Tea party wins in northeastern primaries could bode well for Democrats

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beau_Ouiville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is there is very little room for social issues with most Tea Party candidates and voters. Things like abortion and marriage are not part of their planks…they care more about the economy and the constitution. That is a very real problem. On the other hand, Republicans in large measure care deeply about abortion and marriage, and yet they also care about the economy and the constitution.

Personally, I am not a fan of Sarah Palin’s. She lost me when she quit her office in Alaska. She talks a good game, but has no staying power and she clearly left her office to become filthy rich and famous, which she has done quite well. I see no difference between her and many other celebrities…all talk, no real sustance. Though I will grant that her talk is much better than those from the left…I would hate to see her in any office.
We are entitled to our own opinions, but I don’t let criticisms of Palin go unanswered. Anyone paying attention to AK politics should know there were over two dozen frivolous lawsuits filed against her which were hampering her administration and the business of the state – all filed by folks with personal vendettas (after she took on and dismantled the corrupt establishment GOP there). The lawsuits, despite causing the state and her precious time and resources, were not upheld, Sarah moved on to a stage where she felt she could better serve her country (and her state by doing so), and she has had an unprecedented affect on national politics as a spokesperson and kingmaker for the true conservative cause and American values, integrity, and exeptionalism. In the meantime, Parnell has done quite well for Alaska after succeeding her, continuing to move it forward as few states can attest to right now.

If there is a disagreement with her stance on political issues, so be it. Calling her personality into question with terms like “quitter” and “left to become filthy rich” is where I will draw the line.
 
I am equally thrilled. First, the middle class of Delaware had a huge win against institutionalist politicians. AWESOME!!! :extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy: They got rid of another Republican Good Ol’ Boy (the should change it from GOP to GOB).

Second, if the GOP cannot gain control of the House or Senate with people who actually care about the people they represent rather than their own wealth and career, then I hope the Democrats keep control and keep pushing entitlements and deficit spending until there is no more United States of America. Then we can push the reset button and get a government that actually is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, instead of “of the lobbyists, by special interests, and for my bank account”.

Case in Point: Charles Rangel.
I would not quite wish that on the United States. The American people cannot survive another term of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. My opinion, of course.
 
To all,

Thanks much. This has been a sound discussion. I have stated my views and it seems I am coming full circle and find myself repeating things I have already said.

In the end I will simply say that I am all for Tea Party candidates if they help get the left out. Yet, if the Tea Party candidates simply lead to the Democrats maintaining control of Congress (which is quite likely), than it will have been for naught because this nation stands on the edge. We cannot take two more years of the left and expect to ever recover the nation to where we would want it to be. If the Tea Party is not willing to compromise with the GOP, and vice versa, than the Democrats will retain Congress and the game will be up for the USA. IMO

Have a good evening. God Bless. 🙂
 
The problem is, and one you and other TP people ignore, is that the world is much different today. Nuclear weapons and the military and all its horrible offensive weapons are in the hands of the so-called establishment parties. They will not just leave office, they must be voted out in order to create real change. The problem I have is the Glen Beck’s of the world are rattling people’s minds to be actually thinking about doing a “reset” of the entire nation…yet that is simply not possible as it was 200 years ago. If we do a reset now, than some other nation will take us over…and quickly. One must deal with the facts of life as they are when they try to make change.
I find it odd how you automatically lump me in with the Tea Party. I’m more an independent than anything else. What makes you think that we would be taken over quickly? What makes you think that complete and utter anarchy will occur during the time when a new plan of government is hammered out? Do you really think we would be left defenseless during the time in such a period of planning? The military isn’t a remote-controlled robot, after all. I don’t think there would be much cause for worry, unless hell DID break loose in America. As long as the people stayed orderly and no mass panics broke out, there would be no issue that I can think of. Anyone who did try to attack us would either A: Be repelled, or B: Get dogpiled by a whole lot of other countries. If a nuke was launched, then the world would basically end anyway, regardless of the circumstances.
 
To all,

Thanks much. This has been a sound discussion. I have stated my views and it seems I am coming full circle and find myself repeating things I have already said.

