Chair on a Panel, are you kidding me?!?!?!?

[srellim234]

I never thought we'd have a black, Muslim POTUS...yet we have one.

That is not inferring that something can happen. That is a statement of fact. Can you back it up?

[IBCoupe]

How about let the people running come up with their own plans, stop depending on platfrom plans and lets hash out individual plans.

Absolutely! You have my complete support in judging a candidate on his or her own merits. But that doesn't actually support a "Tea Party." The whole point of political parties is to organize like-minded people into categories so that they may more easily get their common goals accomplished, perhaps to the detriment of the other goals they do not share. If the Tea Party lacks a cohesive plan for what to do after November, it's not much of a party. It's just a collection of angry people, all of whom are angry for widely varying reasons.

[stebo0728]

Well lets also note, although I speculated toward the Tea Party perhaps being the beginnings of a new political party, they are currently NOT a political party, therefore they need no platform. If you took any one of them aside, they could most likely write you out a thesis on what to change, but that varies by person, and thats ok. The central sentiment is disapproval of the government, and not just Obama's government either, it took a hell of a lot longer than a year an half to get in our mess, and unfortunately it will take about an equal amount of time to get out of it. But getting some elected officials in that are worth their salt, and getting the ones that arent OUT, thats a good start. If the Tea Party does have an future as a political party, then you are correct, it does need some semblance of a platform, or preferably, a candidate with his own cohesive, thought out plan, to get behind. Neither republicans nor democrats have always been one of the primary parties, they have both overthrown a previous dominant party so its not out of the question. But that can only happen by way of the PEOPLE, and until they wake up enough to realize it, no rising 3rd party will ever go anywhere. Heres the major problem today with most folks. "Damn those politicians, they are all a bunch of stinkin rats, they all need to go, oh well except John Doe that represents us, hes pretty good, we'll keep him" You see that everywhere, its like the crowd that demands drilling off the coast for oil, oh but dont do it off our coast tho. (Even though off shore drilling cant be seen from a beach house lol) Until enough people realize their own district is part of the problem, we wont get anywhere with this thing. And voter honesty is another thing. People boast a big game, ya im gonna vote out this a-hole, then they get in the ballot box, and what do they do? Vote for the same ol shmuck cause they are afraid of change.

[AZhitman]

My problem with supporting the Tea Party is that any two Tea Partiers share only one value: anger or dissatisfaction with the government. That's not a platform, that's an emotion.

The actual beliefs about what should be done never seem to get past "Throw the bums out." There's people who hate Medicare, and there's people who love Medicare. There's people who hate defense spending, and there's people who want more defense spending, all calling themselves members of the Tea Party.

I'm not trying to criticize people who do choose to support it for whatever internal reasoning they employ, I'm just explaining why I can't. I'm a registered independent in the State of Connecticut, and I'm not particularly angry or dissatisfied with government on the whole.

Well-said.

My only divergence from your position is the fact that I'm FURIOUS with our current administration (and no, I'm not a Bushie or a neo-con). I'm a social liberal (in moderation), a fiscal conservative (to the extreme), defender of the Constitution (even when it's inconvenient for me), a believer in the free market, hate bigger government, and believe that individual rights and responsibilities and community involvement and participation SOUNDLY trump social programs and organized bureaucratic assistance, every day of the week.

[AZhitman]

Simply being against what the other guy's for doesn't actually establish a policy. If you get elected on a platform like that, you'll be worse than someone with identifiably bad policies - you'll be someone with no policies.

...which is why we're in the jam we're in now.

No one voted FOR BO's "policies". They voted FOR the prospect of "A New Beginning" (BO, you owe George Lucas a dollar), they voted for Hope / Change / A Bucket o' Wings, they voted AGAINST "the failed policies of the Bush Administration" (I want a dollar for every time he said THAT), they voted for the nebulous and pie-in-the-sky prospect of "open discourse" with those who hate the US, and they voted (some of them) simply for the "cool factor", so they could say they were a part of history (in which half-White equals Black, a slap to both in my opinion, but whatever).

