View Full Version : A very Merry Tea Party
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/politics/tea-party-its-clout-diminished-turns-to-fringe-issues.html?pagewanted=1&hp&_r=0
Clout Diminished, Tea Party Turns to Narrower Issues
The Tea Party might not be over, but it is increasingly clear that the election last month significantly weakened the once-surging movement, which nearly captured control of the Republican Party through a potent combination of populism and fury.
Leading Congressional Republicans, though they remain far apart from President Obama, have embraced raising tax revenues in budget negotiations, repudiating a central tenet of the Tea Party. Even more telling, Tea Party activists in the middle of the country are skirting the fiscal showdown in Congress and turning to narrower issues, raising questions about whether the movement still represents a citizen groundswell to which attention must be paid.
rastajenk
12-26-2012, 06:08 AM
The next time the NY Times reports accurately about the TEA party will be the first time. :p
lamboguy
12-26-2012, 07:16 AM
i find it very odd how people are so cocky after this win in November against a complete blank that represented a party that didn't have a clue and still only won by 2 million votes.
next time democrats run, i am sure there will be a better candidate than
Romney and 4 more years after a president that placed this country in self destruct mode (Bush).
Capper Al
12-26-2012, 07:30 AM
Boenher pushing the vote to resolve the fiscal cliff in congress seperates the Tea Party from the moderate republicans. I believe this was a move made in good faith. He had to know that the resolution wouldn't pass. Now the dems can get with the republican moderates and move forward. The moderate republicans will probably do more of this in the coming Year to isolate the Tea Party.
Moderate republicans are on the way out.
Without the conservative branch, the republican party does not win.
BTW, how is that last 100 year reign lasted what, a year? Two years? :lol::lol:
Moderate republicans are on the way out.
Without the conservative branch, the republican party does not win.
BTW, how is that last 100 year reign lasted what, a year? Two years? :lol::lol:The republican party will split into 2 parts. One part will be the more traditional somewhat reasonable half. The other, those that carry assault weapons at Tea party rallies as though the black helicopters are on the way.
The moderates might as well become democrats, for all the good they are.
The Tea Party faction will be the winner.
fast4522
12-26-2012, 05:15 PM
The old party is not spiting anytime soon, mid term elections will have some states split though.
Capper Al
12-26-2012, 06:41 PM
Here's as simple as I can put it. Funds (money) are made for circulating through out the economy. The bankers pulled out more than their fair share. Others also profited while the economy was hot. Now is the day of reckoning and we have options:
It's musical chairs and what you have is what you keep. If their is a gap from the stolen money then everybody must honor the debt and pay it off so that the rich can keep their windfall. This is why Repubs are always talking about the debt.
We can recognize that the economy went astray and realize that those that profited by it won't donate it back. Therefore, a little inflation will neutralize the effect of the debt. We can do it by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure -- a win/win
Keep fighting ourselves until nothing gets done. The rich win and the country is taken down a notch.
Blame the rich.......feel good.
Facts are so mean!
fast4522
12-26-2012, 07:07 PM
Here is the real deal
1 Super rich, solid gold door nobs and faucets everywhere in their home. There is no way you can make this group pay.
2. hardworking self made millionaires who create jobs because they can. Group 1. is offering group 2. to keep them from cutting into group 1.
3. Middle class holding the bag.
So Capper Al your logic simply has no sustenance, because if you take every last red cent from both groups 1 & 2 it would not fund the government and there would be like NO jobs other than government.
nomad1102
12-26-2012, 08:07 PM
The moderates might as well become democrats, for all the good they are.
The Tea Party faction will be the winner.
The Tea Party Patriots’ mission is Fiscal Responsibility, Free Market Economics, and Limited Government.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Republican and Democrat spending policies have added to the National debt. So why does the Tea Party identify with the Republicans?
