Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The 2010 horserace and power of Tea Parties (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The 2010 horserace and power of Tea Parties
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A thread I've been meaning to start for awhile, and the Healthcare Anger thread, where I was more or less covering this, has been pretty thoroughly hijacked. So, in possibly the first exhibition of Tea Party strength in this election cycle:

Sen. Bennet Loses Nomination Bid
quote:
SALT LAKE CITY—Republican Senator Robert Bennett of Utah on Saturday became the first incumbent U.S. senator to drop a re-election bid this year after losing a vote for his party's nomination.

The three-term senator, hurt by anti-incumbent sentiment and unpopular moves he made in Washington in the past few years, failed to secure enough support from the 3,500 delegates at the state GOP convention here.

Unlike most states, Utah has an unusual nominating system in which delegates winnow down their party's field of candidates before a primary election. Mr. Bennett was eliminated from the Senate race in the second of three rounds of delegate voting. He finished third in the vote; only the top two vote-getters advanced to the final round.

The remaining candidates are lawyer Mike Lee and businessman Tim Bridgewater. Both have widespread backing from tea-party supporters and have pledged to reduce government size if elected.

Delegate voting hadn't finished as of Saturday afternoon. If neither Mr. Lee nor Mr. Bridgewater gains more than 60% support in the final round, the pair will advance to a June 22 primary. The winner of the GOP nomination will be heavily favored to win the general election in this heavily Republican state.

Mr. Bennett can't run as an independent candidate in the general election because the filing deadline to do so has passed. He told the Associated Press Saturday that he is considering running as a write-in candidate in November.

Speaking to reporters after the vote, a teary-eyed Mr. Bennett offered his congratulations to his two opponents. He defended his controversial moves he made during his past term. "I wouldn't have voted for any of them any differently even if I had known they would cost me my career," he said. The senator, who twice dabbed his nose with a worn piece of tissue during his three-minute statement, did not take questions.

The race for Utah's Republican Senate nomination provides an early, if imperfect, test of the tea-party movement's power.

Many delegates, who tend to be more ideological than the average GOP voter, said they felt Mr. Bennett had been in Washington for too long. Populist candidates criticized the senator for trying to increase the scope of government by voting for the funds to rescue strapped banks and by co-authoring a health-care plan with a Democratic colleague that included a requirement that individuals buy insurance for themselves.

Mr. Bennett lost his nomination despite his efforts earlier in the day. He had former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, one of Utah's most-popular figures, introduce him before a speech to state delegates. The senator told delegates that his seniority in Washington made him the best candidate to represent Utah. "I understand how to do it," he said. "Don't take a chance on a newcomer. "Keep the veteran on the floor when you're playing a championship game."

That still wasn't enough to woo delegates such as Carol Jeppson. A Lee supporter wearing an blue "I Like Mike" T-shirt, the 72-year-old retired nurse said she disliked the senator's 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. "He's voted for things that doesn't feel as if it goes with the way our Utah people think," she said.

Another delegates said they wanted to give another candidates a chance in the Senate. "I gave him two terms," said 68-year-old Gordon Jones, minutes after he voted for Mr. Bridgewater in the first round of voting. "He got three. That's enough."

Both of the two contenders left have Tea Party support, and whichever wins, whether here or in the primary, is almost certain to win the general election, so that's one Tea Party senator that's going to Washington.

One of the things this article doesn't go into is that one of the problems people had with Bennett was the compromise healthcare bill he put forward, which included mandatory insurance.

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Primary power may or may not equate to general election power. The risk is that by nominating a "less moderate" candidate there may be an electoral advantage to the opposition (not much of a concern in highly Republican Utah, but as a general principle).

I did hear that in the recent primaries last week there was little indication of an unusual increase in voter participation, which does run counter to the hypothesis that there is above average energy among voters due to the Tea Party movement.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm very much with Greg on this one. Candidates endorsed by the Tea Party tend to be candidates which polarize the hell out of the general public, so this move is going to have to mobilise the hell out of the base on election day to make up for all the moderates who'll feel disenfranchised. And to be honest, I'm not sure the political climate is right for the Republicans to be able to field an entire stable of Huckabees and Pauls and Palins in the midterms.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Primary power may or may not equate to general election power. The risk is that by nominating a "less moderate" candidate there may be an electoral advantage to the opposition (not much of a concern in highly Republican Utah, but as a general principle).

