Althouse: "Is the Tea Party Movement an independent 'third force' in American politics?"

January 15, 2010

"Is the Tea Party Movement an independent 'third force' in American politics?"

"Or is it essentially a right-wing faction aimed at the conquest of the Republican Party?"

102 comments:

Anonymous said...: It is both, of course.; 1/15/10, 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: We're taking over - the conservatives, I mean.

Any Republicans who want political power had better become Conservatives, or else they won't get elected and Democrats will take all their money and redistribute it.

That simple, folks.; 1/15/10, 10:22 AM
Roger J. said...: I dont know--as Florida suggests it is probably both--given our national dependence on a two party system, it is extraordinarly difficult for a third party to overtake an established party.

If the GOP is incapable of mounting a coordinated opposition to the democrats then they deserve every bad thing that happens to them--we may be revisiting the 1850s here--I rather hope so. The GOP "leadership" appears to me to be impotent and irrelevant.; 1/15/10, 10:26 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: It's not independent, in that I can't see a Tea Partier voting Democrat, no matter what. They are very likely to vote Republican, given the right candidate.

So draw your own conclusions.; 1/15/10, 10:28 AM
traditionalguy said...: The rebellion at the heart of the Tea Party comes from a lack of access to a legislative solution ( called a compromise ) because we are under a arrogant and lying one party rule. King Obama and an oligarchy was not the goal of the voters when many Moderate Posing Dems won seats in 2006 and 2008. They wanted Bush's failed leadership after 2004 replaced. Because of the inherent rebellion motive in a Tea Party Party, they will have to join into a coalition to win...that means a compromise. Will the rebels compromise when it is time to govern? Stay tuned.; 1/15/10, 10:28 AM
Bob_R said...: Right now, it's just a protest movement. It contains lots of factions that are against the economic legislation that the Democratic majority and administration are proposing and/or passing. Since libertarians are one of the factions it is inaccurate to call the "right wing." Most of these factions have been allied with the Republicans in recent years, but many (notably the libertarians) split their vote. No one has become a successful third force in American politics since Lincoln, so the smart money is on increasing influence in the Republican party.; 1/15/10, 10:30 AM
Sofa King said...: My own observations are that the tea party folks more fiscally conservative than the GOP actually is and about as fiscally conservative as the GOP claims to be. But they also seem quite a bit more libertarian, and generally more federalist as well. Social issues like abortion and gay marriage appear to be very low priority.; 1/15/10, 10:30 AM
MadisonMan said...: They are very likely to vote Republican, given the right candidate.

Which is too bad. I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate, but they are few and far between. You can't be socially liberal and get through a Republican Primary, and you can't be fiscally conservative and get through a Democratic Primary.

So if the TPM evolved into something that encompassed the great middle ground of American Politics and rendered the screaming hysterical edges of the Republican and Democratic Parties to the ash bin of history, I would be cheering and the country would be so much better off.; 1/15/10, 10:34 AM
Synova said...: I don't think they'll compromise... at least not much.

The article says they aren't "reaching out" to Democrats... but they aren't reaching out to Republicans either. It's the Republican politicians trying to decide if they dare show their face at a Tea Party rally or not. If they do show, and don't say the right things or if they act like they're taking the people there for granted, they get booed and shouted down.

Interesting note about the heavily female speaking list. On reflection, that seems to be pretty common. I don't know if actual numbers would be weighted female but the perception is there.; 1/15/10, 10:34 AM
Joe said...: For the moment, the GOP needs the Tea Party more than the Tea Party needs the GOP, if polls are to be believed. A "Tea Party" candidate polls, generically, better than a GOP candidate....

Practically that means the Democrat wins, as s/he has the plurality of votes, which in the American system means s/he wins the election.

I think a lot of the GOP does understand this dynamic and a goodly number of "Tea-Partiers", too....so the movement is more likely to become like the McGovern Wing of the Democratic Party...a group within the party seeking dominance, rather than a party in its own right.

WV; “ecatious”….to be wary on the Internet.; 1/15/10, 10:40 AM
Paddy O said...: Neither. Like Bob said, it's a protest movement. More so, it's an anti-corruption movement

It aims at a reformation of the political class. Democrats are in power so they get the brunt of it, not learning the lessons of '94 or '06. So, people are starting to get a bit more feisty in the face of more radical expressions of precisely the approach and attitudes that are despised.; 1/15/10, 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: "The article says they aren't "reaching out" to Democrats... but they aren't reaching out to Republicans either."

This is correct.

Come on ... it's right there in front of you.

We're not interested in electing Republicans ... or Democrats.

We're only interested in electing Conservatives.

If you're a "Republican" - that doesn't interest us.

You must be a Capital C Conservative, or you will not get our support and the Democrat will win and they'll take your money and give it to less deserving people.

If you want power, quit being Republicans and start being Conservatives.; 1/15/10, 10:47 AM
Arturius said...: Which is too bad. I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate, but they are few and far between.

Probably because there is really no such animal. If socially liberal to you means heaping largese on the 'unfortunate' then you can't reconcile being fiscally conservative because there is no amount of money that is deemed too much. Especially if its for the children.; 1/15/10, 10:50 AM
Ricardo said...: The media enjoys talking about how the Republican Party has been taken over by ultra extremist Conservatives. What the media doesn't talk enough about, however, is how the whole Federal Government has been taken over by two parties (Democrat and Republican) who seem bent on paralysis instead of any attempt at governing. What scraps of governing they give us are merely for show and public relations. One decade we swing one way (Rep) and another decade we swing another way (Dem), but it's all the same thing.; 1/15/10, 10:56 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: What the media doesn't talk enough about, however, is how the whole Federal Government has been taken over by two parties (Democrat and Republican) who seem bent on paralysis instead of any attempt at governing.

