The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Ivan Seeking]

The "Grassroots movement", and the Tea Party

I consider every step forward for the Tea Party, and every primary Republican win for so-called grassroots leaders who appeal in particular to the tea drinkers, to be just more nails in the coffin for the GOP. While the Tea Party wants to claim the Independents, and while they help to fuel the anti-incumbent fervor, in fact, I think the entire movement is based on superficial claims - pandering to irrational fears and anger. The tea drinkers represent the death rattle of a failed conservative party. The Republicans cannot afford to embrace the Tea Party favorites, and they can't afford not to. Either choice means certain death for the foreseeable future.

I had to laugh when I saw that, just after winning the the Republican nomination, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, caused the Republicans to run for cover.

Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, “Yes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html?ref=politics

Please do tell us more, Mr. Paul. I am dying to hear all about it!

 

[magpies]

Wow is that quote for real? I like him already :)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are a lot of crazy politicians out there. Ron Paul was pretty crazy, though not quite that bad, and garnered himself a decent little following.

 

[lisab]

It seems that the Tea Party may have just enough support to oust a mainstream Republican from a race. But since they don't have enough support to actually elect any of their wacky candidates, they may be the Dem's salvation in this difficult election cycle.

 

[lisab]

Please do tell us more, Mr. Paul. I am dying to hear all about it!

OK, how about this one:

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37273085/ns/politics-decision_2010/

I'm just having a very hard time seeing Paul's point of view on this. He thinks it's un-American to criticize business when they screw up? Really, "un-American"? I'm just aghast at his stance on this. Is he as sympathetic to the coal mining companies that rack up dozens (sometimes hundreds) of safety violations, and sometimes have catastrophes that kill their workers? (He's running in Kentucky.) I don't think he'll earn many votes with that stance.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And from a leading figure in the Tea Party, we got this today.

A National Tea Party leader protesting a proposed mosque near Ground Zero set off a firestorm of anger Wednesday by saying that Muslims worship "the terrorists' monkey god."

Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express, blogged about the 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center planned at Park Place and Broadway, calling it a monument to the 9/11 terrorists.

"The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god," Williams...

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/19/2010-05-19_tea_party_leader_mark_williams_says_muslims_worship_a_monkey_god_blasts_ground_z.html#ixzz0odAB9QqU

 

[russ_watters]

I consider every step forward for the Tea Party, and every primary Republican win for so-called grassroots leaders who appeal in particular to the tea drinkers, to be just more nails in the coffin for the GOP. While the Tea Party wants to claim the Independents, and while they help to fuel the anti-incumbent fervor, in fact, I think the entire movement is based on superficial claims - pandering to irrational fears and anger.

This has been the modus operandi of the Democratic party for 50 years. It surprises me that you'd disparage Republicans for figuring out that these tactics work. Heck, "anti-incumbent fervor... irrational fears and anger" was basically Obama's centerpiece platform! Now the tables are turned and the democrats are the incumbents and the republicans are angry. It seems fitting to me.

But yes, some of the most, shall we say - passionate - on both sides are also the most out there. This shouldn't be a surprise either.

Also, remember - in a primary, democrats run against demcorats and republicans run against republicans. The primaries were anti-incumbent, not really anti-democrat (though that sentiment exists too).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Once you remove the pandering to the base, there is little light to be found between the two parties. They are both corrupt, cowardly, and many appear to be sociopaths. The "tea baggers" are a meaningless sideshow attraction in the big scheme of things. Politicians do not decide the fate of this country, money does.

That being said, when the head of a political movement insults ~1.5 billion people, there is more than the usual lunacy.

 

[Antiphon]

People who call tea party members "tea baggers" are little thugs in training. The death of civil discourse is at the hands of the left as usual.

 

[Choronzon]

That being said, when the head of a political movement insults ~1.5 billion people, there is more than the usual lunacy.

Can you explain this for me, please? Who are you talking about?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

People who call tea party members "tea baggers" are little thugs in training. The death of civil discourse is at the hands of the left as usual.

