Who Would Have Thought, Tea Party Folks Don't Back Republicans

[nodoginnafight]

It appears that inflamatory rhetoric, blatant mischaracterizations, and outright lies fueled and nutured the size and vehemence of this group. Claims like "paling around with terrorists," and "not a citizen," and "death panels," etc ... wrere spoken by some GOPers and passively encouraged by others because it helped foment the formation of this mob and THAT met their immediate political objectives.

The fact that this monster has gone rogue and now threatens to take a serious bite out of the GOP, speaks directly to the foolishness of following this type of tactic. There's a big part of me that wants to caution, "You reap what you sow" and a part of me that is just facinated by the process.

 

[Qball]

This is only a surprise to liberals who assume every demonstration against Obama is due to racist right-wing whackjobs. I could've told you there was more to the tea party movement than that.

 

[Intense]

It appears that inflamatory rhetoric, blatant mischaracterizations, and outright lies fueled and nutured the size and vehemence of this group. Claims like "paling around with terrorists," and "not a citizen," and "death panels," etc ... wrere spoken by some GOPers and passively encouraged by others because it helped foment the formation of this mob and THAT met their immediate political objectives.

The fact that this monster has gone rogue and now threatens to take a serious bite out of the GOP, speaks directly to the foolishness of following this type of tactic. There's a big part of me that wants to caution, "You reap what you sow" and a part of me that is just facinated by the process.

Republicans acting like Democrats? What? Where? When?

When Arlen Specter went over to the Dark side, I felt Cleansed.

I am so touched that those from the Dark Place are so concerned about Our Well Being. It makes my leg tingle.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So Maple, what you're saying is that the birthers, death panelers, et al. are abandoning the tea party movement (impossible to claim these didn't swell those ranks in the begininng) and that what remains is a purely economic movement?

So the Tea Party movement has sort of gotten back to it's Libertarian roots. And has purged elements like Dick Armey, David Koch, etc who were obviously using the movement for other political objectives?
Good to hear.
But I'm waiting to see how it shakes out - to see if the movement really can cast aside all the manipulation. And to see if it survives without so many of the "angry mob" it attracted.

Time will tell. As a fiscally conservative independent, (former Republican who left the party about 9 years ago) I'll be watching with interest. But in truth - Libertarianism doesn't interest me - but fiscal conservatism does.

 

[nodoginnafight]

btw - was anyone able to come up with that link that documents the political affiliations?????????
Some of the claims seem counterintuitive - I've googled and searched but can't find any documentation - can anyone provide some help?
I'd appreciate it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

C'mon folks - this isn't a trick question. You have presented very specific numbers on the political affiliation of Tea Party participants.

Ted_Esq:

If you look at the break down of political affiliation of late, it's about 35% Dem, 35% Repub and about 30% "Independent" whatever that means.

Dive Con:

actually, thats changing
last i saw it was about 38% dem 27% gop and 35% "other*"

All I am asking is where those numbers come from. I've looked for them myself and I can't find anything on it. Where did you guys find these numbers?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Back the Constitution,not the two Political Party Monsters. Neither Party seems real concerned about adhering to our Constitution at this point. Oh they do like to boast about adhering to our Constitution when they think it will benefit them personally in some way but most of today's politicians could care less about our Constitution. It has merely become a minor inconvenience for them at this point. It's actually very sad.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So, am I to assume that no one can produce any documentation on those numbers? I mean the way you guys reported such SPECIFIC numbers it appeared that you had some sort of documentation. It sure didn't SOUND like, "oh .... my experience leads me to believe that about ....."


So I'm left with no reason to doubt my original analysis. This movement, if it retains any momentum, is NOT likely to harm Democrats more than Republicans as was speculated, but the opposite is most likely true. It is much more likely to splinter away even more of the Republican Party.

Not being a Republican or a Democrat, it really doesn't matter to me one way or another. But I think it is an important cautionary tale. If you start feeding a monster, you just might get bitten.

 

[Maple]

So Maple, what you're saying is that the birthers, death panelers, et al. are abandoning the tea party movement (impossible to claim these didn't swell those ranks in the begininng) and that what remains is a purely economic movement?

