Media unable to voice what Tea Party really is

[Monkeyleg]

There's a reason those kind of people stay in the media.

Some of my best friends are "those kind of people." I don't let 'em use our bathroom, though, or sit at the same table with them.

[taurusowner]

It is what it is.

Not going to pull any votes from the other side.

A right wing republican conservative media figure.

There's a reason those kind of people stay in the media.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at... Care to speak your point a bit more plainly?

[KD5NRH]

Institute of Makers of Explosives?

Incontinent Moose Exchange.  Try that mental image on for size.

[azmjs]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at... Care to speak your point a bit more plainly?

In my experience, a noisy but indeterminately sized wing of the 'tea party' insists that the teabag movement "isn't about right v left" or "democrat vs republican" or yadda yadda yadda, but instead something new and different.

The Sean Hannities and Sarah Palins of the world give the lie to that, when they become figures in the 'movement.'

If the teabag people are just republicans who have discovered protest rallies, then they're about as important as Code Pink.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If the teabag people are just republicans who have discovered protest rallies, then they're about as important as Code Pink.

Hmm.  

Does Code Pink have millions of members like the Tea Party movement?

Can Code Pink turn an election in a solidly conservative state the same way the Tea Party people did in solidly liberal Massachusetts?

Was Code Pink ever able to kill major agenda items of a "conservative" President the way the Tea Partiers did to Barry Obama?

Does Code Pink poll more favorably than either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party the way the Tea Party does?

Faced with the facts, I'd have to conclude that the Tea Party movement is far, far more important and influential than Code Pink, regardless of which prominent personae are involved in it.

[Monkeyleg]

Faced with the facts, I'd have to conclude that the Tea Party movement is far, far more important and influential than Code Pink, regardless of which prominent personae are involved in it.

Yeah, but Code Pink doesn't have that brain dead former governor with the slutty flight attendant look as a spokesperson. They have Perez Hilton.

[Bigjake]

Has anyone seen Shootinstudent today?

That's where my mind went..  This guy is either his kin, or we're gonna have to start calling SS "Sybil"  

[Perd Hapley]

In my experience, a noisy but indeterminately sized wing of the 'tea party' insists that the teabag movement "isn't about right v left" or "democrat vs republican" or yadda yadda yadda, but instead something new and different.

The Sean Hannities and Sarah Palins of the world give the lie to that, when they become figures in the 'movement.'

Ooh, I love logic by assertion!   

[Scout26]

Code Pink has maybe a few hundred loonies, mostly in Berkeley, were as the Tea Party has had millions of people across the country of which several had hundred thousand to a couple of million showed-up in DC to express their view last year.

And that view boils down to Reagan Conservatism ) Shrink the .gov, Reduce taxes, and Leave me the hell alone.   

[MicroBalrog]

I believe you don't understand.

The sort of people who are disgusted by Sarah Palin are already never going to vote for a Republican. Because most of these people find the very vibes of conservatism disgusting. I don't really care what these people have to say politically, because these people are never going to side with me, except maybe by accident.

[MicroBalrog]

In my experience, a noisy but indeterminately sized wing of the 'tea party' insists that the teabag movement "isn't about right v left" or "democrat vs republican" or yadda yadda yadda, but instead something new and different.

The Sean Hannities and Sarah Palins of the world give the lie to that, when they become figures in the 'movement.'

"You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

[Scout26]

I believe you don't understand.

The sort of people who are disgusted by Sarah Palin are already never going to vote for a Republican. Because most of these people find the very vibes of conservatism disgusting. I don't really care what these people have to say politically, because these people are never going to side with me, except maybe by accident.

Bingo, They hate her they for the same reason that they hated Reagan.  She is right and they know it, but she will roll back their policies...

[RevDisk]

From a left/right perspective I've seen strong religious "right wingers" and social tax/spend "left wingers" meet at Tea Party events.  Their common goal?  "FedGuv, leave us the hell alone!"

But Tea Party transcends left/right.  It brings in the missing axis of politics:  up/down, statism/individualism.

I'd say that sums up my views quite nicely.  See.  Problem with the FedGuv being in control of well, everything, means you have no choice in anything.  You are faced with two near identical parties with a handful of wedge issues and fearsome talking points.  But at the end of the day, the two parties are more alike than not.  Their primary goal is increasing federalism.  In different aspects, sure.  But the same goal.

