Why Is The Tea-Party Thriving?

I started to talk about this on the radio show the other night, but I didn't have the time to develop it fully.  David Brooks' column this morning provided me with the last piece of the puzzle, and that is some sense of empirical data that the "Tea Party" is in fact, not unpopular with independents.  Here goes.

As I've said many times in this blog, elections are won by swaying independents and undecideds (generally, the same people).  Liberal Dems and Conservative Republicans vote for their guys/gals--leaving about a third of the electorate up for grabs -- and each party's job is to win more of that group than the other.

The Tea-Party--emphasis on fiscal discipline, lower taxes, less spending, small government, free markets--is clearly much closer to the down the line Republican Party approach than it is to the Democratic Party--so when independents look for a place to vote, it is increasingly in the Republican column. Where independents generally tend to shy away from Republicans is on social issues--abortion, religion, gay rights, etc.  Don't be confused by Glenn Beck's rally--while there were Tea Partiers there--it wasn't a Tea Party function.  Tea Party rallies are ALL ABOUT POLITICS--and almost never about social issues. Glenn Beck ran a tent meeting.

The Tea Party offers socially libertarian/socially moderate independents a REASON for voting Republican.  Let's face it--social issues are NOT what Republicans are talking about in this cycle--they are talking about fiscal and structural issues, and it is resonating. The Tea Party is changing the character of the Republican Party--like a drop of dye in a glass of water.  I see the Tea Party as CRITICAL in helping the Republicans to build a governing majority, and I hope ultimately that their presence in the party leavens some Republican social issue stands. 

Obama On The Importance Of Reading The Whole Bill

Via the Daily Call:

"The last thing I will say though - let me say this about health care and the whole health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we've presented - and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your - if you want to keep the insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge."

Wow, that's quite an admission. I'm sure glad those nasty, partisan, teabagging obstructionist Republicans were there to keep the President honest, or he might have done something he may have later regretted.

Or perhaps not.

H/T to Glenn Beck for bringing this story to my attention this morning.

What's In A Name?

From the New York Times, reporting on President Obama's effort to rally House Democrats in advance of yesterday's health care vote:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit" Democratic voters "and will encourage the extremists."

It would appear now that even The One is using sexual slang to marginalize dissenting opinion.

Does this mean people can now start referring to the anti-Prop 8 crowd as "c**ksuckers" without reprisal?