The American Spectator

Tim| 2.8.10 @ 12:32PM

Of course the Republicans want to co opt the tea party: that's what politicians do.
If they succeed, what then?
We'll find out about six months into the Jeb Bush administration with it's national healthcare plan and 5 trillion dollar deficits and invasion of Iran

Richard Cummings| 2.8.10 @ 3:18PM

God forbid! But I do think Palin now has ground troops from the tea party movement for her bid for the 2012 nomination and she won't have to pay them. All she has to do is take out Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire and she is home free. She will pick Scott Brown as her running mate. If the economy is still terrible, she will have a good shot.

victor| 2.8.10 @ 8:43PM

Richard:
"If the economy is still terrible, she will have a good shot."

Even if the economy improves, most people are not going to vote for the ones who gave them this crap sandwich.
The Tax and Spend, and Spend some More Party will be gone.

Palin-Brown 2012

Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 2.8.10 @ 12:37PM

We'll find out about six months into the Jeb Bush administration...

No facking way. Two squishes were good enough; it's not worth finding out if the second son is one as well.

Charles Newman| 2.9.10 @ 10:06AM

Your point is valid but did you not recognize the sarcasm of the post your were responding to?

Tom Degan| 2.8.10 @ 12:50PM

I'm sorry, but if Sarah Palin is the candidate for president three years from now, It is going to make my life a whole hell of a lot easier. If she wins it will make my life a dream come true. As a blogger, I will never again have to touch my computer keyboard. These things will write themselves.

I know this sounds exceedingly selfish on my part and I am embarrassed to say it in so public a forum. I hope she never goes away. For the self-described political satirist, she is the gift that keeps giving and giving and giving....

I'm so ashamed.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen NY

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.8.10 @ 1:20PM

Hey Tom,
Uh...who gives a darn if you blog? How many hits do you get...twice from the same person? heh

I'm sorry folks, but I gotta' say it: "Tom, you are a dumbass."

...See...we know you are a dumbass...because you still live in NY. heh.
(forgive me newyorkers, I know most of you have applied for a visa to Texas. We are dealing with long lines. Please, be patient.)

Rich| 2.8.10 @ 1:26PM

I nominate this reply for the "funniest-but-truest" reply of the day. Hail Ken the Texican!

ares-san| 2.8.10 @ 1:34PM

Keep on trying guys! Just as long as the lot of you stay out of Montana.

Dwight| 2.11.10 @ 11:22AM

Yes, all retards please go to Texas. You'll find you fit in just fine there. Please do not have children or leave the state.

victor| 2.8.10 @ 2:30PM

Tom Degan:
"As a blogger, I will never again have to touch my computer keyboard. These things will write themselves."

I can attest to that. Having been to his bogsite, his columns appear to have been written by the proverbial roomful of monkeys typing on a roomful of typewriters for a roomful of bananas.
At the end of his rainbow is not the pot of gold, but a pot of baked beans.
And you know how much gas baked beans produce.

GregA| 2.8.10 @ 1:01PM

The question arises, “Should the movement revolt from outside the established system, or reform from within?” Which would be more efficacious in advancing conservative tenets? Unlike the American Revolution and the Secession of the South, we do not yet see a complete polarization of ideals, purposes and leaders. We see overlapping intrigues and questionable motives; in short, politics as usual.

As I attempt to teach my children about how two-party politics works at the present time, I tell them that an examination of professional wrestling makes an excellent example. Up in the ring, the opposing forces make a good show for the people; in all appearances good vs. evil. But when it is all said and done, the performers are in the dressing room, drinking beer together, slapping each others backs and counting the money they have taken in from folks who can‘t afford it.

May God Bless America once again.

peterike| 2.8.10 @ 1:23PM

Don't worry Tommy m'boy. I'm sure no matter what happens, you'll still continue to churn out tedious Leftie bilge on your blog. Your writing shows no evidence of any connection to reality as it is, so what matter the events of this material world? Back to your spaceship now.

TJ| 2.8.10 @ 1:27PM

A similar problem happened to the Reform Party in 2000, and they have never recovered.