In the end I will simply say that I am all for Tea Party candidates if they help get the left out. Yet, if the Tea Party candidates simply lead to the Democrats maintaining control of Congress (which is quite likely), than it will have been for naught because this nation stands on the edge. We cannot take two more years of the left and expect to ever recover the nation to where we would want it to be. If the Tea Party is not willing to compromise with the GOP, and vice versa, than the Democrats will retain Congress and the game will be up for the USA. IMO

Have a good evening. God Bless. 🙂
Alright, God bless. Nice (briefly) talking to you. 🙂
 
We are entitled to our own opinions, but I don’t let criticisms of Palin go unanswered. Anyone paying attention to AK politics should know there were over two dozen frivolous lawsuits filed against her which were hampering her administration and the business of the state – all filed by folks with personal vendettas (after she took on and dismantled the corrupt establishment GOP there). The lawsuits, despite causing the state and her precious time and resources, were not upheld, Sarah moved on to a stage where she felt she could better serve her country (and her state by doing so), and she has had an unprecedented affect on national politics as a spokesperson and kingmaker for the true conservative cause and American values, integrity, and exeptionalism. In the meantime, Parnell has done quite well for Alaska after succeeding her, continuing to move it forward as few states can attest to right now.

If there is a disagreement with her stance on political issues, so be it. Calling her personality into question with terms like “quitter” and “left to become filthy rich” is where I will draw the line.
Draw the line whereever you wish. My statements, imo, are completely accurate. The going got tough, she got going, and she got going to a huge windfall of millions of dollars and a lifestyle similar to that of the very rich and famous…those are facts, not opinions.
 
If that is true, than they better say it more loudly because I have not heard one word from any of them that they plan to pursue a platform for life while in office. For all their so-called courage and change they seem to not be putting that out there and that is no different than we have had for three decades. Since they won’t say it, than I have no reason to believe they will do it.

John McCain also claimed to be prolife…I did not buy it from him either.

BTW, lest I am not clear, I pay a great deal of attention, so it is not like I am not listening.
You evidenlty have not not heard Paul, Angle, Rubio, Fiorina or Odonnel speak. All of the are loudly and proudly pro-life. Fiorina savaged Boxer over the issue in their debate. And of course you dont like Palin either-another strident pro-lifer
 
I agree about Steele and several others, but most Republicans are true conservatives. You probably disagree, but you would be wrong if you do.

The truth is, most Tea Party candidates are conservatives regarding economics and the law (constitution), but they are also social moderates.

I believe, as a Catholic, the biggest threats to our nation is the attack on the family, the attack on life and the attack on marriage. A person who is a Tea Party candidate are typically moderate regarding those issues, which from a Catholic pov makes them only marginally better than Democrats. IMO.
But the Tea Party is willing to accomodate “social-issue” conservatives, something the Democratic and some in the Republican Party are unwilling to do.
The biggest example of this is, of course, Sarah Palin.
If the Tea Party is as intolerant of “social conservatives” as you claim, they would not allow their biggest star and “kingmaker” to have such power within the organization.

BTW, while the Republican Party may mostly lean towards the conservative side, that is not true of everybody. Lincoln Chafee, anyone?
How about John Boehner, who just said he is open for increasing taxes on the welathy???

As to Sarah Palin, she may be a “quitter” and “movie star”, but she is one who has managed to get Tea Party candidates elected. There has to be something there, don’t ya think???
 
Same to you. Take care. 🙂
Have a nice night, Irishpatrick. I may not quite agree with you on this subject, but you have proven yourself in previous threads to be an eloquent and committed defender of the Faith and conservative values.
 
ALL the tea party backed candidates for Senate are strongly pro-life.
Good enough!
Then if one shows up on my ballot,
at the risk of being labeled a “single-issue voter,”
that’s who I’m voting for.

🙂 👍
 
How about John Boehner, who just said he is open for increasing taxes on the welathy???
I don’t think Boehner meant it quite like that did he?

I’m not sure if I heard the whole sound byte or not, but it sounded as though he wanted to make sure that people understood if the only bill he could vote for gave adequate tax cuts to the middle class, he would vote for it.

He seems like a decent person, I will always remember his speach on the health care bill, it was classic. I’ve heard he is near the bottom of the list when it comes to funds from lobbyists.
 