I am just quoting Jon Stewart; I find it amusing. You don't need to believe me, but I am not LEFT, here or in my country of origin. I see no need to engage in discourse of any kind with ideologues of any stripe.


---

Can you explain this for me, please? Who are you talking about?

See Ivan's last post and link.

 

[turbo]

People who call tea party members "tea baggers" are little thugs in training. The death of civil discourse is at the hands of the left as usual.

You may or may not remember that they were calling themselves that, until it was pointed out to them that the name carried sexual connotations. It's fair to call them a name that they embraced. Do you think that the Lee Atwaters of the GOP would refrain from exploiting such a gaffe?

 

[turbo]

I consider every step forward for the Tea Party, and every primary Republican win for so-called grassroots leaders who appeal in particular to the tea drinkers, to be just more nails in the coffin for the GOP.

They managed to hijack the GOP convention in Maine, and drove the party platform off a cliff. Candidates aren't forced to run on their party's platform, but it can be used against them by their opponents, who will try to force the GOP to repudiate the most extreme planks.

 

[Astronuc]

[PLAIN]http://www.solarnavigator.net/www.arabiantents.com/arabian_tents_images/alice_in_wonderland_mad_hatters_tea_party.png Tea Party

 

[D H]

Too many kooks spoil the broth.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Which tea bagger is the dormouse?

 

[tiresmokindad]

I agree. I want to see more Mr. Paul! :D

 

[Nebula815]

in fact, I think the entire movement is based on superficial claims - pandering to irrational fears and anger.

That's always the leftist line of thought. When it's leftists protesting, they are "patriotic" and it's grassroots supposedly.

When it's people against a leftwing President protesting, they're "angry" and "irrational."

When the people kick the Republicans out and vote in Democrats, they are sensible. When they kick the Democrats out, they're angry and irrational (1994 was known as the year of the "angry white man" when the Democrats got slaughtered in Congress).

The fears are not irrational. With the country in a steep recession, Obama has decided to gun up spending, ramming through a massive healthcare bill which the evidence shows will not work and will cost an extraordinary amount of money. He also wants to ram through carbon cap-and-trade and so forth.

The way the healthcare bill was done and the levels of debt this country is racking up with no apparent intention of trying to bring spending under control, is a very legitimate concern. Once a nation's debt-to-GDP ratio reaches 100%, that begins to have a negative effect on economic growth.

The larger the debt gets, the larger a portion of the federal budget must be devoted to paying the interest on the debt as well.

Moody's has hinted that it may have to downgrade the U.S. debt eventually even. The way this administration is seeking to enlarge the government, the debt, this administration's handling of terrorism issues, the administration's completely soft stance on Iran, etc...have a lot of people extremely concerned.

Have you looked at the financial and economic health of left-leaning states like California, Massachusettes, New York, and New Jersey recently? Or the financial and economic health of the European nations which Obama is trying to model the U.S. after?

The tea drinkers represent the death rattle of a failed conservative party. The Republicans cannot afford to embrace the Tea Party favorites, and they can't afford not to. Either choice means certain death for the foreseeable future.

Depends. The Tea Party represents much of what the Republican party is supposed to be, but is not. The people voted for Obama for change; what they were too ignorant to realize was Obama was going to be more of the same. The Republicans spent their eight years under Bush spending a ton of money. People were tired of that, and in their ignorance, elected in Obama, not paying attention to what his beliefs were.

And now they are shocked, SHOCKED, that he is outspending the Republicans. Jay Leno has a new skit he's been running called "What Did You Think Was Gonna Happen!?" which shows people doing very stupid things, then seemingly stunned when what should have been obvious happens.

With Obama, I feel this way towards many people. I mean you have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid heading a Democrat Congress and then they elect in Barack Obama, and are now shocked at how he is governing, to which I say, "WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN!?" That the Democrats and Obama would spend less than Bush and the Republicans!? BWAHAHAHAHA!

