Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Tea Party: 3rd Party or Republican wolves in Tea Party clothing?

  • 19-05-2010 05:55PM
    #1
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,768 CMod ✭✭✭✭


    Does it appear that the Tea Party is a Republican conservative splinter group that is now attempting to gain control, and seize leadership from the GOP (taking advantage of the GOP leadership vacuum that now exists since their sweeping 2008 defeat)? This quote following the Republican-turned-Democrat Specter defeat in Pennsylvania is rather telling?

    "We're licking our chops at running against President Obama," said Rand Paul, tea party candidate and victor in Kentucky's Republican primary for retiring GOP Sen. Jim Bunning's seat.
    *

    Note that Rand Paul is labeled a "tea party candidate" in the Kentucky "Republican primary" (Tea Party + Republican, not Tea Party by itself, suggesting that the Tea Party needs the GOP to get elected; ergo a Republican party splinter group, not a 3rd party)?

    Consistent with this observation, will we see more Republican politicians associating themselves with the Tea Party than Democrat politicians during the November elections?

    Is this a marketing device being used by the Republican party, calling themselves Tea Party candidates, in an attempt to draw swing vote Independents and infighting (among themselves) Democrat voters with a pseudo-third party image; i.e., conservative Republican wolves in Tea Party clothing?

    Or yet another attempt to create a third party starting with splintering off a segment of the conservative Republican party, hoping to add Independents and infighting Democrats to become a viable alternative in future elections (e.g., Texas Republican H. Ross Perot's third party attempt, etc.)?

    *Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_el_se/us_obama_no_coattails


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    This is just my view, and others have their own viewpoint of what the Tea Party is. I speak for myself, not for others, even within the TPN itself. Formalized Tea Party’s are non-partisan organizations made up of activists and concerned citizens, who primarily get behind any candidate that is of like mind and espouse limited government, free speech, the 2nd amendment, our military, secure borders and our country. (I know, a lot of simplistic taglines ;)).

    Regarding the candidates they support: It does not matter one iota if the candidate is a member of the democratic party, republican party, constitution party, green party, libertarian party, or any of the minor or micro parties. But of the majors listed, they usually align with the republican, constitution and Libertarian parties. We recognize the hurdles that establishing a formal 3rd party would bring, and realize it best to work the messages within current established parties. There always are exceptions though.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,768 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Amerika wrote: »
    Regarding the candidates they support: It does not matter one iota if the candidate is a member of the democratic party, republican party, constitution party, green party, libertarian party, or any of the minor or micro parties. But of the majors listed, they usually align with the republican, constitution and Libertarian parties.
    Have they ever openly and actively supported a Democrat for office running against a Republican? Specific names of Democrat candidates?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Amerika wrote: »
    This is just my view, and others have their own viewpoint of what the Tea Party is. I speak for myself, not for others, even within the TPN itself. Formalized Tea Party’s are non-partisan organizations made up of activists and concerned citizens, who primarily get behind any candidate that is of like mind and espouse limited government, free speech, the 2nd amendment, our military, secure borders and our country. (I know, a lot of simplistic taglines ;)).
    .

    Sorry but doesn’t the Ron Paul want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now? I remember the GOP primary debates where he was ambushed by other candidates, notably Rudy Giuliani and Fox News on his views that America is basically to blame for 9/11 (Blowback) and that the US should adopt a noninterventionist role in the world. :eek::eek: Not very GOP like is it now!

    Strange but I also remember many on the left wanting the same thing. Also anyone remember those moveon.org ads about the deficit (in the bush years) which was then attacked by the right because they were produced by...moveon.org!? Yet same commentators are now "Tea party activists"!

    Therein lies the crux of this movement.

    Also still waiting for their first protest on Wall St. If they were "truly" independent why not go after the self titled "Masters of the Universe". Like they live in New York (Eastern Liberal City), probably went to Stamford or some other Ivy league school (Liberal Universities), Dont give a $hit mostly about social issue (They hate god!) etc. Come on why not protest against these evil liberals ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Have they ever openly and actively supported a Democrat for office running against a Republican? Specific names of Democrat candidates?

    Names? Names?

    (Suddenly a scene from the 1935 film Lives of a Bengal Lancer flashes into my head of Douglass Dumbrille saying with an evil tone in his voice "We have ways of making you talk.")

