[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Unsettlingly strong tea (click to view)
Date: September 16, 2010
The last remaining 2010 primaries wrapped up this week in the United States, with the results yielding a number of impressive victories for America's conservative Tea Party movement. In a number of GOP nomination battles across the country, many so-called "establishment" Republican politicians were given the boot in favor of more radical, farther-right activists. Former or incumbent governors, senators, and congressmen were cast aside for supposed sins of moderate or liberal inclinations, while newbie politicians in the mould of Sarah Palin — bold, brash, unapologetically right-wing and undeniably charismatic — were installed in their place.

Slate magazine has a cool little feature on their website with a state-by-state tally of how successful Tea Party challengers were in various races. Some of the biggest upsets include:

• Never-elected-to-anything Christine O'Donnell's surprisingly successful bid for the GOP Senate nomination in Delaware, where she deposed former governor Michael Castle,


• Multi-millionaire Carl Paladino's victory over Republican stalwart Rick Lazio (who we may remember from his unsuccessful bid to defeat Hillary Clinton for the US Senate) for New York's gubernatorial nomination,


• Incumbent Alaskan senator Lisa Murkowski's defeat at the hands of unknown lawyer Joe Miller (and Sarah Palin, who backed him),


• Florida house speaker Marco Rubio's successful coup against incumbent Republican governor Charlie Crist for that state's senate nomination,


• Ron Paul's somewhat nutty son, Rand, triumphing over Secretary of State Trey Grayson for the Kentucky senate nomination, despite Grayson's endorsement from Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell.

At one time, the Tea Party was a source of great joy and inspiration for the Republican Party, as the movement seemed to represent some manner of rejuvenated interest in conservative politics across an America increasingly fed up with years of Democratic rule. In the wake of these upset primary victories, however, GOP-TP relations are becoming a bit more tense.

Several veteran members of the Republican establishment, such as Karl Rove (who is now, rather amazingly, transforming into the voice of calm moderation within the GOP ranks) have voiced concern that the Tea Party's interest in always fielding a "pure" right-wing candidate, and the Republican Party's interest in, well, getting someone elected may be goals somewhat at odds. In a reliably blue state like Delaware, for instance, it's hard to argue that the best Republican to win the state's Senate seat would be one with social conservative views so extreme she considers masturbation to be a form of adultery. To say nothing of the fact that she's never even held any sort of political office before, unlike the two-term governor (and nine-term congressman) she defeated.

Of course, the Tea Party counter-argument is that you don't really know unless you try. For years the GOP has, in fact, been running moderate Republicans in moderate states — and they still lose. Maybe these voters have actually been hankering for a far-right candidate all these decades, but no one's had the courage to offer one up. I guess we'll see in November.

[Psudo]

Joe Miller... first we had Joe the Plumber, now we have Joe the Lawyer. Got some Joe-mentum going here.

The only thing certain is that November is going to be a firefight.

[BartSimpson]

Psudo wrote:

Joe Miller... first we had Joe the Plumber, now we have Joe the Lawyer. Got some Joe-mentum going here.

The only thing certain is that the next two years are going to be a firefight.

Please pardon my constructive correction.

[Pseudonym]

I think we're seeing pretty clearly that while the GOP mainstream is willing to take advantage of the enthusiasm of the tea party, their goals do not coincide. I imagine C-SPAN's broadcasts may get a bit more entertaining after this next round of elections get resolved, but the best we can say is that "we'll see in November."

[Kjorteo]

I've been thinking about this subject a lot recently, since I have some personal experience with it in my home state dating back to the last election.

New Mexico used to be considered the absolute swingiest of swing states. We tended to be overlooked in terms of national importance just because of our size and therefore somewhat meager electoral point value, but we were still notorious for being right down the middle nonetheless. For example, in 2000's Bush v. Gore election, New Mexico's vote was actually even closer than in Florida, but no one cared. We had a boringly safe always-reelected-in-a-landslide Democratic Senator (Jeff Bingaman) and a boringly safe always-reelected-in-a-landslide Republican Senator (Pete Domenici). Of our three congressional districts, we had a safe Democratic stronghold (NM-3, represented up until 2008 by Tom Udall [D]), a safe Republican stronghold (NM-2, represented up until 2008 by Steve Pearce[R]), and a notorious swing district (NM-1, Heather Wilson[R] had managed to hold the seat for three terms but her margin of victory in the reelections had been getting narrower every time.)

