2012 election the year that proved the TEA party is a sham

[bigrebnc1775]

bush ii had a republican controlled congress for awhile.

Yes he did but he did not go away from his Conservative Facade until the democrats came to town.

so the democrats "made" him do it?

No he just used them he was what he was all the time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol @ u believing the tea party stood for something other than GOP

The core of the TEA Party are folks that were protesting under Bush. They were often thrown under the bus by the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity flavor of "New Conservatives", but they were there. They've always stood for less Federal Government, Tighter Immigration, and less Military Action Overseas. They always hated Medicare Part D and the massive debt incurred by Iraq.

The problem is after Obama was elected the GOP essentially started working to hijack that movement. And now they've obtained what they want from the TEA party, they're getting thrown back under the bus.

That's going to keep happening while you have a two party system. Like some of the posters on those board love to point out: Is a TEA Party supporter going to vote for a Democrat?

If the answer is no, the next tactic is to paint any third party option as a "Vote for the Democrats." So then TEA Party supporters are trapped.

The EXACT same thing happened to the Moral Majority and practically every single "movement" on the Left that had any kind of legitimate gripe with the system. The exact same argument with the exact same result. Until it becomes possible in US politics for a third party candidate to have a chance, it'll keep happening.

Closed cation is more like closed mind.

 

[ClosedCaption]

lol @ u believing the tea party stood for something other than GOP

The core of the TEA Party are folks that were protesting under Bush. They were often thrown under the bus by the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity flavor of "New Conservatives", but they were there. They've always stood for less Federal Government, Tighter Immigration, and less Military Action Overseas. They always hated Medicare Part D and the massive debt incurred by Iraq.

The problem is after Obama was elected the GOP essentially started working to hijack that movement. And now they've obtained what they want from the TEA party, they're getting thrown back under the bus.

That's going to keep happening while you have a two party system. Like some of the posters on those board love to point out: Is a TEA Party supporter going to vote for a Democrat?

If the answer is no, the next tactic is to paint any third party option as a "Vote for the Democrats." So then TEA Party supporters are trapped.

The EXACT same thing happened to the Moral Majority and practically every single "movement" on the Left that had any kind of legitimate gripe with the system. The exact same argument with the exact same result. Until it becomes possible in US politics for a third party candidate to have a chance, it'll keep happening.

Lie

Tea Party didnt protest under Bush, those same people defended or deflected any critisim of Bush until he left office. Once he left they pretended they were against him all along.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol @ u believing the tea party stood for something other than GOP

The core of the TEA Party are folks that were protesting under Bush. They were often thrown under the bus by the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity flavor of "New Conservatives", but they were there. They've always stood for less Federal Government, Tighter Immigration, and less Military Action Overseas. They always hated Medicare Part D and the massive debt incurred by Iraq.

The problem is after Obama was elected the GOP essentially started working to hijack that movement. And now they've obtained what they want from the TEA party, they're getting thrown back under the bus.

That's going to keep happening while you have a two party system. Like some of the posters on those board love to point out: Is a TEA Party supporter going to vote for a Democrat?

If the answer is no, the next tactic is to paint any third party option as a "Vote for the Democrats." So then TEA Party supporters are trapped.

The EXACT same thing happened to the Moral Majority and practically every single "movement" on the Left that had any kind of legitimate gripe with the system. The exact same argument with the exact same result. Until it becomes possible in US politics for a third party candidate to have a chance, it'll keep happening.

Lie

Tea Party didnt protest under Bush, those same people defended or deflected any critisim of Bush until he left office. Once he left they pretended they were against him all along.

Yes they did.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The core of the TEA Party are folks that were protesting under Bush. They were often thrown under the bus by the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity flavor of "New Conservatives", but they were there. They've always stood for less Federal Government, Tighter Immigration, and less Military Action Overseas. They always hated Medicare Part D and the massive debt incurred by Iraq.

The problem is after Obama was elected the GOP essentially started working to hijack that movement. And now they've obtained what they want from the TEA party, they're getting thrown back under the bus.

That's going to keep happening while you have a two party system. Like some of the posters on those board love to point out: Is a TEA Party supporter going to vote for a Democrat?

If the answer is no, the next tactic is to paint any third party option as a "Vote for the Democrats." So then TEA Party supporters are trapped.

The EXACT same thing happened to the Moral Majority and practically every single "movement" on the Left that had any kind of legitimate gripe with the system. The exact same argument with the exact same result. Until it becomes possible in US politics for a third party candidate to have a chance, it'll keep happening.

Lie

Tea Party didnt protest under Bush, those same people defended or deflected any critisim of Bush until he left office. Once he left they pretended they were against him all along.

Yes they did.

Some did, some didn't.

Those who did, quickly stopped criticizing Bush once the campaign drew closer and closer.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Closed cation is more like closed mind.

The problem is that if you're a political partisan, Left of Right, you tend to view any political movement as a sham. And there's some truth to that because in the long run, they all turn out to be shams.

They don't start that way. I know a lot of folks here are skeptical about OWS, but like most movements (even Code Pink) they started with a legitimate gripe. For OWS it was the fact that these students were DROWNING in debt incurred to get an education, couldn't find a job, and were ANGRY that while they're starving Wall Street is getting a handout. The problem is that even the best of the movements get co-opted eventually by the 2 party system.

That's where the TEA Party is now. I'm sorry, but if you really are enthusiastically supporting Newt you are absolutely NOT a small government fiscal conservative, a social conservative, or someone that wants to elect a political outsider. It just isn't possible to have those stances and support him. And if your rational is "Anyone But Obama", then by default you ARE supporting him. And ultimately, you're giving up your voice in the process. Once they know you're sell out, then they don't have to listen to you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lie

Tea Party didnt protest under Bush, those same people defended or deflected any critisim of Bush until he left office. Once he left they pretended they were against him all along.

Yes they did.

Some did, some didn't.

Those who did, quickly stopped criticizing Bush once the campaign drew closer and closer.

But the tea party was created because of Bush.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

lol @ u believing the tea party stood for something other than GOP

The core of the TEA Party are folks that were protesting under Bush. They were often thrown under the bus by the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity flavor of "New Conservatives", but they were there. They've always stood for less Federal Government, Tighter Immigration, and less Military Action Overseas. They always hated Medicare Part D and the massive debt incurred by Iraq.

The problem is after Obama was elected the GOP essentially started working to hijack that movement. And now they've obtained what they want from the TEA party, they're getting thrown back under the bus.

That's going to keep happening while you have a two party system. Like some of the posters on those board love to point out: Is a TEA Party supporter going to vote for a Democrat?

If the answer is no, the next tactic is to paint any third party option as a "Vote for the Democrats." So then TEA Party supporters are trapped.

The EXACT same thing happened to the Moral Majority and practically every single "movement" on the Left that had any kind of legitimate gripe with the system. The exact same argument with the exact same result. Until it becomes possible in US politics for a third party candidate to have a chance, it'll keep happening.

Lie

Tea Party didnt protest under Bush, those same people defended or deflected any critisim of Bush until he left office. Once he left they pretended they were against him all along.

No, he had his detractors even among the GOP. Very vocal folks. They just weren't the TEA party at that point. And quite a few of them would vote third party in 2008.

Part of the co-opting of the TEA Party movement was in providing the name, branding, and organization to what had before been a disorganized grassroots. The GOP happily took advantage of the lack of leadership of the movement.

That's the EXACT same thing happening to OWS now.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Closed cation is more like closed mind.

The problem is that if you're a political partisan, Left of Right, you tend to view any political movement as a sham. And there's some truth to that because in the long run, they all turn out to be shams.

They don't start that way. I know a lot of folks here are skeptical about OWS, but like most movements (even Code Pink) they started with a legitimate gripe. For OWS it was the fact that these students were DROWNING in debt incurred to get an education, couldn't find a job, and were ANGRY that while they're starving Wall Street is getting a handout. The problem is that even the best of the movements get co-opted eventually by the 2 party system.

That's where the TEA Party is now. I'm sorry, but if you really are enthusiastically supporting Newt you are absolutely NOT a small government fiscal conservative, a social conservative, or someone that wants to elect a political outsider. It just isn't possible to have those stances and support him. And if your rational is "Anyone But Obama", then by default you ARE supporting him. And ultimately, you're giving up your voice in the process. Once they know you're sell out, then they don't have to listen to you.

That's a great point.

I'll bet most movements start out for legit reasons and most often great causes, once the people finally realize that gov't politicians and bureacrats don't give a shit what they say or do is when it starts to die down.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes he did but he did not go away from his Conservative Facade until the democrats came to town.

Really? That's interesting.

So you're saying that everything he did before 2006 was perfectly acceptable to you?

and tell me, what was it that he did after 2006 that was particularly different from pre-2006.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes they did.

Some did, some didn't.

Those who did, quickly stopped criticizing Bush once the campaign drew closer and closer.

But the tea party was created because of Bush.

I'll buy that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StkdFZB-ZZI]Ron Paul DC Tea Party - Billary Bush - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFM0-U50wdI]George Bush, The Mad Hatter's Tea Party - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes he did but he did not go away from his Conservative Facade until the democrats came to town.

Really? That's interesting.

So you're saying that everything he did before 2006 was perfectly acceptable to you?

and tell me, what was it that he did after 2006 that was particularly different from pre-2006.

As for spending he spent but he started spending like a drunken sailor when the democrats took control because CONGRESS not the president authorizes spending.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'll bet most movements start out for legit reasons and most often great causes, once the people finally realize that gov't politicians and bureacrats don't give a shit what they say or do is when it starts to die down.

