Tea Party: 28%

[maple_leafs182]

These guys are the Ron Paul supporters, they really don't trust either party at this point, I don't blame them. They think the federal government has gotten to big, which it has, they want to end the Fed, which they should.

Personally I think their will be 2nd American Revolution coming within the next 10 years.

Jesse Ventura really needs to run for President.

[punked]

These guys are the Ron Paul supporters, they really don't trust either party at this point, I don't blame them. They think the federal government has gotten to big, which it has, they want to end the Fed, which they should.

Personally I think their will be 2nd American Revolution coming within the next 10 years.

Jesse Ventura really needs to run for President.

All of those things make no sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

These guys are the Ron Paul supporters, they really don't trust either party at this point, I don't blame them. They think the federal government has gotten to big, which it has, they want to end the Fed, which they should.

If it's these clowns you are depending on in Canada, you are surely doomed!

Personally I think their will be 2nd American Revolution coming within the next 10 years.

OK...but you are not invited.

Jesse Ventura really needs to run for President.

That's fine....running and winning are two very different things. Lots of loons run for president!

[Bonam]

These guys are the Ron Paul supporters,

Don't those guys already have a party they can vote for? The Libertarians?

[ToadBrother]

Don't those guys already have a party they can vote for? The Libertarians?

The problem being that when push comes to shove, no one ever votes for the Libertarians. They're one of the gorups of useful idiots that the GOP can usually entice with "small government" sloganeering. The Ron Paulites may be a part of the Tea Party, but I suspect there are a good many other groups as well. It's pretty clear the Tea Party is extremely heterogeneous, doesn't really seem to have much in the way of clear aims, and is this prone to some degree of fracturing, not to mention manipulation. What will make the Tea Party scary to the Republicans is if someone can find a way to properly harness them, shut the racists and other uber-fringe elements, and make it a cohesive movement. Like I said, the Tea Party represents a threat to the Republicans much more than Democrats, who can only hope that the whole thing continues to be as chaotic, and that the Republicans continue to try to embrace it while simultaneously trying to keep the wingnuts from taking them down.

[Bonam]

The problem being that when push comes to shove, no one ever votes for the Libertarians. They're one of the gorups of useful idiots that the GOP can usually entice with "small government" sloganeering.

Dunno how long they could keep that up for, since very obviously neither the democrats nor the republicans are for small government, whereas it is a core value for libertarians.

The Ron Paulites may be a part of the Tea Party, but I suspect there are a good many other groups as well. It's pretty clear the Tea Party is extremely heterogeneous, doesn't really seem to have much in the way of clear aims, and is this prone to some degree of fracturing, not to mention manipulation. What will make the Tea Party scary to the Republicans is if someone can find a way to properly harness them, shut the racists and other uber-fringe elements, and make it a cohesive movement. Like I said, the Tea Party represents a threat to the Republicans much more than Democrats, who can only hope that the whole thing continues to be as chaotic, and that the Republicans continue to try to embrace it while simultaneously trying to keep the wingnuts from taking them down.

You may well be right. After all, if 28% of people really were for the Tea Party, that'd probably put them ahead of the Republicans (since that 28% share is likely coming entirely out of the Republican's share).

[Kissinger]

Yeah, we all know 28% polled support does not translate into anywhere near 28% electoral support.

It remains to be seen whether they even field a solid field of candidates.

Sarah Palin does not a party make.

[Pliny]

I'm thinking, this is a fake protest movement funded by GOP millionaires.

You're wrong about the thinking part.

[sharkman]

It's not so much the specter of a third party, it's the specter of the Republicans being saddled with, to put it bluntly, a bunch of frothing maniacs, and basically having to surrender every moderate position to keep them happy. The Tea Party is the best gift the Democrats could have asked for, it does little damage to them, and instead is an arrow straight into the heart of the GOP, a party which has a poor record of managing the fringe movements like the Evangelicals.

