Why Do You Hate The Tea Party?
Crid made a comment on this entry the other day:
I don't understand lefties who make weirdly dismissive jokes about the Tea Party. They never actually cite what fault they find in TP reckoning.
So everybody -- now's your chance. What do you hate (or like or love) about the Tea Party?
- I love that they shook the establishment and made a routine procedure, raising the debt limit, into a course change for government (albeit a small change for now)
- I love that they are adamant in their stance that we can't afford what our government wants to spend (duh!) and don't allow themselves to be trapped into DC thinking (DC thinking - we have to spend! spend! spend! regardless of revenue)
- I dislike that some have made the Tea party about religious values and deeply conservative values.
- I dislike that some prime perpetrators of federal government over spending did not get defeated because the Tea Party ran candidates that were too easily defeated.
The Tea Party is under attack because they can affect change, they can get a popular movement going. The Dems and the largely liberal MSM know this and must marginalize them.....else see their way of governing lessen. There is no way the liberals are going to let the entitlement culture decrease by one bit without a fight that involves dishonest cheap shots.
TW at August 29, 2011 11:36 PM
Because it's not like this party! (Best to click at night when the flame and light show action is going on.).
http://www.ustream.tv/burningman
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 29, 2011 11:42 PM
Now I wish I'd said it better. That happens a lot.
The thing about those jokers is that they're so proud of their bitterness that they don't bother to describe a better universe. (Kinda like, I don't know, shrugging and calling someone a "liar" instead of offering a defensible critique.)
So with flourishes too meager to replicate, lefties say things like: 'Them teapartiers is stoooopit!' And after that the subject changes pretty quickly.
Why? Why do they say these things, but resist detail? Two possibilities to consider:
Possibility [A] —— They want to continue to operate as if anyone who doesn't support Obama is racist, but they don't want to have to argue about it... Because that's the whole point! If your adversaries are racist, you don't have to engage them, and you can feel even better about your own compassionate self, even if you can't imagine having a black person visit your home without calling the cops.
(I seriously believe this is a big problem with the left, which has carried no intellectual heft since I was a kindergarten: No liberal who's grown old enough to vote after GHWB was elected in 1988 has bothered to consider our nation's challenges with humility, irony or nuance beyond bogus teenage bravado. They believe in nothing but their own virtue.)
Possibility [B] —— They just can't accept the idea that other people will no longer pay for their self-aggrandizing fantasies of charity and compassion as they have for so many years.
Important note!: [B] is not the same thing as saying where the money will come from. Sometimes when you corner them, they'll say something like 'Oh, the money's there... Of course the money's there!...' And then you ask them where, exactly, and it gets quiet as a funeral...
...Or they say something about rich people... As if we needed greater concentration of wealthy people seeking shelter through politics.
...Or, as their fantasy world collapses all around them, they say something about "household wealth", which is spooky for two reasons. Firstly, Obama's projections of indebtedness for the next four decades EXCEED American household wealth; He quite literally wants it all, and has taken steps to acquire it. Secondly, the Second Amendment still thrives, and there are plenty of thoughtful Americans who will resist.
Possibilities [A] and [B] are all I got. If you can think of anything else, be sure 'n speak up.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 30, 2011 12:00 AM
"...Obama's projections of indebtedness for the next four decades EXCEED American household wealth; He quite literally wants it all, and has taken steps to acquire it. Secondly, the Second Amendment still thrives, and there are plenty of thoughtful Americans who will resist."
This statement is the sort of thing that comes out of a lot of Tea Party rallies and is exactly why they are dismissed and laughed off. There are plenty of things to disagree with about President Obama's policies without spouting nonsense about him having plans to become a totalitarian dictator. One loses all credibility pretty darn quick like that.
So, that's why I don't like the Tea Party. Also, I feel a lot of their candidates (Bachman, Palin, Perry, Trump) are simply too uninformed to take seriously.
And yes, I also defended President Bush while he was in office against nonsense claims that he was an evil warmonger who was only going to war to line the pockets of his wealthy friends, etc.
All that tin-foil hat stuff is just too funny.
whistleDick at August 30, 2011 1:12 AM
P.S. -- I definitely don't "hate" them. I just think they can be pretty silly.
whistleDick at August 30, 2011 1:14 AM
> why they are dismissed and laughed off.
Whip out your numbers, big boy. I can't find my favorite cite, but this will have to do.
> I just think they can be pretty silly.
That would be [B], then. Heynow, Heeeeey-nooowww.....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 30, 2011 1:46 AM
TW:
a) At most Tea Party events I have tracked, there are way more Gadsen flags and posters about taxation than there are about Christian social issues.
b) There most definitely is overlap - but for the good of us all, the secular libertarian minority has to learn to live with people who frame their vision of a limited Republic in Judeo-Christian terms (and historically, they happen to be right).
Let's work together to move these topics out of the purview of an ever-expanding Federal government - after which secular and religious folks can debate these issues locally at the state/community level, as they should.
Ben David at August 30, 2011 3:16 AM
I'm sick of hearing them referred to as "Teabaggers". Sorry folks, but while there may be some in the party that are, most don't do this. It's another attempt at ridicule and marginalization.
And is also shows the shallow discourse that people now resort to using in politics. It's pretty disgusting.
Steve at August 30, 2011 4:06 AM
For the most part they are thinly veiled religious extremists.
Andrew Hall at August 30, 2011 4:27 AM
Three problems, all of which are difficult:
- By trying to largely work within the Republican party, the Tea Party message is diluted. Big government republicans can say the right words and pretend to be Tea Pary candidates. It's hard to tell the two apart.
- The religious right is strongly represented in the Tea Party. I disagree with Ben David that this is good: mixing in conservative religious issues dilutes the message about smaller government, and alienates potential allies.
- Many Tea Partiers (particularly, the older generation) are still unable to accept that *their* programs also have to be cut. Want less government, guess what: not only "his" and "her" programs are going to get cut - *your* Social Security and Medicare are going under the axe too.
At this point, it seems entirely likely that the Tea Party will be eaten by the Republican party, which will pay lip-service to smaller government while doing nothing...
a_random_guy at August 30, 2011 4:28 AM
Crid and TW pretty much summed it up for me. I think another reason people hate the tea party so much because they don't bother being PC. They have a POV, and they stick to it. They are consistant. They are extreme. And that scares the hell outta Liberals because the left prefers warm fuzzy politics over actually having to actually HAVE a stance at all.
"So, that's why I don't like the Tea Party. Also, I feel a lot of their candidates (Bachman, Palin, Perry, Trump) are simply too uninformed to take seriously."
I'll give you that on Trump and Bachman. But lets not throw Palin into that mix. She's quite smart. Smarter than most male politicians in my opinion. The problem people have with her is that she's not afraid to show it and that scares the shit out of liberals.
Before anyone throws out all the bullshit "she's so stupid" statements keep in mind... All the quotes that she's been "quoted" on... most of it isn't even hers, or it's been twisted and taken out of context. And almost everything she's been lambasted for because it was "wrong"? Turns out, she was actually historically and factually correct most of the time. It's too bad that people were too blinded by thier bias to actually understand that.
She is also very good on the spot. She's able to format her thoughts, and express them, albeit with a few stumbles, in a matter of moments. Obama can't do that without speechwriters and rehearsal; he can barely form a coherent sentence on his own. Biden has sure had his share of "Do'h" moments but you don't see anyone writing books (only 20 pages long and in 45 font) about his missteps and selling them to deliberately discredit him do you?
What irritates me the most though is that people feel it's okay to insult Palin, and her CHILDREN. It's totally okay to call Palin a "redneck", "nazi", and other female vulgarities and say things I will not repeat about her children and her mentally handicapped son but heaven forbid anyone dares say one word about Obamas clan. No. Going after the children shows me that those people have little to no moral compass, have no logical arguments against her, and are just weak. And any polititian who allows it, is just as low.
Sabrina at August 30, 2011 5:12 AM
I will say though... I am a tea party supporter for the principles but A_Random_guy, you do make compelling statements.
Sabrina at August 30, 2011 5:15 AM
I hear them talk the talk, but I don't see them walk the walk.
damaged justice at August 30, 2011 5:38 AM
There is a lot of hate here for what is supposed to be a group with one objective: Live within your means.
MarkD at August 30, 2011 6:40 AM
So, damaged justice... what would be walking the walk? Electing people? Staging protests, and media events?
What exactly would walking the walk look like to you?
I think what most people hate is that it's a movement rather than a "party" per se...
so status quo politics has a problem because they are causing problems from the outside... and they are impolitic.
It bothers both political parties that the TEA's want to re-visit presuppositions and entitlements, rather than just accepting them... though the TEA's aren't monolithic, of course. Some people will want to cut entitlements, others will want to pick and choose...
But the important thing is to ASK the Q? And to elect people who ask questions.
Status Quo political parties don't want to revisit presuppositions at all... and that's why TEA's are hated, IMHO.
SwissArmyD at August 30, 2011 6:44 AM
I can tell you what walking the walk definitely is not: Screaming for less government, then turning around and whining for more.
damaged justice at August 30, 2011 7:03 AM
They started as a group advocating smaller government, and I was with them there. But they've turned into a bunch of religious nutters -- the worst of the far-right christian conservatives are calling themselves tea partiers. Many tea partiers don't seem to be all that interested in the economic issues anymore. I don't see much in the way of actual ideas coming from that front -- just a lot of Jesus talk with a bit of screeching about taxes.
The tea party's presidential candidate is Bachmann. That tells you quite a bit about the people running the movement. Sure, Bachmann blabs a lot about cutting spending, but doesn't have the first idea about how to do it, which becomes clearer every time she speaks. She blabs a lot more about Jesus and how she doesn't believe in evolution, and how she'd like to teach creationishm in public schools.
