world

Tea partiers keeping an eye on those they backed

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

We Japanese need a "tea-party" kind of poritics so we can get a stronger leader.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“There’s a little bit of expectation that they can do more than they really can do,” said Sal Russo, a California-based co-founder of the Tea Party Express.

Sal Russo is also a 40-year Republican party hack, whose career in the Republican backrooms goes back to the Nixon administration. Now he says maybe expectations are a little high. Funny how he didn't say that BEFORE the election.

Also, some activists are "dismayed" by what they see happening already. That is a bit like walking through a train tunnel and being dismayed to see a train coming at you. Of course it is happening, not sure how people can be so blind and naive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They better keep an eye on them. There are so many crazies out there on the extreme left that they risk being shot at.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's going to be entertaining watching the TP bring down the GOP.

The first smash hit will be when Congress tries to raise the debt ceiling.

If the TP gets its way, America will default on its debt obligations.

There's going to be fireworks on the Right.

Pina colada and deck chairs anyone? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PrideinJapanese: "We Japanese need a "tea-party" kind of poritics so we can get a stronger leader."

Trust me, you do not! What you need is simply fresh blood. If you could fire 90% of the current, over 70 politicians and bring in some younger, more down-to-earth people you'd see some big changes. Stop electing 'blue-blood' politicians completely out of touch with what the people want. The tea-party are ultra-right radicals, and the LAST thing Japan needs is some U-Yoku as PM to pull down what's left of the nation.

SushiSake: It is indeed. Obama hadn't been in power for two seconds when the right started screaming, "Where's the change??" and now they're cringing; not because the people they elected to reverse spending and all that are doing nothing, but because of the embarrassment at having to acknowledge the hypocrisy, and the fact that it's a whole lot easier said than done. But you watch... a stock reply to growing uneasiness and/or anger will be, "They just got into office... they need TIME to make things work and reverse policies..." etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tea Party is a stupid name. I cringe when I hear it, as it makes me think of S. Palin...yuckers on the night mare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japanese might want a tea party - type movement but really, outside of America and Australia there are no democracies vibrant or healthy enough to produce self-organizing movements like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tea Party will gradually fade away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama hadn't been in power for two seconds when the right started screaming, "Where's the change??"

How long after a Republican was in office did it take you to start screaming? I bet even before it happened. If Obama weren't talked up so much as a miracle worker maybe this sarcasm wouldn't have been directed at the Obama supporters so much. And why all the fuss over the Tea Party? Do you fear them that much?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tea Party will grow so large Democrats will ape it and eventually claim they were originators of the phenomenon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America is ripe for an awakening because of decades of obvious corruption. The Tea Party is made up of Americans who work for a living to care for their families. They are tired of picking up the tab for the leeches in our society who do not understand the concept of self-support.

The Party of Endless Entitlements and its RINO counterparts pander to those who sit around waiting for their monthly welfare checks and food stamps; they are not producers and our republic was not founded on this idea.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The tea-party are ultra-right radicals, and the LAST thing Japan needs is some U-Yoku as PM to pull down what's left of the nation."

Oh man. Talk about out of touch. radicals? For starters - the movement in America has been described as being at least 50 percent female, likely higher.The participants have jobs and families and mortgages. They don't have time for "radicalism." Good gawd, Do a simple search of the the candidates they helped get elected in the last election and what they expect of Marco Rubio (Hispanic), Alan West (Afr. Amer), Nikki Haley (east Indian, Sikh, female), or Governors Martinez ( female, Hispanic) or Tim Scott (African Amer.)

Japan could NEVER achieve this.

They do not have the diversity.

But they have every right to a grassroots citizens' movement.

There is no reason why they could not form somthing akin to a Tea Party movement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marco Rubio (Hispanic), Alan West (Afr. Amer)" I can tell you this, that these two just might be our prez and vp in the near future.... Gotta love West's shooting from the hip style.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hate the tea party all you want, the fact remains, there is a need for a new party (or parties).

Very true. The Democrats come into power, disillusionment rises. When the Republicans move back into power, the disillusionment rises again. Neither really has the best interests of the people at heart. Reducing the cost of running for office would be a good start down, but that's not in the interest of either political party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We Japanese need a "tea-party" kind of poritics so we can get a stronger leader.

Such statements as "WE Japanese" are exactly the reasons why you definitely do NOT need a 'Tea Party' or equivalent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's going to be entertaining watching the TP bring down the GOP. The first smash hit will be when Congress tries to raise the debt ceiling. If the TP gets its way, America will default on its debt obligations.

It won't be as entertaining as watching the TP bring down the arrogant, elitist Democrats. As for the debt ceiling, why not default and stop the frivolous spending? Who is going to come and collect the debt? China? The IMF? The United States isn't a 3rd world backwater, even though its Democratic leadership behaves as if it is. It is the last remaining super power. And like a 13-year-old girl, it will do as it wants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It won't be as entertaining as watching the TP bring down the arrogant, elitist Democrats

It can't happen because, unlike the Democrats, the TP-ers don't have any workable plan for moving the nation forward. It's just sad that too many people are too dumb to see that before electing the fools.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It can't happen because, unlike the Democrats, the TP-ers don't have any workable plan for moving the nation forward.

Forward? Towards what? A healthy, growing economy? No, Obama made it clear when he was campaigning that he was more interested in his (and the Left's) idea of a "fair" economy. And we're seeing that in action. More people on food stamps than ever before and rising. More people unemployed and underemployed than in several decades. More new taxes levied, and more entitlement programs. None of which could even remotely spark substantive economic growth. And this is all with Obama's (and the Left's) blessing.

Where's your debt ceiling, yabits?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Forward? Towards what? A healthy, growing economy?

During the previous era the Republicans and their business cronies last drove the nation into the ravine -- aka The Great Depression -- it took the Keynesian policies of FDR and the New Deal to produce an economy that created the most massive middle class and distributed prosperity that the world has ever seen. Such are the ultimate rewards of an economy driven towards fairness.

The right only knows how to direct massive rewards to a tiny fraction of the population: that which has led the nation into such horrible conditions TWICE in a century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, the Keynesian policies of FDR and the New Deal kept the Great Depression going with no end in sight. Only the productivity necessary for WWII created the labor market and economy the country needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No, the Keynesian policies of FDR and the New Deal kept the Great Depression going with no end in sight."

Correct. Henry Morgenthau, Sec of the Treasury under FDR, admitted this:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Keynes has always been the choice of totalitarians who seek to transform democracies for the worse

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the TP-ers don't have any workable plan for moving the nation forward.

They have an excellent plan, the best ever conceived of. And incoming Republicans read it aloud to a national audience (and to the disgust of many Democrats) earlier this month.

It is called The Constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only the productivity necessary for WWII created the labor market and economy the country needed.

And the government spending of WWII was Keynesian economics on steroids. It was almost pure government spending and borrowing with a small fraction directed towards the domestic economy.

It is no accident that the growth of the middle class was due in great part to the representation of workers by organized labor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is called The Constitution

And, irony of ironies, the "tea partiers" of their day totally opposed the Constitution when it was first presented. You see, they didn't want a strong federal government.

The historian, Pauline Maier, has written a great book -- Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution - 1787-1788 -- going into great detail who opposed the constitution and why. The arguments against the constitution are near-mirror images of today's Tea Party "patriots."

The constitution, it is worth mentioning, is not a plan for growing an economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And, irony of ironies, the "tea partiers" of their day totally opposed the Constitution when it was first presented."

That must be why you fail to identify who you imagine made up the 'tea partiers' of that day...

"The constitution [sic] , it is worth mentioning, is not a plan for growing an economy"

It is not plan for much of anything, except the very important provisions needed to keep government limited and OFF OUR BACKS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - And, irony of ironies, the "tea partiers" of their day totally opposed the Constitution when it was first presented.....

Which side do you think were the "tea partiers" of their day?

The Constitution was greatly debated until they found a version that the majority could agree on. Try reading the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the government spending of WWII was Keynesian economics on steroids.

Ah. So, according to your version of history, government spending and debt only made the Great Depression last longer, until that spending and debt was seriously increased. I guess that explains why those who criticized Bush for spending and deficits then voted for Obama to increase both exponentially.

The interesting thing is, it's not working... again.

Prior to WWII, FDR spent massive amounts of money on "busy work"; work that was designed to keep people busy, but not necessarily productive. We didn't have productivity until we had to build factories, planes, ships, tank, guns, etc., for the war effort.

And again, Obama is spending massive amounts of money on unemployment benefits, food stamps, some busy work, "green initiatives" and other non-productive bottomless pits. Where is the productivity? Where is the genuine progress? Where is the growth? Instead, food prices are rising, fuel prices are rising, while jobs and income are still low and stagnant.

Oh yeah, that's forward.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or maybe it is compassion for the less fortunate.

He also moved forward to healthcare reform to insure that insurance companies cannot reject people because of illnesses or if they operations become too expensive (where that is notorious in the USA).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And gas prices were raised near the end of the Bush era.....really?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And no. Tea partiers are even more conservative than Republicans (do not want).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or maybe it is compassion for the less fortunate.

I see and interact with the "less fortunate" on an almost daily basis. Most of them are just "gaming the system". They play on the guilt of the "compassionate".

He also moved forward to healthcare reform to insure that insurance companies cannot reject people because of illnesses or if they operations become too expensive (where that is notorious in the USA).

If those were the only reasons for the health-care reform legislation, then there wouldn't have been so much opposition (65% of those polled) to it.

And gas prices were raised near the end of the Bush era.....really?

Gas prices averaged under $1.80 when Obama took office. They're averaging over $3.00 now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gas prices averaged under $1.80 when Obama took office. They're averaging over $3.00 now."

Pay that no mind. What we really need to talk about is Sarah Palin you see :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually you have that wrong.....41% are opposed to the healthcare plan....while 40% are in for it....while the rest are undecided.

Government should take action when insurance companies have been abusing their power by continuing to reject people because of pre-existing conditions and dropping them when they need surgery.

Nearly 50 million Americans are without health insurance and that is because insurance companies refuse to take them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, I was living in the States during the Bush years...and near the end....the gas prices were over $3.00 for a while.

It is not just because of Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FDR's Social Security for the elderly was question and nearly opposed by a lot of people....and yet, it passed and greatly expanded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah. So, according to your version of history, government spending and debt only made the Great Depression last longer,

Insert the word "inadequate" in front of "government spending" and you are right. Actually, FDR started to cut federal spending from '36 as the economy was trending upwards and, as soon as that happened, the economy tanked again.

I guess that explains why those who criticized Bush for spending and deficits...

The deficits created by Bush were due mainly to unpaid-for, massive tax cuts that went to the wealthiest Americans. Just because there's a deficit it doesn't necessarily follow that the government is practicing Keynesian economics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That must be why you fail to identify who you imagine made up the 'tea partiers' of that day...

Patrick Henry, for one among a great many, was adamantly opposed to the new constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gas prices averaged under $1.80 when Obama took office.

FruitsBasketFan has it right, and you know it: In fall of 2007 gas prices approached $4.00 a gallon, reflecting a price-per-barrel for oil upwards of $125.

I guess you want to praise Bush for helping lower the price by driving the entire US economy into a deep ravine. OK, we understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Patrick Henry, for one among a great many, was adamantly opposed to the new constitution.

Was Henry opposed to ANY constitution or just opposed to some parts of the Constitution?

Many people were opposed to SOME part of the Constitution, it was a hotly debated issue. A workable compromise had been reached and eventually ratified by the majority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was Henry opposed to ANY constitution or just opposed to some parts of the Constitution?

He was opposed to any constitution since it would mean abandoning the Articles of Confederation. The "tea partiers" of that day used the Articles as the bludgeon against elitist lawyers such as Madison, Hamilton and Jay -- the same way today's Tea Partiers try to use the Constitution.

Another way of putting it is that these rabid "conservatives" always seem to wind up on the wrong side of history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - He was opposed to any constitution since it would mean abandoning the Articles of Confederation. The "tea partiers" of that day used the Articles as the bludgeon against elitist lawyers such as Madison, Hamilton and Jay -- the same way today's Tea Partiers try to use the Constitution.

That must be why Henry was such a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, which was designed to curtail the power of the federal government over the rights of individuals (aka "We the People").

You still haven't identified who you believe were the "tea partiers" of the late 1700's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You still haven't identified who you believe were the "tea partiers" of the late 1700's.

Yes I did. People like Patrick Henry, who came out in total opposition to the proposed constitution, as did a great many others. Collectively, they were called "anti-federalists" and were the reason why Madison, Hamilton and Jay had to pen all those essays urging ratification.

Perhaps the greatest difference between the anti-federalists and the Tea Partiers of today is that the earlier group could actually allow themselves to be persuaded by sound reasoning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Yes I did. People like Patrick Henry, who came out in total opposition to the proposed constitution, as did a great many others. Collectively, they were called "anti-federalists" and were the reason why Madison, Hamilton and Jay had to pen all those essays urging ratification.