Um excuse me but don't the Democrats enjoy massive majorities in Congress? I mean in one breath I hear about how the GOP is in the wilderness and has no appeal then in the next breath we have gridlock in government.

Sounds to me like there are a whole lot of Democrats that are having some kind of identity crisis. Maybe the third party doesn't have to come out of the GOP.; 1/15/10, 11:04 AM
MadisonMan said...: If socially liberal to you means heaping largesse on the 'unfortunate'

That's not what I mean at all.

Socially liberal to me means the Government is not looking over your shoulder in a doctor's office, or at a marriage registry, or at school.; 1/15/10, 11:04 AM
Andrew Ian Dodge said...: Its both. depends on the region. There are people from all parts of the political spectrum involved in the movement. We will see tea party types influencing the Dems as well, maybe even the Libertarian Party.; 1/15/10, 11:09 AM
Paddy O said...: "Socially liberal to me means the Government is not looking over your shoulder in a doctor's office, or at a marriage registry, or at school."

I don't think either party has these, then.

The two parties just disagree on what is looked for in the doctor's office, marriage registry, and school.

Well, maybe not as much marriage for the D's, but they tend to be significantly more interested in schools so it balances out.; 1/15/10, 11:10 AM
TMink said...: John wrote: "It's not independent, in that I can't see a Tea Partier voting Democrat, no matter what."

John, I can show you different. I voted twice now, for our fiscally conservative Democratic governer. He was the best candidate. I would vote for him again.

I voted for the Democratic challenger to our Republican senator, Lamar Alexander, because I am tired of Lamar saying he is a conservative and supporting cap and trade and such.

I honestly do not know who I voted for against Alexander, I just know it was not him.

I would have voted for MANY of the old school Southern Democrats, Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson etc. over McCain.

It is about political philosophy, not party politics for many of us. I have NO allegience to any party, they are worthless.

Trey; 1/15/10, 11:11 AM
Joe said...: Well Madison, here's the news flash, social liberal/Fiscal Conservative=Libertarian…and they get fewer votes than the Green party…the REAL options are:

Social Liberal/Fiscal Liberal
Social Conservative/Fiscal Conservative

So you can’t have lower taxes without restrictions on abortion….you need to prioritize your concerns.; 1/15/10, 11:12 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: People complaining about two parties seem to miss the point.

The Constitution's rules are what gave us a two party system. If you have a problem with the parties, look at the Constitution.

The way we elect members of Congress, by whoever gets the most votes in a district, encourages the largest parties possible. Small parties can't get a plurality in a district, so they don't get elected anywhere. Commanding 20% support nationwide is meaningless if you can't get 51% in any one district.

That's the system working as intended. Blame the Founders.

I like it. I don't have to worry about freaks in Congress. Well, not as much, anyway.

For the Presidency the continued prominence of two parties is a bit different. It's a nationwide office, so it's open to a wider range of candidates. And it usually draws a wide slate of oddballs. You still have to win entire states to get electoral votes. This means that only pluralities count, which again favors large parties.

Good. Working as intended. You need to have a wide geographic and demographic base to become president. That's good for the country.; 1/15/10, 11:13 AM
Original Mike said...: "I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate"

We should form a party, MM.; 1/15/10, 11:17 AM
Unknown said...: MadisonMan said...

They are very likely to vote Republican, given the right candidate.

Which is too bad. I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate, but they are few and far between.

You make a good point, MadMan. The push for ideological purity among the Demos has made such people reticent to put their names forward. There are probably people like that among the Republican ranks, but the reaction to the ethical and political corruption of the RINOs have made them anathema.

The Tea Party movement is a reaction against the fact that the Leftists among the Boomers have gotten their way all their adult lives and we are left with a mess. The Boomer centrists and conservatives, as well as younger people taking notice, are wondering to what happened to all they worked for in their lives and now somebody's going to pay.

Right now, there are 2 parties - the RINOcrats and the Commucrats. If the Tea Partiers succeed at all, the RINOs and Commus will join and either the Republicans go the way of the Whigs and Federalists and a new party is formed or they turn the Republicans into a true opposition party.

That said, I don't see the Democrats surviving in their present form, either. They've become so corrupt, ethically and intellectually, they'll have to change or become marginalized. That would give MadMan's type of candidate, a neo-Hubert Humphrey, if you will, a chance to shine.; 1/15/10, 11:28 AM
bagoh20 said...: The answer is right there in the name. The originals didn't have a party either, but they sure made a difference.; 1/15/10, 11:34 AM
Arturius said...: That's not what I mean at all.

Socially liberal to me means the Government is not looking over your shoulder in a doctor's office, or at a marriage registry, or at school.

That is why I put the qualifying 'if'. Socially liberal can swing both ways (so to speak). It would seem your political ideology leans libertarian as far as I can tell based upon what you believe the government's role in our personal lives should be, and I will add, mirrors my own.; 1/15/10, 11:35 AM
bagoh20 said...: I think it's pretty hard to be socially liberal in either party; they both want to limit your choices a lot, just in different areas.; 1/15/10, 11:39 AM
Arturius said...: If the GOP is incapable of mounting a coordinated opposition to the democrats then they deserve every bad thing that happens to them

The GOP would do themselves a great service by shelving the idiotic social issues (gay marriage, abortion) and stick with the basics; fiscal conservatism and a strong defense. Whether a couple of nancy boys want to get married is the least of my cares or concerns. Same with abortion. The reason a complete clown like Barney Frank can survive is because his party and constituency approve of his lifestyle. On the other hand GOP, opposition to gay marriage simply makes a party look ridiculous when one of its members is caught looking for oral sex in the men's bathroom.

Its called having priorities and what the role of the government is.; 1/15/10, 11:42 AM
vbspurs said...: Right now, it's an anti-Obama movement, which manifests itself in being anti-taxation. That's the truth.

But I do not like the increasing ambitions of the leaders of the Tea Party movement, as I see them now. I believe they won't relinquish their new-found power to the Republican Party, just to be good footsoldiers in the conservative cause.

If Palin is nominated as a third Party candidate for the "Tea Party", I wouldn't vote for her for even dogcatcher ever afterwards. That's a promise.

She's only viable and serious to me as a Republican.; 1/15/10, 11:46 AM
bagoh20 said...: Conservatives want to limit choice in:

Marriage
Drugs
Education
Military service
What you can buy
What you can sell

Liberals want to limit choice in:

All the above plus:
Health care
Food
Fuel
Power
Who you can hire
What you can drive
How much you can earn
How much you can pay
Firearms
Self defense
What kind of pets you can have.
Where you can build
Where you can live
I give up, it's just about everything.; 1/15/10, 11:49 AM
Big Mike said...: "Or is it essentially a right-wing faction aimed at the conquest of the Republican Party?"

Unless, of course, it's the long overdue conversation between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives, cleverly disguised as a conversation (make that harangue) directed from the taxpaying class towards the taxing class.

I agree with Arturius -- putting up candidates who are extremists on abortion and gay rights, but who contribute heartily to the growth and intrusiveness of government and who contribute to a tax system so complex that even the head of the IRS cannot do his own taxes is not the way for the GOP to find its way back from the Wilderness.; 1/15/10, 11:53 AM
traditionalguy said...: The third force in American politics today is not the Tea Party movement, which has stopped moving anyway. If there is a Force not under either GOP or Dem control it is Sarah Palin's leadership skill. Does that scare the Dems or the GOP more?; 1/15/10, 11:55 AM
Fen said...: Liberals also want to limit choice in Education.

The Politburo gets to send their kids to private school, while the kids in communities like DC are handicapped. Dems can't afford to let them wander off the plantation.; 1/15/10, 11:56 AM
Big Mike said...: So, Florida, do you and I have to have a conversation? Or are we in agreement on fiscal conservatism? Because there are way too many people who will vote to nominate a candidate based on that candidate's position on abortion and gay marriage, and not worry about said candidate's position on tax simplification and economic freedom. Are you in that group? If so, then let's talk.; 1/15/10, 11:58 AM
Fen said...: I think the McCain nomination is a good indicator of why the conservative grass-roots doesn't trust the GOP.

That, and they keep selling us out so they can claim the "reasonable bipartisan" mantle.; 1/15/10, 11:59 AM
bagoh20 said...: "The GOP would do themselves a great service by shelving the idiotic social issues (gay marriage, abortion)"

It seems that way emotionally, but those issues are actually demographically winners for conservatives. The nation is majority pro-life and anti-gay marriage. Besides very few people who vote Dem on those issues would vote Republican since the Dem candidate is going to have the same position.; 1/15/10, 12:00 PM
Big Mike said...: @Victoria (the one with the spurs), I disagree that the Tea Party movement is merely anti-Obama. It's pretty clearly anti-healthcare "reform" for the pretty obvious reason that if you increase my taxes I can always tighten the belt a little but if you screw with my health insurance and I get sick then I'm totally screwed. But the call for fiscal sanity that the Tea Party embodies will, I think (I hope!), linger on after healthcare is defeated (or repealed).

I'm not certain I'd vote for Palin, though her command of foreign policy is not discernably worse than Obama's, but I do like what little I know of her financial management of the City of Wasilla and the state of Alaska.; 1/15/10, 12:05 PM
knox said...: Progressive dissenters against the “pro-corporate” policies of the Obama administration pine for alliances with them.

Bullshit! I've never heard anyone on the left express anything but contempt for the teaparty movement. MadMan's comment is the first moderate one by a left-leaner I've seen here, certainly.

I followed the link to Greenwald's column, and it didn't sound exactly "pining" either.; 1/15/10, 12:10 PM
vbspurs said...: Besides very few people who vote Dem on those issues would vote Republican since the Dem candidate is going to have the same position.

That's not quite true, though it feels true.

Take the positions of the Conservative Parties in Western Europe.

You know what David Cameron's main campaign promise is, as he seeks to win the Premiership over Gordon Brown? INCREASE funding to the NHS. Suicide for any real Republican in the US.

So Conservative politicians in Europe basically eunuched themselves in social programmes and socially liberal positions, the former of which necessitates perpetually increasing or higher taxes, the latter which is seen as religiously-centric.

It's easier on the local level for Conservatives, but not nationally, and certainly not in times of "crises", where people fear their golden trough will be taken away.

I mention this because this would be the fate of the American Republican Party, should they follow the paths of conservatives in Europe.; 1/15/10, 12:14 PM
Ken Begg said...: "Right now, it's an anti-Obama movement, which manifests itself in being anti-taxation. That's the truth."

That is incorrect. The movement is not so much anti-taxation as it it is anti-spending/anti-debt. If (a fantastical premise, I'm aware) a candidate proposed to freeze or reduce all federal government spending across the board, while at the same time to increase taxes, with the entire excess amount raised going to pay down the national DEBT--not deficit, we've got to stop talking about that--I expect a majority of tea partiers would support that candidate.; 1/15/10, 12:15 PM
knox said...: If Palin is nominated as a third Party candidate for the "Tea Party", I wouldn't vote for her for even dogcatcher ever afterwards. That's a promise.

Vic,

I don't know if you caught her nauseating interview with Glenn Beck the other night, but after seeing it, I am pretty confident that is exactly what she's going to do. I wouldn't be surprised if Beck inserted himself directly into the fray and tried to create a 3rd party.... with himself as VP or at the very least, in a Rove/Axelrod type position.

