2012 President?

[bleedorange]

Just like being a progressive is enough to classify someone as a communist.

 

http://www.politico....0412/75025.html

 

And around and around we go.

[calvino]

I saw West's footage on the NBC nightly news last night - it made me chuckle. How can you respond to stuff like that - the people who actually believe it are always going to believe it. I have been called a "commie" once because I was wearing an all red shirt in a bar - I have been called worse.

 

One would think an actual Rep. wouldn't say such a stupid thing - but whatever. I am sure Rep's on the left said similar stupid things.

[KevinG]

And around and around we go.

 

yep

[Guest Jules]

Just like being a progressive is enough to classify someone as a communist.

 

Not always. But usually yes.

[lost highway]

Tea Party is to conservative as Marxist is to liberal.

 

It is a specific method of interpreting an economic theory and a social ideology. Therefore, calling an unknown conservative a shithead is a big leap, calling a teapartier a shithead is not as big of a leap.

 

I would imagine any person who has an intellectual tendency towards fiscal conservatism, and has a sense of dignity, wouldn't fly a tea party flag at this point. They've already let their loonier elements make a caricature of them at this point. I think either "Republican" or even "Libertarian" would be a more dignified handle at this point.

[KevinG]

 

I would imagine any person who has an intellectual tendency towards fiscal conservatism, and has a sense of dignity, wouldn't fly a tea part flag at this point.

 

The key word is sense of dignity. From what I have seen Mitt Romeny has no sense of dignity. He will say anything to get elected (I know most politicians will).

 

The TEA party are a bunch of loons, but they are a large segment of the republican base and that is unfortunate cause while their original motives where good (TEA party stands for Tax Enough Already) they have been co-oped by corporations, the religious right, and anti-Obama groups.

 

I still wish the Occupy movement would have actually stood for something tangible and could have moved this country left, as the TEA party moved the country right.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Just like being a progressive is enough to classify someone as a communist.

 

http://www.politico....0412/75025.html

 

It's not 1950. Being called a communist isn't an ad hominum attack.

Being called a shithead, on the othe hand, is nothing but.

[Guest Jules]

The key word is sense of dignity. From what I have seen Mitt Romeny has no sense of dignity. He will say anything to get elected (I know most politicians will).

 

The TEA party are a bunch of loons, but they are a large segment of the republican base and that is unfortunate cause while their original motives where good (TEA party stands for Tax Enough Already) they have been co-oped by corporations, the religious right, and anti-Obama groups.

 

I still wish the Occupy movement would have actually stood for something tangible and could have moved this country left, as the TEA party moved the country right.

 

Define "large".

[bleedorange]

If they were such a large part of the Republican base, you couldn't really explain the last two Republican presidential nominees.

[KevinG]

Define "large".

 

 

If they were such a large part of the Republican base, you couldn't really explain the last two Republican presidential nominees.

 

Are gonna get into this again? You seem to want to deny the influence of people to the the Republican Party, be it Rush Limbaugh, the TEA party, Fox news or whatever. But look at the 2010 election, if you say that wasn't directly because of the TEA party you are kidding yourself. I'll eat my hat, if Mitt doesn't begin to pander to the TEA party (while still playing to the moderate side).

 

The TEA party influence may have wained since 2011 but they are still there.

 

Oh and BTW, pretty sure the TEA party wasn't really around in 2008 so they would have no effect on the 2008 election.

[Guest Jules]

So, influential but not really large.

[lost highway]

It's not 1950. Being called a communist isn't an ad hominum attack.

Being called a shithead, on the othe hand, is nothing but.

 

I would argue the opposite. There are still a lot of talking heads and bumper stickers that throw "commie" at anyone who advocates for a welfare state.

 

If I call someone a shithead, even the casual listener is going to ask me for evidence. It doesn't have a lot of mileage as an ad hominem attack. But I'm glad you brought up the term, it's a big part of how these wars of words are fought. Let's see what a list of red herrings, and ad hominem attacks could be in our quarrelsome political climate:

 

Obamacare

Flip-flopper

Reaganite

One percenter

Elitist

 

What others are there?

[IRememberDBoon]

If they were such a large part of the Republican base, you couldn't really explain the last two Republican presidential nominees.

 

THE TEA PARTY WASNT EVEN AROUND THEN BLEED! It was formed as a reaction to a black man being President and they can carry rifles and even machine guns to their rallies and the occupy folks are the ones that get pepper sprayed and dragged thru the streets.

 

 

And on the taking sides issue. Im proud to be a democrat and im proud of my party. Why would I care what anyone thinks of that?? Its not a matter of being subjective and both sides are the same. If you think then you know absolutely ZERO about politics. But see thats the easy way out to call foul on both parties but some of us see the difference between GW Bush and Barack Obama and between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. If you dont then be happy youve wrapped yourself in your blanket of coolness and Jeff Tweedy and I will keep working to get Democrats elected.

[bleedorange]

So, what you're telling me is that the people who formed the Tea Party never thought that way until after the 2008 election? The people in the Republican Party who defended Sarah Palin with every last breath and had been advocating for the very things the Tea Party/Religious Right currently desire didn't exist until after 2008?

 

And now, more powerful and influential than ever, they lead the Republican Party to nominate Mitt Romney over Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc.?

[KevinG]

So, what you're telling me is that the people who formed the Tea Party never thought that way until after the 2008 election? The people in the Republican Party who defended Sarah Palin with every last breath and had been advocating for the very things the Tea Party/Religious Right currently desire didn't exist until after 2008?

 

And now, more powerful and influential than ever, they lead the Republican Party to nominate Mitt Romney over Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc.?

