When will the Republicans recover from Bush?

[iNow]

I'm not sure I'm able to see fault with his quote. Those people WERE playing a key role in the events, so where exactly is the problem here if not in minds of people primed with a dislike for him?

 

 

Again, this seems pretty much on point, if you ask me:

 

Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

[abskebabs]

Perhaps the following may shed some light on the issue. It is a short interview given by Rachel Maddow with Stephen Gordon, one of Ron Paul's former media coordinators:

He addresses the issue regarding the level of involvement "FreedomWorks" has had now, and in the recent past, though their success does seem to have been decidedly negligible.

[iNow]

Perhaps the following may shed some light on the issue. It is a short interview given by Rachel Maddow with Stephen Gordon, one of Ron Paul's former media coordinators:

 

Well, just how far down does this speculation-based rabbit hole go?

 

ecoli was responding directly to the video... Now we're engaged in this "maybe it was when he said this over here," and "perhaps it relates to this other thing there" justification game... It's like you're shooting in the dark and have no idea of your target. I shared a video. ecoli took time to post about his anger in response to watching that video, and even referenced a specific time point in the video. I challenged that, and reminded readers that Krugman never even spoke in the video.

 

This is silly. My point is, you guys don't like him (which is totally fine and cool with me), but your dislike is what is causing you to read more into his words than are there, especially considering the video never even shared "his words." All I was doing is showing that the original comments COULD NOT have been based on the video as stated, so seemed somewhat baseless in context of the discussion, as well as completely tangential.

Edited April 17, 2009 by iNow

[abskebabs]

You have a point, essentially our differences arise from different judgements of relevance regarding the role or extent more "mainstream" republican groups had regarding the organisation and motivation provided for attendance in the tea party rallies. We both do not deny the fact of their involvement, and only differ on how large a factor we deem their role played, and I for one deem it fairly insignificant despite what corporate media spins it as.

[Pangloss]

The thing I keep wondering is where was the rush to expose the influence of MoveOn.org and other special interest groups on the peace rallies and anti-Iraq demonstrations during the Bush administration?

 

Oh, it's certainly there. But I don't think anyone's trying to argue that those rallies didn't come largely at the behest of members of the Democratic Party.

 

Well I guess that's possible. It didn't really seem that way to me at the time, though -- I thought it was a grassroots movement that just had a significant amount of support and investment from SIGs like MoveOn.

 

Which is exactly what I think happened here with these tea parties. But it's just my humble opinion, of course.

 

 

That much is obvious, since Krugman never spoke on the video. The announcer simply attributed comments to him, and we don't know in context precisely what Paul Krugman said. So, it seems likely that your distaste for this Nobel Prize winning economist has primed you to look for things in his words which aren't there.

 

You say "Nobel Prize winning economist" as if that actually gives him objective coin when he talks about social issues and ideological motivations. But I guess that's common practice these days. George Stephanopoulos does it every other Sunday. (On the alternating weeks he asks Arianna Huffington what she thinks about the economy. Go figure.)

 

 

The thing I keep wondering is where was the rush to expose the influence of MoveOn.org and other special interest groups on the peace rallies and anti-Iraq demonstrations during the Bush administration?

 

Aren't you the one normally saying stuff like "two wrongs don't make a right" when people make comments like this?

 

No, I think both were grassroots movements. <bonk> I guess you didn't think my dissenting reply was interesting enough to notice. I understand. It was only my humble opinion. I'll go sit in the garden now and eat worms.

 

 

Also, to supplement Bascules response, it's not like the Democrats pretended that it was something organized locally and "spontaneously." It seems that not only are the Republicans (at least of the FNC variety) hypocrites, but they are liars, frauds, and charlatans who will make up so-called "truths" if it helps them achieve or further their desired purpose and goals.

 

You know, I really hate it when you cast everything as Democrats versus Republicans!!! (Let's see how good your memory is today.)

[bascule]

Well I guess that's possible. It didn't really seem that way to me at the time' date=' though -- I thought it was a grassroots movement that just had a significant amount of support and investment from SIGs like MoveOn.

 

Which is exactly what I think happened here with these tea parties. But it's just my humble opinion, of course. [/quote']

 

The difference is people argue the tea parties are a "libertarian" movement when they're really just Republican.

 

I watched quite a bit of Fox News throughout today... it was hilarious seeing someone like Sean Hannity trying to profess faux libertarianism after years of defending the massive expansions of executive power we saw under Bush.

 

Fox News is still covering the teabagging 24/7 it seems, all while professing that the other networks aren't cover it (which of course isn't true)

 

Sean Hannity quoted Ronald Reagan saying that we don't have debt because we don't tax enough, but because we spend too much. I find it ironic Hanny would quote something like that from a president under which we saw massive increases in the national debt. And of course, does that come up when Hannity is tearing into Obama over the debt? Or the massive increases in debt we saw under Bush during a period of relative economic prosperity? Of course not.

 

All this johnny-come-lately concern over fiscal responsibility and national debt really leads me to question whether these people have any real values other than arguing against what the Democrats are doing, whatever that may be. Never mind if a Republican is actually responsible or has done the same thing in the past, if the Democrats are doing it now, it's wrong.

Edited April 20, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

The difference is people argue the tea parties are a "libertarian" movement when they're really just Republican.

 

That's an interesting opinion, but I don't see any evidence for it. Here's another opinion: People argue that the tea parties are "Republican" when they're really just conservative. And another opinion: Some liberals cast the tea parties as "Republican" because it instantly demonizes the purpose of the event without having to address the very real concerns being raised (appeal to ridicule).

 

Republicans are "johnny-come-lately" when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Conservatives aren't. They're just as angry about Republican irresponsibility as you are, Bascule. Wanna give them control over the next election? Keep calling them Republicans. That should do the trick.

[iNow]

What I find funny, and I'm speaking from personal experience alone mind you, but it's humorous since it's happened so many times in my personal life during just the past short few weeks...

 

What's funny is how many people I know who were social conservatives, and who formerly branded themselves as republicans, are now VERY quick to point out they are "conservative," not "republican."

 

It seems that people who were perfectly okay to vote republican for the last several decades suddenly don't want the poo-stinky on them anymore, so they are trying to rebrand themselves as "not republican" and instead wish to be called "conservative."

 

 

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this in their own lives... I just find it funny, myself. [/observation]

[Mr Skeptic]

What I find funny is what I learned about the two parties after taking a history class. Back in the day, it was the Republicans that cared for the poor an downtrodden, the abolition of slavery and equal treatment for blacks, and opposed the aristocracy.

[bascule]

That's an interesting opinion, but I don't see any evidence for it.

 

I've posted quite a bit. One of the foremost sponsors of the teabagging is Freedomworks/Citizens for a Sound Economy, headed by former Republican house majority leader Dick Armey. ecoli denies he's one of the individuals behind it (but links sites sponsored by FreedomWorks)

 

Then there's Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity pimping it 24/7: both registered Republicans.

 

This is what happens when a real libertarian shows up to one of Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project Meetings

 

Republicans are "johnny-come-lately" when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Conservatives aren't. They're just as angry about Republican irresponsibility as you are, Bascule. Wanna give them control over the next election? Keep calling them Republicans. That should do the trick.

 

I say "Republican" in lieu of "conservative" because there are actual libertarian conservatives who do care passionately about this stuff and have been complaining about the deficit even when Bush was in office, not to mention the Bush administration's totalitarian power grab and undermining of our civil liberties. I would certainly count a few members of these forums among them, like ParanoiA and ecoli. They aren't hypocrites.

 

However, Republicans were cheerleading the Bush tax cuts even after we recovered from 9/11. Cut taxes and go to war? SURE! Give up our Fourth Amendment rights to protect us from terror? Fine! Record deficits? Who cares? Oh wait, a Democrat is in power? OMFG DEFICIT SPENDOCRAT BUREAUCRACY TYRRANY FASCISM BLAAARRRGH! Or the literal non-strawman version: "I'm not paying taxes anymore. I quit. [...] You've got kids in college? Get them out of college. They're brainwashing them. [...] BURN ALL THE BOOKS! [...] Understand we've got an enemy here. This is not just an election. It's a battle for survival"

 

If these people haven't been making noise about these issues for the past 8 years but decide to do so now, they are comically hypocritical. Seriously, these people make me laugh. They have no real political platform or views, their politics consists entirely of opposing the opposite side and that's all there is to it. I blame these people for much of what's wrong with American politics today.

Edited April 20, 2009 by bascule

[padren]

If these people haven't been making noise about these issues for the past 8 years but decide to do so now, they are comically hypocritical. Seriously, these people make me laugh. They have no real political platform or views, their politics consists entirely of opposing the opposite side and that's all there is to it. I blame these people for much of what's wrong with American politics today.

 

I agree with this entirely. One thing I am skeptical about regarding "late comer fiscal conservatives" who are decrying taxes - even if we cut the budget significantly, and did all their tax cuts, would we be running any less of a total deficit? Honestly it seems to me that they only want to play less in taxes and really don't care if doing so continues to increase the national debt at a staggering rate.

I honestly feel they are hijacking the increased spending concern to get in their "lower taxes" agenda attention. Maybe they care a "little" in the sense, at they care about the limits to power of the executive branch when it's not one of theirs in the White House.

[Pangloss]

What's funny is how many people I know who were social conservatives, and who formerly branded themselves as republicans, are now VERY quick to point out they are "conservative," not "republican."

 

It seems that people who were perfectly okay to vote republican for the last several decades suddenly don't want the poo-stinky on them anymore, so they are trying to rebrand themselves as "not republican" and instead wish to be called "conservative."

