The Tea Party and Romney/Ryan--love or hate?

The general consensus is a hope that Romney isn't as bad as Obama. That's the situation we had with McCain. His defeat would have been far worse if he had not chosen Sarah Palin as his VP. I miss Jack Kemp. Jack understood our economic system. Paul Ryan worked for Jack Kemp and he gets it too. Probably few voters know this and it's a long uphill pull these next 74 days to get the word out. This grass roots smack-down by the old guard in the party doesn't help.

Doesn't that involve making compromises ?

Very good piece Vikingstar thanks fro posting.

Vikingstar's reference begins with a question:
"Does the Tea Party have a dog in this hunt?"

It does indeed. The grass roots have some grunt work to do as they build on the limited successes they had in this primary and caucus season. There is a long way to go, but they can do nothing less. They learned their lesson from 12 years ago when in Maine the old guard counterattacked at the following convention and purged nearly every conservative from the state committee. "There, that'll teach em not to speak up!" It took a decade to rebuild and get a responsible platform that addressed our state's and nation's problems. There will be no relaxing this time. We have a country to save.

Obama isn't "hopefully" worse than Romney. His is worse. He is the worst president ever in his seething resentment of American individualism and political and economic freedom, and his defiant efforts to destroy them in any way he can.When he said that he is out for "fundamental change" he meant it. His past as an Alinsky 'community organizer' trying to create chaos and disruption to tear down America out of fanning hatred and resentment is Obama.

He now runs the government and its agencies to write, rewrite and interpret regulations in law. He is wrecking the economy, which means the people he is after. He makes national policy and appoints judges to make it stick despite the Constitution. He is doing much more than what you see publicly and the damage will last for years to come. The primary and urgent task is to get rid of him. Everything else -- Romney's 'pragmatism and naivete' and consequent mistakes in political philosophy, 'tea party' strategies for influencing the Republican party, and everything else -- are secondary to getting rid of Obama now.

Hear hear, EWV,

Yup, the Tea Party can say what they want.
At the end of the day, they will vote for the better of the two, not on principle.
And encourage others to do the same.
McCain all over again.
The republicans are never going to give us someone we like and will stand behind.
I'd sooner vote for Paul Ryan or, dare I say it, Gov. Palin.

At the end of the day, they will vote for the better of the two, not on principle.

I talked to a lot of people who plan on voting for Johnson. The lesser of two evils is not going to fly this year.

That's too bad.
Rather the vote(s) went to stopping this guy.
No one I know is going that way.

That's too bad.

Yea, too bad about the Maine delegation, eh.

The Maine delegation has 0 respect from me.
Let me spell that, "zero" respect,- read my lips and all.
Snow & Collins ruined any chance I would be republican again.
Now, will the republicans bring forth a new someone I like?
Not likely, they back these two and promise a different future.
Just keep eating the better pill.
Or bitter pill.
Smile and like it.

Burdock, If you quit, they win.

At Lexington Green on April 19, 1775 two men were running home toward Woburn, Mass. Captain John Parker of the Lexington Militia asked them, "Will you stand with us?" There were hundreds of Redcoats coming with the rising sun shining on their bright bayonets.

They did not hesitate. The two Woburn men answered in unison: "We will." One of them is buried right there on Lexington Green. It's decision time in our nation again. Back then the cry was, "The Redcoats are out!"

Today the progressives are out and they are in both parties. Some of us are not going to go and hide. Will you stand with us?

Roger, you say it like I've given up.

I'm not strong on history (love it), but know the road ahead.
The road is not paved with "idealistic" grand ideas of revolution.
Heck, even Obama had that idea last time.

I'm simply a pissed off - not sure I can say that- small business type.
The left brings us hate and confusion.
The right brings us confusion, as well.
For some reason, they make you feel like you need to be centered..
For many years I was a republican, before that I was Democrat.
Funny how two Rhino's will destroy a philosophy, and completely turn people off to that idea.
Now we have the tea party.
I always thought I was Republican.
Then learned that I was maybe Conservative or maybe Libertarian.
Certainly not someone who would vote for Obama.
Back to what I said the first time.
WE tea party people/ types will vote for Romney, not because we want to.
Because, Obama is beyond what anyone would call reality.
The guy has completely changed the world as we know it.
Intentionally.
There's a lot to be said about his hate and the the hate he brings forth.
It will be years- scratch that- we will never regain as a county,.that we have lost over this guy.

We have to vote this guy out.

Roger, I don't quit,
I just have to succumb to the powers that be.
Will I back you up?
I'll stand in front of you.

