- #1
Winzer
- 598
- 0
I am aware that the Republicans are an actual political party and the Tea Party is a political movement. But what are the differences in core beliefs between the two?
mheslep said:People who self-identify as being Tea Party supporters overwhelmingly choose reducing the size of the Federal government as their number one concern. That notion has a great deal of overlap with the Republican party in word, but not in deed. Also, Tea Party supporters as a "plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president."
Aren't you sort of comparing TP supporters with members of the RP?mheslep said:People who self-identify as being Tea Party supporters overwhelmingly choose reducing the size of the Federal government as their number one concern. That notion has a great deal of overlap with the Republican party in word, but not in deed.
Those numbers are very similar to what people that call themselves Republicans say, isn't it? Yet both groups overwhelmingly express a favorable opinion of Palin - northwards of 80%, I think.Also, Tea Party supporters as a "plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president."
Gokul43201 said:Those numbers are very similar to what people that call themselves Republicans say, isn't it? Yet both groups overwhelmingly express a favorable opinion of Palin - northwards of 80%, I think.
As for actual differences between elected TP endorsed Republicans and the broader set of Republicans in Govt, one must wait a few years to tell what substantive differences there are between them. If you don't have the patience, I guess you could look to TP endorsed establishment Republicans like Jim Demint and Michelle Bachmann, and see how they differ from other Republicans.
Are you saying that:FlexGunship said:(1) The "support Palin" percentage has a modifier since she has "self-identified" herself as a Tea Party leader. By the law of compounding politics (I like to call it the Gunship principle), Palin followers are ascribed the title of Tea Party member just by fiat. Again, the Tea Party existed before (and free of) Palin's involvement.
Not according to the WSJ article about the history of the TP that mheslep cited in the other TP thread. Nevertheless, how do you identify a candidate endorsed by the TP?(2) I believe the two Republicans you quoted were only endorsed by the Tea Party Express. Which is, fundamentally, a Republican organization; not an independent one.
Gokul43201 said:Are you saying that:
1. The group that self-identifies as TP supporters includes a subgroup that do so only because they are Palin supporters and Palin self-identifies as a TP leader?
2. That this subgroup should not be considered as legitimate TP supporters?
Is there then any good way of knowing when a self-identified supporter of the TP is indeed one? Or is the group common referred to as supporters of the TP tainted, for all practical purposes, by those that are in "by fiat"?
Exactly, as per the OP's specific question.Gokul43201 said:Aren't you sort of comparing TP supporters with members of the RP?
Similar, but I think there are clear differences. As I recall from polling one will see more social issues up front w/ R polls of the electorate, and if we look at recent elected or nearly elected officials we see some stark differences between TP Republicans (Rand-Ky, Buck-Co) and Not So Much TP Republican's (Murkowski-Ak)Those numbers are very similar to what people that call themselves Republicans say, isn't it?
Who knows what 'favorable' means, but also put me down as 'favorable'. But neither will I support her for the '12 nomination.Yet both groups overwhelmingly express a favorable opinion of Palin - northwards of 80%, I think.
No, she has not.FlexGunship said:since she has "self-identified" herself as a Tea Party leader
Again no, the Express is fundamentally a TP organization, formed wholly outside the R. party leadership, and it is the only major TP organization that endorses candidates.... the Tea Party Express. Which is, fundamentally, a Republican organization; not an independent one
mheslep said:No, she has not.
Palin has roughly the same role in the TP as did Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam for the Restore Sanity rally (though with different impacts.) They are both popular in their groups. Neither has a right nor any invitation to speak on behalf of anyone else.FlexGunship said:Very well. She has self-identified herself as the leader of the Tea Party Express which is often (questionably) associated with the Tea Party movement itself.
Edit: Okay, okay... maybe not a leader, but a spokesperson and role model. Is that, perhaps, more clear?
If that is the OP's question (I think it isn't), then I find it somewhat meaningless to compare a segment of the electorate with a group of elected officials. It makes more sense to compare elected Republicans with elected TP movement endorsees.mheslep said:Exactly, as per the OP's specific question.
