Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Limbaugh says.....

The Social Democrats lost the GOP governor's seat because the GOP establishment, the Social Democrats, refused to support Tea Party candidate.

The Social Democrats are doing everything they can to make sure no libertarian/conservative, Tea Party candidate wins any seat in anything.

BTW: The Montana Republican Party is going through the same thing with the Social Democrat wing and the libertarian/conservative/Tea Party wing.

The 2016 presidential race ought to be real interesting. I'm sure glad my life is just about over. A real civil war is coming.

Of course - they don't wanna compromise them comfy chairs in DC where all the money flows into.. Hell with doing what's right for the COUNTRY.. Nah, it's ME, ME, ME...

Not interesting - pre-ordained is a more apt word.. Hillary's a near lock.. I hear ya.. Can't come too soon for me.. And, at my age, I'll be right with 'em..

Both sides of the aisle will lose if any Tea party members get elected. They are all in bed with each other. It us verse them. They will both attack Tea party members.

Rush is wrong; it was the Libertarian who siphoned off votes from the TP guy.

Get yer talking points... Er... Logic... Straight!!

Except. He was no libertarian. He was a dem. schill.

And the gop stopped supporting kuccinelli on oct 1. Stated he was not winnable.

It was an obozo supporter who surges money into the faux libertarian candidate


Karl rove is to blane for this.

some Obama bundler gave money to the Libertarian dude as well.

Rush isn't wrong...mainstream RINO's are joining the Democrats in calling Tea Party candidates wackos...FWIW, Christie refused to endorse Cooch...but that is to be expected by someone like him.

The guy was no Libertarian. He proposed the most far-out wacko policies imaginable. Why the Libertarian Party supported him is beyond comprehension.

Myron

It appears to me that Bristle's libertarians are in bed with the Commie Dimocraps.

Not all Libertarians supported him...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ne-to-Vote-for-Libertarian-Robert-Sarvis


Also, he siphoned off a lot of Democrat votes as well. He really made little to no difference in that race...


Which means that Limbaughs observation seems pretty sound...

Yeah,...there's absolutely no difference between those who want virtually "no" government and those who want government to control everything.

The most amazing thing to me is,...people who make statements that are this fuggin' dense have the ability to turn on a computer and announce it to the world via an internet forum.

Looks like Sarvis got about as many votes as putting an "L" on the ballot behind the name of someone's dog.

Bristoe, I wouldn't entirely discount a few Ds voting L. I've seen them sing the praises of Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky in the same breath.

Nobody said commies were smart, informed, or sane.

He was a Democrat plant I doubt he had much Libertarian support unless the Democrat Party has taken over the Libertarian Party as well as the Republican Party.

The Libertarians of the Libertarian Party maybe but not the libertarians.

I used to have a position in the state Libertarian Party.
One reason I dropped out is many of them were more libertine than libertarian. Some of them would fit in well with a lot of Democrats.

I would agree with that which is why I'm a libertarian and anarcho-capitalist.

Derby_dude: I think you need to re-assess your contention (if you are talking about the Virginia Governor's race!)?
To begin with you might want to check the vote percentages that each of the three candidates achieved in that "governors seat" race.
demonrat = 48%
Republican = 45%
libertarian idiot = 7%
The biggest reason the worst human being in the world is now the Governor elect of Virginia is because of the idiots in the "libertarian" party "diverting" 7% of the votes!
NO... if's, and's or but's about that!
You doubt this ... well then why in hell did minions of the demonrat party dump MILLIONS of dollars into the iditotic libertarian candidates coffers and go to extremes to hide that fact?
The reason is obvious - to diminish the vote count of the Republican candidate by supporting the idiotic libertarian!
And that deceitful tactic worked perfectly - just like it did here in Montana in the 2,012 United States Senatorial race - with, by the way, almost the same exact percentage of the vote!
Yeah, the house establishment Republicans could have done more, and SHOULD have done more, but that is not the reason that the Republican candidate lost.
The lesson here is the idiots in the libertarian party will get 100% of NOTHING from the worst human being in the world (the Virginia Governor elect!) and they would probably have gotten 90% of what they wanted from a Republican Governor!
"libertarians" are idiots - plain and simple.
Traditional valued, pro-capitalist Americans are/and will be suffering immensely because of horrible results from elections like this one.
And thats a shame.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Please tell me you guys know that if there were a "tongue-in-cheek/facetious" icon I'd have used it in my post??

People like VG were spewing that same nonsense (contrasted w/ Rush's analysis) in another thread but that's all it is.

The GOP can and will ALWAYS blame SOMEONE ELSE (even the boogeyman) rather than assessing their own misguided loyalties.

The Party abandoned the good Conservative candidate who, contrary to their own "common wisdom" could win. The questions Party Plantation slaves like VG & many others need to ask themselves are:

1) If the GOP has any intention of being a viable "Conservative alternative" to the Dems, why did they do that?

2) What does the answer to 1 say about the '16 Pres primary//election?

(Hint: they won't be asking uncomfortable questions cuz they ain't prepared for the uncomfortable answers that quickly follow)