Wednesday, November 03, 2010

2012 Target List for the TEA Party

A lot can change in 2 years, but here's the Conservative target-group for '12.

John Barasso (WY)
Scott Brown (MA)
Bob Corker (TN)
John Ensign (NV)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
Jon Kyl (AZ)
Richard Lugar (IN)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Roger Wicker (MS)

(My picks are in red.)

All are Big Gummint compromisers, elitist twits. And yes, they're all RINOs.

23 comments:

jimspice said...

Please, by all means have at it. The T-Party cost the Rs the Senate last night. Just keep on keepin' on.

Anonymous said...

Then I certainly welcome a fractured GOP. Moderates are key the vitality and viability of any political party.

Furthermore, if one carefully looks at the groups who voted Republican this mid-term, they are suburbanites, blue collar, and independents, i.e. swing voters. Their major concern? The economy. If things do not get fixed in 2 years, this schizophrenic group will turn to the other party once again.

I fully expect a war within the GOP. The establishment vs. the Tea Partiers makes for great drama.

Even more important...will Rand Paul vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling? It would go against everything he said yesterday night that he the stood for.

Dad29 said...

Typical under-informed MSM babble, Jim. I expected more from you.

The TEA Party puts principles first.

We note how well Doyle-ism--that is, totally unprincipled governance--did for the (D) of Wisconsin.

We don't give a rip about Reid and Coons, nor the other (D)s. We give a rip that principles are put first.

The rest will take care of itself.

jimspice said...

Whereas you COULD have had the opportunity to put a bunch of bills across Obama's desk and forcing a ton of vetoes, making him look bad in prep of 2012, now people will see gridlock, and the Dem prospects get much better.

Like I said, you just keep on what you're doing.

Dad29 said...

Obama may wish to veto the FedGov to a stop.

That's his privilege.

It was principles that won for the TEA Party, and those principles don't change.

No Commies no mo'.

More judgments to come in '12--and maybe a D challenge to O

Dad29 said...

And, by the way: "gridlock" is fine.

YOU may not think so.

Anonymous said...

"The TEA Party puts principles first."

Then I will demand that Rand Paul and his fellow Tea-Partiers to cast no votes against raising the nation's debt ceiling within the next several months. We'll see the "spin" they put on their "principles" when they vote the party line. Or, if you prefer, they can filibuster it and the United States can go into default.

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

Obama isn't getting reelected in 2012. Period.

Yeah, you heard it here first.

Deekaman said...

wwithout the TEA Party activists, the GOP is in the wilderness for the remainder of my lifetime. that Angle, and O'Donnell lost just means they lost and is certainly not a TEA Party endictment. All one has to do is look at all the winners. States houses turned over, long-time Dems were sent packing. Races that should have been won easily by the Dems were lost or extremely close.

You guys can BS all you want, but you got your ass handded to you and there is more to come in 2012.

Deekaman said...

And that was some REALLY horrible spelling on my part. Wow.

LarryD said...

The Dem party is like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail - claiming that last night was "just a flesh wound", and that they can "bite our kneecaps" or whatever.

I still don't think they've fully realized what hit them last night.

jimspice said...

Oh, I get it. A midterm election with the worst economy in 70 years? I knew this was going to be a blowout. There was not a single office this time around that "should have been won easily by the Dems." By all rights, you guys should have taken both chambers. CT, NV, CO and AK should have been easy picking. But the T-Party saved our butts by selecting absolute whackos in the primaries. You keep burying your heads and believing whatever makes you feel good. That works for me just fine.

J. Strupp said...

You assume that there's a difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party.

They are the same.

Deekaman said...

Struppster: A HUGE difference. Believe what you want. There's a reason Mike
Castle is GONE. Lisa Murkowski...GONE. Almost got rid of McCain. Crist...Gone.

Just sayin'.

Dad29 said...

Struppster is confusing outcome and motive. No surprise: lefties always do that: a "good motives" spending program is always good to Lefties, regardless of its outcome.

The outcome--that most TEA Party members voted (R) this time, has nothing to do with motive.

As Priebus admitted, he found (R) candidates who conformed their platform to TEA Party principles.

We'll see if that holds through their actions. If not, they'll need a resume.

Anonymous said...

You guys keep forgetting something--the Democrats were thrown out this time around because independents, blue collars, and suburbanites did not approve of their handling of the economy, just like these groups did not approve of Bush, Jr.' and the Republicans handling of the economy in 2006 and 2008, and just like Bush, Sr.'s handling of the economy in 1992.

Feingold and Barrett received roughly 40% of the vote from this combined group; Obama had 52% of their votes in 2008. They are the swing groups for a reason. If Democrats had not overplayed their hand after 2008, these groups would have remained on board, and the "Tea Party" movement loses steam.

In two years, if the economy does not rebound to their satisfaction, the R's and Tea Partiers will incur their wrath.

Way too early to tell if there is this "revolution" going on to catch on for the long-term.

Dad29 said...

And YOU, Anony, forget something even more important:

in both 1994 AND 2010, the Administration was screwing with health-care.

Gee. I'm sure it was just co-incidence. /sarcasm

J. Strupp said...

It was. Complete co-incidence.

Both results reflected unhappiness in the economy. The party held responsible was punished. As was the case on Tuesday. Nothing more, nothing less.

"The outcome--that most TEA Party members voted (R) this time, has nothing to do with motive."

But they would have voted GOP anyway. Because they are.

Dad29 said...

Because they are.

You have a list? Cross-checked with (R) Party status?

Odd. I haven't been a registered (R) for over 15 years, but I've hit 3 or 4 TEA Party rallies.

Maybe your comprehensive database is corrupted.

As to 94/10 elections: there is NO SUCH THING as "coincidence."

J. Strupp said...

So youre not a registered republican. When's the last time you voted democrat? IOW your registered status doesnt mean squat.

Dad29 said...

Oh, I get it.

Everybody who voted for the (R) candidates IS an (R).

Well, hell's bells!!

You're telling me that the entire MSM is lying like hell, Struppster!

Because they keep talking about "independents" being about 20% of the electorate.

Good. We agree. The MSM lies.

Yup. That's it!

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

Democrat? Yeah, David Clarke.

Deekaman said...

I'd gladly vote for any Democrat who held my fiscal beliefs. There aren't any.