The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

O'Donnell isn't nearly as slick as Palin.

 

Sequels are almost always worse.

 

That is actually a great comparison. I can't believe how many people have latched on to her as some example of the Tea Party's leadership and ideals, just like they did Palin, when the reality doesn't support that.

 

O'Donnell is standing out as the worst Tea Party candidate, but others like Angle, Paladino and Paul aren't far behind. It's the clearest example of "look at the terrible candidates this movement is bringing us."

 

Sarah Palin was the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States and was the main "attack dog" in the later stages of the campaign. Since then, she's inserted herself into the public sphere at every opportunity (except when she quit her public job) and is correctly portrayed as one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement, which regardless of its origins, is standard conservatism with populist anger now.

[Rex Kickass]

That is actually a great comparison. I can't believe how many people have latched on to her as some example of the Tea Party's leadership and ideals, just like they did Palin, when the reality doesn't support that.

 

I guess I have a hard time understanding how she doesn't represent the Tea Party when she was funded by Tea Party Express and got her nomination because of the work of Delaware 9/12ers. If that's not being the visible leadership of the Tea Party, I don't know what is.

[southsider2k5]

I guess I have a hard time understanding how she doesn't represent the Tea Party when she was funded by Tea Party Express and got her nomination because of the work of Delaware 9/12ers. If that's not being the visible leadership of the Tea Party, I don't know what is.

 

Just because someone puts them up, doesn't mean people respond to them. Polls tell you exactly that much.

[Balta1701]

Just because someone puts them up, doesn't mean people respond to them. Polls tell you exactly that much.

Huh?

[StrangeSox]

I guess I have a hard time understanding how she doesn't represent the Tea Party when she was funded by Tea Party Express and got her nomination because of the work of Delaware 9/12ers. If that's not being the visible leadership of the Tea Party, I don't know what is.

 

She doesn't represent all of the Tea Party just as the Tea Party doesn't represent all criticism and dislike of the President and his policies from the right.

 

But she's one of the main candidates to benefit from Tea Party action and support. She was a big deal in the media before her crazy positions were being reported because she was such a huge upset. But to pretend that her brand of social conservatism and economic absurdity doesn't represent a majority of the tea party is, imo, dishonest.

[southsider2k5]

Huh?

 

If I took a loose knit group of people, say "environmentalists" and picked one sect of them to represent the whole, say ELF, you wouldn't have any problem with that?

[StrangeSox]

If I took a loose knit group of people, say "environmentalists" and picked one sect of them to represent the whole, say ELF, you wouldn't have any problem with that?

 

That works for defining all conservatives as Tea Party, and I think it's a valid point. All criticism from the right isn't Tea Party, just as all environmentalists aren't ELF.

 

But, unless you do want to define all conservatives as Tea Party, you're left with the Tea Party being rather nutty and with the figureheads being Angle, Palin, DeMint, Paul, Beck, etc. They're the ones speaking at rallies and meetings, backing or running as candidates that are challenging GOP-backed candidates.

[Balta1701]

If I took a loose knit group of people, say "environmentalists" and picked one sect of them to represent the whole, say ELF, you wouldn't have any problem with that?

If I held an environmental rally and my keynote speaker was a guy who advocated killing loggers, you'd have every reason to smear the attendees.

 

This was a serious problem for our side in 2003...for the anti-Iraq-war rallies, because the only group doing the organizing was ANSWER because no national group or national leader was willing to step up. I never liked that, even though we were right at the time and wound up being proven so.

[southsider2k5]

That works for defining all conservatives as Tea Party, and I think it's a valid point. All criticism from the right isn't Tea Party, just as all environmentalists aren't ELF.

 

But, unless you do want to define all conservatives as Tea Party, you're left with the Tea Party being rather nutty and with the figureheads being Angle, Palin, DeMint, Paul, Beck, etc. They're the ones speaking at rallies and meetings, backing or running as candidates that are challenging GOP-backed candidates.

 

I'm not defining all Tea Party people as the same. That is the key difference between what is being portrayed here and in the media, and what I am trying to explain for the umpteenth time. There is no singular Tea Party movement. There isn't even anything knitting them together in any sort of a formal manner. This isn't like a national party. It is stereotyping at best to try to portray the Tea Party movement as some sort of defined group.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not defining all Tea Party people as the same. That is the key difference between what is being portrayed here and in the media, and what I am trying to explain for the umpteenth time. There is no singular Tea Party movement. There isn't even anything knitting them together in any sort of a formal manner. This isn't like a national party. It is stereotyping at best to try to portray the Tea Party movement as some sort of defined group.

