Flash in the pan...The Tea-Party and their all-out wars against
women, minorities, college students, the poor and the sick - have become a very
vocal minority.Repubicans stand a better chance of winning by
dropping the fringe Tea-Party, and turning to draw the huge super majority
Moderate vote.But, I'm not holding my breath for THAT to
Sure they can make it. The country has a lot of fringe, radical groups making
noise. I expect Mike Lee to be at the head of their ticket when they decide to
run their own candidate for POTUS.
The Tea Party and their agenda is actually a pretty strong case for the need for
a more diverse political party landscape in the US. Most other nations have
more than 2 parties.There are liberals quite upset with the movement
of Obama to the right to try and get more bipartisan support. For example,
Obamacare doesn't have the Government Option, nor is it architected as a
Single Payer solution, both items more amenable to liberals. Instead, Obama and
the conservative Democrats (such as Max Baucus) threw out the Single Payer
option and also killed the Government Option, in a futile attempt to get the GOP
to support their own ideas.True Liberals would probably make up 15%
of the electorate, at least.The chances of us abandoning the 2-party
system are slim to none, but I'm sure people in the Tea Party movement are
struggling to accept being part of the big Republican tent, which is trying to
be more attractive to Latinos and other groups.
The Tea Party was cool until the Republican Party took it over. They promised
something different, but we ended up with more of the same. Prime example:
Jason Chaffetz. He was seduced by the limelight, and works harder for a sound
bite than for the people.
I think the answer to your question "Will the Tea Party make it"...
depends on what you think their goal is.If you just accept the
superficial perspective of many outsiders, and think they just want to get more
Republicans elected.... then I don't think they will be judged as making
it.If you understand that the Tea Party people are not faithfull
Republican party coolaid drinkers (most Tea Party people I know (my self
included) consider themselvs to be libertarian or independent, but end up voting
Republican most of the time not because they support Republicans, but because
they absolutely disagree with big-government advocates (which usually turn out
to be Democrats).So if you know the REAL goal of the Tea_Party
(change to smaller government and more individual liberty)... they may make it.
But they know it probably won't come from replacing Demorats with
Republicans. IF they make it... it will be by replacing
Big-Government-Republicans with limited-Government-Republicans. The Tea_Party
has replaced more Republicans than it has Democrats (ask Bennett). Hatch
reinvented his campaign to stay in office or he would be replaced too.
They retain relevancy if for no other reason than entertainment value.
The question is not whether the "tea party" will remain as a viable
influence, but whether the powers that be will continue to squash anyone or any
movement that dares challenges their authority.We, the PEOPLE, are
in control of this Country. Political Parties are not mentioned in the
Constitution. The People elect Representatives to directly represent them. The
PEOPLE, thanks to the 17th Amendment, directly elect the Senators from each
State. The PEOPLE cast their vote to elect electors who cast a vote for the
President. At no time is political party part of that equation.If
someone wants to align himself with the Republican Party or the Democrat Party
or the Tea Party, it is no business of anyone except that person.Those who cast "stones" at those who use their God given right to vote
their conscience, are anything but American. In America we cherish freedom.
Freedom does not mean voting party affiliation.
Sure they can make it. A bunch of Social Security gulping, Medicare munching,
posterity of immigrants that have mastered hypocrisy will always have a place in
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTmost Tea Party people I know (my
self included) consider themselvs to be libertarian...So if you know
the REAL goal of the Tea_Party (change to smaller government and more individual
liberty)... they may make it. ---@ 2 BitsIf Tea
Partiers are truely Libertarians (as you claim), That makes you
pro-choice, pro-marijuana, and pro-homosexual marriage.Liberatarian?
Hardly. Not be any stretch of the imagination.========== @Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahFreedom does not mean voting
party affiliation.1:31 p.m. May 28, 2013--- Says the most hard-core, card-carrying, straight party voting Republican on
these comment boards.
So long as the Tea Party allows itself to be led by the likes of Palin, Lee,
Paul and Cruz, then they will remain relevant to the American political
landscape in the exact same way that a rabid raccoon is relevant to a vacation
in a national park. Natural, inevitable, repellant yet kind of
tragic, and you don't want them anywhere near your kids.
Excessive government and reckless spending are long-standing conservative issues
from way before the tea party. I can't image in today's political
environment that they will cease to be a concern. What really matters for the
tea party in their struggle for relevancy are their far-right politics.
Consider the appeal to the majority of Americans of a regime that is highly
authoritarian and hierarchical, oppressively nationalistic, obsessed with
ideological and ethnic purity, prone to resort to force and in general focused
on policies that favor themselves at the expense of others.Vigilance
against big government and reckless spending, okay; but the far-right baggage,
Can the Tea Party make it?a. Only as long as they can gerry-mander
congressional districts.b. Only if the Republican Party can win
elections. If the Republican Party can't win national elections, then the
Tea Party alliance will be increasingly be seen as an impediment.
The Tea Party is comparable to the so-called "New Left" of the sixties
and seventies. After providing an initial burst of enthusiasm, they made the
Democratic party unpalatable to the majority of moderate Americans. Eventually
the Democrats confronted their errors and moved back to the center, as the
Republicans must if they want to win a majority again.
To me, the Tea Party generally just looks like the right wing of the GOP.Cutting spending and smaller government are reasonable endeavors that
could be supported by a big chunk of the voting publicBut, the Tea
Party attracts and elects those who couple those ideas with far right social
ideology that does not appeal to the general electorate.Show me a
Tea Party Candidate that is not staunchly anti abortion. Or anti gay marriage.
Why cant you find sensible, reasonable Tea Party candidates that
resonate with the average voter?Who do people associate with the Tea
party? Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Louis Gohmert, Sharon Angle,
Christine O'DonnellThese candidates are unelectable to the
To me the sustainable issue with the tea party will prove to be this libertarian
claim that has been popularized by the Paul family. Republicans have only had
national relevance when they viewed the government as a tool not as an enemy,
because like it or not the government is us. You can have a relevant
conversation about fiscal responsibility as you discuss a national
infrastructure program. You can also consider the size of government when
discussing national government support for education. However, you will not
have any relevance to reality when you begin with the goal of getting government
out of your life. The world isn't structured that way and all the
screaming in the world won't change it. Freedom is not an
independent commodity you have or don't have. Freedom is an interdependent
concept that gives and takes. In America we cherish freedom is an
entirely useless statement without context. It makes a functional bumper
sticker but it's useless as an effective governing principle.
The notion of big government bad and small government good is as phony as a $3
bill. We are living in a world of giants; religious, business,
nations, states, races, and some individuals. They are not some foreign menace;
they are in our daily lives right now and are in fierce competition with each
other for control of our wealth and our ability to create wealth. We are not free. We are only as free as the controlling giants allow, and
they only allow us freedoms that benefit themselves. Our only chance that our
voice could be heard is with our national government and that is why there is so
much hatred, anger and vile actions against our government. Some of
the giants, states, have severely muted our voice with improper limitations on
voting. Others would limit the government ability to protect
the people by taking away it’s authority. Some would starve
the government financially.Many just work, talk and carry signs that
diminish our government.People who do these things are not true
Americans and should be recognized by their motives.
Roland Kayser,Outstanding analogy. Thank you.
LDS LiberalLet me educate you a little on what being Libertarian
means...Being Libertarian doesn't make you
"pro-marijuana", "pro-choice", or "pro-homosexual
marriage". Being Libertarian means you don't CARE whether people
smoke marijuana. You believe people can make their own choices and suffer the
consequences (not thgovernment's job). I'm not
"pro_abortion", but I belive people's sex lives and reproductive
choices are their own (not mine, not the government's). That's what
being Libertarian means.So if that makes me pro-choice or
pro-marijuana in your bumper_sticker brain... I guess I am. But in reality, it
just means it's none of my business, and not the government's
business. But not something that I promote. Just something I think is up to
the individual (not the government).I also think education is not
the role of the Government (that's one stereotype you left out).In reality (not stereotype_ville you live in) Libertarians don't agree on
abortion, marijuana, etc. That's why libertarians don't win
elections. They don't have a faithful lockstep coolaid_drinking following
like the other parties.
"In reality (not stereotype_ville you live in) Libertarians don't agree
on abortion, marijuana, etc. That's why libertarians don't win
elections."I disagree. I believe that the reason is that too
many people are solidly GOP or DEM to even consider voting for another party.
Additionally, they would consider it a wasted vote as to date, no Libertarian
candidate has had a snowballs chance.
The Obama administration is making a better case for small government than I
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTLDS LiberalLet me educate you a
little on what being Libertarian means...=========I know
what being a Libertarian means, I've been a delgate for the
Libertarian Party in the past.By being Pro-X, you allow the
individual to choose whether something is right or wrong.Passing
laws, and banning and making something illegal is "Forcing" to Choose
the right -- a Plan I rejected and have fought before this life, during this
life, and after this life.But -- That makes me a
"Liberal" -- i.e., Libertarian -- and Conservatives hate and reject
"Liberty" because it allows others the right to make mistakes and get
into trouble.Alma loved free agency so much, he taught Amulek
while watching women and children being tossed into the fire that he could stop
it, but would not -- because the wicked MUST be allowed to do their wickedness
(i.e., must be allowed their free agency).Liberal.
