Posted on 01/27/2010 10:49:56 AM PST by mek1959
Got your attention! Here’s an interesting memo I obtained over at the Atlantic.
freedom-works-internal-memo
This memo, which hasn’t been validated, but is being reported on by Fox News, purports to provide a “Target List” of candidates for the Tea Party to presumably unseat in 2010. Listing them under the heading of “Enemy of Liberty” or “Potential Enemy of Liberty,” one quickly, with even the most cursory attempt at fairness, concludes that this is not a Tea Party Target List, but instead a republican target list of democrats under the guise of the Tea Party. How do I conclude this? Well, assuming the list is accurate, and I see no reason not to, there are 45 names on the list. Of those 45 names, 42 are democrats (really it’s 44 because 2 of the names are primary challenges). So, am I to conclude from this that there are no republicans who might be enemies of freedom?
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
WHO CARES!?!?!?!
If Freedom Works has a list and want to encourage the Tea Party MOVEMENT to help, so be it...
The Tea Party Movement belongs to NO ONE.. It is a MOVEMENT...
I am sick of folks who claim to be conservatives attacking each other....
DO WHAT YOU CAN TO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN DC.....but stop worrying about who else is fighting it differently than you....
As a good friend put it so eloquently...
WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY for DIVISION right now...
btw— YES— there are plenty of Pubbies that need to be challenged, and the PRIMARIES are the BEST Place to do it...
but to accuse Freedom Works of hypocrisy on FR just makes no sense to me....
so what am I missing?
“...I am sick of folks who claim to be conservatives attacking each other....”
Yes, yet there will always be some infighting. What is it about these Lefty pundits and pop sophistos lately that are pointing out that the Tea Party types are not a monolithic block?
We vary greatly and include Ron Paul types to Holy Rollers but most of us agree on the economic basics and don’t wish to remain silent while the gov spending spree continues to put our grandchildren in debt. We also don’t want to see layers and layers of more bureaucrats overseeing healthcare and hospitals and our medical choices. I think the real story is how unified we are on those basics.
I happen to agree with you...
I was referring to groups attacking other groups...Tea Party this VS Tea Party that....
Levin attacking Beck....
FReepers jumpin on a Palin thread to attack Palin..or a Hannity thread to attack Hannity...
what an extraordinary waste of time, effort, and resources...
I guess I should have clarified and expanded...
I love the Paulites and the Holy Rollers... they all have a heck of a lot more sense than 90% of the folks “ruling” in DC.....
You're going to have to get used to it. Some "conservatives" are also "one issue voters".
So a candidate can be everything you ever wanted, but be wobbly on one issue (illegals, abortion, etc.), and that automatically makes them the enemy.
There can be no incremental steps towards the right for some.
It's "all or nothing" and as we have seen for some time now, it is almost always "nothing" - followed by another left leaning, big government politician being elected.
What I do is try to ignore the "one issue voters' and not respond to them, except to say we disagree, and move on with no further discussion.
I think many miss the point of the article...both parties support Big Government and it’s unfair, on face value to “target” one over the other.
Show me the candidates that want to reduce the size of government from 28% of GDP to pre-progressive era 5% of GDP and then you’ll understand the passion of many in the Tea Party.
Co-opting a movement to put the republicans in charge in DC seems, at best, a lackluster solution to $106 TRILLION federal debt run up by both parties.
"it’s unfair, on face value to “target” one over the other"
Well, if you are a one issue voter, then I can see how you'd take that position.
"Show me the candidates that want to reduce the size of government from 28% of GDP to pre-progressive era 5% of GDP and then you’ll understand the passion of many in the Tea Party."
I've never seen one. (Ron Paul maybe???) But then since there isn't one in the race, do you advocate stepping away and not supporting anyone?
"Co-opting a movement to put the republicans in charge..."
Hold on there partner! I NEVER suggested that. But I do think we need to be wise in recognizing that someone will be elected to fill each and every seat available, and we need to fight tooth and nail to find, support and elect conservatives to each and every one of them.
But once the primaries are past, we either support the better of the two choices, or we inevitably allow others to choose for us.
And look at how that's been working so far.
:)
Look at the list again...see how many republican LEADERS voted FOR Medicare Part D (a $1 TRILLION entitlement) and didn't make republican leader Dick Armey's "Tea Party Target List." BIG GOVERNMENT is the problem and I see no candidate from either party paying anything other than lip service to drastically reducing the size of big government. How about some candidate coming out and saying..."if I'm elected, I intend to initiate legislation to reduce federal spending to pre-progressive era period of 5% of GDP." Very unlikely.
I am FINE with BOOTING REPUBLICANS!
BOOT EM!!!
I take issue with demonizing Freedom Works.....or any other NON-Partisan grassroots movement out there trying to fight BIG GOVERNMENT!
geeshk.....
truly....do I need to pass out Q-tips with every post?
you’re right... instead of Q tips I should said GLASSES...
did you READ what I wrote? or just react because your feelings got hurt within the first 2 words...
I wasn’t directed to YOU, but at the author of the article....
folks around here are so busy attacking each other over Palin and Beck and Brown, etc... that we waste time.....
I have spent a LOT of time trying to fix that, not add to it.. and I am sick of others who spend so much time ADDING to it...
And just because I posted the article doesn't mean I was attacking anyone on Free Republic. I think the author had a legitimate point that needs to be viewed.
With that said, we'll just agree to disagree on this one but I vociferously defend the posting of the article.
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.