Tea Party forces primary for Hatch

[AirFlacco]

Who said the Tea Party was dead? Oh yea, Galen said it or they
were losing influence.

Rumors of their death is premature as Orin Hatch, the veteran
Congressman who was famous in his defense of Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. He got the guys together to push back Anita Hill whom the femmes got to derail Thomas who still won confirmation.

However, the Tea Party now considers him part of the liberal GOP establishment.
Hatch voted for TARP, refused to block second round to siphon funds from TARP for auto industry bailout. Will the real Orin Hatch please stand up. This guy
sounds like Romney with all his flips.

They ousted Castle of Delaware, Crist of Fla, and Bennett of Utah in 09. Needing 60% of the delegates from the Utah Republican Convention, Sen. Orrin Hatch fell short by just 1% after a spirited morning filled with fiery speeches.

Utah elects delegates to get first crack at determining whether a candidate should earn the nomination outright.

However, Hatch is still alive with a strong fund raising effort. He said a few
months ago people didn't give me a chance to get this far and he's the best
person to get the ball moving for repeal of OBUMMER CARE.

This is why I say Tea Party will get more seats in the house and about
8-12 more seats in the Senate falling just short of votes for repeal of
OBUMMER CARE.

They are alive and kicking ass. Orin's ass, while IRS harassment of Tea
Party continues.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ght/54457130/1

[AirFlacco]

All that said, I'm not sure the Tea Parties are right about this. Like I said, Hatch saved Clarence Thomas' confirmation and was seen as conservative. Guys on TV tonight thought he was conservative. Sure he voted for TARP but Bush initiated the first one and Hatch voted vs
OBUMMER CARE. He also introduced the Life Protection Act dealing with abortion. He
is pro-life.

http://www.orrinhatch.com/issues/hatch-versus-obamacare

So what's the prob other than TARP?

Here's to hoping he wins.



He is needed to lead the repeal fight if it comes to that.

The Tea Party might be grasping for straws on this one.

[Galen Sevinne]

Tea party candidates killed the GOPs chance at winning the Senate in 2010. The more, the merrier, I say.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

[AirFlacco]

Wrong again Galen. Over 32% of Tea Partiers won in last Congressional races. That's
1 of 3 candidates for a first time party. Not bad. They had 5 winners in the Senate out
of 11 candidates. They simply didn't have enough attractive candidates to win any
more but again not bad. Here's a break down of their winners.

______________________________
The Senate's easy to break down: The five winners were Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, and Mike Lee; losers were Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, John Raese, and Ken Buck. The race with Joe Miller in Alaska remains undecided
__________________________________


http://www.newser.com/story/104535/3...gress-won.html

Tea Party cost them Delaware and Nevada with Angle losing to Reid who
was behind by 20 pts at one point but how do you blame them for losing the Senate? There
were 11 seats up and right now they still need 12 for control so the Tea Party didn't cost
them full control, maybe two that I know of and we can get picky with Nevada.

We had a poster here at the time posting from Nevada who is a black jack dealer out there
and he said all the casino unions forced their employees to vote for Dirty Harry. he also
got money from the big magnate out there that just gave $5M to Newt a couple of months
ago.

He also rigged all the voting machines with only his name only the ballot. Sure, Angle gave
him an opening when she was vs Soc Sec but that's their platform but if you want to say
the Tea Party cost them Nevada and Delaware go ahead but not much more.

Hell, the Tea Party didn't even catch on here as their candidate only got 38% of the primary
vs Ehrlich the liberal but that was more than ever before and he'll be back.

They cost them Delware with O'Donnell.

Alaska was still GOP. However McAdams didn't have a chance before the 3 way race.


So It seems the GOP lost at least 2 senate races because tea party candidates made the GOP less appealing to voters.

Were the races where the establishment GOP candidate was going to lose the senate race but the tea party candidate won? Would Kentucky still have gone GOP if Paul hadn't won the nomination? Would Wisconsin still be a Feingold state if the tea party candidate hadn't won?

Rubio won in his 3 way race. So the battle between the tea party & GOP didn't make a difference anymore than it did in Alaska.

Even Galen's liberal CBS News says there's no way of telling if the TP cost GOP the
election. Besides, it was their very
first election and they did even better than they thought they would and will do even
better now picking up at least 8 more seats in the Senate.