The Republican Party is dead. Anyway, that’s what some of the gang at the Oregon Catalyst site are saying – and they couldn’t be happier about it.
“The Republican Party is dead,” proclaims poster Jerry Dawson. “Goodbye. Farewell. So long. Hasta luego. The sad display of the tired, old, out-of-touch, feeble, eviscerated, brain-dead, oafish, thick-witted, witless, moronic, vacuous, self-centered Republican guard standing tall against Christine O’Donnell spelled the end of the Grand Old Party.”
Dawson was rejoicing over Tea Party darling O’Donnell’s victory in the Delaware Republican Senate primary against GOP establishment candidate Mike Castle, a nine-term congressman who was once widely considered a shoo-in for the nomination.
O’Donnell’s background is sketchy and her opinions are even sketchier – among other things, she maintains that creationism has just as much scientific evidence behind it as evolution, and has equated masturbation with adultery; even Karl “Turdblossom” Rove once described her as “nutty”. But no matter: She sticks to the far-right party line and Sarah Palin endorsed her, and that’s good enough for the Tea Partiers.
O’Donnell’s win in Delaware was only one in a string of victories the Tea Partiers are celebrating. In New York, Carl Paladino knocked off the GOP establishment choice, former congressman Rick Lazio, to capture the gubernatorial nomination. “New Yorkers are fed up,” Paladino declared in his victory speech. “Tonight the ruling class knows. They have seen it now. There is a people’s revolution. The people have had enough” – strange sentiments coming from a multimillionaire developer.
Other Tea Party candidates have knocked off the party establishment choices in Florida, Kentucky, Utah, South Carolina, Nevada and Alaska.
The Tea Party movement appears not to have taken over the Republican Party in Oregon yet; gubernatorial candidate Chris Dudley seems like a fairly moderate guy, and Senate candidate Jim Huffman, while an orthodox movement conservative on economic matters, is far from being an outright nut case like O’Donnell or Nevada’s Sharron Angle. But it’s probably only a matter of time.
When the whooping and hollering over their primary victories dies down, the freshly brewed Republican / Tea Party must get down to the task of winning general elections. And that could turn out to be a bit tougher.
Before the great elephant stampede to the right, the Republicans were considered to have a good shot at taking back control of the House and maybe the Senate in November. They even hoped to knock off the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. But the victories of Angle and O’Donnell have suddenly turned Reid and Chris Coon, the Democratic Senate candidate in Delaware, into front-runners, and the GOP’s chances of winning 10 additional seats to gain a majority in the Senate have dimmed.
The Tea Partiers don’t understand it, living as they do in a reality-free zone bounded by Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, but their views are far, far outside the American political mainstream. In a just-released CBS News / New York Times poll, only 19% of those questioned said they supported the Tea Party movement; 63% said they didn’t, and 18% didn’t know. Similarly, the poll found that only 21% held a favorable view of Sarah Palin, while 46% were unfavorable and 33% were undecided. Only 12% said a Palin endorsement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate; 37% said it would make them less likely.
The Tea Partiers like to point to the slipping approval numbers of President Obama (45% according to the latest CBS / Times poll) but it’s not a slam dunk that disapproval of Obama will translate into votes for extreme right-wing candidates, especially in moderate-to-liberal states like Delaware and New York.
Some of the Tea Party enthusiasts don’t even seem to care. As one of the comments on Oregon Catalyst puts it: “I would rather lose with my PRINCIPLES intact. Then Win as a RINO [Republican in Name Only] with none.” The grammar and spelling won’t win any prizes, but he makes his point clearly.
All this should not really be surprising. Historically, the Republican Party has tended from time to time to make an abrupt hard right turn and go careening over a cliff. The most notorious example in modern times was the presidential nomination in 1964 of Barry Goldwater, who went on to get crushed by Lyndon Johnson. Eventually, though, the GOP always has returned to its senses and sent the loonies back into the closets they emerged from.
I sincerely hope that after the Tea Party fever subsides, it will happen again. This country needs the ideological balance a rational, credible conservative party can provide.
This article appears in Sep 16-22, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Nothing good, I say, can come of this.
Since when has the Republican Party been anything but a sock puppet for the rich? It affirms the feelings of the base in return for their gullible blindness.
“Nothing good, I say, can come of this.”
If it keeps the Republicans from gaining control of the Senate, that will be a good thing.
“Since when has the Republican Party been anything but a sock puppet for the rich?”