So the Tea Party movement has sort of gotten back to it's Libertarian roots. And has purged elements like Dick Armey, David Koch, etc who were obviously using the movement for other political objectives?
Good to hear.
But I'm waiting to see how it shakes out - to see if the movement really can cast aside all the manipulation. And to see if it survives without so many of the "angry mob" it attracted.

Time will tell. As a fiscally conservative independent, (former Republican who left the party about 9 years ago) I'll be watching with interest. But in truth - Libertarianism doesn't interest me - but fiscal conservatism does.

I am not saying that at all, what I am saying is that the two common concerns are they are worried about out of control deficit spending, that will bankrupt this country. Our dollar is already de-valued and continuing on that slide downward, also the debasement of the constitution of the United States by liberals who want to re-write it. There are fringe groups in every organization including the liberal one, but they make up an extreme MINORITY of the overall group. Unfortunately, they get the most coverage by the liberal media. I would encourage you to attend one of your local tea parties. From my experience they are everyday people, primarily middle class, they are respectful to others who are around them. They make up a broad section of people in this country. Go see for yourself. Google search for tea parties in your area, you will find them.

To the tea partiers, keep it up.

" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandi

BTW, I am not a libertarian, I am a Reagan conservative.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ok, Maple - fair enough. The birthers and death panelers and he's-a-terrorist-sympathizer crowd are not there because of THOSE issues - they are there completely out of concern for the economic issues. And - if they are there for those other issues - they're gonna get weeded out because the true tea partiers are focusing on the economic issues alone.

So, like I said - I'll be interested to see what kind of momentum is maintained without these folks.

But I think in general terms the Tea Party movement doesn't approve of deficit spending - even when it was Reagan doing it. I think there is a lot to admire about Reagan but his propensity to spend more than he was willing to tax (driving up the deficit) is NOT one of them imho.

If the Tea Party movement abandons some of the Libertarian views that I disagree with - like isolationism and the "my interpretation of the constitution carries more weight than the Supreme Court's interpretation" AND if they weed out those who are using it for other political objectives, THEN I may take another look.

But the point of THIS thread, and my primary concern right now, is the impact the movement is having or is likely to have on the GOP. It is interesting to me from an outside observer standpoint.

And I'd STILL like to see where those numbers come from.

 

[Maple]

Ok, Maple - fair enough. The birthers and death panelers and he's-a-terrorist-sympathizer crowd are not there because of THOSE issues - they are there completely out of concern for the economic issues. And - if they are there for those other issues - they're gonna get weeded out because the true tea partiers are focusing on the economic issues alone.

So, like I said - I'll be interested to see what kind of momentum is maintained without these folks.

But I think in general terms the Tea Party movement doesn't approve of deficit spending - even when it was Reagan doing it. I think there is a lot to admire about Reagan but his propensity to spend more than he was willing to tax (driving up the deficit) is NOT one of them imho.

If the Tea Party movement abandons some of the Libertarian views that I disagree with - like isolationism and the "my interpretation of the constitution carries more weight than the Supreme Court's interpretation" AND if they weed out those who are using it for other political objectives, THEN I may take another look.

But the point of THIS thread, and my primary concern right now, is the impact the movement is having or is likely to have on the GOP. It is interesting to me from an outside observer standpoint.

And I'd STILL like to see where those numbers come from.

The impact is going to be to fiscally conservative candidates and as I have stated there are fringe elements, but they are an extreme minority. In fact, I did not see any of the fringe elements represented at either of the tea parties I attented. I urge everyone to go, check them out so you will know first hand what is going on. Don't rely on the media to inform you.

" A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on." Winston Churchill.

To get to the truth of the tea parties, you need to attend one.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And look at the other thread and attached video of "Tea Party activists" taking Lindsey Graham to task over voting along with Democrats on climate change legislation (a position I happen to agree with the Democrats on) and on voting to accept Sotomayor as SCOTUS justice (a position I also happen to agree with Democrats about).

Were they lying when they linked these people to the Tea Party folks?

