Is Michael Steele mentally challenged?

[Easy Mac]

A Letter to Michael Steele | The Weekly Standard

Speaking on the war in Afghanistan

Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in... if [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?

[JediKooter]

Looks Mr. Steele has been going to the 'School of Revisionist History' that Glenn Beck founded.

[Passacaglia]

Also, is he trying to quote the Princess Bride and failing?

[I. J. Reilly]

Wait, Bill Kristol cares about facts now? When the hell did this happen?

[panerd]

Time for another edition of the Democrat/Republican paradigm. And in the end both sides will wonder how they got tricked arguing with each other over a war that nobody really seems to support. In the meantime while we get down to whether Bush started it or Obama continues it soldiers will continue to die.

[Chief Rum]

For Steele's sake, I hope he never goes up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

[lungs]

Calling Michael Steele mentally challenged is an insult to the mentally challenged.

[PilotMan]

yes

[panerd]

I am also pretty certain that this is all part of the plan. Drum up bi-partisan support for the war during the 4th of July holiday. No news outlet is going to oppose the war during Independence Day weekend. Sadly it will probably also sway public opinion. (Hope not. The numbers look better and better every day of it being too big of an issue swayed against Washington not to confront)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

For Steele's sake, I hope he never goes up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

SI

[SackAttack]

Well, in fairness to Mr. Steele, it isn't as though the Bush Administration actively GAVE a fuck about Afghanistan once they turned their attention to the Iraq War.

Surely, we can forgive him for being completely ignorant of the immediate ramifications of 9/11 and the Taliban's sheltering of bin Laden in its aftermath, right?

Real Americans don't need pesky things like facts. They just get in the way.

[EagleFan]

I feel unclean just by clicking a link to that site...

[Dutch]

I wouldn't call him mentally challenged. I'd call his remarks ultra-partisan and not sensitive at all to the military's mission. Very unhelpful.

[JPhillips]

Luckily with the CU ruling the GOP can just bypass the RNC fundraising. Rove's group had a huge month and he's only one of a few. Steele will stay at the RNC until after the election, but he'll be irrelevant.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I wouldn't call him mentally challenged. I'd call his remarks ultra-partisan and not sensitive at all to the military's mission. Very unhelpful.

For the first, and almost certainly the last, time I find myself in total agreement with Sen Jim DeMint:

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said Sunday that Mr. Steele’s remarks were “inaccurate” and “unacceptable.” “Chairman Steele needs to apologize to our military, all the men and women who’ve been fighting in Afghanistan,” Mr. DeMint said on “Fox News Sunday.”

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Steele has gone off the deep end at this point. This coming from someone who like him when he was in office while I was in Maryland.

With that said, the Republicans are going to trounce the Democrats in the fall elections and I fear that will only further give Steele a pulpit to take credit where none is due.

[Flasch186]

predictions. I remember those...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

the Republicans are going to trounce the Democrats in the fall elections

For the sake of posterity, could you define "trounce" for us?

Take back the House?

Take back the Senate?

Something else?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For the sake of posterity, could you define "trounce" for us?

Take back the House?

Take back the Senate?

I think it's clear to everyone at this point that the Democrats are going to lose at least one of the two and there's an outside shot they lose both. I'm not sure it matters much in the end because they aren't going to get anything more accomplished with that split. Until Congress and the President come to their fiscal senses, little will change.

But this thread is about Steele and I think we can all agree that there's not much need for this thread stating the obvious.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Wait, Bill Kristol cares about facts now?

Well played.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

With that said, the Republicans are going to trounce the Democrats in the fall elections and I fear that will only further give Steele a pulpit to take credit where none is due.

This would be true if Republicans seized the opportunity, recognized the political discontent in this country, scratched that itch, and generally were more moderate and less creepy on social issues.

But they'll blow it.

Edit: It's a small sample size, the politicians I follow closely in Idaho, but it seems as if at least some in the Republican party are using their "inevitable" November victories as a chance to push their most extreme views on things. Great strategy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a small sample size, the politicians I follow closely in Idaho, but it seems as if at least some in the Republican party are using their "inevitable" November victories as a chance to push their most extreme views on things. Great strategy.

