Tea Party voters in my town are pretty sick of the Tea Party.

[KentuckyWoman]

May God have mercy on the souls of the 1% pulling the strings in the Republican party. I mean that with all sincerity.

I live in the reddest red part of a red state…. And I can tell you with no doubt whatsoever these people have had enough.

Mitt Romney with his “poor little me” routine made them sick.

Corporations known around here to be hoarding record amounts of cash actually brave enough to announce to the world they’ll cut poor people’s incomes even more by taking away hours rather than share one penny of that massive wealth on medical care benefits.

Tea Party politicians who promised the moon are looking like fools in Washington who clearly don't care about the hardships back home.

People around here know who and what is doing this to them. They know.

And they have been talking for some time now about using their guns to make this right.

You won’t be able to blame the black dude in the white house forever…… My kind suggestion to you one percenters is to quit with your little temper tantrums and selfish capital strike, yank some of that cash out of your foreign vaults and spread it around like manure.

[Oakenshield]

1. Much as I might want to agree with you...

I see the redneck crazies going after the poor and minorities first before biting their 1% masters. Honestly as I've watched the latinos and other minorities being demonized as the parasites of this country I'm a little surprised we didn't slip into Nazi Germany's shoes. Certainly the climate has been similar. Racism, intense xenophobia, a crippled economy, intense nationalism and militarism.....it isn't exactly a recipe for rainbows and sunshine.

[pampango]

3. "Racism, intense xenophobia, a crippled economy, intense nationalism and militarism..." - tea party

attributes all of them.

Well said. They do not lead in a positive direction and all play well with the "us vs them" mindset that the 1% uses effectively to play to the fears and emotions of the right wing base.

[Johnny Ready]

7. well said and absolutely true

The only difference i would offer is I do not believe the Tea Partier's are all the same. I believe a small percentage has made it impossible for the majority to have any type of success. For that I am grateful.

[bluestate10]

29. That hasn't happen because the middle is holding. That is the dominant political group and the

group that first elected then re-elected President Obama. The middle must come through in 2014 and clean up the republican mess in the US House and many states where that cleanup is possible.

I have hope for Kentucky. That state has elected democrats to top state offices and those democrats have managed to hold back the crazies. Now, if Kentucky voters would clean up their US House and Senate delegation and elect democrats, while giving democrats control of the Kentucky Legislature while keeping democrats heading statewide offices, Kentucky will sprout into a leading American state and poverty there will begin to get resolved for the better.

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. good to hear

[hobbit709]

4. I've been saying all along when the rank and file of the Tea Party realize they've been used

And that they were getting just as screwed by the 1% as everyone else, that there will be trouble.

[RKP5637]

27. I've often thought many teabaggers have a lot in common with us, they just

haven't all woken up 'yet' to the fact they are getting fucked over by their masters. When they do wake up, all hell is going to break loose. They have to be asking, as more and more is taken from them, what has the tea party accomplished for us.

[Berlum]

6. The Baggers must be sick of being SUCKERED by Repubbie PuppetMasters, Inc. (R)

No fun to wake up and realize you have allowed yourself to be suckered and manipulated.

[Johnny Ready]

8. Keeping it real - I do not believe in a re-distribution of wealth.

Although I disagree with almost every aspect of the Tea Party, I have to be on record as stating I do not believe in a re-distribution of wealth. I believe in capitalism. It works, corruption destroys capitalism but that does not mean capitalism is the problem, corruption is the problem, imo.

[CANDO]

9. Good luck with that belief...

whether you believe in it or not, wealth is distributed and re-distributed over and over again in economies of any sort. Do you want a fair economy, with the ability to manage against corruption, or a regulation free (laissez-faire) variety where the system destroys itself through greed. History shows that capitalism thrives when redistributive policies such as progressive taxation and various other mechanisms such as unionization help to spread the wealth. Extreme wealth concentration eventually destroys capitalism, so you had better think up ways to distribute it so it doesn't self destruct.

[Johnny Ready]

10. Thanks, that was a better way of saying I don't believe in raising taxes on the middle class

You are right, I could have been more specific. My point is raising taxes on small business owners is not the solution for wealth redistribution. That idea will only increase unemployment.

[CANDO]

11. Depends on how "small business owner" is defined.

If an owner of a small and very profitable business pays himself several million dollars per year, that person should be taxed accordingly. If the small business owner pays him/herself a smaller salary, again, they should/would be taxed accordingly. It's progressive taxation....the more you make, the higher your marginal rate goes. For any small business owner who's doing well enough to pay themselves several million dollars or more per year and they don't like the tax rate it puts them in, well then, leave the money in the business. I'll trade places in a heartbeat with a spoiled millionaire who wishes to pay a lesser tax rate. I'd gladly pay my taxes!

[Johnny Ready]

14. Progressive Taxation is appropriate.

I like the idea of progressive taxation, it makes sense. The difference between us may lie in the fact I do not believe small businesses (Mom and Pop) are clearing millions today. It serves no purpose to place the burden of a budget disaster,in the form of higher tax rates on job creators, that would be a huge step backward. I do agree however the businesses and owners personally should pay fair but reasonable tax rates to help create more employers.

[CANDO]

25. Certainly Mom & Pop operations

Are being taxed appropriately according to what they pay themselves from their company. I can't help but notice the terminology you use throughout our back and forth on the topic. Take "job creators"... consumers are job creators, not rich people. Economies are dynamic entities, so we may end up in a circular argument like which came first, chicken or egg sort of thing. Anyway, the job creator thing is not as simple as a benevolent millionaire deciding to hand out a few jobs on a given day. Unless a person was lucky enough to win the womb lottery, most people are not born rich. So a person may start a small business using a government SBA Loan. If it becomes successful and blossoms into a multinational conglomerate, I can assure you that it didn't get that way all by the sweat of the original owner's brow. Many productive employees and consumers who make enough of a wage to purchase the goods or services of this company also helped. So the whole job creator thing is just a jingoistic tool of conservative economic theory. And furthermore, tax rates paid by corporations or wealthy people has nothing to do with how many jobs are "created" at a particular place of employment. Companies hire and fire based on market demand, not what they pay in corporate or even wealthy individual tax rates.

[Johnny Ready]

35. You have never worked for a poor person in your life.

I guess maybe it could be worth mentioning you have never worked for a poor person in your life. When you are in a position to open a business buying a piece of property and investing 100K into inventory is chump change, a tax shelter and another way to bring in residual income. Jobs are created by the willingness to gamble that is inherent to people who invest. It is important to consider the sales tax, income tax from both the company and owner as well as all of the employees account for a large percentage of the money our government needs to operate. This entire chain of cash flow is started by someone who has the money and has decided to take the pursuit of liberty into their own hands.
Employees are vital, but if you pay any attention to sports, anyone is disposable, employees do not make a company money the system in place does. A sports analogy might be the New England Patriots, or McDonald's.
The only tax rate that matters to a business owner is the dividend tax. Everything else you will pay for.
I do agree wages are based on local demand.
I would also add I believe human nature and greed have played a large role in the destruction of honest, fair capitalism but that does not mean we should simply classify capitalism itself as destructive.

[CJCRANE]

47. But businesses only succeed if people have the spare cash to buy their goods and services. nt

[CANDO]

48. Congratulations on hitting on nearly all the conservative talking points.

The belief by cons that we just can't do without rich people. Yes we can. Economics are a bottom up entity. Market economics rewards risk takers, for sure, but most risk takers are not rich to begin with. That's where cons get the cart before the horse. They believe risk takers are and should be wealthy from the get-go. And there's another right wing thought virus... liberties as expressed only in an economic sense. There's far more to freedom and liberty than market capitalism.

[Johnny Ready]

59. Ironically my conservative friends hate me.

"The belief by cons that we just can't do without rich people" - is that a fact?

"Economics are a bottom up entity" - assuming the bottom has income, more circular fun.

"most risk takers are not rich to start with" - that is a fact but it is also the argument for capitalism, not against it.

"They believe risk taker's should be wealthy from the get go" - again is that a fact?

"Right wing thought virus...liberties are expressed only in an economic sense" - If that were even partly true the gun issue would not be as prevalent as it is in a cons point of view.

On the other hand I will admit the capitalism issue was probably the area I most agreed with my cons friends. My unwillingness to accept all of their policy views became an issue over time.

