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?
Yeah, pretty much.
And BTW, if the founding fathers saw what modern day state legislatures looked like in 2014, I have little doubt they NEVER would have allowed them to pick U.S. Senators. Unfortunately, they could not foresee that in 1789, so now have people like you demanding we return to a system that we know DIDN’T work.
So no, the founders weren’t idiots, they were very clever people in the 19th century and MOST of the their ideas still work well after 200 years — the people in 2014 that ignore reality and claim anything is evil simply because “the founders” didn’t write it don’t seem very bright though.
So Mitt Romney should be Obama’s veep?
Would you also support the repeal of amendments 1-15? (the bill of rights, judicial limits, having the President and Vice President run together on a ticket, abolishing slavery, giving blacks citizenship, allowing non white male property owners to vote)?
None of that stuff was in the Constitution that the founders wrote and ratified in 1789. It was put in place by other people, who decided those changes would improve things.
I don't think that of them, and never said that I did.
...because we use a different system now for selecting the Vice President than the one they designed?
You're right, Biden is a far better VP than McLame or Mittens.
I never said that either, you accused me of that merely because I disagreed with a single clause they put in the constitution, and preferred a different one. (and you also never refuted my point that the current Republican state legislators would appoint GOP Senators worse than the ones we have now)
>> You're right, Biden is a far better VP than McLame or Mittens. <<
Then going by your own logic, you must think the founding fathers are "idiots" if you don't prefer the method they used for picking the Vice President, rather than the method we've used since the passage of the 12th amendment.
LOL, Thats called rhetoric.
There is a special place to file it,
The first 10 amendments, The Bill of Rights, was introduced by the 1st Congress (1789) around the same time as ratification of the Constitution.
The cosponsors of the Bill of Rights are the founding fathers.
MADE THE CONSTITUTION AMENDABLE
because they knew some stuff would not work or would need to be added or changed. It was an extremely wise decision on their parts. Thank goodness we have a bill of rights, thank goodness there are no more election of 1800 situations, and thank goodness we were able to change the method of Senate election when people got sick of the extreme level of corruption in the process.
You people also fail to notice that their are tons of RINOs in the state governments as well. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz would not have been elected by the legislatures and those are 2 of our best states. Thank goodness the GOP voters in those states rejected the position of their leaders who endorsed Dewhurst and Bennett.
According to some people there are maybe 3 or 4 Senators that aren’t RINOs and maybe a couple dozen in the House.
Since anybody, especially random paultard losers or self-important perennial candidates can claim to be “tea party” the term has become somewhat meaningless just like anyone can claim to be “conservative”. That’s why I favor candidates with proven conservative track records in lower office.
Heh heh heh...
Notice he still hasn’t answered the question about whether he supports the repeal of the 12th amendment, since it was passed long after the Constitution was ratified (15 years later I believe), and explicitly changed the system that “the founders” had designed for the election of federal officials (namely how the Vice President and President were elected). According to their own talking points, doing so “destroys our Republic” and passing such amendments means you “hate the Constitution”
They won’t answer the question for the same reason that the “marriage equality” crowd won’t discuss the topic of whether we should legalize incestuous and polygamous marriages so people can marry whoever they “love”. I mean it’s all about LOVE, right? We can’t have the government tell people who they’re ALLOWED to marry!
In both cases, the reasons for their argument look ridiculous once you apply their OWN standards for ANY issue besides the one they’re pushing.
What do you mean "you people"...white-man?
also fail to notice that their are tons of RINOs
their there are tons of RINOs
we were able to change the method of Senate election
Oh, so you're one of those responsible for this nightmare.
when people got sick of the extreme level of corruption in the process.
Long ago the RATs discovered that the big cities are pretty easy to game in order to churn out tons of fake RAT votes. They wouldn't be able to do that in a floor vote of any given legislature.
By the way, regarding other Constitutional Amendments; Prohibition was a mistake, anchor babies was a mistake, the income tax was a mistake, and at-large election of the US Senators was a mistake.
Correct, I'm 140 years old. During my service in the US House back during the Taft administration, I was a co-sponsor of the original legislation introducing the amendment.
