http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1 Black conservative tea party backers take heat ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president. "I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government. ... Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns—and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition. But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole—or race a reason to support it. (more at the link)
A few observations. First, I didn't post the whole article. Go read it yourself, but the relevant parts (to me) are there. Second, there's no actual demographic data on the tea party movement. It should appeal to anyone who thinks we're taxed too much already and that govt. spending is (has looooong been) out of control. Third, my analysis is that the movement is a lot larger and stronger than some people want to believe. Attacking it makes it stronger, though ignoring it is also political peril. Fourth, I just gave some analysis, as I always do in my 2nd post of threads. Fifth, I find the movement compelling because the people protesting talk about the constitution and less government. I approve of that agenda! Sixth, I doubt any of you can find a post where I promote republicans or conservatives. They're just not relevant being out of power, and I find they're only useful if they can gridlock government. Gridlock means smaller government and less spending, eh? Sixth, a couple more links about the numbers regarding the movement: Rasmussen: Tea Party Tops Obama 48% to 44% Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress
The Tea Party is a surefire way to "split" the conservative vote in the next election. The only grace is that they will not likely have any reasonable candidate...perhaps Palin will go on their ticket and it will split the vote.
I don't think the tea party is going to be an actual political party. The regulations and obstacles that the two parties in power have enacted over the centuries strongly discourages that sort of thing. What's more likely, IMO, is that you'll see a slate of politicians for various offices that the "party" endorses, and theoretically I could see that slate including moderate democrats, some republicans, and maybe even some libertarians (hope so!). As well, I suspect they'll raise a lot of money and spend it to further the chances of the candidates they like. My $.02
The real issue is getting a candidate on the ballot in 50 states, or enough states to theoretically win in the electoral college. Wikiepedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)#Ballot_access_laws Nationally, ballot access laws are the major challenge to third party candidacies. While the Democratic and Republican parties usually easily obtain ballot access in all fifty states in every election, third parties often fail to meet criteria for ballot access, such as registration fees or, in many states, petition requirements in which a certain number of voters must sign a petition for a third party or independent candidate to gain ballot access.[2] In recent presidential elections, Ross Perot appeared on all 50 state ballots as an independent in 1992 and the candidate of the Reform Party in 1996. (Perot, a multimillionaire, was able to provide significant funds for his campaigns.) Patrick Buchanan appeared on all 50 state ballots in the 2000 election,[3] largely on the basis of Perot's performance as the Reform Party's candidate four years prior. The Libertarian Party has appeared on the ballot in at least 46 states in every election since 1980, except for 1984 when David Bergland gained access in only 36 states. In 1980, 1992, 1996 the party made the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. The Green Party gained access to 44 state ballots in 2000 but only 27 in 2004. The Constitution Party appeared on 42 state ballots in 2004.[4] Ralph Nader, running as an independent in 2004, appeared on 34 state ballots. In 2008, Nader appeared on 45 ballots and D.C. For more information see ballot access laws.
they'll have to act in the next 6 months to do so for 2012....but they're probably not organized enough.
Just the opposite. It simply means nothing constructive comes from the spending. It means the Repubs are taking our tax money under the pretense of serving us. Fraud, in other words.
I think the Tea Partiers will be the Republican equivalent of what the DLC was to the Democrats in the late 80s/early 90s; the group that brings their party back to some form of sanity. I don't view the idea of shrinking government as being a far-right one; I view it at the core of being a freedom-loving American, and therefore quite centrist.
Examples? I'll modify my statement and make it "little that is constructive comes from the spending."
