The Tea Party is the third party, whereas the Libertarian Party is not. The Tea Party has money. The Libertarian Party does not. There are more Tea Party incumbents than Libertarian incu
mbents. The Tea Party has a single agenda, which is to obstruct the Obama Administration. The Libertarian Party agenda is complicated by comparison because it is intellectual. The Tea Party is anti-intellectual and proud of that. While the Libertarian Party is lofty and sincere, the Tea Party is banal and insincere.
Deep down inside, Tea Party bumper sticker rhetoric is shallow.
The Republican candidate Mitt Romney is shallow. His insincerity compounds his nonsensical argument about his business experience being a political qualification. It might make him a good chairman of the RNC, but not a good President of the United States. Presidents become presidents by succeeding at politics. It has nothing to do with business. Romney’s problem is that he is not a successful politician. His running mate is, but Romney is not. Tea Party-endorsed incumbents like Representatives Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are cunning. President Obama is cunning. Romney is about as cunning as a television anchorman.
The 2012 election is the terminus of Romney’s political career, according to his wife Ann Romney on The View. Even though the Tea Party has arguably made it possible for a Romney election win, it does not mean he will be treated any differently than President Obama after the election. If anything, Romney could expect to be impeached if elected.
Imagine a Ryan Administration with Cantor as Speaker of the House, sooner rather than later. Insincerity begets insincerity, which makes Romney vulnerable to attack by the very people who support him.
The most divisive thing about this election is the emphasis on money. That is where the delusional idea that government can be run like business gets traction. The idea that a President can repeal law, such as Obamacare, is a banal expression of the contempt for civics that has been the result of so much attention on the money. Fueled by the incessant discourse given by media of all streams to the incredible amount of money involved in the 2012 election, campaign fund raising has new relevance, the rise of the Super PACs at its center.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - chas holman
"Romney campaign stands by Mourdock".
Women.. For Goodness sake.. WAKE UP..
If ever there WAS a sign from God, this would be one of them.. These 'men' who are completely uneducated and ignorant about a woman's body, want to be in charge of the laws that Govern YOUR body. There is no other way to put it. Welcome to the year 1642 where science and medicine take a back seat. Don't even dare mention the earth revolves around the sun.
The Governor has said if he wins the Presidency that he would sign legislation if presented, that bans abortion. And you have GOP senators and Congressmen who have now said that women who get raped have no medical worries as they can't get pregnant if they are 'really' raped, and now with Mourdoch, it is 'God's Gift'.
Seriously..
Vote like YOUR life, your daughter's life and health depends on it.. It's not playtime anymore, they are playing for keeps and total control.Have no doubt, this is 'the big grab'.
2 - Tommy Mack
The Romney/Ryan message is all about white, male supremacy. Sorry, neocons, but it is supported by its representatives.
WE can vote, here in California, any day. My wife and I will. The health of our children demands our participation as much as their future does.
2012 election is critical for our society. I can understand why many may pass; I hope to help them reconsider. Our civics insists on the exercise and our country upon its application.
Tommy
3 - Clavos
The health of our children demands our participation as much as their future does.
But apparently not the health of their pocketbooks, because they are of the generation which will be burdened with paying back all that spending on the part of the Obama administration.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Why do you think Romney might be impeached? I can't think of anything he might do other than if he were to attempt to impose his Mormon faith on the presidency, and he's got no track record of mixing religion with governance.
Mind you, none of that precludes trumped-up impeachment charges, as happened with Clinton. Do you have any reason, other than a hunch, to think that the Tea Party is using Romney as a stooge so that they can get their guy into the White House? Seems a roundabout way of doing it. Wouldn't it just have been simpler for Ryan to have run for the presidency himself?
5 - Not the liberal actor
Tommy, you say, "The Tea Party has a single agenda, which is to obstruct the Obama Administration." Has it ever occurred to you that the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party opposes Obama because history has shown that more taxes is NOT the answer to problems with the economy in particular and society in general. Obama's only response to ANYTHING is to raise taxes, hence Tea Party opposition.
You say, "President Obama is cunning." With that statement I agree, as recent events in Benghazi have shown. But he was not quite cunning enough, as the truth has finally come out.
You say, "... the delusional idea that government can be run like business ...." Let's see, we have trillion dollar deficits (which Obama promised to halve), that no government (or business) can continue to run. Perhaps it's time to run government like a business. Bush was not the answer, so don't try to deflect attention from the deficit issue.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
Perhaps it's time to run government like a business.
Herbert Hoover was a businessman and believed in low taxes...and we got the Depression. George W. Bush was a businessman and believed in low taxes (and was handed a budget surplus)...and we got the Great Recession.
In the macroeconomic view, Warren, relatively very few tax dollars are wasted, repeat, relatively very few tax dollars are wasted. The ONLY money that is truly wasted is that which is sent overseas (thanks to outsourcing, Wal-Mart, and rich people stashing their money overseas). The rest of the money that is kept stateside goes to help the economy function...
