- View of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel
This political movement needs a new name. What group of adults says they belong to the Tea Party. What does it stand for? Does anyone remember? From all reports, the Tea Party Convention this week in Nashville isn’t going too well. Various people have stomped out and there is plenty of bickering.
Why? The average person can’t afford to go. There are a bunch of Tea Party grassroots organizations. Many of them are squabbling already over the overly priced accommodations and set up in general. The Washington Post describes the following problems:
… [T]he first gathering of a sprawling movement, made up of hundreds of disparate Tea Party groups, has been marred by controversy. Some high-profile speakers and activist groups have canceled their appearances in protest of alleged profiteering by the convention organizers.
Attendees have been charged $549 a ticket (plus hotel and transportation) to gather for three days at the luxurious Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center — an expense that critics say is out of reach for the average grass-roots activist. Some of the proceeds will go to cover former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s reported $100,000 fee to deliver Saturday’s keynote address.
There was also some mention of a $600 per person lobster dinner that one person who sat home described as a typical Republican fundraiser dinner. That sure doesn’t sound like an ‘average Joe’s’ kind of meal. Sarah Palin is a keynote speaker who has said she will not profit from her honorarium but has yet to say who will receive her speaking fee.
What has happened to the grassroots, ‘tired of high taxes’, just your every day average person who showed up at town hall meetings to shout his or her outrage at the ‘system?’ The Post article indicates that those in attendance at the initial Tea Party Convention in Nashville are not your ordinary people being taxed to death. The people attending the Convention are staying in opulent accommodations, eating fancy meals, and living high on the hog. The little man probably can’t afford the plane ticket much less the accouterments that go with that plane ticket.
So who set up this convention that is so far out of reach of the average person? The convention is sold out. Will the fighting hamper attempts to form an actual party? Who are some of the more famous leaders who have dropped out in disgust? Is it possible for all of the splinter groups to forgo their own power to join up with one large group who might not be right on target?
From the Nashville Post:
Tea Party Nation is pleased to announce the First National Tea Party Convention. The convention is aimed at bringing the Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation for the purpose of networking and supporting the movements’ multiple organizations principle goals. This event will be co-sponsored by other national groups that believe in a responsible and limited federal government that is responsive to all the people. National Taxpayers Union, American Majority, Smart Girl Politics, and SurgeUSA are just a few of the organizations who will be on hand to contribute their time and talents to this convention.
Special Keynote Speaker for the event will be Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska (2006-2009) and 2008 Republican Vice Presidential Nominee.
How about third parties? Do they have a chance? Since the Tea Party is more in tune with the Republicans, will it dash any hopes of a Republic president because the Republicans will be so splintered? Haven’t people learned after Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and a host of other third party spoilers?
Before the rest of us start taking the Tea Party seriously, these activists need to get over their in-fighting, act like ‘average’ people, and come back down to earth. They really aren’tbehaving a bit differently than the Republicans or the Democrats, they are just louder and less sophisticated.
“Sarah Palin is a keynote speaker who has said she will not profit from her honorarium but has yet to say who will receive her speaking fee.”
I’m not sure how many “Average Joes” can afford speaking engagements by Al Gore, who commands $100,000 per engagement, plus travel, hotel, security and per diem expenses.
What’s good for the goose….
Has Al Gore joined the Tea Party? I don’t think Al Gore has ever claimed to be a part of a grass roots organization comprised regular joes, has he?
Have I missed the main idea about the Tea Party? I honestly thought it was to get rid of the political elite. Silly me.
Right.
Gore gets $100,000 per engagement? He’d better do some OUTSTANDING balloon animals!!!
Ill be the first to say that I honestly don’t like any big name politician speaking at or claiming to be a part of the ‘tea party’ movement. Man, it KILLS me, yes KILLS me but I do somewhat agree with some of what Moon is trying to say here.
This really did start out as an honest grass roots movement. Having a well known political figure only cheapens it and gives the left (cough, cough, Moon, cough…) ammunition to attack it.
I work in D.C. and met some of the people coming into D.C. to attend a big rally, they were good regular Joe’s concerned about the direction our country is headed. Getting career politicians involved in any way just spoils it, to me.
