The 2012 Election will NOT be between President Obama and one of the Republican nominees

[Proud Liberal Dem]

The contest will be between President Obama and the Republican Tea Party because IMHO we can expect any Republican nominee to push the Tea Party agenda during the campaign and, if elected, certainly will kowtow to it, particularly if the Republicans (somehow) wind up controlling all three branches.
:scared:

I cannot think of a single GOP nominee running who would stand up to the Republican Tea Party and refuse to sign off on any of the bills that they will undoubtedly resurrect in the next Congress. If none of the so-called "moderate" Republicans in the Senate can stand up to the Republican Tea Party and vote their conscience, what makes anybody think that any of the GOP Presidential candidates are going to bravely go against the tea leaves? Even Jon Huntsman, who for a short time, seemed to be acting more like a GOP "maverick" has started to bend to the Tea Party wing of the GOP. There simply does not seem to currently be any elected Republicans whom are able and/or willing to stand up to the Tea Party.

Agree or disagree? :shrug:

[TheWraith]

1. I agree completely. It doesn't matter who the Republican nominee really is.

Oh sure, some of them would be more fun than others to run against. But in the end, whether it's Newt or Mittens, it will be a solidly far-right Republican running on the same platform with the same insane people behind them.

[bbgrunt]

2. the tea party agenda is really the wet dream of corporate interests.

strip away the religious right items, and it is a perfect corporate agenda. I think we give the "tea party" too much credit. It would be better named the 1% or corporate agenda.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Even though they pretend otherwise

they are most definitely stooges, wittingly or unwittingly, for the 1% IMHO. They are the "foot soldiers" for the 1%. They completely betray their supposedly "populist" grievances (for me) with their continued support for policies (and politicians) that are least likely to address their supposed grievances (and actually make things WORSE). :banghead: Hey, has anybody met a Tea Party supporter whom decries the bank bailouts that actually supports increased regulation a la Dodd-Frank? :shrug: I haven't. If anything, most of them want banks and other financial institutions to be LESS regulated.