Tea party wins in northeastern primaries could bode well for Democrats

[Good_News_1]

Really? Tell that to those demanding that the Tea Party movement expel the racist elements. Those people certainly seem to think there is some central leadership.

I have.

Indeed they do, for political expediency. But I’m not talking about the candidates, but the supporters. And that is the context in which CMatt25 posted.

We can’t know what the supporters think.

Then why bring it up? Why should Maddow mention it at all. (I don’t know if Maddow actually said anything about it, but it is what CMatt25 seems to say.)

Exactly my point.

That the federal government is an example of moderation?

No, that the Tea Party only exists by virtue of its status as opposition. They are vehemently against moderates, and the “establishment,” for no particular reason and with no achievable goal.

The left seems to think that the conservative position is that any government is too big. But that isn’t the position at all.

I could give you a half million links of self-identified conservatives complaining about big government. I think conservatives are in general against growth in government.

It isn’t** BIG BIG** government when it acts to protect lives and property. It is** BIG BIG** government when it attempts to take on roles properly understood to be the role of society and individuals.

I don’t know what the so-called conservative position is anymore. I used to associate conservative politics with a lack of ideological rigidity, reluctance to engage in social engineering, a basic respect for tradition and culture, and a strong, focused foreign policy. A “conservative” in today’s politics is a highly ideological, fiscally irresponsible, reactionary.

I don’t see anything definitionally conservative, as I have always understood the term, in making the sort of distinction you have made here. It is closer to libertarian pseudo-analysis than practical conservative politics. To address the federal government and abortion: at this point in history, it is probably best to make abortion a federal crime. It is not necessary to make murder a federal crime, because the states do a fine job of handling it themselves. In the case of abortion, I don’t foresee a situation in which the enforcement and legislation could be left to the states. The state police power is usually the means to protect life, but the federal government also has a role in exercising police power at this time in history. If that means “big government,” so be it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The Tea Party is nothing more than an indication of how sick and tired regular tax paying, hard working Americans are tired of our government and its attitude that we are children who can’t be trusted to take care of ourselves.

All we want is Washington to get their hands out of our pockets.

But they don’t get it. So we’ll show them.

That generally sums it up. While there are elements within the movement (like the birthers), they don’t define the overriding aim of the movement. Get the government out of our wallet. We are perfectly capable of making decisions with our money. And it is OUR money, not the government’s money. One of the reasons I absolutely hate the confiscatory income tax policy in this country.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Hey Scott, just out of curiousity, have you ever listened to Andrew Wilkow?

He always says “Power to the meople”. I love his show.

Nah, I am more of a Mancow guy myself. And Jerry Doyle, and Niel Boortz.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You might change your mind if you go to the south of France. What is the saying? “To live like God in France.”

I think it’s “As happy as God in France”, but I could be mistaken. I think that has been officially changed, though, to “As happy as God in the Ozarks”, since I believe He now alternates between Vatican City and here. As a resident of the Ark River Valley, I doubt you could blame Him much for that.

 

[Suudy]

We can’t know what the supporters think.

Sure we can. Ask them. Listen to interviews with them.

No, that the Tea Party only exists by virtue of its status as opposition. They are vehemently against moderates, and the “establishment,” for no particular reason and with no achievable goal.

Would you have considered the abolitionist movement only existing by virtue of its status as opposition to slavery?

Would you have considered the temperance movement only existing by virtue of its status as opposition to alcohol?

The point being is that opposition, in and of itself, is not the problem. Going against the status quo is not problematic and should not be grounds for dismissal. If that were the case, then the abolitionist movement should have been ignored. After all, slavery was the status quo and abolitionists were “vehemently against moderals, and the ‘establishment’…”

Now, you qualified that with “no particular reason and with no achievable goal.” But there is particular reason. The reason is that they think the government is spending too much, has too much bureaucracy, and has taken on roles not specifically enumerated. Those are reasons. Now, whether it is achievable or not is another issue. But that isn’t the aim. It is about what should happen, not about what could happen.

I could give you a half million links of self-identified conservatives complaining about big government. I think conservatives are in general against growth in government.

I thought we couldn’t know what supporters think?

Not just growth, but size as well.

A “conservative” in today’s politics is a highly ideological, fiscally irresponsible, reactionary.

Eh? Fiscally irresponsible? Are you serious? Umm, the largest increases in government spending have been under liberal administrations, the current one the largest ever. In fact, the “conservative” in today’s politics want to do away with irresponsible spending. So I think you are off the mark here.

Reactionary? Really? How so?

I don’t see anything definitionally conservative, as I have always understood the term, in making the sort of distinction you have made here. It is closer to libertarian pseudo-analysis than practical conservative politics.

I’ve always understood the term (politically) conservative to be one who advocates for a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. One that views the federal government to be of limited scope, and letting the states and the people manage the affairs of everyday lives. Were the federal government to relinquish its grasp on the variety of affairs that are rightly the duties of the states, conservatives would be happy. I don’t see it as libertarian, since such a view encompasses government at all levels. The political conservative, I think, focuses much more on the role of federal government than on local and state governments.

To address the federal government and abortion: at this point in history, it is probably best to make abortion a federal crime. It is not necessary to make murder a federal crime, because the states do a fine job of handling it themselves.

Why? As you say, the states do find policing murder, theft, drunk driving, rape, etc, why would they be incapable of policing abortion?

In the case of abortion, I don’t foresee a situation in which the enforcement and legislation could be left to the states. The state police power is usually the means to protect life, but the federal government also has a role in exercising police power at this time in history. If that means “big government,” so be it.

I disagree. There is nothing about “this time in history” that makes abortion any more difficult for the states to police. First, the policing of abortion, murder, or any other crime, is unrelated to any role of the federal government. The federal government should concern itself with enforcing those laws directly related to its proper roles, and leave the rest to the states (as the 10th amendment makes clear). This hasn’t changed over the course of history, and is no different now.

 

[Good_News_1]

Eh? Fiscally irresponsible? Are you serious?

I don’t know where you have been the past couple decades.

I voted for Reagan twice, Bush Sr twice, and Dole. I also voted for McCain.

I abstained from voting for the younger Bush. You might remember that election: he told voters that a tax cut was justified because the government was collecting too much money, as we had, on paper, a meager surplus in the general budget. Then, he passed a tax cut so large that it only could fit within Senate rules if it “expired” in ten years (so far as I know an unprecedented accounting sham). Then we when to war, and instead of raising funds to pay for it, he put the expenses off budget. And, although it’s almost incidental, he presided over TARP, which is the source of much of the red ink that the Tea Party allegedly opposes. Now, the Republicans want to extend these tax cuts, all the while criticizing the Democrats for running up the deficit.

It’s sad, but at least the Democrats are paying some lip service to paygo and a spending freeze.

Reactionary? Really? How so?

In opposing institutions that have been integrated into society for a hundred years of more. Reactionaries want to tear down the current society in the name of some long passed principle or ideal; conservatives want to maintain the social order.

I’ve always understood the term (politically) conservative to be one who advocates for a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

Not in my understanding, leaving aside disagreements as to what strict construction means.

I disagree. There is nothing about “this time in history” that makes abortion any more difficult for the states to police.

Sure there is: lack of political will in various states.

First, the policing of abortion, murder, or any other crime, is unrelated to any role of the federal government.

Really? There are no federal crimes?

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Sometimes simplicity is the best option.

Throw them all out for 2-3 election cycles until they get the hint that it is NOT their country to drive over a cliff at their whim, or at the behest of some special interest lobby.

The irony here is exquisite. Tea parties are sponsored by those same lobbyists and the same people who brroght us to the cliff. Too precious.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The irony here is exquisite. Tea parties are sponsored by those same lobbyists and the same people who brroght us to the cliff. Too precious.

You really have no idea what the tea party is made up of, do you? At least admit it.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

The irony here is exquisite. Tea parties are sponsored by those same lobbyists and the same people who brroght us to the cliff. Too precious.

Can you support any of these absurd statements? You’ve been called on it repeatedly, but can never back it up with anything. Either make an attempt to prove the the Tea Parties were started by lobbyists, special interests, the RNC, Attila the Hun, whatever, or stop making the accusation.

 

[seekerz]

It seems that some people want experienced people to run for office, and some people want novices to run because they represent change, and some people adopt both standards simultaneously.

Experience is sometimes overrated, especially experience in doing things wrong…One has to know how to carry one’s self in the public arena, even in a hostile environment and how to discuss/debate issues of substance. At the very least, I’d settle for someone whose complete sentences (subject, verb and predicate) express a coherent thought…and that would be, with or without a teleprompter or palm notes.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Maddow, as with most of the pundits on MSNBC, and many here, suffer from the Straw Man logical fallacy. They create a false conservative 'position" and then attack that position as if it were the real thing. Then they declare victory. All they did was killed a a pile of straw. Too many conservatives end up taking the bait and try to defend the strawman because of the emotional investment they have in the outcome. I applaud their zeal, many just need to get smarter on the tactic of the other side of the debate.

The straw man arguement is a Rove thing. Let’ s see. which side is he on?

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

If anyone believes they have a right to impose their ideology on me, then yes, I invite them to get the hell out of this country, because it was not set up that way. Our Constitution is a document of NEGATIVE rights. It is a set of constraints on the government, telling them what they CANNOT do to the citizens of the USA. So when they make a law that REQUIRES me to have insurance, lie about it in public until it passes, and then say the complete opposite thing that they said while they were trying to get popular support, then I don’t believe they have any place in this country. This is what I mean when i go on about being ruled rather than being governed.

Isn’t having insurance a way for the individual to take responsibility rather than relying on the collective society to foot the bill? Of course, the pharma is one big backer of the tea party.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Can you support any of these absurd statements? You’ve been called on it repeatedly, but can never back it up with anything. Either make an attempt to prove the the Tea Parties were started by lobbyists, special interests, the RNC, Attila the Hun, whatever, or stop making the accusation.

I already did.

 

[Good_News_1]

Can you support any of these absurd statements? You’ve been called on it repeatedly, but can never back it up with anything. Either make an attempt to prove the the Tea Parties were started by lobbyists, special interests, the RNC, Attila the Hun, whatever, or stop making the accusation.

The links were provided earlier. You don’t have to agree. But it isn’t an unsupported assertion.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Isn’t having insurance a way for the individual to take responsibility rather than relying on the collective society to foot the bill? Of course, the pharma is one big backer of the tea party.

You don’t understand the tea party. You have proven that fact repeatedly.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The straw man arguement is a Rove thing. Let’ s see. which side is he on?

Rove is a Big Government Statist Good Ol’ Boy Republican. I have no idea what side he is on, I know its just not mine.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Isn’t having insurance a way for the individual to take responsibility rather than relying on the collective society to foot the bill? Of course, the pharma is one big backer of the tea party.

Yes, having some for of insurance is a form of PERSONAL responsibility, as long as it is optional. Mandatory insurance is not personal responsibility, it is submission to the collective. I refuse to become part of the Borg hivemind. Sorry.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

Via, I’ve looked at your last 80 posts and have found 3 links, none of them on this thread. It’s possible I missed it, but could you please repost your links?

 

[Suudy]

I don’t know where you have been the past couple decades.

I’m right here and now looking at the biggest explosion in government spending in the history of the United States. And who is sitting at the wheel other than Democrats.

Now, I’m not suggesting that the Republicans are saints in this department.

In opposing institutions that have been integrated into society for a hundred years of more. Reactionaries want to tear down the current society in the name of some long passed principle or ideal; conservatives want to maintain the social order.

You say “long passed principle or ideal” as if it were shot dead, kicked, shot again, buried, and then shot again. These principles and ideals are real, and they are espoused by the Catholic Church herself (see Centesimus Annus). Returning to a principle should not be a problem. The negative connotation associated with reactionary invokes a negative emotional response, and I think it is used to purposely discredit the very movement.

And conservatives aren’t just reactionary when it comes to government. They are also when it comes to moral values. The conservative movement would like society to return to one of prudence, temperance, and chastity. If that makes us reactionary, so be it.

Sure there is: lack of political will in various states.

How is this any different than what we have now? Were Roe v. Wade to be overturned, it would return to the states. And several states (I think North Dakota and Missouri) already have laws on the books that state that when Roe v. Wade is overturned there would be severe limits on abortion. The political will exists in some states. The political will of the nation of a whole is a lot less strong than the political will of individual states.

Really? There are no federal crimes?

You know what I meant. The context is the same as I posted earlier when discussing why murder is not a federal crime. The FBI, in general, doesn’t investigate why Joe Blow murdered Jane Doe at the ATM.

 

[CMatt25]

In the case of abortion, I don’t foresee a situation in which the enforcement and legislation could be left to the states.

I don’t either partly because some Tea Party folks, especially perhaps Catholic Tea Party advocates might not then be happy if just as a for instance, only some states outlaw abortion and others do not. Then what? I can envision at that point some of them clamoring for a federal law to outlaw abortion in all cases in all 50 states. They might even bus people in from those states which have outlawed abortion into those states which have not and disrupt town halls of federal representatives by shouting down and demanding our United States Congressmen and women and Senators to do something about this.