The US elections in November, 2010.

[Warren Dew]

The implications of the Tea Party are scary, and not even fully understood by anyone.

Well, they're not understood by anyone who gets their information from the press, anyway. That's only because the press is primarily there for entertainment rather than information, so they pick out weirdest sound bites and quote mines they can.

A few people are starting to get it, though. Here's a columnist that gets it, in a column entitled, "It's the Spending, Stupid":

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 76476.html

Back in April, the New York Times/CBS did a poll of tea party supporters. When asked, "What should be the goal of the Tea Party movement," 45% said, "Reduce federal government." That is, cut spending. Everything else was in single digits.

In other words, reducing the size of the federal government is five times as important to the Tea Party folks as any other issue. That's what the movement is about.

Since the Democrats are all about big government, that's obviously why they're scared of the Tea Party. And here's an article that shows why the Republican establishment is scared - basically, because the Tea Party candidates oppose corporate welfare:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

But amid that support, some executives and lobbyists say they are growing spooked by the populist rhetoric they are hearing from some tea-party Republicans.

Some candidates have said they want to take aim at a $30 billion annual package of tax breaks for a range of businesses—among them Wall Street firms, the timber industry, fast-food restaurants and the owners of NASCAR racetracks....

Also in the line of fire are ... the Wall Street and auto-industry rescues ...

"They may view some of the tax incentives as some type of corporate welfare," said Trent Lott, the former Senate Republican Leader and now a lobbyist....

Congress is also scheduled to take up a multibillion-dollar farm bill in 2011 that includes expensive subsidies for crops and farmers. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Senate candidate who was backed by the tea-party movement, has been critical of farm subsidies.

Apparently it's "populist" not to support handouts to banks, the timber industry, fast food restaurants, NASCAR, auto companies, and agribusiness, and to expect those industries to survive by selling good products at a fair price. That certainly explains why Tea Party candidates get so little money from businesses:



Now, it's true that the Tea Party isn't averse to bringing in Ms. Palin when it's useful to get the votes she brings on their side. The truth is, though, Palin doesn't represent Tea Party views much, if at all - the fact that she endorsed McCain, the ultimate big government, establishment Republican, shows that.

[Coito ergo sum]

If Reagan performed 'better than expected' then my god America must have been an incredibly depressing place.

Reagan actually did a great job as President, and was wildly popular, winning in one of the biggest landslides ever when he ran for his second term in 1984.

Lots of silly myths grew up about Reagan, though, that must be taken with a grain of salt. The liberal opposition,naturally, lampooned him as stupid, ignorant and bumbling. He was anything but that. We can take that with a grain of salt, just by thinking about how liberals portray EVERY Republican candidate and President. They are ALL stupid - as far back as Eisenhower, the liberal Democrats have painted Republicans as dumb. There is literally one exception. Nixon - and he was Lex Luther. Eisenhower was dimwitted (that can be googled) - Ford was, despite his marvelous life's accomplishments, a dumbass clutz. Reagen was an idiot. Bush the first was a dimwitted clown. Dole was senile, as was McCain, and well, we all know that Bush was the "stupidest President ever," (supposedly scientifically proven). After a while, the mantra becomes tedious.

They painted him to be a warmonger, who supposed wanted more nukes in the world. Nothing is further from the truth. He worked very hard with the Soviets to negotiate reductions and even the elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, he did not succeed. But, many close to him have reported that his greatest desire was to see the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

[Coito ergo sum]

Regarding the Tea Partiers. I am all for spending reductions. 100%. That's what should be done in a recession - eliminate unnecessary programs. Break it down simply - when a family has reduced income, they start cutting things out -- reduce or eliminate the cable bill - reduce the cell phone plan and be careful about usage - stop going out to dinner and the movies - eat more "staple" foods like rice, beans, potatoes - buy some foods in bulk to save money - reduce gasoline expenses if possible. I.e., when you're income goes down, your expenses should go down.

The government, however, seems to take the opposite tact. In a family of 300,000,000, the government says, when our income goes down, we need to spend more money and go deeper into debt. It doesn't work.

There are things, of course, that the government can spend money on to help the economy - money spent to bolster heavy industry, manufacturing base, technology base, science base, create projects (like an energy development project or manned space missions) that private industry can't do on their own. But, these expenditures need to be done within the budget, not over and above the budget.

Yes, when a family of 5 has a reduction in income, money needs to be spent to create opportunities for the income earners to earn more income, right? But, that doesn't mean you spend into extreme debt. You target spending to things that actually will create income streams down the line, and you cut other spending to pay for it.

We have an economic philosophy now that amounts to "we lose money on every unit we make and sell, but we make up for it in volume..."

The reason I can't get behind many of the Tea Party candidates, however, is that they seem to be hijacked by the religious right. This O'Donnell is just not someone I could even vote for, so I'm glad I'm not in Delaware. The choice is between a religious person who thinks male masturbation means that there is no need for a woman in the relationship, and a former self-avowed Marxist, tax/spend Democrat. I probably wouldn't vote, or would just vote for a third party candidate.

