Some GOP leaders complain tea party hurt Senate hopes

Tea party-backed candidates helped and hindered Republicans, injecting enthusiasm into campaigns but losing Senate seats held by Democrats in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada that the GOP once had big hopes of capturing. Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Steven C Johnson

Olyphant, PA

#1 Nov 6, 2010
"Some GOP leaders complain tea party hurt Senate hopes"

I think "some" GOP leaders are full of sh&t...

If they had given full unequivocal support to the nominees that the voters selected in the primaries they may well have won enough races to take control of the Senate. Where do "some" GOP leaders get off telling voters which candidates are electable and which are not? If it weren't for Tea Party activists and candidates, the GOP wouldn't have enjoyed the incredible success that it did on Tuesday. And "some" GOP leaders would still be in the minority in the House, instead of basking in the glow of a huge majority.
Clue Phone

York, PA

#2 Nov 6, 2010
Steven C Johnson wrote:
Where do "some" GOP leaders get off telling voters which candidates are electable and which are not?
I guess the proof is in the results of the election. O'Donnell and Angle were unelectable, and Joe Miller is sure to go down in defeat as well. Their character flaws were rejected by the majority of the voters in their states.
mark

King Of Prussia, PA

#3 Nov 6, 2010
"In Nevada, voters nominated Angle to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to overcome low approval ratings and the state's high unemployment."

But Sharron Angle declared that seeking ways to reduce unemployment would not be her job as a senator.
Steven C Johnson

Olyphant, PA

#4 Nov 6, 2010
Clue Phone wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the proof is in the results of the election. O'Donnell and Angle were unelectable, and Joe Miller is sure to go down in defeat as well. Their character flaws were rejected by the majority of the voters in their states.
Which conveniently avoids the fact that Rand Paul won , as did Marco Rubio.

There were other candidates that were supported by the Tea party-types who also won, including at least two governors, Martinez and Haley.

I would assume that some of the dozens of new House members were supported by Tea party members, as well.

Nobody (other than the mainstream media) would suggest that all of the socialists nominated by the DNC would get elected, why would anyone expect that all the conservatives supported by Tea party activists would be elected?
Clue Phone

York, PA

#5 Nov 6, 2010
Any Republican would have won in KY since it's an overwhelmingly red state and Rubio was a viable Republican candidate before the Tea Party co-opted him and he co-opted the Tea Party.

Of course, someone who throws the term socialism around in reference to any government spending probably isn't going to grasp that O'Donnell is vastly unqualified, Angle is an extremist nut and Joe Miller is a hypocritical thug.
American Nationalist

Red Lion, PA

#7 Nov 7, 2010
Clue Phone wrote:
Any Republican would have won in KY since it's an overwhelmingly red state and Rubio was a viable Republican candidate before the Tea Party co-opted him and he co-opted the Tea Party.
Of course, someone who throws the term socialism around in reference to any government spending probably isn't going to grasp that O'Donnell is vastly unqualified, Angle is an extremist nut and Joe Miller is a hypocritical thug.
And you forgot Obama, who was elected president, is an unqualified, community organizing, socialist idiot.
xray

York, PA

#8 Nov 7, 2010
Was Odonnell a candidate,all I saw was a, whining political impersonator.I would not have voted for her and I am a Republican.Delaware did the right by voting in a Democrat.California is part of Mexico,so if they want to remain part Mexico,with their choices, than so be it.I suppose you can not really buy your way into politics,if 120 million will not by a governor what will.So Ho! for CaliMex,its all blowing up in smoke.
dbl

Camp Hill, PA

#9 Nov 7, 2010
Steven C Johnson wrote:
"Some GOP leaders complain tea party hurt Senate hopes"
I think "some" GOP leaders are full of sh&t...
If they had given full unequivocal support to the nominees that the voters selected in the primaries they may well have won enough races to take control of the Senate. Where do "some" GOP leaders get off telling voters which candidates are electable and which are not? If it weren't for Tea Party activists and candidates, the GOP wouldn't have enjoyed the incredible success that it did on Tuesday. And "some" GOP leaders would still be in the minority in the House, instead of basking in the glow of a huge majority.
ok we are stupid and can't really decide who is best for us. remember the last two, before our current elected gov. both sacrificial candidates, chosen by and supported by the state committee. when you are selected the status quo needs to pull their panties out of the bunch they are in and WORK with the candidate. offer suggestions. get the campaign rolling. this is sorly lacking many times.
Badandy17050

York, PA

#10 Nov 7, 2010
The Republican Party needs to understand that the PEOPLE choose the candidates.

If the Party continues with the "I'll take my toys and go home" attitude, it will soon be relegated to 3rd party status.
mark

Villas, NJ

#11 Nov 7, 2010
@#10: "The Republican Party needs to understand that the PEOPLE choose the candidates"

Some extremist Republican candidates were calling for changing the Constitution to take away from the people the right to elect their senators (17th Amendment).
American Nationalist

Red Lion, PA

#12 Nov 7, 2010
mark wrote:
@#10: "The Republican Party needs to understand that the PEOPLE choose the candidates"
Some extremist Republican candidates were calling for changing the Constitution to take away from the people the right to elect their senators (17th Amendment).
Where did you find this out? Reference please?!?!
cjrian

United States

#13 Nov 7, 2010
mark wrote:
@#10: "The Republican Party needs to understand that the PEOPLE choose the candidates"
Some extremist Republican candidates were calling for changing the Constitution to take away from the people the right to elect their senators (17th Amendment).
This idea is tossed about, by one side or the other, every few years. Actually, until the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, State Legislatures selected the Senators to represent each State. That way they weren't beholden to petty politics as much as they are now, and were more attentive to the State as a whole, its membership in the Union, and the Country in general. That has gone by the wayside as popularly elected Senators pander to special interests and "bringing home the bacon" regardless of the effects outside of their district(s). The Senate was intended to be the more thoughtful body. It is that no longer. And maybe it should be.
mark

King Of Prussia, PA

#14 Nov 7, 2010
@#12:
AT least half a dozen Republicans were calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment during the run-up to the midterm elections. I think Louie Gohmert (R-TX) started it. A statement specifically calling for repeal was included in the Idaho Republican platform of 2010 ( http://www.idgop.org/atf/cf/%7B09d3c7cb-a258-... ).
American Nationalist

Red Lion, PA

#15 Nov 7, 2010
cjrian wrote:
<quoted text>
This idea is tossed about, by one side or the other, every few years. Actually, until the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, State Legislatures selected the Senators to represent each State. That way they weren't beholden to petty politics as much as they are now, and were more attentive to the State as a whole, its membership in the Union, and the Country in general. That has gone by the wayside as popularly elected Senators pander to special interests and "bringing home the bacon" regardless of the effects outside of their district(s). The Senate was intended to be the more thoughtful body. It is that no longer. And maybe it should be.
Thank you.
Clue Phone

York, PA

#16 Nov 7, 2010
American Nationalist wrote:
<quoted text>
And you forgot Obama, who was elected president, is an unqualified, community organizing, socialist idiot.
What's funny to me is that it's obvious by spending even a cursory moment looking at his resume that he's vastly more intelligent than you are, yet you insult him by calling him an idiot simply because you don't agree with his political philosophy.

Grow up. This is not a schoolyard, and name calling won't impress anyone but other bullies.
Dr Zaes

York, PA

#17 Nov 7, 2010
The GOP establishment is as fearful of the Tea Party as the Democrats. There is little difference between establishment Republicans and Democrats. To whine about the Tea Party costing them control of the Senate is laughable. Without the Tea Party they wouldn't have gained as many in the Senate as they did. Do they think Toomey, Paul, Rubio and others would have made it? Paul and Rubio wouldn't have gotten past the primary without the Tea Party. 60+ new Republicans in the House. Do they think they would have gotten anywhere near that number without the Tea Party. 22 out of 33 governorships. 680+ net Republican gain in the state legislatures. This was an historic shift in power and those Republicans like Lindsey Graham who are whining about not have Castle in the Senate are next on the list of RINOS to be defeated. The party has just begun.
cjrian

United States

#18 Nov 7, 2010
Clue Phone wrote:
What's funny to me is that it's obvious by spending even a cursory moment looking at his resume that he's vastly more intelligent than you are, yet you insult him by calling him an idiot simply because you don't agree with his political philosophy.
Grow up. This is not a schoolyard, and name calling won't impress anyone but other bullies.
I have serious reservations about O'booboo's intelligence.

His hearing, too.

With all the people telling him "NO!" on so many issues, either he's deaf or dense. Which is it?

BTW, about the name-calling, O'booboo began it and his acolytes ran with it, and ran, and ran, and ran. Stupid Cops, CEO's and pitchforks, I Won,...shouldn't listen to Rush, amoral Dr's that conduct needless amputations, racist TPer's, etc. He, and his minions shouldn't be surprised when he gets some back. Especially when it's so well deserved.
Okay

York, PA

#19 Nov 7, 2010
So much for voting the incumbents out. "Get rid of all incumbents." So, many of the republican't incumbents were re-elected, despite collecting paychecks and sitting on their hands while the Great Recession took its toll.

We will hold their feet to the fire. They better produce lots of jobs!
cjrian

United States

#20 Nov 7, 2010
Okay wrote:
... many of the republican't incumbents were re-elected, despite collecting paychecks and sitting on their hands while the Great Recession took its toll.
We will hold their feet to the fire. They better produce lots of jobs!
Ummm, Repubs voted unanimously against the Stimulus, nearly so against PPACA (the healthSCAM), and they were powerless against DemonPass, and they were sitting on their hands?

Now, they'd better produce jobs? When they control ONE house and the other is hell-bent on F'ing the economy? The jobs produced will be the result of halting the Congressional madness and returning some semblance of sanity in spite of O'booboo's utter lunacy.

Hold their feet to the fire?!?!?
Where were you when the REgressives were destroying everything and everyone in the path of their wrecking machine? Where were you when they took a minor Recession and turned it into a Depression? Where were you when the REgressives defiled all common sense, not to mention the Law of the Land?

And now, you're going to "Hold their feet to the fire?"????
Where were you before?
American Nationalist

Red Lion, PA

#21 Nov 7, 2010
Clue Phone wrote:
<quoted text>
What's funny to me is that it's obvious by spending even a cursory moment looking at his resume that he's vastly more intelligent than you are, yet you insult him by calling him an idiot simply because you don't agree with his political philosophy.
Grow up. This is not a schoolyard, and name calling won't impress anyone but other bullies.
Well Scooter, it seems to me that if he is blaming the recent election results on poor communication, even with his superior intelligence, he just doesn't get it and therefore an idiot.

His resume? He was a junior senator and a community organizer! Oh! And a college professor. As far a being vastly more intelligent, how come he never released his grades? He's the first affirmative action president.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tuesday Morning Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sal Mena Jr. may plead guilty (Feb '09) Dec '13 Corrupt Judge 8
Panic, tears on 911 tape in wounded man's last ... (Feb '08) Nov '13 Russell Dow Sister 26
Hershey to close main plant (Jun '10) Jun '13 What Up wit dat 67
Welcome Chad Evans to WLFI (Aug '10) Apr '13 Herman 5
Former employee sues Daystar over affair (Dec '10) Sep '12 buck 2
Tuesday Morning ex-CEO says fired after breast ... (Aug '12) Aug '12 cris in oregon 1
Police Investigating Early Tuesday Morning Fata... (Jun '12) Jun '12 Sara Bella 1

Tuesday Morning People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE