Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Back on topic, in just the quotes from the article I saw hatred toward immigrants, jews, muslims, blacks and even people who are affiliatied with his own party. I've never heard of this guy before now, I prefer cartoons to the news channels, but you can bet I'll be doing some research on him.

@mattyrm: That would be a streatch and a half and if that's the case I would like to shake this mans hand & buy him a beer for pulling the most elaborate prank I've ever seen (I can take a joke, even a bad one). Personally I think this guy wants to be the next David Duke, he's just using the Tea Party and their agenda as a launching point.

I'm actually interested to see what happens with this within the Tea party. It's the first sign we've seen that there is any effort to preach outside of the choir, and I'm sure the message will get out that the banishment is only due to the PC liberal thugs.

For the Tea party to accomplish more than headlines, or act as a grassroots get out the vote apparatus for the GOP, they need some legitimacy.

Thing is, a large number of tea partiers do not support the republican party. The main stream press keeps painting them innacuarately as a splinter faction of the other parties rather than recognizing that this may be the birth of the first viable third party within this nation.

Personally I am looking forward to seeing how the party shakes out. It has everything going for it to become the largest party in the contry by being "The Moderate" party.
Will just have to see how they organize themselves.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx

I'm sure the Democrats are really worried about losing all their members that hate big government, taxes, and social welfare. Meanwhile, I don't know where you can find anybody like that in the GOP.

I think there is an argument that the Tea party may attract non-voters, or a new silent majority. But let's not kid ourselves into calling them "moderate."

Given the difficulty of the Libertarian Party in keeping their supporters away from the Republicans, I don't think the Tea Party will fare too well in that regard. They're more Republican than the Libertarians are.

Polonius wrote:http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx

I'm sure the Democrats are really worried about losing all their members that hate big government, taxes, and social welfare. Meanwhile, I don't know where you can find anybody like that in the GOP.

I think there is an argument that the Tea party may attract non-voters, or a new silent majority. But let's not kid ourselves into calling them "moderate."

@Polonius- You have just engaged in the rhetoric by posting a mission statement that is only by one part of the group. The group is young and disorganized with many speaking as if they head up the whole group. Thing is that no meeting has been held to appoint such leaders. Right now you have people making plays to become movers within this group.

In reply to the slanted and obviously nationalist group you found. I'd like to point you here: http://www.charlotteteaparty.org/aboutuscontactus.htm

Also, not all democrats are in favor of big government. A rather large portion of the blue collar workers that historically supported the Democratic party are looking for a new home. Why? Because of the hubris evident in statements similar to yours. Statements that make the assumption that party members won't leave even after being sold out by "their party". Blue collar workers that are losing their jobs and are now looking at mandatory Health insurance paid out of their unemployment checks. Hard working individuals that supported the democratic party on promises of returning american jobs to these shores and after two years of zero effort on the part of their party to do such. Instead, They party that purports itself as to protecting the average worker is just handing out more money to bail out corporations that most likely could survive without the bail-outs.

You can attempt to paint this as a republican off shoot but my coversations have with those joining have shown me other wise. This is not a conservative or liberal movement but rather a middle-class movement to be heard.

The mission statement you provided is nearly identical to the one provided by Polonius; yours was simply shorter.

Moreover, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how you place the Tea Party in the middle of the American political spectrum. They're very obviously ardent fiscal conservatives.

Being fiscal conservatives is about the only thing I can reasonably summarize about the Tea-party movement.

From where I stand, it is just a huge mess wearing a wig, while trying to bring the founding fathers into every discourse.

focusedfire wrote:Thing is, a large number of tea partiers do not support the republican party. The main stream press keeps painting them innacuarately as a splinter faction of the other parties rather than recognizing that this may be the birth of the first viable third party within this nation.

Personally I am looking forward to seeing how the party shakes out. It has everything going for it to become the largest party in the contry by being "The Moderate" party.
Will just have to see how they organize themselves.

In excess of 90% of tea party members identify as former Republicans. Their platform can be basically summarised as “things the Republicans said they stood for but basically ignored for the last couple of decades”. They are a splinter group of the GOP.

You then seem to make some kind of assumption that a splinter party can’t become a third party. The most common source of new political parties is splinter movements.

sebster wrote:In excess of 90% of tea party members identify as former Republicans. Their platform can be basically summarised as “things the Republicans said they stood for but basically ignored for the last couple of decades”. They are a splinter group of the GOP.

You then seem to make some kind of assumption that a splinter party can’t become a third party. The most common source of new political parties is splinter movements.

1)Yes, I read the CNN and CBS polls. They have bias that either downplays or outright fails to address how many libertarians are in the Tea party While playing up the republican connection.
I assure you that Libertarians are not republicans. In essence the poll was written with a bias. and when you realize the percentage of libertarian independents are making up about 40% of the Tea party yet these polls claim that 90% vote republican. The numbers immediately call the poll into question.

2)Now these polls have shown dramatic demographic shifts every couple of months that can be attributed to, a) the rapid growth of the party anf b)the target areas for the polling.

The current poll has men being the majority, yet 3 months ago women were in the majoity. Hispanics make up about 10-15 percent as most other races follow the population demographics of their area. The only race that is significantly under represented by demographic percentage in the tea party are the Blacks who up until very recently have unswervingly backed their president. As Obamas priorities have failed to address the economy but rather have focused elsewhere his approval ratings have dropped with even his most ardent supporters.
As to Democrats, The Teaparty has jumped through numbers as high as 15-20% down to 5-8%.

Point here is that this is a group showing dynamic growth and will be interesting to see if they can prevent from being co-opted.

3)Now I will admit that I am disturbed by what looks to be a republican take over of what started as a mainly libertarian/independebent movement and that the numbers might reflect. Truth is though that Ron Paul and the libertarians started the Tea Party movement, there seems to be a full scale attempt by fox news and the GOP to co-opt the Party.

Also, Never said that off shoots can't become seperate parties. I said that attempting to paint the Tea Party as a Republican off-shoot was inaccurate. A Little early in the conversation to be using those kind of tactics, don't ya think.