I will not elaborate on the interview, except that Beck did it 60-minutes-style, asking leading "don't you agree" type questions. Really bad.

As you know, I despise Beck, so I will admit to viewing the whole thing with some bias. But it gave me a pretty bad feeling.; 1/15/10, 12:15 PM
vbspurs said...: I disagree that the Tea Party movement is merely anti-Obama.

I should've qualified that, Big Mike, by saying that's how I perceive that it started as being.; 1/15/10, 12:16 PM
Charlie Martin said...: I'll take 'silly-ass pundit questions for 200, Alex.'; 1/15/10, 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes.; 1/15/10, 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I wholeheartedly agree with vbspurs @ 11:46.; 1/15/10, 12:21 PM
vbspurs said...: I don't know if you caught her nauseating interview with Glenn Beck the other night, but after seeing it, I am pretty confident that is exactly what she's going to do.

I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE.

I don't like this path she's taking. Thumbing her nose to CPAC and going to the Tea Party convention? Even if she accepted the freebie Southern convention, I don't like it all, this new tack of hers.

When McCain says he's a maverick, we all know that's just a marketing technique to make him more palatable to indies (which didn't, since most people don't like wishy-washiness).

But I honestly now believe that Sarah Palin doesn't want any part of any establishment. After she quit as Governor, I think she thinks now that she can position herself as being the "unpolitician" who can solve Washington's problems, by precisely being an outsider without holding office.

Uh, no, Sarah.

Lack of experience and seriousness has NEVER helped a person become US President, even as an outsider.

Had Obama quit 2 years into his Senatorial term, he really would just have qualified as coffeeboy for the Clintons.; 1/15/10, 12:22 PM
Big Mike said...: @Victoria, I don't even think that's how the Tea Party movement started, but be that as it may, I'm kind of with Ken. Certainly I could support a 90% tax rate on Barbra Streisand, not to mention Susan Sarandan and the Sheen father and son.

And a 100% tax on Jim Carey for getting lotsa millions for making bombs.

;-); 1/15/10, 12:23 PM
Big Mike said...: @bagoh20, are you and I starting the conversation?; 1/15/10, 12:24 PM
vbspurs said...: Oxbay wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with vbspurs @ 11:46.

I love Sarah Palin. I think she's a magnificent, adminirable lady, and has one of the most amazing personal stories in the history of American politics.

But I love the United States more.

My main beef about Obama is that he's an amateur in WAY WAY over his head for the position he was elected to. We're seeing what an ineffectual, weak person with just slogans can do to our political landscape in just a YEAR.

And right now, that's Sarah Palin. So no, I won't vote her unless she improves herself and shows me she's offering more than just her 2008 self.; 1/15/10, 12:26 PM
vbspurs said...: Well, I note Ken Begg's and Big Mike's protestations about my interpretation of the Tea Party movement is. Fair enough. They could be more right than I am.; 1/15/10, 12:30 PM
Joe said...: Vbspurs...IF Palin was gonna leave the GOP, doancha think she'd have left by now, you know when she discovered just how corrupt it was in Alaska? She didn't leave she changed it, to an extent....

WV: "enthidar" Someone on the "enthide" according to Barney Frank.; 1/15/10, 12:31 PM
vbspurs said...: As I see it Joe, she needed the Republican Party more than it needed her, back in Alaska. Now, not so much. She is her own brand now, and I'm just hoping that her balanced sense of self (evident in her book and previous interviews) will overcome whatever ambitions she has, in being a burr in the side of "the Establishment".; 1/15/10, 12:39 PM
Joe said...: Per NYT:
"In Power Push, Movement Sees Base in G.O.P."

"...Now, Tea Party activists are trying to take over the establishment, ground up."

Pretty much sums up my take on the Tea Party Movement...

Who did more to shape the US post-1968, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman OR Tom Hayden and George McGovern? To me the answer is clear....

IF Conservatives wish to shape the US and politics, they must have the Long Counter-March thru the Institutions of Society.

WV: "downsfer"....How many downs until we have another 1st or have to punt?; 1/15/10, 12:46 PM
Paddy O said...: what vbspurs said @ 12:26. Spot on.

WV: bionktor. I wouldn't vote for bionktor, but I suspect bionktor wouldn't give anyone the choice. Bionktor would crush all opposition with its fists of hardened steel.; 1/15/10, 12:47 PM
Phil 314 said...: When McCain says he's a maverick, we all know that's just a marketing technique to make him more palatable to indies (which didn't, since most people don't like wishy-washiness).

I live in AZ. Maybe the label could be better but the McCain maverick label does attempt to encapsulate something real about Sen. McCain. While he has a fairly solid conservative voting record, for whatever reason, he periodically gets on an issue that isn't a conservative one. He also is less afraid to work with a Democrat.

It does piss off the base, even in AZ. (And while I didn't live in AZ when he first started in politics, I believe he was more consistently conservative earlier in his career.)

It doesn't hurt him with the AZ electorate but it hurts some with the AZ Republicans. So YMMV.

DISCLAIMER: I voted for him (and I will again this year) AND I'm a former independent.; 1/15/10, 12:49 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: The "parties" could have been created by the Dems for the damage they're doing: they're splitting the opposition to BHO into two camps. The opposition to BHO is now largely defined as absolute idiots waving loopy signs on street corners. IOW, the "partiers" are giving BHO what every leader wants: a small, ineffective, completely stupid, fringe opposition. The "partiers" are loud but fringe: even most Republicans support things like SocSec.

