"The tea party gets [factionalized] in primaries a lot because the tea party is just really a large group of average Americans who believe in limited government, free markets and are frustrated with Big Government," said Duncan.
No, it's not. Most of the issues that count in the Tea Party's "purity" tests are social issues. The issue of limited gov't is way down their priority list.That's an overly broad generalization and one with little factual support, in my opinion. Every tea party group with which I've been associated or whose meetings I've attended didn't get into social issues at all. It was all about small government, more equitable taxes and getting rid of Obamacare (another big government program). Apparently, though, the facts aren't going to stop some people from stereotyping the tea party as the the social conservative crowd. That's a shame.
The Tea Party movement was coopted by the social conservatives, and pissed away the uniqueness and advantage of being focused on something broadly of interest to Republicans, independents, and some democrats.
Instead of the initial focus on budget issues, it became the vehicle for Bachmann and her "pray the gay away" husband.
Those concerns that the movement had turned out to be a disguise for the social conservatives, yielded a ten percent drop in approval, and such ridiculous losing candidates as Akin, Mourdoch, O'Donnell, Angle, and others "of that ilk."
I think the TP movement is like Humpty Dumpty--all the King's Horses and All the King's Men can't put Humpty together again.
What would be better for the country is a center-right unity movement. Drop the social stuff, and focus on the fiscal stuff, like the successful initial TP.
That's an overly broad generalization and one with little factual support, in my opinion. Every tea party group with which I've been associated or whose meetings I've attended didn't get into social issues at all. It was all about small government, more equitable taxes and getting rid of Obamacare (another big government program). Apparently, though, the facts aren't going to stop some people from stereotyping the tea party as the the social conservative crowd. That's a shame.
Say what you want about TEA; they are the ones holding this country together right now. Without them the GOPe would have continued on without any accountability or responsibility. To deny that Washington is broken and that the GOPe has everything under control is purely delusional.
The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation ...
If you don't think that the security, sovereignty or our domestic tranquility has been under attack then you are in pure denial. The GOPe has done very little to stop the blatant attack on America by our president and his cronies (some of which include the GOPe).
I tend be of the firm belief that TEA is very much alive and well and WILL prevail.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ourvision/
We weren’t alone, either … in addition to an overflow crowd of hundreds of conservative activists (and numerous state and federal elected officials), four would-be GOP presidential candidates planted their flags at this event: Dr. Ben Carson, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and billionaire real estate mogul (and reality television star) Donald Trump.
Read more at http://www.fitsnews.com/2015/01/20/ted-cruz-win-south-carolinas-presidential-primary/
Indeed! The SCTP's three day event drew HUNDREDS of people from all over the country to see Dr Carson, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump.
Those hundreds of people are the glue holding the other 300 million Americans from splintering into waring factions. Before the Tea Party there was no "awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation ... "
And that other poster is "purely delusional," and "in pure denial," and probably likes the attacks on our security, sovereignty or our domestic tranquility.
Cruz/Carson 2016.
I'd sooner follow a parade elephant fed a steady diet of Ex Lax.
You do what you gotta do Andy. I will sit here and ponder why my "allies" think I'm the one who is delusional.
Cruz/Cruz 2016
Then ponder this: those in whom you so readily place your trust have no intention of doing anything that might be mistaken for principled conservatism. They are unwilling to risk anything that might jeopardize their power, even if it means turning their backs on those who helped elect them. They think we're fools for believing in something more important than simple electoral politics.
Like liberty. Like honor. Like common decency. Like the Constitution.
When push comes to shove - and it will - will you trust the feckless figurines of the GOP-e to do what is right?
I will not. I put my faith in John Locke, George Washington... and Samuel Colt.
And yes - that is where we are headed. Tyranny must never be bargained with.
Then ponder this: those in whom you so readily place your trust have no intention of doing anything that might be mistaken for principled conservatism. They are unwilling to risk anything that might jeopardize their power, even if it means turning their backs on those who helped elect them. They think we're fools for believing in something more important than simple electoral politics.
Like liberty. Like honor. Like common decency. Like the Constitution.
When push comes to shove - and it will - will you trust the feckless figurines of the GOP-e to do what is right?
I will not. I put my faith in John Locke, George Washington... and Samuel Colt.
And yes - that is where we are headed. Tyranny must never be bargained with.
Indeed! The SCTP's three day event drew HUNDREDS of people from all over the country to see Dr Carson, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump.
Those hundreds of people are the glue holding the other 300 million Americans from splintering into waring factions. Before the Tea Party there was no "awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation ... "
And that other poster is "purely delusional," and "in pure denial," and probably likes the attacks on our security, sovereignty or our domestic tranquility.
Cruz/Carson 2016.
Your Tea Party group is an outlier, then. Most of the Tea Party groups are more focussed on issues like gay marriage, abortion, immigration (their solution), and religion in public venues. I do not see any Tea Party leaders who focus on small gov't and economic issues any more. If you know of one, please tell me who that is.That's because the true tea party "leaders" are the average folks in the local community, like those I described, not those who have started an organization that pays them a salary. Those probably could be described as opportunists.
That's because the true tea party "leaders" are the average folks in the local community, like those I described, not those who have started an organization that pays them a salary. Those probably could be described as opportunists.
The TEA Party, as it exists right now. has no cohesiveness or structure to it...
If this is true, and I agree that it is, then doesn't relentlessly attacking it at every turn seem like a somewhat quixotic exercise? I mean, what is the point?
I still don't understand why some people here that affiliate with the GOP are so ardent and persistent in their constant attacks on tea party people.
It's almost like an obsession.
I love your brilliant observations Massadvj! You are, of course, brilliantly correct. I still don't understand why some people here that affiliate with the GOP are so ardent and persistent in their constant attacks on tea party people. Yeah, there are some kooks and cons speaking as if on behalf of TEA - but there are in any group that has enough people in it.
It's almost like an obsession.
Go to this site's "search" page and type in the term RINO.
Point taken Luis. There is rhetoric on both sides. Actually, I think I am a RINO! I confess that I'm only a member of the party because it is better than the alternative and I realize that a third party is practically useless in our political system. I realize that I have to work within the party to achieve the change I want to see. I'm against much of what I've seen come out of the GOP, but it is the closest I can work with.
Tea partiers such as myself, have got to realize that we are fighting "the system" and that includes both parties. Both parties profit from larger government control, so to that end, we are fighting a huge battle, and yes - what we want to achieve is a threat to institutional politics. Still, I think we are making slow and steady progress. It's not going to happen overnight.
Those people, like yourself Luis, that appreciate the policies of the current leaders in the GOP are NOT RINOs! You are Republican, and the tea party types should not be flinging those terms in anger. WE are actually the RINOs, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Republican party has never espoused the ideals that we, the tea partiers espouse. Neither party does - because it lessens their influence.
Thank you.
Politics and ideology are like vinegar and oil. They make the base for many a great salad dressing but never, ever blend. Insofar as the GOP is a coalition of like-minded people from the center/right-of-center range of the prism that is political ideology, there will always be clashes within the ranks.
You said something very significant in your post, and I'd like to give you what is certainly MY perspective on the current TEA Party thrust for relevancy in government.
"Tea partiers such as myself, have got to realize that we are fighting "the system" and that includes both parties."
You're actually fighting the GOP with far greater determination and energy than you are fighting the DNC. TEA Party candidates primarily run against incumbent Republicans over incumbent Democrats.
Democrats look at that and remember Sun Tzu:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
There is nothing wrong with fighting the incumbents in your own party - that is actually a very GOOD thing! It cleanses the party of old dusty cobwebs that have hung in the corners for far too long. As a tea partier, I want to see some of these incumbents replaced with new blood and new thinking. It is my hope that by doing so, we can update the party and infuse it with some passion and new ideals - those being of limiting government.
Just because someone is an incumbent doesn't give them rights to hold that seat for the rest of their life. If we can fight them and win - hooray! If we try to fight them and still lose - better luck next time. We must never give up - we must never be cowed by pressure or intimidation. That is the beauty of freedom.
Another thing - we do not fight our own party harder than we do the Democrats! That is why we are members of the Republican party - because we recognize that is the only way we can defeat them! It is not wrong to fight for change within - it actually strengthens and tempers the party.
:beer:
Let me add one thing to your brilliant post, and that is the:
Conservatives, whether they be called Tea Party or anything else, far outnumber moderates withing the ranks of the GOP. And that is why no candidate for president will ever win the primaries running as a moderate. Moderates must run pretending to be conservatives to win, whereas when was the last time we saw a conservative moderating his position in order to better position himself for primary voters? So don't by this BS that we are in the minority. We aren't.
