DescentBB

I've decided to start this one, to sort of unite various Tea Party observations by myself and others, and lay out how and why I'm disappointed with where the movement went.

At the outset, the localized Tea Party groups basically consisted of regular citizens, all with the common thead of being pissed off. Many pissed off at the healthcare law(often due to misinformation about it that had been spread, but valid anger nonethless), taxation(everyone gets pissed at taxes, right?), but seemingly, from the few in PA I've had a chance to speak with, disenchanted with what they feel to be an overall sinking in their personal economics, and prospects for the future welfare of their children and grandchildren. I had high hopes, because for years, I've been upset by the general lack of interest by most folks in politics or real issues. What I sort of hoped to arise would be the sort of mass anger that might truly hold politicians and both parties feet to the fire, and possibly the growth of a complete, bipartisan 'throw the bums out' sort of anti-incumbant movement, which, to my mind, could re-shape American politics if the people held to it for a few election cycles.
What happened, and quickly was that several long-time power players from the right did a couple of things.
They took the less-focused anger and sold the idea that the problem is government and taxation, when, in reality, most of the people I talked to should have been angry at 20 years of political bickering, trickle down economic theory and a corrupt system that feeds elected officials into lobbying firms and then to Wall Street houses and back into politics. The second thing that happened to the movement was that it became a profit center for several individuals, with pay-per view rallies, an exhorbitantly priced 'convention' . This corrupted the purity the Tea Party movement started with, and quickly mainstreamed it into American politics just like the rest of the pack. Not good, to my mind.
Now, fast forward to now: The 'Tea Party Caucus' in the House is led by Michelle Bachmann, a wealthy upper Midwesterner, with no clue what real people want or how they live. She and her family have spent a lifetime sucking mightily from the government teat, via agribusiness subsidies. Most Tea Party advertising, campaign and issue, is funded by two brothers from Pittsburgh, PA, who have long had the goal of completely eliminating both Social Security and Medicare. Think that works out well for the average working man or his family? Driven from the GOP have been legitimate, decent conservatives, including one fellow from South Carolina who simply gave up explaining to Tea Party rallies that Social Security did not involve issuing you a healthcare provider ID or bank account number at birth, among other looney ideas.
As several recent polls' numbers show, the Tea Party label is moving from a positive to a strong negative in a lot of swing states, and many of the new governors elected with the help of folks whose interest is mainly entrenching American wealth in fewer hands, suddenly are in the 25-35% popularity range. My fear
(and this will strike some of you are odd, or a lie, as I've already stated that I've been a local Dem official and longtime donor) is that the Tea Party invasion of just one party(the GOP) is ultimately going to lead to the demise of that party, with no party with sufficient strength rising to counter the Dems. One party rule is and always will be corrupt rule.
Bottom line for me is this: The American people have plenty to be disappointed about, mad at and fearful of. Sadly, few of them bother to dig deep enough to figure out the true root of their malaise, and are thus easily sold a bill of goods, and then herded like so many sheep. The tone of politics in this nation for a generation has been one of discord and gridlock, which simply allows the Old Money to keep running Wall Street, owning Main Street and keeping more and more of the big economic pie to themselves.


now, fire away, with one note of caution from me.......we are heading into late April, and from now until around Thanksgiving, I tend to disappear for sizeable chunks of time(I think I can hear cheering....). CUDA will verify that I tend to piss away most of the 8 weeks vacation I receive annually to go fishing over the next 6 months. Thus, if I stop participation or don't reply in a thread, it doesn't mean I am disrespecting anyone, ignoring anyone or getting pissed and running off. I am more likely to be wading in a stream, sitting in a beach chair, on a boat or sucking down adult beverages at a Club or Bar someplace. For these trips, I NEVER bring my laptop, as that would defeat the purpose. I'll be around to get beat about the head and neck in this thread for another 5 or 6 days and then it's off to the shore house, thence to the mountains.
I look forward to input on this thread, as it sort of summarizes my side of a topic we've discussed in a few threads of late.

callmeslick wrote:Many pissed off at the healthcare law(often due to misinformation about it that had been spread, but valid anger nonethless), taxation(everyone gets pissed at taxes, right?), but seemingly, from the few in PA I've had a chance to speak with, disenchanted with what they feel to be an overall sinking in their personal economics, and prospects for the future welfare of their children and grandchildren.

Lost me. Maybe I'll try again later. If the Tea Party movement isn't a hell of a lot more than what seems to be mostly just a biased framing by an outside observer, I'll be disappointed that we (that is, myself and the Tea Party movement) didn't have as much in common as I thought. What about the anti-conservative governmental practices that caused this "overall sinking" and bleak prospects for our children? To me reflections like that just smack of a lack of respect, attempts to understand an apparently contrary viewpoint notwithstanding. I'm going to go see if I can find my give a damn. Dealing with people that don't have an appreciation for conservatism isn't anything new.

Maybe "everybody" gets pissed at taxes, but not everybody appreciates the place that taxes have in a governed society but believes certain taxes, and the spirit of taxation in this country to be morally and governmentally wrong. I'd be ashamed to share a voice with the former, and I don't think a lot of people, possibly including yourself, have the sense to appreciate the later.

Most of your opinion, and the bulk of that post is opinion, is based on, according to your own words: "the few in PA I've had a chance to speak with"

Does this really qualify you for discussing the issue?

So, with your qualifications clearly in question I'd love to see your sources for the events and statistics you site. And please make it the whole paragraph this time or a link so we can read the whole thing...

And before you tell me I'm not smart enough to talk about it I'll have you know I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night and try to sleep at one every month whether I'm tired or not!

They took the less-focused anger and sold the idea that the problem is government and taxation, when, in reality, most of the people I talked to should have been angry at 20 years of political bickering, trickle down economic theory and a corrupt system that feeds elected officials into lobbying firms and then to Wall Street houses and back into politics.

I don't think the people that were in the groundswell that later became named the Tea Party were excluding: "government and taxation" from their focus. So you think someone turned their attention to that as part of a ploy but it just doesn't line up with what I heard them rallying about early on.

The second thing that happened to the movement was that it became a profit center for several individuals, with pay-per view rallies, an exhorbitantly priced 'convention' . This corrupted the purity the Tea Party movement started with, and quickly mainstreamed it into American politics just like the rest of the pack.

I haven't heard about any payper view events. Not saying they didn't happen but maybe it isn't as big a factor as you are trying to make it. After all you only spoke to a few people who were there right?

so I really would like to find the sources you base this theory on just to be sure.
I know the RNC is afraid of them and tried to co-opt the movement. My best evidence is how they have tried to make Sarah Palin a go between for them and she seems to have taken the role at times and at times she seems to defy the RNC so she's probably learning to be a player and could attempt neuter the Tea Party or reign them in at a strategic time. So your suspicion of what is at work isn't all wrong but the degree to which that effort has actually controlled the groundswell seems to be greatly overstated. 'Taxes and government' ?!? A switch of their agenda?!? No way from what I've seen. they were bitching about government when they started picking on GW Bush long before the first Tea Party T shirt was printed!!
So show us something other than your opinion so we can check our perceptions against the data you provide...

I agree that the Tea Party was a very interesting idea at the time. From what I recall, it was an attempt to organize into a viable 3rd political party to combat the two existing ones, who seemed to be no different from each other. Now it looks like the Tea Party is an extension of the GOP, which is a far cry from it's original aims.

I found myself agreeing with some of the Tea Party principals, but not all. What I liked was the idea of more choice. Some of my friends were shocked that I used a Tea Party resource when I went to the voting booth last election. I had to explain that I wasn't necessarily voting in line with the Tea Party, but they provided a valuable information sheet with the voting records and stances of all the candidates, which I then used to make my own decision - sometimes voting against the Tea Party. For that, I'm thankful for them. A lot of time a research went into that resource; and even though it didn't help more Tea Party candidates get elected, it made a more informed voter out of me. (Note: I did not see similar resources on other party sites. I also worked for an independent voting organization on the side, so I had other neutral resources at my disposal.)

vision wrote:I agree that the Tea Party was a very interesting idea at the time. From what I recall, it was an attempt to organize into a viable 3rd political party to combat the two existing ones, who seemed to be no different from each other. Now it looks like the Tea Party is an extension of the GOP, which is a far cry from it's original aims. ...