Simply being against what the other guy's for doesn't actually establish a policy. If you get elected on a platform like that, you'll be worse than someone with identifiably bad policies - you'll be someone with no policies.

...so applicable, it warranted re-repeating.

[stebo0728]

history (in which half-White equals Black, a slap to both in my opinion, but whatever).

Not to mention the t-shirts and posters that claimed Barrack Obama = Martin Luther King Jr ....... Oh those pissed me off, its sad that a people can totally lose sight of one of their greatest hero's and what he stood for so soon after he passes. Its common to lose sight, but damn i mean what 40 years and already? The two men were nothing alike at all, and if King were alive today he would have given Right and Sharpton one hell of a run for their money!

[audtatious]

But you still need a plan of your own. Simply being against what the other guy's for doesn't actually establish a policy. If you get elected on a platform like that, you'll be worse than someone with identifiably bad policies - you'll be someone with no policies.

The people can only set direction. It is up to the elected representatives to determine how to meet the goals that are best for the country (somewhat debatable). If the people you represent feel you are not supporting them then you get booted out of office. Dems and Republicans alike were pissed off with the Republican party durng the Bush Admin and kicked them to the curb giving the Dems a majority. The people who voted them out didn't have "a plan" they simply didn't like what the Republicans were doing. BO was elected by the same people more for his "Hope and Change" than any real policy he stated. Again, those who voted for BO didn't have a plan either other than selecting the person who looked like a fresh face in politics.

So, the GOP segmented out. You have the conservatives and the moderate Dems (and a growing majority of libertarians) who are shaping things to come based on direction they think the country should go in.

At least that's the way I view things.

[AZhitman]

history (in which half-White equals Black, a slap to both in my opinion, but whatever).

Not to mention the t-shirts and posters that claimed Barrack Obama = Martin Luther King Jr

BO couldn't carry MLK's Day-Timer.

It's so pathetic. The self-proclaimed "intellectually superior" people who voted for him couldn't see that he's not even 1/10th the leader MLK was. Yeah. Real smart, there.

All that hopey-changey crap and a buck will get you a Big Mac.

[stebo0728]

It would probably been more appropriate to put BO on the t-shirts beside Che Guevara ...

[stebo0728]

It would probably been more appropriate to put BO on the t-shirts beside Che Guevara ...

Im sorry ... was that hate speech?

[IBCoupe]

It occurs to me that whether my criticisms of the tea party's aimlessness is valid when applied to the current Administration is absolutely irrelevant. Fallacy does not cease to be fallacy when it becomes fashion.

Audtatious, you rightly point out that it's not the job of the people to direct policy in a representative system like ours. However, it is the job of the people to either vote for a candidate with clear policy ideas that they agree with, or to vote with a principle in mind. It's the principle I'm referring to, when I say that the Tea Party is lacking. As I wrote, there's tea partiers who are adamantly in favor of some social programs, and there are tea partiers who are adamantly in favor of repealing all social programs. There are tea partiers who want to increase defense spending, and there are tea partiers who want to cut defense spending, all operating under the unifying mantra of, "We don't like what's now."

In all reality, "We don't like what's now" is the platform of every political party out there. There's no political party that runs on, "We're going to get elected and sit there, because we're just peachy, and nothing needs changing." The difference between the tea party and every other political party on the face of the earth is that every other party on the face of the earth has a cohesive message about what they want to change. I just plain don't detect that in the Tea Party. They write a lot of things about the excesses of government, but my response invariably is, "So what do you want to do about it?

[stebo0728]

IB (irritable bowel? if so sorry i have one too) - I see your point, but then I did not really get a cohesive message from the OB campaign, just "Change", "History", and the like ...

I think that the lack of platform is not really an issue because the Tea Partiers will migrate to their respective corners, but with a notion that they will really look hard at who they vote for this time, and that can only be a good thing ...

[AZhitman]

It would probably been more appropriate to put BO on the t-shirts beside Che Guevara ...

Speaking of stupid people...

I have a shirt with a pic of Che. Over his face is stamped the word "MUERTO".

BOTH times I've worn it, I've had some moronic illiterate suburban white pinhead say something like, "Cool shirt - I love Che!"



Dumbasses.

[WDRacing]

I never thought we'd have a black, Muslim POTUS...yet we have one.

That is not inferring that something can happen. That is a statement of fact. Can you back it up?

Ok Steve, if it makes you feel better, I'll retract that he's a Muslim.

Where did you see me trying to gain sympathy when I clearly say I'm worried about the Tea Party sharing votes. Understand context much? I used the Black statement to infer that anything can happen. The only person "emotionally inflamed in here is you...lol.

BTW Steve, he's Black. He may be 1/2 white but he sure as hell doesn't appear to be 1/2 white. If I were to give a brief description to the police about a black guy that stole my car, I'm not going to say some black that might have been half white stole my car. I didn't even say it in a disparaging manner, I simply said he was black...which he is.

You made an absolute statement that the POTUS is a Muslim. Back the statement up or retract it. From my side of the computer screen it appeared that you were trying to foster sympathy for your beliefs by trying to get away with a statement that you knew would emotionally inflame people against the current President, even though it's factually false.

History is still dealing with the current President as current. Those who call him black now may see him quite differently as time goes on and eventually we do get a 100% "black" President to compare him to. History books and historians in the future will deal with that subject but how history sees him hasn't been written yet.

I despise trying to support conservative fiscal values and having people dismiss me as another wacko right-winger who supports the kind of people listed above. Those are the people who really hurt the cause in the long run because they have lost credibility with the majority of people before the discussion even starts.

I'm not sure that the Tea Party will be splitting votes this November, let alone November 2012.

I dont see the Tea Party causing a problem either, I do wonder though, could we be seeing the beginnings of a new political part, the Tea Party? One with actual conservatives in it?

I never thought we'd have a black, Muslim POTUS...yet we have one. I never thought I'd see our country turning into a Nanny State...yet it sure is happening.

Be prepared for the worst, pray for the best. I've always been a fan of that line of thinking. Tons of things can happen between now and then. I see the Tea Party gathering strength by simply preaching what people want to hear. All they have to do is spread information well and they can align people against bad Republicans and basically all Dems. People like myself who hate everything that both parties have become are looking for something to get behind. Right now the only thing we have is the Tea Party. They stand for small Gov, conservative spending and individual freedoms. It doesn't matter if you're gay or stock pile ammo in broken down vehicles sitting in your front yard, you can be a member of the Tea Party because they share broad goals that almost anyone can get behind.

I hate the fact that Palin has attached herself She is NOT someone that I would pick as a figure head. Although I could "get behind her" though

If that statement makes me a wacko Right Wing nut job then I guess I am. But if you think that statement is going to cause others to think you're some how directly linked to me and my thoughts and there fore aren't capable of thinking for yourself, you may want to switch your meds.

Oh yeah I wanted to ask, you do know Rush and Beck and the others are talk show hosts right? You understand that they are paid to speak to a certain demographic a certain way and that the places that employ these hosts are a For Profit business right? How is me saying the POTUS is black in the clear context that I did place me on their level? That's laughable at best.

BTW, if you're worried about what the nut jobs are making others think of you, you may want to get some help for the paranoia. Good people judge others directly by their actions, the rest can go EAD for all I care. There isn't anything wrong with being Conservative. It infers you're responsible and not wasteful. The people that lump you in with "everyone else" are the people that probably oppose your views the most. But that's called life dude. Either people are open minded or they are not.

For the record, I again retract that BO is Muslim. I didn't mean to openly talk to a small group of guys without fact checking every statement I made. From this point forth just assume I'm not speaking truthfully and that I exaggerate everything I say because I usually do. Lets act like I always talk as if we're sitting around a table playing p0ker and drinking beer.