We need a tea party-ish movement -- but I'd like to see one on a clean libertarian slate. No churchy-Jesusy mumbo-jumbo. No talk about teaching creationism in school. Just clear talk on the economy and the real issues facing our country, with concrete ideas on how to repair them. I'd nominate Gary Johnson as our 2012 candidate.
Gail at August 30, 2011 7:18 AM
The hypocrisy, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy. And the insistence on rejecting reality in favor of how they feel about something.
Although in all fairness, I think you could say that about the left and the right.
Choika at August 30, 2011 7:36 AM
The problem, really, is that the media have erected an elaborate straw-tea-party and people are responding to that with their hatred (which was the point).
The "Tea Party" is not a monolithic entity. It is most certainly NOT a Christian Fundamentalist movement. Certainly, there are religious and political fringe groups that have attempted to co-opt the mantle of the "Tea Party" movement, but that happens everywhere.
The core of the Tea Party was formed when ObamaCare was shoved down our throats without anyone in Congress actually READING it.
The reason the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) hate the Tea party (and want you to hate them too) is that they represent the first true threat to the Social Democracy/Social Justice movement of the Progressive left that have run the Democratic party almost unimpeded since 1968.
The reason the Republican hierarchy finds them distasteful is that they represent the first real challenge to their plutocratic rent-seeking careerist attitudes that cause them to "go along to get along" with the Democrats.
Which is why the rest of them like the movement. It's tearing the scales away from everyone's eyes and forcing them to take sides in a way that nothing has in my lifetime.
It's no longer Democrat vs. Republican. Now it's Statist vs. Individualist. And the Statists are losing.
brian at August 30, 2011 7:59 AM
I can tell you what walking the walk definitely is not: Screaming for less government, then turning around and whining for more.
Yeah, that in a nutshell, is the problem I have with the Tea Party.
Other than that, the criticisms of them could be applied to any group (liberal or conservative) that whips itself into a rabid frenzy over a "movement." I lived in DC when the tea partiers were basically camped out at the Capitol protesting health care reform. The I'd say about half were well-informed and were eager to talk about their concerns in a polite manner, even when it came to points we disagreed on.
The other half? Well, there were a lot of posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache. And a lot of people grasping at "values" straws. A lot of "birthers." It was also around this time that some tea partiers in Ohio mocked a guy who appeared to have with Parkinson's disease and threw dollar bills at him.
In DC, I had one guy wearing a "Kill the Bill" t-shirt tell me that he'd like to buy me a drink...but that he wouldn't pay for my abortion next month. But, then again, protests of any kind attract the crazies. Michele Bachmann would come outside and give little stump speeches and really rile the crowd. Those were some fun days that I sorely miss.
sofar at August 30, 2011 8:06 AM
"For the most part they are thinly veiled religious extremists."
You got proof, or do you simply feeeel it?
"can tell you what walking the walk definitely is not: Screaming for less government, then turning around and whining for more."
See above question as well.
I go to tea party rallies. I am a proud tea partier. I see a lot of "don't tread on me" and a lot of "government needs a Dave Ramsey course" and "stop the spending" and a fair amount of "balanced budget ammendment" signs, but I've yet to see one about anything religious at all. And I'm in the bible belt.
momof4 at August 30, 2011 8:07 AM
For the most part, all I'm seeing are the standard responses to leftist/media portrayals of the Tea Party, particularly the "religious extremist" thing, which has no basis in reality.
Then there's damaged justice's (and Choika's and sofar's) complaint about hypocrisy or "not walking the walk." Whether or not this is true (hey, give us time, we've been in existence for a couple years), which would you rather have - a group that talks the talk (fiscal responsibility) and is trying to walk the walk; or a group that utterly rejects the talk and calls the walk a racist? You all are rejecting the Tea Party - supposedly because we're hypocrites on fiscal responsibility - and in doing so, giving further power to the left, which has shown absolutely zero sign of ever even considering fiscal responsibility. I don't get your logic, at all.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 8:20 AM
They are young and still finding/figuring out themselves. It is a good but dangerous time for a new group because People can jump on the bandwaggon and try to be leaders without any concept of what the group stands for.
As for the idea not walking the walk, it is mainly a hatchet job by media trying to poll or interview only certain members, in order to discredit or marginalize them.
Joe at August 30, 2011 8:26 AM
When a vehicle is headed for a cliff, the proper response (assuming one wants to live) is not to slow down, but to hit the brakes and go into reverse. The vast majority of those who claim to oppose "the left" are merely "standing astride history, yelling 'Not so fast!'" Or, "Not in the face!"
damaged justice at August 30, 2011 8:52 AM
@damaged justice - So what's the alternative to the Tea Party, if they're not doing enough, fast enough for you? What group out there is a better option at this point?
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 8:58 AM
You got proof, or do you simply feeeel it?
Teapartiers came out in support of the TX sonogram bill. Now, I recognize the possibility that those who supported it did so as individuals outside their affiliation with the Tea Party. But...if someone is part of a group that supports small government, it strikes me as odd that they'd publicly support a measure that increases the govt's role.
I do agree with those who are pointing out that it's a young movement AND that the media are (unfairly) portraying them all as goons. I've been to a half dozen tea party rallies/protests and attended CPAC a few years ago. And it was refreshing to see a lot of young people who self-identify as tea partiers who want nothing more than to throw out the Bible-thumping, gay-hating vitriolic crazies who identify as conservatives out and actually get some sh*t done.
sofar at August 30, 2011 9:06 AM
@sofar - "But...if someone is part of a group that supports small government, it strikes me as odd that they'd publicly support a measure that increases the govt's role."
Supporting "smaller government" can't be taken as some kind of blanket statement. Tea Partiers aren't anarchists. By and large, we recognize that government is essential in our lives. We simply think that government, in its current form, has vastly exceeded its necessity and needs to be seriously cut, not eliminated. I would guess that a majority of Tea Partiers would be okay with increasing our defense budget, for example. That doesn't make us hypocrites on small government.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 9:12 AM
The alternative is not joining any group, and recognizing that individual action is all. The only thing human beings can do as a group is riot mindlessly.
damaged justice at August 30, 2011 9:17 AM
I don't hate the Tea Party. I have a lot of respect for what they have done: organize a group of voters around a few key issues, and force their representatives in government to respond. Despite there being relatively few Tea Party representatives and Senators, it was the Tea Party agenda that Republican leadership was following in the debt ceiling fight. Everyone in the Republican caucus now fears the Tea Party primary challenge; it's a very effective force multiplier. The Tea Party has made our politics more responsive to voters, and has brought largely neglected issues to the fore. I give them credit for doing so. I don't think the Tea Party is racist. I don't think the Tea Party is a religious extremist movement (though there certainly is a substantial overlap between religious conservatives and Tea Partiers).
I don't support the Tea Party, however. I think the Tea Party is incorrect in its policy prescriptions about handling the debt (Obama is, too. He missed a big opportunity in rejecting out of hand the Simpson-Bowles commision's recommendations). I also disagree with the Tea Party in its fetishism for Comstitutional originalism; I believe the Constitution was intended to be a living document that outlined fundamental principles for our country, not something set in stone. I think the Tea Party's procedural extremism threatens our government's ability to function in an orderly fashion (I recognize this is a feature, not a bug, to supporters).
tl;dr Respect the Tea Party; can't support them.
Christopher at August 30, 2011 9:18 AM
None of the Tea Party events I've been to had any religious content.
And I live in the South.
lsomber at August 30, 2011 9:19 AM
They promoted Bachman as a serious presidential candidate.
Elle at August 30, 2011 9:22 AM
Well how many of the complainers have been to actual tea party events or are relying on CNN and so forth for their info? I have been to about 4 rallies over the last 1.5 years and haven't seen any of the religios stuff they are being accused of. As for walking the walk how do you propose they do that? where possible they have elected people who will stand up to the status quo and made serious inroads to change the way of thinking in DC. Beyond that lets see some proof of the accusations not just talk. Hyperlinks please if so much of these things are happening.
RobertS at August 30, 2011 9:23 AM
@damaged justice - "The alternative is not joining any group, and recognizing that individual action is all."
The Tea Party is as close as you'll get to individual action that still has any sort of political efficacy. All you're suggesting is to allow the strong/organized to trample everyone else.
"The only thing human beings can do as a group is riot mindlessly."
I'm sorry, but that's drivel.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 9:31 AM
I don't hate the Tea Party. I don't identify with them either. I feel that the Tea Party is really struggling with identity problems and is having growing pains. They are too disparate a collection to have any particular reliability about the ideals, policies or candidates.
Right now the Tea Party seems to be a catch all for people that are not in support of recently traditional Republican values, Democratic social welfare and unelectable third parties.
It is interesting to witness, but not entirely comfortable.
LauraGr at August 30, 2011 9:51 AM
I don't hate Tea Partiers but there are things about it that bother me. I first hasten to say that the concern that many of them have about runaway federal spending & debt is on target.
However:
- A lot of them are scientifically unknowledgeable. An Oct. 21, 2010 NY Times article found that the % of tea partiers who accept that humans have a role in global warming (some of them don't even acknowledge worldwide warming) is not only significantly higher than the U.S. public at large, but also Republicans. There's also a significant contingent of people in the Tea Party who don't even accept evolution.
- We are seeing some of the flakiest political candidates ever from the Tea Party. Christine O'Donnell is the perfect example. Michelle Bachmann is another.
