This is the fundamental difference between Tea Party votes and major party votes. The Tea Party doesn't want to compromise on freedom or on responsible government just to bring "results for Hoosiers", not at the expense of results for the next generation of Americans. I am rigidly opposed to communism, to socialism, to big government liberalism, and to spending $1.5T more a year than the federal government brings in. I don't see any flaws at all in rigid opposition to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, when their entire purpose in life is to subvert individual freedom.
I'm glad that Lugar is out; he was 100% wrong on compromise, which meant repeatedly splitting the difference between the current level of government intrusion and the level of government meddling in our wallets and in our lives desired by the far left. I hope the new Tea Party Senators and Congressmen will push for "compromise" in the sense of repeatedly splitting the difference between our current level of bloated government and a return to a limited and constitutional government. And I hope the far left will not default to reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the patriotic Tea Party.
Boy, you sure hit the nail on the head! Like yourself, I’m actually a moderate centrist. I’d love to eliminate whole government departments, but I’m eager to compromise for cutting them in half. Now THAT is moderation, and I sure hope the Democrats and RINOs default to reflexive votes for a rejectionist... Well, you made the point better than I.
There’s nothing wrong with compromise so long as we’re moving to the right for a change. That’s the bottom line.
"This is the fundamental difference between Tea Party votes and major party votes. The Tea Party doesn't want to compromise on freedom or on responsible government just to bring "results for Hoosiers", not at the expense of results for the next generation of Americans.
I would argue that Hoosiers- and people of all 50 states, for that matter- benefit the most under true Conservatism. When we had the closest thing to this ideal under Reagan and the Contract with America, we had explosive economic growth that benefitted everybody; when we strayed from this ideal (and the day was ruled by politicians like Lugar who helped further radical leftism), things went downhill fast.
there are SO MANY things wrong with that statement
First - THAT IS WHY HE WON! Why would he 'revise' his stance after winning with it?
Second- Why would someone 'revise' what they promised the voters? That is why YOU LOST- you lie to get elected then 'revise' your stance
Third- good bye RINO a$$hole... ... NEXT? (why oh why couldn't we get rid of McLAME the same way last time!)