BTW, before we go amy further,"Are you going to try to claim that the definitions of titles and words don't matter, again?" When you did that in the socialism relating to national socialism discussion, I just walked away. I have conceded points to you before in fair debates, but lately it seems you have been more concerned with winning a discussion than actually discussing in order to gain new POV.

So to answer you statement. No the Tea party is not a splinter faction of the GOP but it is under threat of a hostile take over ever since the GOP saw how much money the Libertarians were able to generate for their candidates campaigns. It would help if the press would actually cover this story without bias. Rather than hinder the Libertarians fight to maintain controll of their movement by innacurately proclaiming it is something that it is not.

focusedfire wrote:
In essence the poll was written with a bias. and when you realize the percentage of libertarian independents are making up about 40% of the Tea party yet these polls claim that 90% vote republican. The numbers immediately call the poll into question.

What are you deriving the 40% from? Because Gallup has distinctly different numbers.

Also, I think its important to note that 'libertarian' is an ideology, while 'Republican' is a party. Many libertarians have voted Republican, so there isn't necessarily any reason to suspect the polls are entirely off. Not without looking at the specific wording of the questions, anyway.

focusedfire wrote:
3)Now I will admit that I am disturbed by what looks to be a republican take over of what started as a mainly libertarian/independebent movement and that the numbers might reflect. Truth is though that Ron Paul and the libertarians started the Tea Party movement, there seems to be a full scale attempt by fox news and the GOP to co-opt the Party.

Ron Paul is a Republican.

I know I'm not arguing that the Tea Party is an offshoot of the GOP. I just don't think it's "moderate" in any appreciable way.

Uh, yeah, it's a pretty bizarre statement at face value. Somehow I don't see the Arlen Specters and Olympia Snowes of the world affiliating with the tea partiers.

However, "moderation" can mean a lot of things, and sometimes people define it in relative terms based on where *they* stand on the spectrum.

Polonius wrote:I know I'm not arguing that the Tea Party is an offshoot of the GOP. I just don't think it's "moderate" in any appreciable way.

Yeah, I wouldn't consider the Tea Party to be a Republican offshoot. I do think that the majority of Tea Party members voted Republican (which doesn't necessarily indicate that the majority of Tea PArty members are former Republicans) in the past and that, as such, they don't represent any sort of 'bipartisan' organization of the disillusioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:
However, "moderation" can mean a lot of things, and sometimes people define it in relative terms based on where *they* stand on the spectrum.

To some extent there is a case to be made for the 'moderation' of libertarians in that they are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal; though not in the sense that those labels refer to distinct ideological perspectives.

That said, I have a hard time attributing moderate status to any group that actively protests, as that requires a fairly concise set of demands; which seemingly betrays the compromise at the heart of moderation.

dogma wrote:
What are you deriving the 40% from? Because Gallup has distinctly different numbers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35988.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

I just posted a couple of polls so that you could compare the language. The point that I am making here is that there are too many polls coming to too many differing conclusions. All that can be seen is how polls vary. Of the polls not posted:
a)One poll has the Tea Party predominantly Female while onther poll has it as Males.
b)Some polls say 98% white were others indicate 8-15% hispanic support.
c)If you listen to the coroparte news the Tea party is pure republican but exit polling from tax protest has the group splitting ideologically between Ron Paul & his libertarian supporters and Sarah Palin and her republican backers.
The CBS Poll has a chart indicating that 41% of their supporters are independent voters but then contridicts itself saying that most are republican.
One poll has them better educated than most anericans while another says different.

Annoyed at the rhetoric being passed off as statistical data, I went back to the origins of the movement and found it started as a very moderate Libertarian themed protest against increased taxation while the economy was down and people were already losing their homes.

What is it turning into? Appearantly something co-opted by the GOP to the point where the original message is being drowned out by both sides.

What bothers me? The sheer number of factory workers I know that are supporting the movement yet no mention of such in the polls. Of course they may not be able to answer the phone polls when they are out of work and unable to pay their bills.

dogma wrote:
Also, I think its important to note that 'libertarian' is an ideology, while 'Republican' is a party. Many libertarians have voted Republican, so there isn't necessarily any reason to suspect the polls are entirely off. Not without looking at the specific wording of the questions, anyway.

Check again. The Libertarian party had Ron Paul as it candidate in 1988. The party has shown steady growth in the 20 years since Ron Paul was their candidate.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
3)Now I will admit that I am disturbed by what looks to be a republican take over of what started as a mainly libertarian/independebent movement and that the numbers might reflect. Truth is though that Ron Paul and the libertarians started the Tea Party movement, there seems to be a full scale attempt by fox news and the GOP to co-opt the Party.

Ron Paul is a Republican.

Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988 and has maintained those connections. Yes he serves as a republican member of the house of representatives, but owes his being there to strong support from the libertarians. Also, look at his stance on the most of the issues including the fed and you will see that Ron Paul is and has been republican in name only. Now, I will admit that he has always been more conservatively minded than what is considered average for the Libertaian party.

Polonius wrote:I know I'm not arguing that the Tea Party is an offshoot of the GOP. I just don't think it's "moderate" in any appreciable way.

The core of the Tea Party is moderate. What is happening to the teaparty is what would be described in business as a hostile take over. Even now with such a large influx of people, the Tea party's message does not focus on tearing down liberal or conservative structures. It focuses upon a path of fiscal responsibility and for removing the presence of the federal government from what should be personal decisions.

gorgon wrote:Uh, yeah, it's a pretty bizarre statement at face value. Somehow I don't see the Arlen Specters and Olympia Snowes of the world affiliating with the tea partiers.

However, "moderation" can mean a lot of things, and sometimes people define it in relative terms based on where *they* stand on the spectrum.

The Tea party started as a Libertarian themed movement and they fit one of the broadest descriptions of moderate possible in that they are fiscal conservatives ans social liberals.

The reasons why the GOP is having success in co-opting the Tea Party can be traced to a bullying arrogant attitude within the current administration that has done the opposite of its promise to be inclusive to non-democrats in the legislative process.

dogma wrote:Yeah, I wouldn't consider the Tea Party to be a Republican offshoot. I do think that the majority of Tea Party members voted Republican (which doesn't necessarily indicate that the majority of Tea Party members are former Republicans) in the past and that, as such, they don't represent any sort of 'bipartisan' organization of the disillusioned.

The Tea Party started as a Libertarian idea for a series of understated protests that played off of the pre-revolutionary war anti-tax protest in Boston Harbor. They did not envision or think of trying to organize these events into a political party because the Libertarians were already a political party. An independent party that was made up of disenfranchised moderates from the two major parties.
So yeah, the tea party started off as a moderate movement. The reason I am not saying Bi-partisan is because the term is exclusive to the concept of a viable third party or even input from such a party.

IMO, the fact that the democratic party is not making a move to counter the GOP's attemt to co-opt this group, but is instead engaging in a smeer campaign to label them racist is a massive mistake. This tactic is only alienating the democratic party from what is turning into a mainstream movement and is painting themselves in a spiteful manipulative light.

People have noticed that while the President and party that made such a big point of the need to be inclusive has in fact been slamming the doors shut and has been hellbent on an exclusive legislative path. All the party would have to do is to say that they admit that the current course is not proceeding as planned and that they are willing to consider other options.
Will the democratic party do such? Most likely not. I have found the party and this administrations lack of subtlty or tact disturbing. They have had many chances to be inclusive, but have without fail taken a brute force approach that is only creating divisions within the country

Dogma wrote:To some extent there is a case to be made for the 'moderation' of libertarians in that they are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal; though not in the sense that those labels refer to distinct ideological perspectives.

That said, I have a hard time attributing moderate status to any group that actively protests, as that requires a fairly concise set of demands; which seemingly betrays the compromise at the heart of moderation.

1)Good description of the libertarians

2)This statement puzzles me. Your are in fact arguing against the existence of a moderate political entity. I think that we will disagree strongly at this point. Your use of the word activist seems to imply some innate extremist values. I find the attempt to connect these very differing terms as a synonym to be a fallacious. You can be an activist without being an extremist. Just because someone is a moderate does not mean that they are push overs that will tolerate unnending bullying from the fringe edges of either party.

focusedfire wrote:
I just posted a couple of polls so that you could compare the language. The point that I am making here is that there are too many polls coming to too many differing conclusions. All that can be seen is how polls vary. Of the polls not posted:

Neither poll provides us with an actual list of questions, so I cannot compare the language.

focusedfire wrote:
a)One poll has the Tea Party predominantly Female while onther poll has it as Males.

If you're referencing the two polls you provide, then that's false. The CBS poll reports 59% men with a margin of error of 3%. The Politico poll reports 64% men, with a margin of error of 5%. These are statistically consistent results.

focusedfire wrote:
b)Some polls say 98% white were others indicate 8-15% hispanic support.

I imagine that this is a function of geographic distribution regarding the samples used as many of the tea party polls are conducted at tea party rallies, which are certain to vary in makeup by location.

focusedfire wrote:
The CBS Poll has a chart indicating that 41% of their supporters are independent voters but then contridicts itself saying that most are republican.

That same chart indicates that 56% of supporters self-identified as Republicans. That's not a contradiction, as 56% of a sample is indeed most of the sample.

focusedfire wrote:
Annoyed at the rhetoric being passed off as statistical data, I went back to the origins of the movement and found it started as a very moderate Libertarian themed protest against increased taxation while the economy was down and people were already losing their homes.

What is it turning into? Appearantly something co-opted by the GOP to the point where the original message is being drowned out by both sides.

I think its quite clear that the Tea Party is an organization driven by fiscal conservatism. No one would ever question that.

focusedfire wrote:
Check again. The Libertarian party had Ron Paul as it candidate in 1988. The party has shown steady growth in the 20 years since Ron Paul was their candidate.

He ran as a Libertarian in one year. In all other years he has been registered as a Republican.

focusedfire wrote:
Also, look at his stance on the most of the issues including the fed and you will see that Ron Paul is and has been republican in name only.

That's what being a Republican entails. 'Republican' is not a political ideology, it is a political party.

focusedfire wrote:
An independent party that was made up of disenfranchised moderates from the two major parties.

The libertarian party is moderate only to the extent that it features elements of the political positions of the two dominant parties. However, it is not moderate in that it advocates what are essentially radical changes to the structure of the US government. I would not consider it to be a moderate party.

focusedfire wrote:
So yeah, the tea party started off as a moderate movement.

I don't consider the tea party protests to be the same thing as the various tea party organizations popping up across the nation. The former was a series of events organized by the libertarian party, the latter is a quasi-independent movement that focuses on fiscal conservatism alone.

Its also notable that the majority of tea party protesters and supporters appear to self-identify as conservative.

focusedfire wrote:
2)This statement puzzles me. Your are in fact arguing against the existence of a moderate political entity. I think that we will disagree strongly at this point. Your use of the word activist seems to imply some innate extremist values. I find the attempt to connect these very differing terms as a synonym to be a fallacious. You can be an activist without being an extremist. Just because someone is a moderate does not mean that they are push overs that will tolerate unnending bullying from the fringe edges of either party.

You're right, activist does not imply extremist, which makes me wonder why you believe that's what I meant. Moderates do not protest because moderation isn't the sort of thing that disposes itself to protest. It is not a moderate position to claim that taxes must be lowered, the budget must be balanced, and that the state must be made smaller. It is a moderate position to presume that those things should be done in an environment where doing so is possible. Thus far the tea party has represented itself as an 'organization' that deals in absolute certainties regarding rightness, which is what makes me refrain from considering them as moderates.

An example of a political position that I would consider to be moderate, save matters of foreign policy, is neoconservatism.

focusedfire wrote:1)Yes, I read the CNN and CBS polls. They have bias that either downplays or outright fails to address how many libertarians are in the Tea party While playing up the republican connection. I assure you that Libertarians are not republicans. In essence the poll was written with a bias.