The proof is in the pudding: the MSM could marginalize the "partiers" tomorrow simply by telling the truth about their ideologies and their leaders. Yet, for some strange reason they seem to be even encouraging the "partiers". On an ironic note, the "partiers" are too stupid to figure out why that is.

See my extensive tea party movement coverage for all the details.; 1/15/10, 12:49 PM
bagoh20 said...: Big Mike said...

"@bagoh20, are you and I starting the conversation?"

I wish I could take credit, cause it's a good one.; 1/15/10, 12:51 PM
bagoh20 said...: I like Palin's history and I like the idea of someone like her getting into government, but I have to begrudgingly accept that while her accomplishments, independence and personal fortitude are impressive, she is not at all impressive to watch or hear in interviews and that makes her unelectable. I've given her time to prove otherwise, but she has not. I hope she does not run and siphon off votes a la Ross Perot, who's candidacy I think she would closely match.; 1/15/10, 12:58 PM
Peano said...: "So the question persists: Is the Tea Party Movement an independent 'third force' in American politics? Or is it essentially a right-wing faction aimed at the conquest of the Republican Party?"

It's an ill-framed question, a false alternative. No wonder. Look who framed it: Ed "Third Way" Kilgore.; 1/15/10, 1:02 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: The latter, and they can just give money to the Club for Growth which has already been focused on supporting fiscally conservative candidates.

The social cons get all the flack in popular media for wanting to control people when, as bagoh20 already demonstrated, the things they want to control are far fewer than the supposed social libs.

I would also point out that the pro-life position is easily considered a purely libertarian position. No so easy as some pretend to categorize that one.; 1/15/10, 1:06 PM
knox said...: But I honestly now believe that Sarah Palin doesn't want any part of any establishment...

Yes, I am afraid that the popularity of her book may give her the wrong idea: that quitting her elected position was interpreted (by the electorate) as a smart, bold move.

There are obviously some people out there who love her so much they will vote for her in any context. But to my mind, she is neither experienced nor formidable enough in her communication skills to start her own political movement, based almost solely on her "brand," as you so brilliantly put it.

Love ya, Sarah, but book sales do not translate to votes.; 1/15/10, 1:17 PM
knox said...: she is not at all impressive to watch or hear in interviews and that makes her unelectable. I've given her time to prove otherwise, but she has not.

Much to my dismay, I have to agree. I was hoping, even expecting to be more impressed with her as time went on.; 1/15/10, 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: STFU, Lonewacko.; 1/15/10, 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "Because there are way too many people who will vote to nominate a candidate based on that candidate's position on abortion and gay marriage, and not worry about said candidate's position on tax simplification and economic freedom."

Mike, here's the deal.

You're not going to get tax simplification ... from either the Republicans or the Democrats. Forget about it. Not gonna happen.

You're not going to get smaller government ... from either party. It's not in a political party's interest to reduce the size of government. Neither party ever has reduced the size of government and neither party ever will.

Neither party ever has reduced the cost of government. The federal budget grows by a set amount no matter which party is in power.

Everything you want is not obtainable by you whether you vote Republican or Democrat. And there's no evidenc that you can point to to demonstrate that it is obtainable except some politician's lying promise to give it to you.

So, you can either vote with me to elect who I want ... or you can watch the Democrats destroy your country.

Your choice.

I've made my choice. I'm not voting for your RINO's ... ever. So, you can watch them lose election after election after election until all your wealth has been consumed by Democrats, or you can vote with me for Conservative candidates.

That's your only two choices.

I'll never, ever vote with you for your guys.

You have to vote with me to defeat Democrats or they win.

And I'm OK with losing if that's the price I have to pay to get what I want.; 1/15/10, 1:24 PM
vbspurs said...: Love ya, Sarah, but book sales do not translate to votes.

We're seeing the ineffectiveness of the Obama Presidency as a result of misinterpretation too, only in his case he and the pundits thought that votes were a translation of overwhelming support for his platform.

(No, the votes were a gasp of oxygen by a tired electorate, scared witless about the economy, who had a chance to elect a young, energetic, internationally well-respected man into office, who on top of everything, voters felt were being given a chance to overturn a historical wrong done to blacks)

His supporters in media thought he was being carte blanche to change America from the inside-out, and that's why they're scrambling now to explain it all, from Tea Party, from having to bribe Democrats, to Jon Corzine, to Scott Brown.

Incidentally, Knox, it seems you and I are exactly on the same page about Sarah Palin. I say this with sadness on my part, because you couldn't find a more rah-rah Palin supporter on the blogosphere in 2008. I burnt myself out blogging during the campaign. And I'm still not entirely back.; 1/15/10, 1:30 PM
vbspurs said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/15/10, 1:30 PM
vbspurs said...: Much to my dismay, I have to agree. I was hoping, even expecting to be more impressed with her as time went on.

If I hear "commonsense solutions" one more time, without telling me what they are, I'll scream.; 1/15/10, 1:34 PM
bagoh20 said...: "If I hear "commonsense solutions" one more time, without telling me what they are, I'll scream."

Not being specific and precise is what politicians do and it's why she says things like that. She is playing a politician which I think is completely unnatural for her.