I agree with this, but, that also begs a different question. If there is no cohesive set of beliefs or policy stances, no single movement, no party and nothing knitting them together... what purpose do they serve? Good, bad or otherwise, what are they going to accomplish if they don't stand for anything?

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm not defining all Tea Party people as the same. That is the key difference between what is being portrayed here and in the media, and what I am trying to explain for the umpteenth time. There is no singular Tea Party movement. There isn't even anything knitting them together in any sort of a formal manner. This isn't like a national party. It is stereotyping at best to try to portray the Tea Party movement as some sort of defined group.

 

I know what you're saying and sort of agree with it. That's how most movements on the left have been forever.

 

 

However, with the Tea Party, the portion that is politically relevant is crazy as evidenced by their candidates. There's a reason I keep capitalizing the Tea Party. It's a large, ill-defined movement, but the strongest and loudest parts are pretty easily delineated.

 

edit: re-worded, came across as snarky the first time

Edited October 14, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I agree with this, but, that also begs a different question. If there is no cohesive set of beliefs or policy stances, no single movement, no party and nothing knitting them together... what purpose do they serve? Good, bad or otherwise, what are they going to accomplish if they don't stand for anything?

 

In my view, the tea party is just that, a loose-knit group of mostly conservatives with some libertarianism thrown in who are dissatisfied with the President and with Democrats, but also with a lot of Republican incumbents.

 

The Tea Party, on the other hand, is just modern right-wing conservatism repackaged with a lot of anger thrown in. This is the part that is winning primaries and dominating news cycles.

[mr_genius]

I agree with this, but, that also begs a different question. If there is no cohesive set of beliefs or policy stances, no single movement, no party and nothing knitting them together... what purpose do they serve? Good, bad or otherwise, what are they going to accomplish if they don't stand for anything?

 

the 'Tea Party' seems more like a network, than a typical political organization. there isn't really a way to dictate to a group such as that, but there are ways to get your message across the network and hope it gains momentum.

Edited October 14, 2010 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

In my view, the tea party is just that, a loose-knit group of mostly conservatives with some libertarianism thrown in who are dissatisfied with the President and with Democrats, but also with a lot of Republican incumbents.

 

The Tea Party, on the other hand, is just modern right-wing conservatism repackaged with a lot of anger thrown in. This is the part that is winning primaries and dominating news cycles.

 

The thing the last group was attacted by the unexpected energy of the first.

[southsider2k5]

I agree with this, but, that also begs a different question. If there is no cohesive set of beliefs or policy stances, no single movement, no party and nothing knitting them together... what purpose do they serve? Good, bad or otherwise, what are they going to accomplish if they don't stand for anything?

 

I don't think there was ever intended to be some sort of big singular goal for the group, back to the original rant which started it all. I don't think they were supposed to be anything but a loud voice to Washington saying that people are upset and not happy about the way things were going in our nation, and in our political system. I honestly believe that they whole idea was to be divorced from the parties, because they didn't want their message to be subjugated and bastardized, just like it has been by a vocal few, and all too happily used against it to the detriment of the original ideals.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think there was ever intended to be some sort of big singular goal for the group, back to the original rant which started it all. I don't think they were supposed to be anything but a loud voice to Washington saying that people are upset and not happy about the way things were going in our nation, and in our political system. I honestly believe that they whole idea was to be divorced from the parties, because they didn't want their message to be subjugated and bastardized, just like it has been by a vocal few, and all too happily used against it to the detriment of the original ideals.

Fair enough, but that just sounds like an angry mob. Its easy to say you don't like something, its harder to suggest or plan for an alternative.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't think there was ever intended to be some sort of big singular goal for the group, back to the original rant which started it all. I don't think they were supposed to be anything but a loud voice to Washington saying that people are upset and not happy about the way things were going in our nation, and in our political system. I honestly believe that they whole idea was to be divorced from the parties, because they didn't want their message to be subjugated and bastardized, just like it has been by a vocal few, and all too happily used against it to the detriment of the original ideals.

And the problem we keep focusing on, and the reason that this matter infuriates us so much is...these people are unhappy about the way things are going in our nation, and their solution is to say repeatedly that they're not part of any party, and then fit entirely under the umbrella of one party, adopt the beliefs of one party, and then get angry when my side points out "but you're almost entirely in that party!"

 

They want to be divorced from parties, and yet adopt 95% of the Republican platform. Then, when the Republicans decide on a policy, the Tea party manages to find a way to follow that policy decision exactly.