FREE MARKET ECONOMICS
The US having a Free Market Economy is a fallacy. What exists today is Crony Capitalism by both parties from the Federal to the local level. So why does the Tea Party identify with Republicans?
CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT
Less Government means less protection from the ugly side of Capitalism which is Profit at any cost to humans, environment, natural resources, even the free market itself, etc... So why does the Tea Party identify with the Republicans?
ArlJim78
12-26-2012, 08:23 PM
thats pretty simple, with Republicans at least they've got a base to work from. Republicans are weak now so the idea is to take over and control the party, not to endorse past policies.
I must have missed the "democrat tea party caucus", or the 5-6 democrat senators aligned with the tea party. from the beginning democrats have to a man and woman mocked and denigrated and played the race card against the tea party.
TP is taking over the repub party.
Communists have got a lock on the dems.
nomad1102
12-26-2012, 11:27 PM
TP is taking over the repub party.
Communists have got a lock on the dems.
The Republican Party is hijacking the Tea Party. There is to be too much wealth and power at stake for the Repubs to turn over their control to the lowly middle class.
Nomad
The Tea Party is an astroturf movement basically started by Dick Army and pals to goose the Reopugs their way. Army btw, is part of the current TP meltdown who is getting a cool 8 million dollar pay off.
Gee, talk about uncontrolled spending :)
Like you wold have a clue what it all about.
Hint - you would not understand it if I told you.
It is not in your DNA.
" Views of the Tea Party movement are at their lowest point ever, with voters for the first time evenly divided when asked to match the views of the average Tea Party member against those of the average member of Congress. Only eight percent (8%) now say they are members of the Tea Party, down from a high of 24% in April 2010 just after passage of the national health care law.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 30% of Likely U.S. Voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party. Half (49%) of voters have an unfavorable view of the movement. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
By comparison, 36% of Americans have a favorable view of socialism".
:lol: :lol:
WE shall see.....i suspect after two years of Obama Unchained, the TP will once again kick ass and take names in the mid-terms.
I feel sorry for moderate repubs, too.
People like Boehner, the Speakersourus, will be looking for odd jobs.
They will not get the stink of the dems off of them - anyone who compromised is a dead duck.
The incumbent party always loses seats at the mid terms. But the TP'ers have ruined the repugs chances on the presidential level.
mostpost
01-09-2013, 02:10 PM
The incumbent party always loses seats at the mid terms. But the TP'ers have ruined the repugs chances on the presidential level.
Not always, but most of the time. Since the 68th Congress (1923) there have been five instances where the incumbent party has gained seats in the Senate and four where they have gained seats in the House.
Only twice has the incumbent party gained seats in both houses in the same year. The Democrats did it in 1931 and 1935. The third time will occur in 2015 (election of 2014) :jump:
Not always, but most of the time. Since the 68th Congress (1923) there have been five instances where the incumbent party has gained seats in the Senate and four where they have gained seats in the House.
Only twice has the incumbent party gained seats in both houses in the same year. The Democrats did it in 1931 and 1935. The third time will occur in 2015 (election of 2014) :jump:
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Never before has there been such a slug in the WH and such a snake in the senate.
Need I even mention Nancy Pelosi?:lol:
An undercover reporter, like the one who captured Mittens' "47% speech, photographed the last TParty left. I think Tom is a member.....
http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/David_Teniers_II_-_Twelfth-night_The_King_Drinks_-_WGA22083-e1358376197544.jpg**
Hey Mr. Court Jester, is that you balancing on one leg?
-----------
**David Teniers(II) Twelfth Night(The King Drinks)
delayjf
01-17-2013, 06:01 AM
By comparison, 36% of Americans have a favorable view of socialism".
You seem to take delight in the above - so your admitting to being a socialist.
Definition of a socialist - someone who thinks other people should carry him so he doesn't have to.
Those not willing to do their share. Freeloaders. Anchors.
tophorse1145
01-17-2013, 08:32 AM
Well, its really a good deal.
classhandicapper
01-17-2013, 12:26 PM
I think it's necessary to separate the Tea Party from the issues.
