Thursday, September 16, 2010

Did the Tea Party embolden Republicans?

I had another post planned tonight but then got to thinking about yesterday's (thank you so much for your comments) and wondered what you think:
Suddenly, since her Primary Win, Republicans are gathering around O'Donnell (Karl Rove is pretty much the exception): Cornyn is there, Romney is right there, and Michael Steele is endorsing her......Here's one question:
Do you think that Republicans have been intimidated into believing that most of America wants what the leftwing media says it wants? Do you think they've been "Democrat Lite" because they thought they couldn't get elected if they stayed on the Right? Do you think they thought the country'd moved too far from Reagan? With this hideous anti-capitalism ("Wall Street's evil") and move toward Socialism ("We'll pay for everything...don't you worry about a thing"), do you think the Republicans thought they couldn't win by standing by the Constitution and furthering capitalism and individual self-reliance, etc etc? Will they go further Right now, standing behind OUR convictions, because of O'Donnell's win?

HERE IS THE BIG QUESTION:
Do you think O'Donnell's win in Delaware (and Rand Paul in KY, etc. etc.) has emboldened Republicans to BE REPUBLICANS again?....even those very entrenched in the RNC?
What do you think?


z

49 comments:

Karen Howes said...

Yes, the Republican Party has strayed far from its platform and ideals. I for one don't put any faith in ANY political party anymore, actually.

Time for us to start voting for individual candidates based on their own record, and not simply because they have an "R" after their names.

As to your last question, I hope so!

beamish said...

Wishy-washy dualistic bullshit is sooooo 2009. In all aspects of life, not just politics.

This is 2010, is or ain't time.

The Tea Party doesn't have an agenda.

It is the agenda.

Z said...

Karen, but did they stray because they felt, as I do, that our media and our leftwingers are SO biased and so many Americans actually buy into it, that we didn't have a chance with our true Conservative message anymore?

Beamish, odd you'd say "it is the agenda" because O'Donnell actually said pretty much that last night...someone asked her about being a Tea party candidate and she said something about her being THE candidate now, that the Tea Party isn't as much a movement, it's the Conservative message.

soapster said...

Seemingly always the contrarian Z, I'm going to say that I don't think the vast majority of the Republicans have converted. They're merely reading the polls and riding the wave of popular sentiment. It's the same popular sentiment that led them to get on board with the environmental Sierra Club BS, subsidies for light rail trains, and the like.

Some of the recent actions of some support this (during the healthcare debate when McCain, et al. met with Obama and were all in favor of Guarantee issue and covering pre-existing conditions, Boehner supporting the two year tax plan...no business is going to make an economic move based on a freekin' two year plan....).

Tis why I say, there is the Tea Party and then there is the Tea Partee.

Z said...

Boehner is a good example of what I'm saying Soapster (and yes, you are always the contrarian but never boring!)..
He signed up for the middle class tax cut because he said he felt it was the only way those people would GET a tax cut, he understands that the rich HIRE and the rich BUY and pay the most taxes already; he had to give in..POSSIBLY. I'm hypothesizing here, I'm not in that man's mind (thank goodness, I've met him, spoke to him with a group of about 4 of us for about 20 minutes, and found him undignified and crude...of course, the alcohol didn't help him).

I guess your explanation and mine are cynic versus noncynic, but believe me, I'm only asking the question, I'm not so uncynical about the RNC mob to think my question for this post is a resounding "YES!" I wish it was.

Rove's reaction dismayed me last night; he didn't just stick to the political issues and O'Donnell's agenda; he got personal and slammed her for not being prepared, for having said some dumb things years ago, ...even more personal than that but I can't quite remember now. He really tried to annihilate her, not just disagree, and one has to wonder why he's working so hard to get a Dem elected in Delaware.

Z said...

DUCKY, DELETED AGAIN...
please try to show you read the posts and comments, think, and then, with less hate, you might stay.
thanks!

soapster said...

Why is Rove even still hanging around? Far as I see it, he and Newt should be put to pasture along with a whole host of others (Boehner and McConnell included).

Why I say that is because what we need to rememember is that the establishment folks are still in the seats of power. Electing Libertarian/Conservative/Tea Party type candidates is a damn good thing but it's going to be a while until they can level up and effect change at the top where the real change needs to happen.

It's just like the McCain/Palin thing or any Pres/Vice scenario.

