Tea Party’s already won (1 Viewer)

[Grim17]

It's just too bad it took the radical policies of the Obama administration and democrats on capitol hill to wake up America. If they would have done this 30 years ago, we might not be in this mess today.

Tea Party’s already won
By A.B. Stoddard - 09/15/10 05:56 PM ET

Even before Christine O’Donnell handily defeated Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) in an epic upset Tuesday night, the Tea Parties, all of them, had already won. No matter what happens in the midterm elections on Nov. 2, the Tea Party has moved the Democrats to the right and the Republicans even more so, and President Obama’s agenda is dead.

Anger from disaffected conservatives who sat quietly through eight years of the surplus-to-deficit presidency of George W. Bush bubbled up immediately after Obama took office. All it took was the unprecedented $787 billion stimulus package, and before Obama could mark his first 100 days in office, a movement was born. Some of the already angry yet newly active were libertarian supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), and almost all of them were fuming over the Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008, the bipartisan bailout of Wall Street that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted for and that his running mate, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), supported.

What debuted in nationwide protests on April 15, 2009, has taken less than 18 months to become the current driving force in American politics. The Tea Party insurgency will not only cost Democrats dozens of seats in Congress, and likely their majority — it will define the coming GOP presidential nominating process, determine the direction of the GOP for years to come and threaten any remaining plans Obama has for sweeping reforms of education, energy policy or our immigration system.

Tea Party

 

[Teh Internets]

Can you just lump your stuff into one thread because you made like three in the same section in the past two days.

 

[Grim17]

Can you just lump your stuff into one thread because you made like three in the same section in the past two days.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Why don't you either comment, or run along and bother someone ekse.

 

[sokpupet]

Soul-searching time: a GOP torn - POLITICO.com Print View

~snip

In effect, Democrats now can counter the GOP’s attempt to nationalize the election around the unpopular policies of the administration and Congress by pointing to such figures as O’Donnell, Nevada’s Sharron Angle and Kentucky’s Rand Paul and asking voters if that’s the Republican Party they want to return to power.

“They are beginning to resemble the bar scene from Star Wars,” said Democratic strategist Peter Fenn in POLITICO’s Arena, referring to the GOP candidates this year. “They are purging the conservative voices in their party who have any sort of pragmatic perspective and substituting true kooks.”

It’s not just in the Senate contests, which typically draw the most attention in the Washington-based political press corps, where out-of-the-political-mainstream candidates are capturing the GOP nod.

New York Republicans bypassed establishment favorite and former Rep. Rick Lazio Tuesday night to nominate Carl Paladino, a Buffalo businessman who has proposed turning prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients and been caught forwarding racist email jokes, as their gubernatorial candidate.

Democrats quickly lumped Paladino with other GOP gubernatorial candidates carrying significant baggage.

“Republicans are so eager to tear their own party apart that they nominated another Tea Party candidate who should be disqualified from holding public office, like Rick Scott in Florida and Dan Maes in Colorado,” said Democratic Governors Association Executive Director Nathan Daschle.

At a practical level, the party’s nomination of candidates such as O’Donnell, Angle, Paul has served to put races in play that, in a climate this favorable to Republicans, never should have been competitive.

But the Delaware results, in particular, were a shock to Republicans who were previously able to find some plausible explanation for why one of their incumbents or top candidates had taken a loss. Castle, unlike Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Robert Bennett, went after O’Donnell aggressively, exposed some damning information about what Rove called her “checkered background,” and hadn’t been the target of notable dissent within the state party.

But voters shrugged their shoulders.

“People didn’t’ care,” lamented one GOP strategist involved in the race, referring to the reaction to reams of oppo research on O’Donnell.

That GOP primary voters would go ahead and nominate such a risky candidate has establishment Republicans worrying about who, if anybody, is now in charge of a traditionally top-down party.

If nothing else, the 8 primary election defeats suffered by NRSC-favored candidates this year indicates the lack of a unified command structure within the GOP now. It has, in effect, become an uncontrolled and ungoverned party in which the powers that be in Washington are mere bystanders.

“Where are the adults?” one strategist wondered.

Davis put it bluntly: “The Republican establishment has no cache right now.”

Those regular Republicans lashed out Tuesday night at the man they view as largely responsible for credentialing so many of the tea party hopefuls this year, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

“It speaks volumes that in Jim DeMint’s world, the ‘principles of freedom’ are more important than a candidate who pays their taxes, is honest with voters and who isn’t a complete fraud,” said a senior GOP aide. “Senator DeMint may be patting himself on the back tonight but many Republicans look forward to post-November 2nd when he has to explain why he helped the Democrats retain the majority for yet another two years.”