[stebo0728]

Lets act like I always talk as if we're sitting around a table playing p0ker and drinking beer.

...whos acting?!?

[WDRacing]

Werd...although the combo of beer and p0ker usually leads to me losing gobs of money

[audtatious]

It occurs to me that whether my criticisms of the tea party's aimlessness is valid when applied to the current Administration is absolutely irrelevant. Fallacy does not cease to be fallacy when it becomes fashion.

Guess it depends on the viewpoint. Media has done it's best to define the Tea Party movement as a bunch of racist bible-thumpers whereas the same media defined all the anti-war and other protests against the Bush Administration as "patriotic". Fallacy seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Audtatious, you rightly point out that it's not the job of the people to direct policy in a representative system like ours. However, it is the job of the people to either vote for a candidate with clear policy ideas that they agree with, or to vote with a principle in mind. It's the principle I'm referring to, when I say that the Tea Party is lacking. As I wrote, there's tea partiers who are adamantly in favor of some social programs, and there are tea partiers who are adamantly in favor of repealing all social programs. There are tea partiers who want to increase defense spending, and there are tea partiers who want to cut defense spending, all operating under the unifying mantra of, "We don't like what's now."

How is that any different from a gathering of Dems, say, at a Bush-era anti-war demonstration? You have some who want to get rid of the military all together at the same event as those who simply want to get out of Iraq but maintain a strong defense. I'm not sure why you are portraying the Tea Party as different than any group of citizens who gather "for a cause".

In all reality, "We don't like what's now" is the platform of every political party out there. There's no political party that runs on, "We're going to get elected and sit there, because we're just peachy, and nothing needs changing." The difference between the tea party and every other political party on the face of the earth is that every other party on the face of the earth has a cohesive message about what they want to change. I just plain don't detect that in the Tea Party. They write a lot of things about the excesses of government, but my response invariably is, "So what do you want to do about it?

The Tea Party is not a political party.

[IBCoupe]

Guess it depends on the viewpoint. Media has done it's best to define the Tea Party movement as a bunch of racist bible-thumpers whereas the same media defined all the anti-war and other protests against the Bush Administration as "patriotic". Fallacy seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

I don't recall that being the case; not with the most prominent of protesters, at least. In fact, save for the most prominent figures (like Cindy Sheehan), I don't recall seeing much about anti-war protesters at all on TV.

How is that any different from a gathering of Dems, say, at a Bush-era anti-war demonstration? You have some who want to get rid of the military all together at the same event as those who simply want to get out of Iraq but maintain a strong defense. I'm not sure why you are portraying the Tea Party as different than any group of citizens who gather "for a cause".

It doesn't have to be different. I'm not trying to justify anything.

Once again, what makes the Tea Party different from any group of citizens who gather "for a cause" is that the Tea Partiers don't really have an identifiable "cause" that survives beyond November.

The Tea Party is not a political party.

They're a political "movement," if you prefer that term, but the criticism remains applicable: they lack an identifiable goal as to what they want to change. This is notably unlike the anti-war protesters, whose collective goal was stated in their title.

[audtatious]

I don't recall that being the case; not with the most prominent of protesters, at least. In fact, save for the most prominent figures (like Cindy Sheehan), I don't recall seeing much about anti-war protesters at all on TV.

I remember quite well. I also remember Sheehan and how the press camped out with her. Tea party? Press covers very little of it unless it's someone supposedly saying/doing something racist.

Once again, what makes the Tea Party different from any group of citizens who gather "for a cause" is that the Tea Partiers don't really have an identifiable "cause" that survives beyond November.

Hmm, so, a group of citizens together wanting to end the war or stop using oil has an identifiable "cause" (albeit, no solutions to solve the issues that caused war or to replace oil) whereas a group of citizens wanting less Gov spending and more fiscal responsibility is not a identifiable "cause" because they don't have a specific solution to lower Gov spending? Honestly, are you trolling just to troll or because you simply hate anything to do with people in the "tea party"?

