Yes, because clearly the Tea Party does not care passionately about their view on economics, as the past month demonstrated. And so there's nothing but social and economic issues which will prevent them from becoming good Democrats. I'm glad it's so simple!
It's pretty rock solid logic except for the enormous gap right before a Tea Party candidate wins a Democratic primary. :grin:
You know that and I know that, but I don't know that the tea party knows that. Also if they can get a large enough group of folks to switch maybe they can make a difference.
Though the idea on the surface sounds ludicrous, the original tea partier, George Wallace was an influential member of the Democratic Party in my lifetime. Change is the only constant.
I will say very honestly that I could get behind a rebranded tea party, but the change would be enormous in their case: speaking factual truth to power, divorcing themselves publicly from the Kochs, and rallying to the plight of the average American against the onslaught of our oligarch overlords who own both existing parties. What do you say, thumbs?! :grin:
I largely agree. The Dems are a big tent party. You have corporate Dems and another group who just want to get elected as well as folks who really want to stop the redistribution of money to the one percent. If the big money guys are where it is at they will please them. Hence Obama flirting with cutting social security to please his Wall Street guys or pushing for a secret glorified NATA, the Trans Pacific Partnership which will create more corporate control and move more high wage jobs overseas. We won't have major advances for the poor and middle class till we abolish the nearly open bribery of big money of our politicians. We may also need a return of media fairness laws to accomplish this.
The difference is that their passionate views on economics are based largely on ignorance of economics, so with a bit of exposure to a fuller version or perhaps more likely exposure to reality they can change. Once many of them get access to healthcare and the economy does no collapse and they really don't lose their jobs as they are told over and over, the smarter ones will start to wonder about their economic ideas they are so passionate about. Obamacare and having health care is the type of exposure to reality that they can help them to wake up a bit to the false narratives and fears they have been fed. This is why the fight to keep Obamacare from working is so fierce among GOP politicians. As we see with gays, mar1juana and even race to a certain extent exposure can change their passionately held views.
This is such an incredibly clever political maneuver that I'm sure Democrats will never know what hit 'em. With the Tea Party folks, I haven't seen such sincere heartfelt blind devotion to a harebrained belief system since Squeaky Fromme first blew Charlie Manson.
Obama is a black democrat. it doesn't matter that he isn't an extreme liberal, he is a black democrat. he is gonna be labeled with all types of stereotypes
I say I have to apologize for leaving the thread for so long. I went to a Rockets/Spurs sports bar outing followed immediately by a subdivision mixer. I had to fly up to Dallas Saturday and did not get back until this morning. Church and the Cowboys game at a friend's house consumed my time until now. After this response I have to take my dog to our two-mile jogging trail so he can chase the white cranes. B-Bob, tea parties have never been "political" other than wanting the government to reduce its profligate, wasteful ways, to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, and to increase individual freedom from an ever intrusive federal government. We are perplexed as to why anyone would oppose those goals. Members of the various tea parties across the nation can easily fit under the big tents of either party. We have influenced the Republican Party more because it was in tune, but not completely aligned, with our core causes. Now it is time to try to influence the Democratic Party in the same way. The neighborhood mixer Friday night was a really nice first step. I hope you join the movement toward making the tax code fair by eliminating subsidies of all types (I'm a flat tax guy but that's just me). I hope you will fight with us against the growing threat of government scrutiny into our private lives.
Hey, everyone has too be young and foolish ... kind of like recalling one's first love. One can look back to see the warts but that doesn't diminish the soft feelings. However, the Great Society did not have the same goals as whatever social patchwork Obama's vision is. Obama's goal is to drive as many people as possible into poverty so that he can pit them against the rich. He cites "classes" in society more than any U.S. politician in history. Of course, the super rich (from actors to the moguls who manipulate him) have enjoyed the dividends of supporting him. I agree with glynch in that regard. Johnson actually had compassion for the poor and aging. His goal was to help people out of poverty rather than into it, as per the current administration.
I appreciate your questioning of my logic. I try to provide the reasons for my rationale in a responsible manner, but I can be caustic when certain posters vilify me just because they disagree. It is a failing of mine. Now, you ask if my visceral dislike for Obama is because he isn't white. You could have asked if my dislike is because he isn't brown. Race has nothing to do with it. If Dr. Ben Carson runs for President, I will strongly support him, at this point, because he makes sense and genuinely seems to care about people. Guess what? His racial profile is meaningless. Now, you ask whether I see Obama as taking an extreme leftist shift. No. He has never made a shift to the left. He started on the extreme left and then fell off the deep edge. Read his books, especially "Dreams From My Father" and then examine his mentors and supporters. That alone should sober your view of him. Also, when you examine his policies, from spying on the American people to his attempt to re-distribute "middle class" wealth (not the wealth of the super rich who support him) to create and exploit a new society of crippling poverty. He knows that the strength of America is the moderate middle. By participating in the Democratic Party our goal as tea parties is to slow the party's increasing velocity to the left as well as promote peace between Democrats and Republicans.
That's how I see it, thumbs, but as a Democrat, I'll take any moderates you can point to my party. Good luck finding them!
With all due respect I think you sort of side stepped my question. My point is that his policies and initiatives have not represented a shift to the left for the Democratic Party. I am curious why you see him as radically on the left when I personally see him as another right of center corporate backed Democrat who is too conservative for me to support. I did not mean to assume that you were using his race as a reason for thinking he was of the left -- sorry if it came off that way. But the only difference between Obama and Clinton to me is the color of their skin -- their policies are the same. So I have a hard time understanding why you and others are singling him out as particularly leftist. You mentioned his book and influences. Why don't you explain which of these makes him particularly leftist.Or better yet, looking at his actual policies, what seems so radically leftist to you? Because, from my perspective, he is as right of center as the Democratic party as a whole.
translation: It's annoying that Obama has political opposition with actual power. Why should he have to put up with such an affliction? gridlock is a feature, not a flaw. The whole point of democracy is ideas and interests competing against each other. The founders intended power to be dispersed and difficult to amass. Unity and government marching in lockstep is for totalitarian states. Give me partisanship every time. Almost all laws passed by Congress either take/waste my money or restrict my liberty. The harder that is to do, the better. If Obama wants no opposition he should win some congressional elections.
Completely deranged, dude. If there's any "increasing velocity" going on it's the increasing velocity of Republicans to the extreme right fringe to satisfy vocal Tea Party constituents like you. This whole Obama the extreme liberal is a fantasy. Obama is a moderate Republican dressed up as a Democrat. It's laughable that you think you can somehow inject a vitriolic Tea Party agenda into the Democratic Party. You like to dress down what the Tea Party is about but we see what the Tea Party is about in action in the Congress. There's no confusion what you're about.
For one or two generations now, the Libertarian Party has developed infrastructure and ran numerous credible candidates for state and federal office on exactly these values. Why was a new party necessary?
