Shock defeat of majority leader Eric Cantor by Tea Party sends shockwaves through Republican Party

[Pakboong]

Cantor was pro "too big to fail banks" and an extreme zionist. Perhaps these biggies had something to do with his defeat. Those who know him consider him as extremely arrogant and pretty much unbearable to be around. Sounds like a real charmer. Adelson paid all his campaign costs and he is friendly with Bibi; he would normally win easily as he has done in the past. Perhaps the voters have grown tired of this kind of candidate.

[Ulysses G.]

Cantor is Jewish and he supports Israel - like most Americans do . Neither one of these things hurt him for 14 years and probably had little effect on him this time. The only reference I can find to him as a "Zionist" are on nutty conspiracy theory websites.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[GentlemanJim]

<

And we complain about "politics" in Thailand lol . . . every other country is a <deleted> mess too . . . I however propose an amendment to the voting laws so that people can only be eligible to vote once they've exceeded 45 on a standardised IQ test . . .

That seems quite strict as in as in the last decade or so they raised the bar by having a president elected who just exceeded 85 on the standard IQ test, I think it only fair that the bar rests with him.

Dishonest democrats like Debbie Wasserman Shultz are trying to use one guys loss as a talking point - if that is what you mean - but who believes a single word that she says about anything?

So if nobody believes a single word she says, just ignore her as it doesn't matter what she says about 'one guys loss' does it?

I am an American patriot and this is what I think of the Tea Party in America.

The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets and insults aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a Racist! and you can be a Terrorist! and you can be a Dictator and you can be a Hostage-taker! and you can Wear a tinfoil hat! and you can be a Homophobe! You can be Selfish! and you can be a Wacko! and you can be a Hick! and you can be a Rube! and you can be Uneducated and you can be an Extremist! You can be a Right-wing-nut! and you can be Mentally Ill and you can be Deranged! and you can be a Flake! and you can be a Warmonger! and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a FatCat! and you can be a Greedy! member of the productive class, and you can be a Nazi! and you can be a Fascist! --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of Nazi! or Fascist! than the usual Democrat propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.

Lies, after all, are the heart and soul and the sword and shield of the Democrat party.

So... all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Democrats enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech.

Insist on all these good things --- and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, dope-smoking, pill-popping, coke-snorting, sticky-fingered, bloodsucking, tax-eating, gun-stealing, predatory humanitarian hoodlums, thugs and gangsters, and by their spies, spooks, and snoops, who seek to silence their critics --- by the Democrat party, in other words.

No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction. And that gentlemen, is why the Tea party exists. Period. Thanks.

Can we just shorten that for all the non Americans here who may not fully understand US Politics. Does all that mean that you dislike the Democrats?

[Neurath]

1)More Mexicans

2)Less Mexicans

The primary voters saw Cantor wanting the former and Brat the second. That's what they heard. The rest was pretty much white noise. They voted for Brat. Nativism has a long history in the US. The whole western world is jiving on a Nativist vibe at the moment. UK US France Australia, strong current in all of them. Bad experience in Europe when that was last top of the pops.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think that it has much to do with racism. It is about taking American jobs when they are difficult to come by for many American citizens. Illegals are happy to take jobs that no one else wants, but if they are given amnesty, they will want to move up the ladder and take jobs that would go to unemployed Americans. I am not that conservative on many issues, but do not favor amnesty when real unemployment is so high.

[ClutchClark]

I don't think that it has much to do with racism. It is about taking American jobs when they are difficult to come by for many American citizens. Illegals are happy to take jobs that no one else wants, but if they are given amnesty, they will want to move up the ladder and take jobs that would go to unemployed Americans. I am not that conservative on many issues, but do not favor amnesty when real unemployment is so high.

I always say the saying, "Mexicans take jobs no one else wants", is the first half of the sentence.

The second, always omitted half is, "to work for the wages being offered".

Historically, mexicans were allowed to work legally as "seasonal farmworkers" which were jobs Americans did not want but now...

The jobs that the illegals are working are jobs that were always filled by Americans prior to the influx of illegals...landscaping, home construction being two large ones. When illegals started filling the positions then employers were able to lower wages and benefits and illegal employees were in no position to complain without risk of deportment. Over the past 30 years this has resulted in these occupations paying much less than they used to and which used to provide for a real middle-class dream of home and family.

I also agree that amnesty will allow them to take jobs currently not available to them and unemployment will increase with the additional workforce.

We needed to end the practice of illegal immigration 30-40 years ago but now I fear its too late. The Hispanic population is quite large and they are politically active AND politicians are the first to recognize this and curry their favor.

