Author Topic: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?  (Read 13204 times)

Desertdog

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,360
Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« on: April 25, 2009, 10:07:05 PM »
This is the only way they will start listening to the voters, vote them out.  We can start in 2010 and finish in 2012.  We need the TEA Parties at least twice a year for the fore-seeable future.

Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
Polls show bailout madness serious threat to GOP incumbents
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96019

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Crowds have long protested Congress with rally cries of "Throw the bums out," and if recent polls tabulating tea party furor over government spending translate to votes in 2010, angry Americans may make good on their mantra.

Polls released by Rasmussen Reports this week demonstrate that – at least within the Republican Party – sitting incumbents who vote for increased government, taxes and federal bailouts risk voter backlash in the next election.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., for example, is one of only three Republicans in Congress to vote for President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. According to a Rasmussen poll released this morning, the 28-year senator now trails his 2004 GOP primary rival Pat Toomey in the polls by 21 points: 51 percent of Pennsylvania Republicans say they'd vote for Toomey in a 2010 primary, while just 30 percent would support Specter.

A separate Rasmussen poll demonstrated that 58 percent of Specter's Republican constituents cited his support of the stimulus package as reason for their waning support.

When asked in December about a possible challenger in the 2010 election, Specter told CNN's "Late Edition," "I never look over my shoulder, never look behind. Somebody may be gaining on me. I run with blinders. I'll be prepared, whoever my opponents are."

If Specter continues to vote in favor of increased government spending, however, his most troubling opponents in 2010 may not be from the Republican or the Democratic Party, but from the "tea" parties.

As WND has reported, on or around April 15, citizens gathered in nearly 2,000 U.S. cities to issue a coast-to-coast protest of increased government control, taxes and spending. More than 350 "tea party" protests are planned again for Independence Day."

"We are leading a revolution, and this is the first day of that revolution," Sacramento tea party organizer Mark Meckler said before the crowd that gathered at the California capitol. "Politicians will no longer be able to divide our nation. They are taking our money, and we aren't going to stand here and take it anymore."

WND's Chelsea Schilling was at the Sacramento rally, reporting on the "sea of red, white and blue U.S. flags waved above a large crowd that surrounded the building and spilled into city streets."

"We've had it!" Meckler shouted. "We're tired of being punished by politicians!"

According to Schilling, the crowd cheered wildly and drowned out Meckler's voice, chanting, "Vote them out! Vote them out!"

According to the Rasmussen polls, it's a chant Republican incumbents in particular need to heed.

In Specter's state, the poll found that 79 percent of Pennsylvania Republicans have a favorable opinion of the tea parties, and 30 percent knew someone personally who attended. Overall, 82 percent of Pennsylvania Republicans agree with the partiers that the federal government has too much money and too much power.

Nationally, Rasmussen reports that 51 percent of all Americans view the tea parties favorably, while 33 percent view them unfavorably. Among Republicans, however, the number climbs to 83 percent favorable.

Rasmussen also created a unique distinction in polling numbers by separating results into "Mainstream" voters and "Political Class" voters, which produces an even more dramatic referendum on the tea parties.

Rasmussen poll respondents were categorized Mainstream if their answers to three questions indicate that they trust the judgment of the public more than political leaders, view the federal government as a special interest group and believe that big business and big government work together against the interests of investors and consumers. Political Class respondents answered in the opposite of Mainstream views.

According to Rasmussen, the Mainstream perspective is generally shared nearly equally across the spectrum by Democrats, Republicans and affiliated respondents. Polls further indicated that 55 percent of Americans are Mainstream and only 7 percent fall into the Political Class; when "leaners" are included, 75 percent lean toward the more populist views and 14 percent lean the other way.

When examining the tea party movement in those terms, not only do Mainstream Republicans overwhelmingly back the tea party protests, but Rasmussen also discovered that 54 percent of Mainstream Democrats held a favorable opinion as well.

Furthermore, when separating the tea party gatherings themselves out of the equation, Rasmussen discovered Americans overwhelmingly support the protesters' ideals of smaller government, lower taxes and less federal spending.

