Stop mocking the Tea Party: If anyone is nuts, it's the elites and incumbents
Andrea Tantaros
Thursday, September 16th 2010, 4:00 AM

Carr/AP


Tuesday night was a terrible evening for political operatives because people voted with their conscience, not along party lines. Elites aren't happy about it, and even the GOP is fuming.


Meanwhile, Washington Democrats are trying desperately to paint anti-establishment candidates as a pack of crazies. They're hoping to distract the public from the more pressing issues that have their party's polls in the dumps.


Sure, many that comprise this new wave of politics are atypical. They aren't polished. They're not carefully scripted, and they lack TelePrompTers, pedigree and cozy friendships with Karl Rove. Because of it, political consultants and "insiders" insist they're wacky. However, the popularity of their message shows that they're anything but.


These anti-establishment, (mostly) Tea Party-supported candidates are winning because they've been able to articulate a platform of fiscal restraint: cutting taxes, curbing spending and returning to small government. It's why Christine O'Donnell (above) beat GOP Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware, Rand Paul was able to upset Trey Grayson in Kentucky, Sharron Angle trumped Sue Lowden in Nevada and Carl Paladino easily swayed New Yorkers against former Rep. Rick Lazio of Long Island.


Originally, the Tea Party was discounted as "manufactured anger" and mocked by Washington elites. Even some on the right refused to take it seriously.


After it was announced that O'Donnell had won, Karl Rove discredited her on Fox News, saying: "It does conservatives little good to support candidates who . . . do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for."


But Rove, George W. Bush and many incumbents, including President Obama, are the reason we even have the Tea Party movement. Bush ran up deficits. Obama quadrupled them. To many disgruntled conservatives, Rove was behind Bush in giving us open borders, tax cuts that expire, Medicare Part D and busted budgets.

The current alternative from the left is even more cuckoo to voters: higher taxes, a new health care regime, more rights for terrorists, disregard for immigration law and constant apologies to other countries. Now that's nuts.
So, with mud on their faces, both sides of the aisle are trying to shred the personal credibility of the outsiders. They've blasted O'Donnell for not liking porn and blasted Paladino for liking it too much. They call O'Donnell a liar in a year when the Democratic Senate candidate from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, lied about serving in Vietnam, and Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters face serious ethics charges.


Make no mistake: Paladino's racist and lewd email forwards were disgusting and wrong. But his message is right: New York is financially broken. The porn we should worry about the most is the screwing we've gotten from Albany and Washington, something that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo and other career politicians have no intention of fixing.
And although the outsiders aren't guaranteed victory, democracy has already won. Both Republicans and Democrats need to beware: The outsiders have broken into the institution of politics and cannot be ignored. After all, what's so crazy about restoring power to the people and a mandate to throw all of the big government bums out? In our current state of affairs, it sounds like the right kind of folly.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________

I find it interesting that there are a few anti establishment candidates who are doing well so far. More interesting, however, is the establishment response, like "they are wacky", "nut jobs', "incompetent", etc. The "manufactured anger" and "astroturf" movement criticisms were a couple I really liked. These candidates and this movement have evoked an extremely harsh response from both Democrats and Republicans, but it seems the Democrats have now taken the position that these new breed of candidates will be easier to beat in November and have been more silent than anything else of late. I think the extreme response is due to a certain amount of the establishment being afraid if what is happening. They may sense their grip on power in this country may be loosening and they feel backed into a corner, especially the Republicans.



To me it seems that these "nutjobs" are simply calling out the Republicans for not living up to what they claim to stand for, and in the long run will be very good for conservatives, but there may be some pain in the short term, like the next 4 years or so, if in fact this small government movement actually maintains and/or grows.


Anyway, if I were a political science teacher or student, this would be quite the topic for discussion. I wonder what some of our resident poli-sci experts think of this little phenomenon. Will it be a major transformation of our political system or the Republican party or is it just a blip caused by hard economic times that will pass when the economy gets better or something else?

Please note that I made this post because I find this situation fascinating, not because I agree with everything the "Tea Party"** or these candidates stand for, not that it even knows what it stands for, but the whole fiscal/social aspect of the Tea Party is a topic for another day. So maybe this thread can be a discussion the elections and the effect of these candidates on the parties and the system and not turn into a "the "Tea Party" is racist" rant.


