I was really surprised by Rove's remarks regarding O'Donnel. My question. Would you rather lose the seat in the general and stand on principles or win the seat and compromise on platform? Very interesting dynamic happening on the right.

I saw Rove's remarks on Hannity. It was surprising. And now the state RNC is possibly pulling it's monetary support. It does the republicans no good to seemingly throw in the towel on O'Donnell when she clearly has to have momentum to win in the general 48 days away. May just be the O'Donnell effect, and not the Tea Party effect. Biden's old seat is a very important seat in the senate for the GOP. The RINO's have got to go.

Why I'm not a f'n Republican.

BTW, O'Donnell has the support of Limbaugh and Beck. I'm pretty sure that carries more weight than Rove.

Death to the GOP
Tea Party

(09-15-2010 07:43 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Death to the GOP
Tea Party

..because you jackals are doing so much better.

(09-15-2010 07:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:43 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Death to the GOP
Tea Party

..because you jackals are doing so much better.

Don't worry.. on November 3, 2010 most Democrats will regret the day they first heard the name Barack Obama.

(09-15-2010 07:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:43 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Death to the GOP
Tea Party

..because you jackals are doing so much better.

Don't worry.. on November 3, 2010 most Democrats will regret the day they first heard the name Barack Obama.

Many already are.

(09-15-2010 07:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I was really surprised by Rove's remarks regarding O'Donnel. My question. Would you rather lose the seat in the general and stand on principles or win the seat and compromise on platform? Very interesting dynamic happening on the right.

I help raise money for the Tea Party. And its easy, in fact, REALLY easy when a Republican "establishment" Party Leader like that dimwit Michael Steele or any elected Political Official says or does anything in the way of "compromise" or "concessions" to Pelosi, Reid, or the Socialists presently in the White House.

Any Republican voting for any Bailout, Health Care Reform, Regulatory "Reform" or any expansion of the Federal Government into the private sector is TOAST.

In other words, the RINO is now an Endangered Species.

The fate of Mike Castle is a lesson to be learned. You act like a Democrat- Go join the Democrats.

When Castle said last week that he wouldn't vote to repeal Health Care, that was the opening that O'Donnell needed.

Its obvious you don't understand the Tea Party Movement. Its not a "Social Right-Wing" movement. Its more a Libertarian Movement.

(09-15-2010 07:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Would you rather lose the seat in the general and stand on principles

This. EVERY TIME.

(09-15-2010 08:03 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I help raise money for the Tea Party. And its easy, in fact, REALLY easy when a Republican "establishment" Party Leader like that dimwit Michael Steele or any elected Political Official says or does anything in the way of "compromise" or "concessions" to Pelosi, Reid, or the Socialists presently in the White House.

Any Republican voting for any Bailout, Health Care Reform, Regulatory "Reform" or any expansion of the Federal Government into the private sector is TOAST.

In other words, the RINO is now an Endangered Species.

The fate of Mike Castle is a lesson to be learned. You act like a Democrat- Go join the Democrats.

When Castle said last week that he wouldn't vote to repeal Health Care, that was the opening that O'Donnell needed.

Exactly. It's why your two senators are gone in their next election if I have anything to do with it.

Quote:Its obvious you don't understand the Tea Party Movement. Its not a "Social Right-Wing" movement. Its more a Libertarian Movement.

Those that lack principles will never understand. It's why the Washington establishment and MSM in general can't understand it.

(09-15-2010 07:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:43 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Death to the GOP
Tea Party

..because you jackals are doing so much better.

Don't worry.. on November 3, 2010 most Democrats will regret the day they first heard the name Barack Obama.

Based on how dems are campaigning they don't know this Obama that people speak of. They also seemed to have forgotten voting for the Healthcare bill and Cap and Trade. Seems telling that they aren't running on the major bills they supported and rammed thru.

(09-15-2010 08:31 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:43 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Death to the GOP
Tea Party

..because you jackals are doing so much better.

Don't worry.. on November 3, 2010 most Democrats will regret the day they first heard the name Barack Obama.

Based on how dems are campaigning they don't know this Obama that people speak of. They also seemed to have forgotten voting for the Healthcare bill and Cap and Trade. Seems telling that they aren't running on the major bills they supported and rammed thru.

...like they forgot about voting for the Patriot Act, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, NCLB, etc., etc., etc.

I equate them to an offensive line that bolts for the sidelines as soon as the QB hikes the ball. I.e. a bunch of no-spined pu**ies. You voted for it, now cowboy the fk up and either take credit and defend, or tell people you made a mistake. And don't give me this, "I was duped". If that's it, you're too damn stupid and incompetent to hold that office. Now you want to run on that same incompetence by telling everyone you were, essentially, stupid and incompetent? Works well in the DNC. Not so much with Conservatives.

