quote:The Tea Party movement scored another victory on Tuesday, helping to propel a dissident Republican, Christine O’Donnell, to a stunning upset win over Representative Michael N. Castle in the race for the United States Senate nomination in Delaware.
Mr. Castle, a moderate Republican who served two terms as governor and has been reliably winning elections for the last four decades, became the latest establishment Republican casualty of the primary election season. Republican leaders said the victory by Ms. O’Donnell complicated the party’s chances of winning control of the Senate.
With almost all the votes counted, Ms. O’Donnell defeated Mr. Castle 53 percent to 47 percent. Her victory provided a fitting bookend to a tumultuous primary election season for Republican incumbents, which was roiled by Tea Party activists and a concern over Republicans who failed a so-called purity test by conservative candidates.
Ms. O’Donnell won the endorsement of Sarah Palin, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and other leaders of the party’s conservative wing. The state and national Republican Party mounted an aggressive campaign to defeat her, but it fell short, with Mr. Castle unable to rely on independent voters who have long formed his base of support.
She's also near-completely unelectable due to how crazy she comes off; she has well-publicized financial issues, 'stunning exposes' by ex-aides, problematic history, and a series of extremely outlandish positions on subjects like masturbation being adultery, 'weekly shootings' being the result of taking the bible out of schools, and opponents 'hiding and waiting for her' in bushes.
Her nomination means that the once guaranteed win for the GOP in Delaware has turned into an almost guaranteed defeat. O'Donnell is massively unpopular with voters of both parties, with something around 40% of Republican voters vowing to vote for the Democratic candidate this November.
quote:Castle had a 95% chance of winning in November, but the odds of the GOP winning the seat with Christine O’Donnell as the nominee have sunk to 16%. By nominating O’Donnell the Tea Party sliced the GOP’s odds of winning the Senate almost in half from 30% to 16%.
Because of the severe liability that the Tea Party poses towards Republican electoral chances in the midterm election — one which previously fostered a one in three chance of the republicans retaking the senate — I'm holding off analysis of electoral predictions until the extent of the damage done to the G.O.P. in primaries can be roughly assessed. Overall, things still look good for the G.O.P. in the house election and they are still practically guaranteed to make 'midterm surge' advances.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously though, I kinda wish tea party candidates would run as a third party, break up the two party system a bit by region kinda like the Bloc.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Seriously though, I kinda wish tea party candidates would run as a third party, break up the two party system a bit by region kinda like the Bloc.
It wouldn't break up the two party system, it would just continue to favor the Democrats and force continued consolidation among conservative elements.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the Democrats can't find a cohesive message with two hands and a flashlight, I still think they'd be even.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Considering the Democrats can't find a cohesive message with two hands and a flashlight, I still think they'd be even.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: *shrug* The Bloc seem to be comfy.
The Bloc don't have to exist on the margins of America's 'first past the gate' winner take all election system.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm pretty sure it's the same in Canada, first past the post.
IP: Logged |
posted
Right, let me try that again with new emphasis.
The Bloc don't have to exist on the margins of America's system, which has much different implications of game theory and is not parliamentary. The same mechanisms of the canadian parliamentary government that allow the Bloc to be 'comfy' don't exist in the american system.
If the conservatives break up into the Republicans and the Tea Party, the Democrats are the victors, and they remain so until opposition to the Democrats reforges back into a single party that can challenge them and not vote-split the conservative electorate into powerlessness, leaving us a two-party system again. You aren't going to see viable minor parties in this system.
Of course, that leads to me agreeing with you in the sense that I would love for the tea party to run as their own party. It would benefit me greatly, but what they're doing right now works too.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp, I just realized that when you talk like that you remind me of Micah Quill.
You would be more fun if you could find more direct ways to express that my political commentary pisses you off. But thank you for yet again opening your participation in one of my threads with backbite, and comparing me to a malevolent, deceitful, evil character from fiction!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the conservatives break up into the Republicans and the Tea Party, the Democrats are the victors, and they remain so until opposition to the Democrats reforges back into a single party that can challenge them and not vote-split the conservative electorate into powerlessness, leaving us a two-party system again.
Unless splitting with the Tea Party allows the Republicans to take a more moderate position and steal moderate Democratic voters away. Two conservative parties vs. one liberal party doesn't work for the Republicans, but one conservative party vs. one moderate party vs. one liberal party would work.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
the only way I can see a viable third party working out is if it's a moderate one. Made up of the Snowes and Liebermans. Or maybe blue dog dems, and whatever is comparable (is there?) in the republican party.
edit - whoops, Tres posted while I was posting.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... until opposition to the Democrats reforges back into a single party that can challenge them and not vote-split the conservative electorate into powerlessness, leaving us a two-party system again. You aren't going to see viable minor parties in this system.