I believe the last time was during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.
But seriously: There’s a difference between being a right-winger and being an outright wingnut.
Now you now call these patriotic Americans “Tea Partiers” rather than “Teabaggers.” Nice to see you finally have some modicum of respect and manners. You still have a long way to go.
“Now you now call these patriotic Americans “Tea Partiers” rather than `Teabaggers.'” The adjective implying that these folk are somehow more patriotic than, say, liberal Democrats or members of the Green Party. Like folks who live in rural West Virginia towns are realer Americans than, say, people who live in New York City.
Jack, there was no adjective, noun, verb, adverb, predicate, or dangling participle that indicated Tea Partiers are any more patriotic than anyone else. It’s only your own sense of shame/guilt/paranoia or whatever in your own attitudes that makes/creates such an inference.
I’m tired of the vitriol piled on these teaparty folks, particularly when much of it comes from those who believed they had a similar obligation 40 years ago to protest against a government in which they did not believe in. The big difference today is the absence of obscenity, violence, and destruction.
Today’s teapartiers are much the same as yesteryear’s “silent majority” except that they are not silent anymore. “That’s a fact Jack.”
Well, okay, the left of 40 years ago was accused of being unpatriotic – a weaselly charge — but no such charge has been leveled at the tea partiers. So what was the reason for adding “patriotic” to the sentence? What function does it serve?
Critic: You’re trying to be cute, but we know what’s implied by the application of the word “patriotic” to the Tea Party gang. It’s the same when Sarah Palin refers to her supporters as “the real Americans” — the implication being that anyone who doesn’t support her is not a “real American.”
As Jack notes, the right was playing this “patriotism” game 40 years ago. Way back in the 1940s and ’50s, right-wingers like Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon were using the “unAmerican” label to smear their critics.
“So what was the reason for adding “patriotic” to the sentence? What function does it serve?”
Well, Jack, no one has a corner on patriotism. If you and HBM want to think that its code, then go ahead.
The reason I used “patriotic” was to describe an ever increasing number of people who by most accounts work hard and who conduct themselves at these rallies in a very orderly manner, respecting laws, property, institutions and those who disagree with them. For some reason, I don’t think you’ll see the liberal slugfest/thugfest that was the Chicago Democratic convention of 1968 coming from the Tea Partiers.
Tea Partiers are consistently called extreme right wingers, but I don’t think you’ll see them participating in the violence and destruction that consistently comes from extreme leftwing wackos at WTO conferences or militant enviro-nazis.
I would call anyone or group that comport themselves in the manner thus far demonstrated by the Tea Party in the advancement of their beliefs, values, and political agenda as “patriotic.”
You and HBM need to grow a thicker skin.
Oh, you meant “well-behaved.”
OK, Jack. Whatever you say. The “well behaved” Tea Partiers and all those others who are not Tea Partiers and thus less “well behaved.” Is that the code word for today? I have some ink blot pictures for you to interpret.
Seriously? You use the word “patriotic,” redefine it to mean people who “… who conduct themselves […] in a very orderly manner, [while] respecting laws, property, institutions and those who disagree with them,” and claim /I’m/ the one using code words?
All too often the right uses code words like “unAmerican” and “unpatriotic” to mean, “those who disagree with us.”
If that was not your intent, then I apologize for the nit-pickery. But after watching the right re-code those words, over and over and over, I’ve gotten a little tired of it.
It’s not a lot different from what you said: “I’m tired of the vitriol piled on these teaparty folks, particularly when much of it comes from those who believed they had a similar obligation 40 years ago to protest against a government in which they did not believe in.”
“For some reason, I don’t think you’ll see the liberal slugfest/thugfest that was the Chicago Democratic convention of 1968 coming from the Tea Partiers.”
I was there in 1968 (as a reporter). Almost all of the thuggery was perpetrated by the Chicago police force. Mike Wallace and Dan Rather were both assaulted by police on the convention floor itself. The Walker Report subsequently described what happened as a “police riot.” From what I saw, I’d say that was an apt description.
Anyway, most of the tea partiers appear to be too old for physical violence. They prefer to hold up racist signs and shout racist epithets.
“Anyway, most of the tea partiers appear to be too old for physical violence. They prefer to hold up racist signs and shout racist epithets.”
If you’re referring to the alleged shouting of racial epithets at certain Congressmen as they walked up the stairs of the capitol building, that has been totally debuncted (sp?). In fact, there is $100,000 offered to anyone proving with an audio tape to the contrary. Anyway, there will be fringe nut cases at any political gathering.