The Democrats, and Obama, however, completely mis-read his election as a signal to govern to the Left. It was either Newsweek or Time that had a cover title: "We're All Socialists Now: The Perils and Promises In the New Era of Big Government. Sean Wilentz, the historian, wrote a book: The Age of Reagan: 1974 - 2008 The media talked of how we had reached the "end" of the era of Reagan. The book Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown talks about how every thirty to fifty years or so, the pendulum seems to swing towards the other direction. With FDR, it swung left and stayed there for about fifty years.

With Ronald Reagan, it swung to the right. With the financial crash and election of Obama, the Democrats and the media took it that the pendulum had swung to the Left, that the people had elected in Obama to usher in a new era of FDR-style big government.

But they were wrong, very wrong. The people did not elect in Obama or the Democrats for any such thing. The era of Reagan did not end, it's that the Republicans, who always claim Reagan as their icon, went and spent like drunken sailors, then had a bunch of corruption issues (also just anti-Bush sentiment from many because of the Iraq War).

So the people elected in Democrats in Congress then elected in Obama by a standard margin (moderates who decided to take a gamble and elect Obama, assuming he was far more moderate than he is).

Well Obama has since been trying to govern to the hard Left. And you can't govern to the hard Left in what is a center-right country. Obama would be fine in France, but this is the United States. If you try to govern to the hard Left here, you're going to get a reaction, and that is what the Tea Parties are.

 

[Pattonias]

One day we will have a roving band of angry extremist moderates wondering around trying to force everyone to get along with each other and follow sincible principles that are proposed by both sides. I'll join that group.

I'll be the one spraying the politicians on the nose, and saying "no, no, bad politician" anytime they bring up the statements of an opponent's supporter who is obviously an extremsit and who is making claims that are obviously not representing the party.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

That's always the leftist line of thought. When it's leftists protesting, they are "patriotic" and it's grassroots supposedly.

When it's people against a leftwing President protesting, they're "angry" and "irrational."

When the people kick the Republicans out and vote in Democrats, they are sensible. When they kick the Democrats out, they're angry and irrational (1994 was known as the year of the "angry white man" when the Democrats got slaughtered in Congress).

The fears are not irrational. With the country in a steep recession, Obama has decided to gun up spending, ramming through a massive healthcare bill which the evidence shows will not work and will cost an extraordinary amount of money. He also wants to ram through carbon cap-and-trade and so forth.

The way the healthcare bill was done and the levels of debt this country is racking up with no apparent intention of trying to bring spending under control, is a very legitimate concern. Once a nation's debt-to-GDP ratio reaches 100%, that begins to have a negative effect on economic growth.

The larger the debt gets, the larger a portion of the federal budget must be devoted to paying the interest on the debt as well.

Moody's has hinted that it may have to downgrade the U.S. debt eventually even. The way this administration is seeking to enlarge the government, the debt, this administration's handling of terrorism issues, the administration's completely soft stance on Iran, etc...have a lot of people extremely concerned.

Have you looked at the financial and economic health of left-leaning states like California, Massachusettes, New York, and New Jersey recently? Or the financial and economic health of the European nations which Obama is trying to model the U.S. after?



Depends. The Tea Party represents much of what the Republican party is supposed to be, but is not. The people voted for Obama for change; what they were too ignorant to realize was Obama was going to be more of the same. The Republicans spent their eight years under Bush spending a ton of money. People were tired of that, and in their ignorance, elected in Obama, not paying attention to what his beliefs were.

And now they are shocked, SHOCKED, that he is outspending the Republicans. Jay Leno has a new skit he's been running called "What Did You Think Was Gonna Happen!?" which shows people doing very stupid things, then seemingly stunned when what should have been obvious happens.

With Obama, I feel this way towards many people. I mean you have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid heading a Democrat Congress and then they elect in Barack Obama, and are now shocked at how he is governing, to which I say, "WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN!?" That the Democrats and Obama would spend less than Bush and the Republicans!? BWAHAHAHAHA!

