A Tale of Two Republicans

[Phatscotty]

The Tea Party Is Mostly Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay: Knowing That Matters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-sapp ... 37061.html

....But then came the Tea Party. And we find ourselves facing a new foe who's harder to understand. Some things are clear. Tea Party members ID as "conservative," most are registered Republicans (Gallup just announced that 80% self-ID as Republicans), and they are raring to vote. Couple those features with the nastiness and internally incoherent arguments coming from that movement, and many Democrats have simply decide these folks must all be racist, conservative, backward crazies.

The Eleison Group has been at the fore of outreach and engagement of faith, veteran, and other independent and conservative voters in this country. And so we spend a lot of time in the communities from which the Tea Party is drawing its support. What we are seeing is that the Tea Party is not a rebranded version of the socially and politically conservative right wing of the Republican Party we are used to. It is something different, and it is DEEPLY divided.

Republicans and the media tend to focus on polls that show that 18% - 28% of the country identifies with the Tea Party movement or on the things that unify the movement like being "conservative." But here are some facts our side doesn't understand. Polling has also showed that the majority of Tea Party activists do not think government should support any set of moral values or define marriage. And a sizable majority of Tea Party activists are pro-choice. Think about that. Most Tea Party members hold positions that, in our completely un-nuanced political speak, make them "pro-gay and pro-choice."

How can they hold those positions and be "conservative?" The reason is simple: the Tea Party is largely made up of libertarians who are very different from the big business or Christian right groups that have dominated "conservative" politics for the last few decades. Libertarians don't want government intruding into their lives with programs or enforcing a moral code.

[thegreekdog]

Christie works with Democrats because he is Governor of a heavily Democrat state. I don't care what his position is on gay marriage, so long as he let's the people decide and does not do it through the courts or executive order. And I don't care he hugged the president. He would be an idiot if he didn't, since he is in charge of a deep blue state and were in the middle of an emergency (Hurricane Sandy). Who lambasted the pro gay marriage governor? Can you show some sources on that??

Why do you believe Chris Christie is a Progressive?

I already pointed out Tea Party members have different positions on different issues, but they are united for smaller government, specifically on economic issues, as I have been pointing out for years. You say you are for smaller government, but you bash the only people who are actually for smaller government and continually bring up abortion and gay marriage, of which I could care less. I only care about the process and that it's done in a Democratic way and not imposed on people in a Tyrannical way, and that goes for all issues, not just gay marriage and abortion. The more issues people have a say in, the better I say. Seems like you disagree when it's an issue super important to you.

Gay marriage and Abortion have nothing to do with the Tea Party, also been pointing that out for years. I find it amazing you cannot talk about the Tea Party without bringing up gay marriage and abortion.

The difference between you and me, and I'm fine with that difference, is that you are a conservative Republican and I'm a Libertarian. The only part of that which is problematic for you, and which I've been trying to explain to you over the past few years, is that Libertarians (me) are in favor of much smaller government than conservative Republicans (you) are in favor of. And that means the "small government" arguments that you put forward are, to me, inconsistent with your views as compared to mine. I want the government to stay out of as much of my life as possible, whether that is what I do with my money or what I do with my penis. You want the government to stay out of your wallet, but you are indifferent to (at best) and in favor of (at worst) the governnment being intimately involved with your penis (and a woman's vagina).

I take great exception with the red for two reasons. It seems pretty clear that the conservative Republicans you've identified, the Tea Party members you identified, are not in favor of smaller government; they are in favor of smaller government as it pertains to the economy. They are not in favor of smaller government generally. I will support them inasmuch as they are at least partially in favor of what I'm in favor of, but they aren't smaller government politicians so you shouldn't label them as such. Second, there is an entire party that is actually for smaller government for realz.

I also take exception to the green. There is a consistency with my point of view. There is not a consistency with yours.

But if we ignore that, you say "I only care about that process and that it's done in a Democratic way." It appears that you are in favor of the process and democracy when it is supportive of your point of view, but not when it's not. Which, ironically, is what you accuse me of doing. Which is not just ironic, but weird. For example, Barack Obama was elected after signing the Affordable Care Act and yet you want the Affordable Care Act overturned. And that's fine and I agree with you, but the democratic process seems to indicate some support for that act. So what gives?

Finally, on the blue stuff, that's just patently absurd. You rail against gay marriage constantly dude. And while social issues are not important to the Tea Party compared to economic issues, they are certainly important. Ignoring my own exposure to the social conservative nature of my former Tea Party, politicians identifying with the Tea Party are almost entirely, if not entirely, socially conservative. Cuccinelli ran on a social conservative platform and seemed, at least to me, to focus on it.

In any event, I don't see a big different between Christie and Paul except perhaps with respect to foreign intervention and the Patriot Act (which are big deals to me). If it was Rand Paul vs. Chris Christie, I would like go with Paul. So if we go with who is the most libertarian without being a Libertarian, probably is Rand Paul. In real life, I will support the Tea Party candidate (whomever that is) because, as you stated, he or she will be most likely to agree with my point of view. But I will absolutely not pretend that these guys are in favor of small government in any way other than an economic one and therefore are, in my opinion, highly inconsistent. So yeah, I'll continue to criticize them.

[thegreekdog]

The Tea Party Is Mostly Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay: Knowing That Matters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-sapp ... 37061.html

....But then came the Tea Party. And we find ourselves facing a new foe who's harder to understand. Some things are clear. Tea Party members ID as "conservative," most are registered Republicans (Gallup just announced that 80% self-ID as Republicans), and they are raring to vote. Couple those features with the nastiness and internally incoherent arguments coming from that movement, and many Democrats have simply decide these folks must all be racist, conservative, backward crazies.

The Eleison Group has been at the fore of outreach and engagement of faith, veteran, and other independent and conservative voters in this country. And so we spend a lot of time in the communities from which the Tea Party is drawing its support. What we are seeing is that the Tea Party is not a rebranded version of the socially and politically conservative right wing of the Republican Party we are used to. It is something different, and it is DEEPLY divided.

Republicans and the media tend to focus on polls that show that 18% - 28% of the country identifies with the Tea Party movement or on the things that unify the movement like being "conservative." But here are some facts our side doesn't understand. Polling has also showed that the majority of Tea Party activists do not think government should support any set of moral values or define marriage. And a sizable majority of Tea Party activists are pro-choice. Think about that. Most Tea Party members hold positions that, in our completely un-nuanced political speak, make them "pro-gay and pro-choice."

How can they hold those positions and be "conservative?" The reason is simple: the Tea Party is largely made up of libertarians who are very different from the big business or Christian right groups that have dominated "conservative" politics for the last few decades. Libertarians don't want government intruding into their lives with programs or enforcing a moral code.

But where things get interesting is that the Tea Party also includes another group: the Palinesque Christian conservatives. Needless to say, they disagree completely on the gay and abortion issues with their libertarian brethren. But flip things again and where the libertarians are staunchly anti-immigrant, conservative evangelical leaders like the spokesman for the Southern Baptists and head of Liberty University have been outspoken proponents for immigration reform, and have spoken out in strong support for government regulation on the environment.

Posted - July 6, 2010
Today's Date - November 8, 2013

Tea Party members of Congress are listed above. We've covered their social positions. Do you have a more recent article?

[Phatscotty]

Christie works with Democrats because he is Governor of a heavily Democrat state. I don't care what his position is on gay marriage, so long as he let's the people decide and does not do it through the courts or executive order. And I don't care he hugged the president. He would be an idiot if he didn't, since he is in charge of a deep blue state and were in the middle of an emergency (Hurricane Sandy). Who lambasted the pro gay marriage governor? Can you show some sources on that??

Why do you believe Chris Christie is a Progressive?

I already pointed out Tea Party members have different positions on different issues, but they are united for smaller government, specifically on economic issues, as I have been pointing out for years. You say you are for smaller government, but you bash the only people who are actually for smaller government and continually bring up abortion and gay marriage, of which I could care less. I only care about the process and that it's done in a Democratic way and not imposed on people in a Tyrannical way, and that goes for all issues, not just gay marriage and abortion. The more issues people have a say in, the better I say. Seems like you disagree when it's an issue super important to you.

Gay marriage and Abortion have nothing to do with the Tea Party, also been pointing that out for years. I find it amazing you cannot talk about the Tea Party without bringing up gay marriage and abortion.