It is this kind of thinking exactly that will prove very damaging to the Obama administration. The MSM has championed this theory, that the tea party is made up of loons, and those on the left have swallowed it down faithfully since it's easier to think them loons then analyze them. Of course when the MSM only hunts out the nutjob fringe that is in any movement and ignores the rest of them, I can see partly why the left considers them loons.

This new poll really puts things into perspective, and done by none other than Gallup. The numbers in the article show that 28% of tea partiers are democrats and 17% are independents. That puts to rest the idea of a right wing fringe for all but head-in-the-sand leftwingers. As you read through the demographics, the objective person will realize that there is nothing fringe about them.

As Obama's approval numbers continue to struggle under 50% and the midterms loom large, crowing about how little damage the partiers have done to the Dems is kind of premature.

Edited April 6, 2010 by sharkman

[ToadBrother]

As Obama's approval numbers continue to struggle under 50% and the midterms loom large, crowing about how little damage the partiers have done to the Dems is kind of premature.

There's no doubt the Dems are going to lose one, if not both houses in November. Tea Party or not, this can't be avoided. So, in the short term, Democratic interests are going to be harmed, perhaps in some part by the Tea Party, but overall, I think, because majorities in both houses, even during a normal political cycle, are awfully hard to maintain, and when you factor in the economic woes, there's not much the Democrats can do about that. Where the Tea Party represents a serious threat, if it survives that long, is in 2012. If the Republicans are forced towards the Tea Party, it could seriously damage the moderate Republicans. If a third party is formed (something I'm a little dubious off myself), that of course would pretty much wipe out any chance of the Republicans taking the White House.

[Michael Hardner]

The numbers in the article show that 28% of tea partiers are democrats and 17% are independents. That puts to rest the idea of a right wing fringe for all but head-in-the-sand leftwingers. As you read through the demographics, the objective person will realize that there is nothing fringe about them.

As Obama's approval numbers continue to struggle under 50% and the midterms loom large, crowing about how little damage the partiers have done to the Dems is kind of premature.

Those number still indicate that Republicans make up something like 2/3 of the tea partiers. So if they go as a separate party, the republicans will lose 2/3 of 28%, the democrats will lose 1/3 of 28% as far as I can see.

The same type of deal caused Ross Perot to do fatal damage to George Bush Sr. in 1992.

Obama's approval rating isn't that bad (45% was the last one I saw) for someone mired in a recession, and who just passed a bill that is highly controversial. Things are looking good for him currently, even if they lose both houses in November. And if they don't, then they will beat expectations...

[Shady]

Those number still indicate that Republicans make up something like 2/3 of the tea partiers. So if they go as a separate party, the republicans will lose 2/3 of 28%, the democrats will lose 1/3 of 28% as far as I can see.

The same type of deal caused Ross Perot to do fatal damage to George Bush Sr. in 1992.

Exactly. Which is why I can't see them actually forming a third party. They're not going to commit political suicide.

Obama's approval rating isn't that bad (45% was the last one I saw) for someone mired in a recession, and who just passed a bill that is highly controversial. Things are looking good for him currently, even if they lose both houses in November. And if they don't, then they will beat expectations...

CBS had him at 43% a couple of days ago. Which still isn't horrible all things considered. But if it keeps trending in the wrong direction, he could be looking at a 40% or even high 30% approval rating come the fall. Which would be disasterous. And his approval rating now is already pretty low for only a year and a bit into his term. But I don't think the Dems will lose both chambers. They might lose the house, but they'll probably hang on to the senate by a couple of seats.

[ToadBrother]

Obama's approval rating isn't that bad (45% was the last one I saw) for someone mired in a recession, and who just passed a bill that is highly controversial. Things are looking good for him currently, even if they lose both houses in November. And if they don't, then they will beat expectations...

