Texas Republicans: Missionary or Else

[NorthSideSox72]

Speaking from TN, the tea party here is riled up over a similar evil effort to build a Mosque in a Nashville suburb.

 

You're not going to agree with me but I'm going to say it anyway. The tea party is no different from any "Republican revival" we've seen in the last couple decades. They're 80% Republicans, the other 20% are Republicans in spirit who want to call themselves independents. They get mad when a Demycrat increases the budget deficit, but not when a Republican does it. They're fine with taking away anyone else's rights but their own (see: SB 1070). They're simply the activist portion of the Republican party. But they've had 8 years where their guy has been in power, so they're a new force in that it's ok if a Republican does those things.

 

It's as if I started saying in 2003 that we needed to pay attention to this vibrant new anti-war movement and it must represent a totally new and unique strain of American politics. No it wasn't. It was the activist portion of the left doing what it would do if Obama started campaigning for a new war. Hell, I could make a case that the anti-war marches were vastly more cosmopolitan than the Tea Party (they had guys like Crazy Pat Buchanan and Jon Hostetler on their side, name a Demycrat teapartier).

Well, I think what you describe is the popular wave that jumped on the bandwagon. And unfortunately, that has given the movement a whole bunch of rudders going different ways, which is kind of a shame. I agree its reality, but I don't agree its what got it started.

 

[Balta1701]

Well, I think what you describe is the popular wave that jumped on the bandwagon. And unfortunately, that has given the movement a whole bunch of rudders going different ways, which is kind of a shame. I agree its reality, but I don't agree its what got it started.

Without the popular wave though, it's a handful of Ron Paul supporters yelling about the gold standard...it's the activist libertarian wing making noise just like the activist left did during the Clinton/Bush years.

[whitesoxfan101]

Somewhat OT, but I bring it up since Balta posted a link a few posts ago referring to the story: I'm a bit bewildered as to why anybody is surprised that the idea of a mosque (although it sounds more like a center than a mosque) in the shadows of ground zero is controversial. I think a group certainly has the right to put a mosque/center wherever it chooses, but putting one in that spot is a really sticky situation for a lot of people to deal with, regardless of how unfortunate that might be.

Edited July 19, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[Jenksismyhero]

Without the popular wave though, it's a handful of Ron Paul supporters yelling about the gold standard...it's the activist libertarian wing making noise just like the activist left did during the Clinton/Bush years.

 

Yeah, but there was action by the Obama admn to make it more popular - the gigantic stimulus no one wanted to pay for and the overhaul of healthcare to a form most people don't like. And really at the rallies I've been to, they don't really differentiate between Repubs and Dems. Yeah, the people that attend are probably 80% Repubs, but the message is anti-Washington (Congress specifically), not necessarily anti one particular party.

 

Hate them all you want, and continue to believe that the "Obama is a Nazi" faction is a part of the "movement," but they're really not. They're the extreme fringe that shows up. The discussions and lectures are very much in line with 1980's conservative thinking. It's not exactly radical - government is getting too big and needs to get out of my life. I'm guessing most tea partiers didn't care for the way Bush increased the size of government either.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Yeah, but there was action by the Obama admn to make it more popular - the gigantic stimulus no one wanted to pay for and the overhaul of healthcare to a form most people don't like. And really at the rallies I've been to, they don't really differentiate between Repubs and Dems. Yeah, the people that attend are probably 80% Repubs, but the message is anti-Washington (Congress specifically), not necessarily anti one particular party.

 

Hate them all you want, and continue to believe that the "Obama is a Nazi" faction is a part of the "movement," but they're really not. They're the extreme fringe that shows up. The discussions and lectures are very much in line with 1980's conservative thinking. It's not exactly radical - government is getting too big and needs to get out of my life. I'm guessing most tea partiers didn't care for the way Bush increased the size of government either.

First of all...I believe I just argued that the tea party was basically just the activist 20% of the Republican party. So although they certainly attract the "Obama is a Nazi" and the "I'm going to write an email from the coloreds to Abraham Lincoln and think it's a good idea" segment of the country, they're clearly not all of it...but they might want to take a moment and figure out why that group is so at home in the Tea party, just like the Dems had to deal with the fact that ANSWER was the group organizing the anti-war marches.

 

Secondly, the anti-war marches were just as anti-Dem as anti-Republican because the a good segment of the Dems were just as happy to roll along with the Iraq war as a good segment of the Republicans were to roll along with the Bush bailouts.

 

And third, when they're reliable, every time Republican voters, it doesn't matter how angry they are with the Republicans. You think a lot of the Democrats are happy with how Obama sold out the public option and has dramatically escalated the Afghan war? They're just not in the streets right now. But they're still Democrats.

 

The only difference is that there isn't a whole news media dedicated to selling left-leaning protests as a remarkable new movement.

[bmags]

Yeah, but there was action by the Obama admn to make it more popular - the gigantic stimulus no one wanted to pay for and the overhaul of healthcare to a form most people don't like. And really at the rallies I've been to, they don't really differentiate between Repubs and Dems. Yeah, the people that attend are probably 80% Repubs, but the message is anti-Washington (Congress specifically), not necessarily anti one particular party.

 

Hate them all you want, and continue to believe that the "Obama is a Nazi" faction is a part of the "movement," but they're really not. They're the extreme fringe that shows up. The discussions and lectures are very much in line with 1980's conservative thinking. It's not exactly radical - government is getting too big and needs to get out of my life. I'm guessing most tea partiers didn't care for the way Bush increased the size of government either.

 

anti washington is pretty republican. And if it's 1980s conservative thinking, then no, I don't take the tea party seriously that they are concerned about the budget. (and OMG do they realize that Reagan had actually raised taxes during his presidency? Will he be disowned soon?)

[CrimsonWeltall]

anti washington is pretty republican. And if it's 1980s conservative thinking, then no, I don't take the tea party seriously that they are concerned about the budget. (and OMG do they realize that Reagan had actually raised taxes during his presidency? Will he be disowned soon?)

 

Ronald Reagan never raised taxes. He cut them to 0%. The tax cuts destroyed the morale of the Communists and forced them to surrender to Reagan at the Appomattox Courthouse, thus ending the Cold War.

 

[GoSox05]

Tea party has been around for a long time. Look at The John Birch Society. Same thing really.

[lostfan]

Yeah... honestly... Tea Party really is the same thing as "Republican" with a better marketing package and an army of media types that weren't around 10 years ago specifically dedicated to branding and selling them. I would not say they appeal to "moderates" or "independents" but I define those words differently. They have populist ideas, like lowering taxes, but that idea isn't really unique at all, is pretty meaningless by itself, and the "independents" it appeals to are either people who don't call themselves Republicans but still vote for them 100% of the time, or people who actually believe in the s*** we shuffle around every 2-4 years and buy the promises politicians make them. There is also really no such thing as a "moderate." There are people like me, who don't like the Democratic party and have voted for Republicans a time or two before, but everyone knows when push comes to shove I'll usually vote Democrat because I'd rather put up with the Democrats' bulls*** since I feel like I can see thru the Republicans... am I really that independent? Then there's cynics and disinterested people who occasionally latch onto a candidate they like, and then there's just flakes that really don't know why the f*** they're voting and have stupid reasons for voting the way they do. So most of the "middle" might be open-minded but they still vote Democratic or Republican most of the time.

[bmags]

Somewhat OT, but I bring it up since Balta posted a link a few posts ago referring to the story: I'm a bit bewildered as to why anybody is surprised that the idea of a mosque (although it sounds more like a center than a mosque) in the shadows of ground zero is controversial. I think a group certainly has the right to put a mosque/center wherever it chooses, but putting one in that spot is a really sticky situation for a lot of people to deal with, regardless of how unfortunate that might be.

 

from TPM reader from New York:

I first heard about this project a month or two ago, and the thing that struck me the most about it was the overwhelming support it had from the local community board in Lower Manhattan. As you are probably familiar it is nearly impossible to have a community board agree on even the most mundane issues, so to have a community board agree 29-1 on ANY this particular issue is quite an accomplishment.

