Dedicated readers of the blog I apologize for my tardiness this week in posting something to discuss. I had planned to compose an entry prior to leaving last Sunday for sunny Tempe, Arizona but time got away from me. The training I was involved in was intense and long which left little time to analyze the events of the day or meet up with those of my friends in Arizona.
On the flight back, which was really bumping when we were on approach to MPS, I had several conversations. An interesting question was posed during the conversation though and I want to see how others may respond prior to getting on my soap box.
Does the lack of a clear National message from the Tea Party regulate them to a blip on the radar? Or because they lack a clear National message they represent the truest form of grassroots campaigning?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's not an either/or answer to that question, IMO.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, in some regions they represent true "grassroots" politics. I think that is true. However, in other regions, they've been usurped by the Republicans as a way to get energy into their own base. In those areas, the Tea party doesn't exist except in name - they are republicans masquerading as Tea Partiers.
The lack of a clear central leadership will help in this election cycle because the elections are local and local is where grassroot movements work best. In 2 years however, they will either have to morph into a branch of the republican party and focus on national leadership or they'll be relegated to second class citizens.
That will be the true test for them. And will show just how inclusive/exclusive the Republicans will be when that day comes because any attempts to move their platform too far to the right will be met with stiff resistance. A platform that is center-right can get a president elected. A platform that is far right, where most Tea Partiers reside, cannot.
That will be when the parties define themselves to the benefit or detriment of the Democrats.
It should make for an interesting RNC national convention.
Truman
ReplyDeletePart of the dicussion was what aspect of the mixed message should a national Tea Party focus on if they were to establish one. As you look at all the Tea Party candidates that are beating established Republicans the formula isn't the same. I do find it ironic that Democrats and their minnons are doing all they can to vet out these Tea Party winners.
The lastest being the investigation into witch comments and whether or not O'Donnell is one or not. Why? Nothing was done when Sen. Obama admitted to using cocaine by the mass media. Do we know that he still doesn't use it? But I digress.
Just yesterday on MSNBC the pundits reported that the Left and the White House is going after the Tea Party harder and trying to tie it even more to the GOP then it already is.
Could this grassroots Tea Party movement result in a viable third party?
I find the whole obsession with Odonnell a joke. She was nominated by a 1000 vote majority in the ~200k bank of registered GOP members in Delaware. That's a slim margin in a state that is VERY blue.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP was right to oppose her since she likely has little chance of winning. Why the DFL is giving her attention is beyond me. All it does is fill her coffers with campaign money and free advertising. Ignore her and she'll go away in 6 weeks.
As to whether the Tea Party is a third party - unequivocally NO! They have been and will be a part of the republican establishment. The fact that there is some infighting amongst GOP leadership about candidates doesn't change the fact that come 2012, Tea partiers will gove 90%+ for the GOP nominee for president.
The only question is how far to the right will they drag the GOP platform and will that make the candidate nominated un-viable? And moreover, will they force the GOP to accept Sarah Palin as a ticket in some form? If either of these things happen, the DFL can thank the GOP for handing them the 2nd term presidency, IMO.
PS - I like your little quit about the president using cocaine still. I'm sure you'll come back with the typical "I didn't accuse him, I just put it out there for consideration" b*llsh*t, but that's what it is, BS. I'm not a fan of the president but to backhandedly accuse him of that is no different than the people who backhandedly accused Bush of being a drunk. If you want to accuse, have the courage to come out and say it. Otherwise, what is the point other than to slander him without risking outright slander charges?
" I do find it ironic that Democrats and their minnons are doing all they can to vet out these Tea Party winners" First, what is ironic about it? Second, isn't that what every party does with every candidate? So, I guess, so what?
ReplyDeleteA problem I think any Tea Party candidate is going to run into is being able to get anything done. The GOP doesn't seem to like them so they won't get legislative support on anything. Being opposed to everything, despite what the Republicans are doing, is not legislating and it's not leading.
Of course the Dems are trying to tie the Tea Party to the GOP. Then they can argue that the entire party has lost touch with the middle and they are moving to the extremes. Why shouldn't they tie them together?
What more should be done with Obama and his past drug use? He said he did it. He said he doesn't do it. Whatever. Who cares about something that happened 30 years ago? Just like the sole fact that Emmer had a DUI decades ago shouldn't matter if he's changed his attitudes and beliefs.