I don't see this as a distinguishing factor. The same pressures of vote-splitting do exist in the Canadian system and caused the Reform and Progressive Conservatives to merge in 2003 while the same system lead to the rise of the Reform and the Bloc as regional parties causing vote-splitting on the right and left respectively.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE]Unless splitting with the Tea Party allows the Republicans to take a more moderate position and steal moderate Democratic voters away. Two conservative parties vs. one liberal party doesn't work for the Republicans, but one conservative party vs. one moderate party vs. one liberal party would work.
Wow, what percent of moderate voters would the republican party have to gain to offset the vote cracking of a tea party split? Nobody looking at election studies has even proposed this as a hypothesis, its not gonna happen.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I reference this in my post, but if they could also combine with moderate democrats they could be a significant force.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find this interesting because back in the late 70's people said the same things about Ronald Reagan. People said he didn't have a shot in hell of winning, that other candidates would be better, and that he shouldn't even try. Four hundred and eighty nine electoral votes later he became president.
I could honestly care less that some Republicans are angry that Castle lost. In my opinion this was a victory for the people and not the establishment. Whether O'Donnel wins or not, I'm happy that more people are voting and making their voice be heard.
I should also point out that most of the backlash was from the local Republican Party. The national party has already pledged the maximum amount allowed to the O'Donnell campaign.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine: I don't think Ronald Reagan was ever *that* much of a dark horse candidate. He was narrowly upset for the party nomination in 1976 against an incumbent president, and came roaring back in 80, taking advantage of Jimmy Carter's almost total lack of support, and evident impotence.
I don't think the Republican party is going to collapse, there's too much legacy to rebuild with a brand new party. Instead they are going to rediscover their bearings, perhaps take stronger stances on certain issues and drop others, just like the Democrats did when Reagan became president.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my opinion this was a victory for the people and not the establishment. Whether O'Donnel wins or not, I'm happy that more people are voting and making their voice be heard.
Really? Geraine, I'm all for government by the people, but with that government comes a powerful responsibility. It's not just government by the people, period. Can you look at O'Donnel and tell me you're pleased that 'the people' have looked at her and said, "Yes, please, she is the person we wish to elect to federal office and wield great national and even possibly international power in our name." Really? Just as an example that took all of fifteen seconds to cough up, she's a woman who thinks (or has thought) women ought not be in the military, but is running for elected office. Back in 1997, she was claiming that condoms don't work and in fact help spread disease.
Geraine...we shouldn't be proud of the people expressing their voices in support of this fruit bat. We should be proud of the people making their voices be heard in support of good things, or neutral things, or things we don't necessarily agree on but can still respect. Not clowns like this. I mean, "Condoms don't work?" In 1997? I think we can both agree, can't we, that that is just a flat out lie. There's simply no wiggling out of that. It's a lie because it's an incomplete statement intended to scare people, and I just can't believe people saying it don't know it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How come "Moderate Republican" always means "votes exclusively with the democrats?" but "Conservative Democrat" means "occasionally votes with Republicans?"
...
The third party route is not a solution. It WOULD guarantee victory for the progressives even if it was, as Tres puts it, Conservative v Moderate v Liberal.
I am VERY grateful for the Tea Party though. It has reversed the Bush era focus on bashing gays and returned the republicans to the fiscal issues where they should be. Cutting taxes and Cutting spending. Two things that Bush didn't have a clue about.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the lack of responsibility people take when it comes to exercising our rights in America is appalling.
I think that one of the things we really need to change is to combat this ideas that right exist without any sort of concomitant responsibilities. I think that we've developed this idea that because there are not (and generally should not be) any external constraints on the exercise of rights that it is correct the rights are somehow free of constraint.
It is, in my opinion, completely wrong to celebrate the act of voting in and of itself. Irresponsible voting is a great wrong. The right to vote unfettered by external forces is founded on people having the internal constraint of taking responsibility for this vote. They can't be made to do so (directly anyway), but when they cease to do so, as it appears to me many people have done in our country, the system breaks and you get very poor results.
