The Tea Party movement's overall effect on the 2010 midterms

[BrainGlutton]

Wikipedia summary of the Tea Party movement's Effects on 2010 mid-term election cycle: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Effects_on_2010_mid-term_election_cycle)

Many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including:

* On January 19, 2010, support from the Tea Party Patriots in Boston helped elect Scott Brown the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, in the special election held after Ted Kennedy's death.[66]

* Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat. He is believed to be the first tea party activist to be elected into office.[67]

* John Frullo won the nomination for the District 84 seat vacated by the retiring Carl Isett, also a Republican. Frullo defeated businessman Mark Griffin, a former Texas Tech University regent.[68]

* On April 13, 2010, Charles Perry unseated 86-year-old incumbent and fellow Texas Republican Delwin Jones in District 83 and is unopposed in the November 2 general election.

* On May 8, 2010, U.S. Senator Bob Bennett (R – Utah) lost his bid to be renominated by his party for another term in the Senate. His defeat is seen as a victory for the Tea Party Movement whose supporters were against Bennett’s return.[69][70][71]

* Rand Paul from the conservative Tea Party movement, won the Super Tuesday GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. Paul is the son of Republican Congressman, Ron Paul, of Texas. Mr Paul comfortably beat Republican establishment favorite Trey Grayson with 60% of the vote. He was quoted saying, "The Tea Party Movement is about saving our country from a mountain of debt.”[72]

* In the Republican primary in South Dakota for the At Large Congressional seat, Kristi Noem, a Tea Party approved candidate, defeated incumbent Secretary of State Chris Nelson and state representative Blake Curd.[73]

* In the South Carolina First Congressional district Republican primary, Tim Scott, who was specifically endorsed by the Tea Party movement,[74] defeated two "establishment" Republicans with long family histories in the Republican politics, Paul Thurmond (the son of the former South Carolina U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond)[75] and Carroll Campbell, the son of former South Carolina governor Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.[76]

* Nikki Haley, a 38-year-old Indian-American state representative, beat out three prominent Republican rivals in the South Carolina primary race for Governor capturing 49 percent of the vote. She defeated the second-place finisher, U.S. Representative Gresham Barrett, in a run-off election on June 22.[77]

* In Maine, Paul LePage won the GOP primary for Governor.[78]

* In California, Chuck DeVore, who lost the GOP senate primary to Carly Fiorina who had backing from Sarah Palin.[79]

* At the state convention of the Republican Party of Texas on June 11–12, 2010, Texas tea party activists succeeded in electing insurgent candidate Steve Munisteri, founder of the Young Conservatives of Texas,[citation needed] to the chairmanship, defeating incumbent Chair Cathie Adams.[citation needed]

* In Florida, two different groups sparred in federal court after one registered the name "Florida Tea Party" with the state Division of Elections. At a June 23, 2010 hearing in West Palm Beach, one "tea party" group asked the court to order the other to amend its filing and to use a different party name.[80]

* In New Jersey, Anna C. Little defeated Republican "establishment" candidate Diane Gooch in the Republican congressional primary for the 6th Congressional District on June 8, 2010. Little will face Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone in November.[81]

* Sharron Angle won the Nevada U.S. Senate GOP primary race and will face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. Angle, who has been called an outsider even in the GOP, believes in small-government and lower taxes. She has said, "I am the tea party." Angle beat out the Republican favorite, Sue Lowden, the one-time front runner.[82]

* In Alaska, attorney Joe Miller defeated current U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, in the GOP primary race on August 24, 2010. Murkowski had been appointed to the seat by her father, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski who had held the Senate seat for 30 years prior to becoming governor.[83]

* On September 14, 2010, Christine O'Donnell beat out veteran Delaware Republican Mike Castle in a bid for U.S. Senate. The results lead to cheers from Democrats that believe Tea Party-backed candidates are too extreme to win in the general elections. In this particular case, Republican strategist Karl Rove agreed with the Democrat's assessment, citing that O'Donnell has said some "nutty things" in the past.[84]

In July 2010, Rep. Michele Bachmann, (R-MN), formed the House Tea Party Caucus. This congressional caucus, which Rep. Bachmann chairs will be devoted to the Tea Party's stated principles of "fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government."[85] As of August 2, 2010, the Tea Party Caucus consisted of 49 House members.[86]

Is this more impact than you expected? Less? What will be the net Tea Party Effect on E-Day? What does this bode for 2012? In the longer term? Deeper meanings?

[sleeping]

There was a discussion with a reporter from the National Journal on NPR this morning about the Tea Party. He had some very interesting things to say about it, such as its principle of individualism being realized in a focus on decentralization and avoidance of leaders and spokespeople. He argued that the Tea Party could only wind up in one of two situations: a permanent position in the Washington establishment, with spokespeople and so forth; or, simply fading away in the next few years.

All very fascinating topics (and much comparison could be made to the SDS in this regard), except for a few key problems:

*I do not think the Tea Party, overall, is a libertarian movement. It may have started out that way with Ron Paul in 2008, but that's not what it is now, as a whole. It is really an intensification of most far-right Republican stances (on abortion, the government, spending, gay marriage, the war on terror, immigration, tort reform, etc.).

*there has been considerable corporate funding of the movement, particularly the millions from the Koch brothers to Americans for Prosperity.

[BrainGlutton]

*I do not think the Tea Party, overall, is a libertarian movement. It may have started out that way with Ron Paul in 2008, but that's not what it is now, as a whole. It is really an intensification of most far-right Republican stances (on abortion, the government, spending, gay marriage, the war on terror, immigration, tort reform, etc.).

Well, I would judge the movement's stances -- at least, its highest-priority stances -- mainly from its "Contract from America": (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_agenda_.22Contract_from_America.22)

The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[63][64]

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)

5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)

6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)

8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)

9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

Note that there's nothing about abortion or gay marriage or the War on Terror. Its focus is small-government economic-libertarian -- deregulate, defund, privatize, cut taxes.

*there has been considerable corporate funding of the movement, particularly the millions from the Koch brothers to Americans for Prosperity.

No surprise. A lot of the above -- or at least moves in the same general direction -- might appear beneficial to a lot of corporate interests.

[descamisado]

*there has been considerable corporate funding of the movement, particularly the millions from the Koch brothers to Americans for Prosperity.Same-same.

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, here are two books I heard discussed on the radio in the past two days but have not read:

The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama, (http://www.amazon.com/Backlash-Right-Wing-Radicals-High-Def-Hucksters/dp/0061991716/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284596219&sr=1-1) by Will Bunch.

Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America, (http://www.amazon.com/Boiling-Mad-Inside-Party-America/dp/0805093486/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284589443&sr=1-1) by Kate Zernike.

[carlb]

*I do not think the Tea Party, overall, is a libertarian movement. It may have started out that way with Ron Paul in 2008, but that's not what it is now, as a whole. It is really an intensification of most far-right Republican stances (on abortion, the government, spending, gay marriage, the war on terror, immigration, tort reform, etc.).

Well, I would judge the movement's stances -- at least, its highest-priority stances -- mainly from its "Contract from America": (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_agenda_.22Contract_from_America.22)



Note that there's nothing about abortion or gay marriage or the War on Terror. Its focus is small-government economic-libertarian -- deregulate, defund, privatize, cut taxes.

*there has been considerable corporate funding of the movement, particularly the millions from the Koch brothers to Americans for Prosperity.

No surprise. A lot of the above -- or at least moves in the same general direction -- might appear beneficial to a lot of corporate interests.
The problem is that, while their candidates may adhere to these principals, most of them also bring along a lot of far-right social conservatism. You would think that, if the above-mentioned principles are the driving forces of the Tea Party movement, they'd have been able to put up and promote some conservative Democrats. But, there's no sign that they've even tried to do this.

I think the number of these candidates in the upcoming midterms decreases the Republicans' chances of taking over either house. They'll still make gains, so the Democrats will have all of the same problems they've had for the last two years.

I'm more interested in what happens when the successful Tea Party candidates actually start working in Congress. Will the Republican leadership be able to maintain the party unity they're so famous for, or will these new Congresspeople be thorns in their sides?

[gonzomax]

It is such a weird contradiction. The tea baggers identify with the Republican party. Yet who caused the deficits that they are screaming about? Who wants them to fight Obama so the rich get more money and power? Boehner and the Repubs like him, are using tea baggers to their own ends. They have convinced them they have similar needs and problems. But they are so far apart in their ends. But it is possible the baggers can weaken the Dems ,so the Repubs will be back in power. After Bush, how can the baggers make sense of that?

[Dag Otto]

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)


Bolding mine. This is how you identify the stupid people.

Would they be in favor of all Federal regulations being limited to 4,543 words?

[BrainGlutton]

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)


Bolding mine. This is how you identify the stupid people.

Would they be in favor of all Federal regulations being limited to 4,543 words?

Wouldn't be surprised. It's nonsensically arbitrary, but it kinda, you know, resonates.

[Chronos]

Of course, it's not the multiple tax brackets that make the tax code complicated in the first place: That can fit easily in a corner of a single page. It's determining taxable income that's complicated, and you'd still need to do that in a single-rate system.

[Robot Arm]

Chronos is correct that the multiple tax brackets has really nothing to do with the complexity of the currect income tax.

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
"Cap and trade" is an economic incentive, isn't it?

For that matter, can you "stop" something that hasn't actually been started yet? And without "cap and trade" how would the government provide "economic incentives"? Certainly not in the tax code; we've only got 4,543 words to play with, must use them carefully.

[Chefguy]

The best outcome we can hope for is that the two major parties come to the realization that they MUST stop conducting business as usual, or face ouster from their cozy environs. The worst case scenario is that the republic suffers irreparable harm from crackpot policy-making or the blocking of necessary legislation (should they gain enough seats). We've seen what can happen with oddball choices before: Jesse Ventura in MN is a prime example, and California under the Governator has certainly spiraled into economic disaster.

[Chronos]

...and California under the Governator has certainly spiraled into economic disaster. It was my understanding that California's problems were mostly attributable not to the Governor, but to 37 million different governors. All of the referenda passed directly by the voters hamper the professional government's ability to do anything about problems. In particular, the referenda have put in both limitations on taxation and mandatory government spending, since high spending and low taxes are both popular taken in isolation to each other, but they're inconsistent.

[Chefguy]

...and California under the Governator has certainly spiraled into economic disaster. It was my understanding that California's problems were mostly attributable not to the Governor, but to 37 million different governors. All of the referenda passed directly by the voters hamper the professional government's ability to do anything about problems. In particular, the referenda have put in both limitations on taxation and mandatory government spending, since high spending and low taxes are both popular taken in isolation to each other, but they're inconsistent.

Yeah, Prop 13 that capped property taxes wreaked havoc there many years ago and is still causing problems, IIRC.

[Stuffy]

...and California under the Governator has certainly spiraled into economic disaster. It was my understanding that California's problems were mostly attributable not to the Governor, but to 37 million different governors. All of the referenda passed directly by the voters hamper the professional government's ability to do anything about problems. In particular, the referenda have put in both limitations on taxation and mandatory government spending, since high spending and low taxes are both popular taken in isolation to each other, but they're inconsistent.

Partly, although both the governors* and legislature has used the referendum process to push unpopular policies.

[BrainGlutton]

The best outcome we can hope for is that the two major parties come to the realization that they MUST stop conducting business as usual . . .

In what respect? I mean, it's fairly easy to identify what aspects of business-as-usual are infuriating the Tea Partiers, but it is much harder to identify which of those are things that can or should be changed.

[Chefguy]

The best outcome we can hope for is that the two major parties come to the realization that they MUST stop conducting business as usual . . .

In what respect? I mean, it's fairly easy to identify what aspects of business-as-usual are infuriating the Tea Partiers, but it is much harder to identify which of those are things that can or should be changed.

In the respect that both parties engage in blocking legislation as a matter of political idealogy rather than on the basis of whether it may be good for the country. Everybody with a brain is angry at these tactics, regardless of who uses them.

[BrainGlutton]

In what respect? I mean, it's fairly easy to identify what aspects of business-as-usual are infuriating the Tea Partiers, but it is much harder to identify which of those are things that can or should be changed.

In the respect that both parties engage in blocking legislation as a matter of political idealogy rather than on the basis of whether it may be good for the country. Everybody with a brain is angry at these tactics, regardless of who uses them.

I think you mean "alignment" rather than "ideology." Blocking something for an ideological reason is perfectly consistent -- in fact, arguably identical -- with blocking it because you think it's bad for the country.

And we can't reasonably ask the Pubs to stop voting by political alignment, even when they do so in some conflict with their individual ideologies. That is simply party discipline in action, and party discipline is something of which the American political system/culture has never had enough. Better the Dems should learn some.

In any case, I don't think excessive party discipline, nor excessive obstructionism, in Congress are among the things that are infuriating the Tea Partiers.

[Chefguy]

In the respect that both parties engage in blocking legislation as a matter of political idealogy rather than on the basis of whether it may be good for the country. Everybody with a brain is angry at these tactics, regardless of who uses them.

I think you mean "alignment" rather than "ideology." Blocking something for an ideological reason is perfectly consistent -- in fact, arguably identical -- with blocking it because you think it's bad for the country.

