The Time to Move on Liberals is NOW

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The TEA Party needs to mount a blitz to win over liberals (and I mostly mean "moderates" or "independents" because as you will read, my strategy involves stripping out the far left and crushing them).

The TEA Party needs to reach out to disaffected liberals who are liberal, but anti-union, even frustrated union members themselves, and fiscally conservative.

The TEA Party should not cave in, or discard principles, but should in a first move simply acknowledge that we're always going to have a welfare state- and acknowledge that in many ways nobody wants to live in a country with ZERO welfare state anyway.

We should focus on explaining that we care about the true intentions of the programs they care about, and differentiate between perpetuating the status quo, and saving the programs-- and helping people.

If we can get the politics out of the issues, we should be able to successfully continue a welfare state and the programs they care about while reducing the financial incentives for private parties and companies to have a "welfare business model" - like Section 8 housing.

We should work with outside agencies to get people OFF welfare so that the programs actually shrink themselves.

And we should focus on reducing the size of the bureacuracy all this "help" is laundered through, removing public employee union participation / and reducing money laundered through unions, and reduce the money that is donated to Democrats-- thus also reducing the political incentive to perpetuate these programs.

There's a way to do this, and the time is now. Public sentiment will never be this down on government; and liberals (the nice, decent, but misguided folks that are liberal) have never been more vulnerable to persuasion than they are now.

We need to move!

[djAdvocate]

i think the TP should get their own act together before trying to recruit people like me. moreover, the message should be "everything is on the table" rather than "privatize social security and don't cut defense a dime". you are not going to win over many MODERATES with that message, let alone liberals.

actually, what would be great is if there was some sort of a long term plan in place that we could all read. and then we could decide if we share the vision or not.

[mmhmm]

I rather enjoyed the use of the phrase "vulnerable to persuasion", dj.

[deziloooooo]

Aug 13, 2011 16:10:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The TEA Party needs to mount a blitz to win over liberals (and I mostly mean "moderates" or "independents" because as you will read, my strategy involves stripping out the far left and crushing them).

The TEA Party needs to reach out to disaffected liberals who are liberal, but anti-union, even frustrated union members themselves, and fiscally conservative.

The TEA Party should not cave in, or discard principles, but should in a first move simply acknowledge that we're always going to have a welfare state- and acknowledge that in many ways nobody wants to live in a country with ZERO welfare state anyway.

We should focus on explaining that we care about the true intentions of the programs they care about, and differentiate between perpetuating the status quo, and saving the programs-- and helping people.

If we can get the politics out of the issues, we should be able to successfully continue a welfare state and the programs they care about while reducing the financial incentives for private parties and companies to have a "welfare business model" - like Section 8 housing.

We should work with outside agencies to get people OFF welfare so that the programs actually shrink themselves.

And we should focus on reducing the size of the bureacuracy all this "help" is laundered through, removing public employee union participation / and reducing money laundered through unions, and reduce the money that is donated to Democrats-- thus also reducing the political incentive to perpetuate these programs.

There's a way to do this, and the time is now. Public sentiment will never be this down on government; and liberals (the nice, decent, but misguided folks that are liberal) have never been more vulnerable to persuasion than they are now.

We need to move!

in other words a one political party system, be cause only that one party has it all figured out and can do no wrong..mmmmm, think it's been tried before... , recently in fact and actually still being tried today.

Doesn't seem to work out as the instigators hope for either, IMHO of course.

[steff]

[Tennesseer]

If the TP wants to even begin to attract moderate liberals to their way of thinking they need to remove and never put back on the table social issues.

Of course that will never, ever happen.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 13, 2011 16:59:14 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I rather enjoyed the use of the phrase "vulnerable to persuasion", dj.

Funny in a pathetic sort of way...I guess??

[weltschmerz]

'Public sentiment will never be this down on government; and liberals (the nice, decent, but misguided folks that are liberal) have never been more vulnerable to persuasion than they are now.'

________________


Would the tea party be vulnerable to persuasion about things like...oh, I don't know....reproductive choices for women, not teaching creationism in schools and same sex marriage?

[Tennesseer]

Aug 13, 2011 17:26:33 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

'Public sentiment will never be this down on government; and liberals (the nice, decent, but misguided folks that are liberal) have never been more vulnerable to persuasion than they are now.'

________________


Would the tea party be vulnerable to persuasion about things like...oh, I don't know....reproductive choices for women, not teaching creationism in schools and same sex marriage?

Ummmm..............................................................No.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 13, 2011 17:11:50 GMT -5 steff said:

Awesome. Test complete. I'm on to something.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 13, 2011 17:32:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 13, 2011 17:26:33 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

'Public sentiment will never be this down on government; and liberals (the nice, decent, but misguided folks that are liberal) have never been more vulnerable to persuasion than they are now.'