What actual issues have they dropped or added from/to their platform that differ from what they were for originally? If you liked what you saw originally and the change can be described as a 'far cry from what they were' there must be some serious specific changes you can point out...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:[ What about the anti-conservative governmental practices that caused this "overall sinking" and bleak prospects for our children? To me reflections like that just smack of a lack of respect, attempts to understand an apparently contrary viewpoint notwithstanding. I'm going to go see if I can find my give a damn. Dealing with people that don't have an appreciation for conservatism isn't anything new.

the folks I know who I would consider on the 'ground floor' of the movement are generally conservative, but not what I would call rabid. They formed a group called Berks County Patriots and later sort of folded into the nationwide Tea Party movement. Some of them I have great respect for, may disagree, but they are independent thinkers. So, I am not coming from some point of automatic disparagement(which I would think you would get had you read all I wrote above....I know, it's wordy).

Maybe "everybody" gets pissed at taxes, but not everybody appreciates the place that taxes have in a governed society but believes certain taxes, and the spirit of taxation in this country to be morally and governmentally wrong. I'd be ashamed to share a voice with the former, and I don't think a lot of people, possibly including yourself, have the sense to appreciate the later.

talk about 'losing me', you did on this one. I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above. Care to clarify?

Will Robinson wrote:Most of your opinion, and the bulk of that post is opinion, is based on, according to your own words: "the few in PA I've had a chance to speak with"

Does this really qualify you for discussing the issue?

yeah, it does. Aren't all qualified to discuss an issue, given a modicum of political understanding?

I haven't heard about any payper view events. Not saying they didn't happen but maybe it isn't as big a factor as you are trying to make it. After all you only spoke to a few people who were there right?

go and find the details on the Tea Party Convention of 2010. Cost was hundreds of dollars, little of which went to party expenses or political action. Lined a few pockets nicely. I'm not going looking for links, it was in the freaking newspapers and all other news sources.

I know the RNC is afraid of them and tried to co-opt the movement. My best evidence is how they have tried to make Sarah Palin a go between for them and she seems to have taken the role at times and at times she seems to defy the RNC so she's probably learning to be a player and could attempt neuter the Tea Party or reign them in at a strategic time. So your suspicion of what is at work isn't all wrong but the degree to which that effort has actually controlled the groundswell seems to be greatly overstated.

I hope, to a great extent, that you are right. But, by co-opted, I mean that a movement seemingly(correct me if I am wrong and you were involved from the get-go) dedicated to making government LISTEN to the wishes of the people seems to have turned into a movement to end all government programs of a social nature. It would seem that such would seriously hurt the type of people that form the core of the movement, should they stop and think about it.

Look, about the link requests, I'll gladly do so to back up facts, but I am talking about perception. I am basing that upon the folks I know from the movement back at the outset(2008 or before), here in PA. It seems that the whole Tea Party thing has never really caught on down on the Eastern Shore of VA(more so a mainland thing). So, I'm batting around ideas and opinions in this thread, not(at least so far) stating facts.
To help me out, if you, or any of the rest, are active in your local Tea Party group, any background you can provide or observations would be interesting. Like I said, my fear is that a movement originally seeming to seek a government that relates and listens to the people has now morphed into a movement affiliated with one party, seeking to merely gut government programs to the detriment of most of it's original membership.

vision wrote:I agree that the Tea Party was a very interesting idea at the time. From what I recall, it was an attempt to organize into a viable 3rd political party to combat the two existing ones, who seemed to be no different from each other. Now it looks like the Tea Party is an extension of the GOP, which is a far cry from it's original aims.

thanks for writing this.....I was starting to think it was just me.

callmeslick wrote:talk about 'losing me', you did on this one. I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above. Care to clarify?

Sure. I don't dislike taxes for taxes sake, but there are certain taxes that I disagree with. And then there's the indirect, inflation tax, which is a criminal element in the economic structure of the U.S. I believe it's wrong, for instance to provide tax incentives for certain things. I think the death tax is a-moral. I think property taxes should be abolished in favor of a more fair, economic-involvement-based tax like sales tax. But apparently you just think I don't like paying taxes? That's where I was coming from.

Slick I did search the convention of 2010 and payperview. I don't find a payper view anything. I find where some hacks set up a "convention" but it wasn't a convention of citizens/protestors to attend and listen and show their strength it was 'supposedly' set up for Tea Party Orginizers to go and get on the same page. They charged over $500 for it and there were literally thousands of everyday Tea Party members commenting on how they didn't approve, wouldn't attend, it smells fishy, it's part of an attempt to discredit the Tea Party etc. etc.

So who ever it was and what ever their real motives were you have to be ignoring the buzz that was on the street about it to report it to us as representative of the Tea Party as a whole.

The Tea Party has attracted lots of fringe and people with ulterior motives because it is a popular fast moving scene. It also has attracted a number of democrat operative who joined with the sole purpose of discrediting the movement. Some clever campaigns started in key states by democrats pretending to be Tea Partyers simply designed to split the vote and split the campaign donations among conservatives. A really tricky way for a dem hack to effective 'primary' a repub candidate if you are familiar with that act.

I think you aren't trying very hard to know what it is about...or maybe trying too hard.

Just examine the question I asked you and Vision: What specific protests/issues have the Tea Party added or dropped from their initial protests as a result of their being co-opted? If you can't show us something significant there then you need to question your perception that the good old boys have been successful in taking over!

All this talk about how 'they are a far cry from where they were' when you two had admiration for the concept....
I'm calling bull★■◆● on that. Unless you really mean you loved the idea of people raising up to effect change until you found out they weren't liberals!! That much I believe.

But the notion that some repub good old boys have the Tea Party under control is silly! I know they would love to but if that were the case it would be game over for the Dems and although they took a beating last cycle so did a bunch of repub's all at the hand of the REAL Tea Party. the facts just don't support the rhetoric but the rhetoric and tricks are designed to keep guys like you on the big D reservation and so it is working.
Every faction in politics would love to have the reigns of the Tea Party bandwagon, including the democrats but by it's very nature it can't be controlled you would have better luck trying to hold back the tide with a broom!

Will Robinson wrote:Just examine the question I asked you and Vision: What specific protests/issues have the Tea Party added or dropped from their initial protests as a result of their being co-opted? ... I'm calling **** on that.

There is only one that I care about, but it's a huge issue for me personally: Foreign Policy. Back when Ron Paul would talk about his vision for the role of the USA in the world I was hooked. He imagined bringing the troops home from overseas wherever possible and heavily reducing military spending, citing the fact we unnecessarily spend an amazing amount of money when compared to Russia and China. That money could be invested here. This resounded with me deeply, even though I didn't really agree with a lot of other Tea Party points.

Today that view has shifted, and continues to shift as the Tea Party becomes more and more an extension of the GOP (instead of a separate entity, which was the other appeal). Thankfully, wikipedia has a entry in their Tea Party article that sums up the point I'm trying to make, so I don't have to start from scratch here. I don't hear my views and desires expressed by the Tea Party anymore.

So you might not view this shift as a "far cry," but on a personal level, to me, it is a major, fundamental issue. It's what made me pay attention to the Tea Party, and what causes me to shrug at them now. I wanted to see a different foreign policy, a reduction in military spending, and I wanted to see a third party.

I hope my personal belief doesn't drive this thread into the responsibility of the USA militarily. I understand we live in an international community and we have a duty. I just don't think we should be up people's asses with predator drones all the time. I'm big on diplomacy even when it seems to go nowhere.

Vision,
Ron Paul had a massive fund raiser on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and his support drew from more than just the usual libertarian's share of potential voters because the things he was saying (obviously you liked the anti-war message) were starting to make more and more sense against the backdrop of a government moving further and further out of control and away from it's original mandate.
So in a way you can say he started it but really he didn't.

The congress and presidents from the last couple of decades did. Paul's supporters were fed up and a lot of their sentiment was then, and is now, shared by a growing cross section of people, usually conservative in nature and they are getting more and more vocal about it. They are drawn together by their collective outrage at the governments spending, taxation and unnecessary expansion. Those key points are the nucleus that the smaller particles orbit around. Your war issue is a really small particle probably shared by a small minority of anyone who ever attended a Tea Party rally and a much larger number of those who attended a Ron Paul rally.
I doubt that most of America who have watched the Tea Party grow would tell you the Tea Party had U.S. involvement in war as a reason for it's protest.

I think the Tea Party has moved away from Ron Paul and your hopes for what it could be but I don't see how it really was that which you hoped it was, nor is there any sign that any republican operatives have successfully altered the course of the Tea Party. It isn't a thing that can be steered. It is a spontaneous reaction (in the world of U.S. voter revolt this is fast/spontaneous). There are plenty of reasons the dem's would want you to think it has been completely turned into the right wing bogeyman and they have tried every trick in the book to make it look that way. A couple of their boys are looking at prison time now for their part in one of those tricks.

If the economy takes a giant surge forward and jobs miraculously come home in large numbers and ObamaCare magically finds the funding without breaking the bank and Obama doesn't create anymore bureaucracy then the Tea Party's nucleus will implode and the little orbiters will spin off to circle their old hosts again.
But no one is at the rudder of the Tea Party because this thing has none. This kind of thing can't have one.
It is more like a wave, an unusually large and perfect wave and lots of people have caught it, and more are paddling out with a fire in their eyes. Some want to claim it and convert it to energy they can harness, some want to deny it is there or has any weight...I hope they are the ones standing on the shore when it comes crashing down to the end.

Will Robinson wrote:I think the Tea Party has moved away from Ron Paul and your hopes for what it could be but I don't see how it really was that which you hoped it was ... It isn't a thing that can be steered. It is a spontaneous reaction (in the world of U.S. voter revolt this is fast/spontaneous).

You're right, I had hoped the Tea Party would turn into something ideal for me but it didn't, for all the reasons you stated. My anti-war sentiment is part of the minority and no one is steering the party in that direction.

I still feel like there is potential for them to be a real, competitive 3rd party - they will need to disassociate from the Republicans a bit IMO. And although I won't likely agree on all Tea Party policies in their final form if that happens, I will, however, be thankful for more meaningful choice.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Sure. I don't dislike taxes for taxes sake, but there are certain taxes that I disagree with.

first off, thanks for the clarification.....it sort of seemed like your thoughts beat your hands to the keyboard on the first go-round. I see what you are saying above as common to all taxpayers. But, as a social compact, we agree as citizens to pay whatever the law that is agreed to states, right? Same could be said of tax breaks, some strike me as moronic, yet I'll gladly claim others.

And then there's the indirect, inflation tax, which is a criminal element in the economic structure of the U.S.

agree again, but don't feel that one falls solely to the government. Consumerism and reckless credit purchasing lead to inflation, as well.

I think the death tax is a-moral.

it's an ESTATE tax, which is a form of graduated tax which affects very few people. I'd love to know how many of you all have ever received, or plan to receive an estate which would surpass the federal exemption.
Of course, almost every state has an estate tax, as well. The theory, if anyone cares to know, behind this tax derives from the ideas of that flaming liberal, Andrew Carnegie. He felt that the major federal funding source should have been a 90% estate tax, lessening the tax burden on those actively involved in capital creation and labor, and discouraging the formation of an idle class of people whose source of wealth was inheritance, as opposed to industry.

I think property taxes should be abolished in favor of a more fair, economic-involvement-based tax like sales tax. But apparently you just think I don't like paying taxes? That's where I was coming from.

thanks again for the clarification. You realize that a sales tax is massively unfair to those at the bottom of the wage scale, percentage-wise?

Will Robinson wrote:Slick I did search the convention of 2010 and payperview. I don't find a payper view anything. I find where some hacks set up a "convention" but it wasn't a convention of citizens/protestors to attend and listen and show their strength it was 'supposedly' set up for Tea Party Orginizers to go and get on the same page. They charged over $500 for it and there were literally thousands of everyday Tea Party members commenting on how they didn't approve, wouldn't attend, it smells fishy, it's part of an attempt to discredit the Tea Party etc. etc.

get a grip. It was well-attended and the speaker list was a whos-who of Tea Party types with a few GOP stalwarts thrown in.

Just examine the question I asked you and Vision: What specific protests/issues have the Tea Party added or dropped from their initial protests as a result of their being co-opted?

First off, the initial movement was focused on government listening to the people. It was very non-partisan(I can vouch for this, as the local leadership tried to recruit me and I was still a Dem Committeeman at the time), and the concept of slashing taxes was not the issue at all. They called themselves the Tea Party Patriots to represent the historical confrontation over Taxation without Representation. Far from the concept of no government/ low taxes. Further, they worked REALLY hard to avoid social issues. What have we seen from the members of the House elected as Tea Party Reps? 80, to date, bills, amendments and proclamations about abortion in 4 months! When did THAT become part of the Tea Party agenda?

But the notion that some repub good old boys have the Tea Party under control is silly! I know they would love to but if that were the case it would be game over for the Dems and although they took a beating last cycle so did a bunch of repub's all at the hand of the REAL Tea Party. the facts just don't support the rhetoric but the rhetoric and tricks are designed to keep guys like you on the big D reservation and so it is working.

I agree with this, because the freaking loons that have co-opted the movement are appalling to the GOP 'good old boys'. They are a small faction of ultra-conservative, greedy clowns that WANT to get the power to completely eliminate Social Security, Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid. They have had this goal for decades, and the GOP establishment has rejected them soundly. Now, they've found a gullible bunch of saps to mobilize. My money says the saps will wake up. One can only hope.

Every faction in politics would love to have the reigns of the Tea Party bandwagon, including the democrats but by it's very nature it can't be controlled you would have better luck trying to hold back the tide with a broom!

The word you were groping for is 'reins' and the rest of this is as wrong as your English usage.

I thought that was a little romantic myself, Will.

callmeslick wrote:He felt that the major federal funding source should have been a 90% estate tax, lessening the tax burden on those actively involved in capital creation and labor, and discouraging the formation of an idle class of people whose source of wealth was inheritance, as opposed to industry.

I guess going further down there is another topic, but I find that very interesting and very disturbing. The fact that there are people with such little love for and appreciation of freedom is incredible. I mean... that money/property shouldn't belong to anyone but the one(s) the original owner leaves it to. That's terrible. Such desires to engineer society contrary to the well-being of its individual citizens is evil, in my opinion.

callmeslick wrote:You realize that a sales tax is massively unfair to those at the bottom of the wage scale, percentage-wise?

Actually it's perfectly "fair", because its even. What's uneven is the income of the two parties in question, and that's something they can effect, should they choose to. As long as absolute necessities aren't taxed, as they aren't now, I don't see a problem. I think there's plenty of room to figure out just how a tax like what I vaguely propose could work. Maybe it could be variable, with food being taxed on a very low level, clothing just above that, shelter above that, and then a jump up to everything else that can be bought and sold. Another idea could be an increase in tax percentage every time something is processed into something else--low tax on raw steel, slightly higher on processed steel, higher still on a steel I-Beam, higher on a house or other building built from steel I-Beams. Just a thought. There are a lot of possibilities, in my mind. We're not suffering from a lack of reasonable options, just a lack of reasonable people (or perhaps a proliferation of unreasonable people).

Na the problem is we are the spot in history to make a perfect utopia, all for one one for all, but the greedy bastards are self-centered egotistical pricks. No offense TheWhat .

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Slick I did search the convention of 2010 and payperview. I don't find a payper view anything. I find where some hacks set up a "convention" but it wasn't a convention of citizens/protestors to attend and listen and show their strength it was 'supposedly' set up for Tea Party Orginizers to go and get on the same page. They charged over $500 for it and there were literally thousands of everyday Tea Party members commenting on how they didn't approve, wouldn't attend, it smells fishy, it's part of an attempt to discredit the Tea Party etc. etc.

get a grip. It was well-attended and the speaker list was a whos-who of Tea Party types with a few GOP stalwarts thrown in.

I never said it didn't have anyone attend I said there were thousands who are members who didn't agree with it, were suspicious of it etc. You are disputing a straw man argument.

Everything I listed up there comes from the web site of the people who organized the 'convention'. And the comments by people who call themselves Tea Party members who also said they were not interested in attending drew the rebuttal from those organizers who explained that the 'convention' was not intended for the rank and file protesters but for the people who want to organize the movement. It was most likely some hacks cashing in on the momentum and magnetism of the movement.
So why tell me to get a grip?

callmeslick wrote:

Just examine the question I asked you and Vision: What specific protests/issues have the Tea Party added or dropped from their initial protests as a result of their being co-opted?

First off, the initial movement was focused on government listening to the people. It was very non-partisan(I can vouch for this, as the local leadership tried to recruit me and I was still a Dem Committeeman at the time), and the concept of slashing taxes was not the issue at all. They called themselves the Tea Party Patriots to represent the historical confrontation over Taxation without Representation. Far from the concept of no government/ low taxes. Further, they worked REALLY hard to avoid social issues. What have we seen from the members of the House elected as Tea Party Reps? 80, to date, bills, amendments and proclamations about abortion in 4 months! When did THAT become part of the Tea Party agenda?

You are seeing the divide between the libertarians and the far right wing conservatives who joined in. the Tea Party is not any one thing, it doesn't have a core platform and it can become any number of things depending on what part of the country you go into.
It is the notion that the groundswell has been taken under control of some old faction that I'm challenging. Maybe in your state or region yes...and in some places in the bible belt sure and yet in other places the libertarian design still has the voice. In my state I see the signs and read the emails that are passed around and there is no social message it's all about spending, practically 100% of the slogans and protest banners etc. all about bailout and taxing the middle class to death.

You can be sure if the left is successful in defining the Tea Party as loons the libertarians and other independents will shy away from being associated with that and then you will have the bogeyman you say it already is but it won't be because a small group of greedy influential powerful bastards have activated some incredible control over a spontaneous groundswell of citizen outrage at big government. A lot of the Tea Party are people who never voted before but they finally had enough and they started looking to make a difference.

callmeslick wrote:

But the notion that some repub good old boys have the Tea Party under control is silly! I know they would love to but if that were the case it would be game over for the Dems and although they took a beating last cycle so did a bunch of repub's all at the hand of the REAL Tea Party. the facts just don't support the rhetoric but the rhetoric and tricks are designed to keep guys like you on the big D reservation and so it is working.

I agree with this, because the freaking loons that have co-opted the movement are appalling to the GOP 'good old boys'. They are a small faction of ultra-conservative, greedy clowns that WANT to get the power to completely eliminate Social Security, Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid. They have had this goal for decades, and the GOP establishment has rejected them soundly. Now, they've found a gullible bunch of saps to mobilize. ...

So for decades this small group has wanted to take over the GOP, and they possess this amazing power to mobilize voters like no one has before, and the only evidence of their handiwork is there were some Tea Party freshman who advanced anti-abortion bills? How many of those freshman were avowed anti-abortion candidates BEFORE they got Tea Party support? The answer to that is quite important to know before we get all conspiracy theory overloaded on what they are doing and why!! Show me how a bunch of them were pro-abortion until the secret handshake Tea Party guys took over and then I'll say you have something otherwise you are just showing me that a scorpion got a ride on the frogs back and OMG! he stung the frog...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I guess going further down there is another topic, but I find that very interesting and very disturbing. The fact that there are people with such little love for and appreciation of freedom is incredible. I mean... that money/property shouldn't belong to anyone but the one(s) the original owner leaves it to. That's terrible. Such desires to engineer society contrary to the well-being of its individual citizens is evil, in my opinion.

well, that 'evil' is called a social compact, and such a public agreement is what keeps all civilized societies together. You might be well served to see the wording of some of the precursors to our natonal agreement(the Constitution), made by the colonial settlers, which speak of the Common Good, Shared Wealth, etc.

Actually it's perfectly "fair", because its even. What's uneven is the income of the two parties in question, and that's something they can effect, should they choose to.

Oh, so my income(which is the result partly of my labors, coupled with 11 generations in this nation and all they accumulated) is higher than most others and it is something those others can effect? What crap!

Will, interesting reponse and clarifications. I see nothing to rebut or clarify, but will stand by what I'm seeing so far. As I said earlier, this thread was mainly my early post-election impressions. We'll see where it goes from here.....