Charles Newman| 2.9.10 @ 10:20AM

The problem of the reform party has (so far) been avoided by the Tea Party. Their problem was that they became a political party and split the vote. If the Tea Party makes this mistake they will fail. Splitting the vote results in loosing the election every time. That's why you see all the liberals hoping this mistake will be made. If the Tea Party can help remove the trash from the Republican Party they will provide a useful purpose and accomplish their goals. As Glenn Beck said " Liars, cheats and thieves must go!" Arlen Specter is gone from the party and needs to be gone from the Senate. There are other examples. The standard for the ballot box is reasonable suspision, not reasonable doubt!

William R| 2.8.10 @ 1:33PM

On foreign policy she sounds like a doctrinaire NeoCon straight out of the pages of the Weekly Standard. The McCain residue.

Nancianne| 2.8.10 @ 1:50PM

Are you kidding? She doesn't even know what foreign policy means. How could possibly articulate a policy????

William R| 2.8.10 @ 3:21PM

She's being tutored on foreign policy by this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Scheunemann

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:12PM

Is this the same WilliamR who is in agreement with the Hammas Accord? The one who wishes Israel obliterated?

Herman King| 2.8.10 @ 2:34PM

Palin is a neocon who has an Israeli flag in her office (or had). William Kristol suggested her as a running mate for McCain.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:41PM

Is that why you can't tolerate her, Mr. King? Because she has a flag of Israel in her office?
More little men crawling out from under those rocks, folks!

victor| 2.8.10 @ 8:49PM

Why so Syrias?
Sarah's Office:
http://aroundthesphere.files.w.....l-flag.jpg

Siegfried X| 2.8.10 @ 1:34PM

Conservatives need to take control of the Republican Party. That is the only way to consistently beat the Democrats, the only tool that will do it.

But until Obama woke them up, most conservatives didn't believe that. The conservatives refused to fight RINOs for control of the Republican Party, so of course the liberal Republicans controlled it. The RINOs won by default because conservatives didn't show up for the fight.

So every election the liberal Republicans would rig it so that mostly RINOs were on the ballot, and conservatives would brag about how they "held their noses" and voted for the Democrats-In-Republican-Clothing.

I have no doubts that my fellow conservatives could win the fight for the Republican Party, IF THEY EVER TRIED TO FIGHT IT. After all, Ronald Reagan did, he won both fights, for the Republican Party and then against the Democrats. But I question whether conservatives will really keep fighting the RINOs.

Nancianne| 2.8.10 @ 1:36PM

Sarah Palin is a joke. She has NO ideas and is merely a media creation and sensation. It would a a very low time in this country if this women ever achieved national office. Congress has been dumbed down enough already. We don't need her shriveled brain to further contribute to the mess.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:09PM

Nancianne, it sounds to me like you are able to recognize a good idea if it hit you in the face!
You will follow your Obama till he goes down in flames, won't you?

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:10PM

*(not able to recognize)

NCMike| 2.10.10 @ 2:17AM

Nancianne, your left-wing government school bias is showing. You cited not a single fact but simply parroted lefty talking points. Your only originality was your third grade name calling. Here's a clue: Sarah Palin's attraction is not her "ideas", but her principles, a concept far beyond the limits of your moral relativist indoctrination. Her oft repeated principles include individual freedoms, private property rights, a market (not government) driven economy, limited government, lower taxes, and strong national security. They are not new ideas, but principles that have made this country strong, exceptional, and a magnet for all those seeking opportunity, not hand-outs. It's obvious you were never exposed to these "ideas" in school, but to those who have believed in them and will continue to do so, your infantile remarks about a dumbed down Congress and her shriveled brain say much more about you and your upbringing than your irrelevant whining about Sarah Palin.

Susan Salisbury| 2.8.10 @ 1:38PM

Uhhhh. Actually TH, The Reform party was a SEPARATE party that caused the Republican party to lose in two elections. By 2000, the people who had previously voted for the Reform party figured it out. Voting for a third party causes the person you want to lose, to win. In 2000, a lot of people remembered that fact and voted for Bush instead of Buchanan. Still, if the Buchanan voters had voted for Bush he would have also carried Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico.

And also, she didn't put out Stupaks's name by accident. Her message was, if you're a Democrat work for Blue Dog Democrats, if you're a Republican work for conservatives. That was her message. She also specifically and repeatedly eschewed the role of leader of the tea party movement and demonstrated her knowledge of the movement by referring to herself and those present as Taxed Enough Already. (TEA-- get it?)

