Will the tea party save the Dem's?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Will their primary victory's against electable Republicans turn off the independents/moderates and shift votes to the Democrats?

I agree with this assessment

I have been afraid all a long this hard shift to the right may fix the tracks and stop the impending Democrat derailment.

[Magox]

Will their primary victory's against electable Republicans turn off the independents/moderates and shift votes to the Democrats?

I agree with this assessment

I have been afraid all a long this hard shift to the right may fix the tracks and stop the impending Democrat derailment.

It may cost them some seats, but in the long run, this energy will move the U.S more to the right. I predicted this would happen, as our country and for that matter the world falls further and further in debt with dire consequences, there will be a shift towards fiscal restraint, which of course favors true conservative politicians.

 

Kicking out liberal GOP members is a good thing, I happen to believe that ideally speaking there should be a clear distinction between the two parties. Any politician who voted for the Stimulus Bill, Bailout of the banks AND Cap and Trade is not a TRUE conservative.

 

Lets kick out the bums who ask for tons of earmarks. Let's kick out the bums who ask for more spending. Let's kick out the bums who want to bailout irresponsible banks, companies or for that matter homeowners.

 

The energy of the Tea Party cuts both ways in the short-term. It provides an incredible energy that has not been seen in politics in a very very long time, and will drive up turn out and enthusiam for conservative politicians that won't be matched on the other side.

 

 

At the same time, the demonization from the left, as painting them as some sort of fringe group as a bunch of racists and bigots preys on the minds of weak-minded individuals such as (Joe the six pack), so this will turn off some of those voters.

 

When you delve deep into the platform of most Tea Party individuals, they actually are more mainstream than either one of the two parties.

 

1) They don't believe in Big Government

 

2) They don't believe in Bailouts

 

3) They believe we as a country should practice fiscal restraint

 

4) They believe in low taxation

 

5) They believe in following the constitution

 

6) They believe that the Private sector is the best way to create jobs.

 

We also know that they are more educated, wealthy and knowledgable when it comes to financial and political matters.

 

All the rest that you hear from the liberals who are desperate to caricature this movement as some sort of a bigoted, ignorant and racist group is just that, desperation, because they fear this energy. As they should.

 

In the short-term it may cost the GOP some seats, but in the long-term it will hold liberal GOP members accountable, and that is a GOOD THING.

 

George Bush was a liberal SPENDING president, and if it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have this inexperienced community organizer as a president today. Look at the damage he is doing to this country. I do blame Bush for this. It is a direct result of his spending binges (see Medicare D entitlement).

 

The one thing I fear is that if old Sarah runs, that she may win enough votes to win the primary. That would be a disaster.

 

She is a very powerful figure, she can influence elections more than any person in the world right now. She should just keep writing books, raising money and stumping for politicians. She can help drive turnout in a huge way....

 

The good news is that I did see a poll about 4-5 months ago, where they asked self-described Tea Party members; Is Sarah Palin electable as a president and only about 50% said yes.

 

I hope it really is that way..... So if she doesn't run, who will the Tea Party get behind for 2012. Whoever they get behind will win the primaries. I just don't see how my guy Romney will get their endorsement, his ROMNEYCARE will do him in.

 

Maybe John Thune..... The guy would make a great candidate, he is a true conservative, very articulate, very well liked, he knocked off Tom Daschle (which was a tremendous feat), he has a humongous War Chest (funds), very presidential looking, has an incredible memory (remembers peoples names from campaign stumping visits off of the street from years ago) and would definitely appeal to middle of the road independents.

 

There is no doubt, that if he won the primaries, he would definitely win the 2012 presidential elections. Without a doubt.

[IDBillzFan]

There is one aspect to this that only few are really paying attention to: Republican voter turnout. It's not just about getting the independents. It's about getting more votes than the left does, and that includes the unprecedented number of Republicans who are now going to the polls after years ignoring things like primaries and mid-terms.

 

I'm not suggesting that single point will be the lone difference-maker, but face it: liberals are increasingly showing their lack of enthusiasm right now. You think the black vote is coming out in droves in November? You think the college kids are coming out in droves? How about the Coffee Party people? Remember them? Exactly. No enthusiasm.

 

Beyond that, I happen to agree with DeMint: I'd rather start with a minority of a more fiscally conservative group, than a majority that includes people like Castle.

Edited September 18, 2010 by LABillzFan

[1billsfan]

No matter how much the liberal media tries to paint the tea party candidates as raving lunatics, they don't hold a candle to the Pelosis', Rangels', Graysons', Weiners' and Franks' of the democratic party. Let alone the raving lunatics who actually voted for the unashamed and corrupt Rangel in the primary.

 

This November, the dems are going to have a crushing defeat the likes of which we've never seen and may never see again. This "tea party is good for the dems" thought process is nothing but a security blanket for the liberals in deep denial of the mega-tsunami that's about to hit them.

Edited September 18, 2010 by 1billsfan

[LeviF]

You think the college kids are coming out in droves?

I'm voting. Requested my absentee ballot yesterday.

 

Of course, I'm not voting for Scott Murphy. Still pissed at him.

[Magox]

I'm voting. Requested my absentee ballot yesterday.

 

Of course, I'm not voting for Scott Murphy. Still pissed at him.

Who's running against Scott Murphy? And what are you pissed at him for?

[Jim in Anchorage]

No matter how much the liberal media tries to paint the tea party candidates as raving lunatics, they don't hold a candle to the Pelosis', Rangels', Graysons', Weiners' and Franks' of the democratic party. Let alone the raving lunatics who actually voted for the unashamed and corrupt Rangel in the primary.

 

This November, the dems are going to have a crushing defeat the likes of which we've never seen and may never see again. This "tea party is good for the dems" thought process is nothing but a security blanket for the liberals in deep denial of the mega-tsunami that's about to hit them.

Regards the article I linked, the writer is a columnist I have been reading for 15+ years and believe me he is no liberal. His concern[which I share] is by producing candidates to far to the right,the GOP is giving the down for the 10 count Democrats a break they never expected.

[Magox]

Regards the article I linked, the writer is a columnist I have been reading for 15+ years and believe me he is no liberal. His concern[which I share] is by producing candidates to far to the right,the GOP is giving the down for the 10 count Democrats a break they never expected.

Just out of curiosity Jim, regarding the Tea Party platform, which view do you consider to be too much to the far right?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Just out of curiosity Jim, regarding the Tea Party platform, which view do you consider to be too much to the far right?

As far as policy I have no personal objections. The point is are you running a electable candidate. We can redo Goldwater over and over, and have LBJ for the rest of our live's.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Jim in Anchorage

[Gary M]

Regards the article I linked, the writer is a columnist I have been reading for 15+ years and believe me he is no liberal. His concern[which I share] is by producing candidates to far to the right,the GOP is giving the down for the 10 count Democrats a break they never expected.

 

The Tea Party candidates are too far right if you think Pelosi is a moderate.

[1billsfan]

Regards the article I linked, the writer is a columnist I have been reading for 15+ years and believe me he is no liberal. His concern[which I share] is by producing candidates to far to the right,the GOP is giving the down for the 10 count Democrats a break they never expected.

 

He may not be a liberal, but I'll bet you he reads and watches the liberal media. It's the only way to explain such a worrisome negative slant on the tea party and their effect on the upcoming election. From Alaska to Florida, these establishment republican candidates have lost all across the country because the voters no longer trust them. Whether it's because of their voting record or who is backing them, the people do not trust them to do what needs to be done to change the disastrous, bankrupting and socialistic course that the liberals and liberal lights (rinos) have us on.

[Doc]

Making people work for the money they get? What a concept!

[LeviF]

Who's running against Scott Murphy? And what are you pissed at him for?

On the Republican side, Chris Gibson. To be honest, I'm not sure if I'm going to vote for either in that election, really.

 

I'm not really pissed at Murphy, but my head hit my keyboard they day I got an e-mail from his office explaining why he voted for the "health care" bill the second time it came around in the House, when he voted "nay" the first time.

[IDBillzFan]

As far as policy I have no personal objections. The point is are you running a electable candidate. We can redo Goldwater over and over, and have LBJ for the rest of our live's.

I get that. But you specifically said you agree with his position that they are producing candidates too far to the right. Honestly, what positions have you or anyone heard that are too far to the right. Forget the concept of "electable." Who or what is specifically too far right?

Edited September 19, 2010 by LABillzFan

[Jim in Anchorage]

I get that. But you specifically said you agree with his position that they are producing candidates too far to the right. Honestly, what positions have you or anyone heard that are too far to the right. Forget the concept of "electable." Who or what is specifically too far right?

I don't think this is good time to be talking about declaring unemployment benefits unconstitional.

[Magox]

I don't think this is good time to be talking about declaring unemployment benefits unconstitional.

Tell me what part of this Platform you are against and that you consider extreme:

 

http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

 

1. Protect the Constitution.

 

2. Reject cap & trade.

 

3. Demand a balanced budget.

 

4. Enact fundamental tax reform.

 

5. Restore fiscal responsibility & constitutionally limited government.

 

6. End runaway government spending.

 

7. Defund, repeal and replace government-run health care.

 

8. Pass an “all-of-the-above” energy policy.

 

9. Stop the pork.

 

10. Stop the tax hikes.

 

 

This is their official platform, the rest you hear is just rhetoric. This is what I do, I tune out the rhetoric and look at the substance of the proposals. Now, the question is how do you implement and execute these proposals? Well, considering that the Tea Party is less than 2 years and there has never been a politician that has been elected under this banner, I am very encouraged that there are aspiring politicians who want to tackle these issues.

 

This is a very positive element, it will not only keep Democrats in check but it will hold GOP candidates accountable for their voting record.

 

So I ask Jim, now that we see what their platform is, what part of this do you consider "extreme"?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Tell me what part of this Platform you are against and that you consider extreme:

 

http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

 

1. Protect the Constitution.

 

2. Reject cap & trade.

 

3. Demand a balanced budget.

 

4. Enact fundamental tax reform.

 

5. Restore fiscal responsibility & constitutionally limited government.

 

6. End runaway government spending.

 

7. Defund, repeal and replace government-run health care.

 

8. Pass an “all-of-the-above” energy policy.

 

9. Stop the pork.

 

10. Stop the tax hikes.

 

This is their official platform, the rest you hear is just rhetoric. This is what I do, I tune out the rhetoric and look at the substance of the proposals. Now, the question is how do you implement and execute these proposals? Well, considering that the Tea Party is less than 2 years and there has never been a politician that has been elected under this banner, I am very encouraged that there are aspiring politicians who want to tackle these issues.

 

This is a very positive element, it will not only keep Democrats in check but it will hold GOP candidates accountable for their voting record.

 

So I ask Jim, now that we see what their platform is, what part of this do you consider "extreme"?

I don't care what their "official platform" is.

When the actual living and breathing candidate I can vote for [in this case Miller ,US Senate AK] says "privatize SS and Medicare" yes I am concerned. What about the Thousands and Thousands of dollars I have been forced to pay into the system for my now 35 year working career?

[GG]

Of course, I'm not voting for Scott Murphy. Still pissed at him.

 

Get in line. A lot of people are pissed at Scott Murphy.

[Magox]

I don't care what their "official platform" is.

When the actual living and breathing candidate I can vote for [in this case Miller ,US Senate AK] says "privatize SS and Medicare" yes I am concerned. What about the Thousands and Thousands of dollars I have been forced to pay into the system for my now 35 year working career?

Jim, what is wrong with privatizing SS? WHat do you think that means? Do you believe that your money will disappear? So you feel comfortable with allowing your hard-earned money to go into a pool of funds that gets raided by the Government to spend on other priorities?

 

That's the problem Jim, people aren't educated enough on this matter to have a solid opinion. Instead, the left demonizes this possibility and uses fear tactics to scare the bajeezus out of people in hopes that they will be caught like a deer in headlights and stand pat.

 

We can't afford to stand pat Jim. It's going broke AND THAT IS NOT A FEAR TACTIC. It is the truth, just like Medicare.

 

I would love to have my own S.S account, where I could see my own retirement funds and allow me to have some sort of control of how it is invested.

 

There are all sorts of ways to do this, you can have a system where:

 

50% MANDATORY go into U.S treasuries.

15% Municipal bonds of your choosing.

15% Mutual funds. Government approved. WHere you could choose from (for example) 100 different funds. WIth full disclosure of performance and low fees.

10% You choose which stocks or mutual funds (high risk) you decide to invest.

10% Cash. Interest bearing money market account. Where you are allowed to request up to a maxiumum 10% for emergency uses (approved by the government) tax free.

 

The reality Jim is that something has to be done. Also, one or two Senators are not going to be able to push through such a massive reform on important entitlements such as S.S and MEdicare, it will take bipartisan support.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Magox

[erynthered]

Get in line. A lot of people are pissed at Scott Murphy.

 

 

Whats that supposed to mean?