Let's have a Tea Party on November 2

[KazooSkinsFan]

Legislation impacts the way we live our lives so Congress has a lot to do with social issues.

As in...

[KazooSkinsFan]

If it came down to paying for war or paying for everyone to get treatment for an illness, I am going to choose the latter.

I vote for not paying for either and letting them keep what they earn to make their own decisions

[KazooSkinsFan]

Um no, there are hundreds of state level positions also being contested on November 2, so what's your point? Besides, even if you are only talking about federal seats up for grabs, a lot of the taxing and spending goes towards social issues, so a lack of knowledge, as to where Tea Party candidates stand on social issues, is still kinda scary, don't you think?.

Social issue spending is microscopic in the budget. And yes, I was thinking Federal offices, but most of the state offices are legislative as well regarding the tea part.

[Deadskins]

Social issue spending is microscopic in the budget.

Unless you consider things like health care, welfare, and social security to be social issues.

[Cappster]

Social issue spending is microscopic in the budget.

Unless you consider things like health care, welfare, and social security to be social issues.

Bingo! We have a winner!

[Bob 0119]

You know, instead of telling me why you think I shouldn't vote for a Republican or a Tea Party candidate (because frankly your assessment of racism and violence have no real examples, just media allegations) I'd love to hear exactly why I should vote Democrat.

The reason of "well, you don't really know what the policies of the challengers are" is certainly a valid point, but unfortunately, I DO know what the policies of the incumbants are, and I'd love to see you defend them.

Obamacare. A law so popular that Democrats had to bribe and buy other Democrats just to get enough votes to cheat the system. This was done while the democrats had a filibuster proof majority.

So popular that no American was allowed to know what was in it until AFTER it was passed (even though we were promised that we'd see debate live on C-Span and be able to read the bill "five days before it was passed" on the internet. Nope, this was a special secret that according to Nancy Pelosi we just had to let them pass so "we can all find out what's in it."

So popular that the bill had to be snuck through in the middle of the night, behind closed and locked doors, away from prying eyes.

So popular that NO Demnocrat running for re-election is touting his vote for the bill as one of his accomplishments.

While we are on the subject, why should we re-elect a party that can't seem to pass anything (with the exception of Obamacare) like say middle class tax cuts even though they still have an overwhelming majority. Demkocrats have had the largest seat of power in government since 2007 (coincidentally about the same year the current recession started, if you believe in coincidences) and yet they can't seem to extend the middle class tax cuts they all say they are for.

Is it then a coincidence that far more "blue states" are in far worse economic shape than "red states?"

Why should I vote for a party that calls me a racist if I disagree with their policies?

Why should I vote for hypocrites who blocked student voucher programs (at the behest of the teacher's unions) which would have allowed inner city youth to attend a school of their choosing, while simultaneously paying for expensive private education for their own children?

Why would I vote for hypocrites that howl about Republicans and their "special interests" when they themselves are more beholden to Unions' and trial lawyers' interests than our own?

Why would I vote for a party that criticizes me for my religion, while it defends a religion that has NEVER CONDEMMED IT'S OWN EXTREMEISTS?

Why would I vote for a party that ran on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, only to appeal a ruling that overturned Don't Ask, Don't Tell because the victory would have gone to a group of Gay Republicans?

Why would I vote for a party that would listen to advice from countries like Mexico and Venezuela about our immigration policies while simultaneously condemning one of it's own states for trying to do something about an immigration problem the current administration seems content to ignore?

Maybe you can explain to me the part that I'm missing, because I gotta tell you, these incumbants are lousy.

[Deadskins]

You know, instead of telling me why you think I shouldn't vote for a Republican or a Tea Party candidate (because frankly your assessment of racism and violence have no real examples, just media allegations) I'd love to hear exactly why I should vote Democrat.

The reason of "well, you don't really know what the policies of the challengers are" is certainly a valid point, but unfortunately, I DO know what the policies of the incumbants are, and I'd love to see you defend them.

Are you talking to me? (the first paragraph sounds like no, but the second sounds like yes) Because I certainly wasn't implying that you should vote for or against anyone. I was just pointing out that not knowing anything (other than that they say they are going to cut taxes and spending) about who you are voting for is a scary proposition.

[Countertrey]

a lack of knowledge, as to where Tea Party candidates stand on social issues, is still kinda scary, don't you think?.

