The Most Powerful Force In American Politics Today

[Kathianne]

I do believe this nails what's going on:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/521827


By Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Created Oct 2 2010 - 11:00pm
Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Tea Party dominance was inevitable -- and I told you so
Comments (0)

I told you so.

On April 15, 2009, as the first nationwide wave of Tea Party protests broke out, I wrote: “What’s most striking about the tea-party movement is that most of the organizers haven’t ever organized, or even participated, in a protest rally before. General disgust has drawn a lot of people off the sidelines and into the political arena, and they are already planning for political action after today....

“This influx of new energy and new talent is likely to inject new life into small-government politics around the nation. The mainstream Republican Party still seems limp and disorganized. This grassroots effort may revitalize it. Or the tea-party movement may lead to a new third party that may replace the GOP, just as the GOP replaced the fractured and hapless Whigs."

Fast-forward to the present, and the Tea Party movement -- which didn’t really exist until about the time I wrote those words -- is now the single most powerful political force in the nation.

Democratic and Republican politicians alike fear it, and increasing numbers of Americans (including, in recent months, increasing numbers of African-Americans according to a PJTV Tea Party tracking poll) identify with the Tea Party movement and say they are more likely to vote for candidates it supports, and less likely to vote for candidates it opposes...

...But while ordinary Americans are mad as hell, this time they really don’t have to take it any more. Institutions have failed them, but Internet tools like blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, and personal tools -- like the cheap handheld video cameras that beat back bogus charges of Tea Party racism again and again -- mean that they don’t have to rely on failing institutions.

As I predicted in my book, “An Army of Davids,” ordinary people have been able to self-organize, to take on big institutions who would rather not listen to them, and win.

For now, Republicans are (sort of) the beneficiaries. Though Tea Partiers aren’t happy with the GOP, they’re much less happy with the Democrats. In this election cycle, Republicans will benefit. But Tea Partiers are also taking over the GOP from the bottom up, running for precinct chairs and state committee seats.

This makes sense: There are barriers to entry for third parties, and it makes more sense to take over an existing party than to start from scratch, if that’s possible...

[fj1200]

I think the primaries, in effect, are a barrier to entry for the smaller parties to make inroads. I think CA has a good idea to track going forward to see if it works, assuming it's not overturned.

Propositon 14 Passes (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/06/do-not-publish--propositon-14-passes.html)

It makes the primaries open and the top 2 vote getters move on to the November elections. It allows you to "throw away your vote" on a lesser party knowing that you'll likely be able to vote for your second choice in the run-off. I think the only thing I would change is to eliminate the primary altogether, let everyone fight it out in the general, and then move to the run-off. Parties would still be able to hold their own meeting to decide who they might allocate their money too but they couldn't block anyone out.

[Kathianne]

I think the primaries, in effect, are a barrier to entry for the smaller parties to make inroads. I think CA has a good idea to track going forward to see if it works, assuming it's not overturned.

Propositon 14 Passes (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/06/do-not-publish--propositon-14-passes.html)

It makes the primaries open and the top 2 vote getters move on to the November elections. It allows you to "throw away your vote" on a lesser party knowing that you'll likely be able to vote for your second choice in the run-off. I think the only thing I would change is to eliminate the primary altogether, let everyone fight it out in the general, and then move to the run-off. Parties would still be able to hold their own meeting to decide who they might allocate their money too but they couldn't block anyone out.

I don't really like that idea in CA, it's sort of a split the vote within parties. Of course there it would probably mean the more Democrats than even today.

A third party can make it, there just hasn't been such a creature with popular backing in at least 100 years. TR was trounced with the Bull Moose.

Much more likely though is gradual take over of GOP or enough peeling away to make a new party and GOP withers and dies.

[fj1200]

I don't really like that idea in CA, it's sort of a split the vote within parties. Of course there it would probably mean the more Democrats than even today.

A third party can make it, there just hasn't been such a creature with popular backing in at least 100 years. TR was trounced with the Bull Moose.

Much more likely though is gradual take over of GOP or enough peeling away to make a new party and GOP withers and dies.

There won't be/shouldn't be a third party, especially on the right side, because then it would truly split the party, and did like we saw in MD. With my change to the CA system, O'Donnel probably would not have beaten what-sis-name who would have then trounced Coon? and then we'd be one step closer to Senate control.

There's a reason we haven't had a third party in 100 years and that's because our system of government is set up against it. I happen to think that's wise because it provides a more stable rudder of government rather than the higher volatility you might see in a parliamentary system.

It's a deregulation of politics and we like deregulation don't we?

