Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I'll be very interested to see what direction this sends the GOP. I know there were many within the GOP who were saying that after the last election that the solution was to move the party even further to the right, and to them, this must seem like a clear signal that they were correct. My own view is that, while there are probably lots of moderates who agree with the TP and the Right that more fiscal restraint is necessary, I still maintain that the overwhelming majority aren't willing to compromise so-called "social issues" (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) even if it means having a more fiscally responsible government. I think that whoever the next GOP candidate for president is, they'll need to be able to convince those middle-of-the-road voters that they aren't trying to impose their so-called "traditional" views as it relates to those social issues, on everyone else. I think a GOP candidate who comes in preaching fiscal restraint and smaller government, but pledges to let the states and voters decide on their own about abortion, ssm, etc, has a good chance of winning. The minute they say "marriage means 'a man and a woman'" or start talking about "personhood", it's all over, and it'll be four more years for the Dems. My concern, with the Cantor defeat, is that it's going to embolden the TP and further intimidate the rest of the GOP into knuckling under to appease them. And I'm not alone, apparently: "My concern is that the Ted Cruz supporters, the Rand Paul supporters, are going to use this as an excuse to basically stop the government from functioning," Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, told MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday

Originally posted by Aarondb4

I really don't see Roe V. Wade being overturned anytime soon so how bout vote for a candidate based on fiscal and foreign policy rather than their pro-life or pro-choice status? 

"Men were commanded to put guilty parties to death who were guilty of certain acts, like homosexuality," Esk wrote, according to screenshots archived by the news site.

“So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?” another commenter asked.

"I think we would be totally in the right to do it," Esk replied. "That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott...

Originally posted by Aarondb4

 

Here we go....

 

I actually agree with everything you wrote. Glad to see things shaken up a bit and hopefully it put the holy fear into guys like Boehner and McConnell, McCain, Graham, etc. And yes, I think the only chance for the GOP is to run someone who leaves the social issues off the table. I would gladly vote for a fiscal and regulatory conservative that left the social issues up to the state.

Hopefully this primary is a sign that people are ready to vote for a candidate like that, but I am not so sure. It was amazing to me how many people I talked to in 2012 that voted based on social issues. It seems like that is everyone's fall back when they go to vote. Perhaps it is the easy way out. Rather than spend the time and do the research on the various candidates, people just pick their favorite social project and then vote based on that. Abortion, SSM, you name it, seems like nothing else matters to a lot of people, it is just easier to vote for however agrees with their view on whichever topic.

I can't believe how many people still vote based on the abortion issue. Both parties have had a lot of control over the last 14 years and the laws on abortion have gone absolutely nowhere. I really don't see Roe V. Wade being overturned anytime soon so how bout vote for a candidate based on fiscal and foreign policy rather than their pro-life or pro-choice status? 

The dems know all this, and they know that society is trending toward them on social issues so they will attempt to make 2016 all about the social issues. It will be very difficult for an opposing candidate to avoid the social issues. Sure at first they can say leave it up to the state, but the dems will keep pushing until they get the sound bite they need and then it will be all over. 

I think the best shot the GOP had at getting control back was to have full implementation of Obamacare and for the whole thing to blow up like I think it is destined to do before 2016. But they have allowed the White House to push things back past the election so now I don't know that I see much of a shakeup happening in 2016.

The other issue is older GOP voters are very stuck on social issues as well. My own parents are heavily swayed by social issues. We had a long discussion at the last Idaho State primary. Ron Paul aligned closest with their beliefs and ideas but they voted for Romney because Paul didn't take a hard enough line on abortion. Going to be hard to get people out of that rut. So if you get someone through the primary that isn't running on social issues they will still get beat in the general when the old white people don't show up to vote because the GOP guy didn't go hard line on abortion or SSM. 

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

I'll be very interested to see what direction this sends the GOP.

I know there were many within the GOP who were saying that after the last election that the solution was to move the party even further to the right, and to them, this must seem like a clear signal that they were correct. My own view is that, while there are probably lots of moderates who agree with the TP and the Right that more fiscal restraint is necessary, I still maintain that the overwhelming majority aren't willing to compromise so-called "social issues" (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) even if it means having a more fiscally responsible government.

I think that whoever the next GOP candidate for president is, they'll need to be able to convince those middle-of-the-road voters that they aren't trying to impose their so-called "traditional" views as it relates to those social issues, on everyone else. I think a GOP candidate who comes in preaching fiscal restraint and smaller government, but pledges to let the states and voters decide on their own about abortion, ssm, etc, has a good chance of winning. The minute they say "marriage means 'a man and a woman'" or start talking about "personhood", it's all over, and it'll be four more years for the Dems.

My concern, with the Cantor defeat, is that it's going to embolden the TP and further intimidate the rest of the GOP into knuckling under to appease them. And I'm not alone, apparently: "My concern is that the Ted Cruz supporters, the Rand Paul supporters, are going to use this as an excuse to basically stop the government from functioning," Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, told MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn


My concern, with the Cantor defeat, is that it's going to embolden the TP and further intimidate the rest of the GOP into knuckling under to appease them. And I'm not alone, apparently: "My concern is that the Ted Cruz supporters, the Rand Paul supporters, are going to use this as an excuse to basically stop the government from functioning," Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, told MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday

Originally posted by Jackemy1



And government is functioning now?

Peter King's concern is my hope. Before the Tea Party was hijacked by national and local consultants fielding half cocked candidates running on fringe issues, it was about grassroots activism and a strong skepticism against crony capitalism. Brat's primary victory was a grassroots victory and a rejection of the Washington political establishment....I hope the trend continues in November.

Originally posted by Jackemy1



And government is functioning now?

Peter King's concern is my hope. Before the Tea Party was hijacked by national and local consultants fielding half cocked candidates running on fringe issues, it was about grassroots activism and a strong skepticism against crony capitalism. Brat's primary victory was a grassroots victory and a rejection of the Washington political establishment....I hope the trend continues in November.

Originally posted by Jackemy1 And government is functioning now? Peter King's concern is my hope. Before the Tea Party was hijacked by national and local consultants fielding half cocked candidates running on fringe issues, it was about grassroots activism and a strong skepticism against crony capitalism. Brat's primary victory was a grassroots victory and a rejection of the Washington political establishment....I hope the trend continues in November.

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Well, that's kind of the rub, isn't it? If the Tea Party of today was anything like what the TP was originally supposed to be--ie, dedicated to smaller government and fiscal restraint, it would be a different ball game. Sadly, the TP has been co-opted as a brand name that is used by the most conservative wing of the party, running, as you said, fringe candidates on fringe issues. It really doesn't relate at all anymore to what the tea party was supposed to be. (By the way, the same think will happen to the Libertarian brand name, if they aren't careful.) Anyway, most voters aren't going to bother tryingn to parse out whether a particular TP candidate is the "original recipe" TP or the extra-conservative TP. They're going to assume they're the latter (since most them them are now) and vote another way.

Originally posted by powerman

That was my thought to... I WANT the government to stop. Because what it is doing right now is destructive. I long for the good old days of Washington grid lock... well except you have a President that continues to push the power of Executive order and just do stuff himself. A truly disfunctional government.

The only problem this country has is social issues. That is the whole thing stopping up the works. The social conservatives have ruined politics.... but that is only because I identify with a "conservative" government... which really means Libertarian.... let people live how they want, keep the government out of it, small, and responsible.

Yet...the opposite is true too... the left is no better... everyone must accept alternate lifestyles... every one must abolish traditional ideas or thoughts. You must accept and respect everything diversity... it isn't so much that I disagree with some of it... it is just the same thing the religious people have been doing... trying to cram your moral code down my throat. And the only thing that does is make the other side fight harder... and so it continues.

The TEA party itself was a very good thing in the beginning. When the "Neo Cons" got beat... all the social conservatives re branded to the TEA party. The TEA party was not about social issues... but today that is exactly what it is identified as... social conservative wackos that just want to shut down the government. Such a shame.

I am OK with some "conservative" standing up and saying enough... on issues of the government that is. Economy, government power, the size and reach of the government, fiscal irresponsibility... but yet here we are... the TEA party gets mentioned... and this thread is already on the way to being hijacked over abortion. Ridiculous.

 

Originally posted by tuwood

I agree completely, but I don't think it's as simple as removing "social issues" from politics because I'm not sure you can.

This is America and we all have the right to believe in what we want to believe in and do what we want to do as long as it doesn't trample on somebody elses rights.  Then again, do we really?
I can't walk down the street naked because it's considered socially unacceptable to the majority, so there's a law against it, but not everyone agrees
I can't smoke in a public building because it's considered socially unacceptable to the majority, so there's a law against it, but not everyone agrees
I can't marry another man because it's considered socially unacceptable to the majority (in my state), so there's a law against it, but not everyone agrees
If I'm under 18 I cannot consent to anything because I'm not at a socially acceptable age, but not everyone agrees.

So, when you really break our government down, it's the social norms that establish our guidelines for our society.  The norms become the basis for all of our laws that govern us.  If we take away our laws it then becomes difficult to maintain order in our society.  So, the social normal need to exist before the laws are made and the laws need to reflect those social norms.

I like to use the example of Murder.  Probably 99.9% of people believe that murder is wrong and should be illegal and because pretty much everyone agrees it's bad we have harsh laws against it.

SSM is something that's more in the 50% range today (maybe more), but lets say 30 years ago it was 90% of people opposed it.  Because it was something that our society didn't support there were laws against it.  However, as opinions have changed over the past several decades our society has determined that it is more acceptable and we're in the process of our laws being changed to make it legal.  Unfortuantely some states are 60/40 one way and others are 40/60 the other way so we're in that weird gray zone of determining who gets to have their "social norm" put in place.

The pro-choice/life argument is another difficult one because there's a lot of support on both sides.  One side argues that a child has rights at the moment of conception, and others argue that there are no rights until birth.  Both have the right to have those opinions, but who gets to have the "majority opinion" that creates the social law that we all get to live by?  So, we spend decades as a nation spinning in the mud back and forth because society hasn't settled on a direction, so the laws/politicians follow in kind.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I think it is a little more complex than saying we need to remove "social issues" from politics because we can't.  If you look at all the hot button social issues out there, the reason that they're hot button is because they have a lot of support on both sides and there's not unanimous support one way or the other in society.

Originally posted by powerman

]That was my thought to... I WANT the government to stop. Because what it is doing right now is destructive. I long for the good old days of Washington grid lock... well except you have a President that continues to push the power of Executive order and just do stuff himself. A truly disfunctional government.

The only problem this country has is social issues. That is the whole thing stopping up the works. The social conservatives have ruined politics.... but that is only because I identify with a "conservative" government... which really means Libertarian.... let people live how they want, keep the government out of it, small, and responsible.

Yet...the opposite is true too... the left is no better... everyone must accept alternate lifestyles... every one must abolish traditional ideas or thoughts. You must accept and respect everything diversity... it isn't so much that I disagree with some of it... it is just the same thing the religious people have been doing... trying to cram your moral code down my throat. And the only thing that does is make the other side fight harder... and so it continues.

The TEA party itself was a very good thing in the beginning. When the "Neo Cons" got beat... all the social conservatives re branded to the TEA party. The TEA party was not about social issues... but today that is exactly what it is identified as... social conservative wackos that just want to shut down the government. Such a shame.

I am OK with some "conservative" standing up and saying enough... on issues of the government that is. Economy, government power, the size and reach of the government, fiscal irresponsibility... but yet here we are... the TEA party gets mentioned... and this thread is already on the way to being hijacked over abortion. Ridiculous.

 

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I'm not saying "we need to remove social issues" from politics. Not at all. What I'm saying is that many of the far-right conservatives' position on social issues are at odds with the beliefs of many of the more moderate republicans and so-called "Reagan Democrats" whose votes they need to win. If the GOP can stomach the idea of a candidate who is conservative fiscally, but less so on some of those social issues, they've got a good shot of winning the next election. But, if they continue to allow the staunchly pro-life, anti-ssm candidates to represent the party, they're going to lose. To your point, people's views on issues are changing and the GOP's faithful adherence to "traditional family values" is going to cost them the next election just like it cost them the last one if they don't recognize that an increasingly large percentage of voters aren't interested in having some old white guy dictate morality to them. They just want to know how he's going to fix the economy, protect th environment, and keep the country safe.

