Yes, but only the non-racist klansmen. 
I would say hard-line conservatives
- would list moral values/abortion/etc as an important issue
- would list Iraq/terroism/etc as an important issue
Neither of these are the case. I’d say that hard-line conservatives
- are strongly opposed to legal abortion of any kind
- are strongly opposed to same-sex relationship recognition
- are staunch gun-rights supporters
As I read the data, TPers are only marginally different from the rest of the population on these issues. Ditto for most of the rest of the things you cite. YMMV.
I don’t think reducing it to single political dimension L to R is helpful. I suspect it’s more along the lines of (Republicans + conservatives fed up with Republican politicians + libertarians + people without a specific political orientation).
I suspect the second group is by far the biggest, and it’s not a matter of “they’re too moderate,” but more a matter of “they don’t behave in accordance with their rhetoric.” See this sort of thing.
I dunno - are seniors so heavily represented in all political rallies ?
Aside from the higher prevalence of racism among seniors, many seniors are also worried about health care reform. They’re not stupid, they see that we can’t possibly afford health care benefits at their current level and they don’t want to see their medical benefits just because it will bankrupt the nation.
I’ll give you libertarians, but people without specific political orientations simply don’t get worked up about economics.
Wait, doesn’t everybody get worked up about economics to some degree? We all have to live in and by an economy, after all.
N.B.: There is more than one kind of “hard-line conservative.” To neocons, Iraq/terrorism/etc. are all-important, but paleoconservatives are isolationists, in a military as well as an economic sense – in fact, I’ve read articles in Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative about finding common ground with lefty pacifists to oppose the GWOT. To religious-social conservatives, moral values/abortion/etc. are all-important; but they are ancillary to business-interest conservatives (who have been providing movement conservatism with much of its funding since the Goldwater campaign), and largely irrelevant to Libertarians. And White Nationalists have priorities . . . very different from those you mentioned. All of these tendencies have some role in the Tea Party movement, though palecons probably predominate and bizcons probably have less influence there than in any other form of American conservatism.
Well, they’re certainly part of the RW coalition, and probably a more important part than you realize. (Not the Klan as such, that hardly exists any more, but in general WNs and people whose thinking trends that way.)
Actually, I’d unhesitantly agree that it is sometimes justified to take violent action against the government. I figure my “sometimes” standard is somewhat different than the tea partiers, though.
I’ll repeat what I said in this thread: We are not talking about a legitimate opposition here. We are talking about this decade’s equivalent of the Anti-Masonic Party – a RW fringe so utterly divorced from reality that it would be more possible and more desirable for mainstream Republicans to engage meaningfully with Communists, than for mainstream anybody to meaningfully engage with the Tea Partiers. And I’ve seen nothing in this thread so far, or on this Wikipedia page, to cast doubt on that judgment. This lot can’t even take up a mainstream, respectable issue like fiscal responsibility without turning it crazy. If the Tea Party movement ever does become “legitimate,” it will have ceased to be the Tea Party movement.
And here on the second page of the thread, it’s still not clear what Mosier was talking about in the OP: “The tea party movement seems to be trying to become a legitimate political platform lately, though. Parts of the tea party are rejecting the most outrageously hostile/insane people in their midst and seem to be making an honest attempt to argue their positions rationally.” What and how?