Why can't the Tea Party and the Republicans work together?

[bluedogsam]

i am wondering about why can't the Tea Party and the Republicans somehow can't work together? seems to me BOTH of their goal is to work against Obama and the Democrats in elections. the Tea Party by winning primary elections for senate seats in Indiana and Missouri just seemed to hand over those 2 senate seats to the Democrats. is it stubborness on the Tea Party or the Republicans? anybody have an answer?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Tea Party and the Republicans are basically the same thing. Question is silly.

[Bureaucat]

The TPs formed largely out of disgust for the way the GOP establishment operated when Dubya was in office. They want to take the party in a direction that the party pros know will not work. Hence the party civil war begins.

[7,052,770]

I don't think the True Believers really care if they cost the GOP seats.  They're proud they stood up for Mourdock rather than just sending Lugar back for another term.

[bluedogsam]

@ sidewalk--i don't think its a silly question at all--i'm saying is they both seem to have the same goals but work against each other instead of working TOGETHER. hope my answer clears this up for you.

[Miles]

I was just watching an interview with McConnell; he says the difference is tactical, not ideological.

[smoltchanov]

Tea Party and the Republicans are basically the same thing. Question is silly.

No, the question is not silly, but very serious. Not all Republican party is in "tea-party camp" (though no one can deny it's influence in the party, it's, IMHO, is somewhat less now, then in 2010). And i can see a long-term future of Republican party, but only short-term - of "tea party"

[Maxwell]

Because the whole purpose of the split between Tea Party Republicans and more Establishment types is that Establishment types have been far too willing to work across the aisle. They think establishment types are compromising their values for Washington. Do you really think they'll work together? That's an ignorant question.

[All Along The Watchtower]

is this even a thread

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I shall repeat this from somewhere else:

I've come to the conclusion that the Tea Party as such is little more than an experiment in Radical Behaviourism. Rather than seeing as a systemic ideology with 'meanings', 'intentions' and, of course, 'history' as well as other mental abstractions and effluvium, the 'ideology' of the Tea Party is merely a set learned stimulus-responses that were adapted to one particular environment - the kitsch culture of the 80s - but are now maladaptive in our present circumstances or among sane people.

Thus an image of Obama - regardless of context - makes them salivate with incoherent rage and acts as an stimulus to perform their 'speech acts': MUH WELFARE, MUH MILITARY, MUH BENGHAZI - like Pavlov's dog. The repetitiveness of this stimulus-response mechanisms merely shows how particularly well-trained, and ill-thought out, these things are with little but other stimuli-responses associating themselves together. Therefore an image of Gun or a Muslim = Obama = DO NOT WANT = MUH WELFARE, MUH MILITARY, MUH BENGHAZI. There is no 'depth' or 'sense' here just learnt associations and stimulus reactions.



One of the founders of Modern 'Tea Partyism', the psychologist B.F. Skinner, training pigeons how to relate Benghazi to Abortion rates by giving them food in their cages when they hit upon the right stimulus. In six months time all of these pigeons will write for right-wing blogs or the National Review

Of course, I should have added, that such stimulus responses may have evolved as part of the life cycle of the human organism and thus by change events and arbitrary historical happenings.  Thus the associations have no 'meaning' or 'content' they are just the repetition of the past - without any logic - in the formal sense - behind them.

[TNF]

The Tea Party is the Republican Party, and vice versa. They are one in the same.

[Incipimus iterum]

Because there are some extremists in the party that think even a little bi-partisanship and working with democrats, is unholy F/E, Bob Bennett, Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski (2010) Richard Lugar (2012)

[Napoleon]

I was just watching an interview with McConnell; he says the difference is tactical, not ideological.

Easy to say that a few months before a primary.

[sg0508]

I don't think the True Believers really care if they cost the GOP seats.  They're proud they stood up for Mourdock rather than just sending Lugar back for another term.

Correct and looking back at the debacles of 2010: CO/NV/DE, they seemed very proud in putting their own up there: Buck, Angle and O'Donnell knowing they would probably lose in the general.  Make no mistake.  I believe the Tea Partiers KNEW their candidates had little shot in the general, but they wanted to prove a point and they did.

[hopper]

Because there are some extremists in the party that think even a little bi-partisanship and working with democrats, is unholy F/E, Bob Bennett, Mike Castle, Charlie Crist, Lisa Murkowski (2010) Richard Lugar (2012)

Well in some cases yes and no. Bennett did work on the Bennett/Wyden Healthcare Bill so yeah maybe that had a little to do with it but the Republican Nomination for Utah Senate in 2010 but also the nominating process was held at a Convention so that had a lot to do with Bennett's defeat.

Castle-Wrong Time basically he choose to run. In 2010 the electorate was really conservative. Maybe the most conservative electorate on election day in the last 200 years. He was a Centrist Republican.