- It's a bit suprising that it took the election of a Democrat to the presidency to get them to notice excess federal spending. For example, where were these folks in 2003 when the Bush Administration arm-twisted the Republican Congress into enacting a prescription drug benefit for seniors with no revenue stream backing the new entitlement?
Iconoclast at August 30, 2011 10:04 AM
If I had to boil down my issue with Teabaggers down to their essence, it would be that they can say insane, moronic shit like this with a straight face:
"But lets not throw Palin into that mix. She's quite smart. Smarter than most male politicians in my opinion. The problem people have with her is that she's not afraid to show it and that scares the shit out of liberals.
Before anyone throws out all the bullshit "she's so stupid" statements keep in mind... All the quotes that she's been "quoted" on... most of it isn't even hers, or it's been twisted and taken out of context. And almost everything she's been lambasted for because it was "wrong"? Turns out, she was actually historically and factually correct most of the time. It's too bad that people were too blinded by thier bias to actually understand that.
She is also very good on the spot. She's able to format her thoughts, and express them, albeit with a few stumbles, in a matter of moments. Obama can't do that without speechwriters and rehearsal; he can barely form a coherent sentence on his own. "
Josh Olson at August 30, 2011 10:10 AM
@Iconoclast - if adherence to the leftist party line on global warming is your litmus test, then all you're left with is the Democrats. I fail to see how that's going to help us deal with "runaway federal spending & debt."
"There's also a significant contingent of people in the Tea Party who don't even accept evolution."
Evidence of this? Or, as an alternative counter - there's a significant contingent of people in the Democratic party who think communism/socialism works. Which is more damaging?
We are seeing some of the flakiest political candidates ever from the Tea Party. Christine O'Donnell is the perfect example. Michelle Bachmann is another." Dennis Kucinich? Robert Byrd? Maxine Waters? Cynthia McKinney? Jon Conyers? Ted Kennedy? I could go on and on and on.
"It's a bit suprising that it took the election of a Democrat to the presidency to get them to notice excess federal spending."
This is such nonsense. Utter, total nonsense. Do you think Bush's approval ratings were as low as they were because just Democrats were disappointed in him? Besides which, Obama has exponentionally increased federal spending well beyond what Bush could have ever conceived.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 10:17 AM
@Josh Olson - looks like Sabrina really touched a nerve. Clean the flecks of spittle off your monitor before you continue, please.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 10:22 AM
Proof of the tea parties far Christian right leanings? The candidates they are supporting.
It's not Gary Johnson or Ron Paul -- their platforms really are focusing on smaller government and lowering taxes. Instead, the tea party has championed Bachmann, Perry, Trump, and Palin. They've got a few vague, unsupported, hopey-changy statements about the economy, and then its all about bringing Jaysus into our government and creationism into our schools and amending our freaking constitution to put in stuff about marriage and abortion.
I'm sure you'd agree that the candidates the Democrats put forward tells you a lot about the direction the Democratic party is taking. Why wouldn't you think the Tea Party's candidates tell you something about the core of the Tea Party?
I'm fiscally conservative and believe in small government. And while I've been holding my nose while voting for a decade or two, I'd slash my wrists before I'd vote for Bachmann and Perry. I believe they'd bring a whole lotta Jaysus into my life, I don't see much likelihood for them shrinking the government or the deficit.
Gail at August 30, 2011 10:57 AM
I have a friend who loathes the tea party. He is quite liberal too, but the hatred is palpable and is beyond reason. Then again he is white and bought the whole hopey changey thing. Look folks, this system we have either does a serious correction or goes the way of the soviet union.
ronc at August 30, 2011 10:58 AM
@Josh Olson - They aren't "Teabaggers". They are part of the Tea Party. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the negative sexual connotations to describe the group.
And I second what JDThompson said to you.
Steve at August 30, 2011 11:02 AM
And where's Patrick in this? He's always got something negative to say about the Tea Party. In this case, at least it will be appropriate to the post.
Steve at August 30, 2011 11:03 AM
then its all about bringing Jaysus into our government and creationism into our schools and amending our freaking constitution to put in stuff about marriage and abortion. Gail
Yes! The stated desire of a candidate to amend the US Constitution is a big, fat, red flag for me. If the desired change does not protect all of us USA-icans, then fuggedaboutit.
Currently, the US Constitution has only two groups that expressly do not have full rights: Prisoners and non-citizens. I do not want to see it changed based on some candidate's religious affiliations.
LauraGr at August 30, 2011 11:10 AM
Lefties are like seventh grade girls— They have no meaningful experience of the world and their brassieres are empty, but they've just learned about Freud: Some truths are hidden, they know this now! And guess what! The truth is what ever they happen to want it to be, and only they can see it!
Isn't that remarkable? Isn't it fascinating that such naive people should have such chokehold on insight and the motivations of others? Go back and read the comments: The Tea Party is REALLY about "religious nutters"! Or psychobabble like "They are young and still finding/figuring out themselves."
Nobody is answering their question, the focuis that's given Tea Partiers enduriong power: WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?
TP critics don't want to talk about money, ever. Religion, brains, maturity, ANYTHING but the bottom line.
Yet here we are.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 30, 2011 11:22 AM
@Gail - it's quite rich that you're all up in arms about conservatives supposedly contemplating "putting stuff into the Constitution" about abortion.
But yes, as Crid says - Tea Party critics are quite capable of coming up with non-fiscal reasons to hate. Issues that are only tangentally related to the Tea Party. And meanwhile they completely ignore the fact that the only alternative to the Tea Party is the Democrats. That's the only issue worth a damn right now.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 11:30 AM
@JDThompson
Supporting "smaller government" can't be taken as some kind of blanket statement. Tea Partiers aren't anarchists. By and large, we recognize that government is essential in our lives.
I'm with you there. But the Tea Party is overwhelmingly against health care reform -- because it limits consumers' choices when it comes to their care, because it tries to control doctors (even when safety is not an issue), and because it clogs the health care system with an insane amount of regulations. And these are all great reasons for being opposed to health care reform.
But...
The sonogram law in Texas does all these things in an even more literal, invasive way. And it was written by Sen. Dan Patrick (TX teaparty caucus chairman).
Supporting a bigger defense budget (to use your example) and the sonogram law is not hypocritical at all. But supporting the sonogram law and railing against health care reform is quite inconsistent. And that's where I see the Tea Party's message getting muddled -- and why, although I don't "hate" them, I can't support them (being pro-choice).
sofar at August 30, 2011 11:31 AM
@sofar - I'm extremely confused by your comment.
You seem to be against Obamacare, listing a bunch of terrible effects it will have on our healthcare system. One of the central tenents to the Tea Party - perhaps the single most important in terms of its creation - is opposition and repeal of Obamacare. But you oppose the Tea Party because it helped pass a law in a single state that will require women to view a sonogram of their fetus before having an abortion?
BTW, another central tenent of the Tea Party is states' rights. A single law in a single state covering a single aspect of medical practice is drastically different from a nationwide, industry-wide program that's mandatory for every single American (except those who know someone in Washington - ie unions, politically-favored corporations, Congress etc).
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 11:50 AM
Amending the constitution is a non issue, it isn't going to happen. Increasing defense spending? We need to slash all spending, including defense. I am ok with the tea party, but yes, if is ok to be religious and all, bit it cannot be part of your platform. What I have seen of the tea party, they just want our country to move more to the center as in the past decade we have gone to far left, yes starting with dubya. I said all along we needed a special tax to pay for out wars, it was just the right thing to do and the best way to make sure they were not open ended.
ronc at August 30, 2011 11:51 AM
> Tea Party critics are quite capable of
> coming up with non-fiscal reasons to hate.
> Issues that are only tangentally related
> to the Tea Party.
Thank you! Thank you for saying that! Thank you for GETTING it. (I loathe that expression and am ashamed for having used it... But sheesh.)
Tea Party critics seem to think these other things, these things they imagine to be the true forces at work in TP hearts, were not things they were going to have to deal with anyway. Do you follow that? This is really convoluted chess. it's like they're saying 'What you really care about is abortion, but since you're pretending it's money, I'm not going to engage with you on THAT, either!'
JESUS CHRIST, WE'RE OUT OF MONEY AND YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ABORTION?
The left is insane. Insane.
___________________
I don't understand this, though:
> the only alternative to the Tea Party
> is the Democrats.
?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 30, 2011 11:56 AM
It will be interesting to see if The Tea Party (TTP) is able to shake off some of their fringe and become a legitimate (electable) third party. The current two party system needs a kick in the ass. I just do not feel TTP has a collective will strong enough to do that. Yet.
LauraGr at August 30, 2011 11:57 AM
@Crid
I don't understand this, though:
> the only alternative to the Tea Party
> is the Democrats.
My point is that there's not really another choice at this point in history. You can either support the right or the left. "The Right" is the Tea Party. Without Tea Party support, the GOP is dead in the water. So, the way I see it, people can either support the Tea Party; or they're either directly or indirectly supporting the Democrats.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 12:07 PM
To try to clarify: Some people on here seem to think there's some viable third option out there. They claim to hate the overspending, the debt, etc, but won't support the Tea Party because of some single-issue; or because of some perceived radical religious agenda.
But at this point in time, in the 2012 election cycle, it's either the Tea Party or the Democrats. There's no third way.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 12:10 PM
I am 44 years old and I have voted in every election since turning 18. I can say with all honesty that I never NEVER voted for any candidate. Not really. Practically speaking, of course I have.
My reasoning is always more along the line of "Which candidate do I dislike the least? Which one will do the least harm?"
It seems there is always a Bad, Worse and an Impossible choice. And I have to decide the least bad option based on my values and experiences. Or cast my vote for someone I do not like to keep someone I truly despise out of office. Lovely.