Well, there you go Moon, are you happy now? I kind of agree with you on something… 🙁
I do not and cannot see the “tea parties” as an organized movement. They were and are a nominally organized coalescing of thought directed at those politicians believed to be moving in directions opposed to the will of a great many Americans, a strong antipathy toward being ignored or discounted by those in authority, and a strong desire to have one’s voice heard loudly at the centers of formal political power — sort of like the original Boston Tea Party, I would think. I project that this spirit, rather than being organized into just another political entity, will wind up pouring its sentiments into the voting booths in 2010 and 2012. Many professional politicians will either lose for that or win because of it. All of them will have to start looking over their shoulders more often to better gauge the depth of feeling out in the various heartlands. Like old King George III, these politicians ignored the volatility inherent in the American soul when that soul is genuinely aroused to anger. To sneer at these people and dismiss them under the guise of their being less educated or less sophisticated is to repeat the fatal mistakes made by many an autocrat or politician throughout history.
well said Wolverine…
And I agree, they are not that organized. These types honestly have not done this type of thing for many many year and I don’t think they know how. Having said that, getting career politicians involved only destroys that grassroots feel of it. I kinda like it disorganized.
Then that makes one ask why there is an expensive convention where only the muckety mucks can go. Actually, I don’t have a position on this subject. I am reflecting on what I have heard and read today. It seems that the little guy (and gal) have been left out and those were the very people who were fed up.
In many ways populists movements are spoilers. Ross Perot certainly was one and it cost Daddy Bush an election. The same argument can be made for Ralph Nader. On the other hand, how can we divide the American people into only 2 groups? There seems to be a real conundrum here.
I would like to see these folks, not the rich ones, the average Joes, brush up on public manners and continue to get people elected like Scott Brown. The bad public manners seriously bothered me. The getting in political faces and screaming is simply unacceptable. There are other ways.
The Tea Party people are always trashing America. They never have anything good to say about our country. They are anti-American.
Wow………just, Wow.
Hah..Hah…Hah…Hah (really!)
“tea party” : a precursor to war, a group of rebellious colonials angry that the royalty is behaving like kings, princes, dukes and lords (house of commons). Angry that these men and women of political and social power have the legal power and ability to make law in thier personal favor to demand money from common working men and business owners in the form of laws and contracts for fees owed that leverage other people’s 8 hours of work to equal 1 million times more than their own 8 hours of work. This is accomplish without the consent of the common man, by banding together, creating a criminal enterprise, taking the land and rights to own property from others, then charging rent and fees to use and live on it (definition of serfdom and sharecropping, or slavery). Such legal concepts and feudal city state concepts are forced on the comman man by people of wealth and power to create even more wealth and power for themselves. (These legal concepts are imposed on people who cannot make law, who are regarded as beneath them, who are regarded as less deserving and less sophisticated than they are simply because they cannot form political relationships that through cheating, criminal behavior and theft in the form of legal documents allows thyem to get more than their fair share of 8 hours of labor a day can create) Such legal contracts and serfdom are enforced on people by an ARMY and NAVY controlled and led by the royalty.
In order to maintain such power royalty must lie to the comman man and make him believe that his best interest and security is vested in these laws that give royalty more money and more power, so they and only they can make the best decisions for how people should lead their lives. Otherwise they would have nothing but farming and life as herdsmen and nomads without such unifying legal contracts and law (known today as tax).
When conditions get bad enough that a whole nation gets angry at royalty, a rebellious war corrects it temporarily, until once again the comman man concents to be governed and pay homage and tax to those more wealthy and smarter than the average commoner.
Without a few people creating wealth, everyone would be wealthy or poor together, and everyone would be a congressman, and everyone would get a vote, instead of agree to a representative government where the people’s vote does not count, and the only vote that counts is the vote where lobbyists with money control the law by buying off parlimentary elected party representitives, and we just can’t have the comman man have that kind of power that can we?
Today’s Tea party is a bunch of disgruntled power advocates (political cronies wanting to be royalty) that represent special interest lobbyists (who make and create money for those congressional payoff’s), they in no way represent the anger of the common man at the stupidity and corruption of a democracy for hire government.
How many tea parties have you attended? If even one (which I seriously doubt), are you sure it wasn’t some other kind of party? That comment has to be the most out of touch thing I have seen posted here since good old ShellyB or KG…
Starryflights…. what a fitting name.
groups of people gathering to protest government… those anti-American commie bastards. 🙂 are you serious?
Hello, wrong blog. Argue his/her ideas. Stop directing personal attacks at individuals. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable on anti.
Starry flights does not have to go personally to any ‘tea parties.’ He/she can watch town hall meetings and rallies on any TV channel. The rallies can also be observed on blogs.
Having said that, I don’t feel the grass roots activists trash America. I feel many of them often trash Americans with whom they do not agree and often exibit bad manners. I also try to avoid words like ‘all,’ ‘never,’ ‘always.’
Real change isn’t made by following the latest clique like lemmings and buying a bunch of gew gaws and gimcrakery.
It’s in how you personally act today, in your relationships, in your business, in your community. And in how you treat your public servants.
I don’t disagree with what you have said, Cindy. And I think your comments fit both threads, this one and the one on prayer.
@Wolverine Charles Krauthammer echoed your sentiments in his column today:
The column was excellent and well worth the read today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403623.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Palin and Gore are both complete tools. For Gore to profiteer off climate control while strolling around with a carbon footprint the size of a city, and for the Tea Party to pay Palin big money to speak, are both to paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel f***ing retarded.
I say, put those two along with Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and Jesse Jackson in a big house somewhere and call it a reality show. They’re at the level of celebutards right now, not serious public servants.
Palin and Clinton would be flirting with each other while Bennett and Gore looked on disapprovingly. Eventually they would kick Jesse out of the house after he calls Palin the B word and she says she’s not comfortable with him in the house.
Apparently Gore’s speaking contract also requires first class accommodations. Otherwise, he’s just like the rest of us….
Is that Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull in the picture?
“luxurious Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center” I have been there many many times and it isn’t exactly luxurious. It is a typical convention hotel used for teacher, cheerleader, Herbalife types of conventions. Nashville is also one of the least expensive destinations for major conventions in large cities. This time of year would be the cheapest deals to have an event there. For people who want even cheaper accommodations, Nashville is FILLED with cheap accommodations, especially this time of year. So if the price is expensive, it is because of the organizers, not the hotel choice.
Although I wasn’t involved, I liked the idea behind the original tea partiers, just a group of people who were fed up and decided to express their feelings. But when they start to “organize” beyond a few mass emails, it kind of disgusted me. Aren’t they becoming what they claim to detest?
The beauty of the movement was it’s simplicity and honest to goodness regular people. Once you have people making money off the regular people, it loses all credibility. They should just stay with their original plan. Loosely organized protests against policies they have concerns about. Send out a few emails and whoever shows up, shows up. None of this speaking hiring, rubber steak dinner eating, breakout session crap.
And who died and made the organizers of this event the official “tea party convention” organizers? How can anyone claim to be the head of something which was completely and entirely grassroots? It sounds like the tea partiers have been taken over by rogue tea baggers.
So what do Democrats suggest the Tea Partiers do to become politically successful?
LOL.
This is actually the second major “tea party” in my personal experience. The first was in circa 1967-1972, when the brash agitation of the “common man” was manifested in the streets of Washington and other major cities and helped to shorten the careers of two American presidents. That particular “tea party”, often led by people on the Left, was, in my opinion, nastier and more violent than anything any of us have seen from the contemporary tea parties. Having witnessed both of these tea parties first hand, I would say that the present agitators, as voiciferous and determined as they may be, have been a Hell of lot more polite and more civil than many of the participants in the first one.
My take is the exact opposite of that of Starryflights. These ‘tea party” people are not criticizing America. They are not “anti-American.” They are objecting to what the politicians are doing to their America without listening hard enough to the voices of people who have a deep and abiding love of their country and their Constitution. Moreover, this is often criticism aimed at members of both major parties. Personally, I have seldom seen in my time in Washington a more stark example of the will of the common man being stamped emphatically on the political scene than that victory by Brown in Massachusetts. Under ordinary circumstances, the party long in power in Massachusetts would have walked away easily with that victory. Massachusetts is a lesson that cannot be overlooked.
