Question for those that think Republicans lost for not embracing the Tea Party

[solletica]

Re-read my post.

It isnt a single movement with fixed ideology.

Then re-read your own post. Do black tea party members want racial purity? Do aetheist members want religious purity? or do the libertarian elements really oppose free speech?

Thats the thing with a fluid movement, for every example you provide I can probably find you an opposite. That sort of makes my point for me.

The tpers are very fluid--they move in and out of elections extremely fast.

 

[Paul Austin]

The tpers are very fluid--they move in and out of elections extremely fast.

Thanks for sharing that comment. It doesnt actually relate to anything Im talking about but thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[Zyphlin]

Any organizations can give you a "contract" or "constitution" but the Tea Parties is which many tea party elected members did not live up too.

I would say that yes, they may not have started out as tea party issues, but they are now.

Michele Bachmann is the chair of the Tea Party Caucus. Tea Party backed candidates are almost always more socially conservative than republicans. The inference is not hard to make.

The problem is not the contract. the problem is the tea party is completelyu against freedom and choice.

The tea party wants to take abortion away entirely under religious reasons. That is respecting a religion and is forbidden by the constituion.

The tea party wants to ban gay marriage for biblcal reasons, which again violates the separation of church and state since the marriage contract is federally recognized and receives federal benefits denied to gays.

The tea party wants to reject programs to lower pollution. i don't care if you believe in global warming or not, pollution is a problem even without it, and we can make things cleaner.

The tea party is anti many groups that make up america. they are pro-white and are as close to white supremist as you can get without joining the klan. I can see why that may turn off many people.

The republican party has to dump the extreme no compromise we want what we want and we are of the rich and for the rich and nothing less attitude of the teapartiests or they will lose the next 8 yrs after obama handily.

No way the TPers could stand for all those things because many of those sentences contain large words (i. e. Constitution, fiscal, cap and trade, etc.) that are well above the education level of TPers.

The TP is to the US what al Queda is to the Middle East--a bunch of uneducated, angry extremists who want racial and religious "purity" and are scared of new ideas and adult concepts like freedom of speech, right to trial, etc.

I just want to first say that your all's posts largely confuse me. After all....I asked:

I have a question for those that believe the Republican losses in the Senate and in the Presidency are due to Republicans not embracing the Tea Party's message enough.

All of you responded....many with over the top hyper partisan stereotyped bigoted rhetoric, and others with more reasonable but still stereotypical "i'm not tea party but I will tell you what they are!" type of statements...as if you aren't people who "believe the Republican losses" are embracing the tea party. And yet, that was who the question and topic was aimed at.

It's so strange, it's as if you didn't give two ****s about what the actual topic of the thread was and instead simply wanted to turn it into "generic attack and complain about the Tea Party and say why we think it sucks Thread #151720".

I just want to say thanks for that. I'm sure actual conversation in line with the OP's actual topic will occur with 50+ posts now focused on the same "TEA PARTY SUCKS" rhetoric that can be found in dozens of threads around the forum.

Thank you all for your insight, but as nearly none of it seems to provide an actual answer for the questions within the OP other than the third poster I'm not quite sure how to respond.

 

[Redress]

I just want to first say that your all's posts largely confuse me. After all....I asked:



All of you responded....many with over the top hyper partisan stereotyped bigoted rhetoric, and others with more reasonable but still stereotypical "Tea Party bad!" rhetoric...as if you aren't people who "believe the Republican losses" are embracing the tea party.

It's so strange, it's as if you didn't give two ****s about what the actual topic of the thread was and instead simply wanted to turn it into "generic attack and complain about the Tea Party and say why we think it sucks Thread #151720".

I just want to say thanks for that. I'm sure actual conversation in line with the OP's actual topic will occur with 50+ posts now focused on the same "TEA PARTY SUCKS" rhetoric that can be found in dozens of threads around the forum.

Thank you all for your insight, but as nearly none of it seems to provide an actual answer for the questions within the OP other than the third poster I'm not quite sure how to respond.

That is not all you asked. Here, let me remind you what you asked that I was responding to:

Are you suggesting abortion and gay marriage are "tea party" issues?

 

[lpast]

I just want to first say that your all's posts largely confuse me. After all....I asked:



All of you responded....many with over the top hyper partisan stereotyped bigoted rhetoric, and others with more reasonable but still stereotypical "i'm not tea party but I will tell you what they are!" type of statements...as if you aren't people who "believe the Republican losses" are embracing the tea party. And yet, that was who the question and topic was aimed at.

It's so strange, it's as if you didn't give two ****s about what the actual topic of the thread was and instead simply wanted to turn it into "generic attack and complain about the Tea Party and say why we think it sucks Thread #151720".

I just want to say thanks for that. I'm sure actual conversation in line with the OP's actual topic will occur with 50+ posts now focused on the same "TEA PARTY SUCKS" rhetoric that can be found in dozens of threads around the forum.

Thank you all for your insight, but as nearly none of it seems to provide an actual answer for the questions within the OP other than the third poster I'm not quite sure how to respond.

What garbage..I responded to your whole post...you just cherrypicked mine....you just dont like that others dont agree with you...thanks for that

 

[Zyphlin]

That is not all you asked. Here, let me remind you what you asked that I was responding to:

Well thank you tres barrachos. Your answer to my question trying to specifically clarify your point was truly helpful.

 

[Zyphlin]

What garbage..I responded to your whole post...you just cherrypicked mine....you just dont like that others dont agree with you...thanks for that

I shortened it to save space

You did respond to my post, with a typical anti tea party rant, and not in any way addressing if tea partiers felt Romney did a good or bad job on those issues, and if that's why he lost

Also, I'm not sure how I can be upset because you "didn't agree with me" since I didn't make any assertion...I asked a question. I didn't state anything for people to agree with me about, I asked a question.

 

[Cameron]

Are you suggesting abortion and gay marriage are "tea party" issues?

There's the Tea Party, with its platform as quoted above, which was born out of anger over rising deficits and the threat of increased taxes. And then there's the "Tea Party," which consists of social conservatives who have tacked on fiscal conservativism in an attempt to rebrand themselves after the loss of 2008. It's very difficult to tell which is which, but they are two distinct groups who forbear each other because they need the numbers. The ones that have been really costing the GOP are the latter.

 

[Zyphlin]

Alright, **** it. I save the white flag. Have fun all diverting the topic to become the 237th "I'm a liberal / moderate and declare the tea party is social and that bad!" thread. It's obvious the actually intended conversation, debate, and premise isn't going to exist in this thread so in out. You all enjoy making it about whatever topic you wish.

 

[PeteEU]

One, specifically....which portions of the Tea Party message do you think Romney, or the Senators that lost, did not adequately champion and how?

Interesting.. I would say the following.

Nr. 1: They pushed the "protect the constitution" bull**** too far. While protecting ones constitution is fine and dandy, using it as a beating platform to push through a radical social agenda over the heads of the majority is bad. That is what parts of the Tea Party have tried and have damaged the Tea Party brand. And then there was the whole Birther movement which the Tea Party embraced.. as well as the GOP.

Nr. 4: The idea is great in principle, but the way the Tea Party members have gone about this is all over the board and often is self serving and destructive. They showed no true "Tea Party" commitment. They should have been for raising taxes on the wealthy or at least asking them to pay their share of the burden and to repeal capital gains taxes... but instead they became the defenders of low taxes for the rich and increased burden on the middle class and especially poor.. hardly in the true "Tea Party" spirit that started this great nation back in the day.

Nr. 7: They went too far here. It became more than Obamacare, but also about Medicare and Mediaid... and warped over to SS.. basically an attack on society it self... Once Medicare and Mediaid came into the picture then the Tea Party lost even more credibility not to mention backing. You can only bash the poor and elderly so much before it effects your popularity.

And then there was the below issue.

Nr. 9: Most likely their biggest failure. They embraced pork from day one, when a newly elected Tea Party house member was caught a few days after being elected..on camera asking when his government guaranteed health insurance started. And the longer they were in power the more pork they demanded for their districts, going directly against the principles of this contract. Not saying all did but some did, if not a majority.

Two, what about this election gives you the feeling that the answers to the first question are what cost them their race?

On nr. 1 the Romney/Ryan campaign failed because they embraced the Tea Party mantra to get rid of abortion, while trying to whimp out on it. Their views pissed off a large portion of the female population and when Tea Party candidates came out with the rape comments and the Romney campaign did not totally cut them off... it only made things worse. The Romney campaign tried to use the "defense of the constitution" argument to bring in the base on abortion by saying they would repeal Rove vs Wade. And the fact that Romney never really stood up and called the Birthers in the GOP and Tea Party for crazy... at least McCain did that pretty much.

On nr. 4 the problem for Romney was self evident.. he was very rich and refused to release his tax returns. The Tea Party backed him up... a totally lost opportunity. He and the Tea Party could have championed Tax reform by showing how idiotic it is by releasing the Romney tax returns and exposing the hypocrisy of the US tax code. It would have been a massive driver to reform the tax code.. hell I would bet even Obama would have jumped aboard. But noo.. they instead doubled down and backed the current tax code....which favors people like Romney over the people in the Tea Party.. ironically enough.

On nr. 7, Romney lost the narrative here almost at the start. He jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon on repealing Obamacare, but did not present a comprehensive alternative.... in fact what he did present was basically Obamacare 1.1. When the SC went against repealing Obamacare, the whole issue was over and actually worked against Romney because he was trying to get on the nr. 1 bandwagon but going against the constitution (the SC had spoken after all) to remove Obamacare would have broken promise nr. 1. .. Not to mention his problem with Romneycare...

Nr 9... also a massive failure for Romney... not that he could do much about it. The stories about his "personal pork projects" aka the car elevator and his 10.000 dollar bet and such played right into the hands of those being critical of pork. Problem was that many of those critics also have their hand in the cookie jar.

In the end I dont think the Tea Party cost Romney the election per say. It was Romney's and his campaign's own failings that cost him the election... he and his running mate basically got caught too many times lying or gaffing. Obama played those cards brilliantly. Oh and the fact that Romney had almost less charisma than Al Gore did not help.

Where the Tea Party again cost the GOP was in the Senate. So far in 2 election cycles, the Tea Party has cost about 10 seats or so in the Senate.... and then there was the house seats they lost as well.. but that wont have the same impact as the senate. We could easily have had a GOP majority in the Senate today if it was not for the Tea Party.

 

[lpast]

I shortened it to save space

You did respond to my post, with a typical anti tea party rant, and not in any way addressing if tea partiers felt Romney did a good or bad job on those issues, and if that's why he lost

Also, I'm not sure how I can be upset because you "didn't agree with me" since I didn't make any assertion...I asked a question. I didn't state anything for people to agree with me about, I asked a question.

No I answered your post with my Opinion my true opinion...was not a rant....you just want to make it what you want to make it ...because it doesnt agree with you....

 

[Dwight]

On nr. 4 the problem for Romney was self evident.. he was very rich and refused to release his tax returns. The Tea Party backed him up... a totally lost opportunity. He and the Tea Party could have championed Tax reform by showing how idiotic it is by releasing the Romney tax returns and exposing the hypocrisy of the US tax code. It would have been a massive driver to reform the tax code..

Completely and totally agree. A golden opportunity missed, although it would haven’t have been trivial to execute, to take a big weapon right out of Obama’s campaign. So blatant and obvious an chance that having passed it up I really can see no other reasonable conclusion from it other than Romney and his backers had absolutely no honest intention of reform of the tax code.

Which is really sad because it is entirely a job worth doing.

Where the Tea Party again cost the GOP was in the Senate. So far in 2 election cycles, the Tea Party has cost about 10 seats or so in the Senate.... and then there was the house seats they lost as well.. but that wont have the same impact as the senate. We could easily have had a GOP majority in the Senate today if it was not for the Tea Party.

The larger the election, the higher the stakes and the more likely the failure. There are a limited number of states with a party advantage so large as to absorb the wing nut handicap, so if they happen to end up running against a competent opponent attracted to a plum statewide seat like US Senate seat (election cycle of 6 years) they end up in trouble.

On the other hand House seats flow like water, totally safe seats can be found in a much larger number of states, and parachuting in a few millions dollars in funding can make a huge difference. So the Tea Party isn’t even close to the same liability there, certainly not the same high stakes one.

 

[AdamT]

Alright, **** it. I save the white flag. Have fun all diverting the topic to become the 237th "I'm a liberal / moderate and declare the tea party is social and that bad!" thread. It's obvious the actually intended conversation, debate, and premise isn't going to exist in this thread so in out. You all enjoy making it about whatever topic you wish.

Apparently you aren't getting the answer you wanted to hear, so now you're all mad?

Seems like most people are saying, "no, the problem isn't that candidates aren't hewing to the party line; the problem is that the high profile candidates the TP supports often seem to be extreme social conservatives who turn off moderates of all stripes." Todd Akin, Michael Mourdock, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, etc.

Or if you prefer, you could say that high profile TP candidates waste too much political capital pushing extreme views that are purportedly not part of the core TP platform. The more this happens the more the public comes to doubt that the list of issues you provided actually represents the core TP platform.

 

[jambalaya]

I would say that yes, they may not have started out as tea party issues, but they are now.

I disagree. Anti-abortion and gay marriage are fundametnal conservative issues. Those two issue hardly need promoting by conseravative groups of any stripe. But those issues are the ones brought up the most by the opponents of groups like the Tea Party to distract from the real message. Liberals just want the Tea Parry and groups like them to be seen as racist, homophobic, etc., etc., not a group promoting fiscal responsibility. Some goon with a anti-gay slur on a sign shows up at a rally and suddenly it goes from the Tea Party to the Gay Bashers. It is a very effective strategy.

 

[Paul Austin]

Apparently you aren't getting the answer you wanted to hear, so now you're all mad?

Seems like most people are saying, "no, the problem isn't that candidates aren't hewing to the party line; the problem is that the high profile candidates the TP supports often seem to be extreme social conservatives who turn off moderates of all stripes." Todd Akin, Michael Mourdock, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, etc.

I remember when Bachman first started hanging around in the tea party movement, there was booing, jeering & much gnashing of teeth from some of the participants, & now shes sometimes cited as an example of what the movement is about.

I guess thats an example of what I was talking about, is the tea party movement that middle aged black guy, at the hot dog stall, who feels taxed enough already, is he the pot head who came along because he's for small government (read doesnt want to get in trouble for smoking weed because his parents would throw him out), or is it the bat-**** crazy evangilist who thinks judgement day is upon us at that Obama is the son of satan?

Take your pick.

At best these days it could be described as a collective of disperate people held together by the fact that the all oppose at least something governmental, with taxation being perhaps the greatest common ground of belief (although actual solutions to the percieved tax problem may vary).

I think that is part of the tpm's problem, they no longer actually represent something in a solid enough sense that you cant argue just about anything about them.

& thats where they become a problem to the GOP, because they are so fluid & undefined their political opponents only need to pick their smear, find the craziest tea partier they can find & present them as proof of that smear.

 

[Dwight]

I remember when Bachman first started hanging around in the tea party movement, there was booing, jeering & much gnashing of teeth from some of the participants, & now she’s sometimes cited as an example of what the movement is about.

…

At best these days it could be described as a collective of disperate people held together by the fact that the all oppose at least something governmental, with taxation being perhaps the greatest common ground of belief (although actual solutions to the percieved tax problem may vary).

I feel your pain, I’m sorry to break it to you but the Tea Party bus has been hijacked. And I choose that metaphor with very deliberate purpose.

And Bachmann has inserted herself in the driver’s seat. Chairman of the board! This is an inherent problem with “leaderless” organizations, especially those built around discontent. No branding control and so they get hijacked by the usual suspects.

 

[AreteCourage]

The Tea Party used to stand for those things. It was the first inception of the Liberty Movement that was completely hijacked by the Evangelical Social Right. They went from believing in the constitution and small government to gay marriage and abortion.

When the Libertarians split from the tea party and made their own Liberty Movement...that meant that the Social Right maintained the tea party.

That is what cost Republicans a lot of these elections. Democrats ran against Social Right hard liners and won fairly easily because average Americans don't care for those stances these days (in some cases never like the "legitimate rape" debacle).

Republicans need to drop their hard right social bureaucrats in favor of their Libertarian minded folks. Libertarians may hold those same social stances but we believe the government shouldn't be involved. That appeals across aisles, genders, races, and more. The GOP should embrace their Libertarians and run on their platforms because if they continue to hold these idiotic social issues at the forefront of their platforms...then they will lose nationally.

It is very simple for the Republicans...evolve your platform or be happy with only Congressional seats in the House.

