Posted on 11/09/2010 4:08:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. James Inhofe, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate, rejects the idea that poorly vetted Tea Party candidates cost the GOP control of the Senate, as some other Republicans have suggested.
In a phone interview with The Hill, Inhofe derailed as "absolutely false" the argument put forward recently by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who said in a recent interview with an Alabama newspaper that Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin "cost us control of the Senate" and that Tea Party candidates generally underperformed in Senate races.
"The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware," Bachus said. "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
But Inhofe said the Tea Party movement was an asset.
"I applaud all the Tea Party candidates," he said. "They went the hard way, they did it through hard work and they stood up for the real issues — the debt, the deficit, ObamaCare. Those are the real issues. The Tea Party is the real reason we picked up the seats we did pick up."
Palin pushed back at Bachus in an e-mail to The Daily Caller on Tuesday, saying, "No wonder he’s not thrilled with people like me, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and all the others who also endorsed commonsense conservative candidates.”
hmm I’m not so thrilled with people like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee...
Inhofe: those that stood for the real issues were great. Problem is that most of the ones that lost were distracted by other wedge issues that had nothing to do with Obamacare, taxes and the debt.
And don’t get me started on %&(%$# Carl Paladino.
Inhofe tells it like it is.
These RINO stinkers have got to change or GO!
I like Inhofe, but wish he could make up his mind. On the one hand he’s for keeping earmarks, on the other he’s for the Tea Party. My head is spinning.
If there is a Senator the will not pledge his Life, Fortune and Sacred Honor to defend unalienable rights (like the life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness etc.) I want to give him a new job.
This phrase pisses me off. Vetting is something you do when you have the power to select someone. These candidates put themselves on the ballots, and the voters decided to make them nominees. Who was supposed to forbid them from running?
Who should voters have chosen, if not Christine O'Donnell? Mike Castle was clearly unacceptable to many, that's why he lost the primary. Should the voters have all gotten together and written in someone who would have been better? Is that even possible in Delaware?
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.