Although I did not march in Washington, my sentiments lie clearly with the current crop of tea partiers. Moreover, I consider this so-called meeting in Nashville to be largely irrelevant to the movement. Nothing spoils the broth more than to have professional politicians or organizers get mixed into it. In my view, Palin is making a mistake by addressing this gathering. She would be far more effective by continuing to address the movement as a whole through her blogging or tweets or whatever.
And Starryflights, you don’t know me. I spent almost my entire adult life in the service of this country in both uniform and mufti, often under perilous circumstances and several times nearly at the cost of my own life. I defended this country, the Constitution, and you. Please don’t use the term “anti-American” anymore. It does not fit me or most of the people in the “tea party” movement. You have every right to voice your opinions, and I defended and still defend that right. But I cannot accept the idea that my opposition to your opinions somehow makes me “anti-American. “
Hi Wolverine, I don’t think I would characterize those who took to the streets in the 60s and 70s tea party types. I don’t know how I would characterize them. I have done a 180 as to my feelings about Vietnam since those days and yet I still dislike that crowd. It makes no sense to me. Maybe there are just some things that don’t make sense–ever.
I don’t find Scott Brown phenomenal at all. I honestly think that the prototype Bostonian is a Kennedy liberal…but there are an awful lot of people who aren’t. That election didn’t surprise me at all.
That Scots tea party person was also on tv. Not sure who he is.
Rick, do you like any politician?
Moon, I didn’t mean to imply that there is a tea party “type” per se. To me “tea party” means a sort of action in which citizens who have no formal ties to government take to the streets (or Boston harbor, as the case may be) in order to try to effect a change in attitude and direction by those who hold the levers of political power. That happened in both 1967-1972 and in 2009, albeit the casts of characters may have been vastly different.
“Rick, do you like any politician?”
Heh, good question. If I had to pick a few who I have some respect for I’d say Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Duncan Hunter. Historically, Bill Clinton, Pat Moynihan, Ronald Reagan.
Wolverine, sort of populist activists?
Rick, that is an odd assortment that cross all party lines, for sure.
I have lost it over Joe Lieberman. I used to like him.
In regards to the 2000 election, the short answer is this:
the reality [and you can know this for yourself if you see http://www.anunreasonableman.com is that
gore threw the race in ‘00 at least 3 times:
1.] when, at the beginning of his campaign, he and lieberman stopped trying to say things that the people wanted to hear because their corporate paymasters yanked their leash [see “crashing the party” by ralph nader]
2.] gore now ADMITS that he didn’t try hard enough to contest the voting irregularities
3.] if you see michael moore’s FAHRENHEIT 9/11, you can see with your own eyes Al Gore shouting down the congressional black caucus’ attempt to question the voting irregularities on a ‘point of order’ which is like saying that, if i mug you, you can’t yell for help if we are in a ‘quiet hospital zone’.
Besides, there were a total of six third party candidates, all of whom got more than the # of votes that gore ‘lost’ by, so why blame nader?
the dems [or the car companies for that matter] blaming nader for their losses is like a hooker blaming their v.d. on mother theresa…!
It seems to me that the Tea Party is simply the remainders of the Republican party. They are energized because they have been given so much media exposure in exchange for so few ideas. They are energized, also, because they are unfettered by the strategic guidance and moderating influence of experienced elected officials and political strategists. Perhaps the designers of the movement felt this was the only course for the Republican party after the 2006 and 2008 defeats: to let the inmates run the asylum. But there was wisdom in the politics, if not the programs, of the Republican party under G. W. Bush.
“Compassionate Conservatism” was a shrewd recalibration for a party that had come to be seen as mean-spirited, and obsessed with social issues that pit majorities against minorities. If indeed, as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh seem to prognosticate, the Tea Party overwhelms the Republican Party and usurps not only its name but also its platform, the same “tolerance for intolerance” that has allowed the Tea Party to grow so quickly will in turn cause the Republican party to shrink. Independent voters will come to associate the inane conspiracy theories and racist banners of the Tea Party with the Republican party and either stay home or check the other box. And generations of new voters will have ensconced in their memories a first impression of the Republican party that the Tea Party can’t help but put forth: angry, uniformed, older, and homogeneously Caucasian. Except for older, this is the opposite of what the nation is becoming.