Edited June 14, 2014 by ClutchClark

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I don't think that it has much to do with racism. It is about taking American jobs when they are difficult to come by for many American citizens. Illegals are happy to take jobs that no one else wants, but if they are given amnesty, they will want to move up the ladder and take jobs that would go to unemployed Americans. I am not that conservative on many issues, but do not favor amnesty when real unemployment is so high.

Too true. Nativism isn't always or necessarily racism -at one time the nativist stick was wielded against the Irish. It's often a dance partner of nativism, but It's certainly not the case that all those against immigration, whether documented or not, should be accused of racism a propri. Some are for sure, but certainly not all. Do immigrants, documented or not, cause an increase in unemployment? Or do they lead to a general increase in unemployment by boosting demand. Not sure - I've heard arguments for and against but not enough to decide me one way or the other so I'd not argue the point. I have inclinations but not facts or sound argument.

[ClutchClark]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I don't think that it has much to do with racism. It is about taking American jobs when they are difficult to come by for many American citizens. Illegals are happy to take jobs that no one else wants, but if they are given amnesty, they will want to move up the ladder and take jobs that would go to unemployed Americans. I am not that conservative on many issues, but do not favor amnesty when real unemployment is so high.

Too true. Nativism isn't always or necessarily racism -at one time the nativist stick was wielded against the Irish. It's often a dance partner of nativism, but It's certainly not the case that all those against immigration, whether documented or not, should be accused of racism a propri. Some are for sure, but certainly not all. Do immigrants, documented or not, cause an increase in unemployment? Or do they lead to a general increase in unemployment by boosting demand. Not sure - I've heard arguments for and against but not enough to decide me one way or the other so I'd not argue the point. I have inclinations but not facts or sound argument.

Increases in available workforce, the labor pool of workers actively seeking work, typically increases unemployment numbers except in times of an economic boom...which America is not currently experiencing.

[Neurath]

When it's the case that capital (in the form of financial capital or manufacturing capital) is free to move to wherever the rate of return is highest and where labour doesn't have the same freedom of movement (for whatever reason) there will be unemployment. This too should be part of any debate on immigration. Should labour have the same freedom of movement accross international borders as does capital? There isn't a free market if it doesn't have the same freedom. It certainly does have that freedom at the high end of town. This is an argument used for high executive salaries - they must be high, and gloabally equivalent, or the executive class will simply move to another country where the salaries are higher. This is not an argument used for textile workers - investment in textiles and rate of return for capital most certainly, but not for the labour component of production.

[Maestro]

Removed two off-topic posts and replies to them.

[Neurath]

One way to increase the value/price of labour is to restrict the amount of it available. This occured with the prohibition in some countries of child labour, it's occurred in others due to laws restricting the amount of it that can be done in one day by one person and yet in other by the Black Death (this massively increase the value of labour by reducing the labour force by 30%). You could argue that increasing participation rates in the workforce by women over the last 50 years is a far greater factor than immigration in depressing the price of labour and increasing unemployment - certainly it would have to be same argument. Anyway, from a more general perspective it's clear that it's increasingly easy for capital to simply up stakes from one country and move to another when labor becomes comparatively expensive - I'd wager that the lions share of unemployment in developed countries like the US is a result of capital flight to places where the rate of return is higher due lower wages. Capital traverses borders easily, wage labour doesn't. Of course a global deregulation of the labour market would lead to a leveling of labour price globally and there is no developed economy that would countenance that - capital yes, labour no. For good reason too. Those with the capital have more sway.

Anyway, Brat is surely all over this being as he is an economics teacher. He sure has the pitchforks out for the investment banks.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Neurath

[Maestro]

Please don't use the term tea baggers. It is an offensive term.

I have heard the term used for years, never knew it was offensive.

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger#axzz34L1zQNiz

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/teabagger-added-to-oxford_n_362504.html

I will refrain from using it.

The poster who first used the term teabaggers clearly used it to mean members of the Tea Party and one online dictionary I have seen considers this use to be "disparaging and offensive". Any allusion to other meanings that teabagger may have are off-topic in this thread. I have removed some posts accordingly, but have left posts using teabaggers to mean members of the Tea Party untouched as this use of the word does not generally seem to be considered offensive; there is no indication the Ox-Am Dictionary does.

Let's call this the end of the discussion of the word teabagger in this topic.

[ClutchClark]

Please don't use the term tea baggers. It is an offensive term.

I have heard the term used for years, never knew it was offensive.

