# 'Would the Tea Party Exist....'



## midcan5 (May 10, 2010)

"Actually, there is no alienation that a little power will not cure."   Eric Hoffer

Would the tea party exist if McCain had won?  No, it would not. Even a leading tea party organizer admitted that aspect of the organization on Chris Matthews. So why? If you ask a tea party sympathizer they would tell you because McCain would be different. Of course he would be different, he would be a republican. Is that the only difference. The tea partier would of course say no.

So we know there would be no tea party if the republicans had won. That much is clear. If the tea party were a legitimate grass roots organization concerned with government and debt they would have attacked George W. Bush. They did not. So then next question, how is Obama different from Bush Jr? Well, he is not different in any fundamental way. Obama's policies so far differ nada with Bush Jr. OK then, why and whither the tea party?

Some would argue there are big differences between Obama and Bush, but a comparison so far is minimal. The difference is not real but created by the right after the loss of the presidency. Why? A simple reply would be if you think your ideology the right one, any change conflicts and confuses. Defining that ideology would be a challenge. 

Jump back in that way-back machine for a moment to William Jefferson Clinton's election. Does anything seem the same? What is different? Hillary and Bill met the same anguished and resolute opposition, they were accused of the same socialism. Hillary was pilloried as beyond evil, often as the devil herself. Why? And what has changed. Eight more years of republican governance and power. Add more corporate money for think tanks, books, and other various propaganda and you have the makings of today.

Then there is the complex issue of race. Racists run from the label racist, only the skinheads actually admit their racism. Of course they will tell you they are protecting their race. For the tea party, racism exists at the fringes, but common foes always provide for an assorted group of odd bedfellows.

A great irony of the tea party is fact they appear mainstream and basically comfortable with their perks as baby boomers, social security recipients, and medicare participants. All the so called socialism they presumably are against provides them great comfort.

So who is their Marx, their Mao, because all movements of this sort have leaders. This is a question that deserves a study in mass movements. I would surely name Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and many conservative and corporate think tanks, web sites, and blogs as their leader, or at least instigator. The run-up to the election was filled with the worst vitriol, and had the republicans under Bush not failed so badly, or even selected a change candidate - is that possible - the election may have been different.  

Would the tea party exist if the republicans had won? The human mind often lives a narrative that is pure fantasy. Conservative media provided and provides that fantasy. If only things were different all would be well. If only someone else was in charge. It is the power of mass movements and mass hypnosis that motivates the tea party today. But it is the loss of power that motivates its leaders as it always has. 


"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." Eric Hoffer


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 10, 2010)

The only reason I was glad Obama won was because it takes an incredible fuck up to get the Right interested and motivated to act in politics, and Lord knows, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are the biggest fuck ups we've ever had.

There was unorganized push back against Juan McCain and Dubya Illegal Immigration Plan in 2007, but Obama did galvanize us


----------



## Stephanie (May 10, 2010)

Boy oh boy, all of a sudden a LOT of people are worried about the Tea Party.

you have to wonder why?

could it be the PROGRESSIVES are seeing their Lose of Power happening with election after election.?

Goodbye to ya Progressive freaks, wouldn't want to be ya.


----------



## Oddball (May 10, 2010)




----------



## editec (May 10, 2010)

Valid argument, I think.

Had McCain been elected we'd still be in Iraq and afghanistan, the banks WOULD have been bailed out, we'd still be spending way more than the government takes in, too.

But there'd be no teaparty movement, because the TP movement is a republican animal_ without doubt._

Instead, has McCain been elected,  we'd have CODE PINK to laugh at like many of us now laugh at the idiots in the TP movement.


----------



## Oddball (May 10, 2010)

Nobody can say that because the clock can't be turned back.

The OP is nothing more than poorly disguised race baiting, cowering behind a navel gazing "if only X had happened" fallacy.


----------



## peach174 (May 10, 2010)

What part of Tea Party are you all not getting? They are the silent majority of voters. They are made up of Repubs, Dems, and independents. They are sick and tired of both parties.
They want to get back to the republic form of government. Where it is a government repesentaion of the people by the people and not the special interests and only the special interests aka lobbyist's!!!!!


----------



## Truthmatters (May 10, 2010)

peach174 said:


> What part of Tea Party are you all not getting? They are the silent majority of voters. They are made up of Repubs, Dems, and independents. They are sick and tired of both parties.
> They want to get back to the republic form of government. Where it is a government repesentaion of the people by the people and not the special interests and only the special interests aka lobbyist's!!!!!



Bullshit.

They are NOT a majority.

They are a right wing fringe group.


----------



## midcan5 (May 10, 2010)

editec said:


> Valid argument, I think.
> 
> Had McCain been elected we'd still be in Iraq and afghanistan, the banks WOULD have been bailed out, we'd still be spending way more than the government takes in, too.
> 
> ...



Yes.  Some get it, others hide their heads in the ground.


----------



## California Girl (May 10, 2010)

editec said:


> Valid argument, I think.
> 
> Had McCain been elected we'd still be in Iraq and afghanistan, the banks WOULD have been bailed out, we'd still be spending way more than the government takes in, too.
> 
> ...



It's only a 'Republican animal' if you don't know the difference between Republican and Conservative. It's a Conservative movement.... and now the GOP are jumpin' all over it. Just like a bunch of politicians. Fucking assholes.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 10, 2010)

hahahahahah


it was stolen as a platfrom from the Ron Paul crowd.

It is a libertarian creation.

Now its a right wing fringe nut palace


----------



## midcan5 (May 12, 2010)

California Girl said:


> It's only a 'Republican animal' if you don't know the difference between Republican and Conservative. It's a Conservative movement.... and now the GOP are jumpin' all over it. Just like a bunch of politicians. Fucking assholes.



Please tell us the difference, be specific, if you see and understand this difference, it should be easy to outline in enough detail that it contains some real meat so those of us who see not one difference can see.


----------



## Immanuel (May 12, 2010)

peach174 said:


> What part of Tea Party are you all not getting? They are the silent majority of voters. They are made up of Repubs, Dems, and independents. They are sick and tired of both parties.
> They want to get back to the republic form of government. Where it is a government repesentaion of the people by the people and not the special interests and only the special interests aka lobbyist's!!!!!



First, let me welcome you to USMB.

I have to disagree with you.  Everything I have seen to date says that the only thing the Tea Party really cares about is electing Republicans.  

California Girl has told me before (I think it was CG, if not I apologize to her and whoever it was that said it) that they only welcome Republicans that have "come over to their way of thinking".  Well, I guess I haven't seen any Republicans that have not "come over to their way of thinking" because I sure have not seen a Republican that the Tea Party doesn't seem to like.

