1

yeah "moderate libertarians" "sent a message" to the GOP along with fiscal conservatives back in 2006 and 2008.....

 

how's that working out for the nation "messengers".....the only message I am interested in sending is "get the hell out" to Barry T Ogabe and the Donkey Destructocrats.

2 ...third parties (and forth and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth parties, too) because...

As a member of the FORTH party, I'm constantly doing things just a bit backwards.

3
Palin-bashing to commence in 3.. 2..

4

Good on Allah P for noticing that.   I'm almost not as jealous of his big buyout as I was.

Now Captain Ed deserves his, of course.

5 But I WANT to vote for the anti-Dr Amy Bishop party!!!

6 I think she just told the independents to quit being retards.

7 Here you go again, Ace, pushing for America to always have a Democrat Party. Why, it's almost like you want there to be Democrats. Why not just out yourself as a Democrat?

If you say that there will always be two parties, then you're advocating that the Democrat Party stay in existence. Instead, why don't we advocate the destruction of the Democrat Party? Shouldn't that be the goal?

We can have a two party system  ... The Republicans and the Tea Party. Of course, for that to happen, we'd first need a Tea Party to begin with, right? Wouldn't that be preferable to Republicans and Democrats? (There will always be liberals ... and they'll join the Republican Party just as folks like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Spectre already do).

I want this country to be a two-party country as long as the Democrats aint one of the parties. If liberals want, they can join the Republican Party with the rest of the liberals.

Onward to the creation of the Tea Party.

8 And because it cannot be said enough, we sure dodged a bullet with that snowbilly.

9

8 Someguy,

I went home to the Democrats champ.....

10 >>>Here you go again, Ace, pushing for America to always have a Democrat Party. Why, it's almost like you want there to be Democrats. Why not just out yourself as a Democrat? Is this a joke, or are you an idiot?

11

If every member of the TEA Party would run down to their local republican party headquarters and get involved (Local, State, and Federal), they would virtually own the GOP by 2012.

They have the critical mass now to do it.

How's that for an effective shortcut to power?

12

And because it cannot be said enough, we sure dodged a bullet with that snowbilly.

Joe Biden reminds everyone that it was his idea to buy Alaska.

13

9 Jane D'oh,

Yeah she sure did miss the mark with this and "death panels"....oh wait!

14 Uh oh, I'm reading again, and it seems you're not joking.

15

"If you want to send a message, use Western Union." - Sam Goldwyn

(Obviously you can't use WU today - but the concept is still the same.)

16 I think we all know who benefits from this.

17 Onward to the creation of the Tea Party.

That certainly will achieve the destruction of one of the existing American political parties.  Just not the one you hope.

18 When the Republicans supplanted the Whigs, it was due mainly to the Whigs being unable to support ending the institution of slavery. Big issue, big fissure, one party supported freedom, the other couldn't figure out which way to go.

Result, the party that was squishy on the big issue died, and the party that supported freedom established itself as the opposition party to the now autocratic Democrats. The Republicans better get on board with the lesson.

19
lookit, as long as those pricks think they can take my vote for granted...

20 Wouldn't it be easier AND more effective for the Tea Party people to, say, join and take over big chunks of the Republican party?

It's almost like I've heard that somewhere...

21 Case in point - Sen. Scott Brown's endorsement, and plans to campaign for, John McPain. It's certainly a disappointment, but I'm still glad every day that Scott is my US Senator and not Marcia Croakley.

22 And if #8 is not a joke, someone has let Amy Bishop have the keys to intertubes.

23 >>>If every member of the TEA Party would run down to their local republican party headquarters and get involved (Local, State, and Federal), they would virtually own the GOP by 2012. Right, exactly. But the thing is, there are a lot of CRANKS in the Tea Party who don't want this, because... well, they have a crank agenda, and not a conservative agenda. they have little chance of getting their crank agenda to take hold of the GOP, so they've got their crank-hopes pinned on starting a crank-party (but with a good name and good voter trust) that they can then bend to their wills.

24

12 Jim in San Diego,

which is essentially what happened with the Whigs to lead to the GOP.  The Whigs were the patronage slinging subsidy party once upon a time they even had part of the Southern gentry but when they saw that their internal combination was dead at the national level they underwent a wide coalition metamorphosis into the GOP......

 

food for thought

25 "This is the way it works: You get 51% or you go home."

You've hit the nail on the head with that comment, Ace. And when Republicans lean left, like they did at the end of the Bush Administration ... when they nominate clearly liberal politicians like John McCain (remember Amnesty? Remember McCain-Feingold?) then you guys can just go on home.

The Tea Party exists because Republicans want to govern in a way no different than Democrats.

Here's a question: Where's the fence? Didn't John McCain promise us a fence? Where the fuck is it? Seems to me that McCain never built that fence; and he has no intention of doing it. He's just jerking us off.

So guess what. McCain can just go on home back to Arizona a loser. And he can take the rest of the Republican Party with him. I got no use for Democrats-lite.

So, the Tea Party is a construct of the Republicans. They fucked up and lost that 51% ... maybe for good.

26 @12

Beat me to it.  These are local, grassroots organizations.  A lot of local precincts and county-level party posts are empty.  Sign up, volunteer, and get voter registration drives going.  Become a ...  Community Organizer.

27 21 Wouldn't it be easier AND more effective for the Tea Party people to, say, join and take over big chunks of the Republican party?

It's almost like I've heard that somewhere...

Posted by: Harry Callahan at February 17, 2010 02:40 PM (fagDq)

That could never work!

28

24 Ace,

yup the cranks and defacto agent provactuers are trying to use the Tea party in precisely the sense you allude to as the GOPs perpetual running horse to split the center-right coalition into the "lunatic fringe" and center-right coalitions.....

29

Yup, the moose dresser gets it right...again.  Meanwhile, Joe Biden is still wrong about every single thing under the sun.  But hey, good thing he's in there and she's not, right, Chris Hitchens?  And Buckley?  And assorted other snobs?

Hannah Giles was on Fox a few minutes ago, btw.  Just thought y'all might want to know.

30
The last time I checked, Michael Steele was still in charge of the RNC.

Not only was Steele a terrible choice, but his tenure in office has been an utter failure. And we've been quite clear on what we think of Chairman Stelle.

If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about how much 'the party' gives a shit about a) winning, and b) us, I don't know what else to tell you.

31 alan, was hannah wearing her little ho shorts?

32 #8  Wiping out a rival political party?  Why that's so big and progressive an idea!  Let us go all Stalin on the Democrats!

33 How many Libertarians have been elected to any worthwhile office in America over the last 100 years? Exactly. Do you think Clinton wins in 92 without Perot? Exactly. The Tea Party is nothing but a pissed-off, fired-up Libertarian shit fit.

Palin once again shows that she is anything BUT a Bidenesque doofus.

Excellent post supreme commander.

34 The GOP has spent every waking moment since 06, Nov. 1984 undermining and opposing conservatism. I'd rather have the openly evil leftists "running everything for a generation" (hyperbole much?) than the covertly leftist, statist GOP discrediting me, personally. A "third" party with 33% of the state and national legislature under its control would get anything it wanted, since the loss of conservatives isn't going to kill the GOP outright, or empower the DNC in some Harry Potter-esque wand waving ceremony atop Mt. Rushmore.

35 If you're conservative, and you can't make inroads in your local Republican party, it's you.

36 Wow, I need to write more weapons-grade crazy posts so I can get a direct response from Ace.

37 I think someguy is saying that our "two party" system at the moment consists of Democrat and DemocratLite (with 10% more flavor). So by constantly pushing the GOP, you're pushing to maintain that not-dichotomy.

I get your point, ace. I just don't care, honestly, if the GOP ever wins again. Amnesty, TARP, and cap'n'trade are owned by the GOP. They have made sweet-sweet love to them all. I can toss in more (McCain Feingold, Medicare prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind...).

Personally, I don't care if they ever win again because they're only slightly different than the Democrats. As in slower and less principled. Aside from the occasional sop on abortion and guns, there's no there there.

I don't think a third party can win (yet). And by win, I mean displace one of the two major parties. That still doesn't make me want to change my registration to R.

38 @12 "If every member of the TEA Party would run down to their local republican party headquarters and get involved (Local, State, and Federal), they would virtually own the GOP by 2012." In many places they'd probably own it in plenty of time to impact the 2010 elections, actually.

39 YAY!


Another purity thread!

40 It's a paradox. The Tea Party can't win as a third party, but the GOP won't change without the threat of abandonment by conservatives.

41

As Milton Freidman said to Phil Donahue: Where are you going to find these angels?

 

42 I like Beck and all, but he can suck it - I'm voting straight R just like I always do, and be damned proud about it. 

Unless there's some weird ass Scozzafava situation, which is NOT the norm, I'm not wasting my vote.

43 The only true third party is the Lace Whig party.

44

Thank you Sarah!!

A third party only gaurantees the party furthest from the center a win.

45 But the thing is, there are a lot of CRANKS in the Tea Party who don't want this, because... well, they have a crank agenda, and not a conservative agenda. they have little chance of getting their crank agenda to take hold of the GOP, so they've got their crank-hopes pinned on starting a crank-party (but with a good name and good voter trust) that they can then bend to their wills.

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 02:41 PM (jlvw3)

Hey, the agenda for my crank was doing fine until just recently.

46

34 Mikey,

You mean like Chairman Soetor's "Civillian national Security Force"?

Wiping out the lunatic red socialist democratic party and replacing it with the rebirth of the scoop jacksonians would be a worthwhile thing.

47 A little verbose, Ace, but articulate, nonetheless.  I don't generally advocate the reach-around, but someone owes you one for this post.

48

was hannah wearing her little ho shorts?

Couldn't tell.  She was in studio behind a desk, talking about what a joke ACORN is.

49 Um Ace, great post n stuff, but a few errors. GOP candidates need 53% of the vote for a win and Dems need 48%. Once the Dem shenanigans take place, the GOP drops to 50%+1 with the 53%. The Dem vaults to 50%+1 with the 48% of the vote after the Dem shenanigans.

In theory you were right, in practice, wrong.

50 A USA without the democrat party would still have liberals.  A lot of liberals.

52% of voters picked Obama.  I think some kind of New Party pinko outfit would fill the void if the dems disappeared.

But that's absurd.  the democrat party is simply not going anywhere, probably ever.  It's so entrenched with special powers and groups all over.  It's here to stay and the idea that the TEA party could replace that is idiotic.

The TEA party should take over both the GOP and the democrats.  If you're left leaning on stuff but want fiscal sanity, just take over the dems while we take over the GOP.

And fuck Ron Paul.  We need to have this fight now.  the TEA party should simply repudiate those nuts.  It might cost a bit, but that's small potatoes in the long run.

51 42 It's a paradox. The Tea Party can't win as a third party, but the GOP won't change without the threat of abandonment by conservatives.

Posted by: Bugler at February 17, 2010 02:44 PM (YCVBL)

The GOP WILL change if the TEA Party types show up and do it. Change from within is way more rapid than from without.

52 Good post, and third parties are a horrible idea unless you want a democrat to win. Also, the Tea Party is attracting the undesirables and crazies that should remain homeless.

53 Steele is finally meeting face to face with Tea Party leaders, so they may have pulled their RINO heads out of their "moderate" asses and recognized the power in the Tea Party movement. Assimilation is imminent.

54

I really think this is a big attraction of this third party idea -- that this party, this party that doesn't exist yet, hasn't betrayed us and hasn't failed us.

Very much like how I became so popular.  There was so much nothing here that people could make me anything they wanted me to be!

55 MiketheMoose, your geneology is wrong.

Despite the names, the Republican Party of 1860 is the Democratic Party of today.

Look at the electoral maps and registrations of then and now.

The Republicans of 1860 were the whacked out, moralistic, ram-it-down-your-throat progressives. The Democrats were the weaker conservative (if you will) party.

BOth of those parties died in the 1920s and were reborn again in the progressive Democrats of FDR and the wishy-washy moderates of Eisenhower.

56

53,

 

Ron paul and the Ronulans make me want to borrow Barry's bus.....

57 Wow,  Over at Reuters, Obama is being SLAMMED by Conservatives so much in the comment that the usual weenies that go there think it's all 'created'.  Look at this post for example:

"Everyone, check the timing and wording of all these responses. It appears to me that they are artificially created. I think we have a republicon propaganda machine on our hands in this forum. I didnÂ’t know they knew how to use a computer."

No no, it couldn't possibly be that Obama has pissed off more than half of the country.  Fucking idiots

58

42 It's a paradox. The Tea Party can't win as a third party, but the GOP won't change without the threat of abandonment by conservatives actually getting involved in the party on local, county and state levels.

 

There - FTFY.

59

T'he Tea Party should disband.

The next push - be it against Immigration, Card-Check, whatever... should adopt a new 'Theme'. 

Go ahead and name it after something more appealing to the likes of Olberman, Matthews, Cooper, Maddow. 

Those Guys are just itchin' for the 'Reach Arounder's' or the 'Ball Hoggers' movement. 

My point is simply that the 'Tea Party' was a grassroots uprising to counter the cowardice of the Elected Representatives in Congress.  Becoming a Party unto themselves robs the 'movement' of its only power.

It is self-serving.

60 Spoken like a true Whig. Hoist the banner, somethin' is going down this time around!

61 49 A little verbose, Ace, but articulate, nonetheless.  I don't generally advocate the reach-around, but someone owes you one for this post.

Posted by: Jazz at February 17, 2010 02:46 PM (hnq5i)

Did someone say reach-around?

62

push/vote for the most Tea Party aligned candidate in the Primaries then in the General push/vote for the most Tea Party aligned candidate who 99% of the time will be the GOP candidate ...

When it comes to Congress even RINO's count toward ownership of the Speakers seat and committees ..  the Party that gets to introduce bills is the one with the highest number, its that simple ...  it doesn't matter if they won't always vote as an (R) ...  they won't see any liberal bills to vote on ...

Win back the House with anyone with an (R) after their name ...  Yes, fight like hell for a Tea Party aligned candidiates but in the end pull the lever for the (R) in the General ...

If the Dems try to use reconcilliation to push this monster thru they'll need to start picking out streetpoles ...

63 "... they have a crank agenda, and not a conservative agenda. they have little chance of getting their crank agenda to take hold of the GOP, so they've got their crank-hopes pinned on starting a crank-party."

That's just the kind of attitude that will lead to the destruction of the Republican Party.

Republicans can obviate the need for a Tea Party by turning right. Where's the fence? With 25 million Americans unemployed why is there one fucking illegal alien left in our country taking jobs away from Americans?

Turning right is the only salvation for the Republican Party. You can whine about that all you want, but that's your choice:  Turn right or fuck off. We'll do this shit ourselves without you.

Up to you, kid.

64 Annabelle, exactly.  Exhibit A:  Debra "Truther" Medina.  A very bright light needs to shine on the fringe elements. 

65

here comes the whining again. America is not now nor was it ever a two party government. That's a fallacy. that we've lazily defaulted to this two party structure is part of the problem.

if the Republican party doesn't remake itself, in other words if the tea party movement doesn't take over the Republican party then absolutely there should and will be a third party.

The people that want to limit this fight to a Democrat/Republican only affair, are fooling themselves. There will NEVER be a sufficient threat from within the ranks of either party to effect real change. and as long as they can keep throwing the fear of god into people with threats like "imagine a generation of Democratic rule", then we will never escape from this cycle. don't let them continue to use you in this way. WE'VE HAD 70 YEARS OF LIBERAL RULE! Be bold enough to invest the time in building a party that actually moves us in the conservative direction.

I guarantee you that a serious third party threat will move BOTH major parties in the direction of the upstart third party. But without a third party threat you will get only token gestures from Republicans, enough to keep you all believing that one day they will find their way. When I hear Republicans crying about a third party, it confirms to me that its the right thing to do.

66 Uh oh.  Someone just espoused heresy against The Only Man That Can Save America.  And I thought I was going to get through the whole day without the sound of screeching monkeys furiously flapping their wings.

67

Go ahead and name it after something more appealing to the likes of Olberman, Matthews, Cooper, Maddow. 

Those Guys are just itchin' for the 'Reach Arounder's' or the 'Ball Hoggers' movement. 

My point is simply that the 'Tea Party' was a grassroots uprising to counter the cowardice of the Elected Representatives in Congress.  Becoming a Party unto themselves robs the 'movement' of its only power.

It is self-serving.

Posted by: garrett at February 17, 2010 02:49 PM (FwxQB)

How about the party of "The Middle Fingers?"

68 The Tea party movement and sites like this can feed conservative campaigns and starve the RNC. Once the money is gone from the RNC they will come around to being conservative again.

69

the GOP won't change without the threat of abandonment by conservatives actually getting involved in the party on local, county and state levels.

FTW.  Stop yer whining and fix the only party that can actually be fixed.  The other one's too far gone now.

70 Mikey NTH gets it.

It's on YOU to get involved with your local GOP.  Stop whining that they aren't scared enough of you voting for someone else.  That's what got us Obama.  the GOP needs your vote if you want to stop the Obama madness, and it needs you to get involved at the precinct level and upward from there.  If you are actually attending TEA protests, you give enough of a shit to get involved and fix the GOP.  Stop telling this "they" to do what you have to do.

We are the Tea+GOP we've been waiting for.

Oh, if you like Ron Paul, stay out of our way.

71 Once the money is gone from the RNC they will come around to being conservative again.* Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 17, 2010 02:52 PM (tf9Ne) * for one midterm election cycle, then back to business as usual.

72 I guarantee you that a serious third party threat will move BOTH major parties in the direction of the upstart third party.

I guarantee that you're absolutely wrong.  Why in hell would the Democrats move in the direction of an unelectable-on-its-own third party that splits the votes of their only legitimate competition?  Or did I miss the part where the Democrats responded to the Perot effect by becoming more fiscally responsible?

73

1) It aligns with and merges with the Republican Party.

2) The Republican Party aligns with and merges with the Tea Party.

I mean, they're essentially the same thing

The "Republican Party" is a group of politicians and some voters who find them more useful than a pile of dog poo.
The "Tea Party" is a group of voters and a politician here and there.

Obviously it's in both groups' interests to get along, but being of the latter, I'd prefer the politicians volunteer to give up some of their preferences (Yes, I know the strawman the compromisers always make about them wanting to win with 60% while the purists want to lose with 30%.  I'd be satisfied with winning with 52%.). 

That bit about principles gets over blown, too.  We're spending twice as much on government as we can afford.  The solution to that, principle or not is to cut federal spending to affordable levels (or at least most of the way so that the economy has a chance to grow to a point the new level is affordable)-raising taxes is not an option either practically nor politically.  This is going to happen.  The question is whether it's at a time of our choosing (after the next election) or suddenly, without warning (because the rest of the world cannot or will not keep buying our debt).

74

Palin has always been consistent on this no matter what the idiots in the media have said. She has always said she is a Republican and supports the Republican Party.

That being said I have to say that Consituionaly there is zero support for the so-called two party system.  The public has allowed that to evolve and if the public would ever take a real stand it can just as easily unevolve.

All it would take is to elliminate the way we run elections in this country. Get ALL the States to enact laws to prevent out of State money from contributing to State candidates and stop ALL State support for primaries. That would pretty much kill both national parties.

Also, the danger hear is NOT that a hypothetical Tea Party would be a 3rd party, if the polls are currently accurate the Republican Party has become the 3rd Party and is siphoning off votes from the Tea Party. 

75 In order for this two-party system to work, I mean really work, the conversion must go one way. The "Tea Party" needs to hijack the GOP and not the other way 'round. If it's the GOP that adopts the Tea Party, you can bet the transition will be exceedingly brief and more of an exploitative move on the part of D.C., centrist machinery. We've been there, done that already with the Perot "tantrum." That lasted about one election cycle. It was a failure as far as ratcheting back government to a smaller footprint. That's the way all of these "revolutions" have gone.

So yes, Ace, the most expeditious pathway to conservatism is to use the two-party system with an almost complete gutting of the GOP with a new foundation built with Tea Party blood; however, if the change is only a vote-grabbing exercise via the entrenched, then this is totally futile. Statism will continue, expand, and then we'll collapse. Utterly. That is our historic trend and the one that will assuredly continue if the GOP hijacks the Tea Party core. Political optimism will not trump human cynicism if it's the cynics who determine the path.

76
3rd parties are loser magnets.  Every malcontent and misfit who make the perfect the enemy of the good is drawn to them with dreams of hot tubing with Ross Perot at the White House,  making YouTube videos at the governor's mansion with Debra Medina of bonfires getting steel really hot,  but not melting it or sharing a crack pipe with Bob Barr in the Oval Office.

77 You can't repudiate Ron Paul without repudiating his principles...which is to repudiate the TP movement itself. We need electoral reform to remove the artificial impediments to 3rd parties. But that will never happen unless the TP co-opts one of the two existing parties...at which point they'll stop being for reform and start being for preserving their own power. However, at least they'll HAVE power. Look at the Socialist Party, and how that platform succeeded through the Democrats. Then copy, adjust, implement.

78

I had this exact converstaion with someone about an hour ago -- paragraphs 5 through 9 to be specific. (Spooky.)

Then the other guy said something about amending the Constitution, or something. Things devolve quickly when I "seriously" discuss politics or government with people.

79 >>> the GOP won't change without the threat of abandonment by conservatives. you don't think it's changed? A ship goes further with the wind at its aft than with the wind at its fore. (I have no idea if that's the way to say that; I'm not T. Coddington Van Vorhees VII.) What you guys are noticing is that when the political winds were against the GOP, they tacked left. What did you expect? And now, with the winds in their sails, they're flying right. This is normal. Anyone who thinks a political party isn't going to do some shucking and jiving and adjusting when they are getting DEMOLISHED is... kind of goofy. Are you voting for human beings? Do you agree that we are best served having actual human beings as representatives? I agree with you in principle-- the threat is important. A party must know that it cannot take its base for granted. But the GOP isn't unable to enact certain things just because they're "sell-outs." On most issues, they fail (when they fail) because the public is not with them, and this is a democracy, and in a democracy, the public gets its way. I am bothered by the constant suggestion that we are thisclose to winning on everything but what stops us from winning is corrupt conspiracies to sell us out. No, it's not a conspiracy. (Well, in a few areas-- like immigration -- yeah, that was a conspiracy of the leaders against the base.) In most cases it's because we just don't have the popular support for our agenda, and some people don't seem to take that into account. This is a democracy. (Republic, some will say -- well, it's both. it's a democratic republic.) In a democracy, the people must be listened to. And not just you -- I mean, if 60% of the people disagree with you on the issue, should THEY be ignored? This is just political reality. We win on 60% issues. We *sometimes* win on 50% issues. We almost never win on 40% issues. That is how it works.

80
You know what the funny thing is? Even the Democrats have enough sense to adopt conservative positions during election seasons. But the Republicans shiver in their boots when the idea of conservatism is mentioned.

81 "Turn right or fuck off. We'll do this shit ourselves without you.

Up to you, kid.
Posted by: someguy"

You're probably just some moby, but the idea that ace and Palin are not turning the GOP to the right is ridiculous.

The idea that you're in charge and we have to do what some asshole says is ridiculous.  Fuck Ron Paul cranks.  You are not the path to winning.  You're just a bunch of idiots.  Your purity party isn't going to accomplish jack shit.

You just want a huge threadwar between Ron Paul cranks and Republicans, instead of people coming together to agree to fight the democrats.  You think we don't see that?

Fuck Ron "Earmark" Paul and his nazi newsletter.  It's amazing how he's not responsible for a newsletter he paid for, but he is responsible for a TEA party he has absolutely nothing to do with.

We don't want your help.  We don't need your help.  And you're never going to follow you.  We understand that you are a democrat or an idiot who will ultimately serve them accidentally.

82

From my involvement in big-L Libertarianism, I can say the Libertarian party had a plausible-sounding strategy when it was founded.  That was, get enough of the vote share to be a threat and have part of their platform co-opted by one or the other of the major parties.  This has actually happened once in American history with the socialists in the 1930's.  They got a congressman elected, and double digit vote percentages, and they had their agenda co-opted by the Democrat party.  So we had a plausible strategy, but it obviously didn't work out.  In hindsight, the American socialist platform getting co-opted by the New Deal Democrats was a one time event.  It had more particular reasons than just electing a congressman and hitting double digits in the vote.

But while official party Libertarianism was spinning its wheels, small-L libertarianism, think-tank economic libertarianism has made some amazing strides.  We haven't gotten everything we'd like but we've gotten a lot compared to where we'd be without it.  And we have influenced a core agreement between right-leaning or economics focused libertarians and small government conservatives.  In other words, the people who moved the ball didn't try to make lightning strike twice.

But the Tea Party isn't a think-tank based movement.  And recreating the 1930's socialist lightning strike would be a long shot.  Displacing the GOP as a major party isn't totally inconceivable, but it is a big longshot, and would take a while, during which Dems would rule, as Ace says.

The Tea Party is ideally positioned to take over the GOP at the precinct level.  Which has already been pointed out, and the smart ones are already doing.  This is a bigger deal than the third-party people may realize.  Taking over a major party is a once in a lifetime opportunity.  Don't like the GOP as constituted?  Fine; take it over and run it.  That is within reach.

83 All it would take is to elliminate the way we run elections in this country. Get ALL the States to enact laws to prevent out of State money from contributing to State candidates and stop ALL State support for primaries. That would pretty much kill both national parties.

So "all it would take" is to convince a critical mass of politicians -- politicians aligned with said political parties and to whom they owe their professional fortunes -- to slit their own throats and starve their benefactors?

84 Spot on Ace.  The Tea Party movement just needs to influence and/or take over the Republican party.  On the primary level the cadidate that gets the Tea Party endorsement will be the most conservative and hopefully win with that support behind them.   

85
You're probably just some moby...

aww jeez don't start this shit again

86

I'm really glad Palin said that (and stupids call her stupid).

I voted for Perot back when. He was for getting the waste out of Washington! I honestly don't remember what else he was for... but he was for getting the waste out of Washington! I made homemade signs and went to his rallies; I got him to autograph his book; I went to MO by bus with a load of Perotians to watch a live debate with him, Bush, and Clinton.

OK, I'm not aware of his doing anything disappointing or being human... but I confess; my vote helped put Clinton back in office.

87 I was a member of the Republican Party for decades.  When they tried to push amnesty down my throat I questioned, for the first time, whether I was in the right party.  All the hateful Palin blaming after McAmensty's defeat caused me to think that these are not my people.  Since then I don't take it personally when the Republicans betray their ideals.  They are not betraying me, anymore, they are betraying the saps who believed them.  This is good for my mental and emotional health.  I will continue to mostly vote Republican because the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate but it will take something more than an "aw shucks, we messed up" to get me to even consider rejoining the party.

I odn't know if that is good or bad for conservtive politics but I refuse to be betrayed again. 

88 "I read all this fine rhetoric and cant about principles and integrity that
has nothing to do with the real world.  There is little allowance made
for the exigencies of the real world."

Here's some real world for you.

McCain Republicans can't win elections. Period.

You need us more than we need you. If you want power, you have to come to us; and we have a price. You either pay that price, or you fucking live with Democrats running shit.

That simple.

You see, to us, you're not much different than a Democrat to start with ... so we're pragmatic about it. We know that you need us more than we need you. So, pay our price or fuck off.

You want to run Democrat lites? Then go home. You want to run guys who favor creating 50 state Amtrac's, then go home. That's the real world you're advocating. You might win an election in Florida. You might win an election in Montana, but you won't win national elections with guys who are voting to piss away federal tax dollars on railroad fucking tracks, dude.

High speed rail is Democrat Hack Job Bonanza. That is all it is. And Marco Rubio should fucking have the balls to say that. He'd earn a vote that way instead of sucking Democrat cocks trying to get himself elected by seeing how much Democrat semen he can swallow.

Turn right, or go home and we'll start a new gig and do it ourselves.

That's your choice.

89 " You can't repudiate Ron Paul without repudiating his principles...which is to repudiate the TP movement itself. We need electoral reform to remove the artificial impediments to 3rd parties. But that will never happen unless the TP co-opts one of the two existing parties...at which point they'll stop being for reform and start being for preserving their own power. However, at least they'll HAVE power.

Look at the Socialist Party, and how that platform succeeded through the Democrats. Then copy, adjust, implement. Posted by: Jeffrey Quick"

LOL.

Ron Paul is a fucking racist.  He is a joke and no one takes him seriously.  He has nothing to do with the TEA party.  Those who think he IS the TEA party is simply idiots.

He loves pork spending. He's obviously the kind of politician the TEA party is against.

We'll see more and more of this stupid crap, claiming we have to repudiate the whole TEA party or Ron Paul is our new leader.  OK.  the voters told Ron Paul to fucking go away from national politics.  There.  Repudiated.  DONE.

90

We'll do this shit ourselves without you.

No, you won't.

In my own take on the issues of the day in rank order--war, deficit and energy--There are clear, stark differences between the parties.  And let's be up front about the immigration issue--illegal immigration is the problem--not the legal kind.  If we lose our place as THE place the world wants to go--we're not the U.S. any more.  I am completely in favor of fences and deportations.  I am not in favor of "border control" being a code phrase for racism. 

And, just to be clear, "someguy", I'm pretty much convinced at this point that you're an Axelrod plant of some sort.

 

91

There are only two paths to actual Tea Party power:

1) It aligns with and merges with the Republican Party.

2) The Republican Party aligns with and merges with the Tea Party.

Or 3, become the new Christian Collaition - not policy-wise, but a bloc of voters that the GOP must not alienate or they will stay home and withhold money.  This could happen in scenario 1 or 2, but the Tea people don't have to formally become part of the party.  Most of them are disaffected Republicans anyways.

92 I just really hope idiots like Glenn Beck don't go full third party on us just as we're about to take back the congress (well at least even it up a bit). This is really the only foreseeable way we'll lose in 2010.

93 We need a third and forth party in this country - we need the Green party to represent the interests of Gaia and the New party to demand support for our neglected urban poor. They should get more funding and equal access on NPR.

94
btw, it's pretty obvious Sarah Palin just said that to cover her ass with the GOP in case she wants to run again in the future. It was a smart thing to do, or else she risks being marginalized by the GOP just like Pat Buchanan is now.

When Pat Buchanan went with the Reform Party, he was finished in the GOP. If Sarah Palin aligns herself too closely with the Tea Party movement, she risks being alienated, perhaps blackballed, by the GOP, because it appears in some instances the Tea Party is undermining the GOP.

95

Are you forgetting about NY-23?

No I am not. The guy she supported WAS a Republican. He had to run as an independent because the corrupt RINOs placed a RINO candidate in the election without letting the people choose.

96 We could do worse than having the Tea Party turn out to be the GOP's Tamany Hall, or the Army's Sons of Cincinnatus...

97 "Are you forgetting about NY-23? Maybe she learned something from that but it's not exactly what I'd call consistent.
Posted by: lowandslow"

that was a disaster.  but I don't think it makes Palin a hypocrite.  We have a Ron Paul supporting democrat screwing up the race.  She probably hates Jews and blacks and has an infantile theory of the economy like Ron Paul, but we know for sure she loves spending the people's money on her friends, like Ron Paul.   Ron Paul has an R next to his name, but he's really a liberal.  He says he's a conservative as a smokescreen so he can keep spending our money on his campaign contributors.

Anyway, I hope the GOP stays out of primaries in the future.  It's annoying and a real problem.  Palin made the right call, and it's not her fault we lost that election.

98 >>>That being said I have to say that Consituionaly there is zero support for the so-called two party system. The public has allowed that to evolve and if the public would ever take a real stand it can just as easily unevolve. Rolling eyes. Rolling eyes, rolling eyes, rolling eyes. The constitution doesn't mandate a two-party system but the winner-take-all/individual elections creates that system, structurally. They didn't intend this -- but that's precisely what they set up. >>>All it would take is to elliminate the way we run elections in this country. Get ALL the States to enact laws to prevent out of State money from contributing to State candidates and stop ALL State support for primaries. That would pretty much kill both national parties. Oh really vic, is that "ALL" it would take? Is that it? We just need to ban the parties -- itself an unconstitutional law, by the way? Is that "ALL" we need to do to make your fantasy-politics wannabe-revolutionary masturbatory fever-dreams come true? Really? We just have to pass a raft of constitutional amendments to fundamentally change the constitution and then your make-pretend D&D fantasy-politics can happen? Do go on. I'm all ears. Hey I've got an idea -- since we're making nonsense up, I say we merge the 50 states into 10 "Super-States" and give them new names and shit and give them 20 senators each and elect senators from a slate like they do in Europe and also establish four senate seats not from any particular state but elected nationally, so that some senators have a national constituency, and we stop calling them Senators and instead call them "Exarchs" because it's cooler and then... Is this fucking science fiction, dude? What. the. Fuck. Dreamy-eyed revolutionaries. Like I said.

99

Go ahead and name it after something more appealing to the likes of Olberman, Matthews, Cooper, Maddow. 

The Minivan party?

 

100

I just really hope idiots like Glenn Beck don't go full third party on us

Too late; he is a big L liberatarian and he has been on the R = D and both are just as evil kick for a long time. When he gets on that kick I turn him off.

101 Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.
Friedrich Nietzsche

102 And, just to be clear, "someguy", I'm pretty much convinced at this point that you're an Axelrod plant of some sort. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 17, 2010 03:00 PM (B+qrE) Shit, dude. I was only born yesterday, and I'm not buying your Moby cry. There are a lot of us conservatives out there who truly despise the GOP for its betrayals, for lack of action on abortion, for amnesty, for the unchecked expansion of government, for the obvious attempts to stifle free speech.

103 >>>You need us more than we need you. I don't need you at all. You're a crank. Cranks don't win elections, they just yell a lot. In fact, they usually don't even vote. So I count you as one of the disaffected malcontents that hasn't been voting Republican anyway (if at all). So we can't "lose" your vote; we never had it. There's a certain percentage of the population --10% -- which is either crank, fringe, or just doesn't fit well in either party (such as libertarians who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative - perfectly fine slate of positions, but doesnt' fit with either party). We give up on the 10%, same as we always have. Can't play to the cranks.

104

exceller

Just like Ross Perot mover everyone to the right.

105 Under the parliamentary system , Canada might have been a better choice for your example . For most of the 90's and early 00's the conservative movement , such as it is was a thorough shambles . The Reform Party and Progressive Conservative Party's merged early in this decade to form a "united right " . The Reform Party bears some resemblance to the Tea Party movement in as much as it was grassroots to begin with ( running on smaller , more accountable fiscally responsible , transparent , add what ever you want here .....government) but has since become enamoured with the trappings of power and has proven themselves to be anything but . The alternative , was , and is , far worse though .

106 someguy is not your friend an dhe hates your country.  He likes Ron Paul, a hardcore liberal who tried to sabotage our war effort, take gear from our troops in battle, and spent a ridiculous amount of money on graft style pork.

He pretends to be this awesome hardcore conservative, but his votes prove he's just another liberal.  He wants to take over the TEA party because he knows that people won't support him or his ideas (which are totally different from the idea of less earmark spending and sane national defense). 

Ron Paul tried to get his message out there, and the people heard it and 99.6% of them said "NO".  So he's trying to hide behind Palin's message of strong defense and less earmark bullshit.  He's an old corrupt thug with a lot of white supremacist supporters.  In other words, a Democrat pretending to be a Republican.

What's really damn amusing about Someguy is that Ron Paul DOES run as a Republican.  He get's Ace's tactical point.  Running a third party = losing.  He won't run on his own 3rd party ticket for his corrupt House Seat.

107 Both of the current major parties collude to prevent people they don't want from gaining access. If you try to work within the system like I have in the Republican party you find out soon enough that you run into a brick wall. A group of power-brokers in the back rooms call the shots and decide who gets what. It's corrupt and it should die, and it would die if people just refused to get herded like cows into these two channels. Both channels lead to the slaughterhouse folks. 

108 OT:  Over at HotAir, there's talk of the "healthcare summit" being a trap; a diversion.  THAT'S THREAD WORTHY.

109
holy shit, now Glenn Beck is an idiot?

Are you people for real? Glenn Beck has (indirectly) done more for the Republican party than all those shitheels in the party, combined.

Thank God we have people like Glenn Beck, who agrees with us 95% of the time, out there speaking up for us.

110 yeah, FUCK RON PAUL. I think that's a lot of this crap -- the Paulites, who are determined they're going to start a crank revolution one way or the other.

111 Anyway, I hope the GOP stays out of primaries in the future.  It's annoying and a real problem.  Palin made the right call, and it's not her fault we lost that election.

Posted by: ducks Under Oklahoma ASCEND at February 17, 2010 03:03 PM (dUOK+)

Especially considering there was no primary in NY23 - it can hardly be used as an example.

112 >>>If you try to work within the system like I have in the Republican party you find out soon enough that you run into a brick wall. Has it occurred to you that maybe people don't agree with you? >>> A group of power-brokers in the back rooms call the shots and decide who gets what. Conspiracy. "If I don't get my way, it must be due to a conspiracy."

113

do you mean Ross Perot accomplished nothing?

 

114

Oh really vic, is that "ALL" it would take? Is that it? We just need to ban the parties -- itself an unconstitutional law, by the way?

Roll eyes, roll eyes; It seems you are having trouble reading Ace. I didn't say ban the Party, I said for individual States to ban out of State contributions for State office. That is constitutional. No amendments required.

Dreamy-eyed revolutionaries. Like I said

The rest of your post is just stupid. 

What will happen if we continue in the path we are going now is civil war and a balkinization. We will break up into individual countries all ruled by military juntas, but not before 100 million people are killed.

Just pray that the Republican Party pulls its head out of its ass. The first thing they need to be doing is changing the primary rules and that has not even been discussed yet.

What about all those polls that you like so much?  They are currently rating the Republicans as the 3rd Party.

 

115 There are a lot of us conservatives out there who truly despise the GOP for its betrayals, for lack of action on abortion, for amnesty, for the unchecked expansion of government, for the obvious attempts to stifle free speech. Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard ---------------------------------------------- I think you're confusing an inanimate object (the Republican Party) with the people running it. The GOP didn't betray you because the GOP is just a name. Just replace the people running it (the people you actually have a problem with) and it can be completely different. Bottom line is this: You either stand with the Republicans or you're paving the way for the Democrats.

116 I love it when Ace mixes it up with the moronic hoi polloi...

117 Some of our founding fathers wanted a 2 party system.  Some didn't.  Some didn't really give a shit.

It's really that simple.

If you didn't know that some founders loved the 2 party system, you're probably deeply ignorant of our country.

Also, a system with lots of other parties gives a lot more power to cranks.  It's not a bad thing that we have to go forward without someguy's help.  That's a feature, not a bug.

We don't have KKK parties and gold standard parties and psycho parties.  Obama had to pretend to be a democrat and Ron Paul a Republican.  They have to temper their retardation as much as they can.  that's the beauty of the 2 party system.  It's slow and inefficient and it also protects us from powerful psychos like Ron Paul.

I love the 2 party system, while I note that it presents several frustrations and problems.  I have to choose between the D and R, even though  both have really fucked up a lot.

I chose R and I will try to repair the GOP from the inside.  We can absolutely do it.  The GOP practically wants us to do it.  And whether Ron Paul likes it or not, we're going to succeed at doing it.  All the Senate races are going to cement this TEA=GOP thing.

118 >>>What about all those polls that you like so much? They are currently rating the Republicans as the 3rd Party. Really? A party without a known agenda and which doesn't have to take stances on contentious issues like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, cutting Medicaid, etc., is outpolling a party which does? Wow. Where have I ever seen that effect before.

119 A group of power-brokers in the back rooms call the shots and decide who gets what. It's corrupt and it should die, and it would die if people just refused to get herded like cows into these two channels. Both channels lead to the slaughterhouse folks. 

Posted by: exceller at February 17, 2010 03:09 PM (jx2Td)

And all those democrats who say that their party has been taken over by the extreme left?  Yeah, I can see how the wackos now in power really ran into a brick wall there - ran right into the Oval Office wall.  It sure as hell wasn't because the DNC is less corrupt and therefore more willing to be taken over.

This idea that the conservatives can't take back the GOP/RNC and should therefore go third party is ludicrous.

120 The TEA Party, seems the best way to reach the tone deaf Republicans, that spending money, hand over fist, on social construction programs and driving us into further debt obligations is unacceptable. Obama ran under a budget cutting platform, then promptly put a 3x on the deficit. Instantly a large portion of conservative America saw it could not be represented by either party.

Their needs to be teeth at this point for them to get the message.
WE REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME.  Am I registered Republican, absolutely, even attend local party meetings and stuff. But this slower slide into socialism has to stop. And they need to know that conservatives will actively split off and will support a candidate that delivers the goods. Since both parties think those "Independent Voters" are so cool they need to be groveled to at every election for the win, then Conservatism needs to become the largest independent voting block. Our insistent loyalty to the GOP has gotten us nothing, with the party pandering to the disloyal middle. I kind think I feel the same way minorities in the Democrat party feel, they get nothing from the party, because the party assumes the votes belong to them.  I for one can't be a professional politician, as many if not most true conservatives cannot (We have to work and support our families), so if it takes the threat of a new party to scare the bejeezus out of the Republican, let's run with Dede to get moderates, establishment, Then that's what it takes.

121 I almost think the Tea Party has run it's course, as garret said. I like the idea of abandoning it to the fringe that's claiming it and picking a new name with a new topic. As for insisting the GOP move more right or scew 'em, that's rediculous. That's why dems are losing and quitting right now - they're moving more and more to the left with some saying go more left and that will make everyone agree. Neither party can win that way.

122 I am not a Republican Shill, and I say she (and Ace) are exactly right.
I did not vote for McCain since I felt that as bad as Barry is, it was only a choice of which lane on the highway to hell I preferred. It made sense then (to me) to not support either, and I would have supported a third party since the Republicans needed to stop. turn around. and go in the other direction. They are doing that now. Actually, since last Spring they have started to understand and have started behaving in a supportable manner. This is accelerating.

To support a third party today will only tell the Republicans that playing to the right does not buy them anything and instead they should play to the center and try to emulate the machine politics that have served them so mediocrely the past ten years.

123 Is that "ALL" we need to do to make your fantasy-politics wannabe-revolutionary masturbatory fever-dreams come true?

Really? We just have to pass a raft of constitutional amendments to fundamentally change the constitution and then your make-pretend D&D fantasy-politics can happen?

Do go on. I'm all ears.

Hey I've got an idea -- since we're making nonsense up, I say we merge the 50 states into 10 "Super-States" and give them new names and shit and give them 20 senators each and elect senators from a slate like they do in Europe and also establish four senate seats not from any particular state but elected nationally, so that some senators have a national constituency, and we stop calling them Senators and instead call them "Exarchs" because it's cooler and then...

Is this fucking science fiction, dude?

What. the. Fuck.

Dreamy-eyed revolutionaries. Like I said.

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:04 PM (jlvw3)

Ace, that was absolutely fucking awesome!

124 I chose R and I will try to repair the GOP from the inside.  We can absolutely do it.  The GOP practically wants us to do it.  And whether Ron Paul likes it or not, we're going to succeed at doing it.  All the Senate races are going to cement this TEA=GOP thing.

Posted by: ducks Under Oklahoma ASCEND at February 17, 2010 03:13 PM (dUOK+)

Preach.

125

I agree that while there's no specific requirement of a two party system, the 50%+1 winner-take-all system of voting leads inevitably to a two party system.  However, I disagree that anything short of buying into the Republican party is counter productive for conservative political goals over several election cycles.  Yes, conservatives voting for Perot lost the GOP the presidency; but as a result, the congress critters for the GOP started chirping like conservatives to get elected, and won a massive landslide in 1994. 

If the Republicans start thinking they have to become more conservative to continue winning elections, they'll become more conservative.  They're not going to think that if they win elections while being squishy.  It's not as if the GOP is entirely unable to move right. 

Of course, if the conservative voters are reduced to the point they don't matter in winning elections, then they become cranks that don't matter to politics.  But conservatism is important politically precisely because it can make or break a republican politician's ability to get elected.

126

We will break up into individual countries all ruled by military juntas, but not before 100 million people are killed

*ahem* ....not so fast

127 "If you try to work within the system like I have in the Republican party you find out soon enough that you run into a brick wall."

Well yeah, when you try to outlaw interaccial marriage or whatever Ron Paul garbage you want.

We're just trying to make a GOP that is strong on defense and sustainable on spending and out of the way of the economy.  It's something that can be done.  But if you try to work in the system to do ridiculous shit, you run into a brick wall.

BECAUSE YOU SHOULD.  That's the fucking point of the system... to weed out idiotic stuff.  That's why Ron Paul needs a 3rd party... he can't sell his ideas without hiding them and keeping them from scrutiny.  He can't even take credit for the newsletters he owned and paid for.  He's just a coward.

128 holy shit, now Glenn Beck is an idiot? Are you people for real? Glenn Beck has (indirectly) done more for the Republican party than all those shitheels in the party, combined. Thank God we have people like Glenn Beck, who agrees with us 95% of the time, out there speaking up for us. Posted by: This is Russell Johnson as the Professor ------------------------------------------------ Glenn Beck does some good stuff and I was a fan of his back in the day but his constant warnings of the apocalypse and hawking of his own products ("This seminar will help you survive the coming apocalypse!") gets mighty tiring. And yes, his agitations for a third party are idiotic.

129 What ace said.

130 Michael Steele would earn some respect from me if he threw Ron Paul out of the Republican party. Rescind his membership, bounce him from the caucus, send him a cease and desist letter for the use of Republican names, logo's, etc. Publicly and specifically identify his racist connections and truther BS. I know we need every vote right now - but that would make it all the more meaningful.

131

Thank God we have people like Glenn Beck, who agrees with us 95% of the time, out there speaking up for us.

Absolutely. He shines a light in dark corners. He is an asset 90% + of the time. I am thankful for him. And his bashing of the GOP is more often deserved than not. Hell, we all bash them. That doesn't mean I will vote Democrat, or stay home.

132 Posted by: nine coconuts at February 17, 2010 03:15 PM (DHNp4)

Do you regret not voting for McCain now?  Really?

133

You can't repudiate Ron Paul without repudiating his principles

Which principles - the ones where he runs as a garden variety conservative at home while acting like a moonbat the rest of the time?  The ones where he's all about being a small gov libertarian until he gets a sniff of sweet, sweet federal pork?  Or the ones where he lets some yob run his newsletter and it gets turned into a racist rag?  Or the ones where he blames America for bringing 9-11 on itself and flirts with the Troofers?

Audit the Fed, fine, whatever.  But what actual principles does Ron Paul embody?  Seems to me he's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

134

holy shit, now Glenn Beck is an idiot?

No he is a retard, he has some good staffers that have dug up some damning stuff on Obama appointees but listening to the guy talk is just too much for me. I don't know if I agree with him personally or not because I can't stand to listen to him or watch men cry on talk shows.

If he is clammering for a third party you can add loser to retard. Third party=loser, always has and always will.

135

<i>the Tea Party is uncorrupted precisely because it's not -- yet -- part of the inherently corrupting process of politics</i>

As any gown-up knows, life sucks, and once you realize life sucks, life can be pretty great.

You can get mad at God for making life suck, but it will do you no good.

God also made politics and government necessary; that's part of what makes life suck.  No getting around it.

It sucks when you first realize that every single politician is corrupt to some degree, otherwise they would not be a politician.  Willing corruptness is a prerequisite.

You just hope that their corruption is a bizarre sort of self-sacrificing, nobly-intended corruption, and not some soul-eating malignancy.  Same for parties.

A <i>foolish</i> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Again, that's something God made true so life sucks at least enough to keep us on our toes.  Who knows why?  Just the way it is.

 

 

136

And all those democrats who say that their party has been taken over by the extreme left?  Yeah, I can see how the wackos now in power really ran into a brick wall there - ran right into the Oval Office wall.  It sure as hell wasn't because the DNC is less corrupt and therefore more willing to be taken over.

This idea that the conservatives can't take back the GOP/RNC and should therefore go third party is ludicrous.

All thoes left wing wakos believe not having a productive JOB is part of their ideology. Makes having the spare time to protest, attend town halls, scream at reps, a LOT easier. Our ideology says you should have a productive job, so pretending that we can just participate our way to control the way the left did for the Democrats is not really a fair comparison of tactic. We lack the one thing we need that lefty wingnuts have plenty of, TIME.

137

Her point about American politics being a two-party system is correct -- and people really need to understand this. It is structurally a two-party system. It wasn't designed intentionally to be that way, but that is the way it is designed.

And thank God it is. Multi-party systems invite lunacy and chaos. The last thing we would want is an American Weimar Republic.

The British and Commonwealth parliamentary systems are also winner-take-all by district elections, but the parliamentary system (as opposed to the Presidential-Congressional System of the USA) does allow 3rd parties to arise, and to last as "kingmakers". But even more than three parties is difficult in British style parliaments.

138 Really? We just have to pass a raft of constitutional amendments to fundamentally change the constitution and then your make-pretend D&D fantasy-politics can happen?

Actually, America really could use more chicks in chainmail bikinis.  Just not, um, Pelosi and Clinton.

139

But the thing is, there are a lot of CRANKS in the Tea Party who don't want this, because... well, they have a crank agenda, and not a conservative agenda. they have little chance of getting their crank agenda to take hold of the GOP, so they've got their crank-hopes pinned on starting a crank-party (but with a good name and good voter trust) that they can then bend to their wills.

 Ahhh...  in the same sense that there are "a lot" of cranks already in the GOP maybe, but I think you're pissing on the legs of 99% of Tea Party attendees with this.  This is just a blogger's version of the tv media finding the most wacko sign to broadcast.  I've been to tea parties, and they're mostly normal folks, a few fiscal con Democrats, many already Republicans, many just waking up and getting into politics for the first time, and a smaller number like myself coming in from the cold now that libertarianism and fiscal discipline have a shot in the Republican party. Anyone can show up to a Tea Party rally or call themself a Tea Partier, and for that we're all cast into outer darkness?  Enjoy your minority.  I agreed with your main post, but the point cuts both ways.

140 120 would that not violate freedom of speech? Also, the rest of your post is, uh, kind of melodramatic.

141

Damn, I'm late for the party.

We're partying like it's late Oct/early Nov 2009?

I can dig it.

142 Its funny, last year at this time, the Reps were in danger of being the new dixiecrats. Now, the "progressive" dems are scaring the slightly moderate ones like Bayh out of whats left of their party...what a long strange trip its been!

143 How bout some Cliff's Notes cause you said Sarah Palin and then I started thinking about her boobs and then it was all like blah blah blah after that. 

144 >>> Yes, conservatives voting for Perot lost the GOP the presidency; but as a result, the congress critters for the GOP started chirping like conservatives to get elected, and won a massive landslide in 1994. Yeah... but check the supreme court. Clinton put in archliberals Breyer and Ginsberg. You have to note that downside, too. And you have to factor that in because I really, REALLY don't like this Beautiful Loser mentality. Wherein we somehow win by losing.

145 It's corrupt and it should die, and it would die if people just refused to get herded like cows into these two channels.

So, all it would take to bring about this glorious multi-party realignment-- setting aside dramatic changes to the Constitution or, conversely, nakedly self-destructive voluntary behavior on the part of a critical mass of politicians -- is for "people to just refuse" to accept something they've accepted and continue to accept largely without complaint since the day they were born.

I'm sorry, but if your prerequisites for this utopian shift include "tens of millions of largely a-political people will suddenly have to become hyper-political wonks willing to risk massive short-term socio-political losses in order to win some 17th dimensional chess match", you're stuck at a Star Trek convention.

Queen to Queen's Level 3.

146 I was in a conference in South Florida last month.  One day, my 13-member roundtable broke for lunch and there were only two places within walking distance.  One was an schmitzy-shitzy organic cafe; the other was a burger, beer and tits joint.

We decided to take a vote.

Six guys voted for the burger, beer and tits joint (me included), four voted for the schmitzy cafe (including three chicks and lib beta male), and three fucking idiots voted for Pat Buchanan just to make a statement.

Best frickin' burger I ever had, and I banged the waitress later that night.

147 I think you're confusing an inanimate object (the Republican Party) with the people running it. The GOP didn't betray you because the GOP is just a name. Just replace the people running it (the people you actually have a problem with) and it can be completely different. Bottom line is this: You either stand with the Republicans or you're paving the way for the Democrats. Posted by: Xombozo at February 17, 2010 03:12 PM (7bDII) Well, then I guess I'm paving the way for the Democrats. Have fun with your party that does such a great job of preventing things like amnesty, TARP, etc etc. And to Ace: it is a conspiracy, plain and simple, except that it's not hidden. The career politicians who make up the party leadership will never allow smaller government, since it fundamentally undermines their positions of power. And smaller government is the very heart of the issue. Replacing the current crop changes nothing, since any new members will end up in a year or two in exactly the same position of having to reduce their own power.

148

*ahem* ....not so fast

I didn't say anything about "secession". The route we are currently on leads to total collapse.

149 BTW, as far as Glen Beck's apocalypse scenario, we are one bad harvest, a disasterous winter, or an oil embargo  from the apocalypse most of the time. And we have a communist in the White House. Those who think disasters on a nationwide scale are impossible are the idiots.

150 Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. He sides with the Islamo-Fascists in the War on Terror. He is a traitor and a pork power broker. Paul is also like fly paper for the tinfoil hat wearing lunatic fringe. Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter are like blood brothers. How does Paul pass himself off as a conservative? Ron Paul is a good acid test. Anyone who is favorable to Paul is a moon-bat conspiracy theorist wack-job. Go stand out there on the fringe with the rest of the losers.

151 and people really need to understand this. It is structurally a two-party system. Not if hemp is involved. You know there are many practical and legal uses for hemp. It makes strong ropes & lovely textiles. That's why it was such a big part of my platform.

152 And you have to factor that in because I really, REALLY don't like this Beautiful Loser mentality. Wherein we somehow win by losing. Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:20 PM (jlvw3) Then you who believe the the GOP need to police your own party. Don't run turds like Bush, Dole, McCain ever.

153 >>>Ahhh... in the same sense that there are "a lot" of cranks already in the GOP maybe, but I think you're pissing on the legs of 99% of Tea Party attendees with this. This is just a blogger's version of the tv media finding the most wacko sign to broadcast. I've been to tea parties, and they're mostly normal folks... I think you misunderstood, or, more likely, I didn't write clearly. Yes 90% of tea partiers are normal patriotic Americans of course. By "A lot," i mean like 10% -- which is A LOT. And I think it's those cranks who are hell-bent to turn the thing into a third party. Look, as I asked before: Right... look, why isn't there a "Pro-Life" third party too? Why not a 2nd Amendment third party? Why not an End Reverse Discrimination third-party? Why not a Keep America Strong military-oriented third party? Why not just fragment the barely-45% conservative coalition into ten pieces rather than two? Why stop with two? Let's have 12 fucking parties and see how that works!!!

154 "Posted by: tdpwells"

Yeah, you're right, there was no primary in NY23.  What I meant, and I guess you see that, is that the GOP should let us have primaries and then stay out of the way of us picking our guy.

What happened in NY 23 can be blamed on the GOP, but Palin made the correct endorsement, and I'm glad she doesn't just endorse sure wins.  She tried and Hoffman almost won, despite both party candidates fighting him.  And leaving viability aside, Hoffman, even with his lack of slick presentation, was the best candidate.  He wouldn't have voted for the death panels.

We have more Republicans by title who aren't really republicans.  and a lot of them are the same people who want to go 3rd party.  the REAL republicans with values want us to fix the party and get involved.  The Ron Pauls want all the protection of the 2 party system and all the crank fun of a 3rd party system, because Ron Paul is a fundamentally dishonest human being who won't even honestly admit what he writes or says or wants.  He's not a real man, and those who support him should be laughed at.  I knew what Medina was before she admitted it.  Stay away from anyone associated with Ron Paul.  They are either dumb or evil.

155

So, all it would take to bring about this glorious multi-party realignment-- setting aside dramatic changes to the Constitution.

What dramatic changes to the constitution are you talking about?

156 >>>Then you who believe the the GOP need to police your own party. Don't run turds like Bush, Dole, McCain ever. DUDE THEY FUCKING WON THE PRIMARIES. What the hell can we do about that? Quite frankly, McCain only won because some purity republicans preferred him to Romney and other alternatives. I don't see how that gets laid at MY feet. I was against McCain the entire process... until he won. Then, after a couple of weeks of bitching, I supported him.

157 Ace>> Yeah... but check the supreme court. Clinton put in archliberals Breyer and Ginsberg. You have to note that downside, too.<< after Bush the Elder appointed Souter the Liberal

158 tdpwells
Not one bit.
I cant argue a counterfactual, but do you really think McCain would rein in Pelosi or Reid? Do you think he would veto? Do you think he would argue for reduced spending? He would have only put a Republican brand on modern socialism and today, instead of trying to reclaim the R's, conservatives would be shitting in the wind.

159

http://theprecinctproject dot wordpress dot com, folks

160 >>>Replacing the current crop changes nothing, since any new members will end up in a year or two in exactly the same position of having to reduce their own power. But if someone has the "Tea Party" label/membership they are immune from this tendency?

161

I was against McCain the entire process... until he won. Then, after a couple of weeks of bitching, I supported him.

I didn't support him, but I did go stand in line in the rain to vote for Palin and him.  

162 Republicans sticking to the principles of the Republican party = Tea party

163 152-- very funny!

164 "war, deficit and energy--There are clear, stark differences between the parties."

No, there isn't, dude. Let me break it down for you.

Democrats are doing exactly what Bush did ... surging. They may talk "bring the troops home" but they don't actually do it.

Energy? When Republicans had total power, did they enable offshore drilling? Nope. Same as Democrats. Energy policy hasn't changed under Obama.

Deficit? Bush ran deficits his entire presidency. Only difference between Republicans and Democrats is amount of said deficit and what it gets spent on.

On all three of the issues you cited, the Democrats and the Republicans have essentially the exact same policy.

165

Both parties need to be 'taken back', democrats and republicans.

Make the damn "progressives" (AKA Marxists/communists/socialists) run out in the open under THOSE party titles. Stop hiding behind the democrat party.

The republicans need to take back the party from the same faction that has infiltrated them, AND grow back their fucking balls. Stop being the damn democrats' bitch.

166 Replacing the current crop changes nothing, since any new members will end up in a year or two in exactly the same position of having to reduce their own power.

How would replacing the Republican Party with the Tea Party change this dynamic?  It's much easier to clamor for smaller government when you're not, you know, the government.

Are Tea Party politicians just naturally more pure of heart and self-sacrificing than GOP politicians?  That screening process must be something else.

167

Fuck, anyone bitching about McCain still I have two words for you.

Barack Obama

168

Yeah... but check the supreme court. Clinton put in archliberals Breyer and Ginsberg.

You have to note that downside, too.

And you have to factor that in because I really, REALLY don't like this Beautiful Loser mentality. Wherein we somehow win by losing.

Yes, and the other downside was the presidency being lost.  I'm not saying losing is a good thing, or a beautiful thing, or a cost free thing.  I'm saying that the conservative movement, right now, is important precisely because it can cost politicians an election if they're spurned too much.  If you remove that threat, politicians have no reason to cater to the movement beyond their principles.

...

<snort> BWAH HAHAHAHAH!!!  Sorry.  I nearly kept a straight face.  Politicians with principles.  Hee hee...

169 Best frickin' burger I ever had, and I banged the waitress later that night.

Posted by: GulfCoastTider at February 17, 2010 03:21 PM (fYERs)

You must have given her quite the tip...

170 >>>Well, then I guess I'm paving the way for the Democrats. Have fun with your party that does such a great job of preventing things like amnesty, TARP, etc etc. We will. Have fun yelling about shit and having your only real interaction with genuine political change being ranting on the internet.

171 after Bush the Elder appointed Souter the Liberal
Posted by: Assman at February 17, 2010 03:25 PM (HfA9V)

I also recall him nominating a guy name Clarence Thomas.

50% may not be great but it's a hell of a lot better than 0%

172 08 Rep Primary is hereafter to be known as the meh primary. Rom/Mc/Huck/Rudy didn't get ANYONES's dick hard enough to support as compared to the Jugheaded Jesus on the other side, its just that simple. If McCain did pull it out, he would have been a one termer and Jughead would run again in 12 and probably win and be a one termer himself...

173

A "third" party with 33% of the state and national legislature under its control would get anything it wanted, since the loss of conservatives isn't going to kill the GOP outright, or empower the DNC in some Harry Potter-esque wand waving ceremony atop Mt. Rushmore.

You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

33% of the vote means nothing. Only a plurality (or in some places 50.0001%) means taking power.

If you create your magical 3rd party and each of its candidates even manages to win 33% of the vote (fat chance) in each race, YOU STILL GET NOTHING.

174 What the hell can we do about that? Quite frankly, McCain only won because some purity republicans preferred him to Romney and other alternatives. I don't see how that gets laid at MY feet. I was against McCain the entire process... until he won. Then, after a couple of weeks of bitching, I supported him. Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:24 PM (jlvw3) Yeah, no. That's what party loyalty gets you, doesn't it? If the party as a whole (and I'm including the people who vote for the party) knows it can get by with running a turd, it will run a turd every time. Until the party starts losing consistently it has no motivation to reform itself.

175 Best frickin' burger I ever had, and I banged the waitress later that night. Posted by: GulfCoastTider at February 17, 2010 03:21 PM (fYERs) You much man Hondo!

176 All thoes left wing wakos believe not having a productive JOB is part of their ideology. Makes having the spare time to protest, attend town halls, scream at reps, a LOT easier. Our ideology says you should have a productive job, so pretending that we can just participate our way to control the way the left did for the Democrats is not really a fair comparison of tactic. We lack the one thing we need that lefty wingnuts have plenty of, TIME.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 17, 2010 03:20 PM (0q2P7)

Do you watch the news?  Because our side has been on it - a lot.  Protests and townhalls etc.  I'm one of them, and I both work and go to school full-time.  There's time, there is always time.  People find time to watch tv, play videogames, posts on blogs like we're doing right now.  Giving up even half of that just to make some damn phone calls isn't going to kill anyone.  Taking a couple of hours out of one day once a month to attend a local conservative meetup to discuss/strategize/support isn't going to ruin anyone's lifestyle.  I guarantee you that 95% of the people who are already doing this stuff have those productive jobs and families and everything else - but they made time.

177 Deficit? Bush ran deficits his entire presidency. Only difference between Republicans and Democrats is amount of said deficit and what it gets spent on.

I guess quantitative differences -- even quantitative differences of a colossal order of magnitude -- aren't "real" differences to some folks.

178 In a democracy of more than 1 person you are never going to achieve heaven. But if you are not careful, you could end up with hell. So stop w/ this purity test nonsense. As the great philosopher Chad OchoCinco likes to say, "Child, please".

179

A line from this blog caught my fancy and I saved it:

 

Moral victories are not actual victories. Otherwise you'd just call them "victories."

-Ace of AoSHQ

 

180 At what point did the Tea Party (in this case a series of event) become a Tea Party( as in a  politcally funded, organized group of individuals)?

What made the tea parties so influential was it's spontaneous, grass-roots populism against big government. It was/popular because it was an institution-less revolt. 

That it now magically got "leaders" at some point is a bit weird to me, as these "leaders" are the same political insiders who many were complaining about..

181 >>>'m saying that the conservative movement, right now, is important precisely because it can cost politicians an election if they're spurned too much. If you remove that threat, politicians have no reason to cater to the movement beyond their principles. Well, true. I agree with this. With some of you guys, we are really not in much disagreement. We agree on the mechanism at work here. I agree with you the threat must be there. You seem to agree with me that executing the threat would be disastrous -- not that you wouldn't do it, but there would be major consequences, and you oughtn't do it lightly. We agree on that. Who I really disagree with are the cranks who are just Oh So Childishly Rapt at the though of a brand new shiny party with a new kewl name. And they just want that or nothing else.

182
okay, then, I want to put the fear of God into the GOP leadership. I want those lazy dinkweeds to 'find religion.'

How do I do that? Well, by cutting off their life-support -- money and support, both logistical and at the polls.

Without this threat, the Republican party will steam ahead exactly where the Democrats lead them. Without this threat, the Republican party will steam ahead exactly where the Democrats lead them. Without this threat, the Republican party will steam ahead exactly where the Democrats lead them. Without this threat, the Republican party will steam ahead exactly where the Democrats lead them.

183

More Parties!

More Aphorisms!

More Pudding?

184

133 Well yeah, when you try to outlaw interaccial marriage or whatever Ron Paul garbage you want.

Who said anything about Ron Paul or banning inter racial marriage? Just because I support a third party doesn't mean I would support Ron Paul. Frankly I think he's a lunatic and I wish he would go away.

My point is eventually all you people who are trying to change the Republican party will in the long run give up. Reagan couldn't change it, the Republican resurgence in 1994 fizzled out, and whatever you call this surge now, the anti Obama movement will fizzle out in the end if you sell out to them.

185 >>> Until the party starts losing consistently it has no motivation to reform itself. On the other hand -- go fuck yourself. Go to your crank parties. You are not my ally and I am not yours. You're as dead to me as any liberal.

186 Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:23 PM (jlvw3)

That's one of the major problems with multi-party systems.  They give disproportionate power to the cranks.  Look at Canada.  You've got the Conservatives and the Liberals - the rough equivalent of our Republicans and Democrats.  But since Canada is a multi-party system, you've also got the Bloc Quebecois.  The Bloc's entire purpose for existing is to advocate for the rights (and sometimes sovereignty) of Quebec.  They care less about the country than they do about the well-being of Quebec. 

While most Canadians vote either Liberal or Conservative, the people of Quebec pretty much elect all Bloc candidates.  Because Quebec has a fair number of seats, the Bloc (a party devoted to the idea they shouldn't be part of Canada) is the third-largest party in the house of Commons and has considerable say over the affairs of government.  In fact, they almost got away with removing Harper from his position.

The Bloc are cranks, but because of the way Canadian politics is set up, they're powerful cranks.  Not something I wish to emulate here.

187
See what I'm saying, here? Look at me eyes...they're winking.

I want to scare the shit out of the Republican party so they shape up and fly right. I don't *really* want to start a new and marginal and fringe political party.

188

Glenn Beck may piss people off with his R = D comments, but he's specifically speaking to progressives in both parties. He's right. Progressive Republicans have been fucking up the party more and more for a long time e.g. McCain. Much less so than Dems, but they support the living constitution and forget the conservation of its limitations. How many Republicans are fine with some sort of Healthcare as opposed to leaving it to the states? How many are for a federal income tax? How many support some sort of amnesty?

I asked a simple WHY yesterday about Scott Brown's (and Palin's) support of McCain, and this support of someone progressive over someone who's conservative bothers me. If McCain deserves support, it should be after the field has cleared.

189 And you have to factor that in because I really, REALLY don't like this Beautiful Loser mentality. Wherein we somehow win by losing.

And our keep it together, vote for the party because MR. Squishy is better than the most liberal Senator in the Senate. How's that FEELIN for ya?

190 Drew M Please 'splain almost SCOTUS Harriet Miers?

191 >>>Replacing the current crop changes nothing, since any new members will end up in a year or two in exactly the same position of having to reduce their own power. But if someone has the "Tea Party" label/membership they are immune from this tendency? Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:26 PM (jlvw3) No, but they might hold back for at least a cycle or two, which is all we really need with a good, coordinated effort.

192

Republicans can obviate the need for a Tea Party by turning right. Where's the fence? With 25 million Americans unemployed why is there one fucking illegal alien left in our country taking jobs away from Americans?

And the way the GOP turns Right is by YOU getting involved and turning it Right. Going off to American Independent/ US Taxpayers/ Constipation Party utopia is futile.

You DO NOT change a Party by leaving it. You change a party by staying in it and fighting for it.

193 >>>>Rom/Mc/Huck/Rudy didn't get ANYONES's dick hard enough to support as compared to the Jugheaded Jesus on the other side, its just that simple. Right... well, the weird thing is I thought we had an embarrassment of riches -- a bunch of good candidates. It turns out they were all weak. Except maybe thompson... I don't know what happened there.

194 On the other hand -- go fuck yourself. Go to your crank parties. You are not my ally and I am not yours. You're as dead to me as any liberal. Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:32 PM (jlvw3) Okay?

195 Please 'splain almost SCOTUS Harriet Miers?
Posted by: Assman at February 17, 2010 03:33 PM (HfA9V)

Arrogance and over inflated sense of personal loyalty by W.

What's that got to Perot and George H. W. Bush?

196 "Do you regret not voting for McCain now?  Really?"

Not for one. fucking. second.

John McCain tried to limit free speech ... only to be slapped down by the Supreme Court. Do you realize how big that is? The Supreme Court struck down his law as being unconstitutional.

He stopped being a Republican when he joined Democrats to enact that legislation. And not for one fucking moment do I regret not voting for him. He left my party and joined theirs.

And he proved he was a Democrat when he tried to force amnesty down our throats. Now there are 25 million unemployed thanks to him and the Republicans not enforcing our immigration laws. Republicans are still not making immigration a signature issue because they think the Hispanic vote is a requirement of winning.

So, you failed to get 51% and you lost. Go home. Enjoy Obama because you lefty Democrat-Liters put him into office. He couldn't win without you guys.

197 With some of you guys, we are really not in much disagreement. We agree on the mechanism at work here. I agree with you the threat must be there. You seem to agree with me that executing the threat would be disastrous -- not that you wouldn't do it, but there would be major consequences, and you oughtn't do it lightly.

We agree on that.

Who I really disagree with are the cranks who are just Oh So Childishly Rapt at the though of a brand new shiny party with a new kewl name.

OK I can certainly agree with all of that.

198 He would have only put a Republican brand on modern socialism and today, instead of trying to reclaim the R's, conservatives would be shitting in the wind.

Posted by: nine coconuts at February 17, 2010 03:25 PM (DHNp4)

You are aware that the Tea Party movement started when Bush was president, yes?  Conservatives were not big fans of McCain - he knew it enough to pull someone like Palin into the fold to boost up his polling to prevent a landslide loss.  I don't subscribe to the theory that conservatives would have suddenly laid down had McCain won.

199

Ace,

 Please remove yourself from my self.

   -Thank You

P>S> : Wilfred says , "Hello.".

200 It's like training a dog -- you need both positive and negative reinforcement. When they screw up, smack them on the nose, but when they start to change you gotta throw them a bone or they will not understand.

201 On the other hand -- go fuck yourself.

Well said.

202 >>>>So, you failed to get 51% and you lost. Go home. Enjoy Obama because you lefty Democrat-Liters put him into office. He couldn't win without you guys. and someguy has a big list of the crank candidates he's successfully ushered into office, I'm sure.

203 Duncan Hunter gave me a chubby.

204
well, to be fair, someguy has as many victories post-Obama as Michael Steele

205 Ace, Thompson was the weakest candidate! He came late to the primary but he made up for by leaving early. Lizards on hot, dry rocks have a higher energy level than my man teh Fred...I give him a pass due to his medical fight tho...Fred would be a great cab member

206 Right... well, the weird thing is I thought we had an embarrassment of riches -- a bunch of good candidates.

It turns out they were all weak.

Except maybe thompson... I don't know what happened there.

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:35 PM

I think Thompson was weak in the respect he couldn't even put up much of a fight.  He pissed around, played his role, and then it was too late.  Maybe he didn't really want it?

207 >>>And our keep it together, vote for the party because MR. Squishy is better than the most liberal Senator in the Senate. How's that FEELIN for ya? Well he won the primary -- what were we supposed to do? Let me guess -- write in Ron Paul? A plurality (and a fairly decent sized one) of the party wanted McCain. I strongly disagreed. But that is democracy, isn't it? As for McCain in the Senate -- well, I'm going to endorse JD Hayworth this week (and absolve him, as I am empowered to do by my blog charter, of felony birtherism).

208

With some of you guys, we are really not in much disagreement. We agree on the mechanism at work here. I agree with you the threat must be there. You seem to agree with me that executing the threat would be disastrous -- not that you wouldn't do it, but there would be major consequences, and you oughtn't do it lightly.

We agree on that.

You sure?  I was hoping for another 10 minutes or so of vitriol over this.   

209 It is important that the United States remain a two-party system. I'm a fellow who likes small parties and the Republican Party can't be too small to suit me.
Lyndon B. Johnson 

210

OK--let's get three things out of the way:

1.  THEODORE EFFING ROOSEVELT could not make a third party work.  Down that road lies frustration, failure and ultimately catastrophre (though Kratos will be around shortly to refine the final state).

2.  Ron Paul is about Ron Paul.  The guy is a posing egomaniac.  Letters of mark?  Ooh, look at how steeped he is in the Constitution's provisions....for fighting a war in the 18th century when the U.S. had a tiny little navy.  Gold standard?  No, he is not math challenged for suggesting 200 billion dollars in gold can backstop a twelve trillion dollar economy and 14 trillion dollars in debt...not at all...perfectly reasonable.  THE CIA IS RUNNING EVERYTHING?  HE'S FUKCING NUTS, OKAY?  Paulians, get thee hence and bring me back one of GulfCoastTiders burgers, you milksops.

3.  McCain won the Republican nomination because of two things--Giuliani and Thompson's incredibly inept campaigns.  Run 2008 again with some kind of coherency on those two's behalf (or even one of them) and maybe we wouldn't be talking about Toonces.

211

I actually kind of like watching all the monkeys trying to fuck the Tea Party Football.

 

It is entertaining.

212

My frustration with the GOP is that they've become too entrenched in their bubble.  The elities live, eat, sleep and shit focus groups, policy nuances, and opinion polls.  That's fine, but they've lost sight of the fact that independent voters aren't like them.  The typical independent isn't terribly motivated by ideology- they'll vote for a conservative one year and a liberal the next.

Where they've gone wrong is the idea that the closer they play to the mythical center, the more independents they get.  Sure, that's probably true to a degree in purple / blue districts, but they try to apply it everywhere as a Universal Truth.

Put up the guy who the average Joe would rather share a six-pack with, and you win the independent vote.  Every. Single. Time.  No squishyness necessary.

My hope for the Tea Party movement is that they remind the GOP establishment that turnout among the base is extremely important.  Catering to the unaffiliated, non-ideological, apolitical voter using ideology and politics isn't as vital.

213 damn good post

214 Tea Party as a 3rd Party works fine if it confines itself to (1) running a single official candidate to capture the Republican presidential primary, and (2) running for state level positions.

So long as the Tea Party and Republicans agree that, at some point sufficiently prior to election day, the weaker side drops out and endorses the other one, they can both exist as independent parties. The catch is that the RNC needs to admit that it will frequently be the weaker side, and will need to surrender to the Tea Party on many individual races.

215

I always get the strong sense that all these people who want "pure" politicians have never actually been involved in politics. Even at a *local level, politicians are just whores in formal dress. I guess it's because I have always worked/volunteered around local politics and then the RNC, I am more surprised when they do something that is with a pure motive.

*in my hometown, my family are the local whore pols.

216 How do we get rid of Michael Steele? It seems counterproductive to have a Democrat running the Republican Party.

217 >>> He pissed around, played his role, and then it was too late. Maybe he didn't really want it? He had business associates he didn't want to fuck over by jumping in earlier. Had he jumped in earlier, presumably he would have gotten up to speed by the time of the actual primaries and caucuses. Or maybe he would have, at least. But definitely that loyalty to archliberal Dick Wolf (producer of Law and Order) hurt him badly.

218

I asked a simple WHY yesterday about Scott Brown's (and Palin's) support of McCain, and this support of someone progressive over someone who's conservative bothers me. If McCain deserves support, it should be after the field has cleared.

Bloody hell.  Scott Brown is not now, and has never been, a hard-core, right-wing conservative.  He's a Massachusetts Republican who happens to think Obamacare goes too far, and is a foreign policy hawk.  Of course he endorsed McCain; he's kind of a McCain Republican himself, which is about as good as it gets from MA.  I'm grateful to Brown for breaking the Dem's super-majority, but I'm not getting in line to give the man a blow-job.

And Palin is just being a loyal footsoldier, possibly the best option she has in a situation with downsides no matter what she chooses.

219 Drew M uh I never said it had anything to do with Perot. the point is that Bush I and W both made boneheaded choices for SCOTUS (Souter and Miers), fortunately, W's bad never came to fruition and his confirmed choices actually rocked!

220 So, you failed to get 51% and you lost. Go home. Enjoy Obama because you lefty Democrat-Liters put him into office. He couldn't win without you guys.

Posted by: someguy at February 17, 2010 03:36 PM (VRJIW)

So you're okay with the left running everything for, oh, infinity?  And I'm not talking Kennedy democrats here, I'm talking Howard Dean dems. Full on, "socialism yayes!" dems?  Because that's exactly what you'll get.

And by the way?  I'm far from a lefty Democrat-Lite.  That kind of makes me want to punch your teeth in.

221 >>>I always get the strong sense that all these people who want "pure" politicians have never actually been involved in politics. . Even at a *local level, politicians are just whores in formal dress. yeah, see, I hate to be a cynic, but I agree with that 150%. Of course they're whores! Who the hell were you expecting to see in a whorehouse??!!

222
Anyone know how Rand Paul is faring so far in the senate race in KY?

Kentuckians, put us some knowledge, here!

223 Because Quebec has a fair number of seats, the Bloc (a party devoted to the idea they shouldn't be part of Canada) is the third-largest party in the house of Commons and has considerable say over the affairs of government. In fact, they almost got away with removing Harper from his position. Agree , except that they (Quebec) have an unfair share of seats in the HoC , based on population .

224

Enjoy Obama because you lefty Democrat-Liters put him into office.

So voting for the Republican, as opposed to not voting at all, is what put the Democrat in office.

That's some damn fine logic you got working there, dude.

225 217

I actually kind of like watching all the monkeys trying to fuck the Tea Party Football.

 

It is entertaining.

Posted by: garrett at February 17, 2010 03:41 PM (FwxQB)

Speak for yourself.  It's not that entertaining for me.

226 Message to homosexual libertarians, How that hope and change working out for you unemployed ass?

227 I said for individual States to ban out of State contributions for State office. That is constitutional. No amendments required.

A-HEM.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself, bub.

Political speech does not cease to be so because its from another state.  It's called teh Privileges and Immunities clause.



Now, however, THIS:

I didn't say anything about "secession". The route we are currently on leads to total collapse.

is spot on.  We're rearranging chairs on the Titanic, fellas. 

It ain't gonna matter when we declare default on our bonds or jack inflation into the thousands of percentage points to offset our debt.

Military juntas for the more stable, rural areas.  Murder-rape gangs in teh cities.

228 Ok, enough about the nonentity known as ron paul

229 209 Duncan Hunter gave me a chubby.

Posted by: nine coconuts at February 17, 2010 03:38 PM (DHNp4)

Well we're in agreement there.  Cheers.  Plus he had the Coulter endorsement.

230 "On the other hand -- go fuck yourself.  Go to your crank parties. You are not my ally and I am not yours."

Dude, that's exactly what we're doing.

You're the one whining about that. We're just doing exactly what you've recommended that we do ... either bend to your will or leave the Republican Party.

So, we left.

Isn't that what you wanted? We're just a bunch of fucking cranks to you anyway. Right?

Good luck trying to get to 51 without us, dude.

Ace ... you're the epitome of why the Republican Party is on the wan. It's your way or the highway. If we don't agree with you then we're just a bunch of fucking cranks, eh? Is that it?

Well, guess what bub, we took the highway and now you can't get to 51 and you're stuck with Barack Obama. Heckuva job, Brownie!

So, seems to me you need to do a bit of introspection and figure out why good, honest. taxpaying Americans see fit to have to create an entire new party to get what they want.

231 Who the hell were you expecting to see in a whorehouse??!!

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:43 PM (jlvw3)

How about me?

232 Ok, enough about the nonentity known as ron paul
Posted by: Assman at February 17, 2010 03:46 PM (HfA9V)

Amen.

And add his idiot son to the list.

233

The two party system right now equates to Democrats pushing Marxism and who don't believe in the Constitution as it was written and RINO's who are pushing Marxism-lite and who don't believe in the Constitution.

The Tea Party Movement isn't a debate between Democrats and Repubs Ace, it is a debate between Marxism, or Statism if you wish, and First Principles.  That is, the Constitution means something or it doesn't.

Go to a Tea Party and talk to the people.  You'll find that while many are from the conservative rank of the Republican party, there are also quite a few that call themselves, democrats, independents, moderates and libertarians.  The common thread is the Constitution.  What you won't find at any of these rallies are Marxists, well except for the ones who come to try to disrupt an event and the LSM types who come to report smear the event.

Komrade Zero used a backhoe in his Inauguration address to dig a divide as wide and deep as the Grand Canyon from the left coast to the east coast. 

The question before us now is quite simple, do we surrender our Liberty and live under whatever type of communist regime the donkeys and RINO's see fit to give us (think gov't run health care and Cap'n Trade for a minute) or do we stand up and fight for our God given rights (think free markets, personal freedom, and We the People) and the kind of gov't our Founders created and gave to posterity in the form of our Constitution?

Much easier to change the Republican party from within, return it to its Founding Principles than to form a third party.  But if Republicans keep nominating RINO's the likes of McCain, then they are going to keep losing elections. 

234 If voting for a less than stellar Republican gets me James Inhofe instead of Barbara Boxer as a committee chair, I'm all for it.

If you want to be a dick and keep Boxer around by going all third party, then you're doing more to abet liberalism than I am.

235 Are there enough Klansmen in Kentucky for Rand Paul to win?

236

My point is eventually all you people who are trying to change the Republican party will in the long run give up. Reagan couldn't change it, the Republican resurgence in 1994 fizzled out, and whatever you call this surge now, the anti Obama movement will fizzle out in the end if you sell out to them.

WRONG.

Reagan ended the mee-too Republican policy of "detente" and faced the Soviets down. No more Soviet Empire. THAT is a big change.

The Newties of 1994 cut taxes so much that a sizeable %age of the USA population effectively no longer pays them, at least for now. THAT was a big change.

 

237 Morons what sayeth you: IF Romney had won the Rep primary and chose Pawlenty as his 2spot, AND played hardball with the Jugheaded Jesus over ayers/wright/etc.. COULD they have won?

238 Ace ... you're the epitome of why the Republican Party is on the wan. It's your way or the highway. If we don't agree with you then we're just a bunch of fucking cranks, eh? Is that it?

Posted by: someguy at February 17, 2010 03:47 PM (VRJIW)

O HAI THAR!

239
I dunno...

So what are you loyal GOPers and anti-Paulians gonna do if Rand Paul wins the nomination?

240 elliot spitzer in the whorehouse with his sox on

241 Posted by: someguy at February 17, 2010 03:47 PM (VRJIW)

Let me ask you a serious question...which part of your plank are you actually going to get enacted by splitting off?

10-15% of the vote is the same as..0%.

Isn't it better to get 10-30% of what you want in a larger party then, oh, ZERO on your own?

242 241 If voting for a less than stellar Republican gets me James Inhofe instead of Barbara Boxer as a committee chair, I'm all for it.

If you want to be a dick and keep Boxer around by going all third party, then you're doing more to abet liberalism than I am.

Posted by: taylork at February 17, 2010 03:48 PM (0Hn5w)

SO MUCH YES.

243

You're the one whining about that. We're just doing exactly what you've recommended that we do ... either bend to your will or leave the Republican Party.

So, we left.

If you really think Ace is telling you to bend to his will, then you really just don't get it and never will.

 

244
I really want to know the answer. If Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination, what will you do?

245 Related: Palin endorsed Sean Duffy for WI-7 today and is promoting a money bomb for him (details at her Facebook page). He's running against ultra-lefty incumbent David Obey.  Go give him some monies.

246 >>>I really want to know the answer. If Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination, what will you do? I'll exercise MY right to be a purity republican and vote third party, hoss. Funny how you guys think that only you are allowed to make that threat.

247 andysullivan is "cleaning" the teapartyfootball, give him another minute...

248 Well, guess what bub, we took the highway and now you can't get to 51 and you're stuck with Barack Obama. Heckuva job, Brownie!

So, seems to me you need to do a bit of introspection and figure out why good, honest. taxpaying Americans see fit to have to create an entire new party to get what they want.

Posted by: someguy at February 17, 2010 03:47 PM

Who's this "we" shit?  Im a Tea Partier and probably been a Conservative longer than you and I don't agree with any of your crap.  And I know lots of people just like me.  So take your "we" comments and stuff it.  Speak for yourself  and quit trying to make it sound as though you're leading some kind of movement.  The only thing you're leading is a bunch of posts on a thread on a blog.  Big freaking deal.

249

DrewM. at February 17, 2010 03:50 PM (9B5OK)

Great points as always Drew but your gonna lose him with all that math.

250 You're the one whining about that. We're just doing exactly what you've recommended that we do ... either bend to your will or leave the Republican Party.

There is no WE here. the tea party is not a political group.  Candidates do not have  (T)s after their names. 

Is it a movement? Yes? Is is a political party as we define Republicans or dems? No.  The instant it does become such a thing I guarantee that you will be equally dissatisified with the leadership sooner rather than later.

251 PUT THE LOTION IN THE FUCKING BASKET!

252 IF Romney had won the Rep primary and chose Pawlenty as his 2spot, AND played hardball with the Jugheaded Jesus over ayers/wright/etc..