    Okay stop, stop! I can’t take anymore... rep Walt Minnick of Idaho

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/21/tea-party-express-endorses-democrat-in-idaho/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    How do you rationalise the belief in "limited government" yet maintain such a ridiculously out of proportion Defense Spending?

    By "limited government" do you mean: limited in some ways that you prefer, but totally bloated in others?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Actually according to the US Constitution, one of the few proper roles of our government includes defensive activities, which involves "maintaining national military, establishing local police forces for the protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Amerika wrote: »
    Actually according to the US Constitution, one of the few proper roles of our government includes defensive activities, which involves "maintaining national military, establishing local police forces for the protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals."
    Which doesn't answer my question about the size of Defense Spending.

    But is also raises another issue, that being local police forces are not currently federal employees, should they be?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Which doesn't answer my question about the size of Defense Spending.
    I think it did.
    But is also raises another issue, that being local police forces are not currently federal employees, should they be?
    States rights still exist (well as for now anyway). Local and state governments are still part of our government. We have local laws, state laws and federal laws. It makes sense that local police fall under local government, state police fall under state government, and federal law enforcement officers fall under Dick Cheney;).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    The problem with your post is that the Constitution doesn't limit the Federal Government to Defense.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The Tea Parties and Howard Dean have lots in common apparently!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/19/howard_dean_bashes_tea_partiers_compares_them_to_progressives.html

    Where were you in 2003 Amerika?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    The Preamble of the US Constitution says:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    So, according to the Constitution there should be general Welfare systems operating.
    I suppose Medicare could be part of that, or even National Health Care.


    I love this bit from Wikipedia's article:

    To form a more perfect Union

    The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states. Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States. The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it, are not contemplated by the Constitution


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Reminds me of this golden nugget in the GOP Primaries:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-16-2007/right-wing-off


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    The Preamble of the US Constitution says:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    So, according to the Constitution there should be general Welfare systems operating.
    I suppose Medicare could be part of that, or even National Health Care.


    I love this bit from Wikipedia's article:

    To form a more perfect Union

    The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states. Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States. The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it, are not contemplated by the Constitution

    Ahhh the “general welfare” argument. Wouldn’t free wifi for all also promote the general welfare. DEMAND FREE HEALTHCARE AND FREE WIFI FOR ALL!!!

    For simplisity (and laziness) I just grabed what Libertarian Kevin Craig had to say about The "General Welfare" Clause

    These clauses have been recruited to defend government spending on projects the Signers of the Constitution would never have dreamed of funding with taxpayers' money. Let's look at the clauses, then look at them in context.

    The Preamble to the Constitution says:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch, and begins with these words:
    Section 8.
    1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    Section 8 is important. It lists all of Congress' powers. These enumerated powers are the only powers "We the People" delegated to the new government.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    The big question is where the f*** were they during Bush's terms? There may be some genuine Libertarians but the vast majority of them are Republicans who are pissed off the person they voted for lost, oh and they want gubberment hands of their medicare.
    The primaries will be interesting as will the role of Sarah Palin.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    jank wrote: »
    Where were you in 2003 Amerika?
    America ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Overheal wrote: »
    Reminds me of this golden nugget in the GOP Primaries:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-16-2007/right-wing-off

    Video not available in this country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    fontanalis wrote: »
    The big question is where the f*** were they during Bush's terms? There may be some genuine Libertarians but the vast majority of them are Republicans who are pissed off the person they voted for lost, oh and they want gubberment hands of their medicare.

    Maybe voting out Republicans and turning control of Congress (both the Senate and the House) over to Democrats. Wow, what a mistake that turned out to be. :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Ahhh the “general welfare” argument. Wouldn’t free wifi for all also promote the general welfare. DEMAND FREE HEALTHCARE AND FREE WIFI FOR ALL!!!
    Heh.

    Ha Ha.

    Hahaha.

    Ahhahaahahah!

    HAAAAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!!


    http://www.broadband.gov/


    bet you didnt see that coming.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Amerika wrote: »
    Ahhh the “general welfare” argument. Wouldn’t free wifi for all also promote the general welfare. DEMAND FREE HEALTHCARE AND FREE WIFI FOR ALL!!!