Is it any scarier than the millions who voted for "hope and change" yet had no idea what that meant? Is it any scarier than voting for and electing a president who had NEVER DONE ANYTHING of real substance, except offer "hope and change"? Give me a break.

There are plenty of things the Federal Government has no business doing. Every one of them costs... and every one needs critical review... and many can go. Every dollar not wasted by the Feds, is a dollar that doesn't come out of your... or my pocket.

example: how many federal law enforcement agencies are there? You have no idea, do you? It's a good bet that no one does.

[Cappster]

I am not sure who Bob is talking to either, but all I can say is I chose to quit voting for "lesser evil" the last time I voted for Bush. I don't vote democrat or republican (tea party = republican), because I feel they are out for their own personal interests and not in the interest of the country. Both Dems and Repubs play the election game and have been for a very long time.

The way I see it, no matter who has "control," the government will not get any smaller. To shrink the government and eliminate federal departments will cause many people to lose jobs. (not a popular campaign to run on). The federal government has grown 10x over the last century so why would I have reason to believe that any major political party would stop the growth and expansion?

And as far as racism is concerned. Again, it comes from my own personal experiences that people who align themselves with being republican or a tea partier have more prejudice tendencies against non-whites.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Social issue spending is microscopic in the budget.

Unless you consider things like health care, welfare, and social security to be social issues.

If you say so...

[KazooSkinsFan]

You know, instead of telling me why you think I shouldn't vote for a Republican or a Tea Party candidate (because frankly your assessment of racism and violence have no real examples, just media allegations) I'd love to hear exactly why I should vote Democrat.

The reason of "well, you don't really know what the policies of the challengers are" is certainly a valid point, but unfortunately, I DO know what the policies of the incumbants are, and I'd love to see you defend them.

Are you talking to me? (the first paragraph sounds like no, but the second sounds like yes) Because I certainly wasn't implying that you should vote for or against anyone. I was just pointing out that not knowing anything (other than that they say they are going to cut taxes and spending) about who you are voting for is a scary proposition.

No matter what they cut it's a good thing and you provided a pretty good list of places to start

[KazooSkinsFan]

tea party = republican

If that's so then why did the national Republican party actually try to defeat tea party candidates? I've never seen that before from either party. The Tea Partiers actually are disgusted with the Republican party which is why Obama won. That they are the same is just simplistically, uninsightfully wrong.

To shrink the government and eliminate federal departments will cause many people to lose jobs. (not a popular campaign to run on)

Actually it will create jobs. The Federal government spends money, but it doesn't produce anything. It's not possible to "create" a job without creating value. Think about it. For every government job created, two are destroyed. Take it to the extreme and you'll realize what'd happen, if everyone worked for the government creating nothing, then how would we live?

And as far as racism is concerned. Again, it comes from my own personal experiences that people who align themselves with being republican or a tea partier have more prejudice tendencies against non-whites.

So if I go to a prison and the people I see tell me they are Democrats, can I conclude all Democrats are prisoners? If you look at the national tea party movement then the theme is cutting taxes and cutting spending. That you know some people who you project to be all tea partiers is as silly as thinking they are winking and nodding that cutting spending means instituting a religious government and talking about tax cuts.

[KazooSkinsFan]

So now finally a group has come in and campaigned on the simple and obvious concept of cut taxes and spending and they seem to mean it.

I have a hard time seeing why one should believe them, though.

So, frankly we really do have nothing more to lose

Well, what if you help elect a bunch of Republicans and they act like Republicans?

Since Republicans act like Democrats now, I'd have lost nothing.

You seem to think that since 1988 the empty promises of certain conservative political movements have been negatives. I can see why: it'd be better not to put any support behind someone than vote them in on false promises.

Close, but to correct that I don't see the false promises as negatives I see their failure to be different then tax and spend democrats to be negatives. I see their false promises as just disappointing.

It doesn't seem cynical to me to think that these are false promises. If we take the rhetoric at face value, these candidates are basically promising what we've heard for the X hundredth or thousandth time — to do what no movement in American politics has done for at least a century and a half. In our political and cultural climate, I just don't see how a handful of outsider candidates are going to cut government in any meaningful way.

