Ah-ha! Back to the smoke filled rooms where the party decides who runs. will they include the Tea Party??? I bet not.

As many have pointed out, there is no "Tea Party". There was a loose coalition of like-minded conservatives who began the movement that became the tea party movement. The initial purpose was to return the country to fiscal responsibility while reducing the size of government. Then, some began to jump in front and declare themselves the leaders. The whole thing began to disintegrate into splinters concentrating on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. As a result, there was no longer a group with sufficient power to influence and retake Washington, DC. And, the media are anxious to help, of course, by labeling every right-wing political kook as "Tea Party-backed". The original idea was excellent, but the execution has been lacking.

Wrong, Freddie. Can you spell m-a-s-s-i-v-e v-o-t-e-r f-r-a-u-d?

Fred´s got some good points here. We need to have candidates that can win and be smart campaigners. Don´t water down your principles, but realize that you are competing against a Democrat and their wholely owned media whores.

If you can´t fight a two-front war, don´t get into the race.

The Democrats and their media whores want us to play "squirrel," and they started -- with ABC´s Georgie Porgie ABC Pudding and Pie Steppinalotofit in the primaries building the "War on Women" nonsense, which led to poor little Sandra Fluke being the poster girl for free birth control pills, which she could not afford on her future $160,000 a year salary.

You got idgits like Akin and Mourdock who fell for the media whore trap to be painted as pro-rape (I know, they weren´t, but they got tarred that way by the RATS and the guys with the vats of printer ink and broadcast licenses).

Like Nancy Reagan said, just say no. Don´t get into the squirrel chases with the media whores when they try their 2014 or 2016 version of "War on Women," or whatever they plan to try this next time.

Otherwise, it´s like what my high school history teacher taught me in the 1970´s: Never underestimate the stupidity of the national Republican party.

Barnes is absolutely right about Sue Lowndes. If she had been the candidate, Harry Reid would be playing shuffleboard in Searchlight as we speak. But no--the candidate was a loon who spent her entire time getting her message out through five-watt radio stations.

As for the Tea Party...what Tea Party? Tea Party Express? Tea Party Nation? Tea Party Patriots? All those groups fighting about which is the real Tea Party? All those groups with different priorities?

#1 - plus, Fred?

How about fighting the Machine and it´s nationwide, wired up Vote Fraud treason?

No no no ... much easier to blame the people voting Republican than to carry through with the heavy lifting of taking on the Mafia what controls the elections.

Fred? You´re a poopyhead

Fred, get over it. You keep pushing your moderate crap and you will force the formation a third party.

While it´s true that Barnes is a DC Establishment type, he is correct that more competent candidates than Akin and Mourdock would have won those seats. While we´re on candidates, Obama had an effective unemployment rate near 17%, borrowing approaching infinity, annual trillion dollar deficits plus a bizzare and incoherent foreign policy, yet still won. The current mantra of the paranoid is voter fraud, despite the fact the Gov, AG, Sec´y of State plus the Assembly and Senate in the battleground states are virtually all R´s. Presumably they all conspired w/the D´s to allow those billions of fradulent votes. Why of course! Cold reality is that Romney was a flaccid candidate who stood for nothing. Principled conservatives warned about him in vain from day one, but we were told to shut up and sit down. The results should be obvious. Until the GOP excises Dewey/Rockefeller/Stassen clones like Romney, this pattern will be repeated while the GOP fades into extinction.