Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Big night for tea party: O'Donnell wins Delaware


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Big night for tea party: O'Donnell wins Delaware


By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer Michael R. Blood, Associated Press Writer – 46 mins ago
It's tea time in America.

Conservative Christine O'Donnell pulled off a stunning upset over nine-term Rep. Mike Castle in the Republican Senate primary in Delaware Tuesday, propelled by tea party activists into a November showdown with Democrat Chris Coons. After a primary season shaped by economic pain and exasperated voters, the grass-roots, antiestablishment movement can claim wins in at least seven GOP Senate races, a handful of Republican gubernatorial contests and dozens of House primary campaigns, and it influenced many others.

In the fight for New Hampshire's Republican Senate nomination, a second insurgent trailed in vote counting that was still going on Wednesday. After lagging in early returns, former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte moved ahead of Ovide Lamontagne with a lead of roughly 1,000 votes, with results tallied from 85 percent of precincts. Ayotte was backed by establishment Republicans and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin; Lamontagne, a former chairman of the state Board of Education, campaigned with the support of tea party activists.

In New York, tea party ally Carl Paladino dealt another shock to the GOP establishment, defeating former Rep. Rick Lazio in the race for the party's nomination for governor. Paladino will face state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the well-known son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo.

The Delaware outcome reflected the energy and enthusiasm of the tea partiers, but O'Donnell also enters the race against Coons as an underdog, putting GOP control of the Senate further out of reach. Former George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove told Fox News Channel, "This is not a race we're going to be able to win." Delaware Republicans had actively worked against O'Donnell in Tuesday's primary.

On Wednesday, a triumphant O'Donnell accused the party of "Republican cannibalism."

"We have to rise above this nastiness and unify for the greater good, because there's a lot of work to be done and there are a lot of people who want to get involved if the Republican Party would," O'Donnell said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Click image to see more photos from Tuesday's primaries


AP/ROB Carr
O'Donnell said she hopes the party will unite to help her win in November, but said, "It is doable without the support of the Republican Party."

Democratic National Committee chief Tim Kaine told NBC's "Today" on Wednesday that O'Donnell's win was good for Democrats and a further sign of the "civil war" in the Republican party.

"That creates opportunities for us," he said. The O'Donnell win shows that moderate Republican voters are being forced from their party and will "have to look long and hard before supporting these candidates," Kaine said.

Speaking Tuesday night at an Elks Lodge in Dover, Del., O'Donnell thanked Sarah Palin for her endorsement as well as the Tea Party Express, a California political committee that spent at least $237,000 to help her defeat Castle, a moderate and a fixture in Delaware politics for a generation.

Republican Party officials who saw Castle as their only hope for winning the Delaware seat once held by Vice President Joe Biden made clear they will not provide funding for O'Donnell in the general election. The Republican state chairman, Tom Ross, has said O'Donnell "could not be elected dogcatcher," and records surfaced during the campaign showing that the IRS had once slapped a lien against her and that her house had been headed for foreclosure. She also claimed — falsely — to have carried two of the state's counties in a race against Biden six years ago.

In Minneapolis, former President Bill Clinton said the Republican Party is pushing out pragmatic voices in favor of candidates that make former President George W. Bush "look like a liberal."

O'Donnell has said she would work in Congress to repeal President Barack OBama's health care overhaul. She was also a spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion, including in the case of rape, and supports abstinence-only sex education.

The victories by O'Donnell and Paladino are the latest evidence of the influence of the tea party movement, a loose-knit coalition of community groups that advocate limited government, tightfisted spending and free markets.

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who was aided by spending by the Tea Party Express, became an overnight Republican star in January when he claimed the seat held for decades by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Brown's win set the stage for a year of outsider candidates, and the tea party has scored prominent primary election wins in Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and Alaska.

But can they win in November?

O'Donnell and other tea party candidates have called for an abrupt turn toward austere government, and the question will be how far voters want to go to reshape Washington.

The movement's spirited rallies have attracted tens of thousands of people, and they've made their presence felt at the polls: Republican turnout in the primary season has well outpaced Democratic. Even in races where the tea party has been less visible, its influence is evident in candidates' arguments. In the California race for governor, Democrat Jerry Brown is depicting himself as a tax-cutter who keeps his eye on the bottom line.

