Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

According to Gallup, 71% of Americans would like to see Republican leaders in Congress consider Tea Party ideas as they confront the country’s challenges.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... 248CCE5279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do you think?

The "Contract from America" was the idea of Houston-based lawyer, Ryan Hecker. He stated that he developed the concept of creating a grassroots call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies. To get his idea off the ground, he launched a website, ContractFromAmerica.com, which encouraged people to offer possible planks for the contract.

1.Identify constitutionality of every new law
2.Reject emissions trading
3.Demand a balanced federal budget
4.Simplify the tax system
5.Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
6.Limit annual growth in federal spending
7.Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
8.Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
9.Reduce Earmarks
10.Reduce Taxes

The Tea Party Patriots have asked both Democrats and Republicans to sign on to the Contract. No Democrats signed on, and the contract met resistance from some Republicans who since created "Commitment to America". Candidates in the 2010 elections who signed the Contract from America included Utah's Mike Lee, Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Sen. Coburn (R-OK), and Sen. DeMint (R-SC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_ ... America.22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the populist outrage can be a positive, and I've listened to a few of the movements leaders (non-pols) who have some solid points. But too much of their focus is misguided.

Not too important, but the situation is fluid. If they make a stand and force some more serious divisions in the Republican Party than I might change my opinion. They also need to choose less O'Donnell type candidates to support.

kalm wrote:

The "Contract from America" was the idea of Houston-based lawyer, Ryan Hecker. He stated that he developed the concept of creating a grassroots call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies. To get his idea off the ground, he launched a website, ContractFromAmerica.com, which encouraged people to offer possible planks for the contract.

1.Identify constitutionality of every new law
2.Reject emissions trading
3.Demand a balanced federal budget
4.Simplify the tax system
5.Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
6.Limit annual growth in federal spending
7.Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
8.Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
9.Reduce Earmarks
10.Reduce Taxes

The Tea Party Patriots have asked both Democrats and Republicans to sign on to the Contract. No Democrats signed on, and the contract met resistance from some Republicans who since created "Commitment to America". Candidates in the 2010 elections who signed the Contract from America included Utah's Mike Lee, Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Sen. Coburn (R-OK), and Sen. DeMint (R-SC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_ ... America.22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the populist outrage can be a positive, and I've listened to a few of the movements leaders (non-pols) who have some solid points. But too much of their focus is misguided.

So, your vote is "somewhat important?"

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_ ... America.22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the populist outrage can be a positive, and I've listened to a few of the movements leaders (non-pols) who have some solid points. But too much of their focus is misguided.

So, your vote is "somewhat important?"

Until they start producing more reasonable candidates and adopt campaign finance and anti-trust reform as part of their platform, they are "not that important" - at least to me. But I will watch with interest any division they might cause in the Republican party.

Please add:

Naive needs to get a fucking life

to your polls. Then I'll participate.

They have NO foreign policy. That's a big problem with me. Or do they just believe in the Neo-Con idea that America has no limits in its reach?

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
So, your vote is "somewhat important?"

Until they start producing more reasonable candidates and adopt campaign finance and anti-trust reform as part of their platform, they are "not that important" - at least to me. But I will watch with interest any division they might cause in the Republican party.

I think they have produced some reasonable candidates but typically those candidates have been republicans who were more tilted toward conservative principles to start. Rubio in Fl might be a good example (although I will admit my lack of knowledge on him). Where they have run short typically are states where the entrenched republican is not conservative and they picked a whacko to run against them. One of the things that pissed me off about the last election is that Reid won. That never should have happened.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
So, your vote is "somewhat important?"

Until they start producing more reasonable candidates and adopt campaign finance and anti-trust reform as part of their platform, they are "not that important" - at least to me. But I will watch with interest any division they might cause in the Republican party.

Campaign Finance Reform

child please...

BigSkyBears wrote:They have NO foreign policy. That's a big problem with me. Or do they just believe in the Neo-Con idea that America has no limits in its reach?

I think you might find that ideas on foreign policy run the gamut in the Tea Party. That isn't any different from the Democratic or Republican parties.

I am sure there are some "kick their asses" types in the Tea Party, but then the Tea Party did not spring up because of US foreign policy. It came about because of domestic policy and therefore it only makes sense that this would be their major platform.

Personally, I agree and identify with the smaller government (read: less expensive government) platform of the Tea Party at its core. I also believe that we can stomach a lot of cuts in military spending and that what remains should concentrate on domestic defense. However, I do not think Americans are prepared for the world that will exist once we pull back and stop exercising influence in other parts of the world. It makes for great talking on both sides, but at the end of the day we are fat and lazy and we want our IPods.

So in short, I imagine that Tea Party foreign policy would probably be more of the same once the realities of what Americans really want sink in. Prior to that, I would expect that a logical Tea Party platform would involve lessened UN participation, demanding more contributions from other NATO members as a condition of keeping NATO alive (dismantling US participation altogether would be a wonderful start, but I doubt even the Tea Party has the stones), protective tarriffs on the economic side, and lessened foreign aid outside of humanitarian aid.

Even shorter version: There will be lots of chest beating followed by status quo.

native wrote:According to Gallup, 71% of Americans would like to see Republican leaders in Congress consider Tea Party ideas as they confront the country’s challenges.

What do you think?

It's easy to see the printed list and agree with pretty much everything on there...
The problem is when a Tea Party candidate speaks
What's written down in their list of "goals" is fantastic - what comes out of their mouths is (yeesh)

CID1990 wrote:

BigSkyBears wrote:They have NO foreign policy. That's a big problem with me. Or do they just believe in the Neo-Con idea that America has no limits in its reach?

I think you might find that ideas on foreign policy run the gamut in the Tea Party. That isn't any different from the Democratic or Republican parties.

I am sure there are some "kick their asses" types in the Tea Party, but then the Tea Party did not spring up because of US foreign policy. It came about because of domestic policy and therefore it only makes sense that this would be their major platform.

Personally, I agree and identify with the smaller government (read: less expensive government) platform of the Tea Party at its core. I also believe that we can stomach a lot of cuts in military spending and that what remains should concentrate on domestic defense. However, I do not think Americans are prepared for the world that will exist once we pull back and stop exercising influence in other parts of the world. It makes for great talking on both sides, but at the end of the day we are fat and lazy and we want our IPods.

So in short, I imagine that Tea Party foreign policy would probably be more of the same once the realities of what Americans really want sink in. Prior to that, I would expect that a logical Tea Party platform would involve lessened UN participation, demanding more contributions from other NATO members as a condition of keeping NATO alive (dismantling US participation altogether would be a wonderful start, but I doubt even the Tea Party has the stones), protective tarriffs on the economic side, and lessened foreign aid outside of humanitarian aid.

Even shorter version: There will be lots of chest beating followed by status quo.

I haven't heard many TP speaking on FP issues.

Nobody except those in the tea party have any idea what it is about because of the way they are depicted in the media. If you havent come to grips with the brainwashing propaganda being spewed by a left controlled media you are part of the problem, probably a programed zombie.

Look at the top of the hour indoctrination announcements made by the major networks and the leaders on the left. They will all be the same. In a world as big as this one, with as much going on, it seems a little odd there is such a unified message being echoed by the media and their left wing handlers. Its the message of the day programing all the zombies to think they way they are supposed to.

Why do you think universities are so expensive and poorly run? They are left wing institutions built on unsound left wing ideas and promoted by left wing zealots that have no idea how to do anything in a practical manner benefiting all with open ideas and open forums. All they can think about is control, spending and their own material comfort and power.

except that the Tea Party is simply a wing of the GOP organized and run by GOP consultants from inside the beltway... Dick Armey runs the largest Tea Party group in the US... from the original, staged and planned, outburst on CNBC it wasn't ever "a spontaneous outpouring" it's branding device by a party whose image was in such a shambles after 2008 that they needed a new name...

anyone who is kidding themselves in to thinking the Tea Party is anything more than a re-branded GOP recruiting tool really should get themselves checked out...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:except that the Tea Party is simply a wing of the GOP organized and run by GOP consultants from inside the beltway... Dick Armey runs the largest Tea Party group in the US... from the original, staged and planned, outburst on CNBC it wasn't ever "a spontaneous outpouring" it's branding device by a party whose image was in such a shambles after 2008 that they needed a new name...

anyone who is kidding themselves in to thinking the Tea Party is anything more than a re-branded GOP recruiting tool really should get themselves checked out...

