DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Tea Party Candidate Topples 40 Year GOP Vet

I would hate to be an incumbent up for re-election this year. It seems like there are a whole lot of voters ready to 'throw the bums out".

Already 4 GOP and 3 Democrats have lost their primary elections.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39170344/ns/politics-decision_2010/



Tea party favorite wins Delaware GOP Senate nod
Seven states and D.C. pick candidates in Tuesday's primary finale

WASHINGTON — Virtually unknown a month ago, Christine O'Donnell rode a surge of support from tea party activists to victory in the Delaware Republican Senate primary Tuesday night in an upset as stunning as any other in a season of recession and political upheaval. A second insurgent led for the GOP nomination in New Hampshire.

O'Donnell defeated Rep. Mike Castle, a fixture in Delaware politics for a generation who campaigned with the strong backing of party officials in his state and in Washington.

Despite her win, O'Donnell will enter the fall campaign as an underdog to Chris Coons, a county executive who was unopposed for the Democratic nomination. Republican party officials said in advance they would not come to her aid if she won the primary, and the state party chairman, Tom Ross, said recently she "could not be elected dogcatcher."

In New Hampshire, lawyer Ovide Lamontagne led former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, 42 percent to 37 percent, with votes counted from 23 percent of the precincts.

A former chairman of the state Board of Education, he campaigned with the support of tea party activists, while Ayotte had a coalition of establishment Republicans, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and other conservatives.

Democratic New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch rolled to renomination for a fourth term, and he will face John Stephen, a former state health commissioner who won the GOP line on the ballot easily.

In New York, 40-year veteran Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel faced the voters for the first time since the House ethics committee accused him of 13 violations, most of them relating to his personal finances.

In all, five states chose nominees for the Senate, and six more had gubernatorial hopefuls on primary ballots. The winners had scant time to refocus their energies for midterm elections on Nov. 2.

So far this year, seven incumbent members of Congress have tasted defeat, four Republicans and three Democrats. And that does not include a lengthy list of GOP contenders who fell to tea party-supported challengers despite having the backing of party officials eager to maximize their gains in November.

With unemployment high and President Barack Obama's popularity below 50 percent, Republicans said the primaries reflected an enthusiasm that would serve the party well in the fall, when control of Congress will be at stake.

Democrats, however, said the presence of tea party-supported Republicans would prove costly to the GOP on Nov. 2 — a proposition that remained to be tested in seven weeks' time.

Brawl in the First State
In Delaware, O'Donnell captured the Republican nomination for a Senate seat held for 36 years by Vice President Joe Biden. The race turned took a sharp turn for the negative three weeks ago after the Tea Party Express announced it would come to her aid.

Castle, a former two-term governor and a veteran of nearly two decades in the House, was repeatedly assailed as a liberal, a Republican in name only. He and the party responded by challenging O'Donnell's fitness for public office, and records surfaced showing that the IRS had once slapped a lien against her and that her house had been headed for foreclosure.

In an extraordinary move, the state Republican Party began automated phone calls attacking O'Donnell in the campaign's final hours. The calls featured the voice of a woman who identified herself as Kristin Murray, O'Donnell's campaign manager in her 2008 unsuccessful Senate campaign, accusing the candidate of "living on campaign donations — using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt."

While Republicans brawled, Coons, executive of New Castle County, coasted to the Democratic nomination without opposition. Biden resigned the seat in early 2009, and his successor, Democratic Sen. Ted Kaufman, pledged not to run for a full term.

Republicans in New Hampshire sorted through a crowded field of candidates for the nomination to a seat long held by retiring GOP Sen. Judd Gregg.

The winner will face Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes, who is giving up his seat in the House to run for the Senate.

"Just vote for the new guy" probably isn't the soundest plan for turning our government around, but honestly, at this point I'm really hoping we try it and replace every single one of these corrupt incompetent bastards and wipe the slate clean. It may end up being a new batch of corrupt incompetent bastards but at least we'll show them that there are consequences for their actions. I don't think politicians these days believe there are.

She won but it will be a miracle if she wins in November. The state is something like 75% registered Democrats.

The guy she beat was way ahead in the polls over the Democrat candidate. She is behind and most likely won't win because of her other views.

Sad to say, but it almost feels as if the Republican party is ripping itself apart..

j/c

Anyone have a good link to a moderately detailed Tea Party platform? I hear about them every day in the news, but I'm not really sure what they stand for besides "throw the bums out." All I can find through Google are broad ideals like "small government" and "free markets." I'm looking for how it is planned to achieve these things.

All I know is that I could and would definitelty support a candidate who stood for smaller government and less government spending, with more fiscal responsibility.

Cutting the budget by 10% would be a great place to start as far as I'm concerned.

The Republican Party certainly hasn't stood for any of these things lately. I would welcome a challenge that moves then to the right on fiscal policy. (even if nothing else)





I did have to laugh when I say a segment with people discussing policy and such, and one guy said that the Republican Party was right under Reagan, and just keep moving further to the right each election. I have to wonder what country he was looking at.

Quote:

---

"Just vote for the new guy" probably isn't the soundest plan for turning our government around, but honestly, at this point I'm really hoping we try it and replace every single one of these corrupt incompetent bastards and wipe the slate clean.

---

I feel ya. In 2008 many voted for "change" for the sake of "change".. and this is what we got. It appears that the pendulum has swung in the other direction and we are going from decidedly liberal change to .. to... who knows.

On the more humerous side, people have said for years on here, "We need a 3rd party".. well it appears that we have one, at least temporarily because if they don't unify in some way they will never last.. but I'm pretty sure this isn't what most people wanted.... and not to play I told you so but I warned a long time ago that people just naturally ASSUMED that a 3rd party would come from the center.. when me and a couple others warned that it might not.. well it didn't, it came (at least for now) from the fringe right.

and if you look at American political history, a third party generally helps the party it is least associated with.

the tea party may end up stealing enough votes this November and in the coming years from the GOP that neither have enough to overtake the liberal candidates.

however, currently, they are our best bet for a "peaceful" revolution.


(agreed that they need to get better organized and unified)

Yeah, it would be nice to have a unified message as far as what the Tea Party is, and what they want to do. Right now they seem to be a bunch of people who are unhappy with the Republican mainstream for one reason or another .... and that's fine ..... but it can't hold up over the long term.

One other horrifying though is the initials of the Parties.

You have the "Dems"

You have the "GOP"

You have the "TP"?


Hopefully this will result in the Republican Party looking at themselves really hard, and seeing just how closely they resemble Democrats. The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one ..... and the Republicans definitely have one. They have outspent Democrats and "out-socialized" them as well when one looks at Tax Credits, EITC,Tax "Refunds" for taxes never paid ..... Medicare "reform" that cost over a $trillion .... so far .......

If we're going to vote for that kind of stuff, we might as well elect Democrats, because at least that way they can take the blame.

i think many of the TPers plan is just to get the GOP back on track.

also, i think the lack of unified message so far is on purpose. at this point, if someone steps out of line and gets blasted in the press, the TP can look at it and determine if it's worth supporting or not. if not, they can just say that individual was a loose cannon and move on.

basically, they have a free pass to setup their political ideology based on public response. once they put down in certain terms what they stand for the GOP and Dems can start to pick it apart.

Quote:

---

i think many of the TPers plan is just to get the GOP back on track.

---

I hope you and ytown are right.. because what I fear right now is that in the primary the Tea Party is unseating less than perfect but electable republicans in favor of more extreme potentially unelectable tea party candidates which, when the general election roles around, may give some of these potential seats to democrats..

What's worse though ..... electing died in the wool Democrats ..... or electing RINOs who will do basically the same stuff as Democrats?

Once we get past this election there will be a lot of bills that will come up. The Democrats will almost certainly not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. However, they could still control policy and agenda .... and if they do I would rather have Democrats to blame for votes on crappy bills than Republicans.