I agree, but there are differences. Unlike 1994 they actually attacked the Republican party and the party opposed them. That gives me hope they are different. They also remind me of John Engle in Michigan who said he'd end welfare for life and did to the howls of Democrats in a liberal State and did it and improved the economy and it was immensely popular. I do believe the majority of the population are fiscally conservative. So if I'm right, there is at least some difference. If I'm wrong, I lost nothing, they are the same. Who cares?

And that's assuming that they keep their word. In order to assume that, I have to put aside the problem that they are claiming to be pro-small-government yet also won't drastically reduce and/or end our wars. I also have to assume that, though they look and act like politicians taking advantage of an opportune moment, they should be trusted to bring change to Washington.

I agree with your view, but Republicans, Democrats and Tea Partiers all agree down the line on the wars. The only difference is the political verbiage behind it. And frankly the wars themselves aren't a big financial burden. They are a tiny part of the budget. The reason I oppose them is the arrogance of meddling in other's affairs and the hate it brings back to us. But to say they can't cut the budget w/o cutting the wars actually isn't backed up by the numbers.

Anyway, my point is that I have a fairly high standard before I can consider voting for someone, and I really don't see why I'm supposed to get behind this movement any more than I should have gotten behind Obama's campaign promises. I'd be willing to bet that two years from now the (principled) Tea Party supporters are going to be as disappointed in their guys as the (principled) Obama supporters are with the current president.

And I see voting for someone when there's a possible upside and zero downside as being worth considering. My standard isn't very high and yet neither party cleared it for 22 years. And it may be another 22. But they are the most credible I've seen in 22 years. Yes, a low standard. But again zero downside. Consider it.

[HEROHAMO]

Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Thats all.

[Irn-Bru]

We won't know how "obamacare" will unfold until it is put into action.

I don't think that's true. Would you wait to "see how it unfolds" before stopping your child from putting his fingers into an electrical socket?

Well, the thing is the majority of people voted Obama and his ideologies into office so the majority of the nation is getting what they asked for. I can only hope for the best possible outcome. If it came down to paying for war or paying for everyone to get treatment for an illness, I am going to choose the latter.

(1) Yes, but in practice you're going to be paying both a war(s) and universal healthcare. There's no choice there either.

(2) Why does 50% of people saying one thing mean that everyone else has to comply, even if it's socially destructive, morally repugnant, hurts innocent children, etc.?

(3) By the way, my question in (2) assumes a majority, which you are claiming Obama has. But a majority of people in this country did not vote for Obama. Less than 25% of the people living in the US voted for him. Many of them, myself included, don't vote precisely because there are no candidates who represent our views. I don't think people should be punished for not voting when the system doesn't represent them.

[Irn-Bru]

... I'd be willing to bet that two years from now the (principled) Tea Party supporters are going to be as disappointed in their guys as the (principled) Obama supporters are with the current president.

let me re-phrase this statement from its particular context to its universal application to the ENTIRE realm of politicians and political movements:

... I'd be willing to bet that two years from now the (principled) [name whatever politician or political movement] supporters are going to be as disappointed in their guys as the (principled) [name whatever politician or political movement] supporters are with the current [name whatever politician or political movement].

It's almost as though there's something wrong with The System!

[Irn-Bru]

And I see voting for someone when there's a possible upside and zero downside as being worth considering. My standard isn't very high and yet neither party cleared it for 22 years. And it may be another 22. But they are the most credible I've seen in 22 years. Yes, a low standard. But again zero downside. Consider it.

But I see many downsides in voting for Tea Party candidates. In roughly my order of concern: (1) They are pro-war, the fiscal and moral burden of which we appear to disagree over, (2) They agree with a number of other mainstream Republican positions that I do not want to support, (3) if I vote for the few things they seem good on, I cannot help but vote for the other stuff, too.

And that's if I take their rhetoric / campaign promises at their face value! Of course, I do not, and that brings me to the second point: I disagree with the idea that there's a realistic possibility of an upside with these guys. So in my view it's zero upside and probable downside. Even if I didn't hold the personal position of not voting on principle, I don't think I'd give these guys too much thought.

[Cappster]

We won't know how "obamacare" will unfold until it is put into action.

I don't think that's true. Would you wait to "see how it unfolds" before stopping your child from putting his fingers into an electrical socket?