Or you're one of the brainwashed zombies JBB is talking about it:

[youtube][/youtube]
Oldie but a goodie.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:except that the Tea Party is simply a wing of the GOP organized and run by GOP consultants from inside the beltway... Dick Armey runs the largest Tea Party group in the US... from the original, staged and planned, outburst on CNBC it wasn't ever "a spontaneous outpouring" it's branding device by a party whose image was in such a shambles after 2008 that they needed a new name...

anyone who is kidding themselves in to thinking the Tea Party is anything more than a re-branded GOP recruiting tool really should get themselves checked out...

You know, I certainly think there's a bit of "insider" manipulation of the Tea Party, and they certainly have their share of kooks who even sometimes make it onto the ballot, but to think that there isn't a substantial grass roots aspect to it that is genuine and real is just ignoring reality. And ignoring reality is a good reason why so many Dems lost in the past election. I'll grant you there are a lot of examples of the Tea Party being as wacky and silly and scary as a lot of Dems would like to believe, but that's only part of the whole picture. Ignoring wide swaths of the American electorate is never a wise move, no matter how much you don't like them.

JBB wrote:Nobody except those in the tea party have any idea what it is about because of the way they are depicted in the media. If you havent come to grips with the brainwashing propaganda being spewed by a left controlled media you are part of the problem, probably a programed zombie.

Look at the top of the hour indoctrination announcements made by the major networks and the leaders on the left. They will all be the same. In a world as big as this one, with as much going on, it seems a little odd there is such a unified message being echoed by the media and their left wing handlers. Its the message of the day programing all the zombies to think they way they are supposed to.

Why do you think universities are so expensive and poorly run? They are left wing institutions built on unsound left wing ideas and promoted by left wing zealots that have no idea how to do anything in a practical manner benefiting all with open ideas and open forums. All they can think about is control, spending and their own material comfort and power.

Thank goodness you're here to help us out...
But can we make decision about the Tea Party based on actions and statements made by their party members - or is the stuff that comes out of their very own mouths and on their very own websites - some kind of a Left Wing Media Conspiracy..?

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:except that the Tea Party is simply a wing of the GOP organized and run by GOP consultants from inside the beltway... Dick Armey runs the largest Tea Party group in the US... from the original, staged and planned, outburst on CNBC it wasn't ever "a spontaneous outpouring" it's branding device by a party whose image was in such a shambles after 2008 that they needed a new name...

anyone who is kidding themselves in to thinking the Tea Party is anything more than a re-branded GOP recruiting tool really should get themselves checked out...

You know, I certainly think there's a bit of "insider" manipulation of the Tea Party, and they certainly have their share of kooks who even sometimes make it onto the ballot, but to think that there isn't a substantial grass roots aspect to it that is genuine and real is just ignoring reality. And ignoring reality is a good reason why so many Dems lost in the past election. I'll grant you there are a lot of examples of the Tea Party being as wacky and silly and scary as a lot of Dems would like to believe, but that's only part of the whole picture. Ignoring wide swaths of the American electorate is never a wise move, no matter how much you don't like them.

I haven't talked about the 2010 cycle much on here - but my take is very different...

The Dems were at an historical high-tide after 08... only one way to go from there...

the "tea party" was repub organizing by another name - seriously, the tea party rallies in MN featured the same leaders and crowds that you would see at a republican organizing meeting in 02 or 04... and wasn't so much effective at turning out new voters or persuading undecideds as it was decent at turning out right wingers who stayed home in 08...

the other problem was Dems and independents who stayed home... turnout was down nationally... and for a reason... they voted with their feet, whereas Repubs showed up at the polls. the mistake in analyzing 2010 would be to ascribe it as a conservative ascendancy - more accurately it was a reaction to Obama from both sides (the left stayed home, disappointed he didn't do more...)

Well the main idea of teabagging, that being my balls and mudflaps lowered into Native's mouth, that is damn important.

All the rest of it is pure BS.

Wedgebuster wrote:Well the main idea of teabagging, that being my balls and mudflaps lowered into Native's mouth, that is damn important.

All the rest of it is pure BS.

You'll be flagged and fined for several infracions on your post:

1) Tea bagging / Tea baggers and or Tea Bag are disrespectful and offensive terminology used to describe an important element of the American political landscape - please refrain
2) Ball insertion is a personal insult - no personal insults please
3) Referencing the Tea Party movement as "Pure B.S." is disrespectful to the very serious religious / Political movement that is sweeping the nation

If you care to be taken seriously on this very serious website where we discuss serious topics that seriously effect all of us very seriously... you'll need to change your tone

Chizzang wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Well the main idea of teabagging, that being my balls and mudflaps lowered into Native's mouth, that is damn important.

All the rest of it is pure BS.

You'll be flagged and fined for several infracions on your post:

1) Tea bagging / Tea baggers and or Tea Bag are disrespectful and offensive terminology used to describe an important element of the American political landscape - please refrain
2) Ball insertion is a personal insult - no personal insults please
3) Referencing the Tea Party movement as "Pure B.S." is disrespectful to the very serious religious / Political movement that is sweeping the nation

If you care to be taken seriously on this very serious website where we discuss serious topics that seriously effect all of us very seriously... you'll need to change your tone

Says easy, does hard.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
You know, I certainly think there's a bit of "insider" manipulation of the Tea Party, and they certainly have their share of kooks who even sometimes make it onto the ballot, but to think that there isn't a substantial grass roots aspect to it that is genuine and real is just ignoring reality. And ignoring reality is a good reason why so many Dems lost in the past election. I'll grant you there are a lot of examples of the Tea Party being as wacky and silly and scary as a lot of Dems would like to believe, but that's only part of the whole picture. Ignoring wide swaths of the American electorate is never a wise move, no matter how much you don't like them.

I haven't talked about the 2010 cycle much on here - but my take is very different...

The Dems were at an historical high-tide after 08... only one way to go from there...

the "tea party" was repub organizing by another name - seriously, the tea party rallies in MN featured the same leaders and crowds that you would see at a republican organizing meeting in 02 or 04... and wasn't so much effective at turning out new voters or persuading undecideds as it was decent at turning out right wingers who stayed home in 08...

the other problem was Dems and independents who stayed home... turnout was down nationally... and for a reason... they voted with their feet, whereas Repubs showed up at the polls. the mistake in analyzing 2010 would be to ascribe it as a conservative ascendancy - more accurately it was a reaction to Obama from both sides (the left stayed home, disappointed he didn't do more...)

Of course, your take assumes that the '06 and '08 elections were some kind of ascendancy for the Democrats, i.e. people bought into their ideas and voted accordingly, whereas you could very easily make the argument that people were voting against the Republicans in those elections and that the GOP base stayed home. Doesn't really change the outcomes though.

Regardless, the one area where you're kind of missing is the Independents - they broke very much for the GOP in this last election, even if total number of voters were down (they are always down across the board when comparing a Congressional voting year versus a Presidential one). It was pretty hard to not notice the large swing of Independent voters who did show at the polls and went strongly from very Democrat in '08 to very GOP in '10. Granted, they may have just been voting against the 4 years of Democratic Congressional control at that point, but they did vote pretty significantly. Saying the Dems had nowhere to go but down from '08 is fine, but going down to a defeat of historic proportions is not something to be brushed off either. You have to say the Tea Party had something to do with that.

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
I haven't talked about the 2010 cycle much on here - but my take is very different...

