Reply With Quote
Repugs are ed with or w/o the teabag suckers.
pitbull is unelectable, even if "God want me to be President", because the lunatic fringe is ... a fringe, can't deliver 50%+ of 538 electors.
The growing power of the tea-party movement will make it hard for Republican politicians to compromise with the president
Feb 11th 2010 | NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE | From The Economist print edition
MAKING a virtue of a necessity, Barack Obama has talked endlessly in recent weeks about the wonders of bipartisanship. He has to, now that the Republicans’ capture of Ted Kennedy’s old seat in the Senate last month has deprived the Democrats of the supermajority they were banking on in order to enact much of their legislative programme. Mr Obama has invited congressional leaders from both parties to a summit on health reform at the end of the month. And on February 9th he appealed for both sides to transcend “petty politics” and reach for compromise.
Will they? Democrats and Republicans pay lip service to bipartisanship all the time. But the Republicans have two good reasons not to heed the president’s plea right now. The first reason is that it suits them nicely to keep the Democrats in Congress floundering as November’s mid-term election approaches. The second reason is the tea-party movement.
A year ago this movement did not exist. Now it is by some accounts the most potent force in American politics. So when the “Tea Party Nation” began its first national convention in Nashville, Tennessee, on February 4th, Republicans paid particular attention. The event’s grand finale was a tirade against Barack Obama by the movement’s unofficial patron saint, Sarah Palin, who now says that she might run for president in 2012. But although the former governor and self-described “hockey mom” from Alaska captured the headlines, she was shrewd enough not to claim leadership of a movement that is su ious of leaders. The bigger message to the Republicans from Nashville was this: whatever else they may or may not stand for, tea-partiers do not want to see Republicans making compromises in Washington.
Even after a long weekend of speeches and workshops in Nashville, the precise composition, aims and ideology of this movement remain hard to pin down. That is because the tea-party is precisely what its supporters say it is: not an artificial “Astroturf” creation of the Republican Party, but a genuine grassroots movement, highly decentralised and composed of many people who have not participated in politics before. They have no agreed platform and no unified national organisation: the Tea Party Nation is itself only one of many tea-party organisations that have sprung up spontaneously around America. These people are learning their trade, honing their tactics and defining their politics as they go along.
One thing that became clear in Nashville however was that the 600 or so solid conservative types, mostly middle-aged and many of them women, who s ed out $549 for a ticket to attend were not interested in minor modifications of Mr Obama’s health plan, budget or cap-and-trade legislation. As a name that harks back to the Boston Tea Party suggests, they see themselves as revolutionaries, or counter-revolutionaries. They want to “take back” an America which they say has been going wrong for generations as successive administrations have bloated the federal government and trampled on the cons ution and the rights of states and individuals. Many of those attending said that Mr Obama’s election and big-spending, deficit-expanding first year had been a sort of negative epiphany. “Suddenly I’m awake,” said Kathleen Gotto from Colorado Springs, who had not previously been involved in politics.
Tom Tancredo, a former congressman and presidential candidate from Colorado, caught the mood and earned thunderous applause for thanking God that Mr Obama had defeated John McCain in 2008. Had Mr McCain won, America would have continued the long drift to the left that set in with Franklin Roosevelt. For decades, he said, Americans had been like the proverbial frog, boiling unawares by slow degrees in the cauldron of the nanny state. But when voters who could “not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English” put that “socialist ideologue”, Barack Hussein (Mr Tancredo’s emphasis) Obama, into the White House, he turned the heat up so high that voters at last woke up to what was happening and started to jump out of the cauldron.
If the tea-party movement confined itself to venting steam in speeches, it might not present such a potent challenge to established politics. But it can mobilise big numbers: tens of thousands of supporters (tea-partiers claim a million or so) rallied in Washington, DC, last September. And now it is moving beyond rallies to a hard focus on elections. Much of the Nashville event was devoted to teaching the fired-up newbies practical skills, such as using Facebook and Twitter to spread the word, raise money and get out the vote so that “true conservatives” could challenge Democrats and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) in local elections and primaries.
The organisers promised to set up a political action committee to recruit and support candidates who would champion fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, smaller government and national security. Tea-partiers have already claimed scalps. They forced a moderate Republican out of the race for New York’s 23rd congressional district last year (though the perverse result was that this allowed a Democrat to win in a normally safe Republican seat), and claim the credit for electing Scott Brown last month in Massachusetts.
Plainly, any congressional Republican tempted to betray the counter-revolution by heeding Mr Obama’s calls for compromise would be a prime target for attack. But if it is dangerous for Republicans to antagonise the tea-partiers, is it also dangerous to flirt with them?
For all the talk about practical electioneering, some of those in Nashville teetered on the edge of the extreme and wacky. Thus the newly awakened Ms Gotto said she was researching Mr Obama’s family records for evidence that he was not eligible to be president. Mr Tancredo denounced the “cult of multiculturalism” and accused immigrants of swamping America’s Judeo-Christian values. “This is our country,” he declared to wild cheers, “Take it back!” Andrew Breitbart, the founder of a news site (Breitbart.com), railed in a speech against the hostile “mainstream media” in hock to the far left. At one point he had almost the entire audience on its feet, turned to the reporters and cameramen at the back of the room, pumping fists and yelling “USA, USA”.
