Tag Archives: tea party express

Mark Sanford: Embezzler, Adulterer, TEA Party Hero????

                        I received this message in an e-mail from The TEA Party Express and was appalled at what I read.

First Tea PMark Sanfordarty Victory of the 2014 Cycle

Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest Tea Party political action committee, congratulates Mark Sanford on his election victory tonight.

Sanford, a Republican, defeated Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch by a 54 percent to 45 percent margin in the 1st Congressional District race to replace Tim Scott.

Thanks to your commitment to elect fiscal conservatives and your generous support, Mark Sanford was victorious in defeating liberal Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in yesterday’s special election

Yesterday, a grassroots issue-based campaign upset the national Democratic campaign machine. Voters saw past the personal attacks and elected a Tea Party candidate who is willing to stand up for fiscal responsibility and limited government. Mark Sanford was once rated number one by the National Taxpayers’ Union for his efforts to reduce spending and the national debt, and we are confident that he will bring that same conservative leadership back to Washington, D.C.

The Tea Party movement continues to fuel election upsets, while political talking heads continue to try and reject the strength of our message. With $17 trillion in debt, the Obamacare train wreck, and anemic economic growth, Americans are looking to elect leaders that are willing to swim against the current. Mark Sanford’s proven record of standing up for the taxpayer and reducing the size, cost, and intrusiveness of the federal government represent the conservative qualities voters are looking for in candidates.

This is both a victory for Mark Sanford and Tea Party grassroots activists in South Carolina’s first Congressional District. We are now looking to carry this momentum into the 2014 election cycle.

I thought this sounded odd and did some checking to make sure my instinct was on target.  This is the same Mark Sanford who, as governor of South Carolina, essentially embezzled money from the taxpayers of his state to carry on an illicit affair with some Argentinian beauty.  The fact that she is young enough to be his daughter is beside the point.Mark Sanford Girlfriend

Sanford intentionally used state assets to travel to South America to carry on this affair.  Regardless of how this is spun, he stole from WE the People.  He paid a fine and reimbursed the state to buy off an ethics investigation, but only did so after getting caught and to just make it all go away.  Oh, he apologized in his best Jimmy Swaggart “Ah have sinnnnnned!!!” song and dance tear party, paid a fine, reimbursed the state for PART of the money and all of a sudden everything is fine.  NO, everything isn’t fine!!!!!!

I especially like the sentence about Sanford “standing up for the taxpayer and reducing the size, cost, and intrusiveness of the federal government”.  The man is an adulterer who embezzled public funds to carry on the affair and only when he got caught did he “do the right thing”.   Included in the message was a picture of Amy Kremer and Sanford.

I have a question for Ms. Kremer and the others who are so high on Sanford.  What the hell are you people thinking????? Just who and what are you representing??? Isn’t embezzlement a crime?? I thought it was a felony.  Shouldn’t that disqualify Sanford from public office???  This man has trampled on every value I thought the TEA Party stands for.  I would like to hear Amy Kremer’s definitions of honesty, integrity, and morality.

The question of forgiving him for having an affair isn’t my business; that is for his wife and children to deal with.  To forgive him for stealing funds from hard working taxpayers to fund such a thing is fine also, to a point, after punishment for his crime.  I have no problem forgiving him for bad judgment but see no reason to put him right back into a position of trust and honor instead of a prison cell where I would be if I had stolen the same money.  I wonder of Sanford’s wife trusts him as much as Amy Kremer does.

I saw a comment on one of the social network sites I belong to that if I am looking for a saint to run then to name one and the poster would support him/her.  A SAINT??????  Mark Sanford is a far cry from a saint.  This old worn out intimidation tactic of “he who is without sin cast the first stone” from supposed Christian conservatives in the Republican Party is as lame as the race card from the liberals.  The man committed a crime against the trust of We the People.  He used the public treasury as his personal piggy bank.  No, Sanford is not anywhere near sainthood!!!

Do we no longer stand behind the values we claim to live by when it becomes politically expedient to throw them by the way side?  So, “Mark Sanford is not as bad as his opponent” is the standard we are looking for now???  We should forgive him for all of his “bad decisions”, promote him, and give him our trust again???  I don’t think so!!!