Today, New Mexico is considered to be on its way toward becoming a blue state, with Democrats controlling basically everything. What happened?

In 2008, Sen. Domenici decided the combination of the attorney firing scandal and the diagnosis of a brain disease was enough to make him retire, and all three of our Representatives decided to try for the promotion. The Democratic field was more or less Udall's to take (the only opposition he may have had came from the mayor of Albuquerque, who briefly considered running until he was reminded that basically no one liked him, so he changed his mind) but on the Republican side, that meant a primary between the swing district's Wilson and the super-red zone's Pearce. Because the conservatives apparently got greedy with their purity vs. electability tastes, Pearce crushed Wilson in the primary. Because 2008 was a Democratic wave year anyway and NM-2 is the only place in the state in which Pearce wasn't seen as a crazy wingnut, he went down in flames in the general election, and the end result of all of this is Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) taking Sen. Domenici's seat and joining Bingaman. Also the combination of the 2008 Democratic wave and Wilson not being there anymore gave NM-1 to the Democrats with surprising ease, and the combination of wave and smart candidate selection (running one of those moderate to somewhat conservative Democrats you sometimes hear about due to the nature of the district) and the lack of Pearce actually let them conquer NM-2 while they were at it.

My takeaway from all of this was that the Republicans got greedy and lost big. Wilson maybe could have won the Senate seat--it was far from a sure thing, but she at least could have made the race competitive--and Pearce would have easily, if not automatically kept his seat had he not given it up for the completely stupid decision to go for the Senate. Basically, Pearce and the people who thought he was to the right enough to be their man ruined everything.

(Footnote: In 2010, a now-humbled Pearce is running in NM-2 against the Democratic upstart to get his old seat back, but even in a Republican wave year with Pearce now back, the combination of the Democrat's incumbency and pragmatic fit-for-his-district candidate selection rather than being some sort of Kucinich-like hippie idealist actually makes this a toss-up race-to-watch according to most commentators.)

I thought that the Republicans would learn from this kind of epic defeat not to get greedy--that if they go double or nothing, they get nothing--but apparently the message many of them took from this was to go even farther off the deep end.

[BartSimpson]

Well, in fairness the Tea Party folks do point out that the GOP has long run 'moderates' in states where they lose anyway so why not run a conservative and lose while keeping your principles? The point being that the GOP kisses Democrat ass incessantly as if they'll get the core Dems to someday vote for them.

All you need to do is to look at how the Dems all cheered for John McCain as the moderate Republican they could maybe like and then when he was up against Obama the Dems went nuclear on him and then he had to woo back the GOP base by bringing in Palin....which still didn't work. McCain had spent years being the backdoor boy for the Dems with shit like McCain-Feingold that censored conservative free speech and then that fucking bastard had the balls to expect the conservatives and Christians he'd made a career of pissing on to vote for him in 2008? Riiiight. The GOP needs to stop giving a fuck about people who will never vote for them anyway. Imagine the NDP worried about the way Alberta Cons feel about them and you'll see how absurd this is.

[Kjorteo]

Actually, I think you got the order of events backwards. McCain turned on us, then we went nuclear on him. If the John McCain that existed in 2000 had run in 2008, then I would have been a lot more torn about the election. I'd have still voted for Obama in the end, probably, but I'd have at least liked both candidates. However, that isn't what we got, at all.

These days, I have very little respect for McCain, simply because he more or less ran out of sides to betray and just settled on being a chameleonic sellout who will clearly say absolutely anything, no matter how much it contradicts what he said yesterday, if that's the way the winds are blowing today. (See also: immigration, DADT, Jerry Falwell, and more....) If you still think I just like to cocktease Republicans with "maybe I'll support this guy if he's moderate enough" only to cackle as I go back on my word or something, and you're not convinced that I'm capable of liking actual moderate/independent Republicans, I'll give you another New Mexico example: before our Governor was bill Richardson (D), we had Gary Johnson (R), who was (and still is) awesome.