And I agree with Turman, I love how you digress after taking an unsupportable cheapshot, but that's not how you'll look at it. Petty and childish.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteWhat I find ironic about all this is that you claim that the DFL is trying to tie the GOP to the Tea Party. What you never point out is that the GOP is trying to tie itself to the Tea party too.
Just last weekend Rep John Boehner said that the tea party is a conservative fiscal movement that also believes in social conservativism. He said they have clear and direct ties to the GOP. He got thrashed by fellow republicans for it, because some vehemently oppose the Tea Party movement but most GOP hope that the energy of the Tea Party means votes in the fall.
What they don't understand is that this snake will turn on them in a heartbeat.
What I find most troubling about all of this "tea party" BS is this.
For 8 years, people who opposed the GOP agenda and spoke out in "voter anger" were painted as unpatriotic and unamerican. Now that the GOP has people opposing the agenda and expressing that same anger, it's a patriotic and american movement.
This is the worst in demagoguery. As if one form of political protest is more noble than another.
What a crock of sh*t.
My point to bring up the cocaine admittance by Obama, then candidate, to compare to how little attention it was given when admitted while the Tea Party candidate talked about witch craft in similar time frame and its all the buzz. It was not meant to take a cheap shot at Obama it was meant to take a shot at the media. But I understand that any slight I take or draw in about Obama is taken as a cheap shot.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have talked about the GOP Co-opting the Tea Party movement and believe I even dedicated a portion of a blog entry on it.
You don't see a substantial difference in admitting drug use and witch craft? Sorry, those two things aren't remotely in the same ballpark.
ReplyDeleteIt just couldn't be that your shots are cheap if that's how they are always protrayed? Would make me wonder. You could certainly attack the media for its coverage without invoking any reference to Obama. But you decided not to. Why? It certainly doesn't advance the conversation, now does it?
Will the Tea Party caucus with the Republicans? I'd assume so otherwise they will accomplish nothing. And I'd imagine that any Tea Party candidate will be running as a Republican, since they are running in those primaries, and will be seeking support and funding from Republicans.
ReplyDeleteSo, it goes both ways. Why, because they know they aren't electable as a third party running against a GOP endorsed candidate.
Truman, I'm sure you know and just missed it, but the DFL is only in Minnesota so it would be the national party.
And again, where is the irony and what are they suppose to do with a candidate? Why shouldn't the draw a connection?
Viper, the reason it was construed as a cheap shot was not that you drew the correlation between the coverage of ODonnell's "witch" comments and Obama's admitted cocaine use when he was younger. It was that you implied backhandedly that he might still be using?
ReplyDeleteDid you ask the same of GWB since he too admitted cocaine/alcohol abuse? Did you accuse Bush of still using in office? If not, why would you do so now? What has changed other than the man in office and the party he represents?
I get that you've talked about the GOP co-opting the Tea Party. But if that's the case, then why do you voice such strong disgust at the Dem's pointing out that co-opting? After all, it's not like the GOP is being stealthy in their co-opting of the movement.
Hell, they're practically running advertisements about it. What I find a more interesting conversation is why the Tea party is painted as patriotic but those who spoke out against the GOP are painted as unamerican.
And sorry for the DFL comment, I was thinking US national but Freud made me type DFL. Oops.
There is a big difference between drugs and witch craft admittance. My point is that the media dismissed the cocaine use but has been tenacious with this witch craft angle on O'Donnell. As for Bush's drunkenness, I don't recall if the media handled it in similar fashion or not. I think our media took a dive during the Democrat Primary and completely fell off the cliff during the Presidential election.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't the Tea Party groups around the United States start their own party or combine with other more fiscal conservative groups? What should the national message be for these candidates? Fiscal? Social? Other?
I know that I get lumped in with Republicans because of my conservative fiscal roots but my social agenda is more like those Senators from Maine which is why I defend my independent status.
"Couldn't the Tea Party groups around the United States start their own party or combine with other more fiscal conservative groups?"
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this fly in the face of their supposedly "grass roots" movement status which has actually caused them to rebuke people like Bachman who claim to be a 'leader' in the movement? By their own definition, there are no leaders.
"What should the national message be for these candidates? Fiscal? Social? Other?"
I have yet to hear a single thing that the tea party supports other than their current "anti-everything" platform.
This is another of my big issues with this movement, their lack of positive message. It's easy to oppose anything and everything. But that's not leadership. Leadership requires putting forth ideas that people can back. What has the tea part pushed as a positive agenda? All I hear is "repeal the healthcare bill", "stop bailouts", "stop illegals".