According to a Rasmussen poll earlier this week, 60 percent of Americans agree that the government has too much power and too much money. Among Republicans, 88 percent agree, while 62 percent of unaffiliated respondents and 35 percent of Democrats agree.

When factoring in the divide between Mainstream and Political Class respondents, however, Rasmussen discovered that a whopping 85 percent of Mainstream Americans – regardless of political party affiliation – agree with the common tea party protest that the government has too much power and too much money.

Are you planning a tea party? WND is your place to launch the tea party revolution. If you would like to include your tea party in our list, send the city, date, time, location and point of contact to WND.


vaskidmark

  • National Anthem Snob
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,799
  • WTF?
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 10:19:05 PM »
Whoopy!  We're going to throw out a few RINOs?  But only after we hold elections.  And how will that improve the country?

As much as I do not generally advocate unlawfullness or mayhem for the sake of mayhem (was that a tautological redundancy?) I think that the politicritters are not going to get the message until a few examples are ridden around on a rail while wearing just their undies, if not actually wearing tar and feathers.

Being upset and holding orderly elections does not seem to convey the message I think a lot of folks would like to have the politicritters hear and comprehend.  At this point I am a bit short of coming up with anything exceot a weekly effigy parade, and from what I read that might just fall under some of the new "hate crime" laws that have been passed.

Anybody else think they have a workable suggestion?

stay safe.

skidmark
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

Hey you kids!! Get off my lawn!!!

They keep making this eternal vigilance thing harder and harder.  Protecting the 2nd amendment is like playing PACMAN - there's no pause button so you can go to the bathroom.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2009, 10:20:36 PM »
Primaries are your friend.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

vaskidmark

  • National Anthem Snob
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,799
  • WTF?
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2009, 10:31:22 PM »
Primaries are your friend.

But they do not have the same satisfying feeling as rails, tar and feathers. ;/

Yes, but with my reputation do you honestly believe anybody would vote for me -- well, except for the crazy people?

stay safe.

skidmark
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

Hey you kids!! Get off my lawn!!!

They keep making this eternal vigilance thing harder and harder.  Protecting the 2nd amendment is like playing PACMAN - there's no pause button so you can go to the bathroom.

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2009, 12:12:34 PM »
Insurgents will have to destroy the Rockefeller wing of the republican party in order to make any meaningful changes.  That means Specter has to go. 
As  does:
--McCain
--and Lugar
--and Graham
--and Snow
--ad nauseum

It also means numerous shining lights of the future have to go, including but not limited to:
--Huckabee
--Jindal
--Barbour
--Jeb Bush
--and others

In short, insurgents will have to move out of the party anyone (I repeat, anyone) beholding for any reason to the eastern republican establishment.  The TEA Party movement will have to get a lot bigger and a heap more aggressive if it is to supplant current money masters.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas

  • Webley Juggler
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,415
  • All I got is a fistful of shekels
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2009, 02:37:48 PM »
Waitone, what are your objections to Jindal & Huckabee? And would you count Romney in your list of people who should go?

taurusowner

  • Guest
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2009, 02:41:15 PM »
I wish there was a way to throw them out and not have anyone replace them for 2 years.  Just have one election cycle where there is no Congress, and see how the nation does with the law we already have, and no more.

Waitone

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,133
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2009, 04:08:36 PM »
Huckabee is a known quantity in Arkansas.  His reputation is that of being entirely too accommodating to the power elites (re: Rockefeller influences).  His campaign manager during the latest election, Ed Rollins, got a load on and said in an unguarded moment that he was paid to bring Huckabee in as a solid second in the republican primaries.  No media outlet has followed up on the comment though is deserves serious investigation in view of the time-honored technique of sponsoring third party candidates as a way to shave votes from a preferred candidate.  In this case Huckabee was targeted on shaving votes from Romney.

I haven't studied Romney's linkages and associations.