Richard Lugar-Well his age. He is in his mid to late 70's now and had been in office for 30 years. The guy was living in Virginia basically. Yes he was a Moderate Conservative so that killed him a little bit but that was not entirely the reason for his defeat.

Charlie Christ-Yes in this case him being side by side with Obama in an appearence and being supportive of the stimulus really killed his membership in the Republican Party.

Lisa Murkowski-I don't know I think she was outspent and Joe Miller was better organized than her in terms of GOTV for the Republican Primary. Joe Miller is a joke now though his favorability is low in Republican Circles according to the latest polling on the 2014 Alaska US Senate Race.

[hopper]

I don't think the True Believers really care if they cost the GOP seats.  They're proud they stood up for Mourdock rather than just sending Lugar back for another term.

Correct and looking back at the debacles of 2010: CO/NV/DE, they seemed very proud in putting their own up there: Buck, Angle and O'Donnell knowing they would probably lose in the general.  Make no mistake.  I believe the Tea Partiers KNEW their candidates had little shot in the general, but they wanted to prove a point and they did.

NV they expected to win. CO was a toss-up but they did think Buck would pull it out on election day. DE was basically lost so yeah.

[ElectionsGuy]

lol

[hopper]

Well the difference is a little bit idealogically  and tactical. Tea Party types they just don't believe in compromise and they think the Establishment Republicans compromise to much with Democrats. That has changed this year somewhat though with oking a couple spending bills which Boehner wouldn't have probably gotten through a year ago. The Tea Party Republicans just think the government spends too much and they have a point. Look at how many duplicate programs the government wastes their money on each year with no oversight or review of how money is spent each year.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Well the difference is a little bit idealogically  and tactical. Tea Party types they just don't believe in compromise and they think the Establishment Republicans compromise to much with Democrats. That has changed this year somewhat though with oking a couple spending bills which Boehner wouldn't have probably gotten through a year ago. The Tea Party Republicans just think the government spends too much and they have a point. Look at how many duplicate programs the government wastes their money on each year with no oversight or review of how money is spent each year.

The problem with that (and the whole Tea Party in general) is that when you ask them what to cut, they don't want anything cut (defense spending, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). If they were really serious about controlling spending, they would agree that everything needs to be cut, not just domestic programs that Democrats champion. I find little difference in the Tea Party and Republican Party nowadays. The only real difference I see is that the Tea Party believes compromise is a dirty word and anytime a Republican makes an effort to work with a Democrat, he or she is going to face a primary. You can't have that attitude when governing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is not about ideology but trust. They think they were lied to by GOP establishment types who made a bunch of promises in 1994 and then went proceeded to break them over the next twelve years. Therefore, they will get what they can tangibly measure as a guidepost to at least know if they are getting a liar, it is a liar who shares their core beliefs.


Delaware was a complete exercise in stupidity.

It must be remembered though that Akin, Angle, Buck, Miller and Mourdock all lead their Democratic opponents prior to the primary or were at least competative. Now that they have lost most of have been driven to joke status. Angle polls in the single digits in primaries for NV races now, Miller is in the 20s or lower amongst Republicans. Akin and Mourdock are retired basically. The only one that has survived is Buck.

The problem for the tea party comes not from them objectively choosing to blow a seat, which only DE realisticly stood as such and turned out to be so at the time of the primary, but because they are rejecting the establishment candidate for the outsider, they are by definition chosing someone with less of one or more of following 1) Name ID, 2) Money, 3) Clout and DC influence, 4) money, 5) local connections, 6) Money, 7) bipartisan support accrued from years of working on local issues and constituent services, and did I mentioned money? At the same time accruing any and all negatives assoctiated wtih the alterantive candidate be it gaffes, extreme positions, or some combination of the two.

THat they are willing to take that risk shows that they no longer trust the establishment candidates to keep their word and feel they are better off taking the risk, then not. That does not mean they prefer to elect their foes or in the case of Alaska, the very one they want ousted.

[smoltchanov]

The Tea Party is the Republican Party, and vice versa. They are one in the same.

False

[hopper]

Well the difference is a little bit idealogically  and tactical. Tea Party types they just don't believe in compromise and they think the Establishment Republicans compromise to much with Democrats. That has changed this year somewhat though with oking a couple spending bills which Boehner wouldn't have probably gotten through a year ago. The Tea Party Republicans just think the government spends too much and they have a point. Look at how many duplicate programs the government wastes their money on each year with no oversight or review of how money is spent each year.

The problem with that (and the whole Tea Party in general) is that when you ask them what to cut, they don't want anything cut (defense spending, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). If they were really serious about controlling spending, they would agree that everything needs to be cut, not just domestic programs that Democrats champion. I find little difference in the Tea Party and Republican Party nowadays. The only real difference I see is that the Tea Party believes compromise is a dirty word and anytime a Republican makes an effort to work with a Democrat, he or she is going to face a primary. You can't have that attitude when governing.

