- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
Could the Democrats lose control of the House later this year, not to the Republicans, but to the Tea Party?The Tea Party Patriots' main enemies may be the Democratic Party and the president, but Republicans will be pondering what the movement means for them in the mid-terms. ... but the people I spoke to had no intention of being a tool of the party hierarchy. A new political force ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/tea_party_seek_purity_and_vict.html
I don't think so. I think the Tea Party is more of an ideological movement than an actual political entity, and I don't think that it has very good prospects of becoming a forceful entity. Right now it's united by what it opposes – the encroachment of the government into areas of life where it ought not go, the government's carefree spending, and high taxation. This message attracts people from a broad spectrum of the voting public.I think what the Tea Party will continue to do is put pressure on the Republican party to select candidates who are in line with conservative fiscal policies. I think it's a pressure group that will mostly support the GOP even if it claims that it is not a wing of the GOP.
I disagree. The Tea Party movement is not about republican or democrat, it is about taxes and spending. Those are issues that transcend party. If you really think about it the republicans are just as guilty of spending excesses as the democrats, it is only a matter of degree. What the Tea Party needs and could be is a viable third party, but only if they stay true to their convictions. If they dn't they risk irrelevancy like the Libertarians. The republicans try to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon at their peril, especially folks like McCain.
Agree with Phid here. I don't think they are a viable third party, but they have much potential to wake up the Republicans and make them come back to conservatism which is what most of us want
If you really think about it the republicans are just as guilty of spending excesses as the democrats
The republicans try to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon at their peril, especially folks like McCain.
Disagree with both of these statements. What are things the Republicans are spending on mostly? National security and the military. For the most part, they are against raising taxes and they support tax cuts for big and small business and the
richjob creators.It would be better if Republicans sought the approval of the Tea Party because it would strengthen them. Most of us already know McCain, Graham, Crist, etc are no conservatives, so whether they join the Tea Party or not, we know it's a bunch of baloney because they are only trying to save face. I think Palin is only campaigning for McCain because she owes him. She would be no one if it wasn't for him.I disagree. The Tea Party movement is not about republican or democrat, it is about taxes and spending. Those are issues that transcend party. If you really think about it the republicans are just as guilty of spending excesses as the democrats, it is only a matter of degree. What the Tea Party needs and could be is a viable third party, but only if they stay true to their convictions. If they dn't they risk irrelevancy like the Libertarians. The republicans try to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon at their peril, especially folks like McCain.
The problem I see is this: where do Tea Partiers stand on non-fiscal issues? If they fall to the right, libertarians may stray; if they fall to the left, conservatives may stray. Right now they're being united because of these fiscal issues, but we know that in order to run for office, you have to have a position on a variety of non-fiscal issues. Obama's fiscal policies have united his enemies, and that is the Tea Party. Now, perhaps in some isolated races we will see Tea Party candidates arise in cases where the Republican candidate is really a RINO, but I really don't think we'll see it on a large scale.
Fiscal issues are the whole point to the Tea Party movement. They don't take a position on social issues, its right there in the article you referenced:
Their conservatism has a capital E. E For Economic. If people want to talk about guns or gays or abortion they tell them there are plenty of other groups out there.
I actually agree with the Tea Parties, if we dont fix the economics part of government then the social stuff wont make a difference anyway, gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights do not pay the national debt. In the end, the governments biggest problem is spending money we don't have.And ski, what about the Medicare prescription drug benefit? That dwarfs any military spending the republicans did. That one issue ruins republican credibility on spending, you cant cut taxes and raise spending and be fiscally responsible.Don't get me wrong, I am generally conservative, but social conservatives have hijacked the party and let social issues skew the priorities of the party. Economics come first, we can wrestle with everything else once the checkbook is balanced and our bank accounts are in order.
Fiscal issues are the whole point to the Tea Party movement. They don't take a position on social issues, its right there in the article you referenced:
Yes - fiscal issues are the whole point. What I'm saying is that because of this, they won't rise to the level of a true political party in the way that Republicans and Democrats have. The other, non-fiscal issues are just as divisive.
Don't get me wrong, I am generally conservative, but social conservatives have hijacked the party and let social issues skew the priorities of the party. Economics come first, we can wrestle with everything else once the checkbook is balanced and our bank accounts are in order.