And we can't reasonably ask the Pubs to stop voting by political alignment, even when they do so in some conflict with their individual ideologies. That is simply party discipline in action, and party discipline is something of which the American political system/culture has never had enough. Better the Dems should learn some.

In any case, I don't think excessive party discipline, nor excessive obstructionism, in Congress are among the things that are infuriating the Tea Partiers.

I think that the Dems exhibiting more party discipline would be nothing but bad for this country. If anything, the Pubs need to do less of it. All this stiff-necked behavior has done nothing but polarize the country. There is almost zero spirit of bipartisanship
in government. While this is not the sole reason for the sudden rise of the Tea Party, it's certainly an element of it.

[gonzomax]

The tea party brought the Repubs Angle, O'Donnell, Paladino, Brewer, and others of that ilk. That is not a real big favor. If the Reubs are pleased with that group, then they have some real low standards.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

There is a hope though: Scott Brown and other moderate Republicans may be joined by Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and others to form a centrist faction of the Republican Party.

[Frank]

There is a hope though: Scott Brown and other moderate Republicans may be joined by Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and others to form a centrist faction of the Republican Party.
As long as you're here, why don't you drop back into your "Your Endorsements 2010" thread"?

[Cisco]

The tea party brought . . . Brewer
Actually, Obama, of all people, stuck us with Scary Jan. Bastard.

[sleeping]

By the way, are there any polls out there on the effects of a Tea Party Republican nominee on the choices of Democrats or liberals in the general election? Because, personally, it doesn't matter much to me whether a Republican is plain or teabagger--it won't affect my voting because on all the big issues they are the same.


Note that there's nothing about abortion or gay marriage or the War on Terror. Its focus is small-government economic-libertarian -- deregulate, defund, privatize, cut taxes.


Different TP groups have come out with different manifestos. But certainly seems that all of them are climate change deniers and social conservatives.

In fact, the aforementioned NPR series included a debate between the head of some social conservative network and a TP organizer. While the TP organizer acknowledged that social conservatism was common among TPers, she insisted that the focus was on cutting taxes and decreasing government. The social conservative's reply? 80 to 90% of TPers also support social conservative policies, and the TP needs to not be libertarian on social issues if it wants to keep these people in.

Besides, look at the actual candidates that the TP has fielded--almost all are not just radical, but unfit for office: Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, etc. Probably because the TP is more prone to leader-worship (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin) than they like to admit.

[foolsguinea]

The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[63][64]

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)

5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)

6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)

8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)

9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)Wow. Except for #8 & #9, those are all reasons I would vote against them. #5 isn't that bad, except that I don't know how this commission will be appointed & whether to trust their judgment. Whose judgment of constitutionality will be used? Will this be the real constitution, or the magic imaginary "all that is not required is forbidden" Divine Constitution? Even if we were to get officers in the commission that understand what the constitution is & is not, I worry more about their possible judgments of which functions would be "better performed" by states & localities. That can be an excuse to cut programs for fiscal reasons & have them not done at all; see our rotting infrastructure today.

[BrainGlutton]

Besides, look at the actual candidates that the TP has fielded--almost all are not just radical, but unfit for office: Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, etc. Probably because the TP is more prone to leader-worship (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin) than they like to admit.

Don't worry about it. A right-populist movement prone to leader-worship? What could go wrong with that?

[foolsguinea]

Chronos is correct that the multiple tax brackets has really nothing to do with the complexity of the currect income tax.

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
"Cap and trade" is an economic incentive, isn't it?

For that matter, can you "stop" something that hasn't actually been started yet? And without "cap and trade" how would the government provide "economic incentives"? Certainly not in the tax code; we've only got 4,543 words to play with, must use them carefully.This confused me too, but they're saying they don't want economic incentives to control emissions. "by" isn't modifying "Stop" but "control." Of course it's written ambiguously enough to allow people who want economic incentives to control CO2 emissions to claim that it's for them.

[foolsguinea]

Don't worry about it. A right-populist movement prone to leader-worship? What could go wrong with that?If its base is in the rural provinces of the country, & it embraces both the concepts of Kulturkampf & Kampfkultur, that is distressingly familiar, whether "right" or "left." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)

[foolsguinea]

I forgot to add that this silliness about "assessing Constitutionality" seems to me an outgrowth of a legal culture where the courts are expected to define laws as "unconstitutional" & thus void them when passed.

Legislatures are there to legislate. The Bill of Rights & the common-law tradition are supposed to put simple minimal restrictions on that function. But the Constitution has been mythologized & built up--on both sides of the aisle--to the point that now the simple fact of the function is not recognized.

[sleeping]

Of course it's written ambiguously enough to allow people who want economic incentives to control CO2 emissions to claim that it's for them.

Nah, that's just an unintended ambiguity on their part. Find me a single teabagger who doesn't think global warming is a myth.


I forgot to add that this silliness about "assessing Constitutionality" seems to me an outgrowth of a legal culture where the courts are expected to define laws as "unconstitutional" & thus void them when passed.


Yeah, this precept is both strange and likely unconstitutional itself. If the legislature started deciding which laws are constitutional and which are not, it would intrude upon the powers delegated to the judicial branch. Tellingly, TPers always yells about protecting the constitution, but only for certain things--and they never actually cite the legal precedent that would support their position. Deeming something "unconstitutional" now merely means, "I oppose it."

[Ludovic]

Besides, look at the actual candidates that the TP has fielded--almost all are not just radical, but unfit for office: Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, etc. Probably because the TP is more prone to leader-worship (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin) than they like to admit.

Don't worry about it. A right-populist movement prone to leader-worship? What could go wrong with that?That sounds like a recipe for Communism.

[jayjay]

There is a hope though: Scott Brown and other moderate Republicans may be joined by Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and others to form a centrist faction of the Republican Party.

What's more likely to happen with the current Republican Party climate is that Brown and the ladies from Maine (the only real remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate) are going to be primaried from the right by batshit crazies like O'Donnell, Angle and Paladino. Brown is already in bad odor with the Repubs for crossing the aisle once or twice. Don't you know that's treason for a Republican now?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

There is a hope though: Scott Brown and other moderate Republicans may be joined by Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and others to form a centrist faction of the Republican Party.

What's more likely to happen with the current Republican Party climate is that Brown and the ladies from Maine (the only real remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate) are going to be primaried from the right by batshit crazies like O'Donnell, Angle and Paladino. Brown is already in bad odor with the Repubs for crossing the aisle once or twice. Don't you know that's treason for a Republican now?

I believe you're too pessimistic. Angle and O'Donnell will lose (I'd say 60% and 75% chances respectively) and Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and perhaps others will be elected. Obviously anyone who believes in 2+2=4 will see the basic logic of this-Paul and Rubio might be elected but Angle and O'Donnell is pushing it.

[Stuffy]

I believe you're too pessimistic. Angle and O'Donnell will lose (I'd say 60% and 75% chances respectively) and Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and perhaps others will be elected. Obviously anyone who believes in 2+2=4 will see the basic logic of this-Paul and Rubio might be elected but Angle and O'Donnell is pushing it.

Uhm...you do know Meg Whitman is not a candidate for the US Senate right? She's buying, I mean running for governor of California. Did you perhaps mean Carly Fiorina?

[sleeping]

I believe you're too pessimistic. Angle and O'Donnell will lose (I'd say 60% and 75% chances respectively) and Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and perhaps others will be elected. Obviously anyone who believes in 2+2=4 will see the basic logic of this-Paul and Rubio might be elected but Angle and O'Donnell is pushing it.

Uhm...you do know Meg Whitman is not a candidate for the US Senate right? She's buying, I mean running for governor of California. Did you perhaps mean Carly Fiorina?

To be fair, it's easy to see how one could confuse the two. Both are wealthy CEOs with vanity campaigns.

[jayjay]

To be fair, it's easy to see how one could confuse the two. Both are wealthy CEOs with vanity campaigns.

Does Regnery (http://www.regnery.com/) have a new political management subsidiary now?

[sleeping]

*I do not think the Tea Party, overall, is a libertarian movement. It may have started out that way with Ron Paul in 2008, but that's not what it is now, as a whole. It is really an intensification of most far-right Republican stances (on abortion, the government, spending, gay marriage, the war on terror, immigration, tort reform, etc.).

Well, I would judge the movement's stances -- at least, its highest-priority stances -- mainly from its "Contract from America": (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_agenda_.22Contract_from_America.22)



Note that there's nothing about abortion or gay marriage or the War on Terror. Its focus is small-government economic-libertarian -- deregulate, defund, privatize, cut taxes.

*there has been considerable corporate funding of the movement, particularly the millions from the Koch brothers to Americans for Prosperity.

No surprise. A lot of the above -- or at least moves in the same general direction -- might appear beneficial to a lot of corporate interests.

Okay, here's one poll I found that challenges the "Tea Party is a libertarian movement" idea:



At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation.

They also look to the government to rein in Wall Street, with almost half saying the government should do something about executive bonuses. Supporters are also conflicted over whether private-enterprise elements should be introduced into government programs like Social Security and Medicare.

“The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague,” says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey. “You would think any idea that involves more government action would be anathema, and that is just not the case.”
...
Many more, 65 percent, say Social Security is either definitely or sort of socialism. Even so, almost half, 47 percent, want to keep it under government control or aren’t sure about privatization, with 53 percent in favor of privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLBZwxqgYgwI


Okay, so maybe they want the government to create jobs by "getting out of the way," but then why do they want the government to limit executive bonuses? Why do only 10% consider the VA socialist, when it's one of the truly socialist programs in the U.S.? Why does a majority consider SS socialist, yet almost half does not want it privatized?

Why do Palin and Joe Miller, who come from the only state in the union with what can be called socialist policies (redistribution of oil profits to all citizens), espouse the kind of mythic rugged individualism found only in Ayn Rand novels and 19th century Westerns?

I think that the TP is best characterized as raw anger and resentment (sometimes justified, sometimes born of bigotry) that has adopted the mantle of libertarianism for its anti-establishment and contrarian edge, but really has little philosophical foundation. They have been fed the great lie, over the past 30 years, that government is always the problem. So, it is only natural that they are in a state of cognitive dissonance and end up supporting the government programs they are familiar with while denouncing federal intervention.

IOW, all these attempts to tease out some guiding principle of the TP are necessarily fruitless. It's just a mass of people who sense that they have been betrayed by their government but whose ideology, long cultivated by the right, precludes them from seeing the tight nexus between the wealthy and government.

During the Great Depression, one working class Southerner remarked that he would vote for anyone who punished the Wall St tycoons, whether it was the Communist Party or the Ku Klux Klan. This same kind of rage and confusion has re-emerged, only they cannot denounce capitalism as such because years of propaganda by conservative think tanks has made devotion to the free market axiomatic. Hence, you have this apparent incongruity of the TP championing capitalism while demanding that the government limit Wall St executive pay.

[foolsguinea]

The Tea Party is all about branding above policy. People want to vote for the "conservatives who'll kick ass & take names" but simply project what they want to imagine the policy is. There's little awareness of what a serious policy debate or position would look like. It's really the culmination of GOP politics to this point & indeed of two-party politics in general.

[Starving Artist]

I believe that what is guiding the Tea Party is a desire (to paraphrase Wm. F. Buckley) to stand athwart government and yell "STOP!"

This is why the TP appears disorganized, projects no particular agenda, has no platform and nothing in particular in the way of legislative goals. It simply wants to stop the growth and reach of government, and, eventually, to shrink it.

People like O'Donnell appear very much ready to do battle in trying to achieve this goal, and that's why they're winning primaries. From the voters' point of view, it isn't so much about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of creating new programs, and it isn't about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of outlawing 'teh gay' and masturbation - it's about what they'll try to do to reduce the size and scope of government.

It'll be interesting to see if this sentiment prevails among mainstream conservative voters come election time. I have a hard time imagining that most of the country's conservative voters will either stay at home or vote for Democrats rather than for Tea Party candidates, who, despite their lack of political gravitas, are impassioned to fight against the ever-increasing size and scope of government. But maybe they will. We'll see.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I believe you're too pessimistic. Angle and O'Donnell will lose (I'd say 60% and 75% chances respectively) and Mark Kirk, Meg Whitman, and perhaps others will be elected. Obviously anyone who believes in 2+2=4 will see the basic logic of this-Paul and Rubio might be elected but Angle and O'Donnell is pushing it.

Uhm...you do know Meg Whitman is not a candidate for the US Senate right? She's buying, I mean running for governor of California. Did you perhaps mean Carly Fiorina?

No meant I meant in general moderate Republicans being elected.

[Justin_Bailey]

It'll be interesting to see if this sentiment prevails among mainstream conservative voters come election time. I have a hard time imagining that most of the country's conservative voters will either stay at home or vote for Democrats rather than for Tea Party candidates, who, despite their lack of political gravitas, are impassioned to fight against the ever-increasing size and scope of government. But maybe they will. We'll see.

I think, if anything, it'll end up being Ross Perot x 100.

Look at the New York governor's race. You have Andrew Cuomo as the Democrat nominee, Carl Paladino (a TPer) as the Republican nominee and mainstream Republican Rick Lazio (who lost the primary in spectacular fashion) as the nominee of the Conservative party. Paladino and Lazio will split any Republican/conservative votes and Cuomo will win in a landslide.

