Sure thing Chatt_man, the most serious question is: Will the Tea Party people be effective at influencing Romney.
I have my doubts. If Romney can get their support once, then he's likely got enough on board that he can ignore most of the pleas from them.
I think most will go soft after seeing an (R) in the White House. W spent and grew the government more than anyone before him - where were the calls to turn back? Who was marching in the streets and plazas about the debt?
Trying to influence them after they have the seat of power is very hard to do. Time will tell. But the track record doesn't make me optimistic. For that reason I think Romney may be a 45 mislabeled as a 22. The size and powers of government will grow under Romney, as will the debt. Talk is cheap, actions are the only gauge. We'll see in 2014 where the economy is, GDP to Debt ratio, etc. I hope to be surprised.
I think GJuster points out the biggest problem with the Tea Partiers. The very reason they aren't going to be effective.
They are too focused on one battle, dso it is unlikely they will win the actual war.
If Romney wins in November most of the TP will pat themselves on the back, say that Obama is gone and all is well now. Of course Romney is barely better than Obama - so what is really won?
It's like playing roulette but claiming you have better odds because you opted for a 22 instead of the 45 caliber.
A Romney win tells the GOP that it can keep putting up marginally better candidates and still win.
The TP looses the war, but yeah sure - they got Obama out of office. Meanwhile TARP voters like Ryan and others are still comfortably in office. Maybe even MORE empowered! The TP momentum will be gone allowing Romney et al just keep doing the same spending that George W Bush and Obama have done like their predecessors. The national debt still climbs - we all loose.
Eyes on the war, letting Romney win by holding your nose just means you're a sell out and prolongs the chance for real meaningful change.
I am reminded of this graphic
Some seem to have skipped over the point. That people who want ease of voting may very well be too "busy" to be making informed votes. This is not about electing cheerleaders on a high school squad after all.
Lkeithlu got it loud and clear.
"Which is worse, uninformed voters or misinformed voters?"
Our founders clearly wanted people to be educated and informed, but today most people just look for the party label. Which is often mislabeled. I really do wonder what would happen if people went to the polls and only names of candidates where listed, no party labels. Then people would at least have to have paid attention to the people and not sheepishly follow some party shepherd.
And Librul, geesh. Going to a church to vote upsets you that much? There don't seem to be enough public buildings to hold elections; what do you suggest?
Sorry bub, you can't pigeon hole me into some group you hate just so you can dismiss me in total.
You accuse me of being selfish? What, selfish with my money? But who are you to be selfish with other peoples money?
You have no idea whether I'm poor, middle class or rich and you don't know if I donate 5%, 10% or 20% to charity.
I'm beginning to think the question on who is stupid... well shall I say "Look in the mirror" to you?
If you like quotes in Latin, try this one from the times when Latin was actually in use:
"A hasty judgment is a first step to recantation."
P.S. Several studies have shown that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do. Even poor conservatives in states like Mississippi, they give more than their liberal counterparts.
So your comment about "selfish right wingers" appears to be wildly inaccurate! It's even noted that "selfish right wingers" donate more blood than those bleeding heart liberals.
Savage is a lout, I never listen to Rush or Hannity. It just amazes me how some people think they no so much, but in reality they seem to fall flat. I can think for myself, no talking heads required.
Ah, "Money Can't Buy Happiness" they say; unless it is government money.
Heaven forbid these people be happy and content with their skills, few worldly goods and relying on their friends and family.
Surely they'll be better off with free Obamaphones and other things paid for by reaching into other peoples pockets. LOL
Sure, he can ask for a retraction. But I thought that was laughable, as the editor has pointed out the fallacy of Alexanders request, except where he noted the correction (5, not 2).
Lamar should have better things to do with his time. From what I gather of his voting he could be doing a LOT better by focusing on all this fluff in DC that keeps good people down and props up cronies.
Maybe he'll take a queue from Jefferson, a wise politician "I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it." TJ never responded to any of the wild or true claims from newspapers. But then again he was wise more than he was a politician.
Nope, I have plenty of my own faults. Honestly we all do; don't we.
One of mine is replying to comments of people who just banter about because they can't form a rational response. Forgive me for pointing out the static around here. At least you have proven you can make a rational response and you called me out on it. But then you wrongly slotted me in with all the conservatives. Really I am not.
In all actuality most conservatives probably don't really fit a definition of conservative and most "liberals" probably don't fit a definition of that either.
We're all individuals! Once we rise above the stereotypes and labels, we can get down to nuts and bolts to discuss an issue. Or some will choose the easy path; they will sit back and name call or make snarky comments leaving the real issue unaddressed.
Your move sir.
"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
Eleanor Roosevelt (also not a conservative)
P.S. Why can I address the senator? Well he CHOSE to be in a public office. So yes indeed he should expect thousands of people to tell him what to do. That is the nature of the job for all Public Servants.
And did I do anything but request he take on what he pointed out - that there are many unnecessary EPA regulations. Would you prefer someone to NOT correct things that aren't working well?
So far 1 accolade welcoming a change from sycophancy and 2 demeaning comments. Mostly name calling and zero actual refuting of facts.
If you dislike the letter don't you have something more than emotional words? How can Easy123 base the mindset of 50 million conservatives on one persons 3 sentence post?
Newbulbs writes that the editor acts like he's above reproach. But I thought the editor addressed his previous error in this very piece (there were 5 GOP votes, not 2). So it seems he's on the up and up when it comes to admitting a mistake.
Now everybody loves free speech, but neither Easy or Newbulbs seem to be concerned that a federal senator is trying to tell a public paper what to do and accusing them of libel (the misplaced comment on felony)!
Lamar does admit that the EPA has 2 minutes of good regulation compared to 1,438 minutes in the rest of the day when the broken clock is still broken. I think the take away here is that Lamar should put his actions where his words are; make up for any small faults and actually cull more of the EPA rules that are unnecessary
C'mon Lamar, show us that you can do it.