In fact, most of the Republicans elected to congress this year are CONSERVATIVES, another dirty little secret the GOPe isn't advertising.
Let me add one thing to your brilliant post, and that is the:
Conservatives, whether they be called Tea Party or anything else, far outnumber moderates withing the ranks of the GOP. And that is why no candidate for president will ever win the primaries running as a moderate. Moderates must run pretending to be conservatives to win, whereas when was the last time we saw a conservative moderating his position in order to better position himself for primary voters? So don't by this BS that we are in the minority. We aren't.
In fact, most of the Republicans elected to congress this year are CONSERVATIVES, another dirty little secret the GOPe isn't advertising.
There is nothing wrong with fighting the incumbents in your own party - that is actually a very GOOD thing! It cleanses the party of old dusty cobwebs that have hung in the corners for far too long. As a tea partier, I want to see some of these incumbents replaced with new blood and new thinking. It is my hope that by doing so, we can update the party and infuse it with some passion and new ideals - those being of limiting government.
Just because someone is an incumbent doesn't give them rights to hold that seat for the rest of their life. If we can fight them and win - hooray! If we try to fight them and still lose - better luck next time. We must never give up - we must never be cowed by pressure or intimidation. That is the beauty of freedom.
Another thing - we do not fight our own party harder than we do the Democrats! That is why we are members of the Republican party - because we recognize that is the only way we can defeat them! It is not wrong to fight for change within - it actually strengthens and tempers the party.
:beer:
Then why are conservatives not in control of the GOP?
Why is it then that polls show Romney, Bush, Christie and Huckabee (no conservative there) at 51% support among GOP voters for potential presidential candidate, with everyone else adding up to 49%?
I don't recall Romney "pretending to be a conservative" during his run. He is VERY MUCH a social conservative and pretty good with fiscal policies. He was attacked for items in his record by conservatives where conservatives mostly ran people with little or no records and whose image can be easily crafted by image makers with few worries about dealing with actual performance in office.
Someone in advertising told me that.
With Ted Cruz, questions will be "what will you do?" allowing him to wax on about goals, where with Jeb, Christie, Romney and even the Huckster questions will be "why did you do?" forcing them to defend the realities of governing and attacking them where any sign of impurity can be pointed to, or even fabricated.
That's why most ideologically driven candidates tend to be fresh faces with low levels of actual governance in their resume.
Because the K street masters of the GOP will not allow it. Nothing more than that! The only time conservative are needed is on election day! After that they can and must be dispensed with until the next election.Would you name the specific "K street masters," for a few districts that you know and understand. I mean actual names of people and organizations, and the officeholders.
Would you name the specific "K street masters," for a few districts that you know and understand. I mean actual names of people and organizations, and the officeholders.
Then give us a count, of the actual number of jobs in the district and beyond.
I'll use your home state as an example, so the readers get an idea about this particular topic. Oil & gas, and supporting service industries.
You and others continually disparage the "GOPe," the "establish" and the "Chamber of Commerce."
It is not much of a stretch to liken those who decry the "establishment" today, to the 70s hippies that were for tearing down the establishment.
If I lived in Texas, I would expect my Congresscritter, mayors, Governors would be in favor of the oil business, and the tens of thousands of jobs tied to it.
So do all the anti-establishment Tea Party advocates like the K street oil industry relationships, or not?
You could repeat that little story, many times over, for the important industries and employers the nation over.
So which American jobs do you want to disparage, next? Computer jobs? Entertainment jobs? Agriculture jobs? Transportation jobs? Defense and aerospace jobs?
They all have their K street relationships, too. And in turn many people's employment is tied to the success of those relationships.
If only some Republicans here would fight the Democrats as strenuously as they oppose the tea party ...
I don't recall Romney "pretending to be a conservative" during his run.
The 536 people who serve in Washington are there to serve the people, ALL of them, not just those who who have the ability to buy the favors that are being sold in order finance their next election.
I oppose bad candidates, as well as dumb ideas.
Yet I still would have voted for a Sharon Angle, or a Todd Akin, simply because I am 100% never voting for a Demcrat.
I still would vote for the fools who last week made their "oust Boehner" procedural power play, failed, and then had the audacity (or is it naivete'?) to complain when the House leadership put them in the corner labeled "Irrelevancy." Even with the whining, Boehner has reached out to them, as even a few of those who voted against him had to admit.
If you're going to make power plays, be it by running against Dems or running against the "GOPe," it's best to get organized first. Otherwise, it's hard for me to take today's so-called "tea party" seriously. I like big tents and consolidated bases of power, though, so I can quickly move on and invite smaller conservative factions to join the fight against Obama when it's time. And right now ... IT'S TIME.
No I will not supply you with the names of the specific K street masters I speak of!Then you would surely wish to do away with all lobbyists, and do away entirely with the Chamber of Commerce.
The 536 people who serve in Washington are there to serve the people, ALL of them, not just those who who have the ability to buy the favors that are being sold in order finance their next election.
Then you would surely wish to do away with all lobbyists, and do away entirely with the Chamber of Commerce.
But alas, in history the interests of cattlemen and sheepherders, railroad interests, of oil & gas interests, water interests, and farm interests, forestry interests, military bases, of various COMPETING interests come into conflict.
I will speculate this was the case when humans first gathered into groups, and behaved in civilized manners. It evolved and became politics. The King, Chieftain, Emperor would listen to advocates for competing viewpoints, and decide.
Later the Legislatures would listen to competing viewpoints, and decide. It is naïve and childlike to pretend that reality is other than what reality is.
I suppose I see things differently. Maybe because I'm still a believer in states' rights? Anyhow, I still cling to the outdated notion that each House rep first and foremost should serve those in their district who voted them into office, and that each senator should represent their state first as well.
Why even have districts and states if every DC politician is supposed to represent ALL people at a federal level? Let's just get rid of congress, if that's the idea.
Romney went from pro-choice to pro-life to run for president. The one key issue that propelled him above Rick Perry in 2012 was when he made a big deal out of Perry charging in-state tuition to illegals, whereas Romney vetoed that legislation in his state.
In his speeches, Romney uses the term "conservative principles" whenever he can slip it in. I have never heard him refer to himself as a moderate or claim to be guided by "moderate principles."
Well then would you join me in supporting the repeal of the 17th amendment and allow the legislatures of the several states to retake control of those who would represent them in the senate!
I suppose I see things differently. Maybe because I'm still a believer in states' rights? Anyhow, I still cling to the outdated notion that each House rep first and foremost should serve those in their district who voted them into office, and that each senator should represent their state first as well.
Why even have districts and states if every DC politician is supposed to represent ALL people at a federal level? Let's just get rid of congress, if that's the idea.
No, I won't, because it would be a waste of my time in terms of actually accomplishing anything. I'm not big on symbolic action. I prefer tangible results.
In other words, he never labeled himself a moderate. I don't label myself as such, but others want to label me that.
I'll label myself as a GOP moderate, but a GOP fiscal conservative/social libertarian is probably most accurate. I want government out of the business of legislating morality, outside of obvious criminal conduct that has real-world victims, and not imaginary children who apparently are scarred for life after having to grow up watching gay people kiss on a TV show.
My brother from another mother.
No, I won't, because it would be a waste of my time in terms of actually accomplishing anything. I'm not big on symbolic action. I prefer tangible results.
So anything that's really difficult and worth doing is a waste of your time if the result isn't tangible and immediate. OK! So be it!
No, that's not what I meant at all.
Think "choose your battles wisely," and you're on the right track of understanding how I view changing any type of institutionalized establishment. :beer:
That is good to know and I do understand your position. I happen to believe that you will never get what you never ask for! :beer:
There is nothing wrong with fighting the incumbents in your own party - that is actually a very GOOD thing! It cleanses the party of old dusty cobwebs that have hung in the corners for far too long. As a tea partier, I want to see some of these incumbents replaced with new blood and new thinking. It is my hope that by doing so, we can update the party and infuse it with some passion and new ideals - those being of limiting government.
Just because someone is an incumbent doesn't give them rights to hold that seat for the rest of their life. If we can fight them and win - hooray! If we try to fight them and still lose - better luck next time. We must never give up - we must never be cowed by pressure or intimidation. That is the beauty of freedom.
Another thing - we do not fight our own party harder than we do the Democrats! That is why we are members of the Republican party - because we recognize that is the only way we can defeat them! It is not wrong to fight for change within - it actually strengthens and tempers the party.
