FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is the Tea Party a Political Party?





deanhills
I'm confused. When I read about the Tea Party there seems to be so many meanings attached to it. Some refer to it as a rebel movement in the Republican Party. Others refer to it as a Tea Party Movement. Is it a registered party? As with the latest win by Christine O'Donnell for the Senate Seat in Delaware the appearance is a contest among three parties: Democrats, Tea Party and Republicans. Whereas according to Wikipedia the Tea Party is not listed as a registered political Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_political_party

In the Time Magazine article below for example it appears (maybe I read it wrong) that Christine was a Republican nominee???? Is she a Republican Party candidate? And how can there be two of them?
Quote:
So Senator John Cornyn, the head of the committee that had once been working for O'Donnell's opponent, changed course. "Let there be no mistake: the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and I personally as the committee's chairman, strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees," Cornyn said. And then he promptly shovelled O'Donnell $42,000 for her campaign. More is sure to come.
Voodoocat
My understanding is that the Tea Party is a loose grouping of generally conservative people with an anti-incumbant view and in favor of limited government. The Republican party would be wise to tap into their enthusiasm.
metalfreek
There is another one its called Boston Tea party where Americans refused to send tea products to Britain during the occupation of British in America. American farmers threw all their tea to the sea to protest British rules. Its another part attached to Tea party I guess.
deanhills
OK, so what is confusing to me is that Christine O'Donnell is then also from the Republican Party, albeit in a "rebel faction". As well as Castle, the guy who she presumably "defeated". So how can one have two candidates from the same Party opposing one another in the Senate race, as that is what the news media had made it into, and say that the Republican Party lost out? If Christine O'Donnell won the seat, then the seat must then have been won by the Republicans? Think
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
OK, so what is confusing to me is that Christine O'Donnell is then also from the Republican Party, albeit in a "rebel faction". As well as Castle, the guy who she presumably "defeated". So how can one have two candidates from the same Party opposing one another in the Senate race, as that is what the news media had made it into, and say that the Republican Party lost out? If Christine O'Donnell won the seat, then the seat must then have been won by the Republicans?


She hasn’t won the senate seat yet. In fact it wasn’t the election for the senate seat at all, but rather a primary faceoff. In primaries, opponents from the same party square off to be on the ballot under that party’s ticket. It’s similar to how Hillary and Obama fought to be the Democrat’s nominee, but we didn’t hear much about how Obama’s primary win was somehow a defeat or blow to Democrats.

O’Donnell is supported by many Tea Party protestors, so the loons on the left and the media are trying to portray O’Donnell’s win as some sort of blow to the Republican Party, never mind that she is running as a Republican. If Castle won the primary, there is no doubt they would have tried to portray his win as a blow to the Tea Party movement.

There is a point to be made, however, that the state (Delaware) is heavily favored to go Democrat either way since the Democrats’ political machinery infects just about every part of the state. Biden has held that senate seat for 35 years and the Democratic Party has tons of money invested in the state’s political machinery, so upsetting their stranglehold on the state will prove difficult.

The media and the left have assumed it’s a foregone conclusion that the candidate they have backed will win and O’Donnell will lose, but I think they’re making a strategic mistake. First of all, O’Donnell’s win has energized the right in that state, and in an attempt to counter that energy, the leftist political and media establishment are trying their hardest to portray her as an “ultra-conservative” to instill fear in their diminishing and disengaged base. That usually works for their open-mouth breathers, but I think this time around they are just tired of the usual games the left has played, only to let them down. All you have to do is browse usually hardcore lefty sites like Democratic Underground, and the anger at Obama and the Democrats is obvious. Trying to portray her as ultra-conservative could end up backfiring on the Democrats. Second of all, by promoting the idea that it’s a foregone conclusion that O’Donnell will lose, the Democrats remove any sense of urgency for their base to mobilize for the real vote in November. Their base’s logic might be something along the lines of “If it’s definite that she’ll lose and our guy will win, why should I get off the couch to go vote, right?” Finally, it creates a scenario where the Democrats are setting themselves up where their best outcome is apathy, and worst is utter embarrassment. If their guy wins, it will instill apathy since many will say something along the lines of “well, he was supposed to win the state anyway since it is so heavily controlled by the Democrats.” But if he loses, it will be a huge blow to the Democrats as they lose a ‘safe’ seat.

A smarter strategy (and I don’t mind giving my $0.02 to the Democrats since they’ll find a way to f*ck this up too; they’re good at that) would have been to attempt to gloss over the primary win and what it means for the Republicans, and instead focus on the November election and what it means for the state and the federal government. If their guy wins the general election, they could possibly claim it as an affirmation of Obama/Biden’s failed policies by the voters in Delaware, which may or may not be true since I don’t know all that much about their horse in the race. But instead of making the race pro-Obama/Biden, which is understandable in a way given their poor performance, they have made the race anti-O’Donnell. However, the national attention shed on O’Donnell has resulted in a pouring in of support and small contributions from throughout the country as people want to help her take on the entrenched political and corporate machinery the Democrats have enjoyed for decades. Americans love to support an underdog, and this is a David versus Goliath matchup.
deanhills
Awesome posting jmi, and completely put me out of my misery and then some. Must be exciting politics though for Deleware. How is it that the Democrats have such a hold on the Media though? The latest reports about the improvement in the economy for example are so transparently from a democratic source, obviously to counter all the negative reporting during the summer in political comments like Time Magazine about Obama and his Administration's failure to manage the economy. But yes, you may be right. Americans love to support the underdog, and maybe it is in the favour of the Republicans if the media favours the Democrats. May work out as a reverse psychology.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I'm confused. When I read about the Tea Party there seems to be so many meanings attached to it. Some refer to it as a rebel movement in the Republican Party. Others refer to it as a Tea Party Movement. Is it a registered party? As with the latest win by Christine O'Donnell for the Senate Seat in Delaware the appearance is a contest among three parties: Democrats, Tea Party and Republicans. Whereas according to Wikipedia the Tea Party is not listed as a registered political Party.

About the nutty O'Donnell, see other thread. About the Tea Party -- well there have been several threads on that too. But to add something new from Gallup and to summarize:

The politically neutral Gallup organization has done the research and analyzed the data to conclude that the Tea Party is not an independent movement but a "rebranding" of the Republican Party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/tea-party-supporters-overlap-republican-base.aspx
Quote:
There is significant overlap between Americans who identify as supporters of the Tea Party movement and those who identify as conservative Republicans. Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene.


This rebranding was necessary to distance the Tea Party from the Republican Party after its historic failures of the Bush administration and its large scale rejection by the American voter in 2008. I would add that it is a rebranding specifically of the Republican rightest wing.

Though the movement has plenty of true believers who might wish that it was not a tool for the large corporations and right wing Republican organizers, plenty of evidence proves that it has been created, controlled and dominated by lobbyists and well known Republican operatives. O'Donnell's election was due largely to a $20 million dollar campaign by Sal Russo, a well known Republican insider.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/18/v-print/100794/meet-sal-russo-the-tea-partys.html
Quote:
Meet Sal Russo, the tea party's Karl Rove

Russo, a consultant whose roots in Sacramento stretch back to Gov. Ronald Reagan's days, took a direct hand in O'Donnell's victory Tuesday. He is the brains behind the Tea Party Express, one of several campaign operations that lays claim to representing the tea party movement.


But as Bikerman posted above, the question is whether the so-called movement (really, right wing takeover of the Republican Party) will further destroy the GOP, pushing unelectable, fringe, kooky candidates like O'Donnell in the drive for ideological purity and pro-corporate politics.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
She hasn’t won the senate seat yet. In fact it wasn’t the election for the senate seat at all, but rather a primary faceoff. In primaries, opponents from the same party square off to be on the ballot under that party’s ticket. It’s similar to how Hillary and Obama fought to be the Democrat’s nominee, but we didn’t hear much about how Obama’s primary win was somehow a defeat or blow to Democrats.
Would you compare Obama (at that stage) with O'Donnell? Surely Obama had significant backing from within the 'machine' whereas O'Donnell doesn't seem to have that. I may be way off base - I'm commenting on a few news reports we have had, nothing more, but my ill-informed take on it is that this was not wanted by any section of the repub party..
Quote:
O’Donnell is supported by many Tea Party protestors, so the loons on the left and the media are trying to portray O’Donnell’s win as some sort of blow to the Republican Party, never mind that she is running as a Republican. If Castle won the primary, there is no doubt they would have tried to portray his win as a blow to the Tea Party movement.
Loons on the left? Hardly. Most of the serious wailing I have seen here is coming from the redneck right. I think the left are probably just breathing a sigh of relief whilst unable to believe their luck.
Quote:
The media and the left have assumed it’s a foregone conclusion that the candidate they have backed will win and O’Donnell will lose, but I think they’re making a strategic mistake.
They might be if they were as stupid as you seem to think. My experience is that most political strategists (from either side) are not nearly that stupid. As for the media - that depends which media you consult doesn't it?
Quote:
First of all, O’Donnell’s win has energized the right in that state, and in an attempt to counter that energy, the leftist political and media establishment are trying their hardest to portray her as an “ultra-conservative” to instill fear in their diminishing and disengaged base. That usually works for their open-mouth breathers, but I think this time around they are just tired of the usual games the left has played, only to let them down.
Are you trying to say she isn't ultra conservative? Because otherwise the media are simply doing their job and telling the truth....
The right in Delaware isn't energised by the result from what I can see. They were split more or less down the middle. The polls showed that Castle could probably have beaten the Biden's democratic replacement, by the way: Karl Rove certainly thinks so and he is neither left nor stupid.....
Quote:
All you have to do is browse usually hardcore lefty sites like Democratic Underground, and the anger at Obama and the Democrats is obvious. Trying to portray her as ultra-conservative could end up backfiring on the Democrats.
I don't understand what you mean by 'portray her'. There is no need to portray her as anything - put a mike in front of her and she will do the job herself.
Quote:
Second of all, by promoting the idea that it’s a foregone conclusion that O’Donnell will lose, the Democrats remove any sense of urgency for their base to mobilize for the real vote in November.
Like I say, the people commenting on our news about her blowing the state for the republicans are republicans, not democrats. The Washington Times is hardly a left wing paper and they had
Quote:
Vilified by leading establishment Republicans in Delaware and Washington, Ms. O'Donnell benefited Tuesday from the backing of "tea party" activists and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to fashion the upset. After the bitter primary battle, Mr. Castle's campaign has said he will not endorse her in the general election.


After all O'Donnell did stand in 2008 against Biden didn't she? So her track record is already clear....
liljp617
Dick Armey was on C-SPAN earlier today on a panel discussing various subjects related to the Tea Party. He's pretty in-tune with the "movement" and he made a strong effort, on more than a few occasions, to emphasize there is no "Tea Party." Rather, he described it as "activist citizens" who are fed up with the status quo and desire limited government + fiscal conservative actions.

I wouldn't personally consider them a party of their own.
Bikerman
My observation (and again this might be wrong) is that there are an overwhelming number of republicans in the group and few democrats.
So do we conclude that democrats are all happy/content and that only republicans are concerned?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
The politically neutral Gallup organization has done the research and analyzed the data to conclude that the Tea Party is not an independent movement but a "rebranding" of the Republican Party.
You wish Handfleisch. I would be more inclined to agree with Time Magazine who sees the Tea Party as a rebel movement within the Republican Party that is giving it serious grief at the moment.

handfleisch wrote:
right wing takeover of the Republican Party
don't you think that is stretching it a little bit, again along wishful thinking lines?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
The politically neutral Gallup organization has done the research and analyzed the data to conclude that the Tea Party is not an independent movement but a "rebranding" of the Republican Party.
You wish Handfleisch. I would be more inclined to agree with Time Magazine who sees the Tea Party as a rebel movement within the Republican Party that is giving it serious grief at the moment.

handfleisch wrote:
right wing takeover of the Republican Party
don't you think that is stretching it a little bit, again along wishful thinking lines?


There is no necessary contradiction between the conclusion of Gallup, Time and myself. The Tea Partiers are a rebel movement of the even righter wing within the Republican Party trying to rebrand themselves as something besides right wing Republicans. It's all been organized and used by lobbyists for corporations and the megarich since the beginning, to the extent that the two cannot be separated.
deanhills
Handfleish, you were making a "wishful thinking" point more than once that the Tea Party was taking the Republican Party over and remaking it. That is completely different from Time Magazine which regards the Tea Party as a rebel movement in the Republican Party.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Handfleish, you were making a "wishful thinking" point more than once that the Tea Party was taking the Republican Party over and remaking it. That is completely different from Time Magazine which regards the Tea Party as a rebel movement in the Republican Party.

No, it's not, if you would try thinking about it for a second.

To get back to the main question, here is Frank Shaeffer, who grew up in the religious right wing and had to the integrity to break with them, talking about Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party etc.

http://www.youtube.com/v/npK7VXSdmsM

Quote:
MADDOW: Everybody's been saying all year that the religious right is really disenfranchised in Republican politics right now; fiscal conservatives have taken over the party. It seems to me like the religious right is really back. Do you think that it is?"

SHAEFFER: "Look, it's like claims for cures for cancer. There's always something coming along that says 'now there's a cure,' but it always comes back that it's not quite the cure.

The religious right is a fundraising operation. It's not a political operation at all. People like Gary Bauer, who I knew back in the day when I was in the religious right and my dad was a leader and I was a leader, back before I dropped out, in the early '80s, was in the same business he was in tonight.

