We’re Hunting Moderates…

Tea Party Leader: ‘We Are Turning Our Guns On’ Moderate Republicans

Dale Robertson doesn’t mince words. The tea party spokesperson and head of Teaparty.org in Houston issued a strong statement this week warning state GOP leaders that if they didn’t support strongly conservative candidates, their jobs were at risk.

“We are turning our guns on anyone who doesn’t support constitutional conservative candidates,” Robertson said. “If they don’t get that, and their party chairmen don’t get that, they are going to be ostracized.”

Jim Greer, Florida’s GOP Chairman, was forced to resign earlier this week under similar pressure from far-right activists following his endorsement of Charlie Crist, a “big-tent” Republican who has been criticized by some conservative factions for being too moderate. Tea Party activists have backed Crist’s opponent, Marco Rubio, in the upcoming Republican open primary.

Crist has notably broken from the Republican party on a few key issues. He’s supported green initiatives such as cap-and-trade legislation, and potential offshore drilling. Perhaps most markedly, Crist was a strong proponent of the stimulus bill, going as far as to hug President Obama while introducing him at a rally in Ft. Meyers.

“I think it’s just all-around frustration with some in our party who have a very pure philosophy of how you should govern,” Greer told the New York Times Magazine. “People want a common-sense approach to governing. And approaching it with purity won’t get anything done.”

Jenny Beth Martin, the national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, explains the Tea Party’s latest offensive. “People in America are very tired of the irresponsible taxing and spending that has happened in Washington. They want a return to fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.”


Filed under Community Organizing, Elections, Political Reform, Radical Rightwing groups, Republicans

30 responses to “We’re Hunting Moderates…

  1. Then, the “tea party” leaders eschew the unified executive approach; want no regulation by the government in the marketplace; and understand that the return to fiscal responsibility by necessity involves condemnation of the Iraq misadventure, among other things. Somehow, I don’t think this is what they mean….

  2. lillacluvr

    I also want a return to fiscal responsibility but when was the last time we had that?

    Fiscal responsibility – Cheney even bragged that Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.

    Bill Clinton left a budget surplus and what happened to it?

    I think these Tea Partiers are wishful thinking that only Purist Republicans are fiscally responsible.

    If the Tea Party was really about returning the country to it’s roots – then we would get rid of all the corporatists and that would require cleaning out BOTH parties.

    • If the Tea Party was really about returning the country to it’s roots – then we would get rid of all the corporatists and that would require cleaning out BOTH parties.

      THAT is where we need to come together with these people! Sometimes the enemy of your enemy can be your friend.

  3. lillacluvr

    Just an observation – but why is it that Tea Partiers always have to talk about their guns? Is it some deep psychological need they all have?

    Or is it to be seen as a threat? They like being bullies?

    Since this group is in Texas, I assume they are ‘gunning’ for Kay Bailey Hutchinson?

  4. The issue of the “corpoatists” has been around a long while. I believe this, incidentally, is what President Eisenhower meant by his usage of the phrase “military industrial complex” in that famous speech.

    It is in the best interests of the “corporatists” to have a one-world government, btw, as the same would ensure stability in the legal and regulatory operating environment. I rather suspect that not many railing against such evil (perceived or real) have considered this in their opposition. So long as the market (stock) goes up and dividends increase, they are unwilling to consider why this might be happening.

    • lillacluvr

      You make a good point 6176. I remember in my Evangelical Christian college days learning that the end times will be when there is a one-world government.

      So are Evangelical Christians who support the Republican Party without wavering, helping to bring about the end times? Do they know that is what they are doing or are they just too stupid?

      Also, I remember George H.W. Bush speaking of a New World Order. Was that something along the same theory of one-world government?

      Again – do people even think about this or do they not even know and don’t care to do some research to find out?

      • When GHW spoke of a “New World Order”, there were many convinced he was putting a pretty face on “One World Government”. I didn’t think so at the time, for reasons now lost in the mists of time, but I’d think a Google search (if I wasn’t feeling lazy) would bring those back. 🙂

        Most folks do not think about that which I posted, and don’t want to do so. If they did, assuming an ability to think critically which most do not possess, some would see it; the majority, however, would choose to put their fingers in their ears and hum loudly.

      • Truthfully, the conservatives are AGAINST a world government. That is why they hate the U.N. because they view it as the one-world government that will enslave us all. When you do some research into the World Bank and see how industrialized nations are enslaving “third world” countries, it does not seem so far-fetched.

  5. lillacluvr

    Now that these Tea Partiers got rid of the Florida GOP chairman Greer and they are now in Texas with the continued threat – where are they going next?

    Can’t be Kansas – we have the purist of Republicans that God ever made – except if you listen to Tiarht talk about Moran.

  6. tosmarttobegop

    Short of them being Constitutional experts I doubt they actual know exactly what is Constitutional and what is not? The true is that if we truly went back to a Constitutional government many things that people take for granted would be gone.

    For too long the federal Government has been going around Murphy’s barn to enact things.
    Using this kind of logic:

    We want to regulate blue lighters.

    The sky is blue.

    The sky passes between states.