Cynical? Yep.
LauraGr at August 30, 2011 12:28 PM
Last I knew, the Congress distributed Blue State tax dollars to Red States. Despite this, no hatred here for the Tea Party. Jus' the usual annoyance with some of the hypocrisy described at:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/08/30/last-resort-2/
Andre Friedmann at August 30, 2011 12:34 PM
JESUS CHRIST, WE'RE OUT OF MONEY
Debatable!
If the U.S. government were a household, it would be in deep dooky.
But since we are not a household, and have ways of dealing with deficits households lack, that's not a good analogy. For example, our government is currently making money by paying with credit (really, it's true - treasury yields are currently negative).
And none of this means Tea Party priorities on how to address the deficit are the right ones, or even ones that will solve the problem.
There's no third way.
What about an establishment Republicans who would have a much easier time getting moderate votes that Tea Party types? E.g., Mitt Romney instead of Bachmann?
Christopher at August 30, 2011 12:37 PM
You haven't been paying attention. Remember Porkbusters?
brian at August 30, 2011 12:38 PM
Oh, another point...
All those "Obama Hitler" posters (or at least all the ones I saw) were printed and being held by Lindon LaRouche supporters. He has run as for the democratic presidential nomination 7 times.
Leo at August 30, 2011 12:42 PM
@Andre - Last I checked, California was not a red state.
@Christopher - "Establishment" Republicans ARE THE REASON THE TEA PARTY EXISTS. We don't support Romney because other than the religious/social issues he's indistinguishable from the establishment Democrats.
The Tea Party folks, disparate as they are, are all interested in one thing - making government shrink.
Rick Perry said one thing that made us swoon: "I will make it my job to make Washington as irrelevant to your daily lives as possible."
That is what the 2010 election was about. That is what the 2012 election will be about. We have two choices - stop the social welfare state from destroying the world's economy, or punch it and drive off the cliff.
Obama's already got the accelerator floored.
brian at August 30, 2011 12:43 PM
@Leo - In fact, pretty much all bad behavior, from alleged racial slurs, to assaults, to "hitler" posters came from the left. The SEIU was sending goons in to start trouble so the media could breathlessly proclaim TEA PARTY VIOLENCE in the hopes they could get the movement shut down.
brian at August 30, 2011 12:45 PM
@JDThompson
I'm extremely confused by your comment. You seem to be against Obamacare, listing a bunch of terrible effects it will have on our healthcare system (...) But you oppose the Tea Party because it helped pass a law in a single state that will require women to view a sonogram of their fetus before having an abortion?
Yep. Also, TX isn't the only state that has passed such laws recently. I just happen to live there, so it's the one I mentioned.
My point was just that the Tea Party claims to stand for one thing -- and then, within the scope of the very same issue (health care), its leaders do the opposite and pat themselves on the back for doing the "right thing."
I am in no way saying that makes them worse than the Democrats of the Republicans...It simply makes them no different. And therefore I do not trust them to do what they say they will do.
sofar at August 30, 2011 1:05 PM
@Christopher - And none of this means Tea Party priorities on how to address the deficit are the right ones, or even ones that will solve the problem.
Oh boy. Okay, I'll bite. What are the "right" ways to solve the problem.
What about an establishment Republicans who would have a much easier time getting moderate votes that Tea Party types? E.g., Mitt Romney instead of Bachmann?
And yeah, brian's exactly right. The Tea Party is almost as much a reaction to so-called "moderate Republicans" as it is to Democrats. Which is also a response to the stupid "Where were you when Bush was spending?!" tripe. Bush and Romney and their ilk aimed us at the cliff. Obama and the Dems slammed their foot on the accelerator.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 1:07 PM
Oh boy. Okay, I'll bite. What are the "right" ways to solve the problem.
Something along the lines of of the plan proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission. A combination of spending cuts, tax simplification, and some revenue increases; weighted toward, but not exclusively comprised of spending cuts.
Christopher at August 30, 2011 1:12 PM
@sofar - But you can't see the difference in between a law that simply requires a woman to get a sonogram before aborting her baby and a mandatory, nationwide nationalization of our healthcare system? You really can't see how a person could tentatively support the former on a state level and vehemently oppose the other on a national level?
And you claim that you can't support the Tea Party because you're "pro-choice." But you support the Democrats, who, as you admit, have passed this nationwide law that will drastically reduce medical choice for every single person in the country?
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 1:12 PM
"Something along the lines of of the plan proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission. A combination of spending cuts, tax simplification, and some revenue increases; weighted toward, but not exclusively comprised of spending cuts."
Good f'ing grief. Who do you think is more likely to introduce anything remotely close to this? The Democrats or the Tea Party? What on Earth would ever make you think that the Democrats would ever even consider spending cuts?
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 1:15 PM
@JD -
Because he believes that the Democrats actually have the best interests of the United States and her people at heart.
A common mistake.
The reality is that their position is somewhere between malice and benign neglect.
brian at August 30, 2011 1:25 PM
Who do you think is more likely to introduce anything remotely close to this? The Democrats or the Tea Party?
I don't think that either one is likely to do it, alone. I think a deal like that only will happen via a bipartisan compromise; it would entail too many things each party's base will hate. In such negotiations, the Tea Party members of Congress unlikely to compromise to cut a deal. In a divided government, this means nothing of substance gets done; which I think is bad for our country.
Christopher at August 30, 2011 1:31 PM
Because he believes that the Democrats actually have the best interests of the United States and her people at heart.
I'm fully capable of articulating what I believe, thanks.
Christopher at August 30, 2011 1:32 PM
@Christopher -
The Democrats had total control of Congress and the Presidency at the beginning of Obama's term. They could have basically done anything they wanted. They chose to drastically hike spending to levels unimaginable a couple years ago. Now Obama has chosen to totally ignore the recommendations of his own commission. And you're blaming it on the Tea Party, the only people in the room who are even discussing spending cuts? Paul Ryan came up with a plan to reform/cut entitlements, which HAS to happen. And the Democrats raked him over the coals. The Tea Party tried desperately to secure real, legitimate spending cuts during the debt ceiling negotiations, and Obama and the Dems refused. And yet you just blame it on the Tea Party. You're insane.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 1:37 PM
Then why do you still think that "bipratisan compromise" is possible with the Democrats who said that they won't even consider spending cuts unless there are massive tax hikes?
The last time we fell for that, we got no spending cuts at all.
The Democrats are not interested in shrinking government, and that is the only solution there is that does not involve complete fiscal ruin.
brian at August 30, 2011 1:38 PM
@JDThompson
Now, to be fair, I don't recall ever writing I supported the Democrats. My voting patterns are best summed up by LauraGr above.
But you can't see the difference in between a law that simply requires a woman to get a sonogram before aborting her baby and a mandatory, nationwide nationalization of our healthcare system?
I think requiring a woman to miss an extra day of work and pay for a medical expense that is not needed (and doesn't make a legal procedure any safer) is just as invasive as requiring everyone to get health insurance. I suspect we'll differ on that.
I find it fishy that the Tea Party's leaders say it's atrocious to force adults to pay for health care they don't want or need and wrong that the government would ever come between a doctor and a patient -- and then say, "Well...in some cases it's OK, I guess." At the very least, I'd doubt their commitment to other more "important" issues if they can't stay consistent on a major part of their platform.
In any case, if I'm guilty of letting my "emotions" and "values" get in the way when it comes to this one narrow issue...then so is the Tea Party.
sofar at August 30, 2011 1:48 PM
@sofar - you cannot, however, treat the "Tea Party" as a monolithic establishment, because there is no central authority that sets the agenda.
Sure, there are people and groups who have TRIED to claim the mantle of control, but they are full of shit.
And if you're going to let your support for abortion lead to the fiscal destruction of the entire nation, then you've got your priorities more than a little fucked up.
brian at August 30, 2011 1:51 PM
@sofar
"Now, to be fair, I don't recall ever writing I supported the Democrats. My voting patterns are best summed up by LauraGr above."
That's all well and good, but at this point in time, you've got two choices. You can vote for the Tea Party/GOP, or you can vote to keep us on our path to fiscal ruin. If there's a realistic third choice, by all means, let me know. I find it mind-boggling that you're basing your decision on a single state law. It's not like Democrats have shown a lack of hypocrisy, on every single issue out there. And yet you're going to dismiss the only group consistently talking about real fiscal discipline because of a local law you don't like. Sheesh.
JDThompson at August 30, 2011 2:00 PM
The last time we fell for that, we got no spending cuts at all.
When was the last time Republicans agreed to that? My recollection is that the last bipartisan deficit reduction bill occurred under GHWB in 1990.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/06/25/A-Budget-Deal-That-Did-Reduce-the-Deficit.aspx#page1
The Tea Party tried desperately to secure real, legitimate spending cuts during the debt ceiling negotiations, and Obama and the Dems refused. And yet you just blame it on the Tea Party. You're insane.
You'll have to point me to where I blamed it on the Tea Party, or suggested I thought the Democrats handled the issue well. In fact, if you scroll up a ways to my first comment today, you'll see what I wrote that I though Obama missed the boat in dismissing the Simpson-Bowles recommendations out of hand.
Obama and the Democrats refused the large cuts because the Republicans would not compromise on taxes. As long as there are enough Democrats in the Senate to filibuster (not to mention when they control the Senate and Presidency), any big spending reductions are necessarily going to have to come with some tax increases.
Christopher at August 30, 2011 2:05 PM
I don't think most people hate the Tea Partiers, but don't see it as a more viable option than what they have. Like Obama, there are very few of the mainstream tea party candidates who have an actual plan to change things around. Quite frankly, I'm tired of this being all on the President's shoulders.
