Congressional Tea Party talks about the American Government Shutdown: "It's exactly what we wanted!"

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.

**d-usa**

Jihadin wrote:
If an infrastructure in place why build an entire new one when one can take it over eventually or be a major factor/influence/driver/HMFIC in an organizations

I think that over the next few elections the Tea Party will result in more Democratic gains and that eventually the GOP will move center-right where they should be.

People should have warning flags when people run on the platform of being both "Socially Conservative" and "pro small government". If people think you can be both of those at the same time, then you should know what to expect from them.

**Maddermax**

d-usa wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
If an infrastructure in place why build an entire new one when one can take it over eventually or be a major factor/influence/driver/HMFIC in an organizations

I think that over the next few elections the Tea Party will result in more Democratic gains and that eventually the GOP will move center-right where they should be.

I'm going to disagree on you with this. Despite all the shutdown/debt ceiling shenanigans, Democrats will still have an uphill battle to gain seats next year, and the swing needed to actually retake the house (because district maps work against democrats) is pretty huge, and even to keep winning more seats than they have requires progressively greater swings. Now, even if the Democrats end up managing taking out some house seats, the ones most vulnerable will be those that are currently occupied by the more sane republicans (You couldn't call them "moderates", but they're at least capable of rational governance). The tea partiers, meanwhile, are mostly contained to extremely safe Republican seats anyway, so they'll almost certainly be kept in, barring major blunders.

So if the Democrats do win, the GOP caucuses in congress will generally only become more dominated by the Tea Party and more extreme. Unless there's an outright intra-party spat, but that's been threatening for years and never come.

**hotsauceman1**

Found this and thought it would be funny

**Peregrine**

Maddermax wrote:
The tea partiers, meanwhile, are mostly contained to extremely safe Republican seats anyway, so they'll almost certainly be kept in, barring major blunders.

The danger for the republican party is that the tea party (or other extremists) will run a primary campaign against candidates that aren't in safe districts. And because the primary system favors the screaming lunatics that can get 100% turnout from their equally insane supporters they have a good chance of winning the primary. And since they have absolutely no mainstream appeal they will lose the election that matters. It's exactly what happened last time: an extremist ran a successful primary challenge against a moderate and then couldn't shut up about "legitimate rape" long enough to avoid costing the republicans a seat they hadn't lost in decades.

**Jihadin**

You do know our Founding Fathers are considered by today standards as Extremist right? To my standards the Tea Party members are not Extremist. I've dealt with Extremists and the Tea Party individuals are no way even close to those dedicated, hardcore, motivated and committed to the cause Extremists I'm use to.

**Peregrine**

Jihadin wrote:
You do know our Founding Fathers are considered by today standards as Extremist right?

Of course they would be. We've moved on from the 1700s and their positions would be extreme according to the modern political scale. This is only a problem if you idolize the founding fathers and insist that they can never be criticized.

To my standards the Tea Party members are not Extremist. I've dealt with Extremists and the Tea Party individuals are no way even close to those dedicated, hardcore, motivated and committed to the cause Extremists I'm use to.

You don't have to be a violent religious fanatic to be an extremist. The tea party (and other far-right groups) occupy an extreme minority position in modern politics. Their stated goals are incredibly unlikely to ever happen, and they refuse to let go of their "no compromises" attitude, even when it gets in the way of effective government. They have publicly admitted (and even boasted) that they'd rather destroy the government and economy to make a point about how government is evil and now they're using it as a deliberate hostage crisis to get what they want despite lacking the votes to do it any other way. And given their treatment of republicans who are "not conservative enough" they'd probably be proud to be called extremists.

And then there's the "other extremists" which may or may not overlap with the tea party. You know, the far-right religious groups screaming about how gay marriage and abortion will call down god's wrath upon us, or how you can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape". Or there's the sociopath Ayn Rand worshipers who think that if you just abolish all government and impose a social darwinist system the inevitable result is a perfect utopia where they don't have to pay taxes or suffer even the slightest inconvenience to help anyone else.

**Jihadin**

You don't have to be a violent religious fanatic to be an extremist. The tea party (and other far-right groups) occupy an extreme minority position in modern politics. Their stated goals are incredibly unlikely to ever happen, and they refuse to let go of their "no compromises" attitude, even when it gets in the way of effective government. They have publicly admitted (and even boasted) that they'd rather destroy the government and economy to make a point about how government is evil and now they're using it as a deliberate hostage crisis to get what they want despite lacking the votes to do it any other way. And given their treatment of republicans who are "not conservative enough" they'd probably be proud to be called extremists.

