Conservative Repudiating the Insiders of the Republican Party aka Rockefeller Republicans

We are finding out daily how much the 'insiders' of the Republican Party are dissatisfied with our current candidates for President because Fox News and some websites like the Weekly Standard keep pushing it so much.  First, they have probably figured out that their chosen one Romney is not doing near as well as expected and  second the 'insiders' don't want someone from outside their arrogant circle.  Voters on the other hand seem to be pretty satisfied with their choices.

The bottom line, then, is that there is a difference between an electorate that is undecided and an electorate that is unhappy with its choices. It may turn out that GOP voters would welcome a new candidate -- few voters will ever tell a pollster that they don't want any more choices -- but that does not mean they are dissatisfied with what they have now. The much-discussed dissatisfaction, such as it is, is concentrated among Republican party insiders, not voters.

Just who are these 'insiders' of the Republican Party or as a lot of us call them 'establishment', 'country-club' or 'Rockefeller Republicans.'  IOTW, the members of the Republican Party who consider themselves the elitist insiders and who supported President George HW Bush over President Reagan in 1980.  Most have some ties back to the Nixon White House.  "Who is a Rockefeller Republican?"   The American Spectator has the best definition to date I have seen:

The Rockefeller Republican became immutably identified as someone whose philosophical moorings and political instincts lay not in the Constitution but rather with the American progressive movement and the liberal Establishment that movement had become. Or, as Rockefeller's longtime intra-party rival Ronald Reagan once described the problem to Time magazine:

"I think the division of the Republican Party grew from pragmatism on the part of some, the Republicans who said, 'Look what the Democrats are doing and they're staying in power. The only way for us, if we want to have any impact at all, is somehow to copy them.' This was where the split began to grow, because there were other people saying, 'Wait a minute. There is great danger in following this path toward Government intervention.'"

Reagan never left any doubt as to the fact that in his use of the word "some" he was decidedly including Nelson Rockefeller. 

Note this is from a earlier debate but is apt:

But Rockefeller was wrong. He had misjudged conservatives completely.

Which is precisely the pattern of misjudgment that Mitt Romney is exhibiting with every increasing moment he spends campaigning for the very Republican presidential nomination that eluded Nelson Rockefeller.

From the first time we heard about Romney considering running in 2008, we immediately put him in the 'Rockefeller' wing of the Republican Party.  His Dad who ran for President was good friends with Bush 41 and the rest of the establishment from the Nixon years.  When Romney wanted to give a major speech on his Mormon religion, Bush 41 immediately opened up the Bush Library at A&M for the speech.  Did any other candidate get the same treatment?  Not at all.

The one thing that is very odd was Senator Jim DeMint endorsing Romney in 2008 who was the 'establishment' candidate and then he goes out in 2010 and supports some candidates who never should have been running they were so far out of mainstream conservatism.  Why?  Who was DeMint carrying the water?  His choices helped ensure that Republicans did not take the Senate as he used the Tea Party Express (TPE) to work the states for the primaries giving us some odd candidates.  Does that mean that TPE is working for someone other than the rank and file Tea Party members?  Food for thought but when you connect dots that seems to be what you are finding.

When first reading the article that was sent to me, I didn't look that closely at the picture that accompanied the article, but I have now.  See if you see a problem with the picture being used for an article written last night:

First of all, Governor Pawlenty has dropped out of the race, and second, Rick Perry, John Huntsman, and Gary Johnson are not included in the photograph.  Don't you think when you have an article about voters being pretty satisfied with Republican candidate choices, that you would have a current picture?  BTW, this is the fault of the copy desk not the author of the article but the question comes to mind 'WHY' would the person insert this article that leaves out candidates?

The myth of Republican unhappiness with the fieldbyByron York Chief Political Correspondentposted 09/27/2011 

Recent efforts to coax New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie into running for president are the latest example of continuing dissatisfaction among some Republican insiders with the existing GOP presidential field. "Unhappy with field, GOP courts Christie," reports MSNBC. Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, called Herman Cain's victory in Saturday's Florida GOP straw poll "a vote of no confidence" in frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. "These are very weak frontrunners," Kristol said, urging Christie to enter the race as he had earlier hoped that Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan would run. John Heilemann, author of the '08 campaign bestseller Game Change, says the feeling is particularly strong among top Republican donors. "There's no doubt that there is a clamor in a lot of the Republican donor class, in this city [New York] and other cities right now, for Chris Christie," Heilemann said Tuesday. "It's deafening." 