But if you want a war, then fine, you've got a war. I would have accepted Mike Castle as a compromise candidate (as one of those New England moderate Republicans, there was a goodly amount of positions he had I could get behind) but I will cackle when Christine O'Donnell goes down in flames.

[xerxes]

Thing is, the Tea Partiers need to get together and decide what they're really about. It's been said before, but the whole nebulous Tea Party movement is made up of a lot of different elements from pure libertarians Like Rand Paul to Christian psychotics like O'Donnell with varying degrees in between.

If they truly want to be a third choice in American politics, anti-incumbancy isn't a policy plaform.
---------------
Addendum: I read this at The Daily Dish and it's funny becuase it;s true;

Quote:

The Tea Partiers were created by Republicans.
They devolved.
They rebelled.
They look and feel like Republicans.
There are many copies.
And they have a plan. (Maybe)

[N_Fiddledog]

Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Joe Miller all lead in the most current polls against their Democratic rivals. Both Paladino and Lazio were polled to get creamed by Cuomo no matter which one won the primary.

Christine O'Donnell is an odd duck, and hard to defend. She doesn't look like she has much of a chance. Then again, tea party favorite Sharon Angle looked for awhile like she wasn't going to have a chance against Harry Reid. She's fought her way back, and that race is now a dead heat.

O'Donnell's opponent in the primary, Mike Castle voted for Cap and Trade. That was the nail in his coffin for the fiscal Conservatives. They hate that one. He should have known better, but he didn't. Now he's gone.

O'Donnell may be a bit of a loon, who's made some questionable life, and financial decisions. There may be an investigation soon into her use of campaign funds after her run against Biden. Nevertheless she still looks good next to say Alvin Greene, Kesha Rogers, Charlie Rangel, or Maxine Waters. But nobody wants to talk about them. The RINOs, and the Democrats are going to play up O'Donnell like she is all that matters. They're going to hold her up as the face of the tea party. She's not, but they fear the power of tea. It's a threat to them. They need an easy target. They think they've found one.

Without the tea party raising the issues stridently, but effectively since they first turned up the Republicans wouldn't be looking at the kind of success they're hoping for going into the November mid-terms. Many tea party backed candidates expect to do well in November. RINO's and Democrats are sweating. Some of us like that. We think that's even worth tolerating a Christine O'Donnell for.

[Teikiatsu]

Do the TP candidates have some skeletons in the closet, sure. Those skeletons did not receive the normal internal vetting procedure, and they will be fair game in the elections, or as fair as electioneering can get anyway.

But a signifigant portion of Americans are getting tired of professional politicians. We're tired of all the layers of beaurocracy[sp]. We're tired of two parties that aren't all that different when you get down to the basics. We have big government, huge deficits, and over-regulation to blame on BOTH of them. This is a shot across their bow, it's time to turn away from the crap they are leading us towards.

This is not the end of the tea party influence, it is only the beginning.

[Thanos]

And the rise of the TeaBirchers dovetails perfectly with the overall decline of the United States in general. This entire ridiculous movement is the death-knell of whatever sane and decent politics still existed in America.

[GreenTiger]

I'm a coffee drinker myself.

[Trenacker]

