Is The Tea Party Set Up Perfect For This Election?

[djAdvocate]

it seems that way to me.

if Romney wins the nomination, and it is very likely he will, and loses in the election, they can say that the reason he didn't win is that he is not a TP'er. they will maintain political clout.

the only way they lose clout is if Romney wins.

does anyone see it differently?

[Value Buy]

The Tea Party still has to work on the state and federal levels electing more members to office.
Yes, we want a say in the Presidency, but we realize 2012 is not our time for the White House.
The Tea Party can work with Romney. Let's just say, he "adaptable"

[billisonboard]

Conservatives always set themselves up well to explain away their defeats, If they win it is because the majority supports their policies. If they lose it was because the other side cheated.

[rockon]

LOL Apparently the world is full of conservatives becasue this describes most people in general. My sons team lost their bball game by one point tonight and right away people are blaming it on a bad call by the refs.

[rockon]

While there still maybe some intermittent bright moments in our near term future we have a lot of hole filling to do regardless of who is elected. In some ways the party who doesn't win might be in the best political position.

[bean29]

So right on topic, inquiring minds want to know why Rockon's kid is playing baseball in February! I just finished shoveling snow off my Driveway.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 10, 2012 23:24:36 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

The Tea Party still has to work on the state and federal levels electing more members to office.
Yes, we want a say in the Presidency, but we realize 2012 is not our time for the White House.
The Tea Party can work with Romney. Let's just say, he "adaptable"

you said a mouthfull there, VB.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The TEA Party is laying down VERY DEEP roots. The difference between 1994 and 2010 could not be more stark. In 1994, conservatives won a top level election, in 2010 conservatives won every office down to dog catcher. We conservatives are taking over school boards, city councils, village halls, county seats- and we are doing it largely under the radar and mostly unopposed- because we're savvy: in downstate IL, we're taking over no matter which party label we need to use to win.

[EVT1]

Not only are we going to New Hampshire ... we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. To take back the White House. YEEEAAAAHHHHH!

I used to think the tea party would disappear as soon as Obama does- but I think now the TP is the home of the far right Limbaugh types that are pissed off that the GOP isn't conservative enough- and I don't think they will go away until they purge the party of those they see as centrists, or rinos, or or anyone that would dare compromise with a democrat on anything. Deep roots for sure- all the way back to the gilded age.

[Deleted]

This is why i actually hope Santorum manages to carry it off... we can crush the 'he wasn't conservative enough' debate once and for all... and maybe come back more towards a Huntsman in 2016....

(I mean, i know Santorum isn't really a fiscal or small government conservative... but in the way that most people seem to MEAN conservative these days, I think Santorum fits....)

[Deleted]

Conservatives always set themselves up well to explain away their defeats, If they win it is because the majority supports their policies. If they lose it was because the other side cheated. [/b
Billsonboard by "cheated" do you mean something like faking signatures on petitions or having dead people vote? An excuse is only an excuse IF the claim isn't valid. Conservative problem is that we don't look at it as the ends justifying the means. That's an attitude that we need to change. Sure some might go to prison (or worse) but that's a small price to pay for getting our country back. Liberals already live by that rule. A small price to pay for socialism (that is). I still think that a war between the 2 ideologies is the best course of action.

[billisonboard]

Feb 11, 2012 9:19:39 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

Conservatives always set themselves up well to explain away their defeats, If they win it is because the majority supports their policies. If they lose it was because the other side cheated. [/b
Billsonboard by "cheated" do you mean something like faking signatures on petitions or having dead people vote? An excuse is only an excuse IF the claim isn't valid. ....

;D

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2012 8:19:01 GMT -5 oped said:

This is why i actually hope Santorum manages to carry it off... we can crush the 'he wasn't conservative enough' debate once and for all... and maybe come back more towards a Huntsman in 2016....

(I mean, i know Santorum isn't really a fiscal or small government conservative... but in the way that most people seem to MEAN conservative these days, I think Santorum fits....)

Santorum has a 15% lead in the latest PPP poll:

www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0211.pdf

pretty awesome!

[usaone]

The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2012 11:20:06 GMT -5 usaone said:

The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco.

i realize that. i am talking about the possibility of them going forward past 2012 as a political force. what say you?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 11, 2012 11:20:06 GMT -5 usaone said:

The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco.

