What is the Tea Party?

[Moonbeam]

The Tea Party draws on two sources for it's phenomenal success, qualities in great surplus in the USA. stupidity and rage.

 

[boomerang]

The usual suspects preaching their hate. Good hate of course because progressive hate is founded in truth and intellectualism don't you know.

Putting Tea Party in a thread title is akin to putting Palin in a thread title here. Both churn the bowels of the far left in ways unimaginable to conservatives.

Why just yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast Obama attended, where he thanked God, where he talked of the power of prayer and the effect it's had on his life and how it guides him daily, I couldn't help but think of how alike he and Sarah Palin truly are. Very inspiring. Why the left would fear a movement like the Tea Party movement, one endorsed by Sarah Palin when Obama and Palin have so much common ground is puzzling.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/poll.tea.party/index.html



And

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...out-the-tea-party-movement/?cid=hp:mainpromo3



They certainly made headlines last year during all the bail outs, and their message is resonating with more and more people as government spends more, borrows more, and taxes more. Should be interesting to see where they go with and how they evolve, but ignoring that many voters would be a mistake for anyone running for office.

Back in 2001, I predicted that the Republicans, having won power by saying how much better than the Democrats were, would be exposed for their terrible agenda for the rich and incompetence at government (I recommended reading "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank) are bad for the nation (it took longer than I expected, 9/11 got him past 2004), and that after THAT happened the right would, with nowhere else to run, turn on the people governing and say "but they're not REAL conservatives" as the only way they could possibly ask for yet more elections.

That's the tea party, right on schedule.

It's understandable there's backlash. And it's understandable it's irrational, uninformed, not only striking out at the wrong targets - like progressives who have opposed so many bad policies - but is even incoherent.

And ripe for use and manipulation by the powers who caused the problem in the first place - like big pharma who has been paying for organizing 'tea party' events.

Democrats are being warned that the 'outrage demographic' is growing and being hijacked by the wrong peoople and is a danger to them. They haven't done well at addressing this outrage and pointing it.

The tea party members are setting themselves up for indefinite outrage as they are ripe for battlng their own democratic power and handing yet more over to the corrupt private power frstrating their interests.

Luckily, there is a strain of anti-corporate abuse in the party. Maybe that'll be a good thing, creating an outlet on the right that can unite with the anti-corporate progressives on the left.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are radically opposed politicall but found common ground. But they won't get anywhere useful with Fox and corporate backers in their bed.

 

[Moonbeam]

The usual suspects preaching their hate. Good hate of course because progressive hate is founded in truth and intellectualism don't you know.

Putting Tea Party in a thread title is akin to putting Palin in a thread title here. Both churn the bowels of the far left in ways unimaginable to conservatives.

Why just yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast Obama attended, where he thanked God, where he talked of the power of prayer and the effect it's had on his life and how it guides him daily, I couldn't help but think of how alike he and Sarah Palin truly are. Very inspiring. Why the left would fear a movement like the Tea Party movement, one endorsed by Sarah Palin when Obama and Palin have so much common ground is puzzling.

If you look even closer I think you'll see a polyp.

 

[wiretap]

If they don't identify themselves with a "certain political party," then why did they come into being when Obama took office? Where were they to protest expanding deficits and government spending under Bush? If they oppose "tyranny," where were they to oppose the patriot act, the use of waterboarding, and unprecedented levels of government secrectiveness in the last administration?

The truth is that radical right movements always gain traction when a dem is in office. This is parellel to the rise of militia movements under Clinton.

- wolf

A lot of people have finally woke up. Years of new wars and spending have sent people over the edge. They voted for a man who promised to clean it all up.. but he's done nothing but the opposite thus far.

