…have already won:
What debuted in nationwide protests on April 15, 2009, has taken less than 18 months to become the current driving force in American politics. The Tea Party insurgency will not only cost Democrats dozens of seats in Congress, and likely their majority — it will define the coming GOP presidential nominating process, determine the direction of the GOP for years to come and threaten any remaining plans Obama has for sweeping reforms of education, energy policy or our immigration system.
And it’s driving the establishment, in both parties (e.g., Karl Rove), crazy. So much for Queen Nancy’s “astroturf.” She’s about to be dethroned.
“…threaten any remaining plans Obama has for sweeping reforms of education, energy policy or our immigration system.”
Obama’s ideas for education, energy, or immigration reform don’t seem to include any thought of fiscal accountability, practical application of common sense, or following the rule of law. If they did, those ideas wouldn’t be threatened.
Pretty good spin on the Tea Party costing the Republicans control of the Senate, which was almost assured before they hijacked the Republican primaries. Also control of the House is now close thanks to the Tea Party when it was also nearly assured before the movement.
As moving the Democrats to the right, let’s see what they do after the election, especially if they find they are still in control in both the Senate and House.
:snork:
Here we go. It’s just like the way opponenjts of the Iraq war insisted they were always 100% behind the one in Afghanistan.
Now we’re to believe a GOP takeover of the Senate, which until recently was still mostly an outside possibility, was “almost assured” and that this one candidate in the nation’s second-smallest state has scuttled that.
Tell us another one, Tom.
Pretty good spin on the Tea Party costing the Republicans control of the Senate
Who gives a shit about Republican control of the Senate? Tea Partiers want conservative control of the Senate, regardless of their party label. With a Castle v. Coons race there was a 0% change of a conservative being elected in Delaware. Now that chance is greater than 0%.
Make no mistake – the Delaware primary was a victory for conservatism. Not only did it increase the odds of an eventual conservative victory from 0% to “more than 0%”, but it also sent a message to all the RINOs out there – get with the program or go home.
Pretty good spin on the Tea Party costing the Republicans control of the Senate, which was almost assured before they hijacked the Republican primaries.
Do you always lie like this?
This is even more amusing when you look back a year at coverage of the 9/12/2009 rally in Washington, DC. The press did its best trying to downplay the number of attendees and the significance of the event. Now a little more than a year later, the movement is getting much harder to ignore.
Pretty good spin on the Tea Party costing the Republicans control of the Senate
Didn’t know that was going to happen, even by 2012. My take though is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease even if it means some short term pain. If the tea party people had passively followed Republican candidates, then the Republicans might have a better chance of winning control of both branches of Congress, but tea party concerns would not have been addressed.
Republicans who don’t have bitchy old ladies pinching their ears and yelling in their ears to cut taxes and stop wasting money wind up being indistinguishable from your typical democrat tax and spender.
Look at Judd Gregg, who voted for the latest embarassments to the Supreme Court, not just for them to get a floor vote, but actually voted for them to be confirmed, who has also supported renewing the assault weapons ban, and only turned down an appointment to the Obama Administration because they wanted him to sign their ethics pledge. Good riddance, and we might actually replace him with a real republican in November (though Kelly Ayotte is also questionable, having sided with the state police and chiefs of police assn in opposing passage of the castle doctrine when she was state AG in NH, having sided with Dem Governor Lynch in trying to raid the state’s doctor-paid malpractice trust fund of $110 million)
I see. Its OK for the Democrats to stay in charge just as long as the Republican minority has pure thoughts. Well, at least that will give President Obama job security.
Actually, it’s better for the Dems to control the Senate if the GOP can only get 51 votes. Because various “moderate” twits from the Maverick, or the clown in South Carolina or the Maine Twins, will hold the country hostage to their “moderate” image. And then at some point we’ll be treated to one of ’em having an larger than usual snit and pulling a Jim Jeffords. (At least we won’t have to deal with the Pennsylvania Spectre haunting us any more.)
But if the Dems are in control, there’s nothing those clowns can really do to mess things up. Switching parties gets ’em nothing (as Spectre found out the hard way, Dems aren’t loyal to useful idiots). They can’t stop a real filibuster, or do like Oly did and let The Community Organizer’s so-called “health care reform” reach the floor by a single vote.
Thomas,
You and your neocon ilk are the ones who have driven libertarians out of the party with your Taliban-esque social conservative litmus tests. If the republicans remain in the minority you’ll only have yourselves to blame for continuing to refuse to listen to the people who pay the bills.
Raoul Ortega gets it.
And don’t be so hard on Thomas, he gets it too,
“As moving the Democrats to the right, let’s see what they do after the election, especially if they find they are still in control in both the Senate and House.”