If the ball keeps rolling for the Tea Party Express, I would not be surprised to see Sarah From Alaska running for President in 2012. She already is giving out intimations of that. Does not guarantee that I would vote for her, but it WOULD be a sight to see.

If Hillary decides to throw her hat into the ring (that is, if Obama decides not to run, which is unlikely) as well, that would be the contest of the century. Sarah vs. Hillary. Ultimate smackdown. I would pay to see that on PPV.😛

You know who must be totally bewildered by this? Katie Couric. She must be thinking “What The Heck?.”👍
 
I don’t think Boehner meant it quite like that did he?

I’m not sure if I heard the whole sound byte or not, but it sounded as though he wanted to make sure that people understood if the only bill he could vote for gave adequate tax cuts to the middle class, he would vote for it.

He seems like a decent person, I will always remember his speach on the health care bill, it was classic. I’ve heard he is near the bottom of the list when it comes to funds from lobbyists.
You may be right----I would need to watch his statements again. But you know how most of the MSM is spinning this, right?
Republican BigWig willing to break with his party on taxes. Yeah!!!:D:D:D
 
As for the final Senate election in Delaware, it’s still 7 weeks away. A lot can happen in that time. Two days ago, the establishment Republicans were wanting their “moderate” and were slow roasting O’Donnell on a spit; today, however, they handed her a fat check. Now why would they do something like that if she had NO chance to win? One of you prediction-believers care to explain that one?

In case some of you have never been involved whatsoever in state nomination politics, it is a dirty game no matter the side you are on. Many of the people who you see on a ballot only got there after years and years of service to their party in one form or another. You might say this is a demonstration of loyalty, a sort of litmus test that demonstrates that they know who’s who in the food chain, and can show in some way they have worked with the other fish in the tank and will not present a danger to them.

That is not the case with people who have sprung up a bit prematurely like many of the Tea Party candidates. What’s at play here is a lot of fear that the status quo applecart will be tipped over and that the candidate will no longer play by party rules. But that exact quality is what has broad appeal with voters right now for the simple reason they are tired of getting RNC funding letters saying, for example, that if you don’t dig in your wallet RIGHT NOW and send them 50 bucks, Hillary might be President, or Obama, and once that happens it will be too late. Then you watch as the legislative circus comes to town. All the talk about working across the aisle, openness, operating in the light of day they all promised goes right out the window. Not only that, but the people who promised R voters they would stand up to that kind of thing failed to do so.

Remember back before the D’s controlled the Congress and there was talk about using a “nuclear option” to railroad legislation? Remember that? And do you also remember Sen. McCain and a bunch of waffling, work-across-the-aisle types caved in to the Dems, chiding us about how important the “traditions of the Senate” were. Well where were those “traditions of the Senate” when bills were being debated in closed sessions? When bills were up for vote before anyone had a read of them? Where committee votes were deemed passed by “eyeball” rather than a count of ayes and nays?

To work cooperatively is one thing; to capitulate against principles in a continuing string of concessions is something altogether different. These clowns in our Congress might think we have no memory of the promises they break to us, but like with everything else in life, people who grab an inch are soon reaching for a mile and one day it comes to a crashing halt. These primary defeats of wishy-washy, capitulating candidates IS that day of reckoning.

The argument we hear is: Well if this person wins the primary, we might lose the general election.

Answer: Yes, that’s right, you might. But at least I can vote without holding my nose. Instead of being upset with the voters, you should be upset with your electoral committees for not finding a candidate that would give his/her word and keep it, thus attracting the same voters the Tea Party currently does. The shame is on you, the party, not us, the voters. The power given in the Constitution is not to state party organizations, but to “the People.” The People have spoken; if you want to win, you will listen, or you will go down in flames and the people will wait another 2 years and teach you this lesson again, and again, and again until you get your head around the real problem.

The sad fact of the matter is that for all their blowhard rhetoric, the RNC has not lived up to what they promised. They want to shrug it off under the idea they are a minority and have no power. Funny, when they were a majority we had many “across-the-aisle” compromises, so if they can give in to compromise when in the majority, and don’t demand the same when in the minority, they were simply burned and need to admit it, gain a majority, and stop capitulating on matters of principle. NOTE TO RNC: This means gain a majority without capitulation experts like Castle and McCain.