:beer:
Conservatives, whether they be called Tea Party or anything else, far outnumber moderates withing the ranks of the GOP.
And that is why no candidate for president will ever win the primaries running as a moderate.
http://enquirer.com/editions/1999/06/24/loc_putting_fresh_face.htmlQuoteMr. Brinton and others in the group have been impressed by Mr. Kasich's Social Security plan, which would allow workers under 55 to establish their own personal savings accounts.
But, like most of the others who favor other candidates, Mr. Brinton is ready and willing to work for Mr. Bush. The Bush theme of “compassionate conservatism” will strike a chord with younger voters, he said.
Moderates must run pretending to be conservatives to win, whereas when was the last time we saw a conservative moderating his position in order to better position himself for primary voters?
So don't buy this BS that we are in the minority. We aren't.
In fact, most of the Republicans elected to congress this year are CONSERVATIVES, another dirty little secret the GOPe isn't advertising.
The TEA Party, as it exists right now. has no cohesiveness or structure to it (the Congressional TEA Party Caucus is not even active at this time) and as a result the definition of what the TEA Party is, what it stands for, and what it represents is left up to each and any individual who wishes to portray him or herself a as member of it.
The TEA Party is the ultimate representation of the upside-down triangle theory of political ideology.
There is no TEA Party per se, so each and every individual who claims membership can claim or disavow any policy stance that any other member of the Party may process by simply saying that no one speaks for the Party.
Unfortunately, what was once a great notion eventually became a hunting preserve for opportunists (see: future Mike Huckabee Presidntial campaign).
Point taken Luis. There is rhetoric on both sides. Actually, I think I am a RINO! I confess that I'm only a member of the party because it is better than the alternative and I realize that a third party is practically useless in our political system. I realize that I have to work within the party to achieve the change I want to see. I'm against much of what I've seen come out of the GOP, but it is the closest I can work with.
Tea partiers such as myself, have got to realize that we are fighting "the system" and that includes both parties. Both parties profit from larger government control, so to that end, we are fighting a huge battle, and yes - what we want to achieve is a threat to institutional politics. Still, I think we are making slow and steady progress. It's not going to happen overnight.
Those people, like yourself Luis, that appreciate the policies of the current leaders in the GOP are NOT RINOs! You are Republican, and the tea party types should not be flinging those terms in anger. WE are actually the RINOs, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Republican party has never espoused the ideals that we, the tea partiers espouse. Neither party does - because it lessens their influence.
Just wanted to acknowledge this wonderful thread.
So proud to be part of such a great group of people. Or, as Obama would say, "folks". (UGH!) :laugh:
Excellent summation on what the TEA Party is....and what it isn't.
Being a member of the Tea Party is simply a STATE OF MIND for the average American who understands the value of focus, dedication and effort in obtaining a better standard of living for themselves and their families. WITHOUT government intrusion.
I associated myself with the Tea Party because even back during the 08 campaign, I 'saw' that Barack Obama was the Trojan Horse, meant to destroy our standard of living at home...and our stature around the world.
All that said, if the so-called Tea Party called for another march on Washington today.....I'd be there with bells on my shoes.
As an example, I think you would be hard pressed to find much difference between Hillary and McCain. In fact, when McCain was running against the undecided Dem nominees Obama and Hillary, I actually did a vote comparison on several key issues and found Hillary to be the more conservative. Anyway you cut it McCain is a RINO. Those GOPe who vote along and in line with Democrats and cave to the Democrats in order to try to salvage votes or in the name of political correctness are RINO's. They are NOT Republicans as they have not only compromised party principles but compromised their integrity and have gone against the wishes and voices of their constituents.
This country is hanging on by a very thin thread due to the hard work of TEA; adhering and honoring the Constitution and the very principles upon which this country was founded.
Thinking that if the GOPe continues to side with the Dems (and so far they have on illegal immigration and abortion) and will retain their majority in the House and Senate and will win the oval office in doing so, is not only unrealistic but ridiculous. I for one will NOT vote RINO. Why should I compromise my principles and integrity? Why would I cast my vote for the continued destruction of this country? The GOPe has lost the last two presidential election cycles; they need to either wake up or they will lose again. Sadly, they will be just as guilty as the liberals and progressives in destroying this country. :patriot:
I have to this point, not looked at this thread for fear of what I would see, but what a thrill to come here this morning and see how respectful and thoughtful the comments here are.
I'm with DC. This really is a great forum!
I find myself torn because I have been part of the Tea Party since early 2009, and yet believe the only way conservatives (which I believe we all are) can win the day is to reform and work through the Republican Party.
I do not believe both parties are equally corrupt, nor that the same Puppet Master in the sky rules both parties. I do believe that power corrupts, and that those who have been in the establishment for decades lose touch with reality and have an inside the beltway mentality that doesn't have the pulse of the American people. I believe that there needs to be a constant inflow of new people, and I believe that the Tea Party has brought in some amazing new blood, has won many elections (2012 would NOT have happened without us), and has helped to keep the establishment GOP a bit more honest.
I actually think if we had term limits a lot of the "GOP-e" issues would go away.
I also believe thoroughly that the label "RINO" has been so overused that it has been rendered meaningless.
If everyone is a RINO, then there is no such thing as a RINO.
The Republican party has always been a diverse party, with moderates and conservatives in its ranks. It will always be so. Our obligation is to vote for the most conservative ELECTABLE person, and for me, that person needs to have governing experience.
We need someone who knows how to lead, with management skills, and with solid conservative principles (a Conservative Governor is best, IMO).
Yes, I do agree with you as far as this is a great forum. I do believe that there is a huge difference between RINO and conservatives. I further believe that Washington is broken and cannot be fixed from the top down but rather needs to be fixed from the ground up. Many of the GOPe and Dems ARE of the same country club and are only interested in lining their pockets and playing "ball" on Capitol Hill and are little interested in the welfare of this country. I am of the very firm belief that our elected officials should vote according to the wishes of their constituents; it is called doing the job that they were elected to do.
With all due respect, voting for the most "electable" person rather than the person that is most qualified to be president is why we are in the mess that we are in. Qualifications should not merely be based on listening to campaign rhetoric and promises and media swagger. Obama certainly has the experience now, but one definitely cannot assume because of that he is in any way shape or form qualified to lead this country. He has NOT lead this country in a positive direction; quite the opposite. A person's integrity, moral fiber, willingness to honor and adhere to the Constitution and principles based upon the very foundation of this country and do what is in the best interest of this country should be first and foremost. Secondly, comes the ability to head this country in a positive direction which I don't feel necessarily has to come from governorship. There are all kinds of people inside and outside Washington that have the ability and qualifications to run this country (including Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie, etc.), but that doesn't mean that they would head this country in a positive direction.
Yes, I do agree with you as far as this is a great forum. I do believe that there is a huge difference between RINO and conservatives. I further believe that Washington is broken and cannot be fixed from the top down but rather needs to be fixed from the ground up. Many of the GOPe and Dems ARE of the same country club and are only interested in lining their pockets and playing "ball" on Capitol Hill and are little interested in the welfare of this country. I am of the very firm belief that our elected officials should vote according to the wishes of their constituents; it is called doing the job that they were elected to do.
With all due respect, voting for the most "electable" person rather than the person that is most qualified to be president is why we are in the mess that we are in. Qualifications should not merely be based on listening to campaign rhetoric and promises and media swagger. Obama certainly has the experience now, but one definitely cannot assume because of that he is in any way shape or form qualified to lead this country. He has NOT lead this country in a positive direction; quite the opposite. A person's integrity, moral fiber, willingness to honor and adhere to the Constitution and principles based upon the very foundation of this country and do what is in the best interest of this country should be first and foremost. Secondly, comes the ability to head this country in a positive direction which I don't feel necessarily has to come from governorship. There are all kinds of people inside and outside Washington that have the ability and qualifications to run this country (including Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie, etc.), but that doesn't mean that they would head this country in a positive direction.
OH I do! I understand it VERY well! The TEA folks are the greatest threat to the inside the beltway bastards to come along in ages and they are scared to DEATH of it!
RINO = Republican In Name Only. Why are you offended by that?? Our GOP elected officials are supposed to do their jobs and act and vote according to the desires of their constituents who voted for them NOT cater to the Dems for monetary and political gain. It is ridiculous to cast a vote for a candidate because they call themselves a "Republican". That is in part why this country is in such a mess.
RINO = Republican In Name Only. Why are you offended by that?? Our GOP elected officials are supposed to do their jobs and act and vote according to the desires of their constituents who voted for them NOT cater to the Dems for monetary and political gain. It is ridiculous to cast a vote for a candidate because they call themselves a "Republican". That is in part why this country is in such a mess.