It's absolutely hilarious to see when the 'other party' is in power how people react, especially people on the forums. It's like the blinders all of a sudden get put on and their hands get tied behind their back. Oh no.. god forbid if someone speaks out. You'll be labeled a racist and whatever group you're with will be labeled with sexual innuendos. Pathetic. Step away from both parties and look back.. see how they're exactly the same and offer nothing but more of the same. Increased power grabs, more spending by the trillions. In the next few months when we get involved with another new war and the dollar is further weakened, continue to sit on your hands.

 

[Craig234]

I also doubt President Obama's values are truly constitutional as well. That seems to be the point of the Tea Partiers, they're fed up with government corruption across the political spectrum.

Anti corruption is good. But there's more to governming a country.

Anti corruption doesn't tell you how to get Americans good healthcare, how to prevent Wall Street excesses that hurt the country, how to protect morality and civl rights on detainee practices.

It is very helpful opposing corruption, if they want to be about that, but it's more than 'vote whoever is in office out', and let's face it that's mostly 'vote the Democrats out' that they care about the most.

They need a more specific platform - a constitutional amendment to repeal corporate personhood or if the people workig on a legislative solution can find anything, backing that; policies and laws supporting discloure; limiting lobbying; diversification of media ownership so there are more 'independant voices', not just five mega corporations speaking; protection of the investigative journalism industry, in whatever form works, and that's not the one going bankrupt at the moment.

It doesn't mean term limits that weaken democrays for the public and give the power to the operators who choose leading candidates who owe them more than the public, not even accountable for re-election; it doesn't mean support for the unfair tax, which tries to shift the tax burden off the rich onto everyone else by moving it to consumption, not income.

If they'll support those useful efforts they can be helpful. If they just let Fox and the coproations run them, they'll be pawns for corruption.

 

[dmcowen674]

Tea Party re-branding name of Republicans that hate America

 

[halik]

Disenfranchised neoconservatives trying to rebrand themselves with faux-libertarian perspectives and voice their discontent that Bush isn't in the office.

At this point the "movement" is just a bunch of people choreographed by republican strategist consulting firms.

 

[wiretap]

Disenfranchised neoconservatives trying to rebrand themselves with faux-libertarian perspectives and voice their discontent that Bush isn't in the office.

At this point the "movement" is just a bunch of people choreographed by republican strategist consulting firms.

lol, you've got to be joking. ahahahaha. Obama is George Bush's 3rd presidency. Hell, he even meets with the Bush family behind closed doors. The press has caught it on several occasions. He's continued the legacy of spending and tyranny.

 

[Uhtrinity]

A lot of people have finally woke up. Years of new wars and spending have sent people over the edge. They voted for a man who promised to clean it all up.. but he's done nothing but the opposite thus far.

And yet it only took them one whole month after Obama took office for this to happen. Coincidence?

 

[spidey07]

And yet it only took them one whole month after Obama took office for this to happen. Coincidence?

He showed his true colors pretty quickly, so not really a coincidence. The porkulus bill was what really teed them up.

 

[halik]

lol, you've got to be joking. ahahahaha. Obama is George Bush's 3rd presidency. Hell, he even meets with the Bush family behind closed doors. The press has caught it on several occasions. He's continued the legacy of spending and tyranny.

Yeah,
that's why neoconservatives love Obama, because he's continuation of Bush.

/facepalm

 

[wiretap]

Yeah,
that's why neoconservatives love Obama, because he's continuation of Bush.

/facepalm

Most people just associate along party lines, such as yourself. Even if someone was the same person carrying the same core policies and they labeled them-self with a different letter (R or D), they'd automatically spew hatred just because of that lettering. Don't judge by a label.. judge by policy, actions and character.

 

[yllus]

Is Sarah Palin now going to become the face of the Tea Party movement?
If so, then it doesn't help them gain any national cresedence.

Tea Party Convention Seems a Very Genteel Affair

The talk in the registration line ranged from frustration at having to postpone retirement because of the economic downturn to the care and training of horses. Attendees were mostly white and older; there were more women than men. Some were Republicans, more were independents. To a person, they loved Sarah Palin.

A couple were even Democrats. "We're been good friends with [Democratic Louisiana Senator] Mary Landrieu for years," says Glen Williams, 73. He and his wife JoAnn left their cattle ranch in Winsboro, La., to attend the convention. "But what she's done with health care," says JoAnn, shaking her head, "now we're gonna have to work against her. And we're here to learn how."

She may do well to take advantage.

 

[woolfe9999]

A lot of people have finally woke up. Years of new wars and spending have sent people over the edge. They voted for a man who promised to clean it all up.. but he's done nothing but the opposite thus far.

It's absolutely hilarious to see when the 'other party' is in power how people react, especially people on the forums. It's like the blinders all of a sudden get put on and their hands get tied behind their back. Oh no.. god forbid if someone speaks out. You'll be labeled a racist and whatever group you're with will be labeled with sexual innuendos. Pathetic. Step away from both parties and look back.. see how they're exactly the same and offer nothing but more of the same. Increased power grabs, more spending by the trillions. In the next few months when we get involved with another new war and the dollar is further weakened, continue to sit on your hands.

Yeah, they just suddenly happened to "wake up." Sorry, if you don't understand the Tea Party as basically a right wing movement, then you are beyond help.

- wolf

 

[wiretap]

Yeah, they just suddenly happened to "wake up." Sorry, if you don't understand the Tea Party as basically a right wing movement, then you are beyond help.

- wolf

I'd call it more of a true conservative values movement (i.e. Constitutionalist). At one time, even democrats in this country such as John F. Kennedy held those principled values. After that era, both Democrats and Republicans moved in the neoliberal/socialist/marxist direction. More government, more power in centralized government, redistribution of wealth, massive spending initiatives, unsurpassed regulatory actions, etc. I'd really study political landscape if I were you.. because you've fallen for the same right versus left warfare mentality that the major media outlets want you to believe. As long as you're arguing right versus left, you've got the same people in power over and over again. Anyhow, to address your weak argument, even people during the Bush years started to "wake up". There were huge rallies with both conservatives and others against his policies and expanded use of government power in the name of security. Also in Bush's second term, they were going nuts over his bailout strategy and prescription drug policy. Keep ignoring history.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'd call it more of a true conservative values movement (i.e. Constitutionalist). At one time, even democrats in this country such as John F. Kennedy held those principled values. After that era, both Democrats and Republicans moved in the neoliberal/socialist/marxist direction. More government, more power in centralized government, redistribution of wealth, massive spending initiatives, unsurpassed regulatory actions, etc. I'd really study political landscape if I were you.. because you've fallen for the same right versus left warfare mentality that the major media outlets want you to believe. As long as you're arguing right versus left, you've got the same people in power over and over again.

That could be a fair description, but my point is that the Tea Party is a conservative movement. That doesn't exactly make is post-partisan, because the vast majority will vote republican when push comes to shove. Many are dissatisfied with the republican party because it isn't far enough to the *right*, while at the same time they hate the democrats more.

I wouldn't exactly identify it as libertarian either. If they were libertarian, they would be notably to the left on social issues. They would also loudly complain about things like the Patriot Act. This is not a movement that opposes government coecive power. It's a movement that oppose government spending. That's why I have trouble agreeing with your description of it as opposing "tyranny."

- wolf

 

[wiretap]

That could be a fair description, but my point is that the Tea Party is a conservative movement. That doesn't exactly make is post-partisan, because the vast majority will vote republican when push comes to shove. Many are dissatisfied with the republican party because it isn't far enough to the *right*, while at the same time they hate the democrats more.

I wouldn't exactly identify it as libertarian either. If they were libertarian, they would be notably to the left on social issues. They would also loudly complain about things like the Patriot Act. This is not a movement that opposes government coecive power. It's a movement that oppose government spending. That's why I have trouble agreeing with your description of it as opposing "tyranny."

- wolf

By the way you're talking, I can tell you've never been to a rally and actually spoke with anyone there to see their views. You've taken the bait that the major media outlets have given you and you've ran with it. Classic. Just like they want the sheep to do.

 

[Craig234]

I'd call it more of a true conservative values movement (i.e. Constitutionalist). At one time, even democrats in this country such as John F. Kennedy held those principled values. After that era, both Democrats and Republicans moved in the neoliberal/socialist/marxist direction. More government, more power in centralized government, redistribution of wealth, massive spending initiatives, unsurpassed regulatory actions, etc. I'd really study political landscape if I were you.. because you've fallen for the same right versus left warfare mentality that the major media outlets want you to believe. As long as you're arguing right versus left, you've got the same people in power over and over again. Anyhow, to address your weak argument, even people during the Bush years started to "wake up". There were huge rallies with both conservatives and others against his policies and expanded use of government power in the name of security. Also in Bush's second term, they were going nuts over his bailout strategy and prescription drug policy. Keep ignoring history.

Don't try this right-wing propaganda of 'JFK was a real American not like Democrats now'.

You don't know much about JFK or modern Democrats if you say that.

It's ironic that you complain about the left/right split but falll victim to it when you say things like that, which are based on right-wing propaganda.

It takes some learning and understanding of the times and nation JFK was president in to understand his politics better.

You are invited to cite any *specific* issues you would like information on about this if you want to get some information.

 

[wiretap]

Don't try this right-wing propaganda of 'JFK was a real American not like Democrats now'.

You don't know much about JFK or modern Democrats if you say that.

It's ironic that you complain about the left/right split but falll victim to it when you say things like that, which are based on right-wing propaganda.

His tax policies were not progressive like modern democrats are today. His core family values were not lacking like modern democrats are today. His foreign policy and defense of the United States as a world power were not non-existent as they are in modern democrats today. His voice about defending and sticking with our allies for freedom is the opposite of what we hear from modern democrats today. His economic policy was one of laissez faire, not an iron fist which modern democrats use today. His view on religion was one of free study, not demonization like the modern democrats of today.

I could get very detailed if you like, but I can tell you're just spouting off generalities without any knowledge of the man. I'm not even going to waste my time. Read some biographies of the man and watch his speeches.

 

[BoberFett]

One is made of Straw.

What is "Sandorski's Head"?

I'll take P&N for $1,000 Alex.

 

[Blackjack200]

Hmm, a lot of interesting opinions here about the tea party. Has anyone ever gone to a rally and done a survey? I'm curious enough to do one myself, where/when do they meet?

 

[Pens1566]

His tax policies were not progressive like modern democrats are today. His core family values were not lacking like modern democrats are today. His foreign policy and defense of the United States as a world power were not non-existent as they are in modern democrats today. His voice about defending and sticking with our allies for freedom is the opposite of what we hear from modern democrats today. His economic policy was one of laissez faire, not an iron fist which modern democrats use today. His view on religion was one of free study, not demonization like the modern democrats of today.

I could get very detailed if you like, but I can tell you're just spouting off generalities without any knowledge of the man. I'm not even going to waste my time. Read some biographies of the man and watch his speeches.

That ^ is your take on JFK? Wow.

 

[Craig234]

I could get very detailed if you like, but I can tell you're just spouting off generalities without any knowledge of the man. I'm not even going to waste my time. Read some biographies of the man and watch his speeches.

[/quote]

As I wrote my post, I considered, I don't feel like repeating the fact of my hobby of JFK, but should I to prevent you, if you haven't seen previous posts, from makinmg a fool of yourself if you are one to do that?

I wondered is it giving you rope to hag yourself with? I figured no, it's up to you not to say something irresponsibly inaccurate - but you went beyond even that.

JFK has been a hobby of mine for decades. I have a pretty literal JFK library, stopped counting somewhere well over 100 books, among other research. I've probably studied him more than anyone in your city.

But yet 'you can tell' I'm just 'souting off generalities' without... oh, never mind. Your idiocy is so massive, it begs description.