** I put Tea party in quotes because to me it is not really a party and can mean many different things to many different people, but it is nonetheless an easy way to label these candidates and their supporters.

I haven't been reading this board even 1% as much as I used to so I miss out on a ton of the banter, but when I left, you (willywoo) were one of my favorite posters because you always eloquently articulated a libertarian viewpoint that I usually identified with.

Please don't tell me that you identify with this movement, which I see as largely misrepresenting those ideals (overwhelmingly social conservative and religious-motivated morality legislation) and dangerously exaggerating the viewpoints of those they disagree with in order to stir up votes. I'll be sad.

I really don't know where you stand, so I'm just asking.

I think I made it pretty clear that I don't, because I really don't know what they stand for. While I am certainly in favor of a smaller more limited government, this group, if you can even call them that, seems rather loosely and haphazardly organized and that is why I made the somewhat preemptive statements in the OP. The point of the post was to see what people think about the effect this movement, or more precisely these candidates, may have on the Republican party and/or the political process, since like them or not, there seems to be some head way being made in the recent primaries by candidates supported by the whatever you want to call this new breed of voter.

The more I see what is happening, it may be that there are simply anti establishment candidates who are being identified with and supported by people who consider themselves tea partiers, after all they are all running as Republicans but against establishment Republicans, but all of this appears to be a movement in its infancy and not well defined at all in terms of any particular across the board platform or in terms of what these individual candidates are about on issues other than fiscal issues.

I also have no idea where the" Tea Party" stands on social issues or if it even has a stance. As you probably know, I could not, and would not, support any organization that is an extension of any fundamentalist or social conservative organization or that supports in any way that kind of thinking of thinking.

 

Originally Posted by AmSlim22

i do like the idea of outsiders becoming part of the govt process and shaking up both parties a bit. i dont really see it tho with the tea party. i do think they are a manufactured group. doesnt there money actually come from some very rich people even tho they try to give off a grassroots movement feel?

aside - who are the elites and why are they bad? have always been curious about this.

i kinda believe that no matter who is in office, the concern is more about the game of politics and career then actually getting something done. maybe this is a cynical view point and there actually are more politicians that are really trying to make a difference then what it appears, but i havent seen it.

i am always amused that a HS student council election plays very closely to even a presidential one. candidates making promises that they may or not be able to keep (there was no way we were getting the soda machines open all day). to basically calling names and starting rumors about the other side. its all a game about winning or losing. i dunno, maybe Obama is the same, i hoped maybe not but am still waiting to see for sure. i did like some of his campaign stances, but maybe that was just part of the game as well.

i would love to see a group of outsiders that only have the goal of helping people and dont just want power. unfortunately, those people dont usually fare well in the political game or even bother participating.

i also think a large majority of the population dont really care either. if we wanted more honest, capable, responsible politicians then we would find and elect them.

its all just a big mess.

If it is manufactured group funded by big money individuals, they are doing a piss poor job. I think they are a haphazard group of individuals with no real leadership at all. And the groups are really a state by state mish mash of people with varying viewpoints on many issues, but who have been brought together by a desire for smaller, more limited government. Their message aside from a more limited government is more than fuzzy and in fact they may not even have any other message. I tend to think these candidates are simply individuals without the support of any particular group, but rather they are supported by people who are fed up with the current way we are governed.

I like the Tea party. Short-term, they're good for the lulz. Long-term, they represent the latest and largest split in an already-splintering Republican coalition and basically anything they do is positive for Democrats. If they win Republican primaries, they can certainly compete on a local level in favorable districts but they're simply too extreme to win a national election, particularly after they start legislating/trying to legislate and people see what "small government" looks like. If they don't win Republican primaries then either they go away and we get to govern with a sane opposition party or they splinter into a third party, jack Republican votes, and ensure absurd Democratic majorities and Electoral College victories. Not that modern Democrats know what to do with absurd majorities but still.

edit: the above assumes that Democrats become good enough at politics to exploit the division Tea Partiers cause, which might be something of a stretch. Democrats suck at politics.