 

Thought that way, yes, organized not in the slightest. As much as IRDB wants to think, the TEA party was not born out hatred of a black man becoming president. It was born out of the tax policies of a government they did not want. It unfortunately attracted a fringe element that is associated with the right (racists, gun toting hill billies, the uninformed). This is mostly because of Fox News and other corporate entities. The TEA party started out as an anti-tax group but where pushed to the more social issues by other fringe elements.

 

The elections of 2010 proved what kind of power this group has. You are fooling yourself if you think they don't have influence over the Republican party. Not as much as 2010, but a lot. To even discuss Rubio or Ryan as serious VP candidate shows what kind of power they have.

 

Bleed, I am not sure what your feelings are on the TEA party, but why are you afraid to own up on the influence they have over the GOP? No they did not get one of their own nominated, but the contest dragged on much longer then it has in the past because of TEA party candidates and their supporters. Do they run the party, no, but to deny their influence is stupid.

[bleedorange]

Thought that way, yes, organized not in the slightest. As much as IRDB wants to think, the TEA party was not born out hatred of a black man becoming president. It was born out of the tax policies of a government they did not want. It unfortunately attracted a fringe element that is associated with the right (racists, gun toting hill billies, the uninformed). This is mostly because of Fox News and other corporate entities. The TEA party started out as an anti-tax group but where pushed to the more social issues by other fringe elements.

 

The elections of 2010 proved what kind of power this group has. You are fooling yourself if you think they don't have influence over the Republican party. Not as much as 2010, but a lot. To even discuss Rubio or Ryan as serious VP candidate shows what kind of power they have.

 

Bleed, I am not sure what your feelings are on the TEA party, but why are you afraid to own up on the influence they have over the GOP? No they did not get one of their own nominated, but the contest dragged on much longer then it has in the past because of TEA party candidates and their supporters. Do they run the party, no, but to deny their influence is stupid.

 

I'm not denying their influence....I just don't think it is as large as others think it is. They make a lot of noise and in certain spots they probably have a lot of pull. I just don't think it translates in a national race, which is why I downplay the influence they have. You're right about one thing, though, the social conservative zealots have certainly co-opted the initial movement and made it in to something a lot worse.

 

Also, I think the primary race has gone on this long because of yet another lack of a viable candidate that people can get behind. It's essentially 2004 in reverse, where the blandest candidate "wins" the nomination through a process of elimination. That being said, I'm not sure what difference it makes how long a primary lasts...Obama didn't secure the nomination until June, I think.

[IRememberDBoon]

McCain would never have said half the junk Romney has said and President Bush was Jimmy Carter compared to the two of them.

 

If you dont see the influence of the tea party on the republican base and general platform im not sure what to tell you

 

In 2010 they elected like 40 members to congress and way more locally that identified themselves as "Tea Party". Never happened before that I know of.

[IRememberDBoon]

Thought that way, yes, organized not in the slightest. As much as IRDB wants to think, the TEA party was not born out hatred of a black man becoming president. It was born out of the tax policies of a government they did not want. It unfortunately attracted a fringe element that is associated with the right (racists, gun toting hill billies, the uninformed). This is mostly because of Fox News and other corporate entities. The TEA party started out as an anti-tax group but where pushed to the more social issues by other fringe elements.

 

 

Why would I want to think that?

 

Nothing in the tax code changed. The color of the president did. Listen to them talk about Trayvon and you'll see where they stand.

 

you think the great white masses would have coalesced against a white man?

[KevinG]

Why would I want to think that?

 

Nothing in the tax code changed. The color of the president did. Listen to them talk about Trayvon and you'll see where they stand.

 

you think the great white masses would have coalesced against a white man?

 

The TEA party started out in protest of TARP (signed by GWB) and the Stimulus program (signed by Obama). Those where two pretty big government "intrusions" in to the private sector.

 

They are not the KKK, and yes I think a TEA party would have formed if any Democratic president did the same things Obama did. Though to be truthful there is some factor was helped by the color of his skin.

[PopTodd]

The TEA party started out in protest of TARP (signed by GWB) and the Stimulus program (signed by Obama). Those where two pretty big government "intrusions" in to the private sector.

 

They are not the KKK, and yes I think a TEA party would have formed if any Democratic president did the same things Obama did. Though to be truthful there is some factor was helped by the color of his skin.

[KevinG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKsw6xaw9n0

 

hmmmm.... k

[bjorn_skurj]

1. Big Black rules. Any thread is improved by their presence.

2. Romney has a really tough row to hoe. He has to somehow repair all the off-putting stuff that came out during the primary process, specifically the "War on Women," and convince people there's a compelling case to un-elect Obama in an environment where the economy is gradually improving. Romney seems weak on foreign policy, but that's not what this election is going to be about anyway, unless the Iran thing blows up. (Huge spike in gas prices would tend to hurt Obama.)

[IRememberDBoon]

the tea party started under president bush?? i missed that Kevin

[KevinG]

the tea party started under president bush?? i missed that Kevin

 

The TEA party started in 2009 as protest of TARP (which GWB signed) and the Stimulus, never said it started during GWB.

 

Listen IRDB you make it sound like the TEA party is the political arm of the Klan, it is not. I agree with you that there are racists in the TEA party, however there are racists in the democratic party (hell it was the party of racists 75 years ago).

 

It fits the narrative better for you that the sole reason the TEA party formed is because Obama is black. That actually does a disservice to the progressive movement in discounting a vocal group of people who are upset on the tax policy of this country. The same way it does a disservice to discount the Occupy movement as a bunch of smelly pot smoking hippies.

[IRememberDBoon]