And you think the Tea Party is rigid...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I've heard and MADE many complaints about the rigidity of the Tea Party...as Newt called his freshmen "the Perfectionist Caucus" who want everything just so and have no willingness to comrpomise... so let's see if the Democrats can do it better...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/matthews-charges-booker-with-sabotage-betrayal-124145.html

I recognize Matthews isn't a Democratic leader but he for all intents and purposes is...and Booker's reversal makes it clear he was called by the White House to change thigns- or else. I've read articles about how his fundraising base would dry up if he did not reverse as donors wouldn't contribute to a disloyal candidate...

All of this- over one comment about how he frankly felt about a campaign tactic?

Let there be no mistake- the Democratic leadership is rigid, uncompromising, and dictatorial- breaks in the rank are treated severely and publicly. I am ashamed that a man who promised change in Washington now leads an organization which punishes honesty and independence. This attitude by the Democratic Party elite- and the Tea Party -contributes to the gridlock in Washington, DC

Democrats complained about the Imperial Presidency during George W's term...the dreaded call from Dick Cheney became the dreaded call from Rahm Emanuel and now another Obama crony...who knows

[Lief 🗽]

The Tea Party isn't rigid at all. They constantly complain about the national debt, and then they fully endorse the party that has historically run up the debt and is responsible for most of it at the moment. They complain about getting government encroaching in our lives and then support the party that wants to tell people who they can marry and how they can have sex.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Tea Party is plagued by the same mentality that the modern environmental movement is plagued by: they refuse to compromise.  One poli-sci professor (while subbing for my environmental politics professor out on back surgery; this professor is a Constitutional law professor) gave me a great analogy: You give them half a loaf of bread, but they stand there demanding a full loaf, and while they argue about how they need that full loaf, they ignore the half loaf and end up starving.

[hopper]

The Tea Party isn't rigid at all. They constantly complain about the national debt, and then they fully endorse the party that has historically run up the debt and is responsible for most of it at the moment. They complain about getting government encroaching in our lives and then support the party that wants to tell people who they can marry and how they can have sex.

I understand Bush(W.) did add to the debt yeah but so has Obama and the debt has grown faster under Obama than it did Bush(W.) Both parties are responsible for the debt burden that we have right now. The Dems moreso than the Republicans.

You are talking about marriage. I just think marriage is between a man and a woman. I support civil unions though. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child thats fine. If they want to file their taxes jointly thats fine too. But if people of the same sex want to say they want to marry thats where I have a problem. Maybe I will feel different about that one of these days but not right now.

How a couple can have sex? You have to be more specific about what you are saying about that.

[hopper]

Both parties are rigid they threw all the moderates out. Whats news about that? One side wants the Ed Shultz agenda the other one wants the Sean Hannity agenda and where is the middle of those two? Its nowhere to be found.

See I don't understand the religious right or as somebody wrote on here the environmental left. Both are extreme and out of the mainstream in my opinion.

[Lief 🗽]

You're wrong.

[hopper]

You're wrong.

I don't get how he are in 5 more trillion dollars of debt under Obama than we were when Bush W. ended his presidency. Just blame Bush(W.)?  Wrong answer in my own opinion.

[All Along The Watchtower]

"Both parties suck"=lazy thinking.

The Republicans are objectively the worse party.

[Donerail]

"Both parties suck"=lazy thinking.

The Republicans are objectively the worse party.

By a slim margin, but yes.

[memphis]

You're wrong.

I don't get how he are in 5 more trillion dollars of debt under Obama than we were when Bush W. ended his presidency. Just blame Bush(W.)?  Wrong answer in my own opinion.

It's true that Obama has not been aggressive enough in ending the Bush policies that blew up the budget. Primarily the tax cuts and wars. Both have to go if we're ever going to have a reasonable balance sheet. Defunding NPR isn't going to do it.

[hopper]

"Both parties suck"=lazy thinking.

The Republicans are objectively the worse party.

No the Dems are worse. At least John Boehner cares a little more than Pelosi does. Not thrilled with Boehner don't get me wrong though.

In NJ the Dems raised taxes and/or fees 115 times from 2002-2009 and it still didn't do anything. The same thing is going on Connecticut right now. Malloy is raising taxes and its not doing a thing. Same thing in Illinois. Not doing a thing.
 

