I would vote for this guy under almost any circumstance, and my inclination is to vote for anyone he might endorse without even checking the facts. I'm THAT starved for someone I can get behind.
Don't confuse things, Major. You are supposed to ignore the legacy of the Bush tax cuts during a war(s), plus, you are supposed to ignore the cost of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, the bulk of the war costs in the graph, as you sing the mantra of how wonderful it would be to replace the "socialist" President Obama with a Republican more in tune to, golly, the Republican Party policies of former President Bush, which that party supported in lock-step, while gleefully cutting those taxes and going "all in" with a war in Iraq we never needed to undertake. Or, you could claim that the "tea party" has its own agenda, one not rooted in the GOP's agenda, and that they seriously think they can elect their own people. Simply select the alternate reality that turns you on and post here about it, as you crank out and exchange e-mails with fellow delusional folks around the country.
I've heard all these things from tea-partiers I've encountered. It's amazing what a little deep-seated racism and some chain emails can do. Looking at you Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the like, not all tea-partiers.
Tea Partiers don't care about facts, they care about poster board signs and Sarah Palin! Plus...these charts are meant only for "elitists" If numbers are involved, a Tea Partier can safely ignore them. Heck, logic in general is for the nerds only.
Reading the replys makes me think of the thread about how you cannot change someones mind about political thinking even if the fact in front of them prove something else. Conservs in the board are basicly saying "SOUR GRAPES" I don tget it. You have a former leading conserv saying that instead of discussing policy and how to work with the Pres., people are out screaming socialist like its the 1950's. If Conservs want to pull in the moderrates, they might want to reel in the nut jobs. AND PLEASE dont say that all Tea party members are not like that. That might be true, but unfortunatly the nut jobs that listen to Ruch and beck are the one that keep getting in front of the camera.
For those of you stating you would vote for this guy, let's not forget he has a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. It just goes to show how fringe the bagger movement has taken the GOP, because this guy is not a moderate by any standard. Admirable on this guy's part to call the baggers out, but it does reek a little of sour grapes.
That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not that conservatives have changed, just what it means to be a conservative has...from the tea party perspective at least.
That actually kind of what I'm saying as well. I've historically considered myself to be conservative, and I guess I still am, but I just can't identify at all with the bigotry and fear-mongering that's so prevalent in the Republican and Tea Parties these days. It's refreshing to hear that there are still rational conservatives out there, but at the same time depressing to see them lose their seats and support base.
Man I saw this on a History channel show and thought how similar it is to some the of the TP posters you see nowadays proclaiming everything is socialist/marxist....
I agree, that's pretty creepy. Rockin' the red/white/blue (because that makes you extra patriotic, right?) while calling people socialists/Marxists/communists...
The thing that really bugs me about when tea baggers scream that Obama is a socialist is that he is not even close to being a socialist. from "Obama's no socialist. I should know" By Billy Wharton, Editor of The Socialist, a bimonthly national publication of the Socialist Party USA. Sunday, March 15, 2009 The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies. The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy. The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it. Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.