Don't get me wrong, I was a fan of Obama and I don't like where this country is going, but he by no stretch of the imagination did this alone, in this one term, and the change of the president is unlikely to make huge leaps and bounds in making future changes. We need to start with the many, many, many lifetime Congressman and senators. They are voted in year after year and have no problem with voting to increase the budget. The overall federal budget has increased steadily, the debt ceiling raised over 70 times over the years. We've been on this track for a long time, but the media, no matter how biased you may think it is, is the reason we even know that there's an issue with the budget.
The tea partiers have talked a good game, but I don't see them with any more of a plan than the other two parties. I'm only 30 and feel that we should really start over. I don't see a change of a few people making any significant change in our debt, our leadership, or the problems. I don't know if Social Security will exist, but I live in a state where I'm unsure that my child will be granted financial aid because the politicians are voting to add illegal aliens (the actual legal term) to the pool of potential recepients. I just think it's all bullshit.
One last thing, we don't know what it's like to be in the office, and since a politicians main game is to stay in office, concessions fly like crazy on ALL sides - or you just go unheard.
NikkiG at August 30, 2011 2:07 PM
The only poster I've ever seen depicting Obama with a Hitler moustache was being held by a black man. He was in a photograph, so I couldn't ask him whether he was a LaRoucher.
damaged justice at August 30, 2011 2:42 PM
Tax increases are always front-loaded (they come today) while spending reductions are timed for after the next election (and are never actually implemented).
Both Reagan and GWH Bush were hoodwinked by a Democratic Congress that promised spending reductions tomorrow in exchange for tax increases today.
As a sign of good faith, let's have some entitlement spending reductions that take effect today. Then we'll talk about tax increases tomorrow.
I like the way Crid put it a few weeks ago: taking more money out of the hands of the productive classes should never by the default position.
That's the job.
He kinda did. Obama has increased the national debt faster than any president in history.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/08/obama-national-debt.html
"That means the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That's the fastest increase under any president ever."
"The nation's debt increased $4.9 trillion under President Bush too, btw. But it took him 2,648 days to do it. Obama will surpass that sum during this term."
=========================
Ask yourselves which is more dangerous to the long-term health of the country: a president who believes in the flying spaghetti monster but does not try to make you believe in it, or a president who refuses to accept that the country is broke and the economy is crippled and insists on more taxes, more regulations, and more spending?
Conan the Grammarian at August 30, 2011 2:46 PM
>> JESUS CHRIST, WE'RE OUT OF MONEY
> Debatable!
Then why don't Tea Party critics want to debate it? Why do they blindly trust government to take on ever more debt?
Don't be so promiscuous with your exclamation marks... If your arguments were deft and spry, they'd sell themselves.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 30, 2011 3:06 PM
Amending the constitution is a non issue, it isn't going to happen. ronc
Why? Given the candidates stated positions, why disregard some of their stances and embrace others? We cannot dissect the candidate and get only part of them.... the part we agree with... elected.
If a candidate tells the press they plan on attempting to change the Constitution, that is huge. I cannot simply disregard it because I may like some of the other things they say.
This is definitely something that I consider when comparing candidates and issues that are important to me.
LauraGr at August 30, 2011 3:09 PM
This is a dead giveaway that the person worried about it has no understanding of how the Constitution works.
Do you know how hard it is to amend the Constitution? Do you think you're going to get 38 states to ratify whatever it is you're worried about? And if 38 states worth of people support something, is it not possible that you're on the wrong side of the issue?
There is only one issue in the coming election - which party will force the federal government to live within its means and stop mortgaging the future to buy votes now.
Everything else is noise.
brian at August 30, 2011 3:33 PM
Tax increases are always front-loaded (they come today) while spending reductions are timed for after the next election (and are never actually implemented).
I'm pretty sure that does not have to be the case.
Both Reagan and GWH Bush were hoodwinked by a Democratic Congress that promised spending reductions tomorrow in exchange for tax increases today.
Not true. See my link above in reference to GHWB's deal.
As a sign of good faith, let's have some entitlement spending reductions that take effect today. Then we'll talk about tax increases tomorrow.
That is vanishingly unlikely to happen. I've written this before. I'll probably have to write this again.
Entitlement reform is going to have to involve both parties, and it will have to come with some tax increases (Democrats will insist upon it). Entitlement reform will be unpopular - people love their SS and Medicare, and will resent cuts. To prevent a single-party bloodbath in the next election, these cuts are going to need to be accomplished in a way as to have both parties share the blame and have something to take back to their respective bases. Reagan's SS deal in 1983 shows how this can be done.
Then why don't Tea Party critics want to debate it?
The Tea Party has a point: we need to address our structural deficits (the freaking out isn't warranted, though). I disagree with them on their prescriptions and tactics, and am happy to debate those. Have been doing so.
Don't be so promiscuous with your exclamation marks...
Sez the guy writing with caps lock on.
Christopher at August 30, 2011 3:34 PM
Christopher -
There have been no REAL cuts to government spending in my lifetime. Only reductions in the rate of growth.
We need to get rid of baseline budgeting (which assumes last year's budget plus some percentage, usually 7-10%) and require the Congress to start from zero each and every year.
We need to make every program and office justify its continued existence every year.
We need to force Congress to make all laws sunset by default - this would best be done by a Constitutional amendment, but I'm nearly certain it would never get past Congress, much less the legislatures of 38 states.
And even when the "cuts" do happen, they get reversed in the next Congress, because no Congress can bind any future one to any particular position.
brian at August 30, 2011 3:43 PM
> Sez the guy writing with caps lock on.
No, it's cool: I'm expressive. People love me, so they enjoy it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 30, 2011 3:50 PM
"Why? Given the candidates stated positions, why disregard some of their stances and embrace others? We cannot dissect the candidate and get only part of them.... the part we agree with... elected.
If a candidate tells the press they plan on attempting to change the Constitution, that is huge. I cannot simply disregard it because I may like some of the other things they say."
LauraGr brings up an interesting point.
Why should we take a candidate seriously when they tell us they want to change the constitution, and not take them seriously when they tell us that they want to tax oil company windfall profits at 100 percent?
To weigh those two proposals and to understand down the line what kind of effects they might have on both the economy and our government you need to be both smarter and a great deal better educated than the average American voter.
Changing the constitution seems to have become some kind of scary boogyman like a crazy dictator with his finger on the nuclear button,
IF you have any political knowledge at all you would know that it takes a long and arduous process with a full two thirds of the states ratifying any change to the constitution. It hasn't been done successfully since 1992. That amendment ONLY took 203 years to be ratified, after it was proposed.
So tell me again, how scary the prospect of some elected official proposing an amendment to the constitution is?
On the other hand most people would think a 100 percent tax on windfall profits would be a wonderful populist idea, stick it to the man and all, and would have no idea at all, how the 75
percent luxury tax on yachts, pretty much single handedly destroyed the boat building industry in the US in 1990.
LauraGr is right is one respect, you take all of the candidate, and not just a few of their positions, but you have to be rational enough to know what they CAN do as opposed to how many of their proposals are pipe dreams designed to inflame or appease the base.
Isabel1130 at August 30, 2011 3:57 PM
@JDThompson
We do have bigger fish to fry, I agree with you on that. And I would gladly vote for a Tea party candidate who says, "Why are we talking about abortion? It's safe and legal. Let's fry those bigger fish." In other words, Bachmann and Perry, who have done the opposite, probably won't get my vote.
Like I said before, the Tea Party is NO WORSE than any other party...it's simply no different.
sofar at August 30, 2011 4:08 PM
My concern is actually less that the Constitution will actually be amended and more that the candidates that claim they want to do so are grandstanding liars or totally deluded.
Option A) candidate knows amendment is hopeless and is just saying they will change things (we usually call that lying, but whatever).
Option B) The candidate really honestly believes they have a chance of amending the constitution to align with their personal values.
Which option is worse? The one where everyone knows it is a lie except the froth-at-the-mouthers? Or the one where the candidate has no grasp on reality?
Both options diminish a candidates viability, imho.
And if they lead with an obvious lie, how does that make them any different from our current politicos? Why would I believe them on other issues?
I repeat, the expressed desire to constitutional change is a big deal for me. It tells me a tremendous amount about the candidate.
LauraGr at August 30, 2011 4:41 PM
In today's news we have Tea Party One chortling over the death of Americans because, hey, hurricane deaths are God's wakeup call.
I bet the grieving families really got a chuckle out of this harmless jest!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bachmann-claims-hurricane-earthquake-were-god-messages-politicians-155051199.html
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 30, 2011 4:42 PM
"We do have bigger fish to fry, I agree with you on that. And I would gladly vote for a Tea party candidate who says, "Why are we talking about abortion? It's safe and legal. Let's fry those bigger fish." In other words, Bachmann and Perry, who have done the opposite, probably won't get my vote."
So, in a nutshell, you consider the current suicidal fiscal trajectory of the Obama administration LESS of a threat than the possibility that one of the tea party candidates, MIGHT want to appoint (over the objection of the senate who has to confirm Supreme Court justices) a stealth justice who MIGHT at some future date want to revisit the decision in Roe v. Wade which is settled law AND
which, in practical terms did little to increase access to safe and legal abortions in this country?
Isabel1130 at August 30, 2011 4:48 PM
"I repeat, the expressed desire to constitutional change is a big deal for me. It tells me a tremendous amount about the candidate."
Why is it a big deal and what does it tell you?
I can think of many ways the Constitution could be amended or amendments deleted that would make government better.
Most of those amendments would not be earth shaking. They would just undo some ill advised previous decisions, like how prohibition proved unworkable and led to the the bigger problem of organized crime. It wasn't repealed fast enough to prevent lasting damage to both respect for the law in this country and thousands of unnecessary deaths due to poisonous bootleg liquor.
So apparently the mere suggestion that some political candidate doesn't think the Constitution is just perfect, tell you what about them exactly?
That they might be a thinking person who had actually read some history?
Isabel1130 at August 30, 2011 5:09 PM
@Brian,
We might have different *facts*, you and I. The Tax Foundation (see link to pdf, above) says that the Blue State of California *pays* more, much more in federal taxes than it gets back. If true that California is both blue *and* pays more, I fail to understand your point. Unless, of course, you have facts indicating California *chows* *down* on a lot more federal taxes than it pays. I'm all ears.
Andre Friedmann at August 30, 2011 5:54 PM
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf
Andre Friedmann at August 30, 2011 5:55 PM
One of the commenters before stated that the fight is no longer between Democrat and Republican, it's between Statist and Individual, and the Statists are losing. That is 100% correct. Through and through, I've always been an individualist. My beliefs and morals have always been my own, and no group of snotty brats or goons have ever taken that away from me. Conversely, if you want to marry your own sex, do drugs, and empty your bank account to marry a mail bride, I may not agree with it, but I'm not going to stop you from doing it.
The Statists, for the most part, want to return to a serf/peasant vs. aristocrat structure, where the powder-wigged upper class rules hard and long against the lower classes and commoners. It's the same structure that begat Socialism and Communism, only with better propoganda, a bitchin' cult of personality, and a healthy bloodlust - and most of its engineers (Marx, Che, and others) were themselves aristocrats with a giant guilt complex.
The Individualists don't want to go back to the Colonial days where England's king told them what to do, how to do it, and to pay fealty whether you liked it or not.
This is the core of the Tea Party - we fought 235 years ago to get rid of royalty, and now there are people hidebound in bringing it back to the 21st century?
What the Tea Party should be asking is this: "Do you really want to be a serf in a nation of czars? Do you want to be a subject in a royal court that treats you with disdain, abuses you without being answered to, and disposes of you like a soiled handkerchief?"
One more thing: when a person spits out the word "teabagger," it's because the person is so beholden to their ideologies and beliefs that when they are challenged, they have no salient response than to act like a skunk: turn away from the person, raise their hind legs and two-colored tail, and then spray their noxious venom against their enemy.
Cleary Squared at August 30, 2011 6:18 PM
brian nails it:
I'd say Communitarian or Progressive instead of Statist, but that is a mere quibble.
Christopher:
OK, not set in stone.
But the point of the Constitution is to be a contract that sets express limits on the reach of government. Those who harp on "living document" must admit no governmental restraint. The individual mandate, and the breathtaking chicanery with which it became law is Exhibit A.
And the equally breathtaking disregard for the clear meaning of the Second Amendment is Exhibit B.
Here's a thought: If Progressives can't get what they want and be consistent with the Constitution, then by all means attempt to get an amendment. If that fails, then so much the worse for Progressivism.
Iconoclast:
Oh for criminey's sake, bacteria have a role in global warming. To say that humans also do is to simultaneously accept the obvious while not saying a darn thing.
All progressives, and NOW in particular, say they accept evolution, while completely rejecting its consequences.
Ironically, whatever contingent of the Tea Party rejects evolution is closer to objective reality, because they at least accept humans as they are, despite being mistaken on the cause.
---
Progressives hate the Tea Party because in order to be a Progressive -- which means communitarian equality of outcome -- one must be Right. Progressives are a self appointed elite to whom there is no such thing as honest disagreement, because, by definition, those that disagree are Wrong.
Therefore, Progressives have tried to tar the Tea Party with every dissent killing brush they can lay their hands on. First, racism. Then eliminationist rhetoric. Most recently, desiring to destroy the US's financial credibility.
Perhaps I'm pollyanish, but one of these days Progressives will no longer be able to avoid the consequences of cognitive dissonance. They want the government to spend more than taxpayers are willing to give.
Thank goodness voters are increasingly seeing through that scam.
Jeff Guinn (aka Hey Skipper) at August 30, 2011 6:23 PM
I hate the Tea Party for the same reason as everyone else who does, I'm easily brainwashed by what amounts to a psychologically manipulative statist propaganda campaign that purposely attempts to slander them and stigmatize association with them (for having the gall to actually try threaten the kleptocracy that is sucking the life-blood out of the American economy), and I'm easily and reflexively amused by puerile memes like "teabagger" because I lack the ability to use modes of decision-making that involve "reason" and "thought". /sarcasm
Lobster at August 30, 2011 7:35 PM
So apparently the mere suggestion that some political candidate doesn't think the Constitution is just perfect, tell you what about them exactly? Isabel1130
Let's just call it one of my personal litmus tests that will garner closer scrutiny to the candidate.
LauraGr at August 30, 2011 7:40 PM
"In today's news we have Tea Party One chortling over the death of Americans because, hey, hurricane deaths are God's wakeup call"
I don't think Bachmann is a serious Tea Partier, I think she's just a political opportunist, who if elected I suspect would continue right on with the same pro-kleptocracy policies of the Bush/Obama era. With her ridiculous tacky promises of $2 gas how can anyone take her seriously and see her as anything other than just another cheap politician.
Lobster at August 30, 2011 7:42 PM
"So tell me again, how scary the prospect of some elected official proposing an amendment to the constitution is?"
Amending the Constitution doesn't seem to serve much purpose when elected officials just use it as toilet paper anyway. Maybe the next amendment to the Constitution should be that it should become a prosecutable offense (with actual jail time) for lawmakers to pass regulations that violate the Constitution, maybe that would help.
Lobster at August 30, 2011 7:47 PM
You'd really dislike me then, because I want to get rid of the 16th and 17th amendments, just for starters. I also want to see a balanced budget amendment and a revision to the 22nd amendment to restrict the number of terms for senators and representatives.
Does that make me dangerous?
Oh, and what Lobster said at 7:47.
brian at August 30, 2011 7:52 PM
where—will—the—money—come—from?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 31, 2011 1:08 AM
> My point is that there's not really another
> choice at this point in history.
You can vote for whoever the fuck you want. You are not God; your perspective on these matters need not be trans-galactically wide.
I think too many people worry that if they go the wrong way, Tom Brokaw or Wolf Blitzer or whomever is going to accost them in a surprise parking-lot TV interview and ask What were you thinking?!??!! in front of two or three dozen cable viewers; and that they'll give the wrong answer, and CNN's ratings will go down, and Time-Warner Whatever will lose revenue, and it will be all their fault...
Because they weren't considering the big picture.
Or weren't sitting quietly –but straight-backed, on their hands– like Christopher. Decorum! Decorum!
Tits out, bitches... We're talking about YOUR MONEY.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 31, 2011 1:22 AM
@Crid - "You can vote for whoever the fuck you want. You are not God; your perspective on these matters need not be trans-galactically wide."
Crid, of course you can vote for whoever you want. The point I'm trying to make is that in 2012, your vote only counts if it's for whoever the GOP candidate is (probably a Tea Party-backed candidate) or Obama.
Anything else is throwing your vote away.
I don't know what you're trying to say with the Wolf Blitzer stuff.
JDThompson at August 31, 2011 4:33 AM
@sofar - "Like I said before, the Tea Party is NO WORSE than any other party...it's simply no different."
I realize this is what you're saying. And this is precisely where we disagree. To claim that the Tea Party is no different than the Democrats is ludicrous.
On a side note, I find it hilarious that we've got LauraGR and others wringing their collective hands about the Tea Party supposedly wanting to "change the Constitution" (legally, through a nigh-impossible Constitutionally-defined process) while you've got Christopher gleefully proclaiming the leftist position, that the Constitution is a "living document," subject to change at the whim of the judiciary. And yet the Tea Party are the dangerous extremists.
JDThompson at August 31, 2011 4:42 AM
Wow. Lots of people attributing words to me I didn't write. Classy.
Not.
LauraGr at August 31, 2011 7:28 AM
@LauraGr
It is not always possible to figure out if the stuffed words are the result of malice or of carelessness. As a rule, pseudonyms writing about politics aren't the most careful readers, and I suspect carelessness. Close and careful reading is hard work, and unlikely in heated exchanges. Sigh.
Andre Friedmann at August 31, 2011 9:03 AM
I tend to look at the seriousness of the change proposed.
Perry has agreed to support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. To me that's like Prohibition, a matter of law that really does not belong in the Constitution. That's a matter for legislatures to debate and courts to adjudicate.
An amendment granting a line-item veto to the president, on the other hand, is something that could well belong in the Constitution.
Constitutions should be timeless - guidelines on how to govern, not clubs with which to beat one's current political opponents.
If we're not careful, our national Constitution could end up being like California's, a long and almost meaningless document that can be changed on a whim of the voters. Welcome to mini-mall democracy.
Conan the Grammarian at August 31, 2011 9:36 AM
"Perry has agreed to support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. To me that's like Prohibition, a matter of law that really does not belong in the Constitution. That's a matter for legislatures to debate and courts to adjudicate."
Yes and he can "support" it all he wants but as president he would have no ability to to make it happen, bring it to a vote in congress, or cause 2/3rds of the states to ratify it. so far as I care, it is like a politician promising to support "making the sky blue"
I am not a favor of either banning gay marriage through a constitutional amendment or enshrining it as a right through a series of judicial decisions. The constitution should not be used for social crusades, as prohibition so bitterly proved.