[CANDO]

66. Never claimed any of that as fact.

Obviously, most of this discussion has been expressed as opinion. Those quoted opinions which you've highlighted are spot on from my perspective. You must not be aware of how conservative economic rhetoric plays to others. It is nearly always wrapped in a wealth coddling perspective. And I don't recall attacking captalism. Some other posters have, not me.

[Johnny Ready]

69. True, but that didn't stop me from trying to rattle you. :)

You have been more than fair in this discussion CANDO, and I thank you for that. Whenever I need to refocus or stall I like to question my opponents' points while I make a plan.

[Marrah_G]

49. By fair capitalism do you mean well-regulated capitalism?

What exactly do you mean by wealth re-distribution?

[CANDO]

50. "employees do not make a compny money, the system in place does"

Wow! Do you not grasp the utter contempt for those who have nothing to offer but their labor? A business without productive labor is going nowhere but out of business, fast! Good luck Johnny Ready! Don't think you'll be here long expressing such right wing sentiments as that. Maybe you should go back to your Thomas Sowell reading.

[Johnny Ready]

60. A business without productive labor fires them all. See Donald Trump for details.

You're fired. but thanks for the good luck wishes. I'm not trying to offend you, merely speaking my personal opinion which of course is correct.

[CANDO]

65. So you apparently do accept that employees make money for business.

Glad we've made progress.

[Johnny Ready]

67. Well technically yes.

The fact that most American's take tremendous pride in their work, is a substantial part of the reason we are the greatest country in the world. Progress is always a good thing.

[CANDO]

68. Love that extra spritz of American Exceptionalism!

Too bad many of America's corporate executives don't feel that same pride in the American worker.

[KentuckyWoman]

12. capitalism CAN'T work

it requires neverending growth and neverending push downward on costs including labor.

Works great for the top but eventually the 99% get tired of cold and hungry and start going all French Revolution on the rich.

[Johnny Ready]

15. Cold and hungry produces the drive to become an owner.

I agree with you to some degree, the world is made up of "taker's". A survival instinct left over from the dinosaur age, it can be very ugly. However I have to disagree...the cold and hungry often get tired of being cold and hungry eventually opening a small business of their own. That is the American spirit, we keep trying and we learn from our mistakes. The day we start to believe we will never have a chance at the American dream is the day we are no longer American.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. Then I guess in spite of 14 or 15 generations of family in this country....

I'm not American. Fuck capitalism. It's a destructive system for most people. And the ones who do sort of "make it" are just the lucky ones. They might as well play the lottery. Capitalism and the capitalists are a small club and most of us aren't in it. And never WILL be in it.

[KentuckyWoman]

21. You said CAPITALISM not "American Dream"

And I answered your post regarding CAPITALISM.

Sorry but you've completely lost me..... Maybe if you could stick with that before moving on to something else?

I have no clue what in the world some individual idea of "the American Dream" has to do with whether or not capitalism works.

[Johnny Ready]

36. You caught me, I like to link capitalism and the American dream. :)

[JHB]

56. Which kind of capitalism? That's the important question.

The kind we have now? The kind we had in the postwar period (i.e., progressive taxation, strong financial regulation, etc.)?

There's more than one kind, and the terminology has become so warped in order to portray laissez-faire as the One True Capitalism that I've sometimes resorted to calling myself an "Eisenhower socialist".

[Johnny Ready]

61. Thank you, I don't pretend, I appreciate knowledge shared.

What can I say, I am learning more each day thanks to people and places like you and the DU. One day I hope to be able to have a very full understanding of the reasons behind my answer to that question. Which is evidently post war.

[LanternWaste]

72. I like to link idiots and the myth American Exceptionalism.

I like to link idiots and the myth American Exceptionalism.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and both as irrelevant to their comparisons as the other...

[jmowreader]

44. Really?

Cold and hungry people who start small businesses almost invariably become colder and hungrier. Most small businesses fail. Three things kill them:

Thing 1: lack of knowledge on running a business. Knowing how to manage money, draw customers, hire the right people, and promote a business is far more important than knowing how to do what your business does...the most successful businesses are a partnership between a businessman and an expert in the trade.

Thing 2: lack of money.

