Saturday, August 28, 2010

FROM GRASS ROOTS TO GRANDIOSE

Made the terrible mistake of reading my local newspaper while drinking iced tea.  Spewed when I read a quote from the local Tea Party spokesman saying it would support a candidate from either party who could 

"...meet the ideological requirements of the tea party." 

Now that's building a "big tent," isn't it?  Or maybe it's nature's way of telling you that you're a gas bag.

Get over yourselves.  What's the punch list of "ideological requirements up to now, 33?  

The Tea Party had this cool thing going where it was simply and straightforwardly against spending growth and higher taxes.  

THAT was an effective, grass roots organization. I guess now, you've gotta have the right abortion stance, immigration stance and position on Roger Clemens "misremembering" or just lying.  Next Ideological Conclave, guys, stake out a position on breast versus bottle, too.  Let's get as much ideological purity going here as possible.

"Ideological Requirements," my Aunt Fanny!

29 Comments:

At 7:19 PM, August 28, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where do you find the conditions these guys signed to get endorsed by the Tea Party. How come they are not on the Tea Party web site. Why don't they show the ideological test their candidates signed.

 
At 8:02 PM, August 28, 2010, Anonymous Rhonda Goodwin said...

Go to a Tea Party meeting sometime instead of taking shots from the cheap seats. Bring your Aunt Fanny with you.

 
At 8:43 PM, August 28, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought you had possibly given up political commenting when you left the public sector and had to earn every dollar as a private attorney but I seem to sense some panic in your comments.

 
At 7:21 AM, August 29, 2010, Blogger TOOKIE said...

Tony ,

Energy and numbers is a very good thing . Also a group of very informed citizens being a watch dog over governmental affairs is a great thing .

I just want to point out a pot and kettle thing , I recall local Dems tried a primary on an elected official over spending cuts in a certain department . Those cuts happened to trim the fat by getting rid of local dem family members .

 
At 9:00 AM, August 29, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, and these guys want to be the guaradians of the constitution? Read Jefferson's arraignment of King George and Parliament in the Declaration of Independence. This is exactly the kind of despotism the revolutionary founders could not tolerate.

 
At 11:44 AM, August 29, 2010, Blogger TOOKIE said...

When did abortion become a City or County issue ? As I recall Mayor Chuck led right to life marches . Now pissing away money and what is left of good will on boondoggle after boondoggle .

I think the TP and vast amounts of folks don't care anymore .

 
At 11:57 AM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1919,

You must go to a certain door, knock three times. A small peep hole will open and a man will say "Rand Paul". You must then say "The Sun Rises in the East." The man will say "Who says?" You say "Spiro Agnew." You will be admitted, must then show your secret decoder ring and exchange the secret handshake.

Make sure you get the copy with the footnotes.

Happy hunting and thanks for coming by.

 
At 11:59 AM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Rhonda,

I appreciate that but I'm confused. Will that mean the words "Ideological Requirements" were not uttered. Is that like a cosmic eraser.

Self-Righteous has already happened.

 
At 12:02 PM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

2043,

Actually my last few political comments have been directed at the Obama administration. I am completely underwhelmed by its performance.

That doesn't mean I don't recognize a self-important gas bag utterance when I see it. Nobody put a gun to this guy's head and made him say "Ideological Requirements." In fact, I'll bet it was in an email and not live talk. That's even worse because he had time to reflect on him.

Somebody needs to study some Ghandi.

 
At 12:12 PM, August 29, 2010, Anonymous Rhonda Goodwin said...

Follow the ball here. Go to a meeting. You can sit with Rif. Then see how often they talk about abortion when the subject of retiring Duesterhaus comes up Get it?

The ideological requirements aren't the fact that Steve is OK with killing babies. It's that he doesn't vote the correct way on city issues. I'll slow it down for you next time. I thought you were a little sharper than is apparent.

 
At 12:13 PM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Tookie 0721,

Couldn't agree more on the first para.

You will recall that primary fight was not ideological. It was very personal and a not a little petty. You will also recall that I was on the opposite side from most of my close friends and allies because I thought what they were doing was wrong...and stupid.

But please don't miss my bigger point. I thought the TP was a great movement when it was just fighting government waste and expansion. Now, all of a sudden, it's got a purity test and "ideological requirements". That's the kind of stuff the invariably blows up in a group's face. Not saying there won't be some successes this cycle. But you watch. As soon as you get ideological purity tests, you get arguments about who's got the inside track on the "one true faith". How'd that work out for the provincial Chi-Com Governors in the 70's or the Trotsky-ites?

 
At 12:14 PM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

0900,

Some Parallel there. I kind of like the Chi-com Great Leap Forward as the best example of the logical conclusion for demanded ideological purity.

TYFCB

 
At 12:30 PM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Rhonda,

That's all real neat and clever (and I'm sure the reference to Riff gave him a real thrill) but it doesn't change this: Your Grand Kleagle says you have "Ideological Requirements." I guess they're a secret because nobody's ever seen them. You'd think they'd be a great recruiting tool. Send me a copy and I'll post them.

TYFCB

 
At 12:40 PM, August 29, 2010, Anonymous Rhonda Goodwin said...

Call him up and ask him if you need to know. I guess we'll just see how it all plays out in November. Better get your boy's big boy pants out. He's going to need 'em.

 
At 12:53 PM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Rhonda,

I don't know who "my boy"is supposed to be but Both November and April will be interesting.

Many years ago, the estimable Lawrence O'Brien said "there are no final victories in politics." He was right. I try to take the long view. I think it's likely folks are going to vote for more financial clamps on government. That'll elevate some people and take some out. Then the pendulum will swing again and again and again. The people don't have "Ideological Requirements". They have lives and needs. Politics fits into those lives and needs differently at different times.

In other words, as I learned in a certain Arkansas Congressional race many years ago: "The Sun doesn't shine on the same dog's tail every day."

TYFCB

 
At 12:55 PM, August 29, 2010, Blogger TOOKIE said...

Now use of "Grand Kleagle" is a subtle "Your a racist" card . Now come on ..........


But alas I just watched a LaRouche guy get man handled in a video which pissed me off to no end. Soon good people will not sit by .

My first reaction to that was why isn't anyone kicking the rent a cops teeth in ? That video was an absolute abuse of power 101 guide.

 
At 6:24 PM, August 29, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Took,

Nope. It was a reference to monolithic, my-way-or-the-highway organizations. Remember the original topic is "IDEOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS."

 
At 5:32 PM, August 31, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Parties should stand for something.

So if those requirements were not "absolute purity" but just "fighting government waste and expansion" ... would that be OK?

It's just the term "ideological requirements" that bothers you, not the actual requirements?

If I were a TEA party leader giving my endorsement, I'd look for certain requirements. I like Schilling's method of making his own contract. Then I or some TEA party "leader" can decide if an endorsement is merited.

I probably miss your (experienced) point, but I hope the TEA party remains a rather amorphous ground swell, rather than become another power structure looking to make candidates bend to their will. Yet organizing around basic ideas seems necessary.

Bill

 
At 8:42 PM, August 31, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Bill,

The terminology is, itself, grandiose but I think you make a better point. The brilliance of the TP was it's fiscally conservative but otherwise "amorphous" nature. By having a punchlist of "x" number of requirements it becomes just another boilerplate organization.

TYFCB

 
At 2:19 PM, September 01, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When are we going to get you endorsement of Phil Hare?

 
At 2:20 PM, September 02, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you had any honor, you'd campaign publicly against him.

 
At 8:48 AM, September 03, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Off Topic 1419,

Hare is utterly symbolic. In two years that district won't exist and no RICO lefty will be electable in the new one. His head on a stick would be a nice war dance for the TP but, in 2010, IL-17 is barely relevant.

Aside from his incredibly unpolished rhetoric, what has Phil Hare done that is dishonorable? I understand you might disagree with some of his votes but where's the dishonor?

Are you saying anybody who votes for Phil Hare is dishonorable? Why, because they disagree with YOU?

TYFCB

 
At 6:35 PM, September 03, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Symbolic of what? Hare should be a shoe in. Guess what? He's going to lose. That's a big effing deal. That's relevant.

If you think what he's done is honorable, then dust off your taxpayer funded pension and write him a check.

Write a post telling us how you support his votes.

I'm saying you're the dishonorable one, because you most likely don't support what he stands for and you sit silent.

 
At 12:52 PM, September 04, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Elections are contests of one finite, imperfect human being against another. Why would I endorse Schilling?

I don't love either candidate in several races. If you have followed this blog and its predecessor, you know I pretty much pick specific events or concepts and talk about them. I hated the HC bill but it's the only one Hare had the opportunity to vote on. Certainly, on my issues, Veterans' care and the Mississippi River ReBuild, Hare's been a supporter and, I might add, VA support has been better since the dems took over.

Hare is just the TEA party's attainable target. He's inarticulate and unattractive so he's the obvious target. Enjoy. The district is gone in 2012 anyhow. Then you can target Congressman Sullivan.

TYFCB

ABC

 
At 5:20 PM, September 04, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congressman Sullivan, that's funny.

 
At 10:15 AM, September 05, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Step outside your bubble marshmellow man. John would have a tough run for state senate this year if he were up.

 
At 8:50 PM, September 05, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

And you already know what counties are gonna be in his district after the Decennial Census figures are published?

TYFCB and work on that spelling.

 
At 5:58 AM, September 06, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm talking about his current seat. The lines are already established. Have been for some time.

Work on that reading comprehension.

 
At 8:53 AM, September 06, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

The thread turned to Hare on 9/1.

I opined that the new district would render Hare's election this time irrelevant because his district will be gone and will look like one Sullivan can win (Rectangular instead of boomerang gerrymander).

You brought up his hypothetical "this year" election to support the notion that he could never be elected to Congress. That was the topic.

If you don't wanna talk about redistricting in 2012, OK, but don't turn it into a misreading issue. You turned your throwaway line into a centerpiece because you didn't like the other topic. Since nobody ever beaten John in his district (the Senate One) that would make him, uh, undefeated.

So your position is, if the Sullivan kryptonite opponent appears, then Sullivan would the be the victim of kryptonite. If we had some ice cream, we could have some ice cream and cake, if we had some cake.

TYFCB

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home