And, so, when he comes in there bashing Muslims, but, say, wasn't bashing them before 9/11, or when people show up and say it's refreshing to be in the Middle East before 9/11 and then come back and change their minds - you have to understand they don't have a real ideology, these are fundraising opportunists, not political opportunists.

And, of course, the Republican Party is now saddled with the leadership that are so cowardly - people like Mitt Romney and McCain and the others - that they don't stand up against these guys and say 'Look, we need you like we need a hole in the head, what you're all about is raising money for things like your family organizations and all the rest; you keep changing your tune; it's Gays, it's Blacks, it's Muslims, circle the wagons, real Americans stand up' - the Sarah Palin schtick.

And Sarah Palin is the greatest example. She serves half a term as governor and drops out to make a buck.

These are flakes. And I used to be one of them.

And Thank God I got out, and I mean that literally because I'm still a believing Christian - I'm not that kind of Christian, but I'm a Christian. And you have to understand that these people are about fundraising for their organizations and they will latch onto anything, and if that means they're sometimes sounding like they're fomenting a little violence, they'll do it. If it comes off as racist or xenophobic or anti-Muslim, they'll do it...

And let me just say this. I had a son who was in the Marine Corps, and I'm loyal to the Marines and the men and women in the Marine Corps and our other armed services, and it MAKES ME SICK to see a group that wraps itself in the flag, stoking the flames of anti-Islamic-phobia in exactly the way that will result in people like those young Marines who served with my son getting killed, while these cowards raise money based on stoking these flames. That's who Newt Gingrich is, that's who these people are today, and IT'S DISGUSTING."

...

The religious right is a fundraising operation for various organization, whether that is Focus On The Family, or any of these other groups. People like Gary Bauer, if he's not running for President and trying to raise money that way, the same way Pat Robertson did, which was never a serious run, it was just about Pat's building his empire, and so forth, will cycle back, always into the mixture until they just grow old and die in it.

And we have these new people coming along like Christine O'Donnell, new to the nation, but have just used old baggage when it comes to this group - it's always the same people.

The real story here is this: The Republican Party has to be held to account. These are your people, my fellow, former fellow Republicans. If you don't speak up against them, they become your problem. And the problem is the lines are fuzzy. And so you have all these Republican candidates who actually pick up part of fundraising pitch from people like Gary Bauer, fold it into their own machinery. Use it. They know perfectly well that these guys are flakes. They know perfectly well that they're not serious.


deanhills
Handfleisch, I don't understand the quote and point you are trying to make. I thought we had been agreed that Christine O'Donnell is not a good candidate. And thankfully so far she is only a candidate. Not elected yet. Is she does get elected then OK, let's talk again, and probably I will be in complete agreement with what you say.
Bikerman
Here is a recent programme on the BBC (Radio 4) about the tea-party which people might find interesting.
http://bikerman.co.uk/americana.mp3
Alaskacameradude
The 'Tea Party' movement is not just 'Republicans'. There are actually a bunch of people who
are frustrated WITH the Republicans (but are conservative so they don't want to vote for
Democrats). For example, these people would NOT consider George Bush a 'true' conservative,
because he too spent way too much money while in power. In many places, these 'Tea Party'
citizens are voting out 'established' Republicans in favor of new ones. So the party is kind of
'anti Republican' in a way, as they do NOT like what the Republican party has been doing.
I just videotaped a debate between Joe Miller (who beat Murkowski here in Alaska in
the Republican Primary) and Scott McAdams the Democrat candidate. Miller is supported
by the Tea Party, and seems to be more what I would classify as a 'libertarian'.....in
many of his views. Politics in Alaska is interesting though. Frank Murkowski, held that
Senate seat for more than 20 years than ran for governor in Alaska. After winning the
governor's race, he had the right to appoint his replacement. He appointed his daughter,
who was at the time, a state legislator. Lisa Murkowski held the seat the past 8 years, and
now that Joe Miller defeated her, she is waging a very well funded write in campaign against him.
See here:
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Felled-by-tea-party-senator-wages-a-comeback-679227.php
Bikerman
I agree that it isn't just republicans, but it is largely republican, in that there certainly is other stuff going on, but the large majority of the members would otherwise be republican voters...
Alaskacameradude
Bikerman wrote:
I agree that it isn't just republicans, but it is largely republican, in that there certainly is other stuff going on, but the large majority of the members would otherwise be republican voters...


O yeah, I would agree that a majority of the members would otherwise be republican voters
(but there are a good number of libertarians as well). All I was saying, is that the Tea Party
seems to be equally mad at the 'Republican establishment' as they do at the Dems. In fact,
they are going after a lot of the established Republicans and trying to 'take them out'. Here in
Alaska, there was an ad referring to Lisa as 'Princess Lisa' and attacking her for seeming to
feel 'entitled' to her 'family seat'. Normally that would be a Democrat ad, but it was a Tea Party
spot. Here in Alaska, the Murkowski's are a family of longstanding 'establishment' Republicans,
not quite as long as Sen. Ted Stevens, but they were headed that direction. And the Tea Party
went after them in favor of Joe Miller. I was just saying it's not quite as simple as 'they are just
Republicans trying a gimmick'.

'They are conservative minded people who are fed up with the status quo on BOTH sides of the
aisle' might be a better description.
handfleisch
More answers to the question
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0
Quote:


Tea & Crackers
How corporate interests and Republican insiders built the Tea Party monster


Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine.” But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. “Physicians,” he said, “should be allowed to make a comfortable living.”

Those of us who might have expected Paul’s purist followers to abandon him in droves have been disappointed; Paul is now the clear favorite to win in November. Ha, ha, you thought we actually gave a shit about spending, joke’s on you. That’s because the Tea Party doesn’t really care about issues — it’s about something deep down and psychological, something that can’t be answered by political compromise or fundamental changes in policy. At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a them-versus-us thing. They know who they are, and they know who we are (“radical leftists” is the term they prefer), and they’re coming for us on Election Day, no matter what we do — and, it would seem, no matter what their own leaders like Rand Paul do.

In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American revolution, one that will “take our country back” from everyone they disapprove of. But what they don’t realize is, there’s a catch: This is America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change. The Tea Party today is being pitched in the media as this great threat to the GOP; in reality, the Tea Party is the GOP. What few elements of the movement aren’t yet under the control of the Republican Party soon will be, and even if a few genuine Tea Party candidates sneak through, it’s only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP’s campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
The 'Tea Party' movement is not just 'Republicans'. There are actually a bunch of people who
are frustrated WITH the Republicans (but are conservative so they don't want to vote for
Democrats). For example, these people would NOT consider George Bush a 'true' conservative,
because he too spent way too much money while in power. In many places, these 'Tea Party'
citizens are voting out 'established' Republicans in favor of new ones. So the party is kind of
'anti Republican' in a way, as they do NOT like what the Republican party has been doing.
I just videotaped a debate between Joe Miller (who beat Murkowski here in Alaska in
the Republican Primary) and Scott McAdams the Democrat candidate. Miller is supported
by the Tea Party, and seems to be more what I would classify as a 'libertarian'.....in
many of his views. Politics in Alaska is interesting though. Frank Murkowski, held that
Senate seat for more than 20 years than ran for governor in Alaska. After winning the
governor's race, he had the right to appoint his replacement. He appointed his daughter,
who was at the time, a state legislator. Lisa Murkowski held the seat the past 8 years, and
now that Joe Miller defeated her, she is waging a very well funded write in campaign against him.
See here:
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Felled-by-tea-party-senator-wages-a-comeback-679227.php
So do you think that there could be a split in the offing between the Republican and Tea Party movement? I wonder whether that could be a really good thing for the Republicans and bad thing for the Tea Party movement as I get the idea that the Tea Party is having a kind of symbiotic relationship with the Republican Party and it may be good if the Republican Party could get rid of them? Wonder how they would be able to do it though?
handfleisch
A new poll by a nonpartisan organization shows the Tea Party dominated by the religious right and conservative Christian fringe. So in addition to being a "rebranding" of the Republican Party (according to Gallup polls), it also belongs to the far right, Bible-in-the-classroom Pat Robertson types.
Educate yourself here:
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=386
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
A new poll by a nonpartisan organization shows the Tea Party dominated by the religious right and conservative Christian fringe. So in addition to being a "rebranding" of the Republican Party (according to Gallup polls), it also belongs to the far right, Bible-in-the-classroom Pat Robertson types.
Educate yourself here:
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=386
Exactly what do you mean by "rebranding" of the Republican Party Handfleisch? Are you trying to say that it is taking on the persona of the Tea Party movement? Surely that is nonsense. Aren't they fighting one another and isn't that a political phenomena in any Political Party that has been around for a long time? As with the Dems as well. If the Dems get challenged by the leftists, and the leftists make enough noise to be heard and call themselves the Freedom Movement, thereby "branding" themselves, does that then mean that the Dems have been rebranded? Or that they are simply being challenged by a movement in their Party that they have to come to grips with?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
A new poll by a nonpartisan organization shows the Tea Party dominated by the religious right and conservative Christian fringe. So in addition to being a "rebranding" of the Republican Party (according to Gallup polls), it also belongs to the far right, Bible-in-the-classroom Pat Robertson types.
Educate yourself here:
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=386
Exactly what do you mean by "rebranding" of the Republican Party Handfleisch? Are you trying to say that it is taking on the persona of the Tea Party movement? Surely that is nonsense. Aren't they fighting one another and isn't that a political phenomena in any Political Party that has been around for a long time? As with the Dems as well. If the Dems get challenged by the leftists, and the leftists make enough noise to be heard and call themselves the Freedom Movement, thereby "branding" themselves, does that then mean that the Dems have been rebranded? Or that they are simply being challenged by a movement in their Party that they have to come to grips with?

1. Rebranding: Scroll up, click on the link about Gallup and the rebranding, and get some info before trying to comment on what you think is "nonsense"
2. Just because the Tea Party is helping the Republicans to tear themselves apart doesn't contradict the origin of the movement as a rebranding
3. You show you know nothing at all about US politics when you try to talk about so-called leftists in the Democratic Party, because there really aren't any, and definitely there isn't a leftist movement in the party. It's a centrist party, basically, and the roll of money in campaigns and the influence of the oil, military and pharmaceutical corporations' lobbyists make that unlikely to change,
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
1. Rebranding: Scroll up, click on the link about Gallup and the rebranding, and get some info before trying to comment on what you think is "nonsense"
That is insulting Handfleisch. I asked a very reasonable question. What is "rebranding"? Now you scroll up and click on your link and see whether there is a definition or explanation of what "rebranding" really means.
handfleisch wrote:
2. Just because the Tea Party is helping the Republicans to tear themselves apart doesn't contradict the origin of the movement as a rebranding
Rebranding of what? Of the Republican Party? By the Republican Party?
handfleisch wrote:
3. You show you know nothing at all about US politics when you try to talk about so-called leftists in the Democratic Party, because there really aren't any, and definitely there isn't a leftist movement in the party. It's a centrist party, basically, and the roll of money in campaigns and the influence of the oil, military and pharmaceutical corporations' lobbyists make that unlikely to change,
You must be joking Handfleisch!!!!! Do a Google search and you will get plenty of references to Obama having to "appease" those who are to the left in the Democratic party. Obama is a centrist, but while he was campaigning in 2008 he was campaigning to the left. Everyone was referring to him as the most leftist President ever elected. But as soon as he took office, he followed a centrist direction. There are many disappointed Dems on the Left of the Party, refer the opinion in the New York Times below:
Quote:
Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama’s most loyal constituencies were the national press corps and the left wing of the Democratic Party.

Those on the left loved him because they thought he was one of them. They tolerated all the happy talk about bipartisanship because they were sure that deep in his community-organizing heart Obama shared their premises, their passions and their goals.

The media loved him because he was a great story and a great campaigner. The press favors dreamy liberals, but it worships success, and Obama was the best of both worlds — a soaring rhetorician with a ruthlessly competent political machine.

But now both groups are turning on him. As the health care debate enters its decisive weeks, the left doubts President Obama’s commitment, and the press doubts his competence.
There is a left-wing in the Democratic Party and they are giving Obama a hard time.
Bikerman
On next weeks show we learn :

a) That rebranding is a pretty self-explanatory term, and we offer FRIH$50 for the best witty definition.

b) The difference between being to the left of... and being left-wing, leftist, a lefty etc.
Clue 1- one is a relative term with no absolute meaning. Thus Margaret Thatcher was to the left of Ghengis Khan but this tells us little about her politics in reality.
Clue 2- neither of the main parties is left-wing in any understood sense. Neither advocates large scale nationalisation or other means by which the gap between rich and poor can be minimised if not eliminated. That is the essential common element of all left-wing politics.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats are right wing, capitalist parties.
ocalhoun
@previous discussion: No, I don't think the tea party is a 'rebranding' of the republican party... Especially in light of tea party candidates running against republicans, and in some instances possibly making both parties lose to the democrats by doing so.

The best explanation I've heard went something like this:
The tea party is made up mainly of conservatives who are fed up with the republican party, and want change. If it ever was truly made just for lower taxes and smaller government, this purpose was quickly perverted by tacking on all the usual far-right agendas as right-wing people joined the movement.
A mere 'rebranding' would suggest some continuity, but this is a group of conservatives who no longer like 'republicans 1.0' and have designed 'republicans 2.0' to replace the older version.
There are significant differences between the two; most noticeably, 1.0 encourages long-term congressmen and governors, while version 2.0 is very much in favor of 'kicking the bums out' and making term limits, even for the republicans, both 1.0 and 2.0

Bikerman wrote:
or other means by which the gap between rich and poor can be minimised if not eliminated.

Hm, could another one of those means be taxing the rich more heavily, while giving money to the poor? 'Redistribution of wealth', so to speak?
Seems like I remember a policy like that from a certain country... Started with a 'U', and ended with an 'A', I think...

(Really, just because someone isn't full-blown socialist, it doesn't mean they aren't left-leaning. I don't expect Europe to conform to American definitions of right vs. left, so please don't try to force European definitions on me, thanks. In both cases, you can add "of center" to either the right or the left, defining 'center' as the moderate viewpoint within that culture.)
Bikerman
Ermmm...
1) We were here first and left-wing politics are a European invention.
2) To talk of left-wing US politicians is a nonsense to the rest of the world, because the rest of the world understands what the words mean - including the non-English speaking countries.

If you want to define a new meaning for 'left wing' then go ahead. Let's hear it. You can't define 'left wing' in subjective terms like you suggest unless you have at least some notion of what the principles are - you seem to think that anyone on the opposite side of public opinion to the radical right is, by definition, left wing. That is simply daft. You don't start defining a politics by saying what it isn't - that is the tea-party approach and leads to a mass of people who agree on little but a single negative response to a particular question or issue. You define a political position by saying what it supports and stands for. Sometimes that may indeed include saying what it is against, but you don't start out with that. That is like having a metre rule, defining one end as right, and anything more than 5cm from it as left. What do you call proper left-wing politics? Ahh...we know, don't we? Goddam commies...

So come on. You want to be the big US bullies and keep us little Europeans from using our own language to describe our own inventions...You tell me then - What is Left Wing? If you can't conform to the rest of the world's understanding of the terms, and your arrogance is such that you insist on using the terms wrongly despite this, then at least tell us just how much you are going to pervert our language, so that at least we have a chance of understanding your gibberish.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
On next weeks show we learn :

a) That rebranding is a pretty self-explanatory term, and we offer FRIH$50 for the best witty definition.

b) The difference between being to the left of... and being left-wing, leftist, a lefty etc.
Clue 1- one is a relative term with no absolute meaning. Thus Margaret Thatcher was to the left of Ghengis Khan but this tells us little about her politics in reality.
Clue 2- neither of the main parties is left-wing in any understood sense. Neither advocates large scale nationalisation or other means by which the gap between rich and poor can be minimised if not eliminated. That is the essential common element of all left-wing politics.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats are right wing, capitalist parties.
Bikerman, I can't quite decipher what is sarcasm, and what is not. I asked Handfleisch a very simple question relative to politics, i.e. what rebranding means in the context he was using it. I can look up "rebranding" easily on the Internet, and get plenty of definitions, but I wanted to see Handfleisch explain it within the context that he was using it, instead of just quoting his usual polls. I wanted to see his own words.

I completely agree with Handfleisch that the Democratic Party is centrist in its direction, but there is a faction in the Democratic Party that is very much to the left and giving Obama a very hard time. Everyone knows that as it is general knowledge. Looks through editorials in the "New York Times" and they refer to it quite often.

ocalhoun wrote:
The best explanation I've heard went something like this:
The tea party is made up mainly of conservatives who are fed up with the republican party, and want change. If it ever was truly made just for lower taxes and smaller government, this purpose was quickly perverted by tacking on all the usual far-right agendas as right-wing people joined the movement.
A mere 'rebranding' would suggest some continuity, but this is a group of conservatives who no longer like 'republicans 1.0' and have designed 'republicans 2.0' to replace the older version.
There are significant differences between the two; most noticeably, 1.0 encourages long-term congressmen and governors, while version 2.0 is very much in favor of 'kicking the bums out' and making term limits, even for the republicans, both 1.0 and 2.0)
Thanks Ocalhoun. Something that makes sense at last. My take on it too. Also think that at some or other point they may have to go on their own, as looks as though they are riding on the coat tails of the Republicans as well. Would probably be in the interest of the Republicans to get rid of them.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Ermmm...
2) To talk of left-wing US politicians is a nonsense to the rest of the world, because the rest of the world understands what the words mean - including the non-English speaking countries.


To talk of right-wing (modern) European politicians is a nonsense to the US.

If you insist (since you brits do have the claim of inventing the language), I'll refer to left-of-center and right-of-center, rather than left-wing and right-wing.
(With center defined as the centrist political persuasion of the culture being discussed, unless otherwise noted.)
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Ermmm...
2) To talk of left-wing US politicians is a nonsense to the rest of the world, because the rest of the world understands what the words mean - including the non-English speaking countries.


To talk of right-wing (modern) European politicians is a nonsense to the US.

If you insist (since you brits do have the claim of inventing the language), I'll refer to left-of-center and right-of-center, rather than left-wing and right-wing.
(With center defined as the centrist political persuasion of the culture being discussed, unless otherwise noted.)

That would be a great improvement and will do much for my equanimity.
Da Rossa
No one EVER knew what the Tea Party was all about here in Brazil, and probably too few do. It's began popping out at cable TV the very last week. Soon enough they started adding depreciative labels to the movement here in Brazil, where the media is owned by people sympathetic to the left.

What I know is that TP is a group of ordinary american citizens, right-oriented, conservative but not irrationally (except for a few individuals) that have the purpose of tidying up the Republican party. By tyding up I mean removing corruption and left-trending ideas and representatives. Not antidemocratic at all since a party is supposed to have its own identity and not be multi-oriented. The Democrats are multi-oriented, which is a characteristic I don't really appreciate: they embrace every single cause of allegedly-unprotected-groups-of-individuals, such as black (when race is not supposed to be a serious discussion), gay cause (only because their agenda appears to fit with human rights agendas), immigrants, and so on.

The tea party, from what I've seen since I first heard about them when philosopher Olavo de Carvalho (see also here) talk about them about a year ago, is about the maintenance of a democratic or, at least, non-authoritarian lifestyle that follows the idea of no taxation without representation. They became strong when Obama announced an increase in the public spendings, which is good: in the US, a president that takes the initiative to raise taxes gets into history, while here, in Brazil, it's just two-minute bar talk.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
By tyding up I mean removing corruption and left-trending ideas and representatives.
That is a bit far-fetched Da Rossa. I've never heard the Republicans of being accused of being left-trending before. Just the opposite. Smile Where did you get the idea of corruption from, or is this mirrorring your exposure in Brazil on the Republicans of the US?

Da Rossa wrote:
The Democrats are multi-oriented, which is a characteristic I don't really appreciate: they embrace every single cause of allegedly-unprotected-groups-of-individuals, such as black (when race is not supposed to be a serious discussion), gay cause (only because their agenda appears to fit with human rights agendas), immigrants, and so on.
Now this has me scratching my head, "multi-oriented"? Shocked Never heard of anything like that before. Some of what you say is reasonable about embracing unprotected groups. I've heard the Democrats being accused of many things, but not of being multi-oriented.
Da Rossa
Yeah, I agree I wasn't clear enough. I must practice the... expression.

The Republican party, given there are only two 'major' parties in the US, is a... big party! Yeah, let me say what I mean as far as my limited knowledge goes. The republicans are traditionally more right-oriented than the democrats, right? But the party, being big like it is (in mumber of representatives and in number of people sympathetic to it), the political spectrum of the sum of people connected to the republican party is a wide range. And, inside the party itself, there are factions, some of them ultraconservative, some conservative, some simply-right-wing, and some liberals. This part of the pizza is the one often seduced to change sides or support, even in good faith, ideas that are not exactly compatible with the traditional conservatism, such as the gay agenda, which I'll give only as an example:

You probably won't see a 'major supporter' of any gay cause inside the republicans, but you could easily see some people advocating 'human rights', 'freedom' and 'individuality'. This vague ideals can be applied, in the concrete cases, to any interested subject, and the gays are a candidate. So a particular republican can find gay supporters in his community, which is what rings the movement's bell. Why? Because sympathy to and from gays may induce a cascade of favors to and from other organizations that happen to be connected to the gays, such as feminists. Feminists mean abortion, and this is unacceptable.

You see what I mean? No mirroring from a Brazilian view because in here people have no view at all and know, in average, 1% of what I know about the republican party, and, as you can see, I don't know much. In here we have no organized right-wing, possibly no right at all.

About the multi-orientation: that's exactly what I meant! embracing the unproteced, or the allegedly unprotected, such as ACORN, which has ties with Obama. I was not talking about multi orientation in the political perspective, but in groups and interests. And there are conservative-trended democrats as well, I believe. Aren't there?
deanhills
Thanks, I understand it better now. I'm not an expert myself on the Republican Party, nor the Democratic Party, but yes, I would agree, the Republicans are a bit more conservative than the democratic party in certain ways. They also differ in the Democratic Party wanting to have more Government, and the Republicans less. Right now the Republicans seem to be more in the role of a protest party, rather than having real policies that one can identify the Republicans by. They probably need to reformulate their objectives for us to really figure out who and what they are. Lots of that due to the Tea Party members amongst their midst, and the Tea Party is of course quite rightist. Irritatingly so for a large number of the Republicans.

I understand now about the multi-orientation. However, just as a side note, I'm not so sure that ACORN has any ties with Obama any more. Obama has gone quite silent after his Presidential election, so imagine he has decided to let go with links so as to ensure there can't be complaints about bias on his side.
Da Rossa
I agree.
When you're not on governement, then you have a natural tendency to become a protestor instead of a "proposer". And this is very unfortunate.

Here in Brazil, the current party-in-charge (which I believe and fear they're gonna be there for a looong time) hadn't had a position of power before. They, to achieve election (Lula and his minions) made a long-term job of criticizing the prior administrations, but had nothing to say about themselves because they'd never been there. This is, abstractly, good, but they went beyond that: they made a silent and gradual cultural cleanup.

And the ones who used to be there once have now taken the protestors' place, but they can't act as opposition as well as Lula, which was one of the few things they seem to know how to do correctly.

I just didn't understand the...
Quote:
Irritatingly so for a large number of the Republicans.

...part. Very Happy
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
I just didn't understand the...
Quote:
Irritatingly so for a large number of the Republicans.

...part. Very Happy

Not all of the Republicans, in fact (but I say this under correction now), the majority of Republicans aren't really for the Tea Party as the Tea Party is too much on the extreme right for them. They must have been really irritated with having the Republican Party associated with the Tea Party during the last elections. I would not at all be surprised if some of the Republicans had voted for Democrat candidates during the last elections, as a result of not wanting a Tea Party candidate to win during an election.
Da Rossa
Hmm, I see. And that is very bad. Acatually, the Tea Party is aligned with the Republicans. What Tea Party wants is to make it 'pure', like I said. The Reps were not supposed to feel bad about it, because the Tea Party is not 'extreme' like left-trended people say; they are only about assuming solid positions. That includes, for instance, "no taxation without representation". And they mean it, so what they're doing is criticize the Reps which are trading political favours. For example: republicans that, in exchange for a support on some ordinary cause, agrees to support a democratic proposal for a tax increase. That's what the movement is there to point at.

The Tea Party is not extreme because they're not, as far as I know, preaching violence, destruction, honest racism (be racist and don't hide it; in face, some Tea Party leaders are black), religious intolerance, murders, and homophobia. About the latter this may be controversial, since a lone 'worrior' has walked among other "Teapartitians" with an anti-gay poster. I'm reluctant to believe that is the general opinion inside the Tea Party.
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:

The Tea Party is not extreme because they're not, as far as I know, preaching violence, destruction, honest racism (be racist and don't hide it; in face, some Tea Party leaders are black), religious intolerance, murders, and homophobia.

That said, the Tea Party does include people who believe such things, and tolerates them.
However, 1) the majority of tea partiers don't hold these opinions, and 2) they pretty much have to tolerate everyone, because they have no mechanism to kick out extremists; anybody who says they are part of the tea party is part of the tea party, because of the lack of consolidated leadership.

Also, political groups tend to be the most extreme at their birth... I'd expect the tea party to mellow out as it (as a party) gets older... if it lasts long enough to grow older.
Da Rossa
I don't believe the Tea Party is going to die soon enough.

Quote:

That said, the Tea Party does include people who believe such things, and tolerates them.


If that's the way it is, then the democrats do include a lot of immoral people too, and tolerates them. Anyone can commit a crime and later declare him/herself "democrat".

That said, no large group have exactly a 'mecanism' to kick the odd ones.

But I don't think it will mellow... so far, they have no essentially different agendas than the republicans do. They appear to act more like an external quality control.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
But I don't think it will mellow... so far, they have no essentially different agendas than the republicans do. They appear to act more like an external quality control.
For me it is more a case of the Tea Party riding on the coattails of the Republican Party. Without the Republican Party, they could not survive on their own. They would have to start their own Party for starters, will have to find funding for that, and may lose lots of power that they now have under the Republican Party umbrella.
Da Rossa
Quote:
For me it is more a case of the Tea Party riding on the coattails of the Republican Party. Without the Republican Party, they could not survive on their own. They would have to start their own Party for starters, will have to find funding for that, and may lose lots of power that they now have under the Republican Party umbrella.