Wouldn't it be nice for places like California to expressly prove that socialism doesn't work so well on the long haul?  Wouldn't it be nice for places like Vermont or whatnot to see how well small-L libertarianism works?  If you don't like what type of government or rules you are expected to follow, you could move, try something new and still be an American?   

A mild reading of the Constitution clearly shows that is more or less the desired state of affairs.  The way it's supposed to work is if it's not in the Constitution, it's a state or local issue.  If it's in the Constitution, then it is the fed turf. 

Most Tea Party types, loosely including myself, want the feds to stay out of their business on most normal and ordinary affairs. 

[Matthew Carberry]

The mistake is thinking of the TeaParty movement as a coherent group.  It is an asssemblage of grass roots who share some common elements and more than a few radically different ones.

Sarah Palin is no more a "leader" than I am, she just gets press when she speaks and she happens to say things many Tea partiers agree with in general terms.  When you have a disorganized group anyone can call themselves a leader, that doesn't make them one.  Especially someone who is speaking at a for-profit event that among many of those self-professed grass roots tea partiers is considered a hijacking by opportunistic bandwagoners.

There is no Tea PARTY, in a political sense, no valid governing body, no official platform, it remains an amorphous movement.  Don't tar all those sincere people with publicity seekers brushesor judge them all by the nonsensical spewings of the loud and press-addicted.

[Perd Hapley]

Sarah Palin is no more a "leader" than I am, she just gets press when she speaks and she happens to say things many Tea partiers agree with in general terms. 

No, see, when Palin or Hannity shows up, it means that the whole exercise was a neo-con/theo-con Republican Party program from the get-go, planned and executed by Rove, Cheney (the real one), Ken Lay, and that dastardly General Betray-us. 

[mellestad]

The mistake is thinking of the TeaParty movement as a coherent group.  It is an asssemblage of grass roots who share some common elements and more than a few radically different ones.

Sarah Palin is no more a "leader" than I am, she just gets press when she speaks and she happens to say things many Tea partiers agree with in general terms.  When you have a disorganized group anyone can call themselves a leader, that doesn't make them one.  Especially someone who is speaking at a for-profit event that among many of those self-professed grass roots tea partiers is considered a hijacking by opportunistic bandwagoners.

There is no Tea PARTY, in a political sense, no valid governing body, no official platform, it remains an amorphous movement.  Don't tar all those sincere people with publicity seekers brushesor judge them all by the nonsensical spewings of the loud and press-addicted.

I think you are right.  Do you think the Tea Party will ever get to the point where it does have a core platform?  If so, what do you think that platform will be, and do you know who could represent it?

[makattak]

It is what it is.

Not going to pull any votes from the other side.

A right wing republican conservative media figure.

There's a reason those kind of people stay in the media.

Yeah. It's called supply/demand.

[Sergeant Bob]

The mistake is thinking of the TeaParty movement as a coherent group.  It is an asssemblage of grass roots who share some common elements and more than a few radically different ones.

Sarah Palin is no more a "leader" than I am, she just gets press when she speaks and she happens to say things many Tea partiers agree with in general terms.  When you have a disorganized group anyone can call themselves a leader, that doesn't make them one.  Especially someone who is speaking at a for-profit event that among many of those self-professed grass roots tea partiers is considered a hijacking by opportunistic bandwagoners.

There is no Tea PARTY, in a political sense, no valid governing body, no official platform, it remains an amorphous movement.  Don't tar all those sincere people with publicity seekers brushesor judge them all by the nonsensical spewings of the loud and press-addicted.

Whoa dude! You are prescient!

You answered his question:

I think you are right.  Do you think the Tea Party will ever get to the point where it does have a core platform?  If so, what do you think that platform will be, and do you know who could represent it?

Before he asked it!

[AZRedhawk44]

The Sean Hannities and Sarah Palins of the world give the lie to that, when they become figures in the 'movement.'

Hannity and Palin are Johny/Janie-come-latelies to the Tea Party scene.  Glenn Beck, were he not merely sensational, might be one of the few pundits that could claim some association to the movement.

The Tea Parties, quite frankly, are the after-spark of the Ron Paul Revolution and the slowly growing Libertarian movement.  They have reached a critical mass after Americans ousted the neocon Republican leadership only to find out that the neocomm Democrat leadership is equally totalitarian in their lives, just in a different way (duh!).

