Originally posted by Southern Guardian
A belated greetings to you as well.
I read the article itself and saw this thread involved both the NY race and the tea party movement that the OP decided to bring as well, and
yes, from there I decided to go ahead with my regular song and dance.
Did you notice the repeated mentions of people who were opposed to this guy until it started looking like he's going to win? Did you notice it was
only then that they changed their tune's? That would be a huge clue that Gingrich and the rest are only supporting the person they think is going to
Hoffman is backed by one republican wing of the party, including Mrs Palin, and Scozzafava who dropped out was supported by the other wing of
the Republican party. As far as I can see it, this is a battle of dominance over the republican party, not any move of the third parties.
I'm going to have to suggest that you go read the article again. Gingrich, Steele, the NRCC, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Akin, and Souder refused to back
Hoffman until they realized that Hoffman is probably going to win. Then and only then did they decide to back him. That's not a battle of dominance,
it's a last minute attempt to switch sides and stay in the people's good graces. Palin's endorsement I actually believe. A quick glance over
Hoffman's stance on some issues shows that he and Palin have similar beliefs, so I believe she's endorsing him because of that.
Trying to align themselves? If Doug wanted to seperate himself from both parties he would have made it clear, and he wouldnt have been so set
on seeking the republican nomination prior, yet likewise actions prove otherwise. His only running third party because it was the only option, and
likewise folks are jumping on the bandwagon an hyping up. His just another wing of the republican party fighting for dominance come 2012.
Wow you didn't read my entire post. None of this has anything to do with what I was talking about when I said they were trying to align themselves
with Hoffman because he's probably going to win.
I wonder what would happen if the tea parties cut off their Fox news funds and support, and completely cut of its republican ties? How long
would they last? A supposed anti-two party movement that depends on one of those parties for survival? That doesnt look very third party to
The absence of your denial has been noted and will be taken as an admittance that you jumped on the MSM "bash-the-tea-party" bandwagon. On the
bright side, it's nice to see you at least aren't denying it. Not quite the same as admitting it, but it'll do.
As for the completely irrelevant section above, which you know is irrelevant since it again has nothing to do with the part of my post you quoted,
I'll take the bait. The tea parties aren't funded by Fox, so there's nothing to cut off there. They aren't supported by Fox unless you have a
twisted definition of "support" that says being covered by a news organization and that news organization promoting their coverage is support. I've
checked my dictionary and I don't see that definition, but perhaps you have a different dictionary than I have.
Jenna, what will you be saying to yourself regarding this movement following 2010 when its only the R's and the D's again in DC? Are you
going to give yourself a pat on the back, "atleast they tried" talk? Are you going to blame "the powers to be" like some here? Or are you just
going to come to the conclusion that this teaparty movement was another republican stealth campaign to help it get into DC again?
I'll likely be saying the same thing I've been saying for at least the last 8 years. You and people like you who still believe in the two-party
system went and voted down party lines yet again instead of paying attention to who exactly you all are voting for.
I have to wonder what exactly it is that you think is being accomplished by keeping everything the same with the same people in Congress making the
same mistakes over and over and over again. It certainly isn't anything good.
Being promoted by them and sponsored by them is another thing, and thats what fox news did. The participation at Glenn Becks on 9/12 movement
should have been blatantly obvious as well.
Ahh, but that's not what happened. Fox and Beck promoted their coverage
of the tea parties. As I said in my last post, it was a smart business
decision. During the tea parties they covered, they were the only ones who actually showed you a live feed. CNN and MSNBC did nothing but ridicule and
dismiss the tea parties. Actually covering them without all the ridicule was a brilliant business move, and if you bother to check the ratings, Fox
blows CNN and MSNBC away. That in itself should tell you something.
Actions speak louder than words.
And yours are telling me that rather than focus on the topic of the article, you'd rather once again do everything you can to bash what you don't
Maybe people like you Jenna seek so desperately someone who is not running under the R's and the D's, and you'll take anything regardless of
its associations. Im sorry for again trampling on that mission of yours.
Maybe you can't see the forest for the trees. It's not about desperately seeking someone who isn't a Republican or a Democrat. It's about wanting
to fix the mess our government has gotten us in before it's completely irreversible. Electing the same people back into office isn't going to fix
anything, it's only going to make things worse.
Hard as it may be for you to believe, not everyone goes by party affiliation. Some of us actually vote based on whether someone has the same stance on
the issues we do and couldn't care less whether they have an R or a D after their name on the ballot.