True, but "moderate" is relative. For instance, the RCP rolling poll average of Obama care is for/against 51.6/40.9. So, I'd say that, at a minimum, "repeal and replace" is currently a "moderate" position. Also, the Tea Parties have been focused on limited government and economic issues rather than cultural issues, so the Tea Parties and the candidates they support can push an alliance between Conservatives and Libertarians.
quote:
I did hear that in the recent primaries last week there was little indication of an unusual increase in voter participation, which does run counter to the hypothesis that there is above average energy among voters due to the Tea Party movement.
That isn't necessarily what I've read: Dem Turnout Falls Off a Cliff. The article also talks about how the Republican attendance was up, BTW.
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
I'm very much with Greg on this one. Candidates endorsed by the Tea Party tend to be candidates which polarize the hell out of the general public, so this move is going to have to mobilise the hell out of the base on election day to make up for all the moderates who'll feel disenfranchised. And to be honest, I'm not sure the political climate is right for the Republicans to be able to field an entire stable of Huckabees and Pauls and Palins in the midterms.

Pauls, maybe, but not necessarily Huckabees and Palins - with the Tea Party emphasis on economic issues and limited government rather than cultural issues, the culture warriors might be able to thrive only by not talking about cultural issues. Besides, in at least some cases it may well be "anybody but the incumbent."
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Besides, in at least some cases it may well be "anybody but the incumbent."
I read a piece by Fred Barnes that warns against anyone relying on that sort of complacency by voters. Mr Barnes and I would be poles apart on most issues but he seems, to my mind, correct in his description of the recent UK General Election. Of course I am in no position judge the above quote in American terms and it may be Mr Barnes is wrong in his summing up. Mind you it would be a brave UK political party that ran on a policy of scraping the NHS and introducing private medical insurance.

quote:
Conservatives came in first in Thursday’s election in Great Britain, but it’s their failure to win a majority that Republicans should examine for the lessons it teaches. If the GOP listens, they’ll improve their chance of winning control of Congress in the congressional midterm election on November 2.
A few months ago, Conservatives held a lead of 15 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls over the ruling Labor party – a lead that translated into a landslide of historic proportions and a majority of seats in Parliament. But by election day, their lead had shrunk to 6 to 8 points and they fell 20 seats short of a majority.
Three things happened to limit Conservatives’ gains.
· They put too much faith in the staggering unpopularity of Labor, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. There seemed to be no bottom to his decline in support. And the party had been in power since 1997, when Tony Blair led what he called “New Labor” to a massive victory over the ruling Conservatives. In 2010, people had grown weary of Labor.
But simply being the opposition party, and nothing more, often minimizes the size of a party’s victory. It’s the easy we’re-not-them approach. Relying on it – and a bad economy, in the British case -- a party is prone to neglect the importance of making a strong case for itself.
In the British election, this was one reason Labor was able to turn out its core vote and keep Conservatives from winning a majority. The lesson for Republican, facing an unpopular Democratic Party, is obvious: don’t expect circumstances to win for you. You need to run an aggressive campaign.

Lessons for GOP from UK Election
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sauurman
Member
Member # 6467

 - posted      Profile for Sauurman   Email Sauurman       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good he voted for TARP he should be out. No more bail outs, period. It doesn't matter if the stock market drops 2k points or unemployment spikes, a message needs to be sent that the government will not bail out companies regardless of the consequences.

Once that message is clear companies will start making more prudent choices.

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Once that message is clear companies will start making more prudent choices.
Unfortunately, I believe your assertion is unfounded, because the prospect of government bailouts was absolutely unrelated to the root cause of the problem. I started writing a longer response, and then changed it into a new topic I created (Michael Lewis's The Big Short)
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First exhibition, Doug? I'd say Scozzafava's campaign cratering was the first, followed closely by Crist running away crying in Florida, and honestly I'd include Scott Brown's win in there as well. Not necessarily because he's a hardcore conservative, but because it shows that the Tea Party can organize nationally and support a difficult campaign.

In any case, yes Greg, Republican participation in the IN-NC-OH primaries was reasonably high; it was Dem participation that dropped off a cliff. As for how the Tea Party did there, I didn't pay much attention to NC and OH, but in IN it was essentially close-but-no-cigar.
- In the Senate, the Tea Party candidate Marlin Stutzman went from nowhere a month ago to 30% of the vote and a solid second place.
- The Tea Party candidate won in IN-01 (it's a safe Dem seat, but whatever), and the compromise candidate won in IN-08, and only barely beat the actual Tea Party candidate 34-32.
- Two career politician Republican incumbents had serious problems in the primary. Souder only won with 48% of the vote in IN-03, and Dan Burton only won with a mere 30% of the vote in IN-05. If the Tea Party united behind one candidate, he would have been toast.

So not quite a victory, but flexing their muscles. In contrast, they did quite well in Illinois. Of the 5 competitive House seats in IL, 4 of them are either explicitly TP candidates or acceptable to them. Sure, Kirk is obviously a squishy moderate, but what can you do. And while the TP candidate didn't win the Rep primary, neither did the establishment candidate (and the winner is fairly conservative).

So all told, the Tea Party is definitely showing their strength in the Republican field.

As for how that will translate to electoral success, who knows? It's not just the liberal/conservative divide, and that the TP is too extreme. As Doug said, most of what the TP stands for is perfectly acceptable to the mainstream. The problem is that the mainstream like contradictory issues. Everyone hates raising taxes, and everyone hates reducing spending. Everyone hates Congress, but everyone thinks their own Congressman is ok. So if the TP candidates can convince the electorate that they are going in to fix Washington as opposed to being ideologues, they can win.

Don't believe me? The most popular governor among the TP crowd is Chris Christie, who won an election in deep blue NJ. If he can do it, then others can too.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sauurman:
Good he voted for TARP he should be out. No more bail outs, period. It doesn't matter if the stock market drops 2k points or unemployment spikes, a message needs to be sent that the government will not bail out companies regardless of the consequences.

Once that message is clear companies will start making more prudent choices.

That is like saying you notice you neighbor has a small fire and instead of going over and putting it out you let the whole neighborhood burn down just to teach that idiot a lesson about fire safety.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mariner:
First exhibition, Doug? I'd say Scozzafava's campaign cratering was the first, followed closely by Crist running away crying in Florida, and honestly I'd include Scott Brown's win in there as well. Not necessarily because he's a hardcore conservative, but because it shows that the Tea Party can organize nationally and support a difficult campaign.

I'd credit Scozzafava's failure to Conservatives (for New York), but not the Tea Partiers specifically. For Crist, no election has happened yet - we'll see what happens in the general election. Scott Brown is a better case, he did receive some support from Massachusetts Tea Partiers, but I'm not sure you can make the case that they were a make-or-break group. But with Bennett, I think you can make a good case that it was because of the Tea Parties that he isn't going to be a senator from Utah in 2011.
quote:
As for how that will translate to electoral success, who knows? It's not just the liberal/conservative divide, and that the TP is too extreme. As Doug said, most of what the TP stands for is perfectly acceptable to the mainstream. The problem is that the mainstream like contradictory issues. Everyone hates raising taxes, and everyone hates reducing spending. Everyone hates Congress, but everyone thinks their own Congressman is ok. So if the TP candidates can convince the electorate that they are going in to fix Washington as opposed to being ideologues, they can win.

Don't believe me? The most popular governor among the TP crowd is Chris Christie, who won an election in deep blue NJ. If he can do it, then others can too.