As long as you disregard as bias anything that doesn’t exactly fit your personal view of a situation then you’ll be stuck plodding along within a very narrow ideological framework.

and when you realize the percentage of libertarian independents are making up about 40% of the Tea party yet these polls claim that 90% vote republican. The numbers immediately call the poll into question.

No, what you see is a difference of interpretation. People like yourself, who are keen to show the movement as separate to the GOP, highlight that only 50 to 60% of its members report as Republicans. But by the numbers in your own link, less than 5% identify as Democrat, with most of the rest independents. When you then look at these independents, you see a group that overwhelmingly considers itself conservative, and their key issues remain the key talking points of the GOP.

There is not a significant flow of Democratic voters into the Tea Party, it is not a new movement drawing in voters from across the political spectrum. It is a splinter of disaffected Republicans and independents with Republican leanings.

As Obamas priorities have failed to address the economy but rather have focused elsewhere his approval ratings have dropped with even his most ardent supporters.

That phrase is, ironically enough, straight out of the Republican playbook. Poor economic conditions will drag approval ratings down, and faced with the reality that a President can’t do anything beyond stimulus spending (which the Republicans and Tea Party oppose for the most part), instead we’ve gotten phrases like ‘failed to prioritise the economy’.

As to Democrats, The Teaparty has jumped through numbers as high as 15-20% down to 5-8%.

I would like to see a half decent survey that puts it anywhere near 15 to 20%. The high numbers show it at 5%.

3)Now I will admit that I am disturbed by what looks to be a republican take over of what started as a mainly libertarian/independebent movement and that the numbers might reflect. Truth is though that Ron Paul and the libertarians started the Tea Party movement, there seems to be a full scale attempt by fox news and the GOP to co-opt the Party.

Ron Paul is a Republican. It’s very odd to claim that FOX is trying to co-opt the party, when they were responsible for much of its creation.

Also, Never said that off shoots can't become seperate parties. I said that attempting to paint the Tea Party as a Republican off-shoot was inaccurate. A Little early in the conversation to be using those kind of tactics, don't ya think.

What tactics? What the hell?

Look, I’m saying it is an offshoot of the Republicans because I believe that to be the case. Its members consist overwhelmingly of Republicans and independents with Republican leanings. Its platform consists of Republican talking points that the Republicans (particularly during the Bush admin) failed to follow. That is not a tactic. That is just a thing that is true.

BTW, before we go amy further,"Are you going to try to claim that the definitions of titles and words don't matter, again?" When you did that in the socialism relating to national socialism discussion, I just walked away. I have conceded points to you before in fair debates, but lately it seems you have been more concerned with winning a discussion than actually discussing in order to gain new POV.

A word in and of itself doesn’t matter, it is only given meaning by the context surrounding it. Taking a word at face value and claiming therefore the Nazi party was socialist is as sensible as claiming North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic. These claims are laughably stupid to anyone that knows anything about these situations beyond their titles.

So yeah, you could have learned about the origins of the term in a Bavarian workers party that seeked to represent workers while rejecting the internationalism and equality of actual socialist parties, you could have learned about the actual socialist element of Nazism and what happened to them. But you just walked away. I guess that does make it easier to keep believing simple, easy things.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
I just posted a couple of polls so that you could compare the language. The point that I am making here is that there are too many polls coming to too many differing conclusions. All that can be seen is how polls vary. Of the polls not posted:

Neither poll provides us with an actual list of questions, so I cannot compare the language.

You can compare the commentary and conclusions with the link to the poll you posted. Very different conclusions and percentage totals.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
a)One poll has the Tea Party predominantly Female while onther poll has it as Males.

If you're referencing the two polls you provide, then that's false. The CBS poll reports 59% men with a margin of error of 3%. The Politico poll reports 64% men, with a margin of error of 5%. These are statistically consistent results.

Notice that I said of the polls "not" posted. As in reference to what I was saying that there where too many contradicting polls to list and giving a summation of the contradictions.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
b)Some polls say 98% white were others indicate 8-15% hispanic support.

I imagine that this is a function of geographic distribution regarding the samples used as many of the tea party polls are conducted at tea party rallies, which are certain to vary in makeup by location.

Yet the polls fail to make note of such, if Geo-demographics is an influencing factor then the polls should clearly note such. Otherwise, it comes across as a manipulation of the data and it is things like this that cause people to not trust statistics.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
The CBS Poll has a chart indicating that 41% of their supporters are independent voters but then contridicts itself saying that most are republican.

That same chart indicates that 56% of supporters self-identified as Republicans. That's not a contradiction, as 56% of a sample is indeed most of the sample.

Correction, chart says 54% republican, 41% independent, and 5% democrat with a 3% variation. Now I do admit that it shows the republicans in the lead but such numbers become less clear when applying the 3% variation across the board.

I will admit to making a mistake here. I confused this poll with one of the others I believe. My bad.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Annoyed at the rhetoric being passed off as statistical data, I went back to the origins of the movement and found it started as a very moderate Libertarian themed protest against increased taxation while the economy was down and people were already losing their homes.

What is it turning into? Appearantly something co-opted by the GOP to the point where the original message is being drowned out by both sides.

I think its quite clear that the Tea Party is an organization driven by fiscal conservatism. No one would ever question that.

It is how such fiscal conservatism would be applied. If the GOP successfully stages a coupe de' tat and takes over the Tea party then there will be no change within the beltway. This would be a hoorible waste of a very rare opportunity.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Check again. The Libertarian party had Ron Paul as it candidate in 1988. The party has shown steady growth in the 20 years since Ron Paul was their candidate.

He ran as a Libertarian in one year. In all other years he has been registered as a Republican.

Yet he maintained his ties to the libertarians and has made no secret of pushing for libertarian based changes in the GOP and DC. The Libertarians are why he has been in office so steadily.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Also, look at his stance on the most of the issues including the fed and you will see that Ron Paul is and has been republican in name only.

That's what being a Republican entails. 'Republican' is not a political ideology, it is a political party.

You know as well as I that there is a difference between those who embrace the existing ideology/philosophy of a political party as straight party-line members and those who join a party seeking to change the party's fundamental premise by working from within.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
An independent party that was made up of disenfranchised moderates from the two major parties.

The libertarian party is moderate only to the extent that it features elements of the political positions of the two dominant parties. However, it is not moderate in that it advocates what are essentially radical changes to the structure of the US government. I would not consider it to be a moderate party.

I would not consider the current system as moderate when it is controlled by extremists on each side. It will take radical change to bring this country to a moderate stance. Just because the change needed is a radical departure from the existing pardigm does not preclude the group ennacting such change from being moderate. Existing conditions apply to the formula.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
So yeah, the tea party started off as a moderate movement.

I don't consider the tea party protests to be the same thing as the various tea party organizations popping up across the nation. The former was a series of events organized by the libertarian party, the latter is a quasi-independent movement that focuses on fiscal conservatism alone.

Its also notable that the majority of tea party protesters and supporters appear to self-identify as conservative.

Fiscal conservatives? Social conservatives? These distinctions can drastically alter the results.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
2)This statement puzzles me. Your are in fact arguing against the existence of a moderate political entity. I think that we will disagree strongly at this point. Your use of the word activist seems to imply some innate extremist values. I find the attempt to connect these very differing terms as a synonym to be a fallacious. You can be an activist without being an extremist. Just because someone is a moderate does not mean that they are push overs that will tolerate unnending bullying from the fringe edges of either party.

You're right, activist does not imply extremist, which makes me wonder why you believe that's what I meant. Moderates do not protest because moderation isn't the sort of thing that disposes itself to protest. It is not a moderate position to claim that taxes must be lowered, the budget must be balanced, and that the state must be made smaller. It is a moderate position to presume that those things should be done in an environment where doing so is possible. Thus far the tea party has represented itself as an 'organization' that deals in absolute certainties regarding rightness, which is what makes me refrain from considering them as moderates.

An example of a political position that I would consider to be moderate, save matters of foreign policy, is neoconservatism.

Who says moderates don't protest? You? That is an amazingly presumptious statement.

As to the mentality and predisposition of moderates, "Have you ever heard of the saying, Moderation in all things?". To these people there is a time to protest and appearantly it is now. What you should be concerned with is that these same people will not protest for long. If they feel that they are not being heard, they will move on to active rsistance. Moderate people have a clear well reasoned path of action when they feel that they are being pushed.
Instead of dismissing these people and there concerns, Washington should be listening and working to give them an equal voice in the process.

dogma wrote:You're right, activist does not imply extremist, which makes me wonder why you believe that's what I meant. Moderates do not protest because moderation isn't the sort of thing that disposes itself to protest. It is not a moderate position to claim that taxes must be lowered, the budget must be balanced, and that the state must be made smaller.

When I was at uni we got very bored with all the oh-so-serious extremists who marched around the university. We had a moderate rally and marched across the university chanting;
“What do we want?”
“Considered measured reform in incremental steps!”
“When do we want it?”
“In due course!”

focusedfire wrote:
You can compare the commentary and conclusions with the link to the poll you posted.

No I can't, not without a copy of the survey itself. I need to know what questions were asked in order to determine if their conclusions are reasonable. Simply looking at the interpretation is like reading the conclusion of an argument without knowing its foundational premises.

focusedfire wrote:
Very different conclusions and percentage totals.

Yes, which is what you expect from different surveys asking different questions.

focusedfire wrote:
Notice that I said of the polls "not" posted. As in reference to what I was saying that there where too many contradicting polls to list and giving a summation of the contradictions.

I missed that, actually. I apologize. Still, the fact that two polls appear contradictory does not necessarily indicate that it is impossible to accurately poll a given body; it may simply indicate that some of the polls involved poor methodology.

focusedfire wrote:
Yet the polls fail to make note of such, if Geo-demographics is an influencing factor then the polls should clearly note such. Otherwise, it comes across as a manipulation of the data and it is things like this that cause people to not trust statistics.

That's why you read the methodology section. If there is no methodology section, then the poll is worthless. Both polls you posted included their methodology at the end of each summary.

focusedfire wrote:
It is how such fiscal conservatism would be applied. If the GOP successfully stages a coupe de' tat and takes over the Tea party then there will be no change within the beltway. This would be a hoorible waste of a very rare opportunity.

Even if we suppose that the tea party is a roughly 50-50 split between Libertarians (capitalization denoting partisan affiliation) and Republicans, one still has to wonder how the additional emphasis on social conservatism would translate into the formation of an actual party. My thought is that many of the self-identified Republicans involved in the tea party may leave if the protest group attempts to formalize itself as a political entity.

focusedfire wrote:
Yet he maintained his ties to the libertarians and has made no secret of pushing for libertarian based changes in the GOP and DC. The Libertarians are why he has been in office so steadily.

Given his position on social values I would be hard pressed to consider him a Libertarian in the partisan sense. He reads as a libertarian Republican to me, and his party affiliation supports that.

focusedfire wrote:
You know as well as I that there is a difference between those who embrace the existing ideology/philosophy of a political party as straight party-line members and those who join a party seeking to change the party's fundamental premise by working from within.

You're missing my point. Political parties don't have specific ideological commitments. They are groups based on certain common beliefs, but those beliefs do not necessarily form a contiguous picture regarding what all members of the party believe. About the closest you'll get to that is a certain commitment to a common rhetorical tradition, which will influence the manner in which the party functions, but will not necessarily predict how any given member of that party will think. Note the massive gap between a Republican like Newt Gingrich and a Republican like Dick Cheney. They are both members of the same political party, but they do not share a common ideology.

focusedfire wrote:
I would not consider the current system as moderate when it is controlled by extremists on each side. It will take radical change to bring this country to a moderate stance. Just because the change needed is a radical departure from the existing pardigm does not preclude the group ennacting such change from being moderate. Existing conditions apply to the formula.

