Romney to Tea Party: "I'm glad you've stood up and spoken up. Now sit down and shut up!" Tea Party to Romney: "Go to Hell."

In a recent interview with NewsMax, Mit Romney continues the Republican Party's assault on independent and third party activism and expands the party's effort to dictate the political strategy adopted by tea party activists in order to ensure that all oppositional energies are safely diverted into channels conducive to the reproduction of the ruling Democratic-Republican political establishment. Romney is quoted by CNN stating:
"Hopefully Tea Party candidates will run in respective primaries and they will either win or lose. And if they win, they will go into the general. If they lose, they won't, and they will get behind the more conservative of the two finalists." . . . "I'm really pleased that the silent majority is silent no longer," he said, predicting that the movement "will have have an impact on this election."
Romney perfectly exemplifies the arrogant paternalism of the two-party statist: "I'm glad you've stood up and spoken up, now sit down and shut up!" Romney's demand for the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government is being met with some amount of resistance. At Red Pills, Gary Shumway points out the contradiction inherent in Romney's position:
No thank you, Mitt, I am not buying your propaganda. We have been the fools watching the same old dog and pony show for the last 100 years and we are on the verge of losing our freedoms. That should tell us that uncritically voting Democrat or Republican . . . isn’t working for us. VOTE PERSON, NOT PARTY. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE – CONSIDER VOTING THIRD PARTY! . . . LOL .. the flip/flopper is glad you’re not quiet but he wants you to be quiet in the general elections! GO TO HELL, MITT!
The Libertarian candidate for US Senate in Florida, Alex Snitker, has also responded to Romney's misapprehension of the tea party movement in an open letter to the former governor:
I saw you speak on NewsMax about the tea party movement and tea party candidates who are running outside the Republican Party. I do not think you understand the tea party movement . . . This movement was started because politicians like you failed the American people. The Republican platform seems to be less about protecting the liberty of individual Americans, and more about regaining power at all costs. Regular Americans are turning to tea parties as an alternative to politicians like you, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee. Regular Americans are running for public office as third-party candidates, not because of a lust for power, but because of a sense of duty to preserve liberty for ourselves and our posterity . . .

You have dismissed the rise of the true Constitutional conservatives (libertarians) in your party. You imply that libertarians just do as they are told, and show up when summoned. You could not be further from the truth. I believe your attempt to marginalize the tea party movement is an extension of the deep concern you have for its implications.

Americans are beginning to vote principle before party. Republicans shoulder much of the blame for our problems, and a growing number of Americans no longer trust the GOP to do the right thing . . . In races that the best Constitutional conservative is running as a Republican, the people should vote for that candidate. By the same token, in races where the best Constitutional conservative is running as a third-party candidate, the people should vote for a third party. Voting for the lesser of two evils put us in the position we are in today.


Samuel Wilson said...

Romney sums up Bipolarchy thinking pretty nicely when he calls the Democratic and Republican primary winners "the two finalists" and asks conservatives to settle for "more" rather than "most." While I hope that a broader spectrum of ideologies might be better able to achieve compromise than the artificial all-or-nothing system of the American Bipolarchy, I do believe that ideologues should be able to represent themselves fully in any debate instead of settling for the pseudo-representation the major parties offer.

d.eris said...

hehe. Yes the phrase "the two finalists" is quite revealing. Democratic-Republican bipolar disorder is unquestionably pathological.