Tea Party is dead, huh? They're the only ones standing up to it!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They are the only ones complaining about most everything the government is doing.

 

Of course, peaceful protests that the Tea Party does will be ridiculed , or worse, not

reported in the news, so this must not be happening. Are more good people going

to ever wake up? Peaceful protest is much better than the alternative, isn't it? Or

are we all just succumbing to slavery?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/18/the-largest-tea-party-protest-since-2010-is-tomorrow/#ixzz2Waezq1K6

Edited June 19, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

Being active and being effective are two different things.

 

I think those who actually value the Constitution and think it is not just an historical document but rather, supposed to be how we freely govern ourselves, were silent for too long and our destination is now certain...the Tea Party may slow down the progression to that destination but I don't believe we can avoid it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You have to be active before you can be effective, Robert.

 

You know my thoughts about where I think we are headed, but if you give up, you condemn

yourself to the other outcome. Which do you prefer? I'd rather go down swinging.

Edited June 19, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

Well; I'm not St Jude. Even so, I will continue to contribute to causes and specific candidates and may or may not go to more rallies but I've no illusions about where the country is going to wind up.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nor do I.

[Guest copperhead_1911]

I was just reading how the tea party will probably be out in force over the amnesty bill similar to how they did over obamacare. I hope so. 

[Guest Bassman17SC]

I was just reading how the tea party will probably be out in force over the amnesty bill similar to how they did over obamacare. I hope so. 

Well since our traitorous senators have given us the finger on the bill, we now have to rely on "crybaby" Boehner.  We are doomed.

[leroy]

If the establisment republicans do much more stupid stuff; they may need to morph into democrats.  That's what they are at heart for the most part anyway.  I think the time is ripe for a third party, and the Tea Party may well be it.  Folks are tired of government giving them the finger and telling them ".... its for your own good.  We know best...."

 

Heres hopin.

leroy

[Randall53]

It seems to me most Republicans are about where the Democrats were 30 to 40 years ago and the Liberals have fallen off the left side of the scale.

[Oh Shoot]

...  I think the time is ripe for a third party, and the Tea Party may well be it. ..

Heres hopin.

leroy

 

I said from early inception of the Tea "Pary" thang, that they'd have to become an actual solidified third party to change things, that the GOP would just isolate and dilute the elected folks they sent to DC.

 

The various orgs within the Tea Party movement have definitely had an effect on local and state politics, but they'll never change the national GOP juggernaut from within to be anywhere in the ballpark of the goals both they and I deem necessary.

 

And no, Rand Paul doesn't have a prayer of being elected president, because he doesn't have a prayer of getting the nomination as a Republican, and there's no real national Tea Party either.

 

- OS

Edited July 7, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

As always, money will have to flow in, and the IRS is probably still on top of fighting that off.

All I know for a fact is that I won't give up on
the Tea Party. The Republican Party has
already changed sides and is not viable except
for the liberal's benefit. At least the libertarian
can gain traction with the Tea Party folks.

[leroy]

As usual, OS makes some great points, especially RE: the Tea Party being diluted by the national Republicans thing.  I think he is dead right.   The republicans have been pretty successful in keeping the Tea Party in check, in large part.  They've coopted and diluted the movement; and they know there's not another viable alternative out there now.   I think to be successful, the Tea Party is gonna have to contrast themselves with the democrat and republican parties and their appartarajiks, period.

 

leroy 

[wjh2657]

Caveat: All below are in my opinion only.

 

The following words are by John Wycliff and pertain to understanding the Bible, However the same guidelines can be used to understand the Constitution of the United States.

 

"It shall greatly helpe ye to understande Scripture,
If thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
But of whom, and to whom,
With what words,
At what time
Where,
To what intent,
With what circumstances,
Considering what goeth before and what followeth (context)."

 

 

We don't need to amend the Constitution, we need to read and and understand what the original writers meant to begin with. The Tea Parties (there is not ONE party, but many, each with different ideas and purposes and they  pretty much rewrite the Constitution to their own purposes, just like the other two "Gangs" in Washington

 

 

Democratic Party= Populist Liberals= Demographic Welfare= Socialism "Everybody should be rich"

 

Republican Party= Corporate Liberals= Corporate Welfare (Crony Capitalism) =Greatly Modified Fascism "Only the rich should have anything"

 

Conservatives= "Work hard and make your own wealth" = We buried Goldwater= End of the Breed

 

Conclusion: For all the posturing and BS, there are no Conservatives in our government at this time.

Edited July 7, 2013 by wjh2657

[East_TN_Patriot]

You have to be active before you can be effective

That you do, but action without wise and thoughtful focus can easily do more harm than good.  

The Tea Party has not been the only group active in speaking out against creeping government power.  The Libertarian Party has been doing it since 1971, but Tea Party followers like to pretend that they are pioneers in calling for limited government.  I'm baffled why this recent upstart gets credibility from people in the movement while the Libertarians are treated like fringe lunatics.  The Tea Party is a loosely affiliated group with no clear mission or platform, while the Libertarians have been active at trying to have candidates elected to office for decades.  

Edited July 7, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Paladin132]

Timing and packaging I think is the answer. 

[RobertNashville]

That you do, but action without wise and thoughtful focus can easily do more harm than good.  

The Tea Party has not been the only group active in speaking out against creeping government power.  The Libertarian Party has been doing it since 1971, but Tea Party followers like to pretend that they are pioneers in calling for limited government.  I'm baffled why this recent upstart gets credibility from people in the movement while the Libertarians are treated like fringe lunatics.  The Tea Party is a loosely affiliated group with no clear mission or platform, while the Libertarians have been active at trying to have candidates elected to office for decades.  

At the risk of offending some folks, the Libertarian Party members are its own worst enemy and if they are looked at as being "fringe lunatics" it's often because many of them either are fringe lunatics or at least act that way.

 

That isn't to say that many libertarian ideas aren't good ideas or aren't in line with our founder's concepts; many...even most, clearly are.  But how you present them and how members present themselves (i.e. "messaging") is a significant part of acceptance of those ideas.

 

There seem to be a significant percentage of Libertarians who, whenever their ideas aren't accepted in whole, would rather attack and berate those who don't agree rather than intelligently discuss differences. Further, there seems to be an underlying current of thought that unless one buys into ALL Libertarian ideas/policies/stands you don't really have a place in the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.  Aside from the simple fact that the "Tea Party" is not a traditional political party at all, that "all or nothing" approach I just mentioned may be the biggest difference between the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party.

 

The Tea Party is, as you correctly state, a loosely affiliated group; I think, that may be its greatest strength...many people from many different backgrounds coming together around a few core concepts such as lower taxes, smaller government and principles leadership...clearly those overlap with Libertarian/libertarian ideals as well but they aren't quite the same either.

 

I don't think Tea Party members are pretending to be pioneers; I believe what they are correctly celebrating is that, far more than any other movement in our country's recent history and much more than the Libertarian Party; the Tea Party has been successful in getting LOTS of people involved...people who were NEVER involved in the political process before.

 

I was in DC for the March on DC in 2009 and I lost count of how many people I met who were in their 70's and 80's who had never been politically active before other than voting now and then yet there they were, marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the steps of the Capital Building to make a statement. Could the Libertarians have pulled that off?  I think not but even if they could they certainly never bothered.

[leroy]

ET:  RE: the libertarians being viewed as lunatics.   I'm a bit older than some here and my political memory goes back a ways.  The "old perceived problem" with libertarianism wuz that it was tied to the drug culture of the 60's.  That's why some people hated (...and sitll do, for that matter...) them and worked to marginalize and demonize them.  I'm like you; i think the Tea Party is a legitimate branch of the libertarian movement.  I also think that long ago, the "drug culture" thing wuz thrown off the libertarian party.   The republicans were very guilty of "demonizing" the libertarians.

 

Hope this helps.

leroy

[Guest copperhead_1911]

That you do, but action without wise and thoughtful focus can easily do more harm than good.  

