I'm bored, so I thought I'd start this very general topic. What do people here think about Tea Party, and its ultimate fate? I'm seeing four possibilities:
1) They fizzle out without a lasting impact, as they were just a vehicle for people to express their mass hysteria over Democrats being back in power.
2) They will not fizzle out, but will forever remain on the fringes, and given lip service by Republicans as needed.
3) They force the Republicans to morph into the Tea Party by adopting Tea Party ideals (for real, not just in words).
4) They completely replace the Republicans, like Republicans replaced the Whigs.
So far I think it's 1), but it's possible that I will change my mind later.
I don't even know where it is right now or what its members want.
That's actually a good point, they seem to be all over the place and often contradictory. Let's assume fiscal austerity, limited government (for real), and anti-corporatism is what their main ideals are.
Probably 2. These guys are the Republican version of MoveOn.
I don't think anyone knows what they want. I doubt even they know exactly what they want. The rally cry of "Lets take our country back!" is particularly confusing Back from who? Who took it? When did that happen?
Anyway, I imagine they be around until the next one of them blows up a building or something then they'll quite down again for another 10 years. We've seen this song and dance before. This is just the manifestation of the Reform party and the patriot movement in the 1990's.
It is just there. They don't really do much except have rallies and back a poltiican they mistakenly think is a reformer here and there. As a movement it seems to be just an outlet for frustration.
I cannot imagine them coalescing into an actual coherent group, as their "members" seem all over the place, and most are already Republicans. I see some Republican politicians continuing to pay lip service to the "Tea Parties" until the November elections, and see the question "What did the tax protesters call themselves after the big government bailouts at the start of the Obama Administration?" being a moderate-point trivia question in five years.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/04/19/lavandera.militia.misunderstood.cnn?hpt=C2
"We're not extremists, yeah we're camouflaged up and holding guns running through the woods "
:lol:
Is it safe to use a handgun as hammer?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2010, 07:13:45 PM
We've seen this song and dance before. This is just the manifestation of the Reform party and the patriot movement in the 1990's.
I disagree, the Reform Party could have actually won the election if Perot hadn't flaked out and dropped out of the race. I see no possibility of that happening with the Tea Party.
I bet they wil fizzle out.
It seems like they are only hurting themselves. A third party on the right will only help the democrats.
Ask Caliga and his Princesca. They are the voice of the silent majority and transforming the American political establishment from coast to coast. :yes:
:rolleyes: I'm not a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Jaron.
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2010, 08:45:08 PM
:rolleyes: I'm not a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Jaron.
You are if the missus says you are. We've all seen the Facebook updates.
uh... no. We argue about this shit all the time. :P In fact I've strongly advised her to stop posting political shit on FB, but she won't listen.
Soon Caliga will be hosting Tea Party rallies on his front lawn. :nelson:
Nope. :) I did let her put a Rand Paul sign out in the yard... but there was a price. :perv:
Protest all you want. We know who owns you.
At least Prin lets him pretend that he is in charge. :)
I don't think #2, 3 or 4 are possible. They aren't an entity built around a complete political ideology like MoveOn became. At least not yet. They are an issue-based phenomenon reacting to the bailouts/stimulus/deficits/new spending issue. At least right now, they're focused solely on that. But their members hold conflicting views in other areas. They can't coalesce into a MoveOn or an actual party unless one of the factions can push the others out and take the name for themselves.
QuoteTea parties form a federation, but don't call them organized
April 08, 2010|By Kathleen Hennessey, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington — Several major players in the conservative "tea party" movement announced on Thursday a new federation to help spread its message advocating smaller and more decentralized government.
But don't call them organized.
The National Tea Party Federation will issue news releases, respond to critics and help get the word out about tea party rallies and initiatives, organizers said. But they were careful to note it would not change the loose, grass-roots structure of the movement.
"It's an evolution," said tea party activist Mark Skoda. "Not an organization. We're not co-opting a movement. We're not creating a new leadership structure."
Still, the creation of the federation is an acknowledgment of the limits of an undisciplined and disjointed political movement.
In the year since it arose out of a series of protests across the country, the tea party movement has mobilized thousands and established itself as the most active force in conservative politics. But it has also openly aired embarrassing internal disputes and has been slow to respond to critics who've painted protesters as racists.
"It took us 72 hours to respond to John Lewis," Skoda said, referring to the longtime Georgia Democratic congressman and civil rights leader who said a tea party protester used a racial epithet during a rally against the healthcare bill last month.
"We're not needing to meet every week. But there will now be a way to have a call to arms to respond to attacks with a crisp and clear message," Skoda said.
The announcement comes as the tea party movement is preparing for another round of protests -- and the scrutiny that follows. Groups across the country are planning tax-day rallies next week, including large events in Washington, Atlanta, Sacramento and Orlando, Fla.
Organizers said the federation would not be raising money or hiring a staff. Decisions would be made via conference calls among the various groups.
Skoda's Memphis Tea Party was one of 21 groups that had signed on to the federation as of Thursday. The list included the Nashville-based Tea Party Nation, the organizers of a tea party convention this year, and Tea Party Express, a bus tour currently hosting rallies across the country.
The federation also had formed alliances with an additional 19 organizations, some of which were longtime stalwarts of Republican politics. They include anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the socially conservative Family Research Council, National Taxpayers Union, FreedomWorks and Republican direct mail consultant Richard Viguerie.
Missing from the announcement was Tea Party Patriots, the best organized online network of local tea party groups.
Skoda said Tea Party Patriots was invited to join but was taking a "wait-and-see approach." A spokeswoman for the group did not respond to a request for comment.
Quote
Tea Party Patriots Won't Join New Federation
Tuesday, 13 Apr 2010
By: David A. Patten
The tea party organizations have agreed to disagree, as far as speaking with a single voice is concerned.
Last week, a coalition of 23 tea party organizations announced the creation of the National Tea Party Federation to provide consistent messaging and communications. But one of the largest tea party organizations, Tea Party Patriots, indicated Monday it will not be joining the federation.
"We say 'good luck' finding that one leader," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. "All Americans who hold dear our constitutionally protected principles of limited government are tea party leaders."
Ken Emanuelson, a tea party leader in Texas, says focusing the movement's message is a good idea. But he adds: "We do not believe, however, that any one group of person is -- or should be viewed as being -- the leader of a movement as diverse and far-flung as the tea party movement."
As a decentralized, grass-roots movement, the tea parties have been criticized at times for lacking a common voice. While all tea party groups emphasize free markets, Constitutional liberties, and fiscal restraint, each has its own agenda.
Those differences, combined with leadership disagreements that have been blown out of proportion by the mainstream media, have spawned a desire in some tea-party circles to exercise greater control over the movement's message, while also providing a clearinghouse for information. The National Tea Party Federation is the result.
Founding organizations of the Federation include Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, ResistNet, the American Grassroots Coalition, and DC Works for Us.
"We understand the importance of standing together while enhancing the ability to frame the discussion, and realize gains amongst this approach to collaboration," stated Jamie Radtke, chairman of the Richmond Tea Party, in announcing the Federation last week.
Those groups will not be joined by the mammoth Tea Party Patriots organization, however, which maintains over 1,700 state, city, and regional groups nationwide.
The leaders who have decided not to join the Federation are trying to be diplomatic about it.
"We support our friends and will continue to work with them," Austin tea party leader Greg Holloway tells Newsmax. "But we want the country to know that there are lots and lots of tea parties that are not part of the Federation. And we each speak with our own voice."
All of which suggests the tea party movement won't be speaking with a single voice anytime soon.
Tea Party will save america from the brink of radical liberal destruction.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2010, 06:47:10 PM
1) They fizzle out without a lasting impact, as they were just a vehicle for people to express their mass hysteria over Democrats being back in power.
This. This was all it ever was.
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2010, 08:49:24 PM
uh... no. We argue about this shit all the time. :P In fact I've strongly advised her to stop posting political shit on FB, but she won't listen.
Just unfriend Jaron. Problem solved.
Sociologically, I think they are the peasant rebellion (which explains why it is so hard to define their goals). Such movements usually fizzle out without a lasting impact.
Quote from: Martinus on April 20, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
Sociologically, I think they are the peasant rebellion (which explains why it is so hard to define their goals). Such movements usually fizzle out without a lasting impact.
No. It's mostly upper middle class crackers. This isn't a working class movement.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 19, 2010, 10:25:50 PM
I don't think #2, 3 or 4 are possible. They aren't an entity built around a complete political ideology like MoveOn became. At least not yet. They are an issue-based phenomenon reacting to the bailouts/stimulus/deficits/new spending issue. At least right now, they're focused solely on that. But their members hold conflicting views in other areas. They can't coalesce into a MoveOn or an actual party unless one of the factions can push the others out and take the name for themselves.
It's not like Moveon.org was every a mass movement. It was a few people with computers and a website. For some reason they were able to hit a nerve and rake in lots of cash and became a PAC. They get alot of publicity because they were one of the first to really use the internet in political fund raising. As far as I know it's still more of an online virtual community then a real one. Kinda like a Languish with a political agenda and a fund raising apparatus.
Quote from: Fate on April 20, 2010, 01:30:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 20, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
Sociologically, I think they are the peasant rebellion (which explains why it is so hard to define their goals). Such movements usually fizzle out without a lasting impact.
No. It's mostly upper middle class crackers. This isn't a working class movement.
The Peasants Revolt in England was mostly middle class as well.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2010, 07:54:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2010, 07:13:45 PM
We've seen this song and dance before. This is just the manifestation of the Reform party and the patriot movement in the 1990's.
I disagree, the Reform Party could have actually won the election if Perot hadn't flaked out and dropped out of the race. I see no possibility of that happening with the Tea Party.
Perot was a loon though. His loonieness would have manifested itself somehow.
Quote from: Fate on April 20, 2010, 01:30:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 20, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
Sociologically, I think they are the peasant rebellion (which explains why it is so hard to define their goals). Such movements usually fizzle out without a lasting impact.
No. It's mostly upper middle class crackers. This isn't a working class movement.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.i.com.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fi%2Ftim%2F%2F2010%2F04%2F14%2Fimage6396389.gif&hash=1e88c4f20976cd98679077449708bc3d0c46de05)
Quote from: Habbaku on April 20, 2010, 12:16:51 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 19, 2010, 08:49:24 PM
uh... no. We argue about this shit all the time. :P In fact I've strongly advised her to stop posting political shit on FB, but she won't listen.
Just unfriend Jaron. Problem solved.
:huh: WTF Do i have to do with this?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2010, 02:01:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2010, 07:54:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2010, 07:13:45 PM
We've seen this song and dance before. This is just the manifestation of the Reform party and the patriot movement in the 1990's.
I disagree, the Reform Party could have actually won the election if Perot hadn't flaked out and dropped out of the race. I see no possibility of that happening with the Tea Party.
Perot was a loon though. His loonieness would have manifested itself somehow.
Perhaps, but if he'd manage to hold it until November he could have won.
Well sure isn't a youth movement.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 02:09:02 AM
Perhaps, but if he'd manage to hold it until November he could have won.
I just don't see that happening. Perot was always a protest vote without a lot of "there" there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2010, 02:35:50 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 02:09:02 AM
Perhaps, but if he'd manage to hold it until November he could have won.
I just don't see that happening. Perot was always a protest vote without a lot of "there" there.
I'm not sure exactly what the reform party wanted either. Which I suppose makes it very attractive. People fill it up with their own ideas.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2010, 09:11:28 PM
At least Prin lets him pretend that he is in charge. :)
No, we both know who wears the pants. Thing is, we live in a matriarchal society, so that's the way it is with most couples. Only the Muslims treat women the way they ought to be treated. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2010, 02:35:50 AM
I just don't see that happening. Perot was always a protest vote without a lot of "there" there.
Agree... he'd never have won, he would have just given Clinton more of a landslide.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2010, 02:35:50 AM
I just don't see that happening. Perot was always a protest vote without a lot of "there" there.
There was definitely some there there. He put deficit reduction on the map. And while I disagree with the position, his opposition to NAFTA had some there there as well.
I don't mean Perot the candidate, I mean the motivations of the Perot voter.
My dad voted for Perot. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 05:17:08 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2010, 02:35:50 AM
I just don't see that happening. Perot was always a protest vote without a lot of "there" there.
Agree... he'd never have won, he would have just given Clinton more of a landslide.
He got 18.9% of the vote even after his bizzare behavior. He had a lead with 39 percent, to Bush's 31 percent, and Clinton's 25 percent in June. He definitely could have challenged Roosevelt's mark of 27.4% for a third party candidate. Even if he didn't win outright he could have gotten the election thrown into the House which would have been interesting in it's own right. I know the Dems had more seats, but I'm not sure how they broke down by state.
Dude, his "lead" was early opinion polling, which doesn't mean shit. IIRC John Kerry had a sizable lead over Bush in opinion polling at that stage of the 2004 campaign.
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 07:32:17 AM
Dude, his "lead" was early opinion polling, which doesn't mean shit. IIRC John Kerry had a sizable lead over Bush in opinion polling at that stage of the 2004 campaign.
The man got 19% after acting like a loon, you really think he wouldn't have done substantially better if he had never dropped out?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 07:55:17 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 07:32:17 AM
Dude, his "lead" was early opinion polling, which doesn't mean shit. IIRC John Kerry had a sizable lead over Bush in opinion polling at that stage of the 2004 campaign.
The man got 19% after acting like a loon, you really think he wouldn't have done substantially better if he had never dropped out?
No, because I think the typical Perot voter wasn't voting
for Perot, they were voting
against the other two candidates. Perot being more attractive wouldn't have translated into many more voters, IMO.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 07:55:17 AM
The man got 19% after acting like a loon, you really think he wouldn't have done substantially better if he had never dropped out?
