So many self-described moderates or independents whine about the disappearance of the center. They want people to put “ideology aside,” to reject both the leftwing and rightwing view of the world and to come together “to get something done.” The Economist laments the absence of these people a lot. But the truth is, they’re already here. . . they’re called the Tea Party.
Whenever groups like The Economist lament the left-right divide, here is how they describe the two sides: On the right, you have an intolerant group beholden to social conservatives. They worry about gays and abortion and little else. They won’t touch a penny in military spending and they will never accept a tax hike of any sort. The ideological left is described as beholden to unions, in particular teachers unions, and won’t accept a penny in cuts or any change in labor laws to make the labor market more efficient.
Let’s accept this dichotomy as true, despite some obvious errors. Now let’s see how the Tea Party fits into this structure:
1. The Tea Party is clearly not beholden to unions.
Thus, the Tea Party specifically rejects everything The Economist uses to describe the left AND the right. In other words, the Tea Party does not fit into the stereotype The Economist has of the right, nor does it fit into their soft-pedaled version of the left. They are, in effect, the very people The Economist keeps calling upon to bring a new “non-ideological” focus to politics.
2. The Tea Party is willing to eliminate the types of regulations that protect teachers and government workers from competition.
3. The Tea Party has consciously ignored social conservatism. They have in fact repeatedly made the point that now is the time to deal purely with economic issues.
4. The Tea Party is willing to slash military spending, provided the cuts are sensible.
5. The Tea Party is willing to accept higher taxes on some in exchange for a more efficient, cleaner, less corrupt tax code for all, i.e. an elimination of deductions in exchange for a flat tax or Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.
So why won’t The Economist recognize this?
The answer simple: this isn’t “the middle” they were hoping for. The Economist and their ilk wanted to believe the middle looked exactly like RINOs. They thought the middle would be people who trust the government, who don’t mind regulation but maybe want to tinker a bit here and there to make the regulations run smoother, and who don’t mind tax hikes to balance the budget. They figured the middle would be people who were willing to accept higher taxes and fewer services but otherwise wanted business as usual. . . people without strong views about anything who simply want to make the left and the right split every baby.
But the reality is the middle has very definite opinions and they aren’t at all what The Economist was hoping. The middle wants a government they don’t have to worry about. They want a government that leaves them alone except where absolutely necessary. They want a government that taxes less, spends less and does less. They want a government that stays within the boundaries set by the deal we’ve all struck called the Constitution, and they want a government that rejects everything about the current state of business as usual.
This is not the middle The Economist or anyone else really expected to find. But this is what you get when you bring together all the non-ideological people in the country. And thus, another leftist fantasy comes crashing down.
Interestingly, this also tells us why the Tea Party people and the Republicans haven’t meshed so well. The Republican Party is based on several interest groups. Social conservatives care about gays and abortion. Neocons want big government and foreign adventuring. Big Business Republicans and K-Street want the government handing out goodies to corporate America. Libertarians have spent the past few decades trying to legalize drugs. And the grumpy Republicans simply want whatever the liberals don’t want.
The Tea Party people reject all of this. They don’t care about the desires of these factions and they want no part of business as usual.
Will the Tea Party people eventually win or lose? It’s too early to tell. But the Presidential primary has been interesting. Romney is the choice of Neocons and big business, and he’s stuck at 20% support. Bachmann and Santorum are Religious Right darlings and they’ve collapsed. Perry was your standard K-Street Trojan Armadillo and he’s collapsed. Ron Paul isn’t doing as well as he has in the past either. Right now the guys with the momentum seem to be the two guys who don’t fit into any of the traditional Republican interest groups.
Fascinating, isn’t it?
