and immediately removed the site from my reader. I think that’s a record for the shortest time any site has been included on my reading list (about a day and a half).

Where’s everybody gone? This is being reported:

Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for Libertarians

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/03/why-mitt-romney-is-only-sane-choice-for-libertarians/#ixzz2BG833qUl

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend