Oh those nuts at the Tea Party....

[The Stig]

If ACORN can be destroyed by the idiotic actions of a couple of its members acting on their own, can the Tea Party be destroyed by the idiotic actions of one of its branches, using Tea Party money?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10636746

The slogan is the very definition of irony. "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive" - which is exactly what the Tea Party is doing.

[Boz]

'Cuz no one ever compared George Bush to Hitler.

But if the Tea Party starts getting funded by Congress with taxpayer money, and routinely being charged with crimes, I'll be the first to call them out on it.

[The Stig]

I'm not aware of any instances of a prominent American political party buying a billboard and putting Bush's face on it next to Lenin's and Hitler's faces.

Many folks on the right said that ACORN's wrongdoings were a reason to not vote for Democrats, because prominent Democrats had been associated with ACORN. If the same standard is applied, this travesty should be a reason to not vote for Republicans (not to mention the Tea Party themselves), since many prominent Republicans (like a certain Mrs. Palin) have been associated with the Tea Party.

[Boz]

The Tea Party is not a political party. (If we are to believe everyone on MSNBC, they are not prominent either).

I can only speak for myself, but I never said that ACORN was a reason not to vote for a Democrat. Nor did I personally ever try to blame Obama for ACORN's activities.

I merely pointed out the truth that they were a criminal organization that needed to be prosecuted and should never receive a dime of government funding unless they completely reformed their corrupt activities.

I stand by that.

I didn't say then, but I would say, then and now, that any elected official who tried to defend ACORN probably should be someone you should never vote for, regardless of party.

[hifigator]

I think the key is that there are nuts in every group. But fundamentally, ACORN wasn't a bunch of well-meaning good people infected with a nut here or there. ACORn was funamentally a group of nuts doing zero good. The tea party movement is by and large a group of like minded people who think that we have too much government and that we must reign in the unsustainable government spending. And yes, there are some nuts among them as well. But I don't think you can directly relate the two groups. There's more difference than simply one of ideology.

[jerseyhoya34]

Hifi - there's poll research suggesting that Tea Partiers do not oppose big government, they just oppose when they do not benefit from it. I would argue that these folks do zero good and are doing zero good, particularly in light of the leader of the Tea Party Express's curious remarks about the NAACP. I hope in light of these and other dustups that there is indeed diversity of thought in the Tea Party.

[The Stig]

The Tea Partiers didn't oppose big government when Bush was running it. They didn't oppose a massive health care bill being thrown directly onto the national debt without even trying to pay for it when the Republicans passed it. They didn't oppose some pretty incredible procedural shenanigans that the Republicans used to push that bill through the House.

Let's stop pretending that we have a fiscally responsible political party in this country. The Democrats spend way too much, but the Republicans are just as bad if not worse.

It is now politically impossible to eliminate the deficit. If you cut Medicare/Medicaid spending, then you're killing Grandma. If you cut Social Security spending then you're stealing money from seniors. If you cut military spending then you're a coward who hates freedom. If you raise taxes, then you'll ruin our economy and you hate hardworking American families.

But in the last fiscal year, Medicare/Medicaid spending + Social Security spending + military spending alone was more than our government's income. In other words, those three things alone are enough to put us into a deficit at current tax levels. All the other stuff is small peanuts compared to that, but the Tea Partiers only talk about the other stuff. Unless the Tea Partiers have a plan to cut Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, or military spending; or they have a plan to increase government income (i.e. raise taxes), then I don't want to hear a single word from them about the deficit, because they're no better on that than the Democrats, the Republicans, or anybody else.

[Boz]

Let's stop pretending that we have a fiscally responsible political party in this country. The Democrats Republicans spend way too much, but the Republicans Democrats are just as bad if not monumentally worse.

Fixed for you. Have a good weekend.

[EasyEd]

When will some of you realize the tea party movement is not the Republican party? It's a loose group of people who are fed up with what's gone on in Washington by both parties and want to use their votes to, among others, bring fiscal sanity to the country. Any attempt to paint them as a racist group or one that is a nut-job, is way off base. As a loose group there are probably some racists and some nut-jobs among them but they are outcasts. As for why they did not oppose some of Bush's actions, they did not even exist when Bush was president but most of them are just as opposed to Bush's fiscal irresponsibility as they are to Obama's.

[MassHoya]

Fine. If the TP is not the Republican Party, then any candidate they put forward will not hurt Republican candidates? The opposite is more likely to be true. true. TP candidates will ensure Democrat success by drawing on the same voter base as the Republicans.

It's amazing. Everyone is in favor if cutting taxes, but no one, including TP members, is in favor of getting their social security, medicare or (fill in the blank) benefits cut. Can't have it both ways.

[TC]

Jul 16, 2010 18:28:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

When will some of you realize the tea party movement is not the Republican party?