I'd also have to say that anyone in the Tea Party that actually believes that any Republican has actually "come over to their way of thinking" is an absolute fool.  If a Republican politician seems to support the Tea Party, it is not because they have changed philosophies, it is because they think being seen with the tea party will bring them more votes than it costs them.

Immie


----------



## jeffrockit (May 14, 2010)

peach174 said:


> What part of Tea Party are you all not getting? They are the silent majority of voters. They are made up of Repubs, Dems, and independents. They are sick and tired of both parties.
> They want to get back to the republic form of government. Where it is a government repesentaion of the people by the people and not the special interests and only the special interests aka lobbyist's!!!!!



They are only getting the Tea Party that MSNBC and Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow and Olberman show. They show the fringe freaks only, that every group has. They never show or interview the actual well read and researched members as it makes for a slow media day. If the left demonizes the party, they can get a few mindless followers over to the "Hope and Change" side. They won't really tell you how that is working out though.


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 14, 2010)

Dude said:


>



Does that Card allow Unlimited Spending?


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 14, 2010)

California Girl said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Valid argument, I think.
> ...



In all Fairness CG, If it were a Conservative Movement they wouldn't be supporting Palin or any other Nut job out there.. 

But if your talking about what it Stands for then yes, you're right.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2010)

It is difficult to say what would have transpired if McCain had won because none of us know for sure what McCain would have done.  But I don't think there would have been a stimulus package.  I don't think there would be a massive healthcare overhaul.  I don't think that TARP would have been converted to a giant petty cash fund.   I'm not sure what he would be doing re presumed global warming but cap and trade would be a bit less scary.  I don't think the government would be the major stockholder in General Motors and we wouldn't be showing extreme favoritism to favored unions.   We wouldn't have a West Wing full of unvetted and unapproved czars doing God knows what.

Iraq and Afghanistan have not been on the Tea Partier's 'to do' list so I'm thinking they don't have any big quarrels with the current Administration on that one.  Would McCain have done things differently.  No way to know.

I think there WOULD have been a big push to deregulate as much as possible, at least temporarily, to roll back taxes or make the Bush tax cuts permanent as much as possible to stimulate the economy.  We wouldn't have had a trillion dollars of pork poured into it and called a stimulus package.

If I'm wrong about that, then yes, I think the Tea Parties would have emerged just the same because they are not political but motivated by principles, values, and ideals.  And I don't think they give a tinkers dam which party comes through for them on that score.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2010)

Ah yes, motivated by principles. "Keep Government out of my Medicare!" LOL. 

The Teabaggers do perform a real service, in that they bring into daylight the lunitic fringe, and expose the ideas of the Conservatives for what they are. Conservatives, with a capital C, not to be confused with conservatives.

Another service they are performing is making sure that Democrats will be elected by replacing mainstream Republicans in the primaries with real fruitcakes. Amusing, and you have my full support.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2010)

Then again, maybe the Tea Partiers would have emerged anyway just to keep the  conservatives honest and to demand that government be restored to some reasonable and principled concepts.  And as long as folks like Old Rocks think people who support those concepts are the 'lunatic fringe' we will need the Tea Party movement.


----------



## Si modo (May 14, 2010)

The left sure is focused on race.

Hmmmm.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2010)

Si modo said:


> The left sure is focused on race.
> 
> Hmmmm.



That does seem to be the court of last resort for them.    They can't attack the principles themselves without looking like idiots.  So they attack and insult those holding the principles and try to marginalize, diminish, discredit them.  And of course, being the race conscious folks they are which makes them the racists, they think calling others 'racist' is the worst and scariest insult they can heap on them.

I think it is interesting to wonder if the Tea Parties would have emerged if McCain had been elected.  My experience with the Tea Partiers is they are in no way motivated or concerned about political party.  So if he had governed even close to the way Obama has governed, I have to believe the Tea Parties would have been generated anyway.


----------



## Si modo (May 14, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The left sure is focused on race.
> ...



Because of Bush's last hurrah with the checkbook before ducking out of the WH, anyone who kept up that sort of insanity would have motivated protests.  Based on McCain's track record, I have little doubt of the same.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 14, 2010)

I suppose that depends alot on what John McCain would have done once elected. Because I could easily see the Tea Party existing with him as well.

Of course, the way this administration has completely ignored the will of the people and forced legislation through has seriously helped the Tea Party gain momentum. So it wouldn't likely be as strong.


----------



## Eccgmike (May 14, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > What part of Tea Party are you all not getting? They are the silent majority of voters. They are made up of Repubs, Dems, and independents. They are sick and tired of both parties.
> ...


Oh!,... Well since you said that it MUST be true!!!  You kooky lib's either just don't get it, or you think if you say something over and over, perhaps it will become truth. I guess 73% of American's aren't REALLY for the immigration bill, and Eric Holder is a really smart guy! The reason lib's always end up back at the "Tea partier's" is because they ARE the majority, and they ARE a MAJOR threat to the left wing agenda! Brown, Christie,Bennett......all examples of the "fringe-ness" of the tea partier's . Don't worry kookalibs, your brief run is nearing the end. As always, when you do manage to "dupe" the American people to give you a shot, you guys act as if you have liscence to shove every last radical policy down our throats, and you always get pushed right out again!! Just look at history, it doesn't lie. So enjoy the stage for a few more months, cause the lights are going down, and nobody's in the balcony!


----------



## midcan5 (May 14, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > The left sure is focused on race.
> ...



Only at the fringe, please read the words posted and not your own personal limited biased view of others. 

When key leaders of the tea party admit it would not have formed had McCain won, I think you have to believe them. Now this was only two people but since they represent the party, I think their words valid. Most forget the Clinton election, and the same sentiment, the only thing missing was a tea party. Of course they had conservative think tank money, 40 million of your money, and a real flunky, Kenny Starr. It is a republican thing, be honest for a change, a real change.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



There ARE no 'key leaders' of the tea party movement, so I don't feel obligated to believe them.  There is no "Tea Party" (capital T - capital P)  And I don't feel obligated to accept your interpretation about what is 'honest'.

If McCain had won and governed right of center and had avoided most of the issues the Tea Partiers are addressing, then there would have been no Tea Party movement.  If he had continued down the fiscally irresponsible road and continued to increase the scope and authority of government as we have seen the last couple of years, then I believe there would have been a Tea Party movement no matter who was in the White House.

Until folks like yourself have the ability to know what the Tea Partiers are all about and are capable of honestly assessing that, you are hardly in a position to lecture me about honesty.

Do have a nice day.


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 14, 2010)

FoxFyre, there's no need to waste your time, He Probably believes the Tea Partiers are paid by Fox News.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 14, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> FoxFyre, there's no need to waste your time, He Probably believes the Tea Partiers are paid by Fox News.



I don't expect everybody to appreciate the Tea Partiers or see them as a constructive thing.  I do expect people to represent them honestly, however, and I will continue to call them on it when they don't.   I don't believe in letting the opposition determine either the language or the agenda.

