Brat & The Dead Tea Party

What do you think of Ace’s comments or the Cantor defeat in general?

[i]David Brat’s Victory Helps the GOP – and the Establishment, Too

â??Ace

When Establishment politicians were beating their Tea Party challengers, the gloating from the Establishment was unseemly and toxic.

What were they celebrating, exactly? Having crushed the political aspirations of half of the GOP?

It’s one thing to gloat and do endzone dances when you beat the opposing party. True, in that case, you’re also celebrating the despair of millions of Americans.

But we can’t completely end bad behavior. What we can do is confine it, limit it, set up socially-acceptable safe harbors for it, while otherwise squelching it.

We cannot deny ourselves the joy of winning an election, nor the schadenfreude of seeing a hated rival brought low.

But such Endzone Touchdown Dances are unseemly and destructive when directed at those inside the political family.

Now, Establishment types will point out, with great justification, that the Tea Party has not been abashed about celebrating and spiking the ball when they defeat an Establishment figure. The Tea Party doesn’t worry too much about the Establishment’s feelings when they whoop the Establishment.

True, but that doesn’t give the Establishment license to do the same. The Establishment is the Establishment largely because they represent – at least for now – the dominant clique within the larger faction.

And those in a dominant position are expected to exercise their dominant power with more decorum and maturity than insurgents (who are generally expected to behave like teenagers at a keg party, and seldom disappoint those expectations).

In addition, part of the Establishment’s justification for their continuation as the dominant faction within the conservative movement is that they are far more politically savvy and far more cunning and judicious in their political rhetoric than the Tea Party insurgents.

The Establishmentarians are the Adults in the Room. That’s their selling point.

If the alleged “Adults in the Room” are going to engage in juvenile, puerile dick-measuring and chest-thumping, then what good are they?

If they’re simultaneously squishes (or worse) on actual policy and also impolitic and intemperate as regards comportment, what conceivable theory exists to support their continued dominance of the conservative movement?

If I’m in the mood for impolitic and intemperate and politically naive, well, then I’ll take the impolitic and intemperate and politically naive Tea Party candidate who actually wants to cut federal spending.

But here’s how the Brat win actually helps the Establishment far more than they realize:

Does the Establishment really want to crush the spirit of millions of potentially energetic and industrious political partisans?

Do they really want to convince 40% of the party that they have No Hope Whatsoever?

Do they really want to convince so many people, who would otherwise vote 88% Republican, to just give up on politics completely and tend only their own farms?

Whether the Establishment understands this or not – and despite their protestations, they don’t seem to have very much more emotional intelligence than those Tea Party wack-a-doos they despise – it is critical to a political movement for the partisans within it to feel as if they actually have a chance to prevail in the marketplace of ideas, to feel as if the game is not entirely rigged against them.

For all the Establishment anger and angst over Cantor’s loss – and Cochran’s likely upcoming loss – would the Establishment really prefer that the Tea Party agree with Barack Obama that the Conservative Cause is doomed and that the only route forward is acquiescence to the relentless march towards the Socialist States of America?

Everything Obama has done since he began running has been calculated to create a sense of inevitability, in his own partisans but even more importantly in hostile partisans.

From the relentless attempts to create a false bandwagon effect, to demonizing and intimidating opponents, to abusing and prosecuting whistleblowers, to accumulating more and more power in his own clumsy, ratty hands, Barack Obama’s insight into politics – borne of his natural base cunning and his years of apprenticeship in the Chicago Machine – is that the easiest way to win a war is to break the heart of your opponent, such that he never bothers fighting in the first place.

Does the Establishment really wish to join Barack Obama in convincing the Tea Party that they are racist relics of a well-lost age? Do they wish to add to Barack Obama’s efforts to make Americans feel that they are doomed, powerless, and bred only to serve?

I should certainly hope not (though I’m sure some commenters will say that that’s precisely what the Establishment wants).

Political partisans can either be spirited or dispirited. Spirited partisans may cause some trouble, and may pick some fights, especially when they get the crazy idea in their heads that they ought to have a say in their own political destiny (what a Revolting thought!), but here’s the thing: They actually fight for something.

The dispirited just keep their heads down low and go along with whatever the socially-dominant faction says. And as the socially-dominant faction is, and likely will be for 40 years, the progressives/socialists, dispirited partisans will tend to either opt out of the system entirely or simply do as their socialist masters wish.

It’s better to have spirited partisans.

There is no political movement that ever advanced without spirit or hope.[/i]

  • Ace of Spades

This Cochran-McDaniel race, and I actually look for a Cochran defeat but with such a low voter turnout on that on the first time who really knows, is going really overboard here. Taking pictures of a man’s ill wife in a home is beyond despicable and I still haven’t convinced myself that McDaniel didn’t at least have knowledge of it.

I think the fact that politics are looked at like they’re an NFL game is part of the problem.

You don’t “win” shit when you’re elected, you’re chosen to do a job.

The Tea Party is just sad.

It was bad enough that climate change being introduced by the dems by Al Gore and became a political issue… But that climate change denial exists as part of the Tea Party’s platform just makes them look absolutely retarded. RETARDED.

This guy wants to de-regulate farming. Want to know a good way to bolster dems who might feel disillusioned by politics? Keep electing guys like him. I’m not going anywhere near a voting booth until I get to vote for someone who isn’t owned by corporate, especially the friggin Koch brothers and their fake ass Tea Party.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You don’t “win” shit when you’re elected, you’re chosen to do a job. [/quote]

Bingo. We very much treat it like a sport here and elected officials only look at one side. Once you’re elected then it’s your job to take care of all the voters in your state/district/city and not just the ones who voted for you.

james

Couple of points:

  1. Not sad to see Cantor go. He was a liberal with an “R” next to his name.

  2. The national so-called TEA parties had nothing to do with this. The grass-root efforts to return to small government that inspired the TEA party had everything to do with this.

  3. I don’t get where anyone could get off saying the “TEA Party (or really, the grass-root effort to get actual conservatives/libertarians in office instead of fake Republicans) is dead.” The movement swept Texas state-wide, excepting Cornyn. They pick up about 1/4 of the seats targeted every year. In a few years, the Republic Elite will be a sad minority within the Republican party, relegated to liberal states.

  4. I am happy to have a choice between capitalists and communists, instead of socialist (the Republican E) and communists (the Democrats).

  5. If the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government, instead of getting bogged down in social issues, it will become very dominant across party lines.

  6. Oh, and Cantor was not always an asshole. I liked what he did regarding education regarding Israel and liked how he showed that yes, a Jew can be a Republican and sort-of-conservative. But he lost his way and became another typical politician.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You don’t “win” shit when you’re elected, you’re chosen to do a job. [/quote]

Bingo. We very much treat it like a sport here and elected officials only look at one side. Once you’re elected then it’s your job to take care of all the voters in your state/district/city and not just the ones who voted for you.

james
[/quote]

“What’s the point of power if you can’t use the government to punish your enemies and reward your supporters?”

– paraphrase of Rahm Emmanuel (former Obama COS, now mayor of Chicago)

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Couple of points:

  1. Not sad to see Cantor go. He was a liberal with an “R” next to his name.

  2. The national so-called TEA parties had nothing to do with this. The grass-root efforts to return to small government that inspired the TEA party had everything to do with this.

  3. I don’t get where anyone could get off saying the “TEA Party (or really, the grass-root effort to get actual conservatives/libertarians in office instead of fake Republicans) is dead.” The movement swept Texas state-wide, excepting Cornyn. They pick up about 1/4 of the seats targeted every year. In a few years, the Republic Elite will be a sad minority within the Republican party, relegated to liberal states.

  4. I am happy to have a choice between capitalists and communists, instead of socialist (the Republican E) and communists (the Democrats).

  5. If the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government, instead of getting bogged down in social issues, it will become very dominant across party lines.

  6. Oh, and Cantor was not always an asshole. I liked what he did regarding education regarding Israel and liked how he showed that yes, a Jew can be a Republican and sort-of-conservative. But he lost his way and became another typical politician.
    [/quote]

Haha, all I see is Hillary in the future if you conservatives keep going tea party. But, at least you think you have an option haha. You really think they are small gov capitalists lol. If they are small gov it’s to serve big corps like the Koch’s and Tobacco. They don’t want small gov for the sake of small gov. All it’s for is concentration of power over the market by creating smaller gov, which puts more power in fewer hands… Easier to control fewer hands… LOL

Jewbacca - in your opinion, why do you think a majority of (or what seems like) Jewish-Americans vote Democrat? Hopefully you wont take offense to my question…

[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Jewbacca - in your opinion, why do you think a majority of (or what seems like) Jewish-Americans vote Democrat? Hopefully you wont take offense to my question… [/quote]

I know this guy, he teaches poly-sci at a local college (and also owns a bar… real credible guy…) and I asked him the same thing.

He told me point blank that is The Fuhrer came back on a democratic ticket, the NY jews would line up to vote him in.

Rob

[quote]Severiano wrote:
The Tea Party is just sad.

It was bad enough that climate change being introduced by the dems by Al Gore and became a political issue… But that climate change denial exists as part of the Tea Party’s platform just makes them look absolutely retarded. RETARDED.

This guy wants to de-regulate farming. Want to know a good way to bolster dems who might feel disillusioned by politics? Keep electing guys like him. I’m not going anywhere near a voting booth until I get to vote for someone who isn’t owned by corporate, especially the friggin Koch brothers and their fake ass Tea Party. [/quote]

The term Climate Change is so arbitrary, that nearly any weather expression meets it’s criteria.

First it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change. Sorry, but the practice of science is precise, something that cannot be said about Climate Change.

LOL @ thinking only Republicans take money from corporations.

"A week after the California Senate rejected a moratorium on fracking in the state, a watchdog group said those who opposed the bill or abstained from voting on it received significantly more campaign money from the oil and gas industry than supporters of the measure.

The moratorium failed on a 16-16 vote after eight Democrats abstained.

MapLight found that the Democrats who abstained from voting received, on average, 4.5 times as much campaign cash from the industry as Democrats who supported the bill."

I have had it up to here with politics. It has degraded to a point where I really do not believe anything I read, hear or see that has anything to do with politicians and our sham of a political system. Nor do I give a shit any longer.

On any given election day, I will go in and vote for the specific reason to get the incumbent fuckheads out of office, as if my vote counts. But only if I get a rock-star parking spot within 50 feet of the door.

Rob

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I have had it up to here with politics. It has degraded to a point where I really do not believe anything I read, hear or see that has anything to do with politicians and our sham of a political system. Nor do I give a shit any longer.

On any given election day, I will go in and vote for the specific reason to get the incumbent fuckheads out of office, as if my vote counts. But only if I get a rock-star parking spot within 50 feet of the door.

Rob [/quote]

Unfortunately, I think this is the very thing establishment politicians want. Both parties benefit from thoughtful people being disillusioned and becoming apathetic. Because then it becomes a game of margins and telling the right lie

[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Jewbacca - in your opinion, why do you think a majority of (or what seems like) Jewish-Americans vote Democrat? Hopefully you wont take offense to my question… [/quote]

Part of it is that Jews are not just Jews, just as Christians are not just Christians and black are not just blacks.

People have multiple demographic descriptors. Jews also happen to belong to other groups, and many of them skew left: Many of them live in coastal cities, and that’s huge; many Jews also have postgraduate degrees–a full quarter, I believe.

I don’t think it was so much as “pro Tea party” endorsement but rather a protest vote against an incubant. I think the upcoming elections are going to dwarf the 2010 upsets.

[quote]Severiano wrote:
The Tea Party is just sad.

It was bad enough that climate change being introduced by the dems by Al Gore and became a political issue… But that climate change denial exists as part of the Tea Party’s platform just makes them look absolutely retarded. RETARDED.

This guy wants to de-regulate farming. Want to know a good way to bolster dems who might feel disillusioned by politics? Keep electing guys like him. I’m not going anywhere near a voting booth until I get to vote for someone who isn’t owned by corporate, especially the friggin Koch brothers and their fake ass Tea Party. [/quote]

http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/

Which one of their 15 core beliefs is climate change denial?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
First it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change. Sorry, but the practice of science is precise, something that cannot be said about Climate Change.
[/quote]

Or it could be that as the information on climate change grew and the technologies used to measure it improved, we gained a greater understanding of it and changed the name accordingly.

The entire point of “science” is change. Change as you see new information. If you do not deal with the new and/or conflicting information, then you’re not doing “science”.

Climate change may not be influenced by humanity, but to claim that-

1- Since our definition and understanding of it changed over the years, it cannot exist.
2- Climate change itself doesn’t exist.

Are both silly. There are abundant information to support #2. #1 is just plain retarded.

New and developing fields are always in constant flux. Look at the science of medicine during the late 19th and early 20th. Shit was full of people making random claims and hundreds of new discoveries every decade or so. Just 20 years ago we had no real understanding of how cancers occur. We still don’t have a real understanding of how cancers occur.

And yet in the 1980s we were waging “war” against cancer and scientists promised that we were about to win every 5-6 years or so IIRC. Whatever happened to that?

What you speak of is the politicization of climate change and the growth of environmentalism. That’s why all the scientists who definitively said “Global Warming exists!” 10+ years ago are bad scientists. Or, more accurately, scientists out to get political brownie points. Because there is no such thing as “definitive” in “science”. The moment you claim something to be definitive, you’ve stopped practicing “science”.

But none of this is reason to believe that climate change isn’t occurring, or that it isn’t influenced by people. I’m sure there are better, actual scientific, reasons to believe that it isn’t occurring or not influenced by people.

[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Jewbacca - in your opinion, why do you think a majority of (or what seems like) Jewish-Americans vote Democrat? Hopefully you wont take offense to my question… [/quote]

A question often pondered by Israeli-Americans like myself (who vote exactly opposite).

Some is history and inertia.

Some is because most Jewish people in America are Reform and their bad theology (I am Orthodox – Orthodox also vote Republican) leads to crappy political beliefs.

But mainly, I think it is geography. Most Jewish in the USA live in and around major north east cities or in LA. These are urban liberal enclaves. Jewish people vote Democrat just like all the other idiots in urban liberal enclaves.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
First it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change. Sorry, but the practice of science is precise, something that cannot be said about Climate Change.
[/quote]

Or it could be that as the information on climate change grew and the technologies used to measure it improved, we gained a greater understanding of it and changed the name accordingly.

The entire point of “science” is change. Change as you see new information. If you do not deal with the new and/or conflicting information, then you’re not doing “science”.

Climate change may not be influenced by humanity, but to claim that-

1- Since our definition and understanding of it changed over the years, it cannot exist.
2- Climate change itself doesn’t exist.

Are both silly. There are abundant information to support #2. #1 is just plain retarded.

New and developing fields are always in constant flux. Look at the science of medicine during the late 19th and early 20th. Shit was full of people making random claims and hundreds of new discoveries every decade or so. Just 20 years ago we had no real understanding of how cancers occur. We still don’t have a real understanding of how cancers occur.

What you speak of is the politicization of climate change and the growth of environmentalism. That’s why all the scientists who definitively said “Global Warming exists!” 10+ years ago are bad scientists. Or, more accurately, scientists out to get political brownie points. Because there is no such thing as “definitive” in “science”. The moment you claim something to be definitive, you’ve stopped practicing “science”.

But none of this is reason to believe that climate change isn’t occurring, or that it isn’t influenced by people. I’m sure there are better, actual scientific, reasons to believe that it isn’t occurring or not influenced by people.[/quote]

Climate change 100% agrees and if you ask “Does climate change exist?” to 100 well educated people, 97 of them will say yes, and the other 3 will assume you are talking about Gores version of climate change and answer accordingly. The climate is changing but is as likely to be caused by cow farts as it is exhaust fumes.