What with all the hubub going on in the media surrounding this year's midterm elections, I thought I would strike while the iron is hot and get your opinions over what's going on.

First off - what do you all think of this Tea Party movement? Do you think they actually have the ability to take back control of the senate this year or do you think all of their noise is a by-product of the knowledge that they don't stand a chance in doing so?

Do you think the decision by the republicans to filibuster the Defense Bill helped or hurt their cause?

Do you think we aren't hearing the same sort of fervent bru-ha-ha from the Democratic side because they are wary or do you think it's because Democrats already have their minds made up about this election (or is it something else?)

Do you think either side is making their plans for the future of this country easily available or known (i.e. their plans for the economy, jobs, the deficit, school funding, etc.)

I think this can be an interesting discussion, so please don't start flinging poo and make me close it.

I think that if the Tea Pary movement "takes back" control of the Senate, they won't know what to do with it once they've got it. It'll be like a bunch of rowdy children taking over the school. I might have had some hope for the Tea Party movement if they had rallied around Ron Paul instead of Sarah Palin.



I think it probably hurt their cause, as does every move the Republicans make that has more to do with partisan politics than with a genuine concern for the people of this nation. Not that the Democrats aren't guilty of partisan politics, themselves.



I'm sorry that I've no answer for that one (or the next one). I dislike both the Republican and Democratic parties, and am suspicious of both, so my opinions about what either may be thinking, or my opinions of either party's "plans for the future of this country" are not going to be very charitable.

-- Nephele

That's probably the most astute description I have heard anyone say about their "movement". Totally in agreement that they lack the intelligence needed to actually run anything in government.



I think we haven't heard anything from the Dems because they don't feel like they have to say anything. They think that if they sit back and just let the Republicans continue the way they are going, the Reps will continue to shoot themselves in the foot and essentially hand them the election.

On the other hand, I think the lack of campaigning on the side of the Dems may bite them in the ass come election day since the people who are going out to vote won't have the same sort of candidate recognition that the Rep party does. And as we all know, the vast majority of voters don't bother looking into their candidates and merely go by what the shiny magical talking box in their living room tells them.

The defense bill's problems were the Democrats' own fault. They got greedy with the bill and threw in the Dream Act which pretty much killed the entire bill. Don't Ask seemed to attract the most attention from the media but: Is it at all reasonable to expect the Republican Party to pass a defense bill with BOTH the Dream Act and Don't Ask's removal? That's a very tall order, and it's just not realistic to expect the Republican Party to go along with something like that. With unemployment so high and with so many Americans blaming immigration for their personal economic problems, the Republicans had much to gain by blocking this bill.

I don't know if anyone will agree with this, but I believe that in American politics the key to elections is in mobilizing voters. Voter turn out is traditionally so low that, if one side can get its people to want to come out and vote in numbers, then they will hold the highest chance at winning. The Republicans seem to be better at this than the Democrats are. Bush's success in 2004 probably had a lot to do with all the social-conservative ballot initiatives in state after state [such as all those gay marriage bans].

So with that in mind, now the Republicans can go now and say "We prevented an amnesty program for illegal aliens who would have been competing for YOUR jobs." At a time when the Tea Party is mobilizing right-leaning voters on illegal immigration [among other issues]. I think at the end of the day that is going to impact a lot more voters than whether or not gays can serve in the military.



If the Tea Party must take back congress, I hope you're right. I suspect however that in office they would act like relatively normal republican officials. The Tea Party is dangerously close to becoming the GOP by another name. They have some of the same insiders, some of the same special interest supporters, and refuse to split off the GOP when it comes to being put on the ballot [i..e the Delaware primary with Christine O'Donnell]. The normal every day Americans might believe the Tea Party is some new 3rd party but every day it is looking more and more like an extension of the GOP.

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. So much so, in fact that what you say here...



...serves to illustrate the real reason why the Republican party prevented that amnesty program for illegal aliens. The Republican party may play on voters' fears of job competition with illegal aliens, but the truth is that it's the Republican party that's scared.

The Republicans are scared that, should amnesty be granted to illegal aliens in the form of the DREAM Act, the resulting legal permanent resident status of all these aliens would then pave the way towards their U.S. citizenship, and then all those former illegal aliens are going to register as Democrats upon obtaining citizenship. Which would thus tip the electoral scales in favor of the Democratic party.

It's the fear of losing power that drives the Republican party. And the Democrats want to hold onto the power they've gained. So I suspect that the thought of a previously untapped source of political support from illegal aliens may have occurred to more than a few Democratic proponents of the DREAM Act, as well.

-- Nephele

I wonder if I could get permanent resident status by being an illegal? (via overstaying my visa) Its seriously tempting, and beats calling myself Miguel and buying a plane ticket to Mexico. A bit of sly humor but I am asking a serious question.

Seriously? You can't overstay your non-immigrant visa in the States without getting into trouble and deported.

Letalis Senium, the illegal alien

-- Nephele

Down to the station Miss!

The Republicans are the ones who originally came up with the DREAM act and tried to introduce it as an amendment to the VERY SAME BILL in 2007 - so that's sure as hell not why it was blocked.

Source

I think that if the rest of the US wakes up and starts really paying attention to what's been going on, the Republicans are going to lose their ass this election cycle and the Democrats will take a firmer hold on the Senate. However, knowing that politics in this country is more of a popularity contest than anything, I think we're going to see some of the crazies from the Tea Party take away seats from the Dems and we're in for a hell of a ride.

Sorry; I just wanted to raise a comparison here.

In the UK, you actually CAN do that. As of a couple of years ago, the concept of being an "overstayer" was officially scrapped in this country.

What this means is that, should you have arrived on a work permit, and then, when it comes up for renewal, decide not to renew it (which must be one heck of a temptation, given the cost) and stay, to all intents and purposes, illegally, you can - once you've saved up enough cash - apply at some point down the road, inside the UK, and, as long as you meet the criteria of whatever scheme you're applying under, you can get legalised status in the UK again. The only penalty for having overstayed is that, if your application is refused, you don't get right of appeal against the UK Border Agency's decision.

On the other hand, if you're lucky enough to stay underground for 14 years, you can apply to settle here, whatever your status (people who've done so legally but not in a category normally leading to settlement in this country can apply after 10 years).

I disagree. While two republicans came up with the idea ~3 years ago, even in 2007 the Dream Act's support base was made up mostly of democrats, not the republicans. Just because two republicans were instrumental in supporting the bill [that is, before they flip flopped for votes] doesn't mean it was a Republican-Party backed bill. It was not a party-action. Hatch was basically acting as a moderate until he learned he would get more popularity and votes for being more socially conservative.

Just look at the 2007 sponsors of the Dream Act in the House. Some 86 representatives, of which a mere four were Republicans [and those four were from FL and OH]. Fast forward to 2010 and we're talking 128 sponsors in the house, of which a mere 5 were republicans [and those were from FL, CA and LA]. In both cases the bulk of the republican support in the house, what little there was, came mostly from Florida and I suspect that was because they were hoping to get a boost in Hispanic voters in exchange for supporting the b ill.


[/quote]

That's about as likely as having a million dollars materialize from nothing in my closet while I get struck by lightning in the same spot twice in sequence. Informed is not a characteristic I ever think about when I think of the American voting population.

Yep, which is why I said it wasn't bloody likely. The next few years should be interesting.