Tea Party relevance revisited

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Given the election results, and the GOP leadership's eagerness to scramble up some Tea Party leadership in the House and Senate, I thought this quote was amusing enough to repost.

Cal, you might not have noticed, but the tea party is becoming old news - it is yesterday's sound bite, not today's. Already time is passing it by, it is being absorbed by the GOP, and soon will be a note in the history books.

My 'pretend conservative friend' lawyer, campaign manager for many GOP candidates, and ex-counsel for the RNC (his creds are pretty valid Cal), isn't that interested any longer either. The group is like herding cats - and because of this, the real impact they might have on the two party system is going to be negligible, especially in the long term - and in politics, the long term is less than 10 years.

Of course, when you use broad, going-out-on-a-limb numbers like "10 years," it's easy to leave yourself wiggle room. Nevertheless, there is no indication whatsoever that the Tea Party is going anywhere anytime soon. And 69 seats isn't exactly 'negligible.' :rolleyes:
 
The Republican establishment in D.C. would like the Tea Party to go away.
Look at how they continue to launch snide smear campaigns against Bachmann and Demint to this day.
 
Foss - they are already being absorbed by the Reps.... they will caucus with the Reps - they will vote party line...

10 years - merely a blip on the Political radar...

Give me my 10 years - then let's revisit... Now is way too soon...
 
Foss - they are already being absorbed by the Reps.... they will caucus with the Reps - they will vote party line...

10 years - merely a blip on the Political radar...

Give me my 10 years - then let's revisit... Now is way too soon...
No, fox...go read your own comment. You stated that the tea party would have a negligible impact on the two party system ESPECIALLY in the long term. You imply short term as well. So you were wrong in the short term. Surprise!

And you're wrong about the GOP absorbing the TP:

Not keeping up with current events, eh fox? Absorbing doesn't mean what you think it means.

And the real "mere" blip on the political radar is going to be the Democrats from 2006-2012. Chew on that.

Edit:

Colin Powell apparently disagrees with you, fox.

LARRY KING: And you recently suggested that, "The Tea Party movement might well be a fad unless it converts itself into something that's a real political organization." That's a quote from your appearance on "Meet the Press" last month -- two months ago.

POWELL: Mm-hmm.

KING: Where do you think they're going?

POWELL: Well, it's not clear yet. And it's not clear yet how they are going to mesh with the Republican Party, both conservatives in the Republican Party and moderates. But I think it's a fascinating thing to watch.

What a great country we have where a group of people get together and decide, we're not happy with what's going on in Washington, so let's grab this motto of Tea Party, which has great historic significance, and create a movement.

When they started that, I thought it would just be a passing fad. Well, it turned out to be something much more than that. And I hope that all of our political leaders in Washington, whether you're a Democrat, Republican, moderate, conservative, liberal, to reflect on the fact that this is a movement of Americans who are concerned about the future of our country and don't dismiss them as a fad.
 
And when have you started to pay attention to Colin Powell Foss? In the past you have discredited him rather vehemently...

Ah, it is only when you agree with him that you pay attention... got it.

Blip - fad - whatever you want to call it - they won't be around for long - they will get absorbed into the Republican party. Sure the Republicans will give on a few things, but before long - those little concessions will just be dust in the wind. They will get disgruntled when they find out Washington isn't going to change instantly - the people who are part of the Tea Party 'masses' will get bored with politics, and soon it will be pretty much business as usual...

Once again - give me my 10 years - we will see what type of impact they have had on the system at that point.

Impeaching a president became a footnote in just a few years - politics is now all about 'now' and the tea party will soon enough be 'then'.
 
cynicism masquerading as enlightened wisdom
 
How many presidential campaigns have you worked on? How many senators have you gotten elected? How many representatives have you over for strategy meetings?

Cynical wisdom perhaps shag, but, don't overlook the fact that the 'wisdom' part is real...
 
Cynical wisdom perhaps shag, but, don't overlook the fact that the 'wisdom' part is real...

Note the "masquerading" part of my comment. Ultimately, only time will tell but cynicism does not automatically equal wisdom. In fact, cynicism is a useful way to cover up ignorance and deception (of both the self and others).

All the predictions of a massive leftist "political realignment" of the nation in 2008 have been shattered. At most Obama and Clinton are blips from the political realignment that took place with Reagan. Bush (and the Republicans) deviated from those first principles and lost the legislature in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 (arguably, it was the conservative vote that stayed home on election day in '08 that gave the election to Obama).