 

[Maple]

And look at the other thread and attached video of "Tea Party activists" taking Lindsey Graham to task over voting along with Democrats on climate change legislation (a position I happen to agree with the Democrats on) and on voting to accept Sotomayor as SCOTUS justice (a position I also happen to agree with Democrats about).

Were they lying when they linked these people to the Tea Party folks?

No, probably not, but I certainly do not agree with climate change, because the world is in a cooling pattern while Co2 emmisions have increased. That's a undeniable fact.

As far as Sotomayer, she did state, that an hispanic female could probably make a better court decision than a white male. That's something to be concerned about because it is a racist statement and something that if you are a white male should really concern you.

So yes, I disagree with Lindsey Graham, but that does not mean that we disagree on fiscal policies and that's why the tea parties represent a broad range of views, pro-life, pro-choice, climate change differences, but we all agree about the ever growing deficit and the problems it poses to our nation.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Your "undeniable" fact is denied by science.

So it seems I wouldn't fit in with Tea Partiers after all. The Blue Dog Democrats are actually more closely aligned with my own views- fiscal conservatism (without the need to ignore science and social justice). But since they too push for a balanced budget and fiscal restraint, the two groups may be able to work together on certain issues.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But I am still trying to probe the possible impact on the established political parties and I'm still waiting for some documentation of those numbers that were quoted in support of the notion that this movement is attracting more (or as many) Democrats than Republicans.

Given what I've recently heard about climate change and Sotomayor, I find it even harder to believe this group is drawing many Democrats at all. But I'm sure willing to listen.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It appears that inflamatory rhetoric, blatant mischaracterizations, and outright lies fueled and nutured the size and vehemence of this group. Claims like "paling around with terrorists," and "not a citizen," and "death panels," etc ... wrere spoken by some GOPers and passively encouraged by others because it helped foment the formation of this mob and THAT met their immediate political objectives.

The fact that this monster has gone rogue and now threatens to take a serious bite out of the GOP, speaks directly to the foolishness of following this type of tactic. There's a big part of me that wants to caution, "You reap what you sow" and a part of me that is just facinated by the process.

Really? That's your analysis?

I'm not sure I understand your point on the the list of quotes. Obama was rather tight with at least two admitted (and unrepentant) domestic terrorists. That seems undeniable.

I've decided to take the position that the birth certificate issue is a non-starter and that's a waste of time and effort to even think about it. If there is no real birth certificate in Hawaii and it became a legal issue, I have no doubt that one would be created for him and it would be accepted by the court and that would be that. Having said that, the claim, as far as I've cared to read about it, is not completely without merit. But that changes nothing.

Death panels, another fairly straight forward and apparently correct (though rather embarrassing fact of health insurance reform). Granted it was plain spoken and not rolled in sugar like the Dems would have it. It is patently obvious what the necessary reforms will require. We can discuss it if you deny it. But, you'd really have to be a Kool-aid drinker to think that severe care rationing to elderly would not be a major part of any cost cutting measures in health care insurance.

In fact, if you look at the British model NICE (their board that determines what's covered and how much) engages in this activity constantly. They do a cost-benefit analysis to determine how expensive a procedure they will pay for and whether your life is worth that cost.

Here is an example take from web site that explains to UK's elderly how to take advantage of the health benefits offered them under the British system:

Screening for breast cancer and other cancers

Between the ages of 50 and 70‚ women are invited every three years to take part in the NHS breast-screening programme. They are not invited once they reach 70 but have the right to be screened every three years on request.

Between the ages of 50 and 64‚ women registered with a GP are invited every five years for cervical cancer screening through the NHS call and recall system.

A national bowel cancer-screening programme is being phased in over three years‚ starting in 2006. Men and women between the ages of 60 and 69 will be invited to take part every two years.

Age concern

I think even the most out of touch of us would be shocked by the long periods between screenings for early intervention. A mammogram ever 3 years if you are over 50???? Really? Pap smear every 5 years whether you need it or not....LOL. But, once you reach 70 no more screenings. HMMMMM.....I WONDER WHY??????????? Can you guess? That's right, you aren't going to get treated anyway, so why waste money screening for it.