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger#axzz34L1zQNiz

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/teabagger-added-to-oxford_n_362504.html

I will refrain from using it.

The poster who first used the term teabaggers clearly used it to mean members of the Tea Party and one online dictionary I have seen considers this use to be "disparaging and offensive". Any allusion to other meanings that teabagger may have are off-topic in this thread. I have removed some posts accordingly, but have left posts using teabaggers to mean members of the Tea Party untouched as this use of the word does not generally seem to be considered offensive; there is no indication the Ox-Am Dictionary does.

Let's call this the end of the discussion of the word teabagger in this topic.

Maestro please read through the posts entirely and you will see Scott already resolved this and I have apologized if I offended anyone. I was the first to use the expression. I did not realize the term was offensive until its alternative meaning was brought to my attention and I stated as much. Can we move on?

[NeverSure]

The US does a lot of manufacturing in Mexico. Mexico is also its #2 supplier of imported oil. If it wasn't so corrupt, its economy would be on a par with the US and Canada, per capita. One only has to ask himself how a country with everything that the US and Canada have can produce poverty for the masses.

Mexico has oil, minerals, tens of thousands of miles of saltwater shoreline, farm land, lots of places for seaports, hard working people for sure...

But they can't be helped because any help would go to the .000001%ers.

I don't blame the Mexicans for wanting to sneak into the US and work. The relatively low wages they earn are huge compared to what they might make in Mexico, and many of them send money home.

But that doesn't mean the US should tolerate it. Every country should have its own sovereign borders and decide who can work there. The US isn't responsible for the corruption in Mexico. The Mexicans are. Americans fought hard for their right to a representative government and for the rule of law. They would do it again if needed.

I ask myself what would happen if I saw a huge mansion on a huge ranch with thousands of beautiful cattle, and just decided to move in without permission? I think we all know what would happen to me.

Eric Cantor forgot who owns the ranch and decided to let illegal people just move in and stay, and he got what he deserved.

[JDGRUEN]

Some of the analysis of the Tea Party on this topic thread is a bit far fetched ... Some people claim to be a Tea Party member but in reality are just and individual spouting off and sometimes the spouting is somewhat extreme. These gadabouts are not representative of the average TP member and may not be a Tea Party member at all. It is the same thing if members of the Democrat Party were judged by the actions of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The typical Democrat is not an OWS type and typical Tea Party members are not extreme. If wanting a sane and rational government that does not spend trillions of dollars wastefully is radical then the Tea Party is radical. If wanting jobs for Americans first is radical then the Tea Party is radical.

We also detest the fact that obama refuses to enforce current immigration and border laws... and seems to be proud of it.

In recent times the Tea Party members and groups as a whole have finally connected the problem of illegal immigration and 20 million illegal aliens as part of the economic problem. Wage busting and job taking has killed the construction trades, meat packing trades and landscaping trades for American citizens. And NO making them citizens will not solve the problem -- it will only be an invitation to millions more to cross the border -- witness recent events with the influx of children looking for the DREAM...

The real Tea Party is a combination of a nearly a dozen groups and the average Tea Party member - supporter is just regular everyday American who thinks of himself or herself as a Principled Conservative. Opponents of the Tea Party movement have been trying to label it with misconceptions since it began to harm the movement. I have attended large scale Tea Party protest gatherings in Texas and in D.C. I have talked with hundreds of TP members on a personal basis and find them to be very much like me --- reasonable and responsible Americans supporting Principled Conservative agendas. The core of the agenda is the American economy and excessively big government.

Cantor became the typical politico - he forgot the people who put him there and signed on for Big Government, catered to the lobby groups, and moved to support Amnesty - calling it something else and he LOST because the Tea Party and other conservatives worked against him... plain and simple.

[ClutchClark]

Some of the analysis of the Tea Party on this topic thread is a bit far fetched ... Some people claim to be a Tea Party member but in reality are just and individual spouting off and sometimes the spouting is somewhat extreme. These gadabouts are not representative of the average TP member and may not be a Tea Party member at all. It is the same thing if members of the Democrat Party were judged by the actions of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The typical Democrat is not an OWS type and typical Tea Party members are not extreme. If wanting a sane and rational government that does not spend trillions of dollars wastefully is radical then the Tea Party is radical. If wanting jobs for Americans first is radical then the Tea Party is radical.

We also detest the fact that obama refuses to enforce current immigration and border laws... and seems to be proud of it.