Indeed. Considering just how rocky his start was, and the economic woes, his approval ratings are pretty damned good. He managed to do what no other president has been able to do for a century, has succeeded in a key plank of his platform. All those folks three or four months ago who were basically calling him a lame duck have pretty much been silenced. Yes, the health care plan is divisive, but how was any such initiative not going to be divisive? The accusations that the Democrats forced it through are only partially accurate, mainly because the Republics, mysteriously, decided to boycott it, and thus lost any chance to shape it.

I'm still not convinced the Tea Party will have any long term influence. In the short term, it will certainly affect some races, but this protest movement is so aimless and internally divided that it hardly seems cohesive now. The Republicans are obviously the ones with the most to lose from it, so they're going to try to hitch their wagon to it, but that's going to mean creating a focused vision, which is likely to create at least some fractures, and poses a medium and long term risk to moderate Republicans. What are we going to be left with, a GOP even more fossilized and immobile than the one dominated by Evangelical interests?

I view Tea Partiers like Libertarians (there's a lot of overlap there). The Republicans have for decades been notorious for using Libertarians as their useful idiots, talking a long yarn about smaller government, lower taxes, and then utterly and completely ignoring them when they achieve office. I suspect that at least in some Tea Party groups there are probably a core of disenchanted Libertarians, but if any of the Tea Party types seriously think that 1. the Republicans are going to suddenly turn all Ron Paul or 2. kill the new health care bill, they're as delusional as the Libertarian forebearers.

But it is already having a chilling effect. Conservative intellectuals like David Frum are basically being run out of the party. You can see the narrowing of focus already, and you can get a sense of just how marginalized certain groups of conservatives within the GOP are becoming. They better hope that Obama doesn't pull a Reagan and find a way to bring these guys in.

[Shady]

But it is already having a chilling effect. Conservative intellectuals like David Frum are basically being run out of the party.

That's complete nonsense. And speaking of healthcare, Frum said he would have voted against Obamacare. He said it was terrible legislation.

[ToadBrother]

That's complete nonsense.

Really? And who isn't Frum working for anymore.

And speaking of healthcare, Frum said he would have voted against Obamacare. He said it was terrible legislation.

I never said he agreed with the legislation. He said that the Republicans had blundered horribly in basically standing a corner making rude faces while the Democrats worked through it. The Democrats reached out a number of times to try to get Republican input, but the Republicans refused. That is what Frum was complaining about, and it's that sentiment that got him dumped out of a major thinktank. What's more, Frum has pointed out that it is incredibly unlikely that the Republicans will regain enough ground this November to be able to reverse the legislation, so they have completely marginalized themselves.

[sharkman]

Those number still indicate that Republicans make up something like 2/3 of the tea partiers. So if they go as a separate party, the republicans will lose 2/3 of 28%, the democrats will lose 1/3 of 28% as far as I can see.

The same type of deal caused Ross Perot to do fatal damage to George Bush Sr. in 1992.

Obama's approval rating isn't that bad (45% was the last one I saw) for someone mired in a recession, and who just passed a bill that is highly controversial. Things are looking good for him currently, even if they lose both houses in November. And if they don't, then they will beat expectations...

Actually the number is 55% republican, not 66%, but who's counting?

Wasn't Obama's approval rating in the low 80's(according to some polsters, not all!) in Jan '09? At any rate that's a very long way to fall in little over a year, specially when the MSM is painting your main critics, the tea party movement, as loon nutjobs.

[Shady]

Really? And who isn't Frum working for anymore.

Even Frum denies he was terminated for his GOP/healthcare opinion. AEI is cutting back. As are many institutions during the recession. He was offered a non-salaried position with the group. In which he'd be paid for individual work (articles and columns), as opposed to a yearly salary. So your entire premise is incorrect.

The Democrats reached out a number of times to try to get Republican input, but the Republicans refused.

That simply isn't true. Republicans offered several ideas, but Democrats simply refused to implement them. Instead they took tiny crumbs of Republican ideas and claimed they were being bi-partisan.