Thing 3: lack of a reason for your business to exist. The stupidest business I have ever seen was someone here in town whose whole business was doing makeup on girls under the age of 10. Just for fun. The child beauty pageant thing isn't in North Idaho. They didn't do glamour photos. They didn't do princess theme kids parties. They also didn't sell product. About three months after they opened they started doing parties but by then it was too late. This happened three years ago and they're probably still trying to pay it off.

If you don't have either a buttload of money or phone numbers of people who do, don't go into business for yourself.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. As George Carlin said, "They call it the American Dream because

you have to be asleep to believe in it."

The following graph compares intergenerational social mobility in developed western countries. Higher green bars mean more social rigidity, lower bars mean more mobility. Note that the only country that beats us in rigidity is the UK, and only barely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Sounds like somebody new on here has a handle on capitalism....

Come on over to the Socialist Progressives group here on DU and see if you fit in there!

And as to your OP, I don't disbelieve it at all. I've said this before, but a lot of Tea Partiers (the original ones, not the ones that were co-opted by the Republican money men) are my age. IOW, baby boomers. In the boomer generation, there is a lot of distrust of government because of Vietnam and Nixon and the other shit in the 60s/70s. Unfortunately, most of them didn't go past distrust of government into WHY the government should be distrusted, i.e., the capitalists who act as puppetmasters to their governmental toadies. When they figure this out (and it sounds like some ARE), they WILL be pissed off. They might even become anti-capitalist. One can only hope.

And BTW, welcome to DU.

[Johnny Ready]

22. Thank you, I am impressive no? :)

It is my favorite subject, and I really would like to learn more...so maybe I will see you over there. Thanks for the welcome sir.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. Well the welcome and invitation was for Kentucky Woman....

but you're welcome to browse too. I WOULD suggest you read the TOS for the group though before you jump in. We don't have a lot of rules, but we pretty serious about the ones we DO have.

[Johnny Ready]

37. That was awkward. Thank you for inviting me this time.

Now I will go on like that never happened.

[CTyankee]

26. Well, not really. Altho I am glad you would like to learn more. That is "encouraging" if not

"impressive."

Let's see what you got first...

[Johnny Ready]

39. Did you say not really? Thanks for that bro. 5,000.00 worth of therapy down the drain

I am kidding of course but I was not kidding about hoping to learn more about why people feel the way they do about the idea of capitalism.

[burnodo]

20. Re-distribution of wealth is a buzz phrase

If wealth becomes less concentrated, it is a wide distribution of wealth. This really does enhance and strengthen a society, even one with haves and have-nots. The simple fact of the matter is, the rich are ignoring the health of our society by hoarding that wealth, and I think an earthquake of a correction will be coming soon.

[bluestate10]

30. Paying workers wages that they can live on and raise a family is good for capitalism.

The issue isn't redistribution of wealth as much as it is astute use of wealth to create even more wealth, for the wealthy and most of society.

[kestrel91316]

33. This isn't Libertarian Underground. We DO believe in "redistribution of wealth" here - that's

otherwise known as paying taxes to fund things that we all benefit from, and making those whose economic activities burden the commons most pay the most.

[Johnny Ready]

40. Hoping you could elaborate on how economic activities burden the commons

With all due respect, I cannot see how we can associate economic activity with a burden to the commons. Could you elaborate?

[jmowreader]

45. Me first!

Joe Smith buys 20 acres and 100 trucks and starts a trucking company. Now the road is getting beat to shit, diesel spills are contaminating the aquifer and everyone is complaining about the lights on the lot.

[Johnny Ready]

46. Thank you, but would the income tax and sales tax justify the impact?

Maybe I am seeing this wrong, 100 truck drivers paying 5,000.00 per year income tax each. 100 trucks buying 100,000 gallons of diesel per year generating .06% sales tax on the fuel, not too mention the income tax the fuel company will pay. Then we have the corporation paying taxes, and finally the owner. If each of the employees make 50,000.00 per year we have a corporation infusing 5 mill into the economy each year to be spent on housing, clothing and food all of which will have a sales tax, which turns the economic machine.
Should the corporation be held responsible for the environmental impact, sure. But to restrict this type of entrepreneur leads to less jobs and more people in the system. The answer is better use of the taxes collected from business owners and employees, less waste, more actual improvements.
the math
500,000 income tax generated from 100 employees
.06% sales tax on 100,000 gallons of diesel - 4.00 per gallon = 24,000.00
Fuel company income tax and sales tax
100 employees spending their wages in the local economy at 50k per year generating 5 mill in revenue.
Maybe I am seeing this wrong as I said, but I cannot see the mathematical logistics of your point.

