| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the Republican party has no central voice, the media is making the "tea party" out as that voice. It is not. They, and the rest of us, better hope that this "wish" does not come true.
Well, the media and fox news.
Its not like the media is trying to kill the republican party, its just that "republican party favors trickle down economy, democrats favor social programs" isn't exactly NEWS as they've been doing it constantly for at least 30 years. "Republican party takes massive turn towards the right" on the other hand grabs headlines.
The tea party is exerting an undo influence over the party because
1) They are going out of their way to make things worse for Obama and they're willing to hurt the country to do so, so the usual concerns the party leadership has about crashing the boat doesn't apply, they WANT the boat to crash.
2) Republicans by and large march in line and in step with the party leadership. If you affect the leadership you affect the entire party. Unity matters more than individuality.
3) The primary system: In many districts the actual election between the republican and the democrat is irrelevant: the real election is the republican (or democratic) primary. The thing is even the 33% of americans who bother to show up for an election rarely bother to turn out for a party. In many districts getting a thousand voters is enough to turn the tide, so if you can get a few dozen yahoo's riled up enough about obama stealing their guns, death panels, and other assorted nonsense that they actually get off their keisters and vote in the primary you've got a good chance of getting yourself a seat.
This is especially disconcerting as far as dominionists,abortions, the teaching of evolution, and the teaching of history other than patriotic pap. Businesses (the other head of the republican party) really couldn't care less about these issues, so they're more than willing to let the republicans stir up the base if their pro business interests can ride the wave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's John Steward and Stephen Colbert said about it? Cause we need some hit hitting b*###!$+ers to take this one.
|
How would you define the splinter?I know you didn't as me, however: As the exception.
Honestly the Republican party has no central voice, the media is making the "tea party" out as that voice. It is not. They, and the rest of us, better hope that this "wish" does not come true.
Agreed on the last point. I hope you're right about the rest.
Do you think the core of the Republican party is still the party of Eisenhower? If so, why don't they act like it in congress? Or are they distinct from the general republican public?
Where are the Eisenhower republican presidential/congressional candidates?
No I do not, sad to say. Why is congress acting like it is in general, not just the Republicans, big business has it's hands too deep in to many pockets. Yes, I feel that the candidates are different than the public, why do you think there is so much visible anger, not just with "tea-partiers" but also with people gathering in Wall street to protest the idiocracy of America.
I will go along with Kirth and say Jon Huntsman, Jr. but I would also throw in Herman Cain. With a cursory look I think I might actually like Cain better.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think the core of the Republican party is still the party of Eisenhower? If so, why don't they act like it in congress? Or are they distinct from the general republican public?
Where are the Eisenhower republican presidential/congressional candidates?
What the XXXX does this even mean? Let's stick out there the name of a president from 50 plus yeas ago, ask if the party X of today is the same as that president's party. Then strongly imply that the party of today needs to act like it did then. Then imply that party X doesn't have any qualified candidates.
Oh smack! Did I just break the Troll Formula?
|
|
Do you think the core of the Republican party is still the party of Eisenhower? If so, why don't they act like it in congress? Or are they distinct from the general republican public?
Where are the Eisenhower republican presidential/congressional candidates?
What the XXXX does this even mean? Let's stick out there the name of a president from 50 plus yeas ago, ask if the party X of today is the same as that president's party. Then strongly imply that the party of today needs to act like it did then. Then imply that party X doesn't have any qualified candidates.
Oh smack! Did I just break the Troll Formula?
Well yes, but he did it so, pathetically what can we do?
I will go along with Kirth and say Jon Huntsman, Jr. but I would also throw in Herman Cain. With a cursory look I think I might actually like Cain better.
Cain bugs me because he seems to believe that the entire country is NYC -- nothing definitive I can put my finger on, just a feeling from how he seems to approach things.
|
|
I will go along with Kirth and say Jon Huntsman, Jr. but I would also throw in Herman Cain. With a cursory look I think I might actually like Cain better.Cain bugs me because he seems to believe that the entire country is NYC -- nothing definitive I can put my finger on, just a feeling from how he seems to approach things.
I can agree with that. Honestly I do not yet see a single candidate I actually like. I might end up voting for Obama.
I think we can agree there are always exceptions.How would you define the splinter?
I think that it is still too early to tell and I will be with-holding judgement on the Tea Party until it decides for itself what it stands for. From what Ive gathered locally, however, is that the movement started from dis-satisfaction with GWB's administration more than anything else. I think that it is the old guard Republicans who are more obsessed with making sure that President Obama is a one term president than the Tea Party.(stealth edit-D'oh!! ninja'd by Andy 5 hours ago, above)) The people that I know who indentify with the Tea Party are angry with the status quo and are currently lashing out. For the most part, they are fiscal conservatives who are angry that the [sarcasm]fiscally conservative[/sarcasm] Bush Presidency led to a then-high deficit. I am wary of anyone who claims to be a leader of the Tea Party. (Michelle Bachmann, you so crazy!)
As for the party of Eisenhower, I hope it never returns. But then again, Im very anti-war and alot of our current problems began under his reign. (Shah of Iran and Vietnam anyone?)
Edit-sorry if my posts are very stream-of-conciousness. Between working second shift and getting daughter off to school, about the only time I can post is around 5 am.
Double secret probation edit- Is anyone else as disturbed by Mitch McConnell's neck wattles as me?
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, October 25, 2010.
How anyone can seriously believe that the current GOP leadership is open to cooperation is a mystery.
Do you think the core of the Republican party is still the party of Eisenhower? If so, why don't they act like it in congress? Or are they distinct from the general republican public?
Where are the Eisenhower republican presidential/congressional candidates?
What the XXXX does this even mean? Let's stick out there the name of a president from 50 plus yeas ago, ask if the party X of today is the same as that president's party. Then strongly imply that the party of today needs to act like it did then. Then imply that party X doesn't have any qualified candidates.
Oh smack! Did I just break the Troll Formula?
It's an allusion to a sane version of a conservativism, to contrast the charade in congress. If you read the last page (or the article this thread is about) you'll find the relevant quote.
It helps if the person you're trying to troll-smack is actually trolling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it is still too early to tell and I will be with-holding judgement on the Tea Party until it decides for itself what it stands for. From what Ive gathered locally, however, is that the movement started from dis-satisfaction with GWB's administration more than anything else. I think that it is the old guard Republicans who are more obsessed with making sure that President Obama is a one term president than the Tea Party.(stealth edit-D'oh!! ninja'd by Andy 5 hours ago, above)) The people that I know who indentify with the Tea Party are angry with the status quo and are currently lashing out. For the most part, they are fiscal conservatives who are angry that the [sarcasm]fiscally conservative[/sarcasm] Bush Presidency led to a then-high deficit. I am wary of anyone who claims to be a leader of the Tea Party. (Michelle Bachmann, you so crazy!)
We have different views of what the Tea Party is, but we are in total agreement regarding Michelle Bachman. :)
My understanding of the Tea Party is that its beginning coincided with Obama's election, and it seemed to be an amalgamation of the birther movement, a similar movement who believed Obama was a socialist, and an anti-tax movement who seemed to believe that a democratic congress and president meant they had lost their representation and were therefore being taxed unjustly. (The last being the key part: the name "Tea Party" refers to taxation without representation, as in the Boston Tea Party.)
It seemed to gain a lot of popular momentum, and the republicans took note of that and started imitating their platform.
As for the party of Eisenhower, I hope it never returns. But then again, Im very anti-war and alot of our current problems began under his reign. (Shah of Iran and Vietnam anyone?)
I would seek to emulate his domestic policy, but not his foreign policy. Infrastructure, social programs, and the like are exactly what we need right now.
Edit-sorry if my posts are very stream-of-conciousness. Between working second shift and getting daughter off to school, about the only time I can post is around 5 am.
Double secret probation edit- Is anyone else as disturbed by Mitch McConnell's neck wattles as me?
No problem, thanks for taking the time to answer.
And yes, yes I am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Hudax. Around these parts, the first beginnings of the Tea Party movement seemed to have begun with the Bush TARP program.
100% agree that it seems that the establishment GOP started to try to take over the Tea Party movement. Its why I will not identify myself as sympathetic to the Tea Party cause until they decide exactly where they themselves stand. Its what I find most absurd about the establishment GOP: pro-life but pro-death penalty and pro-war? (supposedly) Fiscal responsibility, but, once again, pro-war? Get government out of our lives, yet they gotta have the Patriot Act? I love some of what the GOP talks about, but nothing about what it actually does. Hopefully the Tea Party changes that, but I won't hold my breath.
|
|
Do you think the core of the Republican party is still the party of Eisenhower? If so, why don't they act like it in congress? Or are they distinct from the general republican public?
Where are the Eisenhower republican presidential/congressional candidates?
What the XXXX does this even mean? Let's stick out there the name of a president from 50 plus yeas ago, ask if the party X of today is the same as that president's party. Then strongly imply that the party of today needs to act like it did then. Then imply that party X doesn't have any qualified candidates.
Oh smack! Did I just break the Troll Formula?
It's an allusion to a sane version of a conservativism, to contrast the charade in congress. If you read the last page (or the article this thread is about) you'll find the relevant quote.
It helps if the person you're trying to troll-smack is actually trolling.
So you admit to it then?
Here's something I stumblen on that pretty much touches on everything being discussed in this thread.
To me it sounds very rational and is quite informative, but I've got low hopes that it will change anybodys minds overly much.
It's a bit long, but sit it out ;)
He asks a lot of questions of what freedom means...
To Hudax. Around these parts, the first beginnings of the Tea Party movement seemed to have begun with the Bush TARP program.
100% agree that it seems that the establishment GOP started to try to take over the Tea Party movement. Its why I will not identify myself as sympathetic to the Tea Party cause until they decide exactly where they themselves stand. Its what I find most absurd about the establishment GOP: pro-life but pro-death penalty and pro-war? (supposedly) Fiscal responsibility, but, once again, pro-war? Get government out of our lives, yet they gotta have the Patriot Act? I love some of what the GOP talks about, but nothing about what it actually does. Hopefully the Tea Party changes that, but I won't hold my breath.
It is entirely possible that the tea party has different origins/impetus/motivations in different states. Another weakness, or another strength?
So you admit to it then?Do you think the core of the Republican party is still the party of Eisenhower? If so, why don't they act like it in congress? Or are they distinct from the general republican public?
Where are the Eisenhower republican presidential/congressional candidates?
What the XXXX does this even mean? Let's stick out there the name of a president from 50 plus yeas ago, ask if the party X of today is the same as that president's party. Then strongly imply that the party of today needs to act like it did then. Then imply that party X doesn't have any qualified candidates.
Oh smack! Did I just break the Troll Formula?
It's an allusion to a sane version of a conservativism, to contrast the charade in congress. If you read the last page (or the article this thread is about) you'll find the relevant quote.
It helps if the person you're trying to troll-smack is actually trolling.
i dont think he was trolling - I have heard this quote before with different names shoved in there. I've only seen it be used to troll when referring to a rival political party.
I have no idea what point HarbinNick is trying to make.
I was drunk notice the poor spelling of certain words. Anyway what I mean most of the 'services' provided by the State are paid for directly/partially. If you drive on a highway you pay money. Gas taxes are used to pay for roads. Education is not free in America. I object to paying taxes if the government does not provide ME with services. Those services I use, such as healthcare or roads I pay for. Services for the 'poor' I can pay for(income tax) because I benefit from not being attacked by pan-handlers. But Americans tax burden to benefit ratio is terrible for men/women in their 20's and 30's. Greece was the opposite, and several people have commented on the fact that Greece had a terrible economy and was admitted to the eurozone due to political "feel good" factors rather than a strong economic footing.
-The nature of the US is to seek 'somebody' to demonize for the current problem. It's been Commies, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Irish, Catholics, or others. The US has seen the No-nothings, KKK, Arizona Militia(Minute Men) and various groups formed time and time again. It is natural that allegations of racism are laid at the feet of the tea party. Not to mention the tea party has done a VERY poor job of defending such criticism. As an expat, I'm still shocked to see how much hate directed toward Obama seems race related rather than performance related. Foreign Policy magazine has called him a "worse president than Carter". In fact the entire last 10 years have been a debacle for the US in terms of foreign policy.
I have no idea what point HarbinNick is trying to make.I was drunk notice the poor spelling of certain words. Anyway what I mean most of the 'services' provided by the State are paid for directly/partially. If you drive on a highway you pay money. Gas taxes are used to pay for roads. Education is not free in America. I object to paying taxes if the government does not provide ME with services. Those services I use, such as healthcare or roads I pay for. Services for the 'poor' I can pay for(income tax) because I benefit from not being attacked by pan-handlers. But Americans tax burden to benefit ratio is terrible for men/women in their 20's and 30's. Greece was the opposite, and several people have commented on the fact that Greece had a terrible economy and was admitted to the eurozone due to political "feel good" factors rather than a strong economic footing.
-The nature of the US is to seek 'somebody' to demonize for the current problem. It's been Commies, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Irish, Catholics, or others. The US has seen the No-nothings, KKK, Arizona Militia(Minute Men) and various groups formed time and time again. It is natural that allegations of racism are laid at the feet of the tea party. Not to mention the tea party has done a VERY poor job of defending such criticism. As an expat, I'm still shocked to see how much hate directed toward Obama seems race related rather than performance related. Foreign Policy magazine has called him a "worse president than Carter". In fact the entire last 10 years have been a debacle for the US in terms of foreign policy.
Please, don't post while drunk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look up Harbin China, if you don't know where it is...and you'll get a good idea why I do.
Another interesting speach/lecture:
Edit:
I just add this, somewhat old Daily Show Clip seeing how the Daily Show is so well liked.