I'm going with Wiki first off

The Tea Party does not have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.[21]
The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive.[21] Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues.[22][23] Still, many groups like Glenn Beck's 9/12 Tea Parties, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do act on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration.[24][22][25]
The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases.[26] To this end, Tea Party groups have protested the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), stimulus programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act), cap and trade, health care reform such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, also known simply as the Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare") and perceived attacks by the federal government on their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights.[27] Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right to work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.[28][29] On the federal health care reform law, they began to work at the state level to nullify the law, after the republican party lost seats in congress and the Presidency in the 2012 elections.[30][31] It has also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.[30][32] They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names.[33] They have formed Super PACs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates.
Even though the groups have a wide range of different goals, the Tea Party places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda.[34][35][26] It urges the return of government as intended by the Founding Fathers. It also seeks to teach its view of the Constitution and other founding documents.[21] Scholars have described its interpretation variously as originalist, popular,[36] or a unique combination of the two.[37][38] Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so more as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.[39][40][41][42][43] Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending.[26]
One attempt at forming a list of what Tea Partiers wanted Congress to do resulted in the Contract from America. It was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. Armey had co-written the previous Contract with America released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. One thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one non-social issues. Participants then voted in an online campaign in which they were asked to select their favorite policy planks. The results were released as a ten-point Tea Party platform.[44][45] The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but it was not broadly embraced by GOP leadership, which released its own 'Pledge to America'.[45]

Stated Goals. Hell I went with the first one on Google

Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes - Excessively high taxes are a burden for those exercising their personal liberty to work hard and prosper as afforded by the Constitution. A fiscally responsible government protects the freedom of its citizens to enjoy the fruits of their own labor without interference from a government that has exceeded its necessary size, scope and reach into the lives of its citizens.

2. Eliminate the National Debt - By implementing fiscally conservative policies at all levels of government, progress can be made toward eliminating the U.S. National Debt. Massive increases in the National Debt have created and continue to create a huge burden for the next generation of Americans, thus imperiling the country’s short-term and long-term economic health and prosperity.

3. Eliminate Deficit Spending - All deficit spending must be eliminated immediately. We insist that government representatives at all levels maintain a fiscally responsible budget and balance the books as would be expected of any American business.

4. Protect Free Markets - America’s free enterprise system allows businesses to thrive as they compete in the open marketplace and strive toward ever better services and products. Allowing free markets to prosper unfettered by government interference is what propelled this country to greatness with an enduring belief in the industriousness and innovations of the populace.

5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States - The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to without exception at all levels of government. This includes the Bill of Rights and other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and their provisions designed to protect states’ rights and individual liberties.

6. Promote Civic Responsibility - Citizen involvement at the grassroots level allows the voice of the American people to be heard and directs the political behaviors of our representatives at both the local and national level so they, in turn, may be most effective in working to preserve the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of this country’s citizens.

7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government - A bloated bureaucracy creates wasteful spending that plagues our government. Reducing the overall size, scope and reach of government at both local and national levels will help to eliminate inefficiencies that result in deficit spending which adds to our country’s debt.

8. Believe in the People - The American people, given their guaranteed freedoms, will thrive in a democratic, capitalist environment which allows individuals to strive toward ever greater achievements, innovations and the efficient production of needed and valued goods and services.

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. The Tea Party movement is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring discredit to the Tea Party Movement. We are a peaceful movement and respect other's opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by the Tea Party beliefs and goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same.

10. Maintain Local Independence - The strength and resilience of a grassroots movement is the ability of citizens at the local level to determine their own platforms, agendas and priorities free of an overriding central leadership. Exercising the clearly stated message of the Tea Party movement by its nature involves discourse about which policies and candidates best hold to our stated principles, and these various opinions should flourish and evolve at the local level.

I will ask though is unlimiting debt borrowing makes an effective government?
I will ask though if Tea Party appears to be the majority and dictating to Boehner not to negotiate with POTUS or the Democrats?
I will ask though who in Obama Admin said something to the effect of "We don't care how long it last because at the end we're winning".
I will not deny the perception I have that the Tea Party reps are doing what they're constituents want.
I will also say majority of insurgents are not religious fanatics willing to die for their cause

And then there's the "other extremists" which may or may not overlap with the tea party. You know, the far-right religious groups screaming about how gay marriage and abortion will call down god's wrath upon us, or how you can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape". Or there's the sociopath Ayn Rand worshipers who think that if you just abolish all government and impose a social darwinist system the inevitable result is a perfect utopia where they don't have to pay taxes or suffer even the slightest inconvenience to help anyone else.