[jmowreader]

57. No, it wouldn't

First things first: there's no sales tax on diesel, and there's no way you could legally burn 100,000 gallons of it per year in one truck. (It comes out to running the truck about 1600 miles per 24-hour period, every day of the year.) But that's a small thing.

The big thing is, no matter how much tax revenue this puts out (also consider: every dollar a company spends on one tax is a dollar they get to deduct from their income tax), it doesn't solve the problem of the diesel in the aquifer, the torn-up roads or the other intangible item: because there is not an unlimited amount of trade for any business, every time someone starts a business in a line of work that other people are already doing, the amount of revenue flowing to those other people necessarily decreases. (Let's use the trucking company example. Our guy has 100 trucks. Assume he gets each driver one 500-mile load per day, so he needs 600 loads a week to keep everyone moving. Unless our guy ALSO builds a factory to make the property he is hauling, he has to take that freight away from other trucking companies. Hence, every dollar of income and every gallon of fuel that our guy pays taxes on is a dollar and a gallon that Swift Transportation or JB Hunt will not be paying taxes on.)

Money isn't everything.

[Johnny Ready]

62. There is not an unlimited amount of trade - enter competition.

Well good point it was 1000 gallons a year each for 100 trucks but that is a small thing.
There is not an "unlimited amount of trade" that is what causes prices to stay competitive and avoid monopolies. It also forces the competitors to create and push the limits of both design and model efficiency. Creating better and more reasonably priced goods for us all.
As far as not generating enough money into the economy to cover the damage incurred, that is a stretch. 5 million alone in wages (in your hypothetical), all taxable of course and spent in taxable businesses locally each year. The other point might be where does the money to fix the roads come from? Yes, we are paying now, why not allow the 100 jobs that will provide economic freedom as well as 5 mill into the local economy, since we are paying for the roads regardless?

I completely agree, money is NOT everything, but I sure do like to pay my bills.

[CANDO]

53. How about an entire society set up to foster economic activity.

The court system, the monetary system, police, fire, military, infrastructure, not to forget incorporation rights, limited liability protections, etc. You don't seem to think the entities which use most of that most of the time shouldn't have to pay more into the kitty than the avg. Joe? Be gone with you! Go find freerepublic.com. You'll feel most at home there, I'm sure.

[Johnny Ready]

71. Be gone with me...I just got here!

Yes we agree on progressive taxation, although I may disagree that economic activity is a burden to the commons that should be limited in any way other than as you mentioned regulation. Now be gone with you. I'd be gone with me, but I just got here.

[JHB]

54. Question for you: what do YOU mean by "re-distribution of wealth"

The term gets thrown around rather loosely by conservatives and "pro-business" Democrats to include just about any policy that benefits anyone outside the top of the economic food chain.

What do you mean when you use the phase? Something more specific, I would hope.

[Ohio Joe]

13. "And they have been talking for some time now about using their guns to make this right."

So... They don't want to be teabaggers but are still murderous gun nuts... Sounds like they are just the same still.

[KentuckyWoman]

17. I think they had this twisted idea the Tea Party could get the 1% to

part with some of the cash without the need for socialism.

They aren't talking about sending Tea Party leaders to the great beyond for not getting the job done. They are talking about the only way to stop the theft of people's hard work and land by the investor class might be to find them and kill them all off.

It's desperation talk around here....... things in this corner are actually getting worse and with the looming cuts in Social Security and food stamps it's going to get tougher.

[bluestate10]

31. I don't support violence to gain political change. Violence makes matters worse and makes the evil

into victims. What people in your regions should do is understand what their economic interests are and organize politically to vote for those interests. I have watched tea party members with amazement, many are poor wards of government, yet they think government should be destroyed. Sometimes I want to yell at them that if government is destroyed, what happens to them. There is enormous cognitive dissonance among teabaggers, it is depressing to watch.

