Skip to main content

First, I want to say that I want the Democrats to maintain their Senate majority.  That said, if the Democrats are going to lose a race, I want a tea bagger to win it.  Because I think it will crush the life out of the tea bagger movement for a tea bagger to actually have to govern instead of just run.

Also, I think at least one tea bagger will win anyway (most likely Miller or Paul).  I would, from a 2010-2012 perspective, wish they did not.  But, looking beyond 2012, I think it will help us.

Therefore, I think there are advantages if a tea bagger becomes a Senator this year.

If a tea bagger becomes a Senator, suddenly they have to put their money where their mouth is.  They will give speeches on C-Span that will reveal their extreme views.  These speeches will be picked up by the legitimate news networks.  No more hiding from the press.

The tea bagger's views will be cast into the sunlight.  And those views will wilt there.  A Senator who espouses the views Miller, Paul, Angle, O'Donell, and the rest do will be shown in the light they deserve: as utterly fringe and absurd.  Much like Bachmann but in the Senate, a much harsher light than the House.

When the public, even some of those who supported the tea baggers, see those policies in action, it will destroy other tea bagger candidates.  Sure, an element will remain, but in the light of legislative action and scrutiny the tea bagger agenda will be dismissed as ineffectual, ill-advised, and insipid.

If one tea bagger makes it in the Senate this year it will crash the movement in 2012 and on.  As much as I want to see Democrats win, that may be a fair price to pay.  

Originally posted to TexDemAtty on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:27 PM PDT.


Would a tea bagger winning in 2010 help in 2012?

19%21 votes
55%61 votes
18%20 votes
0%1 votes
5%6 votes

| 109 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    Republican Platform = Fear, Anger, and Hate. Oddly their God preached against the same.

    by TexDemAtty on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:27:44 PM PDT

  •  A tea bagger has already won. (15+ / 0-)

    Scott Brown. He was backed by the tea party. He won. He betrayed the tea party. It hasn't hurt the tea party. He's now the most popular politician in Massachusetts after helping gut financial reform.

    I don't want any tea party candidates to win, period.

  •  The guy in Utah will be bad enough. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, SoCalSal

    As well, I'm sure tea-baggers will capture house districts.  We don't need to concede a single senate seat to them.

    "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau

    by James Allen on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:12 PM PDT

    •  I'm not conceding (0+ / 0-)

      But, looking at the environment, I think there is an advantage to us in 2012 to having one of these tea baggers winning.  I'd love to win every race, but I think we will lose out somewhere.  But a tea bagger victory will expose their views, which I think will be good next election.

      Republican Platform = Fear, Anger, and Hate. Oddly their God preached against the same.

      by TexDemAtty on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:49:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand what you're saying (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, JeffW, James Allen

        Sharron Angle "voted 'no' so frequently on matters of wide consensus that votes were often called as '41-to-Angle'."

        I'm OK with the baggers establishing a record with so-called "independent, moderate" voters.

        My problem is, I think those so-called "independent, moderate" voters are really just people who aren't paying attention.

        But I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say I hope it's not more than one bagger in the Senate.

        And there's something else to think about; If they lose EVERY election (as improbable as that may be) it will destroy them. Which may be a bad thing, given the "civil war" going on in the GOP.

        It's a hard call, but I hear what you're saying.

        "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

        by Timbuk3 on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:55:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I was just looking at the numbers and looking for how it can help if the results come in like the current projection.

          I want the most fringe tea bagger to be the winner.  Right now, that's a tough race to call, but I would say its either Miller or Paul.  I think Miller is harder to beat, so I'll let that "constitutional" divorce attorney go to town.  (For the record, from what I have read, I, just a little general civil attorney who has barely touched the Constitution since law school, know more constitutional law than he does; after all I did get a B in Con Law just a decade ago.)

          Republican Platform = Fear, Anger, and Hate. Oddly their God preached against the same.

          by TexDemAtty on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 10:26:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  At least a couple of teabaggers will win (0+ / 0-)

    Mike Lee in Utah will win (in the words of Edwin Edwards) unless he's "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl."

    Marco Rubio will win in Florida unless the Democrats completely abandon Meek, and they won't do that.

    Wouldn't surprise me if Sharron Angle, as bat$hit crazy as she is, beats Harry Reid in Nevada.

    So there will be a few whackjobs who win, whether we like it or not.

  •  All Republicans are Tea Baggers (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk3, JeffW, NamelessGenXer

    I know some Republicans are being thrown out and replaced with Tea Baggers. If they aren't trying to get rid of these fascist racist, then they're a part of the problem too. By saying nothing about the racist in their ranks, they are approving of their actions.

    Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

    by kid funkadelic on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:54:38 PM PDT

  •  Demint, Inhofe, Coburn, Chambliss, Sessions (8+ / 0-)

    for god's sake, how many of these idiots do you want to prove your point?

    I think we've got more than enough ignorant farm molesting morons as it is in the Senate, more than capable of making the case.

  •  LOL NO.. (0+ / 0-)

    Who in their right mind wants any teabaggin fool to win?

  •  Gawd this is sofa king stupid. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 10:02:19 PM PDT

  •  I think there are 3 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk3, TexDemAtty

    Utah, Alaska & Rand Paul in Kentucky, in particular, that, whether "teabagger" or not, will be nutty enough to help the Dem's define the Republicans next time as extremist.  You are absolutely correct.  The perfect outcome for the Democratic party this time is that the Nut-cases win in the already republican red states, and they lose in places like Delaware, which looked to be solid now.  