If you ask people whether they support the Tea Party, many will say no because they've had it drummed into their heads by the mainstream media that the Tea Party is made up a bunch of extremist whack jobs.
However, I suspect that if you went down a checklist of issues and asked people whether they agree with X, Y, Z etc... and didn't mention the Tea Party, the number of people that would agree with a lot of their positions would be WAY higher than the approval rating of the Tea Party itself.
Politics is partly about demonizing your opponents. The left has excelled at demonizing the Tea Party. I mean, even some republicans have demonized and tried to hijack the movement.
Since when is Sarah Palin anything like Ron Paul?
But if you asked the rank and file about matters of money, the Fed, debt, inflations, the size of government and even foreign policy etc... many would agree with Ron Paul's positions - which are basically Tea Party positions.
classhandicapper
01-17-2013, 12:40 PM
Definition of a socialist - someone who thinks other people should carry him so he doesn't have to.
I think this is more accurate.
When in power:
Someone that believes their own economic values (and usually other values) are superior to those of the general public and is willing to impose them on everyone for the greater good even though many people strongly disagree with them and it's not their money to decide.
When out of power:
Someone that believes they are entitled to take the fruits of someone else's labor to improve their own circumstances.
My view goes something like this.
It's intrinsically immoral for wealthy people to not help those in need (especially if they were born with disabilities or other disadvantages that have nothing to do with their own choices in life)
It's intrinsically immoral for people in power to take what is not theirs and use it in ways they see fit when the givers may have different values or not even approve of what the money is being used for.
I would consider myself immoral if I did not make an annual contribution to the Acoustic Neuroma Association. I can afford it. They (and people) need it. I have reason to value their services.
I would consider it immoral for some left wing politician to tax me and then give the money to the Acoustic Neuroma Association. So you can imagine what I think of them when they take my money and use for things I think are a huge mistake and that I want no part of.
I still think the republican party is going to split
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_02/dissension_within_gopland_pass042787.php
The New York Times is reporting that some of the top donors in the G.O.P., frustrated by the Tea Party’s success in gaining nominations for far-right candidates in senate primaries, only to have them lose in the general election, is forming a new group aimed at nominating more mainstream candidates. Their goal is to win back G.O.P. control of the senate.
The group, which is called the Conservative Victory Project, is part of the American Crossroads super PAC, and is backed by Karl Rove, among others. Given Rove’s track record of late, this hardly bodes well. And already, conservative groups like the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund are mocking the effort as “the Conservative Defeat Fund.”
The Times reports that the first major battle for the new group could be the Republican senate primary in Iowa, where veteran Democratic senator Tom Harkin recently announced his retirement. The Tea Party faction is trying to recruit Rep. Steve King, while the Crossroads group wants to defeat him. But according to an article in Politico, there’s a fear that an anti-King campaign might only create a backlash of support for him.
JustRalph
02-04-2013, 07:36 AM
Rove better not screw with Tea Party
He will find himself on the wrong end of things
ArlJim78
02-04-2013, 08:53 AM
Rove is always on the wrong side of things. He is struggling to remain relevant despite having a horrible track record. Roves group wants to win in order to substutute Republican cronyism in place of Democrat cronyism. thats why he backs orange chameleons like Charlie Crist.
The next time the NY Times reports accurately about the TEA party will be the first time. :p
Yes. the NY Times. Or as I'm fond of calling it:
Pravda on the Hudson
The Republicans cannot win without the conservative branch.
The conservative branch needs the reubs for a vehicle.
The repubs need embrace the conservative branch to get the base out, which they did not do in 2012. They should then just go along for the ride.
There are not enough conservatives to run the whole party, plainly and simply because they represent the right-regions of the bell curve. It takes commitment to be a conservative, anyone can be a liberal. Seriously, not meant to be smart, but if all you need is some rich guy to pay for your ideas, your platform is easy to build.