If we needed a poster child for how idiotic some of the posting here is, you provide an excellent candidate. This should be a clue for you to recognize how bad off you are being misinformed, but I doubt it will.

Enough of that. You are offensive for how wrongly you insult, how you are a harm to the forum with that behavior, but enough. Let's get to the issues. But query posts with my name and John Kennedy for a taste.

His tax policies were not progressive like modern democrats are today.

No, they were more progressive. He lowered the top tax rate from the 90% rate useful during the crisies of the great depression and WWII, to the rate his (liberal) economists advised him would stimulate growth and benefit the economy - 70%. It remained there until (JFK's political enemy) Reagan - and the beginning of the flat wages for the bottom 80% of Americans, the syrocketing debt and increase in share of wealth by the ultra rich. JFK did not set it to 35%, or 39%, or 50%, or 60%. 70% was the rate.

I'm ready to follow 'real American' JFK's policy on 'lowering the rate to 70%'.

His core family values were not lacking like modern democrats are today.

What the hell are you talking about? What policies are you referring to? As for 'family values', his personal behavior, well, for all his good qualities I like, that was very bad. His adultery was shameless.

His foreign policy and defense of the United States as a world power were not non-existent as they are in modern democrats today.

You don't have a clue of which you speak. As I said, you are a victim of right-wing propaganda and your irresponsibility to learn the facts.

In short JFK was a near-radical for peace in ways. He was a strong supporter of having a very strong military at the height of the cold war with which to leverage his views - but his views were to pursue *peace*.

If you learn the history, you will get a clue that he was fighting for peace in a time of the cold war, using that rhetoric as needed, keepng strong political support.

You're clueless, as I said, about modern Democrats as well.

His voice about defending and sticking with our allies for freedom is the opposite of what we hear from modern democrats today.

He strongly supported alliances against the communists in the cold war.

He was also a radical for liberal US foreign policy. He ended decaees, and really policies for our whole history, of the US blindly supporting European allies in naked aggression in the third world.

Again and again and again, the US had consistently sided, mostly reinforced under the Dulles brothers (John as Secretary of State and Allen as the head of the CIA, running around overthrowing governments) with European allies in their colonial policies. JFK said 'no' to this support, and backed off supporting colony after colony, infuriating Europe. It was partly his view of what the US shoulod stand for and also a strategy - he recognized the communists' ability to use the Western abuses of the third world to gain loyalty and create 'wars of liberation', and he chose that supporting 'real' independance, not puppets, was how to counter it.

That's a reason his picture has been on the walls of huts aroudn the third world for decades.

When he'd do things like pursue an atmospheric nuclear test ban, over the objections of the Join Chiefs, people called him the very 'traitor' to the US you say he's not but modern Democrats are.

People like yuou ran full page ads with 'mug shots' of him and the headline 'wanted for treason' - incuding in the Dallas Newspapers when he was assassinated.

His economic policy was one of laissez faire, not an iron fist which modern democrats use today.

Wrong again on both counts. You might remember his willingness to use the Justice Department to harrass the entire US Steel industry to force them to lower their prices - in a major political battle he won.

THere's a lot more, but you aren't ready for it IMO.

His view on religion was one of free study, not demonization like the modern democrats of today.

What are you talking about? He was a Catholic whose almost exclusive role with religion was to try to win election in 1960 by minimizing the votes of anti-Catholic votes, and gain votes in sympathy.

What policies did he have on religious you are claiming were notable about 'free study'? If you think JFK wouldn't have 'demonized' the radical right religious movement today, you don't know him.

So yes, I'd like you to 'get datiled' as you offered.

Let's try to see if we can disabuse you of some notions.

 

[Pens1566]

And to the original question :

They're a bunch of people who are upset, don't know what they're upset about, but somehow its all the fault of the socialist/facist/marxist/kenyan/muslim who "took their country away from them".