Protest-voters aren't going to magically decide to vote for both mainstream candidates once their guy drops out. And the man was destined to act like a loon. He did that many times in fact before people started noticing.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2010, 01:53:18 AM
The Peasants Revolt in England was mostly middle class as well.
Yes, the huge C14th English middle class.
They had a bit of help from some disaffected noblemen, but it really was mainly peasants.
Let the purge begin.
QuoteConfidante: Fla. gov likely to run as independent
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press Writer Brendan Farrington, Associated Press Writer 6 mins ago
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will likely bolt the Republican party and seek election to the U.S. Senate as an independent, a close confidante said Wednesday.
Crist will announce his plans at 5 p.m. Thursday in his hometown of St. Petersburg. The confidante, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made, cautioned that Crist can be unpredictable.
The announcement will end weeks of speculation about whether Crist will abandon the GOP after falling far behind former House Speaker and tea party favorite Marco Rubio in polls.
Crist has openly considered running without party affiliation. Top Republicans from former Vice President Dick Cheney to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have encouraged him to stay in the primary or drop out rather than risking a split vote that could benefit likely Democratic nominee U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek.
Crist did not return calls for comment Wednesday, but told reporters at the Capitol that he was very close to making a decision.
Asked how he would explain running without a party when he had said he was going to run as a Republican, he replied: "I don't know, number one, that I'm not, and number two, if I were to, I would say what I said the other day: Things change."
The most recent poll by Quinnipiac University had Rubio leading Crist by 23 points in the primary, but it suggested Crist could win a three-way race with him and Meek.
Meek could be the biggest beneficiary if Crist goes independent. Polls show him losing badly in a head-to-head race with either Rubio or Crist, but competitive in a three-way race if he can keep the Democratic base while Crist peels off some Republican votes from Rubio and picks up GOP-leaning independents.
If Crist runs as an independent, he will have a harder time raising money and will lose most of his campaign staff, who will likely be blacklisted from future Republican campaigns if they stick with him.
The state Republican Party has already warned county and state party executive committee members that they will be removed from their positions if they support an independent Crist campaign in any way. Members who have already said they will back Crist must rescind their support and ask to have their contributions refunded, although Crist does not have to give the money back.
The rift between the GOP and Crist seemed inconceivable less than 18 months ago, when he was a rising star in the party. He had a huge lead over Rubio in the polls when they entered race for the seat then-Sen. Mel Martinez left early.
Crist quickly earned endorsements from the Republican establishment in Washington, while Rubio had trouble raising money.
But then Crist made a political calculation that backfired, choosing to embrace President Barack Obama — literally — and his $787 billion federal stimulus plan at a Fort Myers rally in February 2009. At the time, Obama's poll numbers were high, and Crist hoped the stimulus money for state government could prevent tough budget decisions for him and the Legislature.
Rubio used the image of "the hug" to his advantage. He hit rallies and events around the state criticizing the Obama agenda while Crist said little about the Senate race for months, focusing instead on raising money. Rubio's conservative message about limited spending and relying on the free market rather than government to create jobs eventually caught on, first with tea party activists and then with mainstream Republicans.
Crist repeatedly attacked Rubio for using a GOP credit card for personal expenses and questioned budget items he sought as a lawmaker, trying to depict him as anything but the fiscal conservative he says he is. But Crist could not stop Rubio's momentum.
I don't think there will be a massive purge. Republicans want to win more than anything else. Florida clearly doesn't need a moderate candidate. They're still running RINOs in New Hampshire, Illinois, Delaware, etc... Rubio v Crist is more an exception than the rule.
Meh, I'm not sad. To property insurance people, he's actually a very bad guy, a populist of the worst kind. He socialized the property insurance market to appease the voters and the real estate developers, and set his state on a path to financial ruin. Republicans are actually doing a universal good by dumping him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 07:28:27 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 05:17:08 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2010, 02:35:50 AM
I just don't see that happening. Perot was always a protest vote without a lot of "there" there.
Agree... he'd never have won, he would have just given Clinton more of a landslide.
He got 18.9% of the vote even after his bizzare behavior. He had a lead with 39 percent, to Bush's 31 percent, and Clinton's 25 percent in June. He definitely could have challenged Roosevelt's mark of 27.4% for a third party candidate. Even if he didn't win outright he could have gotten the election thrown into the House which would have been interesting in it's own right. I know the Dems had more seats, but I'm not sure how they broke down by state.
He wouldn't have gotten 39% in November, no matter what, I don't think. And while I'm not sure how his support varied geographically, my general recollection of that race is that it was actually fairly evenly spread aroung the country, so even if he had somehow gotten well over 25% of the popular vote, he still might not have carried a single state.