FWIW, concerning the Tea Party:
The Contract from America is a political agenda of the Tea Party movement which was proposed on April 15, 2010 at the Washington Monument in Washington D.C. The introduction states that it is based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government and economic freedom.

The Contract from America lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a single-rate tax system; eliminate the internal revenue code and replace it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, including those to the income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

[IBCoupe]

Once again, what makes the Tea Party different from any group of citizens who gather "for a cause" is that the Tea Partiers don't really have an identifiable "cause" that survives beyond November.

Hmm, so, a group of citizens together wanting to end the war or stop using oil has an identifiable "cause" (albeit, no solutions to solve the issues that caused war or to replace oil) whereas a group of citizens wanting less Gov spending and more fiscal responsibility is not a identifiable "cause" because they don't have a specific solution to lower Gov spending? Honestly, are you trolling just to troll or because you simply hate anything to do with people in the "tea party"?

FWIW, concerning the Tea Party:
The Contract from America is a political agenda of the Tea Party movement which was proposed on April 15, 2010 at the Washington Monument in Washington D.C. The introduction states that it is based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government and economic freedom.

The Contract from America lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a single-rate tax system; eliminate the internal revenue code and replace it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, including those to the income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

Those are ideas, and they make it more legitimate. But, once again, go talk to your average tea partier (or five of them), and try to get them to explain their demands. I'm not suggesting they need a policy, just a cohesive, identifiable goal. When, again, you've got people standing next to each other in a tea party rally, making mutually exclusive demands ("Fix Social Security!" and "Eradicate Social Security!" for example) it doesn't really inspire one to want to march with them.

"Stop fighting the war" and "stop drilling in the Gulf" are pretty directive as policy initiatives. What's more is that each is the one, central goal to its respective protest: an antiwar protest wants the war to be over, and an anti-drilling protest wants the drilling to stop. "Stop overspending" and "Throw the bums out" not so much. What is there left to ask with the former statements? Which war? Which gulf? They're clear demands which can either be acquiesced to or denied pretty easily. "Throw the bums out" is an easy one to follow, too, but then comes the criticism I threw: "And then what?" "Stop overspending" requires me to ask, "On what?" I'm not asking for percentages of cuts, I'm asking for priorities. I'm not asking for a government-ready policy, I'm asking for one tangible theory on what needs to be done.

There's a Jewish joke I heard once from my Rabbi as a kid: "Ask five Jews a question and you'll get six opinions." It's kinda like that with the Tea Party. Ask them what they want government to spend less on (and what they don't want to decrease), and you'll get a wide array of responses, often to the exclusion of the others.

And there's no need to get touchy. I'm neither trolling nor hateful. I'm simply stating my opinion on what I detect to be the flaw in the tea party movement, and, as I originally stated, the reason why I can't support them on an individual level.

And, for what it's worth, each of those 10 agenda items might as well be a Republican talking point, so if the Tea Party movement is supposed to be both independent and represented by those points, I'd say they're failing at one or the other.

[audtatious]

Those are ideas, and they make it more legitimate. But, once again, go talk to your average tea partier (or five of them), and try to get them to explain their demands. I'm not suggesting they need a policy, just a cohesive, identifiable goal. When, again, you've got people standing next to each other in a tea party rally, making mutually exclusive demands ("Fix Social Security!" and "Eradicate Social Security!" for example) it doesn't really inspire one to want to march with them.

You state they are aimless and I show you high level points and you dismiss them as non-identifiable goals. It's a lose-lose discussion. You don't get it, you are not inspired, "it is what it is" and dismissible. So be it, I'm not here to validate their existence.

"Stop fighting the war" and "stop drilling in the Gulf" are pretty directive as policy initiatives. What's more is that each is the one, central goal to its respective protest: an antiwar protest wants the war to be over, and an anti-drilling protest wants the drilling to stop. "Stop overspending" and "Throw the bums out" not so much. What is there left to ask with the former statements? Which war? Which gulf? They're clear demands which can either be acquiesced to or denied pretty easily. "Throw the bums out" is an easy one to follow, too, but then comes the criticism I threw: "And then what?" "Stop overspending" requires me to ask, "On what?" I'm not asking for percentages of cuts, I'm asking for priorities. I'm not asking for a government-ready policy, I'm asking for one tangible theory on what needs to be done.