...and the economy functions best when the government - repeat, the government - puts people to work. Proof? A little something called "World War II", and the 90% top marginal tax rates in the 1950's and the 70% top marginal tax rates in the 1960's.
The three most serious economic crises since 1900 came after huge tax cuts - the Depression, the 1982 Recession, and the Great Recession. Conversely, the times when the economy was most powerful were in times of higher taxes. Why? Because instead of money being stashed in some rich guy's interest-bearing account, the taxes are being used to keep teachers and police and firemen and food inspectors - all of which are generally middle class incomes - at work...and they not only give value for their pay, but they use their pay to keep businesses open.
Of course you think that's all stuff and nonsense, so please tell me why it is that the worst three economic crises since 1900 came after huge tax cuts, and our most successful economic times were during times of higher tax rates. Can you do that?
7 - Clavos
Of course you think that's all stuff and nonsense, so please tell me why it is that the worst three economic crises since 1900 came after huge tax cuts, and our most successful economic times were during times of higher tax rates. Can you do that?
The better question is can you prove your points incontrovertibly, as opposed to coincidentally, which is all you've done so far.
The burden of proof in this case is yours, not Warren's; he does not have to (and cannot) prove a negative.
In fact, Glenn, your "proofs" presented above seem to "prove" only one thing: that you're a fervent socialist.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Has it ever occurred to you that the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party opposes Obama because history has shown that more taxes is NOT the answer to problems with the economy in particular and society in general.
The funny thing about the Tea Party movement is that it started right after Obama took office, having been elected on a platform that specifically stated that taxes on the folks who made up the bulk of the Tea Party (i.e. those making under $250K) wouldn't be raised.
Seems rather cynical to me.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Clav -
The burden of proof in this case is yours, not Warren's; he does not have to (and cannot) prove a negative. In fact, Glenn, your "proofs" presented above seem to "prove" only one thing: that you're a fervent socialist.
I explained how higher taxes help the economy here. Would that be considered a 'proof'? I don't know, but I can safely assume you certainly wouldn't consider it as such since it goes against your core beliefs.
Clav, there comes a point when there's enough correlation for one argument and against another argument that the matter becomes rather obvious. As I pointed out, since 1900:
- the periods of lowest taxes have always presaged major economic crises.
- the economy has performed best during periods of higher taxes (and high level of government employment).
- if the low-taxes-bring-national-prosperity argument were true, then it's highly unlikely that the periods of low taxes would have presaged crises and that the periods of significant economic prosperity would have come during periods of higher taxes.
And that's not all, Clav - AGAIN, what nations have the highest standards of living for the general population? Non-OPEC first-world nations, all of which are socialized democracies. Even in the ongoing economic crisis in Europe, their standards of living are significantly higher than any small-government/low-tax/low-regulation nation.
Perhaps you'd more easily grasp my meaning in terms of the marketplace. In the marketplace, it's not always the cheapest that is the best seller - it's the one that provides the best bang for the buck. So it goes with the nations of the world - sure, the first-world nations charge a lot higher taxes and have more regulations, but look at the bang that the populations as a whole gets for their taxpayer bucks: cleaner, safer, more highly-advanced, more highly-educated societies.
Note the boldfaced words - 'as a whole'. Sure, you as an individual can get a lot more for your personal money in Mexico - absolutely! But is Mexico cleaner, safer, more highly-advanced, or more highly-educated? No.
You could even say that nations are like cars - the ones with small governments are like compact cars (Kia, Chevy, Hyundai, etc.). Sure, they get you from point A to point B, they don't cost as much to operate, and their maintenance is usually cheaper. The socialized democracies, on the other hand, are like the higher-end cars (Mercedes, Lexus, BMW (and my new fav, the Tesla), etc.) - and they also get you from point A to point B, more safely, more comfortably, and in style. But they cost more.
If you want to live in Mexico, you're getting a Kia. If you want to live in the Philippines, you're getting a Tamaraw FX (horrors - don't ask). If you want to live where it's safer and cleaner, and the people are healthier and more highly educated - if you want that metaphorical higher-end car - then you're going to have to pay more.
You get what you pay for, Clav - the proof is all around you.
10 - El Bicho
"The Tea Party has a single agenda, which is to obstruct the Obama Administration."
Not exactly. It goes beyond Obama.
And what do you base the future impeachment charges on?
11 - Baronius
If I follow Tommy's thinking in the article, he's saying that President Romney will face the same hostility that President Obama has faced. If I follow Tommy's thinking in comment #3, President Romney will face that hostility because he's a black man. The Tea Party, once it's in charge of Congress, will drive out black fellas like Romney and replace them with white guys like Ryan. Unless, I guess, Ryan turns out to be black, in which case the Speaker of the House becomes president. It makes sense if you think about it.