There's just no other way this can end.

[JKellyMap]

Chronos is correct that the multiple tax brackets has really nothing to do with the complexity of the currect income tax.

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
"Cap and trade" is an economic incentive, isn't it?

For that matter, can you "stop" something that hasn't actually been started yet? And without "cap and trade" how would the government provide "economic incentives"? Certainly not in the tax code; we've only got 4,543 words to play with, must use them carefully.

Good point! "Cap and trade" is an idea which originated with neolib, free-market-solves-everything, turn-everything-into-a-commodity economists, whose philosophy generally aligns with the ideals of the right/conservatives/Republicans.

Just yet another idea that Republicans once loved, until that scary Kenyan guy in the White House started to like it, too.

[sleeping]

It'll be interesting to see if this sentiment prevails among mainstream conservative voters come election time. I have a hard time imagining that most of the country's conservative voters will either stay at home or vote for Democrats rather than for Tea Party candidates, who, despite their lack of political gravitas, are impassioned to fight against the ever-increasing size and scope of government. But maybe they will. We'll see.


Look at the New York governor's race. You have Andrew Cuomo as the Democrat nominee, Carl Paladino (a TPer) as the Republican nominee and mainstream Republican Rick Lazio (who lost the primary in spectacular fashion) as the nominee of the Conservative party. Paladino and Lazio will split any Republican/conservative votes and Cuomo will win in a landslide.



Well, Cuomo would've won anyway. I mean, this is New York. But what I find truly bizarre about this whole situation is that Tea Party Republicans are seemingly more right-wing than the right-wing third parties. I mean, why would Murkowski try to run as a Libertarian after losing to a challenger who was more conservative? And how is Lazio the Conservative Party candidate after losing to Paladino in the Republican primary? Is the TP too conservative for the Conservative and Constitution Parties?

[gonzomax]

I believe that what is guiding the Tea Party is a desire (to paraphrase Wm. F. Buckley) to stand athwart government and yell "STOP!"

This is why the TP appears disorganized, projects no particular agenda, has no platform and nothing in particular in the way of legislative goals. It simply wants to stop the growth and reach of government, and, eventually, to shrink it.

People like O'Donnell appear very much ready to do battle in trying to achieve this goal, and that's why they're winning primaries. From the voters' point of view, it isn't so much about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of creating new programs, and it isn't about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of outlawing 'teh gay' and masturbation - it's about what they'll try to do to reduce the size and scope of government.

It'll be interesting to see if this sentiment prevails among mainstream conservative voters come election time. I have a hard time imagining that most of the country's conservative voters will either stay at home or vote for Democrats rather than for Tea Party candidates, who, despite their lack of political gravitas, are impassioned to fight against the ever-increasing size and scope of government. But maybe they will. We'll see.

The Repub party always claims fiscal reason and a smaller government until they get in. Then they do the opposite. I suppose that is why the Tea Baggers are gaining traction. But Clinton balanced the budget. He was a fiscal conservative.
I don't know what Obama would have been like without the fiscal crisis that Bush and the Repubs left him. But he was forced to back expensive programs to presumably save the economy. His hands were tied.
O'Donnell is a walking ,talking "none of the above". She is an anti-candidate. But if she won ,she could do real damage with her stupidity.

[Sam Stone]

To me, O'Donnell sounds like a half-wit with crazy ideas and questionable ethics. But I'd choose her over Maxine Waters, Sheila-Jackson Lee, Tom Tancredo, or any number of other half-wits and crooks that have floundered around in the House and Senate.

The House in particular is populated by extreme figures and morons. Far too many of them are there because they won elections in extreme districts, or because they are mouthpieces for vested interests who funded their campaigns and keep them in their back pockets.

The mportant thing about the tea party is that it's a leaderless organization. This is throwing Republicans and Democrats for a loop. It throws Democrats for a loop because the strategy of any opponent in a political race is to target the leader, marginalize him or her, and bring the organization down with the leader. That's what happened with Perot's movement - it was too tied to the flake at the top. The minute he beclowned himself, his movement fell apart.

But the Tea Party has no leader. Sarah Palin is probably the closest thing to a leader it has in the sense that she's a national figure closely associated with the movement, but she's not its leader. No one listens to her for policy direction. She's basically just a cheerleader. And plenty of people in the Tea Party movement do not like her at all. Palin's negatives have been climbing again (up to 46% disapproval now), but it's not affecting the popularity of the tea party one bit. It's still growing in power and support.

For Republicans, a leaderless 'loyal opposition' is a big problem, because there's no one they can haul into a back room and deal with or knock sense into. There's no steering committee they can talk to. So if the Tea Party heads off in an electorally destructive direction, there's just nothing they can do about it.

The Tea Party is the first of a wave of political movements like this that I think we'll see. It's only in the past few years that communication tools have arisen to allow this kind of ad-hoc structure to form and thrive as a national movement. The two biggest ones are facebook and Twitter. Another is that the tools for online media (blogs, podcasts, video) have gotten more sophisticated and are enabling the aggregation of material into new "networks". PajamasMedia is run by Hollywood screenwriters and production people, has real studios, and is making enough money with subscriptions and advertising to continue growing. It's putting out almost a full day's worth of programming every day.

There's no doubt that the Tea Party is also benefiting from the star power of Sarah Palin and the ability to reach the masses of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. But they're more tools of the movement (heh heh) than they are 'leaders'. When Palin endorsed Fiorina and McCain, she took a fair bit of damage in her standing in the Tea Party. They're not doing what she wants - she's forced to do what they want or lose her position.

Being a leaderless organization means it's also hard to pin down exactly what they stand for. They don't stay 'on message' because there are too many of them spread too far around the country for there to be a completely coherent platform. This is an organization supported by hard-core athiests like Penn Jillette and Andrew Brietbart as well as by fundies like O'Donnell. So the only thing you can say about what they stand for is to look at the intersection of their beliefs and find the common points.

If you drew a Venn Diagram of all the beliefs in the Tea Party, you'd find one area of overlap - less government. That's pretty much the universal connecting thread between all the tea party groups. You'll find some that are athiests, you'll find some that are pro-life and some that are pro-choice. But you won't find a tea party group calling for more overall government control and a larger federal government.

If you put partisanship aside for a moment and think of the tea party as a generic structure and ignore their politics, you might see that this is a very healthy turn of events for a democracy, in that it should help limit the ability of powerful special interests to hijack the government. I think people on both sides of the political fence are sick of politicians who promise them what they want to hear, then get elected and proceed to do the bidding of the establishment and the large special interests that run Washington. Having political movements with real clout always on the sideline ready to destroy people who violate their pledges might be a good thing.

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.

[jayjay]

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.

Because the Left doesn't lionize their nutters. The extreme left (full socialists, communists, anarchists) hasn't had an in to the political power center of the party since just before the New Deal. Cynthia McKinney was the last major nutter on the left who actually made it into Congress, and she got primaried out soon after her little contretemps with a Capitol police officer and bolted for the Greens.

[Chronos]

Quoth Starving Artist:From the voters' point of view, it isn't so much about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of creating new programs, and it isn't about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of outlawing 'teh gay' and masturbation - it's about what they'll try to do to reduce the size and scope of government.
Um, outlawing "teh gay" and masturbation would be a huge increase in the scope of government. So what you're saying is that they don't care about someone increasing the scope of government, as long as they decrease the scope of government.

[Captain Amazing]

Look at the New York governor's race. You have Andrew Cuomo as the Democrat nominee, Carl Paladino (a TPer) as the Republican nominee and mainstream Republican Rick Lazio (who lost the primary in spectacular fashion) as the nominee of the Conservative party. Paladino and Lazio will split any Republican/conservative votes and Cuomo will win in a landslide.

There's just no other way this can end.

I'm wondering if this is going to do to the Conservative Party what the McCall/Cuomo race did to the Liberal Party.

For those who don't remember, in New York a party is guaranteed ballot access if it gets a certain amount of votes in the last gubernatorial election. So, traditionally, the smaller parties would tie their wagon to one of the major party candidates for governor: The Conservative and Right to Life Parties would endorse the Republican, and the Liberal Party would endorse the Democrat, and enough people would vote for the candidate on the minor party line to guarantee the party sticking around for four more years.

So in 2002, when Andrew Cuomo was ahead in polls and fundraising, and looked like he was going to be the candidate, the Liberal Party endorsed him. Then the Democratic leadership threw their weight behind Carl McCall, Cuomo withdrew from the race, and the Liberals were stuck with his name on the ballot line even though McCall got the Democratc nomination. So, people didn't vote on the Liberal line, they got dropped from their place on the ballot, and the party basically fell apart.

[Sam Stone]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that any Tea Party candidate wants to increase government power over gays or prohibit masturbation? If not, that's a straw man argument.

Why is it that people on the right are not allowed to separate their moral views from their political positions, when people on the left are? Jimmy Carter was a pious Christian who prayed for people's souls and admitted mournfully that he was a sinner who had lust in his heart and asked for absolution. That doesn't sound too far from what O'Donnell said. So why is it that no one was worried about Carter planning to censor everyone, but O'Donnell is now accused of wanting to make masturbation illegal?

Obama put religion in his campaign as much as any Republican has. He faithfully attended a fairly radical church with a zealot nutbar as its leader, but this was totally ignored as saying anything about Obama himself. But if a Republican so much as gives a speech at a university associated with the Christian right, it's tar-and-feathering time.

The fact is, Republicans in power have not been trying to push social conservatism. There's no movement to ban abortion other than among the fringe wing of the party. No one's trying to ban books or censor TV. No one is attacking gays. In fact, the last political group who tried to censor TV, movies, and video games was led by Tipper Gore.

The war on drugs has bipartisan support. Gay marriage has supporters on both the right and left, and opponents on the right and left. Obama himself does not support gay marriage. Prop 8 in California was shot down because the Obama-supporting black population was strongly opposed to it.

[sleeping]

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.

Well, first off, there is no real Left in the U.S., and there hasn't been since the 70s. There are only a few truly progressive congresspeople, while the majority of the Republican party (even now, before the influx of TPers) are hard right conservatives.

Second, funding. The far Right gets plenty of funding from corporations and wealthy right-wing ideologues. The Left, not so much. Sure, Democrats get plenty of money from Wall St and upper-income people, but that money goes to DLC / pro-corporate Dems...IOW, the center-right. And the issues these people/organizations support are deregulation, free trade (same), or gay rights, abortion (social, not economic).

Thirdly, there is no aggrandizement of the leadership. Partly this is due to the lack of actual progressives in government or the media, but this is also due to a fundamental difference in the way the Left conducts itself. While self-congratulation and mutual encomium exists on the Left too, there is much more division and mutual criticism. For instance, Naomi Klein, whose Left-wing bona fides few would question, has received considerable criticism from the world Socialists. And this is not criticism of the "you're not sufficiently radical" variety, but rather straightforward academic disagreement with her theories.


Is there any evidence whatsoever that any Tea Party candidate wants to increase government power over gays or prohibit masturbation? If not, that's a straw man argument.

Joe Miller made abortion a centerpiece of his campaign: (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-25/tea-party-embraces-pro-life-christian-conservative-ideals/)


But Miller, who received more than $550,000 in donations and on-the-ground support from the California-based Tea Party Express and frequently tweeted about his Tea Party affiliation, made his antiabortion stance a central part of the Alaska Senate primary. In June, he sent a fundraising letter to “pro-life supporters” criticizing Murkowski’s support for Roe v. Wade and stem-cell research, as well as her opposition to the “Mexico City Policy,” which under President George W. Bush prevented American foreign aid dollars from funding abortion services. (President Obama repealed the policy, also known as “Global Gag Rule,” in 2009.)

“I pledge to you that if you send me to Washington D.C., there will be no greater advocate for life in the United States Senate,” Miller wrote in the letter. “I am committed to advocating for innocent life and vigorously opposing the culture of death.”


Ohio TP opposes gay marriage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/aug/31/tea-party-candidates-climate-change).


Why is it that people on the right are not allowed to separate their moral views from their political positions, when people on the left are? Jimmy Carter was a pious Christian who prayed for people's souls and admitted mournfully that he was a sinner who had lust in his heart and asked for absolution. That doesn't sound too far from what O'Donnell said. So why is it that no one was worried about Carter planning to censor everyone, but O'Donnell is now accused of wanting to make masturbation illegal?

Whatever his statements on religion were, Carter never proposed changing the law for them. And, even after being cleaned up the GOP, O'Donnell is still anti-abortion except in life-threatening situations (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/17/christine-odonnell-no-tax-hikes-no-abortion-no-masturbation/):

She told the JCC audience that she opposes embryonic stem cell research and all abortions except if a woman is going to die, in which case her family could decide which life to save

Sharron Angle is anti-abortion in all cases: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/sharron-angle-opposes-abo_n_629371.html)

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.



Obama put religion in his campaign as much as any Republican has.
False. Cite?

He faithfully attended a fairly radical church with a zealot nutbar as its leader

False. Cite?


but this was totally ignored as saying anything about Obama himself.

Really false. Do you even self-censor?

