More tea baggers

[guido911]

Dude, you're the one who claimed to have been such a champion of minorities.

Translation:  I have done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of civil rights.

[rwarn17588]

Translation:  I have done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of civil rights.

You said it, not me. 

[Gaspar]

You had thoughtful responses until you got here:

You're basing your response on conjecture instead of facts. The administration said from the beginning of the health-care debate that single-payer was not a requirement for passage.

Not a requirement, but obviously the goal.

The regulation of the economy has been prudent, common-sense measures that were discussed by both parties before the 2008 elections.

Again this is not a Republican VS Democrat issue.  Is a people vs their government issue.  There is currently negative sentiment attached to economic regulation.  If the vehicle is not moving fast enough, installing a governor is of little use.  Sorry, just some more of that common sense.

Gun-control also never was an Obama agenda item.

Perhaps but the mere fact that he came from a position in favor of gun control when he was a senator, gives the threat breath.


And amnesty to illegal immigrants has received bipartisan support, and was started first by a Republican president.

Again, this is not about Republican VS Democrat.  Amnesty does not have PUBLIC support, and that's what matters.

You've got certain wide-eyed elements that see the president as a radical, where most rightly see him as a cautious, moderate president.

If that were true, people across the nation would not be having this very conversation.

[rwarn17588]

If that were true, people across the nation would not be having this very conversation.

I suddenly see a lot of caveats in your answers, but I digress ...

If people -- big "if -- are indeed having this conversation, they're not terribly disturbed by it. Obama's approval ratings have never drifted below an average of 45%, despite being saddled with a terrible economy and a whole lot of people screaming "radical!"

In comparison, Reagan's and Clinton's approval ratings dropped into the high 30s. And Bush II ... his ratings dropped into the 20s.

I think you're way overestimating the current president's vulnerability ... and overestimating how many people dislike him. Again, you're showing a lot of conjecture.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And now a new accomplishment for this administration; passage of financial reform.

Probably won't be as protective as what was repealed in 1999, but hey, it's a start.

[Gaspar]

I suddenly see a lot of caveats in your answers, but I digress ...

If people -- big "if -- are indeed having this conversation, they're not terribly disturbed by it. Obama's approval ratings have never drifted below an average of 45%, despite being saddled with a terrible economy and a whole lot of people screaming "radical!"

In comparison, Reagan's and Clinton's approval ratings dropped into the high 30s. And Bush II ... his ratings dropped into the 20s.

I think you're way overestimating the current president's vulnerability ... and overestimating how many people dislike him. Again, you're showing a lot of conjecture.

Perhaps you are right.  I do see through the veil I impose upon myself.  But then again if it's just me, then why are so many, even those within the administration like Robert (supposed to be the cheerleader) Gibbs acknowledging doom. 

Then there are the articles, like the one in TIME today http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html were it seems the administration, and congress are painted in panic mode. 

I understand that with my own bias, I may simply be reading things into such reports, but it seems there is an inkling of disenchantment. 

[Conan71]

This is specifically what the Tea Party claims to stand for from their web site. I don't read anything but common sense in any of this.  I read nothing about racism, Second Amendment solutions, overthrowing the government, etc.:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx

"Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.


Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.


Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual."

[Gaspar]

This is specifically what the Tea Party claims to stand for from their web site. I don't read anything but common sense in any of this.  I read nothing about racism, Second Amendment solutions, overthrowing the government, etc.:

The unintended product of the racism claims will be a straw-man set up to benefit the Tea Party.  Liberals should know by now that it's dangerous to play the race card this early.  There are several black tea party members and candidates that pose quite a challenge to this supposition.

There are fringe members of every party.  Walk around any Democratic or Republican convention and you can literally get hundreds of pictures of some very sick and disturbing elements. 

Is that philosophy present in mission of the organizations?  No.

Can such claims take a toll on the organizations?  Yes. . .but only when brought to light at the right time.  To play the race card effectively you have to play it when there is little time for rebuke (like just before a major election).