At the risk of a sidebar, if you aren't going to utilize an "inevitable" victory to push your priority positions, then what's the point of winning at all?

I know, I'm taking a leap & projecting some of what I know about both of us here but ... I suspect that some of the things I'd consider the most important policies/laws/whatever that I could work toward implementing would also be things that you would label as "extreme views".

But if I'm not able to do my utmost to accomplish my highest priority goals, then wtf was the point in being elected at all? And isn't it more, I dunno, intellectually honest if you will, to be up front about those priorities & positions at this stage - before actually getting that "inevitable" victory - than to tap dance around through November and then get busy on what you intended to do all along?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the risk of a sidebar, if you aren't going to utilize an "inevitable" victory to push your priority positions, then what's the point of winning at all?

I know, I'm taking a leap & projecting some of what I know about both of us here but ... I suspect that some of the things I'd consider the most important policies/laws/whatever that I could work toward implementing would also be things that you would label as "extreme views".

But if I'm not able to do my utmost to accomplish my highest priority goals, then wtf was the point in being elected at all? And isn't it more, I dunno, intellectually honest if you will, to be up front about those priorities & positions at this stage - before actually getting that "inevitable" victory - than to tap dance around through November and then get busy on what you intended to do all along?

I'd guess it's a semantic matter - which is inevitable? The Republican victory, or the Democratic defeat?

Kinda like the 2008 election, which most places didn't bill so much as McCain v. Obama, but more like Obama v. Obama. In other words, it was more a for-him-or-against-him referendum than any real weighing of the merits and demerits of the two candidates.

Same kind of thing here; if the electorate really is so disenchanted with Democratic rule that they're eyeing a change, is it the views being espoused by Republican/Tea Party candidates that's driving that, or is it simply an "anybody else" philosophy at work?

And if it's the latter, yet you stand to benefit, is there a benefit to fully advocating your agenda when the electoral mood might do that work for you?

It's certainly more intellectually honest to say what you want to do, but it's not without potential drawbacks. You may scare off the moderate voters who typically decide elections, for one, but you could also find yourself in a position where you win enough seats to take both chambers, but not enough to actually deliver on your proposed agenda.

I mean, let's be honest...let's say the Republicans candidates actually do take both chambers. Do you see any way the Democrats in the Senate let the Republicans get anything done, after the focus they've put on the Republicans over the use of the filibuster the last two years?

It'd probably be more intellectually honest to not drag their heels, but I think it exceedingly unlikely they'd do anything but pay the GOP back in spades.

So, now, if the Republicans have been strident on pushing their ideal agenda and nothing gets done, you find yourself right back asking two questions - was the agenda what held the appeal for the voters, or was it an anything-but mood? If the former, you probably win more seats in 2012, and possibly even the White House.

If not, though, you risk a pretty righteous backlash.

Probably easier to ask forgiveness than permission, as it were.

[RainMaker]

Republicans will gain Senate seats, but there is literally no chance at all of them taking it over. Too many seats to make up in one election cycle. Not enough Democrat seats open too. 2012 is when they should make their big push as there will be many more vulnerable seats.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

As long as we avoid facts and common sense, there is nothing wrong with what he said. Just like any politician.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'd guess it's a semantic matter - which is inevitable? The Republican victory, or the Democratic defeat?

Kinda like the 2008 election, which most places didn't bill so much as McCain v. Obama, but more like Obama v. Obama. ... etc, etc.

Not cutting your comments off with that snippet there, just didn't want to requote the whole thing since the little light bulb that went off in my head wasn't specific to any one thing in that reply.

Those Idaho pols you mentioned in the previous post, how many of them are commenting while involved in contested primaries as opposed to already knowing they're going through to November? That might well account for their positioning, gotta win in July (or whatever) first in order to be the candidate to take advantage of "the inevitable" in November after all.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not cutting your comments off with that snippet there, just didn't want to requote the whole thing since the little light bulb that went off in my head wasn't specific to any one thing in that reply.