Do we really want to go into this? Labeling an entire group of people over remarks made by individuals? I know you are not blind nor chose to ignore Democrats sides of bolo statements. In fact I play along.

Dianna Feinstein calling the forward assist on a M4/M16/AR15 a "Bullet Button". WTH is a "Bullet Button"? I guess Democrats do not know weapons.
Nancy Pelosi saying they have to pass the ACA to see what's in the bill. I'm going to go with both sides on this. I do wonder at times who are we electing into public office
Harry Reid flip answer on helping kids with cancer to a reporter. I even

for him
I want to go with Weiner but that Chucklehead is beyond all help. Needs to be banned from all cell phones.
I want to go with Biden and the guy in the wheel chair but Hell I think we all would make the same mistake over time with situations like that.
I want to go with Nancy Pelosi praise with the SF Mayor to "Don't ask me about him" stance.
Robert Byrd KKK membership. Foolish choices at a young age
Joe Biden attempt to tell Afican Americans that the republican party wants to put them back in chains.
This bolo

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Dem Rep Pete Stark has to many to list.

I'm not labeling or thinking negative on an entire group of people over dumb a$$'s remarks or behavior.

**Peregrine**

Jihadin wrote:
I will ask though is unlimiting debt borrowing makes an effective government?

I don't know, but that's not the issue here. The money has already been borrowed, the question here is whether we're going to pay the interest on our loans or just declare that we're too good for that.

I will ask though if Tea Party appears to be the majority and dictating to Boehner not to negotiate with POTUS or the Democrats?

They aren't the majority. There are enough votes right now to end the shutdown if the republican leadership allows a vote. So what we have here is a minority in one house of congress holding the government hostage and demanding things they know they don't have the votes to get any other way.

I will not deny the perception I have that the Tea Party reps are doing what they're constituents want.

Sure, but those constituents are extremists as well. I'm not going to deny that the tea party ideology has supporters.

Do we really want to go into this? Labeling an entire group of people over remarks made by individuals?

I didn't label an entire group over those remarks. Not all republicans or conservatives are dangerous extremists. I am talking about a specific group of people with the beliefs I listed.

I know you are not blind nor chose to ignore Democrats sides of bolo statements. In fact I play along.

I don't really see your point here. I'm not going to defend the embarrassing idiocy certain democrats keep producing on anything related to guns. But there's a big difference between an occasional remark like "guns and religion" and a fundamental belief. The "legitimate rape" guy didn't just slip and say something he didn't really mean, that statement was entirely in line with his beliefs and, judging by what people like him are doing at the state level, entirely in line with his political goals.

**Jihadin**

The danger for the republican party is that the tea party (or other extremists) will run a primary campaign against candidates that aren't in safe districts.

Sure, but those constituents are extremists as well. I'm not going to deny that the tea party ideology has supporters.

I didn't label an entire group over those remarks. Not all republicans or conservatives are dangerous extremists. I am talking about a specific group of people with the beliefs I listed.

So what am I not following here?

Alright so your hooked on the "rape" comment Chuck Knuckle made that he believes in but its alright for a former KKK member who helped induct friends and family into that organization to be in public office.

Byrd, may he Rest in Peace, is alright for I do not hold anything against him. Yet...

Byrd's seniority and leadership of the Appropriations Committee enabled him to steer a great deal of federal money toward projects in West Virginia.[9] Critics derided his efforts as pork spending[10] to appeal to his own constituents. He filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supported the Vietnam War, but later backed civil rights measures and criticized the Iraq War. He was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s, serving as a recruiter and leader for his chapter, but later left the group and denounced racial intolerance.[11]

Yet former/current members of the KKK are removed from the military due to "extremists"

As for my discussion with you all I'm doing is broadening your clarity or defining a better perception for you. For I believe if everyone knows a bit of all aspects in a situation your better off then the average "Joe" or "Suzy" who confine themselves in narrow aspects.

**Peregrine**

Jihadin wrote:
its alright for a former KKK member who helped induct friends and family into that organization to be in public office.

It's "alright" in that he had a sincere change of beliefs, rejected his past, and worked against that ideology. Does that entirely make up for his actions? I don't know, but at least you can make a credible argument that he was no longer an extremist. The "honest rape" guy, on the other hand, only "apologized" out of self-preservation (if he even apologized at all) and continued to hold the exact same beliefs.