Glad she won.

Why? She is so far right that moderates either won't vote or will vote for the Democrat.

She is the person that said:

"Lust in your heart is committing adultery, and you can't masturbate without lust."

I wonder how she's going to enforce that one. Not only that, she's anti-pornography and anti-sex. Being against sexual intercourse is a wonderful political platform for monks. But, the American people are not monks.

The "Conservatives" are being pushed so far right that they are electing some true whackjobs.

Quote:

---

"Lust in your heart is committing adultery, and you can't masturbate without lust."

I wonder how she's going to enforce that one.

---

Just because she holds that commonly held Christian belief, what makes you think she has any plans on "enforcing it"?

Quote:

---

Not only that, she's anti-pornography

---

Another commonly held Christian belief.. can you show me where she plans to make it illegal or monitor your computer to see who is looking at it? If you get that far let me know, then I'll be concerned... and by the way, not that it matters, but porn does tear a lot of marriages apart... just sayin'..

Quote:

---

and anti-sex.

---

Got anything to back that up?

Nice article, she appears to be a Christian, I already knew that.. Was a time not too awful long ago that it wasn't a bad thing.... what is your point?

Where is there proof that she is planning on making sex and pornography illegal? Her views on a matter does not translate into "she will make it illegal" Try again.

I'm not going to get into defending the whole Bible in this thread... the beliefs you have called her nuts for believing are what pretty much every Christian is taught in the year 2010... if you can't deal with that, then fine...

Congratulations, you can regurgitate those anti-Christian talking points.

You still have a question to answer, though. Where does it say she's going to enforce her beliefs once elected?

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the way it's applied in law in the year 2010, not in an old testament passage...

Old testament and new testament are 2 different sets of books.

The crucifixion of Jesus forgave us of our sins in the eyes of God, and wiped the slate clean, making way for the New Testament books in which God was not as stringent and punishing, but loving and just.

By our own sins we distanced ourselves from God, but through the sacrifice of Christ, we are atoned in the eyes of God.

Basically the laws in the Old Testament were rewritten in the New Testament. That's why those same passages you quoted aren't in the New testament.

How's Basil Marceaux doing in his Gubernatorial run in Tennessee?

I hope not well. But he's running for governor of TN - I don't think they voted yet, did they?

I am tired of reading the use of the word rape in the literal meaning of today.

The use of the word rape in the Bible applies to shaming as well. Like premarital sex for an example.

I find it quite sad that people with agendas take things from religious books that are thousands of years old and try and twist original meanings into something they are not.

This applies to other religions as well as Christianity.

Charlie is just a bitter young man. He thinks he is enlightened but like most of his ilk he tries to cover up his insecurities by lashing out at others.

I have added him to the people I pray for daily.

He lost the primary by like 85%. I am just throwing out that figure but I think the only people who voted for him closed their eyes and pointed at the screen.

Christians had the crusades 1000 years ago and the Salem witch trials 400 years ago.. and we have the occassional wacko that goes off on his own and blows something up or convinces some people to follow him and do something stupid (usually kill themselves).. and because of this we must always equivocate and include the disclaimer that all religions are equal and have their wackos, even when talking about Islam with who knows how many people out there plotting death and destruction to MANY people as we speak and living in countries where stoning for being homosexual or cheating on your husband (even after he is dead) is ok.. not hundreds of years ago.. but today... but we must always state that we are the same...

Exactly my point. Thanks.

Lord, I pray for healing of Charlie's soul. He is a lost young man that is need of not only your love but the love of all of us Christians.

Btw Charlie, You skipped right over the part will you take the word rape out of context from it's original meaning.

Just a note here ... I love how it's always the most anti-relegious people who are the first to whip out a Bible, cite passages out of context, and tell everyone else exactly how we are to interpret them.

Charlie, still waiting for that proof that she is going to enforce her christian beliefs once elected.