Tea party brings energy, change and tumult to GOP

[Bronx33]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-87511912.html


The political commentariat doesn't know what to make of those thousands of Americans who have spontaneously thronged to tea parties and town hall meetings to oppose the big government programs of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders.

Some on the Left attack them as fascists or racists, though evidence of that is sorely lacking. David Brooks in the New York Times compared them with the New Left campus radicals of the 1970s, which comes closer to reality but doesn't quite ring true.

Some tea partiers, citing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, compare themselves with the patriots of 1776 and the founders of 1787, which has some validity but seems overly self-congratulatory.

In terms of their immediate effect on conventional politics and their potential for continued influence, I think the tea partiers bear an uncanny resemblance to the antiwar activists in the Vietnam War period.

Like the tea partiers, the antiwar folk did not start off affiliated with one political party. They campaigned against an incumbent Democratic president and his political heir in 1968. Four years later some supported Rep. Pete McCloskey's antiwar primary challenge to Richard Nixon. The tea partiers have plenty of corrosive things to say about the Republican politicians of the last decade and at least some of them may support like-minded Democrats.

But if they stay involved, the tea partiers are likely to gravitate to the Republican Party, just as the antiwar folk gravitated to the Democratic Party, on which they had a long-lasting and pervasive effect.

Not all of that effect was positive. Antiwar Democrats beat hawks in primaries and then lost general elections to Republicans. The disarray of the 1968 Democratic National Convention helped beat Hubert Humphrey, and the antiwar 1972 nominee George McGovern lost 49 states. Some antiwar folks voiced an anti-Americanism that turned off ordinary voters.

But antiwar Democrats supplied energy and impressive recruits to their party. Many Democrats who were motivated by dovish views and supported by dovish volunteers and contributors won breakthrough victories in 1974 elections, enabling the party to hold congressional and legislative majorities for much of the next 20 years. And even as Democrats lost support from white Southerners and blue-collar men, their antiwar tendency helped them win support from affluent and culturally liberal suburbanites who now, despite Democrats' workingman rhetoric, form the dominant part of the party base.

You can see the intellectual influence of the antiwar people in the speeches of Democrats opposing the conflicts in the Gulf in 1991 and Iraq in 2002. Their arguments are a better fit for the facts of the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964 than for the facts on the ground in 1991 and 2002.

Like the antiwar activists of 40 years ago, the tea partiers include many good citizens moved to political involvement because of intellectually serious concerns about public policy. Similarly, they include a much smaller number of cranks, conspiracy theorists and congenital malcontents.

Tea partiers have caused some internal party splits (see the New York District 23 special election) and some may launch primary challenges or third-party efforts that will elect Democrats. Any time a large number of motivated people inject themselves into electoral politics, they cause a certain amount of chaos.

They also add a lot of energy, political creativity and enthusiasm into a moribund and dejected political party, like the Democrats of 1968 and the Republicans of 2008. New people change the positions and focus of their parties. The Democrats before 1968 were a pro-Cold War party. Since 1968 they have been, with occasional exceptions, a dovish party. Hawks need not apply (ask Joe Lieberman).

The Republicans for the last two decades have been a party whose litmus tests have been cultural issues, especially abortion. The tea partiers have helped to change their focus to issues of government overreach and spending. That may be a helpful pivot, given the emergence of a millennial generation uncomfortable with crusading cultural conservatism.

It's not clear whether the tea partiers' influence on Republicans will last as long as the antiwar cohort's imprint on Democrats. But their concern -- the fact that government spending is on a trajectory to increase far beyond revenues -- seems likely to persist. In which case a spontaneous movement that no one predicted and that no one person led could end up, again, reshaping one of our great political parties.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...#ixzz0iBIy1nVu

[W*GS]

The tea baggers are anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science.

They are motivated to see the government as the enemy - the result of too much libertarian faith-based dogma.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Justice Clarence Thomas' wife launches tea party group





Guess whose "other half" is a tea tantrumer! Mrs. Clarence Thomas, aka Ginni! You read that correctly. She also happened to create Liberty Central Inc..

And what is Liberty Central, you ask? Why, that's a nonprofit lobbying group. Mrs. SCOTUS created it, and it has its very own website that will "organize activism around a set of conservative 'core principles,'" she said.

They're going to provide score cards for Congress members. They're also going to involve themselves in Election 2010, but Ginni wouldn't say how.

She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

As the Church Lady would say, "how conveeeeenient."

"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."

Aww, Mrs. SCOTUS doesn't just support the tea tantrumers, she "adores" them. How compassionately conservative of her.

Experts say Virginia Thomas' work doesn't violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses.

Gee, ya think?

Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage. [...]

In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.

Avoidance is always the best policy when you don't want to address a controversy. Way to go, Thomaseseses!

Mrs. SCOTUS isn't as "impartial" as her hubby Mr. SCOTUS claims to be:

Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP. [...]

Although Liberty Central is a nonpartisan group, its website shows an affinity for conservative principles. Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."

"She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully," the bio says.

I'm sure Judge Clarence sticks his fingers in his ears and sings Lalalalala! when Bellowing Beck pops on the ol' Tee Vee Machine.

But about that pesky impartiality:

But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. He could not be reached for comment.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors.

And of course, Mr. Impartial had nothing to do with that decision.

Because of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the group may also spend corporate money freely to advocate for or against candidates for office.

Justice Thomas was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.

Of course, I'm sure he had to excuse himself during the deliberation process. Glenn Beck was on, and the DVR was on the blink.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The tea baggers are anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science.

They are motivated to see the government as the enemy - the result of too much libertarian faith-based dogma.

Hummmmm....... I think I've heard those talking points before, I wonder why that was one of the biggest flops in radio history..... Hang in there, you still have Rosie Radio to spread your crap.....

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The tea baggers are anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science.

They are motivated to see the government as the enemy - the result of too much libertarian faith-based dogma.

They're just ignorant sheep, doing what they're told by Rupert Murdoch.

[Hogan11]

Lyndon LaRouche Lives!!!!

[Requiem]

We are all sheep to something.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Requiem

We are all sheep to something.

Not me. Gnothi seauton.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The tea baggers are anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science.

They are motivated to see the government as the enemy - the result of too much libertarian faith-based dogma.

You have been watching MSNBC too much...

Most folks in this movement are not anti-government, just anti-huge, Liberty stealing government, and will be the left's only hope to protect their first amendment rights after the R's inhereit bloated executive powers...

[The Lone Bolt]

Even if it's a legit movement, it's a conservative one which means it's doomed to be hijacked by the radical religious right.

First it's "Less Government, Lower Spending."

Then it'll be "Less Government, Lower Spending . . . and JESUS."

Then "JESUS . . . and Less Government, Lower Spending."

And finally just "JESUS!"

Just watch.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

They're just ignorant sheep, doing what they're told by Rupert Murdoch.

This.

They are tools for the same people who are bending them over and raping them.