Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chompalot, Oct 16, 2013.
Yea, but there is exactly zero chance of the latter happening. Zero.
I think that not only *should* the Tea Party (you know, the real one focused with laser-focus on government spending, taxation reduction and debt reduction) tell the GOP to get lost, I believe they'd do very well as an *actual* third party.
The reality is that the power structure (Republican and Democrat) saw this early groundswell, recognized it was a threat to the system wherein the same people are constantly re-elected through political theater intended to cement partisanship and put their boot on the throat. GOP members swooped in and started calling themselves "the Tea Party candidate" while saddling the name with a bunch of traditional GOP baggage.
The Tea Party deserves better. Being good and playing in the GOP sandbox is just a waste of an otherwise honorable movement.
I think the issue with the tea party becoming a "third party" is where they would have to fall on social issues. You can't run strictly on an economic platform without addressing the social questions candidates face. If they chose social conservatism, they lose the libertarian sect. If they chose social liberalism, they lose the Christian sect. I think to be viable they would have to pass the buck that these issues are states rights, and essentially adopt the libertarian platform. Problem is, we already have a libertarian party that garners about 1% of the vote every cycle. It's a tough spot to be in, I think.
I think one only needs to see the names those, who claim to be a part of the TP, routinely hurl at anyone who takes a different stance than them on TH to see why there is an ever-widening schism in the Rep Party.
I don't believe a party must choose this, though. This can be maintained at the candidate level. Essentially what this does is say "we believe in these core values, your mileage may vary on other issues" without causing that divisiveness that you describe.
In other words, the notion that a party must have a stance on *every* aspect of life is misguided and creates ideological cattle prodding.
While I personally agree with you, I don't think that would work on the general populous. Your'e
asking people to think critically and form their own opinions on things.
Plus there are certain political sects that would never vote for a pro-choice candidate, for example. They would probably abstain or vote for the GOP candidate, even if every other viewpoint line up with the TP candidate. It's a bummer, but I think a lot of people are hard wired that one. I'd be curious what a lot of self described Christian TPers on this board would do with a viable TP presidential candidate that was pro-choice.
You know what's so damn funny about all the liberals on here? They still think that the Tea Party is composed of ultra-conservative people and don't realize that BOTH political parties had people that were (and still are) members of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party started because of OBAMACARE!!! There are many in this nation on both sides of the political spectrum that saw how bad this would be for the country. They got together and demanded action from their representatives.
Unfortunately for the Democrats who were (and still are) part of the Tea Party movement, their liberal Democrat representatives failed to represent them and instead pushed that piece of flotsam known as Obamacare through without a single Republican vote.
Now, all liberals can do is deride the Tea Party and compare it to Hitler, etc. They don't acknowledge the Democrats who were actively participating in the anti-Obamacare rallies the Tea Party held. They also deny that Occupy Wallstreet (really mis-named. It should have been Occupy Everything, as they protested any and everything they could) was the liberal version of the Tea Party.
The liberals (and everybody who is condemning them) have no clue what they actually even stand for. They just want to denigrate them because most of the time, the Tea Party is against their personal view of how the country should be run. And, the biggest irony is that what pisses the liberals off the most is that they know the Tea Party is right. They just can't admit it and hold on to their socialist utopian mindset.
Actually, I'd contend that a lot of Republicans also don't understand what the Tea Party stands for, largely because the GOP is attempting to absorb it.
You have it a bit backwards. The ongoing failures of the Republican Party conceived the Tea Party. The party was already 'ruined', just like yours. They are both beholden to the luxuries of the office and special interests.
Our two party system for some time has failed the American people. They spend most of their time and our money posturing for the next election.
I like what you're saying, obob. Honestly, I don't know how Liberal I really am when it comes to social issues, but I think they're strongly secondary to the things you listed above(government spending, debts, etc). I'm tired of hearing about abortion, gay marriage, etc - it doesn't mean I don't have feelings on them or consider them somewhat important, it's just that, as a whole, the government has higher priorities.
What would the Tea Party be without the GOP, right now? Essentially the Libertarian Party. I think that's why they're so intent on melting into the GOP, which I think eventually will just become further right - if they don't pull or melt with one of the actual big boy-parties, they'll just be a fringe-party like the Libertarians have been.
Very true. They were more in line with true Libratarians. Once the Bachmans and Rubios glommed on, the real TP movement was done. Ironically, the original TPs were, as you say, hostile to both and in that sense, much more radical.
The real and actual tea party is agnostic on social issues -- but I would still qualify that "social liberalism" is inherently more government-centric and expensive than "social conservatism", so bona fide small government, fiscal conservatives will trend more socially conservative as well. But also more federalist across the board, so even the social liberals would, in theory, be more for more state authority on social issues.