COULD they have won?
Posted by: Assman at February 17, 2010 03:49 PM (HfA9V)

Nope.

Parties almost never get 3rd terms in the Presidency.

G.H.W. Bush won thanks to Reagan.

Gore couldn't do it in a period of perceived peace and real prosperity.

No way a Republican wins in a year when people were tired of Republicans in Congress, 7+ years of war and oh yeah, a financial meltdown.

Sometimes the deck is stacked against you and you take your medicine.

253 >>>COULD they have won? Doubtful. But Romney wouldn't have let Obama walk all over him like the gentleman mccain who didn't want to stand in the way of history. 2008 was a perfect storm.

254
Funny how you guys think that only you are allowed to make that threat.

haha @ 'you guys'

I already said I wasn't for starting a 3rd party. In fact, if I was still a resident of KY, I would indeed vote for Rand Paul in the general, and I can't stand his dad. Would you?

255 cranks and Pat Buchanan ruined the Reform party (as if there was any hope for it to begin with under Perot).

I'm firmly convinced that Pat was acting as a loyal Republican to kill the Reform Party.  His soft-racist writings were perfect fodder to tar a party already drawing the disenchanted former hard core racists from teh other parties, he played up the crank aspect, drawing more of them in, and generally ran an impossible campaign.  Who was his VP again?  The most blatant of token appointments after Trafficant (!) and Hoffa (!) rejected the nomination.  Pat did his job as saboteur well, the RP hasn't done anything since. 

If a third party does gain traction, the party most threatened will send in a stooge to kill it.

The main parties are hopeless too.  Not a dime's worth of difference on the ground w/r/t actually shrinking the Leviathan. 

I'm not really libertarian (either big or small L) but the current system is so blatantly dedicated to teh status quo, it's almost guaranteed to collapse from institutional inertia no matter who is in power.

256 >>>>Who's this "we" shit? Im a Tea Partier and probably been a Conservative longer than you and I don't agree with any of your crap. And I know lots of people just like me. So take your "we" comments and stuff it. Speak for yourself and quit trying to make it sound as though you're leading some kind of movement. The only thing you're leading is a bunch of posts on a thread on a blog. Big freaking deal. See, that's what annoys me about the loudmouths, the cranks. They are always insisting that this tea party thing is THEIR THING, baby, and etc. Says who? 75% of tea partiers are fairly conventional (tho solid) conservatives who just want a conservative government. but these guys, the real loudmouths and cranks, are always presuming to speak for 33 million americans.

257

_{Tri Corner Hat Girl :}  "You Got Republican in My Tea Party!"

258 PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RAND PAUL ALREADY!

259 What the Tea Party should be is what is really is at it's heart. Citizen involvement in government. People reading, educating, congregating, speaking, writing, protesting, campaigning for liberty. For far too long conservatism has been a silent majority. Americans see the looming danger ahead and are waking up and speaking out. The Tea Party movement needs to solidify itself as a ground-up grassroots movement of conservative activism on a local level. We don;t need a third party. We don't need Tea Party leaders. We have the internet. We have our tongues back and we are increasingly realizing how to use them. A loosely connected of highly involved, educated and motivated citizens will be an unstoppable force. Why limit themselves to one party. Force the GOP and DNC to select conservative candidates or face a withering death of lost election and dwindling funds.

260

I'm firmly convinced that Pat was acting as a loyal Republican to kill the Reform Party.

It has been over a decade and he's not back to the GOP yet.

By the way, the Reform Party died when Ross Perot had a meltdown.

261 So, you failed to get 51% and you lost. Go home. Enjoy Obama because you lefty Democrat-Liters put him into office. He couldn't win without you guys.
Posted by: someguy at February 17, 2010 03:36 PM (VRJIW)

Wait...so you didn't vote for the one candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama and we're the ones who put him into office?

Sure thing, sparky.

262

_{ChicagoJedi at February 17, 2010 03:58 PM (WZFkG)}

Force, Strong, this one.

263 I think that whoever won the POTUS in '08 was destined to be a one termer, lucky for us, only 35 more months to go...

264 the Reform Party died when Ross Perot had a meltdown.

The Reform Party died when it was started by a vindictive Texas crank who felt like screwing the Bush family.

265

So what are you loyal GOPers and anti-Paulians gonna do if Rand Paul wins the nomination?

Hahahahah; I'll run down the street to the nearest church and start praying as hard and as fast as I can; because the end of this world has come and I would like to make sure I had a chance for the world above instead of below.

Problem is, its probably too late by then.

266 See, that's what annoys me about the loudmouths, the cranks. They are always insisting that this tea party thing is THEIR THING, baby, and etc.

Says who?

75% of tea partiers are fairly conventional (tho solid) conservatives who just want a conservative government.

but these guys, the real loudmouths and cranks, are always presuming to speak for 33 million americans.

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 03:56 PM

I was in at the beginning of this whole Tea Party idea and all of the people were either Independents or Repubs.  Then along came some the Paulbots and NWOs and Birthers, etc.  But I found they talked the talk but didn't walk the walk.  Did any of them help organize, do mailings, do any grunt work?  Hell no..it was all of us conventional folks who did all that.  I was not and am not impressed by any of the so-called purists. 

267

re Ross Perot;

That was another one I could never understand.  The guy was a damn liberal actually running on a tax increase!

And despite that people called him a conservative.

268 Could Romney have won?

Sure, right up until the crisis hit even McCain could have won. Drew said that 3rd terms are unlikely, but McCain was ahead in the polls until the crisis hit. After that it was unlikely but if anyone could have, Romney could have.

269

Ok, enough about the nonentity known as ron paul

Unless I missed something, it's the raving anti-Paulites who brought him up in the first place.  For the apparent purpose of using this thread as a vehicle to repeat a big lie of Paul being a racist, and implying any libertarian-leaning tea partiers are racists.  Paul had, once, a single staffer who was racist.  As Ace points out about Rubio's corruption connection, it's not good, but in itself it just proves that the guy knows some human beings.  Ron Paul does have a brand of isolationism not well suited to the modern world, but one with strong roots in American history.  And he does keep getting elected to a conservative Texas district while being open about his politics.  Turns out voting no on spending and unconstitutional measures has its rewards.

 

270
Yes, let's ignore the very real possibility Rand Paul wins the (R) nomination. What a bunch of pussies. You think he'll just go away if you ignore him?

Not only is Rand probably gonna win the nomination, he's in the lead to beat any Democrat. Oh, and Sarah Palin endorsed him.

And this is why we lose at the polls...

Some of you jump on the bandwagon and think it fashionable to hate on all things Ron Paul. Well, guess what?!?! His asswipe son is close to becoming the next Republican senator from Kentucky.

271 Ace's 51% comment is exactly right. We have single member district first past the post elections (i just learned in Poli Sci 40 lol). That means that there is no prize for runner up. Because the Tea Party and the GOP are both right of center parties if they both field a candidate the will lose. The Tea Party could get 33% and the Republican Party could get 33% which means that the Right-Wing of the country makes up 66% of voters, which would be a landslide if there was only one, Tea Party or GOP, running. But because both parties get 33% and the Democrats get the remaining 34% the Democrats WIN. The party that is left of 66% of our hypothetical voters wins rather then being crushed. I would rather have a slightly impure Conservative like Scott Brown , who is not perfect on all the issues, he couldn't be and be electable in MA, but is able to cast the 41st vote against cloture on the abomination of Obamacare. While a Tea Party third party run might make us feel good and pure and nice that we didn't have to compromise our values, it means that we will lose and Pelosi will still be Speaker and the Dems will try to force more of their socialist crap down our throat. If we want to get a majority, especially a large enough majority to stop the Obama agenda cold we need to compromise, to have as conservative a candidate run as is electable. He might not vote 100% for us, like Cao from louisiana, but he will be able to help us procedurally and having a 60% pure republican is better then a 100% democrat.

272 third party equals third place. PERIOD

273 Screw the purists. Take over the Republican party. At the grass roots level and all the way up. There's always going to be some asshole who wants a free ride like Paulbots, etc. Well, they had their chance. so, get the F*** outta my car.

274 The beauty of the Tea Party is that the crop of roughnecks we have running for the GOP is the best I've ever seen overall. The question I have is this. What do we do if the GOP keeps screwing us? This 30% is better than zero is ridiculous. It's the talk of a beggar. I'm tired of begging. We need to impose our will on the GOP. How hard is it to have folks who read the Constitution and say we will bring the government within its enumerated powers? You don't have to be a purist to want that do you? I'll ask again what do we do if the GOP led by that fool Steele keeps selling us out? Any answers or do we keep groveling for constitutional scraps like beggars?

275

So what are you loyal GOPers and anti-Paulians gonna do if Rand Paul wins the nomination?

I would vote for him. Better him than a Commiecrat.

That said, we shall see if that sorry choice comes to pass.

276 can we get funding from teh major parties to start a CRANK party?

get all of the Conspiracy theorists, Racists, Anti-globalization goofs, NWO-nics, and general Kooks and comprise a good 10% of the electorate.  We could run Alex Jones or something.

277 I won't insult your intelligence by giving you the example of this.

Damn straight. That's my job.

278

Some of you jump on the bandwagon and think it fashionable to hate on all things Ron Paul.

Fashion?  Yes, that's why I make my choices.  Who the hell are you kidding?  He was, is and always will be an egocentric, destructive, faux-intellectual NUT.

If I ahve ever been unclear about my sentiments in that regard or couched in fashion-concious terms, I ask that you find just one post to that end on this blog, sparky.

279 289 Hey what up my brother?

280
You guys are all over the place. You hate the so-called purists. You hate the Ron Paulbots You hate talk about 3rd parties.

I thought the 'purists' were part of the Tea Party? You guys don't know what you want.

281 Yeah, no. That's what party loyalty gets you, doesn't it? If the party as a whole (and I'm including the people who vote for the party) knows it can get by with running a turd, it will run a turd every time. Until the party starts losing consistently it has no motivation to reform itself.

What do you think happened the last two election cycles? Republicans tried to run as wannabe Democrats both times, and both times they lost (badly).  The American people are not stupid.  When given the choice between a wannabe jackass and the real McCoy, they'll take the real McCoy every time.

The tea party movement is grassroots and locally powered.  It is our Anbar Awakening.  What needs to happen is for the tea party activists to analyze and understand which of the two major parties are their best bet for achieving their goals, and for that party to realize that the tea party activists is the constituency they so cavalierly abandoned during the drunken sailor years of Bush's second term. 

282 The real Tea Partiers are gonna need a secret handshake.

283 This 30% is better than zero is ridiculous. It's the talk of a beggar. I'm tired of begging. We need to impose our will on the GOP.
Posted by: USMC at February 17, 2010 04:05 PM (wDAko)

No, it's the talk or real world electoral politics.

I hate to break this to the hard core tea party types...you aren't a majority of Americans. The world might be a better place if it were different but that's not the world we live in.

People love the idea of "health care reform" when it's a theory, it changes when the real world decisions have to be made (as we see).

People love the idea of 'spending cuts' until you start naming shit you are going to cut. Then it becomes a little dicier.

The tea party folks really need to not get caught up in their own press coverage. The numbers you can count on aren't majorities. You'll wind up overreaching like Obama and the left did.

284 It's probably because of my general pessimistic view of the world that I have always taken the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting.  Many of those who are old enough to have voted for Perot learned this lesson.  I know several others who learned this lesson by staying home in 2008 - not thinking that Zero could possibly do worse than McCain.

285 "Yes, let's ignore the very real possibility Rand Paul wins the (R) nomination."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

No problem.  He won't.  Too many people just hate Ron Paul.  At least ten times the number of people who like him, hate him.  I know Rand is much more moderate and intelligent than his dad, and I shouldn't hold it against him, but yeah, I'll just ignore that possibility.  If he is nominated, I'll vote for him as long as he stays clear of the insanity, but he isn't going to be able to run without attracting so many psychos.

And let's not forget how thin his resume is.  Makes Sarah Palin look more like Ronald Reagan.

286 The American people are not stupid.

We beg to differ.

287
The real Tea Partiers are gonna need a secret handshake.

Finally, a sensible solution!

hahahahahahahaha!

288 Well he won the primary -- what were we supposed to do?

Let me guess -- write in Ron Paul?

A plurality (and a fairly decent sized one) of the party wanted McCain. I strongly disagreed. But that is democracy, isn't it?

As for McCain in the Senate -- well, I'm going to endorse JD Hayworth this week (and absolve him, as I am empowered to do by my blog charter, of felony birtherism).

You do exactly what I did you vote for McCain, and lose, and keep losing bit, and realize it feels the same as losing with a more conservative candidate, except for, your party now needs to re-invent it's ideology just to stand a chance, because it can't run on be fiscally responsible when running up entitlements and deficits, it can't be small government when it put Washington into the running of every school in the US. You can't run on your principals if you don't ever demonstrate them. If Barry hadn't of pulled the great stimulus giveaway and and mobilized the right early, this war might have already been lost. Barry was our best friend, because he gave us stuff that was sooooo bad it was easy to stand against and make conservatism look good.

You think me a Paulite now? Heh? C'Mon You say that to all the guys you tongue lash. FTR I think birtherism is like a dead albatross that is really going to embarrass us someday. But hey, it's time McCain (And the rest of the Squish) needs to know, either solidify behind the basics or we will send you home.

289 I'd love to be Palin's third party.

290
Again, Rand Paul, according to Rasmussen, is ahead of EVERYBODY.

^{Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just letting y'all know what's going on in an important Senate race in KY.}

291

You guys don't know what you want.

1.  Win the war.

2.  Balance the budget.

3.  Get us off the oil jones.

#1 is there as a solid, unchanging #1.  #3 probably has to come before #2.

NEXT.

292

You guys are all over the place. You hate the so-called purists. You hate the Ron Paulbots You hate talk about 3rd parties.

I thought the 'purists' were part of the Tea Party? You guys don't know what you want.

Not me. If by chance it is Ron Paul or his son vs. a Commiecrat, I will vote Paulian. (If the Democrat was a proven Boll Weevil or Blue Dog, that would be another story, but that is increasingly rare).

I will always vote against the Commiecrat in the general, even if it is for a Paulian.

I would like your side to show the same good faith.

293 We could run Alex Jones or something.

Posted by: s'moron at February 17, 2010 04:06 PM (p1s9n)

god would I love to see that but the Bilderberg group sitting that the Bohemian Grove won't let that happen

294 Probably shouldn't even say this, but we should make sure that there is a strong Green Party type 3rd party to make it harder for Obama to win.

They can run just to the left of Obama.  Many liberals are sick and tired of Obama's broken promises too.  I'm sure Axelrod's astroturf wants a TEA party as an actual party to ensure more Obama, and there's simply a better case for a Green party.

295 This 30% is better than zero is ridiculous. It's the talk of a beggar. I'm tired of begging. We need to impose our will on the GOP.
Posted by: USMC

I hate to break this to the hard core tea party types...you aren't a majority of Americans. The world might be a better place if it were different but that's not the world we live in.


The most sane and viable idea was the Free State Project.  ANd we all see how well THAT turned out, huh, New Hampshire?

296 You can't run on your principals if you don't ever demonstrate them.

Nor can you claim your going to change government by  making sure that the current fisting from the democrats continues.

297
Malamutt, he was endorsed by Sarah Palin.

He is the front-runner. Knowing what I know about Kentucky, I'm gonna say he'll win in November.

298
Point taken, Curmudgeon. But there are no such thing as blue dogs, anymore. Maybe in a handful of House districts in the deep South, but..

btw, the whole notion Evan Bayh was a moderate was a farce. Maybe compared to Bernie Sanders, but Bayh has an ACU rating of 20, which is half that of Olympia Snowe. So there you go.

299

He (Rand Paul) is the front-runner. Knowing what I know about Kentucky, I'm gonna say he'll win in November.

And you know what? I would pick somebody else in the primary, but if it is him vs the Commiecrat in the general, and I lived in KY, I'd vote for Rand Paul (gasp).

Now will your end uphold the bargain if someone not quite to your liking but still better than a Commiecrat is running in the general? Didn't think so.

300

286  The question I have is this. What do we do if the GOP keeps screwing us? This 30% is better than zero is ridiculous. It's the talk of a beggar. I'm tired of begging. We need to impose our will on the GOP.

We take it back one election cycle at a time.  We'll get there.

I think we can impose our will on the GOP.  This is what I was saying, when they nominate RINO's we let them lose.

McCain would be a great place to start.  If he wins the primary let him FAIL in November.  But that's for the folks in Arizona to decide.  But the AZ Tea Partiers need to be doing their footwork now before the primary election.

301 241 If voting for a less than stellar Republican gets me James Inhofe instead of Barbara Boxer as a committee chair, I'm all for it.

If you want to be a dick and keep Boxer around by going all third party, then you're doing more to abet liberalism than I am.

Amen.  Scott Brown ain't Ronald Reagan but he ain't Coakley, either

repeat this mantra over and over and over again:  Lesser of Two Evils.  Politics in a two-party system has a huge 'zero sum' aspect:  You win the Presidency you don't.  Ask AlGore and W who was who in 2000.  One was Prez; the other did a slow-motion swan dive into dementia

302

Please, anybody, correct me if I'm mistaken. My impression about the Tea Parties' reason for being was a belief that the current levels and trends of spending by the government were unsustainable.

When the government spends money (much if not most of it justified and reasonable) it has to come up with the money it spends. It does this three different ways, each with its own set of effects:

1) It can demand the money in the form of taxes. This means that people will have less of their money for their own needs and wants.

2) It can print the money. This causes the money to decrease in value, so in effect everyone holding this currency will have less of it.

3) It can borrow the money. To draw an analogy, the government sustains this by paying the minimum due but allowing the principal to increase like what happens with an out-of-control shopaholic with credit cards. The treasury is all the time paying an increasing amount of interest on its debt.

The Tea Partiers maintain that all three of these, though necessary to some degree, are beyond healthy, functional, sustainable levels, and that whatever solution there is requires the government to stop spending so much.

(Sorry to go all Tea Parties for Dummies on everyone -- but isn't that it?)

303 I hate to break this to the hard core tea party types...you aren't a majority of Americans.

Posted by: DrewM.

But you are?

Thanks for putting us in our place DrewM.

304

One thing that these "Purity Republican" column shows is that there is a deep divide among the Republicans, and even some conservatives right now.

ALL should think hard on that before the next primary.  In fact, the Republican Party needs to think hard on that.

What we do NOT need is another candidate who wins with 30% of the vote and who the other 70% hate.

305

Palins vision of the Republican party is Rand Paul and John McCain, amongst others. Enough said.

306 I hate to break this to the hard core tea party types...you aren't a majority of Americans.

Posted by: DrewM.

But you are?

Thanks for putting us in our place DrewM.

Nope, Drew M's bunch are not either.

BUT--If you two factions work *together* on the 80% of issues where you are together--then you *are* a majority, and together you can beat back the Statists, Demunists, and Commiecrats who are 80% against you, if not more.

Got it?

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

307 Re: Rand Paul I see now I was asked about RAND Paul. I read quickly and thought he wrote "Ron Paul." I would vote 3d party rather than vote for Ron Paul. I am unsure about Rand Paul. I don't like that he just said that Iran is building nukes because they feel "threatened" -- standard Ron Paul nuttery -- but he so far is pretending he's not his father.

308 But you are?
Posted by: 57 States at February 17, 2010 04:25 PM (U0oFg)

I'll wait for you to find where I wrote that.

Actually, I won't since I never did.

Here's the thing...that's politics. No group can claim a majority for everyone of their issues. That's why parties are coalitions and there are intra-party fights for whose issue gets pushed and whose ox gets gored.

Anyone demanding the Republican Party toe the tea party line is only insuring both lose.

No one gets 100% of what they want in American politics, so you have to fight for what you can, bank what you win and try again. Walking away or not accepting that reality isn't statesmanship, it's infantile.

Oh and I didn't put anyone in their place, the numbers are what they are.

309
Link to Rasmussen report on Senate race in KY.

310 "IF Romney had won the Rep primary and chose Pawlenty as his 2spot, AND played hardball with the Jugheaded Jesus over ayers/wright/etc..

COULD they have won?"

The better question would be: What difference would it have made?

Remember, Mitt Romney signed ObamaCare as Governor of Massachusetts. ObamaCare is MassCare writ large. It all started here, with Mitt Romney "working with Democrats across the aisle" to screw us all. Mitt joined them - he left us and joined them.

And Mitt Romney signed that piece of shit legislation. He didn't veto it and let the legislature override his veto. He fucking signed it. Because he was for it.

Republicans = Democrats

It's precisely this sort of shit that led directly to the creation of the Tea Party.

So, the message to Sarah Palin is: Don't fucking join Democrats to do any bipartisan shit, or you'll go the way of Mitt Fucking Romney.

311 Nope, Drew M's bunch are not either.

Just curious but which 'bunch' do you imagine I belong to?

312

I'll post this from the other column:

Perfect timing - Foxnews Alert:

Tea Party Organizer Wins New York State Assembly Race

Dean Murray, a 45-year-old Long Island, N.Y., businessman who organized Tea Party protests, will be sworn in as the new Republican state assemblyman representing Long Island's eastern 3rd Assembly District after being certified the winner of a special election held last Tuesday. 

http://fxn.ws/dCvalL

Posted by: paranoid polly at February 17, 2010 04:29 PM (r7Vc3)

313
I would vote 3d party rather than vote for Ron Paul.

I would only if the 3rd party candidate had a real shot at winning. I would not waste my vote.