Well, the thing is the majority of people voted Obama and his ideologies into office so the majority of the nation is getting what they asked for. I can only hope for the best possible outcome. If it came down to paying for war or paying for everyone to get treatment for an illness, I am going to choose the latter.

(1) Yes, but in practice you're going to be paying both a war(s) and universal healthcare. There's no choice there either.

(2) Why does 50% of people saying one thing mean that everyone else has to comply, even if it's socially destructive, morally repugnant, hurts innocent children, etc.?

(3) By the way, my question in (2) assumes a majority, which you are claiming Obama has. But a majority of people in this country did not vote for Obama. Less than 25% of the people living in the US voted for him. Many of them, myself included, don't vote precisely because there are no candidates who represent our views. I don't think people should be punished for not voting when the system doesn't represent them.

1) You are correct and there isn't really much I can do about paying for unjust wars and the healthcare plan that slid through the back door of congress. Classic case(s) of means that don't justify the ends.

2) The system is set up that way. The system is not perfect by any means and the majority, for right or wrong, has a better chance for "their America" to come to fruition. Even though, like we see most of the time, people in the political system usually just look at for themselves and other elitist.

3) I assume you are referring to the total population vs those who actually voted for him? That is irrelevant, because what counts, according to the system, are those who actually voted. And are you accounting for person(s) under the age of 18 as part of the voting population? By my calculation it is about 29% using the Census 2009 estimates of people under 18.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Yes, only 4 percentage points, but the point being the only voices heard are the voices that vote...for either republican or democrat :-/

[KazooSkinsFan]

Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Thats all.

Well, that and spending cuts. The problem with tax and spend is that taxes take money out of the economy and spending buys more government control over the economy. To advance liberty, you have to reduce both.

[KazooSkinsFan]

But I see many downsides in voting for Tea Party candidates. In roughly my order of concern: (1) They are pro-war, the fiscal and moral burden of which we appear to disagree over

I've been against the wars as long as you've known me. But on your point, I pointed out that both parties already support the war and they're going to continue that policy. How can it be a "downside" of electing them if they are going to continue the current policy? Granted it's not an "upside" but how is the same on an issue a "downside?" I also said that while the monetary cost of the war is a small portion of our overall budget (it is) the real cost of the war is the arrogance of meddling in foreign affairs and the hate it brings to us. Neither of those support that after as long as you've known me I suddenly support the cost or morality of the war. Saying that gum is cheap doesn't logically make me an advocate or opponent of gum, it's a reference to the price.

(2) They agree with a number of other mainstream Republican positions that I do not want to support, (3) if I vote for the few things they seem good on, I cannot help but vote for the other stuff,
And that's if I take their rhetoric / campaign promises at their face value! Of course, I do not, and that brings me to the second point: I disagree with the idea that there's a realistic possibility of an upside with these guys. So in my view it's zero upside and probable downside

Democrats also in policy agree with Republicans on all those positions, they have almost zero actual policy difference. The only differences are the intensity they push various issues and the rhetoric around it. I don't see how you refer to things that aren't going to change as "downside," that makes no sense. If they have no credibility with you, I can't argue you're wrong on that. But I will say if you wait to have someone prove to you they are different before you support them you will never make a difference because by the time you get on board it's already done. By definition.

[Irn-Bru]

But I see many downsides in voting for Tea Party candidates. In roughly my order of concern: (1) They are pro-war, the fiscal and moral burden of which we appear to disagree over

I've been against the wars as long as you've known me.

I didn't say you weren't against the wars; I said that we apparently disagree over moral and fiscal burden they represent — that is, the extent to which it is a fiscal and moral burden.

But on your point, I pointed out that both parties already support the war and they're going to continue that policy. How can it be a "downside" of electing them if they are going to continue the current policy? Granted it's not an "upside" but how is the same on an issue a "downside?"

Because I suspect they are likely to escalate current wars and are perhaps more likely to start new ones than other candidates.

I don't see how you refer to things that aren't going to change as "downside," that makes no sense. If they have no credibility with you, I can't argue you're wrong on that. But I will say if you wait to have someone prove to you they are different before you support them you will never make a difference because by the time you get on board it's already done. By definition.

I don't need to wait until they've already been in office, because there are other ways to tell. Someone, for example, might make a principled argument against big government that demonstrates a competency in economics and political theory. That would be enough to bring me around, I think . . . at least to consider supporting them. (So, for example, I gave a good amount of thought to whether I should support Ron Paul when he was a contender in the primaries in '08.)

