OT: Talk me out of my anti-partisian views.

[sd_matt]

What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.[/quote]

I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.[/quote]

I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.[/quote]

I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.[/quote]

I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.

[briansd1]

[quote=sd_matt]What I was saying about the third party earlier is that it is a good investment of sorts. In the short run you cause one party to lose but hopefully in the long run you cause that party to learn it’s lesson.

Love em or hate em this appears to be what the Tea Party threatens to do to the Republicans.

When you argue that you “cause the other side to win” you are thinking short term.[/quote]

I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]

Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.

But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)

The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)

Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.

Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.

‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]

Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.

But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)

The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)

Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.

Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.

‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]

Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.

But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)

The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)

Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.

Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.

‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]

Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.

But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)

The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)

Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.

Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.

‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=briansd1]I’m waiting to find out that the long term strategy of the Tea Party is.[/quote]

Well personally, I doubt the Tea Party has a viable long term strategy. They will almost undoubtedly be absorbed back into the Republican party before a couple of years and will periodically resurface but will be about as important as “The Contract with America”.

But I think sd_matt has a very valid point that third party movements that gain momentum have an impact on the two primary parties. (And depending on details that’s a either a good thing or a bad thing)

The irony of this to me is that I love strategy, (to me politics is more entertaining than a football game!) and the Tea Party has presented an incredible opportunity to the Republicans. (Although they won’t be smart enough to recognize it and take advantage of it)

Despite all the rhetoric and debate you see on sites like this one, Americans are largely a middle of the road group, and they are often willing to accept compromises. Consequently if the two parties split into three parties, the party that could grab the middle ground would dominate for years. Now the trick is to split your party and yet still maintain enough votes in the segment that moves to the middle. In the past this was probably impossible, but nowadays there are so many independents that I think this could be doable. If the Repubs took this opportunity to dismiss all the right wing kooks off to the Tea Party, and then run to the middle, they could become the dominant party.

Of course it would be tricky and take some pretty strong leaders who could push the real conservative core under the bus while rallying the independents. And there’s always the danger that you would get squeezed in the middle and lose out. But I think it’s doable.

‘Course it’s all just speculation because the Repubs haven’t got a charismatic leader (a Ronald Reagan or JFK) these days and without a strong leader I don’t think you’d succeed.

XBoxBoy

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.[/quote]

Agree 100%, Allan.

IMHO, the extreme partisanship we’re witnessing in the U.S. is a well-crafted tool that’s being used to control people and to divert their attention away from what really matters — where is the money going to and coming from? Who is pulling the strings…how, and why? We need to look beyond today and really examine what the long-term effects of today’s actions will be.

We need to stop bickering with one another and start holding our leaders accountable for their actions, and we need to stop paying attention to words, promises, and campaign slogans.

Unfortunately, I just don’t think the American electorate is up to it right now. There are small glimmers of hope, though, as at least some people are beginning to question what’s going on.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.[/quote]

Agree 100%, Allan.

IMHO, the extreme partisanship we’re witnessing in the U.S. is a well-crafted tool that’s being used to control people and to divert their attention away from what really matters — where is the money going to and coming from? Who is pulling the strings…how, and why? We need to look beyond today and really examine what the long-term effects of today’s actions will be.

We need to stop bickering with one another and start holding our leaders accountable for their actions, and we need to stop paying attention to words, promises, and campaign slogans.

Unfortunately, I just don’t think the American electorate is up to it right now. There are small glimmers of hope, though, as at least some people are beginning to question what’s going on.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.[/quote]

Agree 100%, Allan.

IMHO, the extreme partisanship we’re witnessing in the U.S. is a well-crafted tool that’s being used to control people and to divert their attention away from what really matters — where is the money going to and coming from? Who is pulling the strings…how, and why? We need to look beyond today and really examine what the long-term effects of today’s actions will be.

We need to stop bickering with one another and start holding our leaders accountable for their actions, and we need to stop paying attention to words, promises, and campaign slogans.

Unfortunately, I just don’t think the American electorate is up to it right now. There are small glimmers of hope, though, as at least some people are beginning to question what’s going on.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.[/quote]

Agree 100%, Allan.

IMHO, the extreme partisanship we’re witnessing in the U.S. is a well-crafted tool that’s being used to control people and to divert their attention away from what really matters — where is the money going to and coming from? Who is pulling the strings…how, and why? We need to look beyond today and really examine what the long-term effects of today’s actions will be.

We need to stop bickering with one another and start holding our leaders accountable for their actions, and we need to stop paying attention to words, promises, and campaign slogans.

Unfortunately, I just don’t think the American electorate is up to it right now. There are small glimmers of hope, though, as at least some people are beginning to question what’s going on.

[Author]

Posts