Posted on 09/14/2010 3:15:07 PM PDT by patriotgal1787
Rush Limbaugh based his entire show commentary on it Monday and Tuesday. So did Sean Hannity, and several other talkers. The battle is raging between establishment Republicans and the new vanguard of Tea Party-endorsed conservative candidates. The conventional wisdom going into today's primary race between incumbent and Washington insider Mike Castle and challenger Christine O'Donnell is that the Tea Party-endorsed candidate O'Donnell stands a good chance of unseating Castle for Delaware's US Senate seat. Need proof? Look no further than Alaska, Massachusetts, and Nevada to see recent upsets.
Amy Kremer, Director of the Tea Party Express says people have forgotten what happened back in January in the bluest state with Scott Brown, a Republican, winning a seat that had been held by the Kennedys for decades. "Party politics is not what we stand for. We stand for principle."
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmkzvMLKiA]
About Damn Time!!! We have been fighting this battle of “Progressives”
long enough. Thanks Rush,Hannity,Beck and others who are finally speaking
the truth. Throw the Bums out.
As I always say: “I am always a republican, but not always a Republican.”
Just ask that POS Cantor from Virginia.
Why not ask the pos Obama, Pelosi and Reid????
So the tea party now claims credit for Scott Brown's victory? I don't recall that he was a tea party candidate. He ran his campaign and raised funds via facebook, and tea party conservatives have been calling him a RINO and traitor nearly ever since he was elected.
No, the circular firing squad is more fun and counter-productive, besides.
You recall wrong. The tea Party endorsed and supported him although they weren’t as efficient as they are now. I think he may have even attended a rally or two.
But yeah...many have been attacking him since because his votes are contradictory to what they stand for. My response to that is they were incredibly naive if they thought a MASS politician wouldn’t make votes they disagreed with. It’s why I usually don’t give a damn about deep liberal state victories. I only supported Brown as an exception to stop the “health” bill. Whish, if not for a questionable loophole, should have killed it.
Same thing with Deleware. I am certain some of these people actually believe she’ll win the general and be a rock solid conservative. Umm...no IF she wins she won’t. I don’t really like her but I don’t expect her to win the general so I feel comfortable in supporting her for a primary win. My goal is to defeat Castle because his type of republican screwed up the brand the last time. If she wins I have no intention of sending her money because I don’t want her representing conservatism either. And this opens up more opptunity for the RNC to finance Angle or maybe they guy in WV...I’m sure this strategy infuriates some people out there but don’t really care. I want good conservatives elected to red and swing states. The rest are on their own to do what they like unless we have the rare exception of a Christie or a Castle. A Christie I’d support. A Castle/Chafee type I’ll seek to destroy. Just wish Illinous Republicans had gotten together and put up someone with a chance to torpedo Kirk.
I find it interesting that Kremer claims that the Tea Parties are not about party politics - but they have to back Republican candidates to get anywhere.
And that’s the way it OUGHT to be.
It’s time for people to knock it off with this “non-partisan” bunkum and get on board with taking the GOP for conservatives.
The tea party is not a political party, it is an ideal.
Scott Brown was definitely a ‘tea party’ phenomenon because he was MORE CONSERVATIVE than his challenger.
That’s all it takes to be ‘tea party’, whether your opponent is Rebublican, Democrat or whatever.
Not necessarily. If a Democrat candidate is MORE CONSERVATIVE than a Republican candidate, he/she should be supported by the TPM.
I don’t know of a case like that, but if there were, that’s how it should go down.
That is just too dishonest, too relativistic, for me to swallow. And the idea that the non-partisan ‘tea party’ can retroactively take credit for the Scott Brown phenomenon is disingenuous sophomoric nonsense.
Well, yeah, in that case, I would agree - they should support the Dem. I can’t really think of a situation - at least in this election cycle - where the Dem is actually MORe conservative than the GOPer. Both may be bad, but in every case I’m aware of, the Dem is worse.
The TP DID support one Dem this year - They came out for Minnick in ID-1 over Raul Labrador. Not sure why, since Minnick has a pretty non-conservative voting record (44% ACU rating).
That’s all it takes to be ‘tea party’, whether your opponent is Rebublican, Democrat or whatever.
You know what's funny? By the standards of some FReepers, this makes the Tea Parties a bunch of dirty RINOs.
Exactly.
There is no THE Tea Party (TM)
It’s the Tea Party Movement ... a groudswell.
Nobody owns it ... not Tea Party Express, not Freedom Works ... no one group.
Once one group owns it and it becomes THE tea party, it is finished.
IMHO
“Party politics is not what we stand for. We stand for principle.”.....
George Bush and John McAmnesty proved they didn’t give a rats ass about the conservative base. To hell with the establishment GOP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.