A Quote by Marco Rubio

From tea parties to the election in Massachusetts, we are witnessing the single greatest political pushback in American history. — © Marco Rubio
From tea parties to the election in Massachusetts, we are witnessing the single greatest political pushback in American history.
First of all, there's no mention of political parties in the Constitution, so you begin American history with not only no political conventions but also no parties.
One of the greatest own goals in modern British political history helped create one of the biggest political parties in the western world, but one committed to socialism rather than rehashed Blairite triangulation.
In every election in American history both parties have their cliches. The party that has the cliches that ring true wins.
The Constitution never even mentions political parties, let alone the Republican and Democratic parties, yet all the election laws help to protect them from competition.
Most pundits regard an election year session as an opportunity for the two parties to frame issues and garner political advantage in advance of the approaching election.
Every single administration in American political history has put cronies and pals and donors into political positions. But normally those people become the ambassador to Liechtenstein or the deputy undersecretary of commerce.
Since first hearing the story as a child, any mention of the 'Boston Tea Party' has elicited in me an excitement that is uniquely American. When I heard rumblings that there was a new Tea Party, I got goose bumps. I love tea, I love parties, I hate taxes; I'm in! It seemed that most of America joined in my excitement!
It is the members of this business elite . . . that pose the greatest danger to our American way of life. They are the ones who've bought and paid for members of both political parties. . . .
The people who started the American government, the founders of the Constitution, didn't like political parties but they were forced to start them. Nobody ever created political parties in England, they evolved. And there do tend to be two general tendencies that focus around how much government you think you need.
The Tea Party thing is only apt in some ways. The activism in the town halls, that looks superficially like it. But what the Tea Party did was, they went after the party, the Republican Party, as their vehicle. And parties is how you change history.
The Lok Sabha election is not a contest between political parties. It is a fight between Modi-Shah, and the country. Only when these two people are removed, will it be a proper contest between parties.
You see it with Brexit, you see it in Donald Trump's election, you see it with the fact that neither of the main parties ended up in the final round of the French presidential election, you see it with the Italian referendum being defeated, you see it in a lot of ways - the political revolution.
Elections in India are not contests between personalities. They are ultimately battles involving political parties; promises and pledges that political parties make; the vision and programmes that political parties bring to the table. So although, Modi's style is 'I, me, myself,' I don't think 2014 elections as a Modi versus Rahul contest.
My mum says I never had tantrums. I had elongated and very complicated tea parties in my cot, and I was sort of talking, I guess, quite young, and I would say, 'Oh, how lovely to see you, do come in!' I'd have these theatrical tea parties by myself with my imaginary friends.
The 2004 Election marks the first time in modern political history that Republican voter turnout matched Democratic turnout in a presidential election year.
[Donald Trump] ran an extraordinarily unconventional campaign and it resulted in the biggest political upset in perhaps modern political history. American history.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!