Tea Party

[Rule]

So, at one point the tea party was being sold as this revolution of sorts.  Ron Paul endorsed it, who seemed genuine and wasn't speaking the typical Republican party line.  Now it all seems like a sham.  It is now fronted by crazy and embarrassingly ignorant republicans like Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, and Michelle Bachmann.  In Bachmann's 'tea party' response to the State of the Union, she stated upfront that this was not meant to compete with the official republican response.  This is because they are all republicans.  This is not a new independent voice, it's a third republican choice, calculated to invigorate right leaning people who might not otherwise feel excited about politics.

[nslay]

I don't think Republicans like the Tea Party at all. Lisa Murkowski ... need I say more?
How do you LOSE an official election to a write-in candidate!? Do you realize how BADLY that reflects on the Tea Party?

[Rule]

It's true that a lot of Republicans don't like the Tea Party.  But most of them will at least pretend to.  And all the Tea Party candidates are Republican and 'Republican-friendly' it seems, which is too bad.  It would have been more interesting to have had a third independent choice.

[nslay]

Again, they lost to a write-in candidate. That apparently hasn't happened in FIFTY years! That's extremely embarrassing for their cause!

The news often likes to hound Republicans in office to ask about the Tea Party, and most of the time you get an indication from their tone, facial expression, etc... that they DO NOT like the Tea Party.

[Rule]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

[Blaze]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

Almost all Tea Party people may be republican, but not all republicans are Tea Party!

[Rule]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

Almost all Tea Party people may be republican, but not all republicans are Tea Party!

I didn't say they were.  I said the Tea Party is a third republican choice.

[iago]

The Tea Party people are republicans.

Almost all Tea Party people may be republican, but not all republicans are Tea Party!

I didn't say they were.  I said the Tea Party is a third republican choice.

Dividing votes for a party you don't like is always a good thing. Assuming they're running against each other, of course.

[MyndFyre]

The Tea Party represents what I believe is a coming divide in the Republican party, similarly to the Whigs who fought against the federalists during the early part of the US.

The problem that we've seen, particularly with the George HW Bush and George W Bush traditions of the Republican party, is that a lot of people in the republican party now are statists, whereas the Tea Party generaly represents populism.

Within the Republicans, you still generally see SOME populist tendencies.  So, it comes down to a lot of Tea Party candidates choosing the "lesser of two evils."  Practically, the structure of the US Constitution demands a two party system (the President must win an absolute majority of electoral votes).  It's like a Libertarian party but more moderate.

[while1]

The tea party arose out of genuine discontent with the mainstream Republican party, a party that under Bush had lost its old school fiscal conservative values and instead taken on a neo-conservative "spend and cut taxes" philosophy.  Original the tea party had more of a libertarian following, and despite what you may think, at the grassroots level the tea party is more diverse than you think because all you see is the Republican opportunists trying to play off of the tea party to their political gain.

Being a moderate libertarian, or liberal conservative, I do no affiliate myself with the tea party because it has no defined leadership, if one were to ask "Who's in charge of the tea party", you're likely to get a variety of answers... because as far as I'm aware there is no true leadership to the tea party at a national level officially.

I can't stand the mainstream Republican party, bible thumping fascists, nor can I stand the mainstream Democrats, let government do everything socialists.  I'll settle for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government... but unfortunately neither extreme can compromise.

[Sidoh]

If Sarah Palin is anywhere near it, I won't be.

[Rule]

nor can I stand the mainstream Democrats, let government do everything socialists.  I'll settle for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government... but unfortunately neither extreme can compromise.

I am not a fan of the Democrats either (although I probably support them more than you do), but they are NOT socialists.  Not even remotely close.  They aren't even liberals.  It's really quite interesting you see them as an 'extreme'.  The whole world, outside of the US, sees them as right of centre.  Socialism? No way.

Part of the reason I don't like the Democrats is because they are not strong on any position.  They are too weak.  

[while1]

nor can I stand the mainstream Democrats, let government do everything socialists.  I'll settle for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government... but unfortunately neither extreme can compromise.

I am not a fan of the Democrats either (although I probably support them more than you do), but they are NOT socialists.  Not even remotely close.  They aren't even liberals.  It's really quite interesting you see them as an 'extreme'.  The whole world, outside of the US, sees them as right of centre.  Socialism? No way.

Part of the reason I don't like the Democrats is because they are not strong on any position.  They are too weak. 

Aye, I was resorting to hyperbole to emphasize my distaste for both parties, who might as well be polar opposites considering their inability to find common ground. 

I'd concur to that, Obama has definitely leaned more to fascism than socialism during his term as Presidency, if only for his continuation of many Bush-era policies.  And I'd agree that problem with Democrats is that they're not able to compromise within their own party, the far left and the blue dogs ultimately end up in a stalemate, where as the Republicans have it the opposite, the far right wing silences/intimidates/alienates liberal/moderate Republicans.  In both cases, it's the extremes of both parties that are in my opinion the ills of both parties... the element that gets in the way of achieving common ground.

Despite my ideological views which are more conservative than liberal, I'm willing to compromise on one thing in exchange for another.  I would support increasing the federal taxes to Clinton-era levels if it meant not using this to pay for gross expansion of government; meaning I would demand pay-go be reinstated.  The one thing I am thoroughly pissed at the Party Of No for voting against 6-12 months ago, IIRC.

[Armin]

</3 over-analyzing and unartful simplification of dynamic, ambiguous labels of broken politics.

[MyndFyre]

If Sarah Palin is anywhere near it, I won't be.

I hope that's not really your position.  I'm not a fan, and I make fun of my dad because he thinks she's totally hot. 

That said, two things about the statement are completely illogical:

1.) Associating one person's deficiencies to an entire group based on common beliefs is illogical.
2.) Hating someone with such passion (expressed by hyperbole like "anywhere near it") whom you've never met.  To quote Church from Red vs. Blue, "It's not about hating the guy on the other side because someone told you to. I mean, you should hate someone because they're an asshole or a pervert or a snob, or they're lazy or arrogant or an idiot or a know-it-all. Those are reasons to dislike somebody. You don't hate a person because someone told you to; you have to despise people on a personal level, not because they're red or because they're blue, but because you know them and you see them every single day, and you can't stand them because they're a complete and total fucking douchebag."