True, though reducing spending may not be as much of a vote-killer as it has been in the past - now, we have the PIIGS nations to point to, along with states like California and New Jersey as examples of the result of constantly growing state spending. If the Greece meltdown has a domino effect and kicks off another global economic downturn, it'll be an even more potent example. And if the Republicans are smart enough to insist that Obamacare be repealed and replaced before any sort of tax increase is even considered and any tax cuts be part of a package making Medicare and Social Security solvent, that could help legitimize spending cuts.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
Pauls, maybe, but not necessarily Huckabees and Palins - with the Tea Party emphasis on economic issues and limited government rather than cultural issues, the culture warriors might be able to thrive only by not talking about cultural issues. Besides, in at least some cases it may well be "anybody but the incumbent."

I dunno. For all that the Tea Party strategists (who nobody seems to be listening to) try and talk up how the movement will be more effective if it stays on-message and sticks to Obama's economic policies and other "big government" issues, the rank and file of the movement sure do seem to love God and Apple Pie. At the risk of sounding like a prat who blogs for Huffington, the Tea Party has mutated from a reaction against Obama's economics into a good old fashioned general reactionary movement.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And how does the "God and Apple Pie" bit conflict with being primarily concerned with economic issues? I'm big on the "God and Apple Pie" bit, myself, and I'm mostly libertarian.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This just might be looked back on as the beginning of the end of the tea party. Their fatal flaw is lack of centralized leadership to set an agenda. As a result, they have two candidates for the same office.

I predict Bridgewater and Lee will fight and it will get ugly and the moderate masses will finally start paying attention and wonder what the heck happened to Bob, everybody's goofy and embarrasing but beloved uncle. And what do you know, there is Sam Granato. Yes, he may be a democrat, but he's a successful business man, moderate and dignified, plus he sells the best darned salami, olives and canoli in the state.

If Granato is elected, along with fiscally-conservative democrat Peter Caroon as governor, the Republican machine will blame the tea party for loosing them what they believed was a sure thing and then the pitchforks and torches will be passed out. Party's over.

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sauurman
Member
Member # 6467

 - posted      Profile for Sauurman   Email Sauurman       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is like saying you notice you neighbor has a small fire and instead of going over and putting it out you let the whole neighborhood burn down just to teach that idiot a lesson about fire safety.
Only if you believe the hype that Armageddon was going to occur without the bail out. [Roll Eyes]

Yeah some people would have lost money. That happens, investments aren't guarantees. Eventually things would rebound and rebound in an effect manner.

If you want to go along with the bad fire analogy - after the flames have died down you should teach the neighbor some responsibility. You know a great way to do that? End Fannie/Freddie. Government/quasi government entities should back 0% of all mortgages.

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually feel like the tea party wanted to piggy back on a sure thing to claim credit for it.

Sure, they may have fanned the flames, but Utahns were already riled up about politics lately and Bennett was the one they could take it out on.

The bailout and the health care issue were big deals to a lot of Utahns. My mom is a strong right winger and my dad is moderately so but both were sick about these issues. My sisters who have always been right-leaning but never have been involved in politics both ran in the caucuses. My sister won a county delegate position. My cousin has been a super strong libertarian and this year ran in the caucus. He also got a county delegate position and has been heavily invested in researching and sharing his opinions to influence other delegates. This is his first year running but he was determined even before the tea party was on his radar. I have another friend who is also a vocal libertarian who ran for the first time and became a county delegate. Again, I don't think at all influenced by the tea party.

Now it's possible all the state party delegates were all tea partiers but I doubt it. The Utahns I know are glad to have the tea party on their side but don't really consider themselves part of that group. Obviously this is very anecdotal but it's still hard for me to believe things would have played out much differently if the tea party never paid attention to Utah.


At every caucus I heard about, the attendance was way up from previous years. I would attribute it more to the LDS church than the tea party. I've been in California but I heard that they cancelled mid-week church activities in Utah so that people could go to caucuses.

[edited to fix typo]

[ May 10, 2010, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahh, here it is: First Presidency Statement

quote:
“On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, political parties in Utah will hold precinct caucus meetings. Precinct caucuses are the most fundamental grassroots level of political involvement. They are best served by a broad representation of Utah citizens. Those who attend play a critical role in selecting candidates.