If you have a more conservative vice president, it doesn't have the effect of stiffening up the liberal/moderate president. In fact the opposite happens in that the vice president becomes surrounded by the liberal cabinet members of the president thus causing a rift or backing the VP into a corner on issues and having them end up watering down their own positions.

Tis why I like Ron Paul (and perhaps his son) so much (despite what others may say about them) the both of them are not the sorts of individuals that show a tendency towards "going along to get along". They buck the trend and I've always liked folks that buck the trend and challenge the status quo and authoritarian figures in general.

Z said...

soapster, what did you think of Ross Perot back then when he lost the first Bush the race?

soapster said...

The first vote I ever cast was for Perot. To this day I don't regret it.

Mustang said...

Mr. Cornyn didn't support O'Donnell because of any sudden realization of how much he admires her as a politician; he supported her because he did not want conservative voters to see him as an obstruction to reclaiming Delaware's seat for the GOP. Naturally, should O'Donnell actually pull off a win against Coons in November, Cornyn will expect her to stay within the party line in the senate. This is how politicians play their game in our nation’s capital. Do they serve the interests of the American people, over their own selfish interests? No.

FrogBurger said...

The GOP was hijacked by the statist neo-cons. Karl Rove symbolizes that in his reaction against O'Donell. They really have to go.

Bush wasn't a Conservative. He was just socially conservative but that's it. I now understand better why his wife or daughters are borderline Democrats.

The problem of the GOP is to rely heavily on the Christian right, which is not necessarily fiscally conservative and pro-freedom.

soapster said...

"The problem of the GOP is to rely heavily on the Christian right, which is not necessarily fiscally conservative and pro-freedom."

Well they are all about the freedom of birthright. Of course in far too many instances they want to then subject said child to a life of servitude towards the state and total strangers but I digress......

Z said...

I have to leave for much of the day, but I will say that I never thought Cornyn suddenly fell for everything about O'Donnell, Mustang...

I think they didn't love Palin and won't love O'D because they know they're mavericks (I don't think Palin is quite as much anymore, but...) and might just stand UP to the GOP. We'll see!

Soapster, what kind of America do you see? I keep seeing log cabins when I read your comments; I admire your stances, most of them, but would like to see you describe them in the 21st century..ANY national gov't ? All States?

soapster said...

"Soapster, what kind of America do you see? I keep seeing log cabins when I read your comments; I admire your stances, most of them, but would like to see you describe them in the 21st century..ANY national gov't ? All States?"

I'll admit over the years I've become increasingly skeptical of the ability of a centralized form of national government to function. Ideally, I'd like to see more of the onus on the local and state level. This assures that citizens have far better access to recourse in the event they do not like what their government body is doing. It's far easier adn much more practical to move to another city, county, state than it is to up and leave an oppressive country.

Joe said...

Like most politicians, most current Republicans are birds and they are called Mugwumps. They sit on the fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other, to see which way the wind is blowing. They fly backwards, caring not where they are going, only where they have been.

But I hope and pray that REAL change is in the air.

FrogBurger said...

Centralized gov never works. Unless you're dealing with a very small country. That's why I get pissed off at idiots who tell me everything's so great in countries like Swede and that the model is applicable to the US.

Government doesn't scale to take an IT term. Even some states are too big in the US right now. Look at CA. It should be split in 2 or 3 states to be managed more effectively.

Even large cities are in the tank because of their size.

Local democracy and management is key to a successful society. Not only because you reduce waste but also because people and citizens are more involved, closer to decisions. And because the less there's to manage, the less at stakes and the less corruption.

I don't understand why people don't get that sometimes. Some will mention economy of scales or reduction in administrative costs but that doesn't seem to apply to the public sector and has been proven wrong everywhere in Europe.

soapster said...

If you want a better understanding of the application of what I support, read up on Anarcho-Capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Dave Miller said...

To answer your question, you would have to define Republican.

Do you mean a Goldwater Republican?

How about a Reagan Republican?

Or perhaps a Rockefeller Republican?

It is interesting to note that while those three people all were strikingly different when they were ascendant within the party, they were all welcomed in the party.

There does not seem to be a GOP now, or on the horizon, that would welcome these three with their divergent opinions today.

The flare up over Karl Roves statements seem to provide evidence of that.

FrogBurger said...

Soapster, I tend to be close to you. I think most gov services could be privatized. Even justice with the 2 parties choosing in agreement the judge or court, which would force courts to be a lot more neutral if they want to get clients.

I want to read about Spooner. Just heard about him 2 weeks ago and he got me intrigued.

