GOP presidential candidate is a distraction

Wayn-O wrote: Each party believes their ideology IS what is good for the country. That's nothing new.

I disagree. I think Washington is mostly pol's who are out to feather their own beds. I believe that the TP'ers are mostly citizen legislators who went there for the good of the country.

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote:

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote:

Wayn-O wrote: Just 28 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the tea party, an all-time low.

It would be funny if the GOP candidates chew each other to pieces and Chris Christie waltzes in to take the nomination.

Seems to be with the same stats of Rs and Ds and how long has the Tea Party been around? Besides, it's still only a party in name and you have to admit, they did change the same old bs we've watched for decades now.

How really did they change the same old bs? So far all I have seen from the Tea Party is more of the same old bs, different names. They haven't been able to accomplish anything positive, just make the American people a little angrier, and the government less responsive and more grid locked then ever. Maybe that was the intent?

You would be singing quite a different toon if there was an oppposite movement that resulted from Obama's failed promises to liberals. If it was some sort of green or anti-war movement that got traction, forced more liberals to be liberals, and helped promote an agenda YOU aproved of, I think you would be behind that movement ....would you not?

Not sure what that question has to do with what I posted......but thanks again for telling me what I would do or what "toon" (sic) I would be singing. I am not particularly on the green or anti-war bandwagon......although it's sounding like some of the conservatives have gotten on the latter.

My point was this, if the tea party was championing liberal ideology, I'm ASSUMING you would not be slamming them but rather backing them if they forced blue dog dems to walk a more liberal line. Is that really a stretch to assume?

And sorry for my missuse of the word "toon", I'll try to do better.

CriticalBill wrote:

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote:

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote:

Wayn-O wrote: Just 28 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the tea party, an all-time low.

It would be funny if the GOP candidates chew each other to pieces and Chris Christie waltzes in to take the nomination.

Seems to be with the same stats of Rs and Ds and how long has the Tea Party been around? Besides, it's still only a party in name and you have to admit, they did change the same old bs we've watched for decades now.

How really did they change the same old bs? So far all I have seen from the Tea Party is more of the same old bs, different names. They haven't been able to accomplish anything positive, just make the American people a little angrier, and the government less responsive and more grid locked then ever. Maybe that was the intent?

You would be singing quite a different toon if there was an oppposite movement that resulted from Obama's failed promises to liberals. If it was some sort of green or anti-war movement that got traction, forced more liberals to be liberals, and helped promote an agenda YOU aproved of, I think you would be behind that movement ....would you not?

Not sure what that question has to do with what I posted......but thanks again for telling me what I would do or what "toon" (sic) I would be singing. I am not particularly on the green or anti-war bandwagon......although it's sounding like some of the conservatives have gotten on the latter.

My point was this, if the tea party was championing liberal ideology, I'm ASSUMING you would not be slamming them but rather backing them if they forced blue dog dems to walk a more liberal line. Is that really a stretch to assume?

And sorry for my missuse of the word "toon", I'll try to do better.

No, but if you want a liberal comparison to the Tea Party it would have to be far left oriented.....which I am not. So I would certainly not be championing that type of political force. Now if we had a 3rd party/faction that would blend some of the Tea Party fiscal platform, with a liberal social platform, I would be on board. But so far as I know our political system just can't find that kind of equilibrium. To be conservative fiscally......you must be conservative socially. Conversely, to be a social liberal, then you are supposed to be a liberal spender. There is no political home for me or those who think like me.

I know, that doesn't really answer your question, but think about what kind of faction of the Democratic party could possibly be created from grass roots support....I have always viewed the democrats as BEING grass roots, for the little guy, so how much more grass roots could they be? My own opinion is that the Tea Party could have been a really great force for good in this country if they had stuck to their fiscal agenda and left the social agenda to the two major parties.

I have taken my share of insults for saying that I was looking for a candidate from either party that I could get behind. Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee....so the only alternative to Obama for me is a Republican candidate that I could support, and that would mean that candidate is fiscally conservative, but socially if not liberal, at least willing to let those social programs already in place continue to exist and be improved. Healthcare included......

archer wrote: [So I would certainly not be championing that type of political force. Now if we had a 3rd party/faction that would blend some of the Tea Party fiscal platform, with a liberal social platform, I would be on board. But so far as I know our political system just can't find that kind of equilibrium. To be conservative fiscally......you must be conservative socially. Conversely, to be a social liberal, then you are supposed to be a liberal spender. There is no political home for me or those who think like me.

s.

The tea party has it's religious right component but there are a bunch of us libertarians also. The Tea Party did not coalesce around social ideology. It coalesced around the cost and scope of the federal gov.

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote: [So I would certainly not be championing that type of political force. Now if we had a 3rd party/faction that would blend some of the Tea Party fiscal platform, with a liberal social platform, I would be on board. But so far as I know our political system just can't find that kind of equilibrium. To be conservative fiscally......you must be conservative socially. Conversely, to be a social liberal, then you are supposed to be a liberal spender. There is no political home for me or those who think like me.

s.

The tea party has it's religious right component but there are a bunch of us libertarians also. The Tea Party did not coalesce around social ideology. It coalesced around the cost and scope of the federal gov.

But it has grown to attract the far right religious fanatics and those conservatives who are more interested in social reform than fiscal reform. I doubt that I am the only one who draws the line at voting for a Tea Party candidate because they campaign on social issues as well as fiscal issues, and their social agenda is diametrically opposed to what I believe. It's a deal breaker for me.

neptunechimney wrote: The tea party has it's religious right component but there are a bunch of us libertarians also. The Tea Party did not coalesce around social ideology. It coalesced around the cost and scope of the federal gov.

It seems to be a one-issue party to me: smaller government, less spending.

In order to be a viable political party, it needs to have more planks in the platform: abortion, gay rights, death penalty, right to bear arms, immigration, etc.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus on those issues.

The reason I mention is if I vote for a Tea Party candidate, I know where they stand on the size of government, but TP candidates could vary widely on how they stand on the other issues.

It is not a political party and I am not aware of an attempt to make it a viable political party.

I concur, there is no consensus on those issues. I nether want or expect that there will be.

Wayne, did you add to your post or am I guilty of poor reading skills. WRT your last sentence, IMO the libertarian wing currently holds the upper hand.

neptunechimney wrote: It is not a political party and I am not aware of an attempt to make it a viable political party.

I concur, there is no consensus on those issues. I nether want or expect that there will be.

The fact that the Tea Party chose to work through the Republican Part is pretty telling as far as their social/religious agenda, do you think something like the Tea Party could, or should, rise within the Democratic Party? Or should they actually be working towards third party status?