What's more, Frum has pointed out that it is incredibly unlikely that the Republicans will regain enough ground this November to be able to reverse the legislation, so they have completely marginalized themselves.

With Obama in the White House, there's no way Republicans can get a 2/3 majority to override a veto, regardless of what they did or didn't do via healthcare legislation. And they haven't marginalized themselves with the American voters, which is what counts the most.

[BubberMiley]

Even Frum denies he was terminated for his GOP/healthcare opinion. AEI is cutting back. As are many institutions during the recession. He was offered a non-salaried position with the group. In which he'd be paid for individual work (articles and columns), as opposed to a yearly salary. So your entire premise is incorrect.

Um, those of us who provide citations and don't just make stuff up on the fly know that Frum made no such denial and, in fact, believes he was fired for political reasons.

http://www.frumforum.com/so-what-happened

[Shady]

David Frum: AEI Says They Didn’t Axe Me For Slamming GOP

I just got off the phone with writer David Frum, and he says the conservative American Enterprise Institute assured him today that he isn’t being fired because of his recent blistering criticism of the GOP, as has been widely speculated this afternoon.

Frum wrote on his Website today that he and AEI president Arthur Brooks “came to a termination” of their relationship. That led many to suggest that Frum was fired because he got so much attention for excoriating the party for refusing to compromise on health care.

“It’s Waterloo all right: ours,” Frum wrote.

But Frum says AEI president Brooks at lunch today actually lauded him for making so much noise with that post.

“He said the thought might occur to me that this had to do with that,” Frum says. “He wanted to ally my anxieties on that score. He was very empatic.” Frum adds that Brooks said he “welcomed and celebrated” the debate he’d stirred up.

“He asked me if I’d like to work for AEI on a non salary basis,” Frum added

Link

I guess people can believe what they want.

[BubberMiley]

-

Edited April 6, 2010 by BubberMiley

[BubberMiley]

I guess people can believe what they want.

You certainly always do, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. The following are Frum's own words on the matter from his blog. Can you with a straight face still say that he doesn't think it was political?

Of course you can. You believe what you want .

Was the firing political? Obviously I cannot enter into people’s minds, and at my termination lunch AEI President Arthur Brooks insisted that politics had nothing to do with the decision. So let’s just follow the time line. Waterloo piece is posted Sunday March 22. Wall Street Journal editorial denouncing me appears March 23. Summons to lunch arrives mid-morning of March 23. At lunch I am told that AEI wishes to terminate my salary, office, benefits, and research assistance. I am however at liberty to continue to consider myself part of the AEI family. I declined that offer and wrote a letter of resignation.

Edited April 6, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Sir Bandelot]

"The first ever Tea Party Convention has attracted a sellout crowd of a thousand activists from as far away as Hawaii (and media from as far away as Japan) to the Gaylord Opryland Convention Center.

Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform, though without any specific litmus or purity test."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/tea-party-convention-propose-national-organizing-strategy/

It doesn't matter if the GOP wins big. Even if the vote is divided, as long as it attracts back the votes that they lost to the Democrats, and the right people are still in charge, the republican agenda can continue.

[ToadBrother]

I guess people can believe what they want.

Which really doesn't in any way go against Frum's initial explanation.

[Shady]

Which really doesn't in any way go against Frum's initial explanation.

Even if one believes Frum was fired. He's still a Republican. And it doesn't discount the fact that moderate Democrats are being primaried by far left groups with far left candidates. Ask Joe Lieberman how Democrats feel about moderate members of their party.

In fact, there are several moderate Republicans running in the upcoming mid-term elections. Mike Cassel in Rhode Island, and Mark Kirk in Illinois, just to name a couple. And we can't forget about Scott Brown in Mass. The real chilling effect is taking place on the left. Just ask Blanch Lincoln in Arkansas how she's being dealt with.

[Shady]

Black conservative tea party backers take heat

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

Link

Pretty disgusting behavior from the anti-Tea Party liberals in America.