TEA Party Civil War

[theDoctorisIn]

The tea party movement has already proven to be force on the political scene! The left fear them, so like everything they fear they slander the organization and try to hit it will false accusations of racism and sexism!

Trust me the tea partiers will be out in force for the elections, wiping the tax and spend Democrats into shape!

Note: I am not a tea partier, but I admire what they stand for!

Really? What do they stand for, EXACTLY?

I believe they stand for the principles upon which this nation was founded: limited government, low taxes, national security, independence and fiscal responsibility.

No, this nation was founded on only one of those. The rest are just standard "Look! We're just like the founding fathers!" conservative rhetoric.

If you want to be honest, neither side of the spectrum has ANY relation to the founding fathers politics, because the world was a very different place then. Argue your points on their merit, not on how close they are to a fictionalized version of the founding fathers.

 

[bobbcat]

Which in my humble opinion, means they can accomplish little.

Only time will tell. People like to say these groups are nothing but a bunch of wingnut hayseeds, but I beg to differ. People of all political stripes are finding much to object to with Obama and his boys up there in Washington making an utter mess of things. Add Pelosi & Reid to the mix, and there you have a recipe for utter disaster. People don't like it, and it will show with upcoming elections. The pattern has already started with the VA and NJ governorships and now Teddy's precious seat in the Senate being garnered by Pubs.

 

[Coyote]

Incorrect - the left attempts to utilize the small NY congressional election as some form of evidence against the foundational merits of the growing populism in America.

No. Merely putting it into it's proper perspective.

In that particular case we saw a totally unknown 3rd party candidate nearly win election to a national seat. That was simply more evidence of just how much the political tree in America is being shaken. And on that same night, the two far more significant elections went to the Republican candidates.

It was a conservative seat that should have been won by a Republican or conservative candidate - it had been solidly conservitive. The fact that they lost had nothing to do with national politics and everything to do with local issues. The conservative candidate knew jacksquat about important local concerns and couldn't even answer constituent questions coherently. People are more concerned about their local problems then they are about Washington and the White House and all their sweeping plans. They want to know about jobs, about whether their local industries are going go belly up, and if they are going to be able to hold on to their mortgages.

The other two elections were won on similar principles - local local local. Not one aligned themselves closely with either the GoP or the "Tea Party". In the NJ election the incumbent was highly unpopular - not because of the national political scene but because he was an actions in office.

If a Republican can successfully tap into the increased agitation over Big Goverment liberalism that continues to grow in America - the very mood that is the basis for the Tea Party protests, that Republican candidate will prove a very tough one to beat in the upcoming elections.

Hard to say because the "Tea Party" movement is not very unified once you get past fiscal responsibility and less government.

Make no mistake, the more astute politicians from both major parties are finally understanding this, and adjusting their political sails accordingly. Those politicians who fail to do so will find themselves crashing upon the rocks of populist discontent...

The astute politician will distance himself from either major party and speak to his constituents on the issues they really care about.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I think anyone who criticized Bush, and then voted for Obama and all this is irrelevant.

 

[Sinatra]

You make my point regarding the NY23 race - the 3rd party candidate was unknown, nearly incoherent on the issues, and STILL managed a near victory due to increasing voter frustration regarding the political status quo - namely the current liberal democrats in power.

To attempt to state the two governor races were in no way repudiation against Democrat Party liberalism is just foolish excuse that attempts to deny the political truth around them.

And then we have the Massachusetts race - the old Ted Kennedy seat within one of the most traditionally liberal states in the nation went REPUBLICAN. Yet more repudiation of the Democrat Party liberalism. If you don't think people are acting against the White House because they don't have a job, you are simply unworthy to even discuss the subject.

3 national elections go Republican - including two in very Democrat states.

Obama approval ratings drop about 20% since beginning of summer.

GOP holds strong margin in generic ballot over the Democrats.

"Liberal" designation scores far lower than "conservative" designation in most recent polling.

...yeah, keep telling yourself people are not pointing fingers at the liberal Democrat controlled Washington DC...that will get you and the Democrat Party a very rude awakening come November 2010...

Incorrect - the left attempts to utilize the small NY congressional election as some form of evidence against the foundational merits of the growing populism in America.

No. Merely putting it into it's proper perspective.

In that particular case we saw a totally unknown 3rd party candidate nearly win election to a national seat. That was simply more evidence of just how much the political tree in America is being shaken. And on that same night, the two far more significant elections went to the Republican candidates.

It was a conservative seat that should have been won by a Republican or conservative candidate - it had been solidly conservitive. The fact that they lost had nothing to do with national politics and everything to do with local issues. The conservative candidate knew jacksquat about important local concerns and couldn't even answer constituent questions coherently. People are more concerned about their local problems then they are about Washington and the White House and all their sweeping plans. They want to know about jobs, about whether their local industries are going go belly up, and if they are going to be able to hold on to their mortgages.

The other two elections were won on similar principles - local local local. Not one aligned themselves closely with either the GoP or the "Tea Party". In the NJ election the incumbent was highly unpopular - not because of the national political scene but because he was an actions in office.

If a Republican can successfully tap into the increased agitation over Big Goverment liberalism that continues to grow in America - the very mood that is the basis for the Tea Party protests, that Republican candidate will prove a very tough one to beat in the upcoming elections.

Hard to say because the "Tea Party" movement is not very unified once you get past fiscal responsibility and less government.

Make no mistake, the more astute politicians from both major parties are finally understanding this, and adjusting their political sails accordingly. Those politicians who fail to do so will find themselves crashing upon the rocks of populist discontent...

The astute politician will distance himself from either major party and speak to his constituents on the issues they really care about.

 

[Sinatra]

I think anyone who criticized Bush, and then voted for Obama and all this is irrelevant.

You make a very valid point- Obama has simply taken the worst aspects of the Bush administration and doubled down on them - with an even greater degree of incompetence...