A lot of people have criticized the Tea Party for, among other things, being made up people who have little sense of actual personal responsibility. One the things that seems to lend this credence is the absolutely horrible people they seem to be picking as their standard bearers and who they are trying to elect to office. Christine O'Donnell winning the primary on Tea Party support should rightly be seen as bringing shame onto the Tea Party.
They are free to choose and, in this case and in others, they have chosen very, very poorly. That this is something we should celebrate or even approve of can, as far as I can see, only come from the idea that they have no responsibility to choose well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I find this interesting because back in the late 70's people said the same things about Ronald Reagan. People said he didn't have a shot in hell of winning, that other candidates would be better, and that he shouldn't even try. Four hundred and eighty nine electoral votes later he became president.
I don't remember that at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb: I do. The press *hated* Regan. Especially after he was elected.
Squick: I agree with most of what you said. The whole "But you GOTTA vote thing" sticks in my craw. We don't need people who don't pay attention voting.
Thing is, the tea partiers ARE paying attention. Sometimes for the first time in their life. And what they said, in their vote for O'Donnell, is "Yeah, she's crazy, but Castle is a Democrat with an R by his name." It was a vote against the Obama agenda, which Castle supported. If this means a Democrat gets elected in the November election, so be it.
Even primaries are a "lesser of two evils" choice.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring to him not having a shot at getting elected. Rep. Anderson was the more moderate republican* and drew as much from President Carter as from President Reagan. I don't think that most people thought that President Carter was going to win.
*He ran as an Independent after losing the Republican primary.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thing is, the tea partiers ARE paying attention.
I don't see it that way. There are plenty of very serious people out there who are for what I see as the core issue of the Tea Party. I myself looked into them when I heard of them. I believe that right now we are in a situation where effectively we have taxation without representation and that something drastic should be done about this. The Tea Party groups I looked into and the national movement as a whole (I mean, come one, they're headed by Sarah Palin and Glen Beck) were very disappointing and, from my perspective, at least as irresponsible as rank and file voters and often worse.
There is, as I see it, a fundamental incoherency and desire to live in a simple fantasy world that underlies much of the Tea Party movement. Yeah, they're angry about stuff and against it, but seems to be as far as many of them take it. A lot of them are being led by the nose from people who are manipulating to their own ends.
There are those who are very serious, dedicated, and responsible, but they seem to me to be mostly marginalized by the bulk of people who don't seem to rise above the level of teenagers whining about the man keeping them down. They certainly aren't the ones who are winning the primaries that people are crowing about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: And what they said, in their vote for O'Donnell, is "Yeah, she's crazy, but Castle is a Democrat with an R by his name." It was a vote against the Obama agenda, which Castle supported.
If, as you say, that's what they 'said' with their vote, then they aren't very smart in their punishment of dissent from the party line, even outside of the fact that their choice effectively hands the election to someone who's actually a Democrat. This is because 'he's a democrat with an R by his name!' isn't true:
quote:Castle opposed the Lilly Ledbetter pay act, which the ACU described as a “new Pandora’s Box for trial lawyers.” He voted for a January 2009 bill that would prevent the Treasury from spending the $350 billion that remained in the TARP program. He opposed the Obama stimulus. He voted against efforts to water down legislation barring federal funds to ACORN or other organizations that employ people who have been convicted of election-law violations. He voted to eliminate the earmark for the airport near Johnstown, Pa., named after Rep. John Murtha. He voted to cut discretionary government spending in the appropriations for the Departments of Housing and Transportation by 5 percent.
He supported an amendment to the health-care bill that would ban using taxpayer funds to provide abortion services, an interesting vote for a self-described pro-choice Republican. He voted against the health-care bill.
A central point of the O’Donnell folks is that Mike Castle is unacceptable because he doesn’t support the repeal of Obamacare. But that’s only half his stated position. Castle thinks trying to repeal Obamacare while Obama is president is a waste of time, but he’s open to the idea if the GOP can regain control of the White House ...
He voted for a bill to repeal the TARP program and lower the federal debt limit. Finally, he voted against the financial-industry-regulation legislation backed by Barney Frank.
Because Delaware has only one representative in the House of Representatives, we have no House Democrat from that state to compare against Castle’s voting record, but in all of the above votes, the vast majority of Democrats took the opposing position.
Jeff Lord argues, “Mike Castle plays for the other side [meaning Democrats] wearing the Republican jersey.” But the terms “not as conservative as I would like” and “Democrat” are not synonyms, no matter how much we pound the table or how loudly we insist it is so.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: How come "Moderate Republican" always means "votes exclusively with the democrats?" but "Conservative Democrat" means "occasionally votes with Republicans?