My observation of similarity was limited to the numbers about Palin that you cited. In that regard, I don't think there's much difference between Reps in general and TP supporters. I think the relative importance of social vs. economic issues may be a more clear difference (though I don't recall specific numbers on these). But from all that I've seen so far, the one metric that shows the clearest difference between TP supporters and Rep voters is their favorability ratings for the Rep Party (around 50% from TP and closer to 2/3rds from RP, I think).Similar, but I think there are clear differences. As I recall from polling one will see more social issues up front w/ R polls of the electorate,
I think it's unwise to pick a small sample and extrapolate broader trends from that. I could just as well choose O'Donnell or Bachmann as TP Reps, and pick Lugar or Rick Snyder as not-so-TP Reps.and if we look at recent elected or nearly elected officials we see some stark differences between TP Republicans (Rand-Ky, Buck-Co) and Not So Much TP Republican's (Murkowski-Ak)
Whatever it means, my point was that (by my recollection) there wasn't much difference between TP supporters and self-identified Reps using the Palin metric.Who knows what 'favorable' means, but also put me down as 'favorable'. But neither will I support her for the '12 nomination.
Restore Sanity? From their web site:mheslep said:Palin has roughly the same role in the TP as did Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam for the Restore Sanity rally (though with different impacts.) They are both popular in their groups. Neither has a right nor any invitation to speak on behalf of anyone else.
mheslep said:Palin has roughly the same role in the TP as did Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam for the Restore Sanity rally (though with different impacts.) They are both popular in their groups. Neither has a right nor any invitation to speak on behalf of anyone else.
There's now an effort started by some Tea Party (and related) groups urging Congress to keep social issues off the front-burners, and concentrate on fiscal policy for now. I'd be interested to see if that catches on, at least among more TP groups (right now, it's a very small minority that support this move), and then, hopefully with some of the people they endorsed in Congress.mheslep said:As I recall from polling one will see more social issues up front w/ R polls of the electorate...
GOP is urged to avoid social issues
A gay conservative group and some Tea Party leaders are campaigning to keep social issues off the Republican agenda.
In a letter to be released Monday, the group GOProud and leaders from groups like the Tea Party Patriots and the New American Patriots, will urge Republicans in the House and Senate to keep their focus on shrinking the government.
"On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement," they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. "This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue."
...
"For almost two years now, the tea party has been laser-focused on the size of government," said Barron, who said his group and the tea partiers are part of the "leave-me-alone coalition."
"No one has been talking about social issues - not even the socially conservative candidates who won tea party support," Barron said.
...
"We're not talking about pushing social conservatives out of the tea party movement. Those people aren't only welcome but they're a critical part of this movement." said Barron.
But ideas like the one Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) floated about banning gay teachers run counter to the tea party ethos, Barron argues. "How is that limited government?" he said.
The alliance underscores many of the tensions and divisions in the freewheeling, leaderless tea party movement.
Yes, it's just that everybody has a slightly different view of what is a sane government issue of and what is a witch hunt ;-)Evo said:A focus on sane government issues and no religious or social witch hunts would be amazing. Is it possible?
Evo said:A focus on sane government issues and no religious or social witch hunts would be amazing. Is it possible?
Gokul43201 said:There's now an effort started by some Tea Party (and related) groups urging Congress to keep social issues off the front-burners, and concentrate on fiscal policy for now. I'd be interested to see if that catches on, at least among more TP groups (right now, it's a very small minority that support this move), and then, hopefully with some of the people they endorsed in Congress.
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45110.html
"When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren't arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion," said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.
As explained by a republican friend of mine, lots of republicans just want more regional government.NobodySpecial said:It's the same problem with small government.
...
If you want all of them to vote for you you have to support the sum of all their views.
Unfortunately the integral over 300million 'small governments' is a large government.
The obvious advantage of this is that escaping from what one considers oppressive government is a simple matter of moving to another state, not another country. This is why the constitution reserves general lawmaking power to the states. And this is even a bigger advantage of federalism than it was 200+ years ago, since it is far easier to leave a particular state now compared to then.ShawnD said:As explained by a republican friend of mine, lots of republicans just want more regional government.
