« A GOP Circular Firing Squad?
Looking Beyond New Hampshire To South Carolina, The Real Showdown State »
Tea Partiers Against Government Before They Were For It?
Tea Partiers claim to support smaller government but are most enthusiastic about Rick Santorum, who hearts earmarks and right-wing nanny state paternalism, and Newt Gingrich, who would use big government to finance colonies on the moon.
How to explain this contradiction?
First of all, I suspect that many Tea Partiers really don’t know what they stand for other than identity politics. Secondly, I suspect as do some other pundits, that many Tea Partiers who gave Santorum a big bump in Iowa didn’t really know what he stood for, let alone the fact that he is a Roman Catholic and may not be right with their God.
In any event, Tea Partier will have little influence today in New Hampshire and only a bit more in South Carolina on January 21, but it may be that Iowa was their high water mark insofar as influencing the outcome of caucuses and primaries.
7 Responses to “Tea Partiers Against Government Before They Were For It?”
I’m not sure if “a bit more” would describe the Tea Party’s influence in SC. They did help elect a governor (Nikki Haley) and we are talking about the South.
Almost their entire existence is due to their antipathy to the current president.
Check out the picture:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/01/04/144695977/south-carolina-tea-partiers-wish-romney-would-go-away
@The_Ohioan
Your link is a good assessment that matches what I’m hearing in the field.
Your assessment is a little off though. Although Obama is (over)used as the scapegoat, the alarm is really over the direction and scope of the debt and deficit. At some point, they’re going to have to come to grips with a military budget that even the military says is too big.
ProfE
True, that is the reason for some Tea Party members – those that ignored the overt racism shown in all those signs in early Tea Party rallies. And ignored those who funded all the early organization efforts and ignored the antipathy for any authority of those who were elected.
My opinion is that those whose main concern is the debt and deficit would do better to join many of the reputable really nonpartisan groups that are actively pressuring Congress to do something about them.
I joined the Concord Coalition in 1992 for just that reason and have been an active member since.
No doubt the Tea Party will give President Obama credit for his winding down the war in Iraq, and his now tackling the job of slimming down the Military budget, soon — some day — never?
We again have a seeming contradiction, this one regarding the Pentagon budget:
Tea Partiers want a smaller military as part of smaller government, yet Santorum and Gingrich never met a war they didn’t like while Perry would recommit U.S. troops to Iraq to counter the threat that Iran poses in that country, which is beyond rich considering that threat exists because of the lengthy U.S. occupation.
The issue, as usual, is voter ignorance.
I think I found the source of your disconnect Shaun. You think the Tea Partiers look at their stated values, then look at the candidate, and see if they match up. When in reality they look at the candidate, look at the picture of Romney they have in their wallet, and see if THEY match up. If they do, they run the other way. If they don’t, you have a grass roots campaign in your corner until the media spotlight shows too many of your warts and baggage and said Tea Partier can no longer vote for this person. And believe me, Santorum has lots of warts and baggage.
Santorum is a narrow minded simpleton. You might think this is just a liberal hacking away at a conservative, but Santorum is special. In the coming weeks, or months if he wins the nomination somehow, that is going to be made plain. He is going to be another GOP candidate what makes you wonder later, “How did he get so far?”.
slamfu:
An excellent analysis. You’re hired.