MyE28.com

davintosh wrote:Oh good; Tammer's back. :roll:

I'm guessing that your "grow up" jab was aimed at me since I'm the one that mentioned his history; your assumption is wrong, as usual.

Regards,
Dave

I'm happy to have you clarify what history you refer to. Given your usual talking points, I assumed you were taking the birther angle. Happy to be wrong on that, as I really hope most of our electorate is beyond that sort of bullshit.

davintosh wrote: Obama has seen almost no criticism in the last four years because his supporters -- including many who "report" the news -- know he is already weak, so they shield him from any really tough questions about his history, his ideology, and his record.

The issue that will probably keep me from voting for him is that, if he gets elected, then what? He'll have no allies in the corrupt Congress and will be completely stonewalled. He won't be able to get any bills passed. What we need, ideally, is at least 80% of the incumbents in the House and Senate voted out simultaneously (over a couple of Congressional election cycles) with someone like Johnson in the White House, but that's highly unlikely

Johnson got a lot done in NM via the veto. He vetoed more bills than all other governors combined.

He also put the budget in the black with a hostile congress.

davintosh wrote:You really think Clinton and Obama are moderates? Really? Good Lord I'd hate to see what kind of guy you would consider to be a hard-case left-winger. :roll

Tammer in Philly wrote:McCain in 2000, the real John McCain before pretending to be a bigoted social conservative to win tea party support in the GOP primary, was a good guy.

After eight years of Republicans being tarred and feathered you're telling me McCain moved to the right for the blue wave of 2008? With Republican favorability near all time lows you think he went right for a better chance of winning the election? He decided to hitch his campaign to Bush's right wing wagon? You're deranged. That is utter bullshit.

Tammer in Philly wrote:He denounced his own proposed immigration reform, suddenly became rabidly anti-choice, became much more hawkish, became a supporter of torture, etc. This accomplished a few things:
1) (most important) It made McCain look like a coward and a hypocrite who would say anything to get votes.
2) It completely undercut his reputation as someone willing to break with his party to get things done.
3) It cast doubt on his integrity and honesty.
4) It led to the selection of a running mate who was a complete moron--a cynical attempt to get social conservatives to believe he "really was one of them" by association.

1-3 describe Obama to a tee. Shit, so does #4. Good old slow Joe. What better way to attract those working class knuckle draggers than to select a knuckle dragging dumbass running mate. Its amazing to me how much of the liberal mind is pure projection.

Tammer in Philly wrote: He did better with his running mate selection than McCain--he didn't get a complete idiot, just a vapid ideologue whose policies don't stand up to critical scrutiny. At least he has policies, though; something that couldn't be said of Palin. So call it a step in the right direction.

Again, you've clearly overlooked your own party here. What do you think of Biden? To be so critical of the Republican VP candidates you must think highly of the one you elected.

Tammer in Philly wrote: My argument is that running deficits during a recession is actually desirable, but the government must refill its coffers during a growth cycle to balance out.

Trillion plus annual defecits? No budgets? I don't see how thats desireable. Makes it hard to see how we're going to break even. Especially considering the tax hikes that would likely be required.

Tammer in Philly wrote:But then, the GOP hasn't offered much in the way of thoughtful legislation lately.

Do you mean they haven't been passing bills through the house only to have Dingy Harry table them in the senate? Because if you do you would be absolutely correct. I'm sure this sort of obstruction only irritates you when Republicans do it.

Tammer in Philly wrote:Sorry you're challenged by the spelling of Obama. I don't see Johnson's desire to run as a third party candidate so cynically; I see it as a desire to not join a party that (evidence suggests) requires its candidates to act like total assholes to get the nomination (see McCain 2008 / Romney 2012). That he actually values his principles to some degree makes him infinitely more attractive than the GOP candidates.

I'm sorry you're challenged by math. Remember Ross Perot? Gave us Clinton. If Perot appreciated civil liberties enough to support Bush we wouldn't have had the first assault weapons ban or the various treaties outlawing importation of various firearms and ammunition.

Tammer in Philly wrote:That he actually cares about civil liberties makes him more attractive than Obama. The issue that will probably keep me from voting for him is that, if he gets elected, then what? He'll have no allies in the corrupt Congress and will be completely stonewalled.

-tammer

Sometimes thats a great thing. I don't think we need a great deal of new laws and regulations coming out of congress. When you have too much compliance you get partisan garbage like Obamacare, which was so far out of left field it had to be watered down to get some Dems to go along with it.

turbodan wrote:

Tammer in Philly wrote: My argument is that running deficits during a recession is actually desirable, but the government must refill its coffers during a growth cycle to balance out.

Trillion plus annual defecits? No budgets? I don't see how thats desireable. Makes it hard to see how we're going to break even. Especially considering the tax hikes that would likely be required.

This is one where I've seen it mismanaged at both state and national levels so often that as someone responsible for budgeting, I can't understand why such a simple concept is lost on so many, other than it buys votes.

The concept of running deficits in a recession is not for a lack of budgeting, the idea is to hold reserves from higher growth years to offset lower revenues from lean years so that budgets remain stable. This is no different that what any responsible individual or business should do, this obviates the need for costly layoff-rehire or project startup-shutdown cycles.

Whether you're trying to increase or decrease spending, sharp ups and downs are irresponsible and don't allow for long term goal setting.

I take the Austrian perspective on economics, so don't read what I write here as advocacy

The federal budget is kind of a smoke & mirrors game. Please familiarize yourself with Warren Mosler and MMT (Modern Monetary Theory)

Here's the short version: the federal government can make as much money as it wants to. It can never run out of money. Everything you know about normal household economics doesn't apply to the federal government, and to the broader us economy.

Why do you pay taxes? Do you think uncle sam needs those dollars back so he can make ends meet?

Obviously not.

Here's the real story: You pay taxes as a form of behavior control. Generally, the government requires you to pay taxes --- in us dollars -- as a way to incentivize you to do all of your business in the federally controlled fiat currency -- the dollar. That gives them ultimate control of the rest of your life.

Specifically, you pay taxes because if everyone had too much disposable income, there'd be too much currency chasing too few resources at once, and price rises would be too noticable, too quickly, and there would be social unrest.

