If I am George Soros

Posted: February 15, 2010 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

I’d be financing 3rd party Tea Party candidates in every congressional race I can.

If you think Democrats are NOT thinking of doing this you’d better think again. Historically the best features and issues of 3rd parties are adopted by one of the major parties and they tend to be folded in, otherwise you are going to get a series of plurality elections.

Morning Joe is also talking about this as an advantage for Harry Reid.

Remember Bill Clinton never won 50% of the popular vote in either of his elections. I’m with Glenn Reynolds on this one:

I think it’s smarter for Tea Party activists to target primary races, rather than starting their own party as seems to be happening in Nevada. Two words: “Ross Perot.” Two more: “Ralph Nader.”

I would actually run candidates in both democratic and Republican primaries. There is no reason why a person who is fiscally conservative can not be liberal in social issues. Cast a wide net and work together when you can.

Comments
  1. I would add another two words (“Doug Hoffman”), but I do think that NY-23 will flip again this November (presuming there is another election for that seat) and there wasn’t much of a primary.

    What I do not want to see happen to the Tea Party is for it to become part of the GOP. Rather, the GOP should fall in line with us. The proper place for those battles are in the primaries and, of course, there is no requirement that a person support a mediocre or bad candidate in the general election, either with their vote, their volunteer efforts, or their money. With that in mind, the strategy for the Tea Party activists should be to throw money and time into good candidates and ignore the bad ones.

  2. Of course there is a reason why someone who is fiscally conservative cannot be a liberal on social issues.

    Being liberal on social issues implies that you are for government programs to assist the people, in most cases the less fortunate, with some sort of aid. Whether that aid be in the form of a welfare program, medical assistance, continued unemployment extensions, and education grants, to name a few.

    Whereas a fiscal conservative tends to want less government spending, balanced budgets, and also lower taxes.

    How is it then possible to be in favor of spending money on social programs when on the other hand you are opposed to raising taxes to fund those programs? If you are in favor of less government spending, how is it possible to successfully do so while lowering taxes at the same time? Wouldn’t you want to raise taxes, while cutting spending, or keeping spending constant, in order to generate the neccessary revenues to pay off the debt?

    Than again modern fiscal conservatism confuses me. How could the fiscal conservatives of the 80’s give massive tax cuts to the wealthy, increase the payroll tax and raise the tax rates on the low income while also increasing the national debt at the same time. Isn’t that a oxymoron of itself?

  3. No. I am saying that a fiscal conservative cannot have it both ways.