The same can be said for the Republicans. A true test of the Tea Party, would be them voting out candidates they support now in future elections or even endorsing some Democrats.
Mike Lorrey,
[[[You and your neocon ilk are the ones who have driven libertarians out of the party with your Taliban-esque social conservative litmus tests.]]]
It would be great if the Libertarians had left the party. That is the problem, the Tea Party use of litmus tests in terms of who to support during their hijacking of the Republican primaries has ensured the Republicans will not be able to retake the Senate this year.
Also I suspect you will find that most of the Tea Party candidates are even more socially conservative then the average Republicans.
Its OK for the Democrats to stay in charge just as long as the Republican minority has pure thoughts.
Is it OK for the Republicans to be put in charge only to continue the atrocious spending habits that got them removed from office in 2006?
It would be great if the Libertarians had left the party. That is the problem, the Tea Party use of litmus tests in terms of who to support during their hijacking of the Republican primaries has ensured the Republicans will not be able to retake the Senate this year.
Now you’re the one wanting purity of thought. You’re the one wanting people you disagree with to leave the party. You’re the one calling them “hijackers” to Republican goals. You are not only a liar. You are a hypocrit as well.
Democrats running from self-identifying as Democrats. A list of endorsees that proudly claim “I’m a Republican!” and the word “Democrat” doesn’t appear.
If there was ever a year to avoid espousing Democrat-lite positions on anything whatsoever, this is it. Yes, the Stupid Party has -again- failed to recognize this and run more conservative candidates that can actually win. There’s no reason to piss away a gimme seat. But there’s also no good reason to sit on a 20% freaking lead either. If the GOP was competent to pick a solid fiscal conservative for Delaware we wouldn’t end up with -successful- primary challenges from the right.
This isn’t the year of fighting against same-sex marriage or whatever. The focus is complete fiscal insanity. Iif the Tea Party candidates are really substantially more socially conservative than Republicans, this is just a second slam on the competence powers-that-be in the GOP.
Yep, we can see how Republicans have lost all chance of taking control of the House.
If the Tea Party candidates are really substantially more socially conservative than Republicans,
They appear to me to be pretty darn focused on fiscal issues, to the extent that social conservatives are complaining.
hijacked the Republican primaries
An interesting choice of words. Very interesting. People voting their choices are now to be considered highjackers? It’s almost as if the RINOs think they are entitled to hold office.
Those stupidity and continuously slandering voters are going to get an education. The results so far have been more than just encouraging. Trying to discourage them with the same old tactics is no longer going to work. They can see behind the curtain now.
Glancing at Intrade numbers, there’s now a 65-69% chance that the Democrats retain control of the Senate and a 29-30% that they retain control of the House. Both figures dropped sharply in recent weeks. So this indicates to me that someone, with money to bet on the subject, thinks that the current situation is more favorable for the Republicans than a few weeks ago prior to the tea party wins.
This also provides counterevidence to Thomas’s assertion that the Republicans were likely to take over the Senate, but were thwarted by tea party hijackings. The odds haven’t been this favorable to Republicans since the creation of the market and the Dems are still favored 2-1.
For people that think the tea party candidates will lose Congress for the Republicans, here’s a chance, a golden opportunity, for you to profit from your superior opinion.
Oy, Republicans with an actual 51 seat majority in the Senate was alwasy a long shot, requiring wins in California, Washington, or other such unlikely places. So not much has changed with the Delaware primary.
Personally, I would prefer Democratic control of the Senate. If the Rs controlled both houses of Congress, I can’t see Obama being beaten in 2012 unless he does something really truly stupid, which, of course, he is perfectly capable of doing, but might not.
But with R control of the House, and D control of the Senate, plus an intransigent ideologue D in the White House, and embittered Obamistas thronging the NPR call-in numbers and snarking angrily on the Intertubes, in 2012 we could really clean house.
Plus, bonus, this gives us two years to evaluate how the Rs respond to a second chance, and it gives the rational wing of the D party enough time to purge the Stalinists and 70s retreads, if they want to, and become American again. We could return to the days when there was a real choice in elections!
Ah, can’t resist adding this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7xjAs1UuA
Oh, I get it now, the Tea Party is the anti-Obama party.. gotcha.
If I’m wrong, perhaps someone could tell me WTF this party is about.. cause it seems they’re not just the Libertarians under another brand.
Oh, I get it now, the Tea Party is the anti-Obama party..
Yeah, that’s it. That’s why Karl Rove is complaining. Brilliant observation. Thanks for the insightful input into the conversation.
