Quantcast
Opinion

Can the tea party make it?

Comments

Return To Article
  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 28, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    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 happen...

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    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.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    May 28, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 28, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 28, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    They retain relevancy if for no other reason than entertainment value.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 28, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    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.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    May 28, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    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 the US.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 28, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    most 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 Bits
    If 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 Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Freedom 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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 28, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    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, no way.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 28, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 28, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 29, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    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 public

    But, 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'Donnell

    These candidates are unelectable to the masses. Thankfully.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 29, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 29, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 29, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    Roland Kayser,

    Outstanding analogy. Thank you.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 29, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    LDS Liberal
    Let 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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 29, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    "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.

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 29, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    The Obama administration is making a better case for small government than I ever could.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 29, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    LDS Liberal
    Let 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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 29, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    @Mormon

    What do you think about forcing someone to buy health insurance?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 29, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 29, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    @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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 30, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    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?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    May 30, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 30, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    @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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 30, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 30, 2013 6:41 p.m.

    Nate
    Pleasant Grove, UT

    God 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.