TEABAG!!!

[captain_slinky]

I really hope that The Teabaggers (or "Teabag Movement", or whatever they finally decide on for a name) become a full-fledged Political Party soon, along the same lines as The Libertarians, The Green Party and all of the other etceteras out there. It would REALLY help The Republican party weed out all of the more extreme members and bring some amount of focus to both factions instead of having them constantly at odds. And it would be nice to see the actual message of each party without it being muddied by the agenda of the others.

I'm still a bleeding-heart Liberal Democrat who believes in big government and even bigger government spending, but I'm excxited to see as many different opinions as possible so I can tear them apart and look down upon those who think differently than I do :)

Comments

[sasjhwa.livejournal.com]

I believe they have settled on the Tea Party. I agree that attempts to organize the independents and those who are rightly dissatisfied with both of the big parties can only be good for the country.

So I wish a very merry Unbirthday to you! Our party chairman will be pouring the tea as soon as the white rabbit arrives.

[amberlorien.livejournal.com]

Oh good god! That's not really what they're calling themselves, is it? Why don't they just join the Libertarians? Same philosophy.

[sasjhwa.livejournal.com]

They don't call themselves Teabaggers. The liberal side of the press came up with that one, or at least perpetuated it. It is pretty common for ridicule to wash over anyone who is trying to say that the two large parties are equally useless.

The problem with the Libertarians is that they have wasted their little time in the spotlight. Instead of fielding well rounded candidates they put up people like the one that ran for Washington governor a few years ago who somehow managed to make foreign affairs an issue having to do with lesbian rights. Like so many Libertarian candidate she was a one issue candidate. Gay rights, while part of the Libertarian platform that calls on government to get their fingers out of our personal lives as much as possible, is hardly the only issue that makes a person qualified or not for office. But the party would rather put someone like that up for office than to have nobody.

They have also tried to run on a very independent minded platform that ended with their message being pulled in tons of directions, thus weakening it.

The comparably large wellspring of support for Ron Paul, who is a Libertarian working as a Republican shows that if they would get organized, get on message, and get all their little splinter groups together they might be able to actually do something. The potential is there with the right person and the right message. I don't know if Ron Paul is the right person, but he has inspired a lot of other people to rise to the challenge of his platform so someone else may come along.

The Tea Party Convention was essentially designed to do just that with all the groups that have sprung up since before the last election. There are so many small groups all spouting the same message that the party is trying to organize them so their voice is louder.

I don't think that the Tea Party is that great of a name either although it is appropriate based on their platform. They believe that our Representatives are not actually representing the People, but other special interests and thus the stimulus package is a form of taxation without representation, the expressed reason for the original Boston Tea Party.

What will be interesting is if the Tea Party movement ends up encapsulating the Libertarian Party and taking it over. They get the established infrastructure and a core of very dedicated workers. If a key person rises to take control over the whole thing and has the social personality to make it appeal they could become a serious third party. It is possible that other small parties would lend their support as well if they are close on the issues. I know I would be more likely to vote for them.

[lynna12000.livejournal.com]

What we REALLY need to do is get rid of the Electoral College voting system. In this modern age, it should not be considered 'too difficult' to have each individual vote count. PLUS, we should make voting mandatory. I'm tired of people bitching and moaning about the way things are done, when they didn't even bother to vote.

If you are 18 or over, you should have to register to vote. Simplify things and make it part of the drivers license/identification card process. Take care of 2 things at once.

[sasjhwa.livejournal.com]

If the government forces you to do something they only succeed because they have the power to take away your freedom (prison) or your property (fines).

Forcing someone to register to vote and forcing them to vote are two entirely different things. You can force people to vote just as you force men to register for the selective service. The threat of going to jail is a big incentive toward compliance. We would have to authorize this to become a police state to enforce it, however, as violation of the law would require punishment of likely hundreds of thousands of people if not more who would not register as an act of protest.

Then comes the issue of forcing people to vote. A vote is a selection between two or more different ideas and values. The state, under the Constitution, doesn't have the authority to force anyone to endorse an idea that they might oppose. It can't control our thoughts. A vote is an endorsement. It is a violation of the freedom of speech for the government to tell me who I have to vote for or if I have to vote for anyone at all. There are countries in the world where the state does this but they are the the darkest of places with the smallest amount of freedom.

Such a violation of my freedom would be intolerable.

If you are tired of people complaining now, wait until you hear the complaining when someone is forced, under threat of prison to choose between two people whose ideas they hate. The government will discover very quickly why the right to keep and bear arms was put into the Constitution by the founding fathers. It was so that if the government every became tyrannical the people would have the power to overthrow it by force of arms.

Any government which tells me that I need to choose one of two people or I lose my freedom or my property (if a fine is levied instead of jail time) demands to be overthrown.

[lynna12000.livejournal.com]

I should have added that we need to abolish the two party system. But then again, abolishing the Electoral College system will take care of multiple issues as well. People would be more likely to vote if they thought that their vote actually counted.

Something has GOT to change somewhere. Legally requiring people to vote is not the most optimal way to achieve change. But the mere attempt to do so would get (most) people to actually THINK about the process.

One other thing....the Constitution does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. It DOESN'T say that we have the right to bullets. I'm sure that some bright bulb in Congress or Senate has thought of that one. It would be easier to keep an eye on both houses if more people voted.

[nani-ka.livejournal.com]

Oh thank god. For a moment there I thought i'd have to come over & bludgeon you with a fish every time Palin opened her mouth...

[captain-slinky.livejournal.com]

"Love her or hate her, you've got to admit that everybody loves Sarah Palin" - ACTUAL TEA-PARTY MEMBER QUOTE!!!

[lynna12000.livejournal.com]

I certainly DON'T love her. The more she talks, the more antipathy I feel for her. But she certainly guarantees that people know about her.

[sasjhwa.livejournal.com]

I was rather surprised that she was such a big speaker for them. She so totally toed the party line in the election and how the Republican party has changed is part of what has them in an uproar.

"Someone is willing to pay me to speak? I'll tell them what they want to hear!" I guess that's being a Maverick!

I will be very disappointed if she ends up being a leader of this movement. In a lot of ways she feels to me like one of the talking heads (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Olberman, ad nauseum) in that she talks just to rile up a certain market without really much thought beyond the sound of her own voice.