Then there is Rand Paul, the objectivist libertarian who somehow can square that with being pro life even in the case of rape and incest. I don't get it. How? Ayn Rand was pro choice and an atheist, and libertarians are pro choice. Rand Paul is pro Life and nobody calls him on it?

Palin is too religious also, and not well read or educated.

But, the appeal of these folks, IMHO, is precisely that. There are many folks out there who respond to arguments about Palin and O'Donnell and how uneducated they are with, "what do you want? another Harvard or Yale egghead to screw things up?" -- A HUGE portion of the population don't view Harvard and Yale law degrees as positive attributes in terms of competence, and a good percentage of the population view them as folks who may be "book smart" but don't know how the world works in real life. That's a big part of what we're seeing today, IMHO. While most atheists view multiple degrees, JD's, PhD's, LLMs, MS's and all sorts of advanced degrees as demonstrating intelligence and education which translates into a presumption of higher competence, the average Tom, Dick and Harry, often view that kind of advanced education as being held by "the boss's kid" who comes to work and can be incompetent without any accountability....

[Warren Dew]

The reason I can't get behind many of the Tea Party candidates, however, is that they seem to be hijacked by the religious right.

While true, this doesn't distinguish them from party line Republicans - or from more and more Democrats, these days. Virtually all Republicans these days are antiabortion, for example. We've just been hearing it more recently because it's more important to the Republicans during primary season - and because it makes for more interesting sound bites than things like cutting agricultural subsidies.

What they actually emphasize once they're in office is another story.

[Coito ergo sum]

The reason I can't get behind many of the Tea Party candidates, however, is that they seem to be hijacked by the religious right.

While true, this doesn't distinguish them from party line Republicans - or from more and more Democrats, these days. Virtually all Republicans these days are antiabortion, for example. We've just been hearing it more recently because it's more important to the Republicans during primary season - and because it makes for more interesting sound bites than things like cutting agricultural subsidies.

What they actually emphasize once they're in office is another story.

I know. That's why I can't be a Republican. The moderates, the socially laissez-faire, Republicans have been silenced by "God is my copilot" Republicans.

[Coito ergo sum]

Stop it with the winking!!!!



I'm really sick of the winking politicians. Palin perfected it and now it's spreading. I think it's that "we've got 'em now" wink wink...sentiment that they're trying to sell....

[drl2]

[Warren Dew]

The moderates, the socially laissez-faire, Republicans have been silenced by "God is my copilot" Republicans.

I think a lawmaker can have strong personal views and still be "socially laissez-faire" in their lawmaking. Reagan, for example, was personally antiabortion but made Supreme Court appointments based on qualifications rather than specific views, and didn't seem fazed when that ended up adding a strong defender of abortion to the Supreme Court.

In that regard, here's what Christine O'Donnell has to say about her personal social views not affecting how she would do her job:

"Yes, I have my personal beliefs," she said when asked about her views [on morality]. "These are questions from statements I made over 15 years ago. I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my newfound faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured. And when I go to Washington D.C., it will be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs."

Now if her opponent would put his Marxist views behind him in the same way, I'd feel a lot better.

O'Donnell does need to learn how to do a proper wink, though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Go Bull Moose Tea Bag Party. The Dems are counting on you again!

[drl2]

Now if her opponent would put his Marxist views behind him in the same way, I'd feel a lot better.

"Marxist" was a label his conservative friends gave him when his political leanings started to deviate slightly from theirs. He's jokingly referred to himself as a Marxist in the past on a few occasions, but he's hardly run New Castle County as a people's commune. In fact, he's been criticized for being too loose on enforcement of zoning regulations, etc. when private companies stand to lose profits.

[Randydeluxe]

“American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.”

-- Christine O’Donnell, as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, 2007

"I dabbled into witchcraft -- I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. ... I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. [...] One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. ... We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/201 ... led-i.html

[drl2]

The Alaska senate race just got more complicated (and less likely to end in victory for the right): Murkowski is using her substantial resources to run a write-in campaign.

[maiforpeace]

What policies the Tea Party backs should come as no surprise, considering who is bankrolling them.

The billionaire Koch brothers: Tea Party puppetmasters?

All those poor and middle class idiots who support the Tea Party have been sold the illusion by people like the Koch Brothers, that the American dream is something still within their grasp.

“American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.”

-- Christine O’Donnell, as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, 2007

"I dabbled into witchcraft -- I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. ... I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. [...] One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. ... We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/201 ... led-i.html

Bill Maher ripped her a new asshole last night...he said the only difference between her and Sarah Palin is that Christine isn't a bitch like Sarah.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Montana GOP policy: Make homosexuality illegal

[Gawdzilla Sama]