Those Idaho pols you mentioned in the previous post, how many of them are commenting while involved in contested primaries as opposed to already knowing they're going through to November? That might well account for their positioning, gotta win in July (or whatever) first in order to be the candidate to take advantage of "the inevitable" in November after all.

I don't think I ever specifically mentioned Idaho, but I will say that there is a value to doing that in some states that doesn't exist in others.

There's really no such thing as an Idaho Democrat, just to use that example. There probably IS no downside to getting involved in a rightward rush in the primaries.

My comment really has more to do with the overall tenor of the primaries on a national scale. We're seeing Republican incumbents getting primaried out by some fairly extreme (comparatively) Tea Party darlings, and I wonder how many of them are going to end up being electable come November.

Some Republicans are responding that way, either in challenging their incumbent or in trying to capture the nomination for a seat currently held by a Democrat, and while that might get them the party nod, since primaries tend to be the domain of the True Believer, I don't know how many of those candidates are going to sweep into Washington in November.

Some certainly will, but I think in almost all cases, it's going to be a Tea Party darling taking a seat held by a Republican who wasn't "conservative enough."

I think the Democrats will lose seats - there's almost always a certain degree of that in the first midterms - but I don't think many of those will be because a given candidate Palin'ed his/her state's electorate.

Hell, I think there are cases where the Republicans probably had a sure thing before - Harry Reid being an example - and might find themselves regretting missed opportunities in four months.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I don't think I ever specifically mentioned Idaho, but I will say that there is a value to doing that in some states that doesn't exist in others.

My bad, it was Molson who mentioned Idaho.



My comment really has more to do with the overall tenor of the primaries on a national scale.

Some certainly will, but I think in almost all cases, it's going to be a Tea Party darling taking a seat held by a Republican who wasn't "conservative enough."

All things considered however (from this side of the aisle), that's still an improvement. If all gaining control via lukewarm pseudo-conservatives means is that we end up with "Dem Lite" then a lot of us really don't see the point, and I believe that (in part) accounts for some of what you're seeing.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the risk of a sidebar, if you aren't going to utilize an "inevitable" victory to push your priority positions, then what's the point of winning at all?

I know, I'm taking a leap & projecting some of what I know about both of us here but ... I suspect that some of the things I'd consider the most important policies/laws/whatever that I could work toward implementing would also be things that you would label as "extreme views".

But if I'm not able to do my utmost to accomplish my highest priority goals, then wtf was the point in being elected at all? And isn't it more, I dunno, intellectually honest if you will, to be up front about those priorities & positions at this stage - before actually getting that "inevitable" victory - than to tap dance around through November and then get busy on what you intended to do all along?

Well, that's a good point, certainly I'd appreciate any individual running for office to be honest about their position, and not just say what what needs to be said to get elected.

From the perspective of the broader party though, I think they could target concerns of moderate Americans more effectively, and get behind more socially moderate members of the party who can get moderate Americans fired up about everything the corpo-government is currently doing wrong.

I mean, the fact that the tea party has been so successful really tells me that there's a huge political opportunity here for someone, and tea party isn't fully taking advantage of that because they're too weird.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, that's a good point, certainly I'd appreciate any individual running for office to be honest about their position, and not just say what what needs to be said to get elected.

This is the charm of the tea party. I agree that Americans have pretty short memories and that a candidite may have to go back to lies and empty promises in 2012 but right now they are tired of the bullshit and I don't see any of that changing in November. Some saavy politicians like Sarah Palin are of course lying to become tea party leaders but I would say that some of the "wackos" out there represent the views of a lot of Americans. They are tired of politicians from both sides promising everyone a free lunch with our tax money. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

EDIT: I was quoting you Molson to agree with your point. My reply seem like it is aimed at you but it is more in general of people that like keeping the two party system in place because they enjoy enlightened "Bush sucks" "Obama is Hitler" "Michael Steele is mentally challenged" debates instead of really discussing issues.