I completely agree with you the Tea Party can't sit there and scream everytime a Republican wants to compromise with a Democrat since we have divided government.

Everything needs to be cut- What needs to happen is the Democrats need to agree to reform Medicare and Social Security. Medicare is a program that was made in the mid 1960's and is still living in the mid 1960's. Well life expectancy us up since that time period so the program needs to be reformed. Social Security-The age of receiving benefits may have to be raised but it still doesn't go far enough. If you are wealthy I think what is gonna have to happen is the wealthy receive less benefits. I am not gonna put in income level on it.

Republicans and Democrats may have to both but the bullet and go back to mid to late 1990's tax levels for people making 450,000$ and under. Republicans may have to agree more tax increases on people making making over 450,000 dollars a year. I know Democrats would love that though.

Defense Spending-The Defense Spending has been declining as a share of the US Government Budget % wise since the 1950's or the 1960's. I think even Leon Panetta who was Secretary of Defense under Obama said the sequester cuts to defense went to far.

[hopper]

It is not about ideology but trust. They think they were lied to by GOP establishment types who made a bunch of promises in 1994 and then went proceeded to break them over the next twelve years. Therefore, they will get what they can tangibly measure as a guidepost to at least know if they are getting a liar, it is a liar who shares their core beliefs.


Delaware was a complete exercise in stupidity.

It must be remembered though that Akin, Angle, Buck, Miller and Mourdock all lead their Democratic opponents prior to the primary or were at least competative. Now that they have lost most of have been driven to joke status. Angle polls in the single digits in primaries for NV races now, Miller is in the 20s or lower amongst Republicans. Akin and Mourdock are retired basically. The only one that has survived is Buck.

The problem for the tea party comes not from them objectively choosing to blow a seat, which only DE realisticly stood as such and turned out to be so at the time of the primary, but because they are rejecting the establishment candidate for the outsider, they are by definition chosing someone with less of one or more of following 1) Name ID, 2) Money, 3) Clout and DC influence, 4) money, 5) local connections, 6) Money, 7) bipartisan support accrued from years of working on local issues and constituent services, and did I mentioned money? At the same time accruing any and all negatives assoctiated wtih the alterantive candidate be it gaffes, extreme positions, or some combination of the two.

THat they are willing to take that risk shows that they no longer trust the establishment candidates to keep their word and feel they are better off taking the risk, then not. That does not mean they prefer to elect their foes or in the case of Alaska, the very one they want ousted.

That was mainly after Bush W. took over that Congressional Republicans went crazy and spent too much money.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is not about ideology but trust. They think they were lied to by GOP establishment types who made a bunch of promises in 1994 and then went proceeded to break them over the next twelve years. Therefore, they will get what they can tangibly measure as a guidepost to at least know if they are getting a liar, it is a liar who shares their core beliefs.


Delaware was a complete exercise in stupidity.

It must be remembered though that Akin, Angle, Buck, Miller and Mourdock all lead their Democratic opponents prior to the primary or were at least competative. Now that they have lost most of have been driven to joke status. Angle polls in the single digits in primaries for NV races now, Miller is in the 20s or lower amongst Republicans. Akin and Mourdock are retired basically. The only one that has survived is Buck.

The problem for the tea party comes not from them objectively choosing to blow a seat, which only DE realisticly stood as such and turned out to be so at the time of the primary, but because they are rejecting the establishment candidate for the outsider, they are by definition chosing someone with less of one or more of following 1) Name ID, 2) Money, 3) Clout and DC influence, 4) money, 5) local connections, 6) Money, 7) bipartisan support accrued from years of working on local issues and constituent services, and did I mentioned money? At the same time accruing any and all negatives assoctiated wtih the alterantive candidate be it gaffes, extreme positions, or some combination of the two.

THat they are willing to take that risk shows that they no longer trust the establishment candidates to keep their word and feel they are better off taking the risk, then not. That does not mean they prefer to elect their foes or in the case of Alaska, the very one they want ousted.

That was mainly after Bush W. took over that Congressional Republicans went crazy and spent too much money.

I date it to 1999, with the rise of Tom Delay. There was also the farm bill in 1997, where a bunch of members from the class of 94 like Mark Sanford and others formed an attempted coup against Newt, taking advantage of his weaknesses and motivated by concerns that they were already going back to business as usual so soon after running to change it.

[IceSpear]

It is not about ideology but trust. They think they were lied to by GOP establishment types who made a bunch of promises in 1994 and then went proceeded to break them over the next twelve years. Therefore, they will get what they can tangibly measure as a guidepost to at least know if they are getting a liar, it is a liar who shares their core beliefs.

Yet they only started caring and protesting in 2009. What a coincidence.