I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol.
I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People compl
The lack of compromise is one thing but my issue with most if them is an apparent lack of sense. Yes we all hate raising taxes but they don't seem to understand simple economics where cutting costs can only do so much without increasing revenue.
We're seeing what was predicted two or three years ago. The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's pretty clear that Boehner is at maximum frustration level, and I think it's beginning to dawn on mainline and moderate Republicans that the Tea Party tail is now wagging the GOP dog. There's a level of hysterical irrationality about the Tea Party that is now coming into full view. They're not interested in governing at all.
I'm sure the White House has a long list of contingencies in place just like Clinton did when he was up against the Gingrich mob, and is probably quite content to watch the Republicans and the Tea Party wing battle it out. I think 2012 is pretty damned safe for him.
One of my high school friends is a strong Tea Party supporter and she was upset that they media portayed them as "silly" and "hypocrits" when they first started holding their rallies and protests. She asked me if I thought she was silly. Based on the signs I saw at the rallies, I responded "Yes". But I supported her right to protest. She didn't understand the "hypocrit" label even when I explained that years earlier the same Tea Party people were labeling war protestors as "unpatriotic" and questioning
The problem isn't so much that they're "hypocrits" [sic] as that they're gullible, ignorant, illiterate morons begging to be used as tools by the worst elements of the corporate-media complex. (i.e."True Americans")
The Tea Party apparently represents the will of the people as was demonstrated by the people voting them in in large enough numbers to shake the status quo. They are poisonous to "Party Politics" and the "Culture of Washington" and that is by design. That is what the people want to change, poison, kill. They will not fall back on their promises, and you deride them for that. No wonder this country is in such a mess. It's people like you, who cannot see the forest for the trees, who can only see in blue and
The United States is a representative democracy, not a direct one. That means, some times, the representatives have to think beyond the sometimes errant, even moronic views of the masses. The masses, in turn, have the opportunity to turf those representatives at the end of their term if they feel they've been ill served.
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default will somehow improve their lot in life, then those voters are sadly mistaken. Wha
Their point is that the US cannot and will not default - but it can cut government benefits. The outcome of refusal to raise the debt ceiling is unknown and probably unknowable right now, but it is apparent that their hope is to shrink government (I.e., what they've been after from the beginning). I doubt that they will succeed, but they do have one very good point: the US is on an unsustainable path. Sooner or later we will face a reckoning in which taxes will go way up and spending will go way down. That
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default
Are you sure you know what is going on? The Tea Party isn't against Tax Cuts they are against Tax Hikes (increases). They aren't for having the government default, they are for reigning in reckless spending. You know the reckless spending that has tripled (you know, multiplied by a factor of 3) the entire national debt within the last decade. The trajectory of spending we are currently on is unsustainable. This is a fact, it cannot be argued against. So the question is, do we deal with it now, or wait until
You do understand the these same people who are now fighting for budget cuts before approving to raise the debt ceiling are the same people that voted and approved the spending to begin with? House votes to approve spending on items. Then the credit card that this was put onto is now coming due. So now the tea party wants to put controls on spending??? What happened to when the budget was up for voting, did they miss that part?
I don't consider myself to be tea-party as I'm a libertarian (yeah, I know you just stopped reading and will start the ad-hominem attacks now). But you are sorely mistaken...
First of all, the US is not a representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The fact that people elect representatives in a democratic fashion does not make us a democracy. New laws are still supposed to follow the Constitution regardless of how popular they are.
The Constitution itself does permit congress "To borrow mo
The Air Force and Marines are logical extensions of the Army and Navy clauses of the Constitution. The FBI is debatable, the NSA, TSA, and FCC can definitely go. Add to that the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, and such and that will solve our budget problem right up. And we could even afford to have some tax cuts.
But, really, we'll settle for him getting a friggin' clue.
Have you heard how Karl Rove talks about the Tea Party. He can't STAND those people, which is understandable considering how they've upset his apple-cart.
They voted for Tea Party people in many cases because the voters wanted something different, not because they specifically wanted Tea Partiers. Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
It's not really ego - it is how things are supposed to be. There is no way for an individual citizen to vote against something (only Congress can do that), we can only vote for something. To the citizen, voting for a Senator, Congressman, President is not a binary choice; there are more than two options. That fact alone makes voting against someone impossible. Votes were created, intended and, for all intents-and-purposes, are an indication that someone is for the thing for which they voted. no other interp
I still think we should have the option to vote "no" for president, congress, with enough "no" votes in an election meaning the office stays vacant for 1 term and all^wboth parties running candidates are given a strong hint to find different kinds of candidates.
"Vote NO for President" would make a good bumper sticker, too.
Except, how can the Country run for 4 years with out a President? Voting "NO" for President would just mean a person under the existing one would be promoted to the role of President (either officially or de-facto). This would mean that a vote "NO" for President would instead be a Vote for the Underling for President who isn't even running.
Automatic veto, nothing requiring the president's signature gets to happen. Any actions taken in the name of the president during the interim are only temporary and can be immediately revoked by the next person to be actually be elected to the office. Also, nobody gets to sit behind the desk in the oval office. Hopefully the Red Phone has call forwarding.
Whatever you think of the tea party it has been spectacularly successful at "wagging the dog". Either the traditional parties will learn to get their tails back in control, or other "tails" will emerge on the far right or the far left spurred on by the success of the tea party. I rather suspect the main parties will find a way to control this better because some of the trends that have helped this along (like signing pledges) that seemed initially to be zero cost are now being seen as burdensome.