But you're right, not a death panel......it's NICE.

Does the fact of these things increase the anxiety of the population? I would hope so. Otherwise, you would be asking for blind faith in government to just do what's right for you. There has been no demonstration by government that they deserve such trust.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Your "undeniable" fact is denied by science.

In fact, there is no "science" in AGW. It's religion. You are asked to "believe in" AGW. Because the only thing scientific about AGW is the terms that are used. The base data is so small and shot through with holes that no scientist worth a damn should use it to come to any conclusion whatever.

Just a few items to whet your appetite to actually do some research on your own and stop blindly believing in this BS attempt at control of your life. Climatologists have determined that even a variance of 10 vertical feet in the placement of temperature sensors can have a statistically significant effect on data. They also have not come to agreement on whether to measure temps under or over the canopy of heavily forested areas.

Now taking just these two simple items that are easy to understand, we will now look at these two issues over time and across the world. We are asked to "believe" that climate "scientists" have "good" data for over 150 years about global temps. That means they have accurately and consistently measured temps over that time period.

Now, over time equipment and the things that the equipment have been broken, repaired, replaced and otherwise changed out during that 150 year (don't forget a couple of global wars that have occurred in the meantime) additionally huge changes have occurred in deforestation of various areas of the world and reforestation of other areas. Large tracts of clear cut suburbia after WW II now have mature hardwood trees covering them etc. Brazil has cleared large areas of jungle. Both of these probably impacted any temp monitoring station that has been in existence in those areas.

When a monitoring station was replaced or repaired, was it kept at the same vertical height? Why would it be when there is no agreement on what height is correct? It is plain to see that aside from everything else, the simple management of data collection stations throughout the world is completely suspect. Therefore, garbage in, garbage out.

We could discuss all of the unaccounted for CO2 sources, but why even bother when even the statistically short period of so-called "good" data is so suspect and the so-called data extracted from ice cores and other methods are subject to interpretation and there is scientific disagreement about the findings of ice data. The latest ones suggesting that CO2 levels are a lagging indicator of warming, not a leading indicator sometimes lagging as long as 800 years. (In their ice core analysis).
CO2 lagging indicator

 

[Maple]

Your "undeniable" fact is denied by science.

So it seems I wouldn't fit in with Tea Partiers after all. The Blue Dog Democrats are actually more closely aligned with my own views- fiscal conservatism (without the need to ignore science and social justice). But since they too push for a balanced budget and fiscal restraint, the two groups may be able to work together on certain issues.

I think that you are being blind sided by the political myth of global warming. This whole country has been in a cooling trend. Even the farmers are harvesting late this year due to the cool temperatures that they have had to deal with. Colorado certainly has had a cool year and it's already snowed here, very early for this time of year. More and more people are not buying into that global warming stuff that Al Gore has made millions promoting.

Social Justice- then you think that it is okay for a for a supreme court justice, a life time appointment, to make a statement like she did and not suffer the consequences for it. She may be fine as a supreme court justice, but then again, she warrants close scrutiny just by the racist statement that she made.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you're a birther, a death paneler, a paling around with terrorists believer, a climate change denier, (I've done quite a bit of research on my own already - and have reached the conclusion that I disagree with all of your conclusions).

So having the Tea Party movement embrace these types of things - in your estimation - does nothing to limit its appeal. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I am entitled to disagree.

So - those numbers you previously posted - could you help me research THOSE on my own? What's the source?

 

[Maple]

So you're a birther, a death paneler, a paling around with terrorists believer, a climate change denier, (I've done quite a bit of research on my own already - and have reached the conclusion that I disagree with all of your conclusions).

So having the Tea Party movement embrace these types of things - in your estimation - does nothing to limit its appeal. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I am entitled to disagree.

So - those numbers you previously posted - could you help me research THOSE on my own? What's the source?

Well open your mind and read this, BTW, you are now showing your true colors, and I am betting that you are not fiscally conservative either. I am not a birther, a death paneler, etc. As I have stated I am a Reagan conservative.

Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online

" The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." George Bernard Shaw.