Unless their political platform is "Not gonna do anything", what are they going to do if elected? And please don't say uphold the constitution because it implies that everyone else has an agenda that is anti-constitution which is absurd.
I actually find the whole witch thing laughable and I'd never, ever, ever vote for her.
ReplyDeleteTo someone who doesn't actively practice religion but understands it, the beliefs and teachings of Christians and the belief of many of them that the stories in the bible are true, is more laughable and distrubing than a religion that honors nature and believes in a connection of the various parts of nature.
One represents wholeness and connection while the other shows hate and fear of those who are different.
But, it's another example of the media and politicians using something people don't understand to push an agenda based on fear. Witchcraft sounds bad if you don't know anything about it. But it is also up the viewer to try to understand what is really being discussed.
Anonymous - there is a difference in belief and knowledge. Where many struggle with Christian teachings is the literal context applied to the Word. I will admit that I have several books in my house about Wicca and even had a good friend that still participates in the rituals.
ReplyDeleteIt is true, and sad, that the media and politicians wield the saber of fearing the unknown to belittle a person of opposing viewpoints. Ironically, that ignorance displays the lack of conceptual intellect our media and politicians have which many miss because the inherent belief of implied authority.
Truman - While I have not attended a Tea Party event since the one I reported on the blog site over a year ago, the message given by speakers at the rally on the lawn of the Capitol in Minnesota was positive. Many of the speaker did offer solutions and rallied those there too.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is that both parties are doing a great job of creating noise so the true message of those various Tea Party groups with positive messages from getting through.
"The trouble is that both parties are doing a great job of creating noise so the true message of those various Tea Party groups with positive messages from getting through."
ReplyDeleteI get what you're saying but I think that's a convenient excuse, not the state of things really.
Yes, the parties are trying to muddy the tea party message. Yes, it's probably unfair. Yes, there are likely some in the tea party that have good ideas for fixing things.
However, when the mouthpieces of the tea party (Palin, Bachman, et. al.) offer no solutions, no answers, no positivity, it begs the question what value they add.
I actually found it ironic that Palin/Bachman are trying to name themselves the defacto leaders of the tea party and co-op it's message and energy. It makes me wonder why so many in the tea party are allowing them to do this. But as with all things, in the absence of true leadership, false leaders will assume power.
And Palin/Bachman are nothing but opportunistic parasites feeding on what could be a reasonable movement if it had a true leader to help focus them.
Truman - I don't understand why Tea Party groups are allowing Palin or Bachman to ride the coattails of the Tea Party movement. I understand why Palin and Bachman are using the energy of the Tea Party. That is where I feel the short sightedness of Tea Party goers have by allowing these major names become defacto leaders.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy the necessary evil to having these leaders to give a national spot light to the Tea Party movement. I'd like to see them rally a leader of someone that has stuck their neck out as being independent of the two party system like Perot, Forbes or even Paul.
In fairness, the tea party is trying to muddle the message of the left by stating things that aren't true and attacking any thing as being unconstitutional, un-American, or taking away our freedoms. see panels, death. The tea party tries to bend the message of those against them. If it doesn't have the guns to fight back, so be it.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually looking forward to Jon Stewarts rally. I think it's a great idea. Average citizens agree on a lot more than our parties do right now. Thanks to the 24 hour news cycle, gotcha politics, and the annonymity of the internet, civil discourse has been lost.
@Anon,
ReplyDeleteI think average citizens have one advantage over the politicians today - no requirements for ideological purity.
Most americans are willing to compromise if it means moving a topic forward. And most are willing to sacrifice if they think the long term benefits are there for the country.
The problem most politicians have is that they must appeal to a voter base that is not party of the 60-80% of the middle of America. This forces them to radicalize and find "ideological purity" in order to appease that base.
The art of compromise is dead. It was killed by the GOP and DNC in their lust for power and control.
And the losers are the citizens who get nothing from their government except headaches and frustration and a tax bill.
As to Stewarts rally, I'm curious as to how that will turn out. I actually hope attendance is high. An energized youth (his viewership) is a good thing for politics regardless of ideology.
But if 60-80% of the citizens are willing to compromise and move on, why can't a candidate do so and get elected. I agree that that is the current mindset but when has it been tried recently to galvinze the middle instead of appeasing the base on the edges and hope to pick up the moderates to win?