It is also well known that Tea Partiers routinely police themselves at their rallies/protests to eliminate trouble makers who might display a racist slogan. It is also well known and documented on video that it just as likely that the lefties are the ones routinely showing up at these gatherings with these racist signs and slogans trying to gin up an altercation, but to no avail. I haven’t seen violence from these Tea Party gatherings and these folks aren’t old (especially compared to HBM).
As for your experiences in 1968, HBM, you prove my point as you experienced first hand in Chicago what happens when you disagree with a Democrat controlled government.
“It is also well known and documented on video that it just as likely that the lefties are the ones routinely showing up at these gatherings with these racist signs and slogans trying to gin up an altercation, but to no avail.”
Yeah, right, it’s all a sneaky plot by the treacherous liberals to make the “patriots” look bad. Whatever.
“these folks aren’t old (especially compared to HBM).”
Actually we’re both in the same general age group: “Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men.” Source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289821#ixzz1074r2pOe
“As for your experiences in 1968, HBM, you prove my point as you experienced first hand in Chicago what happens when you disagree with a Democrat controlled government.”
It was Mayor Daley’s government that was responsible for the police riot in Chicago in ’68, and many, many Democrats nationwide condemned the police behavior. I will never forget Sen. Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut taking the podium to denounce “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago” while Daley yelled “F–k you!” at him.
Oh, I can’t help myself.
“It is also well known that Tea Partiers routinely police themselves at their rallies/protests to eliminate trouble makers who might display a racist slogan.”
If ever there was a group that needed to be on constant vigil for this, it’s the Tea Partiers. They share too many genes in common with your common unreformed flat-out racists to be surprised if any such were to show up. First cousins.
Hey — 40% of me is 55 and older, and only 22% of me is younger than 35. The old man told us that we have Choctaw heritage, but I’m more than 79% white. I fit the profile! I should be a tea partier!
Nope. Sorry. I can’t do it. Tea Partiers want their country back. I want my country forward.
“Tea Partiers want their country back. I want my country forward.”
ZINNNNNG! Beautiful!
Thankee. But I won’t lie to you: it’s not mine. I got it off a bumper sticker. It is, however, exactly how I feel.
HBM: “It was Mayor Daley’s government that was responsible for the police riot in Chicago in ’68.”
Exactly what I ssid. Look what happens when go up against the Democrat controlled government machine. Obama learned at the knee of the current Daley. Chicago thug politics are alive and well residing in Washington.
Jack: “Tea Partiers want their country back.”
Jack, HBM wake up: They don’t want their country back… They are the country.
Oh that’s great, Critic…you really got’em with that one, Critic….ZIIIIING, BAMM. Critic, you scored there.
HBM/Jack: you guys go have your lovefest. I have to read up on HBM’s latest rant on how these poor government workers are faring these days.
Can’t help yourselves, can you? People who don’t agree with rightwingers are unpatriotic, unAmerican; people who don’t turn out for Sarah Palin are not “real” Americans; and Tea Partiers are “the country,” which means that those not aligned with them are anti-country.
Who came down from the mountain and anointed your vision of the America the only real one?
Y’all enjoy your hatefest, now.
How’s that angry-hatey thing workin’ out for ya?
The confluence of current ‘conservative thought’ (a la Tea Party and its punditry supporters) and racism is easily demonstrated: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38777&page=1#c1. Human Events is a website that touts itself as ‘leading conservative media since 1944.’ I stumbled across this blog and when you read the comments, you get a snapshot of where the heads of the people who go there are at. The comments–particularly those from the Great Northwest, it turns out–are as offensive as any that would be found at a KKK ralley.
Site response: Even though flagged, they remain a month later.
Reader response: ignored, blamed on liberals, or mildly censured as acceptable but better held in private so the other side doesn’t know.
Glen Beck–that master of disguise and dress-up himself, now claims to be an outsider and appears embarrassed by the Tea Party, their costumes and their signs. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/outsider-glenn-beck-asks-tea-partiers-quit
Yes, the Republican establishment realizes they have a tiger by the tail and don’t know how to let go. But as the tortoise heard from the scorpion as he sank dying in the water, ‘It’s my nature–I can’ help it.’
Democrat or Republican–conservative thought and tradition has been firmly rooted in racism for the last two hundred years. It’s their nature…