Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Rubio, a tea party favorite, may not join its Senate caucus | McClatchy
Classic bait and switch, can you say hoodwinked?
Rubio is an establishment Republican. Keep in mind, the Tea Partiers tried to claim Scott Brown, and Scott Brown's win, as their own.
Rubio, a tea party favorite, may not join its Senate caucus | McClatchy
Classic bait and switch, can you say hoodwinked?
Good lord
The very first paragraph proves you don't read past headlines.
Don't you ever tire of making yourself look the fool?
Rubio, a tea party favorite, may not join its Senate caucus | McClatchy
Classic bait and switch, can you say hoodwinked?
Rubio is an establishment Republican. Keep in mind, the Tea Partiers tried to claim Scott Brown, and Scott Brown's win, as their own.
Yeah, I thought of that similarity as well. Who really wants to be associated with an extreme group like the teaparty once you're in your seat? The teaparty was a "useful tool".
sarahg IS what she is complaining aboutRubio is an establishment Republican. Keep in mind, the Tea Partiers tried to claim Scott Brown, and Scott Brown's win, as their own.
Yeah, I thought of that similarity as well. Who really wants to be associated with an extreme group like the teaparty once you're in your seat? The teaparty was a "useful tool".
I honestly think many on the left don't understand what the whole 'TEA Party' thing is about. You need to stop trusting what the liberal media tell you about the TEAs and look honestly at what they are trying to do.
They claim Scott, not because he's a conservative, but because he wasn't the 'anointed one' from the Democrats. They helped get him elected purely on the 'kick 'em all out' theory. They didn't go for a strong conservative, they went for someone who was his own man. Which is exactly what Scott has proved to be.
Same with Rubio. The TEAs aren't necessarily expecting him to be 'their man'. They want him to be an honest man.
You really need to stop believing this shit about 'extremists'.... you're being sold a pile of shit that has no basis in reality.
Rubio is an establishment Republican. Keep in mind, the Tea Partiers tried to claim Scott Brown, and Scott Brown's win, as their own.
Yeah, I thought of that similarity as well. Who really wants to be associated with an extreme group like the teaparty once you're in your seat? The teaparty was a "useful tool".
I honestly think many on the left don't understand what the whole 'TEA Party' thing is about. You need to stop trusting what the liberal media tell you about the TEAs and look honestly at what they are trying to do.
They claim Scott, not because he's a conservative, but because he wasn't the 'anointed one' from the Democrats. They helped get him elected purely on the 'kick 'em all out' theory. They didn't go for a strong conservative, they went for someone who was his own man. Which is exactly what Scott has proved to be.
Same with Rubio. The TEAs aren't necessarily expecting him to be 'their man'. They want him to be an honest man.
You really need to stop believing this shit about 'extremists'.... you're being sold a pile of shit that has no basis in reality.
Rubio is an establishment Republican. Keep in mind, the Tea Partiers tried to claim Scott Brown, and Scott Brown's win, as their own.
Yeah, I thought of that similarity as well. Who really wants to be associated with an extreme group like the teaparty once you're in your seat? The teaparty was a "useful tool".
I honestly think many on the left don't understand what the whole 'TEA Party' thing is about. You need to stop trusting what the liberal media tell you about the TEAs and look honestly at what they are trying to do.
They claim Scott, not because he's a conservative, but because he wasn't the 'anointed one' from the Democrats. They helped get him elected purely on the 'kick 'em all out' theory. They didn't go for a strong conservative, they went for someone who was his own man. Which is exactly what Scott has proved to be.
Same with Rubio. The TEAs aren't necessarily expecting him to be 'their man'. They want him to be an honest man.
You really need to stop believing this shit about 'extremists'.... you're being sold a pile of shit that has no basis in reality.
Yeah, I thought of that similarity as well. Who really wants to be associated with an extreme group like the teaparty once you're in your seat? The teaparty was a "useful tool".
I honestly think many on the left don't understand what the whole 'TEA Party' thing is about. You need to stop trusting what the liberal media tell you about the TEAs and look honestly at what they are trying to do.
They claim Scott, not because he's a conservative, but because he wasn't the 'anointed one' from the Democrats. They helped get him elected purely on the 'kick 'em all out' theory. They didn't go for a strong conservative, they went for someone who was his own man. Which is exactly what Scott has proved to be.
Same with Rubio. The TEAs aren't necessarily expecting him to be 'their man'. They want him to be an honest man.
You really need to stop believing this shit about 'extremists'.... you're being sold a pile of shit that has no basis in reality.
Scott was elected when his opponent got cocky, she beat herself. The Teaparty had nothing to do with his election.
Similar to the Rubio election.
good grief, the lefties are GETTING DESPERATE to find ANYTHING AGAINST the Tea Party.
so Rubio said he MAY not.
and THIS IS BIG NEWS FOLKS.
I honestly think many on the left don't understand what the whole 'TEA Party' thing is about. You need to stop trusting what the liberal media tell you about the TEAs and look honestly at what they are trying to do.
They claim Scott, not because he's a conservative, but because he wasn't the 'anointed one' from the Democrats. They helped get him elected purely on the 'kick 'em all out' theory. They didn't go for a strong conservative, they went for someone who was his own man. Which is exactly what Scott has proved to be.
Same with Rubio. The TEAs aren't necessarily expecting him to be 'their man'. They want him to be an honest man.
You really need to stop believing this shit about 'extremists'.... you're being sold a pile of shit that has no basis in reality.
Scott was elected when his opponent got cocky, she beat herself. The Teaparty had nothing to do with his election.
Similar to the Rubio election.