(09-15-2010 08:36 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 08:31 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:48 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:43 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Death to the GOP
Tea Party

..because you jackals are doing so much better.

Don't worry.. on November 3, 2010 most Democrats will regret the day they first heard the name Barack Obama.

Based on how dems are campaigning they don't know this Obama that people speak of. They also seemed to have forgotten voting for the Healthcare bill and Cap and Trade. Seems telling that they aren't running on the major bills they supported and rammed thru.

...like they forgot about voting for the Patriot Act, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, NCLB, etc., etc., etc.

I equate them to an offensive line that bolts for the sidelines as soon as the QB hikes the ball. I.e. a bunch of no-spined pu**ies. You voted for it, now cowboy the fk up and either take credit and defend, or tell people you made a mistake. And don't give me this, "I was duped". If that's it, you're too damn stupid and incompetent to hold that office. Now you want to run on that same incompetence by telling everyone you were, essentially, stupid and incompetent? Works well in the DNC. Not so much with Conservatives.

It is easy, apparently, to forget about Obamacare and the stimulus bills the dems passed, cause the did not read them.

(09-15-2010 07:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Would you rather lose the seat in the general and stand on principles

this for sure. do i want o'donnell and paladino to win in November? Yes, but even if they don't, we've sent a message to the establishment Republicans and that means something. Obama campaigned for change, but he didn't change anything at all. This is actual change that we're seeing.

(09-15-2010 07:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I was really surprised by Rove's remarks regarding O'Donnel. My question. Would you rather lose the seat in the general and stand on principles or win the seat and compromise on platform? Very interesting dynamic happening on the right.

You don't understand what the "right" is.

My problem is that I want the kind of change that the TEA Party started with--fiscal responsibility and limited government--but I see too many evidences that the core message is being corrupted by establishment types who want to turn the TEA Party into a vehicle for their social conservative talking points.

I would support a fiscal conservative, preferably liberal to moderate socially, but I'm willing to support a social conservative in order to get a fiscal conservative. What I am not willing to do is to support a social conservative who turns out not to be fiscally conservative--like Shrub.

The USA majority is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Poll after poll shows that. So why are we forced to choose between fiscally liberal democrats (who may be all over the map socially) and socially conservative republicans (who may be all over the map fiscally)? As nearly as I can tell, it is becuase the kooks on those extremes are the ones who can raise money.

(09-15-2010 10:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My problem is that I want the kind of change that the TEA Party started with--fiscal responsibility and limited government--but I see too many evidences that the core message is being corrupted by establishment types who want to turn the TEA Party into a vehicle for their social conservative talking points.

I would support a fiscal conservative, preferably liberal to moderate socially, but I'm willing to support a social conservative in order to get a fiscal conservative. What I am not willing to do is to support a social conservative who turns out not to be fiscally conservative--like Shrub.

The USA majority is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Poll after poll shows that. So why are we forced to choose between fiscally liberal democrats (who may be all over the map socially) and socially conservative republicans (who may be all over the map fiscally)? As nearly as I can tell, it is becuase the kooks on those extremes are the ones who can raise money.

(09-15-2010 10:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My problem is that I want the kind of change that the TEA Party started with--fiscal responsibility and limited government--but I see too many evidences that the core message is being corrupted by establishment types who want to turn the TEA Party into a vehicle for their social conservative talking points.

I would support a fiscal conservative, preferably liberal to moderate socially, but I'm willing to support a social conservative in order to get a fiscal conservative. What I am not willing to do is to support a social conservative who turns out not to be fiscally conservative--like Shrub.

The USA majority is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Poll after poll shows that. So why are we forced to choose between fiscally liberal democrats (who may be all over the map socially) and socially conservative republicans (who may be all over the map fiscally)? As nearly as I can tell, it is becuase the kooks on those extremes are the ones who can raise money.

Fiscal conservatism must extend to illegal immigration. One of the major problems fiscally, we face as a sovereign nation, is extending free services to those here illegally.

(09-15-2010 11:16 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism must extend to illegal immigration. One of the major problems fiscally, we face as a sovereign nation, is extending free services to those here illegally.

I'm for the Fair Tax in part because it forces illegals to pay into the system without getting benefits. Under such a scenario, you'd almost look the other way at illegal immigration. :) I also want legal immigration increased, though.

I love watching the Tea Party snake gnaw on the Republican Party rat.

Now, in looking at O"Donell's platform, I understand her being against pornography, and I respect her desire to reserve sex for marriage, though I disagree with her stance on both.

But being against masturbation? That's just crazy talk.

The Democrats will find a way to get her elected.....