• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do any conservatives agree with this op ed?

roflpublican said:
really because there are teaparty people protesting outside the abortion clinic near my house 24/7 =/. i call that social conservatism.
Click to expand...

Those aren't "tea party people" then. Those are folks who have hi-jacked the movement.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
Those aren't "tea party people" then. Those are folks who have hi-jacked the movement.
Click to expand...

imagesCA4ECCPN.jpg effing liars manipulating my opinion of the tea party.
 
Dion said:
Succinctly ... this seems to be implying that Romney lost because he did not take up social issues or adopt the tea party mantra.

That is absurd ... it was close race and I think it was as close as it was because Romney was more moderate and I believe he lost some votes by pandering to the tea partiers and far right.

TRENDING: A day after loss, conservatives point fingers – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs




Discuss?
Click to expand...

It actually wasn't that close. Bush v. Gore was a close race. This one became a comfortable victory for the President.
 
Blackdog said:
The numskulls in the Tea Party let them. It is really bad what they have become. I supported them until they started to change and become more like the rabid anti-Bush types.
Click to expand...

i've been seeing mixed statements about the tea party since i've been on this site. some touting them as social nutjobs, others as fiscal conservatives, others as anarchists, others as another tool of the 1%. the MSM sees them as nutjobs, but the MSM sees anything that doesnt conform to the 1% agenda as nutjobs, so it's hard knowing what to think.
 
I put a post in the election forum laying out the Contract From America asking Tea Party supporters to point out which parts Romney didn't champion or champion well enough, since the call is that he wasn't "Tea Party"-ish enough.

Secondly...hugh, I agree with you in theory. The Tea Party MOVEMENT isn't inherently a social conservative movement. The problem is, and I hate saying it because I'm part of said movement, the individuals that have gained the most power in the movement and many of the leaders of it across the country have been essentially combining it with the Social part of things. I agree with you in terms of them "hi-jacking" the movement when you speak of individuals who have the "tea party" focusing on social issues, especially focusing on social issues to the determent of actual tea party principles. However, I fear at this point that the "hijackers" are largely the ones driving the movement at this point.

It's not surprising that the Tea Party gained it's momentum when it basically went "Our message is about FISCAL AND GOVERNMENTAL Conservatism. **** the rest for now. We need to get this **** in order, and the other stuff in reality isn't going to change much or isn't something that is going to be a serious detriment to the health of the country. FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL, GOVERNMENTAL GOVERNMENTAL GOVERNMENTAL"

It's also not surprising that the Tea Party lost momentum when it started to become "Our message is about fiscal and governmental Conservatism.....and you have to dislike gay marriage, want to make abortion pretty much illegal, and declare there's a war on christians. Actually, you know what...if you do those later things and you're only somewhat okay on fiscal and governmental conservatism, no problem. Umm....taxes! and ABORTION!"
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I put a post in the election forum laying out the Contract From America asking Tea Party supporters to point out which parts Romney didn't champion or champion well enough, since the call is that he wasn't "Tea Party"-ish enough.

Secondly...hugh, I agree with you in theory. The Tea Party MOVEMENT isn't inherently a social conservative movement. The problem is, and I hate saying it because I'm part of said movement, the individuals that have gained the most power in the movement and many of the leaders of it across the country have been essentially combining it with the Social part of things. I agree with you in terms of them "hi-jacking" the movement when you speak of individuals who have the "tea party" focusing on social issues, especially focusing on social issues to the determent of actual tea party principles. However, I fear at this point that the "hijackers" are largely the ones driving the movement at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. If the tea party movement returned to it's roots, it would make a difference. Selling out to social conservatism is going to be it's undoing.
 
Zyphlin said:
I put a post in the election forum laying out the Contract From America asking Tea Party supporters to point out which parts Romney didn't champion or champion well enough, since the call is that he wasn't "Tea Party"-ish enough.

Secondly...hugh, I agree with you in theory. The Tea Party MOVEMENT isn't inherently a social conservative movement. The problem is, and I hate saying it because I'm part of said movement, the individuals that have gained the most power in the movement and many of the leaders of it across the country have been essentially combining it with the Social part of things. I agree with you in terms of them "hi-jacking" the movement when you speak of individuals who have the "tea party" focusing on social issues, especially focusing on social issues to the determent of actual tea party principles. However, I fear at this point that the "hijackers" are largely the ones driving the movement at this point.
Click to expand...

so basically the hijackers are now not only flying the plane, but they landed it, got clearance to replace the pilots, and are now doing the routes themselves? :doh
 
roflpublican said:
i've been seeing mixed statements about the tea party since i've been on this site. some touting them as social nutjobs, others as fiscal conservatives, others as anarchists, others as another tool of the 1%. the MSM sees them as nutjobs, but the MSM sees anything that doesnt conform to the 1% agenda as nutjobs, so it's hard knowing what to think.
Click to expand...

I saw it for myself. I literally supported them and supported Allen West. More and more racist comments about Obama, more and more lunacy on things like gay marriage etc. I can't say about the rest of the nation, but down here in South Florida, they have gone nuts.

Then they wonder why it was close here. Even Allen looks to have lost in a close one. It's the fault of rabid Tea Party members if I was to give a guess.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
You guys realize that the tea party movement is not socially conservative right? The tea party movement is rooted in fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism. The Tea Party taking over would be the best thing the Republicans could do. I've said for years that the Republican party is too hung up on social conservatism, which is why I left the party years ago.
Click to expand...

That may be how it started, but that is not what it has become, or is now. Look at all the tea-party candidates, Akin, Murdoch, West, Bachmann, O'Donnell, just off the top of my head all have put their social conservatism at the front of their campaigns, the tea party is very much about social conservatism. It would behest the republican party to change their stance on social issues, but letting the tea party take over would accomplish that. No it would drive them further to the right, and further away from the electorate.
 
roflpublican said:
so basically the hijackers are now not only flying the plane, but they landed it, got clearance to replace the pilots, and are now doing the routes themselves? :doh
Click to expand...

LOL.

Basically.

Really, it came down to the fact that it's a movement that functions best on a local level...not a national level.

It's base and core focus was FISCAL AND GOVERNMENTAL issues, and that was it. It basically didn't care much about the other stuff.

When you go local to local, it allowed for the unique nature of that area to influence the message and type of candidate they picked a bit as long as they still adhered to the general core. Which works. Its actually, strangely enough, somewhat of a wonderful coincidence and corollary with what some of the original founders thought. People in Vermont may have a slightly different view of what's best for them then people in Alabama or people in Virginia. The Tea Party provided a centralized national message, and then allowed local areas to tweak a bit to suit the local need.

The problem happened when enough of the local areas managed to have a similar need that it created a "majority" voice in the Tea Party, and that majority voice basically said "SOCIAL CONSERVATISM is now going to be part of that 'core' national focus". The problem with that happening is that fiscal and governmental conservatism is relatively easily adoptable in many of the places in the US, the social side is a lot more contentious and is much more of a barrier of entry. That's why originally it worked well focusing just on Fiscal and Governmental issues and basically going "N/A" on the majority of social wedge issues.

A majority of locals managed to take control of the national message and steer it outside of what it actually was designed to be.

Actually, now that I think about it...it's REALLY ironic. The staunch social conservatives that have steered the Tea Party nationally in that direction are basically functioning within the movement in the very same fashion the movement in part is supposed to be fighting against in terms of government. Believing that elites in other parts of the country "know better" about what the movement should be and "know better" than those who originally founded the movement that attracted so many people to begin with, and as such begin to attempt to unilaterally spread and impose those local thoughts on a national scale.
 
Zyphlin said:
LOL.

Basically.

Really, it came down to the fact that it's a movement that functions best on a local level...not a national level.

It's base and core focus was FISCAL AND GOVERNMENTAL issues, and that was it. It basically didn't care much about the other stuff.

When you go local to local, it allowed for the unique nature of that area to influence the message and type of candidate they picked a bit as long as they still adhered to the general core. Which works. Its actually, strangely enough, somewhat of a wonderful coincidence and corollary with what some of the original founders thought. People in Vermont may have a slightly different view of what's best for them then people in Alabama or people in Virginia. The Tea Party provided a centralized national message, and then allowed local areas to tweak a bit to suit the local need.

The problem happened when enough of the local areas managed to have a similar need that it created a "majority" voice in the Tea Party, and that majority voice basically said "SOCIAL CONSERVATISM is now going to be part of that 'core' national focus". The problem with that happening is that fiscal and governmental conservatism is relatively easily adoptable in many of the places in the US, the social side is a lot more contentious and is much more of a barrier of entry. That's why originally it worked well focusing just on Fiscal and Governmental issues and basically going "N/A" on the majority of social wedge issues.

A majority of locals managed to take control of the national message and steer it outside of what it actually was designed to be.

Actually, now that I think about it...it's REALLY ironic. The staunch social conservatives that have steered the Tea Party nationally in that direction are basically functioning within the movement in the very same fashion the movement in part is supposed to be fighting against in terms of government. Believing that elites in other parts of the country "know better" about what the movement should be and "know better" than those who originally founded the movement that attracted so many people to begin with, and as such begin to attempt to unilaterally spread and impose those local thoughts on a national scale.
Click to expand...

so much for that attempt at taking away power from the status quo. i guess we have to rely on the last best hope for individual rights and sane governance: imagesCAW8QQBF.jpg

we're doomed.
 
Zyphlin said:
Believing that elites in other parts of the country "know better" about what the movement should be and "know better" than those who originally founded the movement that attracted so many people to begin with, and as such begin to attempt to unilaterally spread and impose those local thoughts on a national scale.
Click to expand...

The fiscal elites, generally. Their populist sentimentality can barely stand government elites, and certainly has long hated academic elites.
 
If Romney had stayed true to himself he probably would have won the election. It was Romney's flip flopping and pandering to the right-wing that cost him the election. I HOPE and pray that the GOP is stupid enough to dump the moderates and move further to the right. It will ensure a couple of decades of more Democratic Presidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom