You cannot be serious..... the first time they see your old, wrinkled asses discuss your love of John C. Calhoun and how civil rights should be "optional" you will be outed.... doesn't even touch on issues like abortion rights, woman's rights, same-sex/alternative life style rights or the obvious racial strain that flavors everything the Tea Party touches.......
A pithy reply to the epic stupidity displayed in your post would be wasted simply because your comprehension level is so shallow.
Tea Party was a response to TARP/stimulus/Obamacare, not social issues. taxes/spending/debt/government expansion are the focus
Perhaps, but then shouldn't they have had a problem with Bush? TARP and the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 were signed by him. Not to say they all think the same way, but the Tea Partiers didn't develop their rage over stimulus and TARP until after Obama's election, and they never really blamed Bush as far as I know. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/04/tea_party_and_george_bush
thumbs, While the tea parties may not be Republican or Libertarian they are clearly conservative. Could you please explain how the Democratic party (the liberals on the far left or those closer to the middle) would sympathize with any of your proposed policy changes? Do you know any tea party members that consistently vote democrat? Tactically, I think Commodore is correct. The only way to win is by (conservatives) being aligned. In the coming months you'll probably find that the right is far more fragmented than the left. Liberals are fairly unified on most issues at the federal and state levels and that's neither positive or negative. It is, however, good for winning elections.
I would agree with some of your evaluation of how the TEA Party began (with TARP, not the other garbage, the TEA Party was originally a Ron Paul brainchild, focused entirely on TARP), but if you visit any TEA Party website or message board, the social issues have become just as important.
To be fair not all Tea Partiers think that way but much of the Tea Party rhetoric is dominated by that and things like that and this: Republicans used to talk about liberals having a Bush Derangement Syndrome and it is clear that Tea Partiers have Obama Derangement Syndrome worse. That alone will keep them from getting Democratic support. I imagine that if a Tea Partier just stuck with the argument that government is too intrusive and there is too much surveillance they could make some headway at a Democratic caucus but once they start talking about how "Obama is deliberately creating a permanent welfare class" I think that will pretty much doom any shot.
There are a great many moderate to conservative Democrats who are increasingly uncomfortable with Obama and his ever growing numbers of "gates." These are the very ones who can be channeled back into areas where they can become allied with the principles of most, if not all, tea parties. You may be too young to remember when Texas had two Democratic parties -- the John Connally Democrats (moderately conservative) and the Ralph Yarborough Democrats (moderately to wildly liberal). Many of the Connally Democrats did not immediately follow him into the Republican party but continued to support him. IMO the same is true today. There are enough of these middle Democrats who can turn the tide against Chicago (read criminal) politics through an alliance with middle Republicans, middle Libertarians and tea parties.
Not going to happen...... too many differences, especially on social issues... abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, etc. I appreciate your zeal, and maybe you prove me wrong, but I am confident you will not.
You conveniently dodged my question about specific Obama policies that are "to the left of LBJ" earlier in this thread. Your answer below still ignores the question: You still haven't provided specifics about how Obama is "to the left of" Johnson. Disregard LBJ's "compassion" and tell me how he saw fit to lift people from the evil of poverty. Hint: it wasn't through free markets. Please point to specific Obama policies that seek to move America to the left of what LBJ envisioned. Facts will help you here, not buzzwords ending in "-gate." Regarding your hypothetical voting bloc, it's more mythical than anything. Yes, there used to be a relatively diverse Democratic party in Texas that saw an exodus to the Republican party. It also happened throughout the American South and created the electoral lines you see today. There is no horde of voters voting in Democratic primaries that is looking for a reason to jump ship to the Republican party - that happened decades ago.
Are you trying to accuse me of pulling a Kathleen Sebelius on you? Or do you mean Hillary Clinton? Or do you do mean Eric Holder? Or do you mean ....
Good timing. In the wake of the Cruz disaster, I decided to switch sides too. I was embarassed for my state. Living in Texas, my votes never really count for anything in statewide elections, and Cruz's default stunt after a narrow primary victory highlighted how dangerous it is to leave Texas primaries to the Republicans and Teapartiers. So, I'm going to start voting in Republican primaries for the lesser of evils. I welcome thumbs' call for Teapartiers to vote in Democratic primaries. In Texas, it usually doesn't matter who wins those anyway. And, it'll eliminate all those voters from the Republican primary, making my own vote there that much stronger.
This is a really good question and deserves an answer. Here's my take: 1. The Tea Party aren't the policy wonks the Libertarians are. Not that all Tea Partiers are low information voters or that all Libertarian voters aren't but there is a gap. 2. Libertarians are way less socially conservative and way less religious. Many are pro-choice and many if not most are non-religious. 3. When Libertarians talk about cutting government, the Dept. of Defense is one of the first things on the list. They also advocate for non-interventionism. The Tea Party would froth at the mouth at that. 4. The LP argues it's views often to empty rooms and Cato Institute meetings, some of it intriguing and thought-provoking, some of it crackpot. The Tea Party wears 3 cornered hats and hold signs that are often mispelt and shouts a lot. 5. The LP looks at Goldwater and the Austrian School as prophets of a magical ethical capitalism without regulation. The Tea Party celebrates Palin and Cruz as prophets of a magical Protestant Jesus, talking 'bout the End Times Coming. 6. The Tea Party rails against a perceived slight of elitism by the establishment. Libertarians are by their very ideology, elitists who are annoyed that the establishment "just doesn't get it." 7. The Tea Partiers are a modern incarnation of the know-nothing populist culture that has always existed in America. They are alienated by the changing demographics of the US and the economic panic of the globalized world and the end of the gravy train. Libertarians, for all I like and don't like about them, come from a very different political tradition. If they had their way, their foreign policy would be even more offensive to the right than Dennis Kucinich's. They have some things in common, but in the rest of the democratic world, these common causes would be alignedby coalition building in a legislative session (as they should be), and not in primary season to choke out dissenting voices, which creates a stagnant political climate and a very poor quality of debate of public policy. 8. There probably should be at least 8 political parties fighting for the votes of every government, and I've done my best to vote outside party lines for candidates with good ideas, but generally, if you live in a Republican district, it's going to be a Republican, and if you live in a Democratic district, it's going to be a Democrat that wins election.