 

I think you're right that conservatives have abandoned the Republican party in droves, but what's with this pejorative "branding" term? I asked all of my conservative friends during the 2004 election cycle (when I decided not to vote for Bush again), and to the last person they insisted that they weren't "Republicans", and that they would vote for a Democrat if they could only find one conservative enough. I know droves of liberals who say exactly the same thing in reverse. This should come as no surprise.

 

I believe that if you pin most people down they refuse to actually call themselves Democrat or Republican, and even go so far as to insist that they've voted for people from the "other party". I think people do this out of embarrassment because they know that both parties have a long history of misbehavior. It may sound hypocritical, and it's definitely a recognition of their internal predisposition, but it doesn't mean that they're united behind the party. It just means they don't have anybody else to vote for.

 

So no, conservatives aren't Republicans any more than liberals are Democrats. Not unless they want to call themselves that. And most people just don't do that. Not in my experience, anyway.

 

 

I've posted quite a bit.

 

You've posted one or two individual examples of incidents. Nothing to indicate comprehensive control. If you use it to draw an objective conclusion then I have to call you on a straw man. The fact that Sean Hannity hitched his star to the movement doesn't say anything about who's in charge of it. The fact that a libertarian got shouted down is even more of a straw man. Libertarians are frequently the subject of conservative ire and frustration. They don't need prompting from Glenn Beck for that.

 

I say "Republican" in lieu of "conservative" because there are actual libertarian conservatives who do care passionately about this stuff and have been complaining about the deficit even when Bush was in office, not to mention the Bush administration's totalitarian power grab and undermining of our civil liberties. I would certainly count a few members of these forums among them, like ParanoiA and ecoli. They aren't hypocrites.

 

I agree. And there are also conservatives who aren't libertarians who are concerned about the amount of money that's being spent and will have to be paid back some day. Just as you and I are concerned about it.

 

They aren't hypocrites either. Not even if they voted for Bush. Not even if they voted for Bush twice.

[The Bear's Key]

It seems that people who were perfectly okay to vote republican for the last several decades suddenly don't want the poo-stinky on them anymore, so they are trying to rebrand themselves as "not republican" and instead wish to be called "conservative."

 

 

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this in their own lives... I just find it funny, myself. [/observation]

Not sure if most people had branded themselves as diehard Republicans, or just said they'd absolutely never vote Democrat. Either way, a few diehard Republicans had changed party affiliation to Libertarian in 2005-2006.

 

They easily swallowed the *conservatism* pill by Republicans, then abandoned it, but only to swallow the conservatism pill offered by Libertarians.

 

During 2006-2008 I would point out (in conversation to Republicans) how the separation of powers is threatened when a single party has control of all branches of government -- by using the incoming possibility of a Dems majority government to illustrate the folly of seeking a permanent majority. Whenever I'd state that both Parties needed a deep cut in power, they'd insist all that's needed is for the Dems to go bye-bye. For every Democratic voter recounting to me how the Palin/Biden debate was fairly even, I'd hear Republican voters insisting she whooped Biden, hands down. Even the one Dems voter, after I pointed this out, had to admit the seeming discrepancy.

 

What's most troubling is how the Republican/conservative base, after their profound error on Bush -- his policies defended with a tenacity bordering on fanaticism -- still expects us to view them as experts on what's best for us all.

 

I'm willing to bet, more Dems (than Republicans/conservatives) would like either for all parties to be done away with, or for there to be more than just the two-party system (with national umph, at least).

 

What I find funny is what I learned about the two parties after taking a history class. Back in the day, it was the Republicans that cared for the poor an downtrodden, the abolition of slavery and equal treatment for blacks, and opposed the aristocracy.

That older party is now called the Democratic-Republicans, as you likely well know (but others might not).

Edited April 20, 2009 by The Bear's Key
clarifying

[jackson33]

Republicans, have been the home for Conservatives from whatever period you feel Conservatism began (Roosevelt/Goldwater/Regan). Many of the fiscal/government principles (party platform) of the Republican Party, in 2000 and 2004, have been totally ignored by both a Republican Congress, along with a Republican President and the recent selection of McCain was seen unacceptable by probably the majority of all factions in the Party, frankly McCain's recent comment on Ms. Palin and his continued speaking points on Environmental Issues, have not set well. I'll add Mr. Steele's selection to head the RNC has been luke warm at best and his comments on Limbaugh and other issues, further dividing the party.

 

On the thread theme, however I still feel the 'grass roots' of the party are sound, getting stronger and by 2010 a good many of these lower level politicians will show up to lead a current leaderless party.

[bascule]

I agree. And there are also conservatives who aren't libertarians who are concerned about the amount of money that's being spent and will have to be paid back some day. Just as you and I are concerned about it.

 

They aren't hypocrites either. Not even if they voted for Bush. Not even if they voted for Bush twice.

 

As long as they were concerned about the deficit under Bush, they're not hypocrites. We had a period of prosperity and economic growth under Bush, even if it was unsustainable. This period also marked one of record deficits brought on by increased spending (including two expensive wars) and tax cuts.

 

That would've been a great time to try to reduce the deficit. Bush didn't. He made it worse.