interesting 'tea party' article

[Azazello1313]

 

makes some good points I think

[Perchoutofwater]

That is a very op-ed.

[bpwallace49]

So the argumnet is that it was there all along under Bush, but Palin Beck and others just got hot and bothered about it under Obama? That there was a secret underground society brewing that no one mentioned . . until the Dems got into office?

 

Amazing how they kept it all a secret until now . . . or couldnt find better candidates than Christine O'Donnell, (who is easy to caricature and is used to de-legitimize the message of the TEA party. )

 

There is nothing wrong with loving the constitution, fiscal restraint, and small gubmnet. But for the love of God couldnt you get some realistic candidates to spread that message??? If any 3rd party candidate has any hope at all of winning an election, they need to be squaky clean and throughly vetted ahead of time.

 

and at anyone that uses Janine Garafalo as a "quoteable source". It is like using Hannity to represent the entire Republican Party . . . a bad idea.

[Azazello1313]

So the argumnet is that it was there all along under Bush, but Palin Beck and others just got hot and bothered about it under Obama? That there was a secret underground society brewing that no one mentioned . . until the Dems got into office?

 

yeah, that is exactly the argument

 

Liberal politicians and their fellow travelers in the media seemed to assume that Americans disapproved of Bush for the same reasons they did. Yet many rejected Bush because he was not their kind of conservative (or, they might say, no conservative at all). William F. Buckley was tactful in 2006 when he said that Bush suffers from “the absence of effective conservative ideology -- with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending.” And George Will wrote in 2004 that “Republicans are swiftly forfeiting the perception that they are especially responsible stewards of government finances.” The President had recently proposed some cuts, but the $4.9 billion saved “would pay less than six days’ interest on the national debt.” These deficits were apparently “one way ‘compassionate conservatism’ defines itself.”

 

These are hardly figures on the fringe, and they object to Bush’s government growth and deficit spending. Another example from the same year is Richard Viguerie, a pioneer of conservative strategy, whose Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause, is a clear precursor to the Tea Party movement.

 

Yet the rejection of big-government conservatism, amongst libertarians, reaches further back. A Cato Institute article from 2003 calls Bush “the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter.” It was not possible to blame this on the wars alone, since non-defense discretionary spending had increased by even more (20.8%) than total spending (15.6%). “Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 and 65 percent respectively.” While some expenditures are matters of political expediency, this only means that Bush “spends like Carter and panders like Clinton.” The chairman of Cato even hoped for a divided government, and Doug Bandow at The American Conservative lamented the Republican majority that was “promoting larger government at almost every turn.”

 

Further examples abound, reaching back as far as 1999. Or witness Robert Trancinski in 2001: “the heart of conservatism is dead” when “its leaders endorse a total surrender to the welfare state -- and announce that, if we can’t beat the Left, we should join them at the federal trough.”

 

william f buckley, george will, cato, heritage foundation, etc. yeah, a real secret underground society there.

 

also, I was clearly part of the secret underground society, posting here on the huddle...

 

I'm not at all comfortable with "compassionate conservatism", which as far as i can tell is basically just warmed-over big-government liberalism with a more socially conservative face.

bush pretty much told us exactly what he'd give us, even if most of us (myself included) didn't quite catch on to what he was up to. remember all that 'compassionate conservative' stuff? the translation: big government, but with more of a 'social conservative' hue.

I think the republicans need a MAJOR gut-check. they really are becoming the party of the south, the party of religious panty-sniffers, the party of "compassionate" (big-govermnent) conservatism. they need to get back a little of that anti-establishment spirit of '94 (or of '80, or '64), and they really need to stop alienating the party's classical liberal/libertarian roots. they probably can't do that as long as they're trying to protect incumbent power.

this article is kinda stupid to try and compare "neocon" foreign policy to hilary's "it takes a village" domestic neoprogressivism. if you wanna compare neocon foreign policy to, say, wilsonian foreign policy, and say they are left/right embodiments of some of the same misguided principles, that could potentially be a compelling argument. likewise, if you want to compare bush's "compassionate conservative" domestic agenda with big government, nanny-state, "great society" liberalism, i think you'd have a very, VERY compelling argument.

[redrumjuice]

We were fed this:

 

"There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America--there's the United States of America."

 

Then when the invoice came, we received this:

 

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on Nov. 2.

 

Punish our enemies?

[bpwallace49]

yeah, that is exactly the argument

 

 

 

william f buckley, george will, cato, heritage foundation, etc. yeah, a real secret underground society there.

 

also, I was clearly part of the secret underground society, posting here on the huddle...

 

And yet STILL the best candidates the Tea Party can come up with include Christine O'Donnell? And all the people you listed are very very very conservative sources. Not exactly the "common man" uprising the Tea Party tries to endear itself to.

 

If it was such a widespread movement azz, why are the candidates so poor? There is much to be admired in the Tea Party and a very relevant fiscal wake up call that this country sorely needs. Why not try and get electable candidates?

[gbpfan1231]

And yet STILL the best candidates the Tea Party can come up with include Christine O'Donnell? And all the people you listed are very very very conservative sources. Not exactly the "common man" uprising the Tea Party tries to endear itself to.

 

If it was such a widespread movement azz, why are the candidates so poor? There is much to be admired in the Tea Party and a very relevant fiscal wake up call that this country sorely needs. Why not try and get electable candidates?

They can get people better than O'Donnell - I suggest they get Mr BPWallace to run - I keep reading over and over that he is not lIberal - he is for smaller govt - fiscal restraint - against the new health care bill.

 

Mr BPWallace come on down - you are the next contestant on the Tea Party movement - because we all know you are not a liberal.

[bpwallace49]

They can get people better than O'Donnell - I suggest they get Mr BPWallace to run - I keep reading over and over that he is not lIberal - he is for smaller govt - fiscal restraint - against the new health care bill.

 

Mr BPWallace come on down - you are the next contestant on the Tea Party movement - because we all know you are not a liberal.

 

I was really hoping my first person I put on ignore wouldnt be a Packer fan . . .

 

Oh well . . . .

[tosberg34]

I was really hoping my first person I put on ignore wouldnt be a Packer fan . . .

 

Oh well . . . .

 

Hey, what about me? I thought I was the first Packer fan on ignore. That's just not fair...

[bpwallace49]

Hey, what about me? I thought I was the first Packer fan on ignore. That's just not fair...

 

I actually recanted in your case because your posts are strictly comedic relief.

[gbpfan1231]

I was really hoping my first person I put on ignore wouldnt be a Packer fan . . .

 

Oh well . . . .

 

Wow that ignore function is powerful - I am crushed.

 

Dude - it was just my opinion - why did you even read it.

[Azazello1313]

And yet STILL the best candidates the Tea Party can come up with include Christine O'Donnell?

 

1) wtf does that have to do with anything I said?

2) I would say she is the WORST candidate the tea party has come up with, rather than the best. I think you probably agree. which makes your question typically disingenuous and idiotic.

[bpwallace49]

1) wtf does that have to do with anything I said?

2) I would say she is the WORST candidate the tea party has come up with, rather than the best. I think you probably agree. which makes your question typically disingenuous and idiotic.

 

1) You said that you in your omnipresent genius predicted this a looong time ago, along with the most conservative think tanks in Washington DC. Congrats. and STILL cant find viable electable candidates. So you just werent prepared?

 

2) Azz if you saw this "coming a mile away" why werent candidates planned for? Why let a cartoon like O'Donnell be associated with the Tea Party? Doesnt that undermine all your "conservative street cred"?

[Ursa Majoris]

The article correctly points out that classic anti-spending small government conservatives were against Bush's spending and many of them said so. It completely fails to make a case that there was any kind of populist movement such as the Tea Party prior to Obama winning in Nov 2008.

[Azazello1313]

The article correctly points out that classic anti-spending small government conservatives were against Bush's spending and many of them said so. It completely fails to make a case that there was any kind of populist movement such as the Tea Party prior to Obama winning in Nov 2008.

 

do you agree or disagree that there was widespread "populist" opposition to TARP?

[Ursa Majoris]

do you agree or disagree that there was widespread "populist" opposition to TARP?

Agreed. That one event - late in his presidency - still does not convince me there was any kind of populist movement against his spending, which had been going on (with a Republican Congress, what's more) for half a decade.

 

The Tea Party exists pretty much exclusively in opposition to Obama and is a major tribute to the propaganda skills of the Republican machine outside Congress.

 

Edit: Not meant to imply racism.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Perchoutofwater]

Agreed. That one event - late in his presidency - still does not convince me there was any kind of populist movement against his spending, which had been going on (with a Republican Congress, what's more) for half a decade.

