O'Donnell and Angle will be the only tea party candidates worth mentioning by the MSM

Oooh! That’s going to leave a mark! Well, it’s official: the tea party movement has left its mark on the face of the American Body Politic. Both democrats and republicans have felt the effects of the TPM, and the slap may smart for quite some time. A slap across an otherwise stuporous face is precisely what the republicans needed, while democrats will attempt to call it anything other than what it was – a sizeable rejection to their liberal socialist agenda.

As I stayed up late on election night watching results pour in from across the nation, many thoughts crossed my mind. I was impressed by the rarity of what I was witnessing. In less than two short years, a unique grassroots political movement sprouted from the on-air rant of an American business reporter and grew to a fearsome stature. Also interesting was the ever-present ramblings of political commentators. Some were socialists, some were conservative, and some were clueless.

It seemed liberal socialist commentary fixated upon the O’Donnell and Angle races like they were deciding the fate of the universe. Perhaps, in the pundit’s minds they were. Smugly calling the two women “tea party candidates”, liberal after liberal proclaimed a rejection of tea party extremism while they downplayed other tea party backed candidates who were successful elsewhere in the country. I’m sure the MSM will spend the next several days in detailed analysis determining exactly how badly tea party credibility was hurt by the losses in Nevada and Delaware, and what it means to the future of the failing TPM movement.

Some so called conservative commentators failed to do much better. Many republicans rued the candidacies of O’Donnell and Angle. Apparently, if the two women had not been backed by the TPM, and not won their primary contests, better candidates would have emerged enabling the republicans to win the ten seats necessary for a Senate majority. They blamed the intransient “ideological purity” of the tea partiers for the trouble, which got me to thinking…what benefit does intransient ideological purity bring to the fight? Several benefits come to mind, but space will allow for only a brief exploration.

To begin with, I see a rejection of the idea of a practical politician: a man or woman who lacks any core beliefs, or integrity. Washington is already full of elected officials who seek to further their ambitions and protect personal viability at the expense of what’s best for the people they represent. How’s that good for the future of our country? But, does that explain why the tea party would support candidates opposing RINOs in their local primaries even if the tea party candidate appears to be the weaker of the two in the general? Why are they willing to sacrifice a candidacy to the “greater good”? I believe the answer is not that elusive. It has immediate positive effects on republicans, and long term negative effects for democrats.

As for how the democrats are affected, the DNC viewed the Nevada contest as a battle between Obama and the tea party. Period: end of story. Perception is paramount to the liberal socialist. Perception is the mask that hides the monster. They couldn’t allow Mr. Reid, the face of Obama’s policies, to be defeated by a neobarb (new barbarian) “tea party candidate”. I can’t imagine the amount of money and personnel hours spent in Nevada saving Reid. That’s money and time pulled from a dozen democrat candidates across the country. Many of those candidates risked their jobs in supporting the Obama agenda. In fact, pulling cash from those candidates made the news cycle recently. They were sacrificed so Obama could save a single figurehead like Reid. Saving Reid was practical politics at its worst. The final landscape of this election is much different because of the Angle candidacy alone. The ripples of that action will damn the democrats for years to come. No democrat candidate will trust the national party with any verve, and any democrat elected to Congress will be less likely to support a party line vote on a return promise because of it.

Republicans have learned, through their primary experience, they must refrain from practicing practical politics. No playing the ear mark game, or reaching across the aisle like Bennett (R-Utah) so loved to do. The lesson there: you probably won’t survive your state’s primary. O’Donnell helped to teach the republicans that lesson. The TPM caused all republicans to take a hard look at themselves, and to take stock in their core principles. They will be better for it.

To both women, I say thank you for your service. It is a rare thing for a person to be willing to endure what those two have in the service of others.

"A slap across an otherwise stuporous face is precisely what the republicans needed.

Hear, hear! And I suspect they'll need another slap in 2012 when they propose all the RINOs for POTUS and VPOTUS.

Republicans need a real awakening and I believe it is going to take a lot longer than four years to purge the impostors out of the party. If they refuse to change, it will simply demand a third major party to take their spot. I thank God for the Tea party and their guidance this election cycle because the Republicans left on their own would have failed us miserably.

What no one seems to be mentioning is that the Tea Party movement played a huge role in the gains in the House. The TP had great successes in supporting conservatives at all levels, including governors and state legislatures.

Having said that, if the TP moves forward and grows, and remains active, it definitely needs to vet the candidates it supports more thoroughly. This year there probably wasn’t time, but candidates with statements in their backgrounds about eliminating SS (Angle), or those who’ll talk about abolishing the minimum wage (Raese) need to be avoided like the plague because those ideas are pure poison in political campaigns, and also avoid the weirdness of O’Donnell.

Once such people win a nomination, they should be supported (unlike Rove who tried to damage them, and did), but the TP should avoid this sort of mistake in the future.

This year there probably wasn’t time, but candidates with statements in their backgrounds about eliminating SS (Angle), or those who’ll talk about abolishing the minimum wage (Raese) need to be avoided like the plague because those ideas are pure poison in political campaigns, and also avoid the weirdness of O’Donnell.

I disagree. You can talk about things like abolishing Social Security, or exploring and drilling for more of our natural resources if you're willing to continue talking about them when the crap hits the fan. If you don't, then yes, you've simply polished the bat for the other side and the media (okay, same thing) to use to bash your brains in.

