The Big Question: Should the GOP back Tea Party candidates?

Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University, said:

O’Donnell and Paladino are embarrassments who will pull down other Republican candidates on the ticket. They should be shunned by any Republican who hopes to win this November.

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

Reps should take the Partyer’s case by case. As the first case, run (don’t walk) away from O’Donnell. Nuttier than a jar of peanut butter.

Brad Delong, professor of Economics at the UC Berkley, said:
Does anybody think Christine O’Donnell has the chops to be a good senator?

I have never heard anybody say that they think she would be.

Nobody has any business ever supporting unqualified candidates. Christine O’Donnell looks unqualified. Of course Republicans should not give their full support to her.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
The “tea party” movement represents different things to different people, but as an anti-tax, anti-regulation movement it seems to be in sync with traditional GOP principles. O’Donnell is another matter: it’s not clear, to me at least, what her views are.

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at U.C. Santa Barbara, said:

Absolutely. It is so obvious that I’m having trouble understanding why there is even a question. It is clear that there is a new mood sweeping the Republican voters, and despite the Democratic efforts to portray it as far right it has a solid libertarian appeal. If that moves the party toward the independents who used to be its backbone, it will have provided a new source of strength—and, in my view, common sense. if the Republican leadership is so blind as not to see this, they may be as dumb as the Democrats say they are.