The Tea Party has not been the only group active in speaking out against creeping government power.  The Libertarian Party has been doing it since 1971, but Tea Party followers like to pretend that they are pioneers in calling for limited government.  I'm baffled why this recent upstart gets credibility from people in the movement while the Libertarians are treated like fringe lunatics.  The Tea Party is a loosely affiliated group with no clear mission or platform, while the Libertarians have been active at trying to have candidates elected to office for decades.  

 

I have not heard democrats complain about libertarians. I hear them complain about the tea party all the time. It seems they found the right way to piss liberals off.

[East_TN_Patriot]

At the risk of offending some folks, the Libertarian Party members are its own worst enemy and if they are looked at as being "fringe lunatics" it's often because many of them either are fringe lunatics or at least act that way.

 

That isn't to say that many libertarian ideas aren't good ideas or aren't in line with our founder's concepts; many...even most, clearly are.  But how you present them and how members present themselves (i.e. "messaging") is a significant part of acceptance of those ideas.

 

There seem to be a significant percentage of Libertarians who, whenever their ideas aren't accepted in whole, would rather attack and berate those who don't agree rather than intelligently discuss differences. Further, there seems to be an underlying current of thought that unless one buys into ALL Libertarian ideas/policies/stands you don't really have a place in the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.  Aside from the simple fact that the "Tea Party" is not a traditional political party at all, that "all or nothing" approach I just mentioned may be the biggest difference between the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party.

 

The Tea Party is, as you correctly state, a loosely affiliated group; I think, that may be its greatest strength...many people from many different backgrounds coming together around a few core concepts such as lower taxes, smaller government and principles leadership...clearly those overlap with Libertarian/libertarian ideals as well but they aren't quite the same either.

 

I don't think Tea Party members are pretending to be pioneers; I believe what they are correctly celebrating is that, far more than any other movement in our country's recent history and much more than the Libertarian Party; the Tea Party has been successful in getting LOTS of people involved...people who were NEVER involved in the political process before.

 

I was in DC for the March on DC in 2009 and I lost count of how many people I met who were in their 70's and 80's who had never been politically active before other than voting now and then yet there they were, marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the steps of the Capital Building to make a statement. Could the Libertarians have pulled that off?  I think not but even if they could they certainly never bothered.

You are describing every political party.  The Tea Party certainly has its fair share of closed-mided ideologues.  I was a supporter of the Tea Party movement at its inception, but quickly moved away from it after attending the rally in Knoxville and listening to idiots in the movement like Sarah Palin.  There are plenty of Tea Party supporters that are eagerly calling for armed revolution, but these are not the mainstream, and any attempt to point out the lunacy of their stance results in a furious response that usually includes being called a communist/socialist/statist/liberal/etc.  There are also plenty of Libertarians who advocate virtual anarchy, but they are not the mainstream.  However, for many Tea Party supporters, it is those fringe that are used as the poster children for the entire Libertarian Party.

As far as their policy ideas, the certainly don't overlap with the Republican Party, which is the party the group tries to affiliate with.  They elect Republican "Tea Partiers" with hopes they will change the Republican Party and are outraged that they go along with the party line once in office.  Changing the values of a major political party is harder than changing the behavior of your spouse.  Why not support a party that has those values as part of their national platform?  

[Worriedman]

That you do, but action without wise and thoughtful focus can easily do more harm than good.  

The Tea Party has not been the only group active in speaking out against creeping government power.  The Libertarian Party has been doing it since 1971, but Tea Party followers like to pretend that they are pioneers in calling for limited government.  I'm baffled why this recent upstart gets credibility from people in the movement while the Libertarians are treated like fringe lunatics.  The Tea Party is a loosely affiliated group with no clear mission or platform, while the Libertarians have been active at trying to have candidates elected to office for decades.  

I think the liberals/Democrats fear the Tea Party, because they (The Tea Party) are not radical, pick up their trash, and are polite, respectful antagonist who show up and are not Ron Paulbots who can be discharged with ease.  Takes much more to disenfranchise and denigrate thoughtful, reasonable folks who wave the Constitution as their mantra as opposed to libertarians who rightly or wrongly, carry a a pro-drug moon-bat persona about.

The Republicans are every bit as dismissive of the Tea Party as the Democrats, as they too fear the People's involvement in politics.  We are simply supposed to work and pay the taxes and let the elite decide the course we need to take with respect to everything.
 

Edited July 8, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

As usual, OS makes some great points, especially RE: the Tea Party being diluted by the national Republicans thing.  I think he is dead right.   The republicans have been pretty successful in keeping the Tea Party in check, in large part.  They've coopted and diluted the movement; and they know there's not another viable alternative out there now.   I think to be successful, the Tea Party is gonna have to contrast themselves with the democrat and republican parties and their appartarajiks, period.

 

leroy 

That is spot on leroy, and as usual Oh Shoot is clear thinking as well.

In a conversation at the Capital with other leaders of the Tea Party from across TN and Debra Maggart, who was Chairman of the Republican Caucus at the time, (in her last summer in that position) and the rest of the leaders of the Caucus, she flat out said that we as the Tea Party had no where else to go, we could not work with the Democrats, and as such, would in fact take what scraps they as Republicans would toss us.  We would be allowed to carry their water on Education and otherwise be seen as their obedient servants and not heard on other issues.

Ms. Maggart opined that her main responsibility was to increase the power of the Republican Caucus at all cost, the most important thing was the walk out proof majority, holding power over the Democrats the only thing of import.

[RobertNashville]

You are describing every political party.  The Tea Party certainly has its fair share of closed-mided ideologues.  I was a supporter of the Tea Party movement at its inception, but quickly moved away from it after attending the rally in Knoxville and listening to idiots in the movement like Sarah Palin.  There are plenty of Tea Party supporters that are eagerly calling for armed revolution, but these are not the mainstream, and any attempt to point out the lunacy of their stance results in a furious response that usually includes being called a communist/socialist/statist/liberal/etc.  There are also plenty of Libertarians who advocate virtual anarchy, but they are not the mainstream.  However, for many Tea Party supporters, it is those fringe that are used as the poster children for the entire Libertarian Party.

As far as their policy ideas, the certainly don't overlap with the Republican Party, which is the party the group tries to affiliate with.  They elect Republican "Tea Partiers" with hopes they will change the Republican Party and are outraged that they go along with the party line once in office.  Changing the values of a major political party is harder than changing the behavior of your spouse.  Why not support a party that has those values as part of their national platform?  

I've been attacked by many for my political views but none more so or more vehemently than by self-identified "Libertarians". Of course, ALL groups of any kind attract one fringe element or another but I'm just going by personal experience.

As far as "why not support a party that has those values as part of their national platform?"....

 

Well, the Republican "platform" has generally been a good platform...having a platform is great but meaningless if it isn't followed.  More to the point however, I don't support the Libertarian Party for two reasons; one is that I don't agree with enough of its platform that I want to support it. Second, even if I agreed 100% with their platform, the party is too small and ineffective to get anything accomplished.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That you do, but action without wise and thoughtful focus can easily do more harm than good.  

The Tea Party has not been the only group active in speaking out against creeping government power.  The Libertarian Party has been doing it since 1971, but Tea Party followers like to pretend that they are pioneers in calling for limited government.  I'm baffled why this recent upstart gets credibility from people in the movement while the Libertarians are treated like fringe lunatics.  The Tea Party is a loosely affiliated group with no clear mission or platform, while the Libertarians have been active at trying to have candidates elected to office for decades.  

I am not trying to give the Tea Party any more credibility than that group deserves. They, as far as I know, are mostly

just people who are fed up with politics, and are not a nationally organized party, to begin with. Libertarians are who I

closely identify with, but the Tea Party has a lot of potential to become one, especially if they can bridge any gaps with

libertarians and run the phonies out of office. Their moderate success has been because of frustration with the major

two, but they, or any group has a long way to go to topple the competition.

 

As to my comment, I stand with it, concerning actions. Inaction is dangerous. They have been thoughtful with what they

have brought to the table, I think. It is the thinker who does nothing who is problematic as much as the actor who has no

guidance. don't you think?