The fact that liberals are already starting to throw the kitchen sink, is an indicator of panic, and a lack in control of their message.  Had they saved this card until late October, they could have thrown a real spanner into the works.  Unfortunately, you can only cry wolf once before you diminish the impact of the stratagem.

[swake]

This is specifically what the Tea Party claims to stand for from their web site. I don't read anything but common sense in any of this.  I read nothing about racism, Second Amendment solutions, overthrowing the government, etc.:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx

"Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.


Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.


Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual."

I don't have a problem with what is stated there. It's a basic Libertarian position document. It is the kind of positive statement that I think the Tea Party could be about and could have long term impact adhering to. I disagree with a good amount of the positions stated, but I find nothing offensive or hateful or intentionally hurtful in any of this statement. I find the Libertarian position to be generally thoughtful, logical, honest, and well meaning.

I myself have great sympathy for most of these positions and think a lot can be learned from them and that the Libertarian view is a positive one in any discussion and debate on almost any issue and in government. I just personally find Libertarian positions to be too simplistic, unlearning and inflexible very often for a lot of real world issues, too mechanical and predictable if you will and human behavior is not mechanical or predictable. It too often assumes that people will work in their own self interest and act in an educated and informed way, and that's just simply not the case. And also creates too many losers in the economic system.

Libertarianism and Communism (real Communism, not the crushing police state oligarchy that Stalin created) are polar opposites and failures in much the same way, they both expect that both the weak  and the powerful will act in some idealized way to further the interests of all. It's just not realistic.

The kind of socially conservative Libertarianism that is attempted by Rand Paul isn't really Libertarianism at all, Libertarians are very socially liberal. But, his truly Libertarian position regarding the Civil Rights act is educational. In a perfect world a business could hire or serve anyone they choose. If they don't choose to serve blacks they are hurt economically and other businesses thrive. That is Paul's position, it is a correct position for a Libertarian and isn't meant to be racist, it isn't in fact racist. But racism does exist and is why the Libertarian position is not tenable.
And, despite this position paper, in the end what the Tea Party movement has become isn't a Libertarian movement at all. It's very much become an overheated God, Gays, Guns and Get the immigrants out movement with a nod to Libertarian economic policy joined on the hatred of government and Obama. A libertarian should not believe in border controls at all and does not care about gays or God. Each individual chooses their own path and no one should stand in their way and banks should be able to act in any way they see fit and get as big as they see fit. I do think that the best outcome for the Tea Party movement is to shuns the racists and hyperbolic political fringe rhetoric and become a real Libertarian movement.

[Gaspar]

And, despite this position paper, in the end what the Tea Party movement has become isn't a Libertarian movement at all. It's very much become an overheated God, Gays, Guns and Get the immigrants out movement with a nod to Libertarian economic policy joined on the hatred of government and Obama.

Great analysis until you got to this point.  You are correct, the Tea Party has many similarities, and as many differences.  I understand why some can see Libertarian philosophy is inflexible or mechanical.  You must understand that Libertarian philosophy is a basis, a foundation to build on with lots of room for subtlety.

Our constitution is almost entirely Libertarian in philosophy, and we have built on it.  You will find that libertarians are strong constitutionalists.  A stark contrast from the more liberal belief systems that regard the constitution as an old, outdated document written by men who could never foresee the world as it is today.

Back to the quote above.  You made a good analysis and then you wound up with this statement

"It's very much become an overheated God, Gays, Guns and Get the immigrants out movement with a nod to Libertarian economic policy joined on the hatred of government and Obama."

I don't think this is anywhere in the statements or the mission of the movement.  These definitions have been offered by others.

Republicans don't want anyone having more fun than they do, and the Democrats don't want anyone making more money than they do. Libertarians want you to make money and have fun. -Marrou

[Conan71]

A libertarian should not believe in border controls at all and does not care about gays or God. Each individual chooses their own path and no one should stand in their way and banks should be able to act in any way they see fit and get as big as they see fit.

Are we talking about Libertarianism or Unitarianism? 

Rand Paul isn't any more a sole defining example of Libertarianism than President Obama is of Liberalism.  The establishment is obviously rattled and scared of this movement.  I'd thought of it as being ultra right leaning, but I'm hearing more and more people who are moderate independents who are starting to align with the Tea Party movement. 

I think of it as being more of a symbolic movement to remind politicians whose government this really is.  Pretty much the same way I've approached things like "Second Amendment solutions" it's symbolic rhetoric.  But that's simply my take.  I've not been to a rally and I rarely, if ever watch political TV anymore and only catch talk radio when I'm in the truck, so I may be further off in my estimation of what the Tea Party is all about. 

[nathanm]

Are we talking about Libertarianism or Unitarianism?  

Rand Paul isn't any more a sole defining example of Libertarianism than President Obama is of Liberalism.  The establishment is obviously rattled and scared of this movement.  I'd thought of it as being ultra right leaning, but I'm hearing more and more people who are moderate independents who are starting to align with the Tea Party movement.  

I think of it as being more of a symbolic movement to remind politicians whose government this really is.  Pretty much the same way I've approached things like "Second Amendment solutions" it's symbolic rhetoric.  But that's simply my take.  I've not been to a rally and I rarely, if ever watch political TV anymore and only catch talk radio when I'm in the truck, so I may be further off in my estimation of what the Tea Party is all about.  

As with any movement, there are a bunch of radicals, but there are also "normal" people. Unfortunately, the radicals are the ones who get all the attention from the media, thus making it difficult to have reasonable discourse in this country even among those of us who don't feel the need to paint the other side as equivalent to Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini.

It's pretty depressing, really.

I think all of us (or at least most of us) can agree that the radicalization of political discourse serves nobody but the people who get the book deals.

Part of the Tea Party's problem is that they have let these radicals define the whole group. As others here, I have strong libertarian sympathies. In a perfect world, where people always acted rationally in their own best interest, I'd probably be more strongly aligned with that point of view.

[Conan71]

As with any movement, there are a bunch of radicals, but there are also "normal" people. Unfortunately, the radicals are the ones who get all the attention from the media, thus making it difficult to have reasonable discourse in this country even among those of us who don't feel the need to paint the other side as equivalent to Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini.

It's pretty depressing, really.

I think all of us (or at least most of us) can agree that the radicalization of political discourse serves nobody but the people who get the book deals.

Part of the Tea Party's problem is that they have let these radicals define the whole group. As others here, I have strong libertarian sympathies. In a perfect world, where people always acted rationally in their own best interest, I'd probably be more strongly aligned with that point of view.

Actually, it's a small group of radicals which seem to define most movements.  Out of 1.5 bln (depending on whose estimate you use) Muslims, how many are raving lunatic mad?  What's that done for the overall image of Islam world-wide as a peace-loving religion?

At least from what I'm able to tell, the number of asshats showing up with Obama/Hitler signs at rallys are small and who is to say those aren't plants from the opposition?  I can promise you it's happened in the past with conservatives infiltrating liberal rallies and vice-versa.

It's the most radical of elements which gets the attention.  Peaceful, boring protests isn't very sexy in the news cycle.

[nathanm]

Actually, it's a small group of radicals which seem to define most movements.  Out of 1.5 bln (depending on whose estimate you use) Muslims, how many are raving lunatic mad?  What's that done for the overall image of Islam world-wide as a peace-loving religion?

At least from what I'm able to tell, the number of asshats showing up with Obama/Hitler signs at rallys are small and who is to say those aren't plants from the opposition?  I can promise you it's happened in the past with conservatives infiltrating liberal rallies and vice-versa.

It's the most radical of elements which gets the attention.  Peaceful, boring protests isn't very sexy in the news cycle.

What, you think Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle are plants?  (I keed, I keed)

[we vs us]

Man.  Those whackos sure steal the limelight.

That's the Tea Party Senate candidate up in Alaska, trying to unseat Murkowski.  And his, um, minions.