Video: Bluest of RINOs in Senate Whines about Tea Party

Enter Exhibit A in the case to be made against rabid partisanship, in which majorities should be the top priority. America's first president, George Washington, didn't have much use for them.

Via Forbes:

George Washington addressed the problem of political parties 200 years ago in his Farewell Address. He conceded, grudgingly, that it is "probably true" that, "within certain limits" political "parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty." But he added that party spirit was "not to be encouraged." He thought "there will always be enough of [it] for every salutary purpose." As there was "constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it."

He compared the competition of parties to inflammation: "A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Now enter Exhibit B. Perhaps the bluest RINO in the Senate, Richard Lugar (RINO-IN). He is up for reelection in 2012 and is facing strong Tea Party opposition. If ever there was a Senator who deserves to be primaried in 2012, it's Lugar.



Note his argument here. It's all about Party. He blames the Tea Party for not giving the Republicans a majority in the Senate in 2010. In essence, Lugar admits to being exactly the kind of creature George Washington warned us against.

There was a school of thought that said J.D. Hayworth couldn't win the 2010 General election vs. Democrat Rodney Glassman. Those who believed that pulled the lever for McCain. McCain won the primary and the General. He then did things like call the Libyan (al-Qaeda) rebels his 'heroes.' Though the argument can me made that McCain moved to the right, he's hardly been pushing the cause of conservatism.

In Delaware, the opposite happened. Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell defeated RINO Mike Castle in the primary and went on to lose to far left Democrat and 'bearded Marxist,' Chris Coons.

The case can be made that it's better to have someone like Coons in office so Americans can see the true face of socialism instead of having someone like Castle, who gradually pulls us in that direction. I've made that case, as long as it's not done with the reckless abandon of granting the other side a super majority.

Then, take the example of Sharron Angle vs. Harry Reid in 2010. That race was so close that Angle likely would have won it with the Republican Party support she didn't get.

h/t Breitbart: