Politics and the Tea Party

Other than pointing to articles, I haven't written too much about politics lately. Some of it was it was August and not much that was interesting was happening. It's the time of all stupid side stories and I was happy to ignore all that. But after the primaries and with all the tea party talk, I'm just kinda bewildered.

I'm sure this is wrong, but I basically equated the tea partiers to the birthers and the polls kept telling me the birthers are about 20% of the population (30% of Republicans). So I didn't see the tea partiers winning. That was wrong with Scott Brown (kinda, it wasn't all tea partiers) and it made for some strange upsets this week. Now I see the TV anchors ask the various DC pundits about the the tea party platform other than the anger at the DC insiders. Not surprisingly, the pundits are a bit defensive and angry at the tea party.

Glenn Greenwald wrote about his opinion of The misguided reaction to Tea Party candidates "All that said, there are some reactions to the Tea Party movement coming from many different directions -- illustrated by the patronizing mockery of Christine O'Donnell -- which I find quite misguided, revealingly condescending, and somewhat obnoxious. "

"Most people are not like Rove's political patron, George W. Bush, who was born into extreme family wealth. O'Donnell's financial difficulties, which Rove is describing, and implicitly condemning, are far from unusual for ordinary Americans."

He makes the case, that the tea party candidates are no crazier than the previous GOP insiders who did radical things like nominating Robert Bork, courting Falwell's moral majority, warning President Clinton not to go onto US military bases, torturing, and of course impeaching Clinton. The big difference is that they aren't millionaires and they've made that a way to related to average (outraged) voters. And, "As Atrios also suggested, these Tea Party candidates differ not in their views but in their untrained, unsophisticated style of expressing those views."

digby points out that Tony Blair's new book gives a few more examples of just how dumb George W. Bush was. It's not clear that Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell is any worse.

digby also makes the point this isn't new, Voices of reason notice the right wing is batshit insane "Ben Smith notes that George Packer and Andrew Sullivan are lamenting the irrationality of the right and he posits that liberals are going to be increasingly relying on this argument the more we lose. He might be right about that. But I would love to know where people have been the last decade or so. The right impeached a president over sex, they stole and election, they invaded a country that hadn't attacked us and they created a bizarroworld media which purposefully misinforms its audience. "

Michael Tomasky in The Guardian wrote that they are the current form of the anti-federalists and have been around for 230 years and now The US Republicans have created a Frankenstein monster. He ends with some strategy thoughts for the Democrats.

"Meanwhile the Democrats now have an opportunity, in a year that has largely been bereft of them, to make the Beltway politics chatter focus on the other side's problems, rather than their own. Democrats have a tendency to play by the old rules. One old rule of politics is that when the other side is shooting itself in the foot, do nothing – just stand back and watch. But we are in a new media and political environment. In fact it's not even new any more. It's been around for 15 years, but still Democrats think the old rules apply. One old rule is, don't respond to nutty allegations because you only give them oxygen. Well, Democrats have spent two years not responding as "birthers" spin their conspiracies about Obama, and the result is that between 20% and 25% of American adults doubt that the president is a genuine American. So I propose a new rule: when the other side is shooting itself in the foot, stand close by and keep handing out bullets. Democratic strategists should be thinking of fresh ways to demonstrate to the American people that these Tea Partiers are not the sons and daughters of John Adams but people who stand almost entirely outside the country's best mainstream traditions."

Of course that doesn't seem to be what they are doing. They're just being quite and hoping the GOP crazies will bring out the Democrat voters . Glenn Greenwald doesn't agree with The Democratic fear-based strategy. In August Rachel Maddow commented that they shouldn't run on fear (like the GOP is) but rather to effectively inspire their base, they should run on accomplishments and a policy of doing what's right. Greenwald says, "One can reasonably debate the efficacy of this strategy:  I personally find it hard to believe that large numbers of voters will be motivated by a fear-mongering campaign centered around people who do not currently wield power, do not occupy any positions, and are not even running for office.  But the more significant point is what this tactic says about the Democratic Party.  They have controlled both houses of Congress for almost four years and the White House for almost two.  Yet rather than run primarily on affirmative accomplishments (some Democrats are even running against them), they're reduced to this not-very-inspiring or hope-laden message:  at least we're not as bad as Sarah Palin."

He also says, "There's one irony worth noting in all of this as well. It's been extremely common to hear Democratic Party commentators complain that the media pays too much attention to Palin and her various utterances. But the reality, as today's NYT article demonstrates, is that Democratic officials want her front and center, and have done everything they can to keep her in the spotlight, because they desperately need her to distract from their own record. Above all else, they want Palin and those like her to receive as much attention as possible, all in an attempt to try to use fear as a replacement for the hope and inspiration which are largely missing even among their own core supporters."

I've heard many people from Jon Stewart to Rachel Maddow to Sunday talk show people talk about how "it could have been worse" is a bad campaign slogan. I have to agree. The Democrats have a some impressive accomplishments, health care, finance reform, a genuinely improved economy and a draw down in Iraq. All of those could have been better and would have been if it wasn't for the Republicans. They should be shouting this from rooftops. I've heard Robert Reich and DNC chair Tim Kaine phrase it as at least we're moving in the right direction now, lets not go back to digging the hole deeper. What's missing is the rationale for their policies and the explanation for why it's the right direction. It should be easy to make that case and without doing so, the public debate is controlled by the GOP and vapid.

I looked for Christine O'Donnell's positions and her platform on her own website is nothing of greater depth than a soundbite. I'm fearful of new candidates getting in on the basis of fiscal responsibility when they can't do math. I see nothing from the Palin's to the O'Donnells to the Boehners indicating that they can. Ezra Klein has been explaining that Yes, tax cuts increase the deficit when you don't propose spending cuts. He also wrote about Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context. The Democrats have consistently failed to point out that the health care bill wasn't just about covering more people (which has been misappropriated as socialism) but as being necessary to cut the deficit.

So far The Tea Party Batting Average is frighteningly high, "They won in 24 out of 51 contests. That's a 47% winning record." Granted that is in primaries and not general elections and I'd expect them to do worse there (well I hope they will). As usual, Nate Silver has all the forecast details, After Delaware, G.O.P. Senate Takeover Appears Much Less Likely.

That doesn't stop others from offering various speculation on election night theories. Digby wonders if "the crazed rightward shift of the GOP might start to suppress enthusiasm among the mainstream Republicans and right leaning Independents. It's hard to know --- they may all come out just for the chance to stick it to the hated Democrats. But I wouldn't be surprised if some unknown number of them forget to vote. It's getting pretty weird. A lot weirder than 82."

I guess all this is to say I have no special insight and am a bit fearful. I suspect many others are in the same boat and after last week a lot of incumbents who weren't worried now are. It will be all too interesting to see how the effects of the Citizen's United decision affect this election.