Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

blm

(114,705 posts)

6. Generally speaking they support the blocking. And the point that Shulman is a Republican

Reply to former9thward (Reply #4)

Wed May 15, 2013, 07:56 PM

May 2013

and GOP senators and congressmen have actively worked against primary challenges from the Tea Party stands, as well.

Basic point is that GOP lawmakers have worked more actively against the Tea Party than any Dem has. Dems have rooted FOR the Tea Party candidates in primary races.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What's the point of Obama sacking Steven T. Miller for stuff that Douglas H. Shulman did? re: IRS [View all] Electric Monk May 2013 OP

As I understand it, Bush appointee Shulman zbdent May 2013 #1

Right, it happened under Shulman, but Miller was the one to fall on his sword today. Electric Monk May 2013 #3

I thought: "There's something UP with THAT!" Either it's Obama caving again to cover KoKo May 2013 #9

Feb2013:Mitch McConnell Had Previously Floated Karl Rove Idea To Target Weak Tea Party Candidates blm May 2013 #2

Not what happened. former9thward May 2013 #4

Generally speaking they support the blocking. And the point that Shulman is a Republican blm May 2013 #6

To try to appease teabaggers, i.e. an utterly pointless (and typically unfair) exercise in futility MotherPetrie May 2013 #5

This was answered in another thread. Here's what they wrote: Electric Monk May 2013 #7

Oof, especially lying under oath. Not acceptable. JaneyVee May 2013 #8