Firing back, DeMint spokesman Matt Hoskins said: "Based on the number of Republicans DeMint has helped get elected this year, I would say he's done quite a bit to elect a majority. Perhaps the real reason some Washington insiders are upset is that these Republicans actually have principles.”

Even more striking than the staff sniping, though, was the unmistakable tension on Fox News Tuesday night between Rove and conservative talk show host Sean Hannity – two of the most influential players in the conservative movement.

The competing views about the meaning of the O’Donnell victory– either a lost opportunity to reclaim the Senate or a warning shot directed at moderate Republicans – was on vivid display.

“I found her quite impressive and more importantly, she is a solid conservative,” Hannity said.

“It does conservatives little good to support candidates who, while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude, truthfulness and sincerity and character the voters are looking for,” Rove shot back.

The opposition, meanwhile, could only marvel at their fortune in an otherwise dismal year.

“Democrats now must be favored to hold the Senate,” said former Democratic Texas Rep. Martin Frost in POLITICO’s Arena. “The reality that the inmates are now clearly in charge of the GOP asylum could even have a carry over effect and help Democratic House candidates.”

This is so sad that so many are so confused.

 

[MaggieD]

It's just too bad it took the radical policies of the Obama administration and democrats on capitol hill to wake up America. If they would have done this 30 years ago, we might not be in this mess today.

Tea Party

I hope this article is right. I'm not convinced, though. Especially the part about Obama's agenda being dead. Even if the Dems lose their majority, we'll have a few-month lame duck session to get through. Don't think for one moment the agenda isn't completely set for that contingency.

The Tea Party movement could end up fracturing the Republican Party. I don't think an upset in November is, by any means, a sure thing. But I'm hopin'!!!

 

[Teh Internets]

Meh they might take the house but not the senate.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Meh they might take the house but not the senate.

Right now they have a projected 15% chance to take the senate and a 63% chance to take the house.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

[Wiseone]

If I was the Tea Party leadership, although one doesn't exist, or a member of the Tea Party I'd be worried about excluding too many people. Not to generalize but many, not all, Tea Partiers are too willing to exclude rather than compromise and can be very passionate, to put it politely, about their beliefs. If they exclude too much, or aren't willing to work with others enough, they may find themselves a permanent minority, although still a noisy one.

And not that im entirely innocent of this either, but Tea Partiers seem to demand a strict adherence and a violent rejection of those unwilling or unable to exist in that narrow band of beliefs and political values that are acceptable

 

[cpwill]

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.


oh my gosh? the republican elite aren't in charge of their own party any more? democrat elites are facing electoral loss to relative political newcomers? gosh, i guess that means we will be bereft of their awesome leadership that we've been enjoying for the last few years?

 

[samsmart]

If I was the Tea Party leadership, although one doesn't exist, or a member of the Tea Party I'd be worried about excluding too many people. Not to generalize but many, not all, Tea Partiers are too willing to exclude rather than compromise and can be very passionate, to put it politely, about their beliefs. If they exclude too much, or aren't willing to work with others enough, they may find themselves a permanent minority, although still a noisy one.

And not that im entirely innocent of this either, but Tea Partiers seem to demand a strict adherence and a violent rejection of those unwilling or unable to exist in that narrow band of beliefs and political values that are acceptable

Well, in the long-term, all this means is that Democrats will wind up an even broader party than it already is. If the Tea Party is going to purge the Republican Party of any kind of moderate influences, they will charge up their base, and it will work in the short term because of the economic crisis we're going through right now.

However, there's also Presidential campaigns to take into account, along with the long-term damage to the Republican Party. If the Republican Party continues to push out certain voters, it won't be good for them once things stabilize.

 

[Wiseone]

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.


oh my gosh? the republican elite aren't in charge of their own party any more? democrat elites are facing electoral loss to relative political newcomers? gosh, i guess that means we will be bereft of their awesome leadership that we've been enjoying for the last few years?

Don't make the mistake of thinking current changes in the political climate are permanent, both the Dems and Reps have seen good and bad times but they are still kicking. And the Tea Party isn't the first time a national political movement has stirred up the normal 2 party politics, Ross Perot in 1992 and less in 1994 had a pretty big thing going for a while, and his platform was very similar to the current Tea Party platform. And before that the big upsetter was George Wallace in 1968.

Of course the Perot and Wallace movements are very different in many important areas from the Tea Party, in fact I think the Tea Party position may be stronger than those movements in some way. The TP has a broader more diverse base than Wallace but a similar one to Perot, but unlike Perot it has the advantage of being associated with a movement. Perot voters in 1992 didn't identify with each other the way TPers do now, and there was no attempt by Perot's movement to fight for local and smaller elections, he just went straight for the Presidency. He never attempted to really group his supporters into a real political movement.

However this raises an interesting question for TPers and their leadership, if you can call them that, lets just say influential people. Does the TP attempt to become its own party, and separate itself from the Republican Party that is its natural base? Or does it become part of the Republican Party and work within that structure, while still maintaining its passionate recruiting. There's advantages and disadvantages to both, the best one with staying with the Republicans is money. The Reps have money and can attract contributions on a scale no Tea Party can, of course if they are being funded by the Reps they will expected to be team players for the Republican Party, some TPers in my opinion are unwilling to do that. Just look at the Castle/O'Donnell race, many TPs don't even consider the two to be on the same time, regardless of Castle's decision not to support O'Donnell. I think its a fair assessment to say that even if Castle had supported O'Donnell, he's not going to become any more popular with TPers. However staying with the Republicans has its risks, they can be marginalized within the Republican Party and many TPers will not accept that decision.

If they decided to make their own political party they lose their link to a huge money pot but they also can make their image much more public. The risk of being marginalized within a larger structure is eliminated, of course they can still be marginalized in national politics anyway if their message falters but thats a risk whether they stay or go, so its not really a consideration in choosing because its inevitable. And they don't have to worry about compromising themselves too much to lose that image because they are separate. Many 3rd party or new political movements are popular for a few elections, or maybe even only one, and then they fade away again. The TP will certainly be around for more than one election, but if they will be around for the next 10 is more uncertain. I think thats one of the reasons their leaders, influential people, are so loud, vocal, and constantly give the TP their highest amount of energy, they have to keep this thing rolling. TPs are an impatient bunch in my opinion, they want change and damn if they dont want it yesterday, if a feeling that they aren't accomplishing anything grows the TP will fall apart, of course right now every TPer thinks they are moving forward and accomplishing things, just look at this site.

So in my opinion if I were a TPer I wouldn't leave the Republican Party outright, but that would be my eventual goal, I think the Rep Party leadership is too well entrenched to be overtaken by the Tea Party and lets be honest their narrower view and strong dislike of compromise doesn't make them very attractive for many Republicans at this time. By staying with the party they can use the Rep money banks to fund their candidates, assuming they will support them, which is a whole other challenge but I think its possible. The Reps I believe will like to see an (R) over a (D) even if they are Tea Party, O'Donnel is an exception because of the near impossible task of winning Delaware, so her rejection is more about overall strategy rather than her ideology. TP candidates in Alaska and New York are receiving Republican Party support. And that would be the flaw, if they believe its own, I'll say characteristic in the Republican Party I'd exploit. The Republican Party, while still right wing, supports a range of right wing candidates, it by design has a much wider scope than the TP because of its desire to win elections. Thats why Castle, an R from Delaware, is not like an R from Alaska or Wyoming. So like a guerrilla fighter in the jungle, the TP should sap off the Republican Party as long as it can like a parasite until its forcibly removed or just takes over the organism. (I don't mean parasite negatively i just think its a good metaphor for the way they should grab money)

So now that I've rambled on, let me say on last thing. Thats what I would do if I was designing a strategy to make the TP in a true national movement the size of the current Rep or Dem parties, however I dont think its possible without expanding their scope but if they insisted on not, I'd go with these approaches. HOWEVER, I don't believe the major players with the TP movement, like Palin or Beck, are really interested in anything other than fame and money. I believe they are using this movement mostly as a way to sell books, speaking arrangements, or get ratings for a TV show, plus they get the personal satisfaction and ego stroking that any person would of having millions of followers. If that is the case, and again thats just my opinion, they wouldnt be following these strategies because they would have different goals. If my goal was what I think their goals are, I'd get the TP right where it is right now, small but eager, keep people thinking they are doing something and that their goal is right around the corner, and ride that horse till it drops. Moving in the way my strategies play out involves risk, risk that could mean the end of the TP if they go wrong, which is something I don't think they are willing to risk. Don't kill the goose that lays the Golden eggs so to speak. So while they could make even more money and be even bigger stars if those risks went well, I dont think its something a reasonable strategist would go all for nothing on, especially when they have so much to lose.

And thats my opinion.

Edit: Good God I didn't realize I wrote so much, sorry strategizing is something I love doing, I can get carried away.

 

[USA_1]

It amazes me that people actually believe the Tea Party candidates are any different than any other politicians. They are just telling the people what they want to hear. Just like all the rest.

 

[cpwill]

cynicism is naivete as well, usa.

 

[BWG]

Anger from disaffected conservatives who sat quietly through eight years of the surplus-to-deficit presidency of George W. Bush bubbled up immediately after Obama took office.