Here's the thing.
Most of the people in these forum left other forums because they would no longer allow themselves to be called names and labeled negatively by the denizens of other forums.
I REALLY object to your constant use of the therm RINO.
It is meant to demean and disparage those who you don't see eye to eye with and it does a great disservice to the forum in general.
You need to respect the forum and all the members of the forum by not lowering the discourse here to the level of the places that we all walked away from.
I certainly respect the opinions of others and I am entitled to my opinion to be respected as well without being "called upon" to defend it. For the sake of civility, I will try to expand on my opinion just this once. My use of the term RINO is not meant to be offensive rather to be used in the truest and purest definition of RINO (Republican in name only) which further separates members of the GOP establishment from the GOP conservatives. Even the members of the GOP party themselves have this simple understanding. Perhaps just because you don't see eye to eye with someone you try to demean them or call upon them to defend their opinion, however my intent is not to demean anyone, especially for a difference of opinion. That is what a forum normally brings about -- debating or agreeing with opinions.
I would encourage you to look up the voting records of many of the GOPe vs. those of the Democrats; many of them have voted along Democratic lines rather than conservative principles. I understand that you may not have a problem with that, but I do. If I wanted my Republican elected official(s) to vote Democrat or support the Democrat ideals, I would have voted Democrat.
Peace. :patriot
"I Believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, for the people;
"I Believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support is Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies." - William Tyler Page :patriot:
Unless the people want a prescription drug benefit, or federal hurricane relief, or food stamps for the poor...then the people can get bent.
I guess I'm just one of those nasty conservatives who have ruined the Republican party and need to become more liberal so that I too am more politically correct! Darn. Just when I thought I had a handle on things.
"... of the people, for the people.. "
ALL the people.
Not just conservatives. Right?
As long as it is consistent with the constitution and standing legislative processes and MY elected representatives are representing his constituents fairly.
As long as it is consistent with the constitution and standing legislative processes and MY elected representatives are representing his constituents fairly.
So you are ok with throwing me in prison if I don't want to pay for your drugs or buy you beer with MY food stamps?
Don't be ridiculous, everyone understands things like disaster support as long as it is not abused.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to create FEMA, or the a president given the power to declare a "National emergency"?
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to create FEMA, or the a president given the power to declare a "National emergency"?
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to create FEMA, or the a president given the power to declare a "National emergency"?
I said disaster support is something everyone would agree on as long as it was not abused.
Would you say FEMA and DHS operate at the federal level without abuse? Why didn't Obama declare Texas a recipient for relief when wildfires were burning the entire state a few years ago? Texans' tax dollars pay for emergency relief; why didn't they receive it?
Nowhere, of course.
FEMA, DoMA, and DHS should be three of the biggest concerns for strict constitutional followers.
States should be first-responders, as the Constitution spells out in the 10th amendment. Legislating against abortion/marriage/etc. should also be a states' issue, individually. :shrug:
Nowhere, of course.
FEMA, DoMA, and DHS should be three of the biggest concerns for strict constitutional followers.
States should be first-responders, as the Constitution spells out in the 10th amendment. Legislating against abortion/marriage/etc. should also be a states' issue, individually. :shrug:
Help me out here... What is your point?
The entire federal bungle is ripe with abuse and corruption from the white house on down...
Is there a problem with trying to get a handle on some of it?
Would you say FEMA and DHS operate at the federal level without abuse? Why didn't Obama declare Texas a recipient for relief when wildfires were burning the entire state a few years ago? Texans' tax dollars pay for emergency relief; why didn't they receive it?
Are you trying to say that because our legislators and executives purchased votes by establishing these monstrosities that we should do it again?
I agree that states should ALWAYS be the first line of response. What do you do if it overwhelms the states, just let'em die?
I believe that the Military would do a better job of responding, as they do world wide now and do away with those other agencies.
The point is that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to have a disaster relief department. It should be covered under the 10th Amendment, since it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, meaning it falls to the states.
My point is that this is a philosophical debate, and if we conservatives are really Constitutionalists, then we should not have federal programs that aren't directly spelled out in the Constitution.
It's where DoMA comes in for me, primarily, and it's where I see hypocrisy in the views of some of us in the GOP/conservative movement.
Not directed at you at all, Ed, and I apologize if it appears I assumed your own beliefs. :patriot:
So you are ok with throwing me in prison if I don't want to pay for your drugs or buy you beer with MY food stamps?I guess so, but it really isn't up to me, it's up to the other 100 million + voters. That is what "for the people" means.
Don't be ridiculous, everyone understands things like disaster support as long as it is not abused.
QuoteIn a speech on the Senate floor the bill's sponsor, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, argued that despite the recent spate of tragic tornado strikes in Oklahoma, disaster relief shouldn't be the federal government's business.
"FEMA is just one more example of Big Government run amok," he explained. "Sure it sounds good. Who wouldn't be against so-called disaster relief? But we're paying for this program with money borrowed from China, driving our country deeper into debt. That's the real disaster.
"I suppose people need help in times like these. And if individual states want to set up disaster relief agencies, that's fine. But why should taxpayers in other states be forced to pay? Kentucky doesn't have earthquakes. Kentucky doesn't have hurricanes. Kentucky doesn't have tornadoes, I don't think. So why are we footing the bill for this stuff?"
The point is that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to have a disaster relief department. It should be covered under the 10th Amendment, since it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, meaning it falls to the states.
My point is that this is a philosophical debate, and if we conservatives are really Constitutionalists, then we should not have federal programs that aren't directly spelled out in the Constitution.
It's where DoMA comes in for me, primarily, and it's where I see hypocrisy in the views of some of us in the GOP/conservative movement.
Not directed at you at all, Ed, and I apologize if it appears I assumed your own beliefs. :patriot:
Each representative is only responsible to his/her constituents, no one else, at least that is what is supposed to happen. We should only be criticizing the other guys representative IF they have broken the law or not met their oath of office. Otherwise, we are demanding that all republicans/democrats vote the same, which is what the constant chant of RINO type comments means. Would you like someone from NY telling your representative/senator how to vote?
It is very frustrating and I have committed the same "sins" myself so I am pointing the finger at me too....
oh? http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/22/republicans-introduce-bill-to-abolish-fema/
Where is it specifically opposed?
Oooo, we like to put words in peoples mouths... I never said anything about FEMA nor anything about National Emergency.
I said disaster support is something everyone would agree on as long as it was not abused.
I never specified how it would be delivered or under what conditions.
Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ...;
I'm not sure how one excises just disaster relief from the concept of "general welfare".
Luis wrote above:
[[ I REALLY object to your constant use of the therm RINO. ]]
Well, that's too bad, Luis.
"RINO" is what it is. A term that accurately describes a political critter, one that is doing great damage to the body politic.
You complaint reminds me of those of the left (particularly blacks), who are "offended" by anything that they don't like or don't want to hear. And who cry "racis'" as a result.
Is calling someone a "RINO" meant to "demean and disparage"?
I certainly hope so!
That's a SATIRE site. Come on, man. Rand Paul never said those things. I typically look forward to your posts, but you got WHOOSHED on that one, Once-ler! :thud:
Did you support the Federal DoMA?
IMHO, the defense of marriage act was a direct result of years of social engineering at the federal and state level.
For example, God created the IRS, and thus created exemptions to reward people for acceptable behavior (marriage, kids, houses, RV's, Boats, etc) .
The states followed suite and enhanced the engineering (death benefits, hospital visitation, reward for kids, etc).
Those that were not married were not only denied "benefits" awarded to married and in fact, are actually penalized and put less of a strain on the infrastructure (schools, etc). Of course this is all changing now with more single parents.
So I believe if it were not for all of the "rewards" for good behavior, we would likely not even have this conversation.
Taking money from one "class" and giving it to another, sound familiar?
But the politicians need a way to buy votes with our money so it is unlikely this will change.
Did you support the Federal DoMA?
A simple yes or no will do.
Did you support the Federal DoMA?
A simple yes or no will do.
Luis wrote above:
[[ I REALLY object to your constant use of the therm RINO. ]]
Well, that's too bad, Luis.
"RINO" is what it is. A term that accurately describes a political critter, one that is doing great damage to the body politic.
You complaint reminds me of those of the left (particularly blacks), who are "offended" by anything that they don't like or don't want to hear. And who cry "racis'" as a result.
Is calling someone a "RINO" meant to "demean and disparage"?
I certainly hope so!
