I’ll go ahead and judge the teabaggers by what I see at the rallies, not what gets posted on some apologist blogs.
My understanding was you started this thread to discuss the possibility of a third major party forming to the right of the GOP. And that isn’t going to happen. There are already at least three such parties (Conservative, Constitution, America First – or four if you count the Libertarians), and none of them is going anywhere.
But, that isn’t going to happen either. That is, “the right” is a coalition of several factions, which might change in relative prominence, but none of them is going away. Furthermore, the pro-big-business right and the libertarian right are two very different things, and it is the first that mostly bankrolls the whole conservative movement. If they all go their separate ways while the Dems remain united, what happens to the movement then? How many races do you think libertarians can win, without biz-con backing and without religious-right votes?
I’m not sure exactly what you were trying to say in the bolded sentence but Hoffman was enlisted to run as the Conservative party candidate after the GOP county chairmen in NY 23 picked Scozzafava in July. They picked her because they thought her centrist positions on several issues - especially social issues - would appeal to moderates. Then the ultra conservatives went insane about running a candidate who supported gay rights and abortion rights. He had a lot of support from conservative groups and blogs and such and has gradually grown steam and grown in the polls until this month major national GOP figures started endorsing him. Then the National Republican Congressional Committee who had been supporting Scozzafava from the beginning hinted that they would be happy to work with Hoffman too, if he won. Now Scozzafava has officially withdrawn. So it’s definitely the Republicans who bailed on her, not vice versa. Basically what happened is the GOP tried to run a centrist candidate to appeal to more people and the ultra-conservaties successfully forced her out.
I realize that there are some people complaining about economic issues but Scozzafava is far closer to center on social issues than economic ones and in my observation the people who were furious about Scozzafava were angry that she doesn’t hate gays and love fetuses enough, not anything fiscal.
Their reactions to Scozzafava’s suspension is recorded here:
http://www.tcotreport.com/sienapolloct31.html
Nothing fiscal is directly mentioned, but then neither are gays or baby souls.
No, you’ll judge them by the hand-picked photos of the craziest of them posted on Daily KOS and in the Mainstream media.
The Tea Partiers themselves have been protesting this way of marginalizing them. A lot of them are bringing video cameras of their own, and taking video of the media’s own practices. There was a video on Youtube showing a major network news team walking right past hundreds of people who were holding absolutely normal signs and who had real issues, until they found someone with a birther sign or something. The media zeroed right in on that guy. They had no interest whatsoever in reporting that the majority of tea partiers were absolutely normal people with normal concerns.
From Wikipedia:
Not a word about God, gays, or abortion. This is a revolt against big government, not a religious movement.
No, I’ll judge them by what I’ve seen first hand and in person.
I don’t read Kos, by the way, or any other left wing website.
And did you really just use the phrase “mainstream media?”
Well what I was attempting to speak to was the motivations of Hoffman’s supporters all along - not the reactions of people at the last minute. The whole thread seems to be about the threat of fiscal conservatives breaking off and forming a 3rd party. It’s hard to substantiate with a single cite, but having followed the entire election pretty closely in my judgement, most of the dissatisfaction over Scozzafava has been about her socially moderate stances, not fiscally moderate.
What I was trying to say was in response to the OP, who seemed to see these endorsements of a non-Republican Party candidate by conservative Republicans at the national level, as possible evidence of a 3rd party forming made up the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
My response to this is that I see it as evidence that the conservatives are not interested in leaving, but of pushing the moderates out.
And if the party did indeed bail on the more centrist candidate when the neocons came out in opposition to her, that is evidence that the conservatives are winning the power struggle.
I’ve been following the race somewhat, and the negative comments I’ve seen about her were mostly about the fact that she supported the stimulus package, her husband is a union leader, and she received endorsements from Daily KOS and ACORN. I have seen a few complaints about her being pro abortion as well.
Yes, that’s hard to get to though. They seem to be trying to keep that aspect as quiet as possible, even today.
Redstate has no such compunction:
Apparently It’s fiscal AND social conservatism, or nothing.
Don’t just leave it at a Republican schism; look at what’s going on with Democrats right now.
On their fundamentally most important policy aim of the moment – health care reform – they are incapable of coming together. The “Blue Dogs” and more conservative Demos will never support a public option; the far left of the party will never not support one.
Then move on to issues like “cap and trade,” which the far left faction of Democrats will support as necessary whatever the cost; but more moderate Democrats are already skeptical of how much it will cost, how it might damage business, how it could lead to a redistribution of wealth from the United States that isn’t exactly in our national interest.
I could envision this ultimately become dysfunctional – as soon as on this health care reform, in fact.
Then there’s a conservative movement that is sick and tired of the Republican Party spending like there’s no tomorrow.
The two-party system is under as much strain as it’s been in modern times – more significantly, to me anyway, than the Dixiecrat movement and certainly more significant than the Bull Moose Party.
I’m intrigued by the idea of four or five political parties and coalition governments like those that operate in much of the world. With parties breaking down something like this:
- Liberals/Greens
- An amalgam of something resembling moderate Democrats and Republicans
- Conservatives
- Libertarians
I live in a state (California) where the two-party system is so entrenched in their opposing positions they can’t come together to solve a crisis that imperials delivery of the water that 23 million Californians use to drink, bathe, work, irrigate crops, etc.
Something’s got to give, and no side shows any sign of blinking.