Yep. There have been a lot of "movements" over my very short life span of 36 years, and not one of them has really amounted to much. The 2-party system means you always end up voting for a compromise candidate in some form or another. And once that happens, then its hard to stay enthusiastic.

Think about how little influence the old Religious Right, Moral Majority, etc wing of the GOP party has now. Come primary season they can typically swing a few states for their candidate of choice, but they lack the power to actually carry those guys through to even the VP slot. Huckabee, Santorum, etc. They all fade out. And those guys used to hold the leash of the GOP for a while there prior to Newt's Republican Revolution.

That's what's happening to the TEA Party and OWS. For a while there they looked like they'd be the political force dictating what the Left and Right would do for at least a generation. Now the TEA Party is selling out to Newt and the OWS is on its way to being a footnote in the history books.

 

[Polk]

The "Tea Party" was always a sham. It was just an attempt by the hardcore reactionary right to rebrand itself. Same old wine, attempting to hide in a new skin.

 

[Polk]

I'll bet most movements start out for legit reasons and most often great causes, once the people finally realize that gov't politicians and bureacrats don't give a shit what they say or do is when it starts to die down.

Yep. There have been a lot of "movements" over my very short life span of 36 years, and not one of them has really amounted to much. The 2-party system means you always end up voting for a compromise candidate in some form or another. And once that happens, then its hard to stay enthusiastic.

Think about how little influence the old Religious Right, Moral Majority, etc wing of the GOP party has now. Come primary season they can typically swing a few states for their candidate of choice, but they lack the power to actually carry those guys through to even the VP slot. Huckabee, Santorum, etc. They all fade out. And those guys used to hold the leash of the GOP for a while there prior to Newt's Republican Revolution.

That's what's happening to the TEA Party and OWS. For a while there they looked like they'd be the political force dictating what the Left and Right would do for at least a generation. Now the TEA Party is selling out to Newt and the OWS is on its way to being a footnote in the history books.

Of course that's what happens. Our institutional rules create a system where only two candidates are viable. The parties keep themselves in those two slots by absorbing any potential rivals.

 

[Dot Com]

The "Tea Party" was always a sham. It was just an attempt by the hardcore reactionary right to rebrand itself. Same old wine, attempting to hide in a new skin.

They were white Repub voters anyway who realized that they weren't getting a piece of the pie like the Establishment Repubs such as Gingrich, McConnell, Boehner, etc... & the wealthy they service

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes he did but he did not go away from his Conservative Facade until the democrats came to town.

Really? That's interesting.

So you're saying that everything he did before 2006 was perfectly acceptable to you?

and tell me, what was it that he did after 2006 that was particularly different from pre-2006.

As for spending he spent but he started spending like a drunken sailor when the democrats took control because CONGRESS not the president authorizes spending.

That's false.

He was spending like a drunken sailor the day he stepped into the Oval Office.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'll bet most movements start out for legit reasons and most often great causes, once the people finally realize that gov't politicians and bureacrats don't give a shit what they say or do is when it starts to die down.

Yep. There have been a lot of "movements" over my very short life span of 36 years, and not one of them has really amounted to much. The 2-party system means you always end up voting for a compromise candidate in some form or another. And once that happens, then its hard to stay enthusiastic.

Think about how little influence the old Religious Right, Moral Majority, etc wing of the GOP party has now. Come primary season they can typically swing a few states for their candidate of choice, but they lack the power to actually carry those guys through to even the VP slot. Huckabee, Santorum, etc. They all fade out. And those guys used to hold the leash of the GOP for a while there prior to Newt's Republican Revolution.

That's what's happening to the TEA Party and OWS. For a while there they looked like they'd be the political force dictating what the Left and Right would do for at least a generation. Now the TEA Party is selling out to Newt and the OWS is on its way to being a footnote in the history books.

Of course that's what happens. Our institutional rules create a system where only two candidates are viable. The parties keep themselves in those two slots by absorbing any potential rivals.

Short of Constitutional Convention, how do we fix this?

I know that the Electoral College is definitely part of the problem. With the way that system works a third party candidate carrying 30% of the vote ends up completely shut out. I know that on the Congressional level, it is possible to run and win with a 3rd party, but at the Presidential level?....

There are times I'm willing to consider scrapping all this and going with a variation on a Parliamentary system.

 

[EriktheRed]

Yes he did but he did not go away from his Conservative Facade until the democrats came to town.

Really? That's interesting.

So you're saying that everything he did before 2006 was perfectly acceptable to you?

and tell me, what was it that he did after 2006 that was particularly different from pre-2006.

As for spending he spent but he started spending like a drunken sailor when the democrats took control because CONGRESS not the president authorizes spending.

He had a Republican-controlled Congress for half of his eight years. He had a Republican-cntrolled House for 6 years. Medicare Part D was passed in 2006, when his party had both houses.