You complaint reminds me of those of the left (particularly blacks), who are "offended" by anything that they don't like or don't want to hear. And who cry "racis'" as a result.
Is calling someone a "RINO" meant to "demean and disparage"?
I certainly hope so!
That about says it all. No need for me to read this guy's posts anymore. Is there an ignore feature here?
I use it often.
That about says it all. No need for me to read this guy's posts anymore. Is there an ignore feature here?Go up a few posts and click on your name. It will take you to your profile page. Click on modify profile. Scroll down to modify ignore list. Under "add to ignore list", type in, or cut and paste Fishrrman.
IMO, using the ignore feature in a forum of this size is unnecessary.
Furthermore, if somebody else quotes the ignored poster, you'll still see his/her posts.
I find it much easier to simply use the scroll wheel on my mouse. :laugh:
I have been very tempted to use the "ignore" button here a few times over the years, especially during the 2012 primary. In the end, just as I was about to click the mouse, I realized that putting someone on ignore said a whole lot more about me and my inability to control my ruffled feathers than it did about whoever was ruffling them. So I've never done it, though I have come close.
I have never used the "ignore" button on this forum, or on any other. I never will. That is my decision of course, and to each his or her own. But I think it's cowardly to do so.
That about says it all. No need for me to read this guy's posts anymore. Is there an ignore feature here?
I've used it once or twice for a couple of days when someone has said something that made me particularly angry. Gives me time to cool off.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to create FEMA, or the a president given the power to declare a "National emergency"?
You could say it's provided in the 10th Amendment, where all other rights not enumerated above are granted to the people. The "representatives" of the "People" passed laws and created the bureaus and shelled out the cash.
That would be, if you believe such things.
If you use such logic, coupled with the expansive, anything goes interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, then we have a government with no limitations and infinite power, since the actions of any elected official can be interpreted as the will of the people.
Using that logic, no law that the Congress passes, no Executive Order and no Judicial findings are unconstitutional since they were all crafted by elected representatives or their appointees.
By the same token, We the People have rights limited strictly to the narrowest definition of those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, and even those rights are suspect since any violation (as per your argument above) is legitimate since it was the Will of the People as expressed via their votes for the government agency or representative responsible for the violation of those rights.
I don't buy the "the Constitution doesn't prohibit it or list it so it must be OK" argument, since what's not prohibited or listed in the Constitution is a far greater list of things than the specific Enumerated Powers and restrictions.
I believe in limited government, not unlimited government.
Not something I believe personally Luis, just spit ballin' out here! I like a government small enough to fit in a matchbox with room to spare!
I think that is the one thing that most of us share in common - our belief in a limited government.
I like a government small enough to fit in a matchbox with room to spare!
Furthermore, IMO, the entire concept held by the writer regarding the so-called Tea Party is flawed.
The ONLY time the so-called Tea Party shows up is in the voting booth.
And we have smoked their a$$es on a national, state, county and city level across the country since 2010.
Furthermore, IMO, the entire concept held by the writer regarding the so-called Tea Party is flawed.
The ONLY time the so-called Tea Party shows up is in the voting booth.
And we have smoked their a$$es on a national, state, county and city level across the country since 2010.
Furthermore, IMO, the entire concept held by the writer regarding the so-called Tea Party is flawed.
The ONLY time the so-called Tea Party shows up is in the voting booth.
And we have smoked their a$$es on a national, state, county and city level across the country since 2010.
SO true, DC!
Local Tea Party enthusiasts have sent donations nationally, worked at both the state and local level and most importantly VOTED.
The Tea Party got its beginnings in early 2009, largely because of Rick Santilli's CNBC rant in response to Obama's punitive fiscal policy, and was, and still is a widespread movement OF THE PEOPLE reacting against big government and fiscal irresponsibility.
While many have taken credit for it (Ron Paul, among others), it has truly been a grassroots movement........... bottom up.
That's why neither the GOP establishment, nor the Democrats, hard as they try, can get rid of us.
Disparage it as they may, the anti- Tea Party people aren't going to destroy a living, breathing American movement of the people.
While the TEA Party preexisted the Obama Presidency (there was a protest against illegal immigration in Alabama in 2005 that used the Boston Tea Party as a theme, and many believe that today's TEA Party grew out of the embers of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign) the Party/mindset itself gained national momentum as a reaction to Obama's policies.
So to say (as so many do) that the GOP victories these past two elections are the result of TEA Party activism is one of those causation/correlation things. While there is no argument (from me) denying the Party's ardent activism, Obama's unpopularity has driven a significant number of Independent voters to switch to the GOP in order to detail Democrats.
It's a collective effort.
Many have had a hand in smoking the DNC.
That's the beauty of it. it's totally abstract.
It's a blessing and a curse. Because it is abstract and not trademarked by anyone in particular, anyone can exploit it for any purpose. That includes people who wish to turn it into a bogeyman, including GOP moderates.
The origination of the TEA Party began, IMO, as musiclady stated...Santelli's rant on the floor of the stock exchange.
That and nothing that happened somewhere in 2005 got me and another 800K people get off our a$$es and march down Independence Ave NW in Sept. 2009.
And causation has nothing to do with it. Because anybody who votes against the status quo today is, in effect, a member of the TEA Party, whether they know it or not.
That's the beauty of it. it's totally abstract.
The origination of the TEA Party began, IMO, as musiclady stated...Santelli's rant on the floor of the stock exchange.
That and nothing that happened somewhere in 2005 got me and another 800K people get off our a$$es and march down Independence Ave NW in Sept. 2009.
And causation has nothing to do with it. Because anybody who votes against the status quo today is, in effect, a member of the TEA Party, whether they know it or not.
That's the beauty of it. it's totally abstract.
We were there too musiclady. It was one of the most amazing days of my life!
The TEA party thing, IMO, is more a marketing thing than anything else. Those 800K you marched with did not create a "new" polity, it just re marketed an existing one.
The Party is those "radical conservatives" Reagan talks about in his memoirs. they are Falwell's Silent Majority, JimRob's FReepers and Ron Paul's Revolution with a new image.
Poppycock.
What new polity did it create that didn't already exist?
The response I made was to your "Falwell's Silent Majority, JimRob's FReepers and Ron Paul's Revolution with a new image" nonsense.
The TEA PARTY isn't even remotely about 'marketing' (other than our enemies who 'market' us in a hostile manner). And it most certainly isn't a remake of FR, Ron Paul, or Falwell.
That diminishes the true unique blend of patriotic Americans who gathered together and who work together for a common goal.
And in reality, the expectation that a movement that is basically in its infancy would have developed 'polity' when none of its representatives have attained political power....... yet.......... is unrealistic at best.
Let's drop the polity tag.
What is new about this group that no group possessed before it?
P.S. It's Rush that credits JimRob for creating the foundation to the TEA Party.
The response I made was to your "Falwell's Silent Majority, JimRob's FReepers and Ron Paul's Revolution with a new image" nonsense.
The TEA PARTY isn't even remotely about 'marketing' (other than our enemies who 'market' us in a hostile manner). And it most certainly isn't a remake of FR, Ron Paul, or Falwell.
That diminishes the true unique blend of patriotic Americans who gathered together and who work together for a common goal.
And in reality, the expectation that a movement that is basically in its infancy would have developed 'polity' when none of its representatives have attained political power....... yet.......... is unrealistic at best.
Rush doesn't always get it right.
What's new (at least in my 65 year lifetime) is the broad coalition of different kinds of people all wanting, and working for the same thing. To put an end to government waste, and to shrink the size of government. Though it isn't organized nationally (at least officially... perhaps in somebody like JR's eyes, but not in reality), it provides locally a source for national and state issues and information, and a means to coordinate political activism.
I've been interested and engaged in politics for more than five decades (within the GOP), and there's never been anything like this happen before.
And the fact is, that it's gone from large gatherings like the ones in DC (We were also at the "Kill the Bill" event), to boots on the ground, but it hasn't diminished.
Only in the eyes of its critics.
I missed that before.
That's the perfect example of how the lack of cohesiveness and structure of the movement allows it to be anything any one of its participants wants t to be.
DCPatriot says that "... we (The TEA Party) have smoked their a$$es on a national, state, county and city level across the country since 2010."
I'm not sure whose asses he's talking about, but someone's asses have been smoked.
libertbele says that the TEA Party is what gave the GOP its Congressional majorities, but you say that none of its representatives have attained political power.
It's truly difficult to hit a moving target.
How is it a broad coalition?
What different kinds of people?
Your highlighted description are simply conservative goals. The fact that there may be a number of new people working toward those goals don't make the goals new.
