Why O won and R lost?

[iris lily]

No. Not that I know of. I just had to call it something.

Tea Partiers were about taxation and small government. I think it dilutes their message to ascribe other positions to them. Gregg, come 'n join us in the Tea Party world, don't let Univision define who the Tea Partiers are! haha. Labels I don't mind, but I won't let the dominent mainstream liberal media define the political platform of the Tea Party.

I found this website with may or may not capture the ideas of most Tea Partiers. It's hard for me to believe that you wouldn't agree with these:
This is long so I'll just list the main points:


http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

Ten Core Beliefs of the Modern-Day Tea Party Movement


“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.”

Abraham Lincoln


Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence

[The Storyteller]

I can see that whatever gas you're using to inflate yourself is having a predictable effect.

Guess this guy is, too...

http://www.examiner.com/article/do-y...ls-were-skewed

"Likewise, the polling numbers they produced going on that assumption turned out to be right and my “unskewed” numbers were off the mark."

[flowerseverywhere]

interesting article about Newt Gingrich

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...-election.html


"Gingrich admitted, "I was wrong last week, as was virtually every major Republican analyst. And so, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'If I was that far off, what do I need to learn to better understand America.'"

[Zoebird]

The Tea Party originated in the socially progressive libertarian movement, was then co-opted by theocons (which is why it gets confused that direction). Here's a paper on it by the Cato Institute (link). *hammer meet nail*

THe only problem is that while they do push libertarian interests in the party, they are both A. not traditional republicanism (so one wonders how long it will last), and 2. it has been largely picked up by socially conservative (theocon) people in the party (I cannot consider Palin a "moderate" no matter how hard she's cast that way).

Most libertarians whom I know who were involved in the pre-GOP tea-party movement are no longer aligned because of it's new alignment with the theocon agenda. They cannot abide by that ideology, so as far as they are concerned, their activity is dead, even though the basic ideas from libertarian were carried over. Once you then divorce it from the socially progressive (liberal) stance, it's no longer fully libertarian.

In terms of republicans in person, my example is not an isolated incident.

You see, the discussion here is about why Republicans have a bad wrap. They have it for a lot of reasons. One is the problem of their media. Guys like Rush and O'Reilly do not help their image of hateful, wealthy white guys.

Another problem is many of the leaders whom they put forward. Palin is not a moderate. She is a theocon who now also adopts libertarian fiscal ideology. Many of the senators and representatives own statements were not "moderate" -- they are very clear that they want to inhibit access to birth control, abortion, and other elements that affect women (such as equal pay for equal work legislation). They are also very clear at their very un-moderate stances on civil rights for all citizens, particularly homosexual ones.

Finally, a lot of problem are people my friend. I cannot extrapolate her out to the whole party, no. But, my family is republican (including my extended family), and most of my friends from highschool and below and their families are republican, while my friends from university and beyond are mostly liberal (some are libertarians). Like bae desccribed (around here somewhere), i got involved in the local party in PA, and was systematically marginalized through really bad behavior (same happened over at the dems, btw).

Nearly all of them pick up on one or more theocon or neocon agenda and mix it with a (very basic) tea party approach. I notice, for example, that none of them even know of the tea party's libertarian roots, that they reject Ron/Rand Paul (who are clearly libertarian), and they even reject (in the case of my sister and BIL, who say that they are "squarely in the tea party") the papers of the Cato instistute as "too extreme" when they hold to the very ideas of the tea party!

Likewise, to a one of them, they picked up on and held to positions of extremists -- theocon agendas in terms of rape/abortion and birth control; neocon agendas around military interventionism, and of course, extreme positions on Obamacare, not to mention the whole "ruining America" memes that were out there.

Then, when you quite literally just post facts -- i'm not talking opinion papers from liberal organizations but *facts* such as relevant laws, the original research papers providing the statistics that they are using (and often misconstruing), then you get attacked as "ultra liberal" and "ruining America" and so on.