Copyleft| 2.8.10 @ 2:02PM

The "grassroots" protestations would be more believable if a single Tea Partygoer were ever going to vote for anything but more Republicans, over and over again.

But everybody knows they won't. The GOP owns them, lock stock and barrel. Why pretend otherwise? You know the Republicans own your votes, and all the complaining and protesting in the world won't change that. You're still helpless tools of the GOP spin machine until you prove otherwise by NOT VOTIG REPUBLICAN.

Copyleft| 2.8.10 @ 2:02PM

Bah. Typo. "Voting."

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:06PM

Why on earth would I ever stop voting Republican?
Consider the alternative.
Consider your latter end!
Go Sarah!

MarciaJ| 2.8.10 @ 2:55PM

See Susan's comment above. Conservatives and libertarians vote Republican so as not to guarantee a tax-and-spend, socialist, liberal Democrat wins the office. I wish America would eschew the two party system and afford voters REAL choices.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 3:11PM

Marcia,
Susan's comments made sense. She said that voting third party caused the Republicans to lose.
I don't want the Republicans to lose, do you? The Republican party's platform is the correct one for our country, as Sarah has also said. She also said that realistically, we have a 2 party system. No person is going to be perfect, ever. If you put your faith in a person you will always be disappointed. I vote for the best party which best represents conservative values. That's the Republican party. Otherwise you end up with another destructive Socialist administration.

CNewman| 2.9.10 @ 10:35AM

Dear MarciaJ
Your idea sounds so good, until you realize that such a system removes all requirements for the advocates of evil to get or steal 50% plus 1 vote to win.

Karla| 2.8.10 @ 2:45PM

Copyleft: It's obvious that you know nothing about the Tea Party Movement. Google the National Tea Party website and read what they (myself included) stand for--all good common-sense values and solutions. Back to basics. Back to the Constitution (what a novel idea!). Educate yourself before you bash.

JAS| 2.8.10 @ 8:24PM

LMAO!! Of course most of them will vote republican, of the two parties the republicans are by far the closest to their views. Republicans are just slightly to the left of the Constitution, the democ-rats are left of Lenin. To entertain voting for a 3rd party is to commit suicide. The commiecrats will win hands down. The mission of the Tea Party movement as I see it, is to influence republicans to move back to the right to solidly support the Constitution. When after wandering 40 years in the wilderness the democ-rats find they cannot get elected, they will be forced to move right also and become something of a pro-American party. I know...hard to believe.

victor| 2.8.10 @ 8:56PM

JAS:
"To entertain voting for a 3rd party is to commit suicide."

There are those here who will do just that and call it "standing on principle".
Third parties never win and give you a result that you were not looking for.
The disgruntled "reform"ers did just that and we got two terms of Bill Clinton.
One term of Obama is already two terms of Carter.

CNewman| 2.9.10 @ 10:40AM

victor
Good post, I totally agree!!

TJ| 2.8.10 @ 3:03PM

I, of course know all about the Reform Party's impact on the Republican party. I was simply making a point the Reform Party is one example the of reform inside vs. outside debate, and Reform Party's implosion due to political infighting is an example of what also could happen to the tea party movement.

On the Reform Party, I don't think it fair to blame Republican losses on them. Republicans lost because those people left the party which is their choice. Republicans lost because they lost the faith of a considerable number of voters. Similarly Al Gore lost because he lost and not because Nader ran. Trying to restrict voter choices for your own convenience is sloppy, lazy politics. And there is plenty of that going around these days. Voters should be able to vote for whomever they want. And if you are better than the other guy it is up to you to prove it. Yes then we all live with the consequences. But that is democracy.

CNewman| 2.9.10 @ 10:28AM

Well said!!

CNewman| 2.9.10 @ 10:47AM

The comment above was not intended for TJ.
I strongly disagree with him.

rbblum| 2.8.10 @ 1:40PM

Most doubtful that S Palin has diminished the tea party movement; HOWEVER, just as Newt Gingrich had backed a Republican candidate that was not supported by 'the people' of New York, so, too, has S Palin backed a questionable Republican candidate by stumping for Rick Perry in his re-election bid for Texas Governor.