I would disagree with this, especially the assumption of the words "hijacked" or "skew". Where is the rule that says that a party has to be a certain way, or that it can't place a certain priority on its values? The party is made up of people, and if the people want to hold fast to certain principles, then there is nothing wrong with that. Besides, social conservatives have been a part of politics for a long time, hardly a case of "hijacking" even if there were such a thing. Many Republicans have been elected because of social conservatives.The primary reason for the rise of the Tea Party was Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress. Notice it didn't happen during Bush's years in office. I think that Tea Partiers wanted to force the Republican Party to live up to its supposedly fiscally conservative platform, and it's much easier to put the pressure on when you have more leverage.
Yes – fiscal issues are the whole point. What I'm saying is that because of this, they won't rise to the level of a true political party in the way that Republicans and Democrats have. The other, non-fiscal issues are just as divisive.
The republican party grew out of a single issue- Anti-slavery. There is plenty of room for a party to grow out of a single-issue.
Don't get me wrong, I am generally conservative, but social conservatives have hijacked the party and let social issues skew the priorities of the party. Economics come first, we can wrestle with everything else once the checkbook is balanced and our bank accounts are in order.
I would disagree with this, especially the assumption of the words "hijacked" or "skew". Where is the rule that says that a party has to be a certain way, or that it can't place a certain priority on its values? The party is made up of people, and if the people want to hold fast to certain principles, then there is nothing wrong with that. Besides, social conservatives have been a part of politics for a long time, hardly a case of "hijacking" even if there were such a thing. Many Republicans have been elected because of social conservatives.The primary reason for the rise of the Tea Party was Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress. Notice it didn't happen during Bush's years in office. I think that Tea Partiers wanted to force the Republican Party to live up to its supposedly fiscally conservative platform, and it's much easier to put the pressure on when you have more leverage.
The Tea Party got big because of Obama's wasteful spending on top of the money Bush threw away in his final month's to bail out companies like Citi and AIG. There were plenty of us saying nobody should get bailed out even before the election, I was one of them.Social issues do not define a conservative and my problem with social conservatives is they have turned social issues into a litmus test for what it means to be a Republican. You cant be a true republican unless you are anti-abortion any more than you can be true democrat unless you are pro-abortion. It is those kinds of litmus tests that turn me off of both parties.Social issues are irrelevant if the country is in default and all our creditors come after us. And don't say the military will stop our creditors, cause joe has to get paid too.
The republican party grew out of a single issue- Anti-slavery. There is plenty of room for a party to grow out of a single-issue.
I imagine that some kind of party might be able to develop out of a single issue. I just don't think that it will get anywhere near where it would need to be to become a political force on the national stage.
The Tea Party got big because of Obama's wasteful spending on top of the money Bush threw away in his final month's to bail out companies like Citi and AIG. There were plenty of us saying nobody should get bailed out even before the election, I was one of them.Social issues do not define a conservative and my problem with social conservatives is they have turned social issues into a litmus test for what it means to be a Republican. You cant be a true republican unless you are anti-abortion any more than you can be true democrat unless you are pro-abortion. It is those kinds of litmus tests that turn me off of both parties.
I don't understand where this is coming from. What does being against abortion have anything to do with the rest of this? I don't know of anyone who thinks a pro-life politician who adheres to liberal spending policies is a traditional conservative. What conservatives want - including these social conservatives who you are for some reason harpooning here - are candidates who are both socially conservative and fiscally conservative. I also really do not understand why you would be so against social conservatives who insist on supporting candidates who reflect their values. You call this a "litmus test" - I call this voting for someone who will hopefully behave in office like he said he would while campaigning. This seems like quite a natural tendency within the democratic process. I think you're unfairly characterizing the typical voting situation as being a choice between either a) voting pro-life or b) voting for fiscal conservatism.
More than a storm in a Tea Party cup ?It gonna be alright, Sarah is coming in !http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8503348.stm
What conservatives want – including these social conservatives who you are for some reason harpooning here – are candidates who are both socially conservative and fiscally conservative.
That is what I want too. I am not harpooning social conservatives, by and large I share their values, I am harpooning those that think social values are the be-all, end-all of conservatism. There is a large majority that thinks if you are not all the way on board with social issues you cannot be a conservative. They are the types that cause otherwise good candidates to stay away from running and drive people like me to be independents.
I think you're unfairly characterizing the typical voting situation as being a choice between either a) voting pro-life or b) voting for fiscal conservatism.
I dont think it is an either-or situation, there are some good candidates who are both socially and fiscally conservative, just not very many of them. I just think the Republican party risks sinking into extremism over social issues. I dont think they should give them up, I just want to see the social part of the platform moderated to appeal to a more broad segment of the population. I would also like to see them actually govern according to their stated principals. I am still waiting for that smaller government they keep talking about. Let's face it, Republicans are just as much slaves to public opinion and pork as democrats are.As to Sarah Palin, I like her but don't know that I would ever vote for her. Seems to me that she is now in somebody else's pocket and no longer truly speaking her mind. She is being groomed for a run in 2012 and I she think if she does she will fail and we will have 4 more years of Obama.Believe me, I would love to see a Republican candidate that is both socially and fiscally conservative and keeps ALL his promises. I am honest and expect my representatives to be honest as well. I don't think the honest politician has been born yet. Too often, in the current system we are left with the choice of the lesser of two evils instead of a candidate we can truly support. That is the true tragedy of contemporary American politics.
As to Sarah Palin, I like her but don't know that I would ever vote for her. Seems to me that she is now in somebody else's pocket and no longer truly speaking her mind. She is being groomed for a run in 2012 and I she think if she does she will fail and we will have 4 more years of Obama.
Seems that your fears are becoming true. However I doubt she is the lucky horse to bet on, too many mistakes already.
There is a large majority that thinks if you are not all the way on board with social issues you cannot be a conservative.
That's because they are not "conservative". They are considered to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, so any mention of them being "conservatives" has to be qualified. I think that pretty much anyone would agree with this on either side of the aisle.
I dont think it is an either-or situation, there are some good candidates who are both socially and fiscally conservative, just not very many of them. I just think the Republican party risks sinking into extremism over social issues. I dont think they should give them up, I just want to see the social part of the platform moderated to appeal to a more broad segment of the population.
Again, why are you characterizing social conservatives as "extremists"? Do you also consider people who hold fast to capitalist principles of free markets and small government to be economic "extremists"? After all, they don't vote for candidates who don't share their principles. I am actually somewhat surprised at your line of thinking since it seems to support the giving up of some deeply-held principles for political purposes. I do not understand this since in the past, you have argued about your desire for a multiple-party system, which naturally entails that people do not give up their deeply-held principles but instead form their own parties to embody them.I can see where people within a party may want to concede on some issues which are not the highest of priorities. However, in America we live in a society where there are a great number of people who hold conservative social values very highly. I don't see why they can't be true to their principles in the candidates they're voting for.
I would also like to see them actually govern according to their stated principals. I am still waiting for that smaller government they keep talking about. Let's face it, Republicans are just as much slaves to public opinion and pork as democrats are.
I agree that they are slaves to public opinion like the Democrats...I don't think they are responsible for government spending to the same degree as the Democrats, but I think Republicans have failed to hold true to their conservative principles and have conceded too much.
I am actually somewhat surprised at your line of thinking since it seems to support the giving up of some deeply-held principles for political purposes. I do not understand this since in the past, you have argued about your desire for a multiple-party system, which naturally entails that people do not give up their deeply-held principles but instead form their own parties to embody them.
That is why I think the Tea Party groups should try to form their own party because of their disinterest in social issues. If they want to judge a candidate based on economics they should do so. The Republican party has become identified with both fiscal AND social conservatism, the Tea Partiers claim their only interest is fiscal conservatism.I am not accusing the republicans of sinking to extremism, I think they are at risk of doing so. I can see three course of actions for the Republican party, they sink into extremism, they go the way of the Whigs and try to be all things to all people, or they get back to basics and regain their relevancy. There are many people out there like me that once considered themselves staunch Republicans but now think the party has lost it's way. I don't think there is a Republican candidate out there I would vote for right now for the simple reason that I think they have abandoned their principles and core values and I refuse to abandon mine. I will not vote a bad republican to spite the democrats; I would like to see the republicans put true, articulate conservatives on the ballot. They might even win elections were they to do so.What I have seen so far of the mid-term campaign looks like the Obama campaign in reverse. Republicans are not campaigning for anything, so much as against Obama. They need a positive message of what they will do more than just anything Obama does we will do the opposite.
