TEA Party members are feared by the Democrats

[Desertdog]

For some reason the Democrats are scared the TEA Party candidates, and the Republican candidates will really become powerful in this election year.  Watch out out for the laws passed between November 2010 and January 2011. 


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/117557-dem-base-told-fear-tea-party

[Scout26]

Once again showing the contrast between the two.  Republicans want to vote for something.  Democrat need a boogieman to vote against.

[RevDisk]

Once again showing the contrast between the two.  Republicans want to vote for something.  Democrat need a boogieman to vote against.

Problem is, Republicans are only vaguely interested in voting for smaller government, civil liberties and fiscally responsible budgets.  The Democrats are at least honest that they don't even vaguely care.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Problem is, Republicans are only vaguely interested in voting for smaller government, civil liberties and fiscally responsible budgets.  The Democrats are at least honest that they don't even vaguely care.

Depends which Repubs you mean.  It's a mistake to think of the Rep Party as monolithic and homogeneous.

[RevDisk]

Depends which Repubs you mean.  It's a mistake to think of the Rep Party as monolithic and homogeneous.

My apologies, you are correct.

"The vastly overwhelming majority of Republican politicians currently holding power either within the upper echelon of their party or US Congress, with a few current exemptions but hopefully more come the next election."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

 

[RevDisk]

Am I wrong?  Mind you, I'm not in any way saying the Dems are better, even though it's my registered party.   I'm very much willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.  I just haven't seen it, and I have been looking.

[Sergeant Bob]

Am I wrong?  Mind you, I'm not in any way saying the Dems are better, even though it's my registered party.   I'm very much willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.  I just haven't seen it, and I have been looking.

Not wrong at all. Even if the Repugs take the House and/or Senate in the coming election, I'm sure they'll fall back to the same old ways that got them into trouble in the first place. Now will come all the argument about how the Pubs are so much different than the Dems.

[AZRedhawk44]

IMO, at this point in the State of our Union, anyone that wants to add a single line to any section of US Code at all, rather than redacting entire lines paragraphs pages chapters, is unfit for office.

I don't see the Republicans heading to The Hill and moving to strike Obamacare in its entirety, nor the various and sundry spending authorizations for either government take-over of certain sectors of the economy, nor the various forms of government subsidizing for pet companies.  They'll "tweak" and "adjust", but they won't go at it with a Red Pen of +5 Charisma.

Frankly, I think they'll "allow" us to opt out at a State level from Obamacare's arguable benefits, but not from the additional taxes or future national debts imposed by Obamacare.  So we get to pay for health care we don't want, as well as health care we do want.

[makattak]

IMO, at this point in the State of our Union, anyone that wants to add a single line to any section of US Code at all, rather than redacting entire lines paragraphs pages chapters, is unfit for office.

I don't see the Republicans heading to The Hill and moving to strike Obamacare in its entirety, nor the various and sundry spending authorizations for either government take-over of certain sectors of the economy, nor the various forms of government subsidizing for pet companies.  They'll "tweak" and "adjust", but they won't go at it with a Red Pen of +5 Charisma.

Frankly, I think they'll "allow" us to opt out at a State level from Obamacare's arguable benefits, but not from the additional taxes or future national debts imposed by Obamacare.  So we get to pay for health care we don't want, as well as health care we do want.

Far be it from me to put anything past the realm of possibilities for the Stupid Partyâ„¢, but they will have a mandate.

Honestly, after the fear of God was just put into McCain and Lindsey #$#%(#&%(#^*(#@^#@%% Graham having a sudden attack of conscience about Grahamnesty amnesty, do you think the Republicans for the forseeable future will do anything but swerve to the right?

Remember what happened after 1994. They may not have passed everything they wanted, but they got it to the floor and voted on everything they promised.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Am I wrong?  Mind you, I'm not in any way saying the Dems are better, even though it's my registered party.   I'm very much willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.  I just haven't seen it, and I have been looking.

Yes, you are wrong.  Very wrong.

Go look up some actual vote tallies for prominent pieces of legislation recently.  Even easier, check out the various ratings done by conservative groups on congrecritters' voting records.  They've done the leg work for you.  The ACU has a pretty good methodology, check it out here:  http://www.conservative.org/congress-ratings

What you'll find is that Repubs tend to vote against liberal bills and for conservative bills by a margin of 5 or 10 to 1.  It's only a few consistent standouts that break the trend (Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, etc).  There really is a big difference between the two parties, both in ideology and in actual voting record.