I'm a huge fan.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

Aside from the short term lulz, you don't think that they will move the Republicans toward being more in line with their promised fiscal responsibility, at least that's what I would call it? I understand that you would think that not spending as much as we do now would be irresponsible.

Can they win statewide elections?

To answer the first question - maybe. The tea party candidates have been a mixed bag. Scott Brown, for instance, isn't really panning out to be a hardcore conservative outside of voting against health care reform. He represents a liberal state so it isn't too big of a shocker that he isn't pulling to far to the right. You have other candidates like O'Donnell in Delaware who were supported by tea party people who not only bring the fiscal conservatism that you and other libertarians enjoy, but also bring their religious baggage as well. She is pro-life and apparently anti-masturbation as well.

I think so far the candidate that fits the tea party rhetoric the most is Rand Paul of Kentucky. I am not too familiar with every tea party house of representative candidate to give any thoughts there. But my conclusion, the tea party effect is a mixed bag. Certainly most of their candidates are pushing hard to the right on economic issues (Scott Brown being the only exception i can think of) but some seem to be bringing the same old Christian Coalition nonsense with them for the ride.

As for the last question - it depends on the race. Certainly Rand Paul can win. O'Donnell seems to have an uphill climb but certainly she has a shot with the right general campaign strategy and some good Fortune.

well said p00py, and I too think Rand Paul is the poster child but the social conservative aspect of some of the representatives are a bit disheartening. You just can't say we want to limit the role of the federal government while at the same time pushing social issues, it doesn't wash. Consistency within parties doesn't happen here though so I guess the tea party is no different.

Love the movement though and not just for lulz. Anything that lets the republican party know that the Bushney way will get you thrown out on your ass is a good thing.

holy shit, a ghost!

wurr u been at UD?

 

Originally Posted by Underdog34

Town to town, up and down the dial.

<3

The guy on CNBC was Rick Santelli, UD. He used to rant occassionally, and after that it's becoming his (annoying) style in every debate. He used to be awesome, now he tries too hard :/

If the tea party had kept that initial point, I could be on board, but the ultra-conservative Christian right has fucked it up again.

 

Originally Posted by cdmalgee

If the tea party had kept that initial point, I could be on board, but the ultra-conservative Christian right has fucked it up again.

For shame too. I'd actually like to have a national debate and elections between fiscal liberals and fiscal conservatives sans religious freak factor. It doesn't look like it will happen on a national scale anytime soon. Can't wait till teh 2012 GOP convention when i get to hear every candidate talk about Ronald Wilson Reagan and Jesus Fucking Christ every other sentence again.

There should be confusion about what a Tea party candidate is because it is essentially meaningless. It certainly doesn't have anything really to do with fiscal responsibility or limited government. Christine O'Donnell wants to teach Creationism in schools and wants prayer in schools and want to outlaw abortion. That's not limited government. The GOP nominee from New York calls himself a Tea Party candidate but he has stated that he wants to use eminent domain to take control of the Burlington Coat Factory and turn it into a 9/11 memorial. That's not limited government. Both claim to care about the deficit but also want to extend tax cuts that are adding to the deficit.

A Tea Party candidate is a person who saw the rise of the Tea Party as an opportunity to use people who call themselves Tea Partiers to support their run for office. Period.

Willy I think it already has had an affect on the established repubs. I don't even recognize this John McCain fellow anymore. I'm good with christian morals being a foundation for our leaders, our forefathers did a pretty good job with those same principals. My issues (and yours too I'm pretty sure) is when they try to legislate those morals on us. This is true for anybody's morals being shoved down our throat, not just Christians. Redistribution of wealth is a moral ideology that's as bad or worse than telling me not to masturbate. I can get away with pulling my pud, I can't get away with not paying taxes.

p00py the Sarah Palin phenomenon will be studied for years, I just don't get it. Once she became a focal point of the tea party they lost a lot of street cred with me. I guess female conservatives cling to her because she's a she and they identify with her hokie hockey mom persona she displays and we know she's like viagra to the elderly but other than that..... I don't get it.

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

This is a myth in terms of creating gov't. You are probably correct in regards to some of the founders in regards to their personal lives.

I meant it in terms of their personal lives. If you think God didn't play a heavy role in the establishment of the basic foundation I don't know what to say other than read how many times a divinity is alluded to.