She may be stupid, or she may be a bad communicator, I don't know. I know some very smart, effective and successful people who just don't look the part. So I don't judge by a person's sales pitch, but I'm sure that acting like a politician is a big mistake in the coming election.; 1/15/10, 2:17 PM
traditionalguy said...: The whirling complaints here that Palin is not doing anything right are more signs of that Tea Party rebellion mood. Sorry Florida, but to win she will need to retain her centrist position on the issues...called common sense in Palin speak. Because she can win the needed 50% + 1, votes, the non-Marxists will have to come out and vote for her too or enjoy a future citizenship in the People's. Republic of North America as the price of being too hard to please. In other words the 2012 Presidential is her election to lose. Her ONLY obstacle is the jealous GOP power brokers for the nomination that only want a candidate under their thumb. They know that and so does she. So Sarah will play along with all comers for votes in the primaries to get the nomination. After that she will just do a good job, win the election and be a fine President governing from the center.; 1/15/10, 2:19 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Re: Palin

I agree with knox and Vics. I was hoping for more. And I'm not into the wrapping oneself in the flag or the stoking of populist sentiment.; 1/15/10, 2:21 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Really, I just want Fred Thompson. Can we all just agree on him this time and move on? :); 1/15/10, 2:22 PM
Icepick said...: The Tea Partiers I have met (including at the first big rally in Orlando last March) were almost as pissed off at the domestic policies of GW Bush as they were are Obama. In the ten months that have followed I imagine they are more pissed with Obama now, but not some much because he is walking a sepatate path from Bush, but because he seems like Bush squared. Instead of Medicare Part D we may get the monstrosity Congress has created Dr. Frankenstein-style. (Or perhaps more Dr. Frankenfurter.)

They seem to want fiscal responsibility and smaller federal government. They'll never get it, but that's what they want. The Democrats certainly want just the opposite, and so do the Republicans, they just want to CLAIM they're for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The Republicans base their claims on not being as bad as the OTHER GUYS.

But no one buys that any more, or at least they shouldn't. So hopefully the Tea Party will lead to another party. I don't think it will happen, but I hope so.; 1/15/10, 2:36 PM
vbspurs said...: She may be stupid, or she may be a bad communicator, I don't know.

That's the thing. She's not at all stupid, though she is a bad SPEAKER one-on-one. She can give a dazzling speech, though, so she's not precisely a bad communicator.

I like how forthright and CLEAR she is in her Facebook posts. Hannity is right. "Death panel" entered into our national lexicon due to her, and it resonated tremendously with people all over America, who were forced to think just what exactly they were getting into, since MSM won't touch the topic.

Anti-Palin pundits gave her grief about the Facebooking of her philosophy, so perhaps her move to being a political commentator is a way to legitimise her views.; 1/15/10, 2:36 PM
Opus One Media said...: They are independent as long as the real activists in their midst are bought and paid for.

Sarah can be their honorary leader as soon as she finds out who the founding fathers are.; 1/15/10, 2:42 PM
Icepick said...: Regardless, I am not voting for a Republican for national office again. I live in Alan Grayson's district. Yes, the excrable Alan Grayson is my Congressman. He's a bully, a coward, a blowhard and a carpetbagger, but that isn't enough to get me to vote for a Republican candidate this fall.

Because a vote for a Republican candidate this fall is a vote for John Boehner as Speaker of the House. And voting for Rick Rubio will be a vote for Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader. Those guys were in the leadership during the days when Bush was pushing through one crappy domestic program after another. They have no credibility as fiscal or small government conservatives. So fuck 'em. I'm not going to vote for (R)s solely because they aren't (D)s, not anymore.; 1/15/10, 2:43 PM
Big Mike said...: @Florida, I'm not completely clear on where you're coming from. But I'm glad to see that the conversation is starting.

If you're going to throw up a candidate that proposes to make all abortion illegal, including in cases of rape, and wants to push gays safely back into the closet, but who wants to throw taxpayer money around like a drunken sailor* then I'm going to throw up my lunch and I'm flat not going to vote for your guy. In fact, I'm going to work to defeat him. I've had it with politicians who run as Republicans and mouth the platitudes about abortion but who won't even vote to eliminate the national tea tasters board.

(* With the caveat that even drunken sailors run out of cash and have to stumble back on board ship, but politicians merely vote to increase the national debt and go back to spending money).

And I have seen tax simplification happen -- all too briefly -- once already in my lifetime. There's hope that it can happen again.

And Scott Brown's going to get more than 35% of the vote.; 1/15/10, 2:47 PM
Big Mike said...: @bagoh20, I'm confused by your 12:51 posting. Are you on my side (fiscal conservatism before social conservatism) or Florida's?; 1/15/10, 2:48 PM
Icepick said...: Big Mike wrote: I've had it with politicians who run as Republicans and mouth the platitudes about abortion but who won't even vote to eliminate the national tea tasters board.

That's all I'm sayin'.; 1/15/10, 2:49 PM
Joe said...: Opus One, isn't one of the FOunders Abraham Lincoln, certainly he's mine and Mika's favourite! After him I like Chester A. Arthur.; 1/15/10, 2:59 PM
Icepick said...: Opus One, isn't one of the FOunders Abraham Lincoln, certainly he's mine and Mika's favourite! After him I like Chester A. Arthur.

What, no love for Millard Filmore?; 1/15/10, 3:01 PM
Anonymous said...: @Mike,

Are Republicans running on smaller government?

Because I've seen no evidence that is what they've brought us when we've put them in power in the past.

See, the Tea Party patriots have realized that promises to reduce government aren't real. Republicans have never, ever done it. They've promised it time and time again, but once given power, have never acted to - for example - eliminate the US Department of Education.

They're bait to get social conservatives to support Republican RINOs.

That ship has sailed, I think.

Remember ... George W. Bush signed the first TARP bill. You can excuse it however you like. You can argue he had no choice if you want.

But you'll be pissing into the wind.

Tea Party patriots won't vote for RINOs. That's going to allow Democrats to carry the elections. And the Democrats are going to then start confiscating Republican wealth and dealing it out to Democrat causes (such as exempting unions from Cadillac tax plans).

So, you can stand around and be robbed if you want ... or you can start supporting candidates who can win. And RINOs can no longer win because Tea Party patriots won't turn out for them.; 1/15/10, 3:07 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: We need politicians who are willing to go slash and burn through the federal government. There are entire Departments we need to eliminate.