The fact is, Republicans in power have not been trying to push social conservatism.

You're killing me here :p ... are you serious?

The war on drugs has bipartisan support.
"Bipartisan" yes, but it's right-wing all the way.

[Starving Artist]

Quoth Starving Artist:From the voters' point of view, it isn't so much about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of creating new programs, and it isn't about what they'll try to accomplish in terms of outlawing 'teh gay' and masturbation - it's about what they'll try to do to reduce the size and scope of government.
Um, outlawing "teh gay" and masturbation would be a huge increase in the scope of government. So what you're saying is that they don't care about someone increasing the scope of government, as long as they decrease the scope of government.That phrase? I do not think it means what you think it means.

I implied (or thought I was saying outright) that the Tea Party is not interested in outlawing homosexuality and masturbation. In fact, the whole idea of its trying to do so is silly. People around here act as if O'Donnell gets elected to the senate she's immediately going to outlaw masturbation. Even the president doesn't have the power to do that.

[Justin_Bailey]

Obama put religion in his campaign as much as any Republican has. He faithfully attended a fairly radical church with a zealot nutbar as its leader, but this was totally ignored as saying anything about Obama himself.

Obama considers himself religious, but he hasn't attended any church regularly in a long time.

No one's trying to ban books or censor TV.

Sarah Palin tried to ban books back in Wasilla and the Parent's Television Council routinely tries to get TV they dislike banned.

No one is attacking gays.

Do you honestly believe that? Do you think anyone else does? Come on man.

In fact, the last political group who tried to censor TV, movies, and video games was led by Tipper Gore.

If the PRMC (which is largely defunct) was a political group, then what does that make the PTC?

[BrainGlutton]

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.

Probably because it's hard for leftists to get really, really mad when they see the Dems holding WH and Congress for the first time in so long. The last time something like the Tea Party happened on the left was in the 1960s and '70s -- back then, they saw a lot to get mad about.

[sleeping]

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.

Probably because it's hard for leftists to get really, really mad when they see the Dems holding WH and Congress for the first time in so long. The last time something like the Tea Party happened on the left was in the 1960s and '70s -- back then, they saw a lot to get mad about.

The Dems being in charge is part of it, but I think the lack of a significant Left is much more important. By contrast, the far right has deep roots and deep pockets.

[Cisco]

If you drew a Venn Diagram of all the beliefs in the Tea Party, you'd find one area of overlap - less government. That's pretty much the universal connecting thread between all the tea party groups. You'll find some that are athiests, you'll find some that are pro-life and some that are pro-choice. But you won't find a tea party group calling for more overall government control and a larger federal government.

If you put partisanship aside for a moment and think of the tea party as a generic structure and ignore their politics, you might see that this is a very healthy turn of events for a democracy, in that it should help limit the ability of powerful special interests to hijack the government. I think people on both sides of the political fence are sick of politicians who promise them what they want to hear, then get elected and proceed to do the bidding of the establishment and the large special interests that run Washington. Having political movements with real clout always on the sideline ready to destroy people who violate their pledges might be a good thing.

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.Oh cut the horse shit. It's real sappy and all, but the reality here is that the only overlap you'd see on a Venn diagram is that all these nuts were content to go about their business while George Bush increased the size and scope of the government, and only got fired up when a black man was elected president. They care as much about limiting the size and scope of government as I do about the temperature of penguin shit on Pluto.


The fact is, Republicans in power have not been trying to push social conservatism. There's no movement to ban abortion other than among the fringe wing of the party. No one's trying to ban books or censor TV. No one is attacking gays. In fact, the last political group who tried to censor TV, movies, and video games was led by Tipper Gore.

I fully expect you to argue a technicality here, but I don't see the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Decency_Enforcement_Act_of_2005) as anything other than censorship, and it was drafted, sponsored, passed, and signed by Republicans.

[sleeping]

Yeah, that's another contrast.

When Bush was in power, conservatives didn't care about the size of the federal government, the deficit, civil liberties (actually, they still don't really care about that--they're only for white people), etc.

Now that Obama's in power, liberals are still hitting him hard on Afghanistan, civil liberties, torture, rendition, jobs, the public option / single payer healthcare, etc.

Some focus on personality, others focus on principles.

[GIGObuster]

besides the very good points sleeping is making regarding the religious conservative positions of several tea baggers, the current crop of republican candidates (not only the tea baggers) are proud anti-scientists.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-13-deniers-gop-senate-candidates-global-warming
Nearly all GOP Senate candidates deny global warming

A comprehensive Wonk Room survey of the Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate finds that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, only one -- Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware -- supports strong climate action. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) now toe the science-doubting party line. If Castle loses his primary to Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell, the GOP slate will be unanimous in opposition to a green economy.

Many of the Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries' Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to "Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures." In reality, a carbon cap-and-trade market -- by rewarding work instead of pollution -- would increase jobs, lower electricity bills, restore American competitiveness, and forestall a climate catastrophe.

Overwhelmingly, the Republican candidates not only oppose action to limit global warming pollution, they question the validity of climate science.

[BrainGlutton]

BTW -- who are the Tea Partiers? Demographically, I mean. There seems to be more than one school of thought: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Public_opinion_polls_and_demographics)

Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. Though the various polls sometimes turn up slightly different results, they tend to show that the self-described Tea Party supporters are overwhelmingly white and slightly more likely to be male, married, older than 45, more conservative than the general population, and likely to be more wealthy and have more education than the general population.[91][92][93][94][95]

One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than gender, income and politics, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole.[96]

[sleeping]

Getting back to the OP topic, I think the long-term effect of the Tea Party will actually be to the disadvantage of the Right, as Republicans will lose in 2012+ whatever gains they made in 2010. While I don't support the TP, this is not wishful thinking on my part.

I think that, were it not for the TP, the Republicans would be in pretty bad shape nowadays. But the purification of conservative ideology by the TP, satisfying as it might be for the right, will ultimately be the GOP's undoing. The pretense of a "moderate" stance by Republicans will no longer be possible as TPers will not pay lip service to ideas considered mainstream; instead, they will largely be forthright about privatizing SS, eliminating public education, etc. As the TPers cannibalize the "establishment" GOP, they will also be losing the people who know how to do PR. Thus, there will be fewer people to keep Sharron Angle and Rand Paul on a leash.

Looking forward, the corporate elite will be forced to adopt ever more drastic measures to maintain its power, especially as environmental disasters will become increasingly frequent. There will have to be more fake outrages of "Ground Zero mosques," "wars on Christians," etc., and the general populace will gradually become inured to it all. As a result, the U.S. of 2020+ will largely be shaped by how willing progressives will be to dedicate themselves to meaningful change. On this point, I am not too optimistic, as few of my peers seem to have a serious political engagement. But, that may yet change.

[Mozart1220]

Watch "Real Time" with Bill Maher. Apparently Ms. O'Donnell is a witch. Hilarious.

He's got a bunch of clips of her from "Politically Incorrect" and he's going to show one every week until she comes on his show. Gotta love Bill Maher.

[lawoot]

One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than gender, income and politics, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole.[96]

Couldn't that also be worded as:

"One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than being Rich Republican Men, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole."

[Cyberhwk]

Getting back to the OP topic, I think the long-term effect of the Tea Party will actually be to the disadvantage of the Right, as Republicans will lose in 2012+ whatever gains they made in 2010.
I agree. Mid-terms don't usually attract casual voters. One thing the Tea Party movement is doing is attracting very conservative candidates, but candidates that couldn't get elected in any other environment than our current one (and in the case of some candidates, not even now). All for what? So they can spend the money to serve one term in which they can accomplish nothing only to get stomped by the more moderate Presidential voters in 2012?

The GOP is going to have to get a muzzle if they want a chance going forward. Are they going to have any chance picking up Florida in 2012 if the Tea Party candidates continue to wax poetically about gutting Social Security and Medicare? Obama could go into 2012 with 150+ already in his pocket (CA, NY, FL, IL, DC, HI, MA, DE, & MD). That's not even counting traditionally Dem states like WA, OR, ME, VT, etc.

The only silver lining for Republicans is the fact that Dems have a HUGE number of Senate seats to defend in 2012.

[gonzomax]

Quoth Starving Artist:Um, outlawing "teh gay" and masturbation would be a huge increase in the scope of government. So what you're saying is that they don't care about someone increasing the scope of government, as long as they decrease the scope of government.That phrase? I do not think it means what you think it means.

I implied (or thought I was saying outright) that the Tea Party is not interested in outlawing homosexuality and masturbation. In fact, the whole idea of its trying to do so is silly. People around here act as if O'Donnell gets elected to the senate she's immediately going to outlaw masturbation. Even the president doesn't have the power to do that.

Nobody thinks she has the power to outlaw masturbation. The problem is she thinks it is a good idea. I don't think she would make the house into a coven, but someone who is into witchcraft is weird and it is a bad idea. She can not enact her stringent views on abortion. But the fact that she believes in them is telling. She wants to have say so about people personal lives. What qualifies her?

[Starving Artist]

Has O'Donnell said that she thinks outlawing masturbation is a good idea? If she has, I haven't heard of it. All I've heard is that she disapproves of it (and who knows, she may have outgrown that in the meantime).

There are lots of things I'm against that I wouldn't dream of trying to outlaw if I were a lawmaker, and there are a lot of things I'm in favor of that I would never try to make into law. I'm sure most of us are the same way, and I imagine O'Donnell is too.

[Robot Arm]

Has O'Donnell said that she thinks outlawing masturbation is a good idea? If she has, I haven't heard of it.If she's come out with any concrete legislative ideas, I haven't heard of them. I've read about what she used to be in favor of (or dabble in), her wild times in college, her recent lies, who's supporting her, the chances of her winning, and what her nomination foretells for the Republican Party. I haven't heard anything about what she wants to do as a senator.

[Starving Artist]

So, you agree then that gonzomax is wrong in stating that O'Donnell thinks that outlawing masturbation is a good idea? Glad we got that settled.

Now how about gonzo's next bit of wrongeyness, where he says that O'Donnell "is into witchcraft". This is so obviously wrong that I can't believe even gonzo would attempt to pass it off as the truth. O'Donnell said that she "had" dabbled into witchcraft when she was young. Past tense. And not only that, but it was ten years ago when she made that statement. So clearly, it could accurately be said that O'Donnell is not into witchcraft and that anyone who says she is, is either, a.) a person with serious reading/watching comprehension problems; b.) a person of such strong ideological bias that they can't think straight; c.) or a person of nefarious intent. Would you agree?

[Robot Arm]

Would you agree?If you have anything to say to me, about what I wrote in my post, I'll read it. I'm not here to play referee between you and gonzomax.

[Starving Artist]

Well, you decided to interject your little non sequitur with regard to my question to gonzomax, so it seemed likely that you might you have something to say in regard to another question I had about gonzo's post. It appears though, that, having struck out with your first attempt to lodge yourself between us in attempt to make O'Donnell look bad, you've decided that your best defense is to pretend not to want to come between gonzo and me, even though you, of your own volition, have already done just that.

[Robot Arm]

I'll try to make my point again, then.

Christine O'Donnell has gotten a lot of news coverage in the past week. I have probably heard her name more than any other senate candidate in that time. This thread has gone to two pages, and there is another about her that has gone to three pages. I have heard who is supporting her, what talk shows she did not show up for, and what she said ten years ago about something that happened years before that.

Does she want to outlaw masturbation? I have no idea. I haven't heard a thing about her current legislative goals. I don't know where she stands on the issues, or if she has said anything about them at all.

If a post about issues (or lack thereof) in a thread about the 2010 election is a non sequitur, well, so be it.

[Starving Artist]

Okay, I apologize. It looked to me like you were using my comment to gonzo as a jumping off point to claim that O'Donnell is an empty suit, so to speak. And, as a matter of fact, I don't much about what O'Donnell believes or what her legislative goals are either. I blame this on the mainstream media, to be honest. Surely this woman has spoken during her various campaigns about what her views are and what she'd hope to accomplish if elected, but all we hear about are financial problems, her belief that masturbation is wrong, and that she at one time dabbled in witchcraft.

I don't watch or listen to Rush Limbaugh but once or twice a month I briefly scan his website just to get a feel for what he's saying versus what people on the left are saying that he's saying. As it happens, I looked at his site today and here's part of what he's saying about O'Donnell:

Now, I'm going to tell you what the campaign against her is going to be. I can tell you right now. I'll get to it in just a second. I know exactly what they're going to do. I know these people 'cause I know their playbook. Look at me as a defensive coordinator of the conservative movement. I know exactly what these clowns are going to do. I know how to game plan for them. They're basically going to go after social issues. They're gonna say that Christine O'Donnell represents the new Republican Party, wants to take away your Social Security, you watch. Republicans want to take away your Social Security and make sure that you can't have abortions, may even go out there and say that Christine O'Donnell was against masturbation, who knows. But it's gonna focus on social issues.[bolding mine]

And that's exactly what's happening. The media and her opponenst are focusing on everything but her legislative goals. They are trying to torpedo her before she ever gets out of the starting gate by harping on her finances, her college degree and when she got it, her stance on masturbation, etc., etc., etc. They're trying to make her an intellectual laughingstock just like they've tried to with GWB, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. It's pathetic. The left has apparently decided that on the field of ideas, it's best to do an end around and avoid them altogether, opting instead to play upon one of the baser elements of human nature and try to give people a perch from which to look down upon, and laugh at, someone else.