Perhaps the greatest difference between the anti-federalists and the Tea Partiers of today is that the earlier group could actually allow themselves to be persuaded by sound reasoning.

OK, you believe that the anti-federalists were the tea partiers of that era. Thanks for clarifying that. Now, all you have to provide is sound reasoning that could be considered persuasive. Demanding that people believe as you do isn't persuasive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for clarifying that. Now, all you have to provide is sound reasoning that could be considered persuasive.

I believe that an intelligent person could read Maier's book and come away persuaded. After all, to persuade the anti-central-government, tea-partiers of their day, a series of 85 essays had to be penned by the brilliant minds of Madison, Hamilton and Jay. (That's how strong the opposition was to the surrender of state sovereignty by the anti-federalists.)

Today's "keep your government hands off my Medicare," anti-intellectual Tea-Partier wouldn't likely be swayed by 10x that number of brilliant essays. (Which is not meant to classify ALL Tea Partiers, but almost certainly the majority that I have witnessed giving their testimony on C-Span.)

Persuaded as to what, one might ask? That, more important than the Constitution itself -- which was never purported to be perfect by its authors -- the process leading to a better way required moving from the grossly flawed Articles of Confederation to the Consititution, and that the progress towards a "more perfect union" was not supposed to just stop at that point.

The most brilliant among the founding fathers didn't look back at some arcane political document of their ancestors and regard it to be sacrosanct, the way today's "strict constructionists" look upon the constitution. (And was the way many of the anti-federalists regarded the Articles of Confederation.) No, they had the courage to look at the Articles which bound them and propose something much better.

The minds that looked at the Articles and found serious flaws would be likened today to the people who can see the flaws in our current Constitution -- rather than believe that the Constitution is perfect and therefore the flaw must be of nature and foreordained. And the folks with the guts and tenacity to do that wouldn't be today's Tea Partiers. They have set stumbling blocks in front of themselves that no Madison could ever navigate.

I understand that some Tea Partiers see flaws in some of the Amendments and would like to remove or "reword" them so as to return the country to some mythical prior "better" time. Turning the clock back is completely anti- of what the men who wrote the Constitution were about, in my humble opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

keep a good eye on them, then vote them out if they don't perform.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan - keep a good eye on them, then vote them out if they don't perform.

That seems to be the general idea. The various Tea Parties were formed because the voters were fed up with the actions of the current political parties and the candidates that the GOP and DNC were offering. McCain? Kerry? Gore? Bush? Obama?

Both parties are being forced to adjust to the concerns of the TP's and neither party likes that. The GOP is closer to what the TP's wants, at least in their speech if not actions. The progressive DNC is much further away from TP objectives but that doesn't mean they can't change for the better.

If the 112th Congress can't get it's act together and deal with jobs, jobs, jobs and the mortgage debacle plus the out of control spending, there will be a lot more ex-politicians looking for honest work after the next election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - I believe that an intelligent person could read Maier's book and come away persuaded. After all, to persuade the anti-central-government, tea-partiers of their day, a series of 85 essays had to be penned by the brilliant minds of Madison, Hamilton and Jay. (That's how strong the opposition was to the surrender of state sovereignty by the anti-federalists.)

I believe that a sanctimonious person would believe that. (anti-intellectual Tea-Partier, indeed) 85 essays didn't vote. The federalist and anti-federalist papers presented the primary arguments for and against the brand new, never tried before, Constitution of the people and by the people.

The proposed Constitution allowed for changes to be made. Changes would be made by the elected representatives, who were chosen by the people to represent the people, and those changes would come at the request of "the people". Changes would NOT be made by royal decree dictating as if to "subjects" of a crown with no say in their own government.

People were well aware of what was proposed in the new Constitution and after much debate across the colonies, debates in newspapers, townhalls and across the fences of neighbors, the Constitutionalists won the debate and the ratification vote.

If you, or anyone else, wants to change the U.S. Constitution, all you have to do is convince a majority of the voters that change is needed and that your proposed change is worthwhile. Maier's book ain't gonna get the job done.

FYI - The Tea Party of 1773 threw British tea into Boston Harbor. The various Tea Parties of today want their elected representatives to represent the voters and are willing to vote to change elected representatives until they get what they want.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The congressmen need to realize they were put there to do what they campaigned to do... and the ones who got the support of the tea party should be reminded on every vote, that they are being watched and a strategy to remove them from office on the next election is being planned if need be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites