PDA

View Full Version : A Silver lining on the tea party?


popcorn_karate
02-09-2011, 02:03 PM
just heard that the Patriot Act failed to be extended in the House due to some of the tea party-ish new republicans siding with democrats against big, intrusive government.

sweet!

Wonderment
02-09-2011, 03:39 PM
Yes, good job Tea Party!

Now on to defense cuts and withdrawal from Afghanistan.

graz
02-09-2011, 04:04 PM
It will be recast and voted on again without requiring the bypass rules. It's likely to pass :(

TwinSwords
02-09-2011, 04:49 PM
From the Washington Monthly:
...26 Republicans broke ranks and voted with 122 Democrats against the measure...

You'll likely hear some media accounts saying that the "Tea Party" wing of the GOP was responsible for beating back the Patriot Act, but that's not quite true. Of the 26 Republican "nay" votes, only eight came from the massive freshman class, and many of those generally associated with the right-wing faction -- including Michele Bachmann and Allen West -- voted with the GOP leadership in support of the bill. Indeed, looking specifically at the 52 members of the House Tea Party Caucus, 44 of them voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

Tea Partiers, in other words, generally backed the bill, their rhetoric about "limited government" notwithstanding.

(Source (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027912.php))

Ocean
02-09-2011, 07:07 PM
From the Washington Monthly:


(Source (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027912.php))

Wow, I had a brief moment of excitement thinking that perhaps there were some principles among the ranks of Teapartiers. I should have timed it. I guess it took me about 30 seconds to scan through this thread and reach the cruel truth. "Libertarians", sure.

TwinSwords
02-09-2011, 07:33 PM
Wow, I had a brief moment of excitement thinking that perhaps there were some principles among the ranks of Teapartiers. I should have timed it. I guess it took me about 30 seconds to scan through this thread and reach the cruel truth. "Libertarians", sure.

IIR, there are 87 GOP freshmen this term. 8 of them voted against the renewal of the PATRIOT Act. That's less than 10%. Even within the GOP Tea Party caucus, only 8 of 52 vote against renewal.

And how is this spun? It's spun as the complete opposite of what's true. Suddenly the whole national tea party movement is credited with what happened -- even as some of those 8 who voted against it said they will vote for it next time it comes up for renewal.

These are Orwellian times. Until we can somehow reassert the primacy of reality over spin, we have no chance of tackling the problems we face. I find particularly baffling the desire of many on the left to build bridges with a political movement that is a concentrated form of conservatism: by almost every measure, the tea party is the more conservative, more extreme, and more activist subset of the GOP.

chiwhisoxx
02-09-2011, 07:48 PM
IIR, there are 87 GOP freshmen this term. 8 of them voted against the renewal of the PATRIOT Act. That's less than 10%. Even within the GOP Tea Party caucus, only 8 of 52 vote against renewal.

And how is this spun? It's spun as the complete opposite of what's true. Suddenly the whole national tea party movement is credited with what happened -- even as some of those 8 who voted against it said they will vote for it next time it comes up for renewal.

These are Orwellian times. Until we can somehow reassert the primacy of reality over spin, we have no chance of tackling the problems we face. I find particularly baffling the desire of many on the left to build bridges with a political movement that is a concentrated form of conservatism: by almost every measure, the tea party is the more conservative, more extreme, and more activist subset of the GOP.

Who exactly is spinning it this way? Every place I've read about it has noted that only 8 members voted to eliminate it.

TwinSwords
02-09-2011, 08:19 PM
Who exactly is spinning it this way? Every place I've read about it has noted that only 8 members voted to eliminate it.
There is a thread in the BhTV forum spinning it that way. Here's (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6495) a link to it. It was also spun this way in some blog posts I saw while I was at work this afternoon. And when I turned on MSNBC after getting home, Cenk Uygur was spinning it the same way.

I'll grant there is some pushback on the spin, too.

TwinSwords
02-09-2011, 08:21 PM
Also, see here (http://www.google.com/search?tbs=mbl:1&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1110&bih=748&q=tea+party+blocks+patriot&btnG=Search).

graz
02-09-2011, 08:26 PM
Who exactly is spinning it this way? Every place I've read about it has noted that only 8 members voted to eliminate it.

Along with overcoming your aversion to google, you might try here (http://www.memeorandum.com/) anytime you look to deflect a line of criticism that you don't want to engage or believe. It will allow you to short circuit the knee jerk denial.

chiwhisoxx
02-09-2011, 08:42 PM
Along with overcoming your aversion to google, you might try here (http://www.memeorandum.com/) anytime you look to deflect a line of criticism that you don't want to engage or believe. It will allow you to short circuit the knee jerk denial.

Yes, because indicating that I'm perfectly willing to believe whatever TS is claiming if he provided evidence definitely shows that I'm trying to deflect criticism. The criticism pains me in particular, since I'm a member of the media. Also, I guess it's now my job to investigate every claim made be someone in these forums. I eagerly await your BFF swooping in and attempting to mock my post.

graz
02-09-2011, 08:48 PM
Yes, because indicating that I'm perfectly willing to believe whatever TS is claiming if he provided evidence definitely shows that I'm trying to deflect criticism. The criticism pains me in particular, since I'm a member of the media.

No need for touchiness!
Not only does the shoe fit. But you're wearing it sportingly and regularly.

Wonderment
02-09-2011, 08:57 PM
There is a thread in the BhTV forum spinning it that way.

Sorry. I contributed to that by praising "the Tea Party" instead of merely the small minority within the TP who are opposing the PA extension.

That said, my view is we progressives should be supporting the Republicans who are serious about rejecting the PA, and who are likely to be the same ones that will get serious about reducing defense spending and ceasing to wage stupid wars.

Thank you, TP minority.

TwinSwords
02-09-2011, 09:01 PM
Along with overcoming your aversion to google, you might try here (http://www.memeorandum.com/) anytime you look to deflect a line of criticism that you don't want to engage or believe. It will allow you to short circuit the knee jerk denial.

That's where I first picked it up, too.

Interesting note: Weigel was debunking the "tea party blocks patriot act renewal" on his Slate blog earlier, but then he was a guest on MSNBC where he helped to push the idea. (I guess to be charitable I should acknowledge that people can rapidly change their minds as they process new information and arguments.)

graz
02-09-2011, 09:05 PM
... (I guess to be charitable I should acknowledge that people can rapidly change their minds as they process new information and arguments.)

And to be cynical, it's a good barometer for assessing spin and talking points.

bjkeefe
02-10-2011, 02:31 AM
It will be recast and voted on again without requiring the bypass rules. It's likely to pass :(

Correct.

For anyone who wants the gory details: The only reason the bill was defeated was because it was a so-called "expedited" bill, which meant it had to have a two-thirds majority to pass. The guy in charge, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), is expected to bring the bill back to the floor within days, and next time, it will only require a simple majority to pass.

And let's not kid ourselves. The vote this time was 277 in favor, 148 opposed. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Republicans and all too many Democrats in the House still strongly support the plan (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/house-declines-to-extend-patriot-act-provisions/70979/) to ...

... reauthorize three expiring powers under the PATRIOT Act--among them, allowing ''roving wiretaps'' and searches of people's medical, banking, and library records.

... and (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_patriot_act) ...

... the "lone-wolf" provision of a 2004 anti-terror law that permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. people not known to be affiliated with a specific terrorist organization.

chiwhisoxx
02-10-2011, 02:43 AM
The fact that it looks this now isn't going to get struck down is a little depressing to me. I don't share the outrage at the Patriot Act that a lot of you do, but I'm definitely ambivalent about it, and my ambivalence has grown over time. The part that depresses me is that it seems like this is a situation where a functioning democracy should strike down a law like this. Not because of anything in the substance of the law (although that argument can certainly be made) but because the people have overwhelmingly rejected this bill. I'm not one to dismiss the fact that we're a democratic republic, and not pure democracy. And I don't think laws should work by a raise of hands. But pushback against the Patriot Act seemed like a huge part of the 2006 elections, and still a significant part of the 2008 elections. It's disappointing that public officials don't reflect this popular will. If more politicians were making a substantive defense of the Patriot Act, that would be one thing. But most people seem to be voting for it because nobody ever lost an election for looking tough on national security.

popcorn_karate
02-10-2011, 04:39 PM
There is a thread in the BhTV forum spinning it that way.

I'm "spinning" this? come on, man, get a grip.

Was I a little excitable in posting about something that i had little detail on? yes

Is that spinning" no

Please note that the thread title has a question mark in it not an exclamation point, and as an aside, you probably don't need links to a threads you are posting in : )

popcorn_karate
02-10-2011, 04:44 PM
For anyone who wants the gory details: The only reason the bill was defeated was because it was a so-called "expedited" bill, which meant it had to have a two-thirds majority to pass. The guy in charge, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), is expected to bring the bill back to the floor within days, and next time, it will only require a simple majority to pass.

thanks for the corrective info, BJ.

(that B does stand for buzzkill, right?)

TwinSwords
02-10-2011, 10:18 PM
Sorry. I contributed to that by praising "the Tea Party" instead of merely the small minority within the TP who are opposing the PA extension.

That said, my view is we progressives should be supporting the Republicans who are serious about rejecting the PA, and who are likely to be the same ones that will get serious about reducing defense spending and ceasing to wage stupid wars.

Thank you, TP minority.

Speaking of that minority (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ucaI-i26fY&feature=player_embedded).

Quite grim.

Wonderment
02-13-2011, 02:07 AM
Here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13sun1.html?_r=1&hp)

Last week... 26 Republicans in the House demonstrated a remarkable consistency by joining 122 Democrats to prevent the extension of three questionable provisions of the Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law created during the Bush administration.