The difference between you and me, and I'm fine with that difference, is that you are a conservative Republican and I'm a Libertarian. The only part of that which is problematic for you, and which I've been trying to explain to you over the past few years, is that Libertarians (me) are in favor of much smaller government than conservative Republicans (you) are in favor of. And that means the "small government" arguments that you put forward are, to me, inconsistent with your views as compared to mine. I want the government to stay out of as much of my life as possible, whether that is what I do with my money or what I do with my penis. You want the government to stay out of your wallet, but you are indifferent to (at best) and in favor of (at worst) the governnment being intimately involved with your penis (and a woman's vagina).

Are you serious? How is that??

I take great exception with the red for two reasons. It seems pretty clear that the conservative Republicans you've identified, the Tea Party members you identified, are not in favor of smaller government; they are in favor of smaller government as it pertains to the economy. They are not in favor of smaller government generally. I will support them inasmuch as they are at least partially in favor of what I'm in favor of, but they aren't smaller government politicians so you shouldn't label them as such. Second, there is an entire party that is actually for smaller government for realz.

Are you serious? Which party is that??

I also take exception to the green. There is a consistency with my point of view. There is not a consistency with yours.

But if we ignore that, you say "I only care about that process and that it's done in a Democratic way." It appears that you are in favor of the process and democracy when it is supportive of your point of view, but not when it's not. Which, ironically, is what you accuse me of doing. Which is not just ironic, but weird. For example, Barack Obama was elected after signing the Affordable Care Act and yet you want the Affordable Care Act overturned. And that's fine and I agree with you, but the democratic process seems to indicate some support for that act. So what gives?

You sure they didn't change the rules of Democracy there?? (CLOTURE) If that's how you look at it, we could democratically abolish our Republic and make it a dictatorship, but hey, it's democratic!

Finally, on the blue stuff, that's just patently absurd. You rail against gay marriage constantly dude. And while social issues are not important to the Tea Party compared to economic issues, they are certainly important. Ignoring my own exposure to the social conservative nature of my former Tea Party, politicians identifying with the Tea Party are almost entirely, if not entirely, socially conservative. Cuccinelli ran on a social conservative platform and seemed, at least to me, to focus on it.

In any event, I don't see a big different between Christie and Paul except perhaps with respect to foreign intervention and the Patriot Act (which are big deals to me). If it was Rand Paul vs. Chris Christie, I would like go with Paul. So if we go with who is the most libertarian without being a Libertarian, probably is Rand Paul. In real life, I will support the Tea Party candidate (whomever that is) because, as you stated, he or she will be most likely to agree with my point of view. But I will absolutely not pretend that these guys are in favor of small government in any way other than an economic one and therefore are, in my opinion, highly inconsistent. So yeah, I'll continue to criticize them.

Smaller government is smaller government. I think it has to start somewhere, you think that if they don't make smaller government overnight in all areas, it's not worth bothering.

[Phatscotty]

Honestly, I'm not sure if he truly is Progressive, what I should have said is Christie does not belong in group 2, mainly because he bashes Libertarians and bashes the Tea Party. Perhaps at time it's rightly so, but most of the time imo it is not. Whether he is just trying to stay popular in a heavily blue state, or whether he believes what he says, I can't say for sure, and that's the problem. I liked to give him credit for busting the teachers unions initially, but looking into it a little deeper, he didn't have a choice (the state was broke). I also think he is highly electable for the very reason more than a few Liberals say they will vote for him, but that also says something about how Conservative he isn't and it will be another election where all the Conservatives stay home and the Libertarians split the vote and give us another Democrat prez. I think if he won the presidency, he would be another 'compassionate Conservative' which is the Republican version of a Progressive.

What I think we need: A Conservative who wins the nomination and can get the Libertarians to vote for him as well as a chunk of Independents. Like Rand Paul, who Christie is not very friendly to

[thegreekdog]

Are you serious? How is that??

The politicians you support, listed above, are all in favor of government regulation of social choices.

Are you serious? Which party is that??

Libertarian Party.

You sure they didn't change the rules of Democracy there?? (CLOTURE) If that's how you look at it, we could democratically abolish our Republic and make it a dictatorship, but hey, it's democratic!

Yeah, that must be it. Bob and weave PS, bob and weave.

Smaller government is smaller government. I think it has to start somewhere, you think that if they don't make smaller government overnight in all areas, it's not worth bothering.

Obviously that's not true. I'm a proponent of critiquing everyone, including people who have my erstwhile support (like Rand Paul).