So, I did a little digging. Not much, just took a look at the Wiki article on her, and found the following:

Political positions
[edit] Fiscal policy
O'Donnell has said that she will never vote to increase taxes.[73] Since the summer of 2010, O'Donnell has contended that "America is now a socialist economy", defining a "socialist economy" as one in which "50% or more your economy is dependent on the federal government."[74] O'Donnell emphasized fiscal integrity in her campaign kickoff saying, "Voting to spend money we don't have has become the appealing option for too many politicians. The men and women of America know this is not sustainable."[47][75] O'Donnell opposes Congressional earmarks.[18] She supports a simplification of the tax code.[76]

[edit] Abortion and stem cell research
O'Donnell is pro-life.[77] She opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.[18] She would allow abortion with the family's consent, if the woman would otherwise die.[71] O'Donnell opposes human embryonic stem cell research,[12] human cloning,[18] and research into cloning of monkey embryos.[32]

[edit] Health care
O'Donnell has said the first thing she wants to do when elected is to vote to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted by Congress in 2010.[78][79]

[edit] Environment
Blocking cap and trade legislation will be one of her first priorities.[15][78]

[edit] Gun rights
The National Rifle Association endorsed O'Donnell,[55] saying she "will be a strong voice in fighting ongoing efforts by anti-gun politicians to dismantle the Second Amendment"[80]

[edit] Social security
O'Donnell would raise the age for receiving Social Security benefits.[71]And since so much has been made around here of her views on sex and masturbation, I've included the following:

Religious views
O'Donnell has been described as a former Catholic turned evangelical Christian.[1]

In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools. O'Donnell was also critical of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it is merely a theory.[81]

O'Donnell also once took a stance against masturbation accompanied with lust, biblically equating it with adultery.[74] She has since stated her youthful views have "matured" and that sexual behavior is a "private matter", and that her political actions will be based on a strict Constitutionalist stance, rather than her personal views.[82]There's lots in this article that people around here can have a heyday with. Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O%27Donnell) She apparently drank a lot when she was young and was promiscuous to boot. And she's had a very checkered financial history.

But she ultimately came to feel her behavior was wrong and turned firmly away from it. She's also been an extremely industrious and passionate woman during her adulthood, working hard to make a difference and to attain elective office so as to more effectively toward her political goals. It seems that politics and a strong desire to hold public office are firmly in her blood.

Now whether this is all a good thing, and whether she'd ultimately be good for the conservative movement and/or the Republican party, I'm not about to guess at this point. But I do think she's coming in for a lot of cheap shots and character assassination that she not only doesn't deserve, but which fails to give people any kind of idea of what she wants to accomplish politically.

And I think there's a very definite reason why the media and her opponents, both political and among the population at large, want to direct attention away from she and other Tea Party politicians want to accomplish.

[Robot Arm]

And, as a matter of fact, I don't much about what O'Donnell believes or what her legislative goals are either. I blame this on the mainstream media, to be honest.I got the impression you didn't watch much of the mainstream media. Hardly seems fair to blame them for not getting out her message if you're not tuned in to hear it.

And they have tried. She was scheduled to appear on Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation, and cancelled. She doesn't seem particularly anxious to state her goals either. Her website is a place to donate money to her campaign, and nothing else. Is that the fault of the mainstream media, too?

Since the summer of 2010, O'Donnell has contended that "America is now a socialist economy", defining a "socialist economy" as one in which "50% or more your economy is dependent on the federal government."[74] O'Donnell emphasized fiscal integrity in her campaign kickoff saying, "Voting to spend money we don't have has become the appealing option for too many politicians. The men and women of America know this is not sustainable."[47][75] O'Donnell opposes Congressional earmarks.[18] She supports a simplification of the tax code.[76]It would be interesting to compare her views now (should we be lucky enough to discover what they are) with her previous campaign. I question her dedication to fiscal integrity if she has only held this view since the summer of 2010.

Also, if her plan to simplify the tax code consists of a flat tax, then she's an idiot with no idea what she's talking about.

[DoctorJ]

Even if you take the Tea Party candidates at their word that social issues will not be their priority, they're not the only ones in the Senate.

I don't think O'Donnell will introduce a bill banning masturbation. But how will she vote when some back-bencher introduces an amendment that makes a piece of education funding dependent on abstinence-only sex education? How will she vote on gay rights? Or abortion rights?

These are potential first-term Senators and Congressmen we're talking about. I'm not nearly so interested in their own legislative agendas as I am with how they'll vote on other people's agendas.

[Chronos]

Quoth Rush Limbaugh, via Starving Artist:They're basically going to go after social issues. They're gonna say that Christine O'Donnell represents the new Republican Party, wants to take away your Social Security, you watch. If we're lumping Social Security in with "social issues", then what is there that isn't a social issue? Of course we're focusing on those, if that's all there is.

[Cisco]

They're gonna say that Christine O'Donnell represents the new Republican Party, wants to take away your Social Security, you watch.Social security
O'Donnell would raise the age for receiving Social Security benefits.

You don't see any disconnect there, Starve?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think it's pretty obvious what is going to happen: the Tea Party candidates will take some "safe Republican" seats from mainstream Republicans via primaries. They will also take some closely contested seats from mainstream Republicans by splitting the vote and handing them to Democrats.

What this means for America is anyone's guess, but I'm wondering if we're not going to see a post-election backlash a la Nader in '00 if the Tea Party ultimately does more harm to conservatives than good.

[Chronos]

To be fair, which party wins or loses each race isn't the whole picture. There have also been Tea Party candidates who won primaries in strongly conservative states/districts like Alaska and Utah, who still have an excellent chance of winning the general election, and whose election would shift the Overton window to the right. I think that the benefit to the left from places like Delaware and Florida are likely to more than balance that, but it's not a given.

[Claverhouse]

Wikipedia summary...

Many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including:

* On January 19, 2010, support from the Tea Party Patriots in Boston helped elect Scott Brown the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, in the special election held after Ted Kennedy's death.[66]

* Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat. He is believed to be the first tea party activist to be elected into office.[67]

* John Frullo won the nomination for the District 84 seat vacated by the retiring Carl Isett, also a Republican. Frullo defeated businessman Mark Griffin, a former Texas Tech University regent.[68]

* On April 13, 2010, Charles Perry unseated 86-year-old incumbent and fellow Texas Republican Delwin Jones in District 83 and is unopposed in the November 2 general election.

* On May 8, 2010, U.S. Senator Bob Bennett (R – Utah) lost his bid to be renominated by his party for another term in the Senate. His defeat is seen as a victory for the Tea Party Movement whose supporters were against Bennett’s return.[69][70][71]

* Rand Paul from the conservative Tea Party movement, won the Super Tuesday GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. Paul is the son of Republican Congressman, Ron Paul, of Texas. Mr Paul comfortably beat Republican establishment favorite Trey Grayson with 60% of the vote. He was quoted saying, "The Tea Party Movement is about saving our country from a mountain of debt.”[72]

* In the Republican primary in South Dakota for the At Large Congressional seat, Kristi Noem, a Tea Party approved candidate, defeated incumbent Secretary of State Chris Nelson and state representative Blake Curd.[73]

* In the South Carolina First Congressional district Republican primary, Tim Scott, who was specifically endorsed by the Tea Party movement,[74] defeated two "establishment" Republicans with long family histories in the Republican politics, Paul Thurmond (the son of the former South Carolina U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond)[75] and Carroll Campbell, the son of former South Carolina governor Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.[76]

* Nikki Haley, a 38-year-old Indian-American state representative, beat out three prominent Republican rivals in the South Carolina primary race for Governor capturing 49 percent of the vote. She defeated the second-place finisher, U.S. Representative Gresham Barrett, in a run-off election on June 22.[77]

* In Maine, Paul LePage won the GOP primary for Governor.[78]

* In California, Chuck DeVore, who lost the GOP senate primary to Carly Fiorina who had backing from Sarah Palin.[79]

* At the state convention of the Republican Party of Texas on June 11–12, 2010, Texas tea party activists succeeded in electing insurgent candidate Steve Munisteri, founder of the Young Conservatives of Texas,[citation needed] to the chairmanship, defeating incumbent Chair Cathie Adams.[citation needed]

* In Florida, two different groups sparred in federal court after one registered the name "Florida Tea Party" with the state Division of Elections. At a June 23, 2010 hearing in West Palm Beach, one "tea party" group asked the court to order the other to amend its filing and to use a different party name.[80]

* In New Jersey, Anna C. Little defeated Republican "establishment" candidate Diane Gooch in the Republican congressional primary for the 6th Congressional District on June 8, 2010. Little will face Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone in November.[81]

* Sharron Angle won the Nevada U.S. Senate GOP primary race and will face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. Angle, who has been called an outsider even in the GOP, believes in small-government and lower taxes. She has said, "I am the tea party." Angle beat out the Republican favorite, Sue Lowden, the one-time front runner.[82]

* In Alaska, attorney Joe Miller defeated current U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, in the GOP primary race on August 24, 2010. Murkowski had been appointed to the seat by her father, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski who had held the Senate seat for 30 years prior to becoming governor.[83]

* On September 14, 2010, Christine O'Donnell beat out veteran Delaware Republican Mike Castle in a bid for U.S. Senate. The results lead to cheers from Democrats that believe Tea Party-backed candidates are too extreme to win in the general elections. In this particular case, Republican strategist Karl Rove agreed with the Democrat's assessment, citing that O'Donnell has said some "nutty things" in the past.[84]

In July 2010, Rep. Michele Bachmann, (R-MN), formed the House Tea Party Caucus. This congressional caucus, which Rep. Bachmann chairs will be devoted to the Tea Party's stated principles of "fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government."[85] As of August 2, 2010, the Tea Party Caucus consisted of 49 House members.[86]


For some reason, due to the lack of editing here with all the little [xx] sprinkled about, I misread this as evidence that America can no longer claim to be a Young Nation.

[theR]

And that's exactly what's happening. The media and her opponenst are focusing on everything but her legislative goals. They are trying to torpedo her before she ever gets out of the starting gate by harping on her finances, her college degree and when she got it, her stance on masturbation, etc., etc., etc. They're trying to make her an intellectual laughingstock just like they've tried to with GWB, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. It's pathetic. The left has apparently decided that on the field of ideas, it's best to do an end around and avoid them altogether, opting instead to play upon one of the baser elements of human nature and try to give people a perch from which to look down upon, and laugh at, someone else.

So, I did a little digging. Not much, just took a look at the Wiki article on her, and found the following:


Most of the citations for those stances are years old. Maybe the media isn't focusing on her legislative goals because she actually hasn't promoted them and now won't even talk to the media. The fact that you had to use Wikipedia rather than recent interviews or even her website says a lot about whether she has any substantial legislative goals. When I look at her website, the whole of her content regarding issues is exactly one sentence on each issue apart from "Values," which she gives two sentences. http://christine2010.com/why-christine/

I don't have the energy or patience to view the videos, but I'm guessing they're similar to the one sentence statements rather than describing actual legislative goals.

So how can we debate her legislative agenda when she apparently doesn't have one? Blame the media, right?

[Chronos]

And it's only in the past day or so that even that much showed up on her website. Before, it was nothing but a donation form.

[sleeping]

Exactly. Both Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell have no concrete ideas, just psycho babble. And now that the GOP is "cleaning them up" for the election, you won't be able to even glean anything from the web sites. Angle is a self-proclaimed Oath Keeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers), although she now insists that it just means she keeps her promises. :rolleyes:

[Starving Artist]

So how can we debate her legislative agenda when she apparently doesn't have one? Blame the media, right?Christine O'Donnell has run in three primary Senate campaigns in the last four years. In one, she ran against Joe Biden. In the last, she won the Republican nomination over Mike Castle, a longtime congressman and former governor. Do you mean to tell me that at no point during any of these three campaigns she set forth no idea of her agenda, nothing about what she was against or what she would do if elected?

I would think that the archives of Delaware's newspapers and television stations contain plenty of information about things that O'Donnell said during those campaigns, so why isn't the national media examining her previous runs for office in order to find out about what she's said and what her positions are? The media certainly found out quickly enough about how long it took for her to get her college diploma and it ferreted out all sorts of information about her finances, and yet for some reason we're supposed to believe there's nothing out there to report on when it comes to her political goals - that when it comes to what she thinks politically she's little but a cipher.

So that's why I'm calling bullshit on the media. They're quick to spread the worst about her while simultaneously ignoring a four-year record of statements made during her three primary campaigns.

Now, whether those statements are good or bad from either her point of view or that of the Tea Party, I have no idea. But I do know that the media is telling us virtually nothing about them and is focusing instead on personal issues, even going so far as to trumpet and make fun of things she said and did while she was still in high school.

[sleeping]

[QUOTE=theR;12937284]

So that's why I'm calling bullshit on the media. They're quick to spread the worst about her while simultaneously ignoring a four-year record of statements made during her three primary campaigns.

Dude, she has a web site. http://www.christine2010.com Shouldn't the issues be right there? Can you find them?