314

188
okay, then, I want to put the fear of God into the GOP leadership. I want those lazy dinkweeds to 'find religion.'

You will put the fear of God into them when they come home to meet the County chairs and find  fingers being put into their faces and lectures being given - because the county chairs are receiving lots and lots of heat from the local party members and decide that the 'pleasure' ought to be shared.

You out side of the party ranting on the internet?  Not so much.

315 Amen.  Scott Brown ain't Ronald Reagan but he ain't Coakley, either

repeat this mantra over and over and over again:  Lesser of Two Evils.  Politics in a two-party system has a huge 'zero sum' aspect:  You win the Presidency you don't.  Ask AlGore and W who was who in 2000.  One was Prez; the other did a slow-motion swan dive into dementia

Right, that thinking, used too liberally, got us Dede in NY-23. That election, HAD to be cratered by a third party to get the Republicans to listen. It's not "pure" but it is "as conservative as possible". McCain certainly doesn't match that bill for Arizona. And everyone always talks about primaries, but we all know that RNC and NRSC have been putting their fingers on the scale early with endorsements and primary money for their "chosen ones" who were often not as conservative as possible. Dede was the epitome of everything wrong with Republican leadership that led to our current ills.

316 Republicans = Democrats
Posted by: someguy at February 17, 2010 04:30 PM (VRJIW)

Really?

Would the so-called 'stimulus' have been designed the same way if Republicans were in charge?

Would ObamaCare have gotten out of the Senate if Tom Coburn had written it?

Would Sonia Sotomayor be on the Supreme Court now?

Would the 'Bush tax cuts' be set to expire if the Republicans were in charge?

Look, I have a long list of grievances with Republicans and while they are bad in their own special ways,, to say there is no difference between them and Obama-Reid-Pelosi is simply disconnected from reality.

317
So, I would call it a 50/50 proposition at best.

Yeah, okay, sure. The reason I brought it up was to point out how Ace and others might have painted themselves into a corner if Rand Paul wins the nomination. It could happen and I was curious to know how they, we, will deal with it.

318 Republicans = Democrats

Posted by: someguy at February 17, 2010 04:30 PM (VRJIW)

I was unaware that Republicans in congress were currently voting yes on all Democrat legislature, thereby proving themselves Democrats.

319 Who is DrewM?  Is he safe?

Someone hand me the drill......

320

I would vote 3d party rather than vote for Ron Paul.

OK, ace -- flip side of realism. In hypothetical election between Ron Paul and the Obamunist, I'm voting for Ron Paul. Wholeheartedly. Just as I ate my McCain excrement sandwich.

You can't ask the Paulians to be real if you won't be.

 

321 Look, I have a long list of grievances with Republicans and while they are bad in their own special ways,, to say there is no difference between them and Obama-Reid-Pelosi is simply disconnected from reality.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 17, 2010 04:36 PM (9B5OK)

Didn't you know?  Jim DeMint is Pelosi's sooper sekrit lapdog.  What, no one told you?

322 Someday a real rain will fall and wash all the scum off the streets.

323 Yeah, the point is good.  

The only real world practical effect of "tea party" is that it energizes and exposes voters to small gov't philosophy.

That's it.

If it causes good Republican candidates to emerge. . .good.
If it causes weak Democrat candidates to fold. . .good.
If it causes good Democrat candidates to moderate themselves a little bit. . .good.

324  In hypothetical election between Ron Paul and the Obamunist, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

On the upside, those of us who loathe Paul will never be faced with that problem in the real world. The Paulbots however do have to decide whether or not to 'compromise' because that's the world we live in.

325 can't we just make a deal where NO conspiracy retard can run for office?

326

You're right Curmudgeon.

We believe in the same basic principles, from that starting point debate and compromise should reach a satisfactory conclusion for all.

Any compromise with the Statists is defeat.

327
No direct polling of  Paul v. Greyson.

you're right, except for the PPP poll, which you or Curmudgeon mentioned. But still...he was endorsed by Sarah Palin which tells you Grayson is not much of a conservative. In fact his wiki page reveals he was a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.

328 I think the reality of the situation is not prevalent in those who scoff at the threat of the TEA party.

1. We CAN'T do this again. If we survive this push for socialism we won't the next. We simply cannot afford to cling to the failed policies of the past (hehe) and moderate the party to a confusion of principal and allow a hard swing to the Democrats.

2. If we actually ever wan't things to get better and not just slow our descent into Socialism, we NEED reps who have the spine to turn this ship around. You don't get that by electing milky toast.

We need hard core conservatives as the base party, and at the fringe fringes, Scott Browns and even a John McCain (Hey if he was running in New Jersey I'd definitely get behind him) If we are going to turn this around, otherwise we are just screwing around, admitting defeat, and simply invested in slowing the fall, because unless we can shift things much more conservative than they are now, we will never turn this around.

329

On the upside, those of us who loathe Paul will never be faced with that problem in the real world. The Paulbots however do have to decide whether or not to 'compromise' because that's the world we live in.

I know, Drew, I know.

But for the sake of argument, I will vote for Ron Paul if it ever was him vs. a Commiecrat candidate.

I just wish the Paulians had the same pragmatic reality.

330 Y'all missed a few deck chairs.

331
that's true.
haha, even Rick Perry was a Democrat until, oh, 1994-ish.

332

All right Drew, I'll let it slide.  Actually your point is well taken and I agree with you.

But, we cannot have RINO's reaching across the aisle and voting with the communists or whatever they are calling themselves today.  That is the line is the sand I (me personally) want these Repubs to start understanding.

Let's say for the hell of it that McCain won in 08.  You'd still have the Pelosi/Reid juggernaut and they'd still be writing crappy bills to destroy the country and McCain would be signing them into law.

No more.  We don't need Repubs that think a little bit of Marxism is okay.  It's that kind of thinking that has gotten us to the point we find ourselves today.

I say we make Komrade Obama the lightning rod and McCain the whipping boy to get this point across.

333

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a sizeable part of the Tea Party seniors who are enraged someone wanted to dick with their government benefits?

What happens when a party wants to balance the budget? Whoever they are.

334 We need hard core conservatives as the base party, and at the fringe fringes, Scott Browns and even a John McCain (Hey if he was running in New Jersey I'd definitely get behind him) 

Posted by: MikeTheMoose

I'm with you on that.  The problem with McCain is he's not running in the NE, he comes from the state of Barry Goldwater.

Not to mention that little twit of a daughter he has. She must think Slim Jim's are some kind of diet food.

335 Do you watch the news?  Because our side has been on it - a lot.  Protests and townhalls etc.  I'm one of them, and I both work and go to school full-time.  There's time, there is always time.  People find time to watch tv, play videogames, posts on blogs like we're doing right now.  Giving up even half of that just to make some damn phone calls isn't going to kill anyone.  Taking a couple of hours out of one day once a month to attend a local conservative meetup to discuss/strategize/support isn't going to ruin anyone's lifestyle.  I guarantee you that 95% of the people who are already doing this stuff have those productive jobs and families and everything else - but they made time.

Yes a teeny little bit. A few hours here, a few hours there. The lefties went at this hard core, set up "Community Organizations" that did this stuff full time for next to nothing. We can threaten third party, throw our votes around, attend town halls and yell at reps. But the TEA partiers do not have the time to take this up as a personal missive for their entire life and set up "Community groups" and infiltrate educational systems, and do all of the other things hard core lefties have done since the 20's to end our free society. What we have going for us is not TIME it's NUMBERS, big large numbers, and that demands that we use a different tactic than the lefties used to take over the Democrat party. We throw our numbers around to make the Republican party to come into line. How do we do that, threaten not to vote for them or run against them if they can't keep their hands off the scales and run true open primaries, and send squish like Snowe packing, so others don't mistake their "historical" responsibility.

336 >>>You can't ask the Paulians to be real if you won't be. Yeah I can because the Paulians don't vote for GOP, they only vote for Ron Paul. They're really not conservatives. They are some sort of weird goldbug peacenik radicals. There's no agreement to be reached here. They continue making the same offer they always make: Support Ron Paul and I'll vote with you. That's the only offer they make. Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul. (LUDWIG VON MISES!!!) They're like Scientologists.

337

You guys don't know what you want.

1. Outlaw Mormon polygamy

2. Repeal the Kansas-Nebraska Act

3. Federal railroad subsidy

Now that's how you run a third party.

338 Pursuing the crank vote is a waste of time. Cranks want their crank-agenda and that's it.

339 Third parties can never be elected to a major national office. That's why someone running under the Socialist Party like Bernie Sanders or an Independent like Joe Leiberman aren't in the Senate right now.

Oh. Wait. They are? Never mind.

QED your argument is Epic Fail, Ace.

340 And for crying out loud, if you're going to resort to "Appeal to Authority" fallacies, at least pick a reasonably good authority. Please?

341

I'm wondering what the reaction is going to be when all of the "we're going to reform the Republican Party from within" people get Mitt Romney shoved down their throats by the party insiders and big money.

342

Ace,

You get me some money, and I'll peel off as many cranks as I can get.

We'll call it the Anti-Tri-Lateral Commission Party and take form both the left and right.

343

Ace, I agree with your main point, but you aren't quite right here:

America is a winner-take-all country. Winner take all.

It is (barely) possible for a third party to:

1.  Win actual elections in (a presumably closely divided) Congress--not just "lose well"--and thus deny either party a majority, and then possibly act as a kingmaker in exchange for concessions.

2.  Win states in a close presidential race, denying both parties a majority in the Electoral College and throwing the election into the House of Representatives.  While this is unlikely to give the third party leverage like Scenario # 1 does--unless, of course, this scenario happens simultaneoulsly with S1--it will make the political party closest in ideology to the third party think twice before crossing them again.

For the record, both Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968 were counting on S2 in order to force the Democrats to reconsider their support for racial integration.  (They both failed).  I don't know if S1 has ever happened--maybe right before the Civil War, when the Whig Party hadn't quite died yet.

344

I'm not seeing a definition of this "crank agenda" anyplace here--not a single item, except it's something about Paul.. Before coming down too hard on one side of the issue, I'd like to know if I am the crank in question.

Ace does this a lot.

What's eatin' on ya, Ace? Gay marriage? Tight currency? Border control? Pot?

What the hell is it that has you so upset? You're not making sense to me.

345

Contrary to what it may seem, I can spell simultaneously.

346 >>>I'm wondering what the reaction is going to be when all of the "we're going to reform the Republican Party from within" people get Mitt Romney shoved down their throats by the party insiders and big money. This is a load of crap. If Romney wins, it would be because a majority (or at least a plurality) preferred him to any other candidate. I understand that in voting there is always the Take Your Ball and Go Home option. No one HAS to vote for someone they abhor, after all. But you guys continue to posit it's only due to dark conspiracies that you don't get your way. Because if you admitted what's really going on most of the time -- people just disagree with you in good faith -- it makes your huffy Take My Ball and Go Home thing sounds less self-righteous and more peevish. I don't favor Romney. He was always near the bottom of my list as far as support. It was always Rudy, then Thompson, then (in a fantasy world where he could win) Duncan Hunter, then Romney, and last McCain. Romney was never "my guy." But was I prepared to vote for him should he win? Of course. A lot of you guys are simply dead set on My Guy or the Highway and that is your right, I suppose, but I and the rest of the party are not going to be treated like Junior Partners to you guys, who are pulling this interminable power-play move where you basically keep threatening to bolt if you don't get your way. What incenses me is that I am fine with almost any candidate you would support -- I'd be behind him, 100%. I am fine with more conservative candidates. I am fine with average-conservative candidates. I am less fine with less-conservative candidates, but I will support them if some process deems they are the best candidate for that election. A process you migh have heard of called a "primary," where people offer themselves to the caucus and the caucus votes. But you guys with the constant My Way or the Highway crap... at some point, I just want to say "Fuck you." Because I'm personally tired of having terms endlessly dictated to me.

347 What we have going for us is not TIME it's NUMBERS, big large numbers, and that demands that we use a different tactic than the lefties used to take over the Democrat party. We throw our numbers around to make the Republican party to come into line. How do we do that, threaten not to vote for them or run against them if they can't keep their hands off the scales and run true open primaries, and send squish like Snowe packing, so others don't mistake their "historical" responsibility.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at February 17, 2010 05:01 PM (0q2P7)

In one breath you say that we don't have time to mess about slowly building a contingency, and in the next throw your hat into the ring for the one way that guarantees the left will maintain power in the foreseeable future. 

Who says that we can't vote for the best Republican option and still continue the fight for conservative issues?  People are operating on the fallacy that once we regain power, we suddenly have to put down our poster board signs and put the protest buses in storage.  Says who??  We don't.  We won't.

348

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a sizeable part of the Tea Party seniors who are enraged someone wanted to dick with their government benefits?

Well, first, I think you are wrong, or at least overstating.  Recall the tea parties got started in opposition to the bailout and stimulus.  And I certainly haven't heard any older tea party attendees giving Medicare cuts as their main concern.  Maybe by implication of opposing overall unsustainable spending some are, but then that's hardly such an outlandish concern you have to read some deeper meaning into it. 

What happens when a party wants to balance the budget? Whoever they are.

This is the million dollar question.  Bush's proposed reforms wouldn't have touched current retirees, but the Democrats demagogued it until their big lie stuck.  The problem is that the current system is flatly unsustainable.  Either it gets reformed soon or it crashes hard later, because the money is not going to be there to pay out.  Maintaining the status quo is a recipe for feudal serfdom levels of taxation on the working young, leading to a communist-style cessation of work or tax revolt and inter-generational warfare.  I think we have to keep taking runs at it until the public mood shifts enough for reform. 

349 Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel what I'm doing is always saying "let's work this out, let's compromise, let's get people out there who are as conservative as possible" and that crap. I feel like I'm bending, in other words. I'm pretty pliable as it is -- I really don't CARE much if x or y dude wins, so long as he's fairly conservative. But I keep feeling like this willingness to bend on my part is not being reciprocated on the other side. And actually I'm not even ON a side here, except I want conservatives to win. I don't really give a shit if a super-conservative candidate or moderately-conservative candidate wins a primary-- I'm FINE with either one. Whoever wins -- I'm down with tha guy. But in return for my willingness to bend whichever way, I just keep hearing from a bunch of guys who think they're tough guys and keep telling me, over and over, FUCK YOU WE GET TO SET THE TERMS AND WE WILL NOT COMPROMISE AN INCH FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. So, on a personal matter, at that point, my response becomes FUCK YOU BACK, because on a personal level, I don't wish to be bossed around by people who I think are 1) pulling some tough-guy power play bullshit and 2) being unreasonable and 3) not treating ME with respect. And I think that's why backs keep getting up here. It's because a lot of us horrible RINO sell-outs you hate so much (and tell us so every day) are perfectly happy to support your candidates and your specific agenda, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you tell us FUCK YOU WE SET THE RULES. And on a human level: I'm not having that. I'm just not.

350 This endless bossing around and the endless threats...? At some point? I don't give a fuck. Go slit your own goddamned throats if it makes you so fucking happy to paint the ground with your blood. I'm not going to be some fucking stand-in for some RINO or liberal you hate so you can beat me up because you can't beat that other guy up. If you want to be childish and peevish and unreasonable -- fuck you too.

351 I don't know how many times I can say I"m happy to support the most conservative candidate who gets through the primaries. And you knuckleheads want to keep fucking telling me your perfect candidate can win a fucking general election but for some reason can't even manage a plurality in a Republican primary. So you just keep insisting you're going to vote for some loser. So, fucking vote for him. Leave me out of it. If you want to be a loser, if you want to lose elections, go find your fucking bliss. Leave the rest of us the fuck out of it.

352 A process you migh have heard of called a "primary," where people offer themselves to the caucus and the caucus votes.

Yeah, I've heard of a primary, but it always seems to work out more like "all the interesting folks drop out before I get a chance to vote". Which is why a lot of people feel that they have mediocre candidates forced onto them.

353 Ace, would you vote for Huckabee?

354 Ehhhh... I guess. Regretfully, trepidatiously, but yeah.

355

I don't like that he just said that Iran is building nukes because they feel "threatened"...

Really? Maybe it's something best left unsaid, but that's a big part of why they're scrambling for nukes. And they should feel threatened--they'd be fools not to. We have huge armies on their borders and a naval presense that would snug up even Andi's worn-out puckerstring if he were a mullah.

356 And when you guys mount these third party challenges -- and both the Tea Party guy and the GOP guy lose -- enjoy and emboldened and strengthened Democratic party which now understands the "Tea Party" is a paper tiger -- worse than that; it actually HELPS them -- because some people are too retarded to do math and can't understand (or refuse to understand) that in any kind of competitive race, dividing your barely-a-majority 55% vote-share in half means you lose. So, good. Let the Democrats know you're so angry you've become genuinely mentally retarded and will actually REWARD them for socialism.

357 Hoo-ho, ace. The knuckleheads are gonna rip a gaping hole right through the heart of your White Party.

358 I know, I really don't like him, but if it was Huck or Obama I'd have to go with Huck.

359 sponge, you know what it means when a Paul says that. It's his ideology of Peace At Any Cost finding some way to blame America for her woes because if it's America's fault, we have to fix the problem with ourselves, rather than fixing someone else's problem. What you say is always true -- sure, every country acts partly out of fear. But this is a rhetorical framework by which to claim that all foreign policy problems can be fixed by fixing our own fucked-up attitudes.

360 you know what it means when Dennis Kucinich says it. So don't get all stupid and pretend not to know what Rand Paul means by it.

361

Huck? Well, that's where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? You talk about damaging the brand. Jeebus.

Not sure I could do that one.

362 "372 Ace, would you vote for Huckabee?" Oh man. I don't even want to think about it.

363

Ace, if Romney wins it won't be because of "dark conspiracies."  It will be because of open primaries and Democrat voters.

This isn't saying that I wouldn't still vote for him.  I would--very reluctantly.  However, I am not the only voters.  If Romney wins, the Republicans will lose--as they always do with "moderate" candidates--no matter whom I vote for.

364 >>>>Yeah, I've heard of a primary, but it always seems to work out more like "all the interesting folks drop out before I get a chance to vote". Which is why a lot of people feel that they have mediocre candidates forced onto them. Only true in presidential elections. in senate and house contests, of course, no one drops out as the campaigns are shorter and all the voting is done in a single day. If your guy can't win in a conservative primary, one of two things is true: 1) He's a bad ideological fit for the state or district. 2) He's just a bad campaigner who doesn't have the non-ideological factors required to win (common touch, charisma, energy, gravitas, money and/or connections, etc.) It's not some dark conspiracy that keeps people from winning primaries.

365

>>  I know, I really don't like him, but if it was Huck or Obama I'd have to go with Huck.

 

I think there are things at the grassroots and state level we can and should do to persuade R's to close some of the loopholes in the primary system (my own state Republican party could use a kick in the ass here).

But once the candidate is the candidate, he's getting my vote over any Democrat. Period.

I've proven it with Dole and McCain, I can do it again.  Even if it's Huck, whom I despise.. he'll do more right for me than Obama would.

366 376 Hoo-ho, ace. The knuckleheads are gonna rip a gaping hole right through the heart of your White Party.

Of the 2 parties, only one actually looks America and it's not the Democrat Party.

367 >>>Ace, if Romney wins it won't be because of "dark conspiracies." It will be because of open primaries and Democrat voters. No, it will be because of Republicans who prefer him to other candidates. Believe it or not, for a substantial number of Republicans -- like 50%, almost -- Romeny's abortion flip-flop is no big deal. (And for pro-choicers, it's actually a little positive.) Romney won't be the candidate, though. It will be one of the following: Pawlenty Pence Daniels Thune all of whom are good solid conservatives.

368 #376: A little late for a leftist troll to show up. But hey, who was the closest to #376 on the "when does the leftist troll show up?" pool. 

369 Who are the teabags, you ask? Well, rich, white, repubs. Surprise!: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf

370 Maybe Rudy and Thompson could team-up and run as 1 candidate.

371

>I don't like that he just said that Iran is building nukes because they feel "threatened"...

>Really? Maybe it's something best left unsaid, but that's a big part of why they're scrambling for nukes.

That's a valid observation, as long as you don't follow it up with the 'solution' that we and Israel should stop threatening them.  And you might want to mention that the main reason they might consider us a short term threat is that they are actively killing our troops in Iraq and a rationale country might take offense at that at some point.  Or that Israel's problem with them stems from their supplying her most direct enemies with rockets that were at one point being fired daily.  Or 30 years of Friday chanting of 'Death to the Great Satan, Death to the Little Satan."

Now if your solution was regime change in Iran to something that could get along better with the rest of us, you'd be on to something.

372

I guess so. I mean, the statement on its face doesn't strike me as objectionable.

See, there's a part of me that wishes we could be a little more frank about security issues like Iran. Yeah, the place is run by shitty people and they have little reason currently to blame us for their problems. But this soft imperialism of ours comes with costs. Saying they're nuking up out of self-preservation should be something a guy can say without bringing charges of "blaming America" upon themselves.

I have no truck with Paulians and such.

Sorry so OT.

373 It's not some dark conspiracy that keeps people from winning primaries.

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 05:38 PM (jlvw3)

Tell that to the PUMA folks.

374

Who are the teabags, you ask? Well, rich, white, repubs. Surprise!:

Yes, the ones who pay for your welfare check.

375 Trumescent has convinced me. What we need is more Obama-style socialism, it's worked everywhere it's been tried.

376 Over on the other thread (the Carville smear campaign thread), someone is using "neoconservative" in a way that I gather is meant to be a smear. 

I don't think of neoconservatives as an element that should be purged from the GOP, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm in the minority.  Am I? 

377 Who are the teabags, you ask? Well, rich, white, repubs. Surprise!:

My broke ass begs to differ.

378 Ace:  how about Tom Coburn?

379

Ace,

  This is what you said:

But I keep feeling like this willingness to bend on my part is not being reciprocated on the other side.

 That's what I say too but about the Republican Party. And I'm not a newcomer. How about I was at a huge campaign rally at Madison Square Garden with Barry Goldwater principal speaker and candidate. And at another Goldwater speech later on in his campaign. I was a freshman in college at the time. See. I've been at this for a long time. And it's the same old shit from the Republicans all the time. Except Reagan. Bob Dole was the final straw for me. Don't even mention McCain. So you see I've pretty much given up on the Republicans and I'll probably go to my grave before they change. I'm not a my way or the highway type. I just don't expect too damn much from them and it's gotten where I could almost give a shit anymore. How many years do I have to eat the same shit sandwich?

380 And I don't mind that Obama goes both ways, it's his decision and we should not condemn him.

381
It will be because of open primaries and Democrat voters.

I disagree because I don't think Romney is perceived as a weak candidate by the Left, or at least not as weak as some on our side perceives him. I don't see moonbats rushing to the polls to get Romney nominated because he's an easy mark; I think he's the last Republican they'd prefer to see run against Obama, in my opinion.

382 >>>>I don't think of neoconservatives as an element that should be purged from the GOP, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm in the minority. Am I? There are Paulians who are big on this as well as some kind of obnoxious people we now term "paleocons" who are pissed "Their Party" was taken from them. It's a tension. You're not in the minority. But there is about 20-25% of the party who hates neocons.

383 #376: A little late for a leftist troll to show up. But hey, who was the closest to #376 on the "when does the leftist troll show up?" pool.

On a thread with "Palin" in the title?  I doubt anyone took over 45.

384

>>>You can't ask the Paulians to be real if you won't be.

Yeah I can because the Paulians don't vote for GOP, they only vote for Ron Paul.

Ace: I am with you. Your posts about the nutty purists in #368 to #370 are well taken.

But in response to a Paulian's query of whether I would vote for Paul over a Commiecrat, my answer is "Fuck Yeah!"

385
I dunno about you guys, but I'd love to see Obama debate someone like Mitt Romney.

holy crap, even McCain beat Obama in 2 of the 3 debates. The other one was a tie.

386 >>>Ace: how about Tom Coburn? Are you saying would I vote for him? Yes. Would I support him in the primaries, though? For President? no. People who win the presidency are sunny people. I like Tom Coburn but he's probably too conservative for the nation (and has the record on federal votes to prove it) and he doesn't have the sunny sort of demeanor that strong conservatives need to overcome that. (Obviously I mean Reagan -- the more conservative you are, the sunnier and more charismatic you'd better be if you want any chance of winning.) By the way though: I support his ideology. My reasons for not supporting him would not be that I disagree with him, but rather that I fear he could not convince 51% of the country to vote for him. (Unless Obama truly blows up the nation, in which case we can safely run Glen Beck.)

387

I guess I just don't think saying they're nuking up out of fear implies that they are being unjustly terrorized. They are being justly terrorized, and I hope the mullahs get their worst fears realized someday, whether their worst fear is radioactivity or dangling from a streetlight.

I should write Rand Paul's stuff, no?

388 >>>How many years do I have to eat the same shit sandwich? Did you enthusiastically vote for Bush? Because I did. He turned out to be so-so, but I was enthusiastic for him in 2000 and 2004. And then there's Reagan... I don't know, Pocono Joe. I don't think you're being realistic enough about a politician's ability to thrill you on both an ideological and personal-qualities level. I think, frankly, you expect too much, and hence are disappointed too much. I sort of think all of these guys are kinda scumbags, to be honest. That's sort of why I actually hate politics. It's a scumbag business. But, I do have a lesser threshold to meet as far as meeting my approval.

389 Gee, I sure love it when morons start hysterically shrieking "racist!" at people like Ron Paul.  And then I wonder why the Republicans are just Democrat-lite.

390 Dammit, when we've lost Dr. Spank, we've lost the country.  You win erg.  My give up.

I don't think of neoconservatives as an element that should be purged from the GOP, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm in the minority.  Am I?

It depends on who's using it.  From some people it basically means "I hate George W Bush and everyone that agreed with him."  From others it seems to mean "Jew" but where I hear that, it tends to be people on the left who are pissed that anyone fled the Democrat party over its wimpy foreign policy positions.

391 I think the mood of the country in run up to the next presidential election will determine who I support. If the election were this year, we could nominate any hard-core conservative and he would win. 2012? We'll see.

392

Pawlenty
Pence
Daniels
Thune

Who else?  'Cause none of these guys are running a thrill up my leg.

393

You can't claim to be the base of the party of you actually aren't in the party.

You want to really know what got the health-care debacle to the level of debacle?  It was reps and senators coming home, holding town halls - and finding a lot of people there who were not happy with health-care reform plans.

You want to keep the heat up?  Join the local party, go to the meetings, attend the dinners, volunteer for campaigns, go to the county and state conventions - because then the candidates and the current office holders are going to see you, they are going to hear your concerns, they are going to look at who shows up to do the boring grunt-work of any campaign.  (And the threat of removing support works when the support being threatened is real, visible support.)  And, if you are not the only one sharing your 'concerns' with the candidates and office holders, they are going to learn where the lines that they may not cross are.  That is what changes a party.

Why are the Democrats the way they are now and not like JFK Democrats or Harry Truman Democrats?

394

2012? We'll see.

Did you ever hear the one about the Zen Master and the little boy?

395 My favorite Ron Paul moment? In Bruno. That was classic.

396 I thought that fucking dog pile erg had been banned.

397

You can't claim to be the base of the party if you actually aren't in the party.

Truer words were never typed. The Paulians? The GOP "purists" who threaten to leave the GOP and go 3rd Party when they only get 70% of what they want? Guess what. *They* are the fringe, not those of us who swallow hard and accept the RINO over the Commiecrat when we have to.

398

Neoconservatives were the left-wing intellectuals who moved to the right as a reaction to the Left's excesses in the Sixties and Seventies.  They tended to be less conservative than traditional conservatives on economic matters and even more hawkish on foreign affairs (although unlike traditional conservatives, they were concerned about advancing democracy abroad, whereas traditional conservatives were primarily focused on defeating Communism).  On social issues they tended toward the right, except on immigration (OK, that's sort of economic too).

Generally, the domestic views of the neoconservatives were forgotten by everyone else once they started having a major influence on foreign policy during the George W. Bush administration.  They supported the Iraq War and, more generally, the promotion of democracy throughout the Middle East.  This caused them to be hated by both the extreme left (which usually had no clue as to what a "neocon" was) and the Paulian right (which identified them with Zionist Jews).

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of neoconservatives, but the leftist and Paulian hatred has made it difficult to make them heard over the screaming.  (They were wrong about immigration, for instance).

399 I don't know, Pocono Joe. I don't think you're being realistic enough about a politician's ability to thrill you on both an ideological and personal-qualities level. I think, frankly, you expect too much, and hence are disappointed too much.

I sort of think all of these guys are kinda scumbags, to be honest. That's sort of why I actually hate politics. It's a scumbag business.

But, I do have a lesser threshold to meet as far as meeting my approval.

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 05:53 PM (jlvw3)

Let's all be honest.  The only candidate that a person can agree with 100% is himself.  And then you might find out his/her personal life is in the dumper or at least not as perfect as you'd like it.  People elect people.  The candidate is no better than the people who elect him/her.  And if you know anyone who hasn't cheated or lied in even a small way, I'll be shocked...unless He walked on water.

400 I also think that you are not sufficiently mindful that the ideology you support -- and I mean the specific ideology, what you think about EVERY issue, and how passionately -- is frankly an ideology of 1% of the public. 1%. And I don't mean you're fringe -- I mean I have a 1% ideology, too. When you carve up my position profile to be very SPECIFIC on EACH issue, no more than 1% of the public actually shares my profile. So what are we going to do, you and me? Here we are each with our 1% position profiles. Even in our own party, 98% do not agree with you, or me, on a SPECIFIC level with regard to EVERY issue. Like, for example -- spongeworthy here supported Amnesty. About 30% of the party DOES support amnesty, or something like that. So what are we going to do? We all sort of disagree, in ways both small and large. Can any of us expect the party to adhere to our position profiles precisely? Every politician in the party? What people do, when I ask them this, is say something like, "Well, I know people disagree, but at least we can all agree that America needs to win the war it starts, that we should stop illegal immigration, guarantee second amendment rights, and respect the sanctity of unborn lives." See, what everyone does -- everyone, including me -- is say "Well what we can all agree on is My Top Agenda Item, and on My Secon Highest Agenda Item, and My Third Highest Agenda Item, and My Fourth Highest Agenda Item." And we say-- oh, you can disagree about the shit I don't care about. But everyone has a different list! Sponge wants amnesty, or at least isn't against it. Many people are NOT pro-life, or only pro-life up to a point. Some people in the party are against the war in fact were ALWAYS against the war in Iraq. And some people don't midn some gun control with regard to "scary guns." So whenever someone say 'Well we can ALL agree On JUST these three points," they're actually WRONG. So what are we going to do, with us all disagreeing with each other on basic issues? Either we're going to compromise and do the best we can to muddle through so that none of us is acutally miserable, or one group is going to win and impose its exact agenda on the rest of us, and forget that last one, it's not going to happen, because if you think the Ron Paul type isolationists are just going to give on the war issue, you're wrong, and etc.

401
"This guy is queer as blazes."

402

I thought that fucking dog pile erg had been banned.

He finds another IP and keeps coming back.

Just like the Left. Earlier posts who fancied having a two party system of a Republican Party and a Tea Party don't understand that the Commiecrats will always be there. They will always be hatched, always be reared by either indulgent parents or well-meaning parents who were too cruel or too distant that they backlashed against. Leftist will always be grown in the artificial wombs known as "campuses", they will always be ass-raped and discover they like being the mea culpa self-hating victim, however they are formed. Life goes on. World without end, amen.

 

403 >>>Pawlenty Pence Daniels Thune >>>Who else? 'Cause none of these guys are running a thrill up my leg. 1, why not? 2, give them time, you probably don't even know them yet. 3, leg thrills are uncommon in politics and if you're expecting leg thrills you are probably going to be disappointed. I know Sarah Palin offers leg-thrills but I am very worried she only offers leg-thrills to 35% of the party, tops, and turns off 60% of the country. I think charisma and that rock-star quality are very important, and, as Palin would say, you betcha, I'd love that in a candidate (as I loved in Palin), but thrilling 35% while losing 55% is not a winning formula. It would be better to moderately please 55% while thrilling none.

404 WTF happened to the 80/20 rule?  I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot over the 20%  - who the hell does that??  Even knowing that not everyone's 20% will be the same, still...who does that?

This is politics, people.  We're not choosing a new church pastor.

405

Who cares why Iran is nuking up?

Nukes make them an unacceptable threat. End it. Easy peasy.

406

(They (neo-cons) were wrong about immigration, for instance).

I think neo-cons suffered from "Multiculturalism Of The Right" on that issue. A borderless planet of freedom, capitalists of the world unite. They meant well, but they were deluded.

407 When you carve up my position profile to be very SPECIFIC on EACH issue, no more than 1% of the public actually shares my profile.

Sullivan Syndrome(tm): Mistaking one's personal set of beliefs is the perfect set of positions for a party or ideological movement.

See also: insanity, political irrelevance.

408 Gee, Ace, you make the world sound like a place where I can't get what I want all the time.

409 I kind of thought Pawlenty was a narrow-faced dork without charisma. Then I heard him on Dennis Miller, and he recounted his blue-collar (really) upbringing and I started to like him a lot. On a personal level, I liked that. ON a political level, I loved that -- because other people will like it, too. That, and he was tossing out numbers like crazy about the economy like a professor. Anyway, I don't want to say I'm sold, but Pawlenty moved ahead of Thune on my list. My point is that it's early, and i didn't know anything much about Pawlenty until that interview.

410 I don't recall who the politician was who said it but I always thought this sums it up.  "I disagree with my kid on most issues but I'd still vote for him."  Each of us has that personal threshold that we can't get past. 

411 You Paulbots are just one giant papier mache puppet away from being Democrats, yourselves. Kindly refrain from breathing my air. I don't want to inhale any of your crazy.

412

419 I also think that you are not sufficiently mindful that the ideology you support -- and I mean the specific ideology, what you think about EVERY issue, and how passionately -- is frankly an ideology of 1% of the public.

1%.

And I don't mean you're fringe -- I mean I have a 1% ideology, too. When you carve up my position profile to be very SPECIFIC on EACH issue, no more than 1% of the public actually shares my profile.

So what are we going to do, you and me? Here we are each with our 1% position profiles.

And that is because, as you said, we have a structural two party American system with the legislature running from states and districts and the executive running seperate from the legislature, and not a parliamentarian system where control of the legislature gives you control of the executive branch.  The two big American parties form their coalitions before the election, not after it.  And every so often the parties go into internal-squabble mode to determine the pecking-order of the coalition.  And if you want your drop-dead important political hobby-horse to have a good position in the coalition, then you better be there, in the party, when that pecking-order is established or you are going to be in the outer darkness, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth (also know as the internet).

BTW - those who brought up Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman - they are the exceptions that prove the rule - and they are exceptions because of their particular circumstances.  However, they caucus with which party again?

413

Here's one thing I want from the Republican candidate:

He needs to treat Sarah Palin like a man would.

Specifically,  before he inevitably breaks down the reasons the GOP should reject her and nominate him, he needs to rip into the hate squads and Andrew Sullivan.  This is one reason I don't like Romney: instead of defending her honor--and perhaps stating more mildly that he disagrees with her on, maybe, a windfall profits tax--he seems to be smugly letting his supporters like David Frum lay into her, thus doing his dirty work.

(David Frum calls her a "cancer" because--well, she polls poorly.  Can you imagine what it would be like to work with someone like this weasel?  "Well, ma'am, I'd love to tear those rapists off you--except that people in the office don't like you.")

If you're not man enough to defend a lady's honor--you're not man enough to be President.

414 >>> This is one reason I don't like Romney: instead of defending her honor--and perhaps stating more mildly that he disagrees with her on, maybe, a windfall profits tax--he seems to be smugly letting his supporters like David Frum lay into her, thus doing his dirty work. I don't know if he's required to step in and defend an assumed competitor, but it sure would be a politically smart move to do so. Kind of a good point. I don't think Palin can win (or will even run), but there's no doubt 40% of the party LOOOOVES her. (I sort of love her too, or did at least, and am out of love with her because I don't want her to run, or, if she's going to run, to address the problems that make me wish she wouldn't run; if she does either I'd love her again.) Defending Palin against nasty attacks is a cost-free way to buy goodwill from a large bloc of the party.

415 When I call Romney later tonight to get my talking points I'll suggest it. (Kidding...! I don't think Romney's going anywhere, either. He is just as polarizing as Palin, but for different reasons. Basically Palin people hate Romney and Romney-type people hate Palin (or don't like her), so I think these two are both out. You cannot win if you do not have a mostly united, mostly harmonious caucus.)

416

OK Ace, I came up with my ideal ticket:

Dick Cheney/James Madison

417

Defending Palin against nasty attacks is a cost-free way to buy goodwill from a large bloc of the party.

Not looking like a nasty asshole (attacking her kids?) but defending her and them plays well with most normal humans - the kind who vote, but do not pay close attention to politics until after Labor Day on an election year.  Americans - from my experience - are people who value fair play and do not like seeing bullies attack women and children.

 

418 Not only that, Ace, but it probably would help with independents as well.  Contrary to what the Frums of the world think, most people don't work on the basis of  "cooties."  Most of the people who oppose her presidential ambitions don't hate her personally. 

419

>> Most of the people who oppose her presidential ambitions don't hate her personally. 

 

Including me, I love the woman.

420

Basically Palin people hate Romney and Romney-type people hate Palin

I guess I'm really weird because I like both of them, for different reasons.  Romney is Mr. Competent, which we could use these days.  Palin is a capital-l Leader who is absolutely fearless at sticking to her core beliefs, which are solid with my own.  Put them together somehow and you've got competent leadership that fits my worldview.

421 Absolutely spot on, Ace.

I spent some time trying to find out more about a few bizarre types who are trying to coopt or at least borrow some sunshine from the Tea Party penumbra.  I have nothing useful to post, but these folks exist, and are such "fringy" types there is hardly anything credible about them in print. One is Michael Patrick Leahy.  Some of the others are part of the group in Nevada that is fielding a "Tea Party" candidate as a third party contender.  Barry Levinson is one of them, and he's a BDS-infected bleater.

Splitting one of the parties into two guarantees the unsplit party a big win. I'd argue that is the strategy of some of these fringe kooks.

422

#439

I like Palin and I don't hate Romney.

Without Romney-Care in Massachusetts there would be no real-world USA evidence that Public Option/NHS-style medical care it won't work even here.  That demonstration is a very good thing, I think.

423

Splitting one of the parties into two guarantees the unsplit party a big win. I'd argue that is the strategy of some of these fringe kooks.

And then, when utter disaster falls, and the wool is finally stripped from the eyes of the people, and they come to me, begging for succor, then I can say 'I told you so!', gloat, and then use them in my plans for world conquest and the development of a low-cholesterol, diabetic safe dipping substance.

But mostly the world-conquest thing.  Kraft can develop the dipping-substance.

424

Without Romney-Care in Massachusetts there would be no real-world USA evidence that Public Option/NHS-style medical care it won't work even here.

Great point.  Romney projects competence, but RomneyCare, eh, not so much.  RomneyCare is also evidence that a President Romney might've gotten rolled by Pelosi on her liberal claptrap, and that ain't good, fwiw.  So he'd need a Palin type around to cure the spine flu he'd be likely to get.

425 Sorry, but a third party is an option. If the Republican party remains steadfast in being progressive liberal light, I will not support the Republican party. There are two choices, the Republicans join the Tea Party, or the Tea Party goes it alone and after 12 to 16 years of fighting, their will be the democratic party and the tea party.

It does not even need to be a seriously deadly battle between the two sides. The Tea Party can take pot shots where needed, NY 23 for example, and then stick the rest of resources in State elections until they have the infrastructure to simply discard the worthless Republican elites.

426 Defending Palin against nasty attacks is a cost-free way to buy goodwill from a large bloc of the party.

In defense of Romney (and I can't believe I just typed that) and the other potential candidates, I have to ask 'How would they go about this?"  Give  a speech out of the blue about how awful it is she's been mistreated?  Or a more general speech about urbanites and flyover-types getting along despite widely diverging cultures (like, um, BO's completely bullshit convention speech in 2004)?  Interject the topic as an aside in an interview?

I mean, she talks about it because folks are always asking her about it.

427 "I know Sarah Palin offers leg-thrills but I am very worried she only offers leg-thrills to 35% of the party, tops, and turns off 60% of the country."

Here's what I think is going on with those numbers, Ace:

Obama polls highly for being "likeable" and trustworthy, and smart.  No one seems to question why. I'm pretty sure it's because few people have the balls to go on record as disliking him for fear of the racism charge.

Palin is in the opposite situation.  The media has made sure that claiming Palin is a dumb hick is the "safe" thing to say.  Few have the balls to admit they think she's qualified.  I think an actual vote by people would show those numbers are bogus.

She's on a par with Regan in the IQ wattage department, as well as the common sense department. As Obama proves, being good at taking college level standardized tests is no guarantee of intelligence.

"Genius" level Presidents have not been all that good for this country.  Common sense ones have been.  And pointing to Clinton is an example where the man had some basic political common sense that was used for navigation.  His ability to do well in school was, for him, pretty much a trick to get laid and gain power.

428 >>>Give a speech out of the blue about how awful it is she's been mistreated? Nah, it's easier than that. When Palin is attacked, they just call a cable show like Cavuto and announce they have a press availability and presto, on the air within hours for ten minutes.

429 >>>Palin is in the opposite situation. The media has made sure that claiming Palin is a dumb hick is the "safe" thing to say. Few have the balls to admit they think she's qualified. I think an actual vote by people would show those numbers are bogus. Wait, so we need to nominate her just to put your theory to the test? Can she do somehting before then to convince some doubters -- and I have to say I have now become one, officially -- that she's up to the challenge?

430

after 12 to 16 years of fighting, their [sic] will be the democratic party and the tea party.

More likely there will be the Democrats and the gulag residents. 

Having said that, Ace, I have to admit that I can at least understand where someone like astonerii is coming from.  The GOP establishment is really bad at figuring out where the nation is politically.  To take a recent example, David Frum (yes, I hate him if you haven't figured that out already) said that the GOP would be doomed if they didn't jump on the cap and trade bandwagon.  In other words, the road to GOP success ran through $5/gallon gasoline.  Riiiigght.  The fact that Frum would say this indicates that he is either (a) a lying Democrat agent, or (b) totally lacking in any political common sense whatsoever.  If the Republicans had followed the advice of Frum--who, unfortunately, speaks for much of the GOP establishment--we would now be looking at a permanent Democrat supermajority.  And he'd be blaming Rush Limbaugh.

Of course, the conservatives didn't follow his twisted advice; but they also didn't pick up their marbles, Paulbot style, and go home.  Instead, they formed the Tea Party movement, and the rest is history.

431

But mostly the world-conquest thing. Kraft can develop the dipping-substance.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at February 17, 2010 06:36 PM (nlRuk)

You must first submit articles to Spotlight and World Net Daily.

Then you must sell cassette tapes of your plans for subsuming the status quo, and proper nutrition through diabetic-safe doughnuts.

And a book, too. Pamphlet, really, but call it a book.

Oh, and the newsletter. Tell us where to subscribe! We want to be on the correct side of your World Conquest!

432 "Her point about American politics being a two-party system is correct -- and people really need to understand this. It is structurally a two-party system. It wasn't designed intentionally to be that way, but that is the way it is designed."

That's a very good point, and it can't be stated enough. Third parties do not last long on the national scene, and the tend to do more harm (through splitting the vote) than good.

433 "I understand taking a locally-popular position. It happens. It's life. You can't vote on stuff if you can't get elected. This is something I really wish more conservatives would understand."

Which is how I feel about Ron Paul being called a "hypocrite" for a few earmarks...

434

Here's an ideal (and admittedly partial) field of Republicans for the primaries:

John Ashcroft, so the party can vote against the "Bush guy" and convince the nation at large that we're not running Bush against Obama; Jack Welch (if he's even a Republican) to offer vision and to show a personable side of the party; Sarah Palin, to get some people revved up about the other candidate that she'll eventually support; William Weld, to throw some metaphoric punches around when needed; David Petraeus, to personify strength and resolve in the face of adversity; and Bobby Jindal, to project youth.

After deciding the nominee, the second-strongest candidate runs for vice president.

(Subject to change. There's a long way to go.)

435 "I don't - and apparently many Americans agree- for one minute think that the blog posts that emanate in her name are written by her, yet I agree with those positions."

Same here.

436

"And the government -- the President and the administration he picks -- is directly elected. Congressmen do not elect the president."

No. The President is elected by the electoral college votes gleaned from each state. It's not a direct democracy; it's a representative democracy. WE ELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO VOTE FOR US.

In other words, whichever candidate gets the majority of the popular votes in a state, that equates into the amount of electoral college votes allocated for that particular state.

The electoral college representative, then casts his/her vote for that candidate.  This is why a candidate can win simply based on the electoral college rather than the popular vote. 

437 Wait, so we need to nominate her just to put your theory to the test?

Uhh, Noooo. I'm talking about my level of trust in those numbers, not proposing she be shoved into the nomination. I suspect if she were in some sort of actual vote (sheriff? postmaster?), then those numbers would prove false. We're allowed to posit these things in hypotheticals.

Can she do somehting before then to convince some doubters -- and I have to say I have now become one, officially -- that she's up to the challenge?

Posted by: ace at February 17, 2010 06:49 PM (jlvw3)

I don't really give a shzt about the doubt factor. One convinces people by getting their support. She's going about that pretty well now.

Besides I look at some of the well-known doubters (You and Allah don't count there, because you aren't part of the insider/beltway/correspondent set) and see their doubt as strategy. For example, if you were like Frum, and were trying to claim you have the pulse of a new generation of Conservatives, I'd have good reason to mistrust your publicly proclaimed doubts.

This is an old trick.  Like being the guy trying to look cool in school by claiming your friends' favorite bands are sellouts, and your favorite band is the shzt.

I think you and AllahP are more rational in your criticisms and concerns, and I think Frum and the Powerline guys (for example) are not.

438

1, why not?

2, give them time, you probably don't even know them yet.

3, leg thrills are uncommon in politics and if you're expecting leg thrills you are probably going to be disappointed.

I want what I think you and most other folks here would like - the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan.  Politically I'm fine with any of these guys, but to win they have to get to that 51%.  IMO there is about 20% of the electorate that has no clue but votes on emotion, and unfortunately they decide most elections.  

439

I don't - and apparently many Americans agree- for one minute think that the blog posts that emanate in her name are written by her, yet I agree with those positions.

Wait, what?  Is there any evidence or even hint of that whatsoever?  Even granting she's no Dick Cheney in governmental experience and not ideally qualified to be president yet, a state college degree and governorship of Alaska means she must be so functionally illiterate she must have a ghost writer for some fairly innocuous and general populist conservative facebook posts?  Where does that even come from?  Wipe that ivy-league elitists' semen off your face and grow a pair.

440

I think you and AllahP are more rational in your criticisms and concerns, and I think Frum and the Powerline guys (for example) are not.

The first question someone needs to ask Frum, next time he gets interviewed, is this:

"You have called Sarah Palin a 'cancer' on the Republican Party, based on the fact that she polls poorly.  Do you heap venom on your close friends and family when they become unpopular, as well?"

441 Besides, where's the freshly dug up dirt on her time spent as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission?

Where are the memos or meeting minutes showing her to be the incompetent boob people keep saying she is?  She's not only spent enough time in various executive positions for there to be tons of these supposedly incriminating bits of evidence, but she's been the focus of so many oppo research hordes that the evidence should have been piled high and deep by now, and easily cherry picked by the likes of Couric and company.

Instead, after who knows how many lawsuits and tabloid-level investigations, and after so many years now of political opponents trying to find some scintillating tidbit of evidence showing us her "obvious" lack of competence we have... zip.  Nothing at all.

This is why I think claims of her being incapable are just empty rhetoric.  I want to see proof to go with such claims.

Hell, if she posted here regularly, that might be proof.  Everyone knows we're morons. And proud of it.

442 "She's just as unqualified as the teleprompter reading Precedent we now have. Which is why I think she polls so poorly."

I thought you were going somewhere interesting with this.  Is it possible that some of the SaRage is transferrance from people who are suppressing the observation that Obama is stupid and unqualified?

443 Ace, I love you mon, but you don't understand fringers (I'm not equating tea party people with fringers). They have no interest in winning, governing or doing anything hard or substantive. They just want to b-i-t-c-h. Being in power is the last thing they want, as that would mean accountability.

444 I want a third party to come to power.  Except I'll vote for my corrupt incumbent congressman, senator and governor because I saw their ads and didn't see any opposition ads.  But everybody else should throw the bums out.

445

Both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were V-P candidates.  Both have a habit of speaking truths that others would rather they did not speak.

The difference is Joe Biden does that inadvertently (Obama will be tested) and Sarah Palin does that deliberately (there are two parties - choose one to take over).

That is valuable, but Mrs. Palin's is more valuable because no one knows when or where Joe is going to go off. 

(scene:  Dictator's funeral.  Joe appraoches the new head of state and says 'Good to see you!  Pretty convenient the old boy dropped off just as your forces were in place to round up and liquidate all of your internal opposition!  Man, are you lucky!  Hey, are those hot-pockets?  I'm starving!')

446

Ace, I plan on re-reading this the next time I feel like going on a RINO-hunting rant about McCain, Graham et al.

I'll consider it a cold glass of logic to throw in my own face. 

For those who disagree, consider how much better off we'd be if Perot hadn't thrown the Oval Office to Bubba with a bare plurality ?  My father voted Perot along with half my knee-jerk populist Rust Belt hometown over my loud objections.  I need to be reminded of that when I feel like choking a sellout RINO rather than manning up and recognizing that an R-INO is still better than a D-anything 99.5% of the time.

It's good to see that Palin's putting the boots to rumors that she's looking to lead a third party.  I'm still meh about her running for national office, and still say straight-out that she should 86 a run in 2012, but she is uniquely positioned to speak "for the People," being much closer to them than your average political reptile, and in doing so she helps expose the elitist disdain our "betters" have for us.

447 Right now the best the Tea Party can do is win Republican primaries and go after the party apparatus at a local level. If that does not suffice, work to turn the Republican party into Whigs 2.0

448 Her point about American politics being a two-party system is correct -- and people really need to understand this. It is structurally a two-party system. It wasn't designed intentionally to be that way, but that is the way it is designed.

Then the Republican Party needs to stop the go-along-to-get-along bullshit and start being an opposition party again.

449 Lesser of two evils, but still evil.

450 This thing about the Democrats understanding that third party Tea Party activity helps them...uh, yeah.  They get that big time.  That's why they're building fake Tea Parties all over the country with union money.

451 Man, I have the way you have to make links here.  Try this for the fake Tea Party story.

http://bit.ly/9uCiHi

452 I''ll vote for limited, constitutional government and a prudent national security policy.

Some reasonable, though slight adjustment for circumstances.

If the Republican Party candidate doesn't offer it or have the credibility to say it - and someone else in the race does - screw the GOP.

453

Well, MlR:  welcome to real electoral politics.  So long as humans are to govern over other humans, here, in the USA, then this is what you have to deal with.

Or go all mountain-man.  Your choice.

454 Can she do somehting before then to convince some doubters -- and I have to say I have now become one, officially -- that she's up to the challenge?

-----------------------

How about governing a state? Would that do?

455 Mountain man!  It's a nation of one. /Homer Simpson Voice

These hardcore types miss the entire point of Ace's post.  The old Twain-ism (or was it Groucho?), about how anyone who does what it takes to become POTUS is not worthy of the job; well, that should always be borne in mind.

456 "I and the rest of the party are not going to be treated like Junior Partners to you guys, who are pulling this interminable power-play move where you basically keep threatening to bolt if you don't get your way."

You're a day late and a dollar short, Ace.

We already bolted.

We're not threatening to do it. We've already bolted. That's why McCain lost.

It's up to you whether you are able to reform our former party sufficiently enough to win us back.

Until then, eat ass dude. Because you ain't gonna win elections without conservatives.

I'm never, ever voting for Mitt Romney. His RomneyCare is no different than ObamaCare except he was able to get it passed. So far, Obama hasn't been competent enough to do that.

So of the two, I'd rather have the incompetent Obama in office than a competent Romney enacting Obama's agenda.

Talk about a fucking reacharound.

457 In 1908, Teddy Roosevelt supported fellow Republican Taft. He won with 52% of the vote and 66% of the Electrical College.

In 1912, TR ran 3rd party against Taft and both against the Democrat Wilson. TR and Taft split 50.5% of the popular vote and Wilson won with 42%. They got only 18% of the electoral votes between them.

How's that League of Nations taste, Herr Doktor?

458

459 Thank you for having a realistic approach to this.  I'll be damned if I throw a tantrum and sit in the corner during an election and not vote just because I didn't get the ideal person.  How in God's name is letting the WORSE of the two candidates win a good thing?  I don't like RINO's, but I am a realist.  A Congress and White House full of RINO's sounds a helluva lot better than outright liberals.  They don't need to be perfect, just tolerable.  Just like my women.

460

Fox:

The Tea Party followers can boast about their first elected official.

Dean Murray, a 45-year-old Long Island, N.Y., businessman who organized Tea Party protests, will be sworn in as the new Republican state assemblyman representing Long Island's eastern 3rd Assembly District on Monday, after being certified the winner of a special election held last Tuesday. 

Murray defeated his Democratic opponent, 28-year-old Lauren Thoden, 51 to 49 percent, making him what is believed to be the first Tea Party organizer who has attained public office. His district has been in Democratic hands for the last 13 years and he is the third Republican to hold the seat in the last 37 years. The assemblywoman he replaced, Patricia Eddington, resigned to take another post as a town clerk. 

"I'm thrilled," Murray told Fox News after a week-long recount in the close race. "The phone's been ringing off the hook and the e-mails are coming in like crazy."

The final tally, according to the Suffolk County Board of Elections, shows Murray pulled it out by 160 votes from over 8,600 cast: 4,396 to 4,236 for Thoden. He has to run for a full term in November's election.

...Murray has been active with the Tea Party movement since last year, first organizing the Medford, Long Island Tea Party rally on April 15, 2009, one of many held by Tea Party protestors that day across the country. He also was involved with another rally in September and credits the movement with helping him over the top.

"It was a combination of the issues and of the Tea Party movement," he told Fox News. "It is the message that is resonating from ordinary, everyday tax-paying citizens. Whether they are active in the Tea Party movement or not, we want a smaller government, we want fiscal responsibility, we want accountability from our political leaders and we want personal responsibility. I think that is what the Tea Party movement is about and that is what we finding we are not getting and that certainly played a role."

Murray is the publisher of free supermarket publications and also founded "The Fugitive Finder," a giveaway that features the photographs and rap sheets of locally wanted criminals accused of crimes ranging from murder to passing bad checks. The publication has so far led to the arrest of more than 230 suspects in Long Island's Nassau and Suffolk counties.

He said he hopes to bring what he calls the Ronald Reagan message to Albany, the state's capital, and urge the state Legislature, frequently accused of being dysfunctional, to "get back to basics."

Murray has one son, Tony, who is now serving in Afghanistan. He is a staff sergeant with the Air National Guard working as a crew chief for A-10 "Warthog" attack planes.

"My son is in Afghanistan right now to preserve the freedoms we have," Murray said, adding that his election shows how democracy works when "a regular businessman" can run and win as he has.

461

It's only a matter of time before Red State and AosHQ formally ban any posts reagrding talk of seperatist conservative 3rd party. It's almost de-facto policy at Red State already. There would be heavy deletion of posts and smackdown if this type of exchange occured over there...... I just found my can of lighter fluid and started priming it.

Stop sending the GOP money and change your registration to independent. No one needs to know what horse you bet on or what your predeliction might be once you walk into the voting booth.... open primaries rule.

The rebublic is not a parlimentry system but there is nothing to preclude the formation of several competing parties... we already have that on most ballots.. Green, Conservative, Libetarian, Liberal, Independent, Democratic and so forth.... it's just that a majority of the time, an overwhelming number of people pull R or D or candidates appear on multiple lines.... The system works for the most part... it's beautiful in it's creation and mechanics.... even the electoral college... the problem is the knuckleheads pulling the levers.

The GOP could go a long way with reconcilliation of the dis-enchanted if they would just start by getting rid of Steele. Purge the RINO's over time... restore fiscal conservatism, stop any talk about amnesty, crap and tax...... piss people off, just like Gov.Cristi is doing now in New Jersey... just like Palin does every day. Your not going to affect any real change unless you hit some raw nerves... otherwise it's business as usual.

Everyone has had to hold their nose in the voting booth, more than they wanted to. That crap has to stop. It's not serving the party or the country well any longer. If it takes a 3rd party threat for the party to get it's bearing back.. then so be it... bring it on.... voting for a RINO is no better than a Lib..... the country has tilted so far left that a RINO is a mainstream Democrat of 30 years ago. Get out the popcorn.

462 Excellent post, Ace. Written just as I have come to expect from you.

The Democrats and Republicans have become one mongrel dog party. They are the ruling elite. Every couple of years, they are forced to blow smoke up our asses, get elected, and then it's back to ruling elite status and figuring out how to enrich themselves even further. Fuck platforms, they espouse that rhetoric for guys like you. And you buy in. They are the ruling elite party. They don't give two shits about your old ideas of what a "platform" is, or was. But that need you to believe in them. They need that to survive. Just like the good ol boys on here.

And if you don't think politics boils down to greed and good old class warfare- think again.

Let me give you a perfect example. I have talked with hundreds of knowledgeable people about campaign funding reform. Of those knowledgeable folks, I have yet to find one that disagrees with reform.  In fact, were I to enlarge that polling body to millions, dissenters would be less than 5%- if that. I'm sure of it.

So if we all agree on something, why can't we pass something as simple as campaign reform? Because the ruling elite won't have it. They'll tell you to pound sand up your ass. And they do. They spent lifetimes nurturing and sucking off the tits of their big benefactors. That's why they sold us out. They stole over a trillion dollars. A thousand billion and then some. They don't give a fuck about Joe and Jane's house, or job. They don't care about a million Joe and Janes. Or 30 million. They have jobs, wealth, and all they have to do to keep that wealth and power is to blow smoke up the sheeple's asses and sell us out to big corporations, banks, and keep those checks coming in. And you sing the praises of these fuckers. You should be ashamed of yourself. This ain't politics, this is elitism.  When an overwhelming amount of constituents call and beg you not to dump the country's coffers and you do it anyway- is that representation? Is that serving the people of this country? So if you aren't going to do what the people want, you don't have government. You have a dictatorship-a ruling class of elite. And if you think it's necessary to hang a D or an R on the twins, so you can tell them apart-I'm ok with that.

Those fucking banks should have been placed into receivership, GM and Chrysler allowed to die. Simple as that. In fact, that is the law. 

So here's the big finish. I don't give a shit how it happens. I want to see the people regain control of this monstrosity we call government. From the ground up. And a good starting point is campaign reform. And if they aren't willing to do that, maybe we'll have to cut a head or two off in the square. How's that for crank?

463

Ace,

 

what you say about humans is 100% correct.  see we had a way to deal with this problem.  It was called the consitution.  The founders understood people were assholes.  so they designed the system to ensure that asshole humans could never get enough power to screw the rest of us.  Then as a fail safe they designed the system so that if any human did get enough power to screw us others would get the same amount of power to screw that guy.

 

Thus the idea of small limited government with three branches was born.  three because it is harder to get three asshole groups to agree with each other then it is to get 2 asshole groups to agree with each other.  they further divided the assholes into 13(at the time) now 50 different groups with competing interests because it is way harder to get 50 asshole groups to agree to anything.

 

the entire government was designed to not work except during times of national crisis.  and for piddly things like post offices  etc. 

 

The progressives/marxists have tried to change the system from within  yet the system still stands.  I'm betting 2010 shows once again the deep knowledge of the founders on how to stop assholes from abusing the people.

464 Yeah I can because the Paulians don't vote for GOP, they only vote for Ron Paul. They are precisely the flip side of Ralph Nader.

465 Yeah, I've heard of a primary, but it always seems to work out more like "all the interesting folks drop out before I get a chance to vote". Which is why a lot of people feel that they have mediocre candidates forced onto them. Well, the the GOP would get a fucking cluebat hit over their head and have CLOSED FUCKING PRIMARIES FOR REGISTERED REPUBLICANS ONLY, perhaps we would not get foisted with "mediocre" candidates.

466 Well, the the GOP would get a fucking cluebat hit over their head and have CLOSED FUCKING PRIMARIES FOR REGISTERED REPUBLICANS ONLY, perhaps we would not get foisted with "mediocre" candidates.

Posted by: cheshirecat at February 18, 2010 01:32 AM (6Ypn3)

The GOP knows exactly what it is doing as regards to having primaries in liberal states and open to independents and Democrats. They want those mediocre candidates as they are 'their sort' of candidate. David Brooks, David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, and their crowd have absolutely no use for actual conservatism.

It is simply not believable that the GOP doesn't know what is happening.

467 Test.

468 I'll be damned if I throw a tantrum and sit in the corner during an election and not vote just because I didn't get the ideal person.

I might have settled for 3/4 of a loaf, but McCain didn't even reach half a loaf.

A Congress and White House full of RINO's sounds a helluva lot better than outright liberals.

It might sound better, but in actual practice it isn't. As a matter of fact, it's worse.

469 Great post(s), Ace.

#480 -- Great story.

#481 -- Hysteria paintbrush applied according to the rules of conspiracy theory. Victory through defeat! (Newsflash:  you're not the last conservative born in Brooklyn.)

#482 -- "Campaign funding reform?" Are you a McCainiac? It's usually called "campaign finance reform," by the way, and it's a buzz-phrase that maybe 10% of voters understand, or actually care about.

470 Third party, hell! I voted fourth party, for Andre Marreau in '92!  I have since learned moar, and am one of the 500- odd in FL who put W through in '00. I hate it, it sucks, but that's the way it is.

I really want to run as a faithless elector, but am afraid of being found floating in a canal somewhere.

471 The lessor of two evils is still evil.

I'll have no part of it.

You sir, are a statist tool.

472

Forget the primaries and the major parties. Vote for whomever you deem to be the best. As long as we're talking about abstract principles, we might as well be as pure as Plato. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Don't even vote for the greater of two goods if a candidate is merely good. You deserve great! You deserve perfect!!

Be true to your beliefs. Don't compromise. Don't participate in these power games that are controlled by politicians who sell out your ideals. Use your write-in ballot and vote for the ideal person for every position in every election. Then walk out of the polling station with your head high and your conscience clear.

Then see what happens, and tell us all how much better your government is for your having done that.

473

FireHorse

 

the idea is to not give any politican that much power in the first place then you dont have to care who wins

474 "I might have settled for 3/4 of a loaf, but McCain didn't even reach half a loaf." Believe me, I wasn't in love with the guy either. But would I rather have President McCain right now? You betcha.

475

#491:

Then you will have no part of politics, business, sports, or any other part of life that involves interacting with humans.

476 But would I rather have President McCain right now? You betcha.

While McCain would certainly be better in some respects than the current occupant of the White House, with him we would still be moving at a slow trot toward the same destination that Obie is now trying to take us at a dead run.

477 Speaking of "The Tea Party" as if it is anything remotely resembling a single organized group is silly on the face.  There are a few common threads that tie together a bunch of local groups.  Any coordination that I have witnessed is limited to local tea parties supporting one another in a state-wide gathering.  Does that mean that the movement is not powerful?  No.  I'm just saying the idea that this swarm of independent local groups is going to do something to organize themselves nationally into a party is born of ignorance of what the tea party movement is today.  I suppose that some charismatic person could come along and carry the movement with them in that direction but I doubt it - there are too many politically savvy people involved that realize where that road leads.

Our local group in Huntsville, Alabama is very focused on a few issues and intends to spend a lot of effort on educating activists and voters to get involved in campaigns on their own.  Third party?  Not much talk of it from where I stand.  Except maybe in a Scozzafava situation - which isn't likely in this neck of the woods.

478 the most cost-effective gucci's handbags, wallets, travel & business series in www.gucci1923.com
welcome, we are sure that you will get a great experience in our shopping site.