It is true with the rise of the Tea Party that the Republican Party has been in many ways going extremely towards the right but in the end it is not a problem for the left and indeed a boon for them. It is the GOP and the conservatives who must be worried about its effects. A parallel can be seen with the Democrats’ lurching to the extreme left in the late sixties putting forth men like McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis all of whom were defeated in landslides except in Carter’s aberration in 1976. The only real result was that the Democrats lost presidential elections constantly until they finally got their act together and nominated an electable neo/social liberal in Bill Clinton.
Even in the last election cycle the extreme Tea Party candidates such as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell have lost handily. Romney will be nominated this election cycle and if he wins he will be able to suppress the Tea Party from totally hijacking the party. If Romney loses, and there is a period of Tea Party dominance they will lose horribly and Obama will be able to get a compliant Congress and get his will done. Incidentally I see lots of parallels between Obama and Richard Nixon . Both were far less ideological than thought by most people and if only Nixon could go to China only Obama could have killed al-Awlaki and intervened in Libya without provoking insane amounts of hysteria on the left.
Republicans always vote for their Pres. nominee, because he always stands for discrimination and the annihilation of non-Christians around the world, whoever the nominee is.
The Tea bag crowd is not a party, it’s a bunch of ? people trying to express their hate against minorities but being aware that they can’t do this any more in public, so they pretend to have a party. That’s why they’re so divided in this primary run… they don’t know who to support yet, because other than some weak coded racist messages from Romney and Gingrich, no one has made a clear stance regarding the tea bag mentality yet.
Whatever he’s referring to, it was a deflection from the argument, showing his inability to respond to my claim that Repubs will always vote for the one who promises discrimination within the country and annihilation of non-Christians world wide.
However, your claim is just that, a claim, and one that is based on little more than partisan counterpoint to silly Right wing claims that Democrats want only to destroy wealth and steal guns from people. If you are going to hijack a thread with unthinking partisan rhetoric, it seems perfectly reassonable to point out that we have heard the same rhetoric before.
The general American public was and still is right of center.
One only has to look at any poll to see Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Democrats had control since 2006 (effectively 2007), and used that opportunity to do a few things which by any traditional measurement are considered hard left policies. It’s not even arguable.
Which traditional measure is that? The health care plan that was passed was originally proposed by that bastion of leftiness - the Republican Party (of 1993/4).
I’d strongly disagree with the notion that Mitt Romney getting nominated is somehow going to purge the kooks away. If I know anything at all about human behaviour, his nomination (and probable loss) would only whip them into a frenzy at the notion that he only lost because he was not kooky enough. Cue even more Tea Party insanity.
I had a feeling someone would throw that puerile line out there about Bush.
Bush passed spending measures by a democrat super-majority, which makes Bush complicit. Everyone knows Bush was not a fiscal conservative, he passed a bunch of spending under a rhino congress as well. (although the cries from democrats at that time were that Bush was “not doing enough” LOL) You cannot have it both ways.
The only ones who have been consistent are fiscal conservatives. It’s the rino’s and libs who keep moving their benchmarks for underspending and overspending - and it’s wholly political bs and nothing to do with their true economic principals.