I think America has to come back to its pioneer spirit. That's what made it successful. And statism creates fears and apathy instead of courage, creativity, imagination and compassion.

soapster said...

I concur on the privatization. But I tell ya...you mention anarcho-capitalism or minimalism and even the "conservatives" throw a hissy fit often times.

It's funny because when I talk to people about it they always say the same old thing about businesses taking advantage of people, chaos in the streets....you know the usual....

Thing is if you look at what we've created now, I don't know how you can call all of this a vast improvement to what I'm advocating.

FrogBurger said...

Well the thing is, it has never been really tried so there's no comparison that can be made.

I think rejecting sheer freedom and individualism is a lack of courage and imagination.

Mustang said...

Soapster illustrates the dynamic of our political system. Libertarians do not know what is best for America any more than progressives, conservatives, or moderates. Collective wisdom is what moves our country forward. It would seem that our problem is our passion. This country can no more become isolationist than it should attempt to dominate global policy, but neither should the US become a socialist lackey to the will of globalists like George Soros, who is working tirelessly toward world communism —presumably under his leadership. All politics is local, and so it is entirely possible for nimrods in Kentucky to elect Rand Paul, and people who oppose masturbation to elect Christine O’Donnell.

In camera, this does explain why Ducky hates O'Donnell.

What we should expect, as Americans, is that these people will find a way to come together in the body of our government —a process intended to be slow, deliberate, and contentious. We do not demand any politician compromise his or her principles; we simply reserve the right to dismiss them at a subsequent time when local politics tires of his or her congressional participation.

soapster said...

"Soapster illustrates the dynamic of our political system. Libertarians do not know what is best for America any more than progressives, conservatives, or moderates. Collective wisdom is what moves our country forward."

Libertarians know that individuals know what is best for themselves. What's more, they know that when each individual is able to effectively pursue their own rational self-interest, then America (being comprised of all these individuals pursuing their own healthy and rational self-interests) will undoubtedly prosper.

"Collective wisdom"....

What if the collective (being comprised of let's say 95%) thought it wise and prudent to kill the other 5% in the pursuit of a cure for cancer or maybe this 95% thought the other 5% were zombies or some other such thing?

My example might seem absurd and indeed it is intended that way to illustrate a very important and crucial point.

Ducky's here said...

No Mustang, what I dislike most about O'Donnell is that she is not quite all there.

Check out the clip of her talking about lying and stating it would be morally wrong to lie to German soldiers at the door if you were sheltering a Jewish family. In Christine's world God would give her an alternative to lying.

In other words, she's a nutbar. Now if this represents "Republican values" so be it but that is only an indication that the right has been co-opted by a lot of folks who hae gone off the high side once too often.

Will she win in November? Not likely, although those wishing for the destruction of America will be rooting for her.

Mustang said...

Soapster, you missed my point. We individually vote for what we think is best for us. It is how we are often disappointed with voting results in our districts; we learn that most people do not agree with us. Collective interests means our nation's interests; a nation comprised of 310 million people, none of whom agree on anything. This is why our divorce rate is so high.

We did not win our Revolutionary War by individual effort; nor any war since then. We became victorious because of our collective efforts to resist tyranny. It is not realistic to champion the cause of such staunch individualism that our country flounderes, that it is eventually subsumed by Islamic morons. We became a great nation because most Americans (then, not so much now) realize there are some things that are more important than our own petty desires. This is the genesis of the term We The People.

Semper Fi

cube said...

I think that fear of biased media retribution has thrown leadership out the window in the RNC. They are shivering with fear to stand up and lead, especially the white males. It seems as though the republican women are the only ones that are willing to stand up and criticize the emperor without clothes.

Z said...

Ducky, more Americans should be 'not quite all there' as she is.
Yes, you found an objectionable quote...congratulations. Thank GOD Dems never make them.

You'll be deleted again if the degrading continues.
I know she's a Christian, you'll just have to suck it up in your disgust for that.

FrogBurger said...

Ducky is all lies and not about truth. Lies are his moral compass.

Ducky's here said...

z, dig into some of the ideas of this woman. She is absolutely fringe.

Her quotes are posted all over, see if this is someone you agree with.

Z said...

I will, Ducky, and I don't agree with her on several of the things she's said, but NONE that I've read have anything to do with governing. She's not running for "Church Senator" and she's not run from a platform of religion.