But you're probably right and I am wasting my time.


----------



## midcan5 (May 17, 2010)

Ostrich, thy name is republican conservative.  Ignoring reality is a quality you guys possess way too much of.  But why this fact is denied does perplex me. I guess though it is the normal American meme that [you] we are special, when you are really the same complainers, whiners, biased non think tanks, and assorted wingnuts that tried to drive Clinton from the presidency. Face reality for a change, you may get used to the view.  


Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated - NYTimes.com

"The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as &#8220;very conservative&#8221; and President Obama as &#8220;very liberal.&#8221;

And while most Republicans say they are &#8220;dissatisfied&#8221; with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as &#8220;angry.&#8221;

The Tea Party movement burst onto the scene a year ago in protest of the economic stimulus package, and *its supporters have vowed to purge the Republican Party of officials they consider not sufficiently conservative and to block the Democratic agenda on the economy, the environment and health care.* But the demographics and attitudes of those in the movement have been known largely anecdotally. The Times/CBS poll offers a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of those supporters. "


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 3, 2010)

"Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our Gods Politics blog is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement  and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual rights as its supreme value and considers government the major obstacle. It tends to be liberal on cultural and moral issues and conservative on fiscal, economic, and foreign policy. This just leave me alone and dont spend my money option is growing quickly in American life, as we have seen in the Tea Party movement. Libertarianism has been an undercurrent in the Republican Party for some time, and has been in the news lately due to the primary election win of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for a Senate seat in Kentucky. Paul has spoken like a true Libertarian, as evidenced by some of his comments since that election last week."

How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism? - Jim Wallis - God&#039;s Politics Blog


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Boy oh boy, all of a sudden a LOT of people are worried about the Tea Party.
> 
> you have to wonder why?
> 
> ...



Is the "Tea Party" still around?


----------



## LANMaster (Jun 7, 2010)

Yes, the TEA party movement would still have developed if McCain had won.

McCain is no fiscal Conservative.   And that is really what the TEA Party movement is all about.

It's not GOP, but fiscal Conservatism.    It's the Independent candidate's dream .... so long as that Independent is fiscally conservative.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 7, 2010)

LANMaster said:


> Yes, the TEA party movement would still have developed if McCain had won.
> 
> McCain is no fiscal Conservative.   And that is really what the TEA Party movement is all about.
> 
> It's not GOP, but fiscal Conservatism.    It's the Independent candidate's dream .... so long as that Independent is fiscally conservative.



I honestly don't know how John McCain would have governed.  I have opposed many of his initiatives over the years as being far too liberal to be good for the country, and I was strongly opposed to him winning the GOP nomination.  But I do think that basically, as politicians go, he might be one of the more honest and consistent ones.   Up until mid 2008, the deficits were coming down, the budget was approaching balance without tax increases, the developing cyclical recession appeared to be a mild and short lived one, and the election hadn't happened yet.  The Tea Partiers were furious at the fiscal imprudence of the Republicans, but all in all there was no srong incentive for Tea Parties to organize.   I think the seeds had been planted though.

Then came the housing bubble collapse that set us all reeling.  McCain, among many others, supported TARP and we swallowed hard and didn't raise too much of a stink, but that is when the red warning flags started seriously popping up.   Everybody waited to see if Obama would be as good as his campaign rhetoric.  And the liberal Democrats were rewarded with a Congressional super majority along with him that November.

Then in February, it was the dishonest appropriations bill passed early on coupled with an unconscionable and fiscally mad stimulus package initiated by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid machine that frightened the Tea Partiers enough to start mobilizing in earnest.  And it was the equally unconscionable, irresponsible, and fiscally suicidal healthcare overhaul coupled with a proposed federal budget that only a madman could endorse that goaded them into high gear.

Would a President McCain have supported that pork laden appropriations bill?  Senator McCain voted against it.

Would a President McCain have supported a stimulus package?   Senator McCain led the fight against it.

Would a President McCain have signed a Pelosi/Reid designed healthcare bill into law or accepted that insane budget?  Senator McCain strenuously opposed both.

Given the Democrats' super majority status however, they could have overridden a Presidential veto.  Would they have?   I don't know.

But you may be right, that if McCain had dusted off his conservative roots and governed from a sensible position right of center on all important policies, the Tea Partiers might still have mobilized to get rid of that super majority.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda......some things its fun to speculate about.  But we just don't know.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 7, 2010)

There would be no tea party if McCain had won. Analyzing his record means little, the key element is he is a republican and the tea party is republican - plus a few fringe nutcases. Denying reality is nice but no tea party candidate exists as the piece below shows. To repeat,* the same craziness occurred when Clinton won*. Bush had relative political peace until he turned out to be so large a buffoon even the conservatives disowned him. 

*"There is no Tea Party. * 

Forget the internal documents showing that the Tea Party Express outfit is merely a blatant, cynical effort to make money for the PR agencies who are organizing crowds.  Those are just facts and can easily be dismissed by anyone willing to close their eyes.

But less easily dismissed is that for all the effort of the PR agencies putting together rallies, putting together town halls, putting together conventions, theres one thing they somehow havent been able to put together, that youd think would be really important for a political party 

Candidates.

I dont mean Republican candidates who say they support the Tea Party, pandering to get Tea Party votes.  No, no, I mean people running on an actual Tea Party Ticket.

For instance, there was angst-ridden outrage last week in California when Sarah Palin endorsed fired Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for the Senate over the supposed Tea Party Candidate, Chuck DeVore. Except that, you see, Mr. DeVore is a Republican.  Hes running in the Republican primary.  He wants to be the Republican Senator.

If the Tea Party actually existed, if Tea Party People truly had the courage of their convictions, if the Tea Party wasnt merely a PR gimmick  then wed see Chuck DeVore running in the Tea Party. "

What if You Held a Tea Party and Nobody Came? - Robert J. Elisberg - Open Salon


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 7, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> There would be no tea party if McCain had won. Analyzing his record means little, the key element is he is a republican and the tea party is republican - plus a few fringe nutcases. Denying reality is nice but no tea party candidate exists as the piece below shows. To repeat,* the same craziness occurred when Clinton won*. Bush had relative political peace until he turned out to be so large a buffoon even the conservatives disowned him.
> 
> *"There is no Tea Party. *
> 
> ...