 

The Tea Party exists pretty much exclusively in opposition to Obama and is a major tribute to the propaganda skills of the Republican machine outside Congress.

 

Edit: Not meant to imply racism.

 

I disagree, and I've actually attended a few TEA Party meetings and events, but I'm sure you will believe what you hear in your echo chamber.

[Ursa Majoris]

I disagree, and I've actually attended a few TEA Party meetings and events, but I'm sure you will believe what you hear in your echo chamber.

So show me pics of a Tea Party rally pre-TARP. If you can't manage that, show me pics of a Tea Party rally pre-Obama.

[gbpfan1231]

So show me pics of a Tea Party rally pre-TARP. If you can't manage that, show me pics of a Tea Party rally pre-Obama.

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/pictures/picture5.html

[The Irish Doggy]

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/pictures/picture5.html

 

[Perchoutofwater]

So show me pics of a Tea Party rally pre-TARP. If you can't manage that, show me pics of a Tea Party rally pre-Obama.

 

The TEA Party itself is fairly new, but tax payer organizations have been around for a long time complaining about spending on local, state, and federal issues. I know that our county has had a tax payer organization since 1994 that has been a watchdog type group that looks at a number of issues on a number of levels. I know of two neighboring counties that have had the same for as long if not longer. Most of these groups have merged into the TEA party.

[Azazello1313]

Agreed. That one event - late in his presidency - still does not convince me there was any kind of populist movement against his spending, which had been going on (with a Republican Congress, what's more) for half a decade.

 

umm, well I would point to the '06 midterms on that one. not so much as a nascent tea party movement, but a lot of (most) small government types were totally disgusted with the republican party's inability to reign in spending and growing government. a lot of conservativs stayed home that election, and a lot of fiscal conservative/social moderate types switched sides. I think my quote from 11/2/06 pretty well sums up what a lot of people were thinking at the time:

I think the republicans need a MAJOR gut-check. they really are becoming the party of the south, the party of religious panty-sniffers, the party of "compassionate" (big-govermnent) conservatism. they need to get back a little of that anti-establishment spirit of '94 (or of '80, or '64), and they really need to stop alienating the party's classical liberal/libertarian roots. they probably can't do that as long as they're trying to protect incumbent power.

[Ursa Majoris]

The TEA Party itself is fairly new, but tax payer organizations have been around for a long time complaining about spending on local, state, and federal issues. I know that our county has had a tax payer organization since 1994 that has been a watchdog type group that looks at a number of issues on a number of levels. I know of two neighboring counties that have had the same for as long if not longer. Most of these groups have merged into the TEA party.

Taxpayer organizations have indeed been around for a long time but that hardly constitutes a populist anti-governmental movement, does it?

 

Bottom line: The Tea Party - a real populist movement - emerged in 2009. The trigger was Obama's election and the concentrated propaganda of the non-Congress Republican machine.

 

BTW, I'm not defending in any way shape or form the record of the last two years. Although much of what has been done moves in the right direction, IMO, it's been a communications disaster, an incorrect set of priorities and far too much compromise / backroom dealing.

[Pope Flick]

The Tea Party is 2009 onward, I don't think you can argue that. I do acknowledge that the Tea Party is a re-formation/rebranded/re-formatted version of Perot-ista philosophy along with a nice chunk of Paul style libertarianism as well.Throw in some confused (we don't want govt run healthcare, now don't touch my MedicAid!!) voters as well and it's coming together as we see it.

 

 

And BP, O'Donnel is clearly their worst candidate, while Paul is looking strong and Angle will probably beat Reid.

[Azazello1313]

Bottom line: The Tea Party - a real populist movement - emerged in 2009. The trigger was Obama's election and the concentrated propaganda of the non-Congress Republican machine.

 

well you're obviously right that the first rallies calling themselves "tea parties" began in 2009. to argue about whether the "trigger" was obama's election, or the great flourish of spending and government excess his inauguration ushered in (the stimulus bill, but also the fy 2009 omnibus budget bill, taking control of the auto companies, and so on) is more semantics than anything.

 

it's odd to say though that the whole thing was the concentrated propaganda of the republican machine, because the stalwarts of the republican machine were the first to fall into the tea party crosshairs. remember that dede scozzofazzo chick that got taken out in that special election?

 

in any case, the point of the article was to demonstrate the failure of the argument that tea partiers can't really care about spending and government because none of them cared about those things until obama got into office, and that therefore there must be "darker" motives at play.