tea party sits it out --- WHY??????[W: 181]

Dragonfly said:

Christine O'Donnell is bat-sh!t crazy. Maybe even more so than Palin and Bachmann.

I live in Delaware, so I've had way more coverage of her than just about anybody here.

And please don't tell me who I'd like or not like regardless of what party they're affiliated with.
You don't know me from Adam.

Click to expand...

Whew, that is good to know. I'm from Texas.

samsmart said:

You go ahead and ask Speaker Boenher how inactive the Tea Party Congressmen are in politics.

The President isn't the only political office worth following, you know.

Click to expand...

Bohner has a tough job, and I don't think he is ever going to move up in his career beyond House Speaker... He can't run the system so the president fails and he wins. As far as I am concerned, he is failing more than the president and he doesn't look like he as the ability to do his job successfully.

haymarket said:

The movement known as the tea party was riding very high after the 2010 elections. Many people thought they would either be a kingmaker within the GOP for 2012 or perhaps the start of a third party movement. Neither has happened. The GOP ends up with Romney - definitely NOT a tea party type of person.

I would like to hear the thoughts of the politically savvy here as to why the tea party was relatively inactive - especially as a national movement achieving a goal - so far this year.

Did they make some mistakes? If so what were they?

Or did they play thinngs just right?

Click to expand...

I talked about this in two previous posts and my thoughts about it remain exactly the same so I thought I'd just repost though essentially it's this. The Tea Party is a loosely centralized group that is focused on two pillars of conservative ideology with little to no stance on the others...which means various groups in diferent parts of the country will have varying views on the importance of other conservative view points, and as such makes a singular national outpooring of support unlikely to occur especially in a republican primary where almost all candidates could be reasonable acceptable.

Zyphlin said:

The reason the Tea Party was successful in 2010 was in part because it was a congressional election. That allowed Tea Party candidates in areas that aren't heavily socially conservative to run primarily on just Tea Party ideals and pull out a win while allowing other Tea Partiers to mix the Tea Party message with their Social Conservative views in places where the religious right was strong. Being a movement focused on only a Portion of the Republican parties platform and that can attract a wide range of Consevatives...libertarians, paleoconservatives, evangelical conservatives, etc...the ability for candidates to be tailored to a specific audience is helpful.

That's not the case on a national election unfortunately. A Tea Partier neutral on social issues could be as likely to go Ron Paul or Huntsman as he may be Santorum or Bachmann. A Tea Partier who is also a social conservaitve however would likely not touch Huntsman due to his view on civil unions despite his record on ACTUAL tea party issues being very good. A Tea Partier who is also rather hawkish likely wouldn't touch Ron Paul. A Tea Partier who actually is moderate on social issues or simply doesn't want wedge issues focused on may not want to touch Bachmann and Santorum. The reason for this is that, in a nation wide Republican contest, there are likely to be MANY candidates that fit the Fiscal bill to an acceptable level...which means people then look at secondary things to determine their choice.

So to find a candidate the Tea Party, as a whole, would actually significantly support during the primary would be extremely difficult because there’s too many secondary factors that would lead them to one candidate or another. That’s why it’s successful on a localized level where it can be targeted to constituency, but the Tea Party will have little STRONG effect during the primary season and will have a weakened effect in the general election comparative to its effect on 2010.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

A reasoned examination of the Tea Party movement, its make up, and its effect on American Politics would highlight well in advance that it would have significant issues with exerting any power over a primary. The Tea Party has a centralized national message that is the core thing that binds the multitude of localized individual units. However, each localized unit takes that centralized message and then tailors it, adds to it, and emphasizes things in it that are most important in their locality. A Tea Party organization in New Hampshire will look a fair bit different than one in the heart of South Carolina and one out in Nevada. While they’ll have that same over arching connection, beyond that there could be striking differences.

This method works wonderful at the local, state, and localized federal level. Individual Representatives and Senators can be better chosen who match up with that localized groups important. IE…a Tea Party candidate in South Carolina may also need to be Socially Conservative, while one in New Hampshire may actually have to be socially moderate or essentially uninterested in social policy. The localization of it allowed for the powerful wave during the 2010 elections.