There's a common misconception about this, arising, I think, from the internet echo chambers.  With the congress divided fairly evenly between Repubs and Dems, a few swing votes from either party determine whether a bill passes, and a small handful of RINOs can make big waves.  When it happens, people falsely blame the entire Rep party for an outcome caused not by the Rep party but by the Dems and those few RINOs.  The blame gets repeated on forums and in blogs, people read it and repeat it over and over again, and pretty soon nobody recognizes that it's completely factually false.  The misconception becomes common knowledge and nobody bothers to check it against the facts.

The biased media play a part in this process, too, by ignoring Repubs who are pushing conservative policies and highlighting Republs who go the liberal way.  Maverick McCain comes to mind here.  And how many people noticed that in the past few months Republicans have been pushing efforts to privatize Medicare and to dissolve Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

The antidote to this misconception is to check the facts.  Look at the actual voting records.  The evidence is there for all to see.

[AZRedhawk44]

What you'll find is that Repubs tend to vote against liberal bills and for conservative bills by a margin of 5 or 10 to 1.

What you WON'T find is the back-hallway wrangling that happens for weeks prior to votes on a bill, that lets everyone know exactly what the vote will be, before the vote is cast.

That way, Repubs can vote "against" something and still have enough defectors in RINO/blueblood areas to get statist objectives successfully implemented.

And they can say that "as a party, we overwhelmingly denounced X bill."

My point is, TEA partiers are every bit as much feared by Repubs, as they are by Dems. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What you WON'T find is the back-hallway wrangling that happens for weeks prior to votes on a bill, that lets everyone know exactly what the vote will be, before the vote is cast.

That way, Repubs can vote "against" something and still have enough defectors in RINO/blueblood areas to get statist objectives successfully implemented.

And they can say that "as a party, we overwhelmingly denounced X bill."

My point is, TEA partiers are every bit as much feared by Repubs, as they are by Dems.  

I suppose you have some evidence to support your assertion that the Rep Party is engaged in this grand statist conspiracy against the nation...?

No?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

There are a lot of back room and hallway deals going down, but there is no vast leftwing conspiracy within the Republican Party.

Sheesh, you're as bad as Hillary.

And FTR, none of the Republicans I work with are afraid of the Tea Parties.  That ranges from precinct people, activists, and volunteers, to a mayor, some county councilmen, a coupla state reps, and one US congressman.  

Most of us are members of both the Rep party and the tea party at the same time.   And no, we don't fear ourselves, either. 

[Waitone]

As a result, each vote is worth four points in the House and four in the Senate.

So all votes are weighed the same.  This would explain how a McCain (lifetime 82%), Graham (90%), Hatch (90%), Lugar (77%) can all claim to be on the conservative side.  I would like to see what the scores are should the ACU weigh each legislation according to constitutional principles.  Senators such as Graham can keep their ACU scores high for the folks back home yet still be a reliable vote for the elite's globalist agenda. 

[roo_ster]

I suppose you have some evidence to support your assertion that the Rep Party is engaged in this grand statist conspiracy against the nation...?

I am not too enamored of McConnell & Boehner Baynard Buhn-yoor the tan one and they have slipped a knife or were ready to slip a knife in the back of the base (and been scared out of it by grass-roots action).

But, they are much better / less bad than the Dems, most times.  Well, except for porking out under GWB, voting for the USA BEND OVER AND TAKE IT BITCH PATRIOT ACT, and a few other messes of pottage they got in exchange for essential liberty.

So all votes are weighed the same.  This would explain how a McCain (lifetime 82%), Graham (90%), Hatch (90%), Lugar (77%) can all claim to be on the conservative side.  I would like to see what the scores are should the ACU weigh each legislation according to constitutional principles.  Senators such as Graham can keep their ACU scores high for the folks back home yet still be a reliable vote for the elite's globalist agenda. 

Yup.

[MechAg94]

What you WON'T find is the back-hallway wrangling that happens for weeks prior to votes on a bill, that lets everyone know exactly what the vote will be, before the vote is cast.

That way, Repubs can vote "against" something and still have enough defectors in RINO/blueblood areas to get statist objectives successfully implemented.

And they can say that "as a party, we overwhelmingly denounced X bill."

My point is, TEA partiers are every bit as much feared by Repubs, as they are by Dems. 

I think even if this were true, you would only be talking about very small numbers such as the few RINO types mentioned above.  Without evidence or at least a rumor, it doesn't mean much.

HTG is very correct in that it is the few people who swing both ways that get all the attention and paint that picture you are seeing.  Those swing voters also tend to get into committee leadership positions since both sides want to please them to insure their vote.  That makes it more difficult.  