Bob S Fri, 08/24/2012 - " 'At the end of the day, they will vote for the better of the two, not on principle.' I talked to a lot of people who plan on voting for Johnson. The lesser of two evils is not going to fly this year."

Either the lesser of two different evils will win or the greater of two evils will. The election is to decide which of the two viable candidates will run the country for the next four years and that is what it will do. We no longer have a choice over who the two possibilities are. The choice available to us, limited as it is, is a very real one and a very important one here in reality, whether or not anyone would prefer something else, which most of us do. The election is not for emotional self-indulgence in the name of a principle about something else. Anyone who wants to "make a statement" should make his statement and not confuse it with the role of the election. One of those two will become president. A principle must be used to decide which one of those two should be selected in the political choice before us. Regardless of all else we can say about what government should be, a principle that can't distinguish between Obama and Romney isn't worth much.

ewv has it right, as does Roger Ek.

You don't have to equate a vote for Romney with adulation for him.
A vote for Romney is a vote against the only other man who can win, the One who is carrying out a deliberate dismantling of our republican form of government and free market capitalism.

Romney cannot restore free market capitalism overnight or single-handedly.
He knows this and doesn't promise it - why promise what is not achievable?
That's something he has learned in his business career.
When you're hired to fix something that needs fixin', you present solutions that are "bold, specific, and achievable."

Not bold enough?
Maybe not to you, but ask a Democrat.

There are bolder ideas out there, but in the universe of bold ideas, Romney has set his sights on those he thinks are achievable in the here and now, which I remind people, is where we all live.

I agree ewv has it right .

We no longer have a choice over who the two possibilities are.

And that doesn't bother anyone.

That is why I will vote for the third choice.

Bob S maybe just maybe the problem is the quality of the other choices and how people see them!

Bob S Sat, 08/25/2012 - #16: " 'We no longer have a choice over who the two possibilities are.' And that doesn't bother anyone. That is why I will vote for the third choice."

There is no "third" choice. You can do whatever you want to with your ballot in an unlimited number of choices ranging from checking off the Libertarian to finger painting, paper airplanes, and a shower of chads, but the choice in the election will decide between Romney and Obama and only between them -- the "lesser of the evils" or the "greater of the evils". Which do you prefer? -- that much has already been decided (barring some unforeseen catastrophe). Like it or not it's the only choice in the election that you have. You can only make choices among alternatives possible in reality. You first choose whether or not to participate in the election as it is, the nature of which you have no control over. Objectivity does not allow for wishful thinking. A pretend vote to "make a statement" is not a meaningful vote and is irrelevant to the election except to not vote.

There is no "third" choice.

Yes there is.

You can do whatever you want to with your ballot

Yes I can, and yes I will. ;-)

Bob S
Where I commend your keeping with your principles.
I will say that there is no chance at a third party victory here.
If it we're Bush and Clinton going at it again, I'd agree with you.
We just had 3 1/2 years of Obama.
You sure you want to through you're vote away on principle?
Do you really think Romney is as bad as what we have now?
I'm certainly no Romney fan, but given the options.
Go Romney.
Rather, go for Paul Ryan.
Where do we suppose we would be if a stray Iranian suicide bomber took out our beloved president?
Biden?
Actually, Biden might be better than we have now.
More like Clinton.
I hope the next time around, I can feel brave enough to vote like you.

Burdock Farm, I consider voting for Romney or Obama to be throwing my vote away.

Well as someone who this economy has seriously hurt.
I wish you would reconsider.
But, I certainly respect your decision.
I don't see a vote for Johnson or Ron Paul an answer though.

Exactly, Bob. Others do not have a monopoly on these "you caused x to lose" arguments. Candidates attract voters, coalitions emerge, and someone wins. Which is not to say the "spoiler effect" isn't real. It is simply not accurate to say, given 3 candidates, that the one with the smallest amount of votes "caused" the candidate with the largest amount of votes to win simply because they tended to like the candidate with the middle number of votes more, but ultimately chose #3.

A 3-way race simply means that a winning strategy is to form "big tent" coalitions in the attempt to win big. This is usually exactly what happens, and the third party candidate is basically irrelevant to the outcome. Also, to make rules that are hard on third parties, ensuring that there are only two big-tent coalitions under normal circumstances. Check also. At the end of the day, the only strategic conclusion you can safely make is that failing to bring the necessary coalition together is a losing strategy. If you are going to assign causation, it makes more sense to place it on each candidate, for whether he or she wins, or not.

After all, the candidates are ultimately responsible for appealing to voters -- they do most of the talking. Appealing to the most voters "causes" a candidate to win. The fact that there is some parallel universe where one group might have voted as a different group prefers, does not imply, for example that people who cannot bring themselves to vote for Mitt or Obama, will cause Obama to win.

I'm not saying it won't happen. In fact, I have have argued that it probably will happen. I'm saying that causal thinking, i.e. blaming a minority of Ron Paul voters for the fact that Romney couldn't convince them to vote for him, is a very simplistic, one-sided, explanation that ultimately holds no water. We all just have to vote our conscience, and we will see what the outcome is.

If one R wants Romney to win.
If another R/or RP one doesn't.
If Romney looses.
I can't blame those who didn't vote for him.
So I cant blame them , for me!holds a lot of water .

Nice rationalization but just wrong.

Kudos on your response, Burdock.

Bruce, you're no philosopher. Your response seems fairly incoherent to me, maybe you would like to restate it with more clarity?

Part of me would like to demonstrate in a more technical way that a naive notion of causality rapidly leads one to take absurd positions, which is really a 101 topic in philosophy... however I suspect a technical argument of that nature would lead people to want to poke their eyes out rather than read it, as well as being a tangent for our purposes. So let's agree to disagree, and I'll agree to leave my views on that particular point largely undefended for the moment.

I will say two things:

First, one may recall that I used causal language in regards to my argument about Staples and Chianchette. This fits the definition of causality much more closely, in that a specific chain of events was identified that may change the outcome of the election. But even this is a weaker sense of causality than the sense in which a bunch of voters acting in parallel on election day certainly "causes" a candidate to be elected. Ergo, I don't blame Staples for how individuals vote; I simply attempted to provide an explanation of a possible sequence of events. To single out the "blame" for an outcome you don't like on a single candidate or his supporters is a one-sided view of things. Each voter has just as much a share in the overall outcome as the other, not just the RP voters.

Second, you are welcome to blame anyone for anything. You are of course welcome to blame RP supporters for not voting for Romney. It's just that, as an argument, it has no more weight than my blaming you for not voting for RP. Which is to say, none. Why don't we stick to substantive points about the candidates rather than "blaming" people for voting their conscience?

Burdock Farm Sun, 08/26/2012 #20: "Bob S Where I commend your keeping with your principles. I will say that there is no chance at a third party victory here."

Principles are supposed to be for making choices in reality among alternatives that are possible. A "principle" that can't distinguish between Romney and Obama, and defies the fact that only one of those two will win the election, is worthless, not commendable. Elections are about deciding who will win the office, not registering what else one would have preferred. A vote for a viable candidate is an attempt to influence which of the possibilities will be realized, not an endorsement out of that context. Obstinately adhering to the non-real, evading the fact that a vote for a miniscule third party candidate is not meaningfully participating in the election, is less than commendable. Stamping one's foot at reality is not acting on principle.

"Philosophy 101" rationalizations aside, the cause of the outcome of an election is those who vote the way they do. All of them. The reasons why an Obama voter does not support Romney are different than those who don't vote for either. So what? The Obama voters are hopeless. There is nothing wrong with focusing on those who should know better than to punt the election in the name of a "principle" that is destructive on their own premises acknowledging which is the "lesser of the evils".

A "principle" that can't distinguish between Romney and Obama, and defies the fact that only one of those two will win the election, is worthless,

I can distinguish between Obama and Romney, I just don't want either of them. I realize that one of the two will win because of our corrupt system, but I refuse to lower myself to that level. What I don't understand though, if one of the two are going to win, why are you so concerned wiith the way I vote?

evw, thanks for taking my point seriously. I heard on the radio today that Olympia Snowe is saying that abortion could cause Romney to lose the election (paraphrasing, cannot remember the exact words). I'm not advocating abortion here.. what I'm getting at is that there are many different constituencies that could change the election outcome. Singling one of these out is the equivalent of saying that 6 million Ron Paul supporters gets to pick the President. I certainly don't feel like I'm picking the President. It is the totality of these many pluses and minuses across many constituencies that determines a candidate's success.

Bob:I can distinguish between Obama and Romney...

Couldn't resist posting this, Bob :) Distinguishing them seems to require a zoom lens.

Voter: ...are you going to do the same thing on the national level?
Romney: Absolutely...

The Tea Party people in my circle of political friends are all voting for Romney.
And these are very active Tea Party organizers.
They live and act in the here and now, or what ewv calls "the real."