In a Presidential primary however you have an entirely different situation. The Tea Party, while having an overall view point, is not some monolithic entity that all thinks and acts the same way. More over, every Presidential Candidate running on the Republican Ticket has at least a “passable” to “good” level of respectability when it comes to Tea Party issues. What this means is that Tea Partiers check off their Tea Party leanings and move onto the next set of things to determine who they care about. For some, it may be that the person is ALSO good socially. For others, it may be that the person is not just passable or good but GREAT on those issues and to hell with anything else. For others it may be military views. For others it may be Electability.

However, those things are going to vary all across the country, and as such you’re not in a situation where there can be a strong “Tea Party” push for an individual candidate.

They will have a little more power in the General, as at least then you have a bit larger contrast between the two competitors. But really, the Tea Parties main ability to influence electoins will be on congressional races where localization can occur.

Click to expand...

I don't think the tea-party is necessarily sitting out, but they are not as cohesive as they were before. There are different factions of tea-parties out there now.

Regardless, the one thing they are doing right is they are focusing more on the REAL problem at hand and that is congress. I just hope the factions concentrate not only on Dems, but Republicans as well that are mainstream problems.

TheNextEra said:

I don't think the tea-party is necessarily sitting out, but they are not as cohesive as they were before. There are different factions of tea-parties out there now.

Regardless, the one thing they are doing right is they are focusing more on the REAL problem at hand and that is congress. I just hope the factions concentrate not only on Dems, but Republicans as well that are mainstream problems.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this guy played a hand in the Shrinking Tea Party

Dragonfly said:

Hopefully - the Tea Party is laying low in an effort to rebuild and reorganize themselves in a way that does not include the fringe-nutjob religio-fanatics that somehow managed to get swallowed up and associated with their platform.

The Christine O'Donnell, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann types that are about as scary an individual that most normal thinking Americans can dream of as being in charge.

Those kinds of people are a plague on the movement.

Hopefully the Tea Party can recognize that and find a way out of that disease.

hopefully, they're laying low in a bid to rid themselves of that kind of "politician".

Click to expand...

Matt Foley said:

I'm pretty sure this guy played a hand in the Shrinking Tea Party

Click to expand...

Thanks....I'd forgotten about Beck. Add him to my list above. :2wave:

Because they all are vacationing in Florida, knitting, making good with God, and/or are dead from old.

End thread.

Dragonfly said:

Really? I mean, REALLY?

Christine O'Donnell is not just "regular folk".

I know that the basis for the Tea Party was grounded in some very solid ideas, but it was the latching on, or the leeching in of the religio-fanatic-right fringe that tainted the entire movement.

Click to expand...

Christine O'Donnell had to go on TV and declare that she wasn't a witch. Personally, I didn't believe her.

samsmart said:

You go ahead and ask Speaker Boenher how inactive the Tea Party Congressmen are in politics.

Click to expand...

The Teaparty over stepped their boundries at time and they are the reason why Delaware lost and Nevada lost the midterm election in 2010.

Reid could have been defeated if the Tea Party didn't run a loon against him and dotto to Delaware when the TeaParty ran the loony O'Donnel.

I've said this numerous times on this site. Anyone identifying themselves as a "Tea Partier" that didn't support Ron Paul should be ashamed of themselves. They should also consider themselves a fairweather fan. Ron Paul is the grandfather of the Tea Party. He represents and has practiced everything the Tea Party stands for. No other GOP candidate holds a candle to his voting record or consistant support for the core values of the Tea Party.

Travis007 said:

Yes Really.. You wanna go downt he road of if the Tea Party is more viable and decent the the Occupy Movement?..

and whats really wrong with C O'Donnell?... if she was a Lib you clowns would love her..

Click to expand...

If she were a "Lib" she would be sane. Then we would love her.