People are fed up with the “way it works” in DC, but let someone run who isn’t one of the Beltway Club and watch how fast the criticism of them starts. They have no experience - yeah, like Obama doesn’t suffer from that affliction? :confused: They can’t beat the Dem because the polls say so. Oh, like polls are never wrong? Gore V. Bush - Gore favored to win - didn’t happen. Carter v. Reagan - Carter strong favorite - Reagan cleaned his clock.

Washington has this fantasy idea that voters are like consumers with I-Phones. All we have to do is tell then what they should want and we can make token steps in that direction but meanwhile spend money we don’t have on pork and making ourselves popular. Well people are waking up. Even Obama supporters are leaving him in droves, finally seeing that he is no different than any of the other promise breakers on the Hill. Fool me once…
 
The argument we hear is: Well if this person wins the primary, we might lose the general election.

Answer: Yes, that’s right, you might. But at least I can vote without holding my nose. Instead of being upset with the voters, you should be upset with your electoral committees for not finding a candidate that would give his/her word and keep it, thus attracting the same voters the Tea Party currently does. The shame is on you, the party, not us, the voters. The power given in the Constitution is not to state party organizations, but to “the People.” The People have spoken; if you want to win, you will listen, or you will go down in flames and the people will wait another 2 years and teach you this lesson again, and again, and again until you get your head around the real problem.

Fool me once…
Very well said.

:tiphat:
 
As for the final Senate election in Delaware, it’s still 7 weeks away. A lot can happen in that time. Two days ago, the establishment Republicans were wanting their “moderate” and were slow roasting O’Donnell on a spit; today, however, they handed her a fat check. Now why would they do something like that if she had NO chance to win? One of you prediction-believers care to explain that one?

In case some of you have never been involved whatsoever in state nomination politics, it is a dirty game no matter the side you are on. Many of the people who you see on a ballot only got there after years and years of service to their party in one form or another. You might say this is a demonstration of loyalty, a sort of litmus test that demonstrates that they know who’s who in the food chain, and can show in some way they have worked with the other fish in the tank and will not present a danger to them.

That is not the case with people who have sprung up a bit prematurely like many of the Tea Party candidates. What’s at play here is a lot of fear that the status quo applecart will be tipped over and that the candidate will no longer play by party rules. But that exact quality is what has broad appeal with voters right now for the simple reason they are tired of getting RNC funding letters saying, for example, that if you don’t dig in your wallet RIGHT NOW and send them 50 bucks, Hillary might be President, or Obama, and once that happens it will be too late. Then you watch as the legislative circus comes to town. All the talk about working across the aisle, openness, operating in the light of day they all promised goes right out the window. Not only that, but the people who promised R voters they would stand up to that kind of thing failed to do so.

Remember back before the D’s controlled the Congress and there was talk about using a “nuclear option” to railroad legislation? Remember that? And do you also remember Sen. McCain and a bunch of waffling, work-across-the-aisle types caved in to the Dems, chiding us about how important the “traditions of the Senate” were. Well where were those “traditions of the Senate” when bills were being debated in closed sessions? When bills were up for vote before anyone had a read of them? Where committee votes were deemed passed by “eyeball” rather than a count of ayes and nays?

To work cooperatively is one thing; to capitulate against principles in a continuing string of concessions is something altogether different. These clowns in our Congress might think we have no memory of the promises they break to us, but like with everything else in life, people who grab an inch are soon reaching for a mile and one day it comes to a crashing halt. These primary defeats of wishy-washy, capitulating candidates IS that day of reckoning.

The argument we hear is: Well if this person wins the primary, we might lose the general election.

Answer: Yes, that’s right, you might. But at least I can vote without holding my nose. Instead of being upset with the voters, you should be upset with your electoral committees for not finding a candidate that would give his/her word and keep it, thus attracting the same voters the Tea Party currently does. The shame is on you, the party, not us, the voters. The power given in the Constitution is not to state party organizations, but to “the People.” The People have spoken; if you want to win, you will listen, or you will go down in flames and the people will wait another 2 years and teach you this lesson again, and again, and again until you get your head around the real problem.