The dollar supply isn't restricted by some hard asset. The dollar supply isn't restricted by the number of paper dollars going around. The dollar isn't restricted by the willingness of banks to make loans. It's simply not restricted.

So grandstanding about debt and balancing the budget etc is just that -- grandstanding. It appeals to the household economics model that we all understand and are used to, but the politicians who use this rhetoric at the federal level are doing one of a few things

1) acting in blatant subterfuge, because they know how the game really works

2) acting out of pure ignorance

3) advocating for a non-fiat biased currency (Ron Paul falls into this camp)

Note that I have no said there are no adverse affects from running perpetual defecits and inventing new currency whenever it suits the prevailing olgarchy: one issue is that price rises are inevitable, especially when buying goods from ppeople or places who are NOT obligated to accept your currency.

One reason the US engages in wars is to prop up the "Petrodollar"; the current arrangement by which oil is almost universally traded on the world market in USD, irrespective of which parties are doing the trading. This was instituted, via diplomatic means (and via less diplomatic means, in some cases) in the 70s, after NIxon closed the gold window.

So, we run a fiat currency, but we want stable oil prices in USD, even as we hugely inflate the USD supply. We are asking other countries to lose wealth and eat value in real terms, and we "ask" under the threat of force. Do you know what Iraq, Venezuela, and Iran all have in common? They made plans to start selling oil in non-USD currencies. All became immediate candidates for "Regime Change".

The current arrangement, whereby China sends us real actual stuff, and we just change some zeros and ones in some database somewhere, is hugely advantageous for us in the short term. In the long term, it is less clear how this will work out for us.

In any case, I object to government spending and perpetual defecits because they are immoral; the entire economy is based on a lie, on a transfer of wealth from one party to another, at the whim and control of a ruling class.

But if you don't have any principles or scruples, boundless money printing is perfectly reasonable. The effects are predictable, but the usual suspects will get rich in the short term, right up until the whole thing implodes.

davintosh wrote: Why do you assume that a moderate would have a broader appeal than a true conservative? ......The leadership of the GOP is pushing left because they are looking to broaden the base of voters, but their mistake is in assuming that the current base will stick with the party no matter what. The truth of the matter is that most voters like me are pragmatic enough to know that sticking with the GOP is the best way to keep the DNC in check, for now. If the GOP continues its lurch to the left, there will be less reason for our votes to go that direction; given the right non-GOP candidate (up against a wrong-enough GOP candidate), I will bolt from the party, as will a host of others.

It's not a matter of my assumptions but more a function of what is". Here’s a summary of a Gallup poll on the favorability of the T-Party broken down by both party affiliation as well as political leaning:

GKLCPA wrote:The national Tea Party movement appears to have lost some ground in popular support after the blistering debate over raising the nation's debt ceiling in which Tea Party Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate fought any compromise on taxes and spending. Fourteen percent of Americans consider themselves strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, and, perhaps not coincidentally, 12% of the public consists of conservative Republicans who wanted members of Congress who shared their views on the budget to hold out for a deal they could agree with. That is according to a July 15-17 Gallup poll on the debt ceiling debate.
Along with the decline in overall support for the Tea Party from 30% to 25% in recent months, Gallup finds more Americans holding intensely negative feelings toward the movement than intensely positive feelings. It thus appears that, to date, the Tea Party's leadership and activities may have been more successful at galvanizing the movement's opponents than expanding its base of passionate supporters.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148940/tea-p ... ssion.aspx

That should address the question of why does is seem that your party seems to be going “left”. Contrary to the belief of some, the T-Party doesn’t enjoy broad support and this is particularly the case among independent voters who both parties vie for. Moreover, as the Gallup analysis indicates, the T-Party appears to be more effective at galvanizing opponents rather than garnering supporters. Both of these combined should illuminate why your party’s leaders seem to be going “left” ( more like going moderate—there is no real left to speak of in American politics). They know full well that they will not prevail otherwise and any visible T-Party types at this point will doom their chances. This is why Sarah Palin and all of the other T-Party favorites have been on lock down. Basically, they know that you’ve got no place to go, so they don’t have to worry about you. Basically, they want you to just shut up and vote. In way, this is a page from the Dem’s book as they do the same thing with certain constituencies within the party as well.

Mid-term elections typically have low turnout and your party executed a masterstroke to come back from the 2008 loss, but that required doubling down on extreme right wing sort of rhetoric and marketing. But I always wondered how they were going to get back to a more moderate stance for 2012 particularly after having gotten certain elements within the party “riled up” and this is where Romney’s challenges lie. The recriminations are already starting about why he isn’t leading Obama in the polls in light of the economy. This is generally attributed to his running of an incompetent campaign and while that may be true at some level, this doesn’t explain the problem entirely. The problem, which is largely self inflicted, is all of the obstinacy, calling the president a liar in the middle of a speech, pledges to not raise taxes no matter what, unwillingness to talk, let alone compromise, throwing out republican moderates and etc. Rightly or wrongly, the result is that the Republican party is increasingly perceived as extreme by a growing percentage of the electorate and this is yet another reason why the T-Party is sight unseen.

Although it appears that Romney is behind right now, it’s not a given that he will lose. But if he does and if he loses big, I suspect that that the T-Party will share in the blame. They, in turn, will blame Romney and the RINO’s. That will probably set off an internecine battle for the heart of the party that will probably rip it apart. There might be some who might be happy to see that happen, but I would consider that a tragedy. For one, regardless of their current reincarnation, the republicans have a rich history of being the party of women’s suffrage and emancipation; two events that most would consider significantly positive developments in American history. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, genuine opposition (as opposed to obstinacy) on real issues is important in a country that considers itself a democracy. Because of your party’s current stance and its possible demise in the event a Romney loss, the nation in general moves further away from a democracy.