Texmex said:

If she were a "Lib" she would be sane. Then we would love her.

Click to expand...

Who is "we"?

Are you being sarcastic?

haymarket said:

The movement known as the tea party was riding very high after the 2010 elections. Many people thought they would either be a kingmaker within the GOP for 2012 or perhaps the start of a third party movement. Neither has happened. The GOP ends up with Romney - definitely NOT a tea party type of person.

I would like to hear the thoughts of the politically savvy here as to why the tea party was relatively inactive - especially as a national movement achieving a goal - so far this year.

Did they make some mistakes? If so what were they?

Or did they play thinngs just right?

Click to expand...

Richard Lugar says hello. Inactive? I dont think so.

MarineTpartier said:

I've said this numerous times on this site. Anyone identifying themselves as a "Tea Partier" that didn't support Ron Paul should be ashamed of themselves. They should also consider themselves a fairweather fan. Ron Paul is the grandfather of the Tea Party. He represents and has practiced everything the Tea Party stands for. No other GOP candidate holds a candle to his voting record or consistant support for the core values of the Tea Party.

Click to expand...

And I'll say your attempt to pidgeon hole people and lay an absurd claim like that is shameful.

The Tea Party is not a political party, it's a movement. It's a movement that cares about a narrow amount of conservative ideology and has **** all to say about the rest of it. What you're talking about isn't a "fairweather fan", what you're describing is someone who is essentially not a Tea Party Zealot...IE someone whose ONLY political views are those that the Tea Party holds and is ambivilent to anything beyond that. If you want to get nit picky, you should be "ashamed" for supporting a man who has personally added in NUMEROUS ear marks and has accounted for gobs of Federal Dollars being spent. While he justifies it away, so does every other Republican go about justifying why THEY are not 100% in line. Sorry MT, but there is no fully "pure" candidate in terms of Tea Party ideology...it doesn't exist, it can't really exist.

The Tea Party doesn't have much of a stance, at all, in regards to national defense. What you basically are suggesting is that a Tea Partier, to not be "ashamed of htemselves", must care about Tea Party issues so much more that if someone holds national defense views they find ABHORRENT that they'll simply ignore it. Or a Tea Partier that is also Socially Conservative, something again the Tea Party movement takes almost no stand on, must place Tea party issues so high that they'd vote for someone whose social views they find completely distasteful simply to not be a "fairweather fan".

No, what you're calling for is essentially Zealots, people who care about the Tea Paryt issues and NOTHING ELSE....and everyone else. That's a ridiculous and unrealistic standard to hold.

Not to mention a questionable one, even if I may agree with it. You have arbitrarily decided to take voting record as the means in which to determine "pureness" of someone as a Tea Party candidate. At the same time one could easily suggest and argue that Ron Paul, as a member of the house, is essentially able to cast non-consequential votes on issues with little to no harm in actually seeing his vote have an impact and that, once his hollow theater driven vote is given, he has no issues acting like everyone else. Budgets can easily be pointed to this, where Ron Paul casts his token votes against them to rail against big spending....but then turns around and dives into the big spending. You can of course rationalize this and argue against it, and I've done so, but the fact of the matter is you're using one arbitrary standard. Someone else could turn around and point to Newt Gingrich and state that under his leadership we actually HAD a balanced federal budget, something Ron Paul or anyone else running, could say and is in line with what the Tea Party wants and could argue that his actual tangiable success makes him a better candidate than someone whose only acted in theory when it's been inconsiquential. Or in the same vein one could point to John Huntsman, whose fiscal record is extremely in line with the Tea Party and unlike Ron Paul is actually a record of ACTING not simply saying. One that institute health care just like the Tea Party wanted, one that implimented tax practices similar to what the tea party wants, one that enacted business regulation similar to what the tea party wants, etc. To a point you could look at Michelle Bachmann as well and state that, while she's done it for less time than Ron Paul, her voting record is also rather good in terms of direct tea party issues and close enough to be more than acceptable if that person is also a modern conservative on national defense and social conservative issues where they'd break strongly with Paul on.

Ron Paul may be the grandfather of the Tea Party movement, that's true, but it's a movement that has grown and has reached FAR greater than Ron Paul at this point largely because it has embraced the fact that it's a movement for an IDEAL...not a CANDIDATE, like it was at the beginning. For some, those ideals are absolute. For others, those ideals must be balanced with other ideals. For some, they like those ideals but they're actually secondary to others. And then you have some who don't really give a damn about it. Perhaps I would buy those who feel Tea Party issues are secondary to other things, like Social Issues, could be reasonably considered fairweather. But I think it's ridiculous to suggest that those who seek a balance between Tea Party ideals and the PLETHORA of things not covered under tea party ideology should be "ashamed" or are just "fairweather fans". And this is coming from a man who did vote for Ron Paul in the '08 and '12 primaries.

The Tea Party was never made to last.They where political kamakazi's who buzzed at the President trying to destroying His credibilty by denying Him any success by not compromising on anything.They where made to destroy themselves but take Obama and the democrat's down also thus giving the GOP power again.

James D Hill said:

The Tea Party was never made to last.They where political kamakazi's who buzzed at the President trying to destroying His credibilty by denying Him any success by not compromising on anything.They where made to destroy themselves but take Obama and the democrat's down also thus giving the GOP power again.

Click to expand...

Tsk tsk tsk, the new political rhetoric police are calling and they want all the warfare memes taken out of your statement.

Since the republicans have been compromising with democrats for over 40 years and have been complicit in getting us to where we are, I would think that rejecting some compromises would be in order.

Zyphlin said:

And I'll say your attempt to pidgeon hole people and lay an absurd claim like that is shameful.

The Tea Party is not a political party, it's a movement. It's a movement that cares about a narrow amount of conservative ideology and has **** all to say about the rest of it. What you're talking about isn't a "fairweather fan", what you're describing is someone who is essentially not a Tea Party Zealot...IE someone whose ONLY political views are those that the Tea Party holds and is ambivilent to anything beyond that. If you want to get nit picky, you should be "ashamed" for supporting a man who has personally added in NUMEROUS ear marks and has accounted for gobs of Federal Dollars being spent. While he justifies it away, so does every other Republican go about justifying why THEY are not 100% in line. Sorry MT, but there is no fully "pure" candidate in terms of Tea Party ideology...it doesn't exist, it can't really exist.

The Tea Party doesn't have much of a stance, at all, in regards to national defense. What you basically are suggesting is that a Tea Partier, to not be "ashamed of htemselves", must care about Tea Party issues so much more that if someone holds national defense views they find ABHORRENT that they'll simply ignore it. Or a Tea Partier that is also Socially Conservative, something again the Tea Party movement takes almost no stand on, must place Tea party issues so high that they'd vote for someone whose social views they find completely distasteful simply to not be a "fairweather fan".

No, what you're calling for is essentially Zealots, people who care about the Tea Paryt issues and NOTHING ELSE....and everyone else. That's a ridiculous and unrealistic standard to hold.

Not to mention a questionable one, even if I may agree with it. You have arbitrarily decided to take voting record as the means in which to determine "pureness" of someone as a Tea Party candidate. At the same time one could easily suggest and argue that Ron Paul, as a member of the house, is essentially able to cast non-consequential votes on issues with little to no harm in actually seeing his vote have an impact and that, once his hollow theater driven vote is given, he has no issues acting like everyone else. Budgets can easily be pointed to this, where Ron Paul casts his token votes against them to rail against big spending....but then turns around and dives into the big spending. You can of course rationalize this and argue against it, and I've done so, but the fact of the matter is you're using one arbitrary standard. Someone else could turn around and point to Newt Gingrich and state that under his leadership we actually HAD a balanced federal budget, something Ron Paul or anyone else running, could say and is in line with what the Tea Party wants and could argue that his actual tangiable success makes him a better candidate than someone whose only acted in theory when it's been inconsiquential. Or in the same vein one could point to John Huntsman, whose fiscal record is extremely in line with the Tea Party and unlike Ron Paul is actually a record of ACTING not simply saying. One that institute health care just like the Tea Party wanted, one that implimented tax practices similar to what the tea party wants, one that enacted business regulation similar to what the tea party wants, etc. To a point you could look at Michelle Bachmann as well and state that, while she's done it for less time than Ron Paul, her voting record is also rather good in terms of direct tea party issues and close enough to be more than acceptable if that person is also a modern conservative on national defense and social conservative issues where they'd break strongly with Paul on.

Ron Paul may be the grandfather of the Tea Party movement, that's true, but it's a movement that has grown and has reached FAR greater than Ron Paul at this point largely because it has embraced the fact that it's a movement for an IDEAL...not a CANDIDATE, like it was at the beginning. For some, those ideals are absolute. For others, those ideals must be balanced with other ideals. For some, they like those ideals but they're actually secondary to others. And then you have some who don't really give a damn about it. Perhaps I would buy those who feel Tea Party issues are secondary to other things, like Social Issues, could be reasonably considered fairweather. But I think it's ridiculous to suggest that those who seek a balance between Tea Party ideals and the PLETHORA of things not covered under tea party ideology should be "ashamed" or are just "fairweather fans". And this is coming from a man who did vote for Ron Paul in the '08 and '12 primaries.

Click to expand...

Every viable candidate had things in their past that said big gov't. That, or they were obviously not presidential material. You and I have spoken at length about Huntsman and, while he would have been my second choice if I had to do it again, he still doesn't represent the Tea Party ideals as well as Paul in my view. There was NO difference between any of the candidates not named Paul. As we have agreed before, Huntsman sounded like Romney during the debates. In addition, his support of cap and trade and the stimulus marred an otherwise conservative record. That far outweighs Pauls very sporadic taking of ear marks. The rest of the candidates were either the normal run of the mill politician that has contributed to our current situation (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum) or was not presidential material (Cain, Perry, Bachmann).
The only thing I could see that would turn off some Tea Partiers is Paul's foreign policy. I will surrender that point. If someone believes the continued practice of our current foreign policy strategy is more important than small gov't, the gov'ts interference in the economy, and individual liberties, then that person wouldn't vote for Paul. But, let's be honest with ourselves, how many people are there that put those things below foreign policy? I don't think there are many, but I could be wrong. I didn't see any candidate proposing abolishing the Federal Reserve. I didn't see any candidate saying that gov't shouldnt dictate who can and can't be married. I didn't see any candidate criticizing the current administration for their killing of al-Awlaki the way Paul did. The rest of the candidates toed the party line, including Huntsman. That's the difference between Paul and the rest. The Tea Party ideals represent what a true liberty loving, big gov't hating conservative should look for in a candidate. Who better from the aforementioned field represented those views than Paul?

MarineTpartier said:

Every viable candidate had things in their past that said big gov't. That, or they were obviously not presidential material. You and I have spoken at length about Huntsman and, while he would have been my second choice if I had to do it again, he still doesn't represent the Tea Party ideals as well as Paul in my view. There was NO difference between any of the candidates not named Paul. As we have agreed before, Huntsman sounded like Romney during the debates. In addition, his support of cap and trade and the stimulus marred an otherwise conservative record. That far outweighs Pauls very sporadic taking of ear marks. The rest of the candidates were either the normal run of the mill politician that has contributed to our current situation (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum) or was not presidential material (Cain, Perry, Bachmann).
The only thing I could see that would turn off some Tea Partiers is Paul's foreign policy. I will surrender that point. If someone believes the continued practice of our current foreign policy strategy is more important than small gov't, the gov'ts interference in the economy, and individual liberties, then that person wouldn't vote for Paul. But, let's be honest with ourselves, how many people are there that put those things below foreign policy? I don't think there are many, but I could be wrong. I didn't see any candidate proposing abolishing the Federal Reserve. I didn't see any candidate saying that gov't shouldnt dictate who can and can't be married. I didn't see any candidate criticizing the current administration for their killing of al-Awlaki the way Paul did. The rest of the candidates toed the party line, including Huntsman. That's the difference between Paul and the rest. The Tea Party ideals represent what a true liberty loving, big gov't hating conservative should look for in a candidate. Who better from the aforementioned field represented those views than Paul?

Click to expand...

Marine, Ron Paul is a done issue...this is his last hurrah...Paul has too many ideas that are flat out nuts...he has his same around 10% everytime..and he hangs around until people are thoroughly sick of him..to the point they dont even notice him anymore...like right now...and rand paul looks like an escapee from a mental ward when you look in his face...hes not replacing papa

lpast said:

Marine, Ron Paul is a done issue...this is his last hurrah...Paul has too many ideas that are flat out nuts...he has his same around 10% everytime..and he hangs around until people are thoroughly sick of him..to the point they dont even notice him anymore...like right now...and rand paul looks like an escapee from a mental ward when you look in his face...hes not replacing papa

Click to expand...

Name the flat out nuts ideas.

MarineTpartier said:

That far outweighs Pauls very sporadic taking of ear marks.

Click to expand...

Actually it's Pauls rather CONSISTENT taking of ear marks. It's not an occasional thing. He takes a large amount typically every budget. You also ignored tangable results compared to being able to build a lofty resume with theoritical, non-viable, completely risk free votes.

Please....highlight what Tea Party ideals that Paul has actually managed to help support get into Law? I'm not even going to ask you for instances where he's actually led the way, because that'd be even fewer...I'm just saying ones he even simply supported.

Paul's record is great....in the same way really communism is great. In theory. Paul's record in practical accomplishments is, unfortunately, severely lacking.

. If someone believes the continued practice of our current foreign policy strategy is more important than small gov't, the gov'ts interference in the economy, and individual liberties, then that person wouldn't vote for Paul.

Click to expand...

Big disagreements with your view here.

First...one doesn't have to just believe it about the practice of our "current" foreign policy strategy. That would actually likely be "continuance of nearly all our foreign policy strategies post WWII" rather than "our current foreign policy". Ron Paul wants a cut to the military budget that would make the Clinton Era budget to GDP ratio look good, he wants to pull out of military bases the world over that have been in place LONG before our "current" foreign policy came into being. The role we've played, in league with NATO and the UN, for decades is a role he seeks to eliminate. This is as much a departure from the foreign policy of Reagan as it is from the foreign policy of Bush or any other.

Second...one does not have to believe that the foreign policy views are MORE important. They need to either view that it is AS important...OR...they need to view that the level at which Ron Paul goes is SO far that it elevates the importance of not going that far with things. Unless one is a Tea Party Zealot...IE an individual whose only cares are Fiscal and Governmental conservatism and you have literally NO cares what so ever on social or military issues...then you could say those type of stances don't matter. But for someone who does have views on all four sides of things it then becomes a balancing act. Now, things may be weighted differently. You may find that Fiscal and Governmental ideals pass for 70% of your view of a candidate with Military and Social issues making up that other 30. But if you have someone whose a 0 in Military or Social, or even a negative, you're going to find that it sandbags someone whose perfect in your other things. If you were ever in school and had the misfortune of having a "0" on a Quiz or project you realize how that works.

It's not about caring about those things more than tea party issues....it's about looking at the total worth of a candidate and picking one that matures YOUR views, not JUST Tea Party views. The Tea Party movement itself is based around that notion and it's the very reason it was so successful on localized level...because different areas of the country tend to have people who have very differing opinions on the importance of other issues that the Tea Party doesn't touch one way or another.

I didn't see any candidate proposing abolishing the Federal Reserve.

Click to expand...

Which is not explicitely a Tea Party ideal, nor one I'd imagine you'd find massive support for in the Tea Party.

I didn't see any candidate saying that gov't shouldnt dictate who can and can't be married.

Click to expand...

Again, absolutely is not a plank of the Tea Party movement. They don't take a stance on the marriage issue.

You're conflating libertarian-conservative Fiscal and Governmental views pushed without pragmatism to being "Tea Party" views. You're lambasting people as being "fairweather fans" of the tea party and telling them to be ashamed, while you sit here yourself and project your own opinions of what the Tea Party is or should be on it as if that's fact.

The Tea Party is a relatively amorpohous and loosely connected ideological movement that's specific views can vary in ways from place to place. The one thing that is somewhat of a foundation that most Tea Party groups across the country share is the Contract From America...I'd love for you to show me where Gay or Same Sex Marriage is spoken about there.

I didn't see any candidate criticizing the current administration for their killing of al-Awlaki the way Paul did.

Click to expand...

See above

The Tea Party ideals represent what a true liberty loving, big gov't hating conservative should look for in a candidate. Who better from the aforementioned field represented those views than Paul?

Click to expand...

No one...but only if we ignore the notion that your projecting your image of what the tea party is and should be as if it is the unquestionable truth. It is true to say the Tea Party is about having individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. That said, all three terms are rather subjective ones to the extent. Even Ron Paul places limits to the amount of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom that he supports.

Additionally, what you're basically wanting for is a rejectoin of human nature and the highlight, in part, of specifically why Ron Paul is unlike to win votes.

Most people are semi-realistic and pragmatic, not extremely idealistic and idealogical to the point of cutting their nose to spite their face.

Voting for an individual who has never in his political life shown the ability to actually lead and convince others to join him at necessary levels to impliment his ideas....ideas that are outside the mainstream of America and are stated in ways that make them appear, rightly or wrongly, unrealistic and completely unpragmatic to many poeple....and who has a penchant for turning off wide stretches of his base with his various off the cuff over the top comments while displaying commonly held poor speaking ability could be viewed as pissing in the wind. Sure, they could say "HEY! I voted for the guy who if he was King would do the most of what I'd want". But the fact is....1) He wouldn't be King 2) He'd still have to win. A person who can't get into office gets you 0 of what you want done done. At best, a person who wins but can't get congress to work with him at all on anything he wants because even his own party doesn't agree with him on the extent he wants to go does you little to nothing of what you wanted either.

Sorry man...but I just disagree with you strongly. You're not talking about a Tea Partier...you're talking about an Ideological Zealot with no cares for anything other than Fiscal and Governmental conservatism, apparently to levels not even TOUCHED by the closest document to a tea party platform, who does not even in any way weight into the equation of their vote the potential to win or the potential to lead or the potential to affectually affect policy change. To me, that is not the ONLY type of Tea Partier that should be allowed not to be "ashamed" of themselves.

Is that the only type that would vote for Paul? Absolutely not. But that's the type you seem to be describing through your description of all the others you seem to have such disdain for.

Lower taxes
Smaller Government
More Accountable Representatives.


That is the tea party movement.... now folks in the tea party can have varying views on social and other issues, but that's not the tea party. the tea party is those things listed above and nothing else, no matter if it's a democrat or a republican or other claiming otherwise.

MarineTpartier said:

Name the flat out nuts ideas.

Click to expand...

Legalize all drugs now illegal

ReverendHellh0und said:

Lower taxes
Smaller Government
More Accountable Representatives.


That is the tea party movement.... now folks in the tea party can have varying views on social and other issues, but that's not the tea party. the tea party is those things listed above and nothing else, no matter if it's a democrat or a republican or other claiming otherwise.

Click to expand...

Nah rev...teaparty is tax cuts for the rich and take it from the middleclass....ryans plan

lpast said:

Legalize all drugs now illegal

Click to expand...

Why is that nuts? Drug war cost billions, doesn't work, creates a black market that destroys communities. Make it legal for adults, tax the hell out of it.

lpast said:

Nah rev...teaparty is tax cuts for the rich and take it from the middleclass....ryans plan

Click to expand...

Nonsense my friend.


also, can you explain how Ryan's plan does as you claim? Thanks.