In my experience, the party is in a state of crisis. This added layer now of "delusional math" or whatever you might want to call it (or how they got snookered by consultants?) certainly shows a further disregard for reality, which is not a moderate position.

I truly believe that in order for the republican party to have any forward momentum, they're going to have to jettison the theocons, identify what i the libertarian movement actually speaks to them, re-adopt traditional republicanism, and -- if they are truly smart and want to rescue this country from the financial cliff -- let go of military interventionism as a policy.

They need to step back into their (relatively) socially progressive ideologies of traditional republicanism, return to isolationist and fiscal responsibility values and actions, and return to the dialogue about what the federal government should be and what also the state governments should be.

Unfortunately, you bring up that the party should return to being it's normal, moderate self, and people say that you don't understand what a republican is.

Oh, i'm sorry, I was just reading about the history and origins of the party, the various social movements involved, and how it all fits together. my bad.

[Zoebird]

by the by, traditional republicanism really is truly moderate, with just a different POV of how governance should run. likewise, traditional democrats are moderate with a different POV than republicans of how governance should be run.

libertarianism is -- while liberal -- a relatively extreme position, which is why i'm surprised it has any voice within the republican party. back in 2000 and 2008 when Paul was running, I remember telling my dad "Paul's ideas are interesting." My dad, a solid neocon (every once in a while getting caught in theocon flap), looked at me straight and said "Paul is an extemist, right-wing nut."

Now, my dad, like my BIL and sister, are all "tea party supporting republicans" but they still tell me that Paul is an extremist nut. I point out the origins of the tea party is libertarianism (and thereby most closely aligned with Paul's politics, and if they were truly into those ideas, then they would support Paul).

I don't really understand how this shakes out in practice. My family *adores* palin (and also mccain, who is a moderate), is so-so on romney (felt he was better than the others, but liked santorum), and hates paul.

Yet, paul is the most consistent politician for his constituency, consistently voting exactly as he says he is, direct and honest about his positions on these matters, and clearly aligns with libertarianism without apology or hiding it in any way, shape or form.

So why is he this bad guy that so many tea-party folks consider a "nut?" It makes no sense to me.

I think you either like these ideas or you don't. I feel that most of the GOP just gives lip service to these ideas, or they would have nominated Paul.

[The Storyteller]

interesting article about Newt Gingrich

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...-election.html


"Gingrich admitted, "I was wrong last week, as was virtually every major Republican analyst. And so, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'If I was that far off, what do I need to learn to better understand America.'"

Well at least the leaders see it. Perhaps the followers will follow in due time.

[Zoebird]

Here's a great article. Tea Partiers believe Romney lost because he was "too moderate."

These tea partiers are the theocon kind, not the libertarian kind.

[Gregg]

These tea partiers are the theocon kind, not the libertarian kind.

Yea, that's kind of what I've run across, too. If they would stick to Iris' list I'd bring cookies to their bake sale.

[iris lily]

...
I truly believe that in order for the republican party to have any forward momentum, they're going to have to jettison the theocons, identify what i the libertarian movement actually speaks to them, re-adopt traditional republicanism, and -- if they are truly smart and want to rescue this country from the financial cliff -- let go of military interventionism as a policy.

I would completely agree with all of that in general and probably in most supportive details.

As an aside I certainly don't consider Sarah Palin moderate and am not sure who you think is pushing that label on her. It's news to me that Sarah Palin now wants to be considered moderate, I would think she'd find that a negative label. But then, I have a hard time speaking for other people although most of those who participate on this politics board do not.

They need to step back into their (relatively) socially progressive ideologies of traditional republicanism, return to isolationist and fiscal responsibility values and actions, and return to the dialogue about what the federal government should be and what also the state governments should be.

Oh yay, I like that too!

[Zoebird]

I was responding to Gregg's statement that it is moderate candidates who come to the fore in the party, but there are several candidates (most of whom were removed in this current congressional election) who were actually not at all moderate. So, just asserting that several -- even if not a majority -- of high-profile republicans are not moderates. And, i don't think they want to be considered moderates either.