Now that the Occupy Wall Street movement is dying down and shifting from creating mass group therapy sessions and breeding grounds for crime to its main goal of getting President Obama re-elected, it dawned on me that the president shares a very disturbing trait with the occupiers. And no, it’s not a love for playing hackey sack while avoiding personal hygiene.
One of the things that the occupiers notably avoided was any kind of specific demands, save for the occasional mention of Glass-Steagal. Most of their “demands” could just be summed up as “Dude, give us money.” The specific demands that they gave were easily torn apart for their unrealistic selfishness – these links summarize it pretty well. And that is actually the heart of the problem with the OWS movement, and with the left itself. They’re big on ideas, but good luck pressing them to actually craft the details to make them work.
Don’t believe me? Take the issue of Global Warming, Climate Change, or as we used to call it when I was younger, “weather.” Lefties love calling for drastic changes to our lives, heavy government intrusion, and of course, a massive regressive tax that would hurt the world’s poorest people. Granted, putting more people into poverty so they can become dependent on the government would be a win-win for lefties, but that is neither here nor there at the moment. So how do they justify this? Any good leftie will bombard you with studies proving beyond all doubt that the crisis is real and we must immediately take drastic action. Until of course, you get to the details. For example, take the simple questions that I had inadvertently plagiarized from Wizbang’s former writer Jay Tea a while back. For example, one would ask questions such as, “What is that actual temperature you want to achieve, or what is that rate of change that we need to sustain?” Or his second question that goes along the lines of, “One of the means of proving a scientific theory is true is disproving the theories that show it to be false. What would convince you that Global Warming theory is not correct?” I’ve posed this question to a number of lefties, and am yet to get an answer. Yes, they will respond at length but they’ll never give details beyond some vague “slowing the rate of change”. And unlike lefties, I don’t hate the poor enough to want to punish them over something that doesn’t have concrete evidence to support it.
This is why the occupiers are railing against this proverbial 1% that’s supposedly destroying the country. I’m not sure how, since we members of the 99% willing bought gasoline from them, accepted student loans and mortgages from them, purchased cars, clothing, vacations, and food willingly and without coercion. Oh, that’s right – they’re not paying their “fair share” of taxes. For starters, we can dispel the usefulness of punishing the wealthy as pure bunk. More importantly, there is one thing missing from the occupiers, and President Obama’s, demands to eat the rich.
They keep calling for the rich to pay their “fair share”. So here is my question – what is that number that constitutes fairness? Is it 30%, 40%, 50%? How about 100%? Why stop there? In addition to taking all of the one percenters’ ill-gotten wealth why not start seizing their assets? A better question is who determines what that “fair share” number is? The occupiers? The president? And what is it that qualifies them to be the ones to pass judgment over who has earned their income and who hasn’t? Is one only qualified if your career has never been touched by the taint of private sector or actually producing something useful at some point in your life? It’s ironic that these are the same people who have to reserve judgment and not jump to conclusions over motives when a lunatic shouts “Allahu akbar!!!” while on a murderous rampage.
Save for an occasional tantrum, the OWS movement has mostly gone away, as it’s funding is back to focusing on getting the president re-elected. Not to mention that the public quickly grew tired of the vandalism and other crime that followed their camps, not to mention destroying the public ares that have been subject to their occupation. Even with the sympathetic coverage of the press it became impossible to mask the selfish parasitic heart of the movement, and without a diet of attention and approval the unspecific-demand-ridden beast starved. Sadly, the same can not be said of the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Look at the president’s domestic economic policies. The best that can be said of him at this point is that he is economically illiterate, and at worst, he is truly trying to destroy this country. If you’re wondering where I stand, I think it’s somewhere in the middle – President Obama seems to see this country as too big for its britches and needing to be taken down a notch, but not intelligent enough to understand the impact of his actions. His policies illustrate that:
- He wants the private sector to start hiring more, as does everyone in America. And yet he continues to state that he will punish profitability (profitability means expanding one’s business, and hiring more workers to handle the increased business), make it more expensive to hire workers with mandates like the ever shifting Obamacare and various other “protections” that adults need from everyday transactions. I haven’t seen any explanation as to way any business would want to expand in this climate.
- He says we have an “All of the above” energy policy that has put the brakes on offshore oil drilling and domestic gas pipelines, while allowing tech EPA to end-run Congress begin regulating the coal industry out of business. I understand that lefties want our energy to a wind and solar only sourced power supply. We haven’t seen any road map as to how we get there or how much it would actually cost.
- In the “too true to be funny” category, the president claims that he’s committed to reducing the deficit, while he may be on track by the end of his first term to inflict on the American people as much debt as his predecessor did in eight years. And rather than talk honestly about how this gets paid back and what it will cost all of us we just get a hockey stick you can believe in.
Sadly, as long as he has his enablers in the press Obama will continue to get away with not having to ever give his constituents any kind of serious policy discussion. Although the president is too well groomed to truly fit in at an OWS camp, his policies show that he is truly the father figure of that movement.
“And I will leave you debt that can’t repaid… ’til the end of timmmme”
Crossposted from Brother Bob’s Blog
Brother Bob, this touches on a topic for discussion I was thinking of doing for FA. That is, the differences between the OWS movement and the TEA party movement.
As for your piece, quite interesting, although;
I’d say that he is definitely on track to surpass what Bush has done. Do you think there will be any applause when he accomplishes that feat?
Great Piece… too bad Liberalism has
bredhemorrhaged so many disgruntled, losers, seeking an easy life….REALITY has Smacked the OWS and the like right in the face and they are finding out there “really is a school of hard knocks” contrary to the Unicorns, Rainbows, no ‘bruised egos’ and the unwillingness by the left to inhibit their ‘creativity’ ….not to mention the ‘equality game’ where everyone gets a trophy for “participating” – regardless of skill or wit …. because after all..