    So therefore since the lighter is blue we the federal Government has Constitutional power over blue lighters!

    Screw them! Better to have a moderate who decides on the facts and reality then the hard Constitutionalist who tittles their thumbs and spouts “Not my job!”.

  7. lillacluvr

    ‘the majority, however, would choose to put their fingers in their ears and hum loudly’

    Or they would hurriedly be turning on American Idol to block out any of those pesky things like facts.

  8. Most think they are Constitutional experts. These folks reject some part of the jurisprudence which has been developed over the history of the Republic, namely that part with which they do not agree.

    One often hears from folks like this that many national problems have resulted from “activist judges”, whether on SCOTUS or otherwise. Go back to interpreting the Constitution as was intened is their battle cry. Interestingly, John Marshall, the Chief Justice responsible for creating what we now think of as Judicial Review, did so in concert with two of the framers. While we accept the power of judicial review to include the power to strike down an act of Congress, e.g., as unconstitutional, such was not a given before Marbury v. Madison. Indeed, the model upon which our Constitution was built (primarily English) restricted a court’s review of statutory enactments by the legislature to one of ensuring the requisite procedural steps in such enactment were followed; if they were, the law was “constitutional”. A question may thus be framed to those original intent folks concerning the correctness of Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion; whether the judicial power granted under Article III included the power of judicial review as found by Marshall to exist even though nothing in said Article III grants any power of judicial review to the Supreme Court?

    I’d wager most would say yes; in fact, most arguments hinge on the power of SCOTUS to exercise this degree of review, so that the evil President or Congress or whomever can be brought to heel by the Court. As demonstrated by the above, an argument may be made to the contrary, a distressing thing to those routinely decrying “activist judges”, ignoring the fact that Chief Justice Marshall was the premiere activist jurist in the history of the United States.

    BTW, tstb, I enjoyed your Commerce Clause hypothetical about blue lighters; it made me smile.

    • lillacluvr

      And wasn’t it also in the Founding Fathers framework to have our government be one of checks and balances?

      That is why there are 3 branches of government.

      Executive- Legislative -Judicial.

      But, thanks to the dumbing down of Americans, I wonder how many people actually know how our government is set up and why?

      • Yes, it was; but until Marbuy v. Madison, it could be rightfully argued that the Judicial was purposely made the weakest branch, given the right granted to Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts “under such Regulations as the Congress shall make[.]”. Article 3, § 2, Constitution of the United States. After said case,the Judicial branch was recognized as being equal, but that is not clear from the original language.

  9. lillacluvr

    If I remember correctly, wasn’t Hitler’s theory of world domination based on building his ‘pure’ race.

    Therein lies the rub – who decides what is ‘pure’?

    • The one in charge, of course (or, in a pure democracy, a simple majority), of course. 🙂

      • lillacluvr

        I wonder how these purists will feel if and when a Buddhist or Muslim or Jewish president is elected.

        Then will they be calling for a ‘purity’ test?

        Or will they be calling for the real Constitution wherein every citizen has the same guaranteed rights?

      • It will be necessary to direct their attention to the third clause of Article VI, Constitution of the Unied States; “. . .; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States[.]”.

  10. G-stir

    Is this the Son of ” My way or the highway?”


  11. tosmarttobegop

    To a certain degree they are like another “purist” group, taking from the Bible those verses that support their own personal view.

  12. By the way, if anyone wants to cure insomnia (due to the archaic language therein contained), the opinion in Marbury v. Madison will do the job.

    Seriously, this opinion carries such great weight that I am aware of Con Law professors spending an entire semester on it and how it is the foundation for all that follows.

  13. So the tea baggers want us to go back to the time when women and minorities weren’t allowed to vote. Figures.

    • 6176746f6c6c65

      No, I think they would swallow hard and accept the amendments, but I could be wrong…

    • So they want to pick and choose which amendments support the Constitution? I see.

      • 6176746f6c6c65

        What I see is that they would try to limit the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to former slaves’ descendants on the theory of original intent. I don’t know how they would try to get around the Nineteenth Amendment (its original intent is pretty clear).

  14. Zack!

    It’s very hard for me to look at this as a bad thing. In fact, the best possible outcome for Republicans (and, obviously Democrats) is for this to come to a final split. If they can find a way to let go of this batshitty base, they might be able to solidify their platform into something approaching respectablility.
    Course, they’d still be Repubs, but hey, take it where you can get it.

    • lillacluvr

      The only threat to Democrats is that Independents will join one of the two groups.

      And if enough Independents bolt from the Democrats, then they are sunk.

      Unless, of course, it is a 3-way race and then probably the Democrats would have the edge – IMHO.

      • I think the danger is that without a viable opposition the Democratic Congress Critters behave like two-year olds.

        And there is currently no viable opposition. It’s easy to grow complacent when you’re up against one-year olds. If there are opposing ideas or alternate solutions you are forced to look closely at your own proposals to determine whether they are the best you have to offer.

        When was the last time you remember any member of the Republican Party having an idea or a solution — anything but petulant pouting and screaming “NO!”?

  15. 6176746f6c6c65

    Hmm, fnord, when they had a majority in Congress?