So if, as prominent Republicans state, the tea party is about fiscal responsibility and conservative social values, how exactly is it different from the GOP and their platform of the last 30 years? Or is it a mistake for people to act as if they know how to define the tea party and its supporters?

Weiner’s roomate .

paulmdoro said:
So if, as prominent Republicans state, the tea party is about fiscal responsibility and conservative social values, how exactly is it different from the GOP and their platform of the last 30 years? Or is it a mistake for people to act as if they know how to define the tea party and its supporters?

No they’re just trying to paddle away from the Republican disaster of the last 20 years even though it’s the exact same thing. They’re just hoping if they put a cute name on it and scream a little louder the dumber Americans will forget…..

paulmdoro said:
So if, as prominent Republicans state, the tea party is about fiscal responsibility and conservative social values, how exactly is it different from the GOP and their platform of the last 30 years? Or is it a mistake for people to act as if they know how to define the tea party and its supporters?

I believe that is why they say they want to *throw the bums out* meaning left and right – RINOS who haven’t observed the strict fiscal responsibility goals, and small government. I believe a lot of them have talked about RINOS who have voted with Dems, gone off tilt, gotten greedy, and spent a lot, and helped to grow the govt.

I didn’t think they have been speaking out much at all about conservative social issues.

I think some Repubs are hoping that they can get the tea party under their tent – but I think there are a lot who are mad at Repubs too. At least those they consider RINOS, or those who – dare I say – helped drive the car into the ditch.

OK but RINO is nothing new. That term has been around for quite some time now. So this all seems like the same old talk.

paulmdoro said:
OK but RINO is nothing new. That term has been around for quite some time now. So this all seems like the same old talk.

Perhaps, but there hasn’t been this successful of an attempt of a third party since…when? The tea party seems to have both parties rattled. And they seem to be living up to their *throw the bums out* agenda. Opponents didn’t want to believe that tea peeps were mad at Repubs too, but they are. Many are not happy at what happened under Bush, and many are not happy about the RINOS. And they are not happy about massive govt. spending.

Regardless of what all those hatin’ on the tea party like to claim, it’s not about Obama’s skin tone. And they aren’t all Republicans.

And I have a feeling that some of them joined to have their turn, protesting and lashing out, after the 8 years that they listened to attacks from the Left, calling Bush Hitler, attacking Repubs, etc. And I know some were pissed off at the attacks from Obama supporters on Hillary. Some are independents who are pissed off at both parties. I think the Tea peeps were a group of many different people, from different places, and now they are evolving/forming into a more political force – going after incumbents.

That is one of the reasons I think social issues haven’t been a major issue in the tea party. They are across the board, and evolving as well.

Republican rule is “Governance in name only”, or GINO.

The elephant in the room (pun intended) is the fact that no matter how absurd Stewart and the media make the tea party, republicans and their “infighting” look, it doesn’t matter. The American voters are and will vote for Mickey Mouse over the current batch of dems.

They can mock the tea party backed candidates all they want, or any republican candidates for that matter, they are just preaching to their own choir, not affecting elections one bit.

I’ll use a metaphor like Obama does, we had a country on fire in 2008 and all the administration and dem leadership has done since day one is pour more gas on it.

sarainitaly said:
Perhaps, but there hasn’t been this successful of an attempt of a third party since…when? The tea party seems to have both parties rattled. And they seem to be living up to their *throw the bums out* agenda. Opponents didn’t want to believe that tea peeps were mad at Repubs too, but they are. Many are not happy at what happened under Bush, and many are not happy about the RINOS. And they are not happy about massive govt. spending.

Regardless of what all those hatin’ on the tea party like to claim, it’s not about Obama’s skin tone. And they aren’t all Republicans.

And I have a feeling that some of them joined to have their turn, protesting and lashing out, after the 8 years that they listened to attacks from the Left, calling Bush Hitler, attacking Repubs, etc. And I know some were pissed off at the attacks from Obama supporters on Hillary. Some are independents who are pissed off at both parties. I think the Tea peeps were a group of many different people, from different places, and now they are evolving/forming into a more political force – going after incumbents.

That is one of the reasons I think social issues haven’t been a major issue in the tea party. They are across the board, and evolving as well.

But the tea party is primarily made up of conservatives, and now it’s Obama being called Hitler, etc, so I guess it’s all cyclical.

As far as recent third party successes, Ross Perot comes to mind. Fiscal issues were high on his agenda as well.

timzank said:
The elephant in the room (pun intended) is the fact that no matter how absurd Stewart and the media make the tea party, republicans and their “infighting” look, it doesn’t matter. The American voters are and will vote for Mickey Mouse over the current batch of dems.

This ignores the fact that the current batch of Reps are just as unpopular, if not more so, than the current batch of Dems.

“RINOS who haven’t observed the strict fiscal responsibility goals, and small government. I believe a lot of them have talked about RINOS who have voted with Dems, gone off tilt, gotten greedy, and spent a lot, and helped to grow the govt.”

But Republicans were elected to office precisely on their promise not to do those things. I am continually amazed at american voters who think, “it’ll be radically different next time.”

timzank said:
The elephant in the room (pun intended) is the fact that no matter how absurd Stewart and the media make the tea party, republicans and their “infighting” look, it doesn’t matter. The American voters are and will vote for Mickey Mouse over the current batch of dems.

They can mock the tea party backed candidates all they want, or any republican candidates for that matter, they are just preaching to their own choir, not affecting elections one bit.

I’ll use a metaphor like Obama does, we had a country on fire in 2008 and all the administration and dem leadership has done since day one is pour more gas on it.

sadly, I think this is probably right

Pauls Says:

But the tea party is primarily made up of conservatives, and now it’s Obama being called Hitler, etc, so I guess it’s all cyclical.

Bush was called hitler, so let’s not act like this is a new occurence. The people have seen Obama take over more of the free market system than ever before in our history and it sparked them into action. He’s surrounded himself with SELF-described Marxists, Socialists, and Communists which tells us what direction he’d like to take the country. I’m getting really sick of the left insinuating that if we didn’t have a black president, there would be no tea-party. You really need to find a new line of attack.

1stamendmentlost said:

Bush was called hitler, so let’s not act like this is a new occurence.

Didn’t say it was new.

Would the tea party exist if McCain was president?

paulmdoro said:
But the tea party is primarily made up of conservatives, and now it’s Obama being called Hitler, etc, so I guess it’s all cyclical.

I think it is made up of fiscal conservatives. And yes, I assume there are much fewer Dems. They, at least in the beginning, were quite happy Obama won. Now, not so much.

Also, again, you do realize that the major majority of Hitler as Obama posters are from LaRouche Group – a liberal group who was mad he didn’t go for public option – don’t you?

And yes, it is cyclical – but funny that when the Conservatives do it, they are called racist, hateful, etc.

MrAut said:
But Republicans were elected to office precisely on their promise not to do those things. I am continually amazed at american voters who think, “it’ll be radically different next time.”

Right, which is why fiscal conservatives are mad – people were elected to be fiscally conservative, and they weren’t. So, they are losing their jobs. It will be different if people DO what tea party peeps are doing – holding them accountable.

Look at what happened in Bell, California! It’s because no one paid attention, got involved, or held them accountable.

All the government waste, ridiculous spending, etc. that has been going on for years… Private airports, expense reports/booze up the kazoo, hookers… look at California! The tea party seems to want to change all that.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had an unusual form of praise for New York’s junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, this morning at the fundraiser Mayor Bloomberg hosted for him at his townhouse – referring to her as “the hottest member” as she sat just a few feet away, according to three sources.

The comment prompted Gillibrand to turn red, according to the sources, and created a bit of stir among the small crowd there.

“It was pretty shocking when he said it,” said one source familiar with the remark and the reaction.

Yes I am familiar with the nut LaRouche and his antics. He’s not new to politics. I didn’t realize someone conducted a poll concerning who has made the majority of Obama as Hitler posters.

Didn’t Perot do so well because he appealed to those looking for fiscal responsibility?

Paul says:

Would the tea party exist if McCain was president?

Hard to say. I like to use the frog in boiling water analogy. With McCain, the frog is put into cold water and the temperature change is gradual and harder to detect. With Obama, the country was through into a raging boil. He tried to do WAY too many things that the country DID NOT WANT. Now he’s suffering the consequences. It has nothing to do with what color his skin is, that’s just the easy way for the left to describe what’s happening.

sarainitaly said:
I didn’t think they have been speaking out much at all about conservative social issues.

Guess you missed the value voters summit video
or maybe you saw the breitbart-ed version

And ps, I didn’t vote for McCain, I couldn’t stomach it.

no-touchy-touchy said:
Guess you missed the value voters summit video
or maybe you saw the breitbart-ed version

Huckabee is certainly trying to keep social issues at the forefront, and he’s not the only one.

1stamendmentlost said:
Hard to say. I like to use the frog in boiling water analogy. With McCain, the frog is put into cold water and the temperature change is gradual and harder to detect. With Obama, the country was through into a raging boil. He tried to do WAY too many things that the country DID NOT WANT. Now he’s suffering the consequences. It has nothing to do with what color his skin is, that’s just the easy way for the left to describe what’s happening.

And of course we’ll never know exactly what McCain would have done about the economy, we can only speculate, but I can’t help but wonder since we’d likely be facing the same economic problems if McCain was president.

Well Paul, unfortunately for Obama HE is president and that’s who American’s will judge on the economy, not McCain.

1stamendmentlost said:
Well Paul, unfortunately for Obama HE is president and that’s who American’s will judge on the economy, not McCain.

Really? I had no idea. Weird.

Glad to help.

paulmdoro said:
This ignores the fact that the current batch of Reps are just as unpopular, if not more so, than the current batch of Dems.