OTOH,Perry is the enemy of the Trial bar who hates him with a passion, and will do anything in its power to insure that you get distracted by non issues because they know that they are losing ground.
You know why Obama and his fellow Dems went through a thousand pages of tortured legislation to "socialize" medicine without actually "socializing" it? Because an actual socialist medical system would not preserve the income of the bottom feeding tort bar which makes a living off of class action suits, against the medical industry. The only defendant under a truly socialized system is "the government" which of course has sovereign immunity.
As Crid says, WE ARE OUT OF MONEY people. What part of that do you not get?
Isabel1130 at August 31, 2011 11:14 AM
Constitutions should be timeless - guidelines on how to govern, not clubs with which to beat one's current political opponents.
If we're not careful, our national Constitution could end up being like California's, a long and almost meaningless document that can be changed on a whim of the voters. Welcome to mini-mall democracy. Conan the Grammarian
Yes. This.
LauraGr at August 31, 2011 11:49 AM
"Constitutions should be timeless - guidelines on how to govern, not clubs with which to beat one's current political opponents...." Conan the Grammarian
Another vote for Conan's comment. The Founders kept our Constitution simple for a reason. How can you claim you want to decrease the power and size of the federal government, and yet enshrine all your own personal religious bullshit in the Constitution?
And for those of you who say "oh, they'll never succeed in amending it". Well, assuming that's true (and I don't necessarily think that's correct), that makes them either (a) delusional, or (b) bullshitting blowhards.
The choice need not be the Perry/Bachmann vs. Obama. There are much better, more moderate candidates out there, and the GOP still has time to choose one. If they don't -- well, as much as I dislike Obama (and I do and always have), I'll hold my nose and choose him over someone who thinks the earth was created 5000 years ago and wants to teach that to kids in public schools. At least he won't talk about Jaysus all the time or put religious stuff in the Constitution.
As to "WE'RE OUT OF MONEY!" Yeah, I agree. But, see -- I don't trust Perry and Bachmann to do any better with our economy or budget than Obama has.
Gail at August 31, 2011 12:27 PM
...as Obama fans have learned in the last couple of years, it's one thing to yelp "CHANGE! CLOSE GITMO" etc., and another to do it. You need a concrete plan, then you have to fight against all the obstacles to push it through. Perry and Bachmann can yell "CUT SPENDING!" all they want -- ask them what to cut and how to go about cut it, and they babble something vague and grandiose. Their track records don't give me any confidence they'll somehow pull it together after the election, any more than Obama's did. It's the Tea Party's version of "hope and change." Plus a little Jaysus.
Gail at August 31, 2011 12:39 PM
'll hold my nose and choose him over someone who thinks the earth was created 5000 years ago and wants to teach that to kids in public schools. At least he won't talk about Jaysus all the time or put religious stuff in the Constitution."
That's one of the more idiotic reasons I've seen. First, the jaysus talk paints you with the same brush as the "Obongo" people and it's not a good one. It makes it very easy to dismiss you out of hand. Nor do all people who follow Jesus believe the earth is only 5000 years old. Even those opposed to gay marriage aren't all for a Constitutional Ammendment banning it.
It's not going to make any difference what someone wants taught in schools when we have no money for public schools. That's where we're heading. NO schools, no SS, no medicare or caid, no roadwork, nothing. And you're cool with that, as long as no one mentions Jesus in your hearing. Unbelievable.
Perry's done a hell of a lot better on budget, already, here in Texas than Obama with the nation. Texas has made more jobs than Obama even promised to.
momof4 at August 31, 2011 12:44 PM
That weighs highly in Perry's favor. Texas has made inroads into reasonable tort reform - going far in reducing the economic drag and high costs caused by out of control litigation.
=========================
He would have limited ability to make it happen. The presidential bully pulpit does exert some degree of influence ... when wielded by a capable politician.
Support for out-of-place Constitutional amendments does give some indication, however, into how a potential president views the Constitution.
=========================
Fortunately for Perry, we have lots of insight into how he'll govern. He's been governor of Texas for 12 years.
While his critics will cherry-pick items with which to criticize Perry, his record as governor is, in the aggregate, a positive one.
=========================
The Republicans are on track to offer a fairly interesting choice in the primaries.
Social conservative Perry versus socially liberal Romney - with mixed fiscal conservative credentials for both.
Perry and Romney (Bachman is fading fast) have their pros and cons, but both seem to have a decent grasp on economic issues - unlike their presumed general election opponent who is still struggling to convince people he is truly aware the economy is in trouble and who has yet to master the basics of the executive's job.
Both Perry and Romney have run large organizations and have a high degree of executive experience. Romney has better private sector executive experience, Perry having spent his career in government. Both have been governors of states with large and diverse economies.
Perry's weakness in the general election is his fundamentalism. Romney's is his RomneyCare and his past presidential runs.
It's not my dream slate of Republican primary choices, but it has potential.
And either as a general election candidate will offer a strong counterpoint to Obama's flailing and day-late-dollar-short efforts to show himself to be a strong executive.
=========================
Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have nobody else for this election.
Obama's weakness as president is going to drag his campaign down.
And the Dems can't run anyone against him without painting themselves as hypocrites - having tarred anyone who opposed him as a racist.
Plus, Obama shrewdly co-opted most of the potential challengers.
Hillary won't run for fear of looking disloyal.
The party's bench of former and current governors is weak. Sebelius and Napolitano are tainted as part of Obama's cabinet (along with their individual failures).
Washington governor Gregoire's 2004 election was tainted with scandal and her pivotal super delegate support for Obama in 2008 will make it difficult for her to run against him.
Likewise, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick would have difficulty reconciling prior ardent support for Obama with challenging him in the primary.
The rest of the bench is weak as well.
Jennifer Granholm's tenure in Michigan was an economic disaster.
New York governor Andrew Cuomo and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper have yet to complete their first terms as governor.
Jerry Brown is too old and saddled with a disastrous California economy.
Conan the Grammarian at August 31, 2011 12:52 PM
Please don't vote.
Perry, if president, has almost no chance of forcing schools to teach creationism or turning the country into a religious theocracy.
Obama, if reelected has every chance of turning the country into an economic wasteland.
Conan the Grammarian at August 31, 2011 12:56 PM
"Perry's done a hell of a lot better on budget, already, here in Texas than Obama with the nation. Texas has made more jobs than Obama even promised to."
(1) most of them are minimum wage with limited benefits
(2) most are attributable to the energy industry and defense.
(3) I've read that many of those jobs went to illegal aliens, but I haven't heard Perry's answer to that, so I'm still taking it with a grain of salt.
(4) even if you assume Perry's policies were responsible, he's got the advantage of an overwhelmingly Republican legislature and constituency to back him up all the way. I don't envision him working well with a much more evenly divided Congress and America.
Gail at August 31, 2011 1:04 PM
Oh, I'll vote. How 'bout if the Republicans give me a better choice?
I'm guessing many moderates, faced with Perry vs. Obama will go Obama for many of the same reasons I would. He's pretty polarizing. But even some Democrats, the moderate wing, could be persuaded to go for a moderate Republican in 2012. Romney could and probably would beat Obama if things don't seriously turn around before the election. I honestly don't think Perry could.
Gail at August 31, 2011 1:15 PM
Personally, I'm not sold on Perry. There are plenty of good arguments against him, but your arguments are boilerplate DNC talking points.
So how are the other states doing at creating even minimum-wage jobs?
With no state income taxes and a low cost of living, a minimum wage job could be enough.
And Texas has a rising wage rate (the fastest in the nation). Higher-level jobs are being created.
Some are. Those industries are strong in Texas and it makes sense that if they hire, they'll do it close to home.
But many of the new jobs are truly new. Perry made three trips to California to convince Electronic Arts to move operations to Austin where the company "can't hire people fast enough."
Other companies have moved or are moving to Texas due to lower costs of doing business (including lower taxes, tort reform, lower costs of living, etc.).
Thanks to higher wages and costs of hiring people, lots of new jobs are going to illegal immigrants. Nonetheless, other border states are bleeding jobs, Texas isn't.
And, if true, would this not mean that in Texas, illegal immigrants are being put to work instead of on the welfare rolls?
And yet Obama with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress managed to get only one of his signature programs passed. He got ObamaCare passed only through Pelosi's strong-arming recalcitrant Dems. But he failed to close Gitmo, failed to get Cap and Trade, failed to end the presence of US troops in Iraq.
He did get a fiscal stimulus, but left the details and writing of it to Congress. As a result, it was so loaded with the usual Congressional pork that very few actual jobs were created by it and very little infrastructure building was accomplished. Most of the money went to pay off traditional Democratic constituencies.
Conan the Grammarian at August 31, 2011 1:39 PM
Why aren't you drumming for Gary Johnson, who lowered taxes 14 times and never raised them, balanced NM's budget and left it with a surplus, and created jobs? Defeated Democratic candidates in a state where Democrats were the majority, and left with an overwhelming approval rating?
His record convinces me a lot more than Perry's. Here's a guy who focuses on the right issues. Plus he isn't alienating -- he apparently can work with the opposition, and do it well, putting through his policies and making them work.
I seriously can't figure out why he's being shunted aside. He beats Romney, Perry, Bachmann, etc. hands down in my book. Unless you're really focused on the Jesus issues, why wouldn't you like Johnson?
Gail at August 31, 2011 2:23 PM
I'm sick of hearing them referred to as "Teabaggers".
--
Which they called themselves in Release 1.0.
Don't blame the populace for picking up on it, blame the numbskulls who didn't have the foresight to use the series of tubes known as the interwebs to do a little research first.