 

Aside from the Arizona immigration example, I can give you another one; Wall Street reform. The Tea Party, if it really hated the bailouts, should have been all over that issue. Even if they didn't fully agree with the Obama proposal, dismantling the system that led to the bailouts should have been an issue that would have put thousands in the streets. They should have been out demanding stronger Wall Street reform such that the bank bailouts would never happen again, but that would have interfered with the interests of the Republican Party and the financial entities (like AFP) that fund the Tea party, so Finreg went through without a whimper of protest. (and yes, it's the Dem thread so I can link to a liberal blog and you can't complain).

 

Or, here's another one...the banks openly violating the law by foreclosing on thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, kicking hard working Americans out of their homes, without proper standing or documentation? Basically a bunch of banks trampling on individual property rights and contract standing? That does nothing either.

[southsider2k5]

And the problem we keep focusing on, and the reason that this matter infuriates us so much is...these people are unhappy about the way things are going in our nation, and their solution is to say repeatedly that they're not part of any party, and then fit entirely under the umbrella of one party, adopt the beliefs of one party, and then get angry when my side points out "but you're almost entirely in that party!"

 

They want to be divorced from parties, and yet adopt 95% of the Republican platform. Then, when the Republicans decide on a policy, the Tea party manages to find a way to follow that policy decision exactly.

 

Aside from the Arizona immigration example, I can give you another one; Wall Street reform. The Tea Party, if it really hated the bailouts, should have been all over that issue. Even if they didn't fully agree with the Obama proposal, dismantling the system that led to the bailouts should have been an issue that would have put thousands in the streets. They should have been out demanding stronger Wall Street reform such that the bank bailouts would never happen again, but that would have interfered with the interests of the Republican Party and the financial entities (like AFP) that fund the Tea party, so Finreg went through without a whimper of protest. (and yes, it's the Dem thread so I can link to a liberal blog and you can't complain).

 

Or, here's another one...the banks openly violating the law by foreclosing on thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, kicking hard working Americans out of their homes, without proper standing or documentation? Basically a bunch of banks trampling on individual property rights and contract standing? That does nothing either.

 

Great, ELF falls almost exclusively under the democratic platform. Therefore the Democrats are now militant environmentalists, using your standards.

 

And again, read my prior post, the Tea Party isn't an organized coherent national movement. They aren't going to organize nationally to protest anything. The only place they are considered "one" is by the left-wing in this country who wants to label them as any derogatory stereotype that they can so that they can be diminished and silenced.

 

I know this particular example fits into your narrative which you work so hard to push, so you won't agree, but this goes back to Kaps rant months ago, about what goes on in the buster. Hate is OK if it is directed at anything right wing. Even if it is the same stereotyping and offensive stuff that wouldn't be allowed to be directed towards other minority groups. Quite the opposite, it is encouraged and excused here. No one else gets away with it, and it irritates me to no end that a few here can.

[Balta1701]

Great, ELF falls almost exclusively under the democratic platform. Therefore the Democrats are now militant environmentalists, using your standards.

 

And again, read my prior post, the Tea Party isn't an organized coherent national movement. They aren't going to organize nationally to protest anything. The only place they are considered "one" is by the left-wing in this country who wants to label them as any derogatory stereotype that they can so that they can be diminished and silenced.

 

I know this particular example fits into your narrative which you work so hard to push, so you won't agree, but this goes back to Kaps rant months ago, about what goes on in the buster. Hate is OK if it is directed at anything right wing. Even if it is the same stereotyping and offensive stuff that wouldn't be allowed to be directed towards other minority groups. Quite the opposite, it is encouraged and excused here. No one else gets away with it, and it irritates me to no end that a few here can.

Now look, no one is out arguing that the Tea Party is doing anything illegal. That breaks your argument right there; if you argued that there was no distinction between the ELF and the Democratic party, you're going to anger people because you're accusing everyone on the left of terrorism. No one is trying to hate you guys here.

 

This is exactly my point. It vehemently offends the Tea Party when someone points out that their policy prescriptions fit entirely within the Republican Party and that they don't care about any issues that the Republican party doesn't care about. This is not a smear, this is not saying that all tea partiers burn down abortion clinics, this is a policy-based argument.

 

You argue that the Tea Party is an advocate for liberty and is a totally independent organization from the Republican Party. Yet, the Tea Party only seems to appear when the National Republican Party takes a strong, well funded, TV and Radio supported position against an issue. The Tea Party surged against health care because the Republicans surged against it. The Tea Party surged against the Stimulus and the Republicans surged against it. The Tea Party was silent on Finreg and the Republicans didn't want to go out on TV arguing that the banks needed fewer restrictions. The Tea Party is silent on foreclosure fraud despite massive violations of property rights at the hands of the banks.

 

You argue that there is no nationally organized Tea Party...yet the concept of a Nationally Organized tea party movement is exactly what we're seeing. When Mike Castle is on pace to win his election with ease, a single endorsement from Sarah Palin suddenly turns the race into a Tea Party race, until that candidate collapses after the primary and everyone suddenly doesn't want their hands dirty.

 

You take strong offense at the notion that the Tea Party and the Republican Party are the same thing. I understand that...but it's not a smear unless you view the Tea Party the same way you view ELF. I'd say I'm equally frustrated here because...the fact that you guys are offended by the idea that we view the Tea Party as simply the activist segment of the Republican Party is declared practically hate speech and something that should be off limits.

[NorthSideSox72]

Now look, no one is out arguing that the Tea Party is doing anything illegal. That breaks your argument right there; if you argued that there was no distinction between the ELF and the Democratic party, you're going to anger people because you're accusing everyone on the left of terrorism. No one is trying to hate you guys here.

 

This is exactly my point. It vehemently offends the Tea Party when someone points out that their policy prescriptions fit entirely within the Republican Party and that they don't care about any issues that the Republican party doesn't care about. This is not a smear, this is not saying that all tea partiers burn down abortion clinics, this is a policy-based argument.

 

You argue that the Tea Party is an advocate for liberty and is a totally independent organization from the Republican Party. Yet, the Tea Party only seems to appear when the National Republican Party takes a strong, well funded, TV and Radio supported position against an issue. The Tea Party surged against health care because the Republicans surged against it. The Tea Party surged against the Stimulus and the Republicans surged against it. The Tea Party was silent on Finreg and the Republicans didn't want to go out on TV arguing that the banks needed fewer restrictions. The Tea Party is silent on foreclosure fraud despite massive violations of property rights at the hands of the banks.

 

You argue that there is no nationally organized Tea Party...yet the concept of a Nationally Organized tea party movement is exactly what we're seeing. When Mike Castle is on pace to win his election with ease, a single endorsement from Sarah Palin suddenly turns the race into a Tea Party race, until that candidate collapses after the primary and everyone suddenly doesn't want their hands dirty.

 

You take strong offense at the notion that the Tea Party and the Republican Party are the same thing. I understand that...but it's not a smear unless you view the Tea Party the same way you view ELF. I'd say I'm equally frustrated here because...the fact that you guys are offended by the idea that we view the Tea Party as simply the activist segment of the Republican Party is declared practically hate speech and something that should be off limits.

I agree that the ELF comparison is broken, as that is terrorism.

 

But, I side with Mike on the fact that you are only choosing to see the aspects of the Tea Party that are led by the Palin crowd. Unfortunately for those who are not in that camp, their movement has been co-opted, and the top line voices are the ones the press can easily (and lazily) get to: Limbaugh, Palin, some of the crazy candidates they are running (O'Donnell, Angle, etc.).

 

So while its true that the current people PULLING the Tea Party movement under their belt, that is not the same as saying they ARE the Tea Party movement.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Great, ELF falls almost exclusively under the democratic platform. Therefore the Democrats are now militant environmentalists, using your standards.

 

And again, read my prior post, the Tea Party isn't an organized coherent national movement. They aren't going to organize nationally to protest anything. The only place they are considered "one" is by the left-wing in this country who wants to label them as any derogatory stereotype that they can so that they can be diminished and silenced.

 

I know this particular example fits into your narrative which you work so hard to push, so you won't agree, but this goes back to Kaps rant months ago, about what goes on in the buster. Hate is OK if it is directed at anything right wing. Even if it is the same stereotyping and offensive stuff that wouldn't be allowed to be directed towards other minority groups. Quite the opposite, it is encouraged and excused here. No one else gets away with it, and it irritates me to no end that a few here can.

Mike, while I agree with your general point here... I think its overboard to call what Balta is doing "hate". He's not throwing "hate" at the Tea Party - he is looking at the sad examples of humanity that happen to be loudly tugging at the Tea Party flag, and characterizing the movement as part and parcel. But I see no hate here.

 

[mr_genius]

And the problem we keep focusing on, and the reason that this matter infuriates us so much is...these people are unhappy about the way things are going in our nation, and their solution is to say repeatedly that they're not part of any party, and then fit entirely under the umbrella of one party, adopt the beliefs of one party, and then get angry when my side points out "but you're almost entirely in that party!"

 

They want to be divorced from parties, and yet adopt 95% of the Republican platform. Then, when the Republicans decide on a policy, the Tea party manages to find a way to follow that policy decision exactly.

