A Serious Question about the GOP and the Tea Party

[Modbert]

You never addressed any of my assertions , and you want me to to destroy what you believe to be clever?

I addressed everything you said. You've avoided the facts through multiple threads now on this specific topic.

 

[Modbert]

Coburn said that pledge does not rule the GOP regardless of who signed it.

He laid it out clearly that it is the product of a Special Interest Group that has no control over Republicans or anyone else on the right.

So what was your point now????

So you agree with Coburn then on this?

“I think which pledge is most important, David, is the pledge to, to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who, who claims to speak for all of American conservatives when, when in fact they really don’t.

So why would the GOP sign said pledge then?

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm trying to figure out what's all this BS on the left about Grover Norquist.....is this pledge it?

Good God. If that's all it is then the left is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill......again.

 

[Mr.Nick]

You never addressed any of my assertions , and you want me to to destroy what you believe to be clever?

I addressed everything you said. You've avoided the facts through multiple threads now on this specific topic.

Good then address your grievances now that you have my attention.

I'll be vigilant this time - I promise.

Spew buddy....

 

[mudwhistle]

Coburn said that pledge does not rule the GOP regardless of who signed it.

He laid it out clearly that it is the product of a Special Interest Group that has no control over Republicans or anyone else on the right.

So what was your point now????

So you agree with Coburn then on this?

“I think which pledge is most important, David, is the pledge to, to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who, who claims to speak for all of American conservatives when, when in fact they really don’t.

So why would the GOP sign said pledge then?

Cuz they don't want to raise taxes....or they want to get re-elected.

I don't know their thoughts. I don't read minds.

 

[WillowTree]

I would say in response, and would be correct in that response, that they have common interests and aren't ruled or led by Grover Norquist as was implied.

It's like Liberals that seem to say many of the same anti-Semitic things as Islamic fundamentalists, but that is where it ends.

So if they just have common interests, why did they bother to sign Grover Norquist's pledge? They could just pledge themselves to not raise taxes.

Your attack on Liberals is also pretty pathetic.

why do you care? supposedly you're not a liberal..

 

[Si modo]

The republican party will have to push the tp to the side if they want any main stream votes.

They will lose this base if they please the middle.

They will lose the middle if they please the TP.

They can not win with them or without them.

Unless of course they can cheat enough to win.

They have done it before and the history is in the court documents.

The question is a serious one, which excludes any input from the likes of you.

Now, STFU and go take your Paxil.

Interesting that you want to silent those you disagree with. Good luck with people shutting up just because you want them to.

He is just suggesting that she converse with her intellectual equals, so she should visit a rock garden.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.

If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?

Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?

If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?

As I see it the TEA party's main concern is shrinking government. From this result they see two benefits: Less government spending and greater personal liberty. The former lessens government's control over its citizens thereby providing the latter. Most in the movement are not insensitive to the fact that more moderate Independent voters need to be convinced either that another term of an Obama Presidency will engender more policies that have not worked towards improving the economy/jobs situation or that free market government policies will bring much needed improvement. The first is a no-brainer the second merely needs more exposure. There is only one party that holds both views; the GOP.

As of yet I have not seen any serious effort to form a formal third party that would represent the TEA party in body and spirit. Those in this movement have made a decision to work within the GOP which they feel historically represents the same thoughts about small less intrusive government. This kinship felt by conservatives to the GOP is manifest in the derisive term RINO that they apply to moderate Republicans. Although not quite rising to apostate status, RINOs are considered, at best, fallen conservatives. What we have seen happen over the last 2 and 1/2 years are many Americans that have adopted the thought that, since 1900, compromise with the left continuingly ratchets the country to the left. Therefore we see the TEA party efforts to not only stop that movement but to reverse it.

So the fight has been between staunch conservatives and the old guard Republicans. But this is the best thing to happen to the country in over a hundred years. Remember when the fight used to be between the Dems wanting to increase spending by ‘X’ and the GOP compromising for ‘X minus 50%’? Additionally that fight is now playing out within the GOP and will not be a Naderization of the 2012 elections. The whole subject of the debate now is about cutting spending…period. The GOP is in the process of a synthesis that hopefully will result in a candidate that will run strongly conservative but appear reasonable in his goals for the country. The TEA party is having a very strong influence in that decision.

The 2012 elections will be very informative. Due to the internet and Fox news more people are able to obtain both sides of this national debate/argument. Since Obama now has a record that not even the MSM can ignore and the GOP has its record of being the party of saying NO! to his policies, Americans have a clear choice. The main worry for the GOP is how successful the Dems will be in demonizing them in the coming campaign (this will be the most negative campaign ever seen. After all, what positive thing [for the country] can Obama run on?) So the GOP must clearly explain why they think their policies will be better than those presently being implemented by the Obama administration.

Oh, when was the last time you heard a politician claim that s/he would do the necessary thing (that didn’t truly involve freebies) when elected and have the temerity to actually do it? The TEA party caucus is rather refreshing, don’t you think? Was the TEA party responsible for eliminating earmarks/pork? Remember, unlike the passage of Obamacare, no one got bought off in the latest vote for the debt ceiling increase!

JM

 

[Oddball]

As of yet I have not seen any serious effort to form a formal third party that would represent the TEA party in body and spirit.

Never heard of the Libertarian Party, have you?

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In theory we're not even a political party we're the defenders of liberty and we're defending a document…

Well, you’re doing a very poor job of it, you first need to understand the meaning of the Founding Document before you can ‘defend’ it.

And this is also ironic, given the fact I spend most of my time defending the Constitution from members of the TPM and the right in genera. As, for example, when Michele Bachmann states that the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State is a ‘myth,’ when in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948), the Court affirmed that very principle using those exact words.

The TPM needs to understand the Constitution in the context of its case law, not some made up fantasy of what you think it is or wish it would be.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I'll never vote for McRomney, Bushmann, or any of the other establishment elites. I will vote Libertarian this year if any one of those are the insider nominee. They (the Republicans) betrayed us, AGAIN. I meant what I said.. Principle and honoring your word still means something to me.. so that means all of the old rich pasty pricks who think they're entitled to those seats, can kiss my pretty ass.

 

[kaz]

And this is also ironic, given the fact I spend most of my time defending the Constitution from members of the TPM and the right in genera. As, for example, when Michele Bachmann states that the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State is a ‘myth,’ when in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948), the Court affirmed that very principle using those exact words.

The TPM needs to understand the Constitution in the context of its case law, not some made up fantasy of what you think it is or wish it would be.

Lawyers need to understand the Constitution in terms of what is says and not some made up fantasy of what lawyers decided it meant at one time or another in case law

 

[Modbert]

I guess nobody is going to address my post about the Tea Party Caucus.

 

[BDBoop]

I guess nobody is going to address my post about the Tea Party Caucus.

What post number?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lawyers need to understand the Constitution in terms of what is says and not some made up fantasy of what lawyers decided it meant at one time or another in case law.

Snag here is the bulk of rulings the TPM and the right disagree with are interwoven into the very fabric of the Nation, some rulings dating back over 200 years. Indeed, the founding principle of the Constitution itself dates back to 1215, the doctrine of the rule of law, the foundation of our Republic. Consequently lawyers have little input into the ‘meaning’ of the Constitution; rather, they apply its principles expressed in case law to issues and conflicts brought to the courts by the people.

For example, soon a Federal judge will be striking down the provision of Alabama’s new ‘illegal immigrant’ law disallowing undocumented children from attend pubic schools. Per Plyler v Doe (1982) the judge will have no choice. He may personally believe the provision is a fine idea, but as a jurist sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, he’ll be compelled to strike down the provision just the same.

Your only recourse then is to have the states convene a constitutional convention. Given the state of political affairs today, good luck with that.

I guess nobody is going to address my post about the Tea Party Caucus.

If it concerns facts and you’re expecting a response from the right, you’re correct.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A vast majority?? there are only like 15 in congress and they all shot it down. Republicans split..

The progressives overwhelmingly voted for it and the progressive asshole Obama signed it.

Hell that document grants authority to rip a persons soul out their chest ...

No libertarian would EVER vote "yay" for such bullshit...

You're trying to equate Libertarian with Tea Party Caucus. Furthermore, there's quite a bit more than 15.

Progressives did not overwhelmingly vote for it. We've had this debate before.

