I'm confused about the tea party movement, but I refuse to spend time researching it. Aren't the tea partiers just going to end up becoming republicans?
How many INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES are actually going to win races in November?
It seems like the political system is rigged against independents. These pre-November political races are simply to elect the main political opponent to the politician in office. Even if the politician in office loses during their own parties nomination, it is still to another candidate from their own party.
If an Independent candidate can only knock off a democratic incumbent by running as a democrat, or by defeating the democrat in the fall after first knocking off the republican favorite, I consider the tea party movement to be a whole lot of puffery because they have to become part of the very parties they scorn, to have an impact.
Yes, some incumbent democratic candidates have decided not run for re-election, but once again, where does the independent candidate fit into the picture?
When November comes, isn't it possible that "rogue republican voters" will vote democrat because they don't like the tea party candidate that defeated the more well known republican earlier in the year? Isn't it also possible the democrats will vote democrat out of fear of the "crazy" tea party republican candidates?
If republican and democratic voters actually saw the word INDEPENDENT next to a political challenger's name, then I could see an actual tea party movement happening. But if tea party candidates are simply infiltrating either republican or democratic parties, it seems to me they could be defeated by a loose consortium of democrats and republicans who don't want tea party change.
Sarah Palin should have run for governor of California this year, won, and then proved to all of us that she can handle a big state. I know Bill Clinton governed a small state, and Barack Obama has never even governed, but Sarah Palin burst upon the national scene and was kind of forced to "fake it" in the heat of the moment, kind of the way Barack Obama did in 2008.
Until I see Sarah Palin actually govern when all the focus is on her, I'm not sure she is actually ready to be a viable president. A perfect example of only leading when the focus is not on you, and then becoming president is, Barack Obama.
Barack Obama may have used his street smarts and deep pockets backers to get elected, and Sarah Palin may have her snow smarts, but neither at this point is what this country really needs in its next leader.
I just don't think Sarah Palin is remotely qualified to be president when I compare her experience with that of Hillary Clinton's. I feel Palin is leading a "movement" that isn't genuine when an independent is forced to call themselves a republican to win.