Alas another one drinking the kool-ade furnished by the leftwing 'let's destroy the Tea Party' campaign.  You simply don't have a clue what the Tea Party is, who is in it, or what it is all about.  Well back to the drawing board.  There must be a way to educate the most brainwashed.  At least I keep hoping.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 21, 2010)

"As of 2004, the richest one percent of Americans possessed sixty percent of all wealth in the country, while the bottom forty percent accounted for a whopping two-tenths of a percent." 791 American companies outsource their work to foreign countries. Added together, how many jobs do you think this list comprises? "Currently there are 2.4 million job openings for 15.3 million unemployed Americans."  At the top: Soaring incomes, falling tax rates


While I still am in agreement with my basic assessment of the tea party from few months ago, I have been re-reading John Kenneth Galbraith and it occurred to me the more appropriate name for the tea party would be the 'contented party.' Contented with their perks and privileges under republicans, but afraid democrats may ask them to make a small sacrifice for all Americans. The growth of the 'contented' in America has changed the dialectic so much that now 'greed' has become a virtue and personal philosophy for many Americans.  

Reading the "Culture of Contentment" or "The Good Society" is reading a clairvoyant who not only sees the future, but they explain it in a detail that astounds. A similar situation took place when Clinton was elected. The bubble economy and its consequent recession are covered well in these two books. Check them out if you want to read honest, excellent economic writing and analysis.



"'The Culture of Contentment' is a deliberate misnomer.  Galbraith is using irony here, irony little short of sarcasm.  What he really means is the culture of smugness.  His argument is that until the mid 1970s round about the oil crisis the western democracies accepted the idea of a mixed economy and with that went economic social progress. Since then, however,* a prominent class has emerged, materially stable and even very rich, which, far from trying to help the less fortunate, has developed a whole infrastructure - politically and intellectually - to marginalize and even demonize them. Aspects of this include tax reductions to the better off and welfare cuts to the worst off, small 'manageable wars' to maintain the unifying force of a common enemy, the idea of 'unmitigated laissez-faire as embodiment of freedom,' and a desire for cutback in government. The most important collective end result of all this, Galbraith says, is a blindness and a deafness among the 'contented' to the growing problems of society. While they are content to spend, or have spent in their name, trillions of dollars to defeat relatively minor enemy figures... they are extremely unwilling to spend money on the underclass nearer home. In a startling paragraph he quotes figures to show that 'the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 28% in just 10 years from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32 million in 1988 by then nearly one in five children was born in poverty in the United States more than twice as high a proportion as in Canada or Germany."* Peter Watson in "The Modern Mind"


If you want an eye opener please check these two books out. 


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Contentment-Penguin-economics-Galbraith/dp/0140173668/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Culture of Contentment, the (Penguin economics) (9780140173666): John Kenneth Galbraith: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Good-Society-Humane-Agenda/dp/0395859980/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Good Society: The Humane Agenda (0046442859981):[/ame]


Also check out Dean Baker, Joe Bageant, and David Michael Green, they provide a viewpoint that is rare today. Money has bought media and controlled media and politics since The New Deal, and change has become much more difficult than it was for FDR or LBJ. Society moves back and forth, the tea party is an example of back. The contented class cries and cries and the corporations laugh and laugh. 

The Conservative Nanny State

The Regressive Antidote - Mission Accomplished: The Reagan Occupation and the Destruction of the American Middle Class

Joe Bageant: Tea Baggers are our canary in the coal mine

Jared Diamond on why societies collapse | Video on TED.com

Economics for all: Economic Policy Institute


----------



## daveman (Aug 21, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Boy oh boy, all of a sudden a LOT of people are worried about the Tea Party.
> 
> you have to wonder why?
> 
> ...


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 21, 2010)

daveman said:


> [



If whining equates to victory, you guys are clear winners or is that whiners?  

Your (copied) response is you assume others fear a group that is really just representative of the usual human penchant for whining? Why would the tea party be any different from say the Greeks protesting a change in their benefits? The privileged, even when the privilege is small, don't appreciate any changes to the status quo. 

Also, you assume there is substance to the tea party whining that would make some difference. If there is you need to show it. Whining is whining, the contented hate the thought they may have to support the society that supports them. Note too that they are mostly middle aged or older and have lots of time on their hands, if they were hard at life and work, they may want some rest, not active whining.

Galbraith nails it:


[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Contentment-Penguin-economics-Galbraith/dp/0140173668/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8[/ame]


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 21, 2010)

I think it is convenient for the left to view the Tea Party as a GOP creation. Which I don't think it is. It is also convenient for the GOP to view it that way, as they try to coat-tail to the extent the Tea Party gets traction.

It is undeniable, though, that the average tea party person is more likely to share GOP views than Dem views, although I know a few Dems who are part of the tea party locally.

If McCain had one, who knows what would have happened with the tea party.  On the one hand, McCain and even Bush are not people who govern in the ways the tea partiers profess to want, so you could still see the movement come about.  But on the other hand, it takes a certain amount of 'critical mass' to get people motivated and to turn out for something like the tea party events, particularly those members who haven't been politically active before.  Even if those same people didn't like McCain, there may not have been enough dislike or concern for people to show up to tea party events.


----------



## daveman (Aug 21, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I see you have yet to learn the difference between your opinion and fact.  And that your opinion isn't fact because you really, really, really want it to be.  

Oh, and "copied" response?  I created that image.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> I think it is convenient for the left to view the Tea Party as a GOP creation. Which I don't think it is. It is also convenient for the GOP to view it that way, as they try to coat-tail to the extent the Tea Party gets traction.
> 
> It is undeniable, though, that the average tea party person is more likely to share GOP views than Dem views, although I know a few Dems who are part of the tea party locally.
> 
> If McCain had one, who knows what would have happened with the tea party.  On the one hand, McCain and even Bush are not people who govern in the ways the tea partiers profess to want, so you could still see the movement come about.  But on the other hand, it takes a certain amount of 'critical mass' to get people motivated and to turn out for something like the tea party events, particularly those members who haven't been politically active before.  Even if those same people didn't like McCain, there may not have been enough dislike or concern for people to show up to tea party events.



You're right that the GOP had absolutely nothing, zero, zip nada to do with the organization and creation of the Tea Parties.  In fact many GOP leaders initially turned up their noses in disdain and criticized the Tea Partiers.  At least they did until they realized how popular the Tea Parties were becoming among much of their base and they they were scrambling like mad to get on board.  Hypocrisy is not limited to the Democrats for sure.

I would guess maybe the largest group among our local Tea Party rallies has been registered Republicans, but I think they were only a plurality and not a majority.  The Independents and Democrats and others together most likely made up the majority.  We were not in any way interested in party affiliations or anything else among those who participated.  We wanted people there who shared the primary Tea Party goals of smaller, more effective limited federal government, less oppressive taxes, and appreciation for the intent of the Constitution.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 21, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> If the Tea Party actually existed, if Tea Party People truly had the courage of their convictions, if the Tea Party wasnt merely a PR gimmick  then wed see Chuck DeVore running in the Tea Party. "
> 
> What if You Held a Tea Party and Nobody Came? - Robert J. Elisberg - Open Salon





Dude, you're confusing the Tea Party with the Coffee Party.

