Magox Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 This is a group that is largely comprised of a bunch of political neophytes. As Karl Rove stated, they are a group that is "not sophisticated", but he didn't infer that they themselves aren't sophisticated (because as polls show they are more affluent and more educated than most other voters by a wide margin) but that they are new to the game, a new grassroots movement that lacks structure. “Rather, these are people who are deeply concerned about what they see happening to their country, particularly when it comes to spending, deficits, debt and health care.” The lack of experience is an issue, Rove said. “Most have never been involved in politics before. This is their first experience, and they have the enthusiasm of people who have never done it before.” However, they do have core values that most Americans share. Which is that they are for lower taxes, less government spending, a leaner government, less regulations and more personal freedoms. But other than these core beliefs what they do have is tremendous energy that is difficult to match and it is a group that is growing by the day. Polls show that women and independents have been flocking to the tea party, as many Americans are feeling tremendous anxiety over the national debt, the economy and the government's overreach. Considering this movement is largely comprised from a bunch of political newbies, they lack structure and discipline specially when it comes to vetting the proper candidate. There is no doubt, that Angle, Buck, ODonnell and Miller were flawed candidates that were prone to a number of gaffes that a more disciplined and seasoned politician would most likely of avoided and it did cost them those seats. But then again, there was Toomey who knocked of Sestak, Ron Johnson who defeated Feingold in the liberal state of Wisconsin, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio who all won their elections. There were also a number of Tea Party backed candidates that won house elections, I know in my district african american ALAN WEST crushed Ron Klein, and my district is largely made up of jewish voters, and he was all about the TEA PARTY. I remember having a conversation with a moderate to left leaning good friend of mine back around in the middle of 2009. This is when it was cool for the liberals to call this group a bunch of "teabaggers", and this was right around the time when all the accusations from liberal journalists of racism were beginning to surface. I remember telling my friend that this was a bad idea and that it would backfire. As a matter of fact, I told my friend I was 100% sure that this wouldn't work, which was the liberal medias attempt to caricature this group as a bunch of racist, bigoted and extremist group of people. The reason why I told him that this wouldn't work is because these people, are every day American middle of the road people. They are your next door neighbors (assuming you don't live in a large city), they are the epitome of middle America. I told him that if the liberal media continues to falsely characterize these people that even those that don't consider themselves tea partiers that have a next door neighbor that is a tea partier will also become enraged with these false depections of this group because they happen to know these tea partiers. And they know that tea party neighbor isn't a racist, and he knows that he isn't a bigot, and he knows that his neighbor is a good, decent person that deeply cares about his country and the direction that we are headed. I don't consider myself a tea partier, but I support what they are trying to do. This is a group that is committed to becoming more organized and I am 99% sure that they will be even more energized, structured, larger and disciplined by the time the 2012 elections come around. Because of some of the poor vetting that occured, they lost some races that they could of won, but it is nonsense to try to make the argument that they were a group that cost them some seats. Because without this grass roots movement, the GOP wouldn't of won nearly as many seats as they did, they brought tremendous energy to these midterms. You take the good with the bad. All in all, they were a huge plus for the conservative movement. I am confident that over the next few years they will hold the establishment GOP to their core principles of smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, less regulations and more personal freedoms. Because if they don't, they will throw those bums out and bring a primary challenger that will represent their values.
IDBillzFan Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 All in all, they were a huge plus for the conservative movement. I am confident that over the next few years they will hold the establishment GOP to their core principles of smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, less regulations and more personal freedoms. Because if they don't, they will throw those bums out and bring a primary challenger that will represent their values. Everything you wrote is nuts-on accurate. I am more than proud to say I'm one of these political newbies who was more than thrilled when I showed up to THE first tea party gathering in Santa Ana. As I drove up, I had no idea what to expect, but there we were, over 3000 people, not sure what was going to happen, but all with a single understanding that we did not like what we were seeing in the new administration. The left overplayed their mandate. It's just that simple. As has been mentioned often, 2008 was not a vote for the left, but a vote against Bush, and to this day, the left refuses to acknowledge and accept that truth. Your last statement is the key part of your post. The real strength of the tea party movement has yet to be seen, when these same people hold accountable the very folks they got elected. The left will laugh when the tea party folks start turning on the imposters who broke their promises, but it's something you just never see on the left, which is why they are so weak. And to those who mock them, I once again say, mock them loud and often. I never tire of the Ghandi quote, which rings especially true on this topic: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 spot on analysis, the big government liberals and media can keep laughing at the tea party all they want. the longer they blow the tea party off and don't take them seriously just shows how out of touch they are with mainstream America and makes them even more vulnerable in 2012.
PTS Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I definitely consider myself a Tea Party backer and here are my quick thoughts on the party: 1. It is not going away anytime soon, if ever. If anything, I can see it getting larger. 2. It will push the Republican Party back to fiscal conservatism. Too many RINOs out there. 3. It will push the Democratic Party back toward the center. Obama and his crew have taken that party to the extreme left and that is not good for the country or their party.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I remember having a conversation with a moderate to left leaning good friend of mine back around in the middle of 2009. This is when it was cool for the liberals to call this group a bunch of "teabaggers", and this was right around the time when all the accusations from liberal journalists of racism were beginning to surface. I remember telling my friend that this was a bad idea and that it would backfire. As a matter of fact, I told my friend I was 100% sure that this wouldn't work, which was the liberal medias attempt to caricature this group as a bunch of racist, bigoted and extremist group of people. The reason why I told him that this wouldn't work is because these people, are every day American middle of the road people. They are your next door neighbors (assuming you don't live in a large city), they are the epitome of middle America. I think that when the "movement" started, the negative characterization was fair, but that seems to be changing. As more moderates and independents join, the racism, bigotry and extremism becomes more diluted and in line with the levels found in any random group. If they want to grow their ranks further and gain more respect with independents and liberals, they should move away from fundamentalist leaders like Sarah Palin and truly focus on America's economy and other issues that actually have to do with government. It's hard to dislike the apparent intelligence of some of the candidates they've put up. Political momentum and moderate success are one thing. We'll soon see what they do with it.
3rdnlng Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I think that when the "movement" started, the negative characterization was fair, but that seems to be changing. As more moderates and independents join, the racism, bigotry and extremism becomes more diluted and in line with the levels found in any random group. If they want to grow their ranks further and gain more respect with independents and liberals, they should move away from fundamentalist leaders like Sarah Palin and truly focus on America's economy and other issues that actually have to do with government. It's hard to dislike the apparent intelligence of some of the candidates they've put up. Political momentum and moderate success are one thing. We'll soon see what they do with it. Can you give us examples of how, when the "movement" started, there was racism, bigotry and extremism?
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 Can you give us examples of how, when the "movement" started, there was racism, bigotry and extremism? Just my opinion. I know you were paying attention and have your own obviously intelligent, well-thought-out opinions, but here you go: Tea Party Racism, Bigotry and Extremism
Chef Jim Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 Just my opinion. I know you were paying attention and have your own obviously intelligent, well-thought-out opinions, but here you go: Tea Party Racism, Bigotry and Extremism Nice dodge. What are you basing those opinions on?
PTS Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 Just my opinion. I know you were paying attention and have your own obviously intelligent, well-thought-out opinions, but here you go: Tea Party Racism, Bigotry and Extremism I'd bet my house, wife and newborn that there is 10x more racism coming from groups on the left than there is or ever was in the Tea Party. There is no racism in a true free-market, capitalist society because when you want to be the best and make the most money, you hire the best people ... regardless of color, race or religion. Socialism fosters racism, capitalism does away with it.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 Nice dodge. What are you basing those opinions on? It's a ridiculous question because the "rise of the Tea Party" and why people might think those things is so well documented. Your question, however is much better. My opinion on this matter is based on what I've seen, heard and thought. I'd bet my house, wife and newborn that there is 10x more racism coming from groups on the left than there is or ever was in the Tea Party. There is no racism in a true free-market, capitalist society because when you want to be the best and make the most money, you hire the best people ... regardless of color, race or religion. Socialism fosters racism, capitalism does away with it. Nice theory. 10X is a lot for what your betting, no? Maybe you're just looking for an out. The free market is not racist, but many people are. The faster the Tea Party evolves into what you're talking about, the better.
Magox Posted November 5, 2010 Author Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) I think that when the "movement" started, the negative characterization was fair, but that seems to be changing. As more moderates and independents join, the racism, bigotry and extremism becomes more diluted and in line with the levels found in any random group. If they want to grow their ranks further and gain more respect with independents and liberals, they should move away from fundamentalist leaders like Sarah Palin and truly focus on America's economy and other issues that actually have to do with government. It's hard to dislike the apparent intelligence of some of the candidates they've put up. Political momentum and moderate success are one thing. We'll soon see what they do with it. No, it wasn't fair. It was a generalized characterization of the entire movement based on a FEW loons. That is exactly what it was, and how do I know this? Because as I stated, they are your everday middle America people, which is why they have more favorability rating amongst the US electorate than either the GOP or DEMS. Its like what Jon Stewart recently stated, that we shouldn't generalize everyone into one group or caricature and he specifically mentioned the Tea Partiers. Not that he is the "Decider" on determining the validity of this group, but he is right. Generalizations generally suck! (Ironic?) In regards to Sarah, it does hurt the movement with many independent voters if she is seen as the face of the movement, and that is A negative effect. However, she brings tremendous energy to the movement because there are many middle class conservatives that like her because she is able to connect with them. Her image has been permanently damaged and she stand no chance of winning a general election. She is best used in endorsing candidates in conservative red leaning districts and helping raise money for candidates. I just hope she doesn't run in 2012. If she doesn't run, then Obama is a one-term president, if she runs she very well may win the primaries, in which she will lose by a wide margin in the general elections. In regards to intelligence, that is just a bunch of garbage. That is something that the media has attempted to highlight and it has worked on those willingto believe that. Out of the 4 Tea Party candidates that I mentioned up above that lost their elections, two of them were IVEY league graduates, they just were very undisciplined, structured and gaffe prone. I will say this, the more people that call them unintelligent (which the polls show they are more wealthy, educated and affluent)the larger this group gets. In the results of the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, they are better educated and wealthier than the general public. They are just as likely to be employed, and more likely to describe their economic situation as very or fairly good. Sorry, the facts don't back up the depiction that you've been duped into believing. It's not your fault though, I am sure that wherever you get your information probably wants to create this image of them, and it's obvious why that would be? They saw this grass roots movement as a threat, and rightfully so, as evidenced in the "Shellacking" that took place a couple days ago. Edited November 5, 2010 by Magox
RkFast Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I'd bet my house, wife and newborn that there is 10x more racism coming from groups on the left than there is or ever was in the Tea Party. There is no racism in a true free-market, capitalist society because when you want to be the best and make the most money, you hire the best people ... regardless of color, race or religion. Socialism fosters racism, capitalism does away with it. You read Levin's book too, huh? I just finished it...brilliant.
Chef Jim Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 It's a ridiculous question because the "rise of the Tea Party" and why people might think those things is so well documented. Your question, however is much better. My opinion on this matter is based on what I've seen, heard and thought. Master dodger you are. What have you seen? I don't give a crap what you've heard. What have you seen?
Adam Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I agree with you- some of the tea partiers are racist, for sure. But so are some democrats, republicans, green party and libertarians. Demonization helps short term, but will backfire long term. I hope we see more splinter groups from both sides. The more options we have, the better off we are. The one-party system is a complete failure.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) No, it wasn't fair. It was a generalized characterization of the entire movement based on a FEW loons. That is exactly what it was, and how do I know this? Because as I stated, they are your everday middle America people, which is why they have more favorability rating amongst the US electorate than either the GOP or DEMS. Its like what Jon Stewart recently stated, that we shouldn't generalize everyone into one group or caricature and he specifically mentioned the Tea Partiers. Not that he is the "Decider" on determining the validity of this group, but he is right. Generalizations generally suck! (Ironic?) In regards to Sarah, it does hurt the movement with many independent voters if she is seen as the face of the movement, and that is A negative effect. However, she brings tremendous energy to the movement because there are many middle class conservatives that like her because she is able to connect with them. Her image has been permanently damaged and she stand no chance of winning a general election. She is best used in endorsing candidates in conservative red leaning districts and helping raise money for candidates. I just hope she doesn't run in 2012. If she doesn't run, then Obama is a one-term president, if she runs she very well may win the primaries, in which she will lose by a wide margin in the general elections. In regards to intelligence, that is just a bunch of garbage. That is something that the media has attempted to highlight and it has worked on those willingto believe that. Out of the 4 Tea Party candidates that I mentioned up above that lost their elections, two of them were IVEY league graduates, they just were very undisciplined, structured and gaffe prone. I will say this, the more people that call them unintelligent (which the polls show they are more wealthy, educated and affluent)the larger this group gets. Sorry, the facts don't back up the depiction that you've been duped into believing. It's not your fault though, I am sure that wherever you get your information probably wants to create this image of them, and it's obvious why that would be? They saw this grass roots movement as a threat, and rightfully so, as evidenced in the "Shellacking" that took place a couple days ago. We can differ on our opinion of how and why it may have started, but what I said is: It's hard to dislike the apparent intelligence of some of the candidates they've put up. Edit: To play devil's advocate, what makes these Ivy League and otherwise educated Tea Party candidates any less "elite" than the "elitist liberals" commonly demonized by the right? Master dodger you are. What have you seen? I don't give a crap what you've heard. What have you seen? LOL, I was playing your game. My opinion is mine and I'll leave it at that. Edited November 5, 2010 by Gene Frenkle
Andrew in CA Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 There is no racism in a true free-market, capitalist society because when you want to be the best and make the most money, you hire the best people ... regardless of color, race or religion. Socialism fosters racism, capitalism does away with it. That's great in theory, but people don't make decisions based entirely on economic motivations. Why do we need employment discrimination laws, for example, if purely economic reasons will do away with racism/sexism/whatever-ism?
Adam Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I'd bet my house, wife and newborn that there is 10x more racism coming from groups on the left than there is or ever was in the Tea Party. There is no racism in a true free-market, capitalist society because when you want to be the best and make the most money, you hire the best people ... regardless of color, race or religion. Socialism fosters racism, capitalism does away with it. Uh.....no
IDBillzFan Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 I think that when the "movement" started, the negative characterization was fair, but that seems to be changing. There was nothing fair about it. Every tea party rally I have attended from the very start had blacks and Latinos in the audience as well as at the podium. Yet, that wasn't enough for the media. There apparently needs to be some minority quota in order for this to be acceptable. Suddenly the problem was that the gatheringss were "predominantly" or "overwhelmingly" white. In other words, we notice SOME minorities there, but they must hate black people, too! Dolts. Liberals have no way to counter the movement (though some might suggest that the Coffee Party was a valiant try if it weren't so obviously manufactured), so in lieu of intelligent discussion, they turn to race. It's embarrassing, and actually hurts the real battle against racism because now the card is pulled at the drop of a hat and saturates the meaning of "racist."
Magox Posted November 5, 2010 Author Posted November 5, 2010 Edit: To play devil's advocate, what makes these Ivy League and otherwise educated Tea Party candidates any less "elite" than the "elitist liberals" commonly demonized by the right? It's not the school you go to that gives the "elite liberal" impression, it's the highfalutin attitude that is so often displayed that gave way to their "elitist liberal" perception. That is the difference.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2010 Posted November 5, 2010 There was nothing fair about it. Every tea party rally I have attended from the very start had blacks and Latinos in the audience as well as at the podium. Yet, that wasn't enough for the media. There apparently needs to be some minority quota in order for this to be acceptable. Suddenly the problem was that the gatheringss were "predominantly" or "overwhelmingly" white. In other words, we notice SOME minorities there, but they must hate black people, too! Dolts. Liberals have no way to counter the movement (though some might suggest that the Coffee Party was a valiant try if it weren't so obviously manufactured), so in lieu of intelligent discussion, they turn to race. It's embarrassing, and actually hurts the real battle against racism because now the card is pulled at the drop of a hat and saturates the meaning of "racist." You're so oppressed! It's not the school you go to that gives the "elite liberal" impression, it's the highfalutin attitude that is so often displayed that gave way to their "elitist liberal" perception. That is the difference. I disagree. Every time this comes up, it's all about the condescending elitists that these liberal colleges produce. Are you saying that's propaganda?
Recommended Posts