I congratulate you on writing the most inane post I've seen so far this year.
-— while its tempting to think weve merely swung back to the death notice phase -—
Any way, it’s Tea Party or bust.
Well "HE"...doesn't see what relevance that has to the discussion, unless you are trying to leverage some inane point of argument. (it's FReeper etiquette to ping someone being referrenced)
So, are they the founders or not? Once again, I detect a little contempt for them.
had designed for the election of federal officials (namely how the Vice President and President were elected)
How do you know if it works or not? Maybe it just needed a little more time. < /s >
Looks like the 12th turned the VP into a partisan yes-man with no real function other than presiding over the "House of Lords". We certainly would be better off at the moment with a weakened presidency...let's say Herman Cain, Newt, or Ted Cruz as a loudmouthed, whistle-blowing, check-and-balance presence, right inside the White House.
But I really have no opinion on that.
According to their own talking points
THEY haven't sent "HE" any talking points. Maybe you could find me some and send them right over.
You didn't have to be there to be a supporter of the city/state. What, do you also support abolishing the electoral college?
I congratulate you on writing the most inane post I've seen so far this year.
You ain't seen nothin' yet. (assume sarc tags)
No, I don’t support abolishing the electoral college. Your attempt to equate that to the 17th amendment bores me. Your analysis of the issue is sophomoric at best.
Which is sooooo different from COMPLETELY CHANGING THE SUBJECT to the 12th Amendment....like "you people".
Actually, letting the cities elect the president is very similar to letting the cities elect the Senators.
... bores me.
And I am so sorry for twisting your arm and holding a gun to your head to make you endure this horrid experience.
But you don't deny being a big supporter of the city/state.
Your fellow anti-17thers have already explained where THEY get their talking points from. THEY have told me the following book is infallible gospel truth that I MUST READ, and if I disagree with ANY portion of what it says, I "hate" the founding fathers. Evidently a 21st century radio talk show host now speaks for the founding fathers:
Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan (D-Chicago)
Wow! News to THIS guy, who has been churning tons of fake RAT votes in the city of Chicago for the last 30 years and has absolute control of the state legislature because of it.
U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Who the city of Chicago voted overwhelming for in that election: Carol Moseley Braun (D)
Gee, that's funny, when we look at real life, the OPPOSITE occurs from your fantasy world. In the real world:
When the citizens as a whole in a state vote, they are able to elect a DIFFERENT Senator than the one favored by the big cities in their state (if your theory were true, for example, Georgia would elect NOTHING but socialist Democrats to the Senate, since that's who ALWAYS wins in Atlanta and other urban strangleholds)
But when the STATE LEGISLATURE as a whole votes, the big city (Chicago) gets what they want 100% of the time, thanks to them safely controlling most of the seats (including the suburban ones where most of the district is outside city limits) through gerrymandering, and thus getting a veto-proof majority to give the Chicago politicians whatever they want. I have never seen House Speaker Mike Madigan (D-Chicago) ever lose a vote in his rigged body. They rubber stamp WHATEVER he tells them to.
Sorry real life facts don't gel with your fantasy about legislatures representing the "best interests" of the state, and the statewide popular vote only representing the "big cities" As John Adams would say, facts are stubborn things.
That was an extremely relevant point since you implied that daring to change anything in the original constitution was wrong.
Your “city/state” garbage is just that.
Never heard of em...nor the book.
The RATs run virtually every city, and can comandeer real votes, the homeless vote, the felon vote, the college vote, the union thug vote, the illegal alien votes, the dead vote, and of course the ever popular "trunk of the car" vote.
In many cases, depending on the balance between urban and rural counties, especially considering the city election fraud, the Rs haven't got a chance. That's what I mean by a city/state.
The House of Representatives is supposed to direcly represent the people, the Senate is meant to represent the interests of the state. Of course you already knew that.
Illinois?...! You call that an example?
Well, you'd have to have a Republican Legislature. I beleive there are currently 27.
I think I said there were some bombs and some mistakes.
Why do you HATE the founding fathers? WHY? WHY?
Answer the question!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.