[hopper]

You're wrong.

I don't get how he are in 5 more trillion dollars of debt under Obama than we were when Bush W. ended his presidency. Just blame Bush(W.)?  Wrong answer in my own opinion.

It's true that Obama has not been aggressive enough in ending the Bush policies that blew up the budget. Primarily the tax cuts and wars. Both have to go if we're ever going to have a reasonable balance sheet. Defunding NPR isn't going to do it.

I agree the tax cuts should be ended. The wars need to be ended when the generals on the ground say so but I thought Iraq was already ended? No? Yeah I agree defunding NPR isn't going to end the budget mess that we are currently in right now. Why should the goverment fund NPR though? There was a need for it in the 80's-early 00's sure. Everybody has the internet for news now. Even if you don't have the internet you can go to your local library and use the internet.

Of the things the Obama Administration will regret if it doesn't get enacted is Simpson-Bowles. One of the biggest mistakes of this administration yet!

[Donerail]

On Iraq: US combat troops are out of Iraq. Troops training the Afghan army, troops around the embassy (one of our largest), private security contractors (Blackwater Xe Academi-type people), and of course the combat troops across the border in Kuwait are still around.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I've heard and MADE many complaints about the rigidity of the Tea Party...as Newt called his freshmen "the Perfectionist Caucus" who want everything just so and have no willingness to comrpomise... so let's see if the Democrats can do it better...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/matthews-charges-booker-with-sabotage-betrayal-124145.html

I recognize Matthews isn't a Democratic leader but he for all intents and purposes is...and Booker's reversal makes it clear he was called by the White House to change thigns- or else. I've read articles about how his fundraising base would dry up if he did not reverse as donors wouldn't contribute to a disloyal candidate...

All of this- over one comment about how he frankly felt about a campaign tactic?

Let there be no mistake- the Democratic leadership is rigid, uncompromising, and dictatorial- breaks in the rank are treated severely and publicly. I am ashamed that a man who promised change in Washington now leads an organization which punishes honesty and independence. This attitude by the Democratic Party elite- and the Tea Party -contributes to the gridlock in Washington, DC

Democrats complained about the Imperial Presidency during George W's term...the dreaded call from Dick Cheney became the dreaded call from Rahm Emanuel and now another Obama crony...who knows

Are you so sure they're comparable? Neither Lieberman nor Lincoln were knocked out in their primary challenges, whereas the tea party succeeded in knocking out incumbents in Delaware of all places. Diane Feinstein, despite being a moderate hero in California, is not even going to suffer a genuine primary challenge. To the extent their have been primary challenges they have been based around an individual senator rather then national mass movements.

Then theirs that "no new taxes pledge" that almost all Republicans feel compelled to sign. What's the equivalent on the Democratic side.

You say Booker withdrew his statement because of imperial pressure... I find that difficult to believe considering the fact that Lieberman outright supported McCain without suffering any blowback for it. Then remember the Democrats who were so resistant to Obama's healthcare bill. I find it more likely that he simply made a strategic analysis of or was pressured by his core demographic, African Americans(and liberals if he wants to run for state or national office), and decided in a Romneyesque fashion that flip flopping was the best for the future of his career.

As for Mathews- consider how much of a hard time he and other leftwing figures have been giving Obama and the Democrats over their perceived moderation(without incidentally advocating a meaningful quantity of primary challenges). I don't think Bush or Reagan copped comparable quantities of sh**t from the right.

In closing, I implore you to look at the political system here in Australia(or other Westminster systems) if you want to see a truly dictatorial party system. You USians look positively anarchic  by comparison.

[Kevin]

I've heard and MADE many complaints about the rigidity of the Tea Party...as Newt called his freshmen "the Perfectionist Caucus" who want everything just so and have no willingness to comrpomise... so let's see if the Democrats can do it better...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/matthews-charges-booker-with-sabotage-betrayal-124145.html

I recognize Matthews isn't a Democratic leader but he for all intents and purposes is...and Booker's reversal makes it clear he was called by the White House to change thigns- or else. I've read articles about how his fundraising base would dry up if he did not reverse as donors wouldn't contribute to a disloyal candidate...

All of this- over one comment about how he frankly felt about a campaign tactic?

