Every time a tea party candidate wins a nomination, I smile

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/26/alan-grayson-dan-webster-ad-abortion_n_739643.html

The extremist freaks that the tea baggers have forced on the Republicans are going to cost them some seats they might have won with other candidates.

Carnivore wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/26/alan-grayson-dan-webster-ad-abortion_n_739643.html

The extremist freaks that the tea baggers have forced on the Republicans are going to cost them some seats they might have won with other candidates.

Geez, I hope all your patients are liberals with that talk. Angry much.
This country was founded on Christian principals whether you like it or not. By the way, Alan Grayson is a fucking nut job. Fits in with the liberal party though. Can't wait till November.

Carnivore wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/26/alan-grayson-dan-webster-ad-abortion_n_739643.html

The extremist freaks that the tea baggers have forced on the Republicans are going to cost them some seats they might have won with other candidates.

This politician's stated view is hardly extremist. 45% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (Pew Research, 2009). If you believe that life begins at conception, it makes logical sense for *all* abortions to be illegal. It's not a view we usually hear from politicians only because so many Republican candidates modify their views in order to pull in fiscal conservatives/social moderates.

However, this blog entry (and the poster's reference to it) exhibits exactly the kind of hyperbolic outcry against the "other" side that I'm talking about. The article is only effective if the audience is already anti-abortion and also ignorant of how many Americans support abortion rights.

There's a whole country out there, and a lot of it is voting Tea Party, folks.

Krow-
I think you are under estimating the country's voters if you believe they will vote for a candidate based on blind anger alone. For example, they'd never elect a former wrestler like Jesse Ventura to be governor, the former Terminator Arnorld, or re-elect Marion Barry to be Mayor (sarcasm).

If we ever had a common ethos, I think evaporated sometime around --I don't know-- 1962?

It has been an interesting 50 years of making kids state the pledge of allegiance, and it might take another few years for the States Rights (aka Tea Party) folks to cement the right for localities to have different laws regarding abortion, gay marriage, health care, and immigration.

With that "freedom", will come the independence from federal rule they have long sought.

Yes, the myth of a shared ethos has been fun, but not nearly as much fun as spending all of that free federal money (i.e. debt). That has been among the best, and longest highs ever.

....but, as Malthus and I agree: Over the next 20 years, we'll need to compete with the rest of the world as we never have.

....we'll also need to somehow pay back our present debts.

Although our delusion isn't sustainable, folks are going to need some better candidates before they break from this tired two party system and vote for the as of yet mythical Tea "Party" en mass. After all, they are electing mostly local politicians in this go around. Although they preceded this present variety of "Tea Party" anger, even Jesse, Arnold and Marion had a certain appeal that the present candidates seem to lack.

But, yes, it is foolish for anyone to simply write off the Tea Party.

One of its biggest strengths, is that the mere idea of it scares people who like to be scared. These folks can get organized in this country, and may be the same folks bought iodine tablets out of the false belief that they would ward off a dirty bomb, and worried about Aliens invading on Y2K?

Who am I to take a good scare from them?

Who am I to say that, so far, all we have to offer them is disorganized bunches of angry people, who feel their birthright is disappearing?

But there is hope!

In the event that the Tea Party ever becomes a singular entity, it will hold great appeal to people who fear a changed nation and world. Should folks ever break their addiction to federal $, the Tea Party will hold out the promise that with independence, the power of the evil feds will shrink!

..and, in what will seem like no time, no one outside their state will really care what happens there. So far, their dreams seem to include living in a state that is able to freely deny:

Gay folks the right to marry

Women the right to an abortion in order to protect God's precious little unborn "souls"

Immigrants any rights what so ever

....and, best of all, establish Christianity to be the official religion!

Yes, eventually we won't be enough of a nation to care what happens "over there".

[Some of us already don't]

P.S. Shhhhhh, don't tell them that a 1961 version of the US and world isn't going to happen again.