There are ugly aspects to the Tea Party. Too many of them. First, although the movement is diffuse and without an acknowledged leader, many of the confirmed spokespersons for specific contingents are clearly bigots. Second, the Tea Party is, as JJ has recognized, essentially an interest group for white, middle-class Christians who feel alienated by liberals and are vaguely disgusted with government. It combines what David Brooks of the NYT rightly called a "narcissistic sense of victimization" with a "vote the bastards out" approach to questions that can't reasonably be answered by simply elevating a new person -- and any new person at that -- to a position of political power. Third, Tea Party voters are usually social conservatives to begin with. The Tea Party rarely needs to worry that those whom it mobilizes don't share the same core set of "Christian" values. I can't help but suspect that, when translated into legislation, those politics aren't anything more than a populist attempt to simply outlaw or discourage all kinds of social expression about which conservatives are squeamish. Don't want to have to think about homosexuality? Deny formal recognition. Fourth, the Tea Party is feeding a dangerous narrative that posits apocalyptic importance for issues its membership does not wholly understand, and likens compromise -- essential when the other party is in power -- to betrayal of the same principles that make one fit to govern. Fifth, the Tea Party is obsessed with fidelity to a Constitution that most of its members do not actually understand, and committed to honoring the memory of Founding Fathers whose contributions, while significant, do not make their ideas necessarily well-suited for the problems of our era. The opinions of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson do not have automatic application to the issues of today, and must be substantiated if they are to be applied now. Tea Partiers have also tended to behave, like Republicans, as if "the popular will" is somehow constitutionally authorized to override the minority on every issue. We hear it again and again with the mosque. "Yes, but 70% of Americans..." That's ridiculous. At one point, a majority of Americans supported human slavery. None of these are positive developments. All of them are frankly disgusting.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

These days, I have very little respect for McCain, simply because he more or less ran out of sides to betray and just settled on being a chameleonic sellout who will clearly say absolutely anything, no matter how much it contradicts what he said yesterday, if that's the way the winds are blowing today.

Amen!

Trenacker wrote:

many of the confirmed spokespersons for specific contingents are clearly bigots.

I require evidence.

Trenacker wrote:

At one point, a majority of Americans supported human slavery.

This has never been true.

In early colonial times, slavery was something the evil Spaniards did that English colonists would never stoop to. Indentured servitude was something different that only degraded into slavery gradually over centuries, to the colonists conscious shame. Up to revolutionary times, slavery was an embarrassment to the principles of liberty the revolution pursued. Most hoped to find a way to end slavery gradually, without social upheaval or economic collapse; abolitionists were the "radicals" who wanted slavery ended regardless of consequences. It wasn't until about a decade before the Civil War that some in the South started arguing that slavery was a positive good, something to be supported as honorable (through a twisted and unpopular dementia of unlogic). It's possible a majority of the Confederate States once supported human slavery (though I doubt it), but slavery has never had majority support in the greater Union.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

I require evidence.

There is abundant evidence to indicate that the leadership of various Tea Party organizations is bigoted. The Republican candidate for governor in New York, Carl Paladino, received significant assistance from Tea Party movements, and is known to send racist e-mails and pornographic images to friends and co-workers.

The rank and file also has plenty of people with bigoted views, or persons essentially comfortable with those views. Persons who have seriously maladjusted attitudes on race are also more likely to support the Tea Party, on average, than those who do not.

And to ensure that I am not misunderstood, I am not saying that the Tea Party movement is racist -- only that there is compelling evidence that key leaders of major currents within the movement are bigots, or else are sufficiently insensitive that there is no measurable difference. It's fine to remind everyone that the Tea Party is a disparate movement. It isn't find to wave away numerous and sustained incidents of racist behavior, and forgiveness of the same in top leadership. If it was fair to question Obama about his comfort in a certain church, it is fair to question why various organizations, with corporate identity, are willing to be led and represented by specific individuals whose personal views are both repugnant and well known.

Quote:

This has never been true.

At risk of offending you greatly, your attempted substantiation of this inaccurate opinion reveals an astonishing ignorance of this nation's history.

Platitudes and Jeremiads do not a serious anti-slavery sentiment make. Slavery looked to be declining as an institution around the time of the Revolution, but despite opposition to the slave trade, was strongly endorsed by leading men. Slavery regained serious economic momentum after the advent of Eli Whitney's cotton gin. Jefferson was suggesting that slavery had made itself necessary -- because of the danger of black retribution -- as early as 1820. Calhoun's "positive good" speech was 1837. Lee, who opposed slavery, qualified that opposition with the opinion that it was nonetheless a social necessity -- and would be indefinately. That was 1856. Even in the North during the Civil War, Lincoln avoided making the fight an issue of right, and instead tended to focus until 1862 on the constitutional principle of national unity. Segregation was hardly recognized as a national disgrace until well after the Second World War. Persistent attitudes favoring segregation, and lingering racism, suggest that racial attitudes during the time of slavery were hardly likely to have been as enlightened and self-conscious as you describe.