The Democrats, and Obama, however, completely mis-read his election as a signal to govern to the Left. It was either Newsweek or Time that had a cover title: "We're All Socialists Now: The Perils and Promises In the New Era of Big Government. Sean Wilentz, the historian, wrote a book: The Age of Reagan: 1974 - 2008 The media talked of how we had reached the "end" of the era of Reagan. The book Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown talks about how every thirty to fifty years or so, the pendulum seems to swing towards the other direction. With FDR, it swung left and stayed there for about fifty years.

With Ronald Reagan, it swung to the right. With the financial crash and election of Obama, the Democrats and the media took it that the pendulum had swung to the Left, that the people had elected in Obama to usher in a new era of FDR-style big government.

But they were wrong, very wrong. The people did not elect in Obama or the Democrats for any such thing. The era of Reagan did not end, it's that the Republicans, who always claim Reagan as their icon, went and spent like drunken sailors, then had a bunch of corruption issues (also just anti-Bush sentiment from many because of the Iraq War).

So the people elected in Democrats in Congress then elected in Obama by a standard margin (moderates who decided to take a gamble and elect Obama, assuming he was far more moderate than he is).

Well Obama has since been trying to govern to the hard Left. And you can't govern to the hard Left in what is a center-right country. Obama would be fine in France, but this is the United States. If you try to govern to the hard Left here, you're going to get a reaction, and that is what the Tea Parties are.

That is a lot of unsubstantiated talk. How is Obama to the "far left"?

 

[Nebula815]

That is a lot of unsubstantiated talk. How is Obama to the "far left"?

What do you mean how is he to the far left? What do you call being a shill for the unions, completely rejecting the Chamber of Commerce, ramming through government healthcare, seeking tax increases in the name of "fairness," government takeover of the student-loan business, wanting government to control energy via cap-and-trade, upping the EPA's budget by 10X the normal rate of increase, seeking Net Neutrality legislation (which is supported by socialists), seeking union card check, etc...not to mention his background with some very far-left people and having some very far-left people in his administration.

There is nothing centrist about the man.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

What do you mean how is he to the far left? What do you call being a shill for the unions, completely rejecting the Chamber of Commerce, ramming through government healthcare, seeking tax increases in the name of "fairness," government takeover of the student-loan business, wanting government to control energy via cap-and-trade, upping the EPA's budget by 10X the normal rate of increase, seeking Net Neutrality legislation (which is supported by socialists), seeking union card check, etc...not to mention his background with some very far-left people and having some very far-left people in his administration.

There is nothing centrist about the man.

You say all of this, but I am not seeing any evidence provided for your claims. That is what I mean.

 

[Nebula815]

You say all of this, but I am not seeing any evidence provided for your claims. That is what I mean.

The former chairman of the SEIU sits on his Deficit Commission. You could also look at his donations from unions. He did not invite the Chamber of Commerce when he invited the unions to discuss ways to create jobs and repair the economy. He rammed through government healthcare via reconciliation, which also included a takeover of the student loan industry. Carbon cap-and-trade would allow the government to control the amounts of carbon released, and since around 60% of our energy is from coal, it would mean controlling the amount of energy used by the economy overall.

The EPA's budget normally increases by 3% each year, but under Obama, it was upped by 34%: http://earth911.com/news/2009/05/14/obamas-2010-budget-to-increase-epa-funding-by-34-percent/

Net Neutrality legislation is claimed to be needed to increase freedom and innovation on the Internet, but historically more government regulation over something does no such thing, and NN is supported by socialists such as Ben Scott of the organization Free Press.

Obama's support for union card check is one of the primary reasons the unions gave him so much support

And as for background, well that has been played to death already (Reverand Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, etc...) along with people his administration had (Van Jones, Anita Dunn (who said Mao Zedong, a man who implemented the greatest degree of mass conformity in human history, was an inspiration to her to be an individual)).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

The former chairman of the SEIU sits on his Deficit Commission. You could also look at his donations from unions. He did not invite the Chamber of Commerce when he invited the unions to discuss ways to create jobs and repair the economy. He rammed through government healthcare via reconciliation, which also included a takeover of the student loan industry. Carbon cap-and-trade would allow the government to control the amounts of carbon released, and since around 60% of our energy is from coal, it would mean controlling the amount of energy used by the economy overall.