[JPhillips]

Most Tea Partiers want lower taxes(or at least a permanent extension of the Bush cuts) and a balanced budget, yet offer nothing of substance they are willing to cut. Until they are willing to spell out the hundreds of billions of dollars in budget cuts they want they are anything but honest.

The Tea Party is only as successful as it is because they haven't done anything but complain. Once they have to embrace extensive cuts, higher taxes or deficit spending they won't be successful.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Most Tea Partiers want lower taxes(or at least a permanent extension of the Bush cuts) and a balanced budget, yet offer nothing of substance they are willing to cut. Until they are willing to spell out the hundreds of billions of dollars in budget cuts they want they are anything but honest.

The Tea Party is only as successful as it is because they haven't done anything but complain. Once they have to embrace extensive cuts, higher taxes or deficit spending they won't be successful.

War in Iraq? War on drugs? War in Afganistan? Welfare? Corporate welfare? Obamacare? Are you talking about the Sarah Palin's who have attempted to take over the tea party or actual people?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

My reply seem like it is aimed at you but it is more in general of people that like keeping the two party system in place because they enjoy enlightened "Bush sucks" "Obama is Hitler" "Michael Steele is mentally challenged" debates instead of really discussing issues.

Much like conservative/liberal labels, or even R/D labels, it's almost become a form a shorthand. It saves time too, since many of the issues could be "discussed" to death and we're no closer to a solution nor even agreement.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Most Tea Partiers want lower taxes(or at least a permanent extension of the Bush cuts) and a balanced budget, yet offer nothing of substance they are willing to cut. Until they are willing to spell out the hundreds of billions of dollars in budget cuts they want they are anything but honest.

The Tea Party is only as successful as it is because they haven't done anything but complain. Once they have to embrace extensive cuts, higher taxes or deficit spending they won't be successful.

There's definitely a huge advantage in being the out-of-office complainer, rather than the guy on the spot, we've seen that time and time again.

But that's how people get swept into power. If humans could be more rational about such things, we wouldn't have had Nazis or Stalinist communism (there's probably examples where this phenomenon instead resulted in a good change, I just can't think of one).

The banner the tea party is waving (I can't say platform, because you're right, we have no idea what they'd do if they were in power) is seriously flawed, but they've still become the prominent anti-establishment voice. Which just kind of bums me out, because it taints any anti-establishment voice.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by panerd

War in Iraq? War on drugs? War in Afganistan? Welfare? Corporate welfare? Obamacare? Are you talking about the Sarah Palin's who have attempted to take over the tea party or actual people?

If the Tea Party-ers make it into power, who do you think is going to lead them? Someone like Palin, or an "actual person"?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

War in Iraq? War on drugs? War in Afganistan? Welfare? Corporate welfare? Obamacare? Are you talking about the Sarah Palin's who have attempted to take over the tea party or actual people?

You started with this:

They are tired of politicians from both sides promising everyone a free lunch with our tax money. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

but the Tea Party is just promising a different free lunch. How do you get to a balanced budget with a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts? Where does the trillion dollars come from?

And it's pretty clear through numerous polls that the Tea Party is primarily the most conservative elements of the GOP, not some grand new coalition of the center.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You started with this:


but the Tea Party is just promising a different free lunch. How do you get to a balanced budget with a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts? Where does the trillion dollars come from?

And it's pretty clear through numerous polls that the Tea Party is primarily the most conservative elements of the GOP, not some grand new coalition of the center.

You're right. Everything you quoted in there is a "free lunch" and not shitloads of wasted money. Not worth discussing when you confuse those that are tired of government spending with the Republican party. Sorry but "Bush sucks" doesn't work here.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by panerd

You're right. Everything you quoted in there is a "free lunch" and not shitloads of wasted money. Not worth discussing when you confuse those that are tired of government spending with the Republican party. Sorry but "Bush sucks" doesn't work here.

If this movement had sprung up before January of 2009, I'd have an easier time believing that it wasn't primarily Republicans behind it.

Or are you suggesting that it's just coincidence that the first "Tea Party" rally happened four days after Obama's inauguration?

We got a saying where I come from - if it looks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit...