The sad fact of the matter is that for all their blowhard rhetoric, the RNC has not lived up to what they promised. They want to shrug it off under the idea they are a minority and have no power. Funny, when they were a majority we had many “across-the-aisle” compromises, so if they can give in to compromise when in the majority, and don’t demand the same when in the minority, they were simply burned and need to admit it, gain a majority, and stop capitulating on matters of principle. NOTE TO RNC: This means gain a majority without capitulation experts like Castle and McCain.

People are fed up with the “way it works” in DC, but let someone run who isn’t one of the Beltway Club and watch how fast the criticism of them starts. They have no experience - yeah, like Obama doesn’t suffer from that affliction? :confused: They can’t beat the Dem because the polls say so. Oh, like polls are never wrong? Gore V. Bush - Gore favored to win - didn’t happen. Carter v. Reagan - Carter strong favorite - Reagan cleaned his clock.

Washington has this fantasy idea that voters are like consumers with I-Phones. All we have to do is tell then what they should want and we can make token steps in that direction but meanwhile spend money we don’t have on pork and making ourselves popular. Well people are waking up. Even Obama supporters are leaving him in droves, finally seeing that he is no different than any of the other promise breakers on the Hill. Fool me once…
I tend to agree with your sentiments. But, to reference back to one of my previous posts—

Mitch McConnell is already taking about backing O’Donell and other Tea Partiers in the coming weeks. The fundraising for them has already apparently started. So it may be that the GOP has already begun to wake up to what they should have taken adavantage of much earlier…:):)🙂
 
As for the final Senate election in Delaware, it’s still 7 weeks away. A lot can happen in that time. Two days ago, the establishment Republicans were wanting their “moderate” and were slow roasting O’Donnell on a spit; today, however, they handed her a fat check. Now why would they do something like that if she had NO chance to win? One of you prediction-believers care to explain that one?

In case some of you have never been involved whatsoever in state nomination politics, it is a dirty game no matter the side you are on. Many of the people who you see on a ballot only got there after years and years of service to their party in one form or another. You might say this is a demonstration of loyalty, a sort of litmus test that demonstrates that they know who’s who in the food chain, and can show in some way they have worked with the other fish in the tank and will not present a danger to them.

That is not the case with people who have sprung up a bit prematurely like many of the Tea Party candidates. What’s at play here is a lot of fear that the status quo applecart will be tipped over and that the candidate will no longer play by party rules. But that exact quality is what has broad appeal with voters right now for the simple reason they are tired of getting RNC funding letters saying, for example, that if you don’t dig in your wallet RIGHT NOW and send them 50 bucks, Hillary might be President, or Obama, and once that happens it will be too late. Then you watch as the legislative circus comes to town. All the talk about working across the aisle, openness, operating in the light of day they all promised goes right out the window. Not only that, but the people who promised R voters they would stand up to that kind of thing failed to do so.

Remember back before the D’s controlled the Congress and there was talk about using a “nuclear option” to railroad legislation? Remember that? And do you also remember Sen. McCain and a bunch of waffling, work-across-the-aisle types caved in to the Dems, chiding us about how important the “traditions of the Senate” were. Well where were those “traditions of the Senate” when bills were being debated in closed sessions? When bills were up for vote before anyone had a read of them? Where committee votes were deemed passed by “eyeball” rather than a count of ayes and nays?

To work cooperatively is one thing; to capitulate against principles in a continuing string of concessions is something altogether different. These clowns in our Congress might think we have no memory of the promises they break to us, but like with everything else in life, people who grab an inch are soon reaching for a mile and one day it comes to a crashing halt. These primary defeats of wishy-washy, capitulating candidates IS that day of reckoning.

The argument we hear is: Well if this person wins the primary, we might lose the general election.

Answer: Yes, that’s right, you might. But at least I can vote without holding my nose. Instead of being upset with the voters, you should be upset with your electoral committees for not finding a candidate that would give his/her word and keep it, thus attracting the same voters the Tea Party currently does. The shame is on you, the party, not us, the voters. The power given in the Constitution is not to state party organizations, but to “the People.” The People have spoken; if you want to win, you will listen, or you will go down in flames and the people will wait another 2 years and teach you this lesson again, and again, and again until you get your head around the real problem.