12 - Clavos
Glenn, one more time:
You are correlating unrelated observations and saying that A is the result of B, which may well be the case, but not as you've presented your evidence, because you're taking a temporal link (or no discernible link at all, except for your assertion) and saying that it proves that the two phenomena are linked, but they aren't other than as to the time in history (or place on earth, e.g.) they occupy.
[That's just an example of one of the "proofs" you're presenting, but the same conclusion holds true for the others: The high taxes = robust economy, socialized democracies = higher standard of living, etc.
Doesn't prove your point.
13 - Clavos
In comment #2, Tommy writes, "The Romney/Ryan message is all about white, male supremacy..."
And yet, Andrea Peyser (yes, that's right, a female) notes, in The New York Post, " While Obama once held a commanding lead among the fair sex, now he’s panicking. A USA Today/Gallup poll of 12 crucial swing states last week cut Obama’s total among the estrogen set to 48 percent. Romney has 47. A Pew poll tied Obama and Romney among women at 47 percent."
What is going on here? Could it be that the POTUS' irritating habit of addressing us proles in a condescending and patronizing manner has finally come back to haunt him? On the eve of the election, no less, the female half of our divided society is finally getting fed up?
Oh, frabjous day! calloo! callay!
14 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 8, yes, Doc, you are correct, when the TEA Party saw what a big tax-and-spend president Obama was going to be. And damned if Obama didn't prove them correct!
Re: comment # 12, Clavos, well said. Glenn is quite fond of offering anecdotal "evidence" as proof of his point. Here is an article by an economist that Glenn and Tommy may find interesting. JFK got it, why can't Obama? Economics is an extension of human nature, which hasn't changed since 1960, except perhaps for vote buying.
15 - Baronius
Clavos, I can explain this to you. (I'm getting good at this.) The drop in marginal tax rates in 1981 caused a recession in 1982. The drop in 1986 caused a recession in, I don't know, 2002 or something. The drop in 2003 caused a recession in 2008. (There was no housing crisis.)
16 - Baronius
And the increasing tax rates in 1932 turned everything around lickety-split.
17 - Dr Dreadful
yes, Doc, you are correct, when the TEA Party saw what a big tax-and-spend president Obama was going to be.
How has he been this, Warren? And how would the Tea Party have known, about eight seconds after the inauguration, that this was the type of president he was going to be?
Or was it more that, by repeating it over and over and over again, the uncritical plebs would come to believe it was true?
Inquiring minds want to know.
18 - Baronius
"And how would the Tea Party have known, about eight seconds after the inauguration, that this was the type of president he was going to be?"
Well, they started after the $800 billion stimulus package, so I guess I'd say "the $800 billion stimulus package".
19 - El Bicho
Odd that they wouldn't start after any of Bush's packages. Must be a coincidence
20 - Dr Dreadful
Here's an analysis of the Obama administration's record on taxation.
Here's one on the administration's spending (from the rabidly left-wing Wall Street Journal).
I'm pretty certain Warren won't bother to read either of them, because he's quite comfortable with the narrative as explained by the right-wing spin machine. But I thought I'd put it out there anyway.
21 - Zingzing
Clavos, never quote the post. A 15 point change in the polls is unlikely. There's something fishy in it, but fishy has never caused the post to question anything as long as it fits their narrative.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You are correlating unrelated observations and saying that A is the result of B, which may well be the case, but not as you've presented your evidence, because you're taking a temporal link (or no discernible link at all, except for your assertion) and saying that it proves that the two phenomena are linked, but they aren't other than as to the time in history (or place on earth, e.g.) they occupy.
Ah, I forgot - your standards of logic are much higher than my own, not just in economics, but even when it comes to AGW, since the vast majority of the world's scientists (and 98% of the climatologists), almost all of whom have doctoral degrees, cannot present to you enough logical proof for you to agree that AGW is real.
Either that, or you've made up your mind that whatever anyone says contrary to your personal opinion must be in error. But it couldn't be that, could it? Naaah....
23 - Clavos
Well done with #22, Glenn!
A complete non sequitur!
24 - Dr Dreadful
Well, they started after the $800 billion stimulus package
Technically the Tea Party movement started as part of Ron Paul's '08 presidential campaign, but it didn't really achieve national momentum until, as I said, about 8 seconds after Obama's inauguration; or rather, 8 seconds after he signed the stimulus bill. It was a remarkable transformation from the Bush stimulus bill, which didn't seem to galvanize them nearly as much.
The first Tea Party rally I encountered was at a local university in the heart of central California farm country, where I lived at the time. My fondest recollection is of a pair of shabby-looking youths holding up a large banner explaining how affronted they were at the prospect of being asked to pay more in taxes. I remember thinking how unlikely it was that they were paying any tax in the first place, let alone that their income was above the Obama threshold.
25 - Baronius
Would you say that the $787B stimulus galvanized people 4.98x as much as the $152B stimulus?