________________


Would the tea party be vulnerable to persuasion about things like...oh, I don't know....reproductive choices for women, not teaching creationism in schools and same sex marriage?

Ummmm..............................................................No.

No, we will always expect more of people. We're always going to be the kind of people that call others UP, we're not going to lower ourselves.

My point is that NOW is the time to call liberals UP.

[verrip1]

Reaching out is fine. However, consolidation and maturing needs to occur now too.

It's a new populism, and there are lots of folks out there talking the talk. They have their function. The consolidation needed is to get those types together to come up with a clear statement of what they stand for and stand against. It would be like a political party platform.

There's lots of potential for dissent. For example, the stance on cutting military spending, referenced above by dj. Also, will they have a common position on social issues which represents individual freedoms? Things like gay marriage, government intrusion into the private lives of citizens, church/state issues, etc. Will they become the rabid side of conservative Christian type Republicans? Or will they be more libertarianish?

You'll hear one side from the Pauls (no, not OUR Paul, the politicians Paul), and another from Palin/Huckabee types. They really have to sort it out themselves, because the leftists who dislike them so intensely are ahead of them in terms of defining just what they stand for.

Personally, I think this evolution is very interesting.

[cereb]

Aug 13, 2011 16:10:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The TEA Party needs to mount a blitz to win over liberals (and I mostly mean "moderates" or "independents" because as you will read, my strategy involves stripping out the far left and crushing them).

The TEA Party needs to reach out to disaffected liberals who are liberal, but anti-union, even frustrated union members themselves, and fiscally conservative.

The TEA Party should not cave in, or discard principles, but should in a first move simply acknowledge that we're always going to have a welfare state- and acknowledge that in many ways nobody wants to live in a country with ZERO welfare state anyway.

We should focus on explaining that we care about the true intentions of the programs they care about, and differentiate between perpetuating the status quo, and saving the programs-- and helping people.

If we can get the politics out of the issues, we should be able to successfully continue a welfare state and the programs they care about while reducing the financial incentives for private parties and companies to have a "welfare business model" - like Section 8 housing.

We should work with outside agencies to get people OFF welfare so that the programs actually shrink themselves.

And we should focus on reducing the size of the bureacuracy all this "help" is laundered through, removing public employee union participation / and reducing money laundered through unions, and reduce the money that is donated to Democrats-- thus also reducing the political incentive to perpetuate these programs.

There's a way to do this, and the time is now. Public sentiment will never be this down on government; and liberals (the nice, decent, but misguided folks that are liberal) have never been more vulnerable to persuasion than they are now.

We need to move!

Pffft! Gimme a break! They need to get their own act together and get rid of some of their far right members before I'd even consider it.

[cereb]

"My point is that NOW is the time to call liberals UP."


Thanks, but I'm already there.

[robbase]

WCP, I thought you were leaving for a while or something?

[steff]

My way or else isn't a very good "persuasion" technique....

[SweetVirginia]

No, we will always expect more of people. We're always going to be the kind of people that call others UP, we're not going to lower ourselves.

My point is that NOW is the time to call liberals UP.


Your comments are so pompous like.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 13, 2011 16:59:14 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I rather enjoyed the use of the phrase "vulnerable to persuasion", dj.

yeah. that was good.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 13, 2011 18:04:52 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 13, 2011 17:32:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Ummmm..............................................................No.

No, we will always expect more of people. We're always going to be the kind of people that call others UP, we're not going to lower ourselves.

My point is that NOW is the time to call liberals UP.

i will know you are ready for that when you stop talking DOWN to them.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 13, 2011 18:24:30 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Reaching out is fine. However, consolidation and maturing needs to occur now too.

It's a new populism, and there are lots of folks out there talking the talk. They have their function. The consolidation needed is to get those types together to come up with a clear statement of what they stand for and stand against. It would be like a political party platform.

There's lots of potential for dissent. For example, the stance on cutting military spending, referenced above by dj. Also, will they have a common position on social issues which represents individual freedoms? Things like gay marriage, government intrusion into the private lives of citizens, church/state issues, etc. Will they become the rabid side of conservative Christian type Republicans? Or will they be more libertarianish?

You'll hear one side from the Pauls (no, not OUR Paul, the politicians Paul), and another from Palin/Huckabee types. They really have to sort it out themselves, because the leftists who dislike them so intensely are ahead of them in terms of defining just what they stand for.

Personally, I think this evolution is very interesting.

good post, verrip- and i agree entirely.

this group of malcontents is bonded together with a shared antipathy of leftism, taxation, and debt- but when it comes to social issues, they are all over the map. i think fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism would be an amazing combination, but there are very few people that embody that set of positions. i would never vote for a person that didn't have at least one of them. but a candidate like Bush, that has NEITHER of them, will never get my vote.