Yeah, that’s it. That’s why Karl Rove is complaining. Brilliant observation. Thanks for the insightful input into the conversation.
I think Leland has a very good point here. If it really were the anti-Obama party, then why is the Republican leadership having so much trouble with it? Back in 2007 and 2008, the Democrats had no trouble steering anti-Bush ire into political power. They were the anti-Bush party and easily attracted those who wanted the excesses of the Bush administration undone. The Republicans easily fill the role of the anti-Obama party yet they’re losing primaries to unknown tea party candidates. What gives?
If I’m wrong, perhaps someone could tell me WTF this party is about.. cause it seems they’re not just the Libertarians under another brand.
My impression is that while the tea party people are an “anti” party, they’re against tax increases, spending increases, and desire some degree of government reduction. In other words, they’re more or less for some degree of fiscal responsibility.
What gives?
I may be oversimplifying this, but I think the Tea Party primarily is fed up with the fiscal irresponsibility of Washington, so that would apply both to the Obama administration and the current Democrat-controlled House and Senate, plus the Republicans who were fiscally irresponsible over the past decade.
Remember, the entire movement began with Rick Santelli’s famous rant on CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkjyKfLZTI&feature=related
Jiminator,
[[[Remember, the entire movement began with Rick Santelli’s famous rant on CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkjyKfLZTI&feature=related%5D%5D%5D
Which radical right Republican operatives quickly hi-jacked for their profit and power.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35785.html
GOP operatives crash the tea party
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 4/14/10 4:56 AM EDT
[[[Just days after the first widespread tea party demonstrators hit the streets a year ago Thursday, Joe Wierzbicki, a Republican political consultant with the Sacramento firm Russo Marsh + Rogers, made a proposal to his colleagues that he said could “give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force as the 2010 elections come into focus.”
The proposal, obtained by POLITICO, was for a nationwide tea party bus tour, to be called the Tea Party Express, which over the past seven months has become among the most identifiable brands of the tea party movement. Buses emblazoned with the Tea Party Express logo have brought speakers and entertainers to rallies in dozens of small towns and big cities, including one in Boston on Wednesday that will feature former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Aided by campaign-style advance work and event planning, slick ads cut by Russo Marsh, impressive crowds and a savvy media operation, the political action committee run by Wierzbicki, Russo Marsh founder Sal Russo and a handful of other Republican operatives has also emerged as among the prolific fundraising vehicles under the tea party banner. ]]]
Yes, these slick operatives come into a state, select a loser isolated from the local Republican party and then shape them into a “grass root” Tea Party candidate. Yea, like all viral marketing campaigns it is well planned behind the scenes, even to training it followers how to respond like robots to those who point out the Emperor has no clothes. Yes, P.T. Barnum was right on human nature, as was W.C. Fields.
Yes, even though I teach my students how such viral marketing campaigns are organized and I understand the psychological models behind them, after all my dissertation was on how to build public support for commercial spaceports like Spaceport America, it still amazes me how effective they are in the hands of well funded experts…
I guess that is also why I am immune to them.
Well, enjoy it while it lasts. But don’t be surprised at the outcome.
Trent,
You will find they have a lot in common with Ross Perot’s old Reform Party, but have a different set of leaders. FYI here is the wiki on the Reform Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reform_Party
And their Platform.
[[[The Reform Party platform includes the following:
* Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and changing budgeting practices, and paying down the federal debt.
* Campaign finance reform, including strict limits on campaign contributions and the outlawing of the Political action committee
* Enforcement of existing immigration laws
* Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and Central America Free Trade Agreement, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.
* Term limits on U.S. Representatives and Senators.
* Direct election of the United States President by popular vote.
A noticeable absence from the Reform Party platform has been what are termed social issues, including abortion and gay rights. Reform Party representatives had long stated beliefs that their party could bring together people from both sides of these issues, which they consider divisive, to address what they considered to be more vital concerns as expressed in their platform.]]]
Basically they represent about 20% of the population that are on the right who dislike the power of big government and the political establishment. It seems every few years someone stirs them up when the economy gets bad and they create havoc in the election cycle before fading away again.
Of course the folks in every “revolt” think its something new and different, but its not, its roots go back to the anti-Roosevelt movements in the Great Depression.
Basically they represent about 20% of the population that are on the right who dislike the power of big government and the political establishment. It seems every few years someone stirs them up when the economy gets bad and they create havoc in the election cycle before fading away again.
Why do you think it’s still 20%? I don’t disagree that the movement is reactionary. (My view is that politics would be a lot healthier, if most of it was reactionary.) What I think you’re missing here is the size of the “stir”. Even in 1992, Perot picked up almost 20% of the votes as an independent. This year the stir is much bigger and working from within one of the major parties as opposed to a somewhat less effective third party approach.