[roamer65]

19. We need three things done to "right the ship".

1. Renegotiate all "free" trade agreement to be fair trade agreements. If the reciprocal countries won't renegotiate, then nullify the agreements.
2. Substantially increase income tax rates and investment income rates on the wealthy.
3. Stringent capital controls to stop the wholesale export of wealth from this country. The wealthy should not be able to move money to the Caymans without losing a large chunk of it in the process.

It worked for America in the past and it would work for us now.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. The only reason this "worked" in the past was because.....

the ENTIRE system of "private property" and capitalism itself was under a serious threat. The capitalists felt they had to make those concessions to save the system. And as soon as the immediate threat settled down (the late 30s and 40s or so) and everybody became distracted by the war against the fascists, they started the campaign to claw back EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THOSE CONCESSIONS! It eventually worked and here we are. Do you really think that the rulers will give up the tools they use to rule unless there is a threat?

And as a thought experiment, this about this. A threat comes along that actually DOES cause these reforms to happen. What will stop them from trying to claw them back AGAIN in the next generation or two? This is actually the third time this push towards classic, unregulated capitalism has happened. Do we really want our grandchildren to be fighting this same fight in another 50 years? I don't. So if a credible threat comes along this time, I say smash the system and try something new.

[bluestate10]

32. I read your post with horror. But I can't say that I disagree much with it. Rich people need

to condition themselves to think about the greater needs of a civil society. If rich people, as a group, continue along the current path, they will ultimately be destroyed. The rich's political agents first went after Unions that didn't get much sympathy from society, such as auto Unions. Then the rich's agents went after civil municipal and Teacher's Unions. The agents of the rich are finally gearing up to go after cop and firefighter Unions, two which were protected due to their political influence. My sense is that busting cop and firefighter Unions will be the rich's Waterloo, they will do damage, but in doing so, will reignite the Union movement in this country, and ultimately worldwide.

I don't see my society becoming uncivil enough to attack people simply for who they are on a massive scale. But I also do see it allowing the rich to keep pushing everyone else into a smaller and smaller economic space.

[socialist_n_TN]

41. Well see it's not really "rich people" who are at fault......

IT'S THE SYSTEM ITSELF THAT'S AT FAULT. Rich people can be nice, they can care about others, even care about society as a whole. But the system of capitalism does not allow any of those things to become enough of a consideration to actually make a widespread difference in the lives of everybody else. The only thing that works to make that widespread difference is a threat to the system itself. And, as I said above, they will give enough crumbs to settle the masses down and of course, eventually work to suck those crumbs back up. It's just the way capitalism is designed.

A lot of people have the mistaken impression that Marxists hate rich people, but that's not true. Or at least not totally true. Sure there are enough assholes among the rich that some are pretty easy to despise, but it's too easy to personify the problem when it's not the problem(s) of a bad actor. If The Donald wants to give up his billions and just become a regular joe, I might not want to hang out with him, but I'm not going to want to string him up either.

I've always said that the amount of violence of a socialist revolution is in direct proportion to the amount of violence that the rulers want to use to keep their privileges.

Sorry for the horror BTW, but it's sometimes scary to face what you have to face without sugarcoating it.

[Blue Owl]

28. They've earned their bagging rights

n/t

[kentuck]

34. "I live in the reddest red part of a red state.."

Would that be in the mountains of Kentucky?

[KentuckyWoman]

42. Howdy neighbor!! Why yes, yes it would.

We recently hit the big time. Kentucky came out and put up a blinky light in town on the State highway.

[kentuck]

58. Bell County...

Down in the corner.

[KentuckyWoman]

63. NE of you

Pikeville would be the closest happinin place.

[kentuck]

64. Paintsville

Butcher Hollow?

[otohara]

38. Who Are They Going to SHOOT

liberals?

They hate us right?

[KentuckyWoman]

43. well they've been told to blame us

around here times have always been hard but people like to think they are self reliant. Telling them tbeir worse times are the fault of Limo Liberals who take from the middle to give to the welfare queens works to some extent but it's far more complicated than people here seem to think. Folks here at one time were behind FDR and I think could support liberals again if we could get back to actual conversation again instead of the swill Hannity and Limbaugh types churn out.

[Scurrilous]

52. K & R

[Recursion]

55. Conservatives are as frustrated with Republicans as liberals are with Democrats

[KentuckyWoman]

70. This is true

although most old school conservatives I know would be more at home if they would just declare Democrat.