Jindal is a Rhodes scholar.  It doesn't bother me that he is a successful egghead.  What bothers me is the fact that he was a concensus nominee to a Rhodes scholarship.  Why worry about Rhodes scholarship?  Because it is not a benign means of financing an advanced education.  Rhodes scholarships were set up by Cecil Rhodes as a way of training future fabian socialists and placing them in places of influence in various western governments.  Is a scholarship recipient a hostage to their education?  Not really, but I've seen enough to rule out any recipient for positions of government.  I've studied under Rhodes scholars.  They are to a man the antithesis of doctrinaire socialists.  However, they come from an ecclesiastical background and opposes the tenents of fabian socialism on religious and doctrinal grounds.  I see no such public opposition from scholarship recipients working in government or into feeder groups into government.

I see none of this claptrap with Palin though I would oppose her if she staffed her campaign and advisers out of the Rhodes stable.  I don't know about Romney.  Barbour is a republican vet--no go.  Graham has evidently been bought off.

I know it leaves me with precious few alternative but at some  point we have to cut our linkages with organizations and ideologies that are evidently at the source of our political woes.

Just my position.  I have no expectations of anyone agreeing with me.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 04:17:26 PM by Waitone »
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
- Charles Mackay, Scottish journalist, circa 1841

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it." - John Lennon

Leatherneck

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,028
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2009, 05:29:44 PM »
Waity, I agree with you, although I take on faith your research into the Rhodes Scholars.

One thing is for sure: if the GOP wants us conservatives back, it's going to have to severely reform. That means tossing anyone with roots or dependencies on the old-school middle-of-the-road types and embracing pure conservatives. I think Sarah qualifies, personally.

One thing I think is wrong is to make religious principles any meaningful part of the future conservative platform. Yeah, yeah--the "religious right" are some of the more reliable core of conservatives. But wouldn't they be even if we banished anything that smacks of religion from the platform?

TC
TC
RT Refugee

Strings

  • APS Pimp
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,195
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2009, 06:55:57 PM »
Hmmm... would it be considered a hate crime" if we paraded through DC with a number of non-descript dummies wearing tar and feathers, with signs saying "we voted for more spending"? Wouldn't be singling out any one legiscritter...
No Child Should Live In Fear

What was that about a pearl handled revolver and someone from New Orleans again?

Screw it: just autoclave the planet (thanks Birdman)

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2009, 11:15:29 PM »
One thing I think is wrong is to make religious principles any meaningful part of the future conservative platform. Yeah, yeah--the "religious right" are some of the more reliable core of conservatives. But wouldn't they be even if we banished anything that smacks of religion from the platform?

TC

Which was the last Dem POTUS elected with a majority of the evangelical Christian vote?  Jimmah Carter.

JC was pro-life, pro-religion, and all that sort of stuff. 

Two generations of Democratic Caseys have been elected in Pennsylvania due to their lack of allergy to religious voters and pro-life positions.

Chuck the holy rollers over the side in a big and showy way, and you can bet they will not come back. 

You want the Republican party to become the powerhouse it was under the leadership of Gerald Ford, Bob Michaels, and Hugh Scott; go right ahead and toss the Christians under the bus.

I'm trying to think of a stupider political play either party could make, but nothing comes to mind. 
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,431
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2009, 01:37:36 AM »
One thing I think is wrong is to make religious principles any meaningful part of the future conservative platform. Yeah, yeah--the "religious right" are some of the more reliable core of conservatives. But wouldn't they be even if we banished anything that smacks of religion from the platform?

jfruser is right, but you're not entirely off-bubble.  The Republican party needs to present a socially-conservative platform, as that resonates with plenty of people who are not even religious.  But the socially conservative positions can and should be presented (and defended) without reference to religion or tradition or even the word "values." *  Like jfruser said, anything that alienates the Religious Right is fail for the Republican Party.   


* Has it not been amusing, in this recent debate over interrogation methods, to discover that Obama and Clinton suddenly give a rip about "our American values"?   :lol: :rolleyes:   
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas

  • Webley Juggler
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,415
  • All I got is a fistful of shekels
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2009, 02:13:35 AM »
Thanks for the reply.
Re: Huckabee as a Romney-killer, I'm not sure. Rollins has had some history with wild remarks - 1993 or so campaign with Christine Todd Whitman, he claimed that he'd gone out bribing black churches. And there's a fun conspiracy theory I found somewhere or other claiming Rollins is an evil genius who likes to sabotage the people he works for from time to time.  