The Coffee Party is the one with no partiers.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Steerpike said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is convenient for the left to view the Tea Party as a GOP creation. Which I don't think it is. It is also convenient for the GOP to view it that way, as they try to coat-tail to the extent the Tea Party gets traction.
> ...



Yeah, the largest group here are Republicans as well.  But Dems and Independents are involved as well.  At one rally, a Democrat was one of the speakers. It probably differs a bit from place to place, since a lot of these groups are local-area grassroots in origin. I'm sure some such rallys have been put together by people involved with the GOP establishment, but I don't think that's what happens in most cases, and it isn't what happened at the outset (and you're right about GOPers turning up their noses at the outset).


----------



## daveman (Aug 21, 2010)

boedicca said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > If the Tea Party actually existed, if Tea Party People truly had the courage of their convictions, if the Tea Party wasnt merely a PR gimmick  then wed see Chuck DeVore running in the Tea Party. "
> ...


----------



## johnrocks (Aug 21, 2010)

I think it would still exist but on a much smaller "Ron Paul/Libertarian scale" that it did prior to the election.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 21, 2010)

LANMaster said:


> Yes, the TEA party movement would still have developed if McCain had won.
> 
> McCain is no fiscal Conservative.   And that is really what the TEA Party movement is all about.
> 
> It's not GOP, but fiscal Conservatism.    It's the Independent candidate's dream .... so long as that Independent is fiscally conservative.



Odd, we had eight years of deficit spending and they didn't emerge from the woodwork. PAYGO was allowed to expire, deficit-financed wars were started, deficit-financed entitlements were created, deficit-financed tax cuts were passed, deficit-financed "doc fixes" to the SGR formula were begun. Legislation curtailing civil liberties was passed, and executive action infringing on the Fourth Amendment was revealed. The largest expansion of the federal government in decades took place when a massive new cabinet-level bureaucracy was created. And they did nothing, not even so much as changing their voting pattern (which, despite your protestations, is obvious).

If they were about fiscal conservatism and smaller government, they would've emerged when fiscal conservatism was abandoned almost a decade ago.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the TEA party movement would still have developed if McCain had won.
> ...



Except that up until mid 2008, pretty much full employment had been achieved, inflation was under control, interest rates were low, the economy was rocking right along, and the deficts were coming down, down, down.  If the housing bubble had not burst in 2008, the budget was on track to be balanced again within a year or two.    That is not the sort of scenario that triggers major movements among the people.

It took extreme legislation, the looming prospect of taxes and regulation that the vast majority of the people do not want, and trillion dollar deficits to mobilize the Tea Parties.  Personally, I think anybody who loves their freedoms and the traditional American way of life would have to appreciate that.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Except that up until mid 2008, pretty much full employment had been achieved, inflation was under control, interest rates were low, the economy was rocking right along, and the deficts were coming down, down, down.



Thank you for making my point. These people aren't principled opponents of larger government or deficit-spending. We agree that they don't give a shit about those things, not as long as they've got bread and circuses. We're slowly coming out of a deep recession and they're angry and afraid and, luckily for them, the other party is now in charge and makes an easy target for their rage.

Their "movement" will disappear as the economy recovers, regardless of what policies are or aren't proposed and implemented.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 21, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > LANMaster said:
> ...



Defecits were coming down down down in 2008?????


----------



## blu (Aug 21, 2010)

the real conservatives were in the tea party  when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Until the housing bubble began to collapse, yes they were.

This graph was put out in March 2009 using CBO numbers as projected by the CBO and Obama administrations.  Because there is no way to project the numbers with pinpoint accuracy, the actual numbers have been some off, but the dramatic differences have come to be just as predicted.   The Bush numbers nobody has quibbled with to date.






It all started unraveling in late spring 2008, continued over the summer and then collapsed triggering the bipartisan TARP rescue attempt.  As you can see even the Obama administration projected deficits worse than the worst of the 2008 deficit for as far as we can see.  Take Afghanistan and Iraq out of the Bush graph and you essentially have balanced budgets except for the short recession triggered by 9/11.  And take the almost $400 billion of TARP money spent out of 2008 and it wouldn't look so bad either.

We aren't being shown projected deficits now that the healthcare legislation passed, but I'm guessing that once that and other unpopular legislation kicks in, Obama's really unacceptable projections as well as the reality are going to be much much worse.

The last I saw, they are projecting a 1.47 TRILLION dollar deficit for this year which is worse than their estimate from last year but I don't think last year's deficit was quite as bad as the projection--maybe close to this year's deficit?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 21, 2010)

blu said:


> the real conservatives were in the tea party  when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop



when was the current tea party founded?  I thought it was late 2008/early 2009?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > the real conservatives were in the tea party  when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop
> ...



No I don't think so.  Everybody was pretty incensed about TARP in late 2008 thinking that was really REALLY a dumb move, but they were still deciding whether to let the government convince them it was the right thing to do when Congress and Obama hit them with that pork laden appropriations bill that infuriated them further and then the  stimulus package was absolutely the last straw. So the Tea Parties started revving up in late winter/early spring 2009 and has been further fueled by still more idiocies coming from our fearless leaders.

The Obama Administration and the current Congress, if they wanted to calm everybody down, have done a really good job so far to keep them angry, focused, and revved up.  There is no "Tea Party" as such but just grass roots 'tea party" activists springing up in communities all across the land though they are now forming into something approaching an organization.   It's been a fascinating thing to watch.


----------



## blu (Aug 21, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > the real conservatives were in the tea party  when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop
> ...



ron paul started them in 2003 or so


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 21, 2010)

blu said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Yeah but that was only 15 members, that is just a cult.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 23, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Thank you for making my point. These people aren't principled opponents of larger government or deficit-spending. We agree that they don't give a shit about those things, not as long as they've got bread and circuses. We're slowly coming out of a deep recession and they're angry and afraid and, luckily for them, the other party is now in charge and makes an easy target for their rage.
> 
> Their "movement" will disappear as the economy recovers, regardless of what policies are or aren't proposed and implemented.



Exactly.  Any reading of history often bewilders because it is as if nothing is new under the sun.


----------



## Intense (Aug 23, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "Actually, there is no alienation that a little power will not cure."   Eric Hoffer
> 
> Would the tea party exist if McCain had won?  No, it would not. Even a leading tea party organizer admitted that aspect of the organization on Chris Matthews. So why? If you ask a tea party sympathizer they would tell you because McCain would be different. Of course he would be different, he would be a republican. Is that the only difference. The tea partier would of course say no.
> 
> ...



I would disagree with you in principle, Midcan. Personally I believe McCain would have taken the Country is the same direction, at a slower rate. Is it an easier end for a live Lobster if you drop it in a pot of boiling water, or slowly bring it to a boil. 

Not all solutions are compatible with life in a Federalist Constitutional,  Republic, Midcan. It is how we approach the problems and solutions that matter as much as the problem's themselves. When a solution compounds a situation, that is not necessarily a measure of success. What you either fail to realize or refuse to admit and address, is that the main body of Tea Party Member's are Independent's. Many of whom supported Obama in2008. Honesty is the best policy Midcan.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 25, 2010)

Intense said:


> ...What you either fail to realize or refuse to admit and address, is that the main body of Tea Party Member's are Independent's. Many of whom supported Obama in2008. Honesty is the best policy Midcan.



"...More than half (54 percent) identify as Republicans, and another 41 percent say they are independents. Just five percent call themselves Democrats, compared to 31 percent of adults nationwide. 

Nearly three in four describe themselves as conservative, and 39 percent call themselves very conservative. Sixty percent say they always or usually vote Republican...."

Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The majority are republican and conservative, I am never sure what independent means in America as our two party structure makes independent simply fence sitters. based on voting I am an independent as I often vote for republicans locally. The news on the funding from billionaires would also point away from independent.


"Kochs detractors also like to point out the irony of the so-called grassroots tea-party movements being funded by a billionaire. Kochs real motives, they say, are self-serving. In April,* Fang posted a dossier on Koch that attributes to his groups a decades-long pattern of Astroturfingfunding movements designed to look grassroots, but which in fact represent corporate interests.* Richard Fink insists that Kochs political activity is about principles, not money. I view David as a courageous American who has a set of beliefs that hes willing to support consistently over time despite all the flak he gets, Fink says. Very few people would do that."  How Oil Heir and New York Arts Patron David Koch Became the Tea Party's Wallet -- New York Magazine


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2010)

Most Americans are conservative, so it makes sense that most Tea Partiers are going to be conservative or identify themselves as conservative or center right.  Maybe ALL Tea Partiers are going to be conservative or center right.

But as ALL Tea Partiers support the three basic principles of the Tea Party emphasis, it stands to reason that the Tea Partiers aren't going to attract liberals who don't support those three basic princples.

Since so few Americans identify themselves as Republicans, it is likely the Tea Parties might have a plurality of Republicans but rather unlikely that a majority will be Republican.  Those not identifying themselves as Republican will be conservative or center right Independents and/or Democrats.

In a Gallup poll in June this year:



> PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lizzie (Aug 25, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> Would the tea party exist if McCain had won? No, it would not. Even a leading tea party organizer admitted that aspect of the organization on Chris Matthews. So why? If you ask a tea party sympathizer they would tell you because McCain would be different. Of course he would be different, he would be a republican. Is that the only difference. The tea partier would of course say no.
> 
> So we know there would be no tea party if the republicans had won. That much is clear. If the tea party were a legitimate grass roots organization concerned with government and debt they would have attacked George W. Bush. They did not. So then next question, how is Obama different from Bush Jr? Well, he is not different in any fundamental way. Obama's policies so far differ nada with Bush Jr. OK then, why and whither the tea party?


 
We'll never know, obviously, but it would likely depend on whether or not McCain would have continued the bailouts and heavy-handed government interventions that Obama has. Republicans were already pretty pissed that McCain signed on to the initial bailout.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 25, 2010)

Most Americans are conservative?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 26, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Most Americans are conservative?



A plurality self-identify as conservative. So no, not really. If you actually look at what people think about policy issues, it's pretty clear that a full 40-odd percent of the country is not what you would generally think of as conservative, even if they call themselves that. For example, only 27% would argue that it's not the federal government's responsibility to guarantee health insurance for all Americans.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2010)

You'll see in November if this is a Progressive or Conservative nation


----------



## Intense (Aug 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You'll see in November if this is a Progressive or Conservative nation



They have so totally lost the Independents they conned into supporting them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Most Americans are conservative?
> ...



UNLESS you consider that most people are not in lockstep with all other people.  The Pew Research Center has done exhaustive research in this and comes up with pretty much the same results that Gallup does.  But they break it down even further and concur with Gallup that more Americans are going right of center on more and more issues when compared to a few years ago. 

So.....if you take those who identify themselves as conservative, and you take those who mostly side with those who identify themselves as conservative on issues dear to conservative, a strong majority of Americans are more conservative than not.

It muddies the water when you bring issues like healthcare, welfare, etc. etc. etc. into it because conservatives and liberals will see these as different.  Conservatives might easily see it desirable to make healthcare available for every American and if poll question is that, then that will be scored a 'liberal' point of view.  However, if you ask the same person whether the Federal government should provide it or mandate it, that person will answer an adament NO.  Which puts him squarely right of center.

Most Americans are more conservative than liberal.


----------



## IndependentBear (Aug 26, 2010)

"They are the silent majority of voters....  They are sick and tired of both parties.  They want to get back to the republic form of government. "  This was how it started out.  I don't know about the rest of the country but the Tea Party in Virginia's 2nd district, which includes Virginia Beach, sold out to a Republican who donated $1,000 to Barack Obama's campaign in March 2008.  And you wonder why I sometimes vote Independent.  I have yet to hear of a Tea Party organization backing an independent candidate anywhere.


----------



## Intense (Aug 26, 2010)

IndependentBear said:


> "They are the silent majority of voters....  They are sick and tired of both parties.  They want to get back to the republic form of government. "  This was how it started out.  I don't know about the rest of the country but the Tea Party in Virginia's 2nd district, which includes Virginia Beach, sold out to a Republican who donated $1,000 to Barack Obama's campaign in March 2008.  And you wonder why I sometimes vote Independent.  I have yet to hear of a Tea Party organization backing an independent candidate anywhere.



As Individual's we back who we want. That corruption and sellout thing is a hard fight. We have reason and the ability to communicate in truth on our side. What we do with it, or fail to do with it is on us.


----------



## Intense (Aug 26, 2010)

I still can't get past Palin supporting McCain. I so much wish, he and Graham would just peddle their bullshit elsewhere. 

That said, after primary season is over, realistically, we need to do our best to defeat the most damaging with what and whom we have available.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2010)

Intense said:


> I still can't get past Palin supporting McCain. I so much wish, he and Graham would just peddle their bullshit elsewhere.
> 
> That said, after primary season is over, realistically, we need to do our best to defeat the most damaging with what and whom we have available.



Well, on the three main Tea Party issues, McCain is toeing the line.  And those who will do that are being forgiven more squishy social issues that the Tea Party is not concerned with.

And she doesn't strike me as one who is fickle in her relationships out of political expediency either.  She probably feels duty bound to back up the one who catapulted her onto the national scene.


----------



## Intense (Aug 26, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't get past Palin supporting McCain. I so much wish, he and Graham would just peddle their bullshit elsewhere.
> ...



