TakeYouToTasker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 If what you say is true then why didn't they 'make it clear'? I don't buy the idea that Bachman and Palin hijacked the Tea Party. If the 'Tea Party' didn't like them, I'm quite confident 'they' would have made those feeling clear, and in a very public way. It's not like these folks are afraid to speak their mind... The problem is that the Tea Party's general platform on economic matters is very rigid (which is fine) with little room for compromise (Really smart people might even argue that 'compromise' is what got us in the 'debt mess' in the first place). It's not surprising, though, that people who are generally rigid in their thinking on economic matters would also be generally rigid in their thinking on social issues, as well. Throw in the general notion that Fiscal Conservatives tend to be (note I said 'tend', I didn't say that all) Socially Conservative and, voila -- You've got rigid social conservatives representing the Tea Party, alienating lots of people with their perceived crazy. I understand why you and 3rdnlng and a few others *want* the Tea Party to be what you want it to be, I just think you'd have better luck with the Libertarians. The Tea Party, as it emerged, was not an orgaized group. It was incredibly grass-roots; and arose almost spontaniously on a very local level. It was comprised of a wide variety of individualist types who had no political experience, and was really nothing more than a concerned citizen movement. This created a feeding frenzy for fringe social issues candidates and political opportunists to name themselves leaders of the movement; and co-opt it, as there was no "leadership" to rebuke these attempts or claims. It's why libertarians like myself and Ron Paul Republicans fled the movement after it's early stages. Also, you need to draw a distinction between small "l" libertarians, and big "L" Libertarians. The two are very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) If what you say is true then why didn't they 'make it clear'? I don't buy the idea that Bachman and Palin hijacked the Tea Party. If the 'Tea Party' didn't like them, I'm quite confident 'they' would have made those feeling clear, and in a very public way. It's not like these folks are afraid to speak their mind... The problem is that the Tea Party's general platform on economic matters is very rigid (which is fine) with little room for compromise (Really smart people might even argue that 'compromise' is what got us in the 'debt mess' in the first place). It's not surprising, though, that people who are generally rigid in their thinking on economic matters would also be generally rigid in their thinking on social issues, as well. Throw in the general notion that Fiscal Conservatives tend to be (note I said 'tend', I didn't say that all) Socially Conservative and, voila -- You've got rigid social conservatives representing the Tea Party, alienating lots of people with their perceived crazy. I understand why you and 3rdnlng and a few others *want* the Tea Party to be what you want it to be, I just think you'd have better luck with the Libertarians. The problem with the Tea Party is that it never really formed as a true political party with endorsed leaders, platforms, and all that jazz. It was the conservative version of a commune. People came together with some common ideals but it lacked a practical edge that winning candidates need. So "Tea Party candidates" became anyone who endorsed their economic pledge. Those candidate's other crazy views could be anything. I might be a Tea Party candidate with quiet uncontroversial social views...suddenly Bachman swoops in as the big Tea PArty candidate and everyone looks at me like we share the same crazy views, because we are from the same party. That's not good message control and it doesn't produce viable candidates. The TP party put out an economic hook that could conceivably catch both Libertarians who are pretty much hands-off government in social issues and the right wing social engineers as well. That doesn't make for a cohesive message in your candidate list so the Libertarians decided to stay away because Bachman/Palin were not people they wanted to associate with. Not to mention and maybe Magox alluded to this above or maybe he's talked about it elsewhere, the Tea Party's failure so far is ignoring all issues non-social. Politicians need to be practical. You will not get the Latino vote (one the Repubs still have a chance of landing) by having harsh rhetoric on immigration and illegal immigrants. You can't court young voters and support Constitutional bans on gay marriage (Romney). The former issue is important. The later is not. But both alienate big swaths of voters. When you say the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is 15 years away and virtually impossible, you turn off Latinos.The second someone says they support a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, the under 30 (probably now under 40 even) crowd mocks their idiocy. If the Tea Party isn't controlling that message, they alienate those massive voter groups right away. The Tea Party can become a party I guess and try to take on a full platform. But the damage to its image is irreparable. Probably better to reboot, copy some of the econ language, get some legit candidates and a real party leadership, and try again. The Libertarians have their own branding issue. Being the party of potheads is not the picture you want for yourself. That image may not be as prevalent today but it's still a problem. Edited May 31, 2013 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telepathic Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 The problem with the Tea Party is that it never really formed as a true political party with endorsed leaders, platforms, and all that jazz. It was the conservative version of a commune. People came together with some common ideals but it lacked a practical edge that winning candidates need. So "Tea Party candidates" became anyone who endorsed their economic pledge. Those candidate's other crazy views could be anything. I might be a Tea Party candidate with quiet uncontroversial social views...suddenly Bachman swoops in as the big Tea PArty candidate and everyone looks at me like we share the same crazy views, because we are from the same party. That's not good message control and it doesn't produce viable candidates. The TP party put out an economic hook that could conceivably catch both Libertarians who are pretty much hands-off government in social issues and the right wing social engineers as well. That doesn't make for a cohesive message in your candidate list so the Libertarians decided to stay away because Bachman/Palin were not people they wanted to associate with. Not to mention and maybe Magox alluded to this above or maybe he's talked about it elsewhere, the Tea Party's failure so far is ignoring all issues non-social. Politicians need to be practical. You will not get the Latino vote (one the Repubs still have a chance of landing) by having harsh rhetoric on immigration and illegal immigrants. You can't court young voters and support Constitutional bans on gay marriage (Romney). The former issue is important. The later is not. But both alienate big swaths of voters. When you say the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is 15 years away and virtually impossible, you turn off Latinos.The second someone says they support a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, the under 30 (probably now under 40 even) crowd mocks their idiocy. If the Tea Party isn't controlling that message, they alienate those massive voter groups right away. The Tea Party can become a party I guess and try to take on a full platform. But the damage to its image is irreparable. Probably better to reboot, copy some of the econ language, get some legit candidates and a real party leadership, and try again. The Libertarians have their own branding issue. Being the party of potheads is not the picture you want for yourself. That image may not be as prevalent today but it's still a problem. Bravo. But I'll bet there will be at least two or three immediate (negative) reactions to this thoughtful post by the TPers on the board here. And each one will fail to acknowledge the merit of your post and instead get defensive and blame it on a media hype/Chicago style politics. Reality is that the TP did more damage to the GOP brand than the DNC could have done in 100 election cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 Bravo. But I'll bet there will be at least two or three immediate (negative) reactions to this thoughtful post by the TPers on the board here. And each one will fail to acknowledge the merit of your post and instead get defensive and blame it on a media hype/Chicago style politics. Reality is that the TP did more damage to the GOP brand than the DNC could have done in 100 election cycles. That wasn't what JA and I were saying...We said one thing, and then you said this, which is a completely separate thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telepathic Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 That wasn't what JA and I were saying...We said one thing, and then you said this, which is a completely separate thought. It was my thought. That's why it was a separate paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 It was my thought. That's why it was a separate paragraph. While I generally agree with what JA and Magox posted, let there be no doubt that the media and politicians on the left did their utmost to disparage the Tea Party. Even Obama called them "teabaggers". There were even leftwing nutjobs who infiltrated TP rallys with signs to try to make the Tea Party participants look racist or crazy. If that isn't Chicago politics, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 While I generally agree with what JA and Magox posted, let there be no doubt that the media and politicians on the left did their utmost to disparage the Tea Party. Even Obama called them "teabaggers". There were even leftwing nutjobs who infiltrated TP rallys with signs to try to make the Tea Party participants look racist or crazy. If that isn't Chicago politics, I don't know what is. The left and right did the same thing to Libertarians. Tea Party could stand to learn a few of these tactics...and, in fact, it HAS gotten better at them, which is why you see things like Acorn getting blown up, and college students signing thank-you notes to the IRS. And it remains, to a large extent, why the current administration found it absolutely imperative to send the IRS out to silence them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 It was my thought. That's why it was a separate paragraph. Except you were conflating JA's post with your preconceived thoughts, which didn't jive with what he and I had been saying. His was a synopsis of the TP's woes, yours was an overall wholly separate and differing conclusion that in reality didn't closely relate to what was being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) The left has consistantly tried to brand the Tea Party as racists, far right evangelicals, and any extreme they can think of. Simply put, if you read the various Tea Party mission statements you will find that they explicitly state that they take no position on social issues. They are concerned with national debt and are big on the Constitution. Again always blaming the left and the media ... Never looking inward at GOP's problems. Tea party may have started out as you say but as soon as it gained momentum it was co-opted by opportunist right wing politicians and media personalities like glenn beck. To the point its now associated with all the nasties like guns, religion in public schools, homophobia, foreign wars, etc etc. Edited May 31, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Again always blaming the left and the media ... Never looking inward at GOP's problems. Tea party may have started out as you say but as soon as it gained momentum it was co-opted by opportunist right wing politicians and media personalities like glenn beck. To the point its now associated with all the nasties like guns, religion in public schools, homophobia, foreign wars, etc etc. Wait. What's wrong with guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Wait. What's wrong with guns? For starters someone like you can buy them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 For starters someone like you can buy them Actually, I can buy more than one of them. Still don't understand the problem. What are you afraid of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 You're a special kind of dumb, Mr. self proclaimed "libertarian" that sucks up to and endorses every liberal cause/opinion. It's called bill maher syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Actually, I can buy more than one of them. Still don't understand the problem. What are you afraid of? Virtually everything. He's a liberal, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Again always blaming the left and the media ... Never looking inward at GOP's problems. Tea party may have started out as you say but as soon as it gained momentum it was co-opted by opportunist right wing politicians and media personalities like glenn beck. To the point its now associated with all the nasties like guns, religion in public schools, homophobia, foreign wars, etc etc. Your reading comprehension is really pretty poor. Did you see where I stated that I generally agreed with JA & Magox? I simply added that yes, Chicago style politics were alive and well with the left and the media as it pertained to the Tea Party. As far as the rest of your dribble about, ah never mind, you're not worth it. Just go !@#$ off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) Your reading comprehension is really pretty poor. Did you see where I stated that I generally agreed with JA & Magox? I simply added that yes, Chicago style politics were alive and well with the left and the media as it pertained to the Tea Party. As far as the rest of your dribble about, ah never mind, you're not worth it. Just go !@#$ off. Which one were you at the Glenn Beck tea party rally? probably guy at 3:24 who gets frustrated and blames the media ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg Edited June 1, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 This would be JTSP ideal world: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-boy-scouts-20130530,0,3573485.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) It appears the more bombastic fringe elements of the GOP have lost clout over the past few years. Palin, West and Bachmann are all out. This is a good thing for the Conservative movement, the less you see these folks out as the face of the GOP, the better chances you have to win national races and implement your agenda. It appears the more bombastic fringe elements of the GOP have lost clout over the past few years. Palin, West and Bachmann are all out. This is a good thing for the Conservative movement, the less you see these folks out as the face of the GOP, the better chances you have to win national races and implement your agenda. really? take a look at the republican ticket for governor/lt governor in Virginia. nope, it's still the same 21st century GOP.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/why-cant-republicans-get-any-decent-candidates-to-run-in-swing-states/276398/ Edited June 1, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Virtually everything. He's a liberal, after all. He's not a liberal, he's an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 He's not a liberal, he's an idiot. I know that. I invented that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts