Originally Posted by millennialX

Yea, policy aside he instantly gained some respect from me when he said, "Now is not my time." When's the last time we had a president so smart?

Agreed. Before I didn't particularly care for the man. Now he's actually garnering some respect from me.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Agreed. Before I didn't particularly care for the man. Now he's actually garnering some respect from me.

~Chas'88

What you have to understand about Christie is that he an ex-prosecutor. He felt he does not have the time to gather the facts to make his case. When he makes that time, watch out. It will a devastating indictment.

James50

The Times has a couple of interesting stories about the Republican campaign today that really got me thinking.

I'm going to go out on a limb: it still looks quite unlikely to me that Romney is going to be nominated. He's getting a lot of help from the self-destruction of other candidates, of course, but it's clear that the tea party rank-and-file have no faith in him. And it's clear they have a monopoly on enthusiasm within the Republican Party. This is a guy who was pro-choice and pro-mandate, who closed corporate tax loopholes in Massachusetts, and who is a Mormon. What makes me sick, of course,. is his eagerness to recant every sensible position he has ever taken, but this obviously doesn't inspire confidence in them either. So we're getting all these weird results, victories in straw polls by Herman Cain and Ron Paul. I honestly don't think a third party candidate could be ruled out if Romney is nominated, either. Remember, you read it here first. . .

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Times has a couple of interesting stories about the Republican campaign today that really got me thinking.

I'm going to go out on a limb: it still looks quite unlikely to me that Romney is going to be nominated. He's getting a lot of help from the self-destruction of other candidates, of course, but it's clear that the tea party rank-and-file have no faith in him. And it's clear they have a monopoly on enthusiasm within the Republican Party. This is a guy who was pro-choice and pro-mandate, who closed corporate tax loopholes in Massachusetts, and who is a Mormon. What makes me sick, of course,. is his eagerness to recant every sensible position he has ever taken, but this obviously doesn't inspire confidence in them either. So we're getting all these weird results, victories in straw polls by Herman Cain and Ron Paul. I honestly don't think a third party candidate could be ruled out if Romney is nominated, either. Remember, you read it here first. . .

It is shaping up to be an interesting primary. No, the Republican party isn't in love with any of the candidates. But regardless of whoever they end up choosing to be their nominee, the Republicans will fall in line and support that person during the actual presidential campaign. Remember at first they didn't really like McCain either. But the question then becomes, will the moderate or independent voters? I just can't see someone like Perry, Cain, or Paul getting a lot of support from people outside the Republican base. I honestly think at this point, Romney is their best bet if they truly want to Obama. And that is the main goal of the Republican party.

I'm not sure whether or not we will see a third party candidate gain any traction during the actual Presidential race, but I do think we will see more independents in senate and house races. And that is where the independents will make their mark. Between the dissatisfied Tea Partiers and the dissatisfied Democrats it leaves the door wide open for a lot of independents on both sides of the ideological divide.

Originally Posted by ASB65

It is shaping up to be an interesting primary. No, the Republican party isn't in love with any of the candidates. But regardless of whoever they end up choosing to be their nominee, the Republicans will fall in line and support that person during the actual presidential campaign. Remember at first they didn't really like McCain either. But the question then becomes, will the moderate or independent voters? I just can't see someone like Perry, Cain, or Paul getting a lot of support from people outside the Republican base. I honestly think at this point, Romney is their best bet if they truly want to Obama. And that is the main goal of the Republican party.

I'm not sure whether or not we will see a third party candidate gain any traction during the actual Presidential race, but I do think we will see more independents in senate and house races. And that is where the independents will make their mark. Between the dissatisfied Tea Partiers and the dissatisfied Democrats it leaves the door wide open for a lot of independents on both sides of the ideological divide.

Amy, I really think this time is different. There was no Tea Party last time. People here like to think of the Tea Party as manipulated idiots, but they seem to me to be totally dedicated to their own view and determined not to be "taken in" by an establishment candidate again. And they have a good deal of money behind them. I suppose Romney, if nominated, will try to buy them off with a nice VP candidate like Bachmann or some one (I agree, she is not really likely), but even so, if some one (Palin?) decided on a third party run, I wouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I'm not sure whether or not we will see a third party candidate gain any traction during the actual Presidential race, but I do think we will see more independents in senate and house races. And that is where the independents will make their mark. Between the dissatisfied Tea Partiers and the dissatisfied Democrats it leaves the door wide open for a lot of independents on both sides of the ideological divide.

I think that leads to a follow-on question as well. Even if a third party/independent challenge came about, where would it be on the usual spectrum? It could be someone "triangulating" between Obama and the GOP nominee, and it could be someone to the left of Obama. Heck, if Romney were nominated it could even spring up to the right of Romney. (In reality, though, I don't think "to the left of Obama" is very likely seeing as many progressives remember all too well what happened with Nader in 2000.)

At some point that could even turn into a challenge from a broader spectrum who are disgusted with the unholy alliance of government and Wall Street, as typified by the current OWS crowd. 2012 will be too early for that to coalesce, I think, but 2014 or 2016 might not be.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Amy, I really think this time is different. There was no Tea Party last time. People here like to think of the Tea Party as manipulated idiots, but they seem to me to be totally dedicated to their own view and determined not to be "taken in" by an establishment candidate again. And they have a good deal of money behind them. I suppose Romney, if nominated, will try to buy them off with a nice VP candidate like Bachmann or some one (I agree, she is not really likely), but even so, if some one (Palin?) decided on a third party run, I wouldn't be surprised.

If a more traditional Republican candidate wins the nomination and a Tea Party person decides to run for president, it will just split the vote and they the Republicans will lose. Don't you think that most Republican people realize this? I do...And more than anything they want to win. The tea partiers may not like Romney but they certainly like him a whole more than they like Obama. The Tea Partiers may be extreme but I really don't think they are stupid. I could be wrong, but I just don't see Rick Perry (the leading Tea Party candidate) winning the nomination. And if he does, I highly doubt he will win the election.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I think that leads to a follow-on question as well. Even if a third party/independent challenge came about, where would it be on the usual spectrum? It could be someone "triangulating" between Obama and the GOP nominee, and it could be someone to the left of Obama. Heck, if Romney were nominated it could even spring up to the right of Romney.

At some point that could even turn into a challenge from a broader spectrum who are disgusted with the unholy alliance of government and Wall Street, as typified by the current OWS crowd. 2012 will be too early for that to coalesce, I think, but 2014 or 2016 might not be.

I think in different areas of the country you will have different independent type candidates emerge. In some very strong red districts the independents will be more of the tea party flavor. In very strong blue districts you may see candidates who want more extreme left candidates. These are the people who have become disillusioned with Obama because they feel he broke his campaign promises to them and compromised too much. Then you could very well have independent candidates who come right out the OWS anger. These will be the candidates who reject both parties and campaign on the populist message and promise to clean up the corruption in Washington. So yes, I agree it could make for a very broad spectrum of independent candidates.

Originally Posted by ASB65

If a more traditional Republican candidate wins the nomination and a Tea Party person decides to run for president, it will just split the vote and they the Republicans will lose. Don't you think that most Republican people realize this? I do...And more than anything they want to win. The tea partiers may not like Romney but they certainly like him a whole more than they like Obama. The Tea Partiers may be extreme but I really don't think they are stupid. I could be wrong, but I just don't see Rick Perry (the leading Tea Party candidate) winning the nomination. And if he does, I highly doubt he will win the election.

Remember what S&H wrote in T4T about a principaled moralist eking out a victory in a four-way screaming match? Could that happen now, with perhaps two independent candidates springing up?

Originally Posted by ASB65

In very strong blue districts you may see candidates who want more extreme left candidates. These are the people who have become disillusioned with Obama because they feel he broke his campaign promises to them and compromised too much.

Yeah, one would think so in some ways, but I still think the wounds of the 2000 election are too fresh for lefties to seek a challenge to Obama's left. Nader ran the strongest left-of-the-Democrat challenge in decades, but all the Left had to show for it was eight years of GWB (and of adding terms like "pregnant chad" to the common vernacular). Frankly, I think the 2000 election set back the cause of third-party and independent challenges by decades. For those us not enamored with the current duopoly that is a sad reality.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Remember what S&H wrote in T4T about a principaled moralist eking out a victory in a four-way screaming match? Could that happen now, with perhaps two independent candidates springing up?

Not this coming presidential election. I think the independent "screaming matches" are more likely to happen in the house and senate races. And do think we will see some of that this time around. I can't see it happening in the presidential election in 2012. Perhaps in 2016 that is a possibility. Especially if we see more and more infiltration in congress regardless of whatever flavor of independent they may be.

I've said all along, the Republicans created a monster with Tea Party that they will eventually have to deal with. A Tea Party candidate can't win a presidential election. Most people in the country are moderate. Republicans also have to know a third Tea Party candidate running in the presidential election will split the vote and they will lose then too. So the question for the Republicans then becomes, "How do we keep our Tea Party voters happy and still win an election?" Putting one on the ticket as vice president could be a problem too. That could scare away moderate voters as well. There were an awful lot of people who looked at Sarah Palin in the last election and thought, "I'm not so sure I want her that close to oval office." And that was before the country really got to know her.

But you bring up a good point. What if the populist movement like what is happening down at OWS gains as much or even more steam as the Tea Party has? What if in the 2016 election we did have a traditional Republican & Democratic candidates running and a Tea Party candidate running along with a populist candidate that would take votes away from the Democratic candidate. I'm not ruling out the possibility of that happening in 2016. Then everything is up for grabs...And the Democratic party might have their own version of Frankenstein just like what the Republicans have with the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Yeah, one would think so in some ways, but I still think the wounds of the 2000 election are too fresh for lefties to seek a challenge to Obama's left. Nader ran the strongest left-of-the-Democrat challenge in decades, but all the Left had to show for it was eight years of GWB (and of adding terms like "pregnant chad" to the common vernacular). Frankly, I think the 2000 election set back the cause of third-party and independent challenges by decades. For those us not enamored with the current duopoly that is a sad reality.

2000 is a relic of the 3T "protest vote" mindset that is far less relevant to the social mood now except for Beltway-oriented politics junkies that scream "NADER! NADER!" as a term of abuse at activists.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I've said all along, the Republicans created a monster with Tea Party that they will eventually have to deal with.

1. The Republicans did not create the Tea Party movement.

2. The Tea Party movement single-handedly resurrected the Republican Party and gave it control of the House in 2010.

A Tea Party candidate can't win a presidential election. Most people in the country are moderate. Republicans also have to know a third Tea Party candidate running in the presidential election will split the vote and they will lose then too. So the question for the Republicans then becomes, "How do we keep our Tea Party voters happy and still win an election?" Putting one on the ticket as vice president could be a problem too. That could scare away moderate voters as well. There were an awful lot of people who looked at Sarah Palin in the last election and thought, "I'm not so sure I want her that close to oval office." And that was before the country really got to know her.

It sounds like you just listen to whatever the left-leaning media says and accept it unthinkingly. Public opinion of the Tea Party movement is not negative. Despite the headline on this Gallup poll, the numbers show pretty consistently that 25-30% of the population call themselves "supporters" of the Tea Party movement, about the same number call themselves "opponents", and the plurality of about 40% say "neither" or "no opinion".

Which means up to 70% of voters theoretically could be open to voting for a "Tea Party candidate".

But you bring up a good point. What if the populist movement like what is happening down at OWS gains as much or even more steam as the Tea Party has? What if in the 2016 election we did have a traditional Republican & Democratic candidates running and a Tea Party candidate running along with a populist candidate that would take votes away from the Democratic candidate. I'm not ruling out the possibility of that happening in 2016. Then everything is up for grabs...And the Democratic party might have their own version of Frankenstein just like what the Republicans have with the Tea Party.

If the Tea Party was a bad thing for the Republicans, the left wouldn't be trying so desperately to emulate it.

The left obviously hates the Tea Party because it's a threat to the big government they worship. The elites in both parties hate the Tea Party because it's a threat to their comfortable positions and "business as usual" in government. But the average American does not hate the Tea Party, or see it as "too extreme" or anything of the sort, despite the relentless efforts of the media to manufacture that kind of opinion out of thin air.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

But the average American does not hate the Tea Party, or see it as "too extreme" or anything of the sort, despite the relentless efforts of the media to manufacture that kind of opinion out of thin air.

I agree that average America doesn't "hate" the Tea Party but they do see it as too extreme. I'm not sure what your world is like, but I have feeling you probably only associate with people who feel the exactly the same way you do. I have lived in different parts of the country and have a wide spectrum of friends from both red and blue areas. Many of the people I associate with and including several of my relatives, are life long Republicans and very few of them would want to be identified as Tea Partiers. Now I realize you are going to accuse them of not being "real Republicans" and secretly being left wingers, as you seem to think that everyone who isn't a Tea Partier is part of the "far left", but I will just chalk that up to your own paranoia...Sorry, just trying to give you a little reality check, even though I realize it will go in one ear and out the other.

I will also agree that media does do it's best to try and manufacture division and tries to get their watchers to fed off of it. It all comes down to ratings for them. But they do that to both sides. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are just as guilty of it as those in the liberal media are. So don't feel so victimized. The Tea Partiers are not the ones who get this treatment from the media.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I agree that average America doesn't "hate" the Tea Party but they do see it as too extreme. I'm not sure what your world is like, but I have feeling you probably only associate with people who feel the exactly the same way you do. I have lived in different parts of the country and have a wide spectrum of friends from both red and blue areas. Many of the people I associate with and including several of my relatives, are life long Republicans and very few of them would want to be identified as Tea Partiers. Now I realize you are going to accuse them of not being "real Republicans" and secretly being left wingers, as you seem to think that everyone who isn't a Tea Partier is part of the "far left", but I will just chalk that up to your own paranoia...Sorry, just trying to give you a little reality check, even though I realize it will go in one ear and out the other.

I will also agree that media does do it's best to try and manufacture division and tries to get their watchers to fed off of it. It all comes down to ratings for them. But they do that to both sides. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are just as guilty of it as those in the liberal media are. So don't feel so victimized. The Tea Partiers are not the ones who get this treatment from the media.

I can't believe I'm about the defend the Tea Party, but in it's defense, I doubt the average America is aware of the TP's original goals. If there is rejection, it's in response to the colorful characters tied to it, starting with Palin.

Speaking of media, I like Jon Stewarts comment about how media does have a left point of view, but Fox dives into activism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUd...&feature=share

Originally Posted by millennialX

I can't believe I'm about the defend the Tea Party, but in it's defense, I doubt the average America is aware of the TP's original goals. If there is rejection, it's in response to the colorful characters tied to it, starting with Palin.Speaking of media, I like Jon Stewarts comment about how media does have a left point of view, but Fox dives into activism.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUd...&feature=share

My recollection is that the Tea Party arose in reaction to the Bush/Obama bank and GM bailouts...both of which at the time I begrudgingly supported. Today, not so much...not only did the President merely kick the can down the road, but I believe actually emboldened corporations to send more jobs overseas, banks to charge higher fees and pay their execs larger bonuses.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

My recollection is that the Tea Party arose in reaction to the Bush/Obama bank and GM bailouts...both of which at the time I begrudgingly supported. Today, not so much...not only did the President merely kick the can down the road, but I believe actually emboldened corporations to send more jobs overseas, banks to charge higher fees and pay their execs larger bonuses.

That's my recollection, too. Culture war social issues weren't even connected to original plan until current Presidential candidates got involved.

Ha, ha, what was Michelle Bachman doing before the Tea Party, anyway? The first I've heard of her was in response to Obama's State of the Union.

Originally Posted by millennialX

That's my recollection, too. Culture war social issues weren't even connected to original plan until current Presidential candidates got involved.

Ha, ha, what was Michelle Bachman doing before the Tea Party, anyway? The first I've heard of her was in response to Obama's State of the Union.

The first time I ever saw Bachman was on the Chris Matthew's show during the last election. It may have even been during the primary. She said that a large number of the people serving in congress were communist. Chris Matthew's said, "Are you sure you want to stand by that comment?" And she said that she did because it was true. I remember thinking at the time, "Who the heck is this crazy person? And I'll bet she will lose her seat in congress after that statement. No sane person will vote for her." She has gained greater fame and support since then. I guess it pays in this country to be a sensationalist.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I can't believe I'm about the defend the Tea Party, but in it's defense, I doubt the average America is aware of the TP's original goals. If there is rejection, it's in response to the colorful characters tied to it, starting with Palin.

Speaking of media, I like Jon Stewarts comment about how media does have a left point of view, but Fox dives into activism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUd...&feature=share

You are right. The Tea Party has morphed from what it originally was when it first began. The tea party movement grew out of the anger over the bailouts. Most people in America agreed with them then. I don't think most people in America agree with a lot of the stances they have now.

Originally Posted by ASB65

The first time I ever saw Bachman was on the Chris Matthew's show during the last election. It may have even been during the primary. She said that a large number of the people serving in congress were communist. Chris Matthew's said, "Are you sure you want to stand by that comment?" And she said that she did because it was true. I remember thinking at the time, "Who the heck is this crazy person? And I'll bet she will lose her seat in congress after that statement. No sane person will vote for her." She has gained greater fame and support since then. I guess it pays in this country to be a sensationalist.

that woman is an embarrassment to my state. Her district, in the center of the state, is where most of Minnesota's movement conservative wackos live, the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities and the "ex-urban" area spreading up I-94 to Alexandria.

She became a laughing stock here as a state legislator when she was caught "spying" on a gay rights demonstration.

Originally Posted by Odin

that woman is an embarrassment to my state. Her district, in the center of the state, is where most of Minnesota's movement conservative wackos live, the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities and the "ex-urban" area spreading up I-94 to Alexandria.

She became a laughing stock here as a state legislator when she was caught "spying" on a gay rights demonstration.

Don't feel bad, we have Rick Perry down here. I thought for certain when he stood up at a Tea Party rally and threatened to secede from the union he would be history. But he not only went on to beat the much beloved, Republican senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, in the gubernatorial primary, he won the general election again. And now he is one of the favorites in the Republican presidential primary...Shakes head. I don't get it either.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I agree that average America doesn't "hate" the Tea Party but they do see it as too extreme. I'm not sure what your world is like, but I have feeling you probably only associate with people who feel the exactly the same way you do. I have lived in different parts of the country and have a wide spectrum of friends from both red and blue areas. Many of the people I associate with and including several of my relatives, are life long Republicans and very few of them would want to be identified as Tea Partiers. Now I realize you are going to accuse them of not being "real Republicans" and secretly being left wingers, as you seem to think that everyone who isn't a Tea Partier is part of the "far left", but I will just chalk that up to your own paranoia...Sorry, just trying to give you a little reality check, even though I realize it will go in one ear and out the other.

I will also agree that media does do it's best to try and manufacture division and tries to get their watchers to fed off of it. It all comes down to ratings for them. But they do that to both sides. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are just as guilty of it as those in the liberal media are. So don't feel so victimized. The Tea Partiers are not the ones who get this treatment from the media.

Nanny nanny boo boo.

I associate with all kinds of different people. And unlike you, I am honest with myself and others about where I stand. I am absolutely more libertarian and/or conservative than average. However, I do not fit into the box that the lockstep mindset of this board would like to put me into.

As for you, if you could just stop claiming to be a calm, sensible moderate and admit that you are a very liberal woman, we would have no argument about the subject.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I can't believe I'm about the defend the Tea Party, but in it's defense, I doubt the average America is aware of the TP's original goals. If there is rejection, it's in response to the colorful characters tied to it, starting with Palin.

There is no rejection, except among the elite. The polls show clearly that the country has been moving to the right for the last two years, starting with Obamacare, and intensifying as the economy has continued to suffer. The numbers for the Republicans today are similar to where they were a year ago. The big difference is that Obama's approval rating has gone deep into negative territory and stayed there for months now. People who had been giving him the benefit of the doubt are increasingly throwing up their hands and abandoning him.

If there was some sort of backlash against the newly elected "Tea Party Republicans" in Congress, the polls would be shifting in the Democrats' favor. They're not. They're still showing another election like 2010 as of today. I wouldn't go so far as to say that any Republican nominee could beat Obama right now, but it is very close to that being true. Again, based on actual poll numbers.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is no rejection, except among the elite. The polls show clearly that the country has been moving to the right for the last two years, starting with Obamacare, and intensifying as the economy has continued to suffer. The numbers for the Republicans today are similar to where they were a year ago. The big difference is that Obama's approval rating has gone deep into negative territory and stayed there for months now. People who had been giving him the benefit of the doubt are increasingly throwing up their hands and abandoning him.

If there was some sort of backlash against the newly elected "Tea Party Republicans" in Congress, the polls would be shifting in the Democrats' favor. They're not. They're still showing another election like 2010 as of today. I wouldn't go so far as to say that any Republican nominee could beat Obama right now, but it is very close to that being true. Again, based on actual poll numbers.

I'll be more specific. I do believe the original message of the tea party still holds for many people in the country, according to the polls and the 2010 elections which reflect that. But if there is even a hint of rejection to it, it's not because of the message (or even the Republican party) but because of some of it's members. When I wrote colorful character's I had Palin on my mind. I think Fox is even getting tired of her? I think even Megyn Kelly said some anti Palin comments on her show (I have to find that). Anyway, no more talking about Palin because she's an easy target and is taking a break from the game to focus on her family.

I believe that the main reason Herman Cain is moving up the candidate ladder is because he seems like a classic Republican and not taking advantage of the Tea Party name. The Tea Party and everything it represents had it's name taken in vain, IMO.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I'll be more specific. I do believe the original message of the tea party still holds for many people in the country, according to the polls and the 2010 elections which reflect that. But if there is even a hint of rejection to it, it's not because of the message (or even the Republican party) but because of some of it's members. When I wrote colorful character's I had Palin on my mind. I think Fox is even getting tired of her? I think even Megyn Kelly said some anti Palin comments on her show (I have to find that). Anyway, no more talking about Palin because she's an easy target and is taking a break from the game to focus on her family.

I believe that the main reason Herman Cain is moving up the candidate ladder is because he seems like a classic Republican and not taking advantage of the Tea Party name. The Tea Party and everything it represents had it's name taken in vain, IMO.

Actually...Cain is deeply involved with, and a direct product of, the Tea Party. He had a radio talk show, he was on board from the beginning, he's been a fixture at the rallies (according to Wikipedia, he spoke at more than 40 of them in 2010), and that is what brought about his candidacy. In fact, he has more of a legitimate claim to being "the Tea Party candidate" than others who have tried to take that mantle, including Palin and Bachmann.