Comments on: Approval Ratings of Obama And Top Republican Contenders

By: Captin Sarcastic

Captin Sarcastic — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:35:43 +0000

The core of the teabagger movement seems to be libertarian, which is fine with me, but I’m concerned that the core of the movement is very small, and others have joined not because they are genuine fiscal conservative, and supportive of liberty (other than the liberty to keep 3% more of their earnings), but just anti-Democrat.

I honestly wish out two main party choices were liberal and libertarian. I think that would provide the balance we need as a country. The GOP is fairly useless as a counterbalance to Democrats, mostly because they spend as much or more, and they spend a lot of rhetoric on social issues, but never actually try to change laws regarding many social issues, since, IMHO, if they legislated the issues away, they would not have those wedges with which to scare voters.

Here’s the trick though, a genuine fiscal conservative would not be afraid to say that a trillion dollars a year is too much to be spending to defend ourselves from a potential rogue missile, or a few guys with box cutters. But you see where that got Ron Paul.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:46:47 +0000

Depends on the tea-baggers you speak to. Bear in mind that most of the images of the movement have been spun by people highly unsympathetic to them.

By: b-psycho

b-psycho — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:30:21 +0000

From what I can tell, it seems clear the teabaggers are less anti-spending than they are anti-”librul”. What’s hilarious is that thanks to the fringing of the Republicans the Democrats are weighed down from actually being remotely “librul” by a chunk of people in their coalition that in more balanced times wouldn’t have been Dems at all.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:49:39 +0000

Yep — two big-spending major political parties and a bunch of neutered minor parties.
It is remotely possible that the teabaggers/Ron Paul Republicans might be able to seize the GOP. Highly, highly unlikely, to be fair. I watched the GOP in WA state block any ability of Ron Paul delegates to have any effect in the caucus/convention system last year (including closure of debate, blockage of anyone other than the party insiders knowing which convention nominees were aligned with which candidate, and outright delay until the room had to be emptied) — and this is a state where the Republican Party has no power to protect.

By: Captin Sarcastic

Captin Sarcastic — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:48:52 +0000

I think we have a very interesting electoral phenomenon in the making. For years I was a Republican, the old social liberal, fiscal conservative, but was completely disillusioned by the fact that Republicans in action were social conservatives and fiscal idiots. I became a Democrat on the basic principal that if we are going to spend like a socialist country, we may as well have the social programs to go with the spending. Both Democrats and Republicans have been big spenders, but what they spend on makes the difference for me. The healthcare debate is a good example. Republicans had no qualms about spending a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war over a short period of time, and yet oppose spending that same trillion to actually protect American lives over a long period of time.

The teabaggers seem poised to actually vote against those big spending Republicans, and if they managed to have a cohesive message on liberty, which would be decidely socially liberal, they could become a genuine alternative to the SOP GOP.

I doubt they would go in that direction however, and suspect they would be as anti-liberty as Republicans on social issues, which will probably leave them as two minority coalitions of the GOP for the foreseeable future.

It’s a shame really, because a fiscally conservative GOP without the social insanity could be a great counterbalance to Democrats. Democrats could come in and do their liberal thing, and then Republicans could come and clean up the unnecessary spending, and when they went to far, Democrats would come back, and balance could maintained.

Our current choices between spenders and spenders does not bode well for the long term.