Yeah, c’mon Tea Party, forget the GOP! You can run your own candidate; that’ll show 'em!
I’m predicting that there is a Tea Party candidate running for president in the next election. Maybe, Palin.
This is a good example.
This guy is basically making fiery speeches about nothing. His audience is angry over some vague notion they have about the government stepping in and taking control of their lives. They can’t articulate why. They just think the government is going to tax all their middle class income and give it to a bunch of poor black people or whatever. He’s just preaching to the choir with a bunch of angry patriotic rhetoric.
Of course the biggest irony is that West was a career military officer and spent 20 years living of taxpayers dollars.
When you have Glenn Beck saying that Obama’s America is like living in the Planet of the Apes, it’s not hard to see that racism is a big part of the movement. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/08/06/glenn_beck_planet_of_the_apes
Yes; these aren’t people who object to government spending; just to government spending that goes to anyone but themselves.
They created a powerful “grassroots” movement by stage managing it from the top and making it look like a “grassroots” movement. The Tea Party idea started very deliberately with a rant on CNBC and was aggressively promoted and marketed by Fox News.
Why do the other traditional media outlets give the Tea Party rallies and such so much press? Mostly because Fox News is really good at “working the refs”. The day after one of the big Tea Party rallies Fox News took out an ad in the Washington Post saying, “How did, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?”. In fact, all of those outlets covered the rally, but the truth is incidental to Fox’s narrative–the liberal media is ignoring this uprising of real Americans. So powerful is the right-wing noise machine that those news outlets feel the need to treat every gathering featuring a malcontent in a powdered wig like it’s a big deal.
The Tea Party is tapping into a seam of grassroots anger, but it’s not a new one–when things are bad, there is a strong need to define an “other” and blame everything on it. The “other” in this case is clearly Obama, but unlike others I don’t think it’s because he’s black, but simply because he’s a Democrat. If Hillary Clinton were in office the same people would be out with signs that are misogynist instead of racist, and if it were a white man they’d just incorporate more homophobia. Like a friend of mine said when Hillary was quoted in a fit of rage calling someone a “(something) (something) Jew” a long time ago–“Yeah, that’s wrong, but sometimes a good rant just has to end on a noun, and that one was handy.”
The whole idea here is to re-brand Republican ideas. What ideas do the Tea Partiers support that aren’t straight-up Republican ideas? What Tea Party principles would George W. Bush disagree with? (I’ve seen some polls saying that they support gay marriage and ending DADT more than Republicans as a whole, but they’re not exactly waving signs about those things at the rallies.) The problem is that people who espouse those very principles were in charge up until a couple of years ago, and they bolloxed things up but good. So if they want people to vote for them again, they have to rebrand and refocus themselves into something plausibly different, while finding someone else to blame all of the problems on. And that’s just what the Tea Party is doing.
Completely agree.
Ref: Obamacare, the continued existence of Fannie and Freddie, and the attempt at Cap n’ Trade energy legislation earlier in the year.
I think the answer to the OP is quite simple.
Tone-deafness by either party in D.C. leads to a voter backlash. It happened with Clinton in 1994, when HillaryCare was tried and failed. It happened with Bush (and McCain and the Republicans) in the lead-up to the 2008 elections. You can Google and find 1000’s of articles about Obama’s ‘grassroots’ campaigning efforts during the recent election.
And now it’s happening from the other side, primarily due to the current adminstration’s tone-deafness about lots of things. Ramming through Obamacare was the big one…polls consistently show 55% to 70% of America oppose it. Bailouts, never-ending sops to unions, bowing to foreign leaders, and touting the “Recovery Summer” in the midst of a stagnating economy and 9.5% unemployment are others.
Take a look at who is controlling the reigns of power in the executive branch, and powerful committees in the HoR, right now
- Barack Obama, an academic urban liberal
- Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco-based urban liberal
- Barney Frank, a Boston-area urban liberal
- Henry Waxman, a Beverley Hills-based urban liberal
- Charles Rangel…never mind.
Anyway, look at the above list. Is that representative of America? I’m not arguing whether they deserve their posts or not. I’m just asking whether you think those politicians represent a wide swath of America and can lead from the center, which is what America basically is as a country.
No way. It’s all coming from the Hard Left. It is not representative of what the majority of America wants. Just like the majority of America got fed up with the Republicans and Bush.
No big shocker.
Primarily because it didn’t go far enough. People wanted some form of UHC, not a warmed over Republican plan.
Liberal? Since when is Obama a liberal? He’s a moderate right winger, a corporate conservative.
Hardly. America is largely composed of near-fascists, plutocrats and Christian bigots. The center is waaaay to the left of most Americans.
:rolleyes: “Hard left”? There IS no “hard left” of significance in this country, and they certainly aren’t in charge. And what Left there is dislikes Obama and Pelosi and so on for being right wingers or sellouts to the Right. You obviously have no idea what actual left wingers are like if you think that Obama of all people remotely qualifies.
Fox News. 90 percent manufactured by Fox news (throw in ten percent–maybe twenty to thirty–of the base jingoists and racists to make up those that didn’t need the political theater of Fox to get them off the couch and to a tea party instead of a klan rally).
Fox is a money making organization backed by a media genius (I find that he’s a foreign media genius pulling the strings to be beyond ironic). The cross-branding and horizontal marketing between Fox and talk radio, building on synergies between the two and capturing an outlet for hate (two minute time period notwithstanding), has created something with the fascade of grassroots, but is corporately sponsored thorough and through.
I agree it was largely manufactured, but it uses racism as part of the manufacturing process.
There is a risk for repubs that backed the bank bailouts and are on the “wrong side” in immigration. They can not count on the tea baggers. It remains to be seen who they will turn on. The tea baggers are not necessarily against Social Security and healthcare repeal.
Who should be ignored and marginalized because of it, correct?
Yet, each one of their votes is worth as much as your vote. And each one of them is more likely to vote than their counterpart on the other side of the political spectrum.
So, wouldn’t it make more sense not to call them idiots and bigots and find a way to address their basic needs which might counter those of a baser nature?
I get the distinct impressioh that this burning issue is not exactly bubbling up from the grass-roots. Seems kinda like some corporado is trying to graft this branch on. I see bunches of Teabaggers turning to each other and saying “What the hell is ‘Net neutraility’? Something to do with basketball?”
No. They should be exploited, badgered, and spurred on in order to make a profit.
I’ve some nice lots open for homesteading on Venus; “blanket trees”, “ham bushes”, the whole nine yards. What’s not to love?
Agree more than I disagree but…
I’d guess that the vast majority are the same people that praised bush/hated Clinton/and so on down the ages.
What’s different this time around is that they have been persuaded by their leaders to de-emphasize social issues and focus on economic issues. While this has some impact at the margins - it attracts a few more libertarians and repels a few moral crusaders - I’d wager that the vast majority are the usual suspects. I’d even wager that the vast majority are social conservatives.
It’s possible that both Sam and Der Trih are right in this case.
Of course; their opinions are not only worthless but outright malignant. Rather like similar groups, such as the KKK and the militia lunatics (whom I bet have a great deal of overlap with the teabaggers).
They have nothing but a baser nature. They are the scummiest, most ignorant, and craziest elements of the Right, nothing more. And their “needs” are unethical, illegal and incoherent. We can’t “get our government hands” off their Medicare because that demand makes no sense. We can’t prove that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim terrorist, because he isn’t. And it’s both illegal and immoral to forbid Obama the Presidency because of his race. So no, we can’t and shouldn’t give them what they want.
That’s total bullshit and you know it.
The Tea Party people are people who are pissed off about government mismanagement of everything, period. They’re sick and tired of being forced to bail government out through higher taxes and they are sending a clear message to the government: straighten your act up or be prepared to get kicked to the curb in the coming elections.
[quote=“kevlaw, post:36, topic:550207”]
I think that might violate some law of physics, somewhere.
Plus, they want to avoid taking responsibility for the mistaken and expensive wars they cheerled for back when they were openly Republican. Some say that’s a clever dodge, others, not so much.