In recent times the Tea Party members and groups as a whole have finally connected the problem of illegal immigration and 20 million illegal aliens as part of the economic problem. Wage busting and job taking has killed the construction trades, meat packing trades and landscaping trades for American citizens. And NO making them citizens will not solve the problem -- it will only be an invitation to millions more to cross the border -- witness recent events with the influx of children looking for the DREAM...

The real Tea Party is a combination of a nearly a dozen groups and the average Tea Party member - supporter is just regular everyday American who thinks of himself or herself as a Principled Conservative. Opponents of the Tea Party movement have been trying to label it with misconceptions since it began to harm the movement. I have attended large scale Tea Party protest gatherings in Texas and in D.C. I have talked with hundreds of TP members on a personal basis and find them to be very much like me --- reasonable and responsible Americans supporting Principled Conservative agendas. The core of the agenda is the American economy and excessively big government.

Cantor became the typical politico - he forgot the people who put him there and signed on for Big Government, catered to the lobby groups, and moved to support Amnesty - calling it something else and he LOST because the Tea Party and other conservatives worked against him... plain and simple.

I appreciate your post and your insight and I don't mean to be disrespectful but your describing most TP's as "reasonable" Americans and "just regular everyday Americans" has about as much value as those OWS types saying that their peers don't seem even the slightest bit odd to them but just regular folks. In both cases the majority of Americans probably disagrees.

TP are a fringe group and that is why most republicans do not desire membership in the movement. Is it called a political party now?

I am not trying to label TP as any type of anything that I have not seen first hand. As I mentioned earlier, I am of that demographic of old, retired, male white Americans who feel disenfranchised by the new obama era. The TP folks I know are quite vociferous and angry about most any topic I bring up and I don't think it can be denied that their only real tool is "obstructionism" and "zero compromise" and when one of their elected TP candidates votes in favor of any compromise he/she is shunned and labeled a "traiitor".

I wish I knew your TP faction. They sound more mellow.

Edited June 14, 2014 by ClutchClark

[NeverSure]

Some of the analysis of the Tea Party on this topic thread is a bit far fetched ... Some people claim to be a Tea Party member but in reality are just and individual spouting off and sometimes the spouting is somewhat extreme. These gadabouts are not representative of the average TP member and may not be a Tea Party member at all. It is the same thing if members of the Democrat Party were judged by the actions of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The typical Democrat is not an OWS type and typical Tea Party members are not extreme. If wanting a sane and rational government that does not spend trillions of dollars wastefully is radical then the Tea Party is radical. If wanting jobs for Americans first is radical then the Tea Party is radical.

We also detest the fact that obama refuses to enforce current immigration and border laws... and seems to be proud of it.

In recent times the Tea Party members and groups as a whole have finally connected the problem of illegal immigration and 20 million illegal aliens as part of the economic problem. Wage busting and job taking has killed the construction trades, meat packing trades and landscaping trades for American citizens. And NO making them citizens will not solve the problem -- it will only be an invitation to millions more to cross the border -- witness recent events with the influx of children looking for the DREAM...

The real Tea Party is a combination of a nearly a dozen groups and the average Tea Party member - supporter is just regular everyday American who thinks of himself or herself as a Principled Conservative. Opponents of the Tea Party movement have been trying to label it with misconceptions since it began to harm the movement. I have attended large scale Tea Party protest gatherings in Texas and in D.C. I have talked with hundreds of TP members on a personal basis and find them to be very much like me --- reasonable and responsible Americans supporting Principled Conservative agendas. The core of the agenda is the American economy and excessively big government.

Cantor became the typical politico - he forgot the people who put him there and signed on for Big Government, catered to the lobby groups, and moved to support Amnesty - calling it something else and he LOST because the Tea Party and other conservatives worked against him... plain and simple.

I appreciate your post and your insight and I don't mean to be disrespectful but your describing most TP's as "reasonable" Americans and "just regular everyday Americans" has about as much value as those OWS types saying that their peers don't seem even the slightest bit odd to them but just regular folks. In both cases the majority of Americans probably disagrees.

TP are a fringe group and that is why most republicans do not desire membership in the movement. Is it called a political party now?

I am not trying to label TP as any type of anything that I have not seen first hand. As I mentioned earlier, I am of that demographic of old, retired, male white Americans who feel disenfranchised by the new obama era. The TP folks I know are quite vociferous and angry about most any topic I bring up and I don't think it can be denied that their only real tool is "obstructionism" and "zero compromise" and when one of their elected TP candidates votes in favor of any compromise he/she is shunned and labeled a "traiitor".

I wish I knew your TP faction. They sound more mellow.