Here's what's on wikipedia so far:

Abortion and stem cell research

O'Donnell is pro-life.[73] She opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.[13] She would allow abortion with the family's consent, if the woman would otherwise die.[71] O'Donnell opposes human embryonic stem cell research,[70] human cloning,[13] and research into cloning monkey embryos.[28]
[edit] Economic policy

O'Donnell says that she will never vote to increase taxes.[74] In the summer of 2010, O'Donnell contended that "America is now a socialist economy", defining a "socialist economy" as one in which "50% or more your economy is dependent on the federal government."[75] O'Donnell emphasizes fiscal integrity, saying, "Voting to spend money we don't have has become the appealing option for too many politicians. The men and women of America know this is not sustainable."[43][76] O'Donnell opposes Congressional earmarks.[13] She supports a simplification of the tax code.[77]
[edit] Environment

Blocking cap and trade legislation would be one of her first priorities.[9][78]
[edit] Gun rights

The National Rifle Association endorses O'Donnell,[51] saying she "will be a strong voice in fighting ongoing efforts by anti-gun politicians to dismantle the Second Amendment"[79]
[edit] Health care

O'Donnell says the first thing she would like to do if elected is to vote to repeal health care legislation enacted by Congress in 2010.[78][80]
[edit] Social Security

O'Donnell supports raising the age for receiving Social Security benefits.[71]


Pretty sparse.

According to on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Christine_O%60Donnell.htm), she wants a flat tax, is a climate change denier, wants to consider attacking Iran, does not want the U.S. to leave Iraq until the government is stable, wants to reduce capital gains and estate taxes even further, and opposes abortion in all cases.

Controversies and personal facts are always more reported than political stances. That's not unusual.

[Starving Artist]

Dude, she has a web site. Yes, I know she has a website. But what does it accomplish to point to her website when you have the nation's news and entertainment media (and a goodly number of posters to this board) going on and on about her views on masturbation and behaving as though one of the first things she'll do if elected is try to outlaw it? The dialog on her - both here and in the national media - has been utterly ridiculous.

[sleeping]

Dude, she has a web site. Yes, I know she has a website. But what does it accomplish to point to her website when you have the nation's news and entertainment media (and a goodly number of posters to this board) going on and on about her views on masturbation and behaving as though one of the first things she'll do if elected is try to outlaw it?


She has taken few--if any--policy statements orally, and there is nothing on her web site. I really was asking you (or anyone else) if you could find relevant content on her web site.


The dialog on her - both here and in the national media - has been utterly ridiculous.

Well, she is nuts. But there is also a class element to this. See here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/16/tea_party/index.html).

[Robot Arm]

...she wants a flat tax,... wants to consider attacking Iran, does not want the U.S. to leave Iraq until the government is stable, wants to reduce capital gains and estate taxes even further,...And balance the budget, right?

Yes, I know she has a website. But what does it accomplish to point to her website when you have the nation's news and entertainment media (and a goodly number of posters to this board) going on and on about her views on masturbation and behaving as though one of the first things she'll do if elected is try to outlaw it?Presumably the website belongs to her, or to her campaign at least. If she has any message she would like to get out to the world, that's the place for it. She could phrase every position in the most flattering light; avoid any embarassing questions. No one can stop her.

[Robot Arm]

[She has taken few--if any--policy statements orally, and there is nothing on her web site. I really was asking you (or anyone else) if you could find relevant content on her web site.There's a little link in the upper left corner, "skip and continue to site". It's woefully lacking in details, but there is something there.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, she is nuts. But there is also a class element to this. See here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/16/tea_party/index.html).

Speaking of class elements . . . (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2010/09/21/this_modern_world/index.html)

[BrainGlutton]

So, hypothetically, what if the Tea Partiers, you know, lose? That is, what if all Tea-Party-insurgent candidates this year get creamed in the general election? (That probably won't happen, but hypothetically.) How would they react then?

[Really Not All That Bright]

So, hypothetically, what if the Tea Partiers, you know, lose? That is, what if all Tea-Party-insurgent candidates this year get creamed in the general election? (That probably won't happen, but hypothetically.) How would they react then?
*ahem*
I think it's pretty obvious what is going to happen: the Tea Party candidates will take some "safe Republican" seats from mainstream Republicans via primaries. They will also take some closely contested seats from mainstream Republicans by splitting the vote and handing them to Democrats.

What this means for America is anyone's guess, but I'm wondering if we're not going to see a post-election backlash a la Nader in '00 if the Tea Party ultimately does more harm to conservatives than good.

[BrainGlutton]

So, hypothetically, what if the Tea Partiers, you know, lose? That is, what if all Tea-Party-insurgent candidates this year get creamed in the general election? (That probably won't happen, but hypothetically.) How would they react then?
*ahem*
I think it's pretty obvious what is going to happen: the Tea Party candidates will take some "safe Republican" seats from mainstream Republicans via primaries. They will also take some closely contested seats from mainstream Republicans by splitting the vote and handing them to Democrats.

What this means for America is anyone's guess, but I'm wondering if we're not going to see a post-election backlash a la Nader in '00 if the Tea Party ultimately does more harm to conservatives than good.

Oh, no. That assumes they're the sort to just take the blame and hide their heads. The Naderites did that, mostly. I don't think the Tea Partiers can be shut up that easily. I suspect they'll double down on the crazy and ramp up the talk of revolution/secession.

[gonzomax]

I love the tea baggers. They brought us Bachmann, Rand Paul, O'Donnell, Brewer, and Angle. They make politics easy. They offer us crazy people who lie like hell and would be dangerous in office. It is not hard to make a good decision at the polls.
Whatever kind of movement people are getting deluded into, those leaders will kill it .

[BrainGlutton]

I love the tea baggers. They brought us Bachmann, Rand Paul, O'Donnell, Brewer, and Angle. They make politics easy. They offer us crazy people who lie like hell and would be dangerous in office. It is not hard to make a good decision at the polls.
Whatever kind of movement people are getting deluded into, those leaders will kill it .

I think you'll find it's not so easy to kill. The Tea Party movement has an astroturf component, certainly, but in large part it really is a decentralized, leaderless, grassroots movement, made up of very angry people who are not going to stop being angry just because they lose.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Bachmann significantly predates the Tea Parties.

[Cisco]

I don't think the Tea Partiers can be shut up that easily. I suspect they'll double down on the crazy and ramp up the talk of revolution/secession.

The Tea Party movement is made up of very angry people who are not going to stop being angry just because they lose.

Yeaaaah . . . they're gonna be pretty big babies about it. Big babies with guns.

[Knorf]

O'Donnell said that she "had" dabbled into witchcraft when she was young. Past tense. And not only that, but it was ten years ago when she made that statement.

Oh, come now, you're perfectly happy to attempt to tar Obama with even flimsier from-the-past kind of stuff (such as things his old pastor said.)

How do you know O'Donnell isn't a closet witch? A secret wiccan, a Manchurian-druidic mole with the intention of infiltrating our government and promoting a Satanic agenda of moral turpitude?

She "dabbled" then, she dabbles now. Be sure of this: people don't escape from witchcraft. It's just like when someone is a student at a Madrassa and surely must be forever Muslim. And somehow also a socialist. Or if someone used family connections to escape from active duty in the military, had a very sketchy service record at best, and is an alcoholic (once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic), but put that all behind them, they're a hero, but if someone's former pastor said some wacky things, and that person repudiates those comments publicly, it's still cause for concern.

Why is it that what someone did or said in the past is utterly damning for a moderate or liberal, but for a conservative, it is a badge of honor to have found grace and redeemed oneself from one's sordid past?

[sleeping]

It's just like when someone is a student at a Madrassa and surely must be forever Muslim. And somehow also a socialist.

You're not up-to-date with your knowledge of the right wing. The Muslim/socialist trope has been abandoned in favor of "anti-colonialism" and "African tribalism." Apparently, the new idea is that Obama refuses to nationalize the banks, because he wants to keep them in limbo. Or something.

[BrainGlutton]

Here's something I'm not entirely clear on about the Tea Party:

Several fissures in the American conservative movement have become apparent in the past decade. One is between warhawkish neoconservatives, and isolationist paleoconservatives. The latter has been most clearly represented by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(2002)) (formed out of the right wing of the defunct Reform Party) and his magazine The American Conservative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative) As sometimes remarked in that magazine's pages, the paleocons have found some common ground with the left, at least to the extent that they want U.S. troops out of the Middle East, and they don't want the U.S. sticking its neck out for Israel. The paleocons also economic isolationists/protectionists where the neocons are (like the neoliberals) economic globalizers; and Main Street populists where the neocons are Wall Street elitists; and strictly anti-immigration (for reasons both economic and racial/cultural), where the neocons seem sympathetic to corporate America's need for cheap immigrant labor. Throughout the Bush years, Buchanan and the paleocons were the most important dissenting voice on the right. (There is also the Constitution Party, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)) which seems very similar to the America First Party in ideology, the difference being emphasis -- the Constitution Party is much heavier on social-religious conservatism. Including, I think, support for Israel on "Christian Zionist" principles, which might or might not be enough to keep it from ever merging with America First.)

Now, since Obama took office, the Tea Party movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_party_movement) has emerged as a far more important -- at any rate, far more visible and vocal -- dissenting locus of the right. They challenge the GOP establishment. They do seem to come from the same demographic/cultural base as Buchanan's paleocons. Their rhetoric is mostly based on smaller-goverment economic libertarianism and old-fashioned decentralism -- that is, they want the federal government, at any rate, drastically reduced in size and functions and cost. But, I haven't heard them say much at all about foreign or military policy. Nor immigration. Nor globalization. Nor the Wall Street/Main Street divide.

So: How do the Tea Partiers feel about these issues? Is there any consensus in the movement? Are they an ideologically different conservative movement than Buchanan's paleocons, or are they just emphasizing different elements from the same general worldview? How does Buchanan feel about them (I've never heard him comment)?

GD thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579199)

[BrainGlutton]

One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than gender, income and politics, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole.[96]

Couldn't that also be worded as:

"One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than being Rich Republican Men, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole."

I think the key missing factor is age -- other polls find the Tea Partiers are mostly over 45, Gallup does not. If the former is true, then the movement might be born to die in our lifetimes, just by generational attrition -- that is, it represents a world-view which its members' children do not necessarily acquire, and as Tea Partiers die off, they will not be replaced by commensurate numbers of those now young.

[foolsguinea]

Now, whether those statements are good or bad ..., I have no idea. But I do know that the media is telling us virtually nothing about them and is focusing instead on personal issues, even going so far as to trumpet and make fun of things she said and did while she was still in high school.Yeah, it's too easy to make fun of Christine O'Donnell. And I suspect she's going to lose anyway. I'm much more concerned by people that don't have a history of being a token religious goofball on national tv, who may seem inoffensive, but may have daft ideas about governance once they get in.

From my neck of the woods:

Former House GOP whip Roy Blunt (MO)1 is going for US Senate now. The Dems, in a textbook case of my-turn-ism, have put Robin Carnahan (daughter of late governor Mel Carnahan) on the ballot. I've met her, she's a nice lady, smart, personable. I like her better than I like Blunt, but that's damning with faint praise, as Roy rubs me the wrong way. I don't think she's running a terribly brilliant campaign, but I will vote for her because a) the other guy is a tool; & b) I refuse to reward the GOP for their behavior these last two years. Anyway, neither of these two is an outsider, &...we'll see how it goes.

But Roy's old seat? Hoo boy.

The GOP nominee is a strikingly fat political newbie called Billy Long, (http://billylongforcongress.com/) who runs on a slogan of, "I'm fed up!" What he's fed up by, I don't know. I don't really trust this guy to do anything smart in office.

The Dem nom, Scott Eckersley, (http://www.checkeck.org/) is a former staffer of a not-terribly-beloved, one term, GOP, former Mo. governor who apparently had a falling out over said governor's ethically lax behavior. (Said governor being, interestingly enough, the outgoing Roy Blunt's son.) He's even less visible & well-known than the screwball Long, & that, combined with the fact that he decided to pursue the minority-party nomination in a district that sometimes goes 70% GOP, means he's on track to lose.

I'm not holding out hope that Billy Long will do something really stupid, nor that if he does the news media will manage to get awareness of that out, nor that if awareness gets out it will affect the voting patterns much. But hey, you want to embarrass the GOP/Tea Party in a very red district, throw some aid at Eck; he seems to be a Blue Dog, but at least he's professional, & he might get Long down to 55% of the vote. whoo

1. It's unfair I suppose, but Roy Blunt can be remembered as the guy who left his wife to marry his lobbyist. So he's literally in bed with Philip Morris Altria. :rolleyes: He also was noted as losing to Boehner in GOP leadership shakeups over the last decade.

[Frank]

The GOP nominee is a strikingly fat political newbie called Billy Long, (http://billylongforcongress.com/) who runs on a slogan of, "I'm fed up!" What he's fed up by, I don't know. I don't really trust this guy to do anything smart in office.
I think I saw an ad for him. At the end, does he fire a shotgun into the air, and turn around and wink at us?

