"robert bowman" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There is nothing that would make the Democrats happier than for a Tea
Party to emerge as a third party, and they'd be ecstatic if Palin got
involved with it.

Depends on what sort of tea they are serving. The DailyKos/MoveOn/HuffPo
branch of the Democratic party hasn't been too happy lately, and all those
20-somethings that got their first lesson in politics may be looking for
some change that ain't the same tired rhetoric. A halfway decent populist
(not to be confused with the half-assed Populist Party of the past) party
could hurt the Republicrats.


It will split the Republicans. It will hardly touch the Democrats. It's a
conservative populist movement, more clearly a spoiler party than any other
than the Naderites. And it's much larger -- big enough to condemn the
Republicans to purgatory for as long as the Tea Party would field
candidates.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"robert bowman" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There is nothing that would make the Democrats happier than for a
Tea Party to emerge as a third party, and they'd be ecstatic if
Palin got involved with it.

Depends on what sort of tea they are serving. The
DailyKos/MoveOn/HuffPo branch of the Democratic party hasn't been
too happy lately, and all those 20-somethings that got their first
lesson in politics may be looking for some change that ain't the
same tired rhetoric. A halfway decent populist (not to be confused
with the half-assed Populist Party of the past) party could hurt the
Republicrats.


It will split the Republicans. It will hardly touch the Democrats.
It's a conservative populist movement, more clearly a spoiler party
than any other than the Naderites. And it's much larger -- big enough
to condemn the Republicans to purgatory for as long as the Tea Party
would field candidates.

It's going to be a bad year for incumbents Ed.
2010, that is.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"robert bowman" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There is nothing that would make the Democrats happier than for a
Tea Party to emerge as a third party, and they'd be ecstatic if
Palin got involved with it.

Depends on what sort of tea they are serving. The
DailyKos/MoveOn/HuffPo branch of the Democratic party hasn't been
too happy lately, and all those 20-somethings that got their first
lesson in politics may be looking for some change that ain't the
same tired rhetoric. A halfway decent populist (not to be confused
with the half-assed Populist Party of the past) party could hurt the
Republicrats.


It will split the Republicans. It will hardly touch the Democrats.
It's a conservative populist movement, more clearly a spoiler party
than any other than the Naderites. And it's much larger -- big enough
to condemn the Republicans to purgatory for as long as the Tea Party
would field candidates.

It's going to be a bad year for incumbents Ed.
2010, that is.

No doubt. But if there's a Tea Party, it will be *so* much worse for
Republican incumbents.

I wonder when the erstwhile leaders of the imagined Tea Party are going to
explain this to the faithful?

--
Ed Huntress

Well, I know a number of yellow dog democrats that won't
and likely never again be a yellow dog. They are fed up
with the total sale out of this country and begging forgiveness
from other countries and peoples.

These are people who fought for this country. Where it went
is beyond their minds. It is kinda sad with the disenchantment.

Martin

Ed Huntress wrote:
"robert bowman" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There is nothing that would make the Democrats happier than for a Tea
Party to emerge as a third party, and they'd be ecstatic if Palin got
involved with it.
Depends on what sort of tea they are serving. The DailyKos/MoveOn/HuffPo
branch of the Democratic party hasn't been too happy lately, and all those
20-somethings that got their first lesson in politics may be looking for
some change that ain't the same tired rhetoric. A halfway decent populist
(not to be confused with the half-assed Populist Party of the past) party
could hurt the Republicrats.


It will split the Republicans. It will hardly touch the Democrats. It's a
conservative populist movement, more clearly a spoiler party than any other
than the Naderites. And it's much larger -- big enough to condemn the
Republicans to purgatory for as long as the Tea Party would field
candidates.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:26:50 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Well, I know a number of yellow dog democrats that won't
and likely never again be a yellow dog. They are fed up
with the total sale out of this country and begging forgiveness
from other countries and peoples.

These are people who fought for this country. Where it went
is beyond their minds. It is kinda sad with the disenchantment.

Martin


Indeed...oh yes...indeed!


Well said


Gunner


Ed Huntress wrote:
"robert bowman" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

There is nothing that would make the Democrats happier than for a Tea
Party to emerge as a third party, and they'd be ecstatic if Palin got
involved with it.
Depends on what sort of tea they are serving. The DailyKos/MoveOn/HuffPo
branch of the Democratic party hasn't been too happy lately, and all those
20-somethings that got their first lesson in politics may be looking for
some change that ain't the same tired rhetoric. A halfway decent populist
(not to be confused with the half-assed Populist Party of the past) party
could hurt the Republicrats.


It will split the Republicans. It will hardly touch the Democrats. It's a
conservative populist movement, more clearly a spoiler party than any other
than the Naderites. And it's much larger -- big enough to condemn the
Republicans to purgatory for as long as the Tea Party would field
candidates.


"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766