I will gladly wear the label of Tea Partier, dress up like a native American, and dump my tea into the hahbahr (that's harbor to everyone outside of Boston).

So many times it seems we have to choose between a candidate that is "not as bad" as the other. Is this the case with Brat? He does appear to be a better choice, but some of his beliefs quoted above are not that clear.

If his best defense of the free enterprise system is that it "is the most productive supplier of human needs", then he appears to have given away the moral ground to those that hold "needs" as a standard. And honestly, what does "economic justice" really mean?

I agree with equal rights and justice under the law; but what is meant by being "entitled to" "opportunities"?

Lastly, why is "faith in God" "ESSENTIAL to the moral fiber of the Nation"?

Progressives want him labeled a Tea Partier to make him easier to defeat.
Progressives have the Tea Party labeled as terrorists.
Obama and his progressives have the best propaganda machine since one Mr. A Hitler, and appear to be using several of his best tactics.

well they can say that, but if they are the Os who need the ARI seal of approval-Professor Brat has it. ARI (Ayn Rand Institute, fred)

You should have "skin in the game". The problem is that when Obama said that people should have "skin in the game", he did everything possible to get as many people dependent as possible. This was a complete contradiction of what he said.

I really like the "responsility plank" of dave Brat's platform--I take it as if you live here you must contribute--It is my belief that if you live here, citizenship has responsibilities, you should have "skin-in-the-game". Work (if able and able is a broad spectrum) --pay taxes, contributeto you community and your country--no free rides for life--help if you really need it.

RonC is correct in that the national Tea Party people didn't deem him worthy of support. The radio talk show hosts were more valuable than Tea Party cash, and they always will be.

There is no doubt that the idea of "equality" has been perverted in recent years by socialists, I think the distinguishing factor is in whether it is equality as individuals (which I would support) rather than some sort of irrational "equality of the collective". As long as equality is consistently an individual item, I think we stay with Constitutional concepts.

I guess I would look on it that if you want individual rights, you have to be willing to assume the responsibilities that come with them, ie voting, paying taxes, working, etc. I don't find anything in there that espouses any kind of irrational "responsibility to the collective" or such nonsense.

I think that the term "faith in God" can easily be thought of as: "The knowledge of and implementation of along-term thought process based upon reality and reason."
"Come let us reason together, says the Lord."

Who 's frightened? I don 't like the second point about responsibility. Sounds a little nationalistic. AndI do not think belief in God is the essential part of morality. A personal philosophy founded in reason and based on natural rights is. When I heard him speak last night he said as much. He talked aboutgoverning through a philosophy based on the philosophy of our founders. He listed off starting with getting back to a free enterprise system, regaining the rule of law in the Constitution,, protecting property rights, fiscal responsibility in govt and then he said immigration. So I 'm good with that

I am glad to see Cantor go. I think he enjoyed playing the game and was just interested in gaining power. Lets hope the establishment helps him win in the general election.

I'm not frightened by such a reference.

It should be more like a country club initiation fee. In AS, people had to buy their land from Midas Mulligan. It would be sort of like that, I guess.

I like golf, but don't like the airs people put on at country clubs.

So you crash landed like Dagny? In a way, I guess we all did.

lol scalp fake tickets all you want. there will be a consequence.

Dave Brat is an economics professor and now faces a Dem challenger from the same university. Both are at Randolph-Macon in Richmond.

What Dave Brat believes (from his web site):

•That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,

•That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,

•That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,

•That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,

•That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,

•That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.

The last item will undoubtedly be controversial amongst Gulchers, but other than that, this is someone we can support. Will he end tonight's announcement by asking Who is John Galt?