“We ask that local leaders not schedule meetings on that Tuesday evening so that members may attend a caucus meeting. The location of these meetings can be found on the Web sites of the respective political parties.

“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties. We encourage members to attend their precinct caucus meetings.“

The First Presidency has given this same admonition in the past and encouraged members of the Church to participate, with other good citizens, in the political process as part of their individual civic duty, while the Church itself remains politically neutral.

So I guess they've cancelled meetings in the past but I never noticed. Probably because I was in a student married ward that didn't have Tuesday night activities for teens.

[ May 10, 2010, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, the LDS Church is very big on political participation on the part of its members, at least to the extent of voting. It isn't an out and out commandment, but it is a very strong suggestion.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug64:
And how does the "God and Apple Pie" bit conflict with being primarily concerned with economic issues? I'm big on the "God and Apple Pie" bit, myself, and I'm mostly libertarian.

Nothing wrong with God and apple pie (although personally I'd pick pie over God any day), but the point I was trying to make is that the Tea Party isn't just about taxes and economics and how much government is too much government. Its turned into a loud, highly visible protest movement for pretty much every conservative voter who thinks the Democrats are going to ruin America or who feels disenfranchised because the Republican Party doesn't do enough to represent American values.

It may have started as a backlash against Obamacare and the bailouts, but as far as an awful lot of the Tea Party's grassroots support is concerned it's now a backlash against everything wrong with America today.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rallan,

quote:
It may have started as a backlash against Obamacare and the bailouts, but as far as an awful lot of the Tea Party's grassroots support is concerned it's now a backlash against everything wrong with America today.
I am hardpressed to find a clear exposition of "Tea Party" positions, but my sense is that "everything wrong with America today" is, with some justification, identified with the 20th century socialist movement initiated by Woodrow Wilson. Today, advocates are tagged "progressive", but it is really the same old political philosophy.

The only danger the Republican party has of blowing it this November, is repeating the McCain "moderation" debacle. The liberal media chose him as the Republican nominee, because they knew he was a sure loser, and he chose Palin because he knew it was the best way to infuse life into his lackluster "centrist" message. Given the subsequent, and current, investment of liberal resources allocated to personally attack Palin, it appears they have made the same calculus. I am no fan of a Palin presidency, but I do pay attention to who scares the left.

It was always about more that the BFD, and TARP legislation.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
It may have started as a backlash against Obamacare and the bailouts, but as far as an awful lot of the Tea Party's grassroots support is concerned it's now a backlash against everything wrong with America today.

You've seen and/or more than I have. I haven't seen a single credible representative of any of the Tea Parties talking about anything but the size and constitutionality of our current Washington establishment when it comes to economic matters. I certainly haven't heard any of the traditional cultural breakpoints brought up - guns, SSM or abortion.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I haven't seen a single credible representative of any of the Tea Parties talking about anything but the size and constitutionality of our current Washington establishment when it comes to economic matters
Please define what you mean by "a single credible representative"

If you are discussing the 18% of Americans who identify as following the Tea party movement, then you are stuck with all the other baggage that comes with this population
quote:

Only 41% say that they believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.
89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.
59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)
63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.
24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.
84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree (remember: 18% are tea partiers)

If you want to exclude these people from being "credible" members of the Tea Party movement, start whittling your 18% of the American population down. For example, if you only consider as "credible" Tea Party members those who believe that Barack Obama is the legitimately elected President of the United States, you are down to only 8% of the population (since 59% are not convinced he is a U.S. citizen).
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say "credible member," I said "credible representative" - as in, "someone that is active in organizing and pushing forward the agenda of the Tea Parties."

And sure, you can talk all you want about what Tea Partiers might believe, but that's not that same thing as what they consider most important, why they're getting out into the streets waving flags and calling for a change of government leadership. Take a look at the items in the Contract from America - hundreds of thousands of votes, and not one item in the top ten having to do with the traditional social issues.

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but that's not that same thing as what they consider most important, why they're getting out into the streets waving flags and calling for a change of government leadership. Take a look at the items in the Contract from America - hundreds of thousands of votes, and not one item in the top ten having to do with the traditional social issues.
You make two totally unrelated statements and imply that they are the same. How can you tell that that the motivation that got people into the streets waving flags had anything to do with the Contract from America.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Wikipedia:

quote:
The Contract from America is a document released by the Tea Party Patriots, an umbrella organization for various groups associated with the Tea party movement during the 2010 midterm elections. The idea for the Contract from America was conceived by Ryan Hecker, a Houston tea-party activist and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.[1] Ideas to be included in the contract were proposed and debated on a website designed for that purpose and the resulting statements were voted on online, with 454,331 votes being cast. The resulting document including the vote percentages for the statements included was posted online on April 12, 2010.[2]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not at all conclusive. There's 18% of the population leaning in the Tea Party movement direction, buth both the number of people who have actually marched in the streets as well as the 454,331 who voted in that poll are small fractions of the overall group of Tea Party followers. How do you know that they are the same small fraction? Or they could be two totally different splinters of the overall 18%. Or some combination. There is not enough information to draw an inference.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's certainly more conclusive than what you've used to back up your own assertion, which come to think of it is nothing. As further evidence, let me use as a witness the event that kicked off this thread, Bennett losing his bid for renomination to the Senate - the things given as significant reasons he was voted out (or rather not voted back in) are his vote for TARP and his alternative health care bill that included a mandate.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An event that may make it harder for the Republicans to take back the House while putting Obamacare further at risk of being overturned:

Alan Mollohan loses primary fight
quote:
West Virginia Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan lost his bid for a 15th term tonight at the hands of state Sen. Mike Oliverio, a defeat that further affirms the anti-incumbent sentiment coursing through the country.

Mollohan hadn't faced a serious primary fight in more than a decade and was seen in some circles as unbeatable given that the 1st district seat had been in his family since 1968. (His father held it from 1968-1982 before handing it off to the son.)

But, Oliverio, who served a single term in the state House of Delegates before being elected to the state Senate in 1994, ran hard against Mollohan's entrenched incumbent status and the lingering whiff of ethics problems that had dogged the Congressman for years.

The race has gotten very nasty over its final weeks with Oliverio referring to Mollohan as "one of the most corrupt members of Congress" and the incumbent retorting that his opponent is "lying" and "spreading right-wing smears".

Mollohan, despite regular warning from state and national Democratic strategists, never seemed to understand the threat posed by Oliverio and, according to several sources, ran a campaign suited to the early 1990s rather than 2010 in terms of its sophistication.

On the Republican side, former state Del. David McKinley won his party's nomination. Republicans, however, had made clear they preferred to run against Mollohan and must now re-orient their strategy.

Mollohan is the first House member to lose a re-election bid in the 2010 cycle and the first Democrat to lose a bid for re-nomination since Rep. Al Wynn (Md.) in 2008. Three House Republicans -- Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah), Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.) and Rep. Dave Davis (Tenn.) -- lost in intraparty fights last cycle.

Mollohan's defeat follows hard on a loss by Utah Sen. Bob Bennett (R) in the Beehive State's convention process over the weekend and, as such, will foment the sense that incumbents -- of all parties and offices -- need to be on guard heading into the summer primary season and the fall midterms.

(While the race is rightly seen -- at least partially -- through a national prism in terms of its scope, it's important to remember two factors unique to this race: Mollohan had been damaged by ethics allegations over the last few years and Oliverio actually ran to the incumbent's ideological right -- castigating him for his vote in favor of President Obama's health care bill.)

A recent Washington Post/ABC poll showed that less than one in three people said they plan to vote to re-elect their member of Congress -- numbers that haven't been seen in Post/ABC data since the Republican wave election of 1994.

Just how bad it has gotten for incumbents will be tested in a serious way next Tuesday when Democratic Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) attempt to fend off serious primary challenges.


Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am no fan of a Palin presidency, but I do pay attention to who scares the left.
I'm not really on the left, but for the record the prospect of a Palin presidency certainly scares me.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those of you who aren't scared yet, she said this (about 45s in) the other day:
quote:
"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.