NJ Stinks
02-04-2013, 07:32 PM
It takes commitment to be a conservative, anyone can be a liberal. Seriously, not meant to be smart, but if all you need is some rich guy to pay for your ideas, your platform is easy to build.
You are one of the chosen few, Tom. People everywhere aspire to be you but its just too hard for most of us. :(
I expected no more from you, stinky.
Of course you couldn't debate the idea, could you?
:rolleyes:
It takes commitment to be a conservative, anyone can be a liberal. Seriously, not meant to be smart, but if all you need is some rich guy to pay for your ideas, your platform is easy to build.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I guess conservatism was failed again by a few "lousy candidates", because as we all know conservatism NEVER fails by itself.
Speak to the Koch bothers or for that matter Karl "The Architect" lately? They were the rich guys that paid for your ideas this time. The way things are going right now, I wouldn't be surprised if David H. and Charles G,(along with Rove )bail on anything to do with the extreme righties next presidential run. Looks like the Tea Partiers failed mainstream conservatism by getting involved in the first place. And your rich guys may be reluctant to spend on a bunch of losing tickets again.
Seriously, :)
:lol:
As usual, hcap is out in left field.
Try to read the posts before you reply to them.
As usual, hcap is out in left field.
Try to read the posts before you reply to them.Excuse me, but I was too busy involved in my commitment to being a liberal to pay much attention to the extreme depth and profound insights your amazing colossal super-duper post deserves. And besides, I was talking on my ObamaPhone to a bunch of rich guys paying for our platform. :)
JustRalph
02-05-2013, 08:12 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I guess conservatism was failed again by a few "lousy candidates", because as we all know conservatism NEVER fails by itself.
Speak to the Koch bothers or for that matter Karl "The Architect" lately? They were the rich guys that paid for your ideas this time. The way things are going right now, I wouldn't be surprised if David H. and Charles G,(along with Rove )bail on anything to do with the extreme righties next presidential run. Looks like the Tea Partiers failed mainstream conservatism by getting involved in the first place. And your rich guys may be reluctant to spend on a bunch of losing tickets again.
Seriously, :)
:lol:
See, this is your problem. If you really think Rove and the Koch brothers are conservative you are out of your mind.
Not even close
Never said they were. But they did bankroll many and lost their shirts.
My point being that their money may find itself in more mainstream traditional republican coffers. The Tea Party is losing control. Popularity is down the tubes.
15 minutes of fame is coming to an end, but there are enough guys like you and Tom to support their continued survival as a third party.
Actor
02-05-2013, 10:30 AM
The way things are going right now, I wouldn't be surprised if David H. and Charles G,(along with Rove )bail on anything to do with the extreme righties next presidential run. Looks like the Tea Partiers failed mainstream conservatism by getting involved in the first place. And your rich guys may be reluctant to spend on a bunch of losing tickets again.Speak of the Devil. :lol:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/conservative-victory-project_n_2616240.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/50696814#50696814
Speak of the Devil. :lol:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/conservative-victory-project_n_2616240.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/50696814#50696814You know this is a tough call-to see which faction of the repugs will come out on top.......
This a job for Dick Morris and Skewed Polls.com!!.
:lol: :lol:
Moniker
02-05-2013, 12:27 PM
Actually it occurs to me that the Republican Party would be better served by embracing a more liberal agenda. As a member of America's responsible youth, I find it difficult to claim allegiance to either party the way they've both been painted in recent years. With dems supporting laziness and government dependency for my less... Respectable peers, and the repubs still sporting view points on women's rights and homosexuals that were out dated 30 years ago, I don't find myself drawn to either platform, and can say the same for many of my young friends as well. A moderate republican candidate who will stop these nonsense handouts, while also promoting an enlightened, progressive mindset is exactly what I would like to see in the next republican primaries.
classhandicapper
02-05-2013, 01:25 PM
Actually it occurs to me that the Republican Party would be better served by embracing a more liberal agenda. As a member of America's responsible youth, I find it difficult to claim allegiance to either party the way they've both been painted in recent years. With dems supporting laziness and government dependency for my less... Respectable peers, and the repubs still sporting view points on women's rights and homosexuals that were out dated 30 years ago, I don't find myself drawn to either platform, and can say the same for many of my young friends as well. A moderate republican candidate who will stop these nonsense handouts, while also promoting an enlightened, progressive mindset is exactly what I would like to see in the next republican primaries.