For the record, Rick Perry supported a Texas land grab that favored the North American Union railroad as well as other initiatives that were not in the primary interest of 'the people'.

Also for the record, Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina is more in line with the mindset of the tea party movement than either Kay Bailey Hutchison or Rick Perry.

martin j smith| 2.8.10 @ 1:45PM

Exactly who is this Klienheider anyway ? I do not like seeieng a piece which seems to be hit piece and not know who the person behind it is. I know full well that their are groups who have an axe to grind pro or against SP. My personal view is that the more I see hit pieces, the more I support her.
This does not mean I agree with everything she says. But there is enough positive in her for me to feel that Left and Rinos need people to stick it to them. SP is such a person.

victor| 2.8.10 @ 8:58PM

He's a fig newton of someone's imagination.
Go read the stuff "he" writes.
Typical Arriana or Markos Moussaka boilerplate and hyperbole.

Bob Miller| 2.8.10 @ 2:02PM

Some conservative purists won't be happy until they put the Democrats over the top once again. Hasn't this all-or-nothing attitude caused the nation enough grief already?

The Republican brand hasn't been so destroyed yet as to prevent corrective action.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:29PM

You are correct. These same purists are the ones who will throw their votes to the Left because no candidate is good enough. These are the ones who constantly sit back crying "There's RINO in the street!" Meanwhile they back people like Ron Paul the Blame America Firster, or won't vote at all because no one is good enough for them, the high and mighty ones. Sarah talked about this in her speech in Nashville the other day. She said something like that no one person will ever be perfect. You put your faith in the ideas, not in the person. People will fail you, good truthful ideas don't.

Siegfried X| 2.8.10 @ 3:04PM

Would you vote for Obama if he became a Republican?

It's an easy answer for me, has been for decades. I only vote for real conservatives. If there's one running in the Republican Party, that's my choice. Otherwise I vote for a third party conservative.

So if Obama ran as a Republican, I'd vote against him, just like every other liberal Republican. No voting for evil for me, the "lesser of two evils".

If Obama became a Republican and was supported by the party, it would prove that I had nothing to lose by voting third-party conservative, because the Republican Party had become so corrupted that it was just a clone of the Democratic Party.

And that already happened when Republicans nominated cap-and-trade, amnesty McCain in 2008, in a rigged nomination that let cross-over Democrats and winner-take-all voting choose an unpopular, leftist candidate.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 3:17PM

If Obama became a Republican? If you are saying that he had a true conversion, yes. But that isn't what you are saying, is it? You are saying if Obama "joined" the party. Two very different things. I believe you call that a straw man argument!

If you choose to vote third party you are part of the problem. You are looking for the perfect candidate, and you will NEVER find them.
The third party voter is partly to blame for the election of the country's worst President in history.
Sorry to see that you plan on doing it again!

JAS| 2.8.10 @ 8:31PM

They elected Bill Klinton too. I hope these Libertarian wingnuts got their thankyou notes from Klinton and Obumba.

CNewman| 2.9.10 @ 10:59AM

Margie, you are only partly right. Third parties are a mistake, but once the nomination process is over it may be the better choice. NY 23 almost worked! Control of the party machinery and the Primaries is where the battle must be fought. The Republican Party must offer good candidates if it is to succeed!

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:03PM

Hilarious!
The more Sarah Palin shines and succeeds the more the Leftist whiners lie about her!
It is truly laughable! Grown men come out from under their rocks with personal attacks, writers write outlandish pieces with outlandish titles, and the beat goes on!
GO SARAH!!

Garry Owen| 2.8.10 @ 2:11PM

Why not give a speech aimed at the Obama administration. After all, this administration seems to have no interest in the opinion of every day Americans. Why does Obama want to have a bipartian meeting on health care? Because he no longer has the super majority in the Senate. Do you think Obama would seek such a meeting in November of '09? No way. I believe the Tea Party will support any canidate who supports less government, lower taxes, less borrowing, less intrusion on our Constitution by the UN, and an open ear to We the People. These are the very things the Obama administration is refusing to do; therefore the present administration does not deserve the support of any Tea Party movement!