Yet former/current members of the KKK are removed from the military due to "extremists"

The reasonableness of that depends on how "former" they are. If you're talking about someone who was a stupid teenager from a place where racist beliefs are encouraged, but has grown up and left it all behind then maybe they have a case for remaining in the military. If you're talking about a "former" member who just quit a few months ago because it looks bad on their record then yes, kick them out. And of course if they're currently a member then they're repulsive

s who should be glad summary execution of people Peregrine doesn't like isn't allowed.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Um... Seb... I think you mix & matching terms that are confusing...

Ah okay, I looked it up and your method is a little difference to ours - here the budget is effectively the appropriations bill as well (though additional ad hoc appropriations can be passed modifying budget).

Still, its a distinction without difference when it comes to what I was saying. The congressional budget isn't inherently a money saver, and failing to pass one doesn't mean spending is out of control, it works instead as a means to provide overall strategic direction.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
If an infrastructure in place why build an entire new one when one can take it over eventually or be a major factor/influence/driver/HMFIC in an organizations

Because of what's happened. Instead of being a properly independant voice that argues for their ideological positions from a clean slate and builds support from there, instead they're just attempting to usurp control of another political party and the result is the shambles of a Republican Party we have today.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
I will ask though is unlimiting debt borrowing makes an effective government?

If you don't want to borrow, raise more revenue or spend less... and figure that out during the spending process. Don't write up laws committing to raise only so much revenue, and spend so much money, and then balk when it comes to raising the funds necessary to bridge the gap.

I will ask though who in Obama Admin said something to the effect of "We don't care how long it last because at the end we're winning".

It isn't that they're winning, it's that they can't afford to lose. Because letting this nonsense be successful means that anytime one party or the other is crazy enough to place some part of their agenda ahead of the governance of the country, then extortion becomes a solid strategy.

**gorgon**

So according to the NBC/WSJ poll:

- By a 22-point margin (53 percent to 31 percent), the public blames the Republican Party more for the shutdown than President Barack Obama – a wider margin of blame for the GOP than the party received during the poll during the last shutdown in 1995-96.

- Just 24 percent of respondents have a favorable opinion about the GOP, and only 21 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party, which are both at all-time lows in the history of the poll.

- American voters prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress to a Republican-controlled one by eight percentage points (47 percent to 39 percent), up from the Democrats’ three-point advantage last month (46 percent to 43 percent).

- Obama’s political standing has remained relatively stable since the shutdown, with his approval rating ticking up two points since last month, and with the Democratic Party’s favorability rating declining just three points (from 42 percent to 39 percent).

- Thirty-eight percent see the Affordable Care Act (or “Obamacare”) as a good idea, versus 43 percent who see it as a bad idea – up from 31 percent good idea, 44 percent bad idea last month.

To be clear, I'm not gloating about these results. For one thing, I have no party affiliation. For another, I would have greatly preferred no ugly shutdown in the first place.

However, I AM patting myself on the back a little for predicting how opinions were probably going to break. You folks should listen to ol' Gorgon...on rare occasion I do know what I'm talking about.

The GOP was in a bad position from the start, rhetorically speaking.

**djones520**

http://washingtonexaminer.com/networks-blamed-shutdown-on-gop-41-stories-0-for-dems/article/2537363

The linked story may have a lot to do with the way America ended up viewing this.

**whembly**

*meh* will see what the impact would be by the time the voters goes to the polls next year.

This'll likely be old news by tomorrow.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/networks-blamed-shutdown-on-gop-41-stories-0-for-dems/article/2537363

The linked story may have a lot to do with the way America ended up viewing this.

Now, now my good friend... the media is never at fault... amirite?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

This'll likely be old news by tomorrow.

That is wishful thinking, as every single challenger to GOP members of the House will make the last 16 days a point during their campaign.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

This'll likely be old news by tomorrow.

That is wishful thinking, as every single challenger to GOP members of the House will make the last 16 days a point during their campaign.

Well, I doubt it'll have as big a play at the candidate level, since there won't be as much national media coverage skewing things. Said candidates can just poin towards how one president has overseen the near doubling of the National Debt in his tenure, and say those 16 days was an effort to slow that down. The constituents who put him in office originally are probably more likely to take that.

**Forar**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

This'll likely be old news by tomorrow.

That is wishful thinking, as every single challenger to GOP members of the House will make the last 16 days a point during their campaign.