It is not humanly possible for me to disagree with anything more than this (and I do understand exactly where you are coming from and think it's a very logical point of view).
IMO, what we don't need are more politicians that will change their stripes and do what they think will get them elected because the people themselves have changed their values and opinions over the short term (short term could be decades). The political fashions of the day are not always intrinsically moral, economically sound, truthful, or in the best long term interests of the country.
What we need are more politicians that will stand up for what they actually think is intrinsically moral, truthful, and economically sound even if it means going down in flames year after year.
In the end, a more moral and economically sound society will win out over political fashion, even if it means things must get much worse before they get better (and IMO that's the path we are on now).
The only debate is over what positions are economically and morally superior.
Once you've decided that for yourself, you pick a side. As long as they remain on the same path and you still think it's the right one, you should go down in flames with them.
I voted for Ron Paul every single time I had a chance and don't want any like minded individuals changing stripes just so I can win an election and go down the wrong path as a winner.
The thing is, the republican is supposed to serve the people, not be served.
The best thing, IMHO is for them to get the hell out of social issues altogether. Most are not smart enough to talk intelligently about them, and they are really not the important issues. Small government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and personal accountability - other than those, forget it. People want to do drugs, have sex, smoke, gamble....let them. It is not our place to stoop them or save them. IF you believe in God, HE will deal with them. If you don't belive, it doesn't matter.
Take aim on the important stuff. And stop letting the other party dictate your agenda. The repubs are hapless. The Tea Party branch - conservatives - would be better off as a third party. No doubt they would soon take over as the second major party. The repubs cannot sustain themselves. The dems have partnered up with Santa Claus, and that takes a good 40% of the population out of play - free stuff trumps responsibility.
classhandicapper
02-05-2013, 03:17 PM
The thing is, the republican is supposed to serve the people, not be served.
The best thing, IMHO is for them to get the hell out of social issues altogether. Most are not smart enough to talk intelligently about them, and they are really not the important issues. Small government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and personal accountability - other than those, forget it. People want to do drugs, have sex, smoke, gamble....let them. It is not our place to stoop them or save them. IF you believe in God, HE will deal with them. If you don't belive, it doesn't matter.
Take aim on the important stuff. And stop letting the other party dictate your agenda. The repubs are hapless. The Tea Party branch - conservatives - would be better off as a third party. No doubt they would soon take over as the second major party. The repubs cannot sustain themselves. The dems have partnered up with Santa Claus, and that takes a good 40% of the population out of play - free stuff trumps responsibility.
I agree with you.
The problem for the republicans is that the religious right suffers from the same mental problem (arrogance) that many on the left suffer from. They want to impose their will, values, beliefs, etc.. on people that disagree with them because they think they know better.
What the religious right has to learn is that it's OK to believe in God, creationism, that abortion is murder, that homosexuals shouldn't get married etc... You can even be part of a national dialogue and make your case.
But once you start trying to use government to impose your will on others, the people that disagree with you are going to reject you and even others that agree with you on some of this stuff are going to reject you on principle. (and the left should not feel compelled to try to impose their beliefs and values on the religious right on these mattesr)
IMO, typically, these things should be decided at the state level.
There is no way in hell the federal government can create a set of laws that is going to keep the people of San Francisco and the people of Salt Lake City both happy.
Moniker
02-05-2013, 04:16 PM
It is not humanly possible for me to disagree with anything more than this (and I do understand exactly where you are coming from and think it's a very logical point of view).
IMO, what we don't need are more politicians that will change their stripes and do what they think will get them elected because the people themselves have changed their values and opinions over the short term (short term could be decades). The political fashions of the day are not always intrinsically moral, economically sound, truthful, or in the best long term interests of the country.
What we need are more politicians that will stand up for what they actually think is intrinsically moral, truthful, and economically sound even if it means going down in flames year after year.
In the end, a more moral and economically sound society will win out over political fashion, even if it means things must get much worse before they get better (and IMO that's the path we are on now).
The only debate is over what positions are economically and morally superior.
Once you've decided that for yourself, you pick a side. As long as they remain on the same path and you still think it's the right one, you should go down in flames with them.
I voted for Ron Paul every single time I had a chance and don't want any like minded individuals changing stripes just so I can win an election and go down the wrong path as a winner.
Well of course it was implied with my post that the picture perfect politician I depicted would legitimately hold these view points... I am well aware of it's unlikeliness of course hahah, just stating what I believe would be the best case scenario for our country.
And Tom, while I agree with you entirely that a poloitical candidate should be valued only by his ability to govern our country's chief concerns, rather than his stance on relatively trivial issues, the unfortunate truth is that, right or wrong, it was somewhere decided that these issues NEED to be handled by government, which couldn't be farther from the truth IMO. So I certainly agree with you as well, Classhandicapper, in that the federal government has no business making decisions on those issues (gay rights, abortion, marijuana regulation etc.) but more than that I don't believe it is a matter for state governments to decide either. I believe these are issues that individuals can can and should decide upon entirely on their own, but as I stated earlier, somewhere along the line it all became politicized... For reasons beyond me.
Moniker
02-05-2013, 04:32 PM
It occurs that the 2 party system likely played a large role in bringing these issues to the podium. I sincerely hope your predictions of the republican party dividing to create a 3rd viable option in times of election comes true, Tom. Partisanship and obstructionism between these two hated rival parties only does disservice to the governed.
NJ Stinks
02-05-2013, 07:44 PM
As a member of America's responsible youth....
What does this phrase mean? How do you know you are really a member? How young do you have to be to be a member?
I still think the republican party is going to split
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_02/dissension_within_gopland_pass042787.php
The New York Times is reporting that some of the top donors in the G.O.P., frustrated by the Tea Party’s success in gaining nominations for far-right candidates in senate primaries, only to have them lose in the general election, is forming a new group aimed at nominating more mainstream candidates. Their goal is to win back G.O.P. control of the senate.
The group, which is called the Conservative Victory Project, is part of the American Crossroads super PAC, and is backed by Karl Rove, among others. Given Rove’s track record of late, this hardly bodes well. And already, conservative groups like the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund are mocking the effort as “the Conservative Defeat Fund.”
The Times reports that the first major battle for the new group could be the Republican senate primary in Iowa, where veteran Democratic senator Tom Harkin recently announced his retirement. The Tea Party faction is trying to recruit Rep. Steve King, while the Crossroads group wants to defeat him. But according to an article in Politico, there’s a fear that an anti-King campaign might only create a backlash of support for him.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/joe_walsh_forming_super_pac_to_fight_karl_roves_su per_pac/
Former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., announced Tuesday that he is forming a super PAC “to support freedom-loving conservative alternatives” and to fight back against a Karl Rove initiative to keep unelectable Tea Partyers from winning primaries.
Former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., announced Tuesday that he is forming a super PAC “to support freedom-loving conservative alternatives” and to fight back against a Karl Rove initiative to keep unelectable Tea Partyers from winning primaries.
This is a good thing.
This is a good thing.For Democrats
Short term, yes.
But, as we have seen in recent elections, when the conservative wing is not hindered by it's own party members, democrats fall out of office.
We will take out our trash, then take out yours.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.