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If this movement had sprung up before January of 2009, I'd have an easier time believing that it wasn't primarily Republicans behind it.

Or are you suggesting that it's just coincidence that the first "Tea Party" rally happened four days after Obama's inauguration?

We got a saying where I come from - if it looks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit...

There was something of a movement inspired by Ron Paul pre-inauguration. Not much in the way of votes, but he raised a ton of money, and there were quite a few rallies of smaller stature.

I don't think there's a huge overlap between that movement and the tea party. The tea party is kind of a glossed-up, dumbed down version of that earlier movement with a poorly constructed posterboard sign and a revolutionary-era war hat.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If this movement had sprung up before January of 2009, I'd have an easier time believing that it wasn't primarily Republicans behind it.

Or would those be disgruntled Republicans? And if so, are they then still "Republicans"?

I mean, just to pick on myself as an example, my loyalty to the GOP exists solely on the basis of what-are-they-doing-that-makes-me-happy. Which is to say, there's no loyalty to the brand where I'm concerned, it's strictly performance (or at least effort/intentions) based. Hell, I've never self-identified as a Republican, based on both my dissatisfaction with the RINO elements of the party today and further back on my 180 degree difference in opinion on abortion.

Since there's already some semantic discussion in this thread anyway, perhaps "Republicans behind it" really isn't quite what you meant? Or were you suggesting that this is some sort of odd marketing strategy by the (R) brand?

edit to add: FTR and for clarity, I don't self-identify as a Tea Party member either. As has been discussed here previously, there isn't really a single defined brand to identify with to this point.. I support some of the basic concepts they are typically associated with, but some of the familiar talking points associated with them also are either not primary points of interest to me or I'm in outright disagreement with.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If this movement had sprung up before January of 2009, I'd have an easier time believing that it wasn't primarily Republicans behind it.

Or are you suggesting that it's just coincidence that the first "Tea Party" rally happened four days after Obama's inauguration?

We got a saying where I come from - if it looks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit...

Yes I am telling you it started before Obama actually. It started after GW Bush and the first bailout. It was a key part of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign and the Campaign for Liberty. "T.E.A." = "Taxed Enough Already" Of course the mass media (both left and right) are more than happy to say it is a creation of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Believe what you want but this is a force that doesn't like either Republicans or Democrats. The Democrats have at least acknowledged the Tea Party (they mock but that is the next step in acknowledgement). The Republicans sit and smile and think they are all under one tent. Wait until the elections in the fall and they will realize these guys don't like them either.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

There was something of a movement inspired by Ron Paul pre-inauguration. Not much in the way of votes, but he raised a ton of money, and there were quite a few rallies of smaller stature.

I don't think there's a huge overlap between that movement and the tea party. The tea party is kind of a glossed-up, dumbed down version of that earlier movement with a poorly constructed posterboard sign and a revolutionary-era war hat.

Yes. The Ron Paul tea party movement is what I am talking about. Just like liberals probably don't like to acknowledge the Democratic party is pro-war and pro corporations I don't like to acknowledge Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh as fighters for liberty. I know a lot of people who don't like big government, and of course don't like Obama, who want nothing to do with Republicans either. That is who I think will be voting in the fall. Of course CNN and Fox news will try to spin it differently. Believe whomever you want.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I know a lot of people who don't like big government, and of course don't like Obama, who want nothing to do with Republicans either.

Whereas I know virtually none, at least who are equally adamantly opposed to the (R) as the (D).

Truth is, as I've said before, I believe there are relatively few people who actually want to reduce government nearly so much as they want to redirect it's attention/spending/efforts/priorities.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Whereas I know virtually none, at least who are equally adamantly opposed to the (R) as the (D).

Truth is, as I've said before, I believe there are relatively few people who actually want to reduce government nearly so much as they want to redirect it's attention/spending/efforts/priorities.

