Tea Party Candidate May Ensure A Harry Reid Win

Flopping Aces ^ | 02-13-10 | Curt

[Starman417]

This is just beyond asinine. (h/t doubleplusundead)

Sun columnist Jon Ralston is reporting that the Tea Party has qualified as a third party in Nevada and will have a candidate in the Senate race to battle for the seat held by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The party has filed a Certificate of Existence but needs to get 1 percent of the electorate to vote for its candidate in November to permanently qualify, according to the report.

Ralston reported that Jon Ashjian will be the Tea Party's U.S. Senate candidate on the November ballot. Ashjian still must declare his candidacy.

Awesome.....this goes a long way towards ensuring Harry Reid stays the Senator of that State.

Read more at floppingaces.net...

[onyx]

LOL. Not clever on my part? LOL.
Just a lucky or unfortunate misplacement of ~snip~? LOL.

[SaraJohnson]

I’m not happy about anyone running a third party candidate in this race against Reid. So stupid!

[Syncro]

The Independent American Party of Nevada, which is the state’s affiliate of the Constitution Party, has more than fifty thousand registered voters in the state. But they will almost certainly have little effect on this race. Same goes for this group, only more so.

Marginalizing the effect that third parties can have on an election is a good tactic to get people to not fight against it.

Ask Ross Perot what the effect can be.

[Syncro]

Har, VERY clever on your part onyx.

There used to be a June Clever in Fire Talk years ago, had a real wholesome family IIRC. Had a son named The Bev

[Chunga]

Dear FS (freak show),

The TPM is not 3rd Party affiliated.

Guess that point was lost on your feable mind.

E01

As the ability to spell "feeble" was lost on yours.

[onyx]

LOLOLOLOL.

[SoCalPol]

Sarah Palin’s dad was in Nevada campaigning for Danny Tarkanian.

He is a Conservative Republican
http://tark2010.org/

[Lancey Howard]

Gee, who saw this coming?
Count on “tea party” “leaders” to help the rats from one end of the country to the other.

[Springfield Reformer]

OK, lets analyze this.

Back toward the beginning of the thread, there’s the usual back and forth about the pros and cons of third parties (full disclosure: I’m with the Constitution Party). No clear winner.

Then, in post 56, you get tired of substantive arguments and hit him with the following:

“The fact that you are the Party Chairman for a competing political party, would explain your agenda on this thread”

And you will repeat this theme several times over in later posts, adding terms like “professional” and “its his job,” or some such expression, just as you did in at least two other threads I can think of, one of them being the “Palin isn’t pro-life” thread.

At some point, EV breaks down and calls you a thread nanny, a bore and a punk, because he realizes that once again, you are no longer relying on the substance of your own arguments but are trying to undercut his reputation with other readers by inferring he’s no more than a paid political hack.

No, you don’t call him that by name, but under the law, defamation, an attack on character, doesn’t have to be direct. Innuendo is actionable slander. And it may reasonably be expected to draw an angry reaction. Sort of an inverse of the golden rule: Expect from others the reaction you would have if they did to you what you are doing to them.

So what you appear to be trying to communicate to other readers is that he’s only arguing for third parties because he’s a chairman for one, not because he really believes in third parties on the basis of reflection and principle. He is calling you irritating because you are accusing him of being dishonest. I think he’s letting you off easy.

Furthermore, you never fully, successfully address his substantive arguments for the fluidity and unreliability of the conservative presence in our rigid two party monopoly. You don’t want others to think he might just really believe in third parties because he’s reasoned his way to the conclusion that the current two-party party is really over.

Now I respect that people can disagree on this subject. But why can we not keep the argument on the level of factual and logical analysis? Why would I or anyone else care what his party affiliation is if his arguments can be evaluated on their own merit? I hate the witch-hunt mentality. I really do.

[Springfield Reformer]

I’m going to bed now. If you wish to continue this discussion, I will not be back at it until later tomorrow. Peace.

[onyx]

You betcha!
Sarah’s family have been campaigning for Danny Tarkanian.

[ansel12]

Post 56 makes my point perfectly, it was the proper response and I was correct, the people did not know that the poster was a third party chairman, which explains his posting striving to defeat his opposition, the Republicans, and advance his formal agenda as the actual leader of a "third party".

To: EternalVigilance; CajunConservative; ReyTurner

The RINOs who run the Republican Party love the attitudes expressed on threads like this one. Y’all are helping pave their way back to power.

Some people here may not realize that you also run a political party, and it isn't the Republican party.
The fact that you are the Party Chairman for a competing political party, would explain your agenda on this thread.

56 posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:54:41 PM by ansel12

[hocndoc]

I’m not sure who runs the party - see #337 and the surrounding conversation at this old thread:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2059761/posts?q=1&;page=251

All this time, no explanation

[ansel12]

I’ll read that tomorrow or Monday, thanks.

[101voodoo]

There is no “TEA PARTY”, there is a “TEA PARTY” movement. The term Party is being used by the Left as political term when in fact it was devised to call attention by today’s followers to the reasons behind the original Tea Party in Boston Harbor during December of 1773.

[Eddie01]

They have no idea what they are dealing with. Tea Party folks are really really smart and really really focused on restoring America to her greatness.

Little crusty bivots stuck to the asshairs of life like this guy will be sitting all dejected and disallusioned like Daschel after Novemeber.

Think I’ll save this offline and make a point to remind
Curt the bivot of his crustiness.

[Eddie01]

what’s your point?

[Eddie01]

RT44,

It has been a strategy of the TPM to avoid the loser strategy of trying to start a 3rd party.

If you’re so thin skinned that you would allow America to fall to statist because your offended by a few comments then who needs you.

BTW: Tea Party = Democrats is arguabley to most ignorant thing I have ever seen anyone post. Sure you shouldn’t be back with your friends at DU Mr. Soros.

[EternalVigilance]

Also dropping in here to say I'm glad to see all the wisdom about third-party runs on this thread. EV, I applaud your energy and patriotism but I agree with those who say we have to unite behind one candidate against Reid.

My post #71 made it clear that I agree with you. One would think from some of the posts here that I never made it.

In fact the the Republicans have several solid conservatives running in this primary, and as long as the GOP primary voters pick one of them they are almost certain to win in the current environment.

Thanks.

[EternalVigilance]

It's because many people who self-identify as conservative when asked the simple question like the sound of the word conservatism but if confronted with the actual issues one by one they would run screaming in the other direction.

I disagree. I think if conservatism is explained properly in terms of America's founding principles, there are a majority of citizens in every state who still agree with those principles. The problem is that they haven't had political leaders who actually understand and believe in them.