Tea Party

[Blutarsky]

We have 5 national parties up here, and it hasn't made any difference.  It's the nature of the beast.  If that doesn't depress you, Stephen Hawking is telling us NOT to attempt contact with alien intelligence because they're not going to be friendly like the Vulcans.  And there goes the last vestige of hope for mankind.  

[RIVERS]

That's The "Holly and Oak" party...

I have all thier CD's...."I Can't go for That", "Private Eyes", "Out of Touch", "Kiss on my list"...all thier hits.

[Rick]

I have all thier CD's...."I Can't go for That", "Private Eyes", "Out of Touch", "Kiss on my list"...all thier hits.

Are Hally and Oakes still together?

[RIVERS]

Are Hally and Oakes still together?

I think they had a 'falling-out'...sung to the tune of 'private-eye'.

Not sure that anyone really cares. Other than 'Blutarsky'...he goes to all thier shows, a groupie they say. He likes to sing along and clap at appropriate times.

[RIVERS]

He's gonna kill me.

'Just kiddin'

[Rick]

I think they had a 'falling-out'...sung to the tune of 'private-eye'.

Not sure that anyone really cares. Other than 'Blutarsky'...he goes to all thier shows, a groupie they say. He likes to sing along and clap at appropriate times.

I'll still like him as long as I don't hear he is a fan of Michael Bolton or Kenny G.

[RIVERS]

We should have a proper Tea Party then.

Why IS this web-site like a writing desk?

Sorry about the riddles.

Any thought on this movement?

 Can American Political landscape support 3 viable Political parties?...

Not likely. A third-party is only going to divide the existing electorate up making it that much more difficult to get a majority of the vote in any given election. This also extends itself to issue of the division of power/control in the House and Senate, which is allotted based on majority status and which affects party chairmanships, control over rulemaking, etc. The Tea Party may be dominated by people who would normally consider themselves (and vote) Republican, but it also draws enough Independents that it would affect the ability of some Democrats in borderline (or not so borderline) districts/states from getting elected; we've already seen a few examples of this. So, if the Tea Party movement became an actual third-party, and they were able to get say 20 or so candidates elected to the House in the fall and the Republicans picked up  25 more seats (neither of which are implausible), you'd end up with *no* party holding a majority of the seats in the House. I think it would be very difficult for any party to claim control of the House with a slim plurality, which the Dems would hold in this scenario. What do you do then? Co-chairs?  Eeney-meeney-miney-moe? Rotating chairmanships?

[RIVERS]

Not likely. A third-party is only going to divide the existing electorate up making it that much more difficult to get a majority of the vote in any given election. This also extends itself to issue of the division of power/control in the House and Senate, which is allotted based on majority status and which affects party chairmanships, control over rulemaking, etc. The Tea Party may be dominated by people who would normally consider themselves (and vote) Republican, but it also draws enough Independents that it would affect the ability of some Democrats in borderline (or not so borderline) districts/states from getting elected; we've already seen a few examples of this. So, if the Tea Party movement became an actual third-party, and they were able to get say 20 or so candidates elected to the House in the fall and the Republicans picked up  25 more seats (neither of which are implausible), you'd end up with *no* party holding a majority of the seats in the House. I think it would be very difficult for any party to claim control of the House with a slim plurality, which the Dems would hold in this scenario. What do you do then? Co-chairs?  Eeney-meeney-miney-moe? Rotating chairmanships?

We already have a *no* party.

It's called the Republicans that currently hold office.

It is also a very poor strategy, and a very disruptive and selfish stance.

Folks aren't stupid, there will be a price to pay for this arrogant, self serving, and Anti-American position.

[Rick]

The Tea Party is a group of people who think their real party-The Republicans, aren't being stupid enough.  They want more in-fighting, more partisanship, more opposition to anything that may solve problems even if they have no better ideas, and pandering to all the rednecks, bible thumpers, and suvivalists who want to oppose anything that may help us if the gov't has anything to do with it.  They have completely bit on the line that says everything big business does is good, and everything the gov't does is bad.  They love to keep alive dis-information campaigns such as taxing gun owners, Obama is a Muslim and has never provided a birth certificate, etc., going.  I put them on about the same level as the KKK.

[them]

We already have a *no* party.

It's called the Republicans that currently hold office.

It is also a very poor strategy, and a very disruptive and selfish stance.

Folks aren't stupid, there will be a price to pay for this arrogant, self serving, and Anti-American position.

Why would you expect Republicans in Congress to vote for policies with which they disagree? That's not only illogical, it also deprives the electorate of any real choice at election time. One of the biggest issues many conservative and even moderate voters have with the Republicans is that the voters perceive them as being "Liberal-lite" on too many issues. Bush called himself a conservative, but didn't govern like one very often. When Republicans took control of Congress,they initially, took on issues with a conservative approach, but then abandoned that with what was then considered reckless deficit spending.

And since when is opposition "Anti-American"? It's the essence of vigorous debate, something the Founding Fathers hoped to instill into the political system and something they actually practiced to a far greater(and more strident) degree than anything we see today.

But your premise is faulty on two counts. First, the Republicans in Congress have been impotent for the past 15 months. The Dems could have passed any piece of legislation they wanted without a single Republican vote. The Republicans have disrupted nothing that wasn't already disrupted by either public outrage or infighting among Democrats in Congress.

Second, like them or not, the Republicans have proposed alternatives to the Democrat agenda. Republicans introduced three different health reform bills in Congress (two in the House and one in the Senate). None of these made it out of Committee. In addition, they proposed 40+ amendments to the Democrat health reform bills. None of them made it out of Committee either.

In regard to the economy, the Republicans, proposed an alternative to Obama's stimulus package that cost half as much. Using the same economic forecasting model that Obama used to (erroneously) predict his stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8%, the Republican plan was projected to do even better than that. This plan was also rejected out-of-hand. In light of this, you expect them to vote for the Democrats' bills  in any significant  numbers?? Would you?

[CKFresh]

[them]

Why would you expect Republicans in Congress to vote for policies with which they disagree? That's not only illogical, it also deprives the electorate of any real choice at election time. One of the biggest issues many conservative and even moderate voters have with the Republicans is that the voters perceive them as being "Liberal-lite" on too many issues. Bush called himself a conservative, but didn't govern like one very often. When Republicans took control of Congress,they initially, took on issues with a conservative approach, but then abandoned that with what was then considered reckless deficit spending.

And since when is opposition "Anti-American"? It's the essence of vigorous debate, something the Founding Fathers hoped to instill into the political system and something they actually practiced to a far greater(and more strident) degree than anything we see today.

But your premise is faulty on two counts. First, the Republicans in Congress have been impotent for the past 15 months. The Dems could have passed any piece of legislation they wanted without a single Republican vote. The Republicans have disrupted nothing that wasn't already disrupted by either public outrage or infighting among Democrats in Congress.

Second, like them or not, the Republicans have proposed alternatives to the Democrat agenda. Republicans introduced three different health reform bills in Congress (two in the House and one in the Senate). None of these made it out of Committee. In addition, they proposed 40+ amendments to the Democrat health reform bills. None of them made it out of Committee either.

In regard to the economy, the Republicans, proposed an alternative to Obama's stimulus package that cost half as much. Using the same economic forecasting model that Obama used to (erroneously) predict his stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8%, the Republican plan was projected to do even better than that. This plan was also rejected out-of-hand. In light of this, you expect them to vote for the Democrats' bills  in any significant  numbers?? Would you?

It's not just opposition ren. The Republicans have forced themselves into a corner in which they are unable to compromise with the President.

When you label the president as "an other" or "socialist" or "Marxist," you can not work with him.

The republicans recently proposed a bipartisan debt commission to bring down the debt. 

Obama then agreed to this idea. Immediately, 7 of the republicans who originally proposed the idea said they were against it.

This is what I'm talking about.

When you paint the president as the Antichrist, you have to oppose everything he supports, even if you think it's a good idea.

[before]

It's not just opposition ren. The Republicans have forced themselves into a corner in which they are unable to compromise with the President.

When you label the president as "an other" or "socialist" or "Marxist," you can not work with him.

The republicans recently proposed a bipartisan debt commission to bring down the debt. 

Obama then agreed to this idea. Immediately, 7 of the republicans who originally proposed the idea said they were against it.

This is what I'm talking about.

When you paint the president as the Antichrist, you have to oppose everything he supports, even if you think it's a good idea.

CK, your version of events is not quite accurate. Six of the seven Republicans who withdrew their sponsorship of the bill did so before Obama finally endorsed it (which he only did three days before it was to go up for a vote as an amendment to the debt-ceiling limit increase bill). Don't you think it's possible they withdrew their support because it was being attached to that bill rather than because Obama endorsed it? That seems more reasonable, don't you think?

While these seven withdrew their support, the majority of its co-sponsors are Republicans. Opposition to the commission came as much or more from the left than it did the right (Pelosi being one of its most prominent and vocal opponents). Obama's delay in supporting it was primarily due to that fact (and I could speculate about other reasons, but will refrain).

As for painting oneself into a corner by name-calling, etc., Obama and the Dems have done their share of that as well. Labeling the out-of-power opposition party the "Party of NO!" when your party has rejected every single effort the other party has made to participate in the legislative process up to that point and scoffing at them when they object to that treatment by reminding everyone that "We won!" doesn't really strike me as post-partisan or particularly engendering of their support. 

P.S. What the hell is wrong with this text box? When I try to edit anything below the bottom line, it keeps jumping back to the top after every keystroke. Annoying.

P.P.S. How about the Reds!?! Looking good, so far! Good chance for a sweep this weekend with the Lastros in town. It'd be nice to put a little more distance between us and the Cards (and bury the rest of the division). Now's the time; the schedule's front-loaded with divisional games. Get while the getting is good and the Reds are hot.

[Poe]

Why in the world would we want to foot the bill for a panel of congressionally appointed bureaucrats to make recommendations that the congress will inevitably vote down anyway?

How about instead we insist that Barack Obama grow a pair of balls and start leveraging the mandate he carried into office?  This is precisely why I voted for Hillary Clinton.  Just like I said, he's struggling to control the congress.  I said back then he didn't yet have the gravitas for this job and that's just how it's playing out now.

Why in the world would we want to foot the bill for a panel of congressionally appointed bureaucrats to make recommendations that the congress will inevitably vote down anyway?

How about instead we insist that Barack Obama grow a pair of balls and start leveraging the mandate he carried into office?  This is precisely why I voted for Hillary Clinton.  Just like I said, he's struggling to control the congress.  I said back then he didn't yet have the gravitas for this job and that's just how it's playing out now.

Never said it was a good idea or that I supported it; just correcting CK's errors. Rather than the Conrad-Gregg commission or the presidential commission, how about we just call on Congress and the President themselves to do their jobs by finding ways to balance the budget? At this point, I'd be mildly pleased if they could reduce the deficit below a trillion.