The Dems were at an historical high-tide after 08... only one way to go from there...

the "tea party" was repub organizing by another name - seriously, the tea party rallies in MN featured the same leaders and crowds that you would see at a republican organizing meeting in 02 or 04... and wasn't so much effective at turning out new voters or persuading undecideds as it was decent at turning out right wingers who stayed home in 08...

the other problem was Dems and independents who stayed home... turnout was down nationally... and for a reason... they voted with their feet, whereas Repubs showed up at the polls. the mistake in analyzing 2010 would be to ascribe it as a conservative ascendancy - more accurately it was a reaction to Obama from both sides (the left stayed home, disappointed he didn't do more...)

Of course, your take assumes that the '06 and '08 elections were some kind of ascendancy for the Democrats, i.e. people bought into their ideas and voted accordingly, whereas you could very easily make the argument that people were voting against the Republicans in those elections and that the GOP base stayed home. Doesn't really change the outcomes though.

Regardless, the one area where you're kind of missing is the Independents - they broke very much for the GOP in this last election, even if total number of voters were down (they are always down across the board when comparing a Congressional voting year versus a Presidential one). It was pretty hard to not notice the large swing of Independent voters who did show at the polls and went strongly from very Democrat in '08 to very GOP in '10. Granted, they may have just been voting against the 4 years of Democratic Congressional control at that point, but they did vote pretty significantly. Saying the Dems had nowhere to go but down from '08 is fine, but going down to a defeat of historic proportions is not something to be brushed off either. You have to say the Tea Party had something to do with that.

honestly, there is no such thing as "independents" - it's a question of which sides lazy or infrequent voters show up in a given year - in 06 and 08 dems were motivated in 10 repubs had that...

I've never gone to a tea party rally in Minnesota but there are no well known republican names associated with the organization at all. None in the event promotions, none in the organizing realms, none in the committee members.....

Attendance at the rallys is another thing. The Tea Party represents a lot of conservative ideas shared with the republicans. You see elected republican officals at these rallies because they are fertile ground for votes. You dont see them campaigning with Van Johnson at acorn rallies.

The tea party movement is forcing a lot of republicans to return to their core beliefs. The last republican admin failed by allowing those tried and true conservative ideals of smaller government, lower taxes and equal opportunity (not outcome) get corrupted. The tea party could become the republican party but it is not the republican party.

Havent the independents always been around 30-40% of electoriate with the other 2 parties sharing the rest?

Chizzang wrote:
Thank goodness you're here to help us out...
But can we make decision about the Tea Party based on actions and statements made by their party members - or is the stuff that comes out of their very own mouths and on their very own websites - some kind of a Left Wing Media Conspiracy..?

I dont think you can if you are filtering those Tea Party statements through a progessive left wing filter, like a lot of the major media, press and educational institutions.

The Universities, similar to most public schools, are decidely left wing organizations that can't contain their costs or improve efficiencies, tax their citizens mercilessly in the form of high and rising tuition, take care of their friends that supply the materials and protect their ruling class, the facilty, with strong unions. They are also extremly intolerant of any ideas other than their own. They act as a microcosim, for those of us that are concerned, showing how the progressive left is "transforming" all of our major insitituions.

I'm not aware of anything valid coming from the Tea Party that would warrant your scorn?

JBB wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Thank goodness you're here to help us out...
But can we make decision about the Tea Party based on actions and statements made by their party members - or is the stuff that comes out of their very own mouths and on their very own websites - some kind of a Left Wing Media Conspiracy..?

I dont think you can if you are filtering those Tea Party statements through a progessive left wing filter, like a lot of the major media, press and educational institutions.

The Universities, similar to most public schools, are decidely left wing organizations that can't contain their costs or improve efficiencies, tax their citizens mercilessly in the form of high and rising tuition, take care of their friends that supply the materials and protect their ruling class, the facilty, with strong unions. They are also extremly intolerant of any ideas other than their own. They act as a microcosim, for those of us that are concerned, showing how the progressive left is "transforming" all of our major insitituions.

I'm not aware of anything valid coming from the Tea Party that would warrant your scorn?

I appreciate your perspective - but - I'll be using my normal amount of suspicion & investigation when it comes to anything and everything Political... including The Tea Party