Again, the Tea Party isn't a political party, It doesn't have candidates for office, and there's no creed to sign onto. If you asked 10 random people who consider themselves Tea Party supporters what they want from government, you'd get 10 different answers. They would all have in common that they want less government at less cost.

You have Libertarians who basically want no government (in a way, although they too differ) and you have Conservatives who want much less government.

This loosely attached group would have trouble establishing a mutually agreeable platform when other issues came up.

Edit: The Libertarians of the group would legalize pot and other drugs because they think government has no right to intrude, and the conservatives would totally disagree.

As for "reasonable," opponents will never agree on what that means. The opposition is always "unreasonable."

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe insist that the US debt and deficit is obscene. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist the the US do something serious about illegal immigration.

Cantor got his butt kicked by becoming anti-Tea Party which is a DC insider, Wall Street supporter, big spender and supporter of illegal aliens. If it takes something like a Tea Party to get that done, good for them.

Edited June 14, 2014 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

PS. Some people who are identified with the Tea Party support some things that I don't. I guess that's life. But America needs to cleans itself of the Cantors and I hope there's more to come.

[ClutchClark]

Some of the analysis of the Tea Party on this topic thread is a bit far fetched ... Some people claim to be a Tea Party member but in reality are just and individual spouting off and sometimes the spouting is somewhat extreme. These gadabouts are not representative of the average TP member and may not be a Tea Party member at all. It is the same thing if members of the Democrat Party were judged by the actions of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The typical Democrat is not an OWS type and typical Tea Party members are not extreme. If wanting a sane and rational government that does not spend trillions of dollars wastefully is radical then the Tea Party is radical. If wanting jobs for Americans first is radical then the Tea Party is radical.

We also detest the fact that obama refuses to enforce current immigration and border laws... and seems to be proud of it.

In recent times the Tea Party members and groups as a whole have finally connected the problem of illegal immigration and 20 million illegal aliens as part of the economic problem. Wage busting and job taking has killed the construction trades, meat packing trades and landscaping trades for American citizens. And NO making them citizens will not solve the problem -- it will only be an invitation to millions more to cross the border -- witness recent events with the influx of children looking for the DREAM...

The real Tea Party is a combination of a nearly a dozen groups and the average Tea Party member - supporter is just regular everyday American who thinks of himself or herself as a Principled Conservative. Opponents of the Tea Party movement have been trying to label it with misconceptions since it began to harm the movement. I have attended large scale Tea Party protest gatherings in Texas and in D.C. I have talked with hundreds of TP members on a personal basis and find them to be very much like me --- reasonable and responsible Americans supporting Principled Conservative agendas. The core of the agenda is the American economy and excessively big government.

Cantor became the typical politico - he forgot the people who put him there and signed on for Big Government, catered to the lobby groups, and moved to support Amnesty - calling it something else and he LOST because the Tea Party and other conservatives worked against him... plain and simple.

I appreciate your post and your insight and I don't mean to be disrespectful but your describing most TP's as "reasonable" Americans and "just regular everyday Americans" has about as much value as those OWS types saying that their peers don't seem even the slightest bit odd to them but just regular folks. In both cases the majority of Americans probably disagrees.

TP are a fringe group and that is why most republicans do not desire membership in the movement. Is it called a political party now?

I am not trying to label TP as any type of anything that I have not seen first hand. As I mentioned earlier, I am of that demographic of old, retired, male white Americans who feel disenfranchised by the new obama era. The TP folks I know are quite vociferous and angry about most any topic I bring up and I don't think it can be denied that their only real tool is "obstructionism" and "zero compromise" and when one of their elected TP candidates votes in favor of any compromise he/she is shunned and labeled a "traiitor".

I wish I knew your TP faction. They sound more mellow.

Again, the Tea Party isn't a political party, It doesn't have candidates for office, and there's no creed to sign onto. If you asked 10 random people who consider themselves Tea Party supporters what they want from government, you'd get 10 different answers. They would all have in common that they want less government at less cost.

You have Libertarians who basically want no government (in a way, although they too differ) and you have Conservatives who want much less government.

This loosely attached group would have trouble establishing a mutually agreeable platform when other issues came up.

Edit: The Libertarians of the group would legalize pot and other drugs because they think government has no right to intrude, and the conservatives would totally disagree.

As for "reasonable," opponents will never agree on what that means. The opposition is always "unreasonable."

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe insist that the US debt and deficit is obscene. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist the the US do something serious about illegal immigration.

Cantor got his butt kicked by becoming anti-Tea Party which is a DC insider, Wall Street supporter, big spender and supporter of illegal aliens. If it takes something like a Tea Party to get that done, good for them.