Twenty percent “on the right” who dislike the accelerating size and scope of government? You seriously think 80% of Americans like what’s going on in Washington? Want more of it?
Boy are you going to be shocked in November. Er…well, probably not. I bet you’ll be able to rationalize it away as the work of shadowy Monopoly Man tycoons in cahoots with international Jewry and the Rosicrucians, the mesmerizing but short-term influence of talk radio, wreckers and foreign elements, racism, and too much high-fructose corn syrup in the American diet.
Exactly; Thomas expects them all to say, “Thank you, sir; we’d like another”.
Karl Hallowell,
[[[Why do you think it’s still 20%?]]]
Real world data.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016526-503544.html
September 15, 2010 1:00 PM
Tea Party Supported by One in Five in New CBS News/NYT Poll
Carl Pham,
[[[You seriously think 80% of Americans like what’s going on in Washington? Want more of it?]]]
One error the Tea Party is making is assuming that although folks may dislike what is going on they are ready to vote for candidates with fringe views that may well make things worst. Primary elections are one thing, general elections another.
I defy you to find a single TEA Partier who asserts that people will vote for Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney out of frustration.
There are a few things to note here. First, there’s strong indications that’s the tea party group is very likely to vote (the story indicates that turn may even be in the high 80s percentage). Given the traditional low turn out for off year elections (and particularly the low turnout expected among Democrat voters), that may end up being as much as half the vote right there. Second, there’s some evidence that the “tea party” side does better as election time approaches. A fresh face has less experience, but they also have less skeletons in the closet. This election cycle seems very much about the skeletons generated in the past two years.
Third, just because someone doesn’t support the tea party doesn’t mean that they won’t vote for a tea party candidate as the lesser of two evils. That’s different from the Perot days, when Perot mostly split the Republican vote. In most of these races there isn’t a genuine third choice. My take is that it’ll end being a lot more than 20% of voters who support tea party candidates, even if they tell pollsters they don’t.
One error the opponents of the tea party are making is assuming they can keep control by slander and smears of patriotic Americans. Another error is making the assumption that they can continue to claim that fiscal responsibility is extreme and they are not. Another error they make is thinking the tea party they see is not just the tip of a really, really big iceberg. The tea party is actually dozens of groups in each state which form a core of much larger groups of people.
They keep asking, “who is the leader of the tea party.” Why? Because they don’t know who to smear, so they smear everybody… angry… mob… racist… bigots… extreme… granny is just a nazi terrorist violently picking up after themselves at conventions… er, I mean bad people.
“Who is your leader? We just want to praise them. [I think I see someone, get the archers ready]”
So reading the Reform Party’s platform:
Balanced Budget: Republicans ran on this in 1994. Is this now a fringe idea?
Campaign Finance Reform: Castle is for Campaign Finance Reform. I don’t know of any Tea Partiers for it. Sounds like Republicans are more like the Reform Party so far…
Enforcement of Immigration Laws: Ignoring for a moment that these are laws of the land that no one is talking of repealing; I’ll accept that Tea Partiers want this a bit more than Republicans.
Opposition to Free Trade Agreements: I’d like to see the evidence Tom has to support this claim.
Term Limits: Yep, I’ve heard that from Tea Partiers.
Direct Election: Again Tom, show us the evidence.
I said it twice already; I think someone is lying. It’s amazing how often that person keeps bringing information that doesn’t support their claim.
link
Thomas, thanks for the list.. I still can’t seem to see what the guiding principle is though. What’s term limits got to do with small government? What’s international trade got to do with it?
Would it be fair to say that they’re just trying to be the “third option” party? And, again, I gotta ask – isn’t the Libertarian party about small government? Why another party?
Trent, the word party seems to be throwing you. They are political and they are a party, but they are not a political party. They are a loose network of groups that have some elements in common. Each group has it’s own focus. TEA = Taxed Enough Already, but that’s not their entire or even main focus.
Many are people that haven’t bothered to vote in the past because they have become tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and being disappointed with the result.
These are the people that flood the telephone lines of congress on an issue only to be not just ignored but watch as the vote goes the other way.
Trying to figure them out is part of what they find irritating because they know it’s a prelude to what Thomas has been talking about, hijacking the movement. Any group that seems to have been hijacked is discredited as being part of the movement. If you don’t get it, you can assume you are not a part of it. They recognize their own. Thay are extremely sensitive to RINOs and false flag operations.
They all agree that the government spends too much money. Most agree that many departments of the government could be eliminated and this will actually improve most peoples lives. They’re BS detectors are better than most. They’re reaction to slander is to work harder.
