Congratulations, Commodore. You have managed to illustrate perfectly what is wrong with American politics today, and what has been wrong with American politics for the last several years.
Infrastructure? Bahahahahahahahahahaha. I have only contempt for the Tea Party, but they and the other far right groups have built a better infrastructure in 3 years what the Libertarians couldn't do in 30. The Libertarian Party has no infrastructure worth speaking of to begin with.
I've often considered myself a social liberal and financial conservative so this idea that Tea Party principals could resonate the moderate democrats has some merit, in a bizarre alternate universe. It won't happen in our current climate and there are two key problems I'll point out in your own commentary. #1: This hard-on the right has against Obama will not translate. Democrats don't feel Obama is extreme left. Many Dems feel, if anything, he isn't left enough. So if ya'll want to appeal to the left, ya'll have to stop telling the left that we are "lefties". Ya'll have to stop using the term "liberal" as if it's a derogatory term. You have to stop calling us communists and fascists. And for God's sake, stop making Hitler comparisons (until Obama actually starts executing people). #2: Tea Party has not been a movement of moderation. In fact, Carl Rove saw it as an opportunity to further his strategy of "wedge politics". It's designed for gridlock. I'll add #3 which there are currently too many racists in the Tea Party movement. At least that's the perception. No self respecting democrat would be associated with the current state of affairs. If the Tea Party can overcome those 3 problems, then maybe it can make inroads with the moderate Democrats. So basically, it's not gonna happen.
The question remains: If the tea party is about small government and the constitution, the party was already there in place. They could simply call themselves libertarians. In fact, let's just add that very pertinent question: if the Tea Party is just about small government and the constitution, why didn't they just call themselves libertarians and join the libertarian party? If these new groups built such great infrastructure so quickly, it would have been even easier to do with an already established party whose values match EXACTLY what thumbs claims them to be.
nothing wrong at all Very little gets done because there is very little overlap about what should be done. Gridlock makes total sense. To get things done requires a larger electoral coalition.
The Libertarian party doesn't run candidates in primaries? That's news to me. They haven't only been putting up presidential candidates all these years, if that's what you're saying. Back when the people cried in uproar over big government, why didn't they all register with the Libertarian party? For the voter whose primary focus is small government and the constitution, the Libertarian party is exactly where you should focus your energy. Why not simply call yourself libertarian? Nothing wrong with that.
No, libertarians should run in GOP primaries (see Rand Paul and Justin Amash). Otherwise you split the "more limited government than the Democrat" vote in the general election and get the worst of all outcomes. If there were a runoff system, voting 3rd party would make more sense.
Your primary mistake here is in thinking that members of tea parties will go into the Democratic primaries identifying themselves as tea partiers. We will keep our affiliation to ourselves while not compromising our principles. A killer whale rather easily can tip an ice floe to make a seal slide into its jaws, but a seal on an iceberg is safe. Primaries are like ice floes while elections are like icebergs. The time to get those leftist seals is now.
You mean other than being on the ballot in all 50 states, running candidates in many different state races all over the country, having an actual political convention to nominate their candidates, etc., right?
Okay, there must be something I'm missing here- I'm not talking about running third party, I'm talking about running fourth party- the Tea Party. If the Tea Partiers are truly about small government and the constitution, whey didn't they just align with the Libertarian Party which represents exactly those values, and as Gladio has pointed out, runs candidates in all 50 states for years and years now? Why split that vote?
Of course. Many of us are not necessarily Republicans, Libertarians or Democrats. Party affiliation is strictly up to the individual even though the collective mindset of the tea parties may be somewhat aligned.
I didn't understand that you were asking whether I am a Libertarian. I am not because, although I adhere to most Libertarian principles, there are areas where I am not comfortable. For example, Libertarians would allow the use of any form of drug even though it harms the individual. Addictive behavior ultimately becomes the burden of society so it requires civil laws to keep its use under control. Another example -- and this is sure to shock you and a wide range of other posters -- is the Libertarian belief that there should be no social net to protect the poor and elderly. Whereas I believe that the Obama-ites have pushed the idea of government welfare for all people much to far, public assistance is not, for me, unacceptable. Simply put, I am much closer to Libertarianism that I am to the Far Left's statist principles of redistribution of wealth and constant surveillance of the populace.
NSA surveillance for sure. Wyden and Merkley come easily to mind. who can forget? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/politics/02cnd-patriot.html