[Don Perignon]

Aug 13, 2011 16:10:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The TEA Party needs to mount a blitz to win over liberals (and I mostly mean "moderates" or "independents" because as you will read, my strategy involves stripping out the far left and crushing them).

The TEA Party needs to reach out to disaffected liberals who are liberal, but anti-union, even frustrated union members themselves, and fiscally conservative.

The TEA Party should not cave in, or discard principles...

"Crushing" those you disagree with?
That's not very "Christian" of you.
Not very "American", either...
it's "radical", it's "militant", it's"hostile" and it's "arrogant"...
but it's just not "Christian", not at all.
"Christians" are NOT supposed to do any "smiting".

One of the Tea Party's biggest challenges... people are wary of wolves who wear sheep's clothing.

[zipity]

this group of malcontents is bonded together with a shared antipathy of leftism, taxation, and debt- but when it comes to social issues

I'm not convinced that they are even bonded on these issues, for the most part I think the majority of TP members are boomers who want spending and taxes cut to the lowest possible levels so it doesn't eat into their retirement funds. That moves them to blame liberals for discretionary spending in the budget which is THE one area in the budget which affects them the least. (their kids are already educated so they don't need public schools and what do they care about Planned Parenthood when they are eligible for Medicare) They are ok with entitlements as long as you're 55 or older and as we've seen they're interest in cutting the debt ends when the discussion turns to raising taxes.

[mmhmm]

Aug 13, 2011 17:25:28 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 13, 2011 16:59:14 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I rather enjoyed the use of the phrase "vulnerable to persuasion", dj.

Funny in a pathetic sort of way...I guess??

Standard ol' political gambit, I'd say.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 13, 2011 16:45:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the TP should get their own act together before trying to recruit people like me. moreover, the message should be "everything is on the table" rather than "privatize social security and don't cut defense a dime". you are not going to win over many MODERATES with that message, let alone liberals.

actually, what would be great is if there was some sort of a long term plan in place that we could all read. and then we could decide if we share the vision or not.

Most TEA Party people like me agree that the DoD is just as bloated and inefficient as the rest of government and should be cut.

However, taking into account the budget as a whole- not using phony "discretionary spending" limitations- after WWII and throughout most of the 1950's we spent about 10% of the federal budget on Defense. We now spend about 4% of the federal budget on defense.

Defense needs to be cut, the role of the military needs to be scaled way back with a focus on defense rather than policing the world. On that most TEA Party folks would agree.

Entitlements on the other hand are about 62% of the budget and rapidly growing to 100%. So, this idea that we're going to balance the budget without dramatically changing the entitlement system is off-base. We aren't going to merely "trim" entitlements around the edges, we're going to make big cuts on our way to phasing out the current system.

And as I said in my other thread- the programs are going away. It's only a question of "how".

[taxref]

"However, taking into account the budget as a whole- not using phony "discretionary spending" limitations- after WWII and throughout most of the 1950's we spent about 10% of the federal budget on Defense. We now spend about 4% of the federal budget on defense. "

That is utterly false. Its disappointing to see the old Nazi big lie theory alive and well in this modern age.

[OldCoyote]

old Nazi big lie theory.

I haven't heard of this, please explain it for me.

Have A link?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 14, 2011 10:31:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 13, 2011 16:45:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the TP should get their own act together before trying to recruit people like me. moreover, the message should be "everything is on the table" rather than "privatize social security and don't cut defense a dime". you are not going to win over many MODERATES with that message, let alone liberals.

actually, what would be great is if there was some sort of a long term plan in place that we could all read. and then we could decide if we share the vision or not.

Most TEA Party people like me agree that the DoD is just as bloated and inefficient as the rest of government and should be cut.

However, taking into account the budget as a whole- not using phony "discretionary spending" limitations- after WWII and throughout most of the 1950's we spent about 10% of the federal budget on Defense. We now spend about 4% of the federal budget on defense.

wrong. we now spend 20% of our budget on defense. it is about 5% of GDP, though. is that what you meant?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 14, 2011 10:31:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Entitlements on the other hand are about 62% of the budget and rapidly growing to 100%.

how did you arrive at that number? i get that it is about 43%

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Is there an actual, official political party called The Tea Party ... or is it still some sort of unofficial club?

[steff]

Aug 14, 2011 12:04:45 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

Is there an actual, official political party called The Tea Party ... or is it still some sort of unofficial club?

According to paul, it's the most powerful party and is going to wipe out any opposition whether anyone agrees or not and even tho the US is not a single party dictatorship (minor details) or theocracy (but they hope to make it one).... they are so "powerful" that they can decide that it's their way or else.....