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Tea Party Is THE Middle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
well done, Andrew! It has always struck me that people see things through there own prism. So what we see from the folks at The Economist and other bastions of liberalism is a belief that "the middle" is very close to their own political views on everything. After all, in the best "I'm o.k. you're o.k." tradition, they feel they are reasonable. There are exceptions, of course. The anarchist tear down the walls, m.f.'ers probably wear their radical hair shirts with pride. Nevertheless, the leftist pundits probably actually believe the center is further left than it really is.
andrew: my house was talking about this very thing last night. it IS fascinating. the thing i keep coming back to is that folks want a strong leader, yet someone who doesn't pander. cain is the closest thing we have to that. he's proven in business, which can translate to washington in an unconventional way, which is what we want. yet, he's not beholden to the big guys who are hell bent on choking out this country. he has his faults; they all do. but he's definitely electable.
Thanks Jed. It just struck me as rather ironic that they keep moaning about "where are the people who don't care about ideology" and then they slam the Tea Party for being "right wing" without ever seeing the lack of ideology.
On your point about them seeing the center further left, that's absolutely true. I've spoken to many leftists who honestly believe the public at large is one inch away from communist, but has been "fooled" by corporate America. I've had discussions with professors, for example, who say that "if you look closely at polls, you'll see that up to 90% of the public believes in Marxism."
Uh.... wrong.
But they believe it. They truly believe they are the center. That's why they are obsessed with increasing voter turn out, because they think it will lead to a vast leftward shift.
Patti, Great minds right!?
I agree entirely. I think what people are looking for right now in Republican ranks is honestly someone who is ready to bring "middle-America common sense" to Washington. They want someone who gets that a cut is a reduction, not a smaller increase, and someone who doesn't care about fighting over peripheral ideological issues.
That's why so many of the candidates have failed because they speak the same language all the other politicians have always spoken -- they've pandered to a dozen small interests without once showing that they understand how lost Washington really has become.
I too think Cain is the one who best falls into that category, though Gingrich has been making similar noises lately. But the rest (except Paul) have really just continued to represent the same old way of doing business and people don't want that anymore.
andrew: i think most folks would agree that gingrich is a powerful force...BUT...i don't think he's got the trust of the people. he comes across as arrogant and a little smarmy, which overpowers his plus factors. he may be smart as a whip, know the system and how to manipulate it, but i don't think he's what folks are looking for this go-around. i mean, we'd take him over barry, but i don't want to settle. AGAIN.
patti, I'll tell you what, I agree with that. I think Gingrich has come across strongly in debates and he's said a lot that people like right now.... BUT there is still just a sense with him that he's smarmy and arrogant and that he may just be better at pulling the wool over our eyes than the others.
It's hard to quantify that, but I get that sense and I get the feeling other people have that sense too because I don't hear people enthusiastically jumping on the Gingrich bandwagon, they seem to be reluctantly saying "ok, I can be happy with him IF he's the one." That's not enthusiastic support, that's "settling."
I guess we'll see.
"They figured the middle would be people who were willing to accept higher taxes and fewer services but otherwise wanted business as usual. . . people without strong views about anything who simply want to make the left and the right split every baby."
This is exactly who the Tea Partiers WERE before the bailouts and Obama/Dem legislation-in-hyperdrive. We, the adults, to each other before the power of the internet, started comparing notes and decided it was time to step in to stop the madness.
And I told you that the Republicans who sided openingly with the TP'ers in 2010 because they thought it was just a Republican thing were going to be in for a rude awakening. They assumed we were just against the Dems and Obama. Surprise! We have been very clear about our agenda from the beginning - to reign in our federal government and hold ALL of our elected officials accountable for the legislation they pass and don't pass.
Yes, We Are The Mighty Middle!!
Bev, "The Mighty Middle" -- I like that! LOL!
I think you're right, by the way. In fact, I'm amazed how little ideology you hear from Tea Party ranks. They simply don’t seem to care about all the regular fights, i.e. the things the ideological parts of the party want. All they want is Washington shrunk, fixed and out of their lives. And that is a problem for the existing groups because they actually want to use Washington to get their goals imposed and to make a living lobbying to keep their spoils.
That's why I never bought into guys like Dick Armey as Tea Party leaders -- because he didn't fit with what I saw on the ground. He surrounded himself with lobbyists, spoke about an agenda that sounded a lot like tinkering, and then tried to yank all the Republican ideology into the Tea Party agenda. That’s not the Tea Party.