I think if the Tea Party Congress members listed above had their way, we would have a small government that intruded substantially in our private lives. That's not really something I'm going to get excited about and it's something I'm critical of.

[thegreekdog]

Honestly, I'm not sure if he truly is Progressive, what I should have said is Christie does not belong in group 2, mainly because he bashes Libertarians and bashes the Tea Party. Perhaps at time it's rightly so, but most of the time imo it is not. Whether he is just trying to stay popular in a heavily blue state, or whether he believes what he says, I can't say for sure, and that's the problem. I liked to give him credit for busting the teachers unions initially, but looking into it a little deeper, he didn't have a choice (the state was broke). I also think he is highly electable for the very reason more than a few Liberals say they will vote for him, but that also says something about how Conservative he isn't and it will be another election where all the Conservatives stay home and the Libertarians split the vote and give us another Democrat prez. I think if he won the presidency, he would be another 'compassionate Conservative' which is the Republican version of a Progressive.

I think Christie will keep things the way they are from a non-fiscal perspective (including, ufnortunately, the Patriot Act and foreign intervention) and I would not be surprised if he gets the U.S. involved in another conflict or two. I think he would do his level best to cut spending. So I'm not sure if I'd call him a compassionate conservative type president given his views on big government.

[Phatscotty]

Are you serious? How is that??

The politicians you support, listed above, are all in favor of government regulation of social choices.

Are you serious? Which party is that??

Libertarian Party.

You sure they didn't change the rules of Democracy there?? (CLOTURE) If that's how you look at it, we could democratically abolish our Republic and make it a dictatorship, but hey, it's democratic!

Yeah, that must be it. Bob and weave PS, bob and weave.

Smaller government is smaller government. I think it has to start somewhere, you think that if they don't make smaller government overnight in all areas, it's not worth bothering.

Obviously that's not true. I'm a proponent of critiquing everyone, including people who have my erstwhile support (like Rand Paul).

I think if the Tea Party Congress members listed above had their way, we would have a small government that intruded substantially in our private lives. That's not really something I'm going to get excited about and it's something I'm critical of.

Hey, if the Libertarian party can run a serious candidate who can earn more than 3% of the vote and can run more than 2 commercials, I would consider it. But as you know, I think Libertarians can do FAR more and actually get elected and actually have an impact by running in a major party. I think that already has been working. I like what is realistic and what is possible and what can actually accomplish something. As you know, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Independents and Conservatives running and winning in the Republican party is where all my chips are. It's working. Even Gary Johnson ran as a Republican at first. The Republican party is supposed to be a big tent for all different kinds of Conservatives and moderates and Libertarians and Independents and Tea Party members, and we keep losing because we can't unite, and that's for a lot of reasons. My state has been working hard, maybe the hardest, to get Ron Paul the nomination, and he did win this state and we are represented by him now as over 90% of our delegates are committed Ron Paul supporters. NOW we can pave the way for those kind of candidates in my state and hopefully in other states. It's a process, it take a while. I suppose when we are done doing all the work, and then a candidate you like can just walk right in and get a nomination, maybe then you will understand. But for now, the Libertarians PARTY is a waste. I love Libertarians, I appreciate their think tanks and their contributions and their leadership, but they are making a habit of splitting the vote and helping Democrats get elected. I know that probably pissed you off I said that, it used to piss me off too. But in my 15 years of voting, they haven't accomplished anything, not even getting that 8% so they can get the money they think will get them 11% next time. At that rate, they will elect a candidate in 2050, and we will have a long list of solid Democrat/Socialist presidents until then. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

I'm not bobbing and weaving. The Democrats changed the rules many times. Your just blowing it off. Clearly, there is a HUGE difference between people of a state having a vote on an issue, and a bunch of corrupt politicians in DC having a 'vote'


You call THIS Democratic? Do you know how many people were bribed? blackmailed? threatened? So democratic it hurts. Sure, they told a bunch of lies and said the bill would do something it's clearing doing the opposite of...but NOPE, it was democratic! Doesn't matter!


I don't think the government has any place regulating social issues. You point it out to me when Rand Paul introduces a bill in the senate to outlaw abortion nation wide, and I will join you in criticizing him. Show me when Ted Cruz introduces a bill or votes for a bill outlawing gay marriage nation wide, and I will join you in criticizing him. Let me know when Mike Lee introduces a bill supporting affirmative action nation wide, and I'll join you in criticizing him.