My post was a question to the member I quoted. You and I don't seem to hit it off although I have frequently tried to make peace so this will probably be the last post I respond to of yours. No disrespect intended.

I did not suggest that the TP was a political party, in fact, I called it a movement and then asked Gruen if I should call it a party to be respectful. It seems like with most TP topics, even the question of whether its a party or not cannot get a group concencus.

Gruen made aspersions at the OWS crowd and then immediately went into describing his own TP as the normal folks. I was simply trying to suggest to him that the OWS or any other fringe group has a tendency to think of themselves as reasonable. By fringe I mean a minority and considered fringe by the larger political parties they fall within. I must not have been clear since you felt it necessary to tell me this in your post.

For me, talking politics is about as senseless as talking gun control. Its just a room full of people all trying to shout their position louder than the next and no change ever comes. So I recognize your frustration about debt and I recognize the TP anger; however, I do not sympathize with a group that practices one over-riding principle in Congress--obstructionism. Ofcourse, I could say its un-American and compromise is American and I could present the passage of the US Constitution as evidence of my claim but there is zero doubt in my mind you will tell me I am completely wrong--or as your pal in the other thread said and you corroborated--that I am a village idiot.

So do me a favor. Lets agree to disagree and lets just not communicate with each other anymore.

Hope that works for you.

[NeverSure]

Some of the analysis of the Tea Party on this topic thread is a bit far fetched ... Some people claim to be a Tea Party member but in reality are just and individual spouting off and sometimes the spouting is somewhat extreme. These gadabouts are not representative of the average TP member and may not be a Tea Party member at all. It is the same thing if members of the Democrat Party were judged by the actions of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The typical Democrat is not an OWS type and typical Tea Party members are not extreme. If wanting a sane and rational government that does not spend trillions of dollars wastefully is radical then the Tea Party is radical. If wanting jobs for Americans first is radical then the Tea Party is radical.

We also detest the fact that obama refuses to enforce current immigration and border laws... and seems to be proud of it.

In recent times the Tea Party members and groups as a whole have finally connected the problem of illegal immigration and 20 million illegal aliens as part of the economic problem. Wage busting and job taking has killed the construction trades, meat packing trades and landscaping trades for American citizens. And NO making them citizens will not solve the problem -- it will only be an invitation to millions more to cross the border -- witness recent events with the influx of children looking for the DREAM...

The real Tea Party is a combination of a nearly a dozen groups and the average Tea Party member - supporter is just regular everyday American who thinks of himself or herself as a Principled Conservative. Opponents of the Tea Party movement have been trying to label it with misconceptions since it began to harm the movement. I have attended large scale Tea Party protest gatherings in Texas and in D.C. I have talked with hundreds of TP members on a personal basis and find them to be very much like me --- reasonable and responsible Americans supporting Principled Conservative agendas. The core of the agenda is the American economy and excessively big government.

Cantor became the typical politico - he forgot the people who put him there and signed on for Big Government, catered to the lobby groups, and moved to support Amnesty - calling it something else and he LOST because the Tea Party and other conservatives worked against him... plain and simple.

I appreciate your post and your insight and I don't mean to be disrespectful but your describing most TP's as "reasonable" Americans and "just regular everyday Americans" has about as much value as those OWS types saying that their peers don't seem even the slightest bit odd to them but just regular folks. In both cases the majority of Americans probably disagrees.

TP are a fringe group and that is why most republicans do not desire membership in the movement. Is it called a political party now?

I am not trying to label TP as any type of anything that I have not seen first hand. As I mentioned earlier, I am of that demographic of old, retired, male white Americans who feel disenfranchised by the new obama era. The TP folks I know are quite vociferous and angry about most any topic I bring up and I don't think it can be denied that their only real tool is "obstructionism" and "zero compromise" and when one of their elected TP candidates votes in favor of any compromise he/she is shunned and labeled a "traiitor".

I wish I knew your TP faction. They sound more mellow.

Again, the Tea Party isn't a political party, It doesn't have candidates for office, and there's no creed to sign onto. If you asked 10 random people who consider themselves Tea Party supporters what they want from government, you'd get 10 different answers. They would all have in common that they want less government at less cost.

You have Libertarians who basically want no government (in a way, although they too differ) and you have Conservatives who want much less government.

This loosely attached group would have trouble establishing a mutually agreeable platform when other issues came up.

Edit: The Libertarians of the group would legalize pot and other drugs because they think government has no right to intrude, and the conservatives would totally disagree.

As for "reasonable," opponents will never agree on what that means. The opposition is always "unreasonable."