Furthermore, why is land use in New York City the business of anyone else but the citizens of New York? If so, I would really like to know Sarah Palin's opinion of the Atlantic Yards (or Hudson Yards or the expansion of Columbia University) project, an issue that is 1,000,000x more controversial than this project. That's all this is: a land use issue.

 

Following her logic (no small feat, I might add), do I now have the right to protest the construction of a new office building in Anchorage because it may house the offices of an oil company and might insult the people who suffered from the BP oil spill?

Or can I have a say the next time some city in the "heartland" (because apparently that is the place that has veto power over land use in New York) decides to build more sprawl at the expense of more livable communities with mixed-use development, walkable streets, and public transportation? I think I should because it really "stabs me in the heart" when places do that.

 

This is a local issue, plain and simple. The people of New York, the ones actually attacked on 9/11 and who had to live through the aftermath, are the only ones who are effected by this and don't seem to have a problem with it, so no one else should. It is no one else's business. Sarah Palin and the "heartland" do not have permanent veto power over what gets built in Lower Manhattan. If they want a say over what happens there, my advice would be to move to New York. They might even learn something about the values of living in a multi-ethnic, multicultural community.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

The middle paragraph in there is a bit of a stretch since it seems to compare an oil spill and urban sprawl to 9/11, but I agree it's a local issue, and as I said in the last post, I think that the group attempting to build the mosque/community center/whatever you want to call it in that spot absolutely has the right to do so.

 

I'm just saying people shouldn't be surprised that there are people who are not thrilled with the idea. Unfortunately, one of the first things a lot of people still think of when they hear mosque or muslim is terrorism. I actually find that to be very sad, but a lot of people are still at that place mentally.

Edited July 20, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[bmags]

The middle paragraph in there is a bit of a stretch since it seems to compare an oil spill and urban sprawl to 9/11, but I agree it's a local issue, and as I said in the last post, I think that the group attempting to build the mosque/community center/whatever you want to call it in that spot absolutely has the right to do so.

 

I'm just saying people shouldn't be surprised that there are people who are not thrilled with the idea. Unfortunately, one of the first things a lot of people still think of when they hear mosque or muslim is terrorism. I actually find that to be very sad, but a lot of people are still at that place mentally.

 

It's also 2 blocks away. But the main point is the I would also be as annoyed as this man/woman-new-yorker telling them what to be offended about.

[whitesoxfan101]

It's also 2 blocks away. But the main point is the I would also be as annoyed as this man/woman-new-yorker telling them what to be offended about.

 

Well 2 blocks is nothing in terms of distance, and I think the people telling the NYC folks how to feel would be making the same hissy fit if it were 6 or 8 blocks away because they seem to have no problem with putting their noses in the business of other people anyways.

[bmags]

Well 2 blocks is nothing in terms of distance, and I think the people telling the NYC folks how to feel would be making the same hissy fit if it were 6 or 8 blocks away because they seem to have no problem with putting their noses in the business of other people anyways.

 

eh, in a dense city something two blocks away is completely unrelated. Put yourself in the position of actually walking in the city, in the middle of hundreds of buildings, you probably wouldn't even put 2 and 2 together.

[whitesoxfan101]

eh, in a dense city something two blocks away is completely unrelated. Put yourself in the position of actually walking in the city, in the middle of hundreds of buildings, you probably wouldn't even put 2 and 2 together.

 

Mmm I suppose that's true. I wouldn't put two and two together anyways though, I don't see a mosque and think terrorism personally.

[EvilMonkey]

As you are probably familiar it is nearly impossible to have a community board agree on even the most mundane issues, so to have a community board agree 29-1 on ANY this particular issue is quite an accomplishment.