 

Name one other political group who has attracted and succeeded in getting candidates in the game and won like they

have in the last several decades. There is a certain amount of coalition building that will have to take place, and libertarians

would do wise to join in the effort. They have enough in common with the Tea Party groups to put together a winning

platform.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I think the liberals/Democrats fear the Tea Party, because they (The Tea Party) are not radical, pick up their trash, and are polite, respectful antagonist who show up and are not Ron Paulbots who can be discharged with ease.  Takes much more to disenfranchise and denigrate thoughtful, reasonable folks who wave the Constitution as their mantra as opposed to libertarians who rightly or wrongly, carry a a pro-drug moon-bat persona about.

The Republicans are every bit as dismissive of the Tea Party as the Democrats, as they too fear the People's involvement in politics.  We are simply supposed to work and pay the taxes and let the elite decide the course we need to take with respect to everything.
 

 

If you think that allowing grown adults decide for themselves what substances they want to put in their own bodies as "moon-bat" then clearly there is no discussion on this point.  As a former police officer who dealt with the problems of the illegal drug trade first-hand, I am quite proud to say that I support legalization of most substances and call for a shift in drug policy from one of law enforcement to one of harm reduction that includes a focus on drug treatment.  It's also clear that you don't know much about the Libertarian Party because their philosophy has been strongly grounded in the Constitution, and not some wishy-washy interpretation of the document that gives the government powers to enforce policies we like while crushing the opposition.  Simply put, we don't pretend to believe in small government and then call for legislation to regulate every aspect of social morality that can reasonably be controlled and deny equal rights to certain segments of the American population.  If that makes me a "moon-bat" I'll wear that label very proudly.  

Ya know what's funny about your "Ron Paulbots" comment is that Ron Paul was one of the original Tea Party supporters, his followers have pumped a lot of money into the Tea Party, and some have referred to Ron Paul as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.  It's no wonder others have referred to the Tea Party as being "schizophrenic".

 

 

As to my comment, I stand with it, concerning actions. Inaction is dangerous. They have been thoughtful with what they

have brought to the table, I think. It is the thinker who does nothing who is problematic as much as the actor who has no

guidance. don't you think?

 

Name one other political group who has attracted and succeeded in getting candidates in the game and won like they

have in the last several decades. There is a certain amount of coalition building that will have to take place, and libertarians

would do wise to join in the effort. They have enough in common with the Tea Party groups to put together a winning

platform.

I do not agree that inaction is inherently dangerous.  In many cases it can be quite wise and prudent.  Just look at the Patriot Act.  We were told that inaction was dangerous and see what that got us?  I understand your point, and I suspect we don't necessarily disagree.  What I have seen through my interactions with the Tea Party is that they have a very skewed interpretation of the social world and their place in it.  It's the Tea Partiers who complain about government spending, but demand that their Social Security, Medicare, and military spending aren't cut (obviously I am generalizing a bit, but I've never heard Sarah Palin call for cuts in these budget areas).  

Here is an interesting article that discusses the ideological split within the Tea Party.  The majority believe the government should promote "traditional conservative values" while the remainder support the libertarian philosophy of letting responsible adults live their lives as they choose without government intrusion:

http://reason.com/poll/2011/09/26/is-half-the-tea-part-libertart

I am advocating the very coalition building you mention, but suggest that the Tea Party would be better served joining with an established political party that shares their values instead of affiliating with the Republicans in an effort to change them.  As far as I am concerned, until the Tea Party does away with it's insistence on using the force of government to legislate morality, I have no interest.  That said, the Libertarian Party has made an effort to do some coalition building.  See below:

http://www.lp.org/issues/tea-party

Edited July 9, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest Bonedaddy]

I don't vote for any of them. It's a useless act. I'll sit and wait. The Reps have to dilute them or the Dems will use them to steal the election. Just another "let's both whip it out and piss on the little kid" story. IMHO, hope for a responsible goobernut died loooooooooong ago. Ignorance allowed it to happen, will maintain it and secure it till the fats lady sings. And don't bother wastin' your typin' hand on bashin' me for not votin'. I maintain my right to "not" be a part of the problem so overlooked.