The following article raises some important questions that I almost never see addressed:
-------------------------------
http://www.infowars.com/anti-establishment-fervor-a-hammer-blow-to-washington-elite/Anti-Establishment Fervor A Hammer Blow To Washington Elite Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Amidst the defeat two more establishment Republicans by Tea Party candidates last night, a new Rasmussen poll shows that anti-incumbent challenger Sharron Angle is now tied with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and stands a good chance of ousting him in November, which would represent a massive blow to the Washington elite.
Angle’s popularity is excelled by Kentucky’s Rand Paul,
who has taken a commanding lead over Democrat Jack Conway after trouncing establishment Republican Trey Grayson back in May.
Mirroring Paul’s success, Delaware Tea Party candidate
Christine O’Donnell defeated nine-term Republican Michael Castle last night, despite a last minute GOP rush to help him save his seat. After the result, Republican insider Karl Rove attacked O’Donnell’s character and derided her as a “nut,” in a transparent example of how the neo-con establishment is panicked at genuinely grass-roots candidates who have not been co-opted by the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, another Tea Party-backed newcomer, Carl Paladino, easily won New York’s Republican gubernatorial race, beating establishment candidate Rick Lazio.
Given the burgeoning success of anti-establishment candidates in recent months, one wonders when the system will turn to its rigged voting machines and shady back-handers in order to counter what is increasingly looking like a peaceful revolution conducted via the ballot box.
[
Continued...]
-------------------------------
What is it exactly that makes Christine O’Donnell (the candidate pictured above) a "Tea Party" or "anti-establishment" candidate?
Is it the mere fact that most people have agreed to call her that while having at best only a vague understanding of what the term actually means, or is it specific
policy reforms she advocates? If the latter, then what
are those policy reforms? Do her supporters even know?
And what about litmus test issues? Are there any? Can someone like
Peter Schiff, for instance, parrot establishment talking points on an issue as important as
Iran yet still be considered an "anti"-establishment candidate?
These questions are vital. Why? Because the less a political movement defines itself in terms of specific policy positions (such as the ones I advocate
here), the more telegenic Judas goats and smooth-talking establishment operatives will do it
for them. Tea Party cheerleaders ignore this fact at their peril.