Karla| 2.8.10 @ 2:52PM

Well said and accurate, Gary. Tea Party critics undoubtedly don't know what the movement is about. They should Google the website and educate themselves, lest they come across as fools.

Laura Hollis| 2.8.10 @ 2:17PM

What a load of garbage. The same political movement that has utterly rejected being dominated by political parties is now - surprise! - going to be dominated (or "co-opted") by a political party?

You're dreaming if you think that. Tea Party Conservatives are DONE being taken for a ride by politicians. Anyone who agrees with their principles is welcome to come along. But no one - not Sarah Palin, and not anyone else - is going to make this just another branch of the Republican Party.

It's worth remembering that these people - in perhaps a less organized fashion - handed victories to the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and they knew damn well they were doing it, too. Their message to RINOs was, "We'll get your attention one way or the other." And they did.

That attitude is even stronger now. And if you don't believe me, I have two words for you: Dede. Scozzafava.

Sarah Palin has promise, but she ain't drivin' this bus.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 2:32PM

You're not "driving this bus" either. So excuse me for interrupting your high and mighty speak.
I'm not quite sure who you think is "running this bus" but it isn't any one person, including you!
Go Sarah!

Siegfried X| 2.8.10 @ 2:32PM

"Why not give a speech aimed at the Obama administration. "

Because conservatives spend way too much time talking about the Democrats, which means way too little time talking about conservatism and the Republican Party.

Bob Miller| 2.8.10 @ 2:33PM

Without some actual drivers the bus will get you nowhere.

Everly Waverly| 2.8.10 @ 2:35PM

To me the "Tea Party" is nothing more than a vehicle for expressing frustration in the leftist direction America is heading. The "Tea Party" public is the who the leftists will have to demonize and that's not a winner, especially when more and more people become involved and the elitists will suffer the consequences at the ballot box. Does the "Republican Party", which I'm a long time registrant, offer an off-season venue for a chance to vent with like-minded conservatives their frustrations and have fun while doing it? Not lately. Sure, the republican party wants your money and if you've got any to spare, go-ahead support the cause, it's the main game in town but lets not try and create nuance where there's none. Will the republican party get my support at election time, you-betcha.

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 2:51PM

This "Tea Party Convention" was not representative of the broader movement and I think a lot of people realize that. There was a lot of hostility to the Convention from within the Tea Party movement; so to say Sarah Palin killed it is a gross overstatement.

But Palin did come off as quite clueless. She gave a partisan movement conservative boilerplate speech to a group that has factions and is not on board with all the boilerplate. Does Palin even realize this? Does her speech writer? Normally you target your speech to your audience. Focus on the things everyone agrees on (cutting spending, shrinking government, stopping healthcare, etc.) and stay away from the stuff that is contentious, and among the broader Tea Party movement that includes foreign policy. But she churned out “Obama is weak and we need to saber rattle more” foreign policy boilerplate as if she was completely oblivious to her audience? In addition, she wore a lapel pin with a US and Israel flag? http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4493 Could she be any more clueless?

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 3:01PM

OOOh, another one crawls out from beneath his slimy rock.
Beware of the Blame America First, anti-Israel crowd that this creep represents. These people try and claim they are the "true" conservatives, and want to claim the Tea Party movement is theirs. They despise Sarah Palin, a real conservative who is Pro-America, for a STRONG Military, and PRO-Israel.

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 3:36PM

Non-interventionist Tea Partiers believe that US foreign policy is skewed by our overly tight “special” relationship with Israel. These people would be particularly sensitive to anything that seems to confirm this belief. Palin’s lapel pin does just that. It was a completely politically tone death move on her part unless it was a calculated attempt to in-your-face the non-interventionist faction. (This is true regardless of where someone stands on the issue.) But I don’t think it was the latter. I think she is just clueless.

JAS| 2.8.10 @ 8:36PM

"Non-interventionist" is Libertarian speak for COWARD!

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 8:49PM

Funny. It is the interventionist crowd that is constantly in a state of fear about every little perceived threat, and the non-interventionists who are relaxing. So the cowards are who?

victor| 2.8.10 @ 9:07PM

Dan Phillips:
"Funny. It is the interventionist crowd that is constantly in a state of fear about every little perceived threat,"

You should do a remake of that great old 60's movie:
"Dr. StrangePaul or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Jihadis".