Mark my words, the Tea Party is going to do to the Republican party what the Republican party did to the Whig party, and Libertarians are going to be a huge part of that. Maybe you will get on board someday and you can see your candidate win something for once. What is your problem with this strategy? Do you view it as selling out?

Cuz IMO, it all comes down to this. Do you want your candidate to win? OR do you want to feel good about your vote?

[thegreekdog]

I don't necessarily disagree with your take, except for two things.

First, my vote doesn't count. The best influencer I have is money or words, not with voting. So me voting for Gary Johnson instead of Mitt Romney has no effect (me voting for Ron Paul instead of Mitt Romney in the primary also would have had no effect).

Second, the attitude of "I don't want to support a weak party because it's weak" is exactly what prohibits the United States from having something other than Repocrats.

[Phatscotty]

[thegreekdog]

Let me ask you something PS - what has Chris Christie done that indicates to you that he's not conservative enough? I've heard this criticism a lot and I'm wondering where it comes from.

And yes, Christie is not my ideal candidate.

[Phatscotty]

Let me ask you something PS - what has Chris Christie done that indicates to you that he's not conservative enough? I've heard this criticism a lot and I'm wondering where it comes from.

And yes, Christie is not my ideal candidate.

He thinks Libertarianism is dangerous? he has been attacking them for a while, not just recently. (is that the criticism you're talking about?) Generally, he spends a lot of time talking smack about Conservatives, and very little time promoting Conservatism or criticizing Liberalism. Not to say he doesn't, just not that much.

I think his policies are clearly blue state policies, so the policies aren't very Conservative, but I'm not saying that is a bad thing as I wouldn't expect him to never compromise or to ram his '(supposed) Conservatism down New Jersians throats either. He's gotta work with his people, and yes I think he does a good job governing everyone, not just Republicans, but he was not invited by Conservatives to speak at CPAC.

That being said, Christie supports gun control measures, cap n trade measures, as well as raising taxes (property but not income) as well as the new way to get money which is more fees n permit costs. Expanding medicaid. He pulled support/refused to support the Virginia governors race (which was split by a Libertarian, therefore = Democrat governor) so he's not helping Conservatives get elected, but he's out there stumping for Lindsey Graham now isn't he! He did not exactly take a strong stand against Obamacare up until just recently, as it's very popular now to criticize. He's an east coast Republican, but I would grant he is not exactly the typical kind.

Overall we have not really heard him debate on a national scale, certainly not govern or legislate on a national scale, so more information is needed before I could give a better answer. I don't hate him, I think he could probably do a good job in certain areas as president, I would consider voting for him if he won the nomination, but i wouldn't support him in a primary. I would easily prefer Rand Paul everyday of the week, basically because Rand is far more Conservative, and he's smart because he's a Libertarian who found a way to get elected and push the agenda.

btw, not sure if I missed it or you missed it or what, but what do you think about the strategy of Libertarians winning primaries and getting elected in a major party? Do you think that is selling out?

[thegreekdog]

I'm with you on the idea that I would vote for Rand Paul over Chris Christie in a primary because Rand Paul has demonstrated his willingness to stand up for privacy rights (while Christie has not). But fiscally, I think the two are quite similar (although perhaps Paul is a little more to the fiscal conservative side).

In any event, if I look down the list of Christie's policies, here's what I find:

He's more moderate than most conservatives on abortion, although he is pro-life. He is not in favor of banning abortions (although, to be fair, banning abortions is unconstitutional right now), but is in factor of restrictions on partial birth abortions, requiring parental notification, and a waiting period. He's in favor of civil unions, but not same sex marriage (which I wouldn't support the civil union notion).

He intends to cut the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection singificantly because it "kills business." I did not see anything on cap and trade, but he is in favor of alternative energy inasmuch as he's trying to provide economic incentives to those businesses (which I opposed simply because it's giving tax dollars away).

On guns, he supports enforcement of current gun laws, not expansion. Not sure where you got that from, although I'm sure you can dig it up.

He seems to be leaning towards amnesty for illegal immigrants, although most of his statements have been with respect to responses to more conservative ideas (e.g. stop and frisk and deport, stuff like that). I'm in favor of amnesty and abolishing immigration laws completely (one of two places where I part with Libertarians). He also had some pretty strong words on the "Sharia Law" nonsense sweeping up the conservatives (I'm supportive of him in that regard).

So those are kind of the non-fiscal issues. That being said, absolutely no one can accuse Governor Christie of being anything other than a fiscal conservative. He has balanced the New Jersey budget without raising taxes and was instrumental in calling attention to the ridiculous state pensions that were given out. Again, I'm not sure about cap and trade or raising taxes.

The difference between Rand Paul and Chris Christie, other than on some of the social issues, is that, as you've mentioned, Christie has had to govern and has had to compromise (Paul has not). This seems to indicate that Christie has more experience from a presidential perspective than Rand Paul.

But, ultimately, I don't get the backlash against Christie from a policy/fiscal perspective. I get that people dislike him because of the Hurricane Sandy drama and because he's not supporting Tea Party candidates (which, I believe, is because he is positioning himself for a presidential run - I believe his strategy is to put all the other candidates into a bucket called "Tea Party conservatives" and let them kill each other). That all makes sense to me, but it will be hard for people to argue that he isn't conservative, at least fiscally; and then it comes to an argument that he's not conservative socially and that has been a losing proposition for Republicans recently.

On your last question, I very much dislike and disagree with Libertarians getting elected as Republicans. It perpetuates the problem in the United States with our two party system.

[Phatscotty]

When has a 3 party system worked in America. What is the problem with a 2 party system? Does that problem remain no matter how good or bad one or both parties are? Isn't our shitty parties actually a reflection of a shitty people who are shirking their responsibilities (collectively)? Do you think the people of America are holding up their part of the bargain? holding their leaders accountable? educating themselves with the process? Would there still be a major problem to you with a 2 party system if 1 of the parties was the Libertarian party? What is your ideal situation for number of parties?

[saxitoxin]

But the vices of the Tea Party are just as real, and Senator Cruz exemplifies them. His foreign policy is characterized by reflexive, if partisan, nationalism—before opposing Obama’s plan to bomb Syria, Cruz had in fact called for “a clear, practical plan to go in. … The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right.” The Texas senator’s domestic policies, meanwhile, are the same ones the right has championed since the 1970s. Indeed, Cruz represents a brand of conservatism that belongs to that era.

From the Moral Majority to the Tea Party, a right forged in opposition offers only images of a mythic past in place of present economic and cultural realities. Instead of a modern conservatism competing against what is in fact a creaky liberalism—whose corporate cronyism and cultural atomism have engendered wide dissatisfaction—we have only the conservatism of what was versus the liberalism of what is.

The Tea Party’s insurgency has at least cleared the way for some Republicans to attempt this: one sees the beginnings in Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Mike Lee. But the Tea Party has also injected new life—or a Frankenstein’s semblance of life—into the dead right of decades past in the shape of Ted Cruz and his tactics.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... nt-govern/

[Phatscotty]

Rand Paul:
Abortion - has introduced multiple bills to outlaw all abortion.
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage, views it as a state issue
Patriot Act - voted against

Ted Cruz:
Abortion - pro life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage

Mike Lee:
Abortion - unclear
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted against

Marco Rubio
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Ron Johnson
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Partiot Act - voted for extending

Tim Scott
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - unclear
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Allen West
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - currently unclear
Patriot Act - supports Patriot Act

The only thing most of these guys have in common with me is that they are in favor of smaller government for economic issues.

Are you Catholic?

[Phatscotty]

[thegreekdog]

Rand Paul:
Abortion - has introduced multiple bills to outlaw all abortion.
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage, views it as a state issue
Patriot Act - voted against

Ted Cruz:
Abortion - pro life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage

Mike Lee:
Abortion - unclear
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted against

Marco Rubio
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Ron Johnson
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - opposes same sex marriage
Partiot Act - voted for extending

Tim Scott
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - unclear
Patriot Act - voted for extending

Allen West
Abortion - pro-life (government mandate)
Gay marriage - currently unclear
Patriot Act - supports Patriot Act

The only thing most of these guys have in common with me is that they are in favor of smaller government for economic issues.

Are you Catholic?

Yes... why do you ask (he asks rhetorically)?

[saxitoxin]

For a movement that is only concerned about taxes, I don't understand why the Tea Party only seems able to recruit Evangelical Christians who want to criminalize abortion as political candidates. I'm a very trustworthy person, you know, but less trustworthy people might think that was a little suspect.