It would make sense, right? I would tend to talk with people with similar views and so would you. Don't get wrong I am a teacher and work with plenty of idiots who blindly follow Obama because the union tells them how great he is and I also work with people who are disgruntled and think the Republicans are going to change it. But there is a growing number of people who hate both that I have never seen before in my life. I don't think they are going to win the White House but they definitely can swing some elections and hopefully wake some of the Washington DC lifetimers up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

It would make sense, right? I would tend to talk with people with similar views and so would you. Don't get wrong I am a teacher and work with plenty of idiots who blindly follow Obama because the union tells them how great he is and I also work with people who are disgruntled and think the Republicans are going to change it. But there is a growing number of people who hate both that I have never seen before in my life. I don't think they are going to win the White House but they definitely can swing some elections and hopefully wake some of the Washington DC lifetimers up.

I'd agree with you on everything right up to the likely impact.

I don't really believe anything is going to wake up Washington, now or in the remaining lifetime of the nation. We're simply too irreconcilably & fundamentally incompatible as a nation to ever put together enough of any sort of change to really remake the culture there.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd agree with you on everything right up to the likely impact.

I don't really believe anything is going to wake up Washington, now or in the remaining lifetime of the nation. We're simply too irreconcilably & fundamentally incompatible as a nation to ever put together enough of any sort of change to really remake the culture there.

You are most likely correct. But I like to think that at least with the internet the 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party message can be put out there when the typical Democrat/Republcian threads like this pop up. Am I going to change you or JPhillips love of the state? Probably not. But I will at least attempt to point out when we are headed to the Democrat/Republican paradigm and hope someone will realize that over 50% of the population now doesn't support the Afgan war even though this Michael Steele debate in DC (not quite as unbalanced on here) makes it seem like that is a wacky, lonely position.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or would those be disgruntled Republicans? And if so, are they then still "Republicans"?

I mean, just to pick on myself as an example, my loyalty to the GOP exists solely on the basis of what-are-they-doing-that-makes-me-happy. Which is to say, there's no loyalty to the brand where I'm concerned, it's strictly performance (or at least effort/intentions) based. Hell, I've never self-identified as a Republican, based on both my dissatisfaction with the RINO elements of the party today and further back on my 180 degree difference in opinion on abortion.

Since there's already some semantic discussion in this thread anyway, perhaps "Republicans behind it" really isn't quite what you meant? Or were you suggesting that this is some sort of odd marketing strategy by the (R) brand?

edit to add: FTR and for clarity, I don't self-identify as a Tea Party member either. As has been discussed here previously, there isn't really a single defined brand to identify with to this point.. I support some of the basic concepts they are typically associated with, but some of the familiar talking points associated with them also are either not primary points of interest to me or I'm in outright disagreement with.

I would point out, Jon, the subtle hypocrisy in saying both that you don't self-identify as a Republican while at the same time condemning "RINO" elements within the party.

Secondly, I think it depends on whether someone who does identify with the brand consciously or subconsciously detects tarnish. Leading up to the 2008 elections, we saw a drop-off in the % of people willing to self-identify as Republican. Why that is, who can say. Or, rather, there are probably several reasons that encompass the entirety of the drop.

I do think there's a certain amount of astroturfing going on, yes. Not that the movement originated that way, but there have been elements that have seized on and tried to ride the wave - such as it is - for their own purposes.

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes I am telling you it started before Obama actually. It started after GW Bush and the first bailout. It was a key part of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign and the Campaign for Liberty. "T.E.A." = "Taxed Enough Already" Of course the mass media (both left and right) are more than happy to say it is a creation of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Believe what you want but this is a force that doesn't like either Republicans or Democrats. The Democrats have at least acknowledged the Tea Party (they mock but that is the next step in acknowledgement). The Republicans sit and smile and think they are all under one tent. Wait until the elections in the fall and they will realize these guys don't like them either.

I'll address the points in reverse order.

1)

Senate Candidates:

Calif. - Chuck Devore (R)
Florida - Marco Rubio (R)
Kansas - Todd Tiahrt (R)
Kentucky - Rand Paul (R)
Nevada - Sharron Angle (R)
Pennsylvania - Pat Toomey (R)
South Carolina - Jim DeMint (R)

House Candidates:

Calif.-4 Tom McClintock (R)
Ga.-6 Tom Price (R)
Idaho-1 Walt Minnick (D)
Ind.-6 Mike Pence (R)
Minn.-6 Michele Bachmann (R)
S.C. -2 Joe Wilson (R)
Tenn.-7 Marsha Blackburn (R)

Those are the candidates the "Tea Party Express" has endorsed. One of these things is not like the other.