If you noticed, the repub rinos/establishment candidates are being excised through the primary process…the dems will be through the regular election…

timzank said:
If you noticed, the repub rinos/establishment candidates are being excised through the primary process…the dems will be through the regular election…

What does the establishment mean to you? How do you define it? Is it synonymous with RINO?

paulmdoro said:
What does the establishment mean to you? How do you define it? Is it synonymous with RINO?

I define it as anyone who’s been in office more than two terms in the senate, or 4 terms in the house…from ANY frickin party.

Jackie_Treehorn said:
No they’re just trying to paddle away from the Republican disaster of the last 20 years even though it’s the exact same thing. They’re just hoping if they put a cute name on it and scream a little louder the dumber Americans will forget…..

Sounds like you are being delusional. The people that I know who are in the tea party aren’t following a leader, its a grass roots movement. Come to think of it the people I know who are staunch Democrats also aren’t following a leader, namely President Obama.

timzank said:
I define it as anyone who’s been in office more than two terms in the senate, or 4 terms in the house…from ANY frickin party.

So it has nothing to do with political philosophy/beliefs or voting record? It’s completely defined by time?

paulmdoro said:
So it has nothing to do with political philosophy/beliefs or voting record? It’s completely defined by time?

This is the part that the media and the pundits don’t grasp. We need DIFFERENT PEOPLE to serve (like the system was meant to work) every few terms, not forever and ever…regardless their voting record, philosophy or beliefs. Get elected, serve, get out. The people can vote in somebody else after two terms with similar ideology etc, but it won’t be the same “entrenched” person year after year….we have to break the cycle of “career politician”, it was never meant to be a career,

Is different automatically better?

paulmdoro said:
Is different automatically better?

Not automatically, nothing is automatic, but by forcing the public to pick new representatives every two and 6 terms (like the public used to do on their own before they got used to being bribed) it eliminates the system of pay to play and graft and pork that keeps these morons (on both sides) in office forever and ever…..

Career politicians have perverted the system and the “establishment” hierarchy of both political parties (RNC,DNC, etc) have become nothing more than protectors of the career politicians.

The way it operates now in no way resembles what this country was founded upon, namely people (citizens) of all walks of life, serving a term or two away from their real livelyhood to help their country. Nobody was ever supposed to be a politician for life, that smacked of English royalty rule, the people (until the early 20th century) by and large replaced (voted out) there legislators every couple of terms. In the early 20th century is when the whole system began of “keep me in office so I can bring back the $$$ to our district”.

The fricking money never should have LEFT the district….we have created a monster that needs to be reversed.

timzank said:
Not automatically, nothing is automatic, but by forcing the public to pick new representatives every two and 6 terms (like the public used to do on their own before they got used to being bribed) it eliminates the system of pay to play and graft and pork that keeps these morons (on both sides) in office forever and ever…..

Career politicians have perverted the system and the “establishment” hierarchy of both political parties (RNC,DNC, etc) have become nothing more than protectors of the career politicians.

The way it operates now in no way resembles what this country was founded upon, namely people (citizens) of all walks of life, serving a term or two away from their real livelyhood to help their country. Nobody was ever supposed to be a politician for life, that smacked of English royalty rule, the people (until the early 20th century) by and large replaced (voted out) there legislators every couple of terms. In the early 20th century is when the whole system began of “keep me in office so I can bring back the $$$ to our district”.

The fricking money never should have LEFT the district….we have created a monster that needs to be reversed.

Can’t really argue with any of that. Sounds very reasonable to me.

When was this magical time? In the mid 1800′s when americans fought and killed others? Was this before or after when the election of senators was given to the people? Remember, in our Constitution, originally, the states appointed senators without the citizens voting. Maybe this was during the gilded age, when graft and corruption were rampant, or in the 20′s, with the Teapot Dome scandal? Was Vanderbilt talking about this time when he said, after being asked of the law, “Law, what do I care about the law? Ain’t I got the power?” Right now things are pretty crappy, but don’t forget that things have been crappy for *centuries*. This too shall pass, and things aren’t nearly as bad (on a national scale) as people wish they were. Look at the depressions in the 1800′s (1815-1823, 1839-1843, 1983-1879, 1893-1897, 1918-1921) – things are only rosy in retrospect.

no-touchy-touchy says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:54 am
Guess you missed the value voters summit video

No, I didn’t see it. And The Value Voters Summit is not the Tea Party. They hold an annual summit. No doubt there were many tea party peeps there, but it is not a Tea Party event. And there are lots of peeps in the tea party that weren’t there.

I’m watching a hilarious sketch on Daily Show right now where they bust the balls of the union for hiring non union picketers at minimum wage to protest Wal MArt not having a union. It’s a sharp blade.

Those leftist pukes of the The Daily Show are at it again.

CosmosDan said:
I’m watching a hilarious sketch on Daily Show right now where they bust the balls of the union for hiring non union picketers at minimum wage to protest Wal MArt not having a union. It’s a sharp blade. Those leftist pukes of the The Daily Show are at it again.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.