Uh, it is the Republican party, with maybe a few Liberatarians sprinkled on top.

[The Stig]

Jul 16, 2010 18:28:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

When will some of you realize the tea party movement is not the Republican party? It's a loose group of people who are fed up with what's gone on in Washington by both parties and want to use their votes to, among others, bring fiscal sanity to the country. Any attempt to paint them as a racist group or one that is a nut-job, is way off base. As a loose group there are probably some racists and some nut-jobs among them but they are outcasts. As for why they did not oppose some of Bush's actions, they did not even exist when Bush was president but most of them are just as opposed to Bush's fiscal irresponsibility as they are to Obama's.

Sure, the Tea Party isn't the Republican Party, but they're not a neutral 3rd force either. I'd wager that the % of Tea Partiers who voted Republican in the last election is almost as high if not higher than the % of card-carrying GOP members who voted Republican in the last election.

Saying that the Tea Party didn't exist during Bush's presidency is ridiculous. The Tea Partiers themselves existed - it's not like they were born in January 2009. They were around, they were voting (most for Republicans), but they weren't out protesting when the GOP was turning a record surplus into a record deficit. They only protest government spending when the Democrats do it.

Boz - If the Democrats are monumentally worse when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, why did the last Democratic administration leave a budget surplus?

Fiscal responsibility isn't just cutting spending - it's about paying for what you spend. At some point somebody is going to have to raise taxes, otherwise the deficit is literally unresolvable. Bush Sr. recognized that, and got stabbed in the back by Perot for it. Clinton recognized it, and gave us a surplus. Bush the younger didn't recognize it. It doesn't matter whether Obama recognizes it, because he knows he'll get nuked by the right if he tries to fix the problem.

[Boz]

Jul 16, 2010 19:32:33 GMT -5 MassHoya said:

Fine. If the TP is not the Republican Party, then any candidate they put forward will not hurt Republican candidates? The opposite is more likely to be true. true. TP candidates will ensure Democrat success by drawing on the same voter base as the Republicans.

If the Democratic party is counting on this, they are 100% boned.

It's amazing. Everyone is in favor if cutting taxes, but no one, including TP members, is in favor of getting their social security, medicare or (fill in the blank) benefits cut. Can't have it both ways.

I am. You can take away all that . Give me my money and I'll take care of my own health care and retirement. The federal government is entitled to some of my money, but I want them nowhere near my plans for my life.

[jerseyhoya34]

Jul 16, 2010 18:28:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

When will some of you realize the tea party movement is not the Republican party? It's a loose group of people who are fed up with what's gone on in Washington by both parties and want to use their votes to, among others, bring fiscal sanity to the country. Any attempt to paint them as a racist group or one that is a nut-job, is way off base. As a loose group there are probably some racists and some nut-jobs among them but they are outcasts. As for why they did not oppose some of Bush's actions, they did not even exist when Bush was president but most of them are just as opposed to Bush's fiscal irresponsibility as they are to Obama's.

I can't speak for everyone, but the concerns that I am raising about racism in the Tea Party arise from the words of one of its national leaders, among other things. He apparently realized that he was in error and removed some of the more objectionable statements from his national site. That is not a "single bad apple" issue - it is a problem they have at all levels. I've made my viewpoints about the signs and other literature that these groups display at their rallies. I find it inappropriate.

The Tea Party since its inception has been supported and organized by national Republican figures, including Dick Armey. They use the same strategists and draw on the same pool of conservative activists. Republican politicians appear at and sponsor their rallies. Information about these rallies is disseminated through the same channels as Republican talking points, namely Fox News, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, and the like. To my knowledge, no Democrat of any prominence* has organized a Tea Party rally or organized one of the loose cells of local activists. I am also unaware of any Tea Party candidates running for Democratic nominations at this time.

To the credit of some Republicans, including Bennett of UT, they have distanced themselves from the Tea Party. Election results involving same in Republican primaries/caucuses/conventions speak for themselves.

One other concern I have is that many Republicans seem to affiliate themselves with the Tea Party when it helps them - like the ideas, particularly as they relate to spending (on paper anyway). However, when it comes time to identify whether they want to be associated with the Tea Party, the answer can often be clear and for good reason. Perhaps this is because the Tea Party is out there to stir the dregs of American politics and to do the Republican Party's dirty work when its members do not have the stones to publicly stand behind some of the more scurrilous behavior.

* One minor exception to my knowledge - James Traficant. His background makes him a good fit, I think, for this organization.

[DFW HOYA]

The imminent problem with the Tea Party is a nativist streak which the Republicans would do well to repudiate. While nativism has variously been a thorn in both parties over the generations,
the problem is that the TP can make things difficult for timid GOP candidates in primaries.

Just as William F. Buckley helped rid the conservative movement of the John Birchers in the 1960's, someone needs to step up and say the same thing to the eccentrics within the Tea Party. Chances are it won't be this guy, however.

www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39869.html

[EasyEd]

To repeat what I said earlier and to amplify. The Tea Party is a loose affiliation of persons who are unhappy/incensed with what has been going on in Washington by BOTH parties. There is no organization and no leader and anyone who claims it has a leader is sorely mistaken. There is no nativist streak in the Tea Party movement because there is no one Tea Party. As a loose affiliation of people there are bound to be nuts and racists who attach themselves to it just as there are nuts and racists in any group of people, including those which have an organization (such as the Attorney General's Office which openly exercises racism in reverse).

One of the complaints I hear about the Tea Party movement is the fear the Republican Party is trying to take it over but many in the movement are resisting.

Most of the comments on this board from the left are coming from pure ignorance of what and who the Tea Party people are. Either that or they are conveniently trying to paint a broad brush of racism and nut-job to the entire movement to discredit it. Take your blinders off and look at the deficit and debt and see why so many people are up-in-arms against both parties because neither has offered a plan for addressing this drastic fiscal situation which is a greater national threat than terrorism. The Republicans continue to be the party of "no" while the Democrats continue to be the party of "spend". The closest anyone in either party has come to tackling the issue is what Paul Ryan is offering.

[strummer8526]

Jul 17, 2010 19:18:05 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

To repeat what I said earlier and to amplify. The Tea Party is a loose affiliation of persons who are unhappy/incensed with what has been going on in Washington by BOTH parties. There is no organization and no leader and anyone who claims it has a leader is sorely mistaken.

This is just incorrect.

www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20100204_7827.php

www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0106/Sarah-Palin-will-headline-first-ever-Tea-Party-Convention

I also seriously hope that you are not so confused about the way people behave as to think that thousands of "loosely affiliated persons" became unhappy one day, and then all on their own just rose up, spontaneously creating large events around the country. People simply don't do that without some kind of organization/leadership/manipulation by more intelligent, self-serving individuals. Whether because of some kind of collective action problem or because people are by their nature lazy arm-chair quarterback-types, anger towards government does not, all on its own, spill into the streets. Average Joe's don't get up and bitch about the government and then all of a sudden—holy FoxNews coverage, Batman—there's a protest on the National Mall. SOMEONE was behind the major formative events of this "Tea Party" thing. And as those formative events succeeded (sadly), the number of established political figures willing to hitch their wagons to this nonsense has increased as well, which has lent an unfortunate level of credibility to the whole thing.

I'm not saying that those politicians and organizers ARE the Republican party, but I do think that they are a branch—a subset, if you will—of the Republican party. Of course, for all the TP'ers complaining about the budget, I get the impression they don't agree with these two guys, who I just so happen to think are on to something: www.businessinsider.com/barney-frank-and-ron-paul-join-hands-to-call-for-military-budget-cuts-2010-7

[EasyEd]

It's true that someone or someone(s) organizes the individual Tea Party events but there is no central Tea Party organization coordinating them. They are not a branch - a subset- of the Republican Party. In fact, most of the beliefs that many share are more Liberterian than Republican. I might also add that the overall effect of the Tea Party movement is likely to be harmful to the Republican party come election day.

The best comparison I can make of the organization of the Tea Party movement is that of the Anti-War movement during the Vietnam War. There was no central Anti-War organization coordinating the activities but there certainly were local organizers of individual events.

As far as the charge of racism, here's one African American's take on that:

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/15/naacp-has-forgotten-what-a-racist-is/

[The Stig]

easyed, I think you're the only one beating the racism drum here. The critics of the Tea Party on this board are calling the Tea Partiers a bunch of hypocritical Republicans, but we're not calling them racists.

If the Tea Party movement is comparable to the anti-Vietnam War movement, then the Dems need to ignore them and keep to their platform. The anti-Vietnam War movement created a lot of noise, but it actually only represented a small part of the population. When LBJ decided to pull out of the 1968 race after his poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, most people believed that his poor showing was due to the antiwar sentiment there. In reality, most people who voted against LBJ did so because they thought he wasn't doing enough in Vietnam.

We could be seeing the same thing at work here. The fringe right is angry with Obama for doing too much (i.e. doing anything), but the left is also disappointed with him for not doing enough. While the left obviously isn't going to turn around and vote GOP, they could be frustrated enough to not vote in November. Since US elections these days are more about getting your supporters to vote instead of getting the most supporters, Obama and the Dems might be best served by a "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" strategy.

[EasyEd]

"The anti-Vietnam War movement created a lot of noise, but it actually only represented a small part of the population. When LBJ decided to pull out of the 1968 race after his poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, most people believed that his poor showing was due to the antiwar sentiment there. In reality, most people who voted against LBJ did so because they thought he wasn't doing enough in Vietnam."

You're kidding, aren't you?