But for all its enthusiasm, the tea party has elevated sometimes unpolished or flawed candidates who — in some cases — will be more vulnerable in November, particularly in states or districts that are more moderate. The movement has also opened fissures with the GOP establishment. In Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was defeated by tea party favorite Joe Miller, is considering a write-in candidacy and says the Alaska Republican party was "hijacked" by the Tea Party Express, which she calls an "extremist group." The committee, based in California, endorsed Miller and ran ads supporting him.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada once appeared headed for near-certain defeat in the state that has the nation's highest unemployment, but he's now running even with tea party favorite Sharron Angle, a Republican who wants to phase out Social Security for younger workers, opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, and would break up the federal Education Department.

In Colorado, Republicans tried to get their nominee for governor, tea party favorite Dan Maes, to quit the race after embarrassing missteps. He's claimed he worked as an undercover police officer in Kansas — statements that have not been corrOBorated by authorities — and he once suggested that a Denver bike-sharing program is part of a U.N. conspiracy to control American cities.

For the GOP, the tea party "is a mixed blessing," said Bill Whalen, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.

The movement's voters are energized but "anyone but Sharron Angle would have Harry Reid dead to rights. Abolishing the Education Department, it's a little too much," Whalen said.

The loosely connected movement, which took shape in early 2009 in reaction to bailouts and rising government debt, has no central organization that endorses candidates. There are thousands of local chapters, some of which are tethered to national groups.

Tea party candidates have been aided by support from conservative political committees that share the movement's limited government, free market agenda, including the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund.

The financial arm of the Tea Party Express — the Our Country Deserves Better PAC — has spent about $1.6 million in advertising and mailings in a handful of races, including $237,000 in Delaware. It pumped $588,000 into the GOP primary in Alaska to lift Miller over Murkowski.

The Tea Party Express' biggest investment has been in Nevada, where it has spent $790,000 on Angle's behalf. It also spent about $350,000 in Massachusetts to help Brown win.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100915/ap_on_el_ge/us_primary_rdp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

The Republican Party leadership is making it very clear they want nothing to do with conservatives and would even prefer losing seats to liberal Dems than to support conservative Repubs.

Once again the Repub Party leadership chooses to support liberal Repubs over conservative Repubs. In the case of Delaware the Repub leadership has declared they won't give financial support to the conservative Repub who won the primary nomination.

How many times does the Repub Party have to do such things before Christians and conservatives realize the Repub Party is not favorable to either?

Considering the Repub Party leadership has declared they won't be supporting conservative candidates it would be foolish for conservatives and Christians to donate any money to the Repub Party because it will only be used to promote the more liberal Repubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Republican party hasn't had any good options in a while - at least not on the national level. Most moderates, myself included, have felt that the party has been hijacked by the religious right and the far right for a very long time. Moderate Republicans and Democrats are elusive now. For proof on this just look at McCain's presidential campaign. He was forced to cater to the super conservative wing when just a few short years ago he was saying very different things. Maybe we need a viable 3rd party soon. Where in the world are us fiscal conservatives and social moderates supposed to go? Guess that's why I refuse to register with either party...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The Republican party hasn't had any good options in a while - at least not on the national level. Most moderates, myself included, have felt that the party has been hijacked by the religious right and the far right for a very long time. Moderate Republicans and Democrats are elusive now. For proof on this just look at McCain's presidential campaign. He was forced to cater to the super conservative wing when just a few short years ago he was saying very different things. Maybe we need a viable 3rd party soon. Where in the world are us fiscal conservatives and social moderates supposed to go? Guess that's why I refuse to register with either party...

That's why so many are turning to tea party candidates (which is what she is).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Moderates" is a false category. Moderates are mostly liberal but not willing to call themselves such.

Christians should absolutely be wanting candidates which are biblical believers in Christ who truly follow Christ in all aspects of their lives.

The Dem Party is solidly liberal-socialist. The Repub Party is a wishy-washy liberal Party that wants to play the "but we're not as liberal as them Party so you can pretend we are conservative if it makes you vote for us" Party.