On this point, the problem with the Tea Party candidates is that, while they sometimes state the right conclusions, I can't really be sure that they've got any clue what they are talking about beyond ideological talking points. I don't hear coherent, powerful arguments being made — I only hear from them the payoff of a good argument, i.e., a well-stated conclusion. But I can't take for granted that they've done the difficult work of supporting that idea with good theory . . . and thus I can't trust (and actually have good reason to doubt) that they will adhere to it as a guiding principle.

So why do I consider it a "downside" rather than an "unknown" or a "possible upside"? Because the lack of a principled philosophy, combined with the prospects of these candidates escalating policies I think are wrong, represents an impending danger. It's not simply "more of the same." I'd rather not cast my lot with them and hope it works out OK, because I think I can know enough about the situation to know that they will make it worse. It's not an unknown.

[Deadskins]

a lack of knowledge, as to where Tea Party candidates stand on social issues, is still kinda scary, don't you think?.

Is it any scarier than the millions who voted for "hope and change" yet had no idea what that meant? Is it any scarier than voting for and electing a president who had NEVER DONE ANYTHING of real substance, except offer "hope and change"? Give me a break.

No, it's not any scarier. Are you saying I did that, or suggested that anyone else do that? Still, those voting for Obama, could have, or at least should have, had some idea of how he would act once elected.

There are plenty of things the Federal Government has no business doing. Every one of them costs... and every one needs critical review... and many can go. Every dollar not wasted by the Feds, is a dollar that doesn't come out of your... or my pocket.

example: how many federal law enforcement agencies are there? You have no idea, do you? It's a good bet that no one does.

I agree. What's your point?

[KazooSkinsFan]

But I see many downsides in voting for Tea Party candidates. In roughly my order of concern: (1) They are pro-war, the fiscal and moral burden of which we appear to disagree over

Hmm I've been against the wars as long as you've known me.

I didn't say you weren't against the wars; I said that we apparently disagree over moral and fiscal burden they represent — that is, the extent to which it is a fiscal and moral burden.

OK, but what is your view you are "more" against them then me based on? I seriously doubt you are. I even said (and meant) in 2008 I'd vote for Democrats if I just believed they'd pull us out of the wars and even better out of the middle east. That Democrats were going to even change policy much less reverse course was an obvious lie, I said so, they proved me right.

Regarding cost, that I recognize the direct cost of the war is small relatively to our economy and size of our government is factual and doesn't mean I'm OK with it. And regarding morality, I both said it's arrogant to meddle in others affairs and the consequence of that is hatred. I've stated repeatedly I want the US to plot course to not have a single permanent military presence on any foreign soil. How exactly is it your view is actually in excess of that? I wouldn't have challenged you on who's belief is stronger, but you did so I'm just repeating my views to understand the basis of your statement.

Because I suspect they are likely to escalate current wars and are perhaps more likely to start new ones than other candidates.

I can't disagree that you suspect that, but I don't see a basis for it since they're running on spending and taxes. And I don't get why they would have a secret agenda to focus on the war any more then on social issues. If that's their agenda, why aren't they running on it?

I don't need to wait until they've already been in office...

I agree with everything you said on evaluating them. My standard is I'd be happy if someone would scream bloody murder when the political hacks of the two parties get together to steal more money from the American people. I think that the Republican machine has fought them shows they're nervous that would happen. Like you, I don't think they'll really change much, but if they can just put a spotlight on spending and tax hikes it's worth it. I just hope unlike in 1994 their fiscal conservatism lasts longer then 100 days. Though we do know again unlike 1994, they aren't supported by the Republican party.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Regarding cost, that I recognize the direct cost of the war is small relatively to our economy and size of our government is factual and doesn't mean I'm OK with it.

To clarify this point Irn-Bru, I brought this up in terms of what I understood to be one of your arguments to be that they can't really cut spending without cutting the war. I was refuting that point, not saying the war isn't that important because it's not that expensive (relatively to the budget). That's why I followed with the analogy that saying gum isn't expensive isn't a position on the usage of gum, only the cost of gum. They can (in theory at least) cut massively from the budget without the war and in fact cutting the war and nothing else wouldn't change our spending a lot. Though we agree the war would be on both our cut lists.