I had not heard of this Lee Bright fellow prior to this, and everything I know about him is based off 2-minutes on Bing-Dot-Com so I'll refrain from further comment other than to say that - given his apparent 3 property liens, 2 foreclosures and 1 bank lawsuit in the last 7 years, it sounds like a steady Senate paycheck is kinda what he needs right now. I wish him all the best in his electoral aspiration/job search.

[Phatscotty]

For a movement that is only concerned about taxes, I don't understand why the Tea Party only seems able to recruit Evangelical Christians who want to criminalize abortion as political candidates. I'm a very trustworthy person, you know, but less trustworthy people might think that was a little suspect.

I had not heard of this Lee Bright fellow prior to this, and everything I know about him is based off 2-minutes on Bing-Dot-Com so I'll refrain from further comment other than to say that - given his apparent 3 property liens, 2 foreclosures and 1 bank lawsuit in the last 7 years, it sounds like a steady Senate paycheck is kinda what he needs right now. I wish him all the best in his electoral aspiration/job search.

How many in the Tea Party are evangelicals? Do you feel the same way about Catholics?

[Phatscotty]

These are the kind of things we're gonna have to get over unless we want to be ruled by Democrats, Liberals, and Socialist Progressives. I know there are some people who will only vote for a candidate if they are perfect on every single issue. It's kinda insane to let the country crumble because one of the candidates is against abortion. It's even more insane to think that means anything one way or the other. We've had all kinds of pro-life president and Senators and Congresspeople...who ever tried to outlaw abortion? The only action on the abortion issue is between the 45 and 50 yard line. The changes in actual policy are minute. it's a highly irrational fear.

[saxitoxin]

For a movement that is only concerned about taxes, I don't understand why the Tea Party only seems able to recruit Evangelical Christians who want to criminalize abortion as political candidates. I'm a very trustworthy person, you know, but less trustworthy people might think that was a little suspect.

I had not heard of this Lee Bright fellow prior to this, and everything I know about him is based off 2-minutes on Bing-Dot-Com so I'll refrain from further comment other than to say that - given his apparent 3 property liens, 2 foreclosures and 1 bank lawsuit in the last 7 years, it sounds like a steady Senate paycheck is kinda what he needs right now. I wish him all the best in his electoral aspiration/job search.

How many in the Tea Party are evangelicals?

I don't think I, or anyone else, knows the answer to that. We can say, however, that it appears most - or all - of the people chosen to lead the Tea Party are evangelicals. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...

Do you feel the same way about Catholics?

No. The reason is, because, to the best of my knowledge there are not political advocacy groups organized around injecting Catholic theology into civic life like there are political advocacy groups organized around injecting evangelical theology into civic life (see: Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, etc.).

I know there are some people who will only vote for a candidate if they are perfect on every single issue.

I agree, people need to weigh the cons against the pros in a candidate. That said, when a candidate's business - his sole source of income (S.C. senators apparently only earn $10K a year) - has just failed and is in receivership, it's time to buckle-down and find a job other than a government job.

It appears he has no formal education past the high school level and has no work experience outside of running his dad's trucking company into the ground so he may not be very employable, but if taking care of your children means getting a job in the retail or service sectors, he should be dropping off applications at Old Navy.

Right now Lee Bright is trying to land a job in the Senate and, like anyone does in a job interview, is saying what it takes to get hired. I would never vote for someone who - by all outward appearances - is running for Senate to avoid becoming homeless. A desperate politician is the most dangerous politician of all.

see: http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/11/13/lee- ... land-mine/

[Phatscotty]

I hear people being scared of religious types all the time. I'm familiar with the advocacy groups you listed, but what I want to know is what major policy you or anyone else believes will be changed? Our society is heavily secular right now. I think we can handle a little bit of tolerance for certain groups, and not just homosexuals or women or Muslims or blacks, I think there is room for Christians too.

I don't see what the problem is. Every politician gets asked the religion question.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=124771&hilit=obama+religion

[saxitoxin]

I hear people being scared of religious types all the time. I'm familiar with the advocacy groups you listed, but what I want to know is what major policy you or anyone else believes will be changed?

If they're totally incapable of enacting social policies, why do you think they'd be able to enact fiscal policies?