A Serious Question about the GOP and the Tea Party

[Oddball]

Yes, I make a distinction between attacking an ideological group and attacking an individual. Just because you call liberals or progressives "libutards" does not mean I will turn around and call YOU a stupid asshole.

Bullshit.

You're not only a simpleton but a sanctimonious one to boot.

Take two teaspoons of get the **** over yourself and check back with us in the morning.

 

[Seawytch]

Good God...I was right...You really are a simpleton.

Have You Heard About Ron Paul and 'That' $500 Donation? by C.J. Maloney

Apparently YOU are the simpleton for not following the thread.

I've followed the thread just fine...I can follow flawed logic as well.

When republicans openly welcome avowed racists into their caucus the same way that the Democrat Party welcomes socialists with open arms, then you will have a point.

But they don't, so all you have is a race-baiting popcorn fart.

Ah, but saying that socialism is the same as racism is just silly.

 

[Big Fitz]

Except that's not true. The only socialist ran (and won) as an independent.

Perhaps you should visit there sites . They explain quite clearly they work through democrats.

LOL...right. You aren't even trying...

Wanna bet Stormfront supports a bunch of Tea Bagger candidates?

Wanna be Al Quaeda supports democrat candidates? Loosen your sphincter. Apparently your chin's caught.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 Tea Party is the main stream.
The Republicans will win, unless the Dems get record numbers of illegal and dead voters to the polls.
Obama cannot win the majority of legal and living voters.
The Dems will cheat, they always do.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Thankfully........your sentiments are shared by very, very few........as in, a number that is not only politically insignificant but rather at the far, far end of the political specrum. What they call the hyper-fringe.

Actually, the first part of her post is probably agreed on by quite a few. It's the last two statements that are on the fringe. Of course, we hear those kind of statements from both sides, every time their candidate loses a close election.

 

[Oddball]

Apparently YOU are the simpleton for not following the thread.

I've followed the thread just fine...I can follow flawed logic as well.

When republicans openly welcome avowed racists into their caucus the same way that the Democrat Party welcomes socialists with open arms, then you will have a point.

But they don't, so all you have is a race-baiting popcorn fart.

Ah, but saying that socialism is the same as racism is just silly.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, I make a distinction between attacking an ideological group and attacking an individual. Just because you call liberals or progressives "libutards" does not mean I will turn around and call YOU a stupid asshole.

Bullshit.

You're not only a simpleton but a sanctimonious one to boot.

Take two teaspoons of get the **** over yourself and check back with us in the morning.

Maybe I am, but it's my personal distinction. I don't get my panties in a wad when practically every RWer here uses terms like "libutard" or "Commie" to describe liberals. I don't feel the need to personally attack them as a result. I just use the term they themselves coined to describe them, Tea Bagger.

Sounds like it's you that needs to get over yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

I think it's too early to answer the question which, if I may rephase to ask, "will those who support the TP agenda coalesce with other factions within the Republican Party"? I suspect we'll see only one point of agreement when actual debates are held, and that is to attack Obama. I don't see any knew thinking/ideas within the Republican Party; it is stuck on cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations in spite of the failure of this ideology during the first decade of this new century.

 

[cutter]

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?

In full seriousness and honesty, it will depend on what Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers advise.

I'll take Norquist and Koch over George Sorios, owner of the Democratic Party, any day. Norquist and Koch have never bragged about collapsing economy's.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, I make a distinction between attacking an ideological group and attacking an individual. Just because you call liberals or progressives "libutards" does not mean I will turn around and call YOU a stupid asshole.

Bullshit.

You're not only a simpleton but a sanctimonious one to boot.

Take two teaspoons of get the **** over yourself and check back with us in the morning.

Maybe I am, but it's my personal distinction. I don't get my panties in a wad when practically every RWer here uses terms like "libutard" or "Commie" to describe liberals. I don't feel the need to personally attack them as a result. I just use the term they themselves coined to describe them, Tea Bagger.

There's no maybe about it.

 

[California Girl]

I believe Republicans, Tea Partiers and Libertarians/Classical Liberals will support one candidate, whichever is the most fiscally reasonable. More importantly, we will take the Senate and more in the House so that we can begin to undo all these laws, bureaucracies and regulations that have driven spending to obscene levels while crushing the American tradition of individual freedom.

Not this little black duck.

I'm going to see action and a track record before I cast a vote for anyone with an (R) by their name, ever again.

They nominate another wormy, double-dealing shoe salesman, like Pawlenty or Romney, and I'll be voting LP again.

I'm willing to consider Romney.... only because we actually need someone who is economically intelligent and - while I disagree with him about a lot of things - he is smart on economics. After the previous clusterfuck, and this clusterfuck, we need someone who knows what the hell they are doing in the WH.

 

[Trajan]

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?

The tea party are people who prioritize fiscal issues over social conservatism and military endeavors. I fit that. However, I don't believe in being a "member" of a political organization because I think what I think not what I'm told to think. So I call myself a "supporter" of the tea party.

The answer to your question though is that the tea party isn't Republican, it's an attempted take over of the Republican party. Think of our choices:

Republican - claim to be fiscal conservatives but only put lip service to it while putting social conservatism and military conquests first.

Democrats - socialists who don't really oppose social conservatism other then abortion and go hand in hand with Republican militarism while criticizing Republicans.

Wow, horrible choices. But in this country there are two parties and it's most effective to take one over. That obviously would be the Republican party since they at least pay lip service to fiscal conservatism and Democrats are socialists. It's why Republican leadership try to defeat tea partiers and tea partiers don't care when Republicans who aren't tea partiers lose.

So currently nothing will change. But the thing that could change would be if Democrats who are more fiscally conservative but scared by Republican social conservatism start to identify with the tea party. For that to happen, a "Reagan" is going to have to emerge. There are some candidates for that like Rubio, but no one clearly on that path yet.

Sorry, but Democrats are not Socialists. You really ought to figure out what a Socialist is before you go throwing the term around for everyone you happen to disagree with. Other than a minority group of far left wingers, most Dems are pretty much Centrists that understand that government and the private sector do work hand in hand, yet the government is not there to control the private sector, but to make certain that it operates in a reasonable manner that protects the rights of its citizens. There are many moderate Republicans and Independents that fit that mold also.

, most Dems are pretty much Centrists

that may be , but what I got from kaz and what I personally think is; this matters little; the old bulls in both parties, the Barons in congress from uber safe seats due to tenure hand out the committees assignments in the minority ( and chairs when they are in the majority), they have a backroom control that is truly palpable.

they have the power; in effect the tea party is just fighting the same battle vis a vis the power, Boehner, that the blue dogs fought ala obamacare and pelosi and there after were pushed in front of the cannon like the fodder they were.

 

[California Girl]

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?

In full seriousness and honesty, it will depend on what Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers advise.

I'll take Norquist and Koch over George Sorios, owner of the Democratic Party, any day. Norquist and Koch have never bragged about collapsing economy's.

While I understand what you're saying... Personally, I am inclined to throw the lot of 'em under a bus.... or over a cliff.... whichever is more convenient.... as long as they take their money out of our politics.

 

[Trajan]

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?

I think it's too early to answer the question which, if I may rephase to ask, "will those who support the TP agenda coalesce with other factions within the Republican Party"? I suspect we'll see only one point of agreement when actual debates are held, and that is to attack Obama. I don't see any knew thinking/ideas within the Republican Party; it is stuck on cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations in spite of the failure of this ideology during the first decade of this new century.

what color is it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ron Paul will bring them together if he gets the Nom.

Republicans (voters) will be happy because they have a real conservative with a record and the TP will be happy because well, it's Ron fuckin Paul. Indies and Dems will be happy because many will vote for RP too.

What's Ron Paul's record?
Besides being a loon and accomplishing nothing?

 

[Big Fitz]

In full seriousness and honesty, it will depend on what Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers advise.

I'll take Norquist and Koch over George Sorios, owner of the Democratic Party, any day. Norquist and Koch have never bragged about collapsing economy's.

While I understand what you're saying... Personally, I am inclined to throw the lot of 'em under a bus.... or over a cliff.... whichever is more convenient.... as long as they take their money out of our politics.

And since the supreme court has ruled money = free speech, may as well let every citizen participate. It's when outsiders participate I have a problem.

