Wednesday, September 15, 2010
In light of yesterday's Tea Party victories...
...I've gone and ordered Scott Rasmussen's Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Sep 15, 01:04:00 PM:
Both major parties have issues. They’ve both moved far off center – the Democrats more so, and they’re in power right now.
Republicans have a looming identity crisis. Are they Big State Fascists?, Moralists?, Patriotic Traditionalists?, Big Defense Militarists? Hawks?, “Little l” Libertarians? You can build a platform around much of this, but no Big Tent can fit all, I humbly submit.
That’s why I have difficulty putting a Christine O’Donnell in the same tent with a Chris Christie.
I’m a fan of Christie – as governor he’s a ”Little l” Libertarian. He took a nuanced position on the WTC Mosque / Spa – and I don’t care. I don’t know if he goes to church on Sunday -- and I don’t care. I don’t know his position on Afghanistan – and I don’t care. He’s just a governor dealing with a runaway budget. At the national level, he’s clearly in the same tent with a Paul Ryan.
Christine O’Donnell is a Moralist, and I suspect a bit of an opportunist. If you look closely there’s a lot of political opportunists riding the Tea Party Express right now.
I’m glad O’Donnell knocked off Castle, even if she loses in the general. I don’t know how you can call Castle a Republican given his voting record. That goes for the two gal Senators from Maine as well. Castle lost because of this, more so than O’Donnell won. Before you get too worked up about the Significance of Christine O’Donnell, realize she won with only 30,000 votes – not margin … total votes!
I’m a fan of Sarah Palin with reservations. She’s obviously a political force, although currently unelectable to the White House without the Bomber Girl Vote (college educated women). Today, Sarah would say she’s FOR both O’Donnell and Christie – despite the underlying inconsistency. She and the Republican Party can’t be that inconsistent in the long run, I humbly submit.
The “Tea Party” isn’t a political party, and it may never be. Funny, how the same word “party” can mean different things. Many insurgent Republicans are trying to work the “Tea Party” angle for current advantage. E.g., I suspect Christine O’Donnell cared more about Gay Marriage in her prior runs for Senate than she did about Runaway Federal Spending. The press is playing along, as it helps write their headlines (“Tea Party Coup!”).
What’s really going on is that Independents – as well as many Republicans and a few Democrats -- are MAD AS HELL like never before. Together these folks are a majority of eligible voters – Independents alone are a third of the electorate. Mostly they split their vote close to evenly between the two major parties, when they bother to vote at all. Karl Rove used wedge issues to exploit this phenomenon in 2000 and 2004.
But in 2008, Independents came to hate Bush-Cheney and broke for Obama 54% to 46. It gave Obama the White House.
Right now Independents are against Obama 2 to 1. They’ll be 2 to 1 against Obama in 2012, if the Republicans don’t fuck it up.
Neither party fully gets this right now. With a current annual structural way over $1 trillion, someone will have to.
By , at
Wed Sep 15, 05:15:00 PM:
Both major parties have issues. They’ve both moved far off center – the Democrats more so, and they’re in power right now.
Republicans have a looming identity crisis. Are they Big State Fascists?, Holy Roller Moralists?, Patriotic Traditionalists?, Big Defense Militarist Hawks?, “Little l” Libertarians? You can build a platform around much of this, but no Big Tent can fit it all, I humbly submit.
That’s why I have difficulty putting a Christine O’Donnell in the same tent with a Chris Christie.
I’m a fan of Christie – as governor he’s a ”Little l” Libertarian. He took a nuanced position on the WTC Mosque / Spa – and I don’t care. I don’t know if he goes to church on Sunday -- and I don’t care. I don’t know his position on Afghanistan – and I don’t care. He’s just a governor dealing with a runaway budget. At the national level, he’s clearly in the same tent with a Paul Ryan.
Christine O’Donnell is a Holy Roller Moralist, and I suspect a bit of an opportunist. If you look closely there’s a lot of political opportunists riding the Tea Party Express right now.
I’m glad O’Donnell knocked off Mike Castle, even if she does loses in the general. I don’t know how you can call Castle a Republican given his voting record. That goes for the two gal Senators from Maine as well. Castle lost because of this, more so than O’Donnell won. Before you get too worked up about the Significance of Christine O’Donnell, realize she won with only 30,000 votes – not margin of victory … total votes!
I’m a fan of Sarah Palin with reservations. She’s obviously a political force, although currently unelectable to the White House as she doesn't have the Bomber Girl Vote (college educated women). Today, Sarah would say she’s FOR both O’Donnell and Christie – despite the underlying inconsistency. She and the Republican Party can’t be that inconsistent in the long run, I humbly submit.
The “Tea Party” isn’t a political party, and it may never be. Funny, how the same word “party” can mean so many different things. Right now many insurgent Republicans are trying to work the “Tea Party” angle for advantage. E.g., I suspect Christine O’Donnell cared more about Gay Marriage in her prior runs for Senate than she did about Runaway Federal Spending. The press is playing along with this, as it helps write their headlines (“Tea Party Coup!”).
What’s really going on is that Independents – as well as many Republicans and a few Democrats -- are MAD AS HELL like never before. Together these folks are a majority of eligible voters – Independents alone are a third of the electorate. During most cycles Independents split their vote almost evenly between the two major parties, when they bother to vote at all. But in 2008, Independents hated Bush-Cheney and broke for Obama 54% to 46%, which gave Obama the White House.
Right now Independents are against Obama 2 to 1. They’ll be 2 to 1 against Obama in 2012, if the Republicans don’t fuck it up.
Neither party fully gets this right now. With a current annual structural deficit in excess of $1 trillion, someone will have to.
By 
Bomber Girl, at
Wed Sep 15, 10:54:00 PM:
Independents, including Bomber Girls (thanks for the attribution, Ignoramus, however unscientific it is), are pretty fed up with both parties since the new names the Republicans seem to put up have a high wacko factor (not to be confused with a whacked-off factor - where Republicans seem on board, in light of the tepid response to O'Donnell's win) and the names that keep showing up for the Dems just like to spend and spend to buy their re-elections. It ain't pretty. But candidates like Christie are appealing since they seem to throw out the old tax and spend addiction without getting too personal on social issues.
By , at
Thu Sep 16, 03:11:00 PM:
Any liberl GOP'ers who want to avoid being Castled by any prospective O'Donnells out there should remember to do two simple things- pledge to actively promote a 10% across the board pay cut for non-military employees of the federal government, and pledge to eliminate at least one of the Commerce, Labor or Education Departments. Two, if your candidacy is in desperate shape.
Like a stiff wallop of tequila, these two pledges are guaranteed to wake up any boring campaign and carry even the sleepiest Democrat candidate to victory. You can support masturbation, gay marriage, whatever. It doesn't matter: do these two things and you'll win.
By , at
Thu Sep 16, 04:35:00 PM:
of course, if you do you'll (rightfully) be referred to derisively as a Tea Party Republican.
By Progressively Defensive, at
Fri Sep 17, 11:12:00 AM:
Well, this is a frustrating situation. The USA wants effective and efficient and limited government, far smaller than it is and far less sleazy.
But my brief look at O'Donnell indicates that she's "Christian Right" for want of a better term. Which is fine would I be interested in having lunch with her in the sense that they are good people often; but not libertarian.
I don't even think she is really what I consider to be "Tea Party" for this reason. I think when this turmoil settles, fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republicans and Democrats will win elections, but I would have it be sooner rather than later.
In a way I hope Castle runs as an Independent on that platform realizing he probably does not have the Congressional record to substantiate it. He should just frankly say he did what he thought he had to do to be effective as a Congressman for his district.
I think the "Christian Right" have found their places locally, but will never be welcome as a determining force in USA Federal Government other than here and there.
By Progressively Defensive, at
Fri Sep 17, 11:25:00 AM:
O'Donnell could win; she should just say she won't press her social agenda and in any case as Senator she has little power over abortion rights or whatever else. She's not going to hold sway over the next Supreme Court nominee by way of elaboration. Would she speak to the substantive heart of the electorate while explaining to whatever fringe why they should vote for her whatever their disagreements, she would win. Is she an effective enough politician? I'll watch and see.
Bomber Girl: Your perogative to be mysterious, but Ignoramus I think has proven to be quite the detective?
I think a Third Party will arise from this and either displace one of the other two or be the "king-maker" between them. It's a cause of unwelcome commotion in a parliamentary system, but might work well in the USA.
The "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Libertarian Party." Call it that and you are 50% there.
By Bomber Girl, at
Fri Sep 17, 12:03:00 PM:
PD, I'm mysterious? How exotic!
Although, truly, I am very clear about what I am looking for in a candidate!
By , at
Fri Sep 17, 01:33:00 PM:
Bomber Girl has been clear on what she wants in a President. She’s only one individual but a thoughtful critic of Sarah and represents a significant cohort – college educated women – where Sarah’s particularly challenged. There are other such cohorts as well, which is why Sarah is presently unelectable.
But if Christine O’Donnell runs close or wins in Delaware, we’ll know the times they are a changing. If Bomber Girl ever starts supporting Sarah, we’ll know the times have already changed … just sayin’
I’ve warmed up to the idea of a Senator O’Donnell. The Republicans should support her 110% -- she did win the nomination fair and square … she absolutely can win … if she flounders it’ll be a drag on other races … she could be the 51st.
But here’s the problem: Both Christine and Sarah have roots in the Holy Roller Moralist wing of the Republican party. This wing has significant clout within the party and in primaries, but its positions are problematic in general elections.
Here’s an old joke with a political moral:
A priest, a minister and a rabbi get on the topic of “when does life begin.”
The priest says: Upon conception, as a unique individual is defined with a God-given soul.
The minister says: No you have it wrong. It’s at the Quickening. Forty days or so after conception the spark of life gets lit and the fetus shows independent movement.
The rabbi says: No, you’re both wrong. Life begins when the youngest kid goes off to college, and the dog dies.
[Badum-Ching]
The political moral of this joke is that morality has no place in politics. Moses got Ten Commandments but only three are still on the law books. Hell, “coveting” is a way of life these days.
Seriously, politics requires compromise. How could a Priest-Legislator sign onto a Quickening compromise.
Holly Rollers should be welcome candidates in politics. But they need to learn to render unto Caesar on matters where there is no moral consensus. That doesn’t mean they can’t preach, just not legislate.
I’m still not clear where Sarah stands on this. If she’s “pragmatic” then she should say so.
