Well, that's where you lose me.

When a white supremacist holes up in a mountain cabin with a cache of illegal firearms--firearms he's not supposed to have anyway, since he's a convicted felon--and his family gets killed because he's too much of an idiot to follow the Constitution he professes to love so much and have his day in court, it's his own goddamn fault.

Similarly, when a bunch of religious wackos following a delusional child molester who claims to be Jesus decide to roast themselves alive, I say good on them. Get the marshmallows.

Today we have one sample (and I know one sample is insufficient from which to draw a conclusion) of Tea Party popularity in the Texas primary, a state in which one could reasonably assume the Tea Party would have more support than the national average.

As of 9:05 this evening, the Tea Party affiliated candidate, Medina (who recently indicated that Obama should release his birth certificate), has gained just shy of 17% of the republican primary votes for governor. Again as of 9:05 those who voted in the republican primary comprise 60% of all those who voted in the democratic and republican primaries for governor. So let's just say that 60% of Texas voters self-identify as republicans or republican leaning independents. The actual breakdown is closer to 50%/50%; but, to be conservative, I'll use the 60%/40% split. (The TX Sec. of State web site has today's results at 57%/43%.)



So the Tea Party affiliated candidate garnered a bit less than 17% of the republican primary voters. 17% x 60% = 10.2%. And, of course, the number would be even less if there were democrats who voted for Medina.

A ten percent fringe, in Texas, none-the-less, where fringiness is a hallowed tradition.

Please correct my methodology if I've made errors; but remember, as I said above, I understand this is but one sample. Medina may also have had name recognition problems, may have been a crappy campaigner, or her poor showing may be attributable to other factors.

The adults in those situations are on their own, have made their foolish decision, and get whatever comes of it. It's the kids who are drug into those situations that tear my heart.

Re the strength, or lack thereof, of the teabaggers...I wish I had clipped and saved the article I read awhile back which detailed similar movements that have arisen throughout American history. This is nothing new. The only thing that makes the teabaggers different is that they are being promoted by the right-wing press like Faux. In the past, while the press have certainly reported on it all, they haven't normally been active participants. However, that's also not entirely true because the Hearst newspapers, as just one example, often got involved in things like this in order to make news instead of just reporting it. So even that isn't entirely new.

Anyway, I certainly don't discount them but I do agree that they are the fringe. Whether they turn out to be the fore-front of a serious movement that makes an impact remains to be seen.

We sent it to SeaWorld Orlando, put it in a small tank and wait for it to "play" with the trainers.

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one...



Lucha Libre... fantastic wrestling right there.

•••••

We now return to your originally scheduled thread...

To correct your methodology, I'd have to start with the above premise, in general. You seem to be imagining a Bird of Paradise. I see a Shit a Quart.

Within the time frame of Reagan forward has occurred the largest transfer of wealth in U.S. history. I think it would be accurate to say it didn't trickle down. Concurring with that, our government, at the behest of corporate bosses, has abetted the transfer of millions of jobs to other countries. In collusion, banks have plundered our pensions and other assets. All while the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been corrupted.

I don't think I'm being over dramatic, as you put it, as I rail against the morphing of my country into an oligarchy. I wasn't raised to be a serf. I'm mad as hell and I've got two choices, fight or flee. So, how's Mexico?

There is no relationship between the methodology of my previous post and the relative corruption of our government. So I'm not buying that line.



I don't at all disagree; but, then, we were discussing the impacts the Tea Party might have on our political system and future elections.

Relative to governmental corruption, if you haven't already, read Dee Brown's book Hear the Lonesome Whistle Blow which describes the extreme corruption surrounding Congressional issuance of railroad grants. Likewise read about the rampant corruption of the Continental Congress.

I certainly do not deny our political system is corrupt, I'm just saying it is less corrupt today than he has been throughout the history of our nation. An opinion I think is consistent with the historical record.

I have to agree with Turnow on the historical record. Read up about the Gilded Age and the reasons why laws were created to break up monopolies, to eliminate child labor, and the reason for the birth of the US union movement. Let's not forget the taking of Indian lands even after treaties were signed giving them land in perpetuity which was then taken away once that land became valuable. These are just a few of many examples where government was corrupt and in bed with business and investors prior to the current era.

Yes, yes I'm aware of said past but I don't fathom what you are trying to tell me. Is it that that kind of past is a thing of the past? Is it that we studied that past and now have a rosy present because it isn't being repeated? Is it that we still have corruption but it's tolerable now? Did the leopard change its spots? Does my assertion about the present have have less legitimacy because I have not acknowledged the lineage of greed and corruption throughout our history?

Right! Let God sort them out.

You asserted that the Tea Party will ascend to become a political force because of how politically corrupt the USA has become. I disagreed, noting that the USA is less politically corrupt than it has ever been, and asserted that the cranky 10% has always been with us.

That's all, though I think you moved the target a bit.

As you pointed out a few posts back, we just disagree.
It's OK.