The Republican civil war is just getting started

Hatuey said:

As a Democrat:

Click to expand...

Strangely enough, I'm okay with it. This has been needed since 2008 and the past few election cycles have just been working up to it.

The political landscape has massively changed in the near two decades since 1994 compared to the five decades prior to it. The Republican Party is no longer firmly situated into the role of the neigh permanent minority party in power. This is inevitably going to create a change within the mindset and mentality of the base and those within the party infastructure.

I'm honestly unsure which way this battle goes as it continues, and I don't think it's going to end this election cycle or next, but I think ultimately it's needed within the Republican party. At this point there is a significant divide in terms of the mentality, purpose, and practice within the party that needs to be addressed in some fashion to have a unified message and to allow a "norm" to be established with some acceptable outliers as opposed to two distinct and significant camps.

It'll likely cause Republicans some issues over the next election, and it will make the 2016 presidential election season extremely interesting. I think it'll be three election cycles....so 2018...before we truly have a good view of how this battle ends up turning out.

Hatuey said:

The problem is the Tea Party movement was never about that. It was a direct reaction to Obama's election. They had no problem with growing debt for 30 years. They suddenly have a problem with it when Obama gets elected.

Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong.

The biggest effect the Tea Party had on the government was the 2010 election. Obama wasn't affected, but many Democrat AND Republican lawmakers were.

EdwinWillers said:

So what are you saying, that there's no difference?

Click to expand...

Lol, when you're in that much debt as a country? Nope. Not one bit. We may as well be 40 trillion in debt - judging by the supposed "fiscal conservatism" of the right and the left's spending, we may soon be. The difference between left wing spending and right wing spending is that the right wing only cares about spending when they're not in power.

Hatuey said:

What year was Obama elected in? How long have we been trillions in debt?

Click to expand...

When did the solution to the debt become, to double it?

Hatuey said:

So what you're saying is that you would have been fine with 3 more trillion in debt but not 7?

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about myself. I would prefer we peg spending/revenue to GDP.

For others, like the ones you are calling racists, its like boiling a frog. Turn it up slowly, and he will roast without wondering why he's sweating. Drop him right in boiling water and he jumps out.

But of course, its just easier to toss out labels like racist or bigot instead of having a policy discussion.

Michael66 said:

What I really think is that the drones and the rest of it will become totally acceptable to Americans after Obama is gone.

Click to expand...

Well, I really think you are misreading the situation completely. There's a chance of actually changing things for the better, and an actual (however imperfect) forces willing to do it, and you are falling for the crudest propaganda portraying the most responsible citizens as racists, anarchists, extremists, or what-not.

This ain't nothin' but another cry-baby threads about, "Obama's gittin' picked on because he's blaaaaaaaack!"

Zyphlin said:

Strangely enough, I'm okay with it. This has been needed since 2008 and the past few election cycles have just been working up to it.

The political landscape has massively changed in the near two decades since 1994 compared to the five decades prior to it. The Republican Party is no longer firmly situated into the role of the neigh permanent minority party in power. This is inevitably going to create a change within the mindset and mentality of the base and those within the party infastructure.

I'm honestly unsure which way this battle goes as it continues, and I don't think it's going to end this election cycle or next, but I think ultimately it's needed within the Republican party. At this point there is a significant divide in terms of the mentality, purpose, and practice within the party that needs to be addressed in some fashion to have a unified message and to allow a "norm" to be established with some acceptable outliers as opposed to two distinct and significant camps.

It'll likely cause Republicans some issues over the next election, and it will make the 2016 presidential election season extremely interesting. I think it'll be three election cycles....so 2018...before we truly have a good view of how this battle ends up turning out.

Click to expand...

If the Democrats did it in the 50s and 60s, I'm sure the Republicans can too.

apdst said:

This ain't nothin' but another cry-baby threads about, "Obama's gittin' picked on because he's blaaaaaaaack!"

Click to expand...

Actually, it's not even about that. Your irrelevant commentary made it about that. Par for the course really.

Hatuey said:

The problem is the Tea Party movement was never about that. It was a direct reaction to Obama's election. They had no problem with growing debt for 30 years. They suddenly have a problem with it when Obama gets elected.

Click to expand...

One, I believe the movement began prior to Obama's entry into office (Checking this, I may be misremembering and confusing it with the fact the first protests were against legislation Bush passed, but after Obama took over).***

Two, you're absolutely correct if your implication is that it increased in scope and intensity after his election, however this can be argued as less having to do with "Obama" or as other members suggested his race and more due to the fact he's a "Democrat". Just as the anti-war movement existed before and after George Bush, but was far greater in scope and intensity under Bush then under Obama. Why? Because, Republican. It's basic tribalism and a basic inherent understanding of a two party system where there's "their guy" and "your guy". If you bring "your guy" down, even if you think he deserves it, the reality is that you're likely going to get "their guy" next instead of a better version of "your guy". And as bad as "your guy" may be on X, "their guy" is probably going to be bad on X as well along with being bad with Y and Z. This is why movements on either side will tend to be more public, loud, and aggressive during times when the opposition is in power and will be more passive, internal, and being the scenes during times when their side is in power save for the die hards in any given movement.

-Edit-

Went back and looked and realized why my mind was mixing things up. The use of the "Tea Party" language and terminology as part of Protests were common prior to the election of Obama by Ron Paul supporters in the run up to the primaries in 2008...back when Hillary Clinton was the forgone conclussion for the Democratic Nominee. However, while these were of a very similar mind and mentality of the "Tea Party", they were not officially part of the "tea party movement" as we know today. If anything, they were more of an uncle to it...not directly giving it birth, but being of like mind and style and providing much of the same political DNA (and membership) to the early days of the Tea Party.

The first "official" Tea Party protests came about in February 2009, and were organized both in protest Bush's passage of TARP and Obama's passage of the ARRA ("stimulus")

Hatuey said:

What year was Obama elected in? How long have we been trillions in debt?

Click to expand...

You are deflecting. Are libertarians - and the populist Paulite libertarians in particular - not on the record as opposing deficit sending - always?
Are the central themes of the tea party movement not the same as those of these populist libertarians? Are they not the same people, at the core?
Yes or No?

Hatuey said:

Actually, it's not even about that. Your irrelevant commentary made it about that. Par for the course really.

Click to expand...

Y"all have no way to defend his policies, so you have to race bait everyone who questions his divine leadership.

Zyphlin said:

One, the movement began prior to Obama's election. Two, you're absolutely correct if your implication is that it increased in scope and intensity after his election, however this can be argued as less having to do with "Obama" or as other members suggested his race and more due to the fact he's a "Democrat". Just as the anti-war movement existed before and after George Bush, but was far greater in scope and intensity under Bush then under Obama. Why? Because, Republican. It's basic tribalism and a basic inherent understanding of a two party system where there's "their guy" and "your guy". If you bring "your guy" down, even if you think he deserves it, the reality is that you're likely going to get "their guy" next instead of a better version of "your guy". And as bad as "your guy" may be on X, "their guy" is probably going to be bad on X as well along with being bad with Y and Z. This is why movements on either side will tend to be more public, loud, and aggressive during times when the opposition is in power and will be more passive, internal, and being the scenes during times when their side is in power save for the die hards in any given movement.

Click to expand...

A [Liberal Democrat; the most Left leaning president in history.

JoeTrumps said:

I wish I could bookmark threads like this. When Obamacare begins to implode and and Christie wins the White House it will be fun to find out what happened to the people who were so sure it was all over for the GOP. Probably be in hiding by then, huh?

Click to expand...

I appreciate a vivid imagination.

It will take a quick and rather clean removal of the TPs from the throat of the GOP leadership. That means dozens of House and Senate seats in limbo and most likely a new Stronger House Speaker. I don't see the TPs retreating silently off the political stage. To the TPs Christie winning the White House is a victory in name only. The POLICIES of the President have meaning and Christie has shown he is no friend of the more radical elements of the TP movement AND the TPs know that full well.

Not sure how to define 'all over for the GOP', in my mind the GOP could easily slide back into a weak sister party holding enough seats in the Senate to be a block on progress, perhaps threaten the House if the fear and hate mongering is ramped up.

Now as far as hiding goes- Those who predicted Obama would lose his bid for a second term have not gone into hiding. (Don't forget this is just the interwebz) :2wave:

Samhain said:

So they came up with the name Taxed Enough Already as a cover story for Get Blacky? I'm pretty sure its a complaint about policy that pushes for more social spending by increasing taxes.

What's the solution to the budget deficit? Spend more money and increase taxes
What's the solution to social issue X? Spend more money and increase taxes
What's the solution to fixing healthcare.gov? Spend more money and increase taxes.

As for the debt, looking at the last 30 years worth of increases:
83-93 -- 3 trillion
93-03 -- 2.8 trillion
03-13 -- 10 trillion ( 7 trillion of which has happened since 08 )

Click to expand...

Now, go back and recalculate those numbers and account for inflation. Or calculate those numbers as a percent to GDP......Otherwise they are out of context and misleading so they can tell the story you want them to tell.

BHO is so liberal that the 'liberals' chose to not vote in 2010 due to him adopting Repub ideas and of course, Rahm..
Wait till you hear the howls when Keystone goes through in 2015!!

Cyrylek said:

Well, who exactly are you talking about?

Tea parties did not exist as such until Feb 2009 or so. Their libertarian (mostly Paulite) predecessors had no representation in the Congress with the sole true exception of Ron Paul himself, and a couple of partial exceptions. Politicians they have promoted - from Chris Christie to Justin Amash - were not in the office. Since they've got into the office, their overall record was actually surprisingly decent.

Of course, there are always pests like Michelle Bachmann - opportunists who promote themselves as "leaders of the movement", while their record shows complete indifference to the "movement"'s goals (at best). But they have never been associated - in any quality - with any actual tea parties - the grassroots organizations on county and lower levels. Take any "socially conservative", anti-immigrant or militaristic demagogue claiming to be a "tea partier" - and it's every time almost exactly the same story: An impostor promoted by the likes of MSNBC and FOX.

Click to expand...

You say these people are "imposters" yet time and time again the Tea Partiers INVITE these people.

Hatuey said:

Lol, when you're in that much debt as a country? Nope. Not one bit. We may as well be 40 trillion in debt - judging by the supposed "fiscal conservatism" of the right and the left's spending, we may soon be. The difference between left wing spending and right wing spending is that the right wing only cares about spending when they're not in power.

Click to expand...

Well if they continue at this rate, we'll be at 40 trillion in about 4 months.

Nevertheless, I think there's validity in pointing out a degree of hypocrisy on the right - at least w/r to spending. Our representatives in congress haven't exactly been paragons of fiscal conservatism themselves. That we, the minions, are somehow "ok" with that or that we've been silent only till now though is a bit in error. Have we been as vehement about it as we have these past 5 or 6 years? No. But then, neither have we seen the spending climb so astronomically in such a short amount of time either - regardless how it's justified or explained away.

It's human nature to be less vehement, less passionate about something when the full effect of the consequences aren't perceived to be imminent; but the closer the end comes, the clearer the consequences, the more "real" they become and the more urgent we all become to do something about it. Call it having our heads in the sand, call it naivete, call it wishful thinking, call it whatever, we're all like that. The question is, when will the left start becoming as vehement about it as we've become and join us in calling our representatives out to change it?

csbrown28 said:

Now, go back and recalculate those numbers and account for inflation. Or calculate those numbers as a percent to GDP......Otherwise they are out of context and misleading so they can tell the story you want them to tell.

Click to expand...

Sure thing. Here it is pegged in 1983 dollars

83-93 -- 1.7 trillion
93-03 -- 600 billion
03-13 -- 3.5 trillion (2.6 trillion since 2008)

Geez, that makes it look even worse. I guess you should haven't complained about a non adjusted value.

Ralph Reed had the clout to carve out a significant third party, but instead of going that route he allied his Christian Conservative movement to the republican party which, fearing a third party gave him the voice he wanted for the movement. This move made them politically powerful again at a time when they were weakening. They've tried the same with the tea party movement, to keep the folks then gravitating to third parties in the fold (mainly libertarian). The fit isn't near as neat as with the CCs and there is a lot of infighting for the direction of the party.

I see two possibilities. One, the republican party could clean house and unify. After some struggles and faceplants this would likely leave the party in an eventually very powerful position. Two, the folks who went independent rather than stay with the republicans could coalesce with the saner elements of the TP and vote third party. Perot's name will be invoked often. :lol:

wonderful cat-fight on MSNBC between Bashir and Klayman

TheNextEra said:

You say these people are "imposters" yet time and time again the Tea Partiers INVITE these people.

Click to expand...

You have thousands of tea party groups, thousands of local, state and federal campaigns. Whenever a "celebrity" like Bachmann or Palin is invited to speak (which does not mean, by the way, that their views are entirely shared by the hosts), it makes news. Whenever they are not, it doesn't - because - well, nothing 'newsworthy' has happened. 'A bunch of area geeks discuss federal fiscal issues", as The Onion would quip. What you see is a reflection on how the media works, not on the tea parties in general.

TheNextEra said:

You say these people are "imposters" yet time and time again the Tea Partiers INVITE these people.

Click to expand...

Cyrylek demonstrates perfectly why I think that the Tea Party movement, and the general sentiment from it that's permeated a large portion of the base, is one that is very well suited to work excellently as part of a regional focused electoral strategy but fails as you move to more of a federal one.

This is why I've suggested for some time that the Tea Party will have it's most success in the House, have a more difficult time in the senate, and would be hard pressed to garner anywhere near the same level of support and fervor for a Presidential election.

The movement builds off the notion of a unifying "foundation" that is closely tied with traditional notions of Fiscal and Governmental conservatism...low taxes, empower business, control spending, restrain and clean up government, etc.

This is a baseline foundation that amongst the "big tent" of conservatives you'll generally find every disparate group will support to a certain degree. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reagan-Democrats, the Religious Right, Fiscally Conservative Hawks, Paleoconservatives, even Neo-Conservatives to a point could all get behind this general message.

However, the issue is that elections and platforms don't just focus on Fiscal and Governmental issues. There are other issues that must be talked about and addressed and stances must be taken. Additionally, there is a measure of balance...how much focus one facet gets over another, and when those two facets conflict which one is weighted heavier.

The beauty of the Tea Party movement in terms of motivating a conservative base in regional situations is that you can take this unifying foundation...and then you build upon it for that region. A "Tea Party" politician in rural Alabama is likely supplementing that foundation with strong "traditional" Social Conservatism and allowing that to override some of the governmental tennats of the tea party when it conflicts where as one in Vermont is likely very socially liberal, being open to things like removal of drug laws and gay marriage. A candidate in Hampton Roads VA may be a bit of a Hawk and have no issue spending money on the Military as part of the core jobs of the government, while one in California may be advocating for the reduction of the Military Industrial Complex to cut the debt.

When they get to congress they may class on some of those exterior things, but the thought process would be that in terms of the Tea Parties foundational message that they'd have a unifying voice. And by and large, in the House, that's what's happened.

The problem is that as you expand from regional to state and from state to federal, those "add-ons" become more tricky. Especially at the Federal Level. A Vermont Tea Partier probably saw Ron Paul as their perfect candidate and what a "true" tea partier should be because his "add-ons" are more in line. An Alabama tea partier probably said Michelle Bachman while a guy in Hampton Roads went with Herman Cain and the Californian went with Huntsman ... and all think THEIR guy is the REAL tea partier.

Why?

Because they mistakenly assume that their regional "add-ons" that are important to them...but are entirely non-existant within the foundational message of the tea party...is what makes a "REAL" tea partier.

That's why I think this fight is going to be so fascinating from a political science stand point. I actually think the Tea Party mentality, even if it breaks down from an actual "named" movement, is one that I believe can continue to have long standing success within the House of Representatives. What will be interesting is to see how it continues within the Senate, which has been a mixed bag. The biggest question however is going to be whether or not a charismatic candidate can emerge for the Presidency that can bring with him a right mixture of those "add-ons" that satisfies the desires of, and doesn't turn off, enough of the movement on a national level to keep the fervor and support at the necessary level to reach success. That's the big question.

Michael66 said:

It may just be a situation in which the tea baggers have to win in order to bring down your country to the level at which the people will start to fight for their rights and a fair share. If that's the case then there is a great deal of suffering to be endured by the ordinary American before your country wises up.

In reality, I think the tea bagger agenda will be completely defused when Obama's term is over and the racist element no longer exists. The baggers will no longer have the motivation that keeps them hating.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking the same.

Democrats have taken the position that Congress is merely one agency of an Imperial presidency. Being just employees of the President, disagreement between them in their view is both intolerable and irrelevant. All that matters is what their boss says.