The Return of the Inflation Tax

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

My mentality is absent both of these. Therefore I have much virtue.

UG....I'm curious who you see as a leader of this so-called grass roots movement....one who shares your mentality and virtue?

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

Thats another incorrect liberal talking point. Most R's that I know do not affiliate nor agree with the perspectives of Beck, Hannity, Rush and their ilk. Its the same as thinking every liberal is a bleeding heart tree hugger. Again, Most D's that I know are far from that.

I really expect that you are just messing with UG, I thought you were above this type of incorrect, malicious negative stereotyping.

Originally Posted by classicman

Thats another incorrect liberal talking point. Most R's that I know do not affiliate nor agree with the perspectives of Beck, Hannity, Rush and their ilk. Its the same as thinking every liberal is a bleeding heart tree hugger. Again, Most D's that I know are far from that.

I really expect that you are just messing with UG, I thought you were above this type of incorrect, malicious negative stereotyping.

I would agree that many mainstream conservative Republicans are not guided by Limbaugh and Beck.

However, it is a fact, not malicious negative stereotyping, that the demographics of political talk radio listeners are overwhelmingly conservative, white, male and middle age. You may believe they simply listen to the dominant voices like Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/Savage for the entertainment value, but are not influenced by what they hear. I disagree.

And it is not a liberal talking point that when the Republican party leader (Steele) or Republican members of Congress criticized Limbaugh for some of his harsh and ignorant rhetoric, they were inundated with hate mail from their constituents and went crawling to apologize to Rush.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

"Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He's an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

Steele - the next day - I'm sorry, Rush

"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh..."

"I was maybe a little bit inarticulate... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

"I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking..."

But, I was referring to the Tea Baggers, many of whom, if you judge by their signs and rhetoric, are simply regurgitating the Limbaugh/Beck talking points almost word-for-word.

Not all, or maybe not even most, but enough to significantly influence the selection of Republican party candidates...whether those candidates are conservative enough.

You may believe that is coincidental.....I don't.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

What bullshit. That is your definition. No one needs et al to win a seat in the Senate or House.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What bullshit. That is your definition. No one needs et al to win a seat in the Senate or House.

Tell that to Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who was leading the polls in the recent special election in NY-23 and would likely have won.....but she was not conservative enough and was effectively pushed out by Palin, Limbaugh..and yes, et al.

Who benefited? The Democratic candidate won the seat that had been Republican for over 100 years.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Tell that to Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who was leading the polls in the recent special election in NY -23.....until she was pushed out by Palin, Limbaugh..and yes, et al.

Who benefited? The Democratic candidate won the seat that had been Republican for over 100 years.

Sort of like the races in VA and NJ? Obama threw down everything but the underware he wore to stump in NJ and the voters turned up their noses at him. He has no coat tails with the electorate.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sort of like the races in VA and NJ? Obama through down everything but the underware he wore to stump in NJ and the voters turned up their noses at him. He has no coat tails with the electorate.

Not at all like Virginia, where the governorship swings back and forth every six-eight years....the Democrats certainly haven't controlled it for 100 years.

And NJ, they both were crooks.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Not at all like Virginia, where the governorship swings back and forth every six-eight years....the Democrats certainly haven't controlled it for 100 years.

And NJ, they both were crooks.

That is your excuse for the utter failure of Obama to swing the vote and help out the Dem incumbent?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sort of like the races in VA and NJ? Obama threw down everything but the underware he wore to stump in NJ and the voters turned up their noses at him. He has no coat tails with the electorate.

I'm in Virginia. Obama did virtually nothing in the governor race here. The candidate didn't make use of him. Towards the election, Obama gave one speech at the campaign's request. And that was it. It was too little too late in a horribly run campaign. The Obama folks were complaining about it a month or so out and leaked several comments trying to distance the administration from the debacle that was coming in Virginia.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

UG....I'm curious who you see as a leader of this so-called grass roots movement....one who shares your mentality and virtue?

It's a grass-roots movement -- one you are keeping yourself carefully ignorant about, which is not the action of a man who believes in himself or his values -- there is no one leader. It's an umbrella group too, so again there is no one center to it, personality or otherwise. About the most dominant overall shared trend is the good-government one: that a good government lives inside its means and that there is practically nothing outside of fighting a war that a government does that is important enough to run a deficit to accomplish. Debt should be viewed with suspicion, many of us think, and chronic indebtedness with more yet. Trillion-dollar deficit spending by that same entity that prints the currency -- stop it at once.

Originally Posted by Redux

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

"Must?" I don't see any such "must." These commentators will be more satisfied or less satisfied entirely for reasons of their own, and the reasons run to the sensible. They are not kingmakers for their side of the aisle, as much as some liberals want to believe so, rather than actually observing anything and ordering belief according to experience.

However, it is a fact, not malicious negative stereotyping, that the demographics of political talk radio listeners are overwhelmingly conservative, white, male and middle age.

As you will become, with age and experience. It puts one more nearly in touch with virtue and values. You find the former much more fun than you'd thought and real life, worth the living, much more possible with the latter.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's a grass-roots movement -- one you are keeping yourself carefully ignorant about, which is not the action of a man who believes in himself or his values -- there is no one leader. It's an umbrella group too, so again there is no one center to it, personality or otherwise. About the most dominant overall shared trend is the good-government one: that a good government lives inside its means and that there is practically nothing outside of fighting a war that a government does that is important enough to run a deficit to accomplish. Debt should be viewed with suspicion, many of us think, and chronic indebtedness with more yet. Trillion-dollar deficit spending by that same entity that prints the currency -- stop it at once.

In fact, it is more than one movement, with more than one agenda and more disparate interests than commonality.
Including the fact that they are funded by competing interests....the Tea Party Express, funded by "fighting a war" neo-cons...and the Tea Party Patriots funded by former congressman Dick Army's K Street corporate lobbyists.

And now they are fighting each other:

.....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.
http://washingtonindependent.com/675...-party-express

Peel away the facade expressed at the grass roots level (and I agree it is sincere at that level) and you will find Washington insiders...but with ties to different extremes (neo-cons v social conservatives) of the Republican party.

Independent fiscal conservatives have and will continue to reject both extremes. But you are carefully ignorant about that because it detracts from what you may sincerely believe are grass roots movements.

It is simply a new face on the old battle on the right between conservative Republicans and true Libertarians.

As you will become, with age and experience. It puts one more nearly in touch with virtue and values. You find the former much more fun than you'd thought and real life, worth the living, much more possible with the latter.

I am old and white.

And experienced enough in politics, certainly far more than you, to know that movements w/o leaders and with such disparate underlying interests will ultimately turn on each other as these groups have.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, it is more than one movement, with more than one agenda and more disparate interests than commonality.
Including the fact that they are funded by competing interests....the Tea Party Express, funded by "fighting a war" neo-cons...and the Tea Party Patriots funded by former congressman Dick Army's K Street corporate lobbyists.

And now they are fighting each other:

.....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.
http://washingtonindependent.com/675...-party-express

Peel away the facade expressed at the grass roots level (and I agree it is sincere at that level) and you will find Washington insiders...but with ties to different extremes (neo-cons v social conservatives) of the Republican party.

Independent fiscal conservatives have and will continue to reject both extremes. But you are carefully ignorant about that because it detracts from what you may sincerely believe are grass roots movements.

It is simply a new face on the old battle on the right between conservative Republicans and true Libertarians.



I am old and white.

And experienced enough in politics, certainly far more than you, to know that movements w/o leaders and with such disparate underlying interests will ultimately turn on each other as these groups have.

None of your points are truely valid. It is no different than when the Dems were out of power, they appeared leaderless and disjointed. Unlike other countries with multipul factions where they elect minority power heads, we do not have to form those coalitions in a two party system. The party in power with a leader is the one who has the White House or the majority in Congress. I recall that during all the protests when the Repubs were in power under Bush the Dems looked like a bunch of interfighting kids in a family that did not get along. Who did you have then Screaming Dean? Yea, a real unitier there. Not. How about Al "I invented the internet" Gore, what bore. The whole notion of Leaderless is a strawman argument. The Dems have repeatedly loss until Bush et. al. screwed it up enough to get the Repubs kicked out and until they found their Savior Obama. Get over yourself.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Unlike other countries with multipul factions where they elect minority power heads, we do not have to form those coalitions in a two party system.

I'm not sure if you meant multiple or multi-pull, but both work in the following example.

While it is true that we do not have to form coalitions of multiple parties, we do tend to form coalitions within the two dominant parties.

Depending on the strength of the party's whip and the tenor of the individual members, parties can be cohesive or fractured on individual issues, types of issues, etc.

While in the minority, one criticism made of the Democrats was their lack of cohesion. The current Republican minority, while cohesive in opposition to issues like health care, in other areas is almost schizophrenic.

The divisions among Democratic moderates and the extreme left wing are almost insignificant compared to the division between Republican moderates and the extreme right wing. This has been aggravated by the defection of a very large group of moderates, giving the impression that the only reliable voting bloc left in the Republican party is it's right wing.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

While in the minority, one criticism made of the Democrats was their lack of cohesion. The current Republican minority, while cohesive in opposition to issues like health care, in other areas is almost schizophrenic.

The divisions among Democratic moderates and the extreme left wing are almost insignificant compared to the division between Republican moderates and the extreme right wing. This has been aggravated by the defection of a very large group of moderates, giving the impression that the only reliable voting bloc left in the Republican party is it's right wing.

And when the dems were out of the White House that was the point. They were in the same level of turmoil and appeared to have no one in charge, no one to drive their ship. They looked like the protesters at the G-8. Everyone was there to protest, none of them for the same thing. When the party in power runs things, historically the party out of power looks disjointed and schizoprenic.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And when the dems were out of the White House that was the point. They were in the same level of turmoil and appeared to have no one in charge, no one to drive their ship.

On the Merc truth scale....you failed!

The Democrats won 14 Senate seats and 56 House seats in 06 and 08 by seeking out and running moderate candidates not the most liberal candidates, for the most part. It was the national strategy guided by the DNC Chairman, Howard Dean.

As chairman of the party, Dean created and employed the "50 State Strategy" that attempted to make Democrats competitive in normally conservative states often dismissed in the past as "solid red." The success of the strategy became apparent after the 2006 midterm elections, where Democrats took back the House and picked up seats in the Senate from normally Republican states such as Missouri and Montana. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama used "The 50 state strategy" as the backbone of his candidacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean

The Republican approach is to stick with a conservative ideological litmus test for candidates. Some of the leaders within the party know that this is a failed strategy, but are unable to convince the hard core social conservative base that now controls the party.

I would ask again...who is running the Republican party (or the Tea Parties)? Leaders who understand how to win elections or the extreme ideologues with a litmus test?

One party has become the big tent party. Objective political observers know which party that would be.

A Republican party with open arms that wants to be more inclusive and more appealing to moderates?....it ain't happening, dude.