Yep, the Left has made a conscience decision to “create” this breed…
No longer is this a “Societal Issue” it is a Liberal Left Ideology issue. They are the ones pushing this agenda… the blame lies there for this one.
There is no such thing as ‘Democracy’. Democracy is a Liberal [myth] twisted , propagandized and turned inside out .
How OWS and Liberals interpret Democracy is specifically this: Democracy = Mob Rule.
Oh, and for the dull Americans, and contrary to 40 years of Liberal Ideology, the ill and twisted use of our Constitution to push liberal agenda’s…. we have and always will be a “Republic”.
Remember this one?
“I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of American and to the [Republic] for which it stands…one Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
@johngalt:
Interesting idea, John. What I would find even more interesting would be your take on the difference between the Tea Party and the religiously Conservative wing of the Republican Party, if such a distinction exists. I would say, to the extent it matters politically nationally, it does not. Exit polls have shown over and over that the Tea Party vote aligns with social, not economic issues, and the Tea Party has supported the ascendant socially conservative candidate at each turn, right up to Santorum. The canard that the Tea Party is an insurgency of fed-up Independent-minded people mainly concerned with secular small government issues, budget reduction, and the Constitution has not been born out in the Primary. The self-identified Tea Partier has been mostly indistinguishable from any member of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party, which may point to why their influence on the national stage has faded. They are no longer an unknown, and the idea that they’ll put small government above all else doesn’t seem likely when they’ll throw their support to Washington insiders like Gingrich and Santorum over a Ron Paul, and mainly due to social concerns. My take is the Tea Party was a brilliant piece of rebranding of Religious Right spawned by a virulent hatred of Obama. By focusing on secular issues they were able to side-step the uncomfortable realities of their social and religious disapproval of what Obama and his supporters represent. When given the opportunity in the voting booth to back up their rhetoric, they simply didn’t.
Tom You nailed it.
@Tom:
Wow, that is a brilliant piece of revisionist history, Tom. Knowing quite a few people who have actually attended a TEA party rally, I’m intrigued as to the source of your “knowledge” here. Maybe you could cite your sources?
Andrew Breitbart has passed away. Godspeed Andrew.
Expect people like tom to celebrate his death.
@Hard Right:
So melodramatic. Sorry to disappoint, but unlike yourself I don’t make it a practice to wish death upon others, call them traitors, or label them un-American just because I disagree with their politics. I enjoy a spirited debate as much as anyone, but I find your level of outlandish anger to be cl0wnish. You should think about that: being consumed with rage isn’t an attractive quality, is probably not a very healthy way to go through life, and a self-respecting person accepts responsibility for the problems in his life, rather than blaming mysterious forces, “libtards” or the government.
@Tom:
BTW, it is somewhat naive to think that a group concerned with economic issues that mirror conservative theory would not also closely mirror the conservative viewpoints on social issues. The fact is that both social and economic issues are closely tied to one another, concerning one’s philosophical viewpoints, and in most cases and examples, but not all, a person’s economic viewpoint will point to his/her viewpoint on social issues. And I state “but not all” since extremism on an issue is possible, even when a person’s viewpoint on other issues is not. My words to Brother Bob on a topic of discussion have more to do with what I view as the underlying, but dominant difference between the OWS and TEA party movements, and yes, that also includes the viewpoints of social issues most common between them, even if the overt purpose of each group is on economics.
Obama has been an ideologue who wants to destroy America as we know it.
As such he has been willing to lie or make promises that have expiration dates over and over.
The TEA Party movement has been very upfront.
Not only do they not lie, but they are law-abiding and clean.
OWSers lie and are filthy criminals.
Will Obama condemn OWSers who get caught in lies or crimes?
CNN was one of the mainstream media that covered the lie of a OWS blogger who pretended he works for a 1%er banker.
The banker supposedly leaves a 1% tip when he eats out, even adding notes to the servers to ”get real jobs.”
But turns out the OWSer’s story was based on photoshop.
It was all a lie.
Will Obama distance himself?
Will CNN?
And when the Huffington Post is the corrector of an OWSers’ trumped up propaganda piece you know your ”movement” has hit a new low!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/banker-1-percent-tip-receipt_n_1299280.html
The actual un-retouched receipt:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/photoshop/restaurant-receipt-photoshop-hoax-869032
The OWSer blogger has shut down his lie-filled site.
http://futureexbanker.wordpress.com/
‘fraid I’m going to have to demand links to the exit polls that state those associated with the TP voted for a particular candidate because of social issues, and not economic, Tom. That is, of course, your relatively lengthy – and link free – assertion. Unless the exit pollster asks that question direct, how do you derive such a conclusion? Simply because a TPer chose Santorum over Romney?
That’s a stretch….
So where’s the links to the exit poll questions and sources that drives your talking points?
Quite the opposite of what you say, during the mid Dec conference call straw poll vote of over 23,000 individuals that ID’ed themselves as TP, Newt won that poll 3-4 points over Bachmann, who came in second. Neither are the “socially conservative” candidate, and both were focused on economics, jobs, debt, spending and national security.
Bachmann is out of the race. Romney spent $17-20 million to personally destroy Newt because he couldn’t compete on solutions. To the “herd mentality” of “who can beat Obama”, that leaves two choices in their minds… Romney and Santorum.
This means that a vote for Santorum is not necessarily because that social issues trump economics, but instead follows the same trend that the bulk of conservatives do not trust the godfather of the health insurance mandate, Romney, to do anything he says. He hasn’t in the past… why now?
So put the links where your cyber mouth is, Tom. We’ll be happy to look at the specifics.
@MataHarley:
I guess I lose, because I don’t know if they asked “that question direct”. Is your point that a reasonable person can’t draw inferences from looking at multiple polls and seeing obvious trends? You’re not convinced until your specific question is asked? What about seeing Tea Party and Evangelical Conservative votes lining up almost exactly in some states, take Arizona? What about Ron Paul support being non-existent, in some cases even less than amongst the primary voters at large? Can you look at the polls and honestly tell me that you can square them with the Tea Party’s claim to being a movement mainly concerned with reducing spending, taxation and the deficit?
How do you know that’s why they case their votes? Did they ask the question and TPs responded that it was because Ginrich and Bachmann are focused on ” economics, jobs, debt, spending and national security”? Now you’re reading into the polling data, the very thing you accused me of doing. The problem is your read is pretty cockeyed. Let’s be serious, it’s beyond preposterous for you to say that Bachmann is not a socially conservative candidate. Do we really need to parse that? And Ginrich is as much an establishment candidate as there’s ever been. Just because he TELLS you he isn’t doesn’t erase his entire Washington career. So, no, I don’t think voting for a radical Evangelical and disgraced Washington insider jive at all with the TPs stated interests of focusing on fiscal matters by cleaning house.
Exactly, and those are the two candidates that TPs are now mostly supporting. Except I thought the TP wasn’t about settling for just another mainstream/liberal Republican (R0mney) who has the best chance of beating Obama. And I thought they weren’t about supporting candidates mainly concerned with social issues (Santorum). I thought they were about supporting candidates who would focus on shrinking the government, spending, the deficit (Paul). If you’re point is that there’s no way to read into the data that the TP are any different than any other conservative Republican, well, that’s my point too.
@johngalt:
That’s a fair point, John. My issue is that’s not how the TP has branded itself. Has it not touted it’s inclusiveness, that as long as you were all about shrinking government and an originalist read on the Constitution, there was no social or religious test? But it sounds like you’re saying you can’t separate the one from the other, that the two are inextricably linked. This would lead me to observe, therefore, that the TP is not inclusive towards those who are conservative only in the fiscal sense. In other words, back to my original point, there really isn’t a large difference between the TP and Conservative Republicans as normally defined.
Here is an interesting read for you and Mata with some actual TP quotes:
Why doesn’t the tea party like Ron Paul?
It sure is funny to see liberals try to define who or what is a conservative, a Republican or a TEA Party adherent.
Rasmussen doesn’t do that.
That polling group goes to the horse’s mouth and counts the teeth.
In a January article polling revealed an opposite truth to what Tom tries to allege.
Tom hopes people can’t figure this out.
He is trying to force a card on Republicans of the TEA Party variety…..that card is Ron Paul who is utterly unelectable and a waste of a vote.
@Nan G:
Nan, I think you overrate my influence with the Tea Party. It’s true they admire me as a throwback cut from the same cloth as the Founders, but I’ve never had much direct influence on their day to day activities. You might say I’m more of a spiritual godfather and inspiration.
Your polling data is excellent. I’m not sure, however, how it contradicts my initial assertions that: “The self-identified Tea Partier has been mostly indistinguishable from any member of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party” and “When given the opportunity in the voting booth to back up their rhetoric, they simply didn’t.”
I think your data actually supports my post. For that, I thank you.
Tom… not so fast there to declare some imaginary victory, pardner. Far from it.
You did not present your revisionist and distorted history as an “inference” from a “reasonable” person. You presented it as a fact from a far left progressive that doesn’t know whit about the GOP candidates or the Tea Party. And you provided op-ed fantasy that you can not, in any way, document as even coming close to factual.
Therefore, I’m requesting your source data for those exit polls you say is fact, so that I can correctly separate your perception from fiction.
So let me show you how this is done, Tom….
Ron Paul is not, and never has been, a Tea Party darling. That you and your lib/prog media think he ever was in the first indicator that you are clueless to the Tea Party base beliefs. Ron Paul fails to make that grade because of his foreign policy. The conflict there is that conservative TPers also favor a strong US defense. Additionally, RP was scrapping the bottom of the barrel in the TP straw poll, finishing last only behind that social conservative advocate, Rick Santorum.
Please note that the hotlink is to a Pew Poll, Oct 2011, of the Tea Party on foreign policy specific. See how that’s done?
However they do philosophically incorporate many of his monetary policies within their platform.
The TP straw poll was a conference call where the participants got to ask questions of the candidates who agreed to participate. There is only one candidate who renowned for his leadership on social conservative issues… most especially abortion and birth control. And that man is Rick Santorum. He is the extreme of the GOP candidates on these issues, and indeed this is pretty much his only claim to fame in the House and Senate career he had.
I don’t have to request a transcript of the questions asked by those TPers during that teleconference straw poll (even if one exists) because – were what you purport were true – Santorum would have won the straw poll hands down as being the only leading social conservative of the bunch.
Instead, anti-abortion and anti-birth control Rich Santorum ended up with only 16% of those TP participants.
Why? Because, as was also reported last year, the TP activists know their ranks are split on social issues like abortion/birth control and prayer in schools, so they stick to the larger issue that unites them as a larger force officially. And believe me, even Jim DeMint has tried to coax them into being more social issue aggressive.. to no avail.
If that’s not enough, then you should read thru the NPR transcript as the “leaders” debate and reject, a movement towards social issues as part of their platform.
Therefore, what you claim cannot possibly be true. Neither Newt nor Bachmann can ever hope to outdo Santorum on these religious social issues.
Now let’s get to the root of your problem – that being that you are assigning an unsubstantiated belief to the Tea Party… which BTW, seems to be the latest meme from your corner of the political world… merely because they are voting for one of two candidates.
Well that’s about as accurate as offering me a choice of two different main course packaged dinner menus. One is roast pork that has tiramisu for dessert, and the other is roast beef that has cheese cake for dessert. According to you, if I chose the roast pork, I obviously don’t like cheese cake, and the tiramisu was the deciding factor.
WTF?
So here’s the difference. While you are pretending to cite exit polls that may not exist, or that you refuse, or cannot, provide links to, I most certainly can provide links to specific questions that Pew Research has done both in 2010 and 2011, specifically trying to sort out the claim you are trying to make.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t pan out in your favor. For you see even tho some TPers are also social conservatives doesn’t mean that the majority or driving force of TPers are social conservatives.