The TEAs backed both candidates. Everyone expected "Kennedy's seat" to go to the anointed one. It did not. The TEAs backed Brown, Brown won. Would he have won without them? Who the hell can prove it either way.
It makes little difference. The TEAs have never claimed Brown as 'theirs'.... they wanted him in.... not because he's a conservative but because he was independent.
You really need to understand the TEAs before you make ridiculous claims that - while they are repeated by the media - have no actual basis in reality.
Scott was elected when his opponent got cocky, she beat herself. The Teaparty had nothing to do with his election.
Similar to the Rubio election.
The TEAs backed both candidates. Everyone expected "Kennedy's seat" to go to the anointed one. It did not. The TEAs backed Brown, Brown won. Would he have won without them? Who the hell can prove it either way.
It makes little difference. The TEAs have never claimed Brown as 'theirs'.... they wanted him in.... not because he's a conservative but because he was independent.
You really need to understand the TEAs before you make ridiculous claims that - while they are repeated by the media - have no actual basis in reality.
Stop being so ignorant.
^^^^ Massive IronyScott was elected when his opponent got cocky, she beat herself. The Teaparty had nothing to do with his election.
Similar to the Rubio election.
The TEAs backed both candidates. Everyone expected "Kennedy's seat" to go to the anointed one. It did not. The TEAs backed Brown, Brown won. Would he have won without them? Who the hell can prove it either way.
It makes little difference. The TEAs have never claimed Brown as 'theirs'.... they wanted him in.... not because he's a conservative but because he was independent.
You really need to understand the TEAs before you make ridiculous claims that - while they are repeated by the media - have no actual basis in reality.
Stop being so ignorant.
on Browns election there was exit polling data to support that the TEA's had little to do with his win, and he likely would have won without their supportYeah, I thought of that similarity as well. Who really wants to be associated with an extreme group like the teaparty once you're in your seat? The teaparty was a "useful tool".
I honestly think many on the left don't understand what the whole 'TEA Party' thing is about. You need to stop trusting what the liberal media tell you about the TEAs and look honestly at what they are trying to do.
They claim Scott, not because he's a conservative, but because he wasn't the 'anointed one' from the Democrats. They helped get him elected purely on the 'kick 'em all out' theory. They didn't go for a strong conservative, they went for someone who was his own man. Which is exactly what Scott has proved to be.
Same with Rubio. The TEAs aren't necessarily expecting him to be 'their man'. They want him to be an honest man.
You really need to stop believing this shit about 'extremists'.... you're being sold a pile of shit that has no basis in reality.
Scott was elected when his opponent got cocky, she beat herself. The Teaparty had nothing to do with his election.
Similar to the Rubio election.
The TEAs backed both candidates. Everyone expected "Kennedy's seat" to go to the anointed one. It did not. The TEAs backed Brown, Brown won. Would he have won without them? Who the hell can prove it either way.
It makes little difference. The TEAs have never claimed Brown as 'theirs'.... they wanted him in.... not because he's a conservative but because he was independent.
You really need to understand the TEAs before you make ridiculous claims that - while they are repeated by the media - have no actual basis in reality.
Stop being so ignorant.
You called the TEA Parties 'extremists' and tell me to stop being ignorant? Now, that is some funny shit, Sarah.
Wow...A link from somewhere else besides HRPuffinstuffPo...A penny from somewhere.
Still, some of us read the whole story, rather than just the headline.
Marcos Sendon, president of the tea party group SFLA Conservative said he expects Rubio to eventually join the caucus.
He noted that activists were 100 percent behind Rubio's candidacy. "We were doing events for him when he was 30 points down, when no one wanted to listen to him," Sendon said. "But we know he's been busy, you have to put things in perspective.
"In the final analysis, his joining is secondary to the important issues we sent him up there to solve," Sendon said.
Rubio, a tea party favorite, may not join its Senate caucus | McClatchy
Classic bait and switch, can you say hoodwinked?
on Browns election there was exit polling data to support that the TEA's had little to do with his win, and he likely would have won without their supportI honestly think many on the left don't understand what the whole 'TEA Party' thing is about. You need to stop trusting what the liberal media tell you about the TEAs and look honestly at what they are trying to do.
They claim Scott, not because he's a conservative, but because he wasn't the 'anointed one' from the Democrats. They helped get him elected purely on the 'kick 'em all out' theory. They didn't go for a strong conservative, they went for someone who was his own man. Which is exactly what Scott has proved to be.
Same with Rubio. The TEAs aren't necessarily expecting him to be 'their man'. They want him to be an honest man.
You really need to stop believing this shit about 'extremists'.... you're being sold a pile of shit that has no basis in reality.
Scott was elected when his opponent got cocky, she beat herself. The Teaparty had nothing to do with his election.
Similar to the Rubio election.
do you have the exit polling data on Rubio's election to back it up?
which means that rubio's victory was dependent on a smaller group than brownson Browns election there was exit polling data to support that the TEA's had little to do with his win, and he likely would have won without their supportScott was elected when his opponent got cocky, she beat herself. The Teaparty had nothing to do with his election.
Similar to the Rubio election.
do you have the exit polling data on Rubio's election to back it up?
No but I believe his election was similar. Christ was sure enough he could win to go at it through the Independent party.
which means that rubio's victory was dependent on a smaller group than brownson Browns election there was exit polling data to support that the TEA's had little to do with his win, and he likely would have won without their support
do you have the exit polling data on Rubio's election to back it up?
No but I believe his election was similar. Christ was sure enough he could win to go at it through the Independent party.
btw, what you "believe" has nothing to do with reality