Tea Party Caucus Mostly Supports Government Spying Legislation | That's My Congress

If the Tea Party Caucus truly stands against big government and for constitutional rights, members of the Tea Party Caucus would have voted against renewal of the Patriot Act yesterday. That’s not what happened, though. Instead, almost every member of the Tea Party Caucus voted for the big government spying law.

Out of the 47 current members of the caucus, only 7 voted against the renewal of the Patriot Act. Most of the Tea Party Caucus supported the abuses of big government, and helped in an attack against our constitutional rights. It was up to other members of the House of Representatives to take a stand against big government powers. The effort to pass H.R. 514 failed.

Or there's this:

44 'Tea Party Caucus' Members voted to renew Patriot Act - Los Angeles LA County Libertarian | Examiner.com



From the first vote:

44 - House rejects measure that would extend key Patriot Act provisions through December

The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.

44 - Patriot Act extension passes House, one week after unexpected defeat

The measure passed Monday night on a vote of 275 to 144, two fewer than it received last week. But this time, no two-thirds super-majority was required for passage, only a simple majority. Twenty-seven Republicans joined most Democrats on Monday to vote "no," while 65 Democrats joined with most Republicans to support the measure.

Keep spinning though. It amuses me.

If you think the leader of the ladies tea party speaks for the tea party you are sadly mistake.

I'll make it very simple for you here's theTEA PARTY'S OFFICAL WEB SITE. Andwhat they stand for and who they are.

Our mission is based on the U.S. Constitution's original principles and not on any political party platform. We must return the United States to the States and the people as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was written by our founders to limit the powers of the federal government, instead, giving the power to the people and the States.



As a committed group of ordinary Americans, we will achieve this by promoting candidates who commit to the original founding principles of the U.S. Constitution of limited federal government, states' rights, balanced budgets, individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility.



We will also expose the candidates who do not adhere to these basic Constitutional principles. We will support and promote the new "Contract From America," asking each Senator and Congress member to sign annually to show their commitment. For those who refuse to sign the new "Contract From America," we will expose those candidates or current politicians who will not commit to these basic principles of freedom and accountability and, instead, believe it is Government who "knows best."



We believe most Americans do not want out-of-control spending in Washington, bailouts, government controls of private businesses, socializing of Americans' health care and other non-essential government-run services.



We will support candidates from any party who commit to these principles and expose those who do not, and let the people decide on Election Day. In a nutshell, we need American patriots' help by joining the Tea Party movement, donating if you are able to and passing along the information about the Tea Party movement to your family, friends and neighbors.

Tea Party official website

 

[WillowTree]

I guess nobody is going to address my post about the Tea Party Caucus.

What post number?

 

[Charles_Main]

I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.

If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?

Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?

If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?

They will not split, the Tea Party is not even a Party, its a movement with in a party.

Me Personally I almost wish they would, though deep down I know it would mean many Democrat victories if they did. I just wish they would because I want a true Fiscal Conservative, small government party, that is not beholden to the Far right Social Conservatives and can attract Independents and dejected democrats.

 

[oreo]

In theory we're not even a political party we're the defenders of liberty and we're defending a document…

Well, you’re doing a very poor job of it, you first need to understand the meaning of the Founding Document before you can ‘defend’ it.

And this is also ironic, given the fact I spend most of my time defending the Constitution from members of the TPM and the right in genera. As, for example, when Michele Bachmann states that the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State is a ‘myth,’ when in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948), the Court affirmed that very principle using those exact words.

The TPM needs to understand the Constitution in the context of its case law, not some made up fantasy of what you think it is or wish it would be.

A LINK to Michelle Bachmann stating that there is no separation between church and state--as is written in the US Constitution?

 

[oreo]

I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.

If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?

Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?

If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?

They will not split, the Tea Party is not even a Party, its a movement with in a party.

Me Personally I almost wish they would, though deep down I know it would mean many Democrat victories if they did. I just wish they would because I want a true Fiscal Conservative, small government party, that is not beholden to the Far right Social Conservatives and can attract Independents and dejected democrats.

I don't think there are many in the tea party movement in this country that are real interested in social conservatism. Their number one concern is just what you stated you want. Fiscal responsibility--and a smaller less intrusive government.