This country has been a center-right nation for at least as long as I have been alive. Name one grassroots movement in the past 30 years that compares to the tea parties.

"Conventional" political wisdom said the tea party movement would fizzle out before election day this year. It also said Reagan didn't stand a chance of getting elected. Under that view, the Republican controlled legislature of 1994, especially with their internal reforms and their "contract with America" didn't stand a change of A) winning at the polls, or B) being a successful legislature. Conventional political wisdom always underestimates conservatism and the conservative majority in this country and tends to overestimate the other side of the political isle.

Obama has done this country and invaluable services in removing the mask from the Democrat party and the Progressive movement; it is nothing more then collectivism toward an egalitarian end, just like all the socialist movements before it. All the logical consequences of that collectivist agenda - dishonesty, self-deception, hubris, contempt for both the populace and the Rule of Law, etc. - are abundantly apparent in the past 2 years alone. The modern Progressive movement is nothing more then socialist-lite and a growing number of people see it.

Some other facts to consider; look at the turnover of state legislature and governorships toward conservatism of various stripes. Considering that this is a census year, how will that lead to more "politics as usual". Again, this is a center right nation and the left has been disproportionately represented (in part) through their gerrymandering efforts. that is going to be heavily muted now.

Also, you keep saying that the tea party will simply be absorbed into the Republican party. You seem to reject the notion that the Tea Party may redefine the Republican party, yet you have given no justification for that in spite of the fact that there is already ample evidence of it (not to mention the fact that the Tea Party movement has already redefined the national debate on many key issues).

The fact is that you have constantly poo-pooed, underestimated and looked to undercut the Tea Party at every turn on this forum. I for one give little credence to anything you say regarding them unless you can actually provide a logical argument and cynicism is no substitute for logic.
 
Note the "masquerading" part of my comment. Ultimately, only time will tell but cynicism does not automatically equal wisdom. In fact, cynicism is a useful way to cover up ignorance and deception (of both the self and others).

I am not ignorant of politics - nor am I trying to deceive anyone shag.

I know politics far more than you - I am giving an opinion, yes, but an opinion based on being in politics for a while. High level politics.

All the predictions of a massive leftist "political realignment" of the nation in 2008 have been shattered. At most Obama and Clinton are blips from the political realignment that took place with Reagan. Bush (and the Republicans) deviated from those first principles and lost the legislature in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 (arguably, it was the conservative vote that stayed home on election day in '08 that gave the election to Obama).

Really shag - Democrats moved the independent voter in 2008, and also got out the youth vote. This time - the independent voter went Republican and the youth vote stayed home.

This country has been a center-right nation for at least as long as I have been alive. Name one grassroots movement in the past 30 years that compares to the tea parties.

And you have lived in dark times Shag ;)
When Perot ran - that was as big - if not bigger...

"Conventional" political wisdom said the tea party movement would fizzle out before election day this year. It also said Reagan didn't stand a chance of getting elected. Under that view, the Republican controlled legislature of 1994, especially with their internal reforms and their "contract with America" didn't stand a change of A) winning at the polls, or B) being a successful legislature. Conventional political wisdom always underestimates conservatism and the conservative majority in this country and tends to overestimate the other side of the political isle.

It also said that Clinton wouldn't be re-elected... And it did predict the moving of the house in 1994 - remember shag...

Some other facts to consider; look at the turnover of state legislature and governorships toward conservatism of various stripes. Considering that this is a census year, how will that lead to more "politics as usual". Again, this is a center right nation and the left has been disproportionately represented (in part) through their gerrymandering efforts. that is going to be heavily muted now.

Not very different than 1994 - pendulums swing. If you go by the hill the last 30 years have been 'right' shag - the house only was 'left' in the 80s and for the last 4 years - Clinton saw the house go right during his tenure and it remained that way during 6 years of Bush - and the senate followed those years, and was 'right' during much of the last 30 years.

Also, you keep saying that the tea party will simply be absorbed into the Republican party. You seem to reject the notion that the Tea Party may redefine the Republican party, yet you have given no justification for that in spite of the fact that there is already ample evidence of it (not to mention the fact that the Tea Party movement has already redefined the national debate on many key issues).

I said that the Republican party will make concessions to the tea party - will it last - did it last after Reagan - nope... I will go with history on this one shag.

The fact is that you have constantly poo-pooed, underestimated and looked to undercut the Tea Party at every turn on this forum. I for one give little credence to anything you say regarding them unless you can actually provide a logical argument and cynicism is no substitute for logic.

Logic - how about history shag - That is what I have on my side. They are a grassroots movement - and historically grassroots movements last only a short time.

Why do you think this is different this time - maybe I should be asking you that... What makes the Tea Party different from any other grassroots movement - is it because you agree with them, because you think that they represent all that is good and true in America?

Why shag?
 
The Reform Party was a third party that was not connected by a coherent ideology (an extremely important fact) and who's grassroots credentials could be questioned. At best, they were effectively a "one-issue" party with no coherent message.

The Reagan Movement was for a President and his (at that time unconventional) ideas and was the start of the political realignment I am talking about.

The wizards of smart did not see 1994 coming.

Clinton's 1996 reelection saw him running against a RINO (more analogous to McCain vs. Obama then anything). Can you name a true conservative presidential candidate who has lost since Reagan?

The Obama/McCain election was under a huge cloud of deceit due to a sycophant media serving as Obama's cover and as his lapdog against both his opponent and against any and all criticism. They echoed and amplified Obama's talking points and served as a means for Obama to deceive the people into thinking of him as something he was not. Essentially, the people (especially the independents who voted for him) were sold a false bill of goods. This is the problem when the left defines the political debate (which they did through the media); lies and deception are the norm (again, a logical consequence of the collectivist agenda). Fortunately, the MSM cut their own throat with that and most people realize they have no credibility and are not "above" partisanship as they appear to be (hence Stewart's whining to "take it down a notch"; subtly wishing for the simpler days when the left controlled the news narrative).

Nothing you have offered in any way discounts the fact that this is a center-right nation and that, given the option, the national populace, in a fair and honest exchange of ideas, will choose the conservative over the progressive. Nor does it provide a logical argument for your position.

History is not "on your side" as you proclaim. At best the facts you cite are dubious, especially in their connection to your conclusion through a false, "apples and oranges" comparison.
 
The Reform Party was a third party that was not connected by a coherent ideology (an extremely important fact) and who's grassroots credentials could be questioned. At best, they were effectively a "one-issue" party with no coherent message.

And how many issues does the Tea Party embrace shag?

Clinton's 1996 reelection saw him running against a RINO (more analogous to McCain vs. Obama then anything). Can you name a true conservative presidential candidate who has lost since Reagan?

Nope - because you will just claim that GH, Dole, and McCain weren't really 'conservative', it will go to that shag - a silly debate...

However, Perot was pretty much a 'true conservative' - got you there...

Nothing you have offered in any way discounts the fact that this is a center-right nation and that, given the option, the national populace, in a fair and honest exchange of ideas, will choose the conservative over the progressive. Nor does it provide a logical argument for your position.

Were we discussing that shag - I don't think so. I am just saying that the Tea Party's days are numbered... they will fade away... like an old soldier. They will be absorbed by the republicans - which is happening already. There will be no TP behind any representative or senator's name, it will be R.

But - is the US right of center? Maybe you didn't read my response shag - if you go by the hill on the last 30 years - yes. If you go by who sat in the oval office - 20 of the last 30 years it has been a republican. I am not that stupid to say that 'right of center' hasn't controlled the country for the last 30 years.

But, of course, you will now state that they weren't really 'right of center' just pretend 'right of center'.

History is not "on your side" as you proclaim. At best the facts you cite are dubious, especially in their connection to your conclusion through a false, "apples and oranges" comparison.

Yes it is shag - your unwillingness, or inability to tell me why the Tea Party, as a grassroots movement, is so different than all the others that have gone before shows me that you have nothing here. History is on my side... your silence is far more telling than you think.

The fact is that you have constantly poo-pooed, underestimated and looked to undercut the Tea Party at every turn on this forum. I for one give little credence to anything you say regarding them unless you can actually provide a logical argument and cynicism is no substitute for logic.

Oh, my 'attacking' the Tea Party pales in comparison to your continued hatred towards the left. How many threads have you started here that attacks the left - hundreds... I think your agenda is far more 'active' than mine. I just state what I believe regarding the tea party's longevity, and their ability to really create a difference when you look at this in 10 years from now.

So, how about it shag - do you really want to compare my post count that questions the long term effectiveness of the tea party and your post count that attacks the left...
 
You don't understand what I am saying, apparently.

Enlighten me - and when you get a chance - maybe you can answer that whole thing about who is really putting forth an agenda here... (that was a last minute edit on my part - but I really do think it needs to be addressed).
 
And when have you started to pay attention to Colin Powell Foss? In the past you have discredited him rather vehemently...

Ah, it is only when you agree with him that you pay attention... got it.

Blip - fad - whatever you want to call it - they won't be around for long - they will get absorbed into the Republican party. Sure the Republicans will give on a few things, but before long - those little concessions will just be dust in the wind. They will get disgruntled when they find out Washington isn't going to change instantly - the people who are part of the Tea Party 'masses' will get bored with politics, and soon it will be pretty much business as usual...

Once again - give me my 10 years - we will see what type of impact they have had on the system at that point.

Impeaching a president became a footnote in just a few years - politics is now all about 'now' and the tea party will soon enough be 'then'.
Once again, fox...you're wrong so far. Your prediction has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Actually, it just sounds like bravado.

Desperate words considering your party just took the worst 'shellacking' in 60 years. :lol: And it wouldn't have happened without the Tea Party. But you keep whining about '10 years.' In 10 years it's more likely you won't have a party left, especially after redistricting.
 
...maybe you can answer that whole thing about who is really putting forth an agenda here... (that was a last minute edit on my part - but I really do think it needs to be addressed).

And facilitate your attempt to change the focus of the debate here? I think not.

The whole notion of who is or is not promoting an agenda is an irrelevant red herring and only serves to dodge the points already raised; specifically, that the tea party is a sharply focused, ideologically coherent and consistent grassroots movement that is functioning inside the two party system and set to redefine one of those parties. There has been nothing like it in American politics in the past 30 years and, arguably, nothing like if from inside the right side of the political spectrum in American history. It is the culmination of the political realignment that started with Reagan (which was the culmination of the conservative movement that first emerged on the national stage with Goldwater) and is, in it's own way as much a reaction against the Bush administration and the Republicans of that era as they are against Obama and the Democrats.

If one is to look to history to find something analogous to the Tea Party movement in American politics, the New Left would be the best example.
 
Once again, fox...you're wrong so far. Your prediction has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Actually, it just sounds like bravado.

Desperate words considering your party just took the worst 'shellacking' in 60 years. :lol: And it wouldn't have happened without the Tea Party. But you keep whining about '10 years.' In 10 years it's more likely you won't have a party left, especially after redistricting.

Oh I think we took a pretty big 'shellacking' in 2000 -

Have you ever looked at the cycles in politics Foss - obviously not...
 
Oh I think we took a pretty big 'shellacking' in 2000 -

Have you ever looked at the cycles in politics Foss - obviously not...

Are you capable of looking beyond political cycles when it is inconvenient to do so?

You simply keep asserting the idea of political cycles as if that is a hard law of nature that can not be changed instead of simply a historical pattern with countless contextually specific factors. You seem unable to acknowledge, let alone confront, the bigger picture (including the notion of political realignments) or the specific context of the current situation. If you can't acknowledge and confront those contrary points, there is no chance for honest, productive discourse.
 
Oh I think we took a pretty big 'shellacking' in 2000 -

Have you ever looked at the cycles in politics Foss - obviously not...
Of course I have, fox. When was the last time the House flipped by 65 seats? How often does that 'cycle' happen?

You are really being petty and small today. More proof that you're just irritated. Your snarks have no bite to them. :rolleyes:
 
And you forgot that I stated that I like a Republican controlled house and a Democrat president - I liked the last 6 years of the Clinton Administration...
So, you're happy about the House results? Please say yes, I really want that response on record.

You really believe Obama is capable of triangulating like Clinton did?
 
And facilitate your attempt to change the focus of the debate here? I think not.
ah - but you can't resist the chance to.

If one is to look to history to find something analogous to the Tea Party movement in American politics, the New Left would be the best example.

So, shag - how much did the 'new left' change American politics - and were they relevant in 1980?
 
Of course I have, fox. When was the last time the House flipped by 65 seats? How often does that 'cycle' happen?

You are really being petty and small today. More proof that you're just irritated. Your snarks have no bite to them. :rolleyes:

About 70 years foss... But, did it change the structure of America when it happened last time?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top