Maybe they were all AFRAID to vote against it? Afraid of being thought of as bigots if they voted against it, or perhaps of potential violence. And just because the board voted for it does not mean that the people of NY are for it. If the Muslims in the area were truly interested in fostering cultural sensitivity, they would realize that a lot of people wold see them building a mosque on the sight of 9/11 would be considered insensitive, at best, to many. Are there any other locations they can choose in NYC? Does it HAVE to be that area? Think of the positive PR they would get if they said something like "We didn't realize the reactions many would have to our desire to build our center here, and how some would consider it poor taste. We desire to get along with all peoples and will look for another more suitable location'. But no, they willcry foul as usual, while building a 'monument' to their biggest strike against the Great Satan to date.

[bmags]

But no, they willcry foul as usual, while building a 'monument' to their biggest strike against the Great Satan to date.

 

they aren't building a mosque on the site of 9/11 anyway. They are building a community center and place of worship in the city they reside. I sure as f*** hope there are no churches or YMCAs anywhere near the OKC bombing site.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

People who don't live in NY seem way more sensitive about issues concerning 9/11 than people who live in the city actually are.

[Quin]

People who don't live in NY seem way more sensitive about issues concerning 9/11 than people who live in the city actually are.

 

Because the NYC people have probably heard about it so much and live near, so they are probably desensitized.

[NorthSideSox72]

People who don't live in NY seem way more sensitive about issues concerning 9/11 than people who live in the city actually are.

I think its pretty simple. NYC has a lot of muslims living in it, from many countries and cultures. People see them every day, they are part of the fabric. So, despite 9/11, New Yorkers are probably a lot more capable of understanding the difference between radicals/terrorists and every-day Muslims than, say, rural folks whose only exposure to Islam is pictures of terrorists on TV. Ergo, some dude from small town X in a midwestern state is more likely to get up in arms about this than many New Yorkers would be.

 

[Balta1701]

Maybe they were all AFRAID to vote against it? Afraid of being thought of as bigots if they voted against it, or perhaps of potential violence. And just because the board voted for it does not mean that the people of NY are for it. If the Muslims in the area were truly interested in fostering cultural sensitivity, they would realize that a lot of people wold see them building a mosque on the sight of 9/11 would be considered insensitive, at best, to many. Are there any other locations they can choose in NYC? Does it HAVE to be that area? Think of the positive PR they would get if they said something like "We didn't realize the reactions many would have to our desire to build our center here, and how some would consider it poor taste. We desire to get along with all peoples and will look for another more suitable location'. But no, they willcry foul as usual, while building a 'monument' to their biggest strike against the Great Satan to date.

First of all, if they're voting for something they believe is wrong out of fear of violence, they ought to lose their jobs.

 

Second, let's try this another way, something that you'll get. Think of the positive PR that a white family who lost their farm because an African American social worker refused to help them would get if they just said "oh, we didn't realize the reaction we'd get from those sorts of organizations, we should have gone elsewhere for help."

[bmags]

hahaha

[whitesoxfan101]

I think its pretty simple. NYC has a lot of muslims living in it, from many countries and cultures. People see them every day, they are part of the fabric. So, despite 9/11, New Yorkers are probably a lot more capable of understanding the difference between radicals/terrorists and every-day Muslims than, say, rural folks whose only exposure to Islam is pictures of terrorists on TV. Ergo, some dude from small town X in a midwestern state is more likely to get up in arms about this than many New Yorkers would be.

 

Yeah the diversity in NYC really is a sight to see, and it's one of the biggest reasons I really enjoy visiting there. Even though they were the ones victimized the worst on 9/11, they are also the most likely people to understand that the idea muslim=terrorism is stupid.

Edited July 21, 2010 by whitesoxfan101

[bmags]

also the idea of a zoning board in the heart of NYC being scared as pretty hilarious. I'm sure there is intimidation in that room, and it isn't coming from the audience.

[EvilMonkey]

First of all, if they're voting for something they believe is wrong out of fear of violence, they ought to lose their jobs.

 

Second, let's try this another way, something that you'll get. Think of the positive PR that a white family who lost their farm because an African American social worker refused to help them would get if they just said "oh, we didn't realize the reaction we'd get from those sorts of organizations, we should have gone elsewhere for help."

That had to be both the worst, and laziest, attempted comparrison that I have ever seen you do here.