ReplyDeleteI understand it's a total change in philosophy and unlikely to happen. Why do we want one thing but accept something different? But in fairness, if it were I fighting for, or to keep, a job, I'd probably do what has proven to work.
As far as getting a tax bill, I think most American's would accept one if they knew the money was being spent wisely. Less taxes shouldn't be tied to only one party. Everyone wants more money, some just think certain services should be provided. It's always funny to me that those want less taxes want them without the services they use to be cut. Hurt the other guy, but not me.
Obviously questions we can't answer beyond guessing and being vague.
"But if 60-80% of the citizens are willing to compromise and move on, why can't a candidate do so and get elected."
ReplyDeleteBecause the base controls the parties and tells people that compromise is the equivalent of surrender so it hardens positions to unreasonable levels. Even amongst those who would otherwise compromise.
"I agree that that is the current mindset but when has it been tried recently to galvanize the middle instead of appeasing the base on the edges and hope to pick up the moderates to win?"
The last successful master of this was Clinton. He walked the center to his advantage and punished the republicans by doing so because even moderate GOP members sided with him over things like the Gov Shutdown.
As to why people don't do so today, because they get called RINO and aren't supported by the GOP party. And the democrats allow it, but have no cohesive message and can't muster support in congress for anything - even with a super majority.
Politics makes me depressed lately because it's what is broken in our government - the government is fine, the politicians are the problem. All of them.
No one, who is qualified to actually lead and has good moral/ethical fiber, would ever want the job because of what they and their family must go through and the mud they must wade into.
The process offends most sensible and reasonable people. So all that is left are the dregs and their ilk.
I totally agree on everything but would say as much of the blame is on the voters for not demanding something else. There is unfortunately no voice of the moderate.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if runoff elections might change things. For example, I like a lot of what Horner has to say in this election. I think he is focused on fixing the right things and not letting party issues dictate his election. However, I absolutely don't want one of the major party candidates to win so I'm inclined to vote for the other major candidate.
I hate that my vote has turned into a sign of disapproval instead of support.
Totally agree. There's an old saying that "in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve". In the end, we're to blame.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to agree, wouldn't it be nice to have an election where you voted for something other than the least worst choice.
The lesser of two evils approach to voting bothers me to no end. If more people just realized that one is not wasting their vote by voting for a third party candidate then these candidates would get more clout in the political arena.
ReplyDeletePrior to Obama getting elected President, I had many a conversation with people that if all the minorities voted as a block they could elect a minority President. The trouble is getting people out to vote and then getting them to vote for a candidate that fits their belief system instead of voting against someone.
And Truman is right, during the primary the established candidate must cater to the base then try to appeal to the middle in the general election. Why people cannot see this is mind boggling.
"during the primary the established candidate must cater to the base then try to appeal to the middle in the general election."
ReplyDeleteHere's my $0.02.
What the GOP risks is alienating a larger and larger portion of the "middle" as they appeal to their shrinking base. If they must appeal to the base in 2012 to get the Presidential nomination, they may become too extreme to be elected by the middle.
You can't get elected with only 20% of the population supporting you. And that will only make this 20% more bitter, disenfranchised and frustrated and force them further to the extreme as they scramble to regain power.
It's a self-sustaining feedback loop. If the GOP continues to go down this path, I think they risk more than they realize.
The country is still a Center right society. I don't think the republicans are setting themselves up for a fall. What is being set up is a 2012 election that will pit Clinton vs. Palin. Obama will not be seeking a second term. I find it curious that in the latest Woodward book that Clinton is not mentioned.
ReplyDeleteClinton should start the decorating plans now. Palin will alienate any center right republicans.
ReplyDeleteThe sitting president will not seek a second term? Really? You're kidding right? The single biggest factor about why most presidents win a second term is that they won the first term. And you think the DNC would forego that advantage?
ReplyDeleteTruman - I understand it makes sense for the sitting president to run for a second term but just as Kennedy did to Carter, there will be a challenge and this time Clinton will prevail. The Hope and Change will not work again on the liberal left of the Democrat party. Obama is losing the middle and as anonymous stating what he/she has done, many will vote to remove Obama.
ReplyDeleteReagan had the same if not lower approval ratings mid-term that Obama has. I think you have been watching too much Fox news and aren't in touch with reality.
ReplyDeleteWhen Obama's competition is Palin (and I predict it will be if she thinks she can win the nomination) the public will gladly choose the devil they know over the moronic sycophant from Wasilla.