[Kathianne]

There won't be/shouldn't be a third party, especially on the right side, because then it would truly split the party, and did like we saw in MD. With my change to the CA system, O'Donnel probably would not have beaten what-sis-name who would have then trounced Coon? and then we'd be one step closer to Senate control.

There's a reason we haven't had a third party in 100 years and that's because our system of government is set up against it. I happen to think that's wise because it provides a more stable rudder of government rather than the higher volatility you might see in a parliamentary system.

It's a deregulation of politics and we like deregulation don't we?


I like people involved in the system. The two parties discourage that as they're both for insiders only. We'll see what happens, but so far the tea parties are on the way of creating a new political reality.

[fj1200]

I like people involved in the system. The two parties discourage that as they're both for insiders only. We'll see what happens, but so far the tea parties are on the way of creating a new political reality.

That doesn't make sense, you like people involved and want to minimize insiders, yet you want to retain the balance of power and hope the tea party can swim against the tide of party politics.

[Kathianne]

That doesn't make sense, you like people involved and want to minimize insiders, yet you want to retain the balance of power and hope the tea party can swim against the tide of party politics.

Yep, it's working so far too. The two parties are incestuous and right now the GOP insiders are hoping they can 'give enough' to get the newly active to go back to sleep. Problem is they just can't wait, as was evidenced by all the pork McConnell had, until he heard from the people. Suddenly then, shazzam, time to move towards cutting the pork. People are getting it.

[fj1200]

Yep, it's working so far too... Suddenly then, shazzam, time to move towards cutting the pork. People are getting it.

Working so far? We had 8 years of higher spending with Bush in office with a slow erosion of conservative lawmakers in office; the current system breeds complacency. I'd rather not have to wait for shazzam at the expense of ongoing voter diligence.

[Kathianne]

Working so far? We had 8 years of higher spending with Bush in office with a slow erosion of conservative lawmakers in office; the current system breeds complacency. I'd rather not have to wait for shazzam at the expense of ongoing voter diligence.

The tea parties in nascent could only be 2.5 to 3 years old at the outside. There were rumblings of such with immigration reform, the Dubai Port deal, but really took off with bailouts and stimulus. So yes, considering their time in existence they are doing very well, thank you.

Now how long have the two major parties been around? Their accomplishments? Bah!

[fj1200]

The tea parties in nascent could only be 2.5 to 3 years old at the outside. There were rumblings of such with immigration reform, the Dubai Port deal, but really took off with bailouts and stimulus. So yes, considering their time in existence they are doing very well, thank you.

Now how long have the two major parties been around? Their accomplishments? Bah!

They are doing fine, there's no argument from me on that. I said they're fighting an uphill battle so why not think about some actual reform of the system that won't have a chance to split the Rep vote and increase Dem power? I'm not sure I got an answer on...


It's a deregulation of politics and we like deregulation don't we?

[logroller]

The most powerful force in American politics is Money!!!!!

[Kathianne]

They are doing fine, there's no argument from me on that. I said they're fighting an uphill battle so why not think about some actual reform of the system that won't have a chance to split the Rep vote and increase Dem power? I'm not sure I got an answer on...

What is less regulated than people supporting the person they want elected? Many folks with (R) after their names raised quite a lot of money from tea parties. Some did so in the primaries, running against entrenched candidates and won. They kept the support and went onto win the election.

Right now the tea parties are tending local which is the right way to go, if you read the article he made that clear. Mostly within the GOP. The goal is not to tear down the party, but certainly to change it or make a real alternative.

What's frightening both the Democrats and Republicans is the fact that 'out of nowhere' have come droves of people who want pork stopped, taxes held down, budgets cut, and government at all levels reined in. Neither party wants any of those things. Many individuals within both parties though do and where will they turn if those parties refuse to listen or try paying lip service?

[fj1200]

^I don't have any issue with any of that and within the confines of the two party system there is no other option THAN to try and change from within. However, you keep complaining about the current system and the power of the parties but you favor the system that retains their power.

The deregulation is in the high barriers to entry in the election process; Voters would be afforded more choices if the primaries are eliminated and would even invite non-Rep voters to make the Tea Party choice. And the parties still have the option of selecting a candidate that they will back. It might work like the recent AK senate race, Murkowski and Davis? would go into the run-off rather than a sub 50% candidate being elected.

[NightTrain]

It might work like the recent AK senate race, Murkowski and Davis? would go into the run-off rather than a sub 50% candidate being elected.

Murkowski vs. Miller.

Damn if she didn't pull off that write-in campaign. Sucks because she's a RINO.

[Kathianne]

^I don't have any issue with any of that and within the confines of the two party system there is no other option THAN to try and change from within. However, you keep complaining about the current system and the power of the parties but you favor the system that retains their power.

The deregulation is in the high barriers to entry in the election process; Voters would be afforded more choices if the primaries are eliminated and would even invite non-Rep voters to make the Tea Party choice. And the parties still have the option of selecting a candidate that they will back. It might work like the recent AK senate race, Murkowski and Davis? would go into the run-off rather than a sub 50% candidate being elected.

The parties have the right to set their own rules about their primaries. If they wish run offs, they could do so. However, the idea of floating 2 or more from each party in the general election? No way do I think that a good idea. It's difficult enough for people to find out what they can about the 2 main parties and then there's all the 'lesser' parties. Ballots could get ridiculously long.

[Kathianne]

and another voice saying the same thing:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Tea-Party-Tally/2010/1217/Collapse-of-the-omnibus-spending-bill-rise-of-the-tea-party-Congress


Collapse of the omnibus spending bill: rise of the 'tea party Congress'?

Some see ideals of tea party movement at play in Senate, after a huge spending bill loaded with earmarks is scuttled after GOP lawmakers thought twice about it.

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer
posted December 17, 2010 at 5:34 pm EST
Atlanta

On the anniversary of the actual Boston tea party some 237 years ago – when pesky colonists dressed up as Indians and threw the King's tea into Boston Harbor – the modern invocation of that revolutionary spirit tossed another expensive package overboard Thursday: a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

After leading a Republican charge into the House in the Nov. 2 midterm elections, the anti-debt, anti-federalist tea party movement notched its first major legislative victory Thursday by standing up to big-spending Democrats and Republicans and forcing Republican leadership to revoke its support of a bill laden with $8.3 billion worth of legislative earmarks – lawmakers' pet projects known as pork-barrel spending.

Among other spending priorities, the bill included a total of $1 billion to kickstart the first phase of the federal health-care reform law passed in April, meaning that its defeat likely lays the groundwork for Republicans to follow through on their promise to gut funding for the landmark legislation – per the tea party's wishes, by the way...

..."The Republicans recognized the lesson from the election: that the grass roots, the tea party, does not want unnecessary federal spending, and they realized that they ignore that sentiment at their own peril," adds Wendy Schiller, a political scientist at Brown University in Providence, R.I. The Democrats, meanwhile, "miscalculated the internal pressure that fiscal conservatives are putting on Republicans – they didn't think that some of these Republicans ... would be willing to walk away from these earmarks," she says.

Earlier this week, Reid apparently believed he had locked in nine key Republican votes that would have ensured passage of a bipartisan spending package before the government officially runs out of money on Saturday.

But grassroots concern about the debt-inducing $858 billion tax-cut extension (which passed with bipartisan support Thursday) prompted Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who had himself inserted 48 earmarks into the bill, to change his tune as a vote on the spending bill approached.

Spurred on by Republican Sens. McCain, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma – as well as by vows of Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and John Cornyn of Texas to drop their earmark requests – Senator McConnell, in a flurry of 11th-hour phone calls, pulled the nine Republican votes out of Reid's hand, dooming the bill...

[fj1200]

Murkowski vs. Miller.

Damn if she didn't pull off that write-in campaign. Sucks because she's a RINO.

But that's who AK wants to represent them, excepting any changes in a runoff if they had one.


The parties have the right to set their own rules about their primaries. If they wish run offs, they could do so. However, the idea of floating 2 or more from each party in the general election? No way do I think that a good idea. It's difficult enough for people to find out what they can about the 2 main parties and then there's all the 'lesser' parties. Ballots could get ridiculously long.

The people of CA seemed to make an informed decision in their Grey Davis recall election, that was nonpartisan and a long ballot as I recall; even pornstars got on the ballot. We shouldn't diminish the knowledge of people to make an informed decision.

[Kathianne]

But that's who AK wants to represent them, excepting any changes in a runoff if they had one.



The people of CA seemed to make an informed decision in their Grey Davis recall election, that was nonpartisan and a long ballot as I recall; even pornstars got on the ballot. We shouldn't diminish the knowledge of people to make an informed decision.

CA has major problems partially because of all the direct democracy they've created. The recall is not a bad position to have taken since it's not been abused, so far. I think that a huge part of the reason that the country is in the situation we find ourselves has been a long movement from the founding principles of a representative democracy to more direct democracy.

We are unlikely to come to agreement on this, we have very different ideas of which best serves the interests of the people.