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 10:37PM

You should do a remake of Chicken Little, because you always think the sky is falling.

"Mommy, mommy, please protect me. The big mean Iranian is trying to hurt me."

Man up, dude.

Margie| 2.9.10 @ 10:27AM

Perverted. You fear Americans more than you fear terrorists!

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 8:55PM

"if the Soviet Union were to disappear off the face of the map, the United States would quickly seek out new enemies to justify its own military-industrial complex." - former CIA officer, John Stockwell

victor| 2.8.10 @ 9:04PM

Dan Phillips:
"US foreign policy is skewed by our overly tight “special” relationship with Israel."

Code for "Bloody Jews have too much influence".

BTW it is "Tone Deaf".

PS It was done on purpose and it did get your goat.

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 10:31PM

victor, many interventionists tout the special relationship as a good and proper thing. Palin specifically mentioned Israel in her speech and in a post speech interview. Do you dispute these facts? If so, where did I misspeak?

From the speech: "Israel, a friend and critical ally, now questions the strength of our support."

From Fox News Sunday: "Say he (Obama) ... decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do."

If you think this "special" relationship is a good thing fine, but the non-interventionists are entirely justified to be sensitive to it.

CNewman| 2.9.10 @ 11:30AM

Dan Phillips
Non-interventionism is slightly more rational than the traditional Democrat strategy of fight to loose, or the Progressive, Liberal idea, “the enemy is us”. In the long run the result is the same however. Western civilization collapses because the citizens couldn't be bothered to defend it.

Dan Phillips| 2.9.10 @ 1:40PM

CNewman, what is going to bring down the US is not Islamic terrorists who are terrorists because they have no real military to come against us. It is going to be massive debt, imperial overreach, and cultural dissolution brought about by unprecedented levels of immigration. In the effort to prevent the collapse of Western Civilization, a laudable goal we would both agree, disengaging from the Middle East and restricting immigration would go MUCH further toward securing our future than will bombing any number of far off Muslim countries. In Europe especially, the Muslim problem is much more a demographic problem (immigration and differential birth rates) than it is a military problem. But very often the same people who are trumpeting the US spreading democracy are also singing the praises of immigration. (The invade the world, invite the world crowd.) So you tell me who is and is not looking out for the best interests of Western Civilization.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:06PM

Antle, you are certainly right that the impact of the Tea Party is quite complicated. These people supported Scott Brown who is pro-choice and has no problem with gay unions. They are more libertarian than most Republicans. Will social conservatives agree with them?

I would envision their effect to be short term, however. Once they realize that the people they elected get sucked into being a Washington politician, they will go back to doing other things.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:10PM

Margie, I know you are in love with Sarah. But only the mentally deficient will vote for someone who is also mentally deficient. It's really too bad you are so blind to the truth.... I guess that comes from utilizing belief over reason.... You seem to be a shining example of that axiom that ignorance is bliss....

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 3:19PM

Thank you, Bob. I wear your insults as a badge on honor.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:55PM

I guess you don't understand "honor".... Perhaps if you had served in the military like me, you'd understand the term....

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 4:00PM

Bob,
Whoever you are, you don't seem to understand anything! But especially, honor.

Bob| 2.8.10 @ 4:09PM

Well, then, we're both in the same predicament. I'll wear your vapid, intellectually vacuous response as a badge of honor, as well.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 4:46PM

You really are a vile man, aren't you?

VN Vet| 2.8.10 @ 8:39PM

I'm with Margie. John F'n sKerry "served" in the military too. He was just working for the other side.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 8:49PM

I thank you, Sir. Both for your support, and especially for your service. :^)

victor| 2.8.10 @ 9:13PM

VN Vet:
"He was just working for the other side."

So did Gore, Murtha and other left wingers.

victor| 2.8.10 @ 9:10PM

Bob:
"It's really too bad you are so blind to the truth.... I guess that comes from utilizing belief over reason."

Is that why you are voting for Ron Paul on the Third Rail Party ticket?

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 10:10PM

I don't think Bob is a Ron Paul supporter.

Dein| 2.8.10 @ 3:25PM

Nancianne,obama is the bad joke .It has been a very low time for the country since the campaigner in chief lied his way into national office.Correct,congress has dumbed way down since Dems gained majorities led by geniuses Pelosi and Reid

Conservative Bob| 2.8.10 @ 3:44PM

No, Palin has not destroyed the movement, if the Tea Party movies toward becoming a third party we all lose. The Leftist Progressive Democrats win.
If the movement ‘rewards’ conservative limited government candidates with their support the country wins.
At this moment there is no such thing in reality as a moderate democrat, look at all of the votes last year when the chips were down. Nancy and harry had all of the votes they needed when they needed them. For the foreseeable future, there is little or no hope of the returning the democrat party to the middle of the political spectrum.
The only viable choice a limited government, low tax constitutionalist has is the GOP.
The leadership of the GOP may misconstrue the meaning of Scott Brown. You can hear it in some of the big tent language coming out the further we get away from his election.
Brown became a winnable election and regardless of how conservative he is or is not at that moment we were on the brink of passage of the progressive socialist dream. The healthcare entitlement, once in place no matter how watered down with or without the public option it would be difficult to impossible to repeal. Brown was the last chance before irretrievably going over that waterfall and as such the opportunity was seized and he became the 41st vote against the healthcare takeover.
Until such time as the democrats actually have candidates and office holders that are not either full fledged progressive/socialists or stealth progressive/socialists a vote for other than the GOP moves the country rapidly along the path to progressive socialism.
The Tea Party movement can take over the GOP, the Tea Party movement can support conservative limited government candidates over GOP Rhinos etc. To try to remain completely non partisan is to become ineffective and lose the battle at hand to save the republic.
We will need to work hard to take over the party and the leadership will not give up without a fight but it is a fight we can win. Enough money is being withheld and is flowing directly to more conservative candidates. The GOP is making sounds of hearing the message if grudgingly or half heartedly. Over time we will win.
We can afford to take more time reforming and reshaping the GOP but if the ONE has taught us anything it is the cost of protest votes. Until these fools are driven from office we do not have the luxury of protest votes or single issue temper tantrums.

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 3:56PM

I truly pray that everyone who reads your words will heed them. We simply cannot afford another Democrat/Socialist administration in this country.

gmiller| 2.8.10 @ 4:41PM

Nonsense: We won't allow politicos to co-opt the Tea Party, nor will we allow spinners like you to make us think they have. Get a life.

victor| 2.8.10 @ 9:15PM

The people who voted for and will vote for Obama or allow him to get re-elected should "Get Life".

Can we count on you earning the Scarlett "Q"?

"Q"=Quisling

Margie| 2.8.10 @ 4:51PM

Hey dumbunny, nobody said anything about co-opting the tea party. If you could read you would see that he said just the opposite. That the tea party could co-opt the GOP.
Wake up!
Besides, why do you have a problem with backing conservatives for the Republican party?

Cincinnati Whig| 2.8.10 @ 8:28PM

hey here's an idea: how about if conservatives would VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES?

I know... sounds wacky

JAS| 2.8.10 @ 8:43PM

Problem is, the republican party allows commiecrats to vote in their primaries.

Dan Phillips| 2.8.10 @ 8:51PM

"Problem is, the republican party allows commiecrats to vote in their primaries."

Depends on the State.

victor| 2.8.10 @ 9:17PM

"Problem is, the republican party allows commiecrats to vote in their primaries"

The lefties and quislings did that and we wound up with McCain.

Which means we have to close the primary system.

Jimmy| 2.9.10 @ 10:28AM

Sarah is just a simple opportunist that only see a chance to sell more books and try to co- opt a base. Because she has none herself. Is she was really genuine she would not have accepted payment for speaking. Saying it will go back to "the cause" is a lame excuse. We do need a revolution. But is is not Sarah palin who will lead us out of this mess.

Dwight| 2.11.10 @ 11:24AM

I agree with Kleinheider. Sarah Palin is a fucking retard.

James| 2.12.10 @ 4:09PM

If Sarah Palin becomes the "face" of the Tea Party, then stick a fork in it right now. I cannot believe those idiot organizers selected her of all people to put a face on such an important grass-roots movement. P.S. Her fake ass "folksy" accent makes me gag.