"No teabagging, Larry, you know the rules!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHWN6f7waIM
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 31, 2011 2:48 PM
Gary Johnson has an excellent resume for a presidential contender.
He founded and ran one of New Mexico's largest construction firms. He was a successful (and fiscally conservative) governor for two terms, handily winning both times.
So, like Romney and Perry, Johnson has considerable executive experience and is a solid campaigner.
And Johnson, unlike Romney, has a guiding political philosophy.
However, his support for a "sensible" drug policy will not win him any points with social conservatives (who still have considerable leverage in the Republican nominating process).
Keep in mind, however, that New Mexico tends to elect fiscally conservative libertarian-leaning governors (Johnson was succeeded by Bill Richardson) - whereas the rest of the country does not.
And NM governors don't tend to do well in partisan party primaries (Richardson ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008 but dropped out early with lackluster results).
What Johnson doesn't have is name recognition (Richardson had more name recognition when he ran for the Democratic nomination).
Johnson left the New Mexico governor's office in 2003 and has been mostly working with his own foundation since then. He has gotten some coverage in libertarian media, but not much in mainstream outlets.
He lacks political pull within the party having endorsed Ron Paul for the 2008 Republican nomination.
In short, he's an excellent candidate ... on paper. In reality, however, he lacks a sizeable and avid fan base, lacks political chits to cash in for favors and support, and fails to generate enthusiasitc support among any of the influential power bases that bring a candidate to the forefront in an election.
And without those things, he can't beat Obama.
This election is an opportunity for him to build up some of what he lacks - for a viable run at 2016 or possibly 2020.
He could also run as the Libertarian candidate in 2012. His nomination would signal a move on the part of the Libertarian Party to put up serious candidates ... instead of the past quixotic and poorly thought out nominations of Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Bob Barr.
He wouldn't win the election, but he could have a significant impact on the topics of discussion, perhaps even garner enough support to get a spot in the debates.
Conan the Grammarian at August 31, 2011 3:28 PM
Johnson sounds like a perfect candidate for VP.
LauraGr at August 31, 2011 6:01 PM
I've sent Johnson a donation and I've been talking him up to friends -- both Republicans and Democrats. I'd love to see him at least influence the debate. If he's in the race, whether as a Republican or as a third party, he's got my vote.
I'm not so sure he couldn't beat Obama. He'll never get the real liberals, of course. Then again, neither will any other Republican candidate, just as no Democratic candidate will ever win over with the far right. But it's the middle that decides the national election. The middle wants some fiscal responsibility at this point, yet most also favor civil liberties like abortion rights. That's got Johnson's name all over it. And right now Obama is pretty darn unpopular with moderate Democrats and independents. Many would welcome an alternative candidate who isn't spewing anti-gay and anti-abortion rhetoric all the time and holding highly publicized Christian prayer rallies.
Look at it this way -- everyone thought Hillary was a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination, and in 2006, would have said "Obama who?" He was much more of a nobody than Johnson, and had essentially no record at all. Yet he swept to prominence and finally won the election, on the vaguest of hopey changy messages. Why can't Johnson, an infinitely better candidate, do the same thing? Why can't we try to put him there instead of giving up and plopping our money on someone like Perry? The game is still young -- why not try?
Another thing I dislike about Perry -- he strikes me as a world-class flip-flopping hypocrite. He used to be a Democrat! He worked for Gore! WTF? How do you get from there to being a Tea Party darling? He used an executive order to try to get 6th graders injected with Gardasil, for pity's sake! Whether you agree with doing that or not, it's not something consistent with the idea of small government. I'm shocked the Christian fundamentalists aren't all over him on that issue.
Gail at August 31, 2011 6:23 PM
If you are considering voting Obama, please stay home.
If you would not consider Satan himself an improvement over Obama, you aren't paying attention.
brian at August 31, 2011 8:14 PM
"Yet he swept to prominence and finally won the election, on the vaguest of hopey changy messages. "
Yes, thank you and your ilk for that.
"He used to be a Democrat!"
Yep, so did I. So did my mom. So did a lot of people.
"He used an executive order to try to get 6th graders injected with Gardasil, for pity's sake!"
Yep. One would think libs would be down with that, as it meant the welfare class got it free (to them). Otherwise, it would just be another example of the rich getting care the poor can't afford.
momof4 at August 31, 2011 8:36 PM
"I voted for the Democrats because I didn’t like the way the Republicans were running the country – which is turning out to be like shooting yourself in the head to stop your headache." - Jack Mayberry
Conan the Grammarian at September 1, 2011 10:36 AM
> your vote only counts if it's for whoever the
> GOP candidate is (probably a Tea Party-backed
> candidate) or Obama. Anything else is throwing
> your vote away.
No. NONONONONO
This kind of thinking MUST DIE. It's lunacy.
Well, first, it's wickedly pompous... This is what I meant about galactic perspective. People who say that seem to imagine themselves outside the valley of the human experience, somehow blessed to be able to see exactly which ways civilization's rivers will or will not be permitted to flow.
I don't think you're that bright. (And I don't think you're that detached.) We're facing tremendous risks, and we have some fabulous opportunities.
But mostly I think it's a backhanded squeal of submission: 'My individual perspective means nothing! I'm just a tortured, wounded crab slapped against life's rocky shoals by fate's foamy, uncaring breakers! And dammit, if I'm impotent, then so are you!'
This is not how history gets made.
If you really, truly feel that you need to approach these events in a rearward shuffle with your beltloops at your ankles, then submit with SILENT dignity...
The rest of us got plans.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 1, 2011 12:18 PM
Damn rght crid
lujlp at September 1, 2011 1:55 PM
"thank you and your ilk for that."
Actually, you're wrong, Momof4. I'm not a liberal, and I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. I never liked him, not from the very beginning. I was criticizing him back in 2006. I just find Perry so horrific I'd actually consider Obama might be a better option. Not everyone who despises Perry is a liberal, and I think that's going to be his problem in the general election.
I don't think Perry would be better for the economy. Take away his strong Republican legislature, and he'd be a flip-flopping turtle on his back. And I think he'd be a shitload worse for individual rights and the Constitution, which I care about as much as I do about my pocketbook. Actually, if we're going there -- my pocketbook and portfolio are actually in better shape than they were in 2008. The stock market is a good bit higher. Things suck, but scary to say, they could be worse. Could Obama have done better? Shit yeah. Oh hell, yeah. But Bush was just as bad, and as far as I can see, Perry is W all over again. Let's get rid of Obama by all means. But replacing him with W II is not the answer.
I'm sincerely hoping the GOP doesn't select Perry. Despite my previous statement, in practice I'd find it hard to pull a lever for Obama. If there's a good third party candidate, like Gary Johnson, that's where my vote will go. If that's throwing away my vote, so be it.
And I gotta repeat this comment -- it's way, way, way too early to throw in the towel on this election. Back a horse you actually like, not whoever it looks like the Tea Party might favor!
Gail at September 1, 2011 2:44 PM
Not true ... in so many ways.
Bush was a profligate spender and made some questionable judgements as far as overseas committments (keeping in mind that most were damned if you do and damned if you don't type decisions).
Bush engaged in the normal executive-legislative tug of war. But Bush didn't end-run Congress with czars making policy without being answerable to Congress. Bush's agency heads and Cabinet secretaries were answerable to Congress. Obama's czars are not because they're "advisors."
Bush went to Congress before sending troops into harm's way. And gave them the same information he had so they could make an informed decision (if they had bothered to read the documents - most admit they didn't). Obama feels the if NATO, the Arab Leauge, and the UN want a war, it's okay to risk the lives of US service people.
Bush took over 2,500 days to increase the national debt $4 trillion. Obama has done the same in less than 1,000 days. Imagine what he'll do with another 2,000 days.
People tend to forget that the first 6 years of the Bush presidency saw a growing economy (albeit a slowly growing one) and low unemployment. It was in the last 2 years (the ones with Nancy and Harry running Congress) that the economy fell apart.
Conan the Grammarian at September 1, 2011 3:53 PM
Gail -
You're not thinking, you're feeling. You have no evidence for any of the accusations you make towards Perry, nor any evidence that he'd be a greater threat to liberty than Obama's already proven to be.
You've simply concluded "Ick, a Christian."
And while the stock market may be up, the dollar is down more, so your portfolio is fucked but you just haven't realized it yet.
brian at September 2, 2011 5:51 AM
Okay. I'll bite. For the original question.
I hate the Tea Party because there is no centralized authority. It is a grass roots movement with lots of local action and no national oversight. Politicians can say they are Tea Party without giving up their other party affiliations. Or they say something daft then the various Tea party groups disavow them. Of course the same tea party groups loved them hard before. No politician can actually BE tea party because there is no tea party!
Plus, track record. How many Tea party congress members have been elected? Representatives? Governors? Mayors? Have they had any measure of success? Are they able to get disparate groups together and negotiate successful spending reducing measures? At all? Anywhere?
If they have, the word is not getting out.
So color me skeptical that the Tea party will do anything more than divide the republican ticket.
Most likely they will get someone really unelectable on the ticket then moan that they got beat. *coughPalincough*
The Tea Party, such as it is, needs to build some credibility. Right now they are noise without a great deal of substance.
I applaud the reasoning behind the group. I just don't see them being able to pull off a presidency.
IMHO the best the tea party can do for this election is to get the genuinely electable candidates engaged in spending reduction talks.
LauraGr at September 2, 2011 10:29 AM
New hilarious Lewis Carroll rewrite: "Malice In Wonderland - A Tea Party Fable" Book puts ALL Parties on Trial http://www.tbtmmedia.com/?page_id=52
Micheal Stinson at December 7, 2011 9:48 AM
Leave a comment