    For simplisity (and laziness) I just grabed what Libertarian Kevin Craig had to say about The "General Welfare" Clause

    These clauses have been recruited to defend government spending on projects the Signers of the Constitution would never have dreamed of funding with taxpayers' money. Let's look at the clauses, then look at them in context.

    The Preamble to the Constitution says:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch, and begins with these words:
    Section 8.
    1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    Section 8 is important. It lists all of Congress' powers. These enumerated powers are the only powers "We the People" delegated to the new government.

    Why, oh why does the "intent" of the Founding Fathers keep getting brought up.
    THeir intent in Article I, Section 2 had it that for the purposes of determining representation, census' would exclude Indians and count each unfree person as 3/5ths of a person.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Why, oh why does the "intent" of the Founding Fathers keep getting brought up.
    THeir intent in Article I, Section 2 had it that for the purposes of determining representation, census' would exclude Indians and count each unfree person as 3/5ths of a person.
    Which was later superseded by all that Freedom stuff. And the emancipation of women. Hence the Amendments to the Constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Overheal wrote: »
    Which was later superseded by all that Freedom stuff. And the emancipation of women. Hence the Amendments to the Constitution.

    Yup, in this case, the 14th Amendment.

    But that wasn't the intent of the Founding Fathers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 429 ✭✭jman0war


    Yup, in this case, the 14th Amendment.

    But that wasn't the intent of the Founding Fathers.
    Yeah, lets roll the clock back 200 years, bring on slavery!
    (And um, better start learning German since loads of the ol boys spoke it back then)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    Amerika wrote: »
    Maybe voting out Republicans and turning control of Congress (both the Senate and the House) over to Democrats. Wow, what a mistake that turned out to be. :eek:


    Sure, the tea party trusted the democrats.
    I'm sorry but the tea party is a freak show, I'd rather live in a country under the control of the monkeys tea party. I would truly love to see a real libertarian in power and the very first people to be protesting would be these mutant fans of Glen Beck (again I recognise there are hardcore libertarians who have been consistent but they aren't the people who are at the tea party rallies).
    Don't get me wrong what the US needs is fiscal responsibility but ther're 30 years late on the protesting there.
    As for the big government complaint, that must be one of the most meaningless slogans going, do they have a governmentometre they measure size with?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Calling all righteous ones, when exactly did each of your individual countries abolish slavery?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    Heh.
    bet you didnt see that coming.
    Actually I did know of that push, that’s why I included it. Ridiculous isn’t it? So what’s next, tofu in every pot? :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Amerika wrote: »
    Calling all righteous ones, when exactly did each of your individual countries abolish slavery?

    Well, Ireland was occupied by Britian at the time so was subject to their laws.
    The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 would be the official date it was outlawed.

    Why do you ask?
    We don't look to peoples writings of 200 years ago in order to plot our future course so we have no intention of re-visiting their outdated ways.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Amerika wrote: »
    Calling all righteous ones, when exactly did each of your individual countries abolish slavery?

    Well, we were part of Britain at the time so we didn't really have say...in fact we were used as slave labour ourselves alongside blacks in the 17th century.
    Britain abolished the slave trade at the beginning of the 19th century (and enforced it) and then abolished the practice entirely 25 years later.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Well, Ireland was occupied by Britian at the time so was subject to their laws.
    The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 would be the official date it was outlawed.

    Why do you ask?

    That’s only a short few 30 years (although it started here in 1780 when Pennsylvania passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery") before it was abolished here in the US. But it seems only the US comes up when the discussion of slavery arises.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Amerika wrote: »
    That’s only a short few 30 years (although it started here in 1780 when Pennsylvania passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery") before it was abolished here in the US. But it seems only the US comes up when the discussion of slavery arises.
    Probably because USA were rather recalcitrant about abolishing it.
    According to the wiki article here the US still had almost 5 million black slaves in 1870.


    Edit:
    Oh wait, sorry i got that wrong, looks like in 1870 there were no slaves.
    I suspect it's one of these things where the US has earned her reputation.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Good thing you deleted that important part of your post BluePlanet, becasue I was going to reply with "Wasn’t Northern Nigeria a part of His Majesty's Empire in the early 1930’s?"


Advertisement