This is what you think these terms "always" mean? That's strange, because that's not true.
Take Snowe, for instance. If you think she "votes exclusively with the democrats" you just have no idea what you are talking about and she is the most common example of a "moderate Republican".
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Samp's post...see, that's an example of the sort of irresponsibility that I'm talking about. Don't say things that obviously aren't true. Either you know they aren't true and are lying or you haven't done the basic research to speak about the matter.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... until opposition to the Democrats reforges back into a single party that can challenge them and not vote-split the conservative electorate into powerlessness, leaving us a two-party system again. You aren't going to see viable minor parties in this system.
I don't see this as a distinguishing factor. The same pressures of vote-splitting do exist in the Canadian system
What i've been unable to express so far, apparently, is that it is differences between canada's parliamentary system and america's non-parliamentary system which are going to keep there from being the 'same pressures.' America's system has ensured a two-party balance of political power since the 18th century, and barring a vast rework of our legislative system, the tea party isn't going to change that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the only way I can see a viable third party working out is if it's a moderate one. Made up of the Snowes and Liebermans.
Lieberman has displayed extremist views on enough issues (civil liberties, Iran, Israel) that I find it hard to understand how people can still call him a moderate.
I would agree that he used to be pretty centrist, before 9/11.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What i've been unable to express so far, apparently, is that it is differences between canada's parliamentary system and america's non-parliamentary system which are going to keep there from being the 'same pressures.' America's system has ensured a two-party balance of political power since the 18th century, and barring a vast rework of our legislative system, the tea party isn't going to change that.
You haven't expressed what it is about the systems that generates this difference. For example, we have independents in the senate who have some political strength based on who they will caucus with. Why couldn't a third party take on this role? I agree that it's harder to break in to the presidential race. A similar dynamic is more or less at play in the UK, tho, where a member of the third party is unlikely to actually be the prime minister in the near future, but the Lib Dems are clearly significant.
Returning to the US: in the past both parties have been pretty big tent with party membership credential varying by region. Thus it's common for, say, a Boston Republican to be to the left of a Miss. Dem on some issues. The Tea party is a bit different as seen, for example, by the fact that the views of O'Donnell are not obviously more moderate than, say, those of DeMint. Does this leave a vacuum?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Money. Lots of money and organization behind the two parties. An Independent has to be enormously wealthy to even make an impact. Canada has reasonable rules about campaign finance.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Largely it is because American plurality elections from single-member constituencies and a single elected executive give few chances of victory or reward to parties that cannot muster plurality. We don't have a structure that's amenable to two separate groups who organize in a coalition structure to contend against the plurality group. Giving up the majority posts in the legislature is too much of a liability, and you put yourselves at additional liability in presidential elections, which comes with its own host of substantial problems. Then there's the issue of funding; independents have a funding hurdle that established parties lack.
What seals it in this particular case is that the Tea Party is not able to draw upon support from both sides, or work 'from the middle.' They are cracking a dwindling ideological demographic and shrinking the 'big tent' strategy necessary to stand up to Democratic majorities, and they're also currently abusing the advantages that voter tendencies grant to the minority party in times of economic distress and midterm elections where your opponent holds the presidency. Nothing about what they are doing is electorally advantageous for conservatives, not least of all their clampdown on 'dissent' from their strict definition of what should count as a conservative, and their outright hostility to electable moderates within the party. Extrapolate Pixiest's black and white assessment of Castle as a Democrat in the eyes of the tea party, who 'supports the Obama agenda.' They are shrinking the tent at a time where conservatism is experiencing a severe issue with a lack of intergenerational transmissibility of the ideology. Absolutely nothing about their approach — or circumstantial positioning well outside of moderate appeal — would do anything but empower the party they oppose. It would fall back into a two party system in short order.
I guess i could say that a break from the two party system isn't impossible in other concievable circumstances, but this isn't one of them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, you're right.. Mike Castle sometimes votes with republicans:
# Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
But check out his spending: * Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009) -- Just keep it under 100 billion and he'll vote YES as many times as you like. * Voted NO on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009) -- looks like he prefers to spend nickle and dime. * Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008) * Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008) * Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008) * Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994) <- How's that working out? * Maintain & enforce existing spending caps in the future. (Sep 1998) -- HA!
And his energy policy. Does this look republican to you?
* Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) * Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) * Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) * Voted YES on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) * Voted YES on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007) * Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) * Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) * Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) * Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006) * Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005) * Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004) * Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003) * Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) * Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) * Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) * Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005) * Rated 33% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence. (Dec 2006) * Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007) * Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)
And the Environment:
* Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009) -- more BS spending. * Voted YES on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009) * Voted YES on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008) * Voted YES on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) * Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) * Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006) * Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005) * Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003) * Supports grants for brownfields remediation. (May 2002) * Make EPA into a Cabinet department. (May 2002) * Rated 70% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003) * Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007) * Focus on results, not regulation. (Sep 1998)
Tell me progressives, how many of you would vote for this guy if he had a D or a G by his name. Honestly. Say it was running against Lieberman.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And his energy policy. Does this look republican to you?
It depends. Do I have to define republican energy policy as inherently being in denial of anthropogenic global warming? That seems uncharitable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Tell me progressives, how many of you would vote for this guy if he had a D or a G by his name. Honestly. Say it was running against Lieberman.
quote: # Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Not likely unless the Republican was worse. I don't know Sen. Lieberman's record on those but he is too much of a hawk for my vote. What is this guy's record on foreign policy? Lieberman might have an edge on gay rights but not by much.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just went line by line through Castle's record on ontheissues.org. he seems very clearly to be a centrist, with more general support of Republican legislative maneuvering and a slightly more right-wing than left-wing slant. I fail to see how this makes him a "Democrat" who "Supports the Obama agenda" more than "a moderate Republican".
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: You haven't expressed what it is about the systems that generates this difference.
Exactly. I think kmbboots for example is onto something with the money issue. That is a substantial difference. I'm not sure it extends back particularly far historically, but it is a difference.
But other supposed differences, I'm less convinced about. Canadian third-parties run into many of the same issues of never having a reasonable chance to form a government and coalitions are rare, e.g.:
quote:Does Canada have any history of coalition governments?
There's the one in 1917 when a lot of Liberals left the Liberal Party to join the Conservative Party to form a new Union Government. That wasn't really a coalition. That was more people leaving their party. That wouldn't technically qualify as a coalition.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp, I just realized that when you talk like that you remind me of Micah Quill.
You would be more fun if you could find more direct ways to express that my political commentary pisses you off. But thank you for yet again opening your participation in one of my threads with backbite, and comparing me to a malevolent, deceitful, evil character from fiction!
No, no, it's specifically when you say things like "I hope the Tea Party continues to do X, because that will actually have the opposite effect they intend, which is what I want."
To me, Quill's most memorable scene was near the end of his first appearance, when Purity tells him that he's twisted things and he says "That's good. Keep that up. That'll get you hanged."
Coming from a position of thinking the Tea Party is one of the best things to happen to American politics in my lifetime, when you say things like "Of course, that leads to me agreeing with you in the sense that I would love for the tea party to run as their own party. It would benefit me greatly, but what they're doing right now works too." it just... really reminded me of Quill. So much so that I felt compelled to say so. Not to say that you are, in general, like Quill, only that you said the one specific thing I found similar.
So, for the record, though I think you are wrong about the Tea Party, I don't actually think you're malevolent. Are we buddies again? Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coming from a position of thinking the Tea Party is one of the best things to happen to American politics in my lifetime
It's only not surprising because you're ably mislead enough to defend indefensible parties, much like in the Breitbart/Sherrod affair.
quote:So, for the record, though I think you are wrong about the Tea Party, I don't actually think you're malevolent.
That's nice! But I'm right about the Tea Party, and nobody with any sense is going to argue that Christine O'Donnell is not a terrible candidate and a loss for conservatives. A legit, bona fide, and tea party inflicted disaster. Any mass of the electorate who can still champion her as someone who has any business being a national legislator is either (1) ignorant, or (2) a few fruit loops short of a full bowl.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Coming from a position of thinking the Tea Party is one of the best things to happen to American politics in my lifetime,
This is depressing in the same way it is when far right conservatives are happy that Sarah Palin came along and is 'taking our party in a new direction'. Yeah, the tea party is killing conservative revival one disasterously inept endorsement at a time and making conservatism look idiotic and bigoted to young and moderate voters. Hooray?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_Frank, To me, one of the frustrating things about a lot of contemporary political discourse is what seems to me to be many people's tendency to consider it a contest of claiming ground. That is, they have a position and most of what they do is to repeat that position. It seems to me that they think that through repeatedly stating it, they can establish it as true for other people (which, honestly does work in many situations).
Perhaps it does not seem this way to me, but you often seem to do this. I can understand it. There are several prolific posters here that strenuously attack positions like those that you espouse.