"What in hell scares people about talking about America's foundation of faith?" Palin continued. "It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that's the only thing I can attribute it to."


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And then there's Reid's opponent for the Senate, who now needs to hurry up and figure out a good chickens to chemotherapy conversion chart.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
For those of you who aren't scared yet, she said this (about 45s in) the other day:
quote:
"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.

"What in hell scares people about talking about America's foundation of faith?" Palin continued. "It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that's the only thing I can attribute it to."


If a private citizen saying that scares you, what of this?

quote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday urged Catholic leaders to "instruct" their parishioners to support immigration reforms, saying clerics should "play a very major role" in supporting Democratic policies.

"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication is," said Pelosi, who is Catholic, speaking at the Nation's Catholic Community conference sponsored by Trinity Washington University and the National Catholic Reporter.

So Catholic clerics should ""play a very major role" in supporting Democratic policies." eh?

Source

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a wide difference from someone saying that the state should impose religion on people and the state asking religions to step up in support of state policies among their adherents.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,

quote:
the state should impose religion on people and the state asking religions to step up in support of state policies among their adherents.
Is this honestly what you draw from Palin's statement?

[ May 13, 2010, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: noel ]

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is pretty explicitly what's scary about her statement as well as all of the other one's that she's made asserting that US law should be rooted in the religious beliefs that she subscribes to.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There's a wide difference from someone saying that the state should impose religion on people and the state asking religions to step up in support of state policies among their adherents.

[Roll Eyes] Not nearly as wide a difference as there is between Palin (former governor of a minor state) and the Frakkin' Speaker of the House (the second or third most powerful position in the entire country!)

Jeez, get a little perspective.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pelosi here did not take the initiative in demanding that Catholic leaders support immigration reform. Rather she said that they should not be asking her to enact it, unless they themselves mentioned it from the pulpit. Reform is a controversial issue, mandated by Catholic teaching, which would nevertheless offend and alienate many Catholics if they were told they had a religious obligation to support it. A priest who says any parishioner who opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants is likely to go to hell might end up with a lot of empty seats. But asking Pelosi to pass unpopular legislation which church leaders are themselves afraid to support seems hypocritical.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a significant difference between the phrase, "unless they themselves mentioned it from the pulpit"

and the actual quote of,

"urged Catholic leaders to "instruct" their parishioners to support immigration reforms".

It's not as if immigration reform is being driven by the Catholic church and the Speaker is the standard bearer. Surely that's not your contention.

This seems to be a direct command from the Speaker of the House of the United States to American Catholic Bishops to order/instruct their flock to support/vote for immigration reform.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There's a wide difference from someone saying that the state should impose religion on people and the state asking religions to step up in support of state policies among their adherents.

[Roll Eyes] Not nearly as wide a difference as there is between Palin (former governor of a minor state) and the Frakkin' Speaker of the House (the second or third most powerful position in the entire country!)
So what? That doesn't make Palin's position any less oppressive or Peolsi's request any less innocuous here. Unless you're implying that Pelosi was promising some kind of tit for tat if the Catholic leaders decided that they should more actively advocate for reform.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
This seems to be a direct command from the Speaker of the House of the United States to American Catholic Bishops to order/instruct their flock to support/vote for immigration reform.

Where exactly in the Catholic Hierarchy does the Speaker fall? And even if she did have the authority for it to be anything more than a request, it still wouldn't be anything remotely comparable to using the law to enforce religious doctrines.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Where exactly in the Catholic Hierarchy does the Speaker fall?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is one of the most powerful people on the planet. Her urging any particular group carries a lot of weight. Or do you think she has no effective power? And if she has no influence then what kind of power does Sarah Palin have?

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And even if she did have the authority for it to be anything more than a request, it still wouldn't be anything remotely comparable to using the law to enforce religious doctrines.

And that's a straw man argument. Sarah Palin did not say the law should be used "to enforce religious doctrines." And even if she had, she's in no position to effect the law. She holds no office. Speaker Pelosi on the other hand wields great power.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1