I didn't trust Him then and I don't trust him now. Watch out for that progressive streak in both parties. In relation to Sara, only sometimes, there is that volume control and mute thing.  (It's a Guy thing). What we do need to remember is to circle the wagons after primary season, work with the best we have then. To undermine the Primaries is wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2010)

Intense said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



I have mixed emotions about it too.  The current Administration has been so destructive I don't know how much more of it we can take.  And even unreliable Republicans and full blown RINOs have been better than the Democrats on all economic issues lately.  So its tempting just to just improve on the status quo and try to stop the runaway train.

But the Tea Partiers are a bit more dogmatic that liberalism is the certain road to ruin and liberal lite isn't enough better to tolerate any more.  They're ready to turn it around completely.  And I think they're thinking if not us, who?  If not now, when?

On the Top Priorities thread awhile ago I posted the lastest Rasmussen 'trust' poll and as of this week, the GOP is beating the Democrats as most trusted on every single issue.  Some only marginally, but on every single issue.  At the time President Obama was inaugerated last year, the Democrats pretty much had an edge on every single one of those issues.

The Tea Parties are making a difference.   I just hope their strategy is effective.

(P.S.  McCain was not my choice for GOP nominee either, but we'd be far better off if he was President now I think.  But who knows?)


----------



## Intense (Aug 26, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



If we are fooling ourselves, it is not going to matter. We will then know for sure the kind of times we would be living in. There is only one consideration then, allegiance or convenience. Think Madison "Memorial and Remonstrance"  or "Revelation".  Have you checked out the Thoreau quote on my signature? 


P.S. I supported Romney too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2010)

Intense said:


> I still can't get past Palin supporting McCain. I so much wish, he and Graham would just peddle their bullshit elsewhere.
> 
> That said, after primary season is over, realistically, we need to do our best to defeat the most damaging with what and whom we have available.



Think about it. It was the best thing she could do.  McCain elevated her to VP slot so her only choice was to come out for him, how could she not?

If she endorsed JD, she's branded undependable and ungrateful by the Republican Establishment. We know she held her nose and endorsed him the same way I held mine and voted for McCain


----------



## IndependentBear (Sep 1, 2010)

Si modo said:


> The left sure is focused on race.
> 
> Hmmmm.



That's because they know they are going to get spanked in November.  They are in panic mode.  Same thing happened in 1994.  Same thing happened every time they had a losing battle on their hands.  You'd think they would try a new trick considering that the old one does not work and has not worked.

It's the definition of insanity:  doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't get past Palin supporting McCain. I so much wish, he and Graham would just peddle their bullshit elsewhere.
> ...



And again, on the three main issues promoted by the Tea Partiers, McCain is on the same road at this time.   So she really has no grounds to oppose him.  The Tea Partiers have been faithful to keep ideology, partisanship, and personal burrs under the saddle out of the process, so I think she is just being true to that principle.

She is absolutely not shilling for the GOP, but like most of us in the Tea Party movement, she is realistic that candidates are going to have to affiliate with one of the major parties in order to get elected.  And since the GOP is at least wooing the Tea Partiers while the Democrats are doing their damndest to demonize the Tea Partiers, the GOP is the logical party to mold into the Tea Party motif.


----------



## manifold (Sep 1, 2010)

The tea party wouldn't even exist if Hillary was elected.

It's not coincidental that a collection of previously apolitical, illiterate backwater fuckwads suddenly became interested in politics after a black man was elected president.  I'm not saying all tea partiers are racist, just the vast majority.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2010)

manifold said:


> The tea party wouldn't even exist if Hillary was elected.
> 
> It's not coincidental that a collection of previously apolitical, illiterate backwater fuckwads suddenly became interested in politics after a black man was elected president.  I'm not saying all tea partiers are racist, just the vast majority.



It just depends Mani.  The Tea Partiers were not happy campers under Bush, but the deficits were coming down, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were winding down, and there wasn't much impetus there for a major uprising.   The housing bubble crash in late 2008 was a huge wakeup call though, the TARP bailout was absolutely totally offensive to almost all fiscal conservatives, but some were saying it had to be.

So while we were still reeling from that, Obama is elected, and we are hit in rapid succession with an indefensible appropriations bill, the takeover of financial organizations and auto industries, and a stimulus package that threatened to mortgage the futures of the next several generations of Americans.  And THAT is what generated the Tea Party spirit and movements.

The other stuff (Cap & Trade, Healthcare, etc. etc. etc.) is just fuel to keep it going.

I definitely supported Hillary for the Democrat nomination, not because I respect or appreciate her politics, but at least she is an American in spirit as well as name, and she did not bring the cloak and dagger methodology or soft Marxism into the process as it was obvious, to me anyway, that Obama was likely to do.

But would she have been as crazy and potentially destructive as she was when Bill Clinton was first elected?   She cost him the House and Senate in the very first two years of his administration.

Fact is we don't know.  I suspect, however, that she would have supported Pelosi and Reid in that unconcionable stimulus package and that appropriations bill, and we would have had a Tea Party 'uprising' anyway.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 1, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I definitely supported Hillary for the Democrat nomination, not because I respect or appreciate her politics, but at least she is an American in spirit as well as name, and she did not bring the cloak and dagger methodology or soft Marxism into the process as it was obvious, to me anyway, that Obama was likely to do.



Where did they differ substantively on the issues during that campaign? If you can't articulate very clearly how Candidate Obama's policy positions displayed a "soft Marxism" that Candidate Clinton's didn't, I imagine that "American in spirit as well as name" slip is about as telling as it gets.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely supported Hillary for the Democrat nomination, not because I respect or appreciate her politics, but at least she is an American in spirit as well as name, and she did not bring the cloak and dagger methodology or soft Marxism into the process as it was obvious, to me anyway, that Obama was likely to do.
> ...



I can't imagine Hillary Clinton going around the world genuflecting to and apologizing to everybody short of the Burger King for the sins of America.  I can't see Hillary Clinton seizing control of financial organizations and auto companies.   I can't see Hillary Clinton being oblivious to the intense public opposition to a massive piece of legislation and pushing it through without anybody, including herself, knowing much about what was in it.  I can't see Hillary Clinton surrounding herself with some of the most extreme, radical, Marxism sympathisers as czars, advisers, and key staffers.  I can't see Hillary Clinton intentionally implementing policy that creates additional chaos and refusing to consider policy or legislation that all the experts tell her will make things better in an almost desperate economy.

For specifics, I will refer you a series of essays Thomas Sowell wrote just ahead of the 2008 election.  He didn't hit on everything, but he pretty well condensed a lot of it into those back to back essays explaining to us what we were getting in a President Obama.  I thought he was being overly dramatic for effect at the time, though he isn't generally prone to that sort of thing.  Turned out, he was dead on accurate.


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 25, 2010)

Instead of posting separate threads, below are two interesting articles on the tea party. The second piece is an apology piece but interesting as it gets into historical aspects of populism and progressivism.  I disagree with the piece and think it off base, but it is worth a look.