It was the same thing with some of the Congressional types -- they simply saw the Tea Party as activists who wanted a new seat at the table, or as a leaderless group they could commandeer to add to their own powerbase. I don't think they understood that the Tea Party people actually disdain the party structure and don't care about pushing the issues which the party has been pushing. To the contrary, if they have their way, everyone in Washington gets wiped out and all the power evaporates. That’s anathema to these interest groups.
And I'll tell you, I think the Tea Party continues to march on as strong as ever, unseen by the party aparatniks who just can't see beyond the “they’re just another interest group” thinking. That’s why I think the primaries have been so odd because the Washington media doesn’t understand that times have changed and many of the candidates failed to realize that the Tea Party people can’t be courted like traditional activists.
Interesting post about the Tea Party, Andrew. Personally, I have never been able to understand this centrist argument, this "let's reject the left and the right and come together to solve the issues" thing. One, I don't understand how you actually do that, as your approach to "solving issues" is going to be shaped by your value system; two, what they call coming together I call mere triangulation and difference-splitting between the two poles.
I feel the urge to smack liberals for a lot of things--their hypocrisy, their sanctimoniousness, etc.--but not for holding their beliefs. I want them to be honest about what they support, just as I want the Tea Party to take over the GOP, so then Americans will face two stark alternatives and these "let's all be moderates" people will have to make a choice.
Andrew, it does appear to the outside world that the Tea Party has dissipated because we don't hold public rallies that much anymore. We moved on. We are now working within the system not to break it, but to hold those accountable for their behavior. It is much more effective.
T-Rav - We need statesmen to bring these two stark alternatives together. The idea of a democratic republic is to promote many divergent ideologies that can come together in peaceful compromise for the greater good all. It is the balance of moving forward and holding on to our core values that should define us, not break us apart like they seem to be doing now.
Thanks T-Rav. I don't care for the "moderate" view either.
On the one hand, it's usually highly sanctimonious -- "we aren't blinded by ideology." I could actually turn that around and say instead, "you just don't have any sense of right and wrong."
Secondly, lots of people hide as moderates when they aren't. They have strong ideologies, they just want everyone to believe they are somehow "the middle."
Third, and most importantly, the split the baby method only works when people fundamentally agree on principle. In other words, if you and I are just arguing about how much to spend, then being moderate makes sense. But if you and I are arguing about right and wrong, then there can be no middle ground. That's like saying -- Person A thinks it's ok to kill, Person B disagrees, let's be moderate and say it's ok to wound but not kill. Huh?
I agree too on your take on liberalism. I fault them for being wrong, not for having beliefs. I would rather people had beliefs and were open about them so we could all understand each other. Nothing bothers me more than this game politicians play about hiding their beliefs.
Bev, The thing I've seen with the Tea Party people is that they are problem solvers. They see a problem, like how to get their ideas in place and they go about finding the best way to do that. And that means taking over the levers of power.
The rallies were great as an outlet and to let people see that they weren't alone. They served a purpose -- to let the movement know how large it really was. But there's no reason to do that anymore. Continuing rallies at this point would just be playing the same old activist games and Tea Party people aren't interested in that. They are moving on to step 2, which is seizing power.
In other words, whereas an interest group would go for political theater to try to win over politicians, the Tea Party people have correctly assessed the futility of that and are simply replacing those same politicians with their own people.
Washington doesn't get that because they still see the Tea Party as a traditional interest group. Hence, no theater, no power.
That's why I think they are mystified by the primary season and why I think a guy like Romney and why the establishment types at Fox or National Review are in for such a shock.
Bev, I think you and T-Rav are talking about two different things. There are statesmen, like Reagan, who was excellent at protecting America's core values, yet also getting his principles implemented, and still representing everyone in the country.
There are also moderates who are great statesmen, who simply aren't worried about specific ideology, but do still have core beliefs and try to represent everyone. Again, those are fine too.
But then there are the self-professed "moderates" who complain about everyone else being "ideological." These are people who often lack principles and don't understand that people do genuinely disagree about many issues of principle. These are the kinds of people you see interviewed who say stupid things like "why don't we just get everyone in the same room and make them all agree." Well, because it's impossible to reach an agreement when people hold fundamentally opposite beliefs about right and wrong.
Those are the ones that are upsetting because not only do they simply not get that people can have different opinions, but they are smug about their erroneous belief.
This is the game that the Washington statist are playing, redefining the meaning of words, like the middle, moderate, what the meaning of is, is. This is exactly why Cain must be destroyed, he’s a loose cannon, and proud participant in the Tea Party. I’ve seen him speak three times at three very large TP gatherings in the Atlanta area, he’s a potential danger to the gravy train that is Washington DC, on both sides. Washington has overpromised, overspent, and now they’ve over reached, and this is what created the Tea Party, not Barry’s black side, and we are indeed the middle leaning right. Not of some need to punish, or impose draconian measures on anyone, including ourselves. Washington needs some intense recalibration in a downward trajectory 20-30%, rein-stilling a sense of service to country, not, “what’s in it for me?”
Andrew: When I was growing up, the refrain among "polite" people was "never discuss religion and politics" because you'll alienate someone. Only the two most important things in any society, and we weren't supposed to discuss them. That changed in the 60s.
What you hit on that makes this decade so important is that the Tea Party shook up the prevailing formula that America is center-left. It is not, and hasn't been for a long time. As you said, the Tea Party really is the middle. They have ideas, but are not rigid ideologues. They don't march in lockstep like the far left or the far right. They just want reasonable solutions to complicated problems, and a reduction in the involvement of government in our personal lives.
No party or group has a monopoly or even a totally consistent unified plan for America. But the Tea Party has come closer to representing the broad spectrum of true American values than any other group I can think of.
Excellent analysis, and a fine put-down of The Economist.
Stan, I think that's right. I think the Tea Party (and people like Cain) are a huge threat to the establishment because they aren't playing by the same rules the establishment has always played by. They aren't interested in shifting the government a couple degrees left or right, they want to neuter the government. And that does not sit well with people (left or right) who have become dependent on promising to nudge the government for a living.
That's why they smear the Tea Party and its members and why they keep trying to declare it dead -- because they want people to drop the idea before the establishment wakes up one day and discovers they are suddenly outside the castle looking in.
Nothing overly original, but as I said at the Tea Parties at which I was gratefully on the speakers roster, we aren't Republicans, Democrats and/or Libertarians; we're Americans.
Andrew, thanks for great reminders as to why that remains at the top of our priorities!
Thanks Lawhawk! I think that's right. I do think the Tea Party is both not ideological and yet has a clear vision. And interestingly, they have the most clear and consistent view of where the country should head -- neither left nor right are actually anywhere near as unified as "the mighty middle" (as Bev called them).
I think the established left and established right are both having a hissy-fit right now about these new people because they absolutely aren't what the left/right imagined they would be. I think both left and right expected that if you gathered a large swath of middle America, you would hear the same concerns you hear in Washington every day. I don't think they expected to hear: "we don't care about your issues and we think you're the problem, not the solution."
These are indeed interesting times.
Excellent article Andrew! I always got the sense that when the MSM calls for "the middle" they really mean Democrat-lite.
Eric, You're welcome! And well said. Everything I've seen about the Tea Party is putting America first and everything else (i.e. all other ideological struggles) aside.
I just find it interesting that so many people who claim to want to hear from the middle immediately try to pretend that these people (who pass the very test they put down for being in the middle) are somehow "extremists" or "right-wing ideologues.
DUQ, I think that's true -- though I suspect both sides think the same thing. You hear it all the time from each side that middle-America secretly agrees with them. Apparently, not.
Bev, I don't mean that in the sense that I think total paralysis of the democratic process and permanent polarization is a good thing. I think some partisanship is healthy, but not to the point that it causes a breakdown of the federal government and our political system.
What I'm saying is that there is a difference between statesmanship and being moderate just for the sake of moderation. The former is good; the latter is little more than bowing to "the will of the people." It doesn't lead us anywhere or give us an idea of what our principles should be. Yes to statesmanship, no to triangulation.
Thanks, Andrew. That probably summed it up better than I could (although I replied anyway) :-)
T-Rav - We will always have two extremes. It's the leaders at the top that needs to be the statesmen. And the lack of statesmanship has only been magnified out of orbit since Obama. He has not one stateman-like sub-atomic particle in his entire body or his entire administration for that matter. It's breathtaking.
T-Rav, You're welcome. And I agree with you. There is a fine line between pushing ideals and throwing a fit. Too many in Washington don't get that line and they play the "give me everything or else" game. That's destructive.
Look at ObamaCare as a classic example. Everyone agreed the system needed to be fixed. Yet Obama ignored the opinions of the majority of the country to push through his ideological vision.
That's a classic example of a moment where "moderation" is called for because he could have achieved so much good... instead he tossed a match onto a powder keg and has now created a monster that will slowly eat our political system.
Another great illustration to contrast the Tea Party with the Occupy Movement:
- Tea Party: not-ideological but possessing a clear vision
- Occupy WS: completely ideological but lacking vision
Bev, That's true. Leaders need to understand that they represent a country, not a base. Unfortunately, in the soundbite era, it's a lot easier to play to the base than it is to speak calmly to the country.
If you go to most websites and say, "wait a minute, let's be rational," you will get destroyed because people don't want to hear it. And that is a direct result of decades of our politicians whipping people into a frenzy over things that really aren't true and things they really can't do anything about.
As I said to T-Rav a moment ago, I think ObamaCare is a classic example where moderation would have been wise. Obama could have achieved great things which the public would have welcomed with open arms. But he chose a hard-line ideological approach which soured everyone.
Again, let me stress, I'm not against moderation in the sense of taking small steps to win people over and making sure the public is comfortable with what you are doing, and compromising where a fair compromise can be reached. BUT I do oppose this idea that every baby can just be split.
Andrew, to bolster your last statement, I think that true moderation is actually a very conservative principle. It's even summed up Biblically in Ecclesiastes 7:18.
But politicians and pundits have distorted that valuable principle into triangulation. The phony moderate belief is that if both political parties are unhappy, then the result must be good. That is pure laziness of thought.
tryanmax, Great point about the difference between the OWS and the Tea Party. The Tea Party has a simple goal: smaller, saner, less intrusive government, and they have set about achieving that result in a smart and capable way.
OWS has a million goals, most of which aren't shared by anywhere near a majority of their own members, has no clear idea what they really want, and has no plan whatsoever to achieve it.
The Tea Party is a movement. OWS is a tantrum.
tryanmax, That argument always drives me nuts! If both sides are unhappy, then you have a HORRIBLE deal. Having negotiated my fair share of settlements, let me tell you that the good deals are the ones where everyone walks away feeling like they got what they wanted.
I agree entirely this triangulation idea that we just define two sides and then split the difference is not moderation. Moderation is finding what both sides really are trying to achieve and trying to come up with some common plan they can agree upon to make them both mostly happy. That's genuine moderation.
That's also what being a statesman is about.
Holy crap: I don't have a link to it, but a new Rasmussen poll is just out from Iowa--Gingrich 32, Romney 19, Cain 13. Not a typo.
I agree Andrew. I have been to several Tea Party functions and you never heard people talking about theories or policies or anything like that. People didn't even get specific about exactly which programs they wanted cut. It was just "we need to make government smaller" and "we need to get this thing back under control."
I heard that on the radio, T-Rav.
I see that latest smear on Cain was, unfortunately, successful. But more importantly, it proves that Romney just doesn't have the appeal that the media keeps saying he has. They keep knocking down conservatives, but the population just won't go for Romney.
I'm sure you've heard it said that folks would vote for an orange-juice can over Obama. Well, it seems Republicans will also vote for an orange-juice can over Romney.
And who knows, maybe this buys time for the truth about that last smear to come out.
T-Rav, Wow, that's significant!
I wonder if this means Romney will have to leave center stage at the next debate? Probably not... he's front-running from behind.
P.S. This is the problem for Romney, 25% won't do it when the other 75% start to make up their minds.
Ed, I hear that a lot -- that the Tea Party folks are purely practical and aren't interested in grandiose plans or promises... they just want results.
tryanmax, Perception is reality in politics and once perception kicks in, it is very hard to change.
One thing I would caution on this however, it is still very early. The media will now try to savage Gingrich to get people to switch to Romney. So until we see how that goes, we won't know what will happen.
It could be Gingrich grows stronger and runs away with this. It could be he stumbles and someone else moves back up. It could be this poll is an outlier.
Also, we don't know yet how many of these people represent actual voters as compared to casual attention-payers.
If I had to bet right now who will win, I still lean toward Romney winning. But we'll see.
Andrew, you are right about it being early. Probably why the media is pushing through all the GOP candidates now with this "crush" narrative. They are hoping to have knocked everybody off before the first primary.
Everybody, that is, except for Romney. The next page in the "crush" narrative will be Republicans finding "true love" with Romney. They will probably even make it a reconciliation story: While the adulterous electorate flirted with each of the other candidates, faithful Romney waited patiently by for them to return. I'm retching in advance.
On the flip side, I might offer that what the media is producing lately is perception-lite. In previous election cycles, the media has worked long and hard to establish well-crafted fictions about candidates they don't like. Recently, they've just thrown things until something sticks, then promptly walking away before ensuring it sticks well.
I will admit, the liberal media struck gold with the Cain/Libya "gaffe" in getting the right-wing media to do their bidding for them. That might be really tough to shake.
What's maddening is that Romney's flaws and shortcomings are as indelible and obvious as a tattoo on his face, and he doesn't even wear a mask to cover them. Yet left- and right-wing media just act like they are invisible.
FYI - Our building is on lockdown mode because of "police activity" at Zuccotti Park...8-/
Good Lord, Bev. What's the situation down there?
Bev, I hear they're trying to push them all out of the park and the idiots are resisting. Good luck!
P.S. Bev, Can we send you Red Cross care packages? We could sneak a file in a cake...
tryanmax, I think you've put your finger on the media plan. Romney is the easiest target for them, so I think they're trying to herd conservatives from one candidate to another, building the "crush" motif as they go. Then, once we've all settled on Romney and he wins the nomination, they will blast him with both barrels.
Right now they are eliminating the people with the ideas. It's no coincidence.
Also, on the Cain thing, I agree the smear worked. Part of it though was that several groups on the right pushed it wholeheartedly even though they knew better because they saw the chance to advance their guy. Groups like National Review really have disgraced themselves here and conservatism will pay a huge price because they have once again allowed the left to get away with smearing conservatives.
I hear there was some kind of to-do because a cop got (lightly) injured in the process of trying to keep the protestors contained. That may be the cause of the disturbance.
Stay safe, Bev. If need be, I'll send some of the cats over to help you out. They like you for some reason.
I take it that sock puppets are no good in a situation like Bev's?
Joking aside, take care Bev. I sure wouldn't want to be where you are. (But then, I don't want to go to NYC on a good day.)
Andrew, you filled in the last part of the plan, for sure. No way will Romney stay golden after June.
But right now Republicans are being seduced (again) by the notion that the media likes the guy. The network heads must be laughing their @$$es off, howling, "This works every time!"
What a fun day. Apparently, the police tried to barricade the Zoo-cotti-ites and they didn't like that very much. Chaos insued. 177people have been arrested and 7 cops were injured, one seriously requiring 20 stitches on his hand)
T-Rav - The kittens helped the cops out, I hear.
Unless they have taken over the subway stations as they wanted, I should be able to get home easily. No need for Red Cross reinforcements unless it includes chocolate...
One other note - I really really like Ray Kelly (our police chief). Nothing phases him. He has trained his force to handle these kinds of disturbances and they do it well.
T-Rav, There have been problems all over the country rousting these people because they see it as a chance to become martyrs.
tryanmax, Yep. That's how I see it. I think conservatives are being really stupid listening to the media on this. We are letting them eliminate our people and herd to select the guy they want on the theory he's "the cleanest."
Then, once he's locked in, they will savage him. And even if somehow they can't find anything (which we know they can), they'll just make something up -- like they did with Cain.
And it really pisses me off that conservatives are falling this or trying to exploit it. Putting Cain or Gingrich or Romney aside, we cannot let the MSM keep doing this!
Bev, I think the real lesson here is how good the cops are at responding to these things. In the past or in foreign countries in the present, the cops just rush in with shields and batons and start knocking heads. Here they do a great job of ending these things peacefully and with a minimum of people getting hurt.
And yet, the Zooies whine about police brutality? Give me a break.
Good luck with the subway! :)
I already know how he will be savaged, and it should be so obvious:
1. MittCare = ObamaCare - even if it is a gross oversimplification, it's enough.
2. Mr. Wall Street - Bain Capital will be a household name by July. What that means to most people will be largely influence by this photo: LINK
3. That's probably enough, but he will also suddenly become Mormon again and he has said enough publicly to dredge up a litany of both actual and fabricated flip-flops.
As I said earlier (still have to factcheck, though) Republicans depend on their base turning out whereas Democrats depend on wooing the independent crowd. Mitt is the ideal candidate to get R's to stay home and I's to question whether there is any difference between the candidates.
tryanmax, You think small my friend.
I'm pretty sure...
1. Romney is related to someone with multiple wives. He is from a cult after all, and he probably drinks blood.
2. Being a capitalist isn't enough, the photo notwithstanding. Think of the number of people who lost their jobs when Romney took over their companies. . . and how all those people and their special needs kids died in the streets as Romney snorted blow off the belly of soon-to-be dead hookers.
3. Didn't Romney once advocate Marxism when he was on a Mormon mission in China teaching them how to take American jobs?
4. I'm pretty sure he's covered up a drunk driving death too.
5. And why didn't he serve his country? Was he secretly gay? Or did he pay some poor black kid to take his place.
Some of that must be true, right? After all, BOTH MSNBC and NBC will be reporting it!
This is why I do not work in the leftist media.
Bev, if they accost you in the subways, please tase them for me :-) Glad things stayed sort of under control.
What we need is a FOI request filed to the state of Massachusetts for all his official emails. We don't even need to dump them online. Just the fact that request has been made suggests there is something fishy to be found.
While we're at it, we may as well subpoena something. Doesn't matter what.
tryanmax, There are times I wish I was a leftist because it's so much easier -- you don't have to worry about things like truth, facts and honesty.
But I seem to be constrained by (1) a sense of decency and (2) a brain that functions.
No you're thinking! And we know he's guilty because otherwise people wouldn't suspect he did something. :)
And after two months, this is what OWS has come to. Aren't you proud, liberals?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/17/ows-protesters-chant-follow-those-kids-as-small-children-try-to-go-to-school-on-wall-street/
T-Rav, I heard about this. Shameful, isn't it? But that is what happens when you have no values and no decency.
Here's your link: LINK
Bravo zulu Andrew!
I completely agree with you and my fellow Commentaramaniacs!
Negotiating with evil always begets more evil.
I don't think evil is too strong a word either. Because those who seek to take away or diminish our liberties (no matter how well intentioned) are doing a great evil.
I don't think most of them realize it, at least not conciously, but we must fight them tooth n' nail nevertheless.
It just doesn't matter if they don't realize the evil of socialism/communism because it's true.
My sympathies lie with those patriots who cherish their lives, liberty and property rights (pursuit of happiness).
I gladly explain this to the "good" intentioned, misguided neocommies I meet, but I'm not gonna wait around and waste my time if they are dead set on bein' blind to the truth.
Ben, I've repeatedly discussed how I equate good with order and evil with chaos. This ties into something I said a few days ago about what happens when one tries to court a little chaos in the pursuit of order--or a little evil in pursuit of good. You let a little chaos/evil in and it takes over.
...and the One who can reign it in sure ain't among the Occupiers.
Well I am not so sure about the analysis behind why the Tea Party is what the Tea Party is... I think you make great points Andrew.
For me it was the 2008 GOP Primary. I did not like any of the candidates up there because I did not think there was one that was actually conservative.
Then as the nominee came close and Florida started voting it seemed to already by a lock for McCain. McCain to me at the time was not just a RINO but a traitor to the cause that assisted in helping MSM to destroy Conservatives winning in Congress (Gang of 14, SSN reform, constantly attacking Bush for being to Conservative **cough** I'll stop)
I supported Romney but only because at the time he was the most conservative candidate with a chance and we needed to defeat McCain. He could not be allowed to be the GOP standard bearer. I felt very strongly about it.
If Palin was not made VP I don't even think I'd have voted in the primary. So when the Tea Party came around I was on board because I wanted to make sure the GOP had conservative candidates in office. RINO's had to finally go especially after the TARP fiasco.
Whether you liked Politics or not sitting on the sidelines and ignoring it because it was all corrupt crap was no longer an option. They were taking over too much of your life.
Ben and tryanmax, That's a good philosophical question -- is someone who does evil but with good intentions evil? And what if they actually believed what they were doing wasn't evil?
Indi, I think your take on the Tea Party is true of its more conservative members, but there are also more moderate or even quasi-liberal members and I think for them this was simply time to stand up and vote for common sense.
Everyone knows Washington is broken and the two parties are promising to fix it by giving more of the same. The Tea Party people wanted something different -- common sense over ideology. And common sense is inherently conservative in nature.
That's a question that has plagued man for ages. In the Biblical sense, any act of evil is evil, regardless of intent or knowledge. My take on Christianity is that, if one believes in the Gospel, then one will earnestly attempt to do only good in the knowledge that he will inadvertently commit evil acts in the process. That is where Jesus has his back.
On the other hand, knowingly and intentionally doing evil with a good outcome in mind is every bit as evil as doing evil with an evil outcome in mind.
"Evil" is one of those words which carries connotations that make it seem like a near impossibility. Only a very select group of people are considered truly "Evil." But if evil = selfish, then a stark reality emerges.
tryanmax, It is an interesting philosophical debate that I think gets down to the question: is philosophy/morality about absolutes to which everyone should be held or do we accept the practical reality that some people simply will never follow/adopt the moral code.
In other words, do we insist that everyone meet the code or do we recognize that sometimes there are exceptions?
Now that is a good question. In spite of how my last response might frame me, I am actually more inclined to accept the latter premise, that there are always those who won't conform.
When one accepts that, then one can set to the job of constraining those rather than persisting at playing God by winning souls and damning the lost.
I think too many conservatives get hung up thinking they cannot align with any candidates that aren't absolute purists bent on destroying all vestiges of liberalism on their first day in office. I just encountered this on another site where several people were say they can't vote for any GOP candidate because none are willing to publicly say they would abolish federal unions. Three guesses how many even gave a crap about that issue four years ago.
tryanmax, I run into that all the time. It strikes me as either a mental defect in the thought process or it's someone who actually is looking to avoid responsibility for acting while simultaneously trying to convince themselves that they are morally superior.
People are different. They don't all agree. It would be great if we could get everyone to agree to at least a certain set of basic beliefs, but they won't, and you can't force them. So any law or theory that doesn't recognize that reality is flawed from the outset -- and frankly usually becomes the basis for tyranny... I'm going to force everyone to be good!
Good point too about these people not caring about the issue a couple years ago. It's the same way I've seen some Perry people recently say "if he doesn't win the nomination, then I'm not voting." Uh... you seemed happy to vote for others before he jumped in? Should I believe your suddenly absolutist change of heart or should I just think you're throwing a tantrum?
Post a Comment