[Irn-Bru]

OK, but what is your view you are "more" against them then me based on?

I didn't say that I was "more against the wars" than you. I said that we appear to be in disagreement over the extent to which they pose a moral and financial burden on the country (and therefore the extent to which war should weigh on one's decision whether to support a candidate or not). That doesn't mean I think you are OK with wars, or (necessarily) that I am "more" against them.

What I mean is this: Your claim is that war represents a "small" — or even "tiny" — fraction of what the government spends its money on. Presumably you have in mind the dollar figure attached strictly to operations in the Middle East, something like $1 trillion over the last ten years. So, you're thinking, $1 trillion spread over ten years, during which the average annual federal budget was roughly $1.5–$2 trillion, means only about 5% of the budget was spent on war. Thus we can call it "tiny" or make the claim that the "real" cost of the war is the bad will fomented in the areas where we are involved.

However, I can't restrict my own understanding of the cost of the war to the nominal dollar figure from the federal budget. In the first place, the entire so-called military industrial complex exists to be an aggressive war-making machine, and so justifies its always-increasing budgets with whatever operations we happen to be involved with. Notice that I didn't say I'm against "these wars" but simply "war" — I'm trying to make a larger point about political policy. So the vast majority (i.e., 99% or more) of the entire defense budget, which is by no means "small" or "tiny," is part of what I have in mind. This includes not only the military but the large number of "private" defense contractors and security firms that do not register as war expenditures, but rather as general defense services.

Since you're an economist, you'll appreciate my next point: we have to look at both seen and unseen costs to war. The opportunity cost of war is much greater than any other government program that I can think of. Without the military-industrial complex, we'd have millions of talented, eager workers ready to take on productive jobs that would increase the wealth of the average American. The resources dedicated to weapons, transports, machinery, security networks, etc., would instead be deployed in the service of consumers. Approximately one third of the federal budget, per year, would instead be directed to productive processes, consumer goods, and as cash in people's pockets.

I won't beat this point to death because I think with some reflection you will understand why I see this is particularly egregious for government war expenditures as opposed to, e.g., giving the homeless welfare checks. Why a shift away from war would be more dramatic, dollar for dollar, than privatizing some social service that government currently performs.

Furthermore, war-making has long been associated with indirect taxation: inflation. As Randolf Bourne famously wrote, "war is the health of the state." When governments had to finance wars via direct taxation, they were much more restricted in their ability to wage them. I won't go on about this here, but in my view (as backed by economics) inflation is both the largest transfer of wealth in American society and the reason we have business cycles that are so devastating to economic activity. Take away war and you take away one of the greatest false indicators of wealth; the economy and currency would be that much more stable, predictable, and sound.

OK, so much for the financial-burden side of things. Just a few points on morality to try to communicate why I think it's such a big deal.

- From a moral perspective, far worse than the arrogance we display or the hatred it causes (in my view) are the deaths of tens-to-hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in these countries. This alone, for me, escalates the war from being "something I disagree with" to something I could never support in such a direct manner as voting for a pro-war candidate. Even if the person running was Mr. Libertarian in all other respects, I couldn't justify giving him my support as though all that good would somehow outweigh this evil. I'd hold to this even if, in not voting, I knew that his opponent (who was just as bad on war and also bad on everything else) would be more likely to win.

- We are also running a number of secret prisons and engaging in torture, which poses its own problems, to say the least.

- At home, being in a state of war justifies the most outrageous government behavior, in terms of invasions of privacy, violations of rights, and an increase in the nanny / surveillance state. When the military so dominates a culture, it begins seeping into every aspect of our lives. I'd argue, for example, that the militarization of the police in this country has been an alarming feature of the past decade and one of the most pressing social issues of today. Likewise, the war on terror is used as an excuse to amp up the war on drugs considerably, with all of the predictable results and decay in culture.


Now, you might not disagree with very much of what I wrote above. The reason I write this out now is because it's apparent to me from the way we frame the issue that we have come to different conclusions on the significance of the above facts in relation to other political issues. That's all I was trying to get across. And I think when one understands my views above, it's easy to see why I analyze the upside / downside of Tea Party candidates the way I do. I was hoping I wouldn't have to write it all out like that, because it took a bit of effort , but since you asked, I answered.