February 07, 2014
— Ace I responded to 18-1 in the comments, and my response was long enough for a post, so I'm making it a post.
18-1 offered some advice to the GOP, including: "Stake out a position where the public agrees with Republicans. Force the Democrats to deal with it."
People sometimes say I'm anti-Tea Party even though I actually support them in the main.
When I'm critical of the Tea Party, it's because the Tea Party often acts as if the first part of your suggestion -- "Stake out a position where the public agrees with Republicans" -- is not important, and even maybe a little cowardly. That is to say, there is a an idea -- it seems to me, at least, that there is an idea -- that politics is essentially dirty, given that most of the public is not very devoted to important First Principles (and, you know, they're not), and that therefore to craft positions with an eye to pleasing the bulk of the country -- which, again, is not firmly committed to important First Principles -- cannot possibly do anything other than debase and weaken the Tea Party's favored position.
That is pretty much true. I've come to think, recently, the following:
First there is philosophy. It is pure, as it's about only two things: God and Man. Or for a secular materialist such as myself, The Universe and Man (and, in man's limited view of the metaphysical, the concepts of "The Universe" and "God" tend to blur).
Political philosophy is a debased form of philosophy, because now we've dirtied it with political considerations. Philosophy should never care about politics; after all, one man possessed of the truth makes a majority, even should the world deny that truth. But political philosophy attempts to create a framework for how we can best live together, without killing each other too much.
Politics in turn, is a debased form of political philosophy, because now it is heavily influenced not just by the idea of The Good but by what a rough majority of people, or important constituencies, want, whether that represents The Good or not.
And then there is Democratic politics, which is not merely just debased political philosophy but degenerate political philosophy. I say this because of Jay Cost's argument that the Democratic party is now almost entirely an organization of client service. That is to say, there is hardly any "principle" in it anymore, except that one group wants this from the government, and another group wants that.
The Tea Party is currently, I think, a movement not of politics but of political philosophy. And that is both good and bad. It is good because they can afford to be more simon-pure about the precise philosophy they urge. It is, however, bad, if one would hope (as I do) that they can become a large enough political force (not merely a philosophical advocacy force) to either dominate the GOP or displace it entirely.
I do not want to get into my theory of how any lobbying/advocacy group -- any and all groups, all of them -- tend to be dominated by their purest (most "extreme," as far as the Overton Window) voices. But I do think it's true. Of all organizations. Every single one. Think of any advocacy group you can. And now try to think of when they offer up a fairly moderate position on their subject matter/cause. It's rare.
But political parties aren't lobbying/advocacy groups. They cannot permit themselves to fall into this dynamic of advocating the purest possible position.
At any rate, this is along the lines of my advice that the Tea Party must begin to position itself, and think of itself as, a governing political party, rather than lobbying/advocacy organization associated with the GOP.
And that will mean, often, taking a position which the purest-position members are critical of, and even charge as being a sell-out or cowardly.
For example, even though I'm more sympathetic to the Tea Party than the GOP, if I say something critical of the Tea Party, many who consider themselves Tea Partiers accuse me of being against the Tea Party, and hostile to it.
In other words, the membership of the Tea Party is limited to those who agree with the most strident members of the Tea Party. Now, let's face it, I will concede, I am RINOish, and not among the most strident in these matters. Nevertheless, the fact that I wish to be a part of the Tea Party -- but perhaps a member of the moderate wing of the Tea Party -- should permit me membership, if the Tea Party is thinking of itself as a potential governing party that could displace the GOP.
But when the reaction is "Well then you're not Tea Party," then the Tea Party is not acting as general governing political party (which should want to attract as many members as possible, because elections turn on numbers), but as a lobbying/advocacy organization which can (and should) be highly selective about whom it permits into its membership lists.
In short, I think the Tea Party becomes a more serious political force, rather than a philosophical advocacy force, when it begins entertaining the possibility that it will have pure, middle, and moderate wings.
Now some people don't agree that that's what the Tea Party can be or should be. That is, they'd say the whole point of the Tea Party is to the pull the party in a single way, and how can it achieve that goal if it has its own wings flapping in opposites directions?
But the Tea Party isn't just about pulling the GOP to a more rightward position on issues such as the debt and the size of government. It is those things, to be sure, but it is about more than that.
For example: What every Tea Partier agrees with, even a TPINO like myself, is that government has become too cozy with corporate and other interests. It has become too insular. It has formed too close a relationship, personally, with the corporate media. It is too reliant on a professional political class and the permanent government of the DC bureaucracy.
It is, in short, far too removed from the people.
Furthermore, the government class' cozy familiarity with the DC players (and every industry or constituency in the country has a well-funded lobbying group in DC) results in secret and dirty arrangements which are revolting to a truer form democratic republicanism.
In short, the town stinks of self-interest and self-dealing, all at the expense of the country outside of DC. As many have observed, I'm sure, there is of course the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, but there is also -- perhaps more importantly -- the Party of the Capital (everyone in DC and politics and the media) and the Party of the Hinterlands.
And the Party of the Capital wins every election, by a landslide, and dominates all the positions of government and media power. They Party of the Capital has its hands on, say, 99.9% of all levers of governmental, media, and cultural power.
So while it is a very important mission of the Tea Party to pull the country rightward on questions such as the size of government and our level of spending and debt, there are two other very important missions impelling it as well:
First, to bring more democracy to democracy,
and Second, as a party of general reform.
So I don't agree, wholly, that the Tea Party, like any other advocacy group, should have a closed membership list so that it can keep itself pure on its main issue of advocacy. I see two other very important considerations in the Tea Party's mix of concerns that really aren't a matter of just pulling the public to the right on an issue.
They're matters of general political concern, and possibly serve as the basis for the makings of a general governing party.
Updated: Some reader comments, and my replies, below.
The Tea Party was always going to be unpopular. Insofar as it gives proposes solutions instead of just calling out problems, it's going to stay unpopular. Calling out government-corporate collusion, mandarinism and the use of the middle class as farm animals is popular, sure, you can always rally people with populist resentment and disgust. But proposing deregulation, the cutting out of entire departments and vast tax cuts/programs cuts will sink them.Nobody wants to take the bitter medicine. Even the ones who know we need to cut out the free shit think it's going to be someone else's free shit that gets cut off, or "I put money into this Ponzi scheme for 40 years so I'm owed something back!". The Tea Party has to either accept that solutions will not be forthcoming, that popular democracy is a slope that you can only roll down, that it has to get worse before it gets better (unlikely), or they have to find a way to be effective in yanking the Republicans to the right as a demonized minority.
From Alex the Chick:
What is the sign of a mature civilization? The recognition that other people has exactly the same right to their opinions as I do and that we must come up with some manner of living together in moderate peace.
I fear that we are losing that in America. We joke about the camps and the Right thinks the Left is wrong while the Left thinks the Right is evil and the Unpeople of Jesusland. Yet. Yet the reason the jokes resonate is because there is something to those comments. The line between no person has a right to think that and be a member of polite society and no person has a right to think that and continue to be alive in that society is a thin one indeed.Speaking only for myself, much of the hard line hard form taking of positions stems from utter frustration at attempting to be the grown up and attempting to find some kind of workable solution and having my valid concerns mocked by those who claim to be on my side. Take the debt limit. It is insane to me, absolutely insane, for anyone in DC to pretend as if spending and borrowing can go on forever and that a "limit" that is always, always raised is a limit at all. Yet I am the fool for stating um hey guys maybe you should, idk, not spend the country into a hole out of which we cannot dig. After long enough, that position turns into fuck you you lying fuckholes you are corrupt pieces of shit and hell yes default on everything because that is the only way that attention will be paid at all. If the reasonable position will be mocked then there is no reason why the unreasonable position should not be advanced.
TruCon cat resonates because that is the end point of attempting to play by the rules and being ignored. Fuck it. You (generic pol you) think I'm ridiculously crazed because I take the extraordinary position that, get this, I want to be left alone? Fine. If you think that for what I find to be a reasonable position, then I might as well go to eleventy. What possible reason is there for me not to do so?
My main response to this is that I understand this, and I'm not attempting to be overly critical in discussing these issues. As for "why shouldn't I go to eleventy:" Because it's counterproductive.
I frequently distinguish between whether one has a right to feel a certain way and whether one should act out of those feelings. Without doubt, Alex, me, everyone has the right to feel poorly-used, shabbily treated, and frustrated.
But acting out of those feelings, particularly when the feeling is broadcast so that it is readily evident, is counterproductive.
I think of political persuasion as chiefly being a matter of feeling and affiliation and not reason. Reason comes in later to justify decisions one has already made.
My problem with emotion in politics is that the people we are trying to persuade are themselves not emotional. People who don't really care too much about this stuff, but could vote our way, are by definition detached and non-emotional.
I think the key to any human connection is being similar to the target one seeks to connect with. And I think when we come off as angry -- even if that anger is justified -- we begin the game down by three touchdowns because we're in such a dissimilar emotional state from the would-be target of our persuasion. We're already 30 degrees away from the public, in terms of seeming Just Like You.
Anger is exclusionary, is what I'm trying to say. So is frustration and any other charged emotional state. Anger plays well with those already incensed, and poorly with people we wish would become incensed.
Tasker and NWConservative also tell me that my impression of the Tea Party being very unpopular is wrong:
Gallup just polled this less than three months ago. 30% approve of the tea party where 51% disapprove, yet when asked about opposing or supporting the tea party it was 24% oppose and 22% support with nearly 50% neither. I don't think many people have strong opinions outside of the supporters/detractors.
I did not know that. I did in fact think the Tea Party was less popular than that, and I'm wrong.
Still, 22% support...? I do think we need to do better.
Tubal asks who has the "will" to argue for the right things or take the necessary steps. I want to highlight this because this is what I'm having a problem with-- this idea that politics is chiefly about will, about having the will to aggressively push one's agenda, having the will to dare to be unpopular, and seeking to impose one's will on the opposing parties.
I could hardly argue that will is not critical. But I do think it is being strong overemphasized. Will is not the only issue. Where there is a will, it is said, there is a way. I think we are overly focused on this "will" aspect and not thinking enough about "the way."
Will is only effective when properly exerted and when properly directed by reason and art (and by art, I mean it in the Shakespearean sense of "sly cunning").
Posted by: Ace at
02:11 PM
| Comments (746)
Post contains 2440 words, total size 14 kb.
2/3 of the shutdowns
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 02:17 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 02:18 PM (aDwsi)
parties should have a minimum floor beyond which they will
not go. If your moderation falls short of that, what do you do?
Posted by: Roman Maroni at February 07, 2014 02:19 PM (fJS4a)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 02:19 PM (aDwsi)
So who are the 'purest voices' in the GOP?
Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 07, 2014 02:19 PM (cxs6V)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 02:21 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: tubal at February 07, 2014 02:22 PM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 02:23 PM (/FnUH)
that we've been fighting this for a few decades, it isn't the tea party's fault that govt decided to spend on sterouids and the population is afraid of our furture financial stabilty. Or the fear of agencies like irs, epa, nsa atf as they Have been used against citizens.
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 02:24 PM (nqBYe)
===
I just had a 1980s flashback
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 02:24 PM (JBggj)
If the GOP starts acceding to every conservative group that comes along
Catholics, Tea Partiers Immigration foes, they would be soon like what
the D's are
Posted by: Roman Maroni at February 07, 2014 02:25 PM (fJS4a)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 02:25 PM (38LLM)
Which is why the framers of the US Constitution insisted on a Republic, a Representative Republic, and why they feared democracy, the mob democracy of the street.
The founders hoped that good men would represent the desires of their constituents, listen to their hopes, dreams, fears, but use their own good judgment to decide what was best for the country not just some loud special interest group.
We've lost that, and probably some time ago. Perhaps it was all a dream, but the Republic has been lost.
Posted by: Joseph O'Henry II at February 07, 2014 02:26 PM (iqrMC)
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 02:27 PM (IN7k+)
"First, to bring more democracy to democracy,
and Second, as a party of general reform."
I have to disagree with this premise. I fervently believe that government and its attendant power is a corrupting influence that cannot be combated with incremental changes in its structure or governing rules.
Therefore the only way to limit the damage that government causes is to limit its size. We have to accept that our government will always be corrupt, and that those who participate will act venally. Our overriding goal then should be to control the extent of the damage by shrinking it, and not try to reform it in in other ways.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 02:27 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 02:28 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 02:29 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 07, 2014 02:29 PM (ZshNr)
Are we just playing with ourselves here? oh whoops last thread.
But really, the gop has called for a war on the tea party with more passion than against the dems. I guess existential things will do that to people, but it is obvious that the gop line of non acceptance it to the right of them, not the left.
In general, I agree the tea party, such that it is a party, could be more accomodating to its left. slightly.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 07, 2014 02:30 PM (n0DEs)
Posted by: spypeach at February 07, 2014 02:30 PM (10H0T)
parties should have a minimum floor beyond which they will
not go. If your moderation falls short of that, what do you do?
And therein lies the problem. Who decides the floor? It's usually the most strident.
Therefore the only way to limit the damage that government causes is to limit its size. We have to accept that our government will always be corrupt, and that those who participate will act venally. Our overriding goal then should be to control the extent of the damage by shrinking it, and not try to reform it in in other ways.
Excellent, CBD.
In fact, the whole post is first rate, Ace.
Posted by: pep at February 07, 2014 02:30 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 02:30 PM (38LLM)
Posted by: weirdflunkyonatablet at February 07, 2014 02:30 PM (+74pm)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette: TGIF! at February 07, 2014 02:31 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 02:31 PM (/FnUH)
First, get a trampoline.....
Posted by: pep at February 07, 2014 02:31 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 02:31 PM (M3hAT)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 02:31 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: spypeach at February 07, 2014 02:31 PM (10H0T)
That all sounds nice, but without fierce guardians at the door of the tent, how do you possibly hope to prevent it being corrupted by the same moderates who have made the GOP worthless?
I'm not sure there is a sufficient reservoir of trust available for what you suggest.
Posted by: Methos at February 07, 2014 02:32 PM (hO9ad)
The MSM does have its successes with the LIVs. I would venture that most of the people that view the TEA Party unfavorably do so based on a misunderstanding of what it stands for or shat its positions are.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 02:32 PM (IN7k+)
so we let this go and blame the ideology or blame Who has intimidated everyone and Lied about their ideology?
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 02:32 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 07, 2014 02:32 PM (TGgNi)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 06:28 PM (/FnUH)Better PR and educating people who are naturally intransigent and/inattentive. Do we have any resources in mass media to do that....... strike that, do we have any will to do that? I'm very doubtful since everyone has seemed to drawn swords already.
Posted by: tubal at February 07, 2014 02:32 PM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 02:33 PM (0jFxY)
if we say it is fair for the administration to ue everything at its disposal to malign and intimidate conservatives They see gaining momentum?
what does that leave Us with?
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 02:34 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 02:34 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 07, 2014 02:34 PM (ZshNr)
The Tea Party popularity fall is really due to the MFM and the constant pounding of untrue things. Its a tough thing to fight.
My MIL was asked by a friend of hers what the Tea Party was about, and she told her it was people who wanted to take away her social security. Arghhhh, she watches the national news. We have tried to correct her, but some things are generational and the nightly news is one of them.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 07, 2014 02:34 PM (n0DEs)
Posted by: flounder at February 07, 2014 02:34 PM (Kkt/i)
In order to balance the federal budget, you must A)Have a budget, and B) cut spending from current levels, both of which I'm told are too extreme for the general public (Hollowpoint had some polls on the latter point earlier).
Posted by: Methos at February 07, 2014 02:36 PM (hO9ad)
So I'm wondering what can be done to reverse that.
Posted by: ace
Reform seems to be an evergreen issue. Neither party has done much to prune back the excesses of DC.
Reform as a populist strategy was left on the table by Romney. He never went near it even though it is *the* standard play for a challenger. It wouldn't have been difficult to challenge Obama on it either. Again, inexplicable if you don't believe that the parties are only sides of the same corrupt, statist coin.
Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 07, 2014 02:36 PM (cxs6V)
Wise cuts in spending would certainly be the answer but our system simply cannot deliver them--wise tax increases directed only at deficit reduction would also help. However, our system of divided government acts against any decisive moves especially on entitlements until the emergency hits. See the recently passed Farm Bill as an example. A stable political alliance for cuts now and in the future does not exist even if the GOP had the House, Senate, and Presidency--a stable coalition for spending maintenance and increases does.
Frankly, I am doubtful now that anything can be done apart from the coming market discipline on sovereign debt or the collapse of the U.S. dollar.
Posted by: wg at February 07, 2014 02:36 PM (2EzL+)
how could we not remain weak with absolutely any vehicle if they threaten those who stand up or donors or conservative donors in general?
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 02:36 PM (nqBYe)
There are two voting motives in every campaign: 1) I'm for this candidate because that candidate speaks for me, and 2) I hate that SOB and want him/her out of office so I'm voting for the other guy/gal. Right now, the Dems are facing 2) with voting anger at record highs. And voting in opposition requires a political philosophy of the personal: "My ox is being gored, my childrens' futures are threatened, and if nothing is done to stop these people, we'll be out on the streets in a year." Motive 1) is a luxury to be savored at leisure. Number 2) is the harbinger of social revolution, such as we've seen in the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1932, and 1980.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 02:38 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 02:38 PM (M3hAT)
You seem to be suggesting that the answer is to become Democrats.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 02:39 PM (IN7k+)
Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 07, 2014 02:39 PM (Jsiw/)
I was just stating a fact, that's it. You're a Tea Partier and you don't even know it.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 02:39 PM (38LLM)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 02:39 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Seems legit at February 07, 2014 02:39 PM (A98Xu)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 06:31 PM (/FnUH)
And that makes sense from the perspective of a political party. I think I have a different concept than yours about the ideal structure of the Tea Party.
It also sounds like manipulating the message depending on the audience, and while I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of winning their hearts and (tiny little) minds, it makes me queasy that we have to do it.
But yeah...we have to do it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 02:40 PM (QFxY5)
The complaint against the GOP is they will not fight for any principle.
The complaint against the Democrat Party is they will subvert their own stated principles to advance their political influence.
Posted by: Joseph O'Henry II at February 07, 2014 02:40 PM (iqrMC)
Posted by: Seems legit at February 07, 2014 02:40 PM (A98Xu)
I agree with Ace in part, but I also don't think we should take the "public's position" as the permanent starting point/center point either. It's a way to start things off, but long term we should be looking to persuade people to agree with our point of view and even seek to change the culture. Part of the reason the left is winning everywhere right now is because they succeeded in using their footholds in the media and the academy to take over the culture.
Another thing to consider too is the question of time remaining to us. How much time do we have left before the debt bomb blows up on us and we default or the currency starts hyperinflating Venezuela/Argentina style? Not much, I'd say. We may have to grit our teeth and take unpopular positions in the face of public resistance. Political reality is important, but "reality reality" is even more important.
Posted by: Doomed at February 07, 2014 02:41 PM (wFfp9)
What is the sign of a mature civilization? The recognition that other people has exactly the same right to their opinions as I do and that we must come up with some manner of living together in moderate peace.
I fear that we are losing that in America. We joke about the camps and the Right thinks the Left is wrong while the Left thinks the Right is evil and the Unpeople of Jesusland. Yet. Yet the reason the jokes resonate is because there is something to those comments. The line between no person has a right to think that and be a member of polite society and no person has a right to think that and continue to be alive in that society is a thin one indeed.
Speaking only for myself, much of the hard line hard form taking of positions stems from utter frustration at attempting to be the grown up and attempting to find some kind of workable solution and having my valid concerns mocked by those who claim to be on my side. Take the debt limit. It is insane to me, absolutely insane, for anyone in DC to pretend as if spending and borrowing can go on forever and that a "limit" that is always, always raised is a limit at all. Yet I am the fool for stating um hey guys maybe you should, idk, not spend the country into a hole out of which we cannot dig. After long enough, that position turns into fuck you you lying fuckholes you are corrupt pieces of shit and hell yes default on everything because that is the only way that attention will be paid at all. If the reasonable position will be mocked then there is no reason why the unreasonable position should not be advanced.
TruCon cat resonates because that is the end point of attempting to play by the rules and being ignored. Fuck it. You (generic pol you) think I'm ridiculously crazed because I take the extraordinary position that, get this, I want to be left alone? Fine. If you think that for what I find to be a reasonable position, then I might as well go to eleventy. What possible reason is there for me not to do so?
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 02:41 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 07, 2014 02:42 PM (TGgNi)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 02:42 PM (0jFxY)
I personally do not have problems with Republicans acting the way they do in certain constituencies, AKA Scott Brown. I have a problem with the leadership's PISS POOR marketing skills and persuasiveness. Their failures are legion and the republican party was run like a business, EVERYONE would be fired.
The democrats do not have this problem, especially when voting for president. The republicans love taking turns voting failure to higher office.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 02:42 PM (buZ/8)
Nobody wants to take the bitter medicine. Even the ones who know we need to cut out the free shit think it's going to be someone else's free shit that gets cut off, or "I put money into this Ponzi scheme for 40 years so I'm owed something back!". The Tea Party has to either accept that solutions will not be forthcoming, that popular democracy is a slope that you can only roll down, that it has to get worse before it gets better (unlikely), or they have to find a way to be effective in yanking the Republicans to the right as a demonized minority.
Posted by: kartoffel at February 07, 2014 02:43 PM (07vvi)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 02:43 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 02:43 PM (M3hAT)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 02:43 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 07, 2014 02:43 PM (Jsiw/)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 02:44 PM (aDwsi)
I think the opportunity for the Tea Party is the new media. I see trickle down information getting to 20 somethings believe it or not. Things like anti-obamacare and anti-debt are starting to get through. They get it 2 ways mostly, 1. libertarians (seriously they never shut up, but its working) and 2. bloggers.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 07, 2014 02:45 PM (n0DEs)
Posted by: tubal at February 07, 2014 02:45 PM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 02:45 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 02:46 PM (0FSuD)
===
Did she know that you were a conservative?
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 02:46 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 02:46 PM (M3hAT)
The government is too big and too distant. Bring 80% of whatever is going on in DC back to the state and local level.
People in New York or California want different things than the people in Wyoming or Indiana.
Bring it back to the people who have a stake in the outcome. Only do those things at the national level that must be done in common, such as defense.
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 06:43 PM (P6QsQ)
That starts with removing the leadership of the republican party frankly since they are opposed to that.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 02:47 PM (buZ/8)
PINTO
Party In Name of Tea Only
Posted by: Roman Maroni at February 07, 2014 06:22 PM (fJS4a)
Cool beans.
Posted by: Retread at February 07, 2014 02:47 PM (cHwk5)
^This^
I fear that we are losing that in America. We joke about the camps and the Right thinks the Left is wrong while the Left thinks the Right is evil and the Unpeople of Jesusland. Yet. Yet the reason the jokes resonate is because there is something to those comments. The line between no person has a right to think that and be a member of polite society and no person has a right to think that and continue to be alive in that society is a thin one indeed.
Speaking only for myself, much of the hard line hard form taking of positions stems from utter frustration at attempting to be the grown up and attempting to find some kind of workable solution and having my valid concerns mocked by those who claim to be on my side. Take the debt limit. It is insane to me, absolutely insane, for anyone in DC to pretend as if spending and borrowing can go on forever and that a "limit" that is always, always raised is a limit at all. Yet I am the fool for stating um hey guys maybe you should, idk, not spend the country into a hole out of which we cannot dig. After long enough, that position turns into fuck you you lying fuckholes you are corrupt pieces of shit and hell yes default on everything because that is the only way that attention will be paid at all. If the reasonable position will be mocked then there is no reason why the unreasonable position should not be advanced.
---ATC
^Also This^
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 02:48 PM (38LLM)
Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 07, 2014 02:48 PM (Jsiw/)
Sure it was. Bush I used it against Dukakis. His campaign copied the idea from what Gore had done first in the Democrat primary.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 02:48 PM (IN7k+)
By 2016, we will probably be beyond the modest cuts of the Ryan plan in 2011. Roughly two to three trillion more debt and continuing shrinkage of those holding jobs. Female participation in the job force is back to 1986 levels and men's participation rates are unprecedented in a modern economy. To correct this situation, we need massive economic growth and massive spending cuts/entitlement reform.
Posted by: wg at February 07, 2014 02:49 PM (2EzL+)
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 06:39 PM (IN7k+)
Sorry the sarcasm didn't come through. I indicated balancing the budget without raising tax revenues as I think it is the minimum necessary step, and that makes me extreme. I certainly don't advocate becoming the commies.
Posted by: Methos at February 07, 2014 02:49 PM (hO9ad)
Posted by: weirdflunkyonatablet at February 07, 2014 02:50 PM (+74pm)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 02:50 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 02:50 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 02:51 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 02:51 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 02:51 PM (0jFxY)
Posted by: Methos at February 07, 2014 02:51 PM (hO9ad)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 02:52 PM (ZPrif)
***
I understand the general point, but in specifics Scott Brown decided to screw over conservatives, repeatedly, for no damn reason other than personal gain.
Somehow Democrats can run in very conservative areas and if they win find a way to be "moderate" without actively helping conservatives. We should demand the reverse from the likes of Brown.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 06:46 PM (M3hAT)
I understand that, but in the order of priorities, who do you want to punish more? Graham, McCain, Murkowski, Alexander, McConnell, Corker, Cornyn, Rubio, Isakson, and Ayotte have all done some pretty backstabby things and come from more conservative states than Brown. They needed to be held accountable first.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 02:52 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 02:52 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 07, 2014 02:52 PM (IRpZs)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 02:52 PM (38LLM)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 07, 2014 02:53 PM (ZshNr)
The left has one moral principle.
That which empowers the left is good, that which weakens it is bad.
Every action of the left follows this principle.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 06:43 PM (M3hAT)
This.
Posted by: EC at February 07, 2014 02:53 PM (doBIb)
Posted by: seamrog at February 07, 2014 02:53 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Soona at February 07, 2014 02:53 PM (EecJi)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 02:54 PM (QupBk)
The automated surveys from Harper Polling find Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) trailing GOP opponents, as well as Republicans holding leads in Democratic-held open seats in Montana and Michigan. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) is tied with her most likely opponent, while Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) has a lead in her race.
Partisan polling is typically taken with a grain of salt. That said, these polls show President Obama's weak standing is a major problem for Democrats in these red and swing states — and that Republicans have a strong shot at winning the net of six seats they need to take back the Senate.
Posted by: Justin Burberry at February 07, 2014 02:54 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 02:54 PM (0jFxY)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 02:54 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 02:54 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 02:54 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 02:55 PM (0jFxY)
Posted by: Seems legit at February 07, 2014 02:55 PM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 02:55 PM (38LLM)
====
Asking her those questions took some steady nerve, sir. For "polite" people on the Left, "Tea Party" is a euphemism for the dupes, scoundrels, and wicked people to the political left of Bill Clinton. As long as you don't self-identify with the Tea Party, there's hope for your rehabilitation.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 02:55 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 02:56 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 06:50 PM (/FnUH)
This is the complicated electron here.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 02:56 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Seems legit at February 07, 2014 02:57 PM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Shoey at February 07, 2014 02:57 PM (Y7jCH)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 06:52 PM (/FnUH)
Those numbers were taken after the OMFGTEHSHUTDOWN and the opponents were down from 29%.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 02:57 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: kartoffel at February 07, 2014 02:58 PM (07vvi)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 02:58 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 02:58 PM (0jFxY)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 02:58 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Shoey at February 07, 2014 06:57 PM (Y7jCH)
Good, because you will have time to work on your reading comprehension, which obviously sucks donkey balls.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 02:59 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 06:50 PM (/FnUH)
That is completely true. The comparison of a person reacting like an animal backed into a corner is not complimentary to that person's higher thought processes.
Of course, I'm right there with you on the nihilistic void position. I stared. The void stared back. A stupid and pointless gesture seems to be all that can be done and that only to rage rage against the dying of the light. As an actual helpful action? Not so much.
*clambers onto tiny soapbox*
Every candidate for every elected position should face a primary challenge every time, yes, including the politicians I like. Why? Because that is one teeny tiny step towards hauling the country back to a discussion of first principles and what form of governance is best. That's where the knock down drag out fights of how should the country be run should be. Let the hard liners on each end run candidates and the moderates run candidates and let the best (for certain values of best involving politicians) win.
*topples off*
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 02:59 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: tennvols87 at February 07, 2014 03:00 PM (kQl8p)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:00 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 07, 2014 03:00 PM (RFeQD)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:00 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 03:01 PM (M3hAT)
Posted by: tennvols87 at February 07, 2014 03:01 PM (kQl8p)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (0FSuD)
Why can't we? We just like losing?
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 06:54 PM (0FSuD)
Um. I went to the GOP meetups and in 2012 as a tea partier and there were several of us there. The 900 year old individuals all in power were obnoxious busybodies who basically ran roughshod over everyone else. So I quit after the election.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (0jFxY)
We're much more mature, in the sense that someone in a nursing home is much more mature than I am.
Posted by: kartoffel at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (07vvi)
"NEW Is GOP out of touch with women?"
Maybe when the GOP figures out the solution to their own image problem they can offer advice to the TEA partiers.
Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (cxs6V)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 06:59 PM (Gk3SS)
It IS more fun to drink before climbing up there, but then the invitable happens.
I agree about the primary challenges.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 06:41 PM (Gk3SS)
A lot of people (not me) seem to think the answer is bowing and scraping, forever negotiating further to the left until 'they' give us their approval. Because getting along with everyone trumps all other concerns.
Yeah, I've been having dispiriting conversations with the family lately.
Posted by: Methos at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (hO9ad)
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 07, 2014 03:02 PM (84gbM)
Posted by: Sandy Berger at February 07, 2014 03:03 PM (aDwsi)
---ATC
Your newsletter, gimme.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 03:03 PM (38LLM)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:04 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: ButtenutProdigy at February 07, 2014 03:04 PM (FpBe1)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 07, 2014 03:04 PM (IRpZs)
Is that high or low?
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 07:00 PM (ZPrif)
That's dangerous.
Posted by: wth at February 07, 2014 03:05 PM (wAQA5)
Posted by: Conservative Crank's iPhone at February 07, 2014 03:05 PM (5tH7W)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 03:05 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Countrysquire at February 07, 2014 03:05 PM (8FyP4)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (M3hAT)
A large part of the reason that the Republican leadership acts like it does is that they've seen, for example, John McCain win the nomination after the Right claimed amnesty was beyond the pale.
So on the one hand I see why someone like Grahmanesty would be an obvious target, on the other hand I like a Brown or even a McConnell.
If we defeated off the latter, Republican politics would never be the same...and I mean that in a good way.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 07:01 PM (M3hAT)
Well, I think McConnell may just defeat himself with unfavorables as high as his.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Seems legit at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (A98Xu)
when it begins entertaining the possibility that it will have pure, middle, and moderate wings.
The Taxed Enough Already Party has one goal, shrinking gov't.
Anybody who tries to glom their pet peeve onto that is screwing around.
And yes, I know lots of people, but there's only one position that brings all the tea partiers together, shrinking gov't.
As for attacking the GOP, what good would attacking the Dems do?
They are the party of more gov't, the GOP claims to be the party of smaller gov't.
When Boehner and McConnell spend much of their time attacking me and making secret deals that screw me, well, of course I'm going to be intemperate.
Posted by: Veeshir at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (dKqLR)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (RJMhd)
Anybody who really wants a successful political party should at least look into what Hans Bleiker teaches and why he teaches it.
Posted by: jc at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (i8c5b)
I agree about the primary challenges.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 07:02 PM (QFxY5)
Sadly, I have not yet begun to drink.
That's some bullshit right there brb
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Caliban at February 07, 2014 03:06 PM (DrC22)
You make my point.
Quitters never win and winner never quit. A lot of the TP people seem to think that they show up and everyone should stand aside.
It doesn't work like that in any organization. Entrenched people don't like change.
YOU have to sell that change, not quit.Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:08 PM (0FSuD)
I've been rather involved with GOP politics for years, having been a delegate to the Texas GOP convention in '84, and helping with local campaigns here n' there along the way.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the "Establishment" echelon of the party IS the problem. I've seen it too many times, up close and personal.
The problem was seriously aggravated after the '94 sweep, when so many Democrat office holders "switched" to the Republican Party. Here's a question for you; do you think that those former Dems really made a wholesale change in their core thinking, political habits and tendencies, or do you think that they merely "switched" in order to retain their erstwhile electability in the eyes of their LIV constituents?
Too many of those former Dems brought their virus with 'em into GOP hierarchies. And, though they may have been a Dem congressman for the past 18 years, they were ushered right in to correspondingly high positions of power and influence in the Republican Party. Without having to had prove themselves in the least.
They just kept on doing what they had been doing before their "switch", business as usual, under a new label.
We're still paying the price for our uncritical welcome of those elements into the GOP.
Ronald Reagan spent decades in his post Democrat years, writing, speaking, explaining, winning the Governorship of California and proving his conservative bona-fides, beyond any reasonable doubt.
No, having former Democrat officeholders in the GOP isn't our only problem, nor is the the core of the "Establishment GOP" problem, but it's surely an aggravating factor.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, is a prime example. Former Dem. Current squish. "Conservative", only at election time.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim at February 07, 2014 03:08 PM (vvk2F)
You should go back and actually read what's in your link:
Republicans picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."
Just because the money was run through a PAC does not mean that it wasn't the GOP behind it. I'm trying to figure out whether you are just terribly naive or flat out dishonest.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 03:09 PM (IN7k+)
Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at February 07, 2014 03:10 PM (kxSZr)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 07:02 PM (QFxY5)
It's an appealing idea, but where would we find so many people willing to be candidates?
Posted by: Retread at February 07, 2014 03:10 PM (cHwk5)
Any civilization that will lop off my head for disagreeing with the dominant culture is not mature.
Now, where I think we are talking past each other is if the line can be held between recognition of the right of pluralism and the ultimate destruction of the civilization itself.
I'm a nihilist. Guess how I think that story ends.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 03:10 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 03:10 PM (0jFxY)
Here in MS, Chris McDaniel is giving a strong primary challenge to Thad Cochran; enough so that there is smear campaign being conducted against him by Haley Barbour and Co.
Both challengers have the backing of various Tea Party groups.
Here's what it takes to join the Tea Party -- go on the web and search for a local group. Give them your contact info. Boom. You're in. Yes, it is primarily a philosophy (or as you put better a political philosophy). And yes it has some evangelical stances that I don't agree with. But when was the last time you voted for someone or associated with a group that you agreed with entirely? You always have to make better/worse judgements.
Posted by: GnuBreed at February 07, 2014 03:10 PM (cHZB7)
Conservatives need to lay out a compelling vision for 51% (or more) of the populace.
Republicans say the same thing...but mean they will take the easy route and be Dem lite...but there is no reason conservatives can't cast their agenda in a way that appeals to more of the populace, or at least force the debate to areas that are more popular.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 07:06 PM (M3hAT)
I think the republicans should look to what the conservative party of canada did to start winning. They appealed to the suburbs and the rural areas. They get into the cities and down on the street level. The republicans just have their consultants, which have worked out marvelously so far.
We should also remove winner take all elections for the states on a presidential level and grant electors by congressional district and two for the overall vote. You eliminate major fraud that way.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 03:10 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Minimum Waaage! Heeyah! at February 07, 2014 03:10 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: gastorgrab at February 07, 2014 03:11 PM (FX38i)
Well, this purist Tea Partier is going to go get some Popeye's chicken, come home, settle in, and watch a movie. At least for tonight, the government isn't bothering me. *looks out the window for the black sedans*
Posted by: Soona at February 07, 2014 03:13 PM (EecJi)
Gallup also reports:
Party affiliation Jan 5-8 2014
GOP: 24% Dems: 29% Independents: 45%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 03:13 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 07, 2014 03:13 PM (0jFxY)
Posted by: spypeach at February 07, 2014 03:13 PM (10H0T)
Quitters never win and winner never quit. A lot of the TP people seem to think that they show up and everyone should stand aside.
It doesn't work like that in any organization. Entrenched people don't like change.
YOU have to sell that change, not quit.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 07:08 PM (0FSuD)
No I saw the writing on the wall. No effort of mine was going to change this, so I have been spending time doing worthwhile efforts protecting myself and my family from the GOP and the Dems.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 03:13 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 03:14 PM (P6QsQ)
The tea party phenomenon does not have a leader. This movement is huge in American politics, and has been discounted [as expected] by the MSM. Ted Cruz is not the guy. OK. He can't beat the media like Reagan did.
A leader will arise sometime, who will beat the media, win the under 35 year olds, and make responsibility cool again. Like 1985.
He is out there and active in politics at this time. I won't do a spoiler alert. It will be fun to watch.
Posted by: redenzo at February 07, 2014 03:15 PM (WCnJW)
We have coalition issues the democrats simply don't have. Not that it has worked out well for some of the dem base. Unions have been decimated, and the dems have pretty much turned their back on them several times in the last few years without paying a real cost.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 07, 2014 03:16 PM (WdbF7)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:16 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 03:16 PM (M3hAT)
Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 07, 2014 03:17 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 07, 2014 03:17 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 03:18 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 07, 2014 03:18 PM (Jsiw/)
Now on the broader coalition building thing, I can think of a currently relevant one to start at: Illegal immigration. I believe that a "Serious border security, no discussion on how to handle those already here until then" is a huge majority winner position. My ultimate solution is not nearly as harsh as the truecon, but I think pretty much everyone can agree on the first part. Neither major party takes this position, just sayin.
Posted by: mugiwara at February 07, 2014 03:18 PM (3a584)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 03:19 PM (QupBk)
The tea partiers don't want reform, we want to remove all the unnecessary and dangerous garbage the last 100 years of progressive utopia has wrought.
But alas, the indoctrination of TheStupids™ is complete.
We will just have to sit back and let the FreeShitBrigade™ have a massive Darwin Cage Match and then put it back together after the TheStupid pool has been drained.
So, like NWConservative , I am just preparing myself and family getting ready.
Posted by: exsanguine at February 07, 2014 03:19 PM (WiAcn)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 03:19 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 07, 2014 03:20 PM (qFpRI)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 03:21 PM (aDwsi)
My point is that it takes a VERY few hard workers to take over a party structure. If TP people would work at it they could take over, but unfortunately many, like yourself, don't have staying power.
The entrenched people are counting on that. Don't complain if you are going to step aside and let them win. Keep at it and someday they'll be calling you entrenched! ha ha.Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:21 PM (0FSuD)
Mike, I'll loan you my barrel. I got it from the Jim Beam distillery, for "just in case".
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim at February 07, 2014 03:22 PM (vvk2F)
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 03:22 PM (z4WKX)
That's because it's unexpectedly cold outside (that supports Global Warming) so no one's hiring.
Posted by: the MSM at February 07, 2014 03:23 PM (LLfr9)
Posted by: The MSM at February 07, 2014 03:23 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 03:23 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 07, 2014 03:24 PM (RFeQD)
Posted by: Ice-T at February 07, 2014 03:24 PM (Aif/5)
Is that high or low?Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 07:00 PM (ZPrif)
That's dangerous.
Posted by: wth at February 07, 2014 07:05 PM (wAQA5)
You ain't whistling Dixie.
Posted by: Chris Stevens at February 07, 2014 03:24 PM (hO9ad)
So that leaves us with them not wanting to make these kinds of arguments...because they don't believe in conservativism.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 07, 2014 06:38 PM (M3hAT)"
=======================
Almost everyone in DC is a technocrat. Conservatism and technocracy just don't go together. Plus, technocracy has the veneer of 'the new' and there's a large chunk of the population that eats that up. As long as the would-be technocrats can convince enough people that they are not selling them old wine in new bottles, they can win elections by promising impossible amounts of free shit.
Posted by: Sudden Clarity Clarence at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (3kFw2)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 07:21 PM (0FSuD)
Keep fighting for people wholly owned and bought by the Chamber of Crony Capitalism and Facebook. Done playing the GOP game.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (84gbM)
Posted by: doug at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (uJ8q7)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (aDwsi)
Yep. People need to know what they're supposed to be angry about first. When you're dealing with LIVs, you're dealing with people who see themselves as mostly untouched by politics. If they are affected, they don't know it. So going straight to angry just makes them think you're nuts. Educate first, relate the problem to their lives, then let them get angry on their own.
Posted by: kartoffel at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (07vvi)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 03:25 PM (38LLM)
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 03:26 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:26 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:27 PM (0FSuD)
You want to differentiate between the GOP and the sitting, Republican Vice President running for election to be the President.
That is just a silly word game designed to obfuscate the truth. Bush I, running as the GOP nominee in 1988, was the GOP.
The Bush campaign may have needed to maintain a plausible deniability regarding the actions of the PAC for legal reasons, but there is no reason that people discussing it today need to pretend to believe the fiction.
You wouldn't be a lawyer by any chance?
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 03:27 PM (IN7k+)
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 07, 2014 03:28 PM (84gbM)
Posted by: spypeach at February 07, 2014 03:28 PM (10H0T)
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/mmll82k
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 03:28 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 03:29 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: mr_jack at February 07, 2014 03:29 PM (TMG3G)
People oppose the Tea Party because they don't understand what the Tea Party is about, that's all. We are, in fact, the Party of No. But it's a specific, conditional no. It's "No, you can't do this at the Federal level."
So what happens when we start dismantling all of the government agencies that are forbidden by a strict interpretation of the Constitution? If you listen to the Left, granny goes out on the ice floe.
What happens in reality is that each of the 50 states now has free reign to develop their own replacements for the too-expensive, one-size-fits-none policies that came out of DC.
In a Tea Party USA, California could go full-on Red Communist if it wanted, as long as it respected the Bill of Rights, and Texas could be Singapore on the Rio Grande if it so desired. 50 states, all trying different ways to organize society as their voters see fit. Some programs would succeed, some would fail, and the failures would be replaced by programs modeled on the better ones. 50 laboratories of democracy, all striving towards a better way of life... where the core issue of the scope of government no longer drives a wedge that endangers our future as One Nation Under God.
You can call me crazy, or you can call me an idealistic fool... but it's long been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. How long have we been electing Establishment Republicans and Democrats? How long have we trusted an ever-larger government to fix problems largely borne of a too large, out-of-touch government? Out of all of the solutions that have ever been proposed for the problems facing America, this one has the sole virtue of never having been tried.
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 03:29 PM (i+Vw2)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 03:30 PM (P6QsQ)
They did do that, but they also had the luxury of being the only center-right party. A number of constituencies (districts) went conservative in the past couple elections because the anti-Conservative Party vote split among the Liberals, the New Democrats (the socialists), the Green Party, and the separatist party in Quebec (although it's extremely weak these days).Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 03:30 PM (jN7YM)
You're very welcome, Ms. Carol. There was a second wave of 'em, after the 2010 Republican sweep, too. Just not as pronounced an effect as happened after the '94 rout.
And Mike? Just a straight up bourbon barrel. But hey, it's a cigar friendly one, so there's that.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim at February 07, 2014 03:30 PM (vvk2F)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 03:30 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 07, 2014 03:31 PM (Jsiw/)
By the insanity of cthulhu, if there's a spider in it, I will hunt you down.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 03:32 PM (Gk3SS)
This is much of the problem.
Disorganized, leaderless movements with a hundred different groups claiming the mantle just don't work.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 07, 2014 03:32 PM (X9Mnx)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:33 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 03:34 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Hollowpoint
Oh, yeah?
Posted by: Boehner And McConnell, LLC at February 07, 2014 03:35 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:36 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 03:36 PM (yH/0q)
The problem with these polls is that the great majority of people don't follow politics -- and so, to them, the only time they hear about "tea party" is what is being said in the heart of the corruption, the middle of the cronyism/media/government complex. And that complex, being the target of the Tea Party, hates the Tea Party with the power of a thousand suns.
Of course, people are going to come away from that thinking, "Tea Party bad." But that is completely irrespective of whether the Tea Party is a movement or a member of a coalition, an actual party or anything else. Tea Partiers hate corruption, and the corruption hates them back....and there ain't much room for compromise in that.
Posted by: cthulhu at February 07, 2014 03:37 PM (T1005)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:37 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 07, 2014 03:38 PM (38LLM)
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 03:38 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 03:39 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 07:30 PM (jN7YM)
Right. If we had a second more conservative party here, you get the Democrats in power uncontested for several years (which is what they had in Canada for over ~20 years). I just don't think we have the time like Canada did for Democrats to take over completely.
Although we are so far down in the rabbit hole now why not? Its not like we don't have over 100% debt to GDP ratio or are going the way of the Weimar Republic, Argentina, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe with our currency.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 03:39 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 07, 2014 03:40 PM (84gbM)
I had Special Report on and heard that Grimes is a bit ahead of McConnell in KY. They did not mention Bevin.Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 03:40 PM (z4WKX)
He's just trying to be funny. And he doesn't want to be hated. So he steers away from stuff that generates hate and twitter rage.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 07:37 PM (ZPrif)
If you mock Islam, you get your head cut off.
If you mock Lutherans, you get polite notes along with a homemade pound cake.
I have to say one of my all time favorite Moron riffs was the whole when Lutherans (or was it Methodists) riot.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 03:41 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:42 PM (0FSuD)
The pro-shutdown Tea Party tanked in popularity after the unpopular shutdown? Shocking.
Posted by: Occupy Wall Street at February 07, 2014 03:42 PM (X9Mnx)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 03:43 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:44 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:44 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 07, 2014 03:44 PM (qFpRI)
=====
This being Ace's website, I am personally grateful for the opportunity to be ignored by millions of people.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 03:45 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 03:45 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 03:45 PM (eQJwb)
I respected Atwater's willingness to run a tough campaign, one that included being "mean" when necessary. I much rather see more of his influence on the GOP's campaign strategy instead of Rove's.
I have seen the Helm's ad before. The left sure does get worked up when anyone else uses the race issue successfully.
Sorry about the lawyer shot, guess you got under my skin with the history jab.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 03:45 PM (IN7k+)
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 07:40 PM (z4WKX)
McConnell is ahead of Bevin 55-29%. Grimes is ahead of McConnell by 46-42%. But Bevin leads Grimes 40-36% and McConnell ties 42-42%. So with 2012 (really any year) GOP logic, Bevin is the most electable and McConnell should step aside.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 03:45 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Reality Man at February 07, 2014 03:46 PM (Cs9Ps)
There's the rub. I think they have to lie at this point in history. Just like the dems lie and then got left and then lie about going left. But the 2012 election gave me the indication that conservatives are vastly outnumbered in this country by the FSA.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 07, 2014 03:46 PM (n0DEs)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 03:46 PM (RJMhd)
Bob Costas looking to get a matching set of pink eye infections as he's breaking out the knee pads to talk to SCOAMT.
Posted by: Hate Miser at February 07, 2014 03:46 PM (3P6Lx)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 07:43 PM (XJpAa)
Ummmmmm, what?
I mean, there's this right there in the post:
"I frequently distinguish between whether one has a right to feel a certain way and whether one should act out of those feelings. Without doubt, Alex, me, everyone has the right to feel poorly-used, shabbily treated, and frustrated."
How you get ace is telling us we have no right to feel angry out of that is beyond me.
ace and I agree on this. People should be angry. People have a right to be angry and frustrated and ragey. But the question is how should that energy be focused into practical winning political strategies. No one likes being screamed at. So, yes, by all means, be angry. Now what should we do with that?
Personally, I'm going to have another g (ampersand) t.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 03:47 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: tennvols87 at February 07, 2014 03:47 PM (kQl8p)
Posted by: seamrog at February 07, 2014 03:48 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 03:49 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 03:49 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:49 PM (ZPrif)
Then there are times when my good humor makes others angry, so I call that karma.
So don't tell me to not be angry, and then get angry at the heckling, and laughter.
Posted by: Joseph O'Henry II at February 07, 2014 03:50 PM (iqrMC)
Posted by: Retread at February 07, 2014 03:50 PM (cHwk5)
Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 03:51 PM (eQJwb)
Posted by: Usedtocould at February 07, 2014 03:51 PM (uAcgi)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:51 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: redenzo at February 07, 2014 03:51 PM (WCnJW)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 07:37 PM (ZPrif)
That's the way the Left operates, they take themselves very seriously and present themselves as serious people confronting serious problems, and that's not a laughing matter.
Alinsky actually plagiarized his 5th rule, ridicule, from Mark Twain. Not a lot of people know that, but compare his version to this line from The Mysterious Stranger (not quite verbatim): "Laughter is humanity's only effective weapon. Power, wealth, oppression, supplication, persuasion, these can push or pull a colossal humbug for centuries. Only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand."
Now consider why the Left is so afraid of people mocking them... because they know that unlike the Right, which doesn't fear laughter because it can stand on substance... that they're pushing a colossal humbug, and that if people started laughing, it wouldn't be long for this world.
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 03:51 PM (i+Vw2)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 03:52 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Reality Man at February 07, 2014 03:52 PM (Cs9Ps)
Thanks for the numbers NWConservative.
McConnell will never step aside & we all know it. Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 03:52 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:53 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 03:53 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 03:53 PM (6/+vz)
I think I'll try a couple things:
Bracket test: [&]
escape character test: &&&
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 03:53 PM (IN7k+)
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 07, 2014 03:54 PM (NRYdU)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 03:54 PM (P6QsQ)
=====
Oh, they are effective. All of those angry people carrying Gadsen flags and wearing colonial costumes showing up at 2009 town hall meetings up close and personal with their congresscritter were effective. The Dems went dark, and the Republicans seized control of the House.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 03:54 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 07, 2014 03:54 PM (0FSuD)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Also, a G&T sounds like a fine idea. I'm gonna join you. Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 07:51 PM (eQJwb)
Yes, please. *yoinks*
But I'm forced to pay attention, pay lip service and pay taxes due to an artificial construct which has been created by a bloated Federal government who thinks one size fits all.
My apologies. I'm not the wordsmith that so many morons seem to be. Posted by: Usedtocould at February 07, 2014 07:51 PM (uAcgi)
Don't apologize, that is very well put.
It infuriates me that all Congressional elections are now de facto national elections. I shouldn't have to give a shit that San Fran wants to elect the Queen of Botox. Go team them! But when their choice impacts my life, then, yup, it's my business.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 03:55 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 03:56 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: theworldisnotenough at February 07, 2014 03:56 PM (M3XzP)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 03:56 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 03:57 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Soccer mom at February 07, 2014 03:58 PM (ZBXhE)
Posted by: spypeach at February 07, 2014 06:18 PM (10H0T)
ha...and great hashtag!
now to read the thread.
Posted by: rich@gmu at February 07, 2014 03:58 PM (ga+7c)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 03:58 PM (XJpAa)
I get the the olympics an hour delayed from some of you which is good in this case since I know to turn the channel about 45 min after the hour for about 15 minutes to avoid the scoamf.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 07, 2014 03:58 PM (n0DEs)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 03:59 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:00 PM (bb5+k)
Because the guy earning $8.90/hour washing dishes at Che Guevara's Taco Hut simply looks down at his paycheck and notes $50 bucks is missing from the balance.
So, does he believe you, or his lyin' eyes? Go ahead, split hairs on earned income deductions, it only *ucking pisses him even more.
This is only one example how we push people away from us, should we continue forward or rethink the game?
Posted by: 13times at February 07, 2014 04:01 PM (fGPLK)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 04:02 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Gene Shalit's Truculent Mustache at February 07, 2014 04:02 PM (i+I1A)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:03 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:03 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 07, 2014 04:05 PM (IN7k+)
Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 04:05 PM (eQJwb)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:05 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:05 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: artemis at February 07, 2014 04:07 PM (2XMD1)
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 04:07 PM (z4WKX)
Tbh, with your attitude, I can see why people wouldn't show up at the party HQ...
Posted by: [/i][/b]KG at February 07, 2014 04:07 PM (IPz9m)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:07 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 07, 2014 04:07 PM (WdbF7)
Posted by: Retread at February 07, 2014 04:07 PM (cHwk5)
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 04:07 PM (i+Vw2)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:08 PM (0Knjk)
Also, I'm drinking my dinner tonight, and fighting off a bad case of Ruined-Friday-Throatpunching-Rage, so everyone just feel free to ignore me. Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 08:05 PM (eQJwb)
Awwww, no!
Here. Have this to feel better.
http://bit.ly/1fWQlk8
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 04:08 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: seamrog at February 07, 2014 04:09 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:10 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:11 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:11 PM (6/+vz)
I don't enjoy sharing this thought, but it is our new reality. Unfortunately.
Posted by: seamrog at February 07, 2014 08:09 PM (Zghoj)
Not entirely true. The only ruthlessness we need is ruthless mockery. Stop being nice and point out the sheer level of screaming moonbattery that underlies their positions. The absurdity the Left pushes as policy really doesn't stand up well to Alinsky's plagiarized 5th rule.
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 04:13 PM (i+Vw2)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 07, 2014 06:27 PM (QFxY5)
I'll second this. The Dept of Ag has more bureaucrats than farmers and a budget that would make it a Fortune 500 company
Posted by: rich@gmu at February 07, 2014 04:13 PM (ga+7c)
22% support the Tea Party--that is the exact language of the polling.
I can't find a poll right now about how many voters self ID as Tea Party.
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 07:46 PM (RJMhd)
Rasmussen had a poll in late Oct 2013 that had 42% of Americans self identify with tea partiers and 42% self identify with Obama.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:13 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:13 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:13 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: seamrog at February 07, 2014 04:14 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:14 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:14 PM (0Knjk)
For you:
http://tinyurl.com/pgfcfaf Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 08:13 PM (jN7YM)
Eeeeeee!
Lemon bar?
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at February 07, 2014 04:14 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 04:14 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: votermom at February 07, 2014 04:15 PM (GSIDW)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:15 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:15 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:15 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:15 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 08:13 PM (i+Vw2)
I really like Rand Paul because he will go toe to toe with Democrats and call them out sometimes using their own language against them. Calling Bill Clinton a sexual predator just makes me laugh out loud every time I hear him say it.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:16 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:16 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:16 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:16 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:17 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:17 PM (0Knjk)
So I'm wondering what can be done to reverse that.
Posted by: ace at February 07, 2014 06:28 PM (/FnUH)
I'll agree with this with a data point that is not polling. The recent elections here in VA-the dems swept the field including taking a state senate seat "against those tea party radicals (who ever they are)".
Posted by: rich@gmu at February 07, 2014 04:17 PM (ga+7c)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:18 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 04:18 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:19 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 04:19 PM (z4WKX)
I have to respectfully disagree with your assesment. Republicans need more than just opposition to Obamacare to win voters. The party needs a positive message to attract voters. The tea party's reactionary message is a huge turn off.
Republicans need to cut out the obsession over social and cultural themes.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:14 PM (0Knjk)
Why the democrats JUST ran entirely on social issues in Virginia. Worked pretty well for them. I think the GOP only has social issues left since they abandoned fiscal conservatism long ago.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:19 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:19 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: spypeach at February 07, 2014 04:19 PM (10H0T)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:19 PM (P6QsQ)
That's when real change will happen. Probably a fracturing of the current nation but who knows. Those will be interesting times.
Posted by: lowandslow at February 07, 2014 04:20 PM (IV4od)
Posted by: RoyalOil at February 07, 2014 04:20 PM (VjL9S)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:21 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Serious Cat at February 07, 2014 04:21 PM (UOjzE)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:21 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:22 PM (0Knjk)
A good economy fixes many social ills.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:17 PM (0Knjk)
I believe that it is in the (state) government's best interest to promote (not penalize) marriage as an institution because two parent households foster an environment which more than the average produces better children. Tell me you think that single parents are better than two?
Studies show that the one of the biggest ways to reduce poverty is to get married.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:22 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Progtard 2000 at February 07, 2014 04:22 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Serious Cat at February 07, 2014 04:22 PM (UOjzE)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:22 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:23 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:23 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:24 PM (0Knjk)
@348. Exactly. Listen to the way Thatcher and Reagan dealt with it. They weren't afraid to punch holes in the other side's arguments and make them look like idiots. We need that kind of rhetorical style and that kind of response in our speakers if we're going to get anywhere.
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 04:24 PM (i+Vw2)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 08:11 PM (6/+vz)
and what would that be a minor adjust here and there to a 3.6 trillion dollar budget and nibbling on the edges of a multi thousand page law and tens of thousands of regulations...
Posted by: rich@gmu at February 07, 2014 04:24 PM (ga+7c)
Cuccinelli changed tack, dropped the social issues and ran as a quasi libertarian and came damn close to pulling an upset.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:22 PM (0Knjk)
The government shutdown (its ONLY casualty) doomed his (and many of the rest of the Virginia's GOP members) chances due to the proximity to the election. No matter what he ran with, he would have lost.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:24 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:25 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:25 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:25 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: G.Gaddis at February 07, 2014 04:26 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:26 PM (bb5+k)
NWConservative,
I think itÂ’s time for the GOP to return to fiscal conservatism.
I really have to go do some work.
Posted by: Carol at February 07, 2014 04:26 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:27 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Progtard 2000 at February 07, 2014 04:27 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:28 PM (jN7YM)
Whether you like it or not, social issues are a loser for Republicans.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:24 PM (0Knjk)
Never say never. He may not be president, but he is looking pretty good from my vantage point. Besides tying the controversies surrounding his father to him is weak tea.
Secondly, I am not a hard line social conservative or very religious. But I do not think that social issues are a loser for republicans no more than I think they are a winner for democrats.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:28 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:28 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Hate Miser at February 07, 2014 04:28 PM (3P6Lx)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 04:29 PM (fA5xz)
Posted by: Adam at February 07, 2014 04:30 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:30 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: UWP at February 07, 2014 04:30 PM (QQ5uB)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:30 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:31 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:31 PM (P6QsQ)
Good luck on running on a platform of forcing people to get married.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:25 PM (0Knjk)
HAH! That is funny. Please tell me where I stated people should be forcibly married!
I believe in Federalism. I don't believe the federal government should have really any say in anything other than common defense of the country and trade/diplomacy with foreign nations. Each state gets to determine what it wants. Don't like it? Move.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:31 PM (buZ/8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4
Posted by: Hate Miser at February 07, 2014 04:31 PM (3P6Lx)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:31 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:31 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:31 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:32 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:33 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:33 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:33 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:34 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 04:34 PM (fA5xz)
Posted by: RoyalOil at February 07, 2014 04:34 PM (VjL9S)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:35 PM (jN7YM)
Must. Resist. Must. Resist.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 04:35 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:35 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:35 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at February 07, 2014 04:35 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 04:35 PM (eQJwb)
This is simply because the incentives have been aligned so that the politician who seeks to shrink the size and scope of the federal government must act against their own interests as a career politician.
After all, it takes a lot of ambition to jump through all the hoops, raise all the money, and endure all the indignities necessary to be elected to the federal level.
Call me cynical, but I believe most elected officials will respond to these incentives. UNLESS they are a hard-nosed ideologue.
Posted by: Luke at February 07, 2014 04:35 PM (32FX2)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:36 PM (0Knjk)
>>>Whatever, Terry wouldn't have won if it weren't for the ringer he got to siphon off of cooch<<<
Vendette seems to be handling all this but from my perspective Sarvis probably didn't make a difference in Northern VA (areas that that C need to do well in) and C was carpetbombed by Steyer money.
C got defined as a creep with horns and a tail early and often.
Posted by: rich@gmu at February 07, 2014 04:36 PM (ga+7c)
Because you're a robot. Excellent. If there's one job I could stand to see automated, it's your friendly local congresscritter. That's up there with "the government can't control human behavior", because remind me what human behavior (action) is. Hint: if "human action" doesn't ring a bell, you're a bad libertarian.
Posted by: kartoffel at February 07, 2014 04:36 PM (07vvi)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:36 PM (P6QsQ)
new boss, same as the old boss
Posted by: Will Williams, designated expert at February 07, 2014 04:36 PM (omBWL)
Posted by: Progtard 2000 at February 07, 2014 04:37 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:37 PM (P6QsQ)
Don't smear troll shit in the threads. Quote his name, but not his content. That way if he happens to get zotted, objectionable material doesn't get left behind.
SOP for dealing with trolls.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:37 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:37 PM (0Knjk)
There is no longer a left or a right, there is only an up or a down. Up to the stars, or down to the antheap of totalitarianism. Ronald Reagan put core issue to us in stark terms thirty years ago, and we still can't seem to find our feet.
The Republican establishment, Nixonian bastards that they are, is just like the Left in that they believe that if the government just pulls the right levers, they can make a perfect world. A policy here, a policy there, and everything is rainbows and unicorn farts. Their mentality, like that of the Left, is one of an ever-increasing scope of government that will allow themselves and future bureaucrats like themselves broad powers to manage every aspect of life.
Who is better at running your life, you, or some bureaucrat in a distant Capitol? Freedom is not a left or right issue, Freedom benefits everybody.
How many other ways do we need to say it?
When the government is free, the people are restrained.
When the people are free, the government is restrained.
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 04:37 PM (i+Vw2)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:38 PM (jN7YM)
>>>You never know, Rand Paul might become President. Stranger things have happened like a unqualified state Senator winning in 2008.<<<
Australia is looking better and better all the time.
Posted by: rich@gmu at February 07, 2014 04:38 PM (ga+7c)
Posted by: Will Williams, designated expert at February 07, 2014 04:38 PM (omBWL)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 04:38 PM (aDwsi)
Th Honorable Senator Blah Blah (D or R, Washington City, DC).
Posted by: Erowmero at February 07, 2014 04:38 PM (OONaw)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 04:38 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:39 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Django Unchained Quotes at February 07, 2014 04:39 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:39 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:39 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: UWP at February 07, 2014 04:40 PM (QQ5uB)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:40 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:40 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 04:41 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:41 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:42 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: Michael Savage at February 07, 2014 04:42 PM (oFCZn)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:42 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 04:42 PM (fA5xz)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:42 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: G.Gaddis at February 07, 2014 04:42 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Dodo Bird at February 07, 2014 04:43 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:43 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:44 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 07, 2014 04:44 PM (Jsiw/)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:44 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 04:45 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:45 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 04:45 PM (fA5xz)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 04:45 PM (aDwsi)
Fuck Beck. Not Jeff Beck.
Our person will have to stand on the shoulders of Cruz and Paul.
If our candidate is worthy the media advantage will be overcome. I saw the beginning/middle/and end of Reagan.
Posted by: redenzo at February 07, 2014 04:46 PM (WCnJW)
You never know, Rand Paul might become President. Stranger things have happened like a unqualified state Senator winning in 2008.
In all seriousness, social issues does turn off many voters. They don't want to hear about gays, abortion or that single women are spawns of the devil. The best way to address social issues is to say one's personal views will not effect your governance.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:31 PM (0Knjk)
Rand Paul may get far in the process to becoming president. He may get there because I think he is one of the few who actually seems to want it.
Your second point is wrong. There is no way your personal views cannot effect your governance. It is just not possible with a human being. When we get robot overlords that may be.
No one says single parents are the spawn of the devil. They are living a way of life which makes it harder on themselves, creates stress for them and their kids, and puts a strain on the community. The community has enabled this through incentives to STAY on welfare programs by punishing advancement out of welfare and marriage. You get a job and/or get married and you immediately lose most/all benefits. What's the incentive there? That is a social issue and a fiscal issue. The two are intertwined. Abortion is less likely in a stable relationship when two people are married. Most people share social conservatives viewpoints on abortion minus the big three: incest, rape, and harming the life of the mother.
Gay people I could care less about. I don't think that they should get married. Just like I don't think that polygamous marriage should be legal. But I don't really care beyond that.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 04:46 PM (buZ/8)
Forget the diet coke and use cherry 7up
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 08:42 PM (fA5xz)<<<
Also very good, rum and a good cream soda.
Posted by: Hate Miser at February 07, 2014 04:46 PM (3P6Lx)
===
The Huntress? Who would that be?
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 04:46 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:46 PM (Ja/3i)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:47 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Daily Reminder Guy at February 07, 2014 04:47 PM (6j8ke)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 04:47 PM (aDwsi)
Senator Blah Blah (D or R makes no diff, Washington City DC)
Posted by: Erowmero at February 07, 2014 04:47 PM (OONaw)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 04:48 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:48 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Michael Savage at February 07, 2014 04:48 PM (oFCZn)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 04:49 PM (fA5xz)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:49 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Monster on the prowl... at February 07, 2014 04:49 PM (TDh6B)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 04:49 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:49 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Adam at February 07, 2014 04:49 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 04:50 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:50 PM (Ja/3i)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 04:50 PM (fA5xz)
Posted by: ron santo at February 07, 2014 04:51 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 04:51 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: RoyalOil at February 07, 2014 04:51 PM (VjL9S)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:52 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Vendette; Go Navy! Beat Army! (And Air Force while you're at it) at February 07, 2014 04:52 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 04:52 PM (Ja/3i)
Posted by: rfichoke at February 07, 2014 04:53 PM (2G73v)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 07, 2014 04:53 PM (fA5xz)
Posted by: Adam at February 07, 2014 04:53 PM (Aif/5)
======
Cummings is a desperate member of a desperate party.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 04:53 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:53 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 04:54 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:54 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 04:54 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:54 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 07, 2014 04:54 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: rfichoke at February 07, 2014 04:54 PM (2G73v)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 04:55 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 04:55 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:56 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:56 PM (jN7YM)
The Libertarian and the Conservative are never the best of friends, but we have to work with each other. That way, we might get at least some of what we want. If the Cult of the Almighty State wins, none of us are ever going to get what we want.
Posted by: Cato at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (i+Vw2)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: lowandslow
Yes he is. Just ask Henry Waxman. Henry sez the Tea Party made him quit. I believe him, because his nostrils were quivering when he said it.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Ronster at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (puNd6)
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 07, 2014 04:57 PM (6bMeY)
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 07, 2014 04:58 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 04:58 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 07, 2014 04:58 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 04:58 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: ontherocks at February 07, 2014 04:58 PM (ngAXW)
Posted by: ron santo at February 07, 2014 04:58 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Raykon's New Gig at February 07, 2014 04:59 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 04:59 PM (g4TxM)
Give me stuff from the rich cuz they got more!
i want abortion to be free of burdens!
i want free Insurance that will give me everything my heart desires !
Give me= social shit to progressives
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 04:59 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:00 PM (aDwsi)
Just sayin.
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 07, 2014 05:00 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: Ozmandius Janglebrain. at February 07, 2014 05:00 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:00 PM (0Knjk)
hell we can't get a word in without Free BC!
Free Abortion!
Gay Marriage!
so blah.
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 05:01 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Harry Plinkett at February 07, 2014 05:01 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 05:01 PM (eQJwb)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 05:01 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: CD Drive Manufacturers Assoc. at February 07, 2014 05:01 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at February 07, 2014 05:01 PM (XJpAa)
Posted by: Slow Uncle Joe Biden at February 07, 2014 05:01 PM (Dwehj)
We are just going to have to disagree on the social issues, but I respect that at least you did not engage in name calling nor hyperbole.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:52 PM (0Knjk)
You just stated in your first sentence what I have conveyed about marriage in the past. Fiscal policies should encourage marriage on a state level. A state government providing tax relief for married couples reduces the burden on everyone else. That is not forcing anyone. It is using a carrot to encourage a positive social interaction rather than encouraging a negative one (welfare). Do you not see that by encouraging marriage and stable families, you reduce the strain on the system?
You profess libertarianism and admit there is no perfect system, yet you reject what history and scientific research has taught us. Because if you prefer the current system encouraging welfare, then that is not libertarian at all.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: JudyNM at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (47Vkb)
The only reason any of these fucks are retiring is because 404Care is going down, and it's going down hard. Why not spend the last decade or so of his miserable life with some cushy lobbying group? He gets to lobby for the douchebag legislation he wants without hearing any of the negative crap.
Posted by: boned to the bone at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (Ph479)
Would that be rum or the lash?
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Stoned Sochi Pedo Bear at February 07, 2014 05:02 PM (3P6Lx)
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 07, 2014 05:03 PM (6bMeY)
Wont there be all kinds of places to cook stuff in the "Burning Times"?
Posted by: The Hickster at February 07, 2014 05:03 PM (TI3xG)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 05:03 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Hrothgar at February 07, 2014 05:03 PM (o3MSL)
Posted by: Joe Biden, sooper smaht guy at February 07, 2014 05:04 PM (+1T7c)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:04 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:04 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 07, 2014 05:04 PM (6bMeY)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 05:04 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:04 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:05 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 05:05 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:05 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Phinn at February 07, 2014 05:05 PM (KOGmz)
Huzzah!
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 05:05 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 05:05 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: cyrano D. at February 07, 2014 05:05 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Slow Uncle Joe Biden at February 07, 2014 05:06 PM (Dwehj)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:06 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:06 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 05:06 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Feeding the fires of revolution at February 07, 2014 05:06 PM (mt+kp)
Posted by: kbdabear at February 07, 2014 05:07 PM (aTXUx)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:07 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at February 07, 2014 05:07 PM (g4TxM)
Posted by: Karl Malden at February 07, 2014 05:07 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:08 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:08 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Tom_of_the_Let_me_alone_party at February 07, 2014 05:08 PM (Zz48T)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 05:08 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:08 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (eQJwb)
Posted by: Adam at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (aDwsi)
it is impossible to not have commentary on social issues is what Progressives run on.
wanna talk deficit ?
Hate women!
wanna talk military adventurism?
Gays need more right!
wanna talk benghazi ?
Republicans hate the poor!
wanna talk misuse of govt agencies?
The children the children!
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (nqBYe)
=====
Nope. It will be more like Dobie Gillis.
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 05:09 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:10 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:10 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: willow at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: barbra streisand at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (Zghoj)
*shoves through USB, hopes it doesn't come out as raisins on the other end*
Posted by: DangerGirl at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (GrtrJ)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (6/+vz)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:11 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:12 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: grammie winger at February 07, 2014 05:12 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:13 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 05:13 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Adam at February 07, 2014 05:13 PM (Aif/5)
http://is.gd/TpKZOM
http://is.gd/AFjgbi
Posted by: DamnDirtyRINO at February 07, 2014 05:13 PM (m0h0I)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 05:13 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: DC in Towson at February 07, 2014 05:14 PM (eQJwb)
Your anger is the fading fire of a dying movement.
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 08:56 PM (0Knjk)
Where did you get this information that younger people despise social conservatism? I was looking at Pew a few days ago and they have a lot of information on millennials from 2010. It really doesn't look like they "despise" really much of anything more than any other gen (except 65+)...
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 05:14 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:14 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:14 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:15 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 05:15 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 07, 2014 05:15 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:15 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:16 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Mark Murray at February 07, 2014 05:17 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:17 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:17 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Megatron at February 07, 2014 05:18 PM (cCxiu)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:18 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Dodo Bird at February 07, 2014 05:18 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:19 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 07, 2014 05:19 PM (NRYdU)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:19 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at February 07, 2014 05:20 PM (cCxiu)
All of the Real Conservatives died on a hill in the thirties. We are the descendents of cowards who married the widows and widowers.
Posted by: Shoot Me at February 07, 2014 05:20 PM (qiXMt)
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 05:20 PM (JBggj)
So you're a Libertarian? Do you know who Christine Smith is? Do you remember what happened in 2008? The LP ran Bob Barr. 2012 it was Gary Johnson. They ran Republican retreads.
Posted by: boned to the bone at February 07, 2014 05:21 PM (Ph479)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 07, 2014 05:21 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 05:22 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 05:22 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: barbra streisand at February 07, 2014 05:22 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:23 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:23 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:24 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:24 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:24 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 05:25 PM (RJMhd)
I'm okay with the ones who say "let it burn." Hell, I don't blame you. Given the current mess we're in, that's probably the only sane resolution.
But I have children (and stepchildren) and grandchildren, and I can't just watch it burn, because I know, and care about the ones getting caught in the flames.
Problem is that I don't know what I can do to fix it, and keep it from burning. If anybody has any suggestions that actually make sense, I'd love to hear them, because from where I sit there's fuck-all I can do about it.
Posted by: Retired Spook at February 07, 2014 05:25 PM (d753w)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:26 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:26 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: kbdabear at February 07, 2014 05:27 PM (aTXUx)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:27 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:28 PM (QupBk)
Get a full time job, get married and raise three kids. Then come back and tell me what's real.
Posted by: some old guy at February 07, 2014 05:29 PM (2DunM)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:29 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 07, 2014 05:29 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:29 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: tasker at February 07, 2014 05:29 PM (RJMhd)
No, I don't dig. What exactly did you do there that made a difference?
Posted by: boned to the bone at February 07, 2014 05:30 PM (Ph479)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:31 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:31 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:31 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:32 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:32 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:32 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:32 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: barbra streisand at February 07, 2014 05:33 PM (Zghoj)
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 05:33 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:34 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:34 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 09:12 PM (0Knjk)
hahahahaha...no wonder they are losing.
social liberalism is necessary for the welfare state.
Posted by: rich@gmu at February 07, 2014 05:34 PM (ga+7c)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 05:34 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: toby928© FiCon Prophet of Doom at February 07, 2014 05:35 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 09:29 PM (0Knjk)
Social conservatives are not a dying movement. There is an ebb and flow to everything. But, what I hope is dead is the move by both the left and the right to use Fedzilla as a catch all for everything. Both sides are getting burned now and it needs to stop.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 05:35 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Vendette at February 07, 2014 05:35 PM (jN7YM)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:35 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:35 PM (0Knjk)
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 05:37 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: Progtard 2000 at February 07, 2014 05:37 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:37 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: kartoffel at February 07, 2014 05:38 PM (07vvi)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 07, 2014 05:39 PM (ZPrif)
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/lj6h5sc (Fox News Politics)
Posted by: mrp at February 07, 2014 05:40 PM (JBggj)
Posted by: DamnDirtyRINO at February 07, 2014 05:40 PM (m0h0I)
Well the good news is that the young people (based off of that polling) don't seem to be flocking to Democrats at all. Obama and Obamacare is wrecking the Democrat party. Looking at the Democrat affiliation over the past 30-40 years, it has come down a LOT. They were going into elections with a 45% democrat affiliation with Republicans at a distant 20-35%. Its not surprising that Democrats held the house for over forty years.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 05:40 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: kbdabear at February 07, 2014 05:40 PM (aTXUx)
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at February 07, 2014 05:41 PM (Gs7jy)
Posted by: zombie at February 07, 2014 05:41 PM (+cx5n)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:43 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: zombie at February 07, 2014 09:41 PM (+cx5n)
Agree. Being wishy-washy is intellectually lazy. Standing for something is hard. Hence it is why you get so many of my generation (millennials) who just go with the current popular* opinion.
*whatever the media/liberals put forth
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 05:44 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: --- at February 07, 2014 05:46 PM (MMC8r)
I think you are as close to Cassandra as anyone. No politician, in fact no election can save America as we used to know her. In the end it will take close bloody labor. And that may not do it.
Posted by: Erowmero at February 07, 2014 05:46 PM (OONaw)
Posted by: Hrothgar at February 07, 2014 05:47 PM (o3MSL)
Posted by: CO at February 07, 2014 05:50 PM (TiOn5)
Posted by: DamnDirtyRINO at February 07, 2014 05:52 PM (m0h0I)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 05:53 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: kbdabear at February 07, 2014 05:54 PM (aTXUx)
I think you are as close to Cassandra as anyone. No politician, in fact no election can save America as we used to know her. In the end it will take close bloody labor. And that may not do it.
Posted by: Erowmero at February 07, 2014 09:46 PM (OONaw)
I think what will probably happen is that the states simply disavow the federal government as an out of control entity, cancel its debts and create a loose union of states, probably one like the original articles of confederation.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 05:54 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: Jango Unchained at February 07, 2014 05:57 PM (Aif/5)
Posted by: Jeff Drebit at February 07, 2014 05:58 PM (DRRqS)
Ace you've even said it yourself in so many words, that the Stupid Party is dead to you. So why are you surprised that tea partiers are also pissed off? Not just pissed off, but really pissed off, not fake pissed off like some, uh, "people", who, uh, will remain nameless /cough.
Hell hath no fury like a betrayed voter's scorn, as some are finding. To quote "Bomber" Harris, "They have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind.
LIB
Posted by: Born Free at February 07, 2014 05:58 PM (xL8Hf)
Posted by: kbdabear at February 07, 2014 09:54 PM (aTXUx)
Even now the Fed is having diminishing returns from their QE. That QE effect gave us the illusion of an economy still going by the liquidity of so much money. So we will see if this keeps going. I don't think the dollar survives this. Neither does anyone's 401k, savings, or any other electronic source of money.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 05:59 PM (buZ/8)
Posted by: oejay44cday at February 07, 2014 06:01 PM (F6UPd)
Posted by: kbdabear at February 07, 2014 06:01 PM (aTXUx)
Posted by: Phinn at February 07, 2014 06:02 PM (KOGmz)
Posted by: DamnDirtyRINO at February 07, 2014 06:02 PM (m0h0I)
Posted by: Pelosi Schmelosi at February 07, 2014 06:03 PM (5QDt1)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 06:07 PM (bb5+k)
I think that is wishful thinking. The Beast isn't going to die without a great deal of violent thrashing in my opinion.
For years I thought the Democrats were either stupid or insane, then the notion that "Perhaps they are planing on a lot of people dying" occurred to me, and then their policies didn't seem so stupid or insane, but instead just evil.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 06:10 PM (bb5+k)
You better have a piece of land capable of sustaining yourself, and even better if it is capable of sustaining a lot of others whom you will need as allies.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 06:12 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 07, 2014 06:26 PM (agLwc)
Posted by: Phinn at February 07, 2014 06:31 PM (KOGmz)
ALL of the so-called "TP" groups were self-appointed to "represent" the movement, which meant the movement was effectively coopted by the conservative Purity Police brigades.
The irony is there is almost no debate among conservatives about what positions are "right." We all agree on them. But the Purists are frustrated with the direction of the country and the Party and insist on no deviation from the list in terms of demanding it all RIGHT NOW.
Before you make changes, you have to win elections. And the strongly conservative among us need to realize that everyone does not agree with us, and sometimes compromises are necessary and choosing our battles is always a good idea. And you do not win over others by stomping off and making threats every time you don't get your way on everything.
Posted by: Adjoran at February 07, 2014 06:41 PM (QIQ6j)
It is not clever, never was, and reflects on the statement being made.
I realize this makes me a troll.
"Oh wait" is the same as "No report yet on ... [insert feeble remark]."
The post by Ace is (a very rare) off key composition.
We (non-Leftists) are currently overwhelmed. The dominant narrative is so totally out of control, we (non-Leftists) have no chance.
We live in a Soviet mind, and not just with politics. The culture is saturated with it. Breast cancer has been absurdly reduced to the question whether you are for it or against it. If you don't get that (and 99%, including non-Leftists, do not get it) than there is no hope for the near future.
We live in a Soviet color-ribbon society. It goes way beyond the Tea Party.
I am Tea Party. I love the Tea Party. I want the Tea Party to have massive influence.
But there are only two relevant factors now.
The first is the Left overplaying its hand with consequence. They are overplaying their hand right now, but no one knows (yet) what the consequence will be or where it goes.
The second is the inability of the non-Left to even acknowledge that the High Information voter ought to be the focus.
Posted by: Tonawanda at February 07, 2014 06:55 PM (mE1l+)
Posted by: Optimizer at February 07, 2014 08:01 PM (saDM3)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 07, 2014 08:26 PM (r54nP)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 07, 2014 08:38 PM (r54nP)
Posted by: Adjoran at February 07, 2014 10:41 PM (QIQ6j)
Winning elections? You mean those elections where Obama wins 100% in certain key swing state precincts, where Republican election judges are evicted from the premises and the law of probability says at least one or two people are certain to vote for Romney, if only by mistake? Where people who strive to ensure free and fair elections, such as Catherine Englebrecht of True The Vote fame, are openly persecuted by an alphabet soup of federal agencies and where prominent Republican donors and Conservative and Tea Party groups are audited by an openly politicized IRS without repercussions? Compromise, where compromise and 'bipartisanship' means acceding to the Democratic position?
Truth is, I don't believe any Republican candidate, no matter how well qualified and Reaganesque, will be able to beat Hillary Clinton--not because she's unbeatable but because the fix is in. The American Left has spent decades scheming and plotting and conniving their way into power, marching through the institutions and suborning and subverting the media, the culture, and other key opinion leaders to their ends. No way are they giving up that power as the result of something so bourgeois as a vote.
No more compromise. No more nice.
Posted by: troyriser at February 07, 2014 08:45 PM (ptcFO)
I think what will probably happen is that the states simply disavow the federal government as an out of control entity, cancel its debts and create a loose union of states, probably one like the original articles of confederation.
Posted by: NWConservative at February 07, 2014 09:54 PM (buZ/
I think that is wishful thinking. The Beast isn't going to die without a great deal of violent thrashing in my opinion.
For years I thought the Democrats were either stupid or insane, then the notion that "Perhaps they are planing on a lot of people dying" occurred to me, and then their policies didn't seem so stupid or insane, but instead just evil.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 07, 2014 10:10 PM (bb5+k)
***********************
Here's how I think it goes down. Either the dollar crashes and/or there is a debt crisis, and it becomes obvious that the federal government cannot kep spending like it does. So there will be a grand reform package that includes (1) defense cuts, (2) further means-testing of Medicare, and (3) devolution of some redistribution programs to the states that are already administered by the states, like Section 8, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., coupled with funding cuts in a block grant. The blue states will attempt to preserve benefit levels and the red states will just let the cuts happen. The result will be civil unrest in major urban areas, with refugees and working Americans migrating to the red states that have food, energy, jobs, and relative law and order. In the end, the red states are able to drive major structural reform, along the lines of what Levin is suggesting, and the federal government is shrunk to a more natural size. Let's just hope that our time of international weakness does not coincide with a 1930's-style challenge to civilization.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 07, 2014 10:00 PM (HubSo)
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 08, 2014 02:00 AM (HubSo)
Ve haff no idea vat you are talking about.
Posted by: Every Evil Rat Bastard Dictator On The Planet at February 07, 2014 11:38 PM (ptcFO)
Posted by: haakondahl at February 08, 2014 01:58 AM (SGt7E)
Posted by: haakondahl at February 08, 2014 02:01 AM (SGt7E)
Posted by: haakondahl at February 08, 2014 02:05 AM (SGt7E)
The Republicans have not delivered on a promise since 1994. One can have all the grand philosophy in your corner, but if you can't deliver its for naught. The Democrats on the other hand HAVE delivered to the their constituent base, deplorable as it is.
One could therefore make the argument that based on delivery alone the Tea Party should infiltrate the Democratic Party in order to DELIVER on a theme of limited federal government.
Odd eh?
Posted by: PissAntinPA at February 08, 2014 04:00 AM (RHBWt)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 08, 2014 05:32 AM (3XfJn)
Trust the American people, Ace. We goof up now and then but ultimately we get it right.
Posted by: DRJ at February 08, 2014 07:04 AM (iqHi+)
Posted by: burt at February 08, 2014 07:28 AM (1+kJ5)
------------------
Who needs the Tea Party then? We have that now with the republican party. Changing the name won't make things work any better. Amnesty wouldn't be a good thing if it was coming from a Tea Party wing instead.
Posted by: moose at February 08, 2014 03:09 PM (0JC3V)
Posted by: Cackfinger at February 08, 2014 05:35 PM (OsCtd)
Posted by: Cackfinger at February 08, 2014 05:57 PM (OsCtd)
Jango, was it Value-Rite?
That's not good for you, dear.
Would you like me to sing an aria for you?
Posted by: Amira at February 10, 2014 12:01 PM (IgS6K)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2855 seconds, 874 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 07, 2014 02:17 PM (aDwsi)