 

Aside from the Arizona immigration example, I can give you another one; Wall Street reform. The Tea Party, if it really hated the bailouts, should have been all over that issue. Even if they didn't fully agree with the Obama proposal, dismantling the system that led to the bailouts should have been an issue that would have put thousands in the streets. They should have been out demanding stronger Wall Street reform such that the bank bailouts would never happen again, but that would have interfered with the interests of the Republican Party and the financial entities (like AFP) that fund the Tea party, so Finreg went through without a whimper of protest. (and yes, it's the Dem thread so I can link to a liberal blog and you can't complain).

 

Or, here's another one...the banks openly violating the law by foreclosing on thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, kicking hard working Americans out of their homes, without proper standing or documentation? Basically a bunch of banks trampling on individual property rights and contract standing? That does nothing either.

 

there are actually some issues that the Dems could use to make inroads to get some tea party supporters away from the GOP.

 

the current Democrat technique of accusing everyone of being a racist idiot doesn't seem to be working.

[Balta1701]

I agree that the ELF comparison is broken, as that is terrorism.

 

But, I side with Mike on the fact that you are only choosing to see the aspects of the Tea Party that are led by the Palin crowd. Unfortunately for those who are not in that camp, their movement has been co-opted, and the top line voices are the ones the press can easily (and lazily) get to: Limbaugh, Palin, some of the crazy candidates they are running (O'Donnell, Angle, etc.).

 

So while its true that the current people PULLING the Tea Party movement under their belt, that is not the same as saying they ARE the Tea Party movement.

They're not the tea party movement...but the tea party movement doesn't appear unless they get involved. On issue after issue, the Tea Party gets riled up on classic Republican issues, classic republican talking points, and they show up when a Republican leader or Fox News calls on them to do so.

 

You want another great example? Take a look at the tea party victories. Every single time, what has been the sin that has gotten a politician in trouble with the Tea Party? It wasn't supporting Bush's Massive expansion of Medicare in 2003, it wasn't earmarks, it wasn't anything like that...it has been people who voted with the Democrats too often. It has been being too centrist. The Races in Utah, Deleware, Florida, Alaska, New England, everywhere that there is a "tea party uprising!" candidate, the Tea Party candidate won because the Tea Party didn't want them ever working with Democrats. Mike Castle, Robert Bennett, Danny Tarkanian, Charlie Crist, and on and on. Hell, Lisa Murkowski is in the right-right wing of the Republican Party and she was replaced by a Tea Party candidate on the argument that she worked with the Democrats too often.

[NorthSideSox72]

there are actually some issues that the Dems could use to make inroads to get some tea party supporters away from the GOP.

 

the current Democrat technique of accusing everyone of being a racist idiot doesn't seem to be working.

That's an interesting point. While the GOP has chosen to thoroughly co-opt the movement, because the alignment is better... the Dems have decided to mock it. To me, that makes no sense, especially since the more libertarian aspects of the general movement actually fits better witht he Dems than the GOP.

 

Seems like the smart thing would be to try to wedge between the candidates and the partiers. Try to appeal to the movement in areas like social issues where they would agree with the Dems at least in part, and then try to illustrate NOT how the TP-endorsed candidates are crazy because they are conservative, but that the are just plain crazy, and not actually defending liberty at all.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

They're not the tea party movement...but the tea party movement doesn't appear unless they get involved. On issue after issue, the Tea Party gets riled up on classic Republican issues, classic republican talking points, and they show up when a Republican leader or Fox News calls on them to do so.

 

You want another great example? Take a look at the tea party victories. Every single time, what has been the sin that has gotten a politician in trouble with the Tea Party? It wasn't supporting Bush's Massive expansion of Medicare in 2003, it wasn't earmarks, it wasn't anything like that...it has been people who voted with the Democrats too often. It has been being too centrist. The Races in Utah, Deleware, Florida, Alaska, New England, everywhere that there is a "tea party uprising!" candidate, the Tea Party candidate won because the Tea Party didn't want them ever working with Democrats. Mike Castle, Robert Bennett, Danny Tarkanian, Charlie Crist, and on and on. Hell, Lisa Murkowski is in the right-right wing of the Republican Party and she was replaced by a Tea Party candidate on the argument that she worked with the Democrats too often.

I think you are interpereting something that isn't there. You are also, still, saying Tea Party = O'Donnell/Palin. That is only partly true. Those are the fringey, psychotic candidates who got endorsements (which is why its partially their own fault), but you are ignoring the endorsed candidates elsewhere. You are also putting those people as being the same as the followers. Are all catholics just like priests? Are you just like Harry Reid?