Originally posted by tuwood

 

If anything the Democratic party showed the power of a young good looking candidate who can deliver a speech and rally people to a cause with Obama.  I think candidates like Cruz and Paul have that kind of appeal and will do quite well in the general election if they make it that far.
The Dems are at risk of putting up the "square" candidate this year with Hillary.  She's just an old rich white gal, much like the old rich white guy's in the past who always lost.  Obviously her other baggage doesn't help, and her husband (who I still like) does help.

Most of us here on BT do care about the issues and vote accordingly, however I think we're in the small minority overall.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by tuwood

I agree completely, but I don't think it's as simple as removing "social issues" from politics because I'm not sure you can.

This is America and we all have the right to believe in what we want to believe in and do what we want to do as long as it doesn't trample on somebody elses rights.  Then again, do we really?
I can't walk down the street naked because it's considered socially unacceptable to the majority, so there's a law against it, but not everyone agrees
I can't smoke in a public building because it's considered socially unacceptable to the majority, so there's a law against it, but not everyone agrees
I can't marry another man because it's considered socially unacceptable to the majority (in my state), so there's a law against it, but not everyone agrees
If I'm under 18 I cannot consent to anything because I'm not at a socially acceptable age, but not everyone agrees.

So, when you really break our government down, it's the social norms that establish our guidelines for our society.  The norms become the basis for all of our laws that govern us.  If we take away our laws it then becomes difficult to maintain order in our society.  So, the social normal need to exist before the laws are made and the laws need to reflect those social norms.

I like to use the example of Murder.  Probably 99.9% of people believe that murder is wrong and should be illegal and because pretty much everyone agrees it's bad we have harsh laws against it.

SSM is something that's more in the 50% range today (maybe more), but lets say 30 years ago it was 90% of people opposed it.  Because it was something that our society didn't support there were laws against it.  However, as opinions have changed over the past several decades our society has determined that it is more acceptable and we're in the process of our laws being changed to make it legal.  Unfortuantely some states are 60/40 one way and others are 40/60 the other way so we're in that weird gray zone of determining who gets to have their "social norm" put in place.

The pro-choice/life argument is another difficult one because there's a lot of support on both sides.  One side argues that a child has rights at the moment of conception, and others argue that there are no rights until birth.  Both have the right to have those opinions, but who gets to have the "majority opinion" that creates the social law that we all get to live by?  So, we spend decades as a nation spinning in the mud back and forth because society hasn't settled on a direction, so the laws/politicians follow in kind.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I think it is a little more complex than saying we need to remove "social issues" from politics because we can't.  If you look at all the hot button social issues out there, the reason that they're hot button is because they have a lot of support on both sides and there's not unanimous support one way or the other in society.

Originally posted by powerman

It is that simple. Just as you mention, these are social issues divided 50/50. We are not going to solve it. Too much energy placed in the wrong spot. the only wat to solve it is to just agree to disagree... and live and let live. Just about everyone universally agrees in "The Golden Rule" and live and let live... but that is not what politics has gotten too. We are all trying to cram our view of perfect down everyone elses throat. 

We need to work on what ewe can Federally and leave the rest to either the State or just the individual. Like immigration, economy, control.

If you don't believe in abortion or gay marriage... then don't have one. If you think people should should value diversity then by all means tell them that your self and lead by example. Enough with mandating it. If you feel college education should be free... by all means start paying for somebody's then.  Or work on getting that in your state... enough already with Big Brother Federal Government mandating how everyone should live.

Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

Originally posted by tuwood

>

If anything the Democratic party showed the power of a young good looking candidate who can deliver a speech and rally people to a cause with Obama.  I think candidates like Cruz and Paul have that kind of appeal and will do quite well in the general election if they make it that far.
The Dems are at risk of putting up the "square" candidate this year with Hillary.  She's just an old rich white gal, much like the old rich white guy's in the past who always lost.  Obviously her other baggage doesn't help, and her husband (who I still like) does help.

Most of us here on BT do care about the issues and vote accordingly, however I think we're in the small minority overall.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn That's a great point. I remember back when the TP was just getting started, it was around the same time that Occupy Wall Street was happening. There was this much-publicized meeting of the leaders of both organizations (to the extent that OWS had any actual leadership) and the two groups concluded that they actually had quite a bit of ideology in common in terms of anti-corporate welfare and cronyism.