Gee, thanks, Last Best Hope. Never thought of myself as an “inmate” from an “asylum.” “Angry”? Yes. “Older”? In my case, yes, but that “older” includes multiple college degrees and a whole lot of years in government. “Homogeneously Caucasian”? You should meet my immigrant Hispanic-American son-in-law, a small businessman who is angrier than I am. My children, all young professionals, make me pale in comparison with their disgust at the direction in which this country is currently pointed. “Uninformed?” Try us.
Actually, LBH, your description of those with the Tea Party movement is the same thing the professional politicians seem to think of us. It is one of the reasons why the anger is out there. To that anger you might add “determination” — determination to make those politicians listen to the People as they are supposed to do or get their behinds into retirement. We hired them and we pay them. They had better wake up to that fact.
By the way, that reference to inmates from an asylum? It seems to me that that is an apt description for the current Congress.
Wolverine is living proof that all people who consider themselves participants in the Tea Party don’t have bad manners! Wolverine is always a gentleman.
Nader, in supporting Nader, or Perot, surely you didn’t think you all were going to win? Don’t be defensive. Regardless of who is running as a third party, they serve as a spoiler for either the Democrats or the Republicans.
BTW, I love the Scottsman and was delighted to find him after seeing him on the news. Has anyone else seen him over the weekend on the news?
And I used to dislike Lieberman. Now I like him.
nader supporter, don’t kid yourself. Nader (and his supporters) swung the election to Bush and moved the Democratic party to the left, for better or worse.
We need a Ross Perot now–the lone voice in the wilderness warning about the “great big sucking sound” of our jobs going overseas if NAFTA were enacted. Whatever his faults, his words were prescient.
Wolverine, I understand your anger. The truth is, neither the GOP nor the Tea Party can win elections without the other. The Tea Party is far, far to the right of the Republican party, however, and it is pushing certain suggestible and/or weak-kneed politicians even farther.
As people who have little or no political experience take center stage, we are seeing a steady flow of offensive comments and embarrassing spectacles that are turning off the silent majority. Outright intolerance has always existed within the conservative coalition, but it has not been front and center since the early 70’s, and a lot has changed since then.
Someone has to lead the Tea Party movement. It can’t remain a free-for-all for crackpots forever. But a vapid former governor, a homophobic judge, and an anti-immigrant hate-monger are not the answer. A parade of amateurs are putting the Republican party in an impossible position. If we try to distance ourselves from their jubilant intolerance and foolsih conspiracy theories, they savage us for heresy. If we embrace, condone, or implicitly accept them as they are, and if they fail, as I expect they will, to moderate their rhetoric, we will ensure the continued diminution of the Republican electorate for decades.
Last Best Hope, I’m interested in your take on how Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the country, so soundly rejected the Democratic Senate candidate.
Yeah, Gore and his house that somehow runs $10K a month electric bills. I’m so impressed with how “Green” his house is.
Now that might be one entertaining reality show! I don’t usually watch them, but I think I’d tune into that one! What a group – the 6 of them! I can just imagine all the infighting, dirty double dealing, etc.
Very well said – I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up. Those folks WERE violent, in my opinion. I have not seen violence at the tea parties or heard of any (I have not been to them – I’m referring to what I’ve seen on the internet in the way of video clips). It seems fashionable lately to characterize them as an angry violent mob. They may be angry, but I don’t think they are violent. I can’t say the same about the groups back in 1967-1972.
Pay Moynihan was an interesting person. I remember him well. I think Joe Lieberman has a lot of personal character and high ethics/morals. Bill Clinton has many good points, which is why people admire him so much, his charitable works since leaving the Presidency are among them. Ronald Reagan was a decent guy who truly meant well, I think.
Agreed, and I personally bet you’d find a lot more Tea Party members who aren’t like the stereotypes that have been protrayed here and elsewhere. The news media likes to hype it up as a bunch of angry white guys or some such thing. I have a feeling the too often don’t have bad manners, even though the media and other places (like this blog) try to portray them as being bad mannered. I can cherry pick examples on the other side that are bad mannered and build a case that side is bad mannered too. Generalizations aren’t good, but they seem t obe made all the time as to the Tea Party. Same with comments above about being anti-American, and other comments, from the predictable posters who made them. Those posters come across just as fanatical as the Tea Party members, if you ask me.