Look, I think the leftwing is killing this country and it'll take QUITE some rotten Republican NUT for me to vote against him or her and vote for a BIG government NUT. To say that what Obama's doing is any less nutty or dangerous than O'Donnell is saying a LOT.

I'll be back later..

FrogBurger said...

Logic lesson.

She's fringe. She can't be taken seriously.
Ducky is really fringe. He really can't be taken seriously.

Problem Ducky: she's far from being fringe in America. But you are. You wouldn't be fringe in North Korea, though.

FrogBurger said...

And needless to say, I am fringe in France. But fringe doesn't mean stupid or shallow.

Thinking fringe = shallow is a serious lack of intellectual depth and curiousness. But in the collectivist model you love so much, we all have to be the same, drones, clones of the State's principles and values. Statism is for little minds like you, Ducky.

Z said...

"You wouldn't be fringe in North Korea, though."

Good one, FB :-)

Ducky's here said...

Besides, z, the commandment says"do not bear false witness".

Rabbinical rulings interpret that in a much more legal sense as in forbidding perjury.

It would be permissible to lie in the case she sites. A Tea Bagger with not understanding scripture. I'm shocked.

FrogBurger said...

Not any more shocking than a Catholic interpreting the Bible and siding with the people who have killed through genocides.

Is there a word for that in the same vein as Tea Bagger?

Dan said...

The real looser in the Delaware race was the Republican Party. (hang with me please) It lost the minute it took sides in a primary, especially when it trashed a primary candidate.

The Republican party lost in two ways:
1. It drove away conservative grass root donors who might have been inclined to give to the party. It traded in an opportunity to be a part of a major movement in the nation in exchange for trying to gain one Senate seat with an R on it; a seat that would later put bullets in enemy propaganda guns by allowing them to call liberal legislation bipartisan.

2. It showed its real face for all to see. IT is not interested in America at its top; in conservative policies that need to be championed and implemented. It is interested in the Republican party, and winning seats with "R"'s, even if it has to install Democrats to do it.

It is time for the Republicans to wise up to their realities and stop taking Ques from their "friends" across the isle. Their constituency does not consist of votes bought and paid for with printed money like thier "friends". They do not operate from a position of fear that someone is going to take their free government check away. They are admittedly, given the fall out from the failed "war on poverty", smaller in number, but they are not smaller in courage and brains. They can see the writing on the wall and it spells enslavement.

The real winner was the Tea Party movement. Even if the next battle is lost in Delaware, Democrats will be denied that one seat to drag Republicans down with them. And if the momentum can be sustained, and it will have to be if America as we have known it is to be saved, Republicans will have to finally acknowledge its conservative base and begin to operate like a conservative party rather than liberal lite.

The children of Israel were faced with the same choices in the desert: do we go back to Egypt and live longer by dying a slow death, or do we take our stand here and either live or die... here?

Anonymous said...

Ducky, I guess you think this is fun. Trashing someone because the tea party endorsed her. It won't work, you'll just make the folks more determined. She received almost a million dollars since the election. Knock yourself out!!

I would caution you about saying she's a nut. I haven't heard anything nutty out of her mouth, but I have out of yours.

The thing is, unless any of us live in Delaware, we have nothing to say about it, in case you've forgotten.

Castle voted against the surge, for every bailout that came down the pike, and generally bows to the Obama administration.

Plus I understand the first two people he spoke with with after the election was Obama, and Biden. I wonder, why is that do you suppose? Couldn't be the administration is looking for another Charlie Crist, could it?

And why, if one is a Delaware voter, and an American, would he vote for Castle? The "R" after his name means nothing. Especially to Castle.

Good grief, we saw Robert Byrd take five minutes to complete a sentence for the last five years, not to mention he was a former KKK man. But, that doesn't count I guess.

So, give it your best shot, which isn't saying much, I know. But, I suppose you don't have anything better to do with your time.

Pris

Impertinent said...

It is...what I'd label..."The Perfect Storm".

Radical leftist weenies....running towards the center, denying all their associations with their past votes with BO...the "19th hole RINOS running more to the right to satisfy and patronize the rightists and independents that they're true conservatives and whom they've insulted and maligned.

All for one reason...a vain, selfish determination to keep their seats, hold onto their perks and power.

They need to understand that the tidal wave of mistrust, anger and disgust will prevail. If not now then it will continue until this country has a new 3rd party for them to contend with.

Z said...