Let there be no mistake- the Democratic leadership is rigid, uncompromising, and dictatorial- breaks in the rank are treated severely and publicly. I am ashamed that a man who promised change in Washington now leads an organization which punishes honesty and independence. This attitude by the Democratic Party elite- and the Tea Party -contributes to the gridlock in Washington, DC

Democrats complained about the Imperial Presidency during George W's term...the dreaded call from Dick Cheney became the dreaded call from Rahm Emanuel and now another Obama crony...who knows

Are you so sure they're comparable? Neither Lieberman nor Lincoln were knocked out in their primary challenges, whereas the tea party succeeded in knocking out incumbents in Delaware of all places. Diane Feinstein, despite being a moderate hero in California, is not even going to suffer a genuine primary challenge. To the extent their have been primary challenges they have been based around an individual senator rather then national mass movements.

Then theirs that "no new taxes pledge" that almost all Republicans feel compelled to sign. What's the equivalent on the Democratic side.

You say Booker withdrew his statement because of imperial pressure... I find that difficult to believe considering the fact that Lieberman outright supported McCain without suffering any blowback for it. Then remember the Democrats who were so resistant to Obama's healthcare bill. I find it more likely that he simply made a strategic analysis of or was pressured by his core demographic, African Americans(and liberals if he wants to run for state or national office), and decided in a Romneyesque fashion that flip flopping was the best for the future of his career.

As for Mathews- consider how much of a hard time he and other leftwing figures have been giving Obama and the Democrats over their perceived moderation(without incidentally advocating a meaningful quantity of primary challenges). I don't think Bush or Reagan copped comparable quantities of sh**t from the right.

In closing, I implore you to look at the political system here in Australia(or other Westminster systems) if you want to see a truly dictatorial party system. You USians look positively anarchic  by comparison.

The Democrats pretty much disowned Lieberman after 2006.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I don't get how he are in 5 more trillion dollars of debt under Obama than we were when Bush W. ended his presidency. Just blame Bush(W.)?  Wrong answer in my own opinion.

It's because their are two sides to a nations fiscal accounts: spending and revenue. Spending has grown substantially slower under Obama then Bush(as shown by the pictures) and their have even been a handful of meager spending cuts(albeit outnumbered by spending increases) whereas their were no spending cuts worth mentioning under Bush. You will note the percent increase in spending under Reagan was greater then the increase so far under Obama.

Unfortunately the revenue side of things has been disastrous for Obama due to the recession(for the record, I don't blame Bush for that, he at least gets credit for trying impose stricter regulation of Fannie and Freddie+ being responsible and bailing out the financial system). The decline in revenue due to recession has been large enough to eclipse Obama's comparatively contained fiscal policies.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Tea Party is plagued by the same mentality that the modern environmental movement is plagued by: they refuse to compromise.  One poli-sci professor (while subbing for my environmental politics professor out on back surgery; this professor is a Constitutional law professor) gave me a great analogy: You give them half a loaf of bread, but they stand there demanding a full loaf, and while they argue about how they need that full loaf, they ignore the half loaf and end up starving.

I would agree.  I am a conservative and a Republican, but I am also a pragmatic thinker.  As Reagan himself said,  "half a loaf is better than no bread."  I think the analogy your professor gave is a perfect description of the Tea Party movement. 

[Indy Texas]

The Tea Party isn't rigid at all. They constantly complain about the national debt, and then they fully endorse the party that has historically run up the debt and is responsible for most of it at the moment. They complain about getting government encroaching in our lives and then support the party that wants to tell people who they can marry and how they can have sex.

I understand Bush(W.) did add to the debt yeah but so has Obama and the debt has grown faster under Obama than it did Bush(W.) Both parties are responsible for the debt burden that we have right now. The Dems moreso than the Republicans.

You are talking about marriage. I just think marriage is between a man and a woman. I support civil unions though. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child thats fine. If they want to file their taxes jointly thats fine too. But if people of the same sex want to say they want to marry thats where I have a problem. Maybe I will feel different about that one of these days but not right now.

How a couple can have sex? You have to be more specific about what you are saying about that.

1. Debt-to-GDP went from 56.4% to 84.2% during the course of Bush II's presidency. It was 99.6% at the end of 2011.

2. I'm glad to know that public policy's fate hinges on how you "feel" about it.

3. Don't ask that question. This is a family forum.

[Torie]

There is no such thing as the Tea Party really.