Did I ever say the goals were new? (No).
It is the coalition that's new. There are Conservative Republicans, Libertarians, Independents and even some conservative Democrats who are now working to try to shrink government by electing conservatives, not only to Congress, but also to local and state offices.
We just elected a County Commissioner here who had been a mayor of a small town, but who is a strong Tea Party conservative.
This is happening all over the place, Luis.
And this has NOT happened before.
I don't see that happening.
But if you say so.
Perhaps if you were part of the movement, you would see it.
I am part of no movement.
I see movements as collectivism.
LG: All movements are bowel movements. :silly:
I am part of no movement.
I see movements as collectivism.
That's interesting.
A 'movement' of willing individuals fighting for individual rights is warped into 'collectivism.'
Fascinating perspective, albeit not accurate relative to what's happened.
From a seasoned citizen's perspective based upon what I've been taught and have read:
When the Colonialists threw cases of tea to be shipped from Boston Harbor, it has become to called/named The Boston Tea 'PARTY'.
"Did you go to the party, Ben? We emptied an entire load overboard!"
Today, the "Party" has been every election in the United States since November 2010. And for the opening of American Sniper.
The TEA PARTY can never die, Luis.
Of course, there are candidates who attempt to tie themselves to it. That's not the point. The point is that you are a member of a vast voting army, standing on that wall. Ready until called upon.
Don't fight it Luis! Deep breaths...... let the light embrace you. :laugh:
The origination of the TEA Party began, IMO, as musiclady stated...Santelli's rant on the floor of the stock exchange.
That and nothing that happened somewhere in 2005 got me and another 800K people get off our a$$es and march down Independence Ave NW in Sept. 2009.
And causation has nothing to do with it. Because anybody who votes against the status quo today is, in effect, a member of the TEA Party, whether they know it or not.
That's the beauty of it. it's totally abstract.
That's how my people ended up with dual Castros for 59 years.
I find your parallel completely illogical, Luis.
A brutally violent political, Communist coup bears NO relationship whatsoever with the spontaneous actions of every day American people who understand that it is well past time to stand up for individual liberty.
You completely misrepresent what the Tea Party clearly has been when you make this absurd connection.
I find your parallel completely illogical, Luis.
A brutally violent political, Communist coup bears NO relationship whatsoever with the spontaneous actions of every day American people who understand that it is well past time to stand up for individual liberty.
You completely misrepresent what the Tea Party clearly has been when you make this absurd connection.
I think Luis has me on ignore so I will respond to you and simply say that you wind up with a butcher named Mao ruling China and two Castro brothers running Cuba not because they were the leaders of any movement but because the State Department of the United States of America had been allowed to become INFESTED with Communist operatives who were DETERMINED to put them in power! They were aided by them at every possible opportunity while the people who's side the country professed to be on at the time we clandestinely undercut at every turn! Without all that assistance from the U.S. Department of State Chiang Kai-shek would have defeated Mao in China and the Castro Brothers would have been defeated as well!
Maybe you will allow me to understand my history better than you understand it.
The Castros did not come to power by portraying themselves as Communists or by behaving brutally violent.
Every day Cubans saw a "people's movement" fighting against abuses of power and constant Constitutional violations by the Batista government. Their promise and their battle cry was restoring the Constitution.
They have yet to deliver on that promise.
I don't trust populist movements. I see them as manifested collectivism.
I have no need or obligation to either explain that or defend it.
I'm in no way diminishing your personal experience in Cuba, Luis, and I am well aware that "every day Cubans" saw a "people's movement." Nor am I diminishing your feeling against 'movements' and are suspect of what they are.
Nonetheless, your associating the Tea Party with what happened in the Communist takeover of Cuba falls short of logic because of what you know to be the reality of this conservative uprising of every day people.
As has been stated before, there is no one 'behind' us. There is no dark force among us. Nor are there dark motives in our hearts.
There will be no tanks rolling into DC because of people like alicewonders, DC Patriot, Bigun and me, or the millions more just like us.
We believe in the Constitution (for real), and we believe in individual liberty, and not a pair of brutal brothers whose motives were treacherous.
As has been stated before, there is no one 'behind' us. There is no dark force among us. Nor are there dark motives in our hearts.
We believe in the Constitution (for real), and we believe in individual liberty.
Another point............ the Tea Party is based on information and the distribution of that information to every day Americans.
There is no parallel with the feelings of the Cuban people and the understanding of Tea Party people.
Again, you demean others.
There were no "feelings", there was the clear understanding of what the movement stood for, later betrayed.
If anyone has "feelings" dictating their actions, it would be those people (self-proclaimed TEA Party members) who believe that Palin or Cruz could beat Hillary in the next election.
Instead of defending the Tea Party as it has devolved, it would be better to move to a new improved conservative movement.
A movement with a clear and singular focus: Winning elections, with superior candidates, clear campaign messages, etc.
Becuz what is left of the TP movement is perpetual rehash of Sarah Palin's rambling culture war victimhood skits, which play to just a narrow audience.
And I would like to see some financial disclosure by the professionals that use the label. Like Tea Party Express, and Tea Party Patriots, and Tea Party News Network, etc. Find out how much money is going into their personal pockets, versus into campaigns.
For example, Sal Russo's Tea Party Express (Sacramento) sends me several emails each week, each asking for donations, for separate purposes. My guess is that most stays in the pockets of the organization, not the stated target.
I watch the stuff posted on Facebook by TP organizations, and it is divisive. Borderline racist.
I'm not demeaning you, Luis. I'm here defending the people that YOU are demeaning.
And I find your logic faulty, and your parallel unsupportable.
The idea that there were "no feelings" involved in the support of the Castro brothers in Cuba is insupportable, as is the argument that the Tea Party is based solely on the "feelings" of those who think Sarah Palin could beat Hillary. (I don't personally know any of those people, btw).
You are clearly free to think and feel as you like, as am I. But when you repeatedly diminish the experience and thought of a whole host of people because you don't like some of them, you are in error.
As DC has pointed out, the 'incohesiveness' of the Tea Party is one of its strengths. There are no Castros behind it; no sinister forces.
And as long as you vote and participate in the process, it really doesn't matter a heck of a lot whether you identify with others who share the same values and are part of the Tea Party.
It just seems to me a waste of your time to spend so much of it belittling those who share your patriotism and conservatism and have the same goals.
Instead of defending the Tea Party as it has devolved, it would be better to move to a new improved conservative movement.
A movement with a clear and singular focus: Winning elections, with superior candidates, clear campaign messages, etc.
Becuz what is left of the TP movement is perpetual rehash of Sarah Palin's rambling culture war victimhood skits, which play to just a narrow audience.
And I would like to see some financial disclosure by the professionals that use the label. Like Tea Party Express, and Tea Party Patriots, and Tea Party News Network, etc. Find out how much money is going into their personal pockets, versus into campaigns.
For example, Sal Russo's Tea Party Express (Sacramento) sends me several emails each week, each asking for donations, for separate purposes. My guess is that most stays in the pockets of the organization, not the stated target.
I watch the stuff posted on Facebook by TP organizations, and it is divisive. Borderline racist.
They're here, in this forum, posting daily and making that very argument.
The PEOPLE of Cuba backed the Castro brothers. Many who later came here vowing to die fighting them (and in many cases did) backed them, welcomed and cheered them as they rolled into the capital.
There's a lot of borderline racism everywhere, t_s, but it's not a function of the TP, but rather the human heart, and that's never going to be 'fixed' politically.
There's no question that there have been some who have taken advantage of the movement for their own financial gain. Again, not the property of the TP, but a problem with human nature and true across the political spectrum.
Being wise about financial support is always important, but that doesn't mean that the principles espoused by the Tea Party are errant.
I don't know a single person who thinks Sarah Palin can beat Hillary.
That's the problem with a populist movement that has no leadership, no distinct platform, no cohesiveness and no cohesive center. Anyone can represent themselves as speaking the TEA Party and there's no one who can say that they can't.
I will tell you this without equivocation! If the choice was between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton I would take Sarah EVERY SINGLE TIME!
That's the problem with a populist movement that has no leadership, no distinct platform, no cohesiveness and no cohesive center. Anyone can represent themselves as speaking the TEA Party and there's no one who can say that they can't.
I will tell you this without equivocation! If the choice was between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton I would take Sarah EVERY SINGLE TIME!
Well, OBVIOUSLY! ^-^
I just don't know anyone personally who wants her to run, or thinks she can win.
Too much baggage, and she's done too little of import with her time since her last run.
JMHO.
However, the same can't be said about a Bush or Ronneg nomination.