Except that the Tea Party has been integrated more closely into the GOP, at least that's what the GOP and the Tea Party wanted everyone to believe. Obviously it's not the case, the Tea Party feels no particular loyalty to mainline Republicans, seeming to view them not as opponents as they would any given Democrat, but as traitors to the true conservative cause.
The mainline Republicans are terrified that if they don't appease the Tea Party somehow, it will become a third party, and as a third party, the dam
I see the current crop of Republican Tea Party Types as being very much like a cartoon super villain. For example right now they are holding our future and economy hostage and seem perfectly willing to screw us all if they don't get 110% of what they want and 0% of what they don't want. Their priorities are preventing reasonable taxes being re-instituted for the rich and corporations. Now it looks like they are trying to arrange a situation where we have a debt limit crisis every 6 months so they can hol
I have a hard time believing Lex Luthor, criminal genius extraordinaire, would be as clumsy and moronic as the Tea Party members tend to be. I can see him fucking over the government, but with some cleverness. The Tea Party is more like Godzilla smashing Tokyo. Yes, big and scary, but ultimately with the brains of a cockroach.
Smeagol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Smeagol (Score:5, Interesting)
We're seeing what was predicted two or three years ago. The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's pretty clear that Boehner is at maximum frustration level, and I think it's beginning to dawn on mainline and moderate Republicans that the Tea Party tail is now wagging the GOP dog. There's a level of hysterical irrationality about the Tea Party that is now coming into full view. They're not interested in governing at all.
I'm sure the White House has a long list of contingencies in place just like Clinton did when he was up against the Gingrich mob, and is probably quite content to watch the Republicans and the Tea Party wing battle it out. I think 2012 is pretty damned safe for him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't so much that they're "hypocrits" [sic] as that they're gullible, ignorant, illiterate morons begging to be used as tools by the worst elements of the corporate-media complex. (i.e."True Americans")
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans
The Tea Party apparently represents the will of the people as was demonstrated by the people voting them in in large enough numbers to shake the status quo. They are poisonous to "Party Politics" and the "Culture of Washington" and that is by design. That is what the people want to change, poison, kill. They will not fall back on their promises, and you deride them for that. No wonder this country is in such a mess. It's people like you, who cannot see the forest for the trees, who can only see in blue and
Re: (Score:2)
The United States is a representative democracy, not a direct one. That means, some times, the representatives have to think beyond the sometimes errant, even moronic views of the masses. The masses, in turn, have the opportunity to turf those representatives at the end of their term if they feel they've been ill served.
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default will somehow improve their lot in life, then those voters are sadly mistaken. Wha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default
Are you sure you know what is going on? The Tea Party isn't against Tax Cuts they are against Tax Hikes (increases). They aren't for having the government default, they are for reigning in reckless spending. You know the reckless spending that has tripled (you know, multiplied by a factor of 3) the entire national debt within the last decade. The trajectory of spending we are currently on is unsustainable. This is a fact, it cannot be argued against. So the question is, do we deal with it now, or wait until
Re: (Score:2)
I meant tax hikes.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand the these same people who are now fighting for budget cuts before approving to raise the debt ceiling are the same people that voted and approved the spending to begin with? House votes to approve spending on items. Then the credit card that this was put onto is now coming due. So now the tea party wants to put controls on spending??? What happened to when the budget was up for voting, did they miss that part?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't consider myself to be tea-party as I'm a libertarian (yeah, I know you just stopped reading and will start the ad-hominem attacks now). But you are sorely mistaken...
First of all, the US is not a representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The fact that people elect representatives in a democratic fashion does not make us a democracy. New laws are still supposed to follow the Constitution regardless of how popular they are.
The Constitution itself does permit congress "To borrow mo
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about how the Tea Party seems to believe that about 150 years of history never happened.
Re: (Score:2)
The Air Force and Marines are logical extensions of the Army and Navy clauses of the Constitution. The FBI is debatable, the NSA, TSA, and FCC can definitely go. Add to that the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, and such and that will solve our budget problem right up. And we could even afford to have some tax cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Tea Party are shills for Karl Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons who blew the budget surplus left over from the Clinton administration.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
But, really, we'll settle for him getting a friggin' clue.
Have you heard how Karl Rove talks about the Tea Party. He can't STAND those people, which is understandable considering how they've upset his apple-cart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
It's not really ego - it is how things are supposed to be. There is no way for an individual citizen to vote against something (only Congress can do that), we can only vote for something. To the citizen, voting for a Senator, Congressman, President is not a binary choice; there are more than two options. That fact alone makes voting against someone impossible. Votes were created, intended and, for all intents-and-purposes, are an indication that someone is for the thing for which they voted. no other interp
Re: (Score:2)
I still think we should have the option to vote "no" for president, congress, with enough "no" votes in an election meaning the office stays vacant for 1 term and all^wboth parties running candidates are given a strong hint to find different kinds of candidates.
"Vote NO for President" would make a good bumper sticker, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the Tea Party has been integrated more closely into the GOP, at least that's what the GOP and the Tea Party wanted everyone to believe. Obviously it's not the case, the Tea Party feels no particular loyalty to mainline Republicans, seeming to view them not as opponents as they would any given Democrat, but as traitors to the true conservative cause.
The mainline Republicans are terrified that if they don't appease the Tea Party somehow, it will become a third party, and as a third party, the dam
Supervillain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing Lex Luthor, criminal genius extraordinaire, would be as clumsy and moronic as the Tea Party members tend to be. I can see him fucking over the government, but with some cleverness. The Tea Party is more like Godzilla smashing Tokyo. Yes, big and scary, but ultimately with the brains of a cockroach.