[smoothsailing]

Palin strongly opposed any debt limit increase, taking to her Facebook page to issue a veiled threat of “contested primaries” to freshmen members of Congress. But in the wake of the debt deal’s House passage Monday night, she acknowledged a partial victory for the tea party in turning the national conversation to spending and debt.
Nonetheless, she voiced displeasure with the concessions made to the president, and blasted the Republican House leadership.
“What happened to the pledge that our Congress has made to America, saying they would post bills online three days before they voted on them?” she said. “They’ve already broken that pledge, and doggone it, that’s what makes us disappointed in politicians in Washington, D.C.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60458.html#ixzz1TqEQOAGU

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’m not sure I trust Politico’s take on what she said either. I’d prefer to see the actual transcript.

[Jim Robinson]

The only “victory” for the tea party was that we got a lot of action and a lot of press and we scared the crap out of the business as usual establishment crowd. And we reminded them all that we’ll be coming down on them like a load of bricks right up to election day and then we’re going to take a whole bunch more of the constitution hating, big spending, big taxing, big borrowing socialists, progressives, liberals, RINOs and turncoats out! This was just a skirmish in the battle ahead!

Rebellion is brewing!!

I can see 2012 from my house!!

RINOs and turncoats take heed!! Get with the government cutting program or get the hell OUT!!

[rob777]

"Palin strongly opposed any debt limit increase, taking to her Facebook page to issue a veiled threat of “contested primaries” to freshmen members of Congress. But in the wake of the debt deal’s House passage Monday night, she acknowledged a partial victory for the tea party in turning the national conversation to spending and debt."


She also referred to the deal as a "step in the right direction according to Jim's post. I am sorry but there is a big inconsistency here. Either it is a major error in judgement to vote for the bill, a vote that is worthy of being threatened with "contested primaries", or it is a "step in the right direction", although imperfect. You do not threaten people with contested primaries if they voted for a bill that was imperfect, but a step in the right direction. I wish someone who is more consistent was the who the media turned to for quotes on this.