Titus Says:,
I couldn’t find any evidence of the sampling methodology or sample size. It looks mostly like an Internet poll, which would implies it would have a huge self-selection basis.
RTFP:
Leland Says:,
I guess you haven’t seen Sharron Angle’s latest anti-immigration ads against Senator Reid.
As for being anti-free trade, here is a link.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6141/dems_could_win_tea_party_voters_over_with_america-first_trade_message/
[[[Seventy-four percent of self-described Tea Party Supporters would support a “national manufacturing strategy to make sure that economic, tax, labor, and trade policies in this country work together to help support manufacturing in the United States,” according to the poll, put out by the Mellman Group and the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Likewise, 56 percent of self-described Tea Party Supporters “favor a tariff on products imported from other countries that are cheaper because they came from a country that does not have to comply with any climate change regulations in the country where the products were made.”
Likewise, 56 percent of self-described Tea Party Supporters “favor a tariff on products imported from other countries that are cheaper because they came from a country that does not have to comply with any climate change regulations in the country where the products were made.”]]]
Higher tariffs is anti-free trade.
As for Direct Vote, its on the Tea Party menu as well…
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/blogs/charlsteaparty_20100823.php
Charleston Tea Party
Good for the Tea Party, Good for the Country
By Dean Murray, New York State Assemblyman
August 23, 2010
[[[The Tea Party movement is about many things. Perhaps the most important is that our voices and our values be heard by our government. The best way to make that happen in the long term is to make every vote count. A national popular vote for President, where every vote counts and every vote counts equally, assures that no-one will be marginalized or overlooked in the future.]]]
Sorry Leland, nice try, but the evidence doesn’t support your views. You really need to do more research on the party you claim to support.
Titus Says:,
OK, a phone survey. But what was the sample frame used?
Trent Waddington Says:
September 18th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
The assumption on Term Limits is that if members of Congress are not career politicians they less likely to support big government programs in order to get re-elected.
International trade is assumed to hurt U.S. workers and lower wages in the U.S. by those on the right, so its generally opposed. Ross Perot referred to it as the “great sucking sound” as jobs are sucked out of the U.S. And no, they don’t accept the various economic models or data showing different.
Really they don’t trust actual data and research results. In fact the majority tend to have a strong anti-science basis. The folks supporting them here tend to be the exception rather then the rule in terms of the average Tea Party supporter. Sarah Palin for example believes that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28
American has the two party traditional firmly rooted so its not a parliamentary system. The Libertarian Party generally gets less then 1% of the vote and is regarded as a political joke by most voters. Actually American tend to regard most third parties as jokes. The 19% Ross Perot got was a high point, which is why the Tea Party is focused on taking over the Republican Party rather then start a new one.
Ken Anthony,
[[[Many are people that haven’t bothered to vote in the past because they have become tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and being disappointed with the result.]]]
Yes, like the candidate for Governor for California, Meg Whitman, who didn’t vote for 28 years.
And now, because Barrack Obama got elected, they want to run things despite their nativity and lack of experience. Which is what makes the Tea Party candidates so funny.
Sarah Palin for example believes that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
No, someone claims that she believed that at one time. I’m sure you’re happy to believe any lies people want to tell about Sarah Palin, though. It suits your prejudices and bigotry.
Rand,
No, you are just closing you ears to anything negative.
This is from the Anchorage Daily News, from 2006, when she was running for Governor, a direct quote from a radio interview.
http://www.adn.com/2006/10/27/217111/creation-science-enters-the-race.html
‘Creation science’ enters the race
GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools.
By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News
Published: October 27th, 2006 04:23 AM
Last Modified: September 5th, 2008 06:46 PM
[[[The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor’s race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public classrooms.
Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night’s televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”]]]
But really, if you support a candidate or party you should do your own due diligence.
I see nothing in there about dinosaurs. I also see nothing in there indicating that she thinks that creationism should be taught in science class.
Are you really so deluded (and bigoted) as to believe that if someone were to ask her today if she believed that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, she would say yes?
You keep willfully missing the point Thomas…
…because Barrack Obama got elected…
It’s because of his actions. Your formulation is what they use to imply bigotry where this is none.
…they want to run things…
They’d rather just live their lives, it’s because of his actions, that they are forced to put up candidates.
…despite their nativity and lack of experience
Yes, although life experience counts and they made much better use of it than Obama has. With a train wreck like Obama and his cohorts, they realize they could not do any worse. As a matter of fact, regular citizens, while they may make some mistakes, will do a much better job overall because what they lack in experience is more than made up for in having the right values.