The current Republican Minority leaders seem to have done a decent job.  Assuming they become majority leader(s), we'll see if they continue that trend.  

[MechAg94]

So all votes are weighed the same.  This would explain how a McCain (lifetime 82%), Graham (90%), Hatch (90%), Lugar (77%) can all claim to be on the conservative side.  I would like to see what the scores are should the ACU weigh each legislation according to constitutional principles.  Senators such as Graham can keep their ACU scores high for the folks back home yet still be a reliable vote for the elite's globalist agenda. 

I would only say that not everyone defines "conservative" the same way.  As long as they are up front about what they are doing, judge it as you will. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So all votes are weighed the same.  This would explain how a McCain (lifetime 82%), Graham (90%), Hatch (90%), Lugar (77%) can all claim to be on the conservative side.  I would like to see what the scores are should the ACU weigh each legislation according to constitutional principles.  Senators such as Graham can keep their ACU scores high for the folks back home yet still be a reliable vote for the elite's globalist agenda.  

And I bet that if they'd weighted the bills in their scoring, you'd bitch about the weighting being all wrong.

Simply put, for most of these guys the internet hype doesn't don't jive with their actual voting records.  Which should we rely on, the facts or the hype?  Others might try to reject the facts and hold on to the hype.  I prefer to go with the facts.  

YMMV.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

As an example, take McCain's lifetime voting record score.  Most people didn't hardly know who McCain was before the 2000 presidential election, and most people didn't bother to watch his voting record until he was doing his maverick bit in the 2000's trying to poke GWB in the eye.  

McCain now has a rep for being a statist shill all of his career.  But is this warranted?

McCain's actual voting record is out there.  It spans almost 3 decades, all the way back to the Reagan admin.  Go check it out (with an open mind) and decide for yourself.  

[Regolith]

*coughMCCAIN-FEINGOLDcough*

Sorry, the R's might be behaving themselves now, but they sure as hell didn't when they held the majorities in both houses.  I don't really see any reason to think that they will play any differently when they get back INTO the majority.  Some individual members might, but the vast majority will go back to their pork-barrel ways.

At this point, a clean sweep is necessary.

[bedlamite]

At this point, a clean sweep is necessary.

This.

[Sergeant Bob]

*coughMCCAIN-FEINGOLDcough*

Sorry, the R's might be behaving themselves now, but they sure as hell didn't when they held the majorities in both houses.  I don't really see any reason to think that they will play any differently when they get back INTO the majority.  Some individual members might, but the vast majority will go back to their pork-barrel ways.

At this point, a clean sweep is necessary.

What he said.
Yeah, some of the prominent Pubs might vote "conservative" 90% of the time, but are able to screw up the country using just ten percent of their power. They sure like to BS like they are supporters of the Constitution (while they are out of power) but as soon as they get some, they go all McCain/Feingold and Patriot Act on us.

Completely agree on the necessary clean sweep.

[Sergeant Bob]

As an example, take McCain's lifetime voting record score.  Most people didn't hardly know who McCain was before the 2000 presidential election, and most people didn't bother to watch his voting record until he was doing his maverick bit in the 2000's trying to poke GWB in the eye.  

McCain now has a rep for being a statist shill all of his career.  But is this warranted?

McCain's actual voting record is out there.  It spans almost 3 decades, all the way back to the Reagan admin.  Go check it out (with an open mind) and decide for yourself.  

I really don't give a *expletive deleted*it about McCain's record Three Decades Ago! He is a statist shill now, regardless of what kind of noises he makes while he's feeding at the trough.

[Gowen]

Does anyone here have any hope?  The Republicans aren't any good, the democrats aren't any good, those that are elected in November are just future no good rep/dems that won't change the status-quo (sp?).  Some of you almost sound as bad as the frugal squirrel crowd that are just seething for the anarchy to begin.

If we have no hope, what are we left with?  A revolution?  Unless this or any other President calls foreign troops in to keep the peace, armed conflict isn't going to happen.  We have to work very hard to elect that believe in smaller government, personal rights/freedoms, and a free enterprise system.  Before we bash every candidate that we have look at the alternative.  Yes, some people need to go, McCain, Graham, Reid, etc. but we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

[TommyGunn]

Does anyone here have any hope?

No. 










Look, seriously, I prefer the repubs.  They took over kongress in '94 and did great things .... and then went over to the dark side.

So while they may smell better than the dems, the perfume is only .... superficial ....