GKLCPA wrote:This is the reason why every time we turned around Sarah Palin and the T-Party were in the press daily and once the midterms were over, finding her or the T-Party was like looking at one of those collages with the "where's Waldo" question. They were promptly put on the shelf and folks like Romney and Christie were trotted out instead.

davintosh wrote:The Tea Party didn't go anywhere after the midterms were over; the media just quit focusing on them. Perhaps the question you should be asking is, why does the media focus on what they and folks like you consider to be the "extreme right" at certain times, and why do they stop? If you're not seeing any activity, you're looking in the wrong places….. The Tea Party a media creation? How do you get that? And to compare or equate them to the Occupy bull$hyte is a clue that you get your ideas about the Tea Party from the mainstream media. The Tea Party that I know is indeed disjointed and disorganized,

I “get” that the T-Party is primarily a media creation from the fact, as you admit, it’s disorganized, disjointed and largely ineffectual; qualities that the T-Party shares with OWS. Disorganized and ineffective groups tend not to accomplish much and that holds true for the T-Party. Because of that, there’s not much it could be other than a media creation/marketing prop for the Republican party for the mid-terms. OWS on the other hand enjoyed no support from the democratic establishment and most wouldn’t touch them with a 10 foot pole. The local T-Party in my area is only known for infighting and being totally disorganized and ineffective and I suspect that’s mirrored all over the country. After using the T-Party as a prop and after securing their vote for the mid-terms, the establishment patted them on the head, sent them home and moved on. As noted above, this was a strategic blunder both with respect to 2012 and the ensuing battle that’s sure to come if Romney loses.

davintosh wrote:You really think Clinton and Obama are moderates? Really? Good Lord I'd hate to see what kind of guy you would consider to be a hard-case left-winger. From where I sit the DNC sure does appear to be run by left wing ideologues; Barack Obama is chief among them, and doesn't need to be pushed left because that's where he lives. The only time he moves toward the center is when he's campaigning, and he only does that because he knows it's the only way he'll get elected. Ever notice that most every candidate moves to the right when campaigning? Ever ask yourself why that is? .

I don’t have to ask myself that as I know why. The answer is very similar to why you feel that the republicans march leftward. Both sides, notwithstanding their rhetoric are moving toward the “middle” and that “middle” probably has more of a rightward drift---at least on some issues. Actually, certain idea s “laying around on the table” have pushed it there. Hence, we get democrats offering tax cuts, pushing trade policies, expanding wars and etc. In many ways this rightward drift on some of these issues is shaped by the press and other powers that be.

davintosh wrote: And you do realize that the "right wing" stuff you mentioned happened while Clinton had a Republican-controlled Congress, right? I have little doubt that if control of Congress didn't go to the Republicans in 1994 Clinton would've done things much differently. He was just more of a pragmatic narcissist than an ideologue, and made his decisions by sticking his finger in the wind rather than by any sense of conviction. He likes to be liked, and knew that he didn't have much choice other than to go with Congress on that "right wing stuff".

One of the primary legacies of the Clinton era was the repeal of the depression era Glass Steagall law which separating investment and commercial banking. It is this repeal that is at the heart of our current problems. Many of these problems which can’t be talked about because some are too busy thinking that certain people are unrepentant liberals, socialists, muslims and etc.; all of which clouds the real issues at hand. To be sure, there would be some who’d love to say that Clinton or Obama was “forced right” by some “loyal opposition”, but there are many times where those who are ostensibly “liberal” do certain things on their own volition. This is so due to the corruptness that pervades much of our politics. Here’s a recap of how the repeal of Glass Stegall came about with an assist from Clinton’s treasury secretary Robert Rubin:

GKLCPA wrote:Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:
Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup’s co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)
Robert Rubin stepped into the breach. Having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, Rubin was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup. But this was not public knowledge at the time. Deploying the credibility built up as part of what the media had labeled “The Committee to Save the World” (Rubin, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, so named for their interventions in addressing the Asian financial crisis in 1997), Rubin helped broker the final deal.
The Financial Services Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, formally repealed Glass-Steagall. Among a long list of deregulatory moves large and small over the last two decades, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the signal piece of financial deregulation.
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roose ... sino-fever

davintosh wrote: And why the hell do you assume that the current NDAA is solely a right-wing creation? Obama's support of it sure isn't a signal that he's a moderate; perhaps it's more a sign that the legislators on the left aren't the champions of civil liberties you believe them to be. From what I've seen, the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have far less respect for the rights of you and me and every other average Joe than you seem to assume.

You need to read more closely. I didn’t suggest that NDAA was solely a right wing creation. I lamented the fact that Obama even signed something that would assault civil liberties like this. Further, I lament the fact that due to all of the hoots from the right about him being a socialist and a muslim effectively gives him cover on this by constantly redirecting the debate from the real issues while effectively silencing most of the left. At least some on the left are silent for fear of breaking ranks under the assault from the right. The bottom line is the nature of the political debate revolving around non issues clouds the real issues and prevents them from being aired and discussed. If those on the right were as much about freedom as they claim, they’d be raising more of a ruckus about this than Obama’s supposed “socialism”. The fact is that they’re silent along with those on the left who should also be raising a ruckus. Indeed, you are correct on one thing though—Obama has about the same lack of respect for civil liberties as his predecessor did. He is as also war like as his predecessor, but is provided great cover by those on the right. After all, who would suspect any of this from a socialist redistributionalist?

THANK GOD YOU'RE BACK!!!!! I MISSED YOU SO MUCH!!!!!

wkohler wrote:THANK GOD YOU'RE BACK!!!!! I MISSED YOU SO MUCH!!!!!

Wait a minute....I thought I was on your list.

Hell, I was just gone a day because I got a tad busy, but if hearts get fonder in a brief absence like this, I'll try to stay away longer.

Matt wrote: One reason the US engages in wars is to prop up the "Petrodollar"; the current arrangement by which oil is almost universally traded on the world market in USD, irrespective of which parties are doing the trading. This was instituted, via diplomatic means (and via less diplomatic means, in some cases) in the 70s, after NIxon closed the gold window.

So, we run a fiat currency, but we want stable oil prices in USD, even as we hugely inflate the USD supply. We are asking other countries to lose wealth and eat value in real terms, and we "ask" under the threat of force. Do you know what Iraq, Venezuela, and Iran all have in common? They made plans to start selling oil in non-USD currencies. All became immediate candidates for "Regime Change".

....But if you don't have any principles or scruples, boundless money printing is perfectly reasonable. The effects are predictable, but the usual suspects will get rich in the short term, right up until the whole thing implodes.

Exactly. It is absolutely critical that the dollar/oil link be maintained and this forms the primary basis for war as if that link is ever broken the immediate effect would be a currency that would be nearly worthless if not completely worthless. Others are also attempting to develop alternative currencies and it would seem that at some point our interests and those of Russia and China are going to come into contention. I speculate that this may be the reason for the recently announced "pivot" to China announced recently by Obama.

We are moving inexorably toward a World War.

GKLCPA wrote:Exactly. It is absolutely critical that the dollar/oil link be maintained and this forms the primary basis for war as if that link is ever broken the immediate effect would be a currency that would be nearly worthless if not completely worthless. Others are also attempting to develop alternative currencies and it would seem that at some point our interests and those of Russia and China are going to come into contention. I speculate that this may be the reason for the recently announced "pivot" to China announced recently by Obama.

We are moving inexorably toward a World War.

That link was also one of the tools used in breaking the Soviet Union, the unfortunate side effect being that we've been in bed with an oppressive regime ever since.

WilNJ wrote:

GKLCPA wrote:Exactly. It is absolutely critical that the dollar/oil link be maintained and this forms the primary basis for war as if that link is ever broken the immediate effect would be a currency that would be nearly worthless if not completely worthless. Others are also attempting to develop alternative currencies and it would seem that at some point our interests and those of Russia and China are going to come into contention. I speculate that this may be the reason for the recently announced "pivot" to China announced recently by Obama.

We are moving inexorably toward a World War.

That link was also one of the tools used in breaking the Soviet Union, the unfortunate side effect being that we've been in bed with an oppressive regime ever since.

Yes this is true as well. In many ways though, the breaking of the Soviets has set up our own demise. There's gonna be a lot of stuff that they write about this era in the history books and I suspect that history will view as one unbroken link the events revolving around Nixon's closing of the gold window up until the currency/fiscal/economic collapse still unfolding. There really has been a lot of stuff that we've messed up on there's not much room on the road to kick the can down. The real tragedy is that we can't even talk about it as the current political debate disdains any real analysis

Ready for some tl;dr ?

The Tea Party is _not_ a media creation.

The Tea Party started with a Ron Paul fundraiser done in 2007. It has certainly morphed since that time.

It isn't effectively organized because it comrpises a lot of people, few of whom are policy wonks, few of whom who have been very active in politics previous to the Obama administration.

The unifying cause is a general sense of disgust, malaise, and fear about the direction of national politics; the national discourse.

Conservatives, pro-lifers notwithstanding, are typically not disposed to protests, rallies, activism, etc. They want to go to work, eat red meat, and take their kids to soccer practice in an SUV. They would describe themselves as church goers and so does much of their peer group. These are people that have political opinions but aren't necessarily very sophisiticated about them-- because they shouldn't have to be. They figure they do their jobs, and the politicians are supposed to not fuck up really badly, and life goes on as normal.

The issue is that this usually silent group of folks are frustrated because the politicians _are_ fucking up badly, and life is NOT going on as normal.

They feel, in a general sense, that this will be the first generation in (their view of) American history where their children will not inhereit a better world. They feel that America is at a crossroads between continuing to forge its own way, clinging to a mythology based around hard work, self determination, traditional values, etc, vs. slipping into mediocrity and becoming just another social democracy.

The Tea Party suffers from what lots of pro-liberty movements suffer from: they are there for reasons of principle, except everyone's principles are a little different, and so its hard to galvanize around much of anything. This leads to fracturous infighting and lack of direction.

The main thrust of tea party anger is that government is too big. Sometimes they talk about it from the constitutional/principles/historical angle, and sometimes they talk about it from the economics/defecit/pragmatic angle.

One galvanizing issue for the Tea Party is President Obama. I am sure some small fraction of Tea Partiers, would, after some discussion, mention the "race factor" as one factor in thier dislike, but the majority of Tea Partiers are offended by the race issue. The media and leftists narritive around the Tea party being a bunch of racists is infuriating; that is NOT what they are primarily upset about.

There are MANY Tea Partiers who are huge fans of Col Allen West, they were fans of Colin Powell, they like Thomas Sowell (if they've heard of him). They all like Bill Cosby. Race is not their problem with Obama. Obama __is__ different from them and their vision of what America has been and should continue to be, but not because of his genetics.

They detest Obama because his rhetoric attacks the core ideology they hold sacred: Individualism, free-enterprise, Judeo-Christian values, rule-of-law, American exceptionalism, military might, militant patriotism, etc.

The Tea party has, to its credit, generally said that republicans are not immune from their ire, and indeed, areas where they HAVE been effective have mostly been unseating establishment republicans and replacing them with people who aren't career politicians. The Tea Party skews highly republican; they have low expectations of any democrat, but they expect, and are starting to demand, better from the republicans that supposedly represent them, and are trying to make those old-guard republicans feel it during primaries.

Many Tea partiers grew up or were already of age during the Reagan years. In their view, America has been getting worse ever since Reagan left office, and every washington-DC insider is part of the problem, with Obama being the capstone.

I've been two 1 or 2 "tea party rallies". The people Emceeing them were local talk radio people, people active in the Ron Paul campaign, and pro-liberty advocates in my area. In at least one of them, there was a pledge of allegience and an opening prayer.

A slightly different group is the ND Tea Party Caucus. This group is attempting to promote citizens into elected office. Whereas the rally type events are predeominantly sleepy people who want to vent their frustration but don't know where to start, but in some small way want to show solidarity, the TPC type events are about identifying candidates with the right values and helping them win elections, with a focus on growing new candidates instead of supporting established ones. As Tea Party types "awaken" politically due to their frustration, this group (and others like it) attempt to steer them into how to actually impact the political process.

I was a delegate at the ND GOP convention, representing the Ron Paul people. But this Tea Party Caucus group was separate; they were generally Santorum supporters (Santorum won ND by a huge margin in the caucusing). We (the Ron Paul people) had much better organization there on the ground, and support from the national campaign. The ND TPC was entirely local; there was no outside funding, influence, etc. They didn't really have a clear strategy or anything like that. The night before the convention, as we learned what the Romney camp was planning on pulling, the Tea Party guys agreed to cooperate with us to try to block the Romney and the state party leadership from doing what they eventually did (namely, giving romney, the 3rd place guy, the lionsshare of the delegates. Romney has money, lawyers, and the support of the national power structure. That's what matters -- not what the GOP delegates want)

----------

Short version: The Tea Party is the manifestation of a lot of frustrated people who would mostly self-identify as conservative, and mostly voted republican in the past, and mostly don't want to care about politics, but who feel obligated to try to do something because in their view, the important values of "their" country are shifting or disappearing.

The key thing you shoud learn is that NO rich entity controls or directs them, NO radio talk show host is behind them, and its not some manufactured blob, and it's not people bonded by their common hatred of blacks. You should write an angry letter to any "journalist" you've heard say these things, indicating you expect better work in the future.

I thought the Tea Party sentiment was best captured by Rick Santelli's rant from the floor of the mercantile exchange about a month after Obama's inauguration and frankly I thought it came from that but I'll trust your account tieing it RP.

I think when the Tea Party lost credibility, at least with me, was when social issues crept into the platform. I'm of the mind that when America is producing and American's are earning dollars that have some real purchasing power, we generally do pretty well at taking care of ourselves.

If they'd stayed on point, they'd have had my full support.

X2 to everything Matt said but the ND-specific stuff as I don't know about it, but its reminiscent of the AZ story. The media has painted the group as "AstroTurf" rather than grassroots. I've done some work for a couple of TeaParty events as a donation and frankly quit doing it because the people involved were HORRIBLE at organization and communication. They also started getting unreasonable in their requests, but that is a separate issue. Having personal experience with the groups and seeing stuff that people like BDK post just has me puzzled. Also, there were even some democrats at the events I was at. They were pissed at the direction the country was going and realized their mistake from 2008.

The few deport them all wack jobs out there are what got all the coverage. It's gone downhill from there since everything is being brought into the group it seems.

wkohler wrote:X2 to everything Matt said but the ND-specific stuff as I don't know about it...

x3

It was well said and thought out.

turbodan wrote: After eight years of Republicans being tarred and feathered you're telling me McCain moved to the right for the blue wave of 2008? With Republican favorability near all time lows you think he went right for a better chance of winning the election? He decided to hitch his campaign to Bush's right wing wagon? You're deranged. That is utter bullshit.

Do you understand the difference between the primaries (getting the nomination) and the general election? There has always been a trend of playing left / right (to your own party) to get the nomination, then moving centrist during the general election. No surprise there. The issue is that the new GOP requires a candidate, no matter how moderate, to move VERY FAR right to get the nomination ("I'm severely conservative." -Romney). The things you have to say and agree to in order to become the GOP nominee are very off-putting to actual centrist voters, of which there are many. Which is my point: Romney and McCain were both very moderate politicians historically, but they had to disavow that moderation for GOP success, and that shift during their own primaries is what killed them for most voters, including most of my GOP friends (who are, with only a couple exceptions, strong fiscal conservatives who are NOT religious/social conservatives). One example: a friend who had actively campaigned for McCain switched his vote to Obama after he selected Palin as a running mate.

turbodan wrote:1-3 describe Obama to a tee. Shit, so does #4. Good old slow Joe. What better way to attract those working class knuckle draggers than to select a knuckle dragging dumbass running mate. Its amazing to me how much of the liberal mind is pure projection.

I guess you could generalize that to all politicians to some degree, but to the extent that there is differentiation, I can easily demonstrate more 180-degree flip-flops on the part of the recent GOP nominees. Now here's some nuance, which I know conservatives shy away from: there is a difference between changing your mind on a policy as new info becomes available, and changing your mind on the principles that underlie your policy decisions. I'd argue that going from sponsorting the McCain-Feingold Act to absolutely disowning it is a reversal on principle, and that was troubling for me.

As for Biden, yes, he says dumb shit. But he was also "safe," i.e. he has no political ambitions beyond the VP position and he has no strong policy drivers. So from an election perspective, you pretty much know what you're getting. That's a sharp contrast to Palin and Ryan, who both have ambitions to leverage the VP position further, and one of whom lacks three brain cells to rub together (and the other of whom has a terminal lying problem). It's hearsay and therefore inadmissable, but I heard an interesting tidbit from the friend of mine whose Euro-motored M3 I shared at WGI last weekend.* His cousin went to high school with Ryan, and she reported that even then he was considered untrustworthy. Leopards, spots, etc.

turbodan wrote: Trillion plus annual defecits? No budgets? I don't see how thats desireable. Makes it hard to see how we're going to break even. Especially considering the tax hikes that would likely be required.

No budgets is a bipartisan issue. It requires compromise to solve. No one is suggesting taxing our way out of the deficit; it would be crippling to the economy. I do recall a democratic plan offering $1 in tax hike for every $10 of spending cuts. I further recall that Boehner rejected that plan. The Grover Norquist no-taxes-ever pledge disallows compromise, and without compromise, there is no governance. Say what you want of "government," but some governance is necessary and that requires give and take. So yes, we need less spending, but spending cuts alone will not get us out of this--it would be equally crippling to the economy, and brutal to the people bearing the brunt of those cuts (hint: the GOP isn't considering cutting any corporate welfare nor are they pulling back on Medicare for current retirees, both of which are necessary IMO). But that's mechanics and we can argue about the best way to do it; the point is it has to get done and a one-prong solution to a two-prong problem is stupid.

Tammer in Philly wrote:But then, the GOP hasn't offered much in the way of thoughtful legislation lately.

Do you mean they haven't been passing bills through the house only to have Dingy Harry table them in the senate? Because if you do you would be absolutely correct. I'm sure this sort of obstruction only irritates you when Republicans do it.[/quote]
Did you miss the key word, "thoughtful?" Passing bills that they know will get shot down in the Senate just as a show of solidarity with social conservatives is a waste of taxpayer time and money. I thought you were against that ...

turbodan wrote:I'm sorry you're challenged by math. Remember Ross Perot? Gave us Clinton. If Perot appreciated civil liberties enough to support Bush we wouldn't have had the first assault weapons ban or the various treaties outlawing importation of various firearms and ammunition.
....

Sometimes thats a great thing. I don't think we need a great deal of new laws and regulations coming out of congress. When you have too much compliance you get partisan garbage like Obamacare, which was so far out of left field it had to be watered down to get some Dems to go along with it.

Yes, but Perot was true to his principles, and we as a nation should value that. If you're concerned that a third party can't gain real traction, you should look to reforms to the process of getting on the ballot. I understand the math perfectly well, which is why Johnson is unlikely to get my vote (I'm pragmatic, after all). Though as an IL resident, my vote doesn't matter much.

As for stonewalling being good, there are cases in which I'd agree. However, what we need right now from a Johnson or a Paul is the active rolling back of bad legislation. That can't be done by doing nothing; it requires Congressional input. Status quo is definitely not working right now, but the GOP solutions are worse than status quo. Which is why we're in the "lesser of two evils" situation yet again.

That is really the point that GLKCPA is trying to make: this country is healthier when there is palatable opposition on both sides. Obama is not worried about losing centrist democratic votes to the current GOP, so he doesn't need to play nice on civil liberties and other issues of concern to centrist democrats (note: in my view, centrist dems are the fiscal conservative/social liberal types that were the core GOP constituent 45 years ago). That group is pissed at Obama, but is terrified of the religious right.

-tammer

Forgot about my M3 asterisk.

*In my third heavily rainy session of the weekend, I looped it in T11 and backed into the SAFER barrier. Fortunately the car hit very square and not on the steel Armco. No mechanical damage--all the rear lights even worked--but the decklid/bumper/trunk floor got smushed a bit. Car was driveable after a bumperectomy. That was an expensive mistake; I'm thinking I'm on the hook for about $2k in body work. The car owner was incredibly gracious about it, but then he's put that car into the wall at WGI a couple times himself. My 2nd 4-off situation and my first car damage situation ever on track, and of course it comes in someone else's car. :-(

That said, the car is a blast when pointed in the proper direction.

Note: there are better ways to create a Euro S50-powered ti.

-tammer

Tammer in Philly wrote:No budgets is a bipartisan issue. It requires compromise to solve.

-tammer

And how many votes did Obama's last budget get in the senate? Do you recall?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... -0-senate/

Wheres the leadership? The vote was as bi-partisan as it gets. Nobody voted for that piece of shit. Obama owns that.

I hate to disregard the rest of your post but I am pushing my luck doing this at work.

turbodan wrote:

Tammer in Philly wrote:No budgets is a bipartisan issue. It requires compromise to solve.

-tammer

And how many votes did Obama's last budget get in the senate? Do you recall?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... -0-senate/

Wheres the leadership? The vote was as bi-partisan as it gets. Nobody voted for that piece of shit. Obama owns that.

I hate to disregard the rest of your post but I am pushing my luck doing this at work.

Point taken.

Same here re. work. I'd like to thank you for a civil discourse, though.

-t.

Can we just dispense with all the rhetoric and name-calling and labeling, i.e., the liberal mind, the liberal agenda...
I would go so far as to say we are all intelligent enough to carry on a conversation, and just because someone makes a statement that you can attribute to a "left" point of view, does NOT mean they believe EVERYTHING from that political perspective, and especially everything that is purportedly attributed to them by consensus, that is, the media.
Obama is NOT in any way a socialist and has actually governed to the right of Ronald Reagan, to the great disappointment of Obama's supporters. Seriously, think for yourself. Just because some pretty lady sounds believable doesn't make it so. In fact, one should be suspicious of the presentation.

David Hunt wrote:Can we just dispense with all the rhetoric and name-calling and labeling, i.e., the liberal mind, the liberal agenda...
I would go so far as to say we are all intelligent enough to carry on a conversation, and just because someone makes a statement that you can attribute to a "left" point of view, does NOT mean they believe EVERYTHING from that political perspective, and especially everything that is purportedly attributed to them by consensus, that is, the media.
Obama is NOT in any way a socialist and has actually governed to the right of Ronald Reagan, to the great disappointment of Obama's supporters. Seriously, think for yourself. Just because some pretty lady sounds believable doesn't make it so. In fact, one should be suspicious of the presentation.

I agree. As an aside, it looks like you're from one of my most favorite places in the world--Bloomington Indiana. That's where my alma mater is and I've fond memories of that place.

David Hunt wrote: Obama is NOT in any way a socialist and has actually governed to the right of Ronald Reagan

Get the fuck out of here.

turbodan wrote:

David Hunt wrote: Obama is NOT in any way a socialist and has actually governed to the right of Ronald Reagan

Get the fuck out of here.

Matt wrote:Ready for some tl;dr ?

The Tea Party is _not_ a media creation.

The Tea Party started with a Ron Paul fundraiser done in 2007. It has certainly morphed since that time.

It isn't effectively organized because it comrpises a lot of people, few of whom are policy wonks, few of whom who have been very active in politics previous to the Obama administration.

The unifying cause is a general sense of disgust, malaise, and fear about the direction of national politics; the national discourse.

Conservatives, pro-lifers notwithstanding, are typically not disposed to protests, rallies, activism, etc. They want to go to work, eat red meat, and take their kids to soccer practice in an SUV. They would describe themselves as church goers and so does much of their peer group. These are people that have political opinions but aren't necessarily very sophisiticated about them-- because they shouldn't have to be. They figure they do their jobs, and the politicians are supposed to not fuck up really badly, and life goes on as normal.

The issue is that this usually silent group of folks are frustrated because the politicians _are_ fucking up badly, and life is NOT going on as normal.

They feel, in a general sense, that this will be the first generation in (their view of) American history where their children will not inhereit a better world. They feel that America is at a crossroads between continuing to forge its own way, clinging to a mythology based around hard work, self determination, traditional values, etc, vs. slipping into mediocrity and becoming just another social democracy.

The Tea Party suffers from what lots of pro-liberty movements suffer from: they are there for reasons of principle, except everyone's principles are a little different, and so its hard to galvanize around much of anything. This leads to fracturous infighting and lack of direction.

The main thrust of tea party anger is that government is too big. Sometimes they talk about it from the constitutional/principles/historical angle, and sometimes they talk about it from the economics/defecit/pragmatic angle.

One galvanizing issue for the Tea Party is President Obama. I am sure some small fraction of Tea Partiers, would, after some discussion, mention the "race factor" as one factor in thier dislike, but the majority of Tea Partiers are offended by the race issue. The media and leftists narritive around the Tea party being a bunch of racists is infuriating; that is NOT what they are primarily upset about.

There are MANY Tea Partiers who are huge fans of Col Allen West, they were fans of Colin Powell, they like Thomas Sowell (if they've heard of him). They all like Bill Cosby. Race is not their problem with Obama. Obama __is__ different from them and their vision of what America has been and should continue to be, but not because of his genetics.

They detest Obama because his rhetoric attacks the core ideology they hold sacred: Individualism, free-enterprise, Judeo-Christian values, rule-of-law, American exceptionalism, military might, militant patriotism, etc.

The Tea party has, to its credit, generally said that republicans are not immune from their ire, and indeed, areas where they HAVE been effective have mostly been unseating establishment republicans and replacing them with people who aren't career politicians. The Tea Party skews highly republican; they have low expectations of any democrat, but they expect, and are starting to demand, better from the republicans that supposedly represent them, and are trying to make those old-guard republicans feel it during primaries.

Many Tea partiers grew up or were already of age during the Reagan years. In their view, America has been getting worse ever since Reagan left office, and every washington-DC insider is part of the problem, with Obama being the capstone.

I've been two 1 or 2 "tea party rallies". The people Emceeing them were local talk radio people, people active in the Ron Paul campaign, and pro-liberty advocates in my area. In at least one of them, there was a pledge of allegience and an opening prayer.

A slightly different group is the ND Tea Party Caucus. This group is attempting to promote citizens into elected office. Whereas the rally type events are predeominantly sleepy people who want to vent their frustration but don't know where to start, but in some small way want to show solidarity, the TPC type events are about identifying candidates with the right values and helping them win elections, with a focus on growing new candidates instead of supporting established ones. As Tea Party types "awaken" politically due to their frustration, this group (and others like it) attempt to steer them into how to actually impact the political process.

I was a delegate at the ND GOP convention, representing the Ron Paul people. But this Tea Party Caucus group was separate; they were generally Santorum supporters (Santorum won ND by a huge margin in the caucusing). We (the Ron Paul people) had much better organization there on the ground, and support from the national campaign. The ND TPC was entirely local; there was no outside funding, influence, etc. They didn't really have a clear strategy or anything like that. The night before the convention, as we learned what the Romney camp was planning on pulling, the Tea Party guys agreed to cooperate with us to try to block the Romney and the state party leadership from doing what they eventually did (namely, giving romney, the 3rd place guy, the lionsshare of the delegates. Romney has money, lawyers, and the support of the national power structure. That's what matters -- not what the GOP delegates want)

----------

Short version: The Tea Party is the manifestation of a lot of frustrated people who would mostly self-identify as conservative, and mostly voted republican in the past, and mostly don't want to care about politics, but who feel obligated to try to do something because in their view, the important values of "their" country are shifting or disappearing.

The key thing you shoud learn is that NO rich entity controls or directs them, NO radio talk show host is behind them, and its not some manufactured blob, and it's not people bonded by their common hatred of blacks. You should write an angry letter to any "journalist" you've heard say these things, indicating you expect better work in the future.

Matt,

Thanks for this perspective. It is well reasoned however, I differ in my view of the T-Party and how it's been used by the republican establishment to further its objectives. In my post, I did not address the issue of race and it's my general feeling that's not the main issue with the T-Party notwithstanding the effort of some to portray them as racists.

The challenge for any insurgent political group is to "govern" after the "revolt". It's easy to get people to coalesce around revolt but quite another matter to organize change. True insurgencies generally operate outside of existing systems as a basis for reform and take a long view realizing that victory is not immediate. Of course, doing that takes organizational discipline and strong leadership; both of which the T-Party has challenges with. Observers who appreciate this can predict that there's a good probability that the T-Party, if it remains on its current course, will run out of steam because it lacks these basic elements and with time will probably be relegated to a footnote as far as political history is concerned.

This discussion string came to mind as I read this excerpt below from the American Conservative and I was wondering if you and others might comment on this:

Is the GOP Still a National Party?

There are reasons to think it isn’t: Republicans have failed to win a plurality of voters (or a majority of the two-party vote) in four of the last five presidential elections. The single win was 2004, when George W. Bush was re-elected by the lowest margin of any successful incumbent since 1828. GOP talking points at the time touted Bush’s victory as a historic landslide because the map of sparsely populated counties he won (see above) covered almost the entire U.S. Therein lies a tale.

Republicans have enjoyed a state-level resurgence even as they have lost — and lost big — their once commanding national majority. The GOP was once the landslide party, the party of Eisenhower ’52 and ’56, Nixon ’72, and Reagan ’84. Even Bush I’s 53.4 percent in 1988 was very respectable. Reagan’s 50.7 percent in 1980 wasn’t a landslide but still demonstrated that an outright popular majority supported the Republican. In the five elections before ’92, the GOP won popular majorities in four.

The parties have almost switched places since then. The popular-vote success of the Democrats in the last five elections is less impressive: they won an outright majority only once, in 2008. Far from balancing the scales, though, this highlights all the more the magnitude of the GOP’s electoral erosion: from being a party that won with majorities, the Republicans have declined to one that loses to pluralities.

The period in which this has happened corresponds to a historic resurgence of the GOP in Congress and at the state level. There’s an intuitive connection. Significantly fewer people vote in state and congressional elections than presidential elections. The GOP base is better organized and more engaged locally than Democrats are. But this actually undercuts the party at the national level. So well organized are the GOP’s ideological constituencies that they prevail in legislative primaries and push the party’s overall identity to the right. (That’s not the same as making it more “conservative,” as I’ll explain in a minute.) These ideological groups also have a great deal of muscle at the presidential primary or caucus level, but even beyond that, their success at the legislative level means that a presidential contender’s loyalty to the GOP brand — proof that he’s not a RINO — has to be demonstrated by professions of fealty to what is an essentially regional identity, not a national one.

If it seems needlessly complicated to suggest that two effects — grassroots muscle and general party branding — have to be invoked to explain the GOP’s unsuccessful presidential branding, consider this: if the only effect in play were the strength of grassroots right-wing constituencies, you wouldn’t expect the party to consistently nominate moderates like both Bushes, Dole, McCain, and Romney. None of those nominees had impeccable conservative credentials — far from it. But once they got the nomination, they didn’t run as the moderates they were; most of them sold themselves as being at least as right as Reagan, even in the general election. At least since 2004, this is because the party has pursued a base strategy: an attempt to eke out a narrow win by getting more Republicans to the polls than Democrats, with independents — a small and difficult-to-market-to demographic — basically ignored. The party tries to leverage its regional identity and regional organization into presidential victory. It has failed four times out of five.