Radical change is, by definition, not moderate. A moderate is an individual who does not have strong, ideological convictions.

focusedfire wrote:
Fiscal conservatives? Social conservatives? These distinctions can drastically alter the results.

Doesn't matter for the purposes of the question. Identifying as either a conservative or liberal indicates a preference for a certain sort of rhetoric more than a preference for a certain sort of policy.

focusedfire wrote:
Who says moderates don't protest? You? That is an amazingly presumptious statement.

Well, they can protest, they just aren't very good at it. Demanding specific things is not a sign of moderate behavior, and that is a prerequisite for effective protest. Calls for measured change simply don't have the same ring.

focusedfire wrote:
As to the mentality and predisposition of moderates, "Have you ever heard of the saying, Moderation in all things?". To these people there is a time to protest and appearantly it is now. What you should be concerned with is that these same people will not protest for long. If they feel that they are not being heard, they will move on to active rsistance.

There were large anti-war protests for several years, the same thing occurred due the Bush's immigration policies, I'm not terribly concerned that the tea party will turn violent where the others did not.

focusedfire wrote:
Moderate people have a clear well reasoned path of action when they feel that they are being pushed. Instead of dismissing these people and there concerns, Washington should be listening and working to give them an equal voice in the process.

They have a voice, represented by the ability to vote. Representative democracies are not based on giving equal consideration to the desires of citizens, and the perceptions of elected officials.

Maybe i've missed something, but for me it's hard to call a group moderate when they seem to want fairly major change to the system.

I'm also wondering if there's simply a bit of confusion between "moderate" and "grassroots" or "populist."

Speaking of wack jobs and fellow travellers:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Very different conclusions and percentage totals.

Yes, which is what you expect from different surveys asking different questions.

What about differing write ups where the same data was used to draw differing conclusions. Statistics are easily manipulated and it is such manipulation that has ruined the credibility of the press in this country. BTW, I am refering to both liberal and conservative media. I miss when standards and practices mandated fair and equal political content from broadcasters.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Yet the polls fail to make note of such, if Geo-demographics is an influencing factor then the polls should clearly note such. Otherwise, it comes across as a manipulation of the data and it is things like this that cause people to not trust statistics.

That's why you read the methodology section. If there is no methodology section, then the poll is worthless. Both polls you posted included their methodology at the end of each summary.

I understand about the methodology section. Go back and read if they gave a geographical region of where the survets were made. I think that if such is presented by the press in a fact-like manner then there should be more disclosure than "A phone survey of x number of people". If the poll was conducted in Wyoming then people understand a racial variance to a poll taken in LA and Southern California. The press needs to quit playing the twist the facts to make a story game.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
It is how such fiscal conservatism would be applied. If the GOP successfully stages a coupe de' tat and takes over the Tea party then there will be no change within the beltway. This would be a hoorible waste of a very rare opportunity.

Even if we suppose that the tea party is a roughly 50-50 split between Libertarians (capitalization denoting partisan affiliation) and Republicans, one still has to wonder how the additional emphasis on social conservatism would translate into the formation of an actual party. My thought is that many of the self-identified Republicans involved in the tea party may leave if the protest group attempts to formalize itself as a political entity.

A)Whose partisan affiliation are you reffering to and to which party?

B)I think that the Republicans may have taken notice that they have a "branding" issue after the last election and may be looking to rebrand the whole party as something new by co-opting the Tea Party movement.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
You know as well as I that there is a difference between those who embrace the existing ideology/philosophy of a political party as straight party-line members and those who join a party seeking to change the party's fundamental premise by working from within.

You're missing my point. Political parties don't have specific ideological commitments. They are groups based on certain common beliefs, but those beliefs do not necessarily form a contiguous picture regarding what all members of the party believe. About the closest you'll get to that is a certain commitment to a common rhetorical tradition, which will influence the manner in which the party functions, but will not necessarily predict how any given member of that party will think. Note the massive gap between a Republican like Newt Gingrich and a Republican like Dick Cheney. They are both members of the same political party, but they do not share a common ideology.

My point is that the political parties do abopt ideologies and become bogged down in them to the point of being unable to change themselves or the public perception that equates the party with those ideologies. The reason why specific ideologies are adopted is connected to who supports the party with the most votes and money.
Also you you seem to be confusing the difference between an elected individuals ideology and the overall party ideology.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
I would not consider the current system as moderate when it is controlled by extremists on each side. It will take radical change to bring this country to a moderate stance. Just because the change needed is a radical departure from the existing pardigm does not preclude the group ennacting such change from being moderate. Existing conditions apply to the formula.

Radical change is, by definition, not moderate. A moderate is an individual who does not have strong, ideological convictions.

Moderates will demand specific things and doing such is not a sign of them being other than moderate. If what they are asking for is extremist then there might be a point to say that they are not moderate.

Currently, what the Tea Party has been asking for is:
That the government to no longer act as if it carte blanche to spend money on any little thing is sees fit. Considering the economy and its link to the national debt, this is a reasonable and moderate request.

They are also asking that the government does not force them to spend their money on a broken health care system, especially at a time when so many are out of work and doing such will put them in violation of the law. Another reasonable and moderate request.

Reasonably asking that the country abandon the left&right radical nonsense that has hijacked the process not radical. It is a well reasoned request, when looking at the condition of the country.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Fiscal conservatives? Social conservatives? These distinctions can drastically alter the results.

Doesn't matter for the purposes of the question. Identifying as either a conservative or liberal indicates a preference for a certain sort of rhetoric more than a preference for a certain sort of policy.

It does matter when one poll shows 54% of the Tea party to be Republican yet another poll uses the answer to such an overly broad question as an excuse to declare that 90% of the Tea party is republican.
These distinctions do make a drastic difference in the way the surveyors can interpret the data.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Who says moderates don't protest? You? That is an amazingly presumptious statement.