Ok, "stop fighting the war"....what policy is supported to resolve the issues that started the war in the first place? "stop drilling in the Gulf"....what policy is supported to ensure there is enough oil to go around? How are they more clear than what was listed via the 10 agenda items which are just as specific if not more? Because you dismiss them as talking points?

There's a Jewish joke I heard once from my Rabbi as a kid: "Ask five Jews a question and you'll get six opinions." It's kinda like that with the Tea Party. Ask them what they want government to spend less on (and what they don't want to decrease), and you'll get a wide array of responses, often to the exclusion of the others.

Similar to me asking an anti-oil protester why they are anti-oil and besides environmental and Mother Earth talk it's all Dem talking points about obscene profit margins and horrific capitalism?

And, for what it's worth, each of those 10 agenda items might as well be a Republican talking point, so if the Tea Party movement is supposed to be both independent and represented by those points, I'd say they're failing at one or the other.

Those are more libertarian viewpoints than Republican. Time will tell if they are failing or not. I don't believe there would have been upsets in the NE elections without the Tea Party so they are accomplishing something.

[IBCoupe]

You state they are aimless and I show you high level points and you dismiss them as non-identifiable goals. It's a lose-lose discussion. You don't get it, you are not inspired, "it is what it is" and dismissible. So be it, I'm not here to validate their existence.

No, I'm not dismissing those points as being non-identifiable goals. I'm dismissing those points as not being embraced by the "tea party" writ large; as not being what we hear and see from the protesters who call themselves members of the tea party. That's not the first list of Tea Party ideals to circulate the web, and I see no reason to give those any more credence than the last set.

Ok, "stop fighting the war"....what policy is supported to resolve the issues that started the war in the first place? "stop drilling in the Gulf"....what policy is supported to ensure there is enough oil to go around? How are they more clear than what was listed via the 10 agenda items which are just as specific if not more? Because you dismiss them as talking points?

I see a distinction between asking, "How do we prevent future wars, then?" and asking, "What are we overspending on?" One's a follow-up question about the ramifications of the suggested policy and the other is a request for clarification on exactly what's meant by the suggested policy. One suggests that the protester hasn't thought through all sides of the issue, and the other suggests that the protester hasn't thought through any sides of the issue.

Similar to me asking an anti-oil protester why they are anti-oil and besides environmental and Mother Earth talk it's all Dem talking points about obscene profit margins and horrific capitalism?

What?

Those are more libertarian viewpoints than Republican. Time will tell if they are failing or not. I don't believe there would have been upsets in the NE elections without the Tea Party so they are accomplishing something.

I meant "failing at either being independent or at being represented by those viewpoints."

[stebo0728]

AZ - whats wrong with being a neo-con? Neo is a latin suffix meaning new, and the con is shortened conservative, so you are a new conservative, big woop, so am I, and proud of it

[IBCoupe]

If I'm not mistaken, Stebo, "neo-con" can be seen as "CINOs," or "Conservatives in Name Only." They tend to favor the expansion of the government power and spending in order "to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries," according to the 'Pedia that Shall Not Be Named.

In the 1970s, they first appeared as liberals who'd "found Jesus" in a way - they discovered that the military could accomplish what they wanted charity (and perhaps local revolutions?) to do in other countries. The foreign policy President Bush (the second) was aptly-termed "neoconservative," especially after his stated goals went from protecting America to bringing democracy to the Middle East.

There's a similar meaning to the term "neoliberalism," which refers to a set of policies that mimic the conservative & libertarian lines on the economy.

So, if that's how you see yourself, that's fine. I'm just surprised to see someone with beliefs like yours embracing the term.

[stebo0728]

Well Im more embracing the definition of the term than any connotation of the term. I dont align in any way with the views you laid out above. And to be honest I never really had any kind of perception of what "neo-con" was supposed to be, I just know what it "should" mean according to it linguistic origin. Words dont carry much value any more, we see that with racism now, socialism, and even the word conservative. Socialism is playfully used to describe people who hold values anywhere from totalitarian (Hillary Clinton), to actual socialist, and the worst, communists, are lumped into socialists. Those are all flavors of the same ideal set I guess, but there are pronounceable differences. Perhaps each is a stage leading to the next. Have you noticed yet that I tend to ramble around a bit here and there? LOL

[audtatious]

No, I'm not dismissing those points as being non-identifiable goals. I'm dismissing those points as not being embraced by the "tea party" writ large; as not being what we hear and see from the protesters who call themselves members of the tea party. That's not the first list of Tea Party ideals to circulate the web, and I see no reason to give those any more credence than the last set.

Stupid people are stupid? The same can be said for about any large group of people together for a cause (a point I've tried to make). I've seen people interviewed at anti-war protests and the only thing they could come up with is "cuz war is bad" . I do see your point. The TP members are there for various reasons instead of once specific goal. Dem members are supporting them for X while moderate Republicans are there for X, Y and far-right members may be there to support Y and Z.

I see a distinction between asking, "How do we prevent future wars, then?" and asking, "What are we overspending on?" One's a follow-up question about the ramifications of the suggested policy and the other is a request for clarification on exactly what's meant by the suggested policy. One suggests that the protester hasn't thought through all sides of the issue, and the other suggests that the protester hasn't thought through any sides of the issue.

Somewhat. The majority of TP members would state numerous issues from the stimulus to UH to unfair taxation to growth. I'm never for protesting "for the sake of it" and while the TP movement may not be as specific as you would like them to be they are making a change. It's also refreshing to see large groups of people, with somewhat different viewpoints, getting together without violence to complain about Gov growth and direction. While I'm not a TP member I find it refreshing.

I meant "failing at either being independent or at being represented by those viewpoints."

Part of the problem is the Republican party took a left turn and moved towards the progressive side (and the Dem party took an even further left turn). Gov grew under Bush as did spending. Policy of both the GOP and Dems have alienated a large number of the general populace who feel they don't have a party to really associate with anymore. TP brings that to light. As more and more RINO's and the far-left leaning Dems are "kicked to the curb" the better and less partisan things will be.

[IBCoupe]

My only fear, audtatious, is that the vague calls for "change" mirror those that came with President Obama's campaign. That kind of ambiguity certainly helps to organize a wider array of people, but when it comes to actually getting those people to agree on any individual policy down the road, you're going to run into trouble. "This isn't the change I wanted. I wanted the other change."

And I agree with you about where the Republican party went wrong. I think that they went wronger in the last election, though. They didn't return to their conservative roots (e.g. libertarianism). Instead, they ran to their far right roots (e.g. Sarah Palin). While, over time, they probably betrayed both, I think chose the wrong direction for winning both the election, and the favor of the public at large.

[audtatious]

With everything it should be give and take....bipartisanship. Nobody is getting everything they wanted. I agree with you from the "this isn't the change I wanted" perspective (look at the moderates who voted for BO) as some people are bound to get screwed in the process of "fixing" things. There are hard decisions to make and I simply don't think they will ever be made. Kinda makes everything moot. Welfare class will continue to grow, middle class will continue to shrink and at some point the line will be crossed and everything will blow up or the uber-rich class will be the only ones with money and we turn away from what the US is all about. There has to be give and take in order to get things back on track. With 47% of the population not paying taxes and the welfare state constantly growing I don't see politicians who have that the hard-line stance getting elected or re-elected as that "majority" will want increases to them and not decreases. If the TP can get things slowed down or somewhat rolling in a right direction, regardless of set objectives/goals, then they get my support.

I didn't like McCain as he's a progressive and now turning into a "flip flopper". I like Palin from her fiscal-conservative views.