However, the same can't be said about a Bush or Ronneg nomination.
I read a post here recently where somebody did their own "scientific" ananlysis of McCain and Clinton, and found there is no difference between the two. It may even be in this thread, but I'm not going to back and look for it. I laughed when I read it, and now just skip over every post by that person, who actually hasn't posted since making their "findings" public on this board. In my view, it was clearly an attempt to troll, and I'm not at all a fan of McCain and only voted for him because he was the GOP candidate against an obvious amateur, Obama.
Can you clarify that for me, Luis?
I'm not sure what you mean.
(Sorry if I'm a bit dense, but I've never said I wouldn't support Bush or Romney against Hillary, and I'm pretty sure Bigun has said the same thing).
Anyone who says there is no difference between McCain and Clinton is quite simply not telling the truth.
I've never liked McCain, and I don't like him now, but to say there's no difference?
Ridiculous!
I was commenting on Biguns post you were responding to.
Actually, I did a voting record comparison and a comparison on their "stance" on certain issues at the time they were running against Obama and what I stated was that I actually found Clinton to be the more conservative of the two. Yes, of course there are some differences between the two. However, I have always been of the opinion that the only difference between voting for McCain and Obama would be that Obama would destroy the country at a faster rate than McCain. In hindsight, I don't think my assessment was all the far off.
Thought the very same thing when I read it.
Limited government, a powerful and READY military and lowered tax rates are probably the ONLY three planks in which we share a common interest.
The Republican Party has a platform! How many of the elected officials in Washington do you see adhering to it?
OK.I admire John McCain as a Republican politician and an American. If he decided to run for President again I would vote for him. I sure do wish he had won in 2008.
Here we go:
John McCain:
Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
Voted YES on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
<snip>
Bravo Luis. THAT took effort and time, and it contributed to the forum.
I echo that. Thank you, Luis.
I knew on its face that the statement that their voting records was the same was wrong (on the pro-life issue alone, which, as you know, is an extremely important issue to me), but it's good to see their actual votes displayed.
I'm all for "holding the Republicans feet to the fire" when it comes to platform issues, but that doesn't include misstating, or lying about their records. (And I really, really don't like McCain!)
Glad to see that corrected.
Calling me a liar is offensive and I find it really ugly. I am chastised for calling those that have voted with and sided with Democrats RINO's yet I am blatantly called a liar! The data and research that I did clearly showed AT THE TIME, McCain to be the more conservative of the two. I am entitled to my opinion period. Again, some of the issues that he has sided with the Democrats on, never came to cloture because even the GOPe didn't side with him.
I understand that you are anti-TEA, that is very obvious. Your tactics of belittlement and name-calling is how those on the left operate. I am one that has never voted for McCain just for the sake of voting along party lines. I vote with my conscious. I also stand by my opinion that McCain would have destroyed this country as Obama has only at a slower pace.
Go ahead...name call and belittle me all you want. At the end of the day I have a clear conscious and know that I haven't supported the overwhelming corruption in Washington. Carry on.
Calling me a liar is offensive and I find it really ugly. I am chastised for calling those that have voted with and sided with Democrats RINO's yet I am blatantly called a liar! The data and research that I did clearly showed AT THE TIME, McCain to be the more conservative of the two. I am entitled to my opinion period. Again, some of the issues that he has sided with the Democrats on, never came to cloture because even the GOPe didn't side with him.
I understand that you are anti-TEA, that is very obvious. Your tactics of belittlement and name-calling is how those on the left operate. I am one that has never voted for McCain just for the sake of voting along party lines. I vote with my conscious. I also stand by my opinion that McCain would have destroyed this country as Obama has only at a slower pace.
Go ahead...name call and belittle me all you want. At the end of the day I have a clear conscious and know that I haven't supported the overwhelming corruption in Washington. Carry on.
musiclady is a strong TEA Party person.
You all should consider wearing landyards or maybe a secret handshake or something.
#1 - I've been on this thread arguing IN FAVOR of the Tea Party. (scroll back and read, please)
##2 - I did NOT call you a liar. Your sources are obviously, however, not giving you the truth, and if we are to argue the integrity of political discussions, it's important that we deal with TRUTH, and nothing else.
#3 - Perhaps you should calm down before you post, and think about what you really want to say.
We each need to make our own choices based on our convictions and what we believe to be best for the country. In 2004, though I didn't like McCain at all, and thought he was a poor candidate because he was always schmoozing with the media and seeming to try to get attention, and he supported several issues I oppose, and vice-versa, I made probably a thousand calls for him because I had done my homework about Obama and knew what a disaster he would be for the country.
My vote for McCain was made from my conscience and my love for America. I understand that other people made other choices, but it is still my opinion that anyone who didn't vote for McCain helped elect Obama.
I have been part of the Tea Party from early 2009, and support its principles. I am a Conservative Republican and have always, ALWAYS been more conservative than most of my party, but understand the basics of politics, and understand that third party votes are more than useless. They are, IMO, in support of the enemy.
And please............ go back and read my posts, take a look at my avatar, and rethink your explosion here.
Quite a few of them actually.
https://www.gop.com/platform
However, the same can't be said about a Bush or Romney nomination.
In my lifetime, there has never been a single instance of a Democratic candidate for the Presidency being a better choice than the Republican candidate.
Never.
Not Bush I vs Clinton, not McCain vs Obama, not Romney vs Obama.
There have been instances where the GOP candidate wasn't my first choice to win the candidacy, but once selected, that candidate became my primary Presidential choice.
People who didn't vote for the GOP cycle these past two cycles, whether it was because they thought McCain was a RINO or because Romney was a Mormon, are every bit as responsible for the disasters that Obama has wrought down on the nation and the world as Obama and those who voted for him.
Or maybe just consider thinking before blowing up......
People from all parts of the spectrum of politics can be unreasonable, Luis. Those of us who are conservative don't have the corner on that market.
and sometimes people from different parts of the spectrum of politics can be very reasonable...people like you musiclady. :beer:
Quite a few maybe. Most absolutely not!
The TEA party, at least as far as the ones I have knowledge of, wish to correct that!
When G W Bush signed a piece of legislation while saying that he believed parts of it to be unconstitutional he violated his oath of office! When ANY Congressman or Senator votes for ANYTHING he believes to be unconstitutional he does the same! We would like to stop that as well and if we are successful in that the SCOTUS will become a LOT less busy!
BS! If the choice becomes between ANY republican and Hillary Clinton I will vote for the Republican EVERY SINGLE TIME!
I will also do everything in my power to prevent the choice from becoming between a McCain, or Romney, or Bush vs Hillary ever again!
I am SICK of being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of FOR someone I can actually believe in and identify with!
Specifically, which GOP politicians are not adhering to which specific parts of the platform?
In my lifetime, there has never been a single instance of a Democratic candidate for the Presidency being a better choice than the Republican candidate.
Never.
Not Bush I vs Clinton, not McCain vs Obama, not Romney vs Obama 2.
There have been instances where the GOP candidate wasn't my first choice to win the candidacy, but once selected, that candidate became my primary Presidential choice.
People who didn't vote for the GOP ticket these past two cycles, whether it was because they thought McCain was a RINO or because Romney was a Mormon, are every bit as responsible for the disasters that Obama has wrought down on the nation and the world as Obama and those who voted for him are.
and sometimes people from different parts of the spectrum of politics can be very reasonable...people like you musiclady. :beer:
I remember people thinking Jimmy Carter was more conservative than Gerald Ford because Ford was a Northern establishment Republican whereas Carter was a Southern Baptist Democrat. Boy, did that turn out to be wrong.
I remember people thinking Jimmy Carter was more conservative than Gerald Ford because Ford was a Northern establishment Republican whereas Carter was a Southern Baptist Democrat. Boy, did that turn out to be wrong.
Many, many people (some in this forum) have already announced that a Bush or Romney nomination will not get their vote.
Good post.
Good grief. Not so cut and dry. First of all, From Jan 1987 to Jan 2015, McCain missed 969 of 9,393 roll call votes, which is 10.3%. This is worse than the median of 1.7% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving. Remember he ran against Bush back in 2000 and Obama in 2008 --- his stance on many issues in that time frame wavered to "suit" his campaign rhetoric -- I don't still have the data that I collected back then still lying around. If you want to jump down my throat over this ... whatever.... glad I could keep you busy. At any rate there are several websites that have gathered some of McCain's voting records on issues and he is now considered a Libertarian Republican.
