We agree and have been working on this. We think the Tea Party Movement should make a focused effort in 2010 on taking the House. Here's a list of 86 Democrats and 8 Republicans that can and should be fired in 2010. We need to take a net of 40 seats away from the Democrats to stop the "Progressive" destruction machine, our goal is to Fire FiFty .

I think part of our problem is to agree to this framing. I'd like to see a version in absolute dollars. What is the justification for examining these questions as % of GDP? That really builds in a lot of statist assumptions: that government should grow with the growth of private industry; that we need to think about government spending assuming GDP growth and assuming inflation (which government causes! They should have an inflation penalty, not an effective bonus).
No. We need to spend less. Not as a % of GDP. Not inflation adjusted.
Less.

One and only one resolution this year: to take the House away from the Demcrats and stop the "Progressive" destruction of the American Way of Life.

We should not sacrifice ONE MORE CHILD to the union complex that masquerades as an educational system. School choice for all, now.

The Tea Party movement needs to focus on taking the House away from the Democrats in 2010. 435 seats; most are out of play via gerrymandering. That leaves about 75 run of the mill Democrats at risk, 55 Blue Dog Denocrats, and maybe 50 RINO/corrupticans. That is now only 180 races. Tea Party Independents take on the 75 tough races, the Republicans take on the Blue Dogs, and we TPM take on the 50 RINOs in the primaries. We move the Republicans towards Conservatism and provide some viable Conservative alternative to the Democrats in the North and East.

What do you think about people running as Independent Conservatives? No party, maybe just a local Tea Party endorsement? It is a lot more difficult, as you have to gather signatures to get the Indpendent on the ballot.

Dr. Cathy is exactly right. Generalizing, my experience is that the better, more selfless Tea Party Movement Leadership is female. We males seen to be having some difficulty separating our egos from our involvement. It is time for all of us to put Country ahead of personal ambitions.

I know what you mean and I don't know how we fix that. Term limits have not worked well here in CA (permanent bureaucracy/unions/lobbyists vs. amateur politicians have exploded our spending and particularly pension costs). All of the campaign finance laws and rules on lobbying, gifts, donations are just something they learn to work around. I am left with a personal pledge of ethical behaviour, coupled with an electorate that stops re-electing the corrput.

No, a win for the Conservative candidate, the Tea Party candidate, would have meant something.

Listen, the Republicans suck because they fail to live up to their ideals. The Democrats suck because they ARE living up their ideals. Fix the Republicans, fire the Democrats.

I wanted to thank Big Hollywood (Nolte?) for the recommendation to see "Meet John Doe" with Gary Cooper, Barbara Stanwyck, Walter Brennan, directed by Frank Capra. Depression era Tea Partiers! And no-one can communicate American Revolutionary ideals like Capra. Highly recommended.