Have They Had Their Fill of Tea?

Too much tea?
Filistro has written copious prose about the Tea Party, and her belief in its destiny to rend the Republican Party in two. But right now, it seems that the Republican Party has had its fill of tea.
We saw how the Tea Party cost Republicans as many as three Senate seats this last election cycle, by replacing leading moderate Republicans with extremely conservative Tea Partiers in the primary elections. Three seats would have been enough to have 50 Republicans, and possibly a defection on the part of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), which would have handed the Senate to the Republicans.
And, more recently, we saw how the Tea Party scuttled several deals on the national debt, contributing in part to the recent Standard & Poor’s downgrade in United States debt.
To party leadership, this is terrible. When their chosen candidates don’t win the primaries, and then the resulting Republican on the ballot for the general election loses, they lose control. After all, how much power can they have over members who caucus with the other guys? But even when their chosen candidates don’t win the primaries, and then the resulting Republican on the ballot for the general election wins, they still lose control. After all, how much loyalty do members have for party leadership that opposed them in the first place, and gave little to no support in their ultimate election?
And so the O part of the GOP is fighting back.
In New Hampshire this week, the state Republican Party chairman, a Tea Partier, is about to be ousted. In Virginia, George “macaca” Allen is beating Tea Party favorite Jamie Radtke in the latest PPP poll by a ten-to-one margin. In Utah, Representative Jason Chaffetz was tapped by the Tea Party to do to Senator Orrin Hatch what Senator Mike Lee did to Bob Bennett. He announced this week that he’s not going to even try. We’re starting to hear rumblings of Olympia Snowe, the most liberal of the Senate Republicans, predicted to easily shake off her Tea Party competition in Maine.
All of this has led me to wonder…has the Tea Party reached its end with the Republican Party? And, if so, what’s next? Will they sit quietly and allow the Republican Party to return to the party of the old guard? Will they stomp off and formally form another party? What do you think?
Related articles
- Tea Party Rage Dies (thedailybeast.com)
- Voters are mad as hell at Congress (capitolhillblue.com)
- Americans dislike the Tea party more than gays, Muslims, atheists, liberals (dangerousminds.net)
- ‘He’s Gone’: New Hampshire Senator, Congressmen Support Removing Tea Party-Affiliated State Chairman (huffingtonpost.com)
- Goliath smirks: The Orrin Hatch Machine shuts down a challenger (michellemalkin.com)

This entry was posted by Michael Weiss on August 27, 2011 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
-
#3 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#4 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Was reading on RedState about a massive falling out between the VA TPer J. Radtke and the head of the site, Erick Erickson. Not sure of all the details, but sounds like she may have gone “Angle” and Erickson decided to drop his support and now she’s PO’d.
Surprised about Chaffetz. I like him. Must be some backroom deal Hatch gave him to not run.
-
grog again, most people are not payin’ close attention right now to presidential politics and current Rep flavors of the month are more celebrities than carefully looked at presidential hopefuls.
Much like mama grizzly and we all saw what happened to her as her approval rating is currently subterranean.
Presidential campaigns come down to choices, but can Obama be defeated next year? ~ absolutely! But right now re: Reps vs. Obama it’s more of a beauty contest than serious political polling.
Kerry was ahead of Bush much of 2004, but lost by (2 pts.) as the power of incumbency is huge!
As always, time will tell …
btw, Bush43’s Gallup job approval rating Oct 29–31, 2004 ~ 48⁄47, as yes Virginia, Bush won re-election w/a job approval rating of 48%.
-
#6 written by UnreconstructedLiberal 1 year ago
-
Malleable voting machines aside
as an Ohioan, it was a combination of factors, not least of which was Kerry being a god awful candidate having let rove’s swift boat attack go by unabated, etc. Every time Teresa Laura Bush has never had a real job. Heinz opened her mouth, she lost votes for hubby. And the irony of Ohio Republican African/American Sec of State Ken Blackwell disenfranchising fellow African/Americans, mostly in the NE sector of the state.But the crème de la crème er pièce de résistance re: Ohio was turdblossom putting the Gay marriage hate issue referendum on the ballot in (8) states, including Ohio. Indeed, as rove did know how to get out the conservative yahoo vote, eh.
Plus when élitist Kerry had the goose hunting photo op in Girard my immediate thought: Oh no, another Dukakis in the Army tank moment ~ Did I mention Kerry was a god awful candidate.
You know when you vote for someone and have to bite your tongue, my intense dislike for Bush notwithstanding, that said candidate may have a problem.
>
The irony of the 2000 campaign ~ voters voted for Bush over Gore because they thought Bush was more likely to stop and help them change a tire, when the reality was neither Bush or Gore probably ever changed a tire in their life. Further irony was Bush/Kerry pretty much had the same stance er position re: Gay marriage/civil unions.
Yea, both Kerry and Bush had a wide stance!
-
#8 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
-
#10 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#11 written by shortchain 1 year ago
GROG,
The “big deal” is that the support/oppose statistics for the Tea Party have dropped back to their historical lows.
Now, it’s well known that the American political system is unstable in a situation where there are more than two parties. The system will devolve into a two party system, except the two parties may not be identical with the previous two parties.
So we know what the resulting system is going to look like in a couple of election cycles down the road. It will be a two-party system.
It’s pretty obvious from the numbers that the Democratic party and the Tea Party are not going to significantly interact, so it’s going to be a two-way tango between the GOP and the Tea Party.
Will the Tea Party absorb the Republican Party, or will the Republican Party absorb the Tea Party? The answer to that is obvious — the Tea Party lacks the numbers to absorb the GOP, so it will have to be the other way around.
This may take a couple of election cycles, while the Tea Party ruins the chances of the GOP from forming a majority, but the result is all but certain.
-
GROG,
Why are you contributing the things you listed happening just because of the Tea Party?
Because they have the Tea Party in common. Do you think it’s a coincidence?
A quarter of the people oppose the TP, a quarter support it, and half don’t care one way or the other. Big deal.
Republican Party officials are not the same thing as “the people”.
-
#13 written by GROG 1 year ago
MW,
Because they have the Tea Party in common.
I would guess they have a lot of things in common. They both have bad haircuts.
You’re talking about two “Tea Partiers”, Jamie Radtke and Jason Chaffetz? I don’t know much about either one or what kind of canditates they are. I know Orrin Hatch would be one tough opponent for anyone.
The question is, has the Tea Party been a net positive, a net negative, or a push for the Republican Party? I don’t think you can make that determination based on Radtke vs. George Allen and Chaffetz vs. Orrin Hatch.
-
#14 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Grog I think it is entirely possible for some thing to be a temporary net positive and then turn out to be a longer term net negative. I don’t think any one on here would argue that the teapers helped the Republicans pick up seats in the last election The real question would be at what long term cost. If over time or maybe even now and into the next election the public perception to that new element of the Republican becomes a demonstrable turn off A N D it translates into losses in elections it will probably translate into a strong net negative.
I don’t think any one is so oblivious to demographics and regional voting paterns to not also understand that the teaper element will hold sway in certain areas of the country for some time to come as that movement to the ever more right has been some thing that we have been seeing over time. Other areas that lurched that direction in the last election may well lurch back this time depending on candidates offered and the message that is delivered.
I can use my own state and area as a small lab on this. We got teapered hard last time around and will be dealing with the fall out for the foreseeable future. Staunch Republican friends that have been the back bone of the party for as long as I have been alive see an electoral blood bath coming their way. I don’t see it as being that bad but they do. So even at this level the teapers may well have been a short term positive that could well prove have a long term negative for the Republicans. One thing that will set the stage for this is how the teapers handle Sen Snowe. If they as promised go after her hammer and tong there will be a backlash. When even our moron teaper 28% approval govenor knows better than to venture into that mine field it says a great deal. Now keep in mind even here there are teaper enclaves that will keep demanding more cow bell and regression even as their fortunes sink because of teaper action. Much of this has and is being driven from the evangelical pulpit and I suspect that is no diferent in this state than in many others. So regions that have gone all in on the evangelical movement will continue to teaper themselves out of existence while the teaper fad we saw last time around will not just fade but be burried in other areas.
While we are at it. Polls that purport to show Perry beating the president or Perry and any of the other far right candidates beating him are I think at best suspect. Romney running sort of even, ok maybe. But to think that Perry or Bachmann would win if the election were right now.….….…I don’t think I would bet the farm on that proposition.
-
#15 written by mclever 1 year ago
Can I just say that I strongly disagree with the notion that John Kerry was a “god awful candidate.”
John Kerry came within a few thousand votes of defeating an incumbent President during a perceived war time. Do you know how utterly unlikely that was? A few thousand votes different, and we’d all be talking about what an amazing candidate he was. I don’t know about you, but a few thousand votes different doesn’t change someone from outstanding to god-awful.
Furthermore, I’ve had the opportunity to talk at length with a professor who teaches courses on political psychology, campaign strategy, and political conspiracy theories about the Kerry campaign. As such, I’m not convinced that a swifter response to the swift boat campaign would have actually made much of a difference. The swift boaters functioned like a conspiracy theory, where those who were predisposed to believe it did, and those who were predisposed towards remembering Kerry as a war hero did not. (Much like how one can predict the political leanings of those who might believe either the birther or truther conspiracy theories.) With those sorts of dynamics, the harder someone fights against it, the more entrenched the conspiracy becomes. He was stuck in a difficult position that could only have been solved by the Press actually doing their jobs rather than treating all sides as equally valid for the sake of creating drama. (Hello, Fairness Doctrine, anyone?)
Therefore, unlike many Democrats, I don’t abandon a guy and declare him the worst loser in the history of losers just because he comes a few votes short of the mark in an election where the deck was stacked against him to begin with. Democrats already hated GWB by 2003, so it’s easy to forget that the mushy middle of America didn’t really turn against him until 2005. For John Kerry to have come as close as he did to ousting an incumbent President says a lot about how GOOD of a candidate he really was.
-
#16 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Mac as with so many things political there will come a time when some one will decide that they wish to clense their soul before they depart or maybe they will wish to gain one brief moment in the sun but at some point we will actually learn much more about the whole Swift Boating escapade and other election shenagians from that election. I suspect we will learn that there were those in our midst that intentionally perverted our electoral process to further their goals.
Was Kerry an awful candidate? Well he did have his moments but those swung both ways. I can remember interviews where I thought he was really on his A game and others where I think his messaging got seriousy muddled. Was it all his lacking or the swift boating? I think that was hard to tell But I do feel where you have one side that is not interested in having a campaign of issues over raw emotion it is going to be very hard for an issues candidate to gain any traction in todays media morass.
That Kerry came as close as he did probably does speak to his viability but it may just as well speak to the culpability of those that were arayed against him and their distain for fair play and the electoral process. My real fear is that we could well see the same thing again this next time around. Way to much talk from some of the same circles about voter fraud and the need to protect the process when many of us have a much greater fear of election fraud. I guess we shall see but considering some of what seems to be playing out in this land I truely see this next election playing out along similar lines. It shall be raw emotion and cowbell from one side and an attempt to frame the issues and the choices from the other.
A good friend thinks that at some point President Obama is going to have to make a decision as to how badly he wants to be a two term president and just maybe finish some of what he set out to do or continue to try and be conciliatory and compromising to the opposition. I keep wondering just how firey he might be able to be if he made that decision in one way. The man can never get 1⁄3 of the electorate for they could be reduced to eating dog crap and he and his having the only answers to correcting the situation and still they would vote against him. Then there is the 1⁄3 that should vote for him but that may still have their knickers in a knot because he hasn’t been every thing they wanted.……some fire in the belly moments could bring much of that element back in the fold, not all but most. Then that remaining 1/3.……that cohort of the middle. I do not include in this either disafected Republicans or Democrats that may call themselves Independents but really are not hell I don’t even know that I would include myself in it but that really and truely middle that doesn’t know which way to go. I have a suspicion that an Obama that came out and put his cards down that he had tried to compromise and that he had tried to work both sides and been kicked in the teeth for the effort and that he was if elected going ahead and screw the opposition might gain far more than he would lose.
Lead, follow or get out of the way could become a campaign mantra that would work against an opponent that is almost going to have to run on I will lead you back to the dark ages, I will never follow any other path even though it is proven the one I want to take is wrong for the vast majority of Americans and me and mine refuse to get out of the way so that the majority of Americans can again at least think there is hope the American dream still exists.
In my own heart of hearts I yearn for a fight fire with fire campaign. Now the question.….How bad does the president want to have the chance to finish what in many ways he never got the chance to start?
-
John Kerry came within a few thousand votes of defeating an incumbent President during a perceived war time.
As mentioned, Kerry let rove’s swift boat attack go by unabated, something the Clinton political machine would have never let happen ie Kerry and his political team were obviously not taking notes re: the previous successful Dem presidential campaigns.
Also mentioned, Bush had a 48% job approval rating and yet Kerry couldn’t close the deal on election day. But I will agree the power of incumbency is huge, yet the right candidate could have defeated Bush imo.
Kerry did do fairly well in the debates, but should have done a lot better, and hyperbole aside I did not call Kerry the worst loser in history as Gore has Kerry beat by quite a bit in that respect, having grasped defeat from the jaws of total victory!
-
John Kerry came within a few thousand votes of defeating an incumbent President during a perceived war time.
If you’re talkin’ about Ohio and consider 118,000 a “few” thousand votes as Kerry lost nationally by 3,000,000 votes.
Again, the Gay marriage “hate issue” was the big enchilada in 2004 Ohio, so yes, there were some circumstances beyond his control er not his fault, but he lost by (3) million nationally ie not close.
-
#19 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
I’m personally amazed that the Democratic Party thought that a majority of Americans would vote for a founding member of VVAW in wartime (or ever) for President. That Kerry came as close as he did to winning shows exactly how weak Bush’s position was in 2004.
A candidate who was actually, you know, electable outside of Massachusetts (possibly a veteran who didn’t immediately turn around after he left the service and accuse all of his comrades of being war criminals) could have mopped the floor with Bush.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Michael Weiss (322 posts)
Michael is a jack of many trades, and master of a few. His varied background includes government and private businesses, both large and small. His experience in the financial services and computer industries has led him to computer security.






The amazing thing about this is as unpopular as the Tea Party is, and even though they caused the credit downgrade (yada yada), more people would vote for Tea Partier Rick Perry for president than Obama according to Gallup. How can a Tea Partier be beating Obama?
And Tea Partiers Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are only a few points behind.
The Tea Party has served it’s purpose and they got their point across. They actually have politicians talking about fiscal sanity.
Sure, they may have lost Republicans a few Senate seats, but they certainly played a huge roll in November mid-terms. If the Tea Party won REpublicans say 25 Congressional seats and cost them 3, then so be it.