And that's not just in general elections.

I suspect some "RINOs" are about to be primary'd from the right.

Unless the Tea Party sees a dramatic decrease in funding as a reward for nearly causing a global economic catastrophe.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
That is wishful thinking, as every single challenger to GOP members of the House will make the last 16 days a point during their campaign.

Which isn't going to matter in Tea Party districts.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:
That is wishful thinking, as every single challenger to GOP members of the House will make the last 16 days a point during their campaign.

Which isn't going to matter in Tea Party districts.

Unless a Tea Party candidate can successfully argue that the Tea Party incumbent failed Conservatism.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:
That is wishful thinking, as every single challenger to GOP members of the House will make the last 16 days a point during their campaign.

Which isn't going to matter in Tea Party districts.

Ayah go to a conservative website right now ad you'll be convinced the end times of America are now nigh.

**gorgon**

djones520 wrote:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/networks-blamed-shutdown-on-gop-41-stories-0-for-dems/article/2537363

The linked story may have a lot to do with the way America ended up viewing this.

If the news media really is biased, then it's even more ammo for my point about the GOP forcing a fight where their opponents held strategically advantageous ground. I will say this...clearly this wasn't just about politics for the GOP, because it's hard to see any sound political strategy in it.

It's unclear what this means for 2014. You better believe that the Dems will try to use this as ammo, since it's polling well. And the Dems gained seats in '96. Then again, that was a presidential year and the dynamics were different. Still, these results suggest that it MIGHT hurt the GOP against the Dems, and WON'T hurt the Dems against the GOP, although both parties have probably suffered overall.

**Easy E**

My prediction, there is almost not change in the House.

Even this is a huge deal, since traditionally the President's party gets pasted n the off-Presidential year elections.

Everyone loves their personal congressman, it is everyone else's congress critter that is messed up.

**Forar**

It's my understanding that this is even more pronounced when a Democratic Party president is in place, as Republican Party voters are generally more consistent, whereas D voters are notorious for having a lower turnout during non-presidential elections.

There have been exceptions, of course.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
My prediction, there is almost not change in the House.

Even this is a huge deal, since traditionally the President's party gets pasted n the off-Presidential year elections.

Everyone loves their personal congressman, it is everyone else's congress critter that is messed up.

or lots of change in the House and Senate.
Its an off year election.
If the Republicans stop shooting themselves in the face everyone else is going to start noticing the horror show that is the ACA.

**whembly**

I don't know... there's a lot of "primary" threats on both sides. O.o

But, then again, I think the voters forgot about this yesterday.

**Easy E**

Well, if we can never forget BENGHAZI!!!

I'm pretty sure they will be reminded of this either because their Pol "didn't fight hard enough" from Tea Party challengers, or "They shut down the Government!" from Democractic Challengers.

The voters will be force to remember.

**Forar**

Forget?

There are already congresscritters saying they want to do it again in February, and it wouldn't surprise me if they kept going for it.

Pattern recognition isn't a strong suit of the type who find the last month's shenanigans to be appealing. I should go cross reference the true believers against the "list of Republicans who wouldn't stop saying rape" from not too far back.

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
Well, if we can never forget BENGHAZI!!!

It's still simmering...

Plus the whole IRS fiasco...

I'm pretty sure they will be reminded of this either because their Pol "didn't fight hard enough" from Tea Party challengers, or "They shut down the Government!" from Democractic Challengers.

The voters will be force to remember.

meh... I'd bet by them most will be ambivalent to the whole thing.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
*meh* will see what the impact would be by the time the voters goes to the polls next year.

This'll likely be old news by tomorrow.

Given it was much debate with little actual impact in people's lives, I agree with you in terms of the impact on voters.

The bigger issue is how this plays out in political rhetoric, both within the Republican party and with how Republican candidates attempt to sell themselves to the greater public. Back away from the issue, and from more partisan rhetoric in general? Or attempt to maintain the partisan rhetoric without mentioning the time they attempted and force concessions from the Democrats through a government shutdown? Or do they double down, and insist that the mistake was in backing off, and next time they're going to go harder?

The Republicans have worked themselves in to a really weird place.

**Seaward**

We'll see. I doubt much of anything will change. Congressmen elected by Tea Party supporters aren't going to suddenly stop speaking to Tea Party interests.

I'd suggest using the Virginia governor's race as a bellwether, but it's so fething weird this year, with both major candidates so disliked and a libertarian polling at 10%, that it's probably not that useful.