The sad fact of the matter is that for all their blowhard rhetoric, the RNC has not lived up to what they promised. They want to shrug it off under the idea they are a minority and have no power. Funny, when they were a majority we had many “across-the-aisle” compromises, so if they can give in to compromise when in the majority, and don’t demand the same when in the minority, they were simply burned and need to admit it, gain a majority, and stop capitulating on matters of principle. NOTE TO RNC: This means gain a majority without capitulation experts like Castle and McCain.

People are fed up with the “way it works” in DC, but let someone run who isn’t one of the Beltway Club and watch how fast the criticism of them starts. They have no experience - yeah, like Obama doesn’t suffer from that affliction? :confused: They can’t beat the Dem because the polls say so. Oh, like polls are never wrong? Gore V. Bush - Gore favored to win - didn’t happen. Carter v. Reagan - Carter strong favorite - Reagan cleaned his clock.

Washington has this fantasy idea that voters are like consumers with I-Phones. All we have to do is tell then what they should want and we can make token steps in that direction but meanwhile spend money we don’t have on pork and making ourselves popular. Well people are waking up. Even Obama supporters are leaving him in droves, finally seeing that he is no different than any of the other promise breakers on the Hill. Fool me once…
Excellent post, DOShea.

May I please ride the coattails of your eloquence
by agreeing with it?

:clapping:
 
I tend to agree with your sentiments. But, to reference back to one of my previous posts—

Mitch McConnell is already taking about backing O’Donell and other Tea Partiers in the coming weeks. The fundraising for them has already apparently started. So it may be that the GOP has already begun to wake up to what they should have taken adavantage of much earlier…:):)🙂
One question is whether the Tea Party-type candidates are likely to be successful against Democrat opponents. It doesn’t seem impossible to me, but I don’t have a crystal ball.

Another is whether it is better or worse for this country that the Republican party seems to be (perforce of force) becoming more conservative.

It seems it could hardly be worse. Right now, the Democrat party has gone so far left (and I think some of that is by force of the power its elites have) that it can no longer be seen due to the curvature of the earth. And it was done purposely. The Democrat officeholders are clearly in the control of those within it who have money and power, and that was amply proved with the health insurance bill, in the course of which people like Blanche Lincoln sat out on a limb and sawed it off themselves rather than defy the Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis, Barack Obamas and George Soros’. They defied their constituencies instead.

And that hard left monolith had no room for compromise in its mind either. It absolutely blew off Republicans like they weren’t there. Obama pretty much said it all when, in that televised bipartisan conference on the health insurance bill, he reminded McCain that he lost the election. Well, that was “case closed”. If you don’t have power, you have nothing to say.

There’s no “collegiality” in Congress, either. It’s just a war, with no prisoners taken. I suppose some, like Castle, succumbed to the “Stockholm syndrome of politics”; on the side of their enemies without seeming to realize it.

So, what is the country to have then opposing that? A party full of people who are just like the other side; or who will, for some favor or other, allow the opposition to impose on the public whatever it wants?

At minimum, it seems to me that since the battle line has certainly been drawn by the Democrats, it’s hardly odd for those who oppose that left wing steamroller to expect their ostensible partisans to be true believers. Since the Republican party answered that expectation disappointingly to many, and rightly so in many instances, it does not strike me as at all odd that conservative rank and file would like to have a party that actually represents their beliefs.

I’m not a Tea Party person. But it’s refreshing to see people who actually have a consistent set of conservative beliefs, just as I’m sure the far left felt refreshed when Pelosi/Reid/Obama rolled over the Republicans (and public opinion) in the lurch to the left.
 
I don’t think that’s fair. I think she was speaking to her general beliefs that the Second Amendment is a check on overreaching government and that she thinks the country is pretty far gone.

She never said she would advocate revolution if she lost the election. Not even remotely.
We obviously have a differing idea of what is “not even remotely”.

“Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government,” Angle told conservative talk show host Lars Larson in January. “In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”

Also that month, she told Reno conservative talk show host Bill Manders she hoped Reid would be defeated at the ballot box before the electorate resorted to more aggressive measures. “I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies,” Angle said. “I hope that the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

And last month she told the Reno Gazette-Journal “it’s almost an imperative” that conservatives win. The nation is arming," she told the newspaper. “What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”

Peace.

scrippsnews.com/node/54596
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top