Ducky, I'd have lied in that case; I'll bet O'Donnell would have too had she been in a situation like that right there in front of her. Her favorite book is probably by Corrie Ten Boom, THE HIDING PLACE; O'Donnell is young and of extremely high character and she went too far. Simple. I'd stand beside her any time.
By the way, Ducky, my Messianic Jewish girlfriend's in-laws are still nonbelieving Jews and they are TOTAL Tea Party Glenn Beck advocates. Don't kid yourself...The Tea Party isn't all Christian White people, no matter how much you'd like that so you could be nasty about it.

Hi, DAN!
it did lose at that moment; it was fascinating to watch Newt on TV tonight standing by Mike Castle and apologizing for his rudeness in not conceding formally to O'Donnell..yet standing by O'Donnell and saying the whole RNC is..well, what do you know? !!

Pris, ya, what's THAT about with Castle talking to O and Biden right away? Newt doesn't think he'd take a job with them but it sure is suspect and only shows how happy we all ought to be that he LOST.

Imp..the way the RNC is sucking up to O'D now, I don't think we'll need a 3rd party; i think that revelation is what scared them into now supporting her!!

Z said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tea_party_gop

well looky here, folks

beamish said...

Let's not forget that many of the Democrats, particularly in the House, ran in 2006 as being "conservatives." That there hasn't been a conservative Democrat in Congress since Blondie was hot and Donna Summer hotter is besides the point, but as more Americans (70% and up) self identify as conservatives, they're realizing in near-equal sized droves that the Democratic Party is most definitely not a den of conservatism.

Them voters are going to go somewhere.

This is the American ideological reassessment that should have come in 2008.

The Carter to Reagan motor nerve is still functional.

Z said...

beamish, well said, I sure hope you're right. Sounds right to me.

OPey said...

The Tea Party was and is the great awakening of the 21st century. I have posted before that I wish thay had labeled it as a Movement and not a party. But, back to my original point, it certainly emboldened Republicans as well as all Americans who care about the political oppression that is upon us. We MUST speak out...........silent people have no voice.

Z said...

Opey, I can't seem to comment at your site...HELP! thanks

Ducky's here said...

oh-oh, she's a regular quote machine:

O’DONNELL: Bill, if we — if we approach this complicated bioethic issue with our heads in the sand, the other end is in the air.

O’REILLY: My head isn’t in the sand, Christine. I have the biggest head in the world. There isn’t enough sand on the beach in Hawaii for my head to be in there.

O’DONNELL: My point is, we’re approaching this issue with the other end in the air.

O’REILLY: No, no, no. Hold it.

O’DONNELL: By their own admission…

O’REILLY: No.

O’DONNELL: … these groups admitted that the report that said, “Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we’re using this to start cloning humans.” We have to keep…

O’REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won’t do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

Ducky's here said...

O'Donnell/Snooki 2012

Z said...

Wow, you FINALLY found something, Ducky....I hope it took you all afternoon.
That was in 2007....how come you can say that video of the horrid muslim indoctrination happened long ago so it should be disregarded but O'D saying anything in 2007 has to be held on her now.
I heard part of an interview with her today on the radio, don't know who was talking with her, and found her smarter and more articulate than I'd imagined.

She was right about the brain cell transfers...she was a moron re mice having 'HUMAN' brains...I can't imagine what stupid stuff I'd be saying if I knew 10 million people were listening...I shudder to think, I even get a little nervous and say things I wish I hadn't when I'm on AOW's radio show!

But, that was moronic, and I gave you credit for finding it...until I Googled and saw all your leftwinger crap blogs are carrying this. Remember, I promised you'd all find a ridiculous comment and be unrelenting....
Good thing the media never ever divulges anything stupid about the left....we'd never have time to hear real news.

Z said...

By the way, Ducky......who was it who thought an island would tip over from the weight of terror detainees? Oh, I REMEMBER, it was a Democrat politician!>..

Alvin Green's a honey, too, you know?

ya, and O'Donnell's made a couple of misspeaks and she's to be written off, when I believe it was Coons who identified himself as a Marxist? I know that doesn't bother many on the East Coast, but......it bothers normal American voters.

JonathanToth said...

@Karen Howes, exactly. I'm liberal, but I would vote for a decent conservative in a heartbeat.

Republican and Democrat are both toxic enough that I think we should invest in George Washington's idea of a "no-party" system. All they do is make it easier to stop change.

I like smart, honorable, transparent leaders who want a win-win scenario for the world and not a win for USA-loss for anyone who doesn't like it.