It's still a small movement.  But it is noisy and effective in its marketing.

I think if they can get behind REAL candidates instead of Scott Brown (a RINO in the tradition of McCain) or uncharismatic (but well-principled) folks like Ron Paul... you'd have something to be afraid of.

Which is WHY you see Hannity and Palin glowing and fawning over it now.  They are trying to politely hijack it and call it "conservative."  While they attempt to defend the Republican party in the same sentence on their shows or speeches.

[Monkeyleg]

It's a smart move for Palin. If she can sustain the adulation and support from the tea party crowd without trying to be its "leader," she'll be in an enviable position. The Republican party will need her to bring the tea party folks to them in November and in 2012.

[mellestad]

Whoa dude! You are prescient!

You answered his question:

Before he asked it!

I don't see the answer to what I wrote in there.  Carebear said they are incoherent and leaderless without a central platform.  I asked if Carebear thinks they will ever become coherent, with some leaders and a central platform...then I asked what Carebear thinks that might look like.

The Tea party is interesting to me because it has a large following but it doesn't seem to have a positive message that I imagine a party would need to exist as a longer-term entity.  I am curious to know if it will change into a legitimate party, of whether it will just be absorbed into the existing infrastructure.

[Monkeyleg]

The Tea party is interesting to me because it has a large following but it doesn't seem to have a positive message that I imagine a party would need to exist as a longer-term entity.  I am curious to know if it will change into a legitimate party, of whether it will just be absorbed into the existing infrastructure.

I don't think it needs to be an autonomous party to achieve its goals of tax reduction and financial responsibility. Third parties or outside movements can change the directions of the two major parties. If that's where the votes are, that's where the two parties will go (or pretend to go).

[Matthew Carberry]

I don't see the answer to what I wrote in there.  Carebear said they are incoherent and leaderless without a central platform.  I asked if Carebear thinks they will ever become coherent, with some leaders and a central platform...then I asked what Carebear thinks that might look like.

The Tea party is interesting to me because it has a large following but it doesn't seem to have a positive message that I imagine a party would need to exist as a longer-term entity.  I am curious to know if it will change into a legitimate party, of whether it will just be absorbed into the existing infrastructure.

Crap, I thought you had an answer and were asking rhetorically. 

I dunno, I don't think they can have a platform per se because they aren't foccussed so much on particular policies but rather principles.  It's the same reason Libertarians and conservative Repubs can only kinda get along, at some point the broad "individual liberty" principle hits a particular wall of moral opposition.

Until the idea of real liberty punctures various moral hangups (rights for me, not for thee) on both sides of the political spectrum I'm not sure what can be accomplished other than more political lip service about "smaller government" and "lower taxes".

[Perd Hapley]

In this very thread, we have people claiming that the Tea Party is either far-right, moderate, libertarian/Ron Paulist, or all of the above.  Which only goes to show it is a protest movement, not an organized political party.  People think that it is whatever they wish it were.  That's especially true for Nancy Pelosi and a certain White House staffer, who wanted it to be a neo-Nazi movement. 

Unlike some, I won't claim to know what kind of people make up the Tea Party, or what ideology they profess.  I know who I saw, and what the signs said, and that's about it. 

Or maybe there's a credible study somewhere, of Tea Partyer thought and opinion? 

[AZRedhawk44]

Tea Party is either far-right, moderate, libertarian/Ron Paulist, or all of the above.

Again, you're missing the axis that actually matters when it comes to Left/Right and Tea-Party.  It's the up/down axis.  I'm not the only one who sees this axis.  Local talk radio refers to this, though Hannity/Beck/Limbaugh have yet to acknowledge the new axis of politics (they couch it in Reagan-esque rhetoric and try to link it to Republicans for positive exposure of Republicans... though they haven't honored the principles of Tea Party-ism for over 20 years now).

Left/Right no longer matters in America because both sides now push for increased FedGov control in any facet of life.  It's just different forms of increased control.

The unifying thread of every Tea Party participant is the demand for "no more!" from the FedGov.

You may say that this is just me putting my spin on it.  I guess it's possible.  I associate with these circles of people though and they run the gamut from Troofers to Pro-choicers to Libertarians to Conservatives to Liberals.  Every single one of them is fed up with government forcing "something" down their throats, though.

I think it really is as simple as control breeds contempt.