*"The dissolution of the Obama constituency provides a vacuum for the Tea Party, which, like the Obama groupies, has figureheads and slogans, but no real ideas. So Democrats should just acknowledge that they're no better than the Tea Party and take to the streets with dumb signs and costumes. It'll be a gas. It's just theatrics anyhow." * Hiram (from comments in last link)



"Because racial privilege cannot be separated from the defense of local liberty in American history, it is no surprise that the state has been seen by many whites -from Oxford Mississippi to Boston Massachusetts- as the enemy of their local liberty. 
In addition, herrenvolk republicanism invokes a producers republic to attack both a state parasitic on productive labor, and the undeserving (unproductive) poor supported by it. In the American political imaginary, indeed, blackness is linked to (among other things) state power; the central image in the counter-subversive politics of culture war is a demonic love triangle composed of the liberal state supporting unproductive blacks and aborting (i.e. unproductive and not only autonomous) women, at the symbolic and literal expense of white men. Tea Party rhetoric sustains these historical themes: a blackened Obama is associated with state power and redistribution as taxation of the productive supports the unproductive. (The health plan does avow a right to healthcare for 40 million uninsured people, who are coded black and/or alien, not poor.)" The Contemporary Condition: The Politics of The Tea Party.



"Why do populists see arrogance institutionalized only in liberalism? Cant populists discern at least an equal degree of arrogance in conservatism? Anyone who finds a practical way to address that question should become a Democratic Party strategist. In 2000 Al Gore told voters clearly and repeatedly that Republican policies were intended to benefit the richest one-tenth of one percent of Americans. George W. Bush called the math fuzzy, but its far from clear that voters who chose Bush did so because they agreed with him that Gores numbers were lacking. As Rich and others have noted, many in the Tea Party movement dont like Bush or his dynastic roots. The last administrations use of government to shore up power and enrich those it favored are part and parcel of the Tea Party complaint. But most in the Tea Party would choose Bush again, not Gore." Boston Review &mdash; William Hogeland: Real Americans  [ See comments 6, 8 and 10.]


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 25, 2010)

lol, The Tea Party has no REAL IDEAS.

Here's the one and ONLY idea you all need.

WE want the DAMN GUBERMENT, to get the hell out of OUR LIVES.


----------



## American Horse (Sep 25, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "Actually, there is no alienation that a little power will not cure."   Eric Hoffer
> 
> Would the tea party exist if McCain had won?  No, it would not. Even a leading tea party organizer admitted that aspect of the organization on Chris Matthews. So why? If you ask a tea party sympathizer they would tell you because McCain would be different. Of course he would be different, he would be a republican. Is that the only difference. The tea partier would of course say no.
> 
> ...



We would not have reached the tipping point (yet) if McCain had been elected. It's best that he wasn't.  I voted for him with reluctance.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 25, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Nobody can say that because the clock can't be turned back.
> 
> The OP is nothing more than poorly disguised race baiting, cowering behind a navel gazing "if only X had happened" fallacy.



Hey ODDball, did you change your screen name from Dude, so you could shed your phony non-partisan 'libertarian' arrogance and post your REAL beliefs; a right wing pea brain that would vote for ANY and ALL Republicans? 

You dispute the premise of the OP?

Tea Party Script Written In Washington (VIDEO)

An extensive review of GOP campaign literature, floor speeches and public statements reveals that Republican candidates and officeholders routinely use GOP talking points verbatim in their speeches and campaign literature, while passing off the language as their own personal views.

The most flagrant violations come from an unlikely corner: A dozen members of the House Tea Party Caucus have made word-for-word use of GOP talking points, presenting them as statements of their own. These self-styled renegade Republicans are, quite literally, reading from a script written in Washington. The source of that script is usually GOP.gov, the website of Republicans in Congress.


----------



## Bfgrn (Sep 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely supported Hillary for the Democrat nomination, not because I respect or appreciate her politics, but at least she is an American in spirit as well as name, and she did not bring the cloak and dagger methodology or soft Marxism into the process as it was obvious, to me anyway, that Obama was likely to do.
> ...



The right has become dominated by authoritarian followers, people with the same personality markers of those that follow the Hitlers and Stalins of this world.

What the pea brain is saying, Hillary is a nationalist, Obama is a Kenyon, Muslim, fill in the blank.


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 1, 2010)

Another fascinating look at the tea party, and good advice too. 


'Don't Ridicule the Tea-Baggers -- Recruit Them'    by Ernest Partridge

"To be sure, Schultzs Psycho Talk and Olbermanns Worst Persons and other such attacks on right-wing crazies are worthy exercises. So too the clever antics of Billionaires for Wealthfare and The Yes Men. But no one expects such attacks to persuade Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, OReilly, Backman, deMint, et al to forsake their wicked ways. Instead, such well deserved ridicule is designed to discredit these sources of tea-bag delusions. Accordingly, they are appropriate targets of derision.

But not the tea-bag movement, en masse, and most assuredly, not each of those who identify with it.

So how should the strategically savvy progressive deal with the tea-baggers, both collectively and face-to-face?

Above all, one should acknowledge that many, and perhaps most, tea-baggers are not the right-wing enemy, they are the victims of the right-wing along with the vast majority of the rest of us.

*Face it: Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, FAUX News, and the billionaires that are funding the tea-bag movement have accomplished a truly astonishing feat. They have persuaded millions of the victims of the banksters, big pharma, insurance, energy conglomerates, etc. to protest in behalf of their oppressors, and against their potential liberators and their own self-interest. One could almost admire the well-funded geniuses who pulled this off, but for the fact that they are greedy, unprincipled and ruthless bastards."*

New Page 1


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 3, 2011)

More interesting info on the tea party republicans.

By Robert Parry 

'We're Headed for a Major Battle with the Tea Party Crowd over the Constitution Itself'

*"We should be under no illusion about the new flood of know-nothingism that is about to inundate the United States in the guise of a return to "first principles.""*

"The same right-wingers who happily accepted George W. Bush&#8217;s shift toward a police state &#8211; his claims of limitless executive power, warrantless wiretaps, repudiation of habeas corpus, redefining cruel and unusual punishment, suppression of dissent, creation of massive databases on citizens, arbitrary no-fly lists, and endless overseas wars &#8211; have now reinvented themselves as brave protectors of American liberty." We're Headed for a Major Battle with the Tea Party Crowd over the Constitution Itself | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet


----------



## editec (Jan 3, 2011)

I didn't notice the Tea Party bitching about the $800 billion dollar compromise.

In fact now they're bitching about the fact that the inheritence tax wasn't eliminated.

The TP may be many things, but fiscally conservative it isn't.

It is nothing but a wing of the Republican party, far as I can tell.


----------

