Skip to comments.Republican Teatime: The Tea Party Isn't Dead—And It's Far Bigger Than Just Primary Challengers.
Posted on 03/22/2014 9:24:45 AM PDT by neverdem
Several writers are clattering around with wooden carts and shouting for Tea Partiers to bring out their dead. I see a Tea Party whose influence is gradually declining, not increasing, writes Molly Ball. The Tea Partys Over, editorializes Josh Kraushaar. Talk of a tea party takeover of American politics or the Republican Party has faded of late, observes Chris Cillizza.
Commentary on the Tea Party has revolved between relieved notices of its death and apocalyptic warnings of its Gríma-like power over the catatonic GOP. And while its tempting to think weve merely swung back to the death notice phase, Ball, Kraushaar, and Cillizza all make fair points. Only one Republican senatorThad Cochranand two Republican congressmenMike Simpson and Bill Shusterface serious primary challenges from the right. Tea Party-aligned groups like the Club for Growth are muted compared to 2012. The movement's involvement in the 2014 election seems relatively small.
But to declare the Tea Party in decline for these reasons is to argue that the Tea Party was only ever concerned with candidates. This has been the shallow Beltway analysis for some time: Republicans are conservatives, Tea Partiers are insane conservatives, and therefore Tea Partiers are trying to primary Republicans. Cut to three Morning Joe guests nodding in unison. The truth, of course, is far more complex than this.
The Tea Party came into existence for two reasons. The first was its ida reaction against the discredited political class that brought us No Child Left Behind, calamity in Iraq, a homeownership society-cum-popped housing bubble, record debt, a failed stimulus, and a destructive overhaul of our health insurance. This was the Tea Partys fist in the air. It was also, despite its emotion, what attracted so many independents and newcomers, who were furious at Washington and wanted a political outlet...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Nully, they caught your pic!
That may or may not be true but it is very evident he does NOT understand the absolutely contempt that the average American has for the DC elite crowd
They cannot get their heads around the TEA party, and I don’t think they realize just how a big the phenomenon is. I don’t consider myself Tea Party, but I support them and hope they can achieve their objectives.
They do not realize that the TEA party is the -nice- side of what is lining up against them.
Why not? You're not taxed enough?
The Tea Party is in fact DEAD, DEAD, DEAD...pay NO attention to them at all...
Your mush headed pundits are correct as usual... : ^ )
To the GOPe...
I hope you are paying attention...because you are in for a big surprise come November...
After the one special election this past week in Pennsylvania I bet they are now.
“Why not? You’re not taxed enough?”
I just think that the TEA Party’s efforts to work within the system to improve it will prove ineffectual at the expense of much time, energy, and money. As long as most or a significant plurality of TEA parties buy into the existing two party system things will remain the same.
I consider the TEA party to be in fact good faith emissaries to intractable enemies, perhaps even existential enemies. The formalities of attempted parley are proper preliminaries, but they will prove futile; a cease-and-desist letter to career criminals. Just wait until the 2016 Republican convention to see just how excluded any TEA party, paleo-con, libertarian or Reaganite influences will be. Conservative and liberty interests, positions and candidates will be locked out. Hard.
The only Party that is dying is the GOP. And that has been going on for a long, long time.
Tea party is dead. Rinse. Repeat.
What percent makes up a majority?
>> Why not? You're not taxed enough? <<
I agree with Psalm 144. I've been to a handful of "Tea Party" events, and I share the goals and objectives of the Tea Party (I've certainly been 'taxed enough already', thank you), but I don't consider myself a member and never joined a Tea Party group.
Why? The self-appointed "Tea Party" leaders were gung-ho on running candidates like John Raese, Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Justin Amash, Mark Neumann, Christine ODonnell, Marco Rubio, Milton Wolf, Liz Cheney, and Bruce Rauner. I absolutely DO NOT agree with those choices. In fact, the only clear "Tea Party" candidate that turned out to be great was Ted Cruz. That's a pretty mediocre track record and I see no evidence they learned from the mistakes of 2010 and 2012, now that it's 2014. I have to totally oppose them when they say we should waste a bunch of time and money to purge a guy who has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ted Cruz, for a guy whose only talking point is that he's "Obama's conservative cousin". Ironically, the Tea Party makes many of the same mistakes the GOP establishment does -- they opt to run empty suits for U.S. Senate races because the candidate is a slick talker and tells them what they want to hear. I totally agree with the goals and objectives of the Tea Party, but completely DISAGREE with the ways they think that can be achieved (it's not by running RINOs who scream "TEA PARTY!" the loudest and purging conservatives who do what we want).
If there's any party organization that comes closest to where I stand, it would probably be the Constitution Party. But even there, I don't agree with their isolationism and anti-17th amendment fetish.
17-A is exactly why you will seldom see a Ted Cruz Conservative elected to the Senate.
With the 17-A, Ted Cruz would have never been elected to the U.S. Senate in the first place. David Dewhurst would have been overwhelmingly selected for the job by his pals in the TX legislature.
Without the 17-A, Ted Cruz would have never been elected to the U.S. Senate in the first place. David Dewhurst would have been overwhelmingly selected for the job by his pals in the TX legislature.
There are more states with Republican legislatures. Most of them have RAT or RINO US Senators.
If those legislature were to be choosing the Senator instead of the RAT cities, the landscape would be a lot different.
Why else do you think most GOP Senators are RINO?
I don’t think most Senators are RINOs. A lot of GOP Senators accused of being “RINOs” on FR (Mike Enzi, John Barrasso, Pat Roberts, etc.) have pretty solidly conservative voting records. My GOP Senator (Mark Kirk) is an exception to the rule, this guy loves Planned Parenthood and wants to ban all guns, but falsely sells himself as a “social moderate”.
Kirk won the primary because the GOP establishment in the state pushed for him in the primary, and wouldn’t give any other candidate the time of day.The more conservative candidates in the primary did not have the support of Republican legislators. Powerful entrenched Republican politicians in EVERY state prefer the status quo candidate over the “Tea Party” candidate, and that INCLUDES safe Republican states like Texas (where the GOP officials and state legislators wanted Dewhurst instead of Cruz) and Alaska (where the GOP officials and state legislators wanted Lisa Murkowski instead of Joe Miller). In both cases, the GOP electorate, which is MORE CONSERVATIVE than the political elites in the states, voted for the more conservative candidate.
Thus, by repealing the 17-A, you would move the GOP Senate caucus to the LEFT. A Ted Cruz type candidate who is not a part of the political elite in the state won’t have a chance, whereas GOP establishment boot lickers will be in a great position to be appointed Senator by state legislators.
So, you’re saying the founding fathers were idiots.
No, I’m saying the founding fathers were not infallible deities who were 100% right 100% of the time. Do you agree with every single thing they wrote in the 1789 consittution? Should we repeal the 12th amendment and make it so the runner up for President becomes President?
So, do you think the founding fathers were “idiots” because we use a different system now for selecting the Vice President than the one they designed?