    You definitely need a few of them in "power", but still out of it to spout off how crazy they are.  That will help define them prior to 2012.  Heaven forbid that none win this year and they aren't properly defined before next time.

  •  Ken Buck could actually WIN a Senate seat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk3, GrumpyOldGeek

    in Colorado. That would be horribly, terribly bad.

    So, no way.

  •  If Boehner and McConnell aren't crazy (6+ / 0-)

    and stupid enough, or Michelle Bachmann, I don't have confidence that enough of the public pay sufficient attention to notice that a newly elected teabagger is crazy and stupid.

    Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

    by SoCalSal on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 10:39:30 PM PDT

  •  Hmm, initial votes are I am wrong. (0+ / 0-)

    If I am wrong, I hope I have not offended.

    I do want all to GOTV and fight for every seat.  I just thought it might help to have one of the extremists exposed to sunlight.

    Republican Platform = Fear, Anger, and Hate. Oddly their God preached against the same.

    by TexDemAtty on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 10:46:54 PM PDT

  •  Title changed to better reflect my intent. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Republican Platform = Fear, Anger, and Hate. Oddly their God preached against the same.

    by TexDemAtty on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 11:03:23 PM PDT

  •  It won't help at all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dichro Gal

    Everyone who pays attention to politics already knows how crazy they are, and besides, being a senator isn't really governing per se.  If you asked even a relatively politically savvy random person on the street how any particular senator voted on any particular bill they probably wouldn't be able to tell you because most people don't pay that much attention to the details of the Senate.

    The obvious exception is when, like with most recent significant legislation, a bill winds up coming down to a more or less straight party line vote, in which case there is no difference between a teabagger and a "moderate" Republican.

    To be quite honest anyone who is still undecided on the teabaggers is just not paying attention and will continue to not pay attention after November, and anyone who's supporting the teabaggers isn't likely to be convinced to switch by anything they could possibly do in office.

    •  If we teach (0+ / 0-)

      some will listen.  Ten years ago as was a huge Republican.  Six years ago, I was somewhat pro-Democrat.  Now, I am far left.

      One can learn from mistakes.  I did.  Others can.

      Republican Platform = Fear, Anger, and Hate. Oddly their God preached against the same.

      by TexDemAtty on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 12:14:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't want to see any.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...teabaggers win. Such an event would mean that there exists a majority of my countrymen that are stupid, racist, treasonous, irrational, too-easily manipulated and socially maladjusted. That's not how I prefer to see the character of the nation.  

  •  this is easily disproven by a quick glance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at the whackjobs already in congress. no amount of crazy's going to hurt them.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 12:47:33 AM PDT

  •  We already have a bagger in the Senate (0+ / 0-)

    Did you forget Brown in Mass?

    He hasn't rocked the news with his visibility on C-SPAN.

    Guilt should never be decided by anyone who sells rope.

    by pucklady on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:34:13 AM PDT

  •  This! (0+ / 0-)

    It's too similar to that of some of those most absolutist idealist ideologues on the left, who think it's "better" for the more obvious and blatant fascistic elements to be in power, because then their draconian actions and policies will supposedly be more likely to spark a more substantial and resolute revolutionary uprising, than say, the false hopes offered by "nice cop" liberals, who ultimately will still only represent the interests of their own rich bourgeois class, with half-stepping reforms that serve only to co-opt any real impetus for real change, to ensure the continuation of a dictatorship of monopoly corporate capitalism.

    We saw how well THAT worked, in pre-war Germany, and over the last 30 years in our own country.  Having the right in power does NOT facilitate the movement for change.

    And furthermore, having the liberals in power, to deliver even the most token, inadequate reforms, does NOT "put the masses to sleep" with the illusion that "it's all good, now", but, on the contrary, stimulates a desire for further, more substantial change, because people people are  not stupid, and we tend to want the real thing, for real, and not just sugar water, and if you give us an inch, we'll try to take a mile.

    Which, of course, is why it DOES MATTER who "wins" the "elections" especially to the right, who are fully aware of this, and are thus so hysterically freaking out over the "socialist" implications of Democratic victories.

    When fascists gain power, they do everything they can, which is substantial, to attack, cripple and decimate democracy, viciously suppress any and all opposition, and to rip off as much money as they can, by any and all means that become available to them with political power, to increase that political power.

    This only hurts, more than helps, any revolutionary potential in the masses, who are reduced to having to work twice as hard for their own survival, and are left with even less time to even think about getting involved in political work, and the harsh repercussions likely to ensue from that, which will only further compromise their ability to survive, feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.

    So, as disgusting as many "Democrats" may be, I still think they are "better" than virtually any Republican, and since I see no likely prospect, presently, for a mass uprising to overthrow capitalism, I see no feasible, viable alternative to "supporting" the Democrats, like a rope supports a hanging man, heh...(no pun on Obama intended, I assure you)...toward allowing working people even just a little bit of  slack to contemplate what life could be like, with real freedom and democracy.

    Even a dog of a Democrat is better, relatively speaking, more or less, than a pig of a Republican.

    "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

    by Radical def on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:07:56 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site