This is why they don't have, nor will ever have, any credibility with me.

Candidates like Angle, Paul or O'Donnell aren't helping either.

 

[USA_1]

cynicism is naivete as well, usa.

So you fell for all the BS, too? PT was right.

 

[Grim17]

It amazes me that people actually believe the Tea Party candidates are any different than any other politicians. They are just telling the people what they want to hear. Just like all the rest.

That may well be true, and if it is, there will be hell to pay in the 2012 congressional elections. My belief is, these Tea Party people are serious about what they expect out of members of congress, and if they don't deliver, they will bounce them out on their asses next time around.

In other words, I don't think the Tea Party folks are playing around, nor do I see them as some flash in the pan political movement.

 

[USA_1]

That may well be true, and if it is, there will be hell to pay in the 2012 congressional elections. My belief is, these Tea Party people are serious about what they expect out of members of congress, and if they don't deliver, they will bounce them out on their asses next time around.

In other words, I don't think the Tea Party folks are playing around, nor do I see them as some flash in the pan political movement.

The Tea Party rhetoric reminds me of all that "Hope and Change" BS of the last presidential race.

 

[Grim17]

The Tea Party rhetoric reminds me of all that "Hope and Change" BS of the last presidential race.

Well, the "hope & change" garbage, was baseless media generated hype that is already dead and buried. If the media would have done their job and reported what the man actually stood for, our president would be John McCain right now.

On the other hand, the Tea Party movement has risen not because of the main stream media, but in spite of them. The liberal left and their ever faithful media have relentlessly attacked and marginalized the Tea Party people and the candidates they've supported since day one, yet they continue to grow stronger every day.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but comparing the shallow and phony Hope & Change crap, to the beliefs, principals and determination of the Tea Party people, is misguided and foolish in my opinion... Only time will tell though.

 

[USA_1]

Well, the "hope & change" garbage, was baseless media generated hype that is already dead and buried. If the media would have done their job and reported what the man actually stood for, our president would be John McCain right now.

On the other hand, the Tea Party movement has risen not because of the main stream media, but in spite of them. The liberal left and their ever faithful media have relentlessly attacked and marginalized the Tea Party people and the candidates they've supported since day one, yet they continue to grow stronger every day.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but comparing the shallow and phony Hope & Change crap, to the beliefs, principals and determination of the Tea Party people, is misguided and foolish in my opinion... Only time will tell though.

What you seem to ignore is that many of the attacks against the tea party are from republicans, not the media or liberals.

As for Obama, he turned out to be pretty much what the media portrayed him to be before the election. The Hope and change was his campaign theme, not the medias.

 

[pragmatic]

What you seem to ignore is that many of the attacks against the tea party are from republicans, not the media or liberals.

As for Obama, he turned out to be pretty much what the media portrayed him to be before the election. The Hope and change was his campaign theme, not the medias.

Attacks on the tea party efforts/agenda from Republicans are minimal. And they are typically from those in the GOP that are just consumed with seat counts and "probability" for winning party majority.

The Democrats and the left constitute the bulk of the efforts to ridicule/diminish the positions and credibility of the tea party members. In itself, the attacks are probably smart politics. Because the tea party has grassroots momentum and is a genuine threat to a number of Democratically held offices.



.

 

[Renae]

Soul-searching time: a GOP torn - POLITICO.com Print View

~snip


This is so sad that so many are so confused.

What's sad is you think regurgitating the DNC Line on what's going on is intelligent or insightful.

 

[Renae]

The Tea Party rhetoric reminds me of all that "Hope and Change" BS of the last presidential race.

Great so aside whining about how horrible the Tea Party is... got alternatives to offer?

Hmm?

 

[Teh Internets]

Great so aside whining about how horrible the Tea Party is... got alternatives to offer?

Hmm?

Commienazisocialistmutantmuslims?

 

[USA_1]

Great so aside whining about how horrible the Tea Party is... got alternatives to offer?

Hmm?

Libertarian.

 

[USA_1]

Attacks on the tea party efforts/agenda from Republicans are minimal. And they are typically from those in the GOP that are just consumed with seat counts and "probability" for winning party majority.

The Democrats and the left constitute the bulk of the efforts to ridicule/diminish the positions and credibility of the tea party members. In itself, the attacks are probably smart politics. Because the tea party has grassroots momentum and is a genuine threat to a number of Democratically held offices.



.

If you hadn't noticed they are also threatening some GOP held offices. I haven't figured out what makes the Tea Party any differfent than any other party. They have the same slogans and promises all the rest have. The truth is they will be no better than the fools in office.