Pew puts it best, and succinctly from their Feb 2011 results… which are little changed from the 2010 results:
The way PEW did some percentage rating was to compare a Tea Partier’s support for a particular issue against registered moderate Republicans, and Indys that lean Republican. Three groups… you do have that in your mind now, yes? And likely to include moderate Republicans/RINOs and Independents.
When you look at the numbers of TP support on responsible fiscal issues, it’s 88% for smaller government, less spending, etc. This is a spread of 23-32 points higher than support from the moderates/RINOS or Indy’s. That’s a large degree of passion in the TPers not reflected in the non TPers for fiscal issues.
When you move to the social issues, those TPer numbers drop to 59-64%, depending on whether it’s abortion or same sex marriage. However that percentage is only 15-17% point spread difference between the moderate or Indy categories, and considerably less than the body of the TPers as a whole.
Therefore you are incorrectly mixing what is a more common Republican/conservative position on social issues with a blanket assertion that it’s the driving force behind the Tea Party. Needless to say, two years of PEW research proves you to be swallowing liberal talking points in large gulps.
This should also answer your question as to whether any of the candidates are also “socially conservative”. Well, of course they are because that’s a traditional conservative philosophy. But none – not even a religious Romney – are socially conservative to the extremes that Rick Santorum is. It is, in fact, the hallmark of his Senate leadership… the assault on liberal abortion laws and public funding.
I’d say that I have rendered your point… pointless and ill conceived. And I’ll be happy to again request your data for your future erroneous characterizations as well. As you can see, it’s quite easy to do.
@MataHarley:
So your refutation hinges on TPs not supporting Santorum in one straw poll, and you choose to ignore the entire primary?
What about Iowa, where “strongly support” Tea Partiers went for Santorum over Bachmann and Ginrich 30% to 9% and 17%, respectfully?
And I never actually said it was just about social issues. I said the inverse: it’s obviously not just about fiscal issues. So how does that explain New Hampshire where Romney beat out everyone, while clearly being the least fiscally conservative?
Clearly you’re trying to reframe this debate, but the one thing you can’t do is make the TP vote make sense in terms of the TP rhetoric. Foreign Policy may account for some of it, maybe a lot of it, but not enough for Paul to finish in single digits over and over when he’s, by far, the most fiscally conservative candidate.
As Nan G point out to you above, the Tea Party, unfortunately IMHO, also shares the propensity of so many to pick a winner to oust Obama at any cost. So they tend to go for the horse who appears to be leading in the race… as long as it wasn’t Romney at that stage of the process.
Bachmann wasn’t even a player in the IA polls, since she had effectively shot her own foot in the prior weeks with public comments and poor debate performances. Nor is IA… a traditionally blue state… indicative of conservatives nationally.
SC, a more notable red state, had completely different exit poll results from IA. There, the strongly support TPers went for Newt 48%, while the somewhat support for Newt was 42%.
Then Romney and his SuperPACs unleashed $17 mil in negative ads against Newt alone. Not on issues, but personal.
Lawd have mercy. Rewind, shall we? From your comment #3
Talk about “clearly wanting to reframe the debate”…. pfft
Yes, there is a distinction that you apparently did not feel exists, and has been documented as such with both PEW polls over two years, and with internal debates by the “leaders” of that movement, rejecting mixing social issues with their fiscal message precisely because their membership is divided.
Therefore your statement that “Exit polls have shown over and over that the Tea Party vote aligns with social, not economic issues” has been definitively proven incorrect. And in fact that none of the candidates can hold a candle to Santorum’s more radical beliefs on social issues.
As for Ron Paul, as I have said… he has NEVER been the Tea Party candidate of choice, and even RP knew that. He did not court them in the TP Patriot staw poll, and refused to participate. He did not reach out to them in Florida or the other primaries. As RP himself admits, that if you want to get independents and democrats to vote for the GOP candidate, and not Obama, he has to be the candidate. Because it’s his foreign policy that will attract the anti-war and democrats that are disgruntled with Obama’s economic performance.
You are, and have been proven, unequivocally wrong and on your chosen turf.
Tom,
Iowa was very heavily worked by Santorum.
OTOH, Romney was governor next door to New Hampshire.
Weird though it might seem to you, these types of things actually affect voters.
Like last month, an AZ sheriff, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, was outed by a liberal newspaper as a gay man right after he announced his candidacy for Arizona’s newly drawn 4th Congressional District.
But, no surprise to me, TEA Party members support Sheriff Babeu in his political run.
An Associated Press article from February 26th says it best: Tea Partiers Stick with Outed Gay Sheriff. http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120226/LOCAL08/302269925/-1/LOCAL11
The Left, their media and their push to destroy a candidate based on social conservative assumptions on the Right has failed.
Mata Tom is saying the Tea Party vote does not make sense in terms of the Tea Party rhetoric. Is foreign policy as important as fiscal conservatism?(Rick over Ron). Is fiscal conservatism less important than social conservatism?(Rick over Ron) Is beating Obama more important than fiscal conservatism?(anyone over Ron)
Rick is clearly not a bona fide fiscal conservative. Ron Paul clearly is.
BTW You almost lost me with your assertion Bachmann isn’t a social conservative.
Just to further muddle your already muddled analyses, Tom.
The NH exit polls showed that those who considered themselves very liberal went for Ron Paul 39%, and Romney 20%. Gingrich and Santorum were 5% and 2% respectively.
For those somewhat liberal in description, it was Ron Paul 24%, and Romney 37%, with Gingrich getting 7% of the somewhat liberal and Santorum none.
Only about 51% of those in the NH exit polls strongly supported the TP. And the Romney swept those TPers, with Ron Paul coming in second.
But then, NH is also another state that is traditionally blue blue like IA.
