Where's the budget???

[Lurker]

Republicans blocked enough legislation in their effort to sabotage the economic recovery and now an ill-informed electorate will reward them for it. A highly motivated Republican base and a complacent Democratic base explains the rest.

As to the Tea Party (which is nothing more than re-branded ultra-conservative Republicans) Harlowe and I tried to have a conversation with you when you brought it up. You vanished without replying.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Where would you like to pick up the conversation on the Tea Party?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

There are a lot more than "ultra-conservative Republicans" in the Tea Party movement.

[Lurker]

Where would you like to pick up the conversation on the Tea Party?

We get that you think it's a mistake to ignore the tea party or the more unhinged elements of the Republican party. Given that crazy and/or ignorant should be marginalized and that it would be extremely dangerous to the country to allow them to gain power, how would you recommend we engage those elements? And yeah... I'm painting with a broad brush.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

More like an extremely narrow and biased brush.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Where would you like to pick up the conversation on the Tea Party?

We get that you think it's a mistake to ignore the tea party or the more unhinged elements of the Republican party. Given that crazy and/or ignorant should be marginalized and that it would be extremely dangerous to the country to allow them to gain power, how would you recommend we engage those elements? And yeah... I'm painting with a broad brush.

Crazy people have a vote. Ignorant people have a vote. Seems to me the segment of the population you deem crazy and ignorant keeps growing. And gets more organized. And has some success in the polls. All of which was thought of as a near impossibility several months before now.

I guess I would answer your question with a question... how do you enfranchise this crazy, ignorant segment in a dialogue that addresses their concerns? And do you think that viewing them as crazy/igmorant is actually adding to the woes of both parties?

And finally...your statement reeks of elitisim. Just because you view a segment of the voting population as crazy and unhinged you feel that they should be excluded from power. What happened to equality of thought, no matter if you agree or disagree? This country is dynamic, its people are dynamic, and the dogma of "Trust Me I'm Lurker, I Know What's Best For All" sometimes just doesn't fly.

The Tea Party has some good ideas and thoughts. Less unessecary government spending? I think that's a good thing. Simplification of the tax code? I think that's another good thing. Pulling back our involvement in other governments? Yes, a good thing.

Are there some in the party I think are loons? Sure. But you make the mistake others have, and have painted the Tes Party with too broad a brush. It's more a loose confederation of occasioanlly dove-tailing idealogies than it is about planks in a platform. Its more about local control than federal control. In fact, the Tea Party isn't about politics at all, and I think that's what confuses the party elite on both sies. They see this movement as orchestrated, not something that is organic and self-evolving. Starfish and Spider (look it up).

Bottom line... independents are looking for a home. They tried the Republican model.. didn't work. They placed bets on Obama... now they are leaving the casino. Entrenched Reps and Dems will rarely change voting habits, but independents do. If both established parties have failed the independents, where do you think they will turn?

[Lurker]

What you call elitism I call reality. There are certain ideas that simply have no founding in reality. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. The ACA wasn't a government takeover of health care. Obama isn't a socialist or a muslim or an illegal alien. Spending cuts alone won't solve our deficit problem.

It would be nice if rational moderate Republicans could push back against the crazier elements of their party and base, but they don't. The leaders have embraced them. What do you suggest we do about that?

[Embar Angylwrath]

What you call elitism I call reality. There are certain ideas that simply have no founding in reality. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves. The ACA wasn't a government takeover of health care. Obama isn't a socialist or a muslim or an illegal alien. Spending cuts alone won't solve our deficit problem.

It would be nice if rational moderate Republicans could push back against the crazier elements of their party and base, but they don't. The leaders have embraced them. What do you suggest we do about that?

I suggest they be engaged in a dialogue. They have a vote. How else would you swing a voter to cause?

[Lurker]

How would we engage them in dialog?

[Ddrak]

There are a lot more than "ultra-conservative Republicans" in the Tea Party movement.

This is true. Ultra-conservatives would have nothing to do with that nuttery. The Tea Party is dominated by authoritarians in leadership and has a whole swag of willing and unwilling sheep trotting around after them. It is probably the singular most damaging movement in the United States right now. This is just the neocons breaking away from the GOP and going on a pretty little rampage for a bit before folding back in once the GOP wins power again.

Dd

[Lurker]

Well, whether you call them ultra-conservatives or authoritarians or neocons, the leadership of the Tea Party are almost all affiliated with the Republican Party and the "sheep" are almost all self-identified Republicans.

I agree it's the single most damaging movement in the United States. Unfortunately, the Republican Party aided by their propaganda outlets like Fox News and Rush has spent the last two decades creating their own history and reality. The result is that even the "moderate" elements of the Party and the people in positions of power are know-nothings. They are incapable of offering solutions that are workable in the real world and speak in nothing but platitudes. "Cut taxes! Less spending! Government takeover!" This allowed what should have been a marginalized fringe group to engulf them.

And I don't know how you engage them in dialog when their leaders and propaganda networks have so poisoned the debate.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You engage them by making them accountable for their decisions and actions. Once in power, they have to own their actions.

And I see some good stuff in what they say. Our government is too large and too beholden to monied interests that control DC. The two parties in power have sold out, and painting them as rational leaders is wwrong. They may be sophisticated and slick, but as we've all seen, when it comes down to it they are more interested in preserving their addiction to power than they are to service to the American people. Rangel is an excellent example of this. So is Maxine Waters. Both are addicted to power and are willing to damage their own party just so they can keep getting that political heroin.

[Ddrak]

The problem is the Tea Party is actually no different - the people behind it had 8 years in power with GWB and only made things worse. The noise they are making about small government and the like comes from the exact same people that brought you the Department of Homeland Security.

Dd

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I suggest they be engaged in a dialogue.

How, exactly, does one include Fallakin (And others like him) in any meaningful dialogue?

[Partha]

Both are addicted to power and are willing to damage their own party just so they can keep getting that political heroin.

The Tea Party was started by FreedomWorks, the leader of which is one Dick Armey, former speaker of the House, who claims that he's doing this solely to push Republicans farther right:

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/arti ... ement.html

You say you're staging a "hostile takeover" of the Republican Party. How?

We need to help the Republican Party rehabilitate itself to become once again the party of great ideas for America—as it was with Ronald Reagan. So we're not just going to fall in and become the auxiliary movement for the party. We're going to say to the Republican Party: "If you can rise to the occasion of our high ideals and our appreciation for documents of enormous impact in the world, like the American Constitution, we will work with you for the election
of Republican candidates." And we've done that. In fact, we've already had a fairly substantial impact on who are the candidates that are running for Congress as Republicans in this election cycle.

So, despite what Embar and Fall claim, all the Tea Party movement is is a astroturfed assemblage designed to coopt the Republican Party, as it's own leader says.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I suggest they be engaged in a dialogue.

How, exactly, does one include Fallakin (And others like him) in any meaningful dialogue?

How, exactly, does one include You, Lurker, Partha or Harlowe in any meaningful dialogue?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Both are addicted to power and are willing to damage their own party just so they can keep getting that political heroin.

The Tea Party was started by FreedomWorks, the leader of which is one Dick Armey, former speaker of the House, who claims that he's doing this solely to push Republicans farther right:

Actually it was all started by something Rick Santelli said on CNBC.

The Republicans were just the first to try and co-opt it.

[Ddrak]

Both are addicted to power and are willing to damage their own party just so they can keep getting that political heroin.

The Tea Party was started by FreedomWorks, the leader of which is one Dick Armey, former speaker of the House, who claims that he's doing this solely to push Republicans farther right:

Actually it was all started by something Rick Santelli said on CNBC.

The Republicans were just the first to try and co-opt it.

Santelli was the trigger for the movement to become national. FreedomWorks was the organizing force behind it going national. There's no question it has been driven by the same people behind GWB's presidency and while it may have started with disparate local protests prior to FreedomWorks getting involved, it's part of the same well coordinated political machine we've seen since PNAC.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Wait wait wait... the Tea Party is anything but a "well organized political machine".

They go after Republicans in races too. However the movement started, it's morphed into something different. From most everything I read, both on th eleft and right, most say the Tea Party is a conglomeration of loosely associated groups with no real national leadership, and in many cases, Tea Party people don't even agree with themsleves (or more accurately, other Tea Party groups).

They have at their core base: less government involvement, less taxes.

Personally, I don't see an issue with either of those positions. We all could benefit from both.

[Ddrak]

Wait wait wait... the Tea Party is anything but a "well organized political machine".

Rubbish. It's a very well controlled astroturf. None of the slogans are new and they're all fake sentiment. It's the same old crap that got GWB into power and look what he did for small government.

Seriously, follow the money and you'll end up with the Koch brothers and Murdoch. Look at the Republicans they go after and none are neocons.

You are right about the movement having morphed into something different. At the start it was a lot more grass roots and a lot less astroturf. Now it's a bunch of talking points, a bunch of people more willing to follow than think for themselves and a group with nothing but problems without solutions. We hoped the neocons were going to be dead and buried once GWB was gone, but they found a way back.

Articles worth reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... fact_mayer
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rge/13041/


If that's all tl;dr then just ask yourself whether Sarah Palin and Glen Beck being mouthpieces for the movement isn't the biggest red flag you've ever seen?

Dd