What’s going on in California, I believe, is starting to happen in the nation. If only Obama was a moderate. He’s not. He and Pelosi are pushing the envelope to the left, much of the country is resisting, and it may be prompting a tearing of the fabric of the two-party system that’s inevitable.
On the other hand, as to the New York situation, a great many Republicans on the national level --perhaps the majority – were not satisfied with the local-party-chosen candidate Scozzafava.
Then there’s this:
So in the particular case of the New York 23rd it doesn’t seem that major of an issue. But I agree that there’s a larger issue of whether more Hoffmans will emerge to challenge moderate-to-liberal Republicans.
Your linked article has a very interesting link to Red State. Acording to Red State, this os all the fault of the Washington Establishment Republicans for letting a ‘leftist’ like Scozzafava get the nomination in the first place.
Actually, the author pretty much agrees with my view, except for the timing.
My personal view is that the coup has already started and these ‘renegade’ conservative endorsements are part of it. This guy is pretending that nominating a ‘radical’ Republican is a call to arms for all right thinking conservative Americans.
Another interesting turn of phrase in the article:
‘Lesser Republicans’ – oh yeah, clearly no purity testing going on here.
P.S. Why is this still in Great Debates? I see a lot of typical Internet Liberal thread-shiatting and vitriolic opinion toward Republicans presented as fact. Some “debate.”
You’re right about the echo chamber, Sam. Doesn’t look like it’s changed in the three-plus years I was away.
Anyway, I’ll try:
Forgive me if I call B.S. on your Republicanism, given that you’ve perpetrated two of the most tired liberal memes – “Bush is a criminal” (instead of somebody who acted to protect the country after the horrific attack of 9/11 in ways with which you strongly disagree) and that Republicans and Conservatives are “busy painting Hitler moustaches on Obama.” Do you typically take the actions of a few people and smear large groups with them?
You liberals are too busy assassinating or attempting to assassinate presidents (Lee Oswald, Squeaky Fromme, Sara Jane Moore). Is that fair?
And same to you, Diogenes, who was doing the same thing.
Additionally, Lemur, you are incorrect in your assertion that Republicans cheered Bush’s generally poor performance, and now want Sarah Palin to lead them. Obama is president now precisely because of the nation’s Bush fatigue – including Republicans. And I didn’t see Palin making a difference in that election outcome; did you?
Many of you are calling the conservative schism from Republicans the “crazy wing.”
“Crazy” as in, “Let’s stop spending money we don’t have, and aren’t going to have without collapsing our dollar?” “Let’s stop thinking massive federal bureaucracies are the answer --they never run efficiently and always cost much more than advertised?”
I think that “crazy view” is gaining some traction. As you’re about to see in Virginia, New Jersey and New York next Tuesday night.
I completely agree with you.
Either one would effectively marginalize the GOP.
That can’t happen until we change our current winner-take-all single-member-district system, which is naturally bipolar, with a proportional representation system. If that interests you, check out FairVote.
“Doug is the only conservative in the race, and the only candidate who is pro-life and pro-family. That is why Concerned Women Political Action Committee has endorsed Doug Hoffman.” - Concerned Women PAC
“Doug Hoffman shares the common sense conservative principles of New York’s 23rd District. He is pro-life, committed to defending traditional marriage, and a proud supporter of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.” (the NRA endorsed Scozzafava)
“Assemblywoman Scozzafava is a tax and spend liberal in Republican clothing. Her liberal record and support of abortion on demand and gay marriage makes her unfit to represent conservatives in New York or anywhere else in this country.” - Citizens for the Republic PAC
“Dede Scozzafava is an abortion radical who does not represent the views of the growing majority of pro-life American women.” - Susan B Anthony List
We were shocked and dismayed when the Republican Party chose a rabidly pro-abortion candidate to represent the Congressional district formerly held by Representative John McHugh. As an Assemblywoman, Dede Scozzofava has demonstrated her disregard for the most vulnerable members of her district by her abysmal voting record with our organization. - Right to Life Committee
“GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava is not only theoretically in favor of gay marriage, she actually voted for it, twice,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director. “Voters in New York’s 23rd deserve a candidate who has the courage to stand up for their values, not the values of party bosses in New York or Washington.” -National Organization of Marriage (NAMBLA)
"As a lifelong Republican, I am horrified that my party chose such a pro-choice activist as its nominee. No Republican candidate for Congress should ever 'earn' the Margaret Sanger Award, as Ms. Scozzafava has," Roberts contended. "Furthermore, on the important issue of gay marriage, Scozzafava has proven how out of step she is with the district and with the party."
I don’t post these examples with the idea that it somehow proves there’s no anger about her fiscal track record too …there is. But the notion that the revolt against her was motivated it largely or even primarily by tax policy is just dead wrong.
The Wiki quote says a lot of those protesters were also unhappy with W. Bush, and the Teabaggers are really just angry about “big government”.
Sorry - can’t buy it.
After reading all of this thread and poking around elsewhere, my read of things is that they probably are genuinely upset about big government as they perceive it. They just weren’t upset enough about it while Bush was president to say anything, or at least not with the same loud indignation.
I have to conclude that they just don’t like big government when it comes from somebody they don’t cotton to. And that would be fine. They can dislike Obama if they want to. But I can only see it as dishonesty that Bush was running up all kinds of deficits, and they didn’t seem to have that big a problem about it.