Tea Party Vindication?
Joe Escalante ·
Dec 20, 2010 at 11:11pm
Is the Tea Party vindicated by the recent buzz that the 4 Republican Senators previously disposed to vote for amnesty for illegals were now responsible for defeating the Dream Act today because they feared a primary challenge from a Tea Party candidate in 2012? It cost a few seats, but evidently the message was sent. I believe they don't think they will lose to these challengers because they think the Tea Party can only throw up kooks. But it's expensive to ignore the Tea Party.
Ultimately this comes down to money. No one wants to have to raise money to defeat even a kook. It's beneath them. Eeeeww.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Perhaps these Senators have heard some of the buzz from various factions in the TEA Party Movement about their need to recruit a higher caliber of candidates for the next cycle. They may have had the sobering realization that the TEA Party is not only not fading away but is actually organizing to be more effective.
Jul '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Why are the calculations of so many GOP politicians based upon electoral calculations rather than principle?
DREAM was an insult to the American public and to those immigrants who played by the rules. That's what should have informed their decisions, not the cynical, self-serving question as to whether a vote would hinder their chances of being re-elected.
Aug '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
It cost a few seats for sure, it may very well have cost us the majority in the Senate. If so then that message should be even clearer, the base is willing to pay that high a price to root out the RINOs.
I am a squish, not a Tea Party guy, the zealotry is just not my style, but if the Tea Party can keep craven GOP politicians a little more honest, that's great, I'm all for putting the Fear of God in the white-guys-in-blue-suits.
I do hope the the Tea Party finds some better canidates (no more pointy headwear!) because nothing ruins a good break like a bunch of kooks.
Sep '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
I don't believe the Tea Party cost any seats overall. It was an overall huge gain, and those who blithely try to take the gains from the Teaparty and pretend that this would have all happened anyway are completely wrong.
There were specific seats that were lost, Delaware for one, I'm not sure if anyone has made the case for others, other than by mere assertion. Nevada? Would the other guy have beaten Reid?
Because the Tea Party movement was a grassroots phenomenon it was uncontrollable. I contend that for every Republican moderate that would have run instead of a Tea Party candidate, it would have depressed enthusiasm elsewhere in the country and there would not have been the big pick up in congressional seats. The rebellion was palpable. Delaware was unavoidable collateral damage, but the message sent was worth more than the one seat nationally anyway. Wishing that some GOP establishment candidate could have been saved from the giant wave of rebellion is to deny the reality.
Next election the Tea Party will be more professional, but it will also be become somewhat less innocent and principled as personal ambitions and other forces enter in.
Oct '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Ah come on. If we really did seal the border, fix the economic problems that produced illegal immigration, and amnestied those inside--with penalties--I think I'd go for it.
Sadly, the DREAM act was as far from that as you can get. At this point, we've got to stop this open border policy. My God, northern Mexico is near civil war from the American drug trade. Why must we be so selfish and shortsighted? Feeling good about ourselves won't help Mexican families worried they will be shot tomorrow. Being "nice" can have its consequences too, you know.
Sep '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Franco: I don't believe the Tea Party cost any seats overall. It was an overall huge gain, and those who blithely try to take the gains from the Teaparty and pretend that this would have all happened anyway are completely wrong.
There were specific seats that were lost, Delaware for one, I'm not sure if anyone has made the case for others, other than by mere assertion. Nevada? Would the other guy have beaten Reid?
Because the Tea Party movement was a grassroots phenomenon it was uncontrollable. I contend that for every Republican moderate that would have run instead of a Tea Party candidate, it would have depressed enthusiasm elsewhere in the country and there would not have been the big pick up in congressional seats. The rebellion was palpable. Delaware was unavoidable collateral damage, but the message sent was worth more than the one seat nationally anyway. Wishing that some GOP establishment candidate could have been saved from the giant wave of rebellion is to deny the reality.
Exactly.
Oct '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
I don’t believe the Tea Party had any effect on the defeat of the Dream Act by not passing cloture with 60 votes. The Tea Party was primarily concerned with fiscal responsibility, and didn’t sponsor any social issues. Many polls seem to agree that the majority of Americans believe that the borders must be closed and illegal immigration (visa violation included) must be stopped before they are ready discuss the problem of those illegal immigrates who are already here. Democrat politicians from states with some amount of illegal immigrants also voted against the Dream Act: Jon Tester of Montana, Max Baucus of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pyror of Arkansas, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Senators Manchin, Hatch, Bunning, and Gregg did not vote. The only Republicans voting for the bill were Senators Bennett, Lugar, and Murkowski. The Republican Senate caucus simply held firm on this irresponsible bill, and the Tea Party had nothing to do with it. Credit Mitch McConnell, not the Tea Party.
Oct '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Joe, I don't think the Tea Party had anything to do with 4 senators voting against the Dream Act. Mickey Kaus is the only prominent pundit saying that. Credit Mitch McConnell for pursuading the moderates to vote against.
after the shellacking the Tea Partiers got with their senatorial bets (Angle, Buck, Miller, O'Donnell), i don't think the Maine sisters are afraid of them. they can always run as an independent (if defeated in the primaries) or switch parties and beat the TPers in the general elections.
Jun '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
John, you are ignoring Joe's final statement: "But it's expensive to ignore the Tea Party. Ultimately this comes down to money. No one wants to have to raise money to defeat even a kook. It's beneath them. Eeeeww."
Far from a shellacking, Angle, Buck, and Miller ran very close races that put real fear into their opponents and O'Donnell put paid to the political career of Mike Castle who was supposed to be a walk-over for the Senate. I don't doubt that even the Maine sisters are going to lean a little more right to avoid having to do what you correct predict they could do
Oct '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Pilgrim
John, you are ignoring Joe's final statement: "But it's expensive to ignore the Tea Party. Ultimately this comes down to money. No one wants to have to raise money to defeat even a kook. It's beneath them. Eeeeww."
Far from a shellacking, Angle, Buck, and Miller ran very close races that put real fear into their opponents and O'Donnell put paid to the political career of Mike Castle who was supposed to be a walk-over for the Senate. I don't doubt that even the Maine sisters are going to lean a little more right to avoid having to do what you correct predict they could do · Dec 21 at 4:26am
The only reason a lowlife with low popularity like Harry Reid won was because of Angle. Tarkanian would have been a better choice. Norton was more electable than Buck. Murkowski lost a close primary to Joe Miller but beat him by 4% pts in the general. And the Tea Party gave away a seat in Delaware to the generic democrat.
Jun '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
John at #10:
Woulda, shoulda coulda...I'm sure glad you know all these things as absolute fact, John. Tarkanian, a better choice, Norton, more electable, Joe Miller, something, I'm not quite sure what. Would we have liked to win all those Senate seats? Of course we would. Would we have won them with your names above? Personally, I doubt it, but there is no way to empirically prove one way or the other. I say quit bitching and be happy. People on our side have more enthusiasm and momentum than we have had for years. There are bumps on every road, don't blame the driver.
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
This takes money. Politicians will do almost anything to avoid it.
John Marzan: Joe, I don't think the Tea Party had anything to do with 4 senators voting against the Dream Act. Mickey Kaus is the only prominent pundit saying that. Credit Mitch McConnell for pursuading the moderates to vote against.
after the shellacking the Tea Partiers got with their senatorial bets (Angle, Buck, Miller, O'Donnell), i don't think the Maine sisters are afraid of them. they can always run as an independent (if defeated in the primaries) or switch parties and beat the TPers in the general elections. · Dec 21 at 3:54am
Dec '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
"It's nice to elect the right people, but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things."
-- Milton Friedman
Jul '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
C'mon, you know why. They want the job.
Oct '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Were the Tea P'ers really that influential post-election?
DADT passed.
The tax compromise, which the GOP establishment loves but true fiscal conservatives and TPers hate, got done to benefit Obama.
The START treaty will be ratified even though it constrains the US from developing new missile defense systems.
DREAM failed, but the dems got a lot of things done in this "mad duck" session.
Edited on Dec 22, 2010 at 3:19amMay '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
John Marzan: Were the Tea P'ers really that influential post-election?
DADT passed.
That particular example I don't think is relevant. There are quite a few libertarian-types in the Tea crowd who are ambivalent (or even supportive) of DADT repeal.
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Good point Scott. There are a lot of conservatives that don't care about DADT. Last night on Redeye, only Anne Coulter was against it. Gutfeld, Devito, Schultz, they could give a rat's ass.
It was definitely a victory for the far left though. Did you see Obama struggle with the gay marriage question at his press conference today? What's he waiting for? I don't understand this guy. No one believes he has a religious bone in his body. Why walk this fence. Be yourself. You're killing me with the phoniness or phoneity, whatever the word would be.
Jul '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Joseph Eagar: Ah come on. If we really did seal the border, fix the economic problems that produced illegal immigration, and amnestied those inside--with penalties--I think I'd go for it.
Sadly, the DREAM act was as far from that as you can get. At this point, we've got to stop this open border policy. My God, northern Mexico is near civil war from the American drug trade. Why must we be so selfish and shortsighted? Feeling good about ourselves won't help Mexican families worried they will be shot tomorrow. Being "nice" can have its consequences too, you know. · Dec 21 at 1:09am
What you are suggesting is a rerun of the Reagan amnesty, which was contingent on border control that never happened. So now Arizona has been turned into no man's land by the race mongers in the regime.
Oct '10
Re: Tea Party Vindication?
Scott Reusser
John Marzan: Were the Tea P'ers really that influential post-election?
DADT passed.
That particular example I don't think is relevant. There are quite a few libertarian-types in the Tea crowd who are ambivalent (or even supportive) of DADT repeal. · Dec 22 at 6:24am
So they're not homophobes, just xenophobes?
edit: just kidding... ;)
Edited on Dec 23, 2010 at 2:53am