Such displays may fire up angry conservatives, but they are also in danger of repelling voters in the centre. Republicans ignore tea-partiers at their peril. Embracing them may be no less dangerous.
Repugs are ed with or w/o the teabag suckers.
pitbull is unelectable, even if "God want me to be President", because the lunatic fringe is ... a fringe, can't deliver 50%+ of 538 electors.
Will you make us a promise please. If by change, we elect President Palin in 2012, will you leave, and never return. Afterall, you are so certain, how about making that promise to us.
"we elect President Palin in 2012"
did you see the poll this week that 70% said she was unqualified?
what's really scary is the 100% of the dumb s in the 30% said she is qualified, dumb s like you.
I understand what you are saying. Do you understand what I am saying?
Since you are absolutely, positively, certain that she will not win the 2012 elections, well you make us that promise?
how many times do we have to explain to you that we love her?
WC can't handle my daily slapping, so he wants me to eliminate myself.
Did your military service make you this stupid, or did you sign up stupid?
Will you act in kind if she loses?
LOL...
No. Are you high?
I'm not in any way claiming she will win.
Will you agree to never come back if she doesn't win?
Yep. Screwed. See, Massachusetts Senator special election, governorship elections last fall, etc.
Besides, Sarah won't be the GOP presidential nominee.
50% of the electorate also elected Obama. THAT's scary.
we feel the same way about the previous administration SCARY!
I will. She won't win. I don't even think she would win the GOP nomination.
But, if Sarah Palin wins the presidency in 2012, I would probably be looking to leave the looney bin anyways, so that is an easy promise to make.
Just to be clear:
If Sarah Palin wins the presidency, I promise I will leave the US.
Norway would be my choice, for what that is worth.
(apologies to the danes)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-12-2010 at 02:17 PM. Reason: wrong germanic country
Palin would beat BHO. I'm hoping for Palenty, Guiliani, or Newt.
The "Tea Party" doesn't include all of those opposed to a number of the current administration's initiatives. Treating the opposition as a caricature of that subset isn't the wisest course.
As for GOP nominees in 2012, perhaps if there was a lesson learned from the MA Senate race, it's that the social cons should be kicked to the back of the bus. Palin gets traction in the GOP as she's seen as friendly to that group, as well as the national security fetish-types. Someone like a Jindal, who's been a governor for a while, would be a good pick. I'd say a Gary Johnson, but anyone who dares to question the War on Drugs will be demonized and ridiculed all day long.
Pawlenty - my laptop has more charisma. What's his natural base in the party?
Giuliani - 9/11. Not to mention that the social cons would freak out.
Gingrich - why the love for retreads?
LMAO teabaggers
The Post reports just 45% of conservatives consider Palin qualified to move into the Oval Office. Last November, 66% of conservatives said she was qualified.
Only 37 percent of Republicans have a "strongly favorable" view of Palin. Among all Americans, her overall favorable/unfavorable split is 37/55, the lowest it's been since ABC and the Post added her to national polls in Sept. 2008, when John McCain made Palin his running mate on the GOP ticket.
"Although Palin is a tea party favorite," the Post reports, "her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ong-gopers.php
I'm not sure the general public thinks as highly of Palin as you do.
As Democrat, I can only hope enough Republicans share your delusion.
I believe that you are 1000% wrong on that. Independents like me may be looking for a BETTER alternative to Obama. You have to trust me on this, SnC, Palin will never, never, never be an attractive alternative to a candidate who is articulate (with or WITHOUT teleprompters), calm, manifestly intelligent, and who shows RESPECT for his opponent, whoever that might be.
In contrast, Palin is, at best, inarticulate (with or without palm notes) in much the same way that Bush was. She is downright CATTY when discussing political opponents, and she QUIT HER ELECTED JOB HALFWAY BEFORE SHE WAS THROUGH!!!!!!!!
Now, whether you want to admit it or not, SnC, that is the assessment of someone who entered the 2008 campaign season thinking that the democrats were so bad that the best they could do was put forward an inexperienced first-time senator against a real-life war hero...and then as the campaign wore on, and I watched McCain flub the financial crisis and then nominate Sarah Palin for the Vice Presidency...the inexperienced first-term senator began looking not so bad. Then came the debates, and the inexperienced guy was calm, knowledgeable and articulate...and the other guy had no CLUE what he was talking about most of the time...and who seemed irritated at the concept of running for president.
If Sarah Palin were to run in a primary in this state I would vote for almost anyone running against her. If she became the Republican candidate, I would spend money supporting whoever ran against her. She is a populist demagogue who has so little to do with the Republican Party that I used to respect she seems like a caricature. If she becomes the Republican candidate, there will be fewer than 17% of the American population who identify themselves as Republicans. She may get lots of votes. Populists often do. But she would not beat Obama. If you really believe she would, I think you misunderstand her, the American voter, and Obama's political savvy.
It is more of a statement of how badly bho will be percieved by then than how good politically Palin will be.
However, I don't think BHO shows respect. In fact most people think he is distant from their problems and belittling to critics. We will see how the RNC uses all this and what they try and sell him as.
Last edited by spursncowboys; 02-12-2010 at 07:09 PM.
If Palin follows her current trend, her perception will be almost totally negative by then.
No doubt..she doesn't even have a political job and she has a unfavorable rating.. Palin is unelectable, Huckabee is unelectable, Jindal is unelectable...and Romney is unelectable.....it will be a cakewalk for Obama in 2012..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