Yes, but the Republican party is not going to die soon either. And the Tea Party has already gathered millions of people, and I don't know the name of the jewish man, but a single guy has donated a billion to it. (I might have to check that information).

And also, I don't think the Tea Party needs to become a party at least for now. As you can see, it's about conservative ideas. And this is not only about being anti-abortion, gayzism, hypertaxation, degeneration of moral values, this is even simpler, including "keep things the way they are". If things are working this way and the Tea Party is carrying on its agenda, with or without the Reps, then why going further?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Without the Republican Party, they could not survive on their own.

Well, I disagree with that part... Without the Republican Party, they would actually thrive, absorbing a large portion of former Republicans into their ranks.

(That situation would also probably force the creation/rise of another new party, as the moderate conservatives try to find a way to organize without the Tea Party's extremism... Might even cause the rise of an actual centrist party.)
Da Rossa
@ocal
Is the Tea Party actually extremist? I believe they can be, but what are the elements, the conditions an extremist should have and, in Tea Party's case, they're verified?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Without the Republican Party, they could not survive on their own.

Well, I disagree with that part... Without the Republican Party, they would actually thrive, absorbing a large portion of former Republicans into their ranks.

(That situation would also probably force the creation/rise of another new party, as the moderate conservatives try to find a way to organize without the Tea Party's extremism... Might even cause the rise of an actual centrist party.)
Perhaps you are right Ocalhoun, but it will take the Tea Party quite a long time to rival the Republican Party, as they would have to get their large sponsors lined up first, it takes more than having a basis for a political Party to be a successful Party. And whether the Republicans would be completely knocked down by their departure is also open for debate and perhaps a bit of a Wild Card. It could be the best thing that could happen to the Republicans, as at least they would be forced to get their identity and "brand" sorted out. With regard to Republicans leaving to join the Tea Party, if it were to go on its own, there must be equally Republicans leaving the Party for the Dems or Libertarians because of their disgust with having Tea Party thriving under their umbrella?
Da Rossa
I still think the Tea Party is not a political party and doesn't want to become one at least for now. Unless they're very paranoid and have a hidden leadership conspiring to come out in a few years. What do you think?
Bikerman
Well, I hear today that Sarah Palin is thinking of standing for President. In many ways she embodies much of the tea-party message (at least she seems to, from my observations). Perhaps if she does run then we will see a distinct 'tea party' politics.....
Da Rossa
Oh My God she's gonna have a veeery though time. Even in here (Brazil) some people has absorbed the idea that she's a "donkey countrywoman" (not sure if this is how to say that).
She'll be in many, many cartoons.

Still, I think she's capable, provided she gets prepared and gather a decent team to play with her. After all, she's been the governor of one of the most difficult states in the US to rule. So near Russia and so many oil dispute issues.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Oh My God she's gonna have a veeery though time. Even in here (Brazil) some people has absorbed the idea that she's a "donkey countrywoman" (not sure if this is how to say that).
She'll be in many, many cartoons.

Still, I think she's capable, provided she gets prepared and gather a decent team to play with her. After all, she's been the governor of one of the most difficult states in the US to rule. So near Russia and so many oil dispute issues.
Not only in Brazil. Probably in the whole world. And definitely in the United States. Smile
Da Rossa
Hehe and you're glad about that? (Well she's genuinely fun anyway Very Happy)
As far as I know the thing she ás a lot to study is Economics. But, besides being a Natural-Country-American (she has a strong identity), what are her downsides in your point of view?

And, how come this negative image spread all over the world? I don't think tihs was her own and only 'job'. Somebody in the US has made an effort.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Hehe and you're glad about that? (Well she's genuinely fun anyway Very Happy)
As far as I know the thing she ás a lot to study is Economics. But, besides being a Natural-Country-American (she has a strong identity), what are her downsides in your point of view?

And, how come this negative image spread all over the world? I don't think tihs was her own and only 'job'. Somebody in the US has made an effort.
I think she has much more to study than just economics. Probably a good course of history of the United States, as well as geography of the world. Also some lessons in diplomacy and dealing with the media as she has made real fumbling blunders that have caused her a lot of harm. It is OK for her to make those mistakes in her personal capacity, but would be unforgivable if she should become a President of the United States. She is also completely unpredictable and not completely trustworthy, having giving up her position as Governor of Alaska ahead of the expiry date for example.

All of the politics in the United States seem to be available to everyone else in the world, as part of their daily news. Hence why what goes on the United States seems to be of real interest to everyone outside the country as well. Or most of everyone anyways. Smile
Da Rossa
Yes, so she has a lot to study. And I agree. I just think she has something valuable these days: balls. Very Happy
Bikerman
No, save me from Politicians with 'balls' please. They are the ones who start wars. I prefer my politicians to have a nice yellow streak running down the spine....If a war is really necessary then delaying a couple of months to either persuade the leader, or politically force him/her into accepting it, will probably not matter too much in the grand scheme. On the other hand, if the leader commits to a war then there is no going back....a couple of recent examples spring to mind......
Da Rossa
Then I think we have different perspectives of what "one with balls" means. When I was referring to Palin, I talked about her lack of shame to say the things she has to say, no matter if this will embarass someone. She's clumsy but at least she has a personality. IMO.
Bikerman
Well I don't really want a clumsy leader either, and embarrassing people is a pretty negative way to proceed in most situations. If she strides into a meeting of ministers from Europe, India & China with the jingoism she sometimes displays then the US will get lonely quickly. The US once had the financial muscle to boss the table. It lost that fairly recently and had to rely on military strength - as we have seen over the last 2 decades. The rest of the table are no longer willing to do what the Superpower decides and if Palin did provoke a trade war then the US would be in real trouble.....
We know all about it in the UK. A couple of centuries ago we were bossing the largest empire in history. Oh how times change Smile
Bikerman
Well I don't really want a clumsy leader either, and embarrassing people is a pretty negative way to proceed in most situations. If she strides into a meeting of ministers from Europe, India & China with the jingoism she sometimes displays then the US will get lonely quickly. The US once had the financial muscle to boss the table. It lost that fairly recently and had to rely on military strength - as we have seen over the last 2 decades. The rest of the table are no longer willing to do what the Superpower decides and if Palin did provoke a trade war then the US would be in real trouble.....
We know all about it in the UK. A century and a half ago we were bossing the largest empire in history. Oh how times change Smile
Da Rossa
I think I agree. And this is very sad, because I think you ('americans', so I say 'we', the world) need someone with two of her qualities: one is... the balls! Very Happy Yeah, now I can be clearer: it's about having her own ideas and being strong to face the mobs that put her in position of ridicule; and other is that I'm alligned with her politically. So this second thing is rather subjective.

The problem is, she's still imature about some other relevant aspects which would be expected from an american leader: knowledge and posture.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
I think I agree. And this is very sad, because I think you ('americans', so I say 'we', the world) need someone with two of her qualities: one is... the balls! Very Happy Yeah, now I can be clearer: it's about having her own ideas and being strong to face the mobs that put her in position of ridicule; and other is that I'm alligned with her politically. So this second thing is rather subjective.

The problem is, she's still imature about some other relevant aspects which would be expected from an american leader: knowledge and posture.
I understand where you are coming from, and "balls" is indeed a good quality to have, but in Palin's case her clumsiness can make the "balls" part into a catastrophe. I don't think she is going to get anywhere with standing for the presidency, except perhaps providing lots of entertainment value to the media. I can't see how anyone could regard her seriously enough for the presidency.
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:
@ocal
Is the Tea Party actually extremist? I believe they can be, but what are the elements, the conditions an extremist should have and, in Tea Party's case, they're verified?

Extremist as in, along the same line as the Republicans, but further from the center than they are...
Relatively extreme, so to speak.
Da Rossa
Now I see.
But I quite disagree. And you probably will disagree with the following, but they can't be named 'extremists' for the single fact that they're away from the center, and even farther from the left-liberalism. They're about assuming positions. I personally think 'extreme' applies to people who advocate killing, irrational prohibitions, change in the Constitution, liberty restraints, and so on.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
I personally think 'extreme' applies to people who advocate killing, irrational prohibitions, change in the Constitution, liberty restraints, and so on.
I agree. They can be both on the extreme right as well as the extreme left. Focus with the Tea Party is however on the extreme right. To the left would be people in the Democratic Party who are left from where Obama stands, also the Libertarians and the Communist Party, and the Green Party. Perhaps those to the left of Obama in the Democratic Party would not be left enough to qualify for extreme. They could be left enough in the Communist and Green Parties to qualify for extreme. I don't think there is enough of noise to the extreme in any of the two latter Parties who stand to the left, to qualify for extreme, so when people are talking extremist in the United States, possibly they are usually referring to the extreme right.

I thought the following article on why extremism would not work in the United States was a good one. There is also a link at the bottom of that article to another article that says moderation does not work either. For a third party to succeed, it would have to be more than the difference between the Dems and Republicans, non-extreme but also not moderate. Maybe the Libertarians fall into that category and is therefore a Party worth watching as a viable alternative to the usual Dems and Republican see-saw?

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/NewParty/ExtremismLoses.php
Da Rossa
I think that's the thing: I really don't know why to point fingers at the right when the subject is extremism. IMO the monothematic organisations, which are more eager to adhere to the left, are far more extreme in their beliefs (and also in course of action) than the right-trended organisations. I mean the green causes, animal causes, minorities causes (gayzism, immigration and the black movement), do use the attacks as a method rather than the criticism. No righty organisation, in my knowledge of the past 50 years in the US has put fire on any building, for example.

Edit:
Quote:
I thought the following article on why extremism would not work in the United States was a good one. There is also a link at the bottom of that article to another article that says moderation does not work either. For a third party to succeed, it would have to be more than the difference between the Dems and Republicans, non-extreme but also not moderate. Maybe the Libertarians fall into that category and is therefore a Party worth watching as a viable alternative to the usual Dems and Republican see-saw?

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/NewParty/ExtremismLoses.php


seems to be an interesting site! Are you sure the author(s) don't bend to one of the sides? Very Happy
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
also the Libertarians and

It's quite possible to be a moderate Libertarian...
Extreme Libertarian would be in the neighborhood of Anarchism.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
No righty organisation, in my knowledge of the past 50 years in the US has put fire on any building, for example.
I'm not so sure that is entirely true, what about the Oklahoma city bombing, just for starters?


I'm sure if you Googled you would find many more incidences of right-wing terrorism. While I did a cursory Google I also found an interesting article on: The Re-Emerging Threat of Right-Wing Violence dated June 2009.
Da Rossa
Might be true.
I heard about Oklahoma in 1996, but I know nothing else about it. I wasn't even aware that it had political motivation.

But: the title says: "re-emergence". why would there be new right-wing terror?
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:
Might be true.
I heard about Oklahoma in 1996, but I know nothing else about it. I wasn't even aware that it had political motivation.


Perhaps even more political than it appears to be...
There are troubling details about it. Things to make one suspicious that it wasn't all what it seemed.
Da Rossa
Of course something of that magnitude had inside job involved, but from what direction? I don't really know.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Of course something of that magnitude had inside job involved, but from what direction? I don't really know.
I don't understand. Is that a conspiracy theory? I thought all of the facts were crystal clear?
Da Rossa
Not for me, trust me! ALL I know about that incident was that some guys bombed a shopping mall, killing 168 in 1996, one of the terrorists named Timothy McVeigh and nothing else. What am I missing?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
Of course something of that magnitude had inside job involved, but from what direction? I don't really know.
I don't understand. Is that a conspiracy theory? I thought all of the facts were crystal clear?

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory, one I'm rather convinced of, actually.

-Concrete pylons in the building show signs of demolition charges wrapped around them.
-It is doubtful that even a full truckload of fertilizer-based bomb would be powerful enough to produce the effects it did.
-The ATF personnel in the building were seen leaving the day before, and were strangely absent the day of the bombing.
-Video surveillance footage from neighboring buildings was confiscated and never released, not even for the trial.
-Federal investigators arrived on the scene before local fire and ambulance services.
-The license plate from the bomb-truck was found within minutes, very quickly traced to the rental company, and McVeigh was pulled over for a routine traffic stop only 30 minutes after the bomb went off.
-Several witnesses saw McVeigh with an accomplice, but no effort was made to identify or arrest this accomplice.
-The entire area was leveled, buried, and paved over very rapidly... as if somebody didn't want evidence left around.

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I am sure that it is highly suspicious.
Da Rossa
Well, I didn't know ANY of that details. If they're all correct, then you can be peaceful that this is indeed a true conspiracy.

But what is the political cut in this?
deanhills
Right. I was also completely unaware of the conspiracy. Sounds almost similar to the one of the World Trade Centre?
Bikerman
This developed into an off-topic side-thread which I have split and saved under a new thread. It can be found HERE.
Bikerman - Moderator
Related topics
Tea Party Protests
Warning on Tea Parties: KKK, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists
Tea Party more popular than Republican Party
State representative vs. Tea Bagger
Justice Thomas' wife's tea bagger group is breaking law
Anti-HCR protesters mock Parkinson's victim
Tea Party originator was lobbyist for Iranian terrorists
Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents
Black Tea Party Protesters
Tea Party Demographics
USA Republican Tea Party Candidate Dresses as Nazi
From Egypt to Wisconsin? Anti-Tea Party Protest in WISCONSIN
Tea Party = Occupy??
Video: Tea Party hero Santelli freaks out
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.