I suppose Huckabee as Romney-killer is plausible. Huckster did get a nice, well-paying gig at Fox... but I don't know if it would've made much difference if he'd never ran in the first place. I suspect the south would've gone solidly for McCain in Huckabee's absence. Romney could've been president of the Southern Baptist Convention and failed spectacularly, due to his stereotype as a "damn banker" type.

The religious right has an issue with being big-government social conservatives. Probably due to the southern influence, which seems to have real issues with "damn bankers." If you could get the religious right to go the small gov't/libertarianish route, you could have something very, very good. But tossing 'em under the bus will send them home, maybe back to the democrat party. That would probably kill the 'solid south' - which means that much more campaigning and millions in advertising dollars to spend.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,431
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2009, 02:50:43 AM »
The religious right has an issue with being big-government social conservatives. Probably due to the southern influence, which seems to have real issues with "damn bankers." If you could get the religious right to go the small gov't/libertarianish route, you could have something very, very good.

What "issue" do we (the RR) have with being big-govt?  In my experience, RR's tend to be more small govt/libertarian than most.  They (those I have met, talked with, heard on radio programs, read on the internet) tend to support gun rights, economic freedoms, etc. 

What exactly do you mean? 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Regolith

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,171
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2009, 03:40:09 AM »
What "issue" do we (the RR) have with being big-govt?  In my experience, RR's tend to be more small govt/libertarian than most.  They (those I have met, talked with, heard on radio programs, read on the internet) tend to support gun rights, economic freedoms, etc. 

What exactly do you mean? 

Gun rights and economic freedoms aren't everything.  The religious right tends to be very intolerant when it comes to social freedoms.  Where the democrats like to attack the second amendment, RR's go after the first.  Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc get attacked under the banner of trying to protect the morals of society.   Then there are things such as gay rights (and marriage), drug use, prostitution, etc, that the RR is almost unanimously against, despite the fact that prohibiting these things are a violation of the freedom of consenting adults.   

The right in this country tends to be pretty good with economic freedoms (except when they abandon their principles after discovering their newfound power, ala. the republican party from 2000-2006), but they are piss poor when it comes to social freedoms, where as the left is completely opposite. They both tend to be statist, where as they see the power of the government as a legitimate tool to fix the ills they believe they see in society.   They just happen to see different "ills" that they believe need fixing.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger

Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2009, 05:07:17 AM »
Also, homeschooling. The RR has often lobbied AGAINST unschooling and  certain other kinds of homeschooling, despite generally being a positive force in that regard.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,431
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2009, 07:43:20 AM »
Sigh.  I don't know why I expected something other than the same recycled half-truth I've heard so many times before.  (though MB's answer is interesting)

Gun rights and economic freedoms aren't everything. 
Well, I didn't say they were; just listing examples.

Quote
The religious right tends to be very intolerant when it comes to social freedoms.  Where the democrats like to attack the second amendment, RR's go after the first.  Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc get attacked under the banner of trying to protect the morals of society.
I don't know, I think that's more stereotype than reality.  I doubt you could get a majority of conservative evangelicals to actually vote for banning porn or requiring students to pray in public schools or whatever. 

Quote
Then there are things such as gay rights (and marriage), drug use, prostitution, etc, that the RR is almost unanimously against, despite the fact that prohibiting these things are a violation of the freedom of consenting adults.   

Some of that is true.  I will point out, however, that opposing homosexual marriage simply means that the relationship is not recognized/regulated by law.  It doesn't inhibit anyone's personal freedom in any way. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2009, 07:58:02 AM »
How is it a 'recycled half-truth' to say that members of the RR oppose legalization of gambling, prostitution, and legal recognition gay marriage? Isn't this what the RR generally opposes? Am I missing something again?