Neither the far right nor the religious right have ever dominated the Republican Party. The closest they ever came to a real conservative candidate was Ronald Reagan. Even then Party leaders worked against him and have worked hard to liberalize the Party even further since the end of Reagans second term.

"Moderate Republicans" are liberals and they are the ones that control the Party. This is why they have been so against the Tea Party movement and against conservative candidates that run as Repubs.

God calls Christians to be "hot", standing firm upon His whole Word; not "lukewarm" (moderate). Christ even said it's better for a person to be "cold", not pretending to be what he isn't, than to be lukewarm/moderate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Moderates" is a false category. Moderates are mostly liberal but not willing to call themselves such.

Christians should absolutely be wanting candidates which are biblical believers in Christ who truly follow Christ in all aspects of their lives.

The Dem Party is solidly liberal-socialist. The Repub Party is a wishy-washy liberal Party that wants to play the "but we're not as liberal as them Party so you can pretend we are conservative if it makes you vote for us" Party.

Neither the far right nor the religious right have ever dominated the Republican Party. The closest they ever came to a real conservative candidate was Ronald Reagan. Even then Party leaders worked against him and have worked hard to liberalize the Party even further since the end of Reagans second term.

"Moderate Republicans" are liberals and they are the ones that control the Party. This is why they have been so against the Tea Party movement and against conservative candidates that run as Repubs.

God calls Christians to be "hot", standing firm upon His whole Word; not "lukewarm" (moderate). Christ even said it's better for a person to be "cold", not pretending to be what he isn't, than to be lukewarm/moderate.


Wow. You are again offering a mere opinion (which you have the right to have) while calling my opinion wrong. Moderate is a category and many people fall into it. Where do you get off saying that moderates are liberals who don't want to call themselves such? Do you have some statistics or a source to back that up?

Where did this turn to a discussion about Christian candidates? Last time I checked we were talking about the tea party and political philosophy.

And yes, ever since Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" the Republican party has been hijacked by the far right and extreme social conservatives. If you don't believe me, actually take a look at the Republicans in Congress and look at their ratings on the conservative/liberal scale. I'm sure you will still disagree because these people are not IFB conservative, but the fact still remains.

Interesting, you have managed to turn a political philosophy that is rather vague (as political philosophies usually are) and have attempted to create a moderate political philosophy with being a lukewarm Christian. It makes no sense, but I should be used to it by now. Amazing the leaps you will take.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



Yes, but tea party candidates are generally far right leaving me still with where are moderates supposed to go with the tea party hijacking the GOP?

Well, actually, tea party candidates are not far right by and large. I actually wish some of them were more in line with the Constitution. The prOBlem is that the news media is painting an untrue picture of them - not just the candidates, but the tea partiers as well.

Take Scott Brown, for instance. He won Kennedy's old seat in Mass with massive help from the tea party. And he is by no means far right. I wouldn't even call him moderate. He is actually Kennedy lite, since he has gone with the Dems on just about everything - contrary to what he indicated before people chose him.

Fiorini is another one who is supported by many tea partiers. And she is by no means a Constitutionalist. She is, however, a moderate. And that is one of the reasons she is being pushed by many in the tea party - because they know that in certain areas like MA and CA true Constitutionalists prOBably won't make it.

As to hijacking the GOP - if the GOP wants to get back to its roots then maybe people won't be so angry with the rank and file of them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Wow. You are again offering a mere opinion (which you have the right to have) while calling my opinion wrong. Moderate is a category and many people fall into it. Where do you get off saying that moderates are liberals who don't want to call themselves such? Do you have some statistics or a source to back that up?

Where did this turn to a discussion about Christian candidates? Last time I checked we were talking about the tea party and political philosophy.

And yes, ever since Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" the Republican party has been hijacked by the far right and extreme social conservatives. If you don't believe me, actually take a look at the Republicans in Congress and look at their ratings on the conservative/liberal scale. I'm sure you will still disagree because these people are not IFB conservative, but the fact still remains.

Interesting, you have managed to turn a political philosophy that is rather vague (as political philosophies usually are) and have attempted to create a moderate political philosophy with being a lukewarm Christian. It makes no sense, but I should be used to it by now. Amazing the leaps you will take.


Look at the voting records of moderates, they tend to line with the liberals. Moderates hold to liberal positions no conservative or Christian would hold to.

Newt was no conservative, though he likes to sound like one sometimes. I clearly remember the "Contract with America" and how it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Newt paid lip service to the contract only; he never pressed for it's actual implementation. The Repub Party has become more liberal since then.

This thread deals with candidates, as the title suggests by mentioning one, as well as politcal philosphy and any time Christians are having a discussion it should be known whether a candidate is Christian or not and how they line up with biblical principles.

Notice how many years the last Bush was in office with a congress controlled by Repubs. There was no end to abortion, no legislation making things clear regarding homosexuality either in the military or society at large, no efforts to shrink the government back in the bounds of the Constitution, no rollback of the advances liberals have made.

For the Christian, Scripture is to be the backbone, the foundation upon which all of life is viewed and lived.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Notice how many years the last Bush was in office with a congress controlled by Repubs. There was no end to abortion, no legislation making things clear regarding homosexuality either in the military or society at large, no efforts to shrink the government back in the bounds of the Constitution, no rollback of the advances liberals have made.


This type of thing won't end with the federal government until the STATES begin to take back the power that is theirs. Nullification will go a long way toward ending a lot of stuff that has been going on. A state has the right to nullify any unconstitutional federal law. But most people aren't aware of that...

An excellent and eye-opening book to read is: http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490
It would be a good book to give to state legislators as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



This type of thing won't end with the federal government until the STATES begin to take back the power that is theirs. Nullification will go a long way toward ending a lot of stuff that has been going on. A state has the right to nullify any unconstitutional federal law. But most people aren't aware of that...

An excellent and eye-opening book to read is: http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490
It would be a good book to give to state legislators as well.


According to the Feds, the "civil war" settled that. The States only have the rights the Feds agree to let them have.

Likely as not, unless nearly every State attempted nullified a Federal law, the Feds would demand compliance and a quick response by troops if they failed. We saw this during the "civil rights" era.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



According to the Feds, the "civil war" settled that. The States only have the rights the Feds agree to let them have.

Likely as not, unless nearly every State attempted nullified a Federal law, the Feds would demand compliance and a quick response by troops if they failed. We saw this during the "civil rights" era.

Ah, but Missouri's doing it with the health care... :thumb:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Look at the voting records of moderates, they tend to line with the liberals. Moderates hold to liberal positions no conservative or Christian would hold to.

Newt was no conservative, though he likes to sound like one sometimes. I clearly remember the "Contract with America" and how it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Newt paid lip service to the contract only; he never pressed for it's actual implementation. The Repub Party has become more liberal since then.

This thread deals with candidates, as the title suggests by mentioning one, as well as politcal philosphy and any time Christians are having a discussion it should be known whether a candidate is Christian or not and how they line up with biblical principles.

Notice how many years the last Bush was in office with a congress controlled by Repubs. There was no end to abortion, no legislation making things clear regarding homosexuality either in the military or society at large, no efforts to shrink the government back in the bounds of the Constitution, no rollback of the advances liberals have made.

For the Christian, Scripture is to be the backbone, the foundation upon which all of life is viewed and lived.


Well I'm not sure what moderates you are looking at. There are very, very few true moderates in Congress. Even so, they are members of the Democratic or Republican party and cop to the leadership under pressure.

Again I'll ask you if you have anything to back up your position. And "moderates hold to liberal positions no Christian would hold to"? Really? Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of true Christians that are not conservative politically and plenty that are even (gasp!) Democrats. A book you might want to check out (but I know you won't) is "Jesus rode a Donkey". It's about how the right doesn't have a monopoly on Christianity.

You are correct about the Bush administration in some respects. Actually, there were many laws passed in states that severely limited a woman's right to choose. Regardless, it's next to impossible if not impossible to change the Roe decision now by legislation.

It's interesting that you mention legislation regarding homosexuality and shrinking the government back to the bounds of the Constitution right next to each other. Federal legislation regarding homosexuality or defining marriage would be waaay outside the bounds of the Constitution. It's really funny how far right conservatives love the Constitution until it disagrees with their pet cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...