The Carnahans, of all people, have no room to blast Blunt for his Washington connections. That said, of course I'll vote for Robin; Blunt is despicable.

And--that said--I have never lived in a state until now where a politician's last name meant so much. Family connections have an effect I've never seen before.

[foolsguinea]

And--that said--I have never lived in a state until now where a politician's last name meant so much. Family connections have an effect I've never seen before.Yeah, the Blunts weird me out, & I'm from here. The Carnahans are maybe a less outrageous case. OK, they weird me out a little too. And there was a Webster family in SW Mo., one of whom was a Roy Blunt rival before going to prison.

Funny thing, I don't remember John Danforth, John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, or Mel Hancock having this kind of blatant dynasty thing, but maybe some of them had important relatives too.

[Bookkeeper]

So how can we debate her legislative agenda when she apparently doesn't have one? Blame the media, right?Christine O'Donnell has run in three primary Senate campaigns in the last four years. In one, she ran against Joe Biden. In the last, she won the Republican nomination over Mike Castle, a longtime congressman and former governor. Do you mean to tell me that at no point during any of these three campaigns she set forth no idea of her agenda, nothing about what she was against or what she would do if elected?

I would think that the archives of Delaware's newspapers and television stations contain plenty of information about things that O'Donnell said during those campaigns, so why isn't the national media examining her previous runs for office in order to find out about what she's said and what her positions are? The media certainly found out quickly enough about how long it took for her to get her college diploma and it ferreted out all sorts of information about her finances, and yet for some reason we're supposed to believe there's nothing out there to report on when it comes to her political goals - that when it comes to what she thinks politically she's little but a cipher.

So that's why I'm calling bullshit on the media. They're quick to spread the worst about her while simultaneously ignoring a four-year record of statements made during her three primary campaigns.

Now, whether those statements are good or bad from either her point of view or that of the Tea Party, I have no idea. But I do know that the media is telling us virtually nothing about them and is focusing instead on personal issues, even going so far as to trumpet and make fun of things she said and did while she was still in high school.

You know, it's generally considered that the candidate has some responsibility in making his/her position known to the voters. You seem to think that, in the absence of any coherent position statements from O'Donnell, that it is the responsibility of the media to start digging through the records to find the information on her views and political stances that she won't make public herself. And then you complain because what the media chooses to publish is stuff that makes her look bad. They have NO responsibility to spin the available info to make her look good - that's the job of O'Donnell and her campaign.

[BrainGlutton]

Couldn't that also be worded as:

"One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than being Rich Republican Men, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole."

I think the key missing factor is age -- other polls find the Tea Partiers are mostly over 45, Gallup does not. If the former is true, then the movement might be born to die in our lifetimes, just by generational attrition -- that is, it represents a world-view which its members' children do not necessarily acquire, and as Tea Partiers die off, they will not be replaced by commensurate numbers of those now young.

On that note, looking at the Pew Political Typology, (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949) I would say the groups most likely to make up the Tea Party's base are the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives -- certainly not the Pro-Government Conservatives, nor the Conservative Democrats -- and the Social Conservatives are "the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older)." And, I don't think it's a matter of people growing more conservative as they grow older. While you could find many counterexamples, I don't think most people change their basic political views or values much after the age of 25. No, this is a generation that sees things in a way no later generation will. And of the Enterprisers, "Only 10% are under age 30."

"Tiiiiiiime is on my side . . . Yes, it is!" :cool:

The youngest group, BTW, is the Bystanders; the next-youngest is Liberals; then Pro-Government Conservatives and Upbeats.

[Cisco]

[T]he Tea Party's base are the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives -- certainly not the Pro-Government Conservatives, nor the Conservative Democrats -- and the Social Conservatives are "the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older)." And, I don't think it's a matter of people growing more conservative as they grow older. While you could find many counterexamples, I don't think most people change their basic political views or values much after the age of 25. No, this is a generation that sees things in a way no later generation will. And of the Enterprisers, "Only 10% are under age 30."

"Tiiiiiiime is on my side . . . Yes, it is!" :cool:

The youngest group, BTW, is the Bystanders; the next-youngest is Liberals; then Pro-Government Conservatives and Upbeats.

How old are you, BrainGlutton? I guess I've never put any thought into it, but if someone asked me, I probably would've listed you in the 50+ crowd.

[Starving Artist]

I think the key missing factor is age -- other polls find the Tea Partiers are mostly over 45, Gallup does not. If the former is true, then the movement might be born to die in our lifetimes, just by generational attrition -- that is, it represents a world-view which its members' children do not necessarily acquire, and as Tea Partiers die off, they will not be replaced by commensurate numbers of those now young.

On that note, looking at the Pew Political Typology, (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949) I would say the groups most likely to make up the Tea Party's base are the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives -- certainly not the Pro-Government Conservatives, nor the Conservative Democrats -- and the Social Conservatives are "the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older)." And, I don't think it's a matter of people growing more conservative as they grow older. While you could find many counterexamples, I don't think most people change their basic political views or values much after the age of 25. No, this is a generation that sees things in a way no later generation will. And of the Enterprisers, "Only 10% are under age 30."

"Tiiiiiiime is on my side . . . Yes, it is!" :cool:

The youngest group, BTW, is the Bystanders; the next-youngest is Liberals; then Pro-Government Conservatives and Upbeats.William F. Buckley once said to Charlie Rose in regard to conservatism vs. liberalism: "Life is our secret weapon." :D

Liberalism, socialism, communism, etc., are all naive notions of youth. Once people get some life experience under their belt and begin to develop an understanding of human nature and the way the world really works, they find themselves becoming more and more conservative.

Fortunately for the U.S., the largest population segment in history - the baby boom generation - is reaching that point in life and it will have a huge impact upon the politics of the future, with its impact being bostered even further by succeeding generations which will become more and more conservative the older they get.

I'm afraid the tenets of liberalism and the reverberations of the counter-culture era itself are, like Mick Jagger himself, becoming old, irrelevant and outdated. This country is solidly center-right and conservatism is asserting itself more and more aggressively as time goes by.

Liberalism, socialism, etc., never stand the test of time. The horrendous experiment that was communism is way to hell and gone, and the social democracies of Europe are turning more and more rightward as the social and economic problems inherent with socialism become more and more pronounced.

You may have some things on your side for the time being, but time, I'm afraid, ain't one of them.

[jayjay]

Keep whistling past that graveyard...

[BrainGlutton]

[T]he Tea Party's base are the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives -- certainly not the Pro-Government Conservatives, nor the Conservative Democrats -- and the Social Conservatives are "the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older)." And, I don't think it's a matter of people growing more conservative as they grow older. While you could find many counterexamples, I don't think most people change their basic political views or values much after the age of 25. No, this is a generation that sees things in a way no later generation will. And of the Enterprisers, "Only 10% are under age 30."

"Tiiiiiiime is on my side . . . Yes, it is!" :cool:

The youngest group, BTW, is the Bystanders; the next-youngest is Liberals; then Pro-Government Conservatives and Upbeats.

How old are you, BrainGlutton? I guess I've never put any thought into it, but if someone asked me, I probably would've listed you in the 50+ crowd.

47, which puts me in the "13th Generation" (Nomadic) -- the next generation after the Baby Boomers in Strauss and Howe's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Strauss) generational-archetypes schema. Which theory I find somewhat persuasive, at least to the extent that I feel I have more in common, culturally, with people 10 years younger than myself (still within the 13th Gen) than with people 5 years older (Boomers).

[BrainGlutton]

On that note, looking at the Pew Political Typology, (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949) I would say the groups most likely to make up the Tea Party's base are the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives -- certainly not the Pro-Government Conservatives, nor the Conservative Democrats -- and the Social Conservatives are "the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older)." And, I don't think it's a matter of people growing more conservative as they grow older. While you could find many counterexamples, I don't think most people change their basic political views or values much after the age of 25. No, this is a generation that sees things in a way no later generation will. And of the Enterprisers, "Only 10% are under age 30."

"Tiiiiiiime is on my side . . . Yes, it is!" :cool:

The youngest group, BTW, is the Bystanders; the next-youngest is Liberals; then Pro-Government Conservatives and Upbeats.William F. Buckley once said to Charlie Rose in regard to conservatism vs. liberalism: "Life is our secret weapon." :D

Liberalism, socialism, communism, etc., are all naive notions of youth. Once people get some life experience under their belt and begin to develop an understanding of human nature and the way the world really works, they find themselves becoming more and more conservative.

People find themselves becoming less energetic as they age, perhaps. Less horny, less restless. More inured to disappointment. And they feel a sense of life's possibilities closing off. But they don't become more state-skeptical, small-government economic-libertarian, which is the particular kind of conservatism that the Tea Party is (purportedly) all about. In fact, as you get nearer and nearer to needing Social Security and Medicare . . .

As for traditionalist social-religious conservatism, the last thing it's based on is "an understanding of human nature and the way the world really works." C'mon, are ya fuckin' kiddin'?!

[BrainGlutton]

Started a new GD thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579317) to debate these age/generational issues.

[Knorf]

Hilariously, I was far more Republican and conservative in my youth. As I've grown older and wiser, I now think the GOP is irredeemably full of shit . The Tea Bagger idiocy proves my point.

[Cyberhwk]

Hilariously, I was far more Republican and conservative in my youth. As I've grown older and wiser, I now think the GOP is irredeemably full of shit . The Tea Bagger idiocy proves my point.
You're not alone. (http://www.livescience.com/health/080310-liberal-seniors.html)

[Chronos]

Liberalism, socialism, etc., never stand the test of time. The horrendous experiment that was communism is way to hell and gone, and the social democracies of Europe are turning more and more rightward as the social and economic problems inherent with socialism become more and more pronounced. Couldn't you just as easily say that Europe is an example that conservatism, fascism, and Naziism never stand the test of time? I mean, if you're going to be calling twentieth-century communism "liberal", then you also have to acknowledge that fascism was conservative.

[foolsguinea]

Hilariously, I was far more Republican and conservative in my youth. As I've grown older and wiser, I now think the GOP is irredeemably full of shit . The Tea Bagger idiocy proves my point.This is my experience as well.

The idea that there's a 1) natural ideological drift rightward is silly to begin with; ever talk to an old British socialist?

But even given that assumption, the idea 2) that the GOP platform corresponds to the direction of such an age-related shift; & that mainstream social-democratic welfare-state liberalism belongs necessarily in the 3) same direction as totalitarian Bolshevism & thus 4) on the same ash-heap of youthful idealism--that's just piles & piles of unfounded assumptions.

Ofttimes held by those who were silly right-wingers in their youth anyway, & still are, & want to feel superior to the normal sane people who tell them they're foolsih.

[gonzomax]

The Villages in Florida is an enormous community of senior citizens. It is a hotbed of conservatives and they welcomed Palin this year. I have spent time there and was surprised how tea bagger, ultra conservative they are.

[New Deal Democrat]

Don't worry about it. A right-populist movement prone to leader-worship? What could go wrong with that?That sounds like a recipe for Communism.

Or fascism.

[New Deal Democrat]

The Villages in Florida is an enormous community of senior citizens. It is a hotbed of conservatives and they welcomed Palin this year. I have spent time there and was surprised how tea bagger, ultra conservative they are.

And every one of them benefits from Medicare and Social Security.

[New Deal Democrat]

Liberalism, socialism, etc., never stand the test of time. The horrendous experiment that was communism is way to hell and gone, and the social democracies of Europe are turning more and more rightward as the social and economic problems inherent with socialism become more and more pronounced.

In Europe the political center is considerably to the left of where it is in the United States. In Europe there is virtually no nostalgia for laissez faire capitalism. In no country with universal health care has there been a politically significant demand for a return to a private system. In terms of actual policy, conservative parties in Europe are somewhat to the left of the Democrats. A right wing extremist is one who wants to restrict immigration of blacks, and Muslims, not one who wants to tear apart the social safety net that has been constructed for whites.

[BrainGlutton]

The Villages in Florida is an enormous community of senior citizens. It is a hotbed of conservatives and they welcomed Palin this year. I have spent time there and was surprised how tea bagger, ultra conservative they are.

And every one of them benefits from Medicare and Social Security.

For some reason, logical consistency in political views is not a prerequisite for voting.

[New Deal Democrat]

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.

Probably because it's hard for leftists to get really, really mad when they see the Dems holding WH and Congress for the first time in so long. The last time something like the Tea Party happened on the left was in the 1960s and '70s -- back then, they saw a lot to get mad about.

Back then there was a backlash against the anti-war movement, the hippies, and the new left. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a backlash against the Tea Party movement. :(

[New Deal Democrat]

And every one of them benefits from Medicare and Social Security.

For some reason, logical consistency in political views is not a prerequisite for voting.

And ignorance does not interfere with strong opinions. If anything there seems to be an inverse relationship between knowledge and the assurance that one knows the absolute truth.

[BrainGlutton]

Probably because it's hard for leftists to get really, really mad when they see the Dems holding WH and Congress for the first time in so long. The last time something like the Tea Party happened on the left was in the 1960s and '70s -- back then, they saw a lot to get mad about.

Back then there was a backlash against the anti-war movement, the hippies, and the new left. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a backlash against the Tea Party movement. :(

Yet.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Probably because it's hard for leftists to get really, really mad when they see the Dems holding WH and Congress for the first time in so long. The last time something like the Tea Party happened on the left was in the 1960s and '70s -- back then, they saw a lot to get mad about.

Back then there was a backlash against the anti-war movement, the hippies, and the new left. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a backlash against the Tea Party movement. :(


My pet theory is that part of it is sour grapes. A lot of lefties, that might be the counterpart to the Tea Party, are upset that the Tea Party is getting such incredible press now, when they got theirs during the '60s. In the '60s, the establishment didn't support or court them, and now, the establishment is actively trying to woo the vocal minority, and getting massive amounts of attention for it.

[jayjay]

My pet theory is that part of it is sour grapes. A lot of lefties, that might be the counterpart to the Tea Party, are upset that the Tea Party is getting such incredible press now, when they got theirs during the '60s. In the '60s, the establishment didn't support or court them, and now, the establishment is actively trying to woo the vocal minority, and getting massive amounts of attention for it.

Damn Baby Boomers...they already had their 15 minutes! Who gets two 15 minutes?!

[Least Original User Name Ever]

My pet theory is that part of it is sour grapes. A lot of lefties, that might be the counterpart to the Tea Party, are upset that the Tea Party is getting such incredible press now, when they got theirs during the '60s. In the '60s, the establishment didn't support or court them, and now, the establishment is actively trying to woo the vocal minority, and getting massive amounts of attention for it.

Damn Baby Boomers...they already had their 15 minutes! Who gets two 15 minutes?!


That's what I'm saying. In any case, their activism has atrophied a touch*. Activism is like a muscle: if you don't use it, you lose it, and you have to use it on a regular basis to keep it strong. There's a lot of the Old Guard that are used to doing things the Old Way here where I live, and there's also the establishment getting in the way of activists, too.








*Obvious overstatement.

[BrainGlutton]

My pet theory is that part of it is sour grapes. A lot of lefties, that might be the counterpart to the Tea Party, are upset that the Tea Party is getting such incredible press now, when they got theirs during the '60s. In the '60s, the establishment didn't support or court them, and now, the establishment is actively trying to woo the vocal minority, and getting massive amounts of attention for it.

Damn Baby Boomers...they already had their 15 minutes! Who gets two 15 minutes?!

Going by Strauss and Howe's generational-archetype scheme, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_(book)#List_of_Generations) and the apparent age of most people attending the events, (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0) I would say the TP movement's generational base is partly in the Boomers, but mainly in the Silent Generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation) (would also be in the GI Generation, except that so few of those remain alive and capable of speech in this year of grace).

Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn't a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.

"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.

[Saint Cad]

In the respect that both parties engage in blocking legislation as a matter of political idealogy rather than on the basis of whether it may be good for the country. Everybody with a brain is angry at these tactics, regardless of who uses them.


And we can't reasonably ask the Pubs to stop voting by political alignment, even when they do so in some conflict with their individual ideologies. That is simply party discipline in action, and party discipline is something of which the American political system/culture has never had enough. Better the Dems should learn some.



Maybe then they won't be outvoted 40-60 in the Senate :p

[New Deal Democrat]

The real question is why there hasn't been a 'tea party' forming on the left.

The absence of a mass movement on the left is a depressing fact about contemporary American politics. During the Great Depression we had the labor movement. This was to the left of Franklin Roosevelt, but it supported him, and pulled him to the left.

Currently millions of Americans face long term unemployment. The message of the Tea Party movement is that the government should do nothing to help them: it opposes unemployment compensation; it opposes stimulus packages; it certainly opposes efforts by the government to hire the unemployed directly.

During the War in Vietnam there was a backlash against the anti war movement, the new left, and the hippie movement. I keep hoping there will be a backlash against the Tea Party movement, but so far it does not seem like there is one.

I think the Tea Party movement is evil. If it prevails the unemployed are going to start dying. :mad::eek:

[BrainGlutton]

I think the Tea Party movement is evil. If it prevails the unemployed are going to start dying. :mad::eek:

I would attack the unemployed, first by shelling their homes, and then, when they run out into the street, mowing them down with machine-gun fire. And then, releasing the vultures.

I realize these views are unpopular, but I have never courted popularity.

[Starving Artist]

During the War in Vietnam there was a backlash against the anti war movement, the new left, and the hippie movement. I keep hoping there will be a backlash against the Tea Party movement, but so far it does not seem like there is one.The Tea Party has come nowhere close to doing the damage to this country that the anti-war movement, the new left, and the hippie movement have. There isn't the slightest comparison between the two.

I think the Tea Party movement is evil. If it prevails the unemployed are going to start dying. :mad::eek:Of course you think this. People like you think that anytime conservatives get their way people are going to start dying. And in the meantime you completely ignore - and deny if confronted with - the deaths and human misery caused by drugs, drive-by shootings and gangland acitivity, and criminals released over and over again because of liberal concerns over overcrowding and a resentment of and reaction to what it regards as the punitive attitudes of the right when it comes to sentencing.

Millions of people have died in this country over the last forty years as a direct result of liberal permissiveness and policies, and millions more have been and are condemned to lives of deprivation and crime due to having been raised in the huge number of single-parent homes which are also a direct result of the new left and the hippie movement.

It was the conservative element in this country that embraced drug use as though drugs were manna from heaven; it wasn't the conservatives in this country who created the revolving-door prison system we have now; and it wasn't conservatives in this country who decided that you didn't need "a piece of paper to legitimize your love" while at the same time encouraging bed-hopping.

Millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals making things "better" in this country over the last forty years than ever have as a result of conservative beliefs, which are generally in direct opposition to each of these.

[jayjay]

Is there a second verse to Starving Artist's same old (OOOOOLD) song or are they all the same as the first?

[BrainGlutton]

It was the conservative element in this country that embraced drug use as though drugs were manna from heaven . . .

Yes, it was -- not as something to use personally, but as something to use politically, and with a bottomless cynicism no murderous drug baron could match.

[Digital Stimulus]

The Tea Party has come nowhere close to doing the damage to this country that the anti-war movement, the new left, and the hippie movement have. There isn't the slightest comparison between the two.
According to its adherents, the Tea Party has been around, what, a year or two?

Give it time, give it time... :p

[Starving Artist]

It was the conservative element in this country that embraced drug use as though drugs were manna from heaven...Dammit! :dubious:

:)

[BrainGlutton]

The Villages in Florida is an enormous community of senior citizens. It is a hotbed of conservatives and they welcomed Palin this year. I have spent time there and was surprised how tea bagger, ultra conservative they are.

See this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579317) ;)

[BrainGlutton]

The Tea Party has come nowhere close to doing the damage to this country that the anti-war movement, the new left, and the hippie movement have.

:confused: But, those things have done no damage to this country. The Sexual Revolution and the Feminist Revolution were long overdue. Drug abuse is nothing you can blame on any "movement." The hippies mostly, eventually, rejoined mainstream society and got conventional jobs -- the remainder of them who still live like hippies are no social revolutionaries, and no threat to anything in any other way. And for Og's and "Bob"'s, sake, what "damage" did the anti-war movement ever do?! They didn't even manage to stop the war! (Nixon/Ford ended it in their own time for their own reasons long after the movement had peaked.)

People sometimes call holdover hippies "fossils" -- but are they any more fossilized than persons who still obsess with them as enemies, in this day and age?

[BrainGlutton]

As for the New Left, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_left) if you look closely you'll see it was the sort of "leftist" movement that America's corporate power structure could well abide, as it emphasized cultural issues, not economic, and posed no real threat to their power or assets.

[BrainGlutton]

New survey finds the Tea Party is religious-right, not Libertarian. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/05/tea-party-is-much-like-the-religious-right-only-moreso-surve/)

The common view that the Tea Party movement is a rebellious, libertarian threat not only to the Republican establishment but also to traditional Christian conservatives is upended by a new survey that shows a broad overlap between the religious right and voters who identify with the Tea Party.

For example, nearly half (47 percent) of Americans who consider themselves members of the Tea Party movement also consider themselves part of the "Christian conservative movement," and among the more than 8 in 10 Tea Partiers who identify as Christian, nearly 6 in 10 (57 percent) also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.

The biennial American Values Survey, released in Washington on Tuesday, was conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and shows that two-thirds of Tea Partiers say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 45 percent say there should be no legal recognition for same-sex relationships. That is hardly the profile of a libertarian fringe and more closely reflects the Republican base.

On the other hand, just 11 percent of Americans identify with the Tea Party movement, as opposed to 22 percent who identify with the conservative Christian movement. So the Tea Party is perhaps not as large as it is vocal and visible in the media. Its political influence, however, is out of proportion to the raw numbers because Tea Partiers are angry and mobilizing for a November vote that many other groups are sitting out.

I would say that adds immense weight to the "generationally time-limited" theory.

Which factor does not, however, diminish any impact the TP movement may have on the coming midterms.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Damn Baby Boomers...they already had their 15 minutes! Who gets two 15 minutes?!

Going by Strauss and Howe's generational-archetype scheme, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_(book)#List_of_Generations) and the apparent age of most people attending the events, (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0) I would say the TP movement's generational base is partly in the Boomers, but mainly in the Silent Generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation) (would also be in the GI Generation, except that so few of those remain alive and capable of speech in this year of grace).

Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn't a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.

"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.


I'm saying that from the ground, though, in the trenches of the fun business of politics and activism. We'll be fine here, but in other places, it may be messy until people wake up.

[BrainGlutton]

So, does anybody have any fresh thoughts on this as eday draws nearer? What will be the Tea Party's overall effect on the midterms? Will the GOP do better or worse than if the TP did not exist? On the one hand you have the "enthusiasm gap," OTOH you have TP no-hopers like O'Donnell spoiling the GOP's shot at seats it had a good chance of picking up this year.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Villages in Florida is an enormous community of senior citizens. It is a hotbed of conservatives and they welcomed Palin this year. I have spent time there and was surprised how tea bagger, ultra conservative they are.
Fun fact: The Villages has the highest incidence of herpes of any community in Florida.

[BrainGlutton]

Fun fact: The Villages has the highest incidence of herpes of any community in Florida.

Interesting. Now please email some brain bleach.

[BrainGlutton]

Any final predictions?

[BrainGlutton]

So, what next for the Tea Party?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, according to the Contract From America, it goes like this:
1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap and Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, and Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes
So now that the Constitution has been protected, presumably the next step is defeating the American Clean Energy & Security Act in the Senate (or making sure the final version doesn't pass the House).

[Jas09]

Well, according to the Contract From America, it goes like this:

So now that the Constitution has been protected, presumably the next step is defeating the American Clean Energy & Security Act in the Senate (or making sure the final version doesn't pass the House).I'm pretty sure "Protect the Constitution" means removing the Kenyan usurper from office, but I could be wrong.

Point 2 is probably a done deal.

3-8 are no-gos (and aren't 5, 6, and 9 the same thing?). Maybe 4 is possible, depending on how compromisey everyone feels, and what the deficit commission recommends.

10 will be a mixed bag. I still think it's likely the Dems pass a permanent extension on everything but the top-end bracket, but it's possible they cave and pass a 1-year extension on that.

[jayjay]

1. Protect the Constitution

by initiating needless and expensive investigative proceedings of the president.

2. Reject Cap and Trade

i.e., make sure our corporate overlords continue to profit obscenely while the liberal seaboards (and, incidentally, some of our strongest supporting regions) submerge.

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

like the one we had before our last Republican president blew it all up.

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

i.e., make sure the people who have the most pay the least.

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

by making sure we're not helping out any lazy black people or fags.

6. End Runaway Government Spending

like we did before (NOT!).

7. Defund, Repeal, and Replace Government-run Health Care

which doesn't exist and isn't created by the HRC bill.

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

"All" meaning oil.

9. Stop the Pork

except, apparently, that earmarked by Republicans.

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

which aren't actually tax hikes but a return to the previous tax rates caused by a sunset clause that WE put in the tax cut bill 7 years ago but why would we start telling the truth NOW?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm pretty sure "Protect the Constitution" means removing the Kenyan usurper from office, but I could be wrong.
No, that was "take back America". You appear to have last year's edition of the Tea Party Dictionary.

[Sam Stone]

You only have to look at one thing to see if the new congress is serious: Whether they take on entitlement spending. Specifically, whether they're willing to make structural changes to Medicare.

One thing you have to give credit to the Obama administration for, is that they realized that health care spending is a ticking time bomb and tried to do something about it. Unfortunately, their ideology led them down the wrong path, and Obama made the mistake of trusting the Congress to write the health care bill unsupervised, but in fact they were right that health care is a huge problem that is going to get exponentially worse in the coming two decades.

The Republicans can't just repeal Obamacare and go back to business as usual. If they manage to push through a repeal or significant change, it will be up to them to propose a real alternative that really does 'bend the cost curve'.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Serious about fixing the nation's problems, or serious about retaining the voters they gained in this election? Those are not the same thing, and may even be contradictory aims.

[Knorf]

7. Defund, Repeal, and Replace Government-run Health Care
...which doesn't exist and isn't created by the HRC bill.

And which would, presumably according to the language used, include Medicare.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Tricare and the Veterans' Administration, too.