@MormonWhat do you think about forcing someone to buy health
Can I try Nate?We are a compassionate society. We would not let a
very sick person die in the hospital parking lot. Heck, Reagan signed
legislation to that affect.We also dont just let people die of
treatable cancer. So, those without insurance burden the system and
we all pay.Many cant afford insurance. Kind of hard to force
them.But what about those who can afford it but choose not to?Then they have an accident or get sick.Those who could
afford it, but bought that boat instead will still get treatment. And society
(me and you) have to pay the cost. Basically, we pay for their boat.I think we can all make a case that forcing people to buy insurance is wrong.
But, when you look a bit deeper, maybe it makes sense.Everything is not black and white.
@JoeBlow "Can I try Nate?"That was a very nice try, but it
doesn't help Open Minded Mormon out of the philosophical weeds. He's
still lost in contradictions."We are a compassionate
society."How compassionate? Compassionate enough to give
generously from our own pockets? Or does it always have to be paid for with
money we extort from others? Or that we borrow, with no plan for paying it back?
How is that being compassionate?There is also nothing compassionate
about fostering intergenerational dependency. Quite the opposite."But what about those who can afford it but choose not to?"We need to take good care of them, too. It's not our place to judge.
I'm asking only that it be done freely, not by force. And that it be done
more wisely, so as not to cause inadvertent harm."Everything is
not black and white."Never said it was. But you should tell that
to your buddy.
Nate Pleasant Grove, UT@JoeBlow "Can I try
Nate?"That was a very nice try, but it doesn't help Open
Minded Mormon out of the philosophical weeds. He's still lost in
contradictions."We are a compassionate society."How compassionate? Compassionate enough to give generously from our own
pockets?===========JoeBlow gave a beautiful example.The only thing missing was the "pre-exisiting condition".I
have always worked.I have always had insurance.My wife and a couple
children have pre-existing conditions.They are not "eligible" even
though I work and pay for it.THAT is not right, and YOU know it.Besides -- I would rather "we" as a society give welfare to the
sick and the needy, than provide Corporate Welfare.I know God
will "bless" America for providing for the poor, the sick and needy -
before he will "bless" America for shunning them and robbing the
people to give to the Corporations and a vast war-mongering military industrial
complex. [the same fate of the Nephites].How is that for answering
your philosophical weeds?
2 Bits:"So if you know the REAL goal of the Tea_Party (change to
smaller government and more individual liberty) . . ."What this
actually means is caving in to the corporate powers that control our country. It
means less regulation so corporations can get away with virtually anything in
their chase of the almighty dollar. It means more liberty for the owners and
controllers of capital and, consequently, less liberty for the employees (who
are, in a very real sense, property of their corporate owners). It means less
government aid to those who are shunned or discarded by the corporate employment
system or who are considered not useful as human resources in the labor market
(a market that turns people into commodities).If this is the true
goal of the Tea Party, then yes, it will survive, because it will have the
backing of our corporate rulers.
@Open Minded Mormon "How is that for answering your philosophical
weeds?"Not very good, I'm afraid. After taking that
wonderful stand for liberty and agency yesterday, you left it completely out of
the discussion today.I didn't ask you whether you would rather
provide welfare for the poor, or for corporations. My question was whether you
should be forced to buy insurance at all. You supposedly had utterly rejected
being forced to do right.You talk about God's blessings. God
blesses people for choosing the right, not for being forced to it.
Ultra Bob and others: Are you not an American, or unpatriotic, if you only
believe that the government should be keep within the bounds of its
constitutional limits? No more, no less! Good luck with defending your position
in front of that 'partisan', 'extremist' crowd. Thank God
that America still stands for something, including being able to say that
someone is unamerican for their belief in God and the Constitution.
NatePleasant Grove, UTGod blesses people for choosing the
right, not for being forced to it.9:50 a.m. May 30, 2013=====Great.Now, if you feel it's OK for the >
0.9% of the Mormons in American telling the other 99.1% of the country how to do
this - be my guest.But this is America, not Iran.We do not
live in a theocracy.I support and defend our Constitution, I do not
trample it to suit my personal preference.