O'Donnell and Angle raised HELL in this election..
as did the challengers in Mexifornia..

In 2012 the T-P Caucus WILL BE much much stronger..
And will probably rule the roost..

Then the chickens, roosters even Capons will raise a ruckus..
AND Foghorn Leghorn can run against that democrat duck.. Daffybama..

O'Donnell and Angle put up a hell of a fight this time around..
In 2012 the pecking order WILL CHANGE...

By that time Moonbeam Brown will have bankrupted Mexifornia.. Cuomo will have bled New York dry.. and Harry Reid will have closed down Las Vegas.. into a Scorpion Farm..

You can talk about things like abolishing Social Security, or exploring and drilling for more of our natural resources if you're willing to continue talking about them when the crap hits the fan.

I said nothing about not using our natural resources. Where did you come up with that?

But any who thinks throwing the abolition of the minimum wage, or ending SS into a campaign is a good idea has rocks in their head. Raese led in WV until he came out with his remarks on abolishing the minimum wage. He fell behind that week and stayed behind. And Reid used Angle's remarks about SS against her from the start, and that damaged her along with other remarks she'd made.

While O'Donnell and Angle were, unfortunately among last night's losing efforts, perhaps let's have a visual look at some of the winners!

Gov.-Elect Nikki Haley, South Carolina

Rep.-Elect Kristi Noem, South Dakota

Rep.-Elect Jaime Herrera, Washington

Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota.

A Palin assessment, as much for my own information as for others, but it might interest some FR members. Sarah Palin endorsed Angle, Boozman, Fiorina, O'Donnell, and Ayotte. We kept NH with Ayotte and won a new seat with Boozman but didn't win any of the rest. Is that a bad performance, or is the fact that her candidates ran well in three liberal states and made the Dems defend those seats instead of shifting the resources to other states still pretty good?

Sarah Palin endorsed Haley, Fallin, Martinez, and Brewer for Governor, and all four won. We picked up Oklahoma and New Mexico and kept FL and SC. I suspect MSNBC wants to talk about the 40% final record in the Senate and not the 100% record in the Governor's races.

Undecided for Senate: Dino Rossi. If you're in WA, watch for Dem fraud, Al Franken's vote counting clowns are probably on their way!

For the House, Sarah Palin endorsed winners: Bachmann, Noem, Black, Herrera, Ellmers, Adams, Blackburn, Foxx, Cory Gardner, Griffin, Joe Heck, Adam Kinzinger, Lummis, Candice Miller, Myrick, Joe Pitts, Sean Duffy, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Ros-Lehtinen, Jean Schmidt, Dan Coats, and Roy Blunt all won.

Sarah's unsuccessful House endorsements: Jackie Walorski, Ann Marie Buerkle, Teresa Collett, Beth Anne Rankin, Anna Little, Rich Iott, Mike Kelly lost in (mostly) close races.

House races for Steve Chabot, Star Parker, Ruth McClung - results are still not announced to my knowledge.

Considering that Sarah endorsed quite a few unknowns, I'd say her support is worth a whole lot of attention. It doesn't guarantee a win, but it's a good thing. [Note: I intentionally left out the incumbents that she endorsed, or at least tried to leave them out.]

I never said you personally said anything about natural resources no more than you personally said anything about abolishing the minimum wage. What I am saying is that if a candidate takes a so-called controversial position, which is what you said, the worst thing is to say it and run for the hills. In that formulation, you'll find drilling for natural resources as one of those so-called controversial positions.

Both Raese and Angle did a bad job in backing up their positions on their respective issues. That's my point. Don't say it unless you mean it and will defend it. We had the same problem with the class of '94 who backed off on things like defunding the NEA and, of course, playing goeernment shutdown chicken with Bildo Klintoon over the budget. Both those bats, especially the government shutdown bat, did serious damage to Republicans because they did not stand up for themselves.

Drilling and utilizing our natural resources is not a controversial position with Republicans and most independents. It’s only controversial with environmental whackos and most Dims, who unfortunately have been able to thwart most attempts to expand domestic energy production.

But ending SS and abolishing the minimum wage are extremely volatile and controversial issues with independents and probably a majority of Republicans. They’re great issues for candidates who want to lose elections. Someone can talk about saving SS, and reforming it if they are very clear that they plan to preserve it, but to talk of ending it is nothing but poison and a sure loser.

The Tea Party made it clear last night they are in it for the long haul. They have already mastered ignoring the MSM thought police and also challenging well-funded well-entrenched career politicians. For a party in their infancy they did great. No one is going to win 100% on election night. The fact that the MSM is spinning Reid winning as a TP decline is pathetic on their part. Reid is a classic career politician who is at the peak of his power and he barely won with full MSM and DNC support over a relative unknown candidate.

The Tea Party made it clear last night they are in it for the long haul. They have already mastered ignoring the MSM thought police and also challenging well-funded well-entrenched career politicians in both parties. For a party in their infancy they did great. No one is going to win 100% on election night. The fact that the MSM is spinning Reid winning as a TP decline is pathetic on their part. Reid is a classic career politician who is at the peak of his power and he barely won with full MSM and DNC support over a relative unknown candidate in a somewhat blue state.

The TP is more interested in changing the direction of the national conversation (from shades of grey socialism to black and white constitutionalism) at this point. The question is, will the Republicans clue in and reinvent their party to accommodate the TP members or continue being compromising spineless RINO’s?

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.