Rand Paul is going to give the Tea Party response to tonight's State of the Union address. This one fact basically sums up the reason the Republican party is struggling.

Republicans should demand that the Tea Party declare itself a political party and break off from the GOP. The Tea Party wants to have its cake and eat it to. They don't want to do the work to become a legitimate political party...they would rather remain a special interest group and..like parasites feed off a clearly weakened Republican Party.

I am calling on the media to refuse to give air time to Rand Paul and the Tea Party response. The Tea Party is not a registered political party in this country and these responses have always been limited to political party. I call on the Republican party to take back their party..to demand once and for all tha the Tea Party become its own political party.

As long as the GOP allows itself to remain divided in this way...their power and influence will continue to weaken.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

Stockman is planning to offer live commentary of the State of the Union address on Twitter with the hashtag #youlie, a homage to Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who once yelled those words during a joint session on health care reform in 2009.

Stockman’s guest at the SOTU speech will be Ted Nugent

This post has been removed.

Is Rep. Stockman the one who is bringing Mr. Nugent to the State of the Union address?  Expect a lot of camera time for Mr. Nugent.

As for the republican party shedding the Tea Party, I think it's unlikely.  Remember its history.  It was set up by Dick Armey, as Washington insider as it gets, to be a "grassroots movement" and "outsiders'" home the last time the party was discredited and in the desert.  It was a major factor in getting the party across the desert to the 2010 election.  Remember Mr. Armey, recently out of congress, being Murdoch&Ailes's go-to spokesman for the Tea Party until they could find articulate grassroots spokespersons?  Now, Mr. Armey has been given a $400,000 per annum platinum parachute for his good work, paid by one of the sponsors of the Tea Party grassroots movement.

I suggest that The Republican Establishment is no more likely to shed the Tea Party than it is to shed the evangelicals.  Too useful.  Look no further than this board.

In response to Newtster's comment:

"As long as the GOP allows itself to remain divided in this way...their power and influence will continue to weaken.."

Whatever you say......while GOP has lost Presidential elections,  it controls the US House , has a strong bench and dominates state and local elections.

Sure, and the blue dogs and centrists of the Democrat party should demand that the socialists that have invaded their party be honest and go back to the Socialist party where they belong.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to tacobreath's comment:

If you look closer at the demographics, you'll see that Romney won the 70 years and older crowd by 20 points.  That does not bode well for the future of the GOP.  

If Republicans really believe what they're shovelling, the best thing they can do is let the Dems govern for a while.  Stop trying to stop everything.  If it's a disaster, like they promise it will be, the public will look for an alternative.  

Bringing Ted Nugent to the State of the Union address is not the best way to present yourself as a sensible alternative for leading the country.

Excuse me but isn't Rubio and Paul both Tea Partiers ?

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to tacobreath's comment:

I would not be bringing Ted Nugent anywhere.   Correct about Romney but, Obama won Hispanics by large margins, under -25 by large margins, single women and more specifically single mothers by large margins, and he won the under $30k per year income group.  He won all the inner-city votes but not the suburb votes (exceptions being the ultra-liberal states, CA, MA, NY, etc).  If the poster checks the voter demographics the truth will prove that the "stupid voters" (user99`s words) voted for the currnet occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Av.

So, all of those demo groups are "stupid voters", in your view...?

Not for nothing, but an electorate that elected AND re-elected George W. Bush is capable of voting for almost anyone.

This post has been removed.

In response to tacobreath's comment:

You were saying something about talking points?

Somehow I have to doubt the statistic.

In response to tacobreath's comment:

Both those stats are 1) bogus, and 2) non sequiturs.  But thanks for playing, anyway.

Try an altoid or two....

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.