The list of politicians they specifically want removed from office:

Arlen Specter, D-Pa.
Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.,
Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.
Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev.
Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.
Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va.
Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-Va.

Don't even start with "they don't like either Republicans or Democrats," please. If that were true, there would be a lot less partisan homogeneity on those lists.

2) Ron Paul and his campaign might be what these folks reached back and seized upon, but it wasn't until late January of 2009 that they started popping up all over the place.

Heck, the Palm Beach Post quotes an organizer referring to a 2/9/09 event as "the first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of." Telling words. They were protesting a President who'd been in office three weeks and had yet to propose a budget.

Is the movement a creation of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh? Nah. But remember my comment about elements willing to engage in astroturfing and use the movement for their own political purposes? Meet two of the elements involved.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I would point out, Jon, the subtle hypocrisy in saying both that you don't self-identify as a Republican while at the same time condemning "RINO" elements within the party.

Secondly, I think it depends on whether someone who does identify with the brand consciously or subconsciously detects tarnish. Leading up to the 2008 elections, we saw a drop-off in the % of people willing to self-identify as Republican. Why that is, who can say. Or, rather, there are probably several reasons that encompass the entirety of the drop.

I do think there's a certain amount of astroturfing going on, yes. Not that the movement originated that way, but there have been elements that have seized on and tried to ride the wave - such as it is - for their own purposes.



I'll address the points in reverse order.

1)

Senate Candidates:

Calif. - Chuck Devore (R)
Florida - Marco Rubio (R)
Kansas - Todd Tiahrt (R)
Kentucky - Rand Paul (R)
Nevada - Sharron Angle (R)
Pennsylvania - Pat Toomey (R)
South Carolina - Jim DeMint (R)

House Candidates:

Calif.-4 Tom McClintock (R)
Ga.-6 Tom Price (R)
Idaho-1 Walt Minnick (D)
Ind.-6 Mike Pence (R)
Minn.-6 Michele Bachmann (R)
S.C. -2 Joe Wilson (R)
Tenn.-7 Marsha Blackburn (R)

Those are the candidates the "Tea Party Express" has endorsed. One of these things is not like the other.

The list of politicians they specifically want removed from office:

Arlen Specter, D-Pa.
Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.,
Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.
Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev.
Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.
Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va.
Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-Va.

Don't even start with "they don't like either Republicans or Democrats," please. If that were true, there would be a lot less partisan homogeneity on those lists.

2) Ron Paul and his campaign might be what these folks reached back and seized upon, but it wasn't until late January of 2009 that they started popping up all over the place.

Heck, the Palm Beach Post quotes an organizer referring to a 2/9/09 event as "the first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of." Telling words. They were protesting a President who'd been in office three weeks and had yet to propose a budget.

Is the movement a creation of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh? Nah. But remember my comment about elements willing to engage in astroturfing and use the movement for their own political purposes? Meet two of the elements involved.

Not true. So no reason to continue the debate. I remember it happening in real time and don't need the Palm Beach post telling me that Ron Paul's followers didn't create the Tea Party. I don't care what the mass media has decided to label as the Tea Party or who they claim the Tea Party endorses. I will stick with the Campaign for Liberty (the origianl tea party) and their fierce opposition to both Democrats and Republicans. Continue with your "Republicans suck... no Democrats suck" bickering.

[panerd]

I think this one is so simple that you can even use the Democrat/Republican paradigm research center (wikipedia) to figure it out.

[JediKooter]

So, are there two different Tea Parties then? I've heard both what Panerd is saying and I've also heard what SackAttack has posted. So to me and one of the reasons I put 'Tea Party' on my internal ignore list, is because I couldn't figure out what the hell they are trying to accomplish and they sounded like a bunch of whiners not willing to actually do anything but complain at the local watering hole.