Posted on 08/13/2010 6:11:59 AM PDT by MichCapCon
A number of pundits here and nationally have pointed to recent primary results as evidence that the Tea Party movement is ineffective or a failure. These analyses are flawed, because they are based on a conventional Republican vs. Democrat electoral politics worldview. This misses the Tea Party’s rejection of the entire ruling class establishment, including the major political parties as currently constituted...
(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...
MI ping
Spin; outright lying; and race, income and gender baiting are the only arrows left in the the Marxist quiver.
3 of my 5 votes went the way I wanted them to. I qualify that as a success.
If that's the case, then why is it that the majority of self-identified Tea Partiers are registered Republicans?
Now Michigan has the choice between Jennifer Granholm's third term or the second coming of Bill Milliken. We lose either way.
Yes, I'm shouting again. I am a registered Independent, and I am asking the GOP to close the primaries. Either close them, or find a way to winnow down the choices before the actual open primary vote. Or, have some kind of rule that the nominee must obtain 51% of the vote, or face a run-off.
I am very leery of Synder, and I sincerely believe that crossover Dems were responsible for his win, not Republicans. (Or conservative-libertarian minded independents ;)
Been reading this crap. Megan Kelly asking if Palin should stay out of the primaries.
Palin’s candidates are usually dark horses. She instills some enthusiasm for them, people who perhaps would stay out home and not vote, come out and vote...So instead of one candidate with no competition we have two, and a bigger turn out.
In short the Tea Party and Palin endorsements is bringing more conservatives into the game, and more likely that they will vote in September.
These people are scared to death about what might happen.
If Feingold, Reid and Boxer lose then we take over the Senate.
I’m not expecting anything, but right now this might be the biggest route in history in the making.
Keep blaming George BUsh yo @ holes...
Sounds like someone else is attempting to set the parameters more to their liking. The tea partiers can’t be forced into a specific mold.
I suspect most regular folks type tea partiers see the nomination of former GOP congressman and “career politician”, Tim Walberg as a good thing.
What I see as the most significant message is that EVERYONE IS RUNNING AS A CONSERVATIVE, EVEN THE DEMS. This needs to be the message. If Obamaism is so great, why is NO ONE running on it?
Michigane is a frakin’ rat hole, literally. All one needs to do is look at Detroit to see the future of the nation under the libtard and progressive Dems........ =.=
Where the Tea Party dies, so dies the local govt.
The first tea parties were held on April 15, 2009. So the movement has been around for only some 16 months. *ANY* victory the Tea Party has so soon against the long-established, corrupt Democrat and GOP parties is impressive.
Saved me from posting something quite similar. Thanks.
LLS
I suspect most regular folks type tea partiers see the nomination of former GOP congressman and “career politician”, Tim Walberg as a good thing.
Yes, and those are exactly the points I've been trying to make here on FR for months!
Who are Tea Partiers? They are conservatives, for the most part, people who are concerned with the acute problems of spending, taxation, huge debt, etc., but who largely are also pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration, etc. (i.e. social conservatives) as well as supporting our troops and supporting a strong defence of the United States on the world scene (i.e. defence conservatives). The fiscal issues just happen the be the acute agonists for us at the moment, so that gets the most noise.
Tea Partiers are NOT, however, libertarians for the most part. Indeed, the trawling I've done on libertarian sites tends to suggest that hard-core libertarians, at least, tend to be contemptuous of Tea Partiers (for not going "far enough," for being foolish enough to think they can change the system through activism, for not supporting Ron Paul, etc. etc. etc.).
Survey after survey suggest that a little more than half of self-identified Tea Partiers are registered Republicans. A little less than half are independents who used to be Republicans. Only a very small (low single digits) minority are "true" independents and "conservative" Dimocrats.
Walberg is the perfect example of the short-sightedness of the "toss 'em ALL out" mentality. Look, if we do retake the Congress, we need people who know the ins and outs. I don't mean people who know how to scratch backs and deal with lobbyists, but I DO mean people who will understand how to use things like parliamentary procedure to our benefit. That's much easier to learn when you have some old conservative pros teaching you than when you're all a bunch of wet behind the ear young bucks.
Walberg is a solid conservative - regardless of whether he's been in Congress before or not. MOST of our representatives are actually solid conservatives. The problem is that 95% of the media time devoted to Republicans is given to the RINOs like McCain, Graham, and the Evil Twins from Maine. So, people (including a lot of FReepers) get it into their heads that, by gum, THAT is what the GOP is, THAT is what all Republicans are - even though this is NOT the case. But who here, who is not from these states, can name more than a handful of "unknown" Republican Congressmen from, say, Alabama or Utah or Illinois? Probably not very many - even though most of these guys are actually conservative and on our side.
I just can't jump onto the GOOOH anti-incumbency bandwagon. If somebody is an incumbent and is a solid conservative, I will support them. If they're a RINO, then primary them and get them out of there.
There are few things in life more guaranteed to produce more disappointments than MI Republican primaries.
I never bought into the “Vote out all incumbants” thing. It seems pretty foolish to punish the good with the bad.
Exactly! Even the Dems are running away from him.
I suppose, then, the question becomes, "What, precisely do you mean by saying you are a 'Conservative'?"
Does it mean that you are all for "smaller government" ... uh, except when it comes to appeasing Sr Citizens (who vote in large numbers)-- then, Social Security and Medicare are untouchable "third rails". Or, you are for "smaller government"...um...except when it comes to farm subsidies ... auto bailouts...etc., etc.
Thanks for letting me babble, LS.
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.