There's no doubt the talk is accurate. Some Republican elites, not just members of the commentariat but also big GOP money men, are in fact unhappy with the field. But what about the voters? Is dissatisfaction with the Republican field widespread among the people who will actually decide the next GOP presidential nominee? 

Not really. "I do not know of any widespread unhappiness," says pollster Scott Rasmussen. 

"Our polling shows that the vast majority of Republicans still are not certain how they would vote, but that's a sign that it's still very early in the process, not a sign of unhappiness."
"I'm not sure I've seen any," says Republican pollster David Winston. "There is this sense that since we haven't gotten to a clear, decisive winner, then that means there must be dissatisfaction.  

But it could mean that people are still thinking it through." 

Anecdotal impressions support what the pollsters say. I have been in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida in recent weeks and talked with a lot of voters. While a few are unhappy with their choices -- there are always some voters who feel that way -- there just does not seem to be much overall dissatisfaction with the field. Voters realize there is no perfect candidate in the race -- that might be an understatement this time around -- but that doesn't mean they believe there is some perfect candidate out there over the horizon, waiting to enter the race. 

State-level polling also does not suggest that dissatisfaction is widespread among Republican voters. A recent Suffolk University poll of New Hampshire voters found that 68 percent say they are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the field, while 30 percent say they are very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied. Breaking down those numbers, 16 percent say they are very satisfied and 52 percent say they are somewhat satisfied with the field. Among dissatisfied voters, 19 percent say they are somewhat dissatisfied, while 11 percent say they are very dissatisfied. Rasmussen says that 11 percent -- the number of people who are most intensely unhappy -- is a very, very small number. 

"I am somewhat irritated with the desire to pick a winner now," says Rasmussen. "Most voters still have the quaint notion that the election will be held in 2012, not 2011…My view of the GOP race is that Romney has won the establishment semi-finals by beating Pawlenty and Huntsman. Now, the outsider candidate has to be selected. GOP voters would prefer to vote for an outsider, but want to make sure it's the right outsider, and no one has closed that sale yet. Establishment Republicans (and some Democrats) seem puzzled that GOP voters aren't flocking to Romney, and that's probably causing some of the stories you're hearing about." 

The bottom line, then, is that there is a difference between an electorate that is undecided and an electorate that is unhappy with its choices. It may turn out that GOP voters would welcome a new candidate -- few voters will ever tell a pollster that they don't want any more choices -- but that does not mean they are dissatisfied with what they have now. The much-discussed dissatisfaction, such as it is, is concentrated among Republican party insiders, not voters.   

Excerpt:  Read More at Washington Examiner

There is no better example than how the Republican insiders/establishment are not conservative then their pushing Governor Chris Christie (NJ) to run.  As we highlighted in the article below, Christie is not a conservative on most issues.  The video from his campaign in October 2009 looks like a Democrat video with all the references to Obama but yet this is the man the insider/establishment wants?  

Look at it more in-depth and you discover that Fox News is a willing accomplice with the insiders/establishment types but then Ailes goes back to the Nixon years right along with their group.  Is that the tie that binds them all as part of the Rockefeller wing which has become very diminished over the years?  That group controls a lot of wealthy donors who want to keep the soft money policy in place, but they don't come close to controlling the votes of rank and file Republican conservatives.

Cannot believe after all these years, we are still seeing that same group from Nixon along with some of their sons trying to control an election once again.  Their idea that someone is 'entitled' to run is so wrong in so many ways and what gave us Bob Dole.  They want to give us a throw-away candidate so in the next election we can elect someone of their choosing.

When President Reagan was nominated in 1980, it put a massive roadblock in their plans.  What did the Nixon group do -- threaten not to support Reagan if he didn't choose George HW Bush for Vice President who was one of the leaders of the Rockefeller wing.  That may have been one of the worst mistakes Reagan ever made.

Now this same group is once again trying to choose our nominee.  Fortunately, it is not going to happen so they won't get their wish to have a weak candidate so that Jeb Bush can run in 2016.  Time for the Rockefeller Republicans to understand they may be wealthy but they do not control the Republican Party at the local level.  We can can actually think for ourselves and don't need some guys in a board room telling us how to vote.

If you want an establishment candidate, vote for Romney who is supported by the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party led by Bush 41 with the help of Karl Rove.  If you want a candidate who is one of us, conservative, and has a track record of jobs for Texas, then your candidate is Rick Perry.  Very simple -- Rockefeller insider types versus the conservatives of the Republican Party.  As the sons and daughters of parents who supported Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan, we are now saying to the elitists to get on board or get out of the way as the day of their picking our candidates will NEVER happen again.  No more moderate liberals who flip flop need apply to run for President of the United States under the Republican banner.