[Bokababe]

There is only one glaring missing element that I find troubling as it would appear to be a deliberate avoidance. I am hoping one of you can explain it. Tom lauds in the speech the GOP wins since the last election cycle. So why did he not salute the TEA party movement in any way given how its sentiments drove that win? He gave not hint of the TEA party in anyway.

Because he was speaking to all Californians, not just the Tea Party or Republicans.

I was at the April 15th 2009 Tea Party in Sacramento and Tom was the only politician invited to speak there. Tom also has the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus - -which is a libertarian leaning Republican organization.

The word "Tea Party" these days can mean a lot of things to different people. It isn't like it was a couple of years ago.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

“Because he was speaking to all Californians, not just the Tea Party or Republicans.”

No, not this particular speech. He was speaking to visitors and warning them that what has happened here (and to the CAGOP) could easily happen in their states.

And I made it pretty damn clear what I mean by TEA party movement. One because I have replaced RINO with SKUNC, which makes the threat far more clear. I am talking about the MOVEMENT that wants a no uncertain backing off from the current Statist, Agenda21 thrust that the ruling class is pressing.

Also, any hint of condescension really pisses us off.