The EPA's budget normally increases by 3% each year, but under Obama, it was upped by 34%: http://earth911.com/news/2009/05/14/obamas-2010-budget-to-increase-epa-funding-by-34-percent/

Net Neutrality legislation is claimed to be needed to increase freedom and innovation on the Internet, but historically more government regulation over something does no such thing, and NN is supported by socialists such as Ben Scott of the organization Free Press.

Obama's support for union card check is one of the primary reasons the unions gave him so much support

And as for background, well that has been played to death already (Reverand Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, etc...) along with people his administration had (Van Jones, Anita Dunn (who said Mao Zedong, a man who implemented the greatest degree of mass conformity in human history, was an inspiration to her to be an individual)).

The EPA, which was gutted to the tune of far more than such an increase in previous decades? For the rest, you are once again providing no evidence. I am not surprised at the union issue, as from my understanding, the US Democrats have been in the pockets of unions and industry, as opposed to the US Republicans who are in the pockets of industry and private donations. How is one less crooked than the other, and how is one of those "left" or "right"? Both just seem Bought to me.

Other than the usual political slights that the party out of power always whines about and experiences, you have a lot to back up given the few pages of ranting in various threads, and this especially that you have offered. I don't care if the man has a picture of Mao tatooed in his eyelids, if he doesn't enact a "cultural revolution". Show me what he has DONE, that is so negative, so far left? He hasn't moved in a substantial way to immigration, gay rights, pulling out of Afghanistan, he took the most money from BP in 2008... sorry, he seems pretty standard to me. I suppose that after W. he might seem left, but then it takes a lot to compete with two wars and trashing the US economy through deregulation.

So, unless you can show evidence and some measure of perspective, the only shill I see here is you, unwitting or not.

 

[Nebula815]

The EPA, which was gutted to the tune of far more than such an increase in previous decades?

Interesting point, will concede there, didn't know that.

For the rest, you are once again providing no evidence. I am not surprised at the union issue, as from my understanding, the US Democrats have been in the pockets of unions and industry, as opposed to the US Republicans who are in the pockets of industry and private donations. How is one less crooked than the other, and how is one of those "left" or "right"? Both just seem Bought to me.

You are correct, neither one is really for the people, but I am not saying Republicans who are in the pockets of Big Business are any good either. As for the others, I explained them quite clearly.

Other than the usual political slights that the party out of power always whines about and experiences, you have a lot to back up given the few pages of ranting in various threads, and this especially that you have offered. I don't care if the man has a picture of Mao tatooed in his eyelids, if he doesn't enact a "cultural revolution". Show me what he has DONE, that is so negative, so far left?

He is limited in what he has been able to do because the people do not want so much of it. He tried to pass government healthcare and almost failed at that. Now they are working on financial regulation.

He hasn't moved in a substantial way to immigration, gay rights, pulling out of Afghanistan,

Gay rights would be foolish to pursue right now, as the Congress would be tied up with that as opposed to more important things.

Immigration is but one issue out of many they wanted to pursue, such as healthcare, financial reform, cap-and-trade, union card check, etc...you can only do so much at a time.

On Afghanistan, I really don't get this one. For years, the Democrats have said that Afghanistan was the proper war, the justified war, that it was Iraq that was the pointless war and that Iraq was drawing resources away from the "proper" war, Afghanistan. Now Obama is President and the Democrats act as if he should just pull right out of Afghanistan...?

he took the most money from BP in 2008... sorry, he seems pretty standard to me.

That's because in addition to unions, trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, Democrats are in the pockets of Big Business a good deal a well. Wall Street also gave Obama a lot of money. However BP is a company with a "green" agenda as of late as well, which might be tied to their support of Obama.

I suppose that after W. he might seem left, but then it takes a lot to compete with two wars and trashing the US economy through deregulation.

The economy wasn't trashed through deregulation. That is grossly oversimplifying it. The economy went down due to a perfect storm of factors, a particular one being excessive government in certain areas.

So, unless you can show evidence and some measure of perspective, the only shill I see here is you, unwitting or not.

One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. I don't know where you get the idea that running on a platform of union card check, cap-and-trade, government healthcare, tax increases, massive spending, etc...is not to the left.

Your claims about "evidence" I do not understand, as most of this stuff is common knowledge about Obama to anyone who has looked at him.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Interesting point, will concede there, didn't know that.



You are correct, neither one is really for the people, but I am not saying Republicans who are in the pockets of Big Business are any good either. As for the others, I explained them quite clearly.



He is limited in what he has been able to do because the people do not want so much of it. He tried to pass government healthcare and almost failed at that. Now they are working on financial regulation.



Gay rights would be foolish to pursue right now, as the Congress would be tied up with that as opposed to more important things.

Immigration is but one issue out of many they wanted to pursue, such as healthcare, financial reform, cap-and-trade, union card check, etc...you can only do so much at a time.

On Afghanistan, I really don't get this one. For years, the Democrats have said that Afghanistan was the proper war, the justified war, that it was Iraq that was the pointless war and that Iraq was drawing resources away from the "proper" war, Afghanistan. Now Obama is President and the Democrats act as if he should just pull right out of Afghanistan...?



That's because in addition to unions, trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, Democrats are in the pockets of Big Business a good deal a well. Wall Street also gave Obama a lot of money. However BP is a company with a "green" agenda as of late as well, which might be tied to their support of Obama.



The economy wasn't trashed through deregulation. That is grossly oversimplifying it. The economy went down due to a perfect storm of factors, a particular one being excessive government in certain areas.



One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. I don't know where you get the idea that running on a platform of union card check, cap-and-trade, government healthcare, tax increases, massive spending, etc...is not to the left.

Your claims about "evidence" I do not understand, as most of this stuff is common knowledge about Obama to anyone who has looked at him.

By evidence, I mean context which allows one to say, "ah, cap-and-trade is silly" or "34% up for the EPA is still pissing in the ocean". This is PF, when you make claims, common knowledge and sense doesn't cut it. You literally NEED to site, it is in that bit of text you agreed to when you signed up.

Now, let me tell you, I am a naturalized US citizen, but not originally from the US. I don't have the same perspective as you, so really a lot of this I have no way of knowing or trusting without sourcing it. You are making the claims, so you get to back them up. If I wanted to claim that bush went into Iraq for oil, you'd be right to call ME on that and demand evidence... which I don't think I could find. Do you see what I mean?

 

[Nebula815]

By evidence, I mean context which allows one to say, "ah, cap-and-trade is silly"

You need a "source" to understand that cap-and-trade will give the government control over the energy usage of the economy when coal is one of the primary sources of energy in the United States?

or "34% up for the EPA is still pissing in the ocean".

What that would show is where his ideology lies.

This is PF, when you make claims, common knowledge and sense doesn't cut it. You literally NEED to site, it is in that bit of text you agreed to when you signed up.

You need to cite things that are obscure forms of knowledge. No one should have to cite the things I am saying. Things you cite are if you claim for example why the healthcare bill won't work. Not the fact that Congress had to use reconciliation to pass it.

Now, let me tell you, I am a naturalized US citizen, but not originally from the US. I don't have the same perspective as you, so really a lot of this I have no way of knowing or trusting without sourcing it. You are making the claims, so you get to back them up.

I think you are simply trying to draw attention away from the arguments I am making here. Nothing I have said thus far requires sourcing, unless you've been living under a rock. Would you also need sourcing to know that Bush was not for cap-and-trade? Or that Bush signed the Patriot Act? Some things should not require sourcing.

If I wanted to claim that bush went into Iraq for oil, you'd be right to call ME on that and demand evidence... which I don't think I could find. Do you see what I mean?

Sure that would need a source, because no where did the administration ever talk about that or list that as a reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtlOBa6qa3o

 

[magpies]

That guys getting old in sooo many ways.

 

[NeoDevin]

That guys getting old in sooo many ways.

Beck or Black? (or both?)