However, there are other people here who are trying to foster more of a respectful back and forth atmosphere. This can be hard to see because the loud and offensive is so much easier to see. It is so much easier to destroy and attack then to build and constructing is so much more fragile. But we are out there.
It would help this goal if you approached conversation here with the idea of conveying why you hold the positions you hold rather than trying to plant them like a flag. Of course, my perception of this from you may not be accurate, but that is often what I see from you.
In this particular instance as I noted, I have a lot of sympathy for what is supposed to be core of the Tea Party message, but I've found the reality of the groups to be pretty disappointing, in ways that Christine O'Donnell winning this primary illustrates. You seem to disagree with this. I'd be very interested in reading why you disagree with this.
I can't say that I'll come to agree with you. I may not even come to regard your reasons as legitimate. But I can promise that I and several other people here will try to give them a fair consideration.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_Frank, how on Earth could a party that inflicts O'Donnel on a Senate race be among the best things to happen in anyone's lifetime? That's a serious question. I am baffled.Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah yeah. Same thing was said about Ted Kennedy's seat, and Scott Brown ended up winning
You can keep discounting a group purely because of what you hear in the media and because their ideals conflict with yours, or you can accept that they are simply a group of pissed of people that have the belief that government is running the country the wrong way. Most of the candidates they support may be republicans. They did support Walt Minnick in Idaho who is a Democrat. A pro-union, pro-abortion Democrat.
And hey, don't even worry! Looks like Liberals have something to join now too!
quote: In an effort to replicate the tea party's success, 170 liberal and civil rights groups are forming a coalition that they hope will match the movement's political energy and influence. They promise to "counter the tea party narrative" and help the progressive movement find its voice again after 18 months of floundering.
The large-scale attempt at liberal unity, dubbed "One Nation," will try to revive themes that energized the progressive grassroots two years ago. In a repurposing of Barack Obama's old campaign slogan, organizers are demanding "all the change" they voted for -- a poke at the White House.
Gee, sure sounds like the same kind of movement as the Tea Party. I hope all of the members of all of those different groups behave themselves 100% of the time. I wonder if Samprimary will condemn them as well as being inherently racist if someone steps out of line. Anyone want to wager?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly just don't get the internal logic of the tea party. They seem intensely distrustful of government and government interference in peoples lives. It seems from the tea partiers I have talked to that at its core it is a group that feels like government hasn't been good for the American people. I see this in their candidates wanting to abolish everything from the EPA to the dept of education and in their desire to drastically cut taxes and services. What I don't get is how this goes hand in hand with wanting the government intensely involved in my personal life. They want to regulate who I can marry, who can serve in the military, what my kids learn about sex, which God I pray to, and my reproductive rights. How does one deal with the inconsistent underlying premise that gov't shouldn't interfere and regulate and then in another breath increase regulation and interference?
I feel like the core of their platform just doesn't make sense. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of Conservatives don't like the tea party. What shocks me is how many people seem to share this completely dissonant set of beliefs.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, Is that supposed to be a substantive reply to anything said in this thread? It seems like me the same sort of generalized, flag planting that I talked about in my last post.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gee, sure sounds like the same kind of movement as the Tea Party. I hope all of the members of all of those different groups behave themselves 100% of the time. I wonder if Samprimary will condemn them as well as being inherently racist if someone steps out of line. Anyone want to wager?
Yeah, because after all, Scott Brown is a complete and total vindication of Tea Party methods and politics, right? C'mon, Geraine. Furthermore, while the far left opposite to the Tea Party will be sure to have its host of distasteful problems, you can bet there won't be quite so many among them who will have thinly veiled racism among their numbers who will say, "Gee, y'know, we don't really know whether or not Obama is actually an American citizen at all!" as though that were actually anything but a smear attack and thinly disguised racism and/or Islamophobia.
I really don't know who Tea Party supporters think they're kidding thinking about things in terms of actual, y'know, demographics beyond a few election cycles. Populations grow more liberal, not less, over time, particularly in times of economic prosperity, something the Tea Party is supposed to want. Now are you going to sit there and tell us that the Tea Party is really, on social issues, socially centrist and not socially conservative? Really?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The large-scale attempt at liberal unity, dubbed "One Nation," will try to revive themes that energized the progressive grassroots two years ago. In a repurposing of Barack Obama's old campaign slogan, [b]organizers are demanding "all the change" they voted for -- a poke at the White House.[/n]
Good! Where can I sign up!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