A scalpel will not save this patient, the United States. It's amputation time.

I think that's how most Tea Partiers feel. There are plenty of people in the GOP who agree, and plenty of big GOP commentators who agree, so I do think the Tea Partiers have a shot at redefining the Republican Party.; 1/15/10, 3:08 PM
bagoh20 said...: " Big Mike said...

@bagoh20, I'm confused by your 12:51 posting. Are you on my side (fiscal conservatism before social conservatism) or Florida's?"

Mike, I don't think government should be in the social conservatism business at all because they are just as likely to lose as many battles as win, creating a never ending battle on stuff that is not the government's business at all. That's where we are today.

I'm more libertarian than Florida, but certainly would prefer her rule to the left's.

I think the social conservative message pushes more independents away than it pulls.

I think I'm more socially liberal than both of you and that means allowing people to be as liberal or conservative as they want outside of government.; 1/15/10, 3:16 PM
Icepick said...: We need politicians who are willing to go slash and burn through the federal government. There are entire Departments we need to eliminate.

And all that won't make a difference. The big four spending items are Defense, Social Security, Medicare and debt payments. What difference does it make if you eliminate the DOT, the DOE, and HHS (sans it's SS and Medicare parts)? Which of the four are you willing to cut? How do you suppose you will get the botes to do that?; 1/15/10, 3:28 PM
bagoh20 said...: I thought Palin answered George Washington. As father of the country I think that makes him a pretty good choice. He would be mine too, since in addition to the intellectual contribution as the others, he also provided the power that kept them all from being hanged, which would have ruined the 4th of July forever.; 1/15/10, 3:32 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Which of the four are you willing to cut?"

All of them, and all the others as well. The thing about cutting government spending is that it cuts government which is a series of shackles on the productivity of the country. Every cut does not just reduce spending; it improves productivity and output. Of course there are also the arguments that it's just right morally to reduce taxes, and that if you are not willing to cut spending, then you accept collapse eventually, which is a really big cut.

I would like to see at least a 10% cut in spending below current levels across the board in all departments as a start.

The idea that there is at least 10% wasted in every government department is pretty hard to dispute.

I've run lean companies where we had to cut much more than that and I know it's possible.; 1/15/10, 3:42 PM
former law student said...: The movement is not so much anti-taxation as it it is anti-spending/anti-debt.

A movement that snoozed during 20 years of Republicans in the White House, as tax cuts led to ever-increasing debt as a percentage of GDP? Doan make me leff.

The Tea Party movement is just a bunch of kibitzers saying "Whatever it is, we're against it." Their only solutions are not half-measure, not quarter-measures, but two-hundred-and-fifty-sixth measures.; 1/15/10, 3:46 PM
Icepick said...: "Which of the four are you willing to cut?"

All of them, and all the others as well. The thing about cutting government spending is that it cuts government which is a series of shackles on the productivity of the country. Every cut does not just reduce spending; it improves productivity and output. Of course there are also the arguments that it's just right morally to reduce taxes, and that if you are not willing to cut spending, then you accept collapse eventually, which is a really big cut.

I would like to see at least a 10% cut in spending below current levels across the board in all departments as a start.

The idea that there is at least 10% wasted in every government department is pretty hard to dispute.

So, you're going to cut our debt payments by 10%? So much ofr fiscal responisbility if you aren't even willing to pay back what you owe.

And I doubt that you will find 10% waste in Social Security payments. You might be able to clean up the overhead in Medicare, but I doubt you will get near 10%. The government has been trying to force doctors to take a pay cut, and that's not really working out so well.

The only place you can reasonably get 10% would be in Defense. But we've already raided that pot once, and the only way to get that kind of number again would be to bring the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan. (The upside is that you would get MORE than 10% on this budget item.)

So, your basic solution is to default on our debt, and refuse to pay senior citizens (and some others) what we had promised we would pay them - after they've planned their lives around that those scenarios. Outstanding.; 1/15/10, 4:00 PM
bagoh20 said...: "So, your basic solution is to default on our debt, and refuse to pay senior citizens (and some others) what we had promised we would pay them - after they've planned their lives around that those scenarios. Outstanding."

If I said that, it would be stupid, but I didn't - you did.

Debt isn't a department. and as for the rest, you simply picked the worst methods to cut the 10% and pretend they are the only ways.

You really think the government is more than 90% efficient? You don't understand organizations then, especially government.

Nice straw army you built there, though.; 1/15/10, 4:13 PM
Cedarford said...: edutcher - "Right now, there are 2 parties - the RINOcrats and the Commucrats. If the Tea Partiers succeed at all, the RINOs and Commus will join and either the Republicans go the way of the Whigs and Federalists and a new party is formed or they turn the Republicans into a true opposition party."

After the Goldwater Debacle, you had zealots arguing that the Great Man lost because he didn't go far enough and write all "them educated wishy-washy, soft on nuking the commies, folks up North and East - out of the Party as RINOs".
Obviously, people like Nixon, Scranton, Romney, etc. disagreed and prevailed - building a Party that focused on fiscal responsibility and the needs of the Silent Majority. And pointing out the big errors of LBJ, the rise in crime, etc.

The result was impressive. More so in 1968 than in Nixon's great 1972 Landslide. Because in 1968, Nixon won without the entire Bible Belt, Fundie-Land bloc of states that extreme Right Wing Conservatives now claim is the True Pure Base of Republican ideology. All those Jesusland Electoral votes went to Wallace.
What Nixon and others built lasted past Watergate, and until after 1988 when Bush I's ignoring the fundamental needs of voters in favor of keeping his attention abroad and on his "New World Order" doomed him.