Well, they can protest, they just aren't very good at it. Demanding specific things is not a sign of moderate behavior, and that is a prerequisite for effective protest. Calls for measured change simply don't have the same ring.

Specifically requesting for a fair, balanced and just system that is not detatched from those it is supposed to represent is a specific request that is moderate in nature. When a country has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides it is a moderate request to move the country to a more central/moderate footing. You seem to think that any change or move away from the radically driven system would invalidate the change as to being moderate in nature. This is not true, Asking for the government to be more moderate does not inherently make such a request radical. If you do feel such then you might want to look at how much your baseline has slid over the years.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
As to the mentality and predisposition of moderates, "Have you ever heard of the saying, Moderation in all things?". To these people there is a time to protest and appearantly it is now. What you should be concerned with is that these same people will not protest for long. If they feel that they are not being heard, they will move on to active rsistance.

There were large anti-war protests for several years, the same thing occurred due the Bush's immigration policies, I'm not terribly concerned that the tea party will turn violent where the others did not.

The circumstances are different. The country is three states away from a constitutional convention. Several border states have had open protests where succession has been mentioned, the US is approaching its next 50 year social revolution mark(2011) and there is a radical in office being extremely exclusive in the legislative process. The military is not happy, the average worker is not happy, big buiness is getting unhappy about the direction, or lack of such, being shown by the government. The economy is one more downturn away from a depression and there is a gtowing dissatisfaction with how the government is operating.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Moderate people have a clear well reasoned path of action when they feel that they are being pushed. Instead of dismissing these people and there concerns, Washington should be listening and working to give them an equal voice in the process.

They have a voice, represented by the ability to vote. Representative democracies are not based on giving equal consideration to the desires of citizens, and the perceptions of elected officials.

So a group that is the same size as the black minority caucus should not be listened to? Are you sure that you wanted to put the word not in that second sentence? Reason I ask is that your sentence as read, is stating that the elected officials job is to act without regard to those he was elected to represent.

Now if you are saying that moderate people should only use their vote as their voice, then you are missing the complaint that these people feel that their voice has been ignored. That the government has the same attitude that you are exhibiting. It is an attitude that comes across as saying "Screw 'em, they are moderates, they aren't going to do anything to stop us.". You have a large number of people, that is still steadly growing, that feel as if they are not being equally respected by those elected to represent them. I believe that the group has been very moderate in how it has voiced its gievances so far.

focusedfire wrote:
What about differing write ups where the same data was used to draw differing conclusions. Statistics are easily manipulated and it is such manipulation that has ruined the credibility of the press in this country. BTW, I am refering to both liberal and conservative media. I miss when standards and practices mandated fair and equal political content from broadcasters.

Yes, data can be interpreted differently by different people. That doesn't mean the data is meaningless, or that the bias of the interpreter renders his interpretation incredible, it just means that data requires context. If that context is given in the form of methodology and significant questions, then the conclusions drawn through interpretation can be evaluated on a comparative basis. Most surveys will provide, at least, the methodology utilized. This allows one to control for things like geographic varians

focusedfire wrote:
I understand about the methodology section. Go back and read if they gave a geographical region of where the survets were made. I think that if such is presented by the press in a fact-like manner then there should be more disclosure than "A phone survey of x number of people". If the poll was conducted in Wyoming then people understand a racial variance to a poll taken in LA and Southern California. The press needs to quit playing the twist the facts to make a story game.

Politco stated that its poll was conducted at a tea party rally in Washington D.C. The CBS poll was conducted by phone using a random dialing system to sample the nation as a whole.

CBS wrote:
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,580 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone April 5-12, 2010.

Politico wrote:
The POLITICO/TargetPoint poll, the first of its kind, takes a statistically valid snapshot of tea party sympathizers engaged enough to actually attend an event. Altogether, 457 randomly selected adult attendees were approached over a five-hour period during the April 15 event on the Mall and asked to complete the self-administered, anonymous questionnaire. The response rate was 58 percent, and the sampling error is 5 percentage points, either way.

focusedfire wrote:
A)Whose partisan affiliation are you reffering to and to which party?

B)I think that the Republicans may have taken notice that they have a "branding" issue after the last election and may be looking to rebrand the whole party as something new by co-opting the Tea Party movement.

A) The partisan affiliation of self-identified Libertarians. Since that is rarely included as an option with respect to the polls, I expect that many of the people who identify as independents are in fact Libertarians in the partisan, rather than ideological sense.

B) The Republicans aren't really co-opting the tea party movement, not in my mind. In fact, they have been significant contributors to its success. Keep in mind that the tea party is not, and has not indicated that it will choose to become, a political party. Its closer to a sort of interest group than it is to a political party, given that it only takes a common, active position on fiscal conservatism. This is distinct from the Libertarian Party and Republican Parties, which have affiliates engaged in the social debate as well; even if the relevance of that sector is not considered important by all party members.

focusedfire wrote:
My point is that the political parties do abopt ideologies and become bogged down in them to the point of being unable to change themselves or the public perception that equates the party with those ideologies. The reason why specific ideologies are adopted is connected to who supports the party with the most votes and money. Also you you seem to be confusing the difference between an elected individuals ideology and the overall party ideology.

No, I'm dismissing the existence of partisan ideology altogether. In my mind political parties are, as I said, groups with a common rhetorical tradition which attracts individuals with affiliated ideologies. An ideology is an orderly, iterated set of beliefs from which all of one's decisions follow. Political parties do not have these as there is no necessary connection between the beliefs and goals of any given party member and those of any other given member aside from the desire, and ability, to present a position in accordance with a given rhetorical methodology. The role of neoconservatism in the last decade of Republican policy is illustrative of this.

focusedfire wrote:
Moderates will demand specific things and doing such is not a sign of them being other than moderate. If what they are asking for is extremist then there might be a point to say that they are not moderate.

