No Ideologues Needed
November 3, 2009
The GOP are trying to jump on the Tea Party/912 bandwagon and many Conservatives aren’t having it.
Says Everett Wilkinson, a tea party organizer in Florida: “We are not going to allow our [movement] to be stolen by the GOP or by any political party.”
Not sure what the GOP is thinking. Whether, like the article says, they think they can hitch on and ride it to defeat Obama or they think they can win people back to the party. Not sure. Things have changed. Many of us are no longer party loyalists. It’s not all about having our party in power. It’s about who is doing what’s right for the country and I don’t think the Republican party has figured that out yet. Or the Democrats for that matter. The party structure in the country, as we’ve known it, is on it’s last days. I think 2010 will still largely be about Republican vs Democrat with a couple of surprises, but by 2012 I think things will change. People can make fun of the movement that’s happening, put it down, denigrate it or whatever but 2012 will be the payoff when both parties are spanked for their arrogance and ignorance.
Posted in America Fights Back, Christopher Lee, Democrats, In Case You Missed It, Politics, Republicans, tea party
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
content rss
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
No Ideologues Needed
Aren’t conservatives ideologues? I thought that was the whole point of the tea party/912 movement…to get back to conservative principles.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I hate to burst your bubble, Chris, but the conservatives who are upset with the GOP are an even smaller fringe element. There is no way they’ll have enough votes to do anything on their own. Their views are too loony to attract any moderates or dems, so I would think separating could only hurt them.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Silke, I couldn’t think of a title and “Ideologues” just sounded cool so I went with it. Fakers maybe? I don’t know.
Reasic, yeah, they’re some loony ideas alright. Government with limited powers, a government that doesn’t get involved with private industry, a government that’s not corrupt and doesn’t over spend causing them to raise taxes. Crazy. My God, what are we thinking?
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Reasic, I wouldn’t underestimate this movement. Look at New York’s 23rd congressional district election today. The race has drawn significant national attention because of the relatively large amount of support for a third-party candidate from the national conservative base. The moderate Republican candidate actually dropped out of the race.
Chris, I agree that our government needs to get spending under control but I can’t identify with the paranoid anti-government message coming out of the Tea Party/912 movement. Glenn Beck is simply too ridiculous for me.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Chris,
What you just described is basically the Republican/conservative ideology. It contained none of the bizarre Glenn Beckian, 9/12 conspiracy theories about czars, ACORN, death panels, socialism, fake birth certificates, etc. Plenty of people believe in limited government. It’s the paranoid delusions that many people will find it hard to latch on to.
Silke,
Yes, I know a conservative won, but that was against a Republican who was not against gay marriage or abortion rights. Realistically, how many of those are there in the Republican party? I say if she were an actual Republican, the conservative wouldn’t have had a chance.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Silke, it’s not anti-government. It’s anti-corrupt government.
Reasic, those use to be Republican ideologies. No more though. We saw what happened when the GOP took total control of government. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Reasic, actually the Democrat won, but it was a very close race (49% to 45%).
That’s why I think you shouldn’t underestimate the influence of the conservative base. While some of these people might believe some pretty crazy stuff, they also happen to share some legitimate concerns with many sensible people who are unhappy with their elected representatives. If a reasonably intelligent and articulate alternative to Sarah Palin emerges (which wouldn’t be that hard) in 2012, it could be a close election.
It seems like the same reason you dismiss conservatives because of their fringe elements is the same reason Chris dismisses liberals because of their extreme elements.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:22 am
My bad. I thought you were saying that the conservative won. Still, the only reason he had such a high percentage of the vote was because the Republican was liberal on social issues. I don’t it’s a good indicator.
I really don’t think there will be an intelligent and articulate alternative to Palin. There’s no need. The loony base loves her. They want her to run in 2012. That’s partly why I think no one will take them seriously.
Yes, I’m dismissing the conservative fringe elements, but the difference between Chris and I, is that he is advocating making that fringe element a separate political party. Unless I misunderstand his argument, I just don’t see the conservative fringe being a viable solution for a majority of Americans.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
What, specifically, went wrong that you didn’t agree with?
November 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Silke,
I’ve read up a little more on this NY-23 issue now. This Hoffman guy from the conservative party lost an election in a district that Republicans have represented in over a century. This dude was exactly was Chris wants. He signed a pledge to uphold Beck’s principles in Congress, and was supported by the 912project, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, etc… He was also the only conservative choice in the election. Anyone who leaned even slightly to the right in this very red district should’ve voted for Hoffman.
It seems to me that this election, in particular, proves the opposite of what you’re saying. This was an election that conservatives should have won. This loss demonstrates that many moderates and conservatives are not ready for a fringe candidate. This was a test of “how conservative is too conservative” in a GOP-dominated district, and these voters drew the line at Hoffman and his Palin/Thompson/Beck supporters.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Reasic, the only thing I am saying about this election is that it disputes your claim that “the conservatives who are upset with the GOP are an even smaller fringe element. There is no way they’ll have enough votes to do anything on their own.” They almost did. Yes, Hoffman lost in a traditionally Republican district but as a third-party candidate he came very close. I think you are wrong to underestimate them.
That doesn’t mean I take their crazy claims seriously. It just means there are a lot out there who either do or are willing to overlook them.
Chris, everyone opposes corruption. Unfortunately it happens, so you deal with it on a case-by-case basis. But when you assume almost everyone in government is corrupt, what options are you left with? No government? Do you think a third party would be immune to corruption?
As Winston Churchill said:
November 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I hope you’re wrong, Silke.
I definitely agree here. I oppose the corrupt Democrats in my state just as much as the Republicans I’ve seen arrested on the national stage. Chris’ problem is that he’s bought into the partisan idea that corruption is solely exists in one or two parties. No party is immune, Chris.