Isn’t irrelevance and forgiveness the ploy the Democrat Party is doing right now in the Benghazi hearings circus, and formerly in the Fast & Furious “investigation”?  Isn’t this the same rhetoric we got about Clinton and Lewinsky??  Isn’t this the same rhetoric we got on the Charles Rangel tax evasion, the Tim Geithner tax evasion????  Isn’t this the same attitude that we saw over the Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident????  Bless his heart; he said he was sorry, awwwwwwwwwww!!!!!

The TEA Party Express group, self-touted as being the largest of all the TEA groups, has now apparently bought into the ruling class political establishment attitude that “he might be a criminal but he is our criminal”.  Are we no better than the Democrats; people who will do anything, tell any lie, break any law, destroy any moral value, cheat on anything that helps their cause??

How is our nation to return to our founding principles if those of us looking to get there throw those very principles away like this?  Is defeating Democrats, who are a virtual mirror of the Republican establishment, so important that we will vote for an embezzler and adulterer because he “isn’t quite as bad” as the Democrat candidate?  Oh, he cried and said he was sorry!!!  Really????  Is this the best America can do??

I can’t go along with this surrender of values.  If I toss everything that is important to me in the trash can to win an election what have I won?  How would I have made this nation better by voting for a person as “flawed” as Sanford?  He can’t apologize enough, can’t pay enough fines, and can’t promise enough for me to accept that he should not be in prison for his crime of embezzlement instead of sitting in the seat of government.  He should never be allowed to hold any public office, EVER!!!!

If this is the standard now upheld by the majority of WE the People I have little hope for ever getting back to the honor and prestige America once held.  We cannot restore America as “a shining city on a hill” by continually lowering our standards to keep just ahead of those who are joyfully descending into Hell.  If a man who has no better moral and ethical standards than Mark Sanford is the standard bearer for the TEA Party Express and the conservative movement in America then our nation is lost.   This is like jumping on the back of the bus and trying to claw our way to the front while the bus careens over the cliff of destruction.  We cannot stop a perpetual slide into an abyss of partisan political games, and the loss of all moral political standards, by jumping on the back of the bus.   Our only hope to stop the slide is to oppose it not help it.






I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

May 9, 2013

Rebuttal of Rand Paul’s blatant lies about defense spending

Last night, in his response to President Obama’s SOTU speech, Rand Paul, as usual, directed most of his arrows not at Obama and the Democrats, but at his own party and its conservative supporters, and while so doing, he recited his standard litany of blatant lies about defense issues.

He falsely claimed that defense spending is/has been a “sacred cow” that Republicans have protected for long; that it’s time for Republicans to “realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud”; he furthermore claimed that “Not only should the sequester stand”, but it should even be increased to 4 trillion dollars.

All of his claims are blatant lies or, in the case of waste and fraud, a straw man argument.

Firstly, defense is not, and has NEVER been, a sacred cow. Here, I will not even delve into the deep defense cuts that Republicans agreed to during the 1950s, 1970s, late 1980s, and 1990s; I’ll assume that Rand Paul meant only the time since 2001. Even then, he’s still dead wrong.

Since 2009 alone, Republicans have agreed to the following defense cuts:

  • The massive defense cuts of 2009, which took the form of killing over 30 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22 (the ONLY Western fighter capable of defeating the newest Russian and Chinese aircraft), the Multiple Kill Vehicle for missile defense interceptors, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor for boost phase defense, the AC-X gunship, the CSARX rescue helo, etc. This was followed up in 2010 by further killings of crucial programs, such as the C-17 airlifter and the alternative engine for the F-35 (thus giving Pratt and Whitney an engine monopoly).
  • The New START treaty, ratified in 2010, obligating only the US (not Russia) to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by 1/3;
  • The 178 bn Gates Efficiencies of 2011; and
  • The 487 bn in further defense cuts mandated by the First Tier of the Budget Control Act, accepted by most Republicans in 2011.

All of this BEFORE sequestration.

To date, the DOD has already contributed 900 bn in deficit reduction since 2009. Any claim that the DOD has been a “sacred cow” are blatant lies.

Moreover, defense is not anyone’s “sacred cow”; it is the highest Constitutional DUTY of the federal government – indeed, the most important one according to George Washington. The majority of Congress’ enumerated powers are related to military matters, and the reason why the federal government was created in the first place was to provide for the common defense, as the preamble to the Constitution explains. It was created because the weak Congress of the Confederacy had no means to provide for the Union’s defense.