The Democrats are regionally weaker, but this has paradoxically helped them in presidential elections: it means that a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is not really very beholden to base Democratic groups like black voters. Clinton and Obama certainly organize their ethnic constituencies, but when they campaign in general elections they do not relentlessly highlight minority issues that other Americans find polarizing. Oftentimes, they’re hiding or even actively downplaying those issues (think Sister Souljah, Reverend Wright, or the party’s hot-and-cold emphasis on gay rights). The Democrats are less ideologically constrained by their factional interests.

Republicans tend to have a clear establishment front-runner going into their presidential contests, and that individual pretty much always wins the nomination, in part because he usually has far more money than his opponents. Indeed, that financial advantage allows the establishment front-runner to discourage viable semi-establishment opponents — your Mitch Daniels types — from even entering the race. That leaves the ideological groups to field their own non-viable standard-bearer — Huckabee or Santorum types. Because the eventual GOP nominee pursues a base strategy, though, he winds up embarrassing himself by trying to sound “severely conservative.” He has to get religious right and Tea Party voters to turn out for him. But even if they do, they’re not enough: those constituencies don’t add up to 50 percent of the electorate. Republicans are actually closer than Democrats to being the real 47 percent party. (Though it’s more accurate to say the GOP is the 48-49 percent party and the Democrats are the 49-50 percent party.)

This isn’t all about elections, however. The policy options that Congress and the president get to consider and the intellectual life of the nation are also warped by the GOP’s “47 percent” ideology. Because conservatives over-identify with the GOP, and the GOP’s identity is determined by factional and regional ideologies, the result is that conservatives take their definition of conservatism from the party and that definition is more regional- and interest-based than philosophical. This accounts for the spectacle of the GOP periodically getting worked up about “big government” while in fact expanding government — welfare state, warfare state, banning internet gambling, you name it — whenever it’s in power. The blue state/red state psychological divide is more fundamental to the party’s understanding of the world than is any consistent view of the proper extent and uses of government.

This is also why One Nation conservatism or even genuinely Reaganite conservatism, with its appeal to independents and Democrats as well as the base, is impossible today. The ideology of suburbia (“porky populism,” with its hatred of organic food and fetishistic attachment to SUVs and Wal-Mart) and the most intense expressions of heartland Protestantism, together with certain Southern good ol’ boy attitudes (less overt racism than a scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours ethos), are the matrix of GOP and “conservative” identity. The financial and neoconservative elites have designed ideologies of their own to integrate with this matrix: neocons spin their foreign policy as an expression of values (God and America are practically the same thing, aren’t they?), as a token of Protestant-Jewish solidarity (support for Israel), and as necessary for national honor and the Southern economy (wars and bases). Wall Street relies on Mitt’s 47 percent myth: the people who aren’t part of the GOP coalition are lazy and lack self-responsibility; i.e., they are sinful and un-Protestant, while the Gospel makes you rich and happy.

None of this has anything to do with the historic conservatism of Edmund Burke or John Adams, Russell Kirk or Robert Nisbet. It doesn’t even look like the capacious conservatism of Ronald Reagan. It’s a scam: it does little for values in the culture as a whole because the values in question are those of an ideological minority only interested in winning through minority-organization politics; it can’t look at big-picture economics because doing so would tick off the financial interests and get anyone who broached the question read out of conservatism by Wall Street’s coalition allies. A traditionalist or consistently libertarian critic would be perceived as speaking up for lazy immoral city-dwelling welfare queens. This fanciful identity politics, and not principled economics, is what lies behind talk about “socialism,” “big government,” and the “47 percent.” If the case were otherwise, you’d see the anti-dependency case made against the Pentagon, defense contractors, churches taking government money, and red-state recipients of all kinds of largesse. I don’t see Republicans talking about that, with a handful of exceptions whose last name is usually “Paul.”

I’m not the biggest fan of Eisenhower or Nixon, but they (and Reagan) are clearly preferable to this post-Reagan Republican Party. Those presidents won national majorities for a reason. They weren’t strict conservatives, but they certainly weren’t any less conservative than the Bushes, McCain, or Romney. They didn’t pretend they were going to abolish the welfare state — often, they didn’t even pretend they would cut the welfare state — unlike so many of today’s Republicans, who don’t follow through but do use their rhetoric to polarize. That gives us the worst of both worlds: big government plus the delusional sense within one party that it represents the antithesis of big government and may freely hate other Americans who don’t mouth the mantra. And what goes for big government goes for Judeo-Christian values, a strong national defense, and all the rest: the GOP’s rhetoric occupies a separate mental compartment from its actions, even as its voters and ideological apologists continue to believe that there is a profound moral difference between them and the rest of the country. It’s a losing strategy, and worse, it’s made the country ungovernable even as government grows.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... onal-party

davintosh wrote:

GKLCPA wrote:Matt,

Thanks for this perspective. It is well reasoned however, I differ in my view of the T-Party and how it's been used by the republican establishment to further its objectives...

That's rich; how, pray tell, did you form that opinion? As Matt and I have, through actual interaction with people who identify themselves as part of that movement? Yeah, I didn't think so. With all due respect, your "view" of the movement is worth about as much as the biased articles that helped you form that opinion.

Well, if I labor under the limitations of not going to T-Party meetings, then I suggest that you labor under the same limitations by not personally talking with Obama, liberals and others you deem as socialist malcontents. Have you actually attended a DNC meeting or engaged anyone in the DNC to determine that they're hell bent on socialism or did you form your opinion from what you've read or seen on TV? Perhaps you should go sit in on a few DNC meetings for the next couple of years and then let us know your opinion. You might surprise us all and convert into a big government loving Obama supporter proposing all manner of socialist things.

As to the T-Party, I've had interaction with some of the folks in my area. Actually, I had a rather extensive debate/discussion with one of guys in their leadership group as he made an attempt to recruit me. He certainly seemed like a nice enough fellow as did the other folks involved, but was completely misdirected on most issues. As I indicated, the T-Party in this area does not enjoy a very good reputation mainly due to the disorganization and infighting, so certainly anyone observing that would form an opinion. This is apparently mirrored in various places all over the country. So regardless of "opinions", the T-Party lacks a sustainable organizational model to perpetuate itself and that pretty much renders all opinions mute, except those relating to its demise.

TEA Party.