Comments on: The rise and fall of the Tea Party http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/ American health care and political policy - commentary and debate Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:00:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: sirnate http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2456 sirnate Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:49:47 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2456 1. In my impression that gap is still from way left to center left. Just debating exactly how to tax and spend. I don't feel the abortion view alone should determine a political affiliation. But I would hope a conservative would believe that decision should be made at the state level for either view of abortion. Whereas a liberal would support subsidization of the child if against abortion. 2. I briefly recall that. I'll have to look into that. 3. Well said, I generally agree. 4. I do believe there needs to be room; it just should not conflict with the ideals you noted in #3. People like Scozzafava and Snow just make me angry and lead me to a 3rd party. They're like a virus in a reasonable spectrum of conservative views. 1. In my impression that gap is still from way left to center left. Just debating exactly how to tax and spend. I don’t feel the abortion view alone should determine a political affiliation. But I would hope a conservative would believe that decision should be made at the state level for either view of abortion. Whereas a liberal would support subsidization of the child if against abortion.

2. I briefly recall that. I’ll have to look into that.

3. Well said, I generally agree.

4. I do believe there needs to be room; it just should not conflict with the ideals you noted in #3. People like Scozzafava and Snow just make me angry and lead me to a 3rd party. They’re like a virus in a reasonable spectrum of conservative views.

]]> By: Damon Dimmick http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2447 Damon Dimmick Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:59:09 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2447 We may be on different sides of the philosophical divide on this one, but I share some similar thoughts on a few of the groups that do tag along with the Tea Party groups. I actually tend to agree with some of the fundamental positions of the "original" protest planners, but agree that those positions are often hijacked or, to be charitable, "dynamically evolved" into other viewpoints by hangers-on who are more angry than thoughtful. I like that the Tea Parties happen, from a civic involvement point of view, and I like that people seem to still have the capacity for outrage. What they do with that outrage (either channeling it towards positive change or spinning it into yet more anger) is certainly something that produces an unpredictable fruit. We may be on different sides of the philosophical divide on this one, but I share some similar thoughts on a few of the groups that do tag along with the Tea Party groups. I actually tend to agree with some of the fundamental positions of the “original” protest planners, but agree that those positions are often hijacked or, to be charitable, “dynamically evolved” into other viewpoints by hangers-on who are more angry than thoughtful. I like that the Tea Parties happen, from a civic involvement point of view, and I like that people seem to still have the capacity for outrage. What they do with that outrage (either channeling it towards positive change or spinning it into yet more anger) is certainly something that produces an unpredictable fruit.

]]> By: Tweets that mention Rick Ungar - The Policy Page – The rise and fall of the Tea Party - True/Slant -- Topsy.com http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2440 Tweets that mention Rick Ungar - The Policy Page – The rise and fall of the Tea Party - True/Slant -- Topsy.com Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:10:17 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2440 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cindy Strout, Michael Guerriero, Ron Paul, Tweets Tube, Tea Leaf Times and others. Tea Leaf Times said: Rick Ungar - The Policy Page – The rise and fall of the Tea Party ... http://bit.ly/2WisXE #tea [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cindy Strout, Michael Guerriero, Ron Paul, Tweets Tube, Tea Leaf Times and others. Tea Leaf Times said: Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – The rise and fall of the Tea Party … http://bit.ly/2WisXE #tea [...]

]]> By: Rick Ungar http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2439 Rick Ungar Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:18:36 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2439 Damon- You know what - I think, to a large extent, you're right. I don't know that I would refer to them simply as "anti-liberal' as I think there is something else at work. And while I appreciate that the movement is largely based on libertarianism, I think they take it too far by a very large - and possibly dangerous - measure. Still, my characterization of tea party folks as all right wing conservatives is just as wrong. Point is taken and I'll be a bit more expansive when referring to them when writing an the topic in the future. Damon-
You know what – I think, to a large extent, you’re right. I don’t know that I would refer to them simply as “anti-liberal’ as I think there is something else at work. And while I appreciate that the movement is largely based on libertarianism, I think they take it too far by a very large – and possibly dangerous – measure.

Still, my characterization of tea party folks as all right wing conservatives is just as wrong. Point is taken and I’ll be a bit more expansive when referring to them when writing an the topic in the future.

]]> By: Rick Ungar http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2435 Rick Ungar Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:12:56 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2435 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There's a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn't mean they can't all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept. 2. The 'big tent' idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't know what a 'Republican' should be? 3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state's rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held - and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party. 4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate. Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics. 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.

2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?

3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.

4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.

Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.

]]> By: Rick Ungar http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2436 Rick Ungar Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:12:56 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2436 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There's a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn't mean they can't all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept. 2. The 'big tent' idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't know what a 'Republican' should be? 3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state's rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held - and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party. 4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate. Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics. 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.

2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?

3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.

4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.

Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.

]]> By: Rick Ungar http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2437 Rick Ungar Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:12:56 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2437 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There's a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn't mean they can't all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept. 2. The 'big tent' idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't know what a 'Republican' should be? 3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state's rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held - and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party. 4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate. Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics. 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.

2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?

3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.

4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.

Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.

]]> By: Rick Ungar http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2438 Rick Ungar Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:12:56 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2438 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There's a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn't mean they can't all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept. 2. The 'big tent' idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn't know what a 'Republican' should be? 3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state's rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held - and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party. 4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate. Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics. 1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.

2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?

3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.

4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.

Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.

]]> By: misterb http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2434 misterb Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:34:58 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2434 Sorry but the performance of the Republicans in Congress nowadays seems to prove the equivalence of "anti-liberal" and conservative. The conservatives have done nothing but oppose positive action. It's no wonder that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck seemed to take over the Republican Party earlier this year - they are the loudest "anti-liberals" out there, but they have no actual brief to accomplish anything. Rick is right; Reagan stood for things as well as against things. I will never forgive RR for saying, "a tree is a tree, how many more do you need to look at?", but he did start out as an FDR supporter. Sorry but the performance of the Republicans in Congress nowadays seems to prove the equivalence of “anti-liberal” and conservative. The conservatives have done nothing but oppose positive action. It’s no wonder that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck seemed to take over the Republican Party earlier this year – they are the loudest “anti-liberals” out there, but they have no actual brief to accomplish anything.

Rick is right; Reagan stood for things as well as against things. I will never forgive RR for saying, “a tree is a tree, how many more do you need to look at?”, but he did start out as an FDR supporter.

]]> By: Damon Dimmick http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/11/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-tea-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2433 Damon Dimmick Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:02:52 +0000 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/?p=5631#comment-2433 Having several friends who helped organize some of the original tea parties, it strikes me as a bit of a sham to call the tea party folks "right wing conservatives." At least here in Boston and greater new england, the Tea Parties are actually organized by people with primarily libertarian sentiments, who happen to attract conservatives sharing a dim view of the administration. It might be more appropriate to call the tea party folks "anti liberals" or something of the sort. Trying to brand them all as conservatives if fairly myopic and far too conveniently selective. A bit like the conservative attempt to brand all anti-Iraq war protesters as communists and socialists. Having several friends who helped organize some of the original tea parties, it strikes me as a bit of a sham to call the tea party folks “right wing conservatives.” At least here in Boston and greater new england, the Tea Parties are actually organized by people with primarily libertarian sentiments, who happen to attract conservatives sharing a dim view of the administration. It might be more appropriate to call the tea party folks “anti liberals” or something of the sort. Trying to brand them all as conservatives if fairly myopic and far too conveniently selective. A bit like the conservative attempt to brand all anti-Iraq war protesters as communists and socialists.

]]>