Also, if you want, I will provide you with links to websites that describe the HSLDA's activities and criticism thereof . I haven't honestly researched the issue, so I admit I'm not sure who's in the right here. I do think HSLDA are good guys - they've even given money to homeschooling families in Israel so they can defend themselves in court here, though this is not really part of the HSLDA's mission statement. They're great people.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2009, 11:28:55 AM »
The only "religious" position that has any future for our camp is political liberty, the maximization thereof.  Anything else plays into the hands of the Left.  Consolidation of power, whether statist OR cultural/traditionalist is what we need guard against.  We need to begin to re-define ourselves in terms of the principles we truly consider indispensable.  America is more than a Judeo-Christian nation; it is also Greco-Roman; it is "Viking;" it is also "hermetic."  Therein lie our most important roots.  We need to take liberty where we find it and run with it.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,431
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2009, 01:15:38 PM »
How is it a 'recycled half-truth' to say that members of the RR oppose legalization of gambling, prostitution, and legal recognition gay marriage? 

Because there are more libertarian religious conservatives than you might think.  And because those who aren't quite libertarian, are still not as statist as some people like to think.  And because of the natural human tendency to allow the more extreme elements to color our view of the whole group.  Also because of the nonsense about the "gay marriage" issue being one of "personal freedom."  That, of course, is wholly untrue.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2009, 01:20:28 PM »
Technically, I view 'libertarian conservative' a contradiction in terms. As JF so often educates us, libertarianism and conservatism are only politically compatible, but not philosophically.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,431
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2009, 01:37:52 PM »
Yet there it is.   =)

I guess it might depend on what you call conservatism.  As you know, American politics has a labeling problem.  I call myself a conservative, because I hold most of the views we ascribe to that label, but I think of myself as a - well a - well I don't know. 

Libertarian Constitutionalist?

Modernist (as opposed to post-modernist, trans-nationalist) Liberal? 

I would perhaps use labels like "classical liberal" or "minarchist," but I'm not sure if those fit either. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Leatherneck

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,028
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2009, 04:14:31 PM »
Quote
go right ahead and toss the Christians under the bus.

I'm trying to think of a stupider political play either party could make, but nothing comes to mind. 

Read what I wrote please. I did not advocate throwing anybody under the bus. I advocated not making religion or religious beliefs any part of the platform. A "hands-off" plank if you will.

If we don't do that, it makes it too easy for the liberals and MSM to label us all "religious right."

Just have a platform that is consistent with religious beliefs but doesn't invoke said beliefs as justification.

Oh. And when has the left endorsed anything remotely religious in modern times?

TC
TC
RT Refugee

MikeB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 924
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2009, 05:16:23 PM »
One of the biggest complaints against Bush, fair or not was his "faith". Most of the attacks on Palin involved her "faith". A large part of the reason Perot took 20% of the vote in 1992, was people on the fiscal conservative side sick of holy rollers.

There are an awful lot of what would be classical liberals/libertarians/fiscal conservatives that are not happy with having to kowtow to the religious right. Just saying ...

The Repulican part might want to think about that. Being more open to liberal social issues, such as gambling, drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, porn. Heck let's just be able to buy a car or easily buying a case of beer on Sunday; might really swing voters to the Replucian party. You don't have to approve of these things, you just have to let people that aren't religious have the freedom to do what they want in their own homes, clubs, bedrooms, etc.

FWIW I actually think Palin was unfairly painted about her faith, from what I could find, she didn't govern based on her faith so to speak as the Dems liked to claim. I would probably vote for her, but the fact remains that as long as Republicans continue the course they are on with the religious right controlling a lot of the party planks they will probably continue to lose votes.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,431
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Will tea parties 'throw bums out' in 2010?
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2009, 05:34:20 PM »
Quote
as long as Republicans continue the course they are on with the religious right controlling a lot of the party planks

If they ever did, it's been a long time.  Hint:  Plenty of non-religious people support those planks that you probably think of (incorrectly) as religious issues. 

But you just saw how McCain got trounced, right?  The guy who's biggest issue was earmarks, and who was not known for being especially kind to Jerry Falwell? 

Hint 2:  The holy rollers ARE the fiscal conservatives.  Or at least they're a big chunk of them.  If you want a small-govt. Republican Party, you will need the holy rollers. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife