The GOPs Best Hope in 2012

[onejayhawk]

If you are saying that you believe the real motive behind the debt ceiling debate was to do what's best for the country you're nuts.

Please parse this out. You state this as if it were obvious, but I am interested in the thought process behind it. Why, in detail, was the debt ceiling debate counterproductive? Futher, why is it insane to think otherwise?

J

[Erik]

Except for Murdoch's outlets, they are still being treated as small and fringe

While I don't peruse all the mainstream media outlets, this is not the sense I get at all.

[senorsheep]

I don't see how one person's campaign to end the war in Iraq is at all similar to a group's (numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not millions), effort to limit (some want it ended) Govt and stop all (or most) social programs, blur the separation of church and state, change the Constitution among other issues they work to advance, are similar at all.

Can you tell my why, in your opinion, these two are in anyway equal in their impact on the country and in the coverage they've received (are receiving)?

Thanks

My point: The two are equal in terms of how they were elevated into the national consciousness by partisan, agenda-driven political media and the political entities they serve.

I find it amusing when people are so certain that a seemingly grassroots movement gaining some traction in the camp of the political enemy must be some kind of fraud perpetrated by their evil puppetmasters, yet it never occurs to these very same people that similar activity in their own camp just might be propelled by similar machinations and motivations that are something less than organic and pure.

I really can't discuss The Tea Party with you, because, per your description, your understanding of their beliefs and goals and motivations has virtually no intersection with my understanding of them.

[GwynnInTheHall]

My point: The two are equal in terms of how they were elevated into the national consciousness by partisan, agenda-driven political media and the political entities they serve.

I find it amusing when people are so certain that a seemingly grassroots movement gaining some traction in the camp of the political enemy must be some kind of fraud perpetrated by their evil puppetmasters, yet it never occurs to these very same people that similar activity in their own camp just might be propelled by similar machinations and motivations that are something less than organic and pure.

I really can't discuss The Tea Party with you, because, per your description, your understanding of their beliefs and goals and motivations has virtually no intersection with my understanding of them.

I can see your point about them being equal in those terms, but I think you'd agree the impact of each has been vastly different and coverage as such, no longer equal.

i think I understand the tea party pretty well, I mentioned only some of the platforms I disagree with--there are some planks I agree with, but don
't agree with the method in which they should be addressed.

I don't see this as a purely organic movement. I'm not absolutely sure, but wasn't the Origin of the Tea Party and even their name on Fox News or by some of those employed by them? I could be wrong and if I am would appreciate some enlightenment.

I don't see them as fringe in their power, but rather extreme in their ideology. I also don't see them as evil, like anything else there are ways to communicate a differing opinion some resonate better than others. Some of their communicators could use a better filter when it comes to getting out their message because right now, it's emanating from people that don't necessarily make the best impression on the Average American.

Just my thoughts. If I'm wrong or missing something, help me understand things better.

[Judge Jude]

just stumbled across this piece re S & P downgrade. something for everyone, but takes on some people, including Tea Partiers:

http://themoderatevoice.com/118249/sp-report-a-moderates-manifesto/

"The moderate accepts the basic truth of both sides here.

Entitlements have not only grown, but will expand enormously as Baby Boomers face retirement.

Defense spending, after falling during the Peace Dividend days of the 1990s, was ratcheted back up again in the post-9/11 era to fight two long, draining wars that serve little national interest.

Taxes, which were raised in the early 1990s by Bush I and Clinton, were irresponsibly lowered during the early Bush II years, contributing more to the debt than any other single item. Refusal of Republicans to raise them – and Democratic cowardice to press the point – is at the heart of the debate.

But Democrats – including moderate Democrats – must accept the fact that if the Bush tax cuts are going to be repealed, they must not be limited to the wealthy. In fact, most of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 went to those making less than $250,000 a year."

[Mithrandir]

Please parse this out. You state this as if it were obvious, but I am interested in the thought process behind it. Why, in detail, was the debt ceiling debate counterproductive? Futher, why is it insane to think otherwise?

J

I do not believe the debate itself was counterproductive, debate is always healthy. I do not believe that the politicians for the most part gave a crap on how the debt ceiling will actually affect the middle and lower classes.

[GwynnInTheHall]

just stumbled across this piece re S & P downgrade. something for everyone, but takes on some people, including Tea Partiers:

http://themoderatevoice.com/118249/sp-report-a-moderates-manifesto/

"The moderate accepts the basic truth of both sides here.

Entitlements have not only grown, but will expand enormously as Baby Boomers face retirement.

Defense spending, after falling during the Peace Dividend days of the 1990s, was ratcheted back up again in the post-9/11 era to fight two long, draining wars that serve little national interest.

Taxes, which were raised in the early 1990s by Bush I and Clinton, were irresponsibly lowered during the early Bush II years, contributing more to the debt than any other single item. Refusal of Republicans to raise them – and Democratic cowardice to press the point – is at the heart of the debate.

But Democrats – including moderate Democrats – must accept the fact that if the Bush tax cuts are going to be repealed, they must not be limited to the wealthy. In fact, most of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 went to those making less than $250,000 a year."

I agree with pretty much all of this.

[senorsheep]

I can see your point about them being equal in those terms, but I think you'd agree the impact of each has been vastly different and coverage as such, no longer equal.

That wasn't the point I was making with Wonderboy. He likes to suggest that The Tea Party is merely some artificial device being employed by The Evil Republican Borg to advance their agenda. I was simply pointing out that his team does exactly the same thing, and there's no moral high ground to be had here. Both parties and their operatives will do whatever they can to elevate themselves and ruin the other in the court of public opinion. Corrupting/exploiting/manipulating legitimate grassroots movements is one tactic they both use. And each party counters the other's efforts in this arena by calling the authenticity of such movements into question, and smearing them, and lying about them, and attempting to redefine them, and demonizing them if they do happen to gain some traction. Bottom line: The Tea Party movement isn't as pure and good as The Republicans tell you it is, nor is it as corrupted and bad as The Democrats tell you it is. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

i think I understand the tea party pretty well, I mentioned only some of the platforms I disagree with--there are some planks I agree with, but don't agree with the method in which they should be addressed.

In my view, The Tea Party was born of repudiation of George W. Bush's brand of Republicanism - social conservatism, neo-con national security policies, and reckless spending on party priorities. My understanding is that Tea Partiers wish to de-emphasize these intiatives and place more focus on traditional conservative fiscal policy. As such, your description of their priorities as getting all church-y and mucking with The Constitution doesn't jibe with my understanding of what their core mission is. I think a lot of confusion arises when opportunists like Palin and Bachmann step in. They talk financial conservatism to the Tea Partiers, but then turn around and talk social conservatism to their other audiences, and I think a lot of observers then wrongly conclude that Tea Partiers are animated about issues like school vouchers and gay marriage. I don't think most of them are.

I don't see this as a purely organic movement. I'm not absolutely sure, but wasn't the Origin of the Tea Party and even their name on Fox News or by some of those employed by them? I could be wrong and if I am would appreciate some enlightenment.

They are not purely organic, any moreso than they are purely artificial. Like many such movements, I believe they started as entity that was honestly concerned about the economic direction of the country, and with good reason. Have they been co-opted by The GOP and their operatives for their own purposes to some degree? Sure. I see evidence that some of them resist this, which I think is good. Have other people who don't really understand their core mission, or have other axes to grind, been drawn to the cause? Yeah, I think so, but that doesn't mean that those people now define the cause, much as enemies of The Tea Party would like you to believe. Do they struggle to focus their concerns effectively sometimes? Absolutely. But, even with all those things being true, as an independent observer with fiscally conservative leanings, I see Tea Parties as a very preferable alternative to the Bush-era GOP. They want the country to abandon the worst aspects of Bush-ism - endless war, limitless military spending, Constitutional erosion in the name of security, anti-gay rhetoric - and re-focus on righting the financial ship. Even if you don't like their specific prescriptions for the economy, I would think at least you'd be pleased that they want to talk about the economy instead of fixating on that other stuff.

I don't see them as fringe in their power, but rather extreme in their ideology. I also don't see them as evil, like anything else there are ways to communicate a differing opinion some resonate better than others. Some of their communicators could use a better filter when it comes to getting out their message because right now, it's emanating from people that don't necessarily make the best impression on the Average American.

Just my thoughts. If I'm wrong or missing something, help me understand things better.

I get that their fiscal vision doesn't resonate with the Left Wing Boys Choir here in The Sports Bar, but I think a lot of average Americans share their concerns that both parties are killing the golden goose with their recklessness. Tea Partiers could definitely do themselves and their message a favor by distancing themselves from the likes of Palin and Bachmann.

[Judge Jude]

"I think a lot of confusion arises when opportunists like Palin and Bachmann step in. They talk financial conservatism to the Tea Partiers, but then turn around and talk social conservatism to their other audiences, and I think a lot of observers then wrongly conclude that Tea Partiers are animated about issues like school vouchers and gay marriage. I don't think most of them are."

I don't either, which I guess is what I was getting at in linking to the NY Times poll. The poll results were quite interesting.

I suspect most Tea Party backers were pleased that the idea of real fiscal responsibility actually was raised, for once, before another "routine" debt limit ceiling. The bulk of Congress still doesn't "get it," which both the Tea Party and Standard and Poor's are pointing out.

At the same time, many of those same backers may not have wanted the Tea Party elected officials to push things as close to a brink, either. The resulting compromise was pretty weak, really - but without the Tea Party, we'd still be entirely in the same rut. At least the idea of Congress maybe having to DO something about the country's problems finally got onto the table. I can't honestly say that I believe my previous scenario of the Tea Party pols as bluffers - just scaring the Dems into the best deal they could get, then taking it.

It did sort of work out that way, though.

[Lucky]

Is there anyone here who would describe themselves as being a member of the Tea Party?

[DMT]

But, even with all those things being true, as an independent observer with fiscally conservative leanings, I see Tea Parties as a very preferable alternative to the Bush-era GOP. They want the country to abandon the worst aspects of Bush-ism - endless war, limitless military spending, Constitutional erosion in the name of security, anti-gay rhetoric - and re-focus on righting the financial ship. Even if you don't like their specific prescriptions for the economy, I would think at least you'd be pleased that they want to talk about the economy instead of fixating on that other stuff.

I get that their fiscal vision doesn't resonate with the Left Wing Boys Choir here in The Sports Bar, but I think a lot of average Americans share their concerns that both parties are killing the golden goose with their recklessness. Tea Partiers could definitely do themselves and their message a favor by distancing themselves from the likes of Palin and Bachmann.

For the 1st paragraph quoted, I pretty much agree completely with the Tea Party on these issues, if that is in fact how they would approach each of those issues. The problem for me is, I haven't seen any inclination that they will ever take steps on your last point, and that significantly erodes any possible support I could give them.

[Wonderboy]

That wasn't the point I was making with Wonderboy. He likes to suggest that The Tea Party is merely some artificial device being employed by The Evil Republican Borg to advance their agenda.

Jebus Chripes, I was going out of my way not to say that. I specifically said they were not a fabrication of Fox or the GOP. I simply said that the reverse was also inaccurate and that anyone claiming there wasn't some synergy between those groups would be just as wrong as someone saying they were the same entity.

You said the same thing when you stated, "They are not purely organic, any moreso than they are purely artificial." I was saying the exact same thing although admittedly you put it better.

[PaleoMan]

The Tea Party is a work in progress but headed in the right direction towards thwarting the establishment's suffocating plan for everyone. As the noose continues to tighten, you will see more members of society breaking free from the proverbial hamster wheel:

[onejayhawk]

I do not believe the debate itself was counterproductive, debate is always healthy. I do not believe that the politicians for the most part gave a crap on how the debt ceiling will actually affect the middle and lower classes.

Expand. Why do you feel this way?

Why do you raise the middle and lower classes? If they are to be believed, the financial well being of the whole country is at stake, which applies to everyone equally. Obviously you do not believe them. Why not?

J

[onejayhawk]

Is there anyone here who would describe themselves as being a member of the Tea Party?

My wife is not a member, but is very sympathetic. She was raised Democrat, but is generally more conservative than I am. Especially socially.

J