Windsor-Detroit Bridge

[Born Free]

Ummmm....killing Iraqis for "human rights" fun and profit....Canada can't resist that kind of "action".

It thought it was just a put on... you really are nuts!

[Born Free]

They are,but they are backed by people like Mr.Blankenship..The erstwhile CEO of Massey Coal in West Virgina...Grass roots,my ass!!!

In that case...it means they are below the grass roots.

[Born Free]

If you need to ask that question, there are only two possibilities:

1) You didn't read the thread, in which case my advice to you is to know what's what before mouthing off.

...something you are famous for..

[bush_cheney2004]

It thought it was just a put on... you really are nuts!

Do you mean cousin Itt? He wasn't nuts...just very hairy.

[bloodyminded]

Thats not true. Tea partiers are generally more educated, higher income people than the norm.

True. And their leaders are people with big business interests and, for the most part, Republican Party politics.

Which tells us it isn't a "populist" movement, but an astroturf one.

[bloodyminded]

Baloney! I'm betting that the average IQ of the protesters is about 90.

He didn't say they were intelligent (though he might think so). Just that they're educated. They're mostly male, mostly white, mostly with relatively good incomes.

They're not a populist movement. They're Republican astroturf.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Born Free]

He didn't say they were intelligent (though he might think so). Just that they're educated. They're mostly male, mostly white, mostly with relatively good incomes.

They're not a populist movement. They're Republican astroturf.

...they are mostly a bunch of uninformed (perhaps misinformed) idiots who dont know what they want other than to be angry at Obama because Rush Limburger tells them to be. So perhaps Republican astroturf fits well.

[Guest American Woman]

He didn't say they were intelligent (though he might think so). Just that they're educated. They're mostly male, mostly white, mostly with relatively good incomes.

They're not a populist movement. They're Republican astroturf.

If this movement takes off and the party has a nomination in the next POTUS election, the split in the Republican vote will likely hand the election over to the Democrats.

[bloodyminded]

If this movement takes off and the party has a nomination in the next POTUS election, the split in the Republican vote will likely hand the election over to the Democrats.

That's a really interesting point. But there are other possible scenarios. With high-profile Republicans like Sarah Palin showing the movement open support, as well wealthy business interests, the movement could be increasingly co-opted into the Republican mainstream. While the movement gets a lot of vocal support, when people are polled, the actual rally-numbers (with a couple of exceptions) are exceedingly small. The type of smallness that is quietly admitted as failure when the protests are left-wing anti-war demonstrations.

We could well have the spectacle of a relatively well-to-do Protest movement, confusingly obssessed with race and with Obama's "socialism" (which is a bit of joke) being co-opted to support...yep, Big Government and Big Business. They could end up voting into power exactly the sort of forces they claim to be angry about.

Even if you're right (and your opinion is of course easily as likely as mine to be correct, if not moreso), the Shiny New Republican Tea-Party Leader will still be about Big Government and Big Business.

And, quite possibly, Big Religion.

Edited May 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

That's a really interesting point. But there are other possible scenarios. With high-profile Republicans like Sarah Palin showing the movement open support, as well wealthy business interests, the movement could be increasingly co-opted into the Republican mainstream.

I'm not so sure about that. Republicans were definitely divided over Palin to begin with, and I don't think those who questioned their support are going to 'come around' and incorporate the Tea Party ideas into the GOP.

While the movement gets a lot of vocal support, when people are polled, the actual rally-numbers (with a couple of exceptions) are exceedingly small. The type of smallness that is quietly admitted as failure when the protests are left-wing anti-war demonstrations.

Can't say I disagree. I realize the movement would have to grow in order to be a real threat, but sometimes just small numbers, if they get a candidate on the ticket, is enough to result in a win for the other party. I think Nader voters gave Bush the election in 2000, for example.

Even if you're right (and your opinion is of course easily as likely as mine to be correct, if not moreso), the Shiny New Republican Tea-Party Leader will still be about Big Government and Big Business.

And, quite possibly, Big Religion.

Oh, I don't question that; and I do feel that Big Religion would play a major role, which would maybe discourage some moderates.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not so sure about that. Republicans were definitely divided over Palin to begin with, and I don't think those who questioned their support are going to 'come around' and incorporate the Tea Party ideas into the GOP.

Good point. An awful lot of Republicans are not what you'd cal Palinites.

Can't say I disagree. I realize the movement would have to grow in order to be a real threat, but sometimes just small numbers, if they get a candidate on the ticket, is enough to result in a win for the other party. I think Nader voters gave Bush the election in 2000, for example.

True, vote-splitting can have this effect. It happens a lot (though there are of course distinct differences) in the Parliamentary system, for example. Two thirds of Canadians keep voting left of centre...and getting the Conservatives as a result.

Oh, I don't question that; and I do feel that Big Religion would play a major role, which would maybe discourage some moderates.

It might well, you're right. They may already have had their moment in the sun in 2000.

[bush_cheney2004]

Can't say I disagree. I realize the movement would have to grow in order to be a real threat, but sometimes just small numbers, if they get a candidate on the ticket, is enough to result in a win for the other party. I think Nader voters gave Bush the election in 2000, for example.

This conclusion is not supported by more comprehensive analysis of the Florida 2000 vote, wherein the largest (of many) contributors to VP Gore's loss was Democrat's voting for Bush. At the national level, Mr. Gore didn't even win his home state.

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

Edited May 8, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

Here's a video with the co-owner of the Ambassador Bridge and he's talking about how Baird went to Michigan to bribe the government there to build the second bridge in Windsor. He says there isn't a need for another bridge and I do know the Feds rather own the bridge than deal with the owners of the Ambassador. .http://www.michellesimsonmp.ca/financial.html

[Topaz]

Sorry about the mix-up. http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/17/baird-detroit-windsor-bridge.html

[Oleg Bach]

Why not do what we did with the 407 - have the tax payer foot the bill for it's construction - steal it - then sell it to say - some company in France where some bureaucrat sitting in Paris can pull your Ontario drivers licence for not paying your toll fees? PRIVATIZATION IF FINE...if - the those operating in the private sphere are operating in OUR private sphere - nothing pisses me off more when a public utlity is stolen and privatized then sold to someone out side the country who now has a degree of power over our personal atonomy.

[bush_cheney2004]

If Ontario is so hot for a new bridge, let Canada pay for the whole thing. Michigan has bigger problems to worry about.

[Wild Bill]

If Ontario is so hot for a new bridge, let Canada pay for the whole thing. Michigan has bigger problems to worry about.

Yeah, like the governor being in the existing bridge owner's pocket, it would seem.