PPS. Yup, they are right. The US will never be a "socialist" country. ...it will break up long before we ever get close to centralize system of command and control. Don't worry, it will be a while before it happens, but I wish them luck! [If we are the ones who break away from them, I wish us luck!]

Much requested Cliff Notes version of this post: Our present two parties aren't cutting it. But, even given the present voter dissatisfaction, I don't see the Tea Party as being together enough to pull off and create a viable third. ...Maybe next election! Or, maybe the one after that! .....As usual, some will fret and others will adapt. Some will even say, "so what? Let 'em rule themselves. They aren't me."

[quote=Boygabriel]fun chart for tea party supporters:





"The Washington Monthly is a monthly nonprofit magazine of United States politics and government that is based in Washington, D.C.

The magazine's founder is Charles Peters, who started the magazine in 1969 and continues to write monthly columns. Paul Glastris, former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, has been the Monthly's editor-in-chief since 2001. Author and journalist Markos Kounalakis is the magazine's president emeritus. Diane Straus Tucker is the magazine's current publisher. Past staff editors of the magazine include Taylor Branch, James Fallows, David Ignatius, Nicholas Lemann, Mickey Kaus, Jonathan Alter, Joshua Green and Jon Meacham.

The politics of the Monthly are left of center"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Monthly

Boygabriel wrote: Contrary to Republican concepts of political discourse, "it's liberal!" doesn't actually refute anything.

It's another version of ad hominem. I can explain further if you'd like.

Seeing as how they lie it does. Sort of like liberals rallying cry of Fox er Faux News including the esteemed President Barack Obama's whining of Fox news the other day. Only difference Fox is successful.

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=whynot_31]you guys are fighting who has better media: the left or the right.

Even I will stay out of that silly debate.

....preach to the choir.

I am not. I don't condemn arguments strictly b/c of their media source.

Do not equate us.

So noted. These folks write pretty well, and are even discussing the Tea Party. ....they are trying to bring them into the fold of the Republican party.

http://www.heritage.org/Events/2010/09/Mad-As-Hell

they publish other stuff too:

http://www.heritage.org/

....these other folks have pretty good educations as well...
http://www.aei.org/home

http://www.aei.org/press

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=eggcream][quote=Boygabriel]Contrary to Republican concepts of political discourse, "it's liberal!" doesn't actually refute anything.

It's another version of ad hominem. I can explain further if you'd like.

Seeing as how they lie it does. Sort of like liberals rallying cry of Fox er Faux News including President Obama's whining of Fox news the other day. Only difference Fox is successful.

The difference of course being that YOU'RE using mindless ad hominem attacks that say, "that's librul!!!" and don't refute the point, and I am not doing the same to what you post.

Example?

The majority of your posts on this board are mindless ad hominem attacks. That's why your posts are usually ignored."It's Bush's fault. Faux News Sucks. Sarah Palin Sucks" etc etc.

I love how the president (any president) is somehow in charge of the world economy.

....I've also heard he's the reason that the bagel store was out of plain this morning.

eggcream wrote: This coming from the party of Bush bashers. Ya'll are just too freaking pathetic.
At least Bush didn't blame Clinton every time he opened his mouth unlike President Barack Obama. Not once did he blame clinton by name. Bush had class.

Bush had Cheney, Rove and Fox to do it for him, nonstop, 24 hours a day for 8 years. Somehow the statute of limitations for what could be blamed on Clinton was good through year 7, day 364 of Bush's term (and continues to this day, as you did in another thread recently). But year two of Obama's attempts to clean up after Bush's and his Republican cronies' mess and he suddenly inherits responsibility for everything that was done in the 8 years before him. It's like history began on 1/20/08 for you people. :roll:

eggcream wrote: Bush had class.

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!

<<<< wonders if the canditate in this article will get Tea Party support.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/03/2010-10-03_times_squares_naked_cowboy_to_run_for_president.html

I've heard the expression that Libertarians are often "Conservatives Who Swim Naked".

Can they play the guitar as well?