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe insist that the US debt and deficit is obscene. I don't think it's unreasonable to insist the the US do something serious about illegal immigration.

Cantor got his butt kicked by becoming anti-Tea Party which is a DC insider, Wall Street supporter, big spender and supporter of illegal aliens. If it takes something like a Tea Party to get that done, good for them.

My post was a question to the member I quoted. You and I don't seem to hit it off although I have frequently tried to make peace so this will probably be the last post I respond to of yours. No disrespect intended.

I did not suggest that the TP was a political party, in fact, I called it a movement and then asked Gruen if I should call it a party to be respectful. It seems like with most TP topics, even the question of whether its a party or not cannot get a group concencus.

Gruen made aspersions at the OWS crowd and then immediately went into describing his own TP as the normal folks. I was simply trying to suggest to him that the OWS or any other fringe group has a tendency to think of themselves as reasonable. By fringe I mean a minority and considered fringe by the larger political parties they fall within. I must not have been clear since you felt it necessary to tell me this in your post.

For me, talking politics is about as senseless as talking gun control. Its just a room full of people all trying to shout their position louder than the next and no change ever comes. So I recognize your frustration about debt and I recognize the TP anger; however, I do not sympathize with a group that practices one over-riding principle in Congress--obstructionism. Ofcourse, I could say its un-American and compromise is American and I could present the passage of the US Constitution as evidence of my claim but there is zero doubt in my mind you will tell me I am completely wrong--or as your pal in the other thread said and you corroborated--that I am a village idiot.

So do me a favor. Lets agree to disagree and lets just not communicate with each other anymore.

Hope that works for you.

You can put me on ignore any time. I am allowed to respond to your post no matter who you aimed it at.

I agree with everything you said except the term "obstructionist." If anyone in American Government is going to put a stop to the big spending, debt and deficits, he is going to have to Obstruct the status quo. "Obstructionist" can be abused as a word because anyone who tries to stop me from doing what I want I call an "Obstructionist."

I actually hope some "obstructionists" put a stop to the status quo in DC.

[JDGRUEN]

People who believe the Tea Party is a 'fringe' group have no idea who the typical Tea Party member is and are just regurgitating hate filled propaganda formulated by the wacko media team a places like MSNBC...

When the Tea Party groups banded together and had a million people show up on the Capitol steps in D.C, on 9/12/09 the Democrat party and the emerging Leftist groups began a deliberate campaign to malign the Tea Party movement. This huge gathering was the culmination of dozens of Tea Party demonstrations across the nation beginning April 15, 2009. These regional and local demonstrations continued throughout 2010 with many TP groups participating in the huge rally in October 2010 led by Glenn Beck. The result of these two years of efforts was that the U.S. House of Representatives was taken from Democrat control with the election of about 63 Republicans - many of whom waved the Tea Party Banner.

This astounding success by the powerful upstart Tea Party scared the Democrats to death and they began a campaign attempting to totally destroy the Tea Party by a mounting a false propaganda campaign based totally on untruths - slurs and manufactured stories. The Democrats and their leftists supporters were fairly successful and even today many believe the lies and use such terms as 'fringe' to describe the Tea Party when all they know is the false propaganda put out by Leftist in the Democrat Party that is spread by the liberal American media who are subservient to obama.

The Republican Elitist -- so called 'leadership' became fearful of losing their power to ordinary Americans of the Tea Party and eventually joined in the slandering of the Tea Party ... Every few months the 'RINOs' - Republicans in Name Only come out and declares the Tea Party dead -- only to discover that new RINOs like Cantor are toppled by the 'dead' Tea Party. It is rather laughable to watch.

These days in America - as a result of the Democrats giving up control of their party to Leftists - we know have Three political parties in the U.S. The Leftist Controlled Democrat Party, The Liberal Leaning RINO Republican Party and the Principled Conservative Party. Note that the Liberal Republicans left the Conservatives - not the other way around. The silly Republican leadership like Cantor actually believe it is best to move to fill the gap left when Liberals in the Democrat Party were replaced by Leftists. Conservative Americans - the largest portion of the Republican Party want none of this and are setting records by rapidly registering as Independents in every state. The liberal Republican Party 'leadership' like Cantor are so aloof as to be caught blindside by the change in the electorate ...

For those of you who are not brainwashed by Leftist Democrat false propaganda - go find real articles on the Tea Party ... go talk to REAL Tea Party members - you will find that they are just like your neighbors, your cousins, your fellow office workers, etc. - not the political demons falsely painted by the radical left. Eric Cantor drank the 'cool aide' of anti-Tea Party false propaganda and he found out that they were a real power source ...

