Speaking for myself,
1. Yes. 2. No one trusted Mitt on anything. 3. Respectfully disagree. 4. I agree--but did the Tea's know what they were getting? 5. I completely agree. But at what point will there be, A. So small a number of Republicans that even having 100percent of R's behind a candidate GUARANTEES a loss to anyone else? (It may be coming close!); or B., many R's that agree with the social principles but are no longer willing to be part of a party that is willing to sacrifice itself and the good of the Republic for them, rather than ceding those principles to individuals and the state?
Hope that makes sense, as I have a dog training appt. and won't be back for a while!
willing slave to the whims of
Kerrybrooks Magical Atticus MH
Coastalight Kiowa Ravenhawk MH
And, you just supported my point that the Teas are not about Liberty or a Balanced Budget. That is your 'smokescreen".
Yes, they backed Rand's Senate bid, I have never said otherwise. It just that they can't get him into the White House. He will need broader support than the Teas and with Santorum running again, who will they support?
Franco conveniently "forgets" to mention Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio along with Rand Paul as Tea Party success stories. All of these men fought very tough Republican establishment opposition to gain their seats... If not for the Tea Party support, they would all still be in their civilian jobs. All three of them are mentioned as the "young guns" of the Republican Party. I'm sure Rand (or any of the others) will accept an addition 1% of the vote if the Libertarians decide to come along for the ride next time...
The LP agrees that abortion is an issue that should be left to the individual states.
To answer RK; I think a Libertarian like a Rand Paul has a better shot at occupying the White House than a Repub standard bearer.
While not mainstream, at least the Liber's offer up more than re-runs.
Never trust a dog to watch your food!