To say that McCain doesn't vote or side with Democrats is quite ridiculous. Ever hear of the McCain-Feingold Act?? Another example; McCain went up against big tobacco and proposed legislation that would increase cigarette taxes in order to fund anti-smoking campaigns to help keep kids from smoking etc., and would give states money for smoking-related health care costs; this was largely supported by yep, you guessed it the Clinton administration. He also worked with Teddy Kennedy on the issue of illegal immigration which included a guest worker program and a pathway to citizenship. Several "issues" that he worked together with the Democrats luckily never passed as they were rejected by Republicans. These few issues that I have briefly stated and others is why many Republicans voters refused to vote for him when he ran both against Bush and Obama.
Sorry, but I am not the only one that considers McCain a RINO; otherwise he would be sitting in the oval office. I was quite amazed when Romney decided to stand down (in the best interest of the Republican party) and allow McCain to run against Obama. It didn't seem to me that Romney's defeat was all that apparent when he made that decision to step down; that was a huge mistake on his part and not only did it cost the GOP that election but we as a country got Obama.
http://therightscoop.com/john-mccain-praises-how-democrats-passed-obamacare-says-elections-have-consequences/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080113-666081-john-mccain-republican-in-name-only.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread148753/pg1
Not going to play that game with you Luis! Sorry!
I can find not a single word in that with which to argue and I have NEVER said anything counter to it! What I HAVE said, and will continue to say is that the primaries are the place in which the wheat is to be winnowed so to speak and I am going to do my fair share of winnowing in that process!
It's not a game Bigun.
Many, many people have never even seen the GOP platform, so they believe that there are things in there which simple aren't.
And frankly Bigun, if the TEA party wants to be effective THAT is where they need to focus, getting good conservatives as the nominee. They will get the most bang for the buck and resources if they focus there.
Well sir I am unaware of any TEA party organization who's focus is anything other than that!
I will freely admit to having knowledge of only those who operate here in Texas so if you are speaking about any other than those I wouldn't know about them.
A Libertarian Republican is a bad thing?
Libertarians support minimalist government, more freedom and fiscal responsibility both personal and governmental.
Perhaps stressing the commonalities is a better way to judge a politician's performance than judging them on the differences.
Sorry, but I am not the only one that considers McCain a RINO; otherwise he would be sitting in the oval office.
Do you even begin to understand just how much wrong there is in that statement?
The true RINO is that Republican who once the Party's nominee has been elected by the Party's membership does not cast a vote for that nominee in the general election because his or her "guy" isn't the nominee.
Most everyone in this forum has stated that they will vote for the GOP nominee irrespective of who that is, I'd vote for Palin if she won the nomination and I don't think she'd make a good President at all, but there are some here who have openly stated that they won't vote for this guy or that guy if nominated. That's their right, but that makes them RINOs.
McCain/Palin was a horrendous ticket, but it was a far better option than Obama/Biden, and anyone who didn't see that is a fool.
Romney/Ryan was a better ticket than Obama/Biden2, and anyone who didn't see that is a fool.
McCain/Palin would be a better option than Clinton/Anyone, and anyone who doesn't see that is equally a fool.
And any GOP ticket will be better than Hillary and Bill Clinton running the WH and the nation again.
Anyone who doesn't see that is a fool.
A fool is someone who chooses to always vote for the lesser of two evils when they have an alternate choice and is equally a fool when they refuse to vote their conscious and vote for party just for the sake of voting for party.
Secondly you are of course welcome to your opinion of what a "true" RINO is, but I tend to agree with the definition of most; Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans whose political views or actions they consider insufficiently conservative. Further in my opinion, RINO's also tend to side with Democrats on issues to try and gather votes; therefore they have very little integrity.
It would be nice if you acknowledged your error in charging musiclady with calling you a liar....and for erroneously being called "anti-TEA Party".
Mistakes can happen when debate gets going got and heavy. We all make them from time to time. :beer:
It would be nice if you acknowledged your error in charging musiclady with calling you a liar....and for erroneously being called "anti-TEA Party".
Mistakes can happen when debate gets going got and heavy. We all make them from time to time. :beer:
A fool is someone who chooses to always vote for the lesser of two evils when they have an alternate choice and is equally a fool when they refuse to vote their conscious and vote for party just for the sake of voting for party.Name and justify a 3rd party vote that you have cast, when confronted with "two evils" as the main choices.
Secondly you are of course welcome to your opinion of what a "true" RINO is, but I tend to agree with the definition of most; Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans whose political views or actions they consider insufficiently conservative. Further in my opinion, RINO's also tend to side with Democrats on issues to try and gather votes; therefore they have very little integrity.
Shut the front door!
Surely you jest!
I wish I could vote for Thomas Jefferson, but he's not running this cycle.
He ain't one of those RINO guys I keep reading about, is he?
Are you kidding me?
Of COURSE he's a RINO.
All that "wall of separation" nonsense...
Both the mainstream democratic party and the republican party have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and to that end, group think isstrongly encouragedexpected. It is in both parties interest that the country remain poised precariously on the precipice of the cliff, neither going up or down, in order to sustain the demons on each side so they can constantly declare a vote for anyone other than "me" is a waste. Politicians by definition are liars, so never heed what they say or write but rather what they do. That will show their true colors.
Imagine the founding fathers had not the courage to stand alone, think outside the box, we would still be spending shillings. Imagine Carnegie, Jobs, Gates, Westinghouse with the same logic. We would still be traveling by horseback, election results would take months, we would still be talking on wires buried under the ground and using candles to read by. It is very disappointing that our political system has become so corrupt and self serving.
I have, and always will vote for the best person for the job regardless of party. I submit that the GOP are the ones wasting our time by repeatedly nominating those they believe best continue the status quo and that the United States Congress is our surrogate nanny and should get involved in baseball and healthcare (Romney care) rather than passing a balanced budget or attending to the needs of our military.
Most people prefer the status quo. It doesn't challenge and change causes fear. Not the empty "change".
Most people prefer the status quo. It doesn't challenge and change causes fear. Not the empty "change".
Change always means destabilizing the norm. That's its nature.
The problem with people who advocate for change is that they expect that change to bring about a set of expected and very specific results.
However, the ONE thing that you can't expect when you destabilize anything is predictability.
Change for the sake of change is not a good goal.
Reckless change such as executive orders, congressional overreach, refusing balanced budgets, neglecting national security, failure to uphold existing laws, destabilizes.
Well thought out and executed change does not.
Yet Bigun would get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Can't think of any change more structured and thought out than Constitutional Amendments.
Everyone makes the argument that something done differently would have brought about more positive results, and that (in essence) is true, but they always discount the real possibility that the exact opposite could also come about, and that the opposite result has a 50% probability of happening.
Yet Bigun would get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Can't think of any change more structured and thought out than Constitutional Amendments.
Everyone makes the argument that something done differently would have brought about more positive results, and that (in essence) is true, but they always discount the real possibility that the exact opposite could also come about, and that the opposite result has a 50% probability of happening.
About Romneycare...
The first principle of conservative governance should always be Federalism. Romneycare may not be a conservative action, but the underlying principle of it is certainly as conservative as it can get. The people of the State supported it, the majority of the State legislature supported it, so it was signed into law.
If the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage were to be decided exactly as Romneycare was decided, that would be a conservative way to decide the issues.
Most changes in government come about as a reaction to something happening at the specific time that the change occurred. That's certainly the case with the Constitution; we have a Constitution because the Framers figured out that changes needed to be made to the Articles of Confederation because they weren't working, but due to the unpredictability of change, they ended up scrapping the AoC and ended up with a brand-new Constitution.
Then there are the cases where "well thought out and executed changes" bring about unexpected results.
I am certain that the last thing that the drafters of the XIV Amendment (another one of those "well thought out and executed changes") thought would happen as a result of the Amendment, was that children of illegal aliens born on US soil would qualify for POTUS, yet that's where we are right now.
OH the 16th and 17th amendments were well thought out alright but the question is by whom and for what purpose!
I'll give you a hint. Woodrow Wilson was president at the time!
That's irrelevant.
The Constitution was amended according to Constitutional standards.
You may think WHY it was amended to be irrelevant but I certainly do not!
And whether they were properly done is not quite so open and shut as you seem to think either!
Why is irrelevant.
It was ratified by two-thirds of both houses.
The Congress does not ratify amendments to the Constitution Luis! They can only propose amendments by a two thirds vote of both houses.
Ratification is done by three fourths of the states and the wording of what is ratified has to be exactly the same in every one of those states. Today that would require thirty eight of the fifty to agree. When the 16th and 17th were (supposedly) ratified the number was thirty six of the forty eight states.