But both SC and NH both blow your “TP supports Santorum” theory out of the water.
Face it… as I said, you are, and have been proven, unequivocally wrong, and on your chosen turf.
@Richard Wheeler: please point out where I said that Bachmann wasn’t a social conservative? What I said is that none of them hold a candle to Santorum’s more extreme social conservative positions, and his record of leadership. Please don’t attempt to translate when you can’t even get my comments correct.
Speaking of translate, I didn’t realize that poor ol’ Tom needed a translator too. But now he has company with another lib/prog that still doesn’t know what the TP is all about.
But since you asked… or are you asking on Tom’s behalf?… I’ll respond:
Tea Party rhetoric and foreign policy have no conflicts. It’s not anarchists in the TP, and the central government does have fiscal responsibility… but only as it relates to Constitutional authority. Defense of the nation is the central governments Constitutionally appointed duty, and what we would all want as wise management and spending on defense is well within the boundaries.
Welfare and entitlement programs? Nope. Were the nation not saddled with over 65% of our spending on welfare/entitlement/pension programs, the war/defense budgets would be easily managed.
Picking businesses to subsidize for a political agenda? Absolutely not. Bailing out failed companies? Hell no. Congress meddling in private sector lending affairs with unsafe risky mandates? Another hell no.
Don’t have a clue what you mean with this question. As I pointed out, Ron Paul was never the top choice of the TP because of foreign policy. So why does social conservatism even enter the picture for this question?
And it’s already been established that the main focus is, and still remains, fiscal responsibility and not social issues. This is from the movements internal debates, and from their voting habits as evidenced by exit polls already.
Another question that doesn’t make sense since you occasionally see polls with RP beating Obama. Why? Because he gets the anti-war, the young and the Obama disgruntled… not necessarily the conservatives.
But as Nan Gs poll info points out, the TP would support any candidate over Obama since they believe any GOPer would be an improvement. I don’t necessarily share that opinion. That doesn’t mean I think Obama is preferable or more appealing… just that I don’t see significant difference as an improvement.
I’d say that is a subjective call that you are ill equipped to make as a self-proclaimed and proud lib/prog. I’m an indy conservative, and I wouldn’t speak for anyone but myself. And I’m not impressed with Santorum on any level. But “conservative” generally requires a baseline for comparison. So compared to Obama, Santorum is conservative.
Mata What does a State being blue blue or red red have to do with the make-up of minority party’s constituency in a closed primary? The Repub. Party here in ultra blue Ca. is VERY right, evidenced by folks like Issa and my Rep. Campbell here in O.C.
BTW I wouldn’t consider Iowa blue blue having gone Repub 5 0f last 10 Pres elections and most always being pretty close.
As a bona fide Conserv. will you vote for Romney over Obama?
Please show me any poll that has or had Ron Paul over BHO.
What the heck are you speaking of, Rich. Since 1992, and with changing demographics across the nation in time (since political beliefs and party sizes are always morphing), IA has only gone red for Bush’s 2004 election, and only with a hair’s breadth…. Bush 49.90% to Kerry’s 49.23%. That’s a difference of 10,059 votes between the two. The only time before that when the state voted Republican was 1984 and Reagan. So whatever you are using as your source for state election returns data for General elections is pretty deplorable.
Boy do I hate doing ya’ll’s homework…. Rasmussen’s Feb 24-25th poll, which has RP up by 2 points.
I’ve already answered this question over and over, to you and in general. The answer remains the same. No Romney, no Paul, no Huntsman. Still pondering whether I can swallow Santorum. The more I hear, the less I like. The more I watch, the less impressed I am. But considering I’m in Oregon, I could head to Mexico for the day and the Oregon delegates will still go to Obama. So my vote is virtually invisible in this state…. which brings me to your first question…
First I might counter what difference does it make if the primary is open or closed, since both will result in the allocation of delegates to a nominee.
Secondly I’ve lived in blue states, and red states. Since most people tend to be a political mix, influenced by their surrounding culture, I’ll tell you there is a difference between Republicans and conservatives in Wyoming and Idaho than in California or Oregon. Much of that has to do with the industries, and how dependent they are upon the feds and government for subsidies, or how many are union.
In the case of IA, they are a large blue state because their predominant industry is farming (livestock and crops), food processing manufacturing and a bit of mining. In Oregon’s case, they are union members of docks, lumber and aluminum mills. This tends to make the “conservatives” more moderate, and not indicative of other more well balanced industrial/business states. Ergo, farm capital IA is less an example of a conservative stronghold than South Carolina, who mixes their ag production with other businesses …. tourist, seaports, urban.
Lastly, working my way back to an “invisible” vote, considering that IA republicans or TPers will have virtually as much impact on the general election as I will here in Oregon, their personal conservative profiles, tempered by their general culture of subsidized farming, will mean nothing to any GOP candidate in November.
@MataHarley:
You might be shocked to find that I don’t see it that way. My premise is very much upheld by the data. saying that the TP votes social, not economic, is in no way, shape or form the same thing as saying that they will always vote for the most religious candidate. And then following that up with one strawman poll that points to Santorum and attempting to position him as the choice for social conservatives is silly. If you look at the data for any single poll, the TP supporters are virtually indistinguishable from Conservative Republicans.
For example, I will use “a more notable” red state, SC, but will work for any of the polls. I will use Ginrich and Paul to illustrate:
Opinion on TP “Strongly Support”: Gingrich 48% Paul 11%
White Evangelical/Born Again “Yes”: Gingrich 45% 12%
Religious Beliefs of candidates matter “a great deal”: Gingrich 46% 13%
Vote by Party ID “Republican”: Gingrich 45% 10%
Abortion should be “always illegal”: Gingrich 48% 10%
White Evangelical/Born Again “No”: Gingrich 32% 16%
Religious Beliefs of candidates matter “not at all”: Gingrich 29% 18%
Vote by Party ID “Independent”: Gingrich 31% 23%
Abortion should be “mostly legal”: Gingrich 34% 18%
It sure seem to me like the TP voter is almost indistinguishable from those Republicans who include things like a candidates religion and abortion into their voting calculation.
I have looked about several mission statements from various national Teal Party gr0ups, and they all consistently mention only domestic economic and secular concerns – no social, no foreign policy – as the reason for the existence of the movement. This one is fairly typical, from the Tea Party Patriots, which I believe is the largest TP group:
Apparently, only you can reconcile the group’s stated goals with their propensity for voting exactly like regular ole Conservative Republicans, and not like people who put shrinking the government or cutting the deficit above all else. Apparently, you don’t want to share this secret information with us. Perhaps someone else will.
No surprise you don’t see it that way, Tom. Facts are a hard thing to pound in to those that generally detest education that goes against their grain. Despite profile polls of the very organization you attempt to misrepresent, you still can’t figure out that those who are socially conscious may be members of the TP, but that more of the TPer are not religiously conscious. They aren’t related, but they aren’t mutually exclusive either. Especially since social issues are part of any conservative platform, but not the driving force you claim it is.
You stated you thought the difference between the religious right was indistinguishable from the TP. You have been proven wrong with multiple source data, and still cling to your fantasies. The only extreme social conservative GOP candidate is Santorum. Yet you’ve seen the TPer support Newt, and support Romney. This, of course, just blows your theory, so you have to make all of the candidates extreme in your mind to make it work.
That sounds like a personal problem.
No clue why you want a mission statement that mentions a foreign policy, Tom. I’ve already said over and over again that Ron Paul has never been the TP darling, and only you libs want to make him such. He never has since the beginning polling. The reason I know that they have a strong defense preference in the TP ranks is because of the PEW poll data… and I don’t make things up. Unlike some people, I actually read source data before I form my opinions, and don’t just toss out partisan crap for effect.
So, Tom… why should they need a mission statement about foreign policy to satisfy you as to why they don’t like, and never have, Ron Paul as their chosen candidate? This really seems to get under your skin… amusing as that is. As you can see by your own, obviously belated curiosity about the TP, they want to keep it confined to fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. Well news flash for the civics challenged…. foreign policy, national defense and national security is the fed’s Constitutional duty. So as I pointed out to rich, they are not in conflict.
Sorry… you’re still wrong on all levels. But rest easy. I never expect you to back down off your talking points and delusions, guy. It’s in your political make up to try and find yet another pea sized rock on the ground, and try to pass it off as a slope supporting boulder. So I consider this conversation complete, with the expected outcome.
@MataHarley: @MataHarley:
Because you’re still contending Bachmann isn’t socially conservative? At what point does the truth about her become inconvenient to your premise? And if they support Romney, as I pointed out above, how does that fit into their platform? Because they support Romneycare? So support of Romney is now proof again my assertion that the TP don’t practice what they preach? Wow.
Geez, well if that’s the case, why don’t they simply put it into their mission statement? and while they’re at it, why don’t they put in that bit about “social issues are part of any conservative platform” you articulated so well? In other words, why don’t they just tell the truth, offer full disclosure, and make their platform what they really believe? Is it , perhaps, because doing so would render them basically redundant? We already have a category for socially conservative people who believe in small government, and a vigorous national defense: we call them “Conservative Republicans”. Maybe they’re clinging to their moment of relevance when it appeared they were something new. But the data and the primary results suggest their members, by and large,are unwilling to tear themselves away from Republican orthodoxy and actually impact this race. Even if Paul were more bellicose internationally, he doesn’t pander nearly enough on any of the social issues to ever have GOP relevance, and that’s the part you’re ducking. I don’t get why this is so hard for you to accept. Is it an insult to call a TPer “a Republican”? That is just who they are.
Mata You’re threading the needle on Paul with BHO ahead in 7 of 8 Feb. polls by average of 8% and all you got is Ras. by 2%. Bottom line Obama beats Paul by less than he beats Newt but more than he beats Rick and Mitt.
Since 1972 Iowa is 5D and 5R that’s what I said and that’s a fact. Agree Oregon based on last 10 is blue blue
I’ ll match the Conservs. down here in Orange and San Diego Counties against your Wyoming or anywhere else Conservs. You know that having lived down this way.
Can we agree that Tea Partiers vote like good ol Conservative Republicans?
You’re filling in the blanks again, exploding things out of proportion, rich. Just like I didn’t say that Bachmann wasn’t a social conservative – ahem, your parrot friend Tom still is doing the same lie – I also said that RP had an occasional poll that showed him beating BHO. Or to repeat it verbatim:
That poll was the occasion… and it may, or may not, happen again. Tho there are more than quite a few in the history of the match up that has Paul behind BHO only by one point….(3 times to be exact). But that’s exactly why it will happen… is that Paul draws the liberal anti-war, and the young anti-war. Newt is consistently drawing the other young voters. With all the BHO vs “x” candidate, you’re going to find each of them occasionally beating him, likely from here thru to the election.
As for Paul v Obama, no where did I suggest that Ron Paul was the guy to beat BHO guaranteed, and consistently in the polls. That most recent trend is the occasion. And as gas price gets higher, you might see that again in the not so distant future.
Now, what you said was to show you that, or any poll, with RP beating Obama… and I did.
Now you’re complaining?? LOL
Let’s see… two times going Republican since 1984 or 27 years. So in order to pretend to portray Iowa as a valuable “swing state”, you had to dig back almost four decades just to get a 50/50 portrayal? Desperate, rich. You’ll have to get up earlier in the morning to fool people with that one. IA is no swing state, and is pretty close to being a notch in Obama’s belt guarantee.
And yes, I know your RINO conservatives in OC. Bunch of pansies, if you don’t mind my saying. Was quite happy to leave them behind, along with them meekly acquiescing to the so called “assault weapon ban”. What a laugh…. I’d tell your OC conservatives to tread lightly if entering any ID or WY bar, and make sure they knew where the back door was for a quick getaway.
Tom? Just give it up. Keep digging anymore and your head will be poking up in Beijing.
@MataHarley:
Mata post 10
Mata post 28
@MataHarley:
I probably should. This is embarrassing for both of us, kind of like that time Lebron James dunked on that high school kid.
@Tom:
Actually, Tom, despite your “gotcha” moment with Mata, which really wasn’t, considering the context of the first quote you noted, I believe Mata has stated the case as well as it could be.
And PEW said it best;
So, really, the question is who do we believe? A professional research firm? Or the guy with the ego so large he compares himself to both the founders of the country and LeBron James?
My error, Tom. I would have thought you’d notice the quotation marks around “social conservative” that would differentiate them from Santorum’s more extreme views in the comparisons. Guess those nuances go over your head, even tho I pointed out in comment #15 when I said:
or again in comment # 21 when I said:
Perhaps it needs to be pointed out that all GOP candidates are considered socially conservative (which includes welfare/entitlements as well as religious issues) or they wouldn’t be conservatives running for the GOP nomination. But they aren’t the extreme “religious right social conservatives” that you portray the TPers as being. And neither are Newt and Bachmann.
That was your point, if you remember… it’s all about TPers being indistinguishable from the religious right extreme social conservatives, remember?
So I’ll take a half mea culpa on that. Again, it goes back to what one considers “social conservative”, using Santorum… the original subject of this issue… the baseline. Compared to him, none of them are extreme. They are just conservatives on both social and fiscal issues (except for Romney, of course).
Therefore, you still lose. The unmistakable “social conservative” candidate is Santorum, and Santorum alone. And the TPers did not turn to him until the rest fell out of favor. Had social issues been their first and primary concern, they would have been with him from the get go.
That may be what you, in your ignorance, call them. The rest of us see the difference between RINOs and fiscal Tea Party types. That’s because the Republicans have been emulating the Dems in spending… thus the reason for the TP rebellion to begin with.
Also the reason that so many of us are opposed to yet another RINO candidate.
Great comments so far, everybody! At this point I think we’ve either gotten too far into the weeds or are looking at the forest from too far in the distance – I’m not sure which is quite right…
To the lefties: If you want to know what Tea Partiers are go and look with your own eyes. The news sources you watch have told you we’re all overweight, balding middle aged men wearing tricorn hats and screaming behind our misspelled signs. Go out and visit a Tea Party rally or go to a meeting, just to see how the other half lives.
While many Tea Partiers are religious, it is not a theme, despite what Wolf Blitzer and Jon Stewart told you to believe. At the end of the day it is all about economic issues – stop spending us into oblivion, stop destroying our health care system, stop making Dubya look fiscally responsible.
That’s what the Tea Party is – a group of concerned citizens hell-bent on preserving our freedom against an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Opinion polls are useful, but at the end of the day you have to rely on your eyes in front of you. The Tea Party is simpler and more complicated that you think we are.
@johngalt:
It’s called mirroring, John. Mata likes to take reasonable conversations off the rails because she’s mostly interested in winning. So sometimes it’s fun to decend to her level and play around, usually when i’m past the point of caring.
That’s wonderful, John. I don’t know exactly how that disproves my point, but it’s wonderful. Here’s my challenge to you, if you choose to accept it. Show me where the the Tea Party is having an independent, measurable and discrete impact on this race. An impact that one can point to and say, “See, this is happening because of the Tea Party.” I don’t expect much. I don’t expect winning for instance. I want you to tell me, from the polling data, simply how they are impacting the race in a way that can be labeled (I came up with this) “the Teal Party Effect”.
I would believe that guy, John. You may have missed it, but he also presented professional research. and he dunked on Benedict Arnold.
@Brother Bob:
I appreciate your indulgence. To the degree I’m responsible for side-tracking your thread, all i can say is I never imagined it would go on this long. If i have an opportunity, i will take you up on your advice to talk to some Tea Partiers. I hope you would consider doing the same, if you happen to have a chance to interact with some liberals. Just keep an eye on your wallet!
@Tom: If you need something measurable, in 2010 the Tea Party helped to move Ted Kennedy’s seat into Republican control. One of the most liberal states in the union and a seat of its most liberal senator going to a Republican – explain?
Well there’s an interesting observation, Tom. If that were true of me, I’d never remark on any of your comments since, as I mentioned above, I never expect you to change your mind when faced with facts. This is a character trait you share with Greg.
Therefore, were “winning” my motivation, I wouldn’t even engage in the dialogue with you because there is no winning.. and that’s known going in to any debate.
My problem with you is you deliberately characterized the TP as the religious extreme right, based on nothing… nada… whit. In fact, you know so little about the various Tea Party factions that you had never looked up a mission statement prior to this conversation…
… yet you felt yourself so qualified to define them.
As far as “descending” (with corrected spelling) to your level and playing around, I might point out that it is you and your peers who tend to parse words, and kick over pea size gravel and proclaim them to be boulders. Not me. You were specific in your accusations of tea party being indistinguishable from the religious right… and thereby had to be Santorum supporters because of his extreme views.
You and rich both keep the meme going about Ron Paul as a Tea Party candidate, which I also showed not to be the case. In fact, the TP has been all over the map, as the candidates bobbed up and down in the polls and frontrunner positions.
I countered your specifics with studies and polls, and votes that showed otherwise. You came up with nada, zilch, nyet, nothing but a WaPo article and a helium balloon filled with your hot air.
But what was important to me is that those who read or lurk know exactly how little credibility you have. And that has been done quite neatly.
Welcome to Beijing, dude. Your arms must be tired.
Brother Bob All due respect Scott Brown is as much a Tea Partier as I am and he’ll be running from them this Nov.He beat a very weak opponent in 201o. Gonna be a little tougher this time.
As I recall 3 weak T.P. Senatorial candidates lost in Delaware,Nevada and Alaska.
Took the words right out of my mouth, rich wheeler. Scott Brown may have been propelled to his victory by the TPers, but he was no Tea Party guy with his moderate philosophy. His redeeming values were:
1: He wasn’t a Democrat
2: His last name wasn’t Kennedy
3: He promised to vote against O’healthcare
That pretty much sums it up, and he’s points behind the Dem competition for this election. I don’t think he’s going to keep that seat, but time will tell.
Brother Bob, what you said about being to Tea Party rally, and your personal interaction (at least in your area) is precisely the argument we’ve been having with Tom… who suggests they (nationally) are nothing but the religious right with a new name. Thus your question about Scott Brown (a past, not a current election) and the TP had nothing to do with his accusations about extreme religious right views of the Tea Party, simply because Brown’s election had nothing to do with traditional or extreme social values. It had to do with stopping O’healthcare.
@Tom: Responded to all of the previous – your comment #36 came up while I was writing my last response. In regard to your side tracking, here are general rules, defined as me just making them up:
1) Stay relatively on topic
2) Respond to the responses to your topic with not just canned replies but ones that acknowledge you read their comments
3) Be respectful
That’s all I ask of our commenters.
I’ve slacked a bit lately, but on this post you seem to have met all of my criteria. I could voice my disagreements but Matahartley is doing a good job of representing.
All of that said, I’ve walked among your folks as well as mine. I have the advantage of living in the DC area, which attracts all protesters. I know I’m partisan, but the lefty protests are generally a lot angrier, and the Tea Party ones pass by cleaner than when they arrived and without any crime. Once you’ve done both I’d love to compare notes, Tom. Next time you’re in DC let’s grab a beer
Another thing that Tom has revealed he does not know about the TP… via his “challenge” to johngalt… is that they focus on local and state candidates, and Congressional candidates, taking control back from the bottom up.
So Tom, if you want to know what impact the Tea Party is having, you’re going to have to narrow your view to the local areas. i.e. you can the Tea Party 911 site to see the “Texas Tea” approved candidates. Or you can use the Tea Party Patriots site to find the closest TP organization near you, and check out their local election activities.
You can also wander over to the other split Tea Party faction, the Tea Party Express, and do the same, altho they are considerably less impressive than the Patriots.
However to see the impact, other than working to get TP candidates on the ballot, generally in opposition to the RNC’s pick, you’ll have to wait for the local primaries and elections. But they are not idle, and not quiet. They working not in the nation’s back yard, but their own.
And now, not to further aid the off topic tangent that our guest author does not want, I’ll be leaving this thread for different pastures. ta ta
@MataHarley:
No. Actually, I characterized them as being, “mostly indistinguishable from any member of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party” You narrowed this to religious extremism in your responses, mainly because the only card you had to play was this Santorum card, which is a patently absurd card, because you play it as if the rest of the field are a bunch of atheists, as if Michelle Bachmann isn’t about as extreme in her religious views as it’s possible to be.
As for data to support my assertion, your Pew Research Center data does the job well ,thank you. The TP is more conservative than the “Rep/Leans Rep” on almost all social issues, and both sited religious issues (same sex marriage and abortion). So I thank you for that.
I know so little that i just happened to be right in my assumptions, because I’m just that intuitive? Or is it possible I know a lot and I looked up the mission statements for the expressed purposes of linking to one as an example? I can live with either.
Wow. Another shot, another miss. I never said he was a “Tea Party candidate”. I said that his platform, by far, most closely dovetails with the platforms/missions of the Tea Party as expressed in their literature. Now I know in the course of this discussion, you keep trying to add on to the Tea Party’s platform (because apparently you feel that you have that unilateral authority, I guess). But if we just go with their public expression of their mission, your augmentations are not canonical. I’m sure now you will spend half the night combing the web until you find a three-person-member Tea Party outfit in Timbuktu that mentions “foreign policy” and “social issues’ in their platform. Good luck with that.
You’d better order your Rosetta Stone Chinese tutorial, Tom. Cherry picking your comments from your first comment to johngalt, now? The real words leading to one of your gopher holes in the lawn was:
I’ll say it again, and I will again be correct in pegging you… you deliberately characterized the TP as the religious extreme right, based on nothing… nada… whit. Most especially not their mission statement. (so much for your self-professed “intuition”) And I, for one, do not classify that second paragraph as anything even close to “respectful”.
No, it doesn’t, oh Mr. know all things TP.
What you keep saying is that if the TPers were true to their rhetoric, they would be following Ron Paul. You are trying to portray Paul as the rightful TP candidate, when he isn’t, and has never been. Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian (i.e. trade policies). On foreign policy, he is as extreme left as Maxine Waters. None of this fits with the TPers focus.
As I have said, the TPers are NOT a group of anarchists that abhor all central government powers. They are fiscal conservatives that want to adhere to Constitutional authorities… just as their mission statement notes. National security and our military are part of the federal constitutional duties. Paul’s idea of national security is a couple of good submarines and a fully laden nuke arsenal.
The mission statement, and it’s inclusion of constitutional powers, is sufficient for those who already know the document and the limited powers given to the feds. For those, like you who need every detail itemized in bullet fashion? Apparently above your paygrade. Perhaps they should formulate a kindergarten version for the TP hobbyist progressive, looking for more smear material.
@Brother Bob:
Thank for the invite, Brother Bob. I would love to take you up on that.
Just to clarify a point that I could have stated better last night… I’ve never viewed Scott Brown as a Tea Party candidate, but he owes his election success to the the Tea Party energy that infused the GOP at the time of his election. And no, we don’t always win as Rich and Mata correctly pointed out, but the Tea Party is what brought the GOP back from the coma it was induced into in 2008. Sadly, the established GOP still doesn’t seem to appreciate what our movement has done for it.