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 Party’s 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 it’s tempting to think we’ve merely swung back to the death notice phase, Ball, Kraushaar, and Cillizza all make fair points. Only one Republican senator—Thad Cochran—and two Republican congressmen—Mike Simpson and Bill Shuster—face 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 id—a 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 Party’s 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 ...
(Constitution)
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,
‘FLUSH”
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
WE!..?
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 it’s tempting to think we’ve merely swung back to the death notice phase -—
Tempting?
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)
“the founders”
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.
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.