Where the fucking hell do you get any of those notions? From what examples?
There are far more than two axes. That may be your problem.
I don’t believe the motto “Take our country back” refers to racial issues at all. It’s a political thing. Conservatives have long felt that the country has fallen into the hands of liberals and there was nothing much that could be done about it. Everything guiding societal mores - news programs, TV shows, movies, most magazines, celebrities, musicians, etc. - was in hands of liberals and conservatives had virtually no voice. As a result this country has gone far afield in relation to their view of what it should be. Now, with the the advent of talk radio and cable television, conservatives have been provided a rallying point from which to coalesce and form movements to fight back. The Tea Party movement is one of those, and what it wants to take back are the standards and mores that its members believe are representative of what once made this country great and a good place to live.
NOW you can inject race into the mix because that is what invariably follows mention of anything about this country that used to be good. Claims that what Tea Partiers really want is a return to racism will follow in 1…2…
My point is that politics is a spectrum. You can’t be on one end of the spectrum and also be in the middle of it. But conservatives seem to want to have both.
You never see conservatives conceding that they are not committed defenders of their conservative principles: We uphold the conservative mantle and never waver in what we believe. We defend the truth under fire and hold on to our values while society crumbles around us. We’re willing to fight for what we believe in. We are the right.
And you see conservatives saying that they are America: It’s our country and we need to take it back. We’re the common people, the average joes you want to drink a beer with. We understand you and we represent you and we share your values. We’re not those east coast or west coast elitists or beltway insiders or ivory tower intellectuals. We’re the middle.
Gee, I don’t know… Maybe from the liberals? Given that they say it’s the liberals? Nah, can’t be that. Must be racism.
It’s true that there’s a paucity of solid leaders right now, but it’s also a long way from a presidential election. We’ll see what happens.
Today’s conservative movement embraces (in highly simplified form) the philosophy of Leo Strauss, who believed that liberal, humanistic societies inevitably fall into nihilism and give way easily to tyranny.
The solution for Strauss was to preserve more traditional social structures (eg: religion), but only for the masses: the elite must encourage them but no believe in them.
The solution for today’s wingnuts is to lie to the masses in whatever way will keep them scared and divided, preferably while making them think they’re defending traditional social structures.
Yeah, well, don’t expect it to go away any time soon. For one thing, the GOP is almost certainly going to pick up seats in November – the out-party almost always picks up seats, in a midterm election – and that will encourage and embolden the Tea Partiers, who will claim credit. For another thing, right-wing populism is not an ephemeral phenomenon in America, it goes back to the early 19th Century – sometimes visible, sometimes quiescent, but always present – and it shows no signs of dying out, only of shrinking very, very slowly, and not going gentle at all into that good night.
My, if you think that your head would probably explode if actual liberals got into power. The Democratic fringes have NOT been running the show, or even the middle; its been the Right of the party. And they’ve been sucking up almost relentlessly to the Republicans in the process. If you think the Left is happy with Obama and the rest you haven’t been paying attention. I hear people on the left call him things like “Backstabber”, “pussy” and “Bush in Blackface”; I certainly don’t hear the “cheers” you imagine.
I’m still unconvinced that the OP is correct. And note that the assertion isn’t that Republicans have shifted to the right, but shifted so far to the right.
So, let’s define what we’re talking about. What do you mean by “Republicans”? From the OP, it would seem that you are talking about Republican Congressmen. And yet everyone seems to be talking about Tea Party Activists.
How do we determine that a shift to the right has taken place and how do we measure how far that shift is (assuming it even happened)?
If we don’t get that straight, we’ll just end up arguing about whether or not Tea Partiers are racist or not.
Let’s start here: The mandate that all citizens be required to have health insurance, that Republican AG’s now swear is unconstitutional and swear to challenge in Federal court, was originally a Republican idea. Nixon proposed mandatory insurance coverage by all employers. The Heritage Foundation then backed the idea of an individual requirement. Mitt Romney signed such a plan into law less that four years ago as Governor of Massachusetts, but now claims that it is a federal takeover and opposes it. So does the newest Senator, Scott Brown, who supported it and voted for it three years ago.
It’s unclear to me that Republican state AGs would have had a different reaction to such a proposal during Nixon’s time. Or that Republican Congresscritters would have been receptive to the idea.
As for Romney and Brown, there is a good argument to be made that what might work in a given state, isn’t the solution for the entire country or that state governments have powers that the federal government does not or should not have.
Besides, this whole health care fights is highly partisan, and the Republicans are trying their best to block Democratic legislation. It’s unclear if that is a shift to the right or just a partisan maneuver. I don’t think that is a good issue on which to base the broad claim that Republicans have moved “so far to the right”.
*The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.
When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.
Finally, 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical. *
This is where you should be embarrassed at how wrong you are, but instead you plow ahead oblivious.
Rasmussen leans way right. I haven’t it very reliable in years. He oversamples Republicans.
Proof: The Iraq - Al Qaeda connection
How’d that work out for you Milo? 
Seriously though, welcome back.
Not good, not good.
Ah, I forgot Rule 1:
In the face of uncomfortable facts, attack the source.
Not a very good argument, though.
They wouldn’t feel emboldened to try such a partisan maneuver if they didn’t think their base was in favor of it.
The rule is, if you’re being told something you like, it can still be a lie. Your Iraq WMD experience should have taught you that.
The second rule is, touting a noncredible source, without corroboration, as a source of “fact” is always going to make you look foolish even if it doesn’t backfire on you.
Well, speaking for myself I do so only after checking what the source says, and the question was if the polled people “believe that the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress.”
As I see it, it is like asking them if they understand what they are saying, but that does not mean that they approve.
The Rasmussen poll then is not contradicting the Quinnipiak poll that shows that Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement.
Based on how weaselly that question is I have to agree that the bias is showing from Rasmussen.
You know, they are the ones who helped pass the UHC bill. Yes there are some radical nuts who are dissatisfied because he’s not withdrawing from Afghanistan, humiliate America even more by apologizing to everyone in the world, does not federally fund abortions nor utterly socialize the health care system like Britain but they’re what they are: nuts.