[Ulysses G.]

People who believe the Tea Party is a 'fringe' group have no idea who the typical Tea Party member is and are just regurgitating hate filled propaganda formulated by the wacko media team a places like MSNBC...

Agreed. There has been a serious attempt to marginalize them in the same way that they have done with Fox News and they have been very successful at it. Having most of the mainstream media supporting their efforts almost guarantees success, no matter how nonsensical the characterization.

[NeverSure]

According to the respected Rasmussen polling, 42% of American voters identify with Obama and 42% identify with the Tea Party. Link

Only a far-out left wing nutter would try to marginalize a group that's tied with the POTUS in that poll.

That's how Cantor got his butt kicked - failing to understand that these people are mainstream.

It isn't possible to summarize the Tea Party as one thing, A big chunk them are Libertarians whose role model is Ayn Rand who was an atheist. They are in favor of gay rights, abortion, legal pot and some other drugs... hardly "Christian looney tunes."

They have in common smaller government, less spending and debt, and they are adamant about it.

[Chicog]

According to the respected Rasmussen polling, 42% of American voters identify with Obama and 42% identify with the Tea Party. Link

Well there's some great news in there.

One-in-three voters (34%) considers the Tea Party movement good for the county, but 43% describe it as bad for America. Thirteen percent (13%) say neither is the case. These findings have changed little since early January.

So let the Tea Party er, Tea Party continue.

[Johpa]

I ask myself what would happen if I saw a huge mansion on a huge ranch with thousands of beautiful cattle, and just decided to move in without permission? I think we all know what would happen to me.

If it was just you alone then needless to say you would be evicted with prejudice. But if there were large numbers of people who were homeless and/or landless who realized that the wealthy had manipulated both the political-economy as well as the laws of the land to enable that one person to have very much indeed while neighbors lived in abject poverty than you might become a leader of a revolution. But the modern prohylactic to prevent that outcome is the creation of a facsist backed movement, using fear and the propaganda regime of Edward Bernays to co-opt the anger. The parallels between the US today and the Weimar Republic are rather disconcerting.

[Neurath]

Seems that there is only way to get a group of conservatives to agee to agree on a method to increase real wages for the bottom 30%: export all undocumented Mexicans. Otherwise everyone's having a gripe about how increased wages will screw the economy and make Big Macs and tube socks more expensive.

[Berkshire]

You lost me with the idea of changing SS and the VA because that is breaking these contracts with hard working Americans who have paid their dues.

I hear you. My personal favorite Fed program is National Parks. Everyone has their favorites. John McCain, in his acceptance speech for the 2008 campaign, said, "We will look at cutting everything, but not veterans' benefits." Retired Americans would say something similar, like 'you can look at cutting anything, but don't even think about touching social security.' What I'm saying is: Because the US spending waaaaaay beyond its means, it should start with a 20% across-the-board cut FOR EVERYTHING. Share the pain. There will always be sacrosant programs for every special interest, and great arguments for shielding one or a slew of Fed payments from cuts.

If a veteran gets a check for $1,800/month, instead of $2,160, he'll just have to be a bit more thrifty. He won't get tossed out on the street in his skivvies. I admit, there are a lot better places to cut the fat, than veteran payments, but again, it's all subjective.

It's a giant topic. There are bridges which need fixing, there are test tubes of smallpox which need continual refrigeration, there are defunct nuke missile silos which cost $50 million/annually to maintain, there is CDC which finds vaccines for virulent pathogens, the list goes on and on. Americans are spending way beyond their means. Perhaps they need something like China asking to cash in all its T-bills, as a big wake-up call. Or a depression, which almost happened in 2008.

I hate the out-of-control US debt as much as the next guy, but across-the-board cuts are not the answer. You're hurting too many people that have rightfully earned their benefits. The solution is really in the "waste and fraud" that goes on under our government's noses. There's medicare/medicaid fraud, subsidies, pork, tax loopholes/fraud....the list is endless. We're talking a good trillion. If the US government would do a better job eradicating some of this, there wouldn't be any need to mess with retiree benefits.

[chuckd]

Are "undocumented Mexicans" the same thing as "illegal immigrants"?

I always thought "illegal immigrants" were called "undocumented Democrats".

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Are "undocumented Mexicans" the same thing as "illegal immigrants"?

I always thought "illegal immigrants" were called "undocumented Democrats". alt=whistling.gif>

Nah, 'illegal immigrants' includes Cubans.

[Credo]

And a lot of those Cubans are Republicans.