 

[kaz]

Democrats - socialists

Sorry, but Democrats are not Socialists. You really ought to figure out what a Socialist is before you go throwing the term around for everyone you happen to disagree with. Other than a minority group of far left wingers, most Dems are pretty much Centrists that understand that government and the private sector do work hand in hand, yet the government is not there to control the private sector, but to make certain that it operates in a reasonable manner that protects the rights of its citizens. There are many moderate Republicans and Independents that fit that mold also.

Actually you don't like the word, and you don't know what it means. Socialism is a centrally planned economy. Rather then arguing the definition of words, why don't you give me an example of anything that Democrats have actually supported during the Obama administration that is not further government control over the economy. Since they are not socialist and they are centrist, they should be pretty split. But I'm only asking for one thing that is not socialist central economic planning that they proposed or actually supported. Go.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

It's an interesting balancing act. The GOP needs to pay this faction enough lip service and legislative bones to keep them complacent, without doing too much to turn away the independent kingmakers.

If the TP faction splits and puts up its own candidate, it will guarantee a second Obama term. Both the establishment right and the TP noobs know this. So far the TP has done an effective job of pushing the debt issue front and center, and pulling the GOP right--at least rhetorically. They have to be pleased with what they've accomplished so far.

Ultimately having their own candidate as a third option in the general election would just be an empty threat. A second Obama terms is too much of a price to pay for ideological purity in a Republican nominee. They WILL have to settle for a less-than-perfect candidate who can win the middle, because he/she would be better for their cause than a second Obama term. And they will vote in large numbers for the less-than-perfect candidate because I think the anti-Obama sentiment is a powerful driving force in the movement; it's more of a vote against Obama than a vote for their not-perfect guy.

A similar storm is brewing on the left. Obama is, for some, too centrist and pragmatic. There's a pretty good op-ed piece in the NYT that addresses the left's general disappointment with him so far. But I think the odds of a Democrat challenger are the same as a third-party TP candidate. Next to zero.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?ref=opinion

 

[Oddball]

If the TP faction splits and puts up its own candidate, it will guarantee a second Obama term. Both the establishment right and the TP noobs know this. So far the TP has done an effective job of pushing the debt issue front and center, and pulling the GOP right--at least rhetorically. They have to be pleased with what they've accomplished so far.

Ultimately having their own candidate as a third option in the general election would just be an empty threat. A second Obama terms is too much of a price to pay for ideological purity in a Republican nominee. They WILL have to settle for a less-than-perfect candidate who can win the middle, because he/she would be better for their cause than a second Obama term. And they will vote in large numbers for the less-than-perfect candidate because I think the anti-Obama sentiment is a powerful driving force in the movement; it's more of a vote against Obama than a vote for their not-perfect guy.

This is the chickenshit "logic" that gave us eight years of Chimpy McShrub.

The repubs nominate another "it's his turn" party man beltway insider used car salesman, like Juan McQuisling or Bob Olde, and TP people will stay home.

 

[Sheldon]

If the TP faction splits and puts up its own candidate, it will guarantee a second Obama term. Both the establishment right and the TP noobs know this. So far the TP has done an effective job of pushing the debt issue front and center, and pulling the GOP right--at least rhetorically. They have to be pleased with what they've accomplished so far.

Ultimately having their own candidate as a third option in the general election would just be an empty threat. A second Obama terms is too much of a price to pay for ideological purity in a Republican nominee. They WILL have to settle for a less-than-perfect candidate who can win the middle, because he/she would be better for their cause than a second Obama term. And they will vote in large numbers for the less-than-perfect candidate because I think the anti-Obama sentiment is a powerful driving force in the movement; it's more of a vote against Obama than a vote for their not-perfect guy.

This is the chickenshit "logic" that gave us eight years of Chimpy McShrub.

The repubs nominate another "it's his turn" party man beltway insider used car salesman, like Juan McQuisling or Bob Olde, and TP people will stay home.

Well it's a byproduct of an institutionalized two-party system. Unless the TP faction is willing to give the Democrats greater control in--at least--the next couple decades of elections, they'll have to do the "lesser of two evils" card. Their best strategy would be to stay within the Republican fold and try to effect change from within. Splitting and running separately would do damage to the entire right, with the Dems being the winners.