 

[Paul Austin]

I feel your pain

I appreciate your concern but I feel no pain from my observations as I was never emotionally invested in the movement. My interest in the tea party arose for profesional reasons, rather than political.

 

[rjay]

Alright, **** it. I save the white flag. Have fun all diverting the topic to become the 237th "I'm a liberal / moderate and declare the tea party is social and that bad!" thread. It's obvious the actually intended conversation, debate, and premise isn't going to exist in this thread so in out. You all enjoy making it about whatever topic you wish.

I have to agree with Zyphlin here. This thread was really meant for Tea Party folks to discuss whether their platform was a help or hinderance for this election. It was not meant for non-Tea Party people.

 

[Your Star]

Alright, **** it. I save the white flag. Have fun all diverting the topic to become the 237th "I'm a liberal / moderate and declare the tea party is social and that bad!" thread. It's obvious the actually intended conversation, debate, and premise isn't going to exist in this thread so in out. You all enjoy making it about whatever topic you wish.

First off, calm down.

Secondly, I think that the vast majority of responses have been on-topic, they have basically been, no, the republican losses are due to them gripping to the wrong side of social issues, namely abortion, and LGBT rights, which have been lead by the tea party.

I'm not sure what your looking for other than for someone to lick your wounds after a bad election cycle.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm not sure what your looking for other than for someone to lick your wounds after a bad election cycle.

Given your avatar, he chose well.

 

[MaggieD]

I have a question for those that believe the Republican losses in the Senate and in the Presidency are due to Republicans not embracing the Tea Party's message enough. Below is the Contract From America, the closest to a unified coherent message from the majority of tea party groups in terms of what the Tea Party is SUPPOSEDLY about:

Full Link

Could you please indicate a few things of me.

One, specifically....which portions of the Tea Party message do you think Romney, or the Senators that lost, did not adequately champion and how?

Two, what about this election gives you the feeling that the answers to the first question are what cost them their race?

I don't think that had much, if anything, to do with Romney losing. It was completely about the power of the incumbant.

 

[solletica]

The TP--with it bottomless pit of deranged bigots--serves as an efficient form of black propoganda that can very effectively be used against the GOP in upcoming elections

 

[grip]

I have a question for those that believe the Republican losses in the Senate and in the Presidency are due to Republicans not embracing the Tea Party's message enough. Below is the Contract From America, the closest to a unified coherent message from the majority of tea party groups in terms of what the Tea Party is SUPPOSEDLY about:



Full Link

Could you please indicate a few things of me.

One, specifically....which portions of the Tea Party message do you think Romney, or the Senators that lost, did not adequately champion and how?

Two, what about this election gives you the feeling that the answers to the first question are what cost them their race?

First of all the Tea Party's message doesn't resonate with enough of the voting electorate to help a candidate win on a national level, maybe in certain districts it would. And second they aren't known for fulfilling their promises better than any other politician running for office.

Seems to me Romney loss for not running closer to the middle, which is the classic move and listened to too many experts. As intensely divided as a small portion of the country appears there are probably more moderate independents that swing the real vote than is perceived by the partisans.

 

[solletica]

I have a question for those that believe the Republican losses in the Senate and in the Presidency are due to Republicans not embracing the Tea Party's message enough. Below is the Contract From America, the closest to a unified coherent message from the majority of tea party groups in terms of what the Tea Party is SUPPOSEDLY about:



Full Link

Could you please indicate a few things of me.

One, specifically....which portions of the Tea Party message do you think Romney, or the Senators that lost, did not adequately champion and how?

The question is fundamentally dishonest because the TP does not in reality stand for those things.

You say it's what they're supposed to stand for; they don't, plain and simple.

Romney certainly does not favor defending the Constitution (i. e. his support of NDAA-style laws)

nor does he favor fiscal responsibility w/his intent to balloon the debt another $2 trillion to pay for his silly yet-to-be-identified military ejaculations.

Two, what about this election gives you the feeling that the answers to the first question are what cost them their race?

Romney lost because the more educated segment of the US recognized that his ultimate goals were not to pursue job-creating policies, but rather to exploit the current dire economic environment to win an election and then extend more rewards to his wealthy donors, with no guarantee of help for the middle class.

In a nutshell, to those in the know, he didn't come across convincingly as a Robin Hood, but rather as a Scrooge.