In general this is a good idea because of obvious cultural differences between regions. California is talking about legalizing marijuana while states like Nevada will put you on death row for smoking a joint. Trying to make a broad policy that will please both of those states is basically impossible. The only solution is to reduce the federal government and build up state government. California can have their legalized cocaine or whatever and Nevada can execute people for parking violations; every state gets what they want.
ShawnD said:As explained by a republican friend of mine, lots of republicans just want more regional government.
In general this is a good idea because of obvious cultural differences between regions. California is talking about legalizing marijuana while states like Nevada will put you on death row for smoking a joint. Trying to make a broad policy that will please both of those states is basically impossible. The only solution is to reduce the federal government and build up state government. California can have their legalized cocaine or whatever and Nevada can execute people for parking violations; every state gets what they want.
Doing this would also help the budget situation because it would stop politicians from running a campaign based on how much they are going to screw the other 49 states. Vote for me and I'll bring back a bunch of free money from the other states! If the federal government only controlled things like defense/FBI/CIA spending, it would be a lot harder to run a campaign based on how much you're going to spend.
lisab said:Notice to PFers who are not citizens of the US: Shawn is using hyperbole here; Nevada does not execute people for smoking marijuana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Nevada
Just trying to thwart a dead-end thread derailment.
Evo said:A focus on sane government issues and no religious or social witch hunts would be amazing. Is it possible?
Unless your car is blocking access to a brothel. They take that pretty seriously.lisab said:Notice to PFers who are not citizens of the US: Shawn is using hyperbole here; Nevada does not execute people for smoking marijuana or for parking violations.
He's the most intelligent sounding tea partier, so he speaks for them.Gokul43201 said:Why is it that someone who puts up a youtube video gets to be the only legitimate spokesperson for a semi-amorphous group with no organized structure or statement of principles? Why is this person any more able to tell us what the TP stands for than any other randomly sampled person who self-identifies as a TP proponent?
Sure but california wants regional government to legalise marijuana but still wants lots of federal spending on stealth fighters built in Ca and cheap water from colarado.ShawnD said:California can have their legalized cocaine or whatever and Nevada can execute people for parking violations; every state gets what they want.
Whittle (youtube narrator) doesn't mention SS or Medicare in that part 1 video; he certainly doesn't say they are immoral. Did you have another reference in mind? About the most derogatory comment he makes (in P1) is 'horrible', about the notion that the government should be huge and can do anything it wants without restraint.Gokul43201 said:[...]
The Youtube person considers SS and Medicare to be wasteful and immoral - essentially government sanctioned robbery. Yet a huge majority of self-identified TP supporters approve of both these programs. So, whose word should we take for what the TP stands for?
I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines? And he clearly describes them as forcing you to hand over your money at gunpoint (again, a paraphrase from memory). Based on those two characterizations - unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.mheslep said:Whittle (youtube narrator) doesn't mention SS or Medicare in that part 1 video; he certainly doesn't say they are immoral. Did you have another reference in mind? About the most derogatory comment he makes (in P1) is 'horrible', about the notion that the government should be huge and can do anything it wants without restraint.
Gokul43201 said:[At Shawn] If the average Tea Partier believes in a completely different set of ideas than the youtube person (I don't know his name), then why is the youtube version supposed to be representative of the group?
...
The Youtube person considers SS and Medicare to be wasteful and immoral - essentially government sanctioned robbery. Yet a huge majority of self-identified TP supporters approve of both these programs. So, whose word should we take for what the TP stands for?
You have to recognize that the arguments made about the D or R party can not apply to the TP, since they are completely different beasts. The TP is NOT a political party. It does not have a representative body. It does not have a stated set of positions. You can go to the DNC website and click the "what we stand for" tab, or go to the GOP site and click the "positions" tab to find out what either of these parties stands for. You can not do any such thing with the TP. Your only recourse is to poll the people who call themselves supporters, or perhaps poll the representatives they put in Congress.ShawnD said:I think it's fair to say most Americans disagree with their own party when it comes to almost every issue.
Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?Gokul43201 said:You have to recognize that the arguments made about the D or R party can not apply to the TP, since they are completely different beasts.
I don't want to watch the video again, so I'll try to go from memory.Gokul43201 said:I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines?... unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.