That's only true if you define a moderate as someone who incorporates components of what you perceive as either political extreme. I think the definition is insufficient as at looks only at the political spectrum, and neither at the methodology through which political change is sought, nor the extent to which compromise is to be considered. The people you are calling moderates are people that I feel would be more properly referred to as independents in the context of a debate between the Republicans and Democrats, or libertarians in the context of a debate between liberals and conservatives. In this system moderates (not counting moderate versions of partisans or ideologues) are people who fail to fall in any particular category, save for 'moderate'.

focusedfire wrote:
Currently, what the Tea Party has been asking for is:
That the government to no longer act as if it carte blanche to spend money on any little thing is sees fit. Considering the economy and its link to the national debt, this is a reasonable and moderate request.

They are also asking that the government does not force them to spend their money on a broken health care system, especially at a time when so many are out of work and doing such will put them in violation of the law. Another reasonable and moderate request.

Reasonably asking that the country abandon the left&right radical nonsense that has hijacked the process not radical. It is a well reasoned request, when looking at the condition of the country.

I don't thing that's an accurate presentation of the tea party position.

They are not merely asking that politicians consider the economy and its connection to the debt, they are actively demanding that the government work to improve the economy. In general they want this to be done through tax cuts. However, they do not have an accompanying message of cuts to the entitlements, or cuts to the military. They're essentially demanding that the state cut taxes, because they believe that will help the economy, regardless of any other requisite measure that must be taken. That single-mindedness renders them, and all other protest groups, immoderate in my eyes.

Similarly, the demand isn't that the government cease to spend money on a health care system. The demand is that the government abandon health care reform because they believe that the bill, as passed, is irrevocably broken. This is tangentially related to the nominal sentiment that the state is incapable of performing effectively in any capacity save those outline by the Constitution. It also links back to the emphasis on the economy, as time spent on health care is seen as time that is not being spent on the economy; regardless of whether there is anything that they would consider to be acceptable which could be done in the short-run.

As for the matter of the left/right conflict: The tea party is another component of that, it is not a transcendent force as it has not actually said anything that has not been said before. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Tea Party desires any sort of compromise between the two dominant parties. Rather, it appears as though they simply want to pull the entire debate about economic policy to the right.

focusedfire wrote:
It does matter when one poll shows 54% of the Tea party to be Republican yet another poll uses the answer to such an overly broad question as an excuse to declare that 90% of the Tea party is republican.
These distinctions do make a drastic difference in the way the surveyors can interpret the data.

Not particularly, no. If the interpreter is willing to classify any person who calls himself a conservative as a Republican, then he has already willfully distorted the data if, in fact, the question was not "Do you identify as a Republican?"

focusedfire wrote:
Specifically requesting for a fair, balanced and just system that is not detatched from those it is supposed to represent is a specific request that is moderate in nature.

Its also meaningless. Saying "I want a fair, and balanced system!" doesn't really indicate anything about what will make you happy, as it is highly open to interpretation. Its an empty slogan, like "Change!", which does not lend itself to anything other than the support of specific person or party.

focusedfire wrote:
When a country has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides it is a moderate request to move the country to a more central/moderate footing. You seem to think that any change or move away from the radically driven system would invalidate the change as to being moderate in nature. This is not true, Asking for the government to be more moderate does not inherently make such a request radical. If you do feel such then you might want to look at how much your baseline has slid over the years.

Sure, but I've never seen a protest movement that actually requests that. I have seen political campaigns of the sort designed to get people elected that request that, but I haven't seen any protest movement do it. Certainly the tea party isn't.

focusedfire wrote:
The circumstances are different. The country is three states away from a constitutional convention. Several border states have had open protests where succession has been mentioned, the US is approaching its next 50 year social revolution mark(2011) and there is a radical in office being extremely exclusive in the legislative process.

I've heard nothing of calls for a national constitutional convention, though I have heard individual states calling for reviews of their own. There have been secession protests in most border states for the last 50-60 years; including periods in which radical Presidents (Johnson) were in office. The notion of cyclic patterns of social revolution is nonsense given that it has to account for the 30's, 60's, and 80's.

focusedfire wrote:
The military is not happy, the average worker is not happy, big buiness is getting unhappy about the direction, or lack of such, being shown by the government. The economy is one more downturn away from a depression and there is a gtowing dissatisfaction with how the government is operating.

The military has been unhappy for about 10 years now, that's a natural consequence of protracted deployment. The average worker has been unhappy, or artificially made to be happy (housing bubble), for the last 20 years. The matter of depression depends what you mean by that term.

focusedfire wrote:
So a group that is the same size as the black minority caucus should not be listened to? Are you sure that you wanted to put the word not in that second sentence? Reason I ask is that your sentence as read, is stating that the elected officials job is to act without regard to those he was elected to represent.

No, that's not what that sentence meant. That sentence means that the judgment of an elected representative is to be taken as more important to the political process than the voices of those they represent. That's why we have a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy.

focusedfire wrote:
Now if you are saying that moderate people should only use their vote as their voice, then you are missing the complaint that these people feel that their voice has been ignored. That the government has the same attitude that you are exhibiting. It is an attitude that comes across as saying "Screw 'em, they are moderates, they aren't going to do anything to stop us.".

And they have that attitude because moderates have done nothing to them. There has been no widespread desire to push for better governance, because doing so involves electing better officials; which itself requires an element of trust which does not exist with respect to the state. Good politicians are not those individuals who are overly sensitive to popular criticism, as that trap is what has gotten us into our current predicament.

focusedfire wrote:What about differing write ups where the same data was used to draw differing conclusions. Statistics are easily manipulated and it is such manipulation that has ruined the credibility of the press in this country. BTW, I am refering to both liberal and conservative media. I miss when standards and practices mandated fair and equal political content from broadcasters.

The myth that reporting both sides of politics somehow is decent coverage is actually what the political noise machine relies on. If one side says it's raining and the other side says it's dry, what matters is not to report what both sides are saying, but to look outside and then tell us what is actually happening.

Whether there are some channels reporting just one side and some channels reporting the other, or every channel reporting both sides exactly equally doesn't matter, the electorate still gains no information on what is really happening.


Oh, and you didn't respond to my post above.