Tea Party demographics

That's your definition. People who actually consider themselves Tea Partiers have a different view than do you. Wouldn't you agree if we wanted to have a leader we would appoint one?

It's a true grassroots movement. No one leads us. We're united by a central theme of a limited government we can afford. That's as far as we go. Anyone trying to attach anything else to what we represent is like the person who asks "Which way are you going? For I must lead you." It's frustrating for people who oppose our view of a limited government, because there's no leader to attack. And no matter how the opposition tries, that's the way it's going to stay.

Of course there is an overlay of other views, but where the Tea Party Venn Diagram crosses is on the principle stated above.

 

The Tea Party may have started out as a grass roots movement but it has been usurped by the Christian Right on a national level. If these people aren't the leaders of the Tea Party then why do local groups pay them large amounts of money to come speak at they're gatherings. Why is there a Tea Party Caucus in the House?

The movement has a serious identity crisis and the Iowa straw poll split between Bachmann and Paul symbolizes that.

 

so old white racist religious nut anti abortion homophobes? that cant be true, can it?

 

i would guess that most KKK members are white racist religious nut anti abortion homophobes too

 

Since you're a Tea Partier, I guess you're the expert, eh? Exactly how many Tea Party events have you attended?

Bottom line, you shouldn't discuss things you know nothing about. And if you think Ron Paul came in second in the Ames Straw Poll by virtue of his support from the "Christian Right" you're even more ignorant than this thread demonstrates.

Your problem is you believe what you read. Think for yourself, gather your own data, and you'll be much better off.

 

I've been to two events. One for healthcare and the other was a general event I just happened upon while I was at the park. I wasn't impressed with the level of discourse.

If you're saying I have to be a Tea Partier to know what the movement is then that's a problem in itself. It comes back to the identity crisis of the Tea Party.

You missed the point. I was saying that the movement has an identity crisis because of the religious & small government members (Bachmann) vs. small government members (Paul). There is a large vocal sub group of the Tea Party that wants religion to be a part of the movement. I've seen it first hand.

This sounds like the "you've been brainwashed by the liberal media" argument many of my co-workers rely on. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself, thank you.

 

You can give it, but you can't take it.

Just like hypocrite losers in Congress on the left.

 

huevon youve been known to switch teams on a whim, whos to say you arent going to be plugging away for the democrats in the fall?

 

You're still not "hypocrite" correctly

 

Brain I was not referring to you. I know you can take it.

 

Super duper. Golly, you're smart. The rest of we knuckledraggers bow in your presence.

I'm saying you don't know enough. Given that there's only one thing to know, you should be embarrassed.

Nope. Got it. You stated your opinion, but that's not reality. Of course there's a large crossover between the small government folks and social conservatives. Shocking. It's like saying that there's a crossover between the large government folks and black people. Does that mean you have to be black to be in favor of large government?

Lots of people say lots of things. The dissonance comes from the fact that people speak for themselves. We only agree on one thing: government has gotten to large in scope and scale, and we're not willing to pass our bills on to future generations. After that, we're a varied group.

I'm not the one parroting the narrative of the Tea Party's opponents. If you want to demonstrate that you can think for yourself, present an original thought. Don't bitch and moan at me. I don't care.

 

So . . . the New York Times went out and found some "data" showing that people don't like the Tea Party. I wonder how many people they polled were Republicans, independants, and conservatives--and how many were liberals who mirror their own philosophical leanings???

Anybody want to hazard a guess?

 

C'mon, I've been civil with you, no need to get bitchy. You made an assumption about me and I was just pointing out that I've looked into the tea party.

If it's only about small government why do I see anti-abortion signs and anti-gay marriage signs next to "Crystal Coast Tea Party" signs? Why are churches involved in organizing tea party events? Why is it when a Tea Party leader speaks about God or religion, it's completely divorced from the movement?

I don't get your black people/big government analogy.

OK, here's an original thought for you (or more bitching and moaning, depending on how you want to see it.)

The tea party is like a new music genre, let's say Blue Grass Death Metal. It's huge, it's taking the nation by storm.

Now you're only into a certain kind of Blue Grass Death Metal, the songs that don't have fiddles. If the song has fiddles you don't consider it real "Blue Grass Death Metal".

I've listened to a few albums, went to a few shows. I don't like it (especially the songs with fiddles). For me, it all sounds the same, but I can see the appreciation people have for it.

 

I think the results of that straw poll in Iowa speak a lot to the nature of the Tea Party. There's an undeniable libertarian/Ron Paul/maxiep side that wants to believe the movement is entirely about small government. But just look at the results of that poll--Paul basically tied for second, but really only captured about 28% of the total vote. The rest was dominated by conservative christians who talk more about abortion and homosexuality than they do cutting medicare or saving money by eliminating foreign wars or legalizing pot.

Obviously, the straw poll is among Republicans, not just Tea Partiers. But given that the Tea Party is where all the action is on the right, it seems like this particular poll would've been Ron Paul's true moment to shine. And it wasn't that much more of a remarkable showing than he's had in past years.

I think a lot of Republicans are pretty embarrassed how quietly (and sometimes not-so-quietly) they went along with Bush and his policies. The massive expansion of Medicare, the two badly fought wars, the bailouts that began under his presidency. The ridiculous levels of debt rung up over those 8 years. It's just not how Republicans want to see themselves.

So what's the easiest way to rid yourself of this cognitive dissonance? Get mad. Label yourself a Tea Partier. Show up to a meeting or two and let guys like maxiep go on about limited government (and quietly nod when they bring up Ron Paul--that's just the price of admission.) You're not a Dubya Republican anymore (and of course never were)! You're a TEA PARTIER, dammit, and you aren't going to take this bullshit anymore!

I don't say this to insult or aggravate libertarians like maxiep. I have good friends who are libertarians, and Irespect their ideological position, even if I disagree with it. I don't deny that the Tea Party was founded from a true place of limited government and personal freedom, and that's still the focus of what gets talked about in meetings (because it's the only thing such a disparate group can agree on).

But I think this poll is a clear demonstration that a lot of Republicans who care a lot more about Christian/social issues are using the "Tea Party" name to dissociate themselves with a pretty embarrassing presidency.

 

We get tired of being called stupid, especially when even the radically right wing rag New York Times shows statistically that we're better educated than the rest of the populace. You comment struck me of being in the same tone John Kerry had talking about how stupid Bush was, when Bush had a higher GPA at Yale and went to a better grad school. But of course Kerry was smarter; he believed the right things.

Because you're making the false assumption that we're a tighly organized, highly disciplined group. We're not. We're messy. Most of us are political novices who didn't give a shit about politics before. It makes us easy to mock by those a bit more polished and a bit more jaded.

I'm not denying that there's a huge crossover with fiscal and social conservative issues. I do know that they're irrelevant to our core cause. It's like seeing a "Keep Portland Weird" poster at a Blazer rally. Sure, most Blazer fans are liberal, but you're there to support the Blazers. It's the Blazers that brought you there. In this case, it's the case of limited government that lives within its means.

The Democrats have been the party of big government. The group that votes with them most loyally has been the Black vote. Therefore, if you like big government, you need to be black. The annoying social conservatives that don't want anything legislated except for how you live your life have been the Republicans' most loyal voting bloc. Just because those people overlap with my beliefs partially doesn't mean I have be EXACTLY like them. That was my basis for comparison. Not the best one, but the point generally stands.

Using your analogy, the issue is that there's a concerted effort to call The Oakridge Boys the poster children for Blue Grass Death Metal, simply because they have a fiddle in their band. Of course, The Oakridge Boys have little to do with BGDM, but they want to make a little money, so they let themselves be used by these people and the media narrative grows. If you go to a BGDM show, no one likes or cares about The Oakridge Boys, but that no longer matters to the casual observer; they've read too many times that The Oakridge Boys are the face of the BGDM movement. Ergo, there's a separation between appearance and reality. Regardless, it's not our problem as long as we continue to support true BGDM bands and blow off The Oakridge Boys. What others think of us is irrelevant.

 

I see this too. There's almost a weird coordination with left and right wing media that paints the Tea party as a social conservative movement.

Depending on how you want to effect change wouldn't it be in the movement's best interest to have a favorable and accurate image? It seems like attracting new people and spreading the core message would be important.