But before then, what the Southern-fried Right Wing calls "RINO-Land" - like the Midwest, New England, California - is how Republicans from Eisenhower through Bush I won their elections.

There is a huge bloc in US politics that is fiscally conservative, socially moderate who hate Fundie causes like outlawing all abortion, endless wars abroad. They are Republicans and Independents. They think whether or not the plug got pulled on the vegetable Schiavo was a matter for doctors and families to rule on. They want security, even want profiling - but don't want a huge new pack of self-described "heroes" in Federal uniform ordering their lives. They support the troops but do not worship them or every expensive weapons system...and believe if a matter merits huge war costs..it should be paid for at the time. They hate the insider deals of DC and the rank corruption of BOTH Republicans and Democrats.

They are the people that hated George Bush towards the end, were fairly repulsed by the treacherous expediency of lifetime Senator McCain, and who hoped Obama would be another Bill Clinton, at least..instead of the McGovern he turned out to be.; 1/15/10, 4:18 PM
Titus said...: I am starting the first chapter of the gay tea partiers.

Similar to the Log Cabin republicans except instead we are members of the Tea Party.

Details forthcoming.

Can you feel a
brand new day?

Can you feel a
brand new day?; 1/15/10, 5:20 PM
Joe said...: Test; 1/15/10, 5:21 PM
bagoh20 said...: C4,

With each descriptive phrase you whittled that "huge block" down until there was little left but a small pack of guys around a fire with matching hats. The electorate is way more hard to define, and surprisingly, they do learn and change...sometimes...I hope.; 1/15/10, 5:30 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Details forthcoming."

No, No, that quite alright. It's all right there in the name, kinda.; 1/15/10, 5:33 PM
Titus said...: I will have you know I am gay and have actually never teabagged.

I know it is supposed to be some big gay sex act but I haven't done it.

Sure I have licked a ball here and there but who hasn't?

I don't lay on my back though and let some guy drop his sack into my mouth.

First of all it woudn't fit and second of all that is hot? Not.

Thanks so much.; 1/15/10, 6:32 PM
bagoh20 said...: " Titus said...

I will have you know I am gay..."

What the hell? You? I just had no idea. I got to get the gaydar checked. I thought you were a proctologist. Really? Are you sure? I coulda swore I...; 1/15/10, 6:40 PM
mariner said...: "Socially liberal to me means the Government is not looking over your shoulder in a doctor's office, or at a marriage registry, or at school."

I don't think either party has these, then.

The two parties just disagree on what is looked for in the doctor's office, marriage registry, and school.

I don't get while social conservatives are STILL being accused of wanting to snoop on everyone, everywhere -- it's the smarter-than-the-rest-of-us, tolerant, compassionate, "liberals" who started that crap.

Now as Paddy O. said, it's just a matter of which people are snooping and what they care about.

More people would be happier if we continued to have the limited government involvement in schools and home life that we had fifty years ago.

We'd be a lot wealthier, too.; 1/15/10, 6:53 PM
Icepick said...: Debt isn't a department. and as for the rest, you simply picked the worst methods to cut the 10% and pretend they are the only ways.

I mentioned EXPENSES. Debt repayment is one of the four biggest expenses,and its getting larger every year.

And what's the overhead of Social Security payments? Do you really think you can reduce the overhead enough to cut the program budget by 10% without reducing payments?

So two of the four expenses I mentioned just will not give up the savings you claim are there. As for the others, I mentioned that one CAN meet that goal, but the results might not be pleasant. And Medicare is completely up in the air although I doubt there's much to be saved there. Corporations try to cut their medical expenses everey year, and for the last tweenty -five years (at least) medical inflation has far outpaced general inflation. Or do you think the private sector also can't cut expenses, except for your opwn exhaulted self?

So spare me the straw-man argument bullshit. I mentioned four expenses and asked which you would cut. You said "All of them." All means all, dumb-ass. You respond to what I wrote by making a dumb assertion that you want to cut debt payments, and then try to weasal out of it.

Or is it that you are too stupid to understand what you wrote?; 1/15/10, 9:48 PM
SteveOrr said...: I find it curious that moderates keep bringing up the abortion & marriage. The tea-party doesn’t. It seems they hate theocrat spendthrifts AND the Rockefeller Republicans. This isn’t about gays & abortion, guys. Quit blaming us social conservatives for the GOP’s lack of fiscal discipline. Tom Coburn & Jim DeMint are your friends. Lincoln Chafee & Arlen Specter were not.

BTW, Republicans didn’t force the issue of marriage. They were content to go along with the status quo. In both CA & ME, the GOP establishment even aligned themselves with the “social liberals”. We know our allies on marriage, and they aren’t always Republicans.; 1/15/10, 11:32 PM
Anonymous said...: The tea party people are conducting training for grass roots activists so they can take over the GOP from within.

GOP and the new activists

"Power to the people." Divided government is the best check and balance for the people of all. Go Scott!; 1/16/10, 12:44 AM
vbspurs said...: What the hell? You? I just had no idea. I got to get the gaydar checked. I thought you were a proctologist. Really? Are you sure? I coulda swore I...

Bagoh, you clearly didn't see his guns (and tight tee).; 1/16/10, 1:44 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Madison Man wrote: I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate

That almost describes Brown.

If the Tea Party movement is willing to put fiscal concerns above social issues, then things might get interesting.; 1/16/10, 2:05 AM
dick said...: For all those who are talking about not supporting Palin, who would you support if it came to Obama vs Palin in 2012. Given the dismal job Obama is doing now and the common sense Palin has in her Facebook, I fail to see how you would not support Palin vs Obama in 2012. If there were other options, then maybe someone else but given those two main options how could you not support Palin in that case.; 1/17/10, 7:46 PM