Exactly right, Nader stole a lot of votes from Gore, no question about it. Blame Nader for Gore’s defeat actually, and that would be accurate. I don’t doubt the Democrat party moved further to the left too as a result – that kind of makes some sense to me.
When I saw the signs that some angry protesters were holding during Bush’s first innaugration (and things like eggs being thrown at the car) I wondered to myself – why didn’t they blame Nader? Always thought that odd, but Bush was the easier and more visible target, I guess. Also the liberal press wouldn’t want to blame one of their own.
I thought Perot was a bit of a nut (well, maybe more than just a bit), and wouldn’t have wanted him as president. But, he was dead on back then about NAFTA. Now, it is fashionable for companies like IBM and others to hire software programmers in India and pay them dirt cheap wages, and then layoff their counterparts in the USA. Often, the last job at IBM the USA software programmer had was to document his work and train his replacement in India via videoconference/e-mails, etc. I used to work at IBM, but still know many current and former IBM’ers and know a few people directly affected in that way. IBM is just one example, but NAFTA helped make that possible.
I enjoyed all the finger pointing between members of the Obama administration and members of Coakley’s campaign staff, in the aftermath of the election. What a drama that was! Obama says great things about her two days before the election, then the day later – his senior staff make very negative remarks about her and the fangs come out!
Coakley thought she was entitled to Kennedy’s seat just because she was a Democrat. She thought she was a shoe-in and greatly underestimated her opponent, as well as anger of Massachusets independents AND some Democrats who crossed over. She didn’t run much of a campaign and thought she just didn’t need to. Very bad miscalculation. If she had run a stronger campaign she could have won. It says something when a state like Massachusets, in a special election for the seat of a nationally beloved senator – can’t elect another Democrat. It was also to some extent a refrendum on healthcare reform.
Speaking of Perot – I interviewed at and was offered a job at Perot Systems back in 1999. At the same time I interviewed at what was then MCI. The Perot interview was intense, first a 1 hour technical phone interview where I was quizzed on my software engineering knowledge. Then at their office in Reston – I was interviewed by 6 people at the same time, sitting across from me at the table. Talk about intense. Once I passed their muster, the hiring manager interviewed me. They liked me and pursued me after the interview, but ultimately I was a bit scared of that job. It was some project that would have required overseas travel and lots of it, maybe 6-9 months a year! I also thought the interview was pretty crazy – it was the toughest I ever endured. And, MCI came in about $3K higher at the time, although I probably could have gotten Perot Systems to match it.
Given how MCI turned out, I’ve often thought I made the wrong choice in retrospect. Back then I wasn’t ready for all that crazy travel either.
I’ll never forget that interview, and they asked me hypothetical questions that were in the vein of “Say you are working on a complicated project. You have two coworkers who are taking shortcuts that may jeopardize the project. At the same time you have a manager who is pushing the schedule hard and says there is no room for extra money and the deadline is tight. What do you do?”
They grilled me like that for more than an hour, and I’d no sooner get done answering then some other person would fire off the next question. Sometimes one of the 6 people would follow up on what I said in the way of an answer to the previous question.
I was asked things like what ethical decisions I had to make in previous jobs, what time I had honestly done something wrong and what did I do to fix it, etc. etc.
That was a crazy grueling interview, but one unusual thing. Before they brought the hiring manager in, they told me I had an offer coming. It wasn’t even up to the hiring manager. And, I’ve never been told on the spot that the interview went well. Apparently, this is standard policy at Perot as I asked them that at the end, since I was surprised. All that needed to be determined was the salary amount which was up to HR, and sure enough the next morning I got a phone call with the job offer details.
It was strange, let’s put it that way. It was a good experience, I felt if I could do well in that interview I could do well in any interview, so was a confidence builder. It was typical Perot stuff though!
Scott Brown is a good candidate, and a mainstream Republican at that. Those who call themselves Tea Party Patriots in MA would be Democrats here. What you had in MA was a case of a shrunken electorate, the sort of thing that happens in special elections, in which the more mobilized political party wins.
@Gainesville Resident My husband worked for a time at EDS, a Perot company. Back then the popular wisdom was that EDS stood for “everybody’s divorced or single,” because of the high demands of the company.