Rand Paul chastises his fellow Republicans for wanting to spare defense from sequestration, claiming that “it’s time for Republicans to realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud”. But no one in any party and no one in the United States is claiming that it is immune from waste and fraud. (Personally, I’m the author of the largest DOD reform proposals package ever compiled by anyone.)

But there isn’t enough waste and fraud in the defense budget to pay for a 550 bn per decade sequester. Not even close to enough. Thus, sequestration – or any cuts on a similar scale – would have to cut a lot of money out of genuine military capabilities – the meat and bone of the US military. In other words, gut the military.

All members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all other military leaders, all civilian leaders of the Defense Department, all non-leftist think tanks (Heritage, AEI, Center for a New American Security, Center for Security Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center) – basically everyone except the Left – have confirmed that sequestration will severely weaken the US military. The military services have already explained in detail how this would happen:

  • The Navy would have to cancel the deployment of one aircraft carrier to the Gulf, cancel maintenance on at least 23 ships (including two aircraft carriers) and 250 aircraft this year alone, and cut the ship fleet by 50 vessels, including at least two carriers, down to no more than 8 (and probably fewer) flattops.
  • The Air Force would have to delay all of its acquisition and development programs, stop demolishing unneeded buildings, cut flight training by 18%, cut the budget of its Global Strike command (responsible for ICBMs and bombers) by 20%and more broadly will have to curtail the service’s ability to conduct air-to-air refueling, support Army logistical requirements and, by September of this year, train new pilots—reductions that cumulatively will erode America’s vitally important airpower capabilities.
  • The Army would have to stop training 78% of its brigades, cancel critical maintenance, and stop training new aviators and military intelligence specialists—delays that, according to the service’s leaders, will result in the “rapid atrophy of unit combat skills with a failure to meet demands of the National Military strategy by the end of the year.”

Recently, 46 former national security officials and defense experts spanning the partisan spectrum, from former Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to former SECDEF Robert Gates (who presided over the first three rounds of defense cuts mentioned above) to Reagan nat-sec advisor Bud McFarlane have signed a letter underlining sequestration’s grave impact on the military and chastising the President and the Congress for not stopping it. Their letter concludes thus:

“Sequestration will result in unacceptable risk for U.S. national security. It will degrade our ability to defend our allies, deter aggression, and promote and protect American economic interests. It will erode the credibility of our treaty commitments abroad. It will be a self-inflicted wound to American strength and leadership in the world.

History will not look kindly on this abdication of responsibility, but will hold accountable the President and the Congress who together chose such a dangerous course.”

Even if you think there is still enough waste in defense to pay for sequestration (and if you think that, you’re wrong), that still doesn’t help Rand Paul: sequestration will actually AGGRAVATE the problem of waste in the defense budget by forcing the DOD into inefficiencies, such as:

  • Cutting weapon purchase rates, thus preventing the realization of economies of scale and leading to cost overruns (because weapons are much cheaper when you buy more of them and faster);
  • Delaying and underfunding the research, development, and testing phases of weapon programs, thus delaying their development and the moment that bugs are discovered and fixed in weapons;
  • Delaying much-needed maintenance on ships, aircraft, and ground vehicles of all sorts, thus significantly increasing the bill for maintaining and repairing them when such maintenance and refurbishment can no longer be delayed and has to be done;
  • Furloughing all DOD civilian employees whose job is to manage the DOD’s programs on a daily basis; and
  • Underfunding training, meaning that you’ll have to train people later at a higher cost to regain lost skills.
  • Moreover, sequestration will cut everything in the defense budget (except personnel costs) by a uniform percentage – the waste by the same percentage as the essentials. Thus, beef jerky studies will be cut by the same percentage as the Next Generation Bomber.

Also, sequestration does NOT authorize crucial, money-saving reforms for which the DOD has repatedly requested authorization: healthcare and retirement program reforms and base closure. Indeed, the Budget Control Act explicitly prohibits using the sequester to close unneeded bases. So the DOD will be gutted doubly: forced to cut its budget deeply and uniformly while not being allowed to carry out the reforms it does need and has requested authorization for.

In short, sequestration will only make the problem of waste in the defense budget WORSE, not better.

If Sen. Paul were TRULY concerned about waste and fraud in the defense budget, he would be doing everything he can to CANCEL sequestration and, at minimum, give the DOD full flexibility to administer these cuts. But he’s not doing that – because he’s a total fraud and doesn’t give a damn about “waste and fraud” in the defense budget. All he cares about is gutting the US military – a goal he shares with his loathsome, stridently liberal, and stridently anti-American father Ron Paul, who, like his son, is a total fraud (he recently sued his former supporters… at the United Nations).

And if Sen. Paul were a real defender of the Constitution and limited government, he would not have been introducing unconstitutional bills to mandate federal policies on employment and abortion – issues reserved to the states and the people.

But he doesn’t really care about limited government or waste and fraud in the defense budget – all he cares about is gutting America’s defense. That is probably why he has suggested that the sequester should not only be allowed to stand, but even increased to 4 trillion dollars, as if the current sequester of America’s defense was not bad enough.

There isn’t even nearly that much waste in the defense budget. Not even close. Any cuts on the scale of the current sequester – let alone the one that Paul proposes – would have to cut deeply into America’s defense capabilities – and that would only invite aggression that would have to be repelled at a much greater cost.

Shame on Rand Paul for stating such blatant lies, and shame on the Tea Party Express for giving him the platform to do so. No one should ever take them seriously again.

Rand Paul has proven once again that he’s the same anti-American, anti-defense, anti-conservative, pro-weak-defense, isolationist pseudoconservative fraud as his father. He must be denied the Republican presidential nomination – in 2016 and all successive presidential election cycles.

CNN/Tea Party Express Debate:Gardasil, Social Security & the Rise of the Tea Party

The CNN/Tea Party Express debate in Florida ended with a whimper, but otherwise will surely go down as the most lively and impassioned debate thus far.  With more questions from the regular Americans of the tea party movement, candidates were given the opportunity to directly address the concerns of average Americans, and that fact alone seemed energizing.

As predicted, CNN did its best to present the debate as the “Rick Perry Show w/Mitt Romney and special guests”.  Blitzer directed or redirected nearly every question to Perry and gave Romney ample time to counter.  Perry came out strong right away.  The first question regarding social security required Perry to defend his Ponzi scheme comment.  He did so, was unapologetic, and the audience responded with great appreciation.  The first half of the debate unequivocally belonged to Perry.  Bolstered by an inarguable record in Texas (Romney tried the argument, but failed), the Governor looked confident, easy and the crowd responded very positively.  Unfortunately, during the second half, Perry struggled quite a bit.  When the Gardasil question was raised, he provided a satisfactory answer and admitted he had made a mistake with that decision.  However Perry didn’t seem prepared for the pounding that question would get.  As Blitzer posed and then re-posed the question, several candidates took the opportunity to take the fight straight to Perry, and he did not seem prepared for that.  The final nail in the coffin came on immigration.  He defended his support of the Texas “Dream Act” and the accompanying “states rights” argument to the boos of much of the tea party packed audience.  After going a long long way to endear himself to tea party patriots across the country, Perry gave up a lot of ground with that answer.  The audience’s displeasure obviously threw Perry off his game, as he began to stammer and stumble through his defense.  It hurt him badly, and being at the end of the debate, left the viewer with that subpar image.  Perry comes off as a man of great stature and composure, and he has the ‘80’s Friday night soap opera eyebrows to back that up – he surely hasn’t lost the nomination in this one debate, but he didn’t win it either.

Romney looked tired, and has been looking that way for a couple of weeks now.  He may not have been properly prepared for the fight this process had turned out to be.  He held his own quite well and had several thoughtful and audience-rousing responses, but seemed out of his element in front of the blatantly conservative crowd.  He certainly did not score points by suggesting that Perry just got lucky in Texas with jobs creation.  His refusal to consider repeal of monstrous bills such as healthcare certainly did nothing to endear him to tea party voters, and his criticism of Obamacare rang quite hollow, considering his own healthcare boondoggle in Massachusetts.  That  will not be lost on conservative voters.  Mitt’s hair also failed to impress tonight.  He’ll pay for that.

Rick Santorum was the pleasant surprise of the evening.  Although he still received considerable less time than the other candidates, his responses were impassioned and straight forward.  He did well to highlight his history of sounding the alarm on Social Security and the debate format played very positively to his everyman appeal.  Santorum proved tonight that he is an intelligent, conservative voice in this race, but his lack of aggression threatens to be his downfall. That being said, his performance was good and he cannot be counted out of this race just yet.  Also, Santorum obviously received the message regarding his pink tie from the last debate.  When you’re struggling to assert yourself as a front runner, vague shades of pink are not exactly the colors that scream “I’m your man!”… or A man, for that matter.

Bachmann was under the most pressure to perform tonight.  She is a tea party favorite and has been struggling in the polls since Perry announced his candidacy.  After a fairly wooden performance last week, she was expected to come out a little stronger in front of her tea party compatriots.  All in all she lived up to the expectations.  She seemed infinitely more relaxed and at home in this format.  Even her hair seemed to have more bounce than usual.  Bachmann was in her element as she explained that Obamacare was raiding Medicare for 500 billion dollars and hammered home all the appropriate tea party points of smaller government and full repeal of Obamacare and financial reform.  Her most forced moments came when she chose to take Perry head on, but as he seems to be siphoning off a good bit of her support, she likely had no other choice.  A loss for Bachmann in this debate would spell a certain end to her Presidential hopes.  She avoided that doom for now, but with every comment about her fights in the House, Bachmann seems only to solidify more and more the very reasons she should remain in Congress and fight for conservative values.  She seemed at home tonight, but it may be her true home is in the House.

Huntsman had his eyebrow greased and calibrated and ready to go from the start.  He seemed to have studied his Tea Party primer well, and was able to fire off a few conservative sounding responses, but as usual he was short on detail and long on eyebrow.  He also had some very awkward attempts at humor, most notably a weird reference to Kurt Cobain.  Who was he hoping to tweak with that remark?  Even the audience seemed embarrassed for him as he paused for the laughter that never came.  Obviously his comedy software program had not been installed correctly.  The amount of time CNN devoted to Huntsman tonight did not work to his advantage at all.  When the network that originally devised the “tea bagger” slur  devotes that much time to a questionable Republican such as Huntsman, it is a clear indicator to conservative voters that this is not who they want as their nominee.  The good thing is, Huntsman avoided the “my record in Utah” script; the bad thing is, without his record in Utah, Huntsman is nothing more than an empty suit with a lot of plugs and wires running down the back.  He doesn’t come off as “real” and if there’s anything tea party voters are looking for, its authenticity.

Cain did well.  The audience was clearly in his corner and his no-nonsense businessman approach was a guaranteed tea party favorite.  He wasn’t offered much time, but he used his opportunities wisely to highlight his 9-9-9 plan and his corporate experience.  Cain did not seem to advance much in this debate, nor did he lose any ground.  It was a solid showing, but surely not the breakout his team must have hoped for considering the forum.

Ron Paul turned in the usual Paul performance.  His highlight came when Blitzer posed a question about a 30 year old man who chose not to buy health insurance but then suffered a horrible health crisis: who should pay for that man’s health benefits?  Should we let him die?  Over the shouts of tea partiers (sure to illicit all kinds of hysterical coverage in the MSM tomorrow), Paul talked about the idea of personal responsibility and taking risks.  He reminded Blitzer that in the days before government entitlements, people in crisis turned to churches and community charity for help.  He  reiterated what every tea partier knows by heart: if the government stopped stepping in to provide every need imaginable, that man would find a way to save his own life.  Of course, Ron Paul got all Ron Paul-y on the military and foreign policy and elicited many hearty boos from the audience as he tried to justify extricating the United States from the Middle East.  The kooky meter was spiking a lot tonight for Paul.  What more can be said?  Some call him the Father of the Tea Party, but tonight it looked like the kids were ready to move dad to the old folks home.

Undoubtedly the one candidate who came out on top was Newt Gingrich. This was by far his best performance to date.  Having a tenuous relationship with the tea party, Newt faced the challenge of remaining true to his core political style while not alienating viewers with what can sometimes be his condescending tone.  He was up to the challenge and had the best, most provocative answers of any candidate on stage.  Newt was the only one who stayed focused on Obama and his disastrous policies.  Blizter, obviously still carrying a chip on his shoulder from the Clinton years, did his best to pose the bulk of the “gotcha” questions to Newt, but Gingrich slapped every one down with poise, passion and searing intelligence.  The crowd was with him the whole way.  Newt may not be able to convince a majority of the right that he should be President, but one would be hard pressed to find a single Republican voter who would not jump at the chance to see him in any influential cabinet position, or even as the White House spokesperson.  No one in Washington is smarter than Newt Gingrich. No one.  He proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt in this debate.