If you're a liberal, you ignore me at your peril. Just because you don't read TEA Party news on the front page, or CNN isn't talking about it-- doesn't mean it is 'fading'. The TEA Party is stronger than ever- because we occupy elective offices, not a tent in a park somewhere.

We might have put away the signs and banners, but that's because as conservatives, we don't hang out and pee on ourselves in public. We go to work.

[Tennesseer]

One doesn't need to be liberal.

[Deleted]

The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco.

They might be revived by the new budget proposal.

Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate

By Lori Montgomery, Published: February 10

President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.

As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.

Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.

The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.

Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.

To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits.

Full article is here:

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-2013-budget-proposal-looks-to-tame-national-debt/2012/02/10/gIQALfaC5Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

And actually, the argument that needs to die is that Americans want far left or center left as their options. We do not. We want a clear conservative alternative.

And while I would never argue that this works all over the country at all times, it works in far more places than a far left choice. That's why even Democrats for the most part run 'conservative-sounding' campaigns.

Mainstream conservatism sells everywhere they voters get a chance to buy it. The only thing the RINO establishment and Democrats can do is hope to destroy the opposition before voters really get a chance to decide on the ISSUES-- which is what most voters want to do. On the issues, conservatism wins.

I don't think Scott Brown could have run 'far right' but he DID WIN (and this is important, are you paying attention?) on the promise that he would be a vote AGAINST ObamaCare- in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's state, Ted Kennedy's voters. They weren't voting "Republican", they were voting on the issue of ObamaCare, and they voted it down.

Anyway, the long term worry for liberals is that a tough new breed of conservative insurgent is showing up in every election you can think of. And it is from this political foundation, the movement will gain political power, and eventually dominate the political scene. These candidates are fueled by a national conservative ascendancy that has been building for a long, long time.

And while the establishment in both parties are aware of this, and have been combating it- events will continue to catch them off guard. Sometimes it will be big, noticeable events like the massive power shift in 1994, and 2010 (which I'm convinced they saw coming, but whitewashed up until the last-- with Nancy Pelosi sounding like Baghdad Bob claiming they'd hold the House), and other times it will be small events like Newt's crushing defeat of Romney in South Carolina- 43 of 46 counties (where you saw the same "wise and savvy" voters that gave us McCain go for Newt and suddenly become bitter clinger NASCAR rednecks), or Rick Santorum's three state sweep of Romney.

The bottom line is that the TEA Party has the establishment in both parties on the ropes, and while we may not score a knockout, or even win every round-- the momentum is with us, and we will eventually cover the country like a tidal wave and with the exception of a few pockets, we will eventually achieve our dream of making certain that liberalism is represented electorally in proportion to the actual number of liberals in the country. No more than 20% to 30% of elected officials nation-wide will be liberal. And in most place in the country, there will be NO liberals at all.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 11, 2012 13:09:46 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco.

They might be revived by the new budget proposal.

Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate

By Lori Montgomery, Published: February 10

President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.

As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.

Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.

The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.

Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.

To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits.

Full article is here:

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-2013-budget-proposal-looks-to-tame-national-debt/2012/02/10/gIQALfaC5Q_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

Amazing. It's like Obama has a political mis-calculator he uses to make decisions. You really want to pick a fight over the budget in an election year after you run up $4 trillion in new debt?

It's like picking a fight with Catholic voters on the one ObamaCare issue the regime consistently denied would be an issue-- government dictating healthcare down to the patient level.

I've never seen a more tone deaf, narcissistic, arrogant leader in the United States at any level.

[billisonboard]

Feb 11, 2012 13:28:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...

It's like picking a fight with Catholic voters on the one ObamaCare issue the regime consistently denied would be an issue-- government dictating healthcare down to the patient level. ...

The fight is with Catholic Bishops at the employer level.

[Deleted]

The Republican party in OR is opening up the primaries in important races to unaffiliated voters. They hope to get candidates who can be elected to statewide offices with a coalition of independents and Republicans.

[billisonboard]

Feb 11, 2012 13:25:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

And actually, the argument that needs to die is that Americans want far left or center left as their options. We do not. We want a clear conservative alternative.

I know this American would love to have a "clear conservative" (i.e. far right) option who stays a "clear conservative" (i.e. far right) alternative throughout the campaign on the ballot.

uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1964

Don't think it will another 60%'er but could be close.

[ameiko]

Feb 10, 2012 20:47:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it seems that way to me.

if Romney wins the nomination, and it is very likely he will, and loses in the election, they can say that the reason he didn't win is that he is not a TP'er. they will maintain political clout.

the only way they lose clout is if Romney wins.

does anyone see it differently?

Interesting idea but I think it's more likely that conservatives in general would state that, if Romney lost the general election, that he won because he wasn't a true conservative rather than a Tea Partier.

For better or worse, the GOP system where whoever wins the most votes get every single electoral vote (I think some states might have an acception) and allowing non Republicans to vote (again, some exceptions), often mean that the more conservative candidates tend to split the vote while the more moderate candidate wins the primary.

It is what it is but in general a party needs a candidate close enough to the right/left to secure the base before seeming more moderate in the general to win the independents. If Obama is able to be painted as the socialist extremist that he is (tough to do with so much of the MSM protecting him), than a more moderate GOPer might win the day.

Then again, history shows otherwise as the general election is littered with the failed candiacies of GOP moderates like McCain, Ford, and Dole. Older, stodgy, and moderate Republicans do not beat younger, charismatic, and left wing Democrats like Obama, Clinton, and Carter.

[ameiko]

Feb 10, 2012 23:51:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Conservatives always set themselves up well to explain away their defeats, If they win it is because the majority supports their policies. If they lose it was because the other side cheated.

There is ample evidence of Democrats cheating in the Presidential election, going back at least as far as Kennedy/Nixon election. Also, during the contested 2000 election in Florida, the Democrats only wanted recounts to happen in Democrat strongholds, did not want investigate the early calls for Florida going to Gore even though polls in GOP strong counties were still open, AND wanted to discount the votes of our fighting men and women who sent in their oversea ballots!

Of course, in terms of blaming others, we always have the Democrat standard of blaming their failure on someone else's supposed racism/sexism/homophobia, etc...

[ameiko]

Feb 11, 2012 11:38:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 11, 2012 11:20:06 GMT -5 usaone said:

The Tea Party has faded since the August debt deal fiasco.

i realize that. i am talking about the possibility of them going forward past 2012 as a political force. what say you?

I don't think the Tea Party is going anywhere. They may not have the rallies like before or even use the name but the Tea Party was just a big umbrella under which many conservatives expressed their concerns and frustrations with big government. Those feelings and the people with them are not going away even if the title "Tea Party" does.

[billisonboard]

Feb 11, 2012 13:50:01 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Feb 10, 2012 23:51:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Conservatives always set themselves up well to explain away their defeats, If they win it is because the majority supports their policies. If they lose it was because the other side cheated.

There is ample evidence of Democrats cheating in the Presidential election, going back at least as far as Kennedy/Nixon election. ..

;D

[Don Perignon]

Feb 11, 2012 13:28:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I've never seen a more tone deaf, narcissistic, arrogant leader in the United States at any level.

Oh no?

Then try reading entry #18. The narcissistic arrogance expressed is practically pathological.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2012 13:53:03 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Feb 11, 2012 11:38:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i realize that. i am talking about the possibility of them going forward past 2012 as a political force. what say you?

I don't think the Tea Party is going anywhere. They may not have the rallies like before or even use the name but the Tea Party was just a big umbrella under which many conservatives expressed their concerns and frustrations with big government. Those feelings and the people with them are not going away even if the title "Tea Party" does.

do you think the GOP will co-opt them, then?

[zipity]

i am talking about the possibility of them going forward past 2012 as a political force. what say you?

IMO, tea party popularity will have an inverse relationship to the health of the economic recovery. If unemployment continues to drop and the economy continues to pick up steam the tea party will vanish into history.

I don't think Scott Brown could have run 'far right' but he DID WIN (and this is important, are you paying attention?) on the promise that he would be a vote AGAINST ObamaCare- in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's state, Ted Kennedy's voters. They weren't voting "Republican", they were voting on the issue of ObamaCare, and they voted it down.

That's ridiculous. Scott Brown won because his opponent, Martha Coakley, came across like an arrogant stuck up bitch. Every speech she gave ignored the possibility of loosing to Brown because she, as a democrat, deserved to inherit Kennedy's seat. For a long time she refused to even campaign thinking it would be a waste of time, after all she couldn't lose. As for Brown's vote on Obamacare, why do you suppose people in the state would go to such an effort to defeat Obamacare when they haven't lifted a finger to overturn Romneycare? However I'm certainly willing to wait until November, if Warren defeats Brown the certainly what would show that MA voters were dissatisfied with Brown's vote on Obamacare and the republican agenda in general.