Summations Only

Exactly. Which anyone with any sense would have been able to realize up front. When you create a monster, you should not be too surprised when it turns on you.

I'm not sure that the Tea Party can be wholly blamed on the Republican Party.That probably sounds weird at first glance. Allow me to explain, and please, if anyone has better information than I, correct me. This is just my best current understanding of the chain of events that led to the Tea Party caucus.The Tea Party began as a mostly grassroots movement, not terribly different from Occupy in that respect, though with perhaps slightly better coordination. They represented a more fiscally conservative, generally libertarian subset of people who also normally would usually comprise part of the Republican voter base. I remember a strong message to lower taxes and prevent new ones, and I also remember multiple organizational units popping up, each one representing the "Tea Party." Again like Occupy, the whole thing seemed to be herding cats who agreed that mice are tasty and taxes are bad, but there was a large amount of variety outside of that. There were teabaggers who were just racist and didn't want a black President; there were teabaggers who were social as well as fiscal libertarians and didn't oppose gay marriage, etc.Wealthy parties including the Koch brothers took notice of the Tea Party, and began injecting funding and organization...and began shifting the message. Where Occupy has largely fallen apart (though not completely), the Tea Party now had a stronger foundation, not of supporters, per se, but money and organization go a long way.Many of the original Tea Party leaders fell by the wayside, leaving the Koch-funded organizational structure on top. The message became more directed, and activity began to focus on elections. More social as well as fiscal conservatism and indeed fiscal libertarianism, less focus on social libertarianism. At this point the Tea Party began to more resemble the ultra-right-wing of the Republican base, with none of the more moderate factions.If I were an election manager in the Republican National Party, I would have been pretty scared at this point - the Tea Party represented at this point a substantial part of the Republican base, and was focused on a message even further to the right than the Republicans had been used to. There must have been some serious worry about a party split (I recall some speculation on that front in fact). The Republican National Party would have had virtually no choice but to support Tea Party-supported candidates in order to prevent such a split.And so the Tea Party remained a part of the Republican Party, and Republican candidates in many areas shifted further to the right, sometimes harshly.The Republicans remain beholden to the Tea Party because the teabaggers now represent a significant number of their seats in Congress. Much as I dislike Boehner, I don;t think he was the mastermind behind the current game of chicken in Washington - he had a deal to pass a debt ceiling increase and then he went back on that deal because he was too pressured by the Tea Party caucus.And so now we're playing Russian Roulette over a budgetary battle where the now-even-more-conservative Republicans have sour grapes over being unable to repeal Obamacare, and so they threaten to just burn down the whole football field if their opposition doesn't just let them win anyway.And all the gerrymandered redistricting efforts around the country make sure that, even though virtually everybody hates Congress as a whole and in fact has a higher opinion of canine feces (according to one actual poll, apparently, which is hilarious and sad and frightening all at once)...they still really like their own representatives and we're unlikely to see very many seats change hands.Welcome to America. Land of the self-interested, home of the stupid.If I had the money to pull off a move and a guarantee of employment, I'd be seriously considering moving to Switzerland or Sweden or Norway or someplace similar. A lot of them arent even progressive when they can be. I've signed a petition or three lately, participated in some political email campaigns, and the responses I get back from my Democratic, "liberal" congresscritters is honestly not terribly different from what I'd expect from most Republicans. Just more of the same "protect American freedoms and interests at the expense of everyone else, keep throwing around our military because it's a really big hammer and every problem is a nail after all" nonsense.

Actually the Republican conversion in a Christian Fascist party happened through the Moral Majority.

quote:

---

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

​

(snip)

​

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

​

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, insterest payments are a significant tax on all Americansa debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

​

(snip)

​

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

---

-Senator Obama, 2006

Hi, Rahvin, while your post makes sense to some extent, I don't think that's the case at all.Allow me to point out that the formation of the tea party came about solely on the fact that a viable black candidate (Obama) appeared on the scene. We've had plenty of black candidates before, but their numbers were always in the single digits. Obama's fame began to rise when I was still in college. I remember back then that everyone in my school was talking about Obama. I'm not just talking about my circle of friends. Even in the gym, cafeteria, etc., I kept overhearing people talking about Obama. People around the nation don't realize how popular Obamba's been in Illinois.Anyway, people like myself graduated college and became professionals ourselves by the time Obama ran for president. What struck me as odd was that there were plenty of presidents before who spent money like there was no tomorrow. In fact, I could have sworn Bush really thought the end was near. That's how he spent all our surplus left over by Clinton and dug the biggest hole we ever had for the country. So, why did the formation of the tea party coincide so perfectly with the rise of Obama? If there were plenty of presidents in the past who spent money like there was no tomorrow, we should have seen the tea party many years before. Why now?I'll tell you why. It all goes back to political correctness. It's certainly not politically correct to express one's disdain of a candidate because of his race or skin color. So, what's the next best thing that one can do? Pick an imaginary bullshit issue and hammer the black candidate/president with it.I absolutely don't believe in coincidence. Past (white) presidents spent money like there was no tomorrow and all of the sudden the budget became the biggest issue at exactly the same time the first black president got elected?? I don't buy it.Latent racism is definitely behind the tea party. People like Romney and McCain saw this latent racist part of the country, and they thought they could exploit it. They thought the could walk the line and rally these latent racists to get the votes they needed. It backfired on them when blatant racist slogans were yelled out at McCain's rallies. I think that's when they knew they'd lost control.Romney knew better than McCain. He wanted the votes that the latent racist part of the country was holding, but he also wanted to keep a distance. At the same time, it was clear that he didn't want to offend the racists either. He needed their latent bigotry.Well, they've completely lost control. I'm actually quite surprised the crazies have been able to take over the republican party so quickly. Probably fueled by Obama's black presidency.My question is what will happen when Hillary takes office? Will the latent sexists come out as well? Only time will tell.Edited by yenmor, : No reason given.

I agree that there has been an undercurrent of racism in the Tea Party, and indeed for many teabaggers that might be the real reason for their movement, with the other arguments simply being clever rationalizations for why they don;t like Obama.But I'm reluctant to paint the entire movement with the same brush. I don't think all teabaggers are racist. I don;t think the above would be true of all of them. I think some of them legitimately believe that taxes are bad in all cases, that social programs are always bad, and so on. I know such a young man. We debate frequently. He identifies as libertarian, and I wouldn't say that his political opposition to Obama stems from racism.It may be true that, perhaps the tea party was started by racists and gained popularity due to the "smokescreen" arguments of debt and taxation and so on; or perhaps it started with the more "legitimate" arguments, and gained popularity and swelled in numbers partially because of racists - or something else could be true.Don't forget, for conservatives, Bush was still "Our Guy." Even if they didn;t like the debt hole he was digging, they were on board for other issues, and weren;t about to start a movement of opposition.Before Bush was Clinton, and a budget surplus. There were plenty of movements against Clinton, too - we just didn't have to give them separate names. Hard to make budgetary arguments against the guy who passed a surplus and presided over the most economically prosperous period in recent memory. But there were plenty of moral arguments about Clinton and his womanizing and indeed any other little thing Gingrich-and-pals could latch on to as an excuse.I'm not sure it's appropriate to say that racism is the only or even the primary motivator in causing the Tea Party to rise now as opposed to another time. I don't think it's wise or appropriate to just dismiss the Tea Party movement as a bunch of racists being racist. I think it's more effective and even more accurate to attack their actual stated positions on their own merits, and that's easy enough anyway.

Now that he's on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, with a whole different set of responsibilities than a lone voice in the Senate, are you really surprised by this?

"Read my lips, no new taxes"- Oni

I agree a bit more with what yenmor wrote in response to this post, but that's not to say I disagree with you.Your response to yenmor seems a more middle ground. Yeah, that's where they're at. No choice but to accept and support. But I'm not sure they can stand that any longer. I for one like it, because it just might open up a thrid party candidate run of some significance. Not to say anyone is beating Hilary, I have no doubt she is our next presdient. But in the future, if Republicans keep going further right, there just might be room for a third party Libertarian/Moderate candidate that could rally some support.- Oni

If you've got something to say then say it.

I have always been a moderate republican. I have voted for democrats since Ronald Reagan.The Republican party has been so far right for so long I can no longer identify with them.Edited by 1.61803, : spelling

I had something to imply and I implied it.I believe you did the same with that quote and no point to follow up with. I was as vague as you were with your implication.- Oni

There are many in your party that identify with you. But the far right is currently the loudest, and the media fucking loves them for it.But the Dems are now further right than they were years back, so if moderate is what you like then the current Democratic party is where you should be.- Oni

I wasn't talking to you.

It's always about me!- Oni