The debate format was an interesting marriage of far left media and the newly influential tea party movement.  Perhaps it was the specter of directly addressing the people as opposed to a table of stuffy moderators that allowed the candidates to appear more at ease.  Whatever it was, and despite the glitches, this format was the most notable and rousing of the debates so far.  CNN could have counted this as one of their most interesting programs to date, but for the last 10 minutes.  Perhaps it is just the dynamics of television producing, but the powers that be at CNN could not resist the pointless fluff question.  “If you were to win the White House, what would you bring with you?”  Newt looked the most fittingly annoyed with the question.  No one had anything particularly fetching to say.  Bachmann gave the pre-approved tea party answer of her copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.  I sincerely hoped Herman Cain would bring his grill and a few slabs of baby-back ribs, but he said he’d bring a sense of humor instead.  Santorum made a cute joke about adding an extra bedroom for his 7 kids (hey, Rick, it’s a mansion!).  Ron Paul provided the dowdiest answer, responding he would bring a “bushel basket of common sense” and a book about Austrian economics.  Sounds exciting.  Romney had a long answer that ended in him returning Churchill’s bust to the Oval Office.  I think.  It was  long answer.  Huntsman joked that his wife would kill him for saying he’d like to bring his motorbikes to the White House.  It shouldn’t be surprising that Huntsman has a fondness for motorcycles – they share the same parts.  Perry earned  the wife points of the night by saying all he needed was his lovely wife.  But it most likely wasn’t enough to erase his dismal ending to promising start.

Those are the highlights and low-lights.  Clear winners were CNN, which probably garnered more views for this one night than their whole year put together; and Newt Gingrich.  Santorum gets an honorable mention for finally being able to express his positions and doing it quite well.  Holding the line were Bachmann and Cain.  Romney and Perry were the clear losers tonight – Romney for being caught out of his element, and Perry for disintegrating in the second half.  However, above all, the tea party were the true winners tonight, proving definitively that the influence of this grass roots, American movement extends far beyond mid-term elections.  Politicians take note.


September 12th CNN/Tea Party Express GOP Debate [Video]

Beginning at about 7:30pm tonight, CDNews will host a live stream of the 2012 CNN/TEA Party Express GOP debate. As soon as the stream starts, it will appear on this page. You can also join some of the CDNews staff for tonight’s live chat (why watch alone?).

Participants in the event are expected to be Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

Here are CNN’s recording from the Debate:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Tonight: Hobbits Allowed

Tonight in Florida the GOP Presidential candidates will square off in what should be an interesting debate, more so because of who is hosting it than who the candidates are.  CNN has teamed up the national tea party organization, Tea Party Express to present a two hour debate moderated by CNN lead anchor Wolf Blitzer.  The group will face questions from Blitzer, but also from audience members and tea party members from inside the debate hall and across 31 states. This debate stands to be of particular interest to conservatives and tea party sympathizers.  It will be the first debate in which the very people who have propelled the tea party to political influence will have the opportunity to pose questions based on their ideology and values.  This will be a chance for voters to take the “conservative temperature” of the candidates in ways they haven’t been able to before with professional moderators controlling the tone and temperament of the questioning.

Michele Bachmann, a tea party favorite, is most likely under the most pressure to perform in this format.  After a fairly wooden performance last week, look for her to inject some passion, spontaneity and values talk this time.  Of all the candidates, she seems to have the most to lose tonight if her performance goes south.

Herman Cain is another tea party favorite and is also expected to make a strong showing.  He’s been improving every debate and is moving up in the pack as a viable nominee.

Mitt Romney should be looking to explain himself to the tea party voters.  This debate could end up being very important to his chance in the longrun.  Tea partiers are very sensitive to his healthcare baggage and it is quite likely he’ll be asked about that from the audience.

Whatever happens, this debate will likely spell the end for at least one or two candidates, and a new beginning for two or three more.  Be sure to watch tonight, live on CNN at 8 p.m. ET and check back in with Conservative Daily News for coverage and recaps.