There's a lot of talk about being a big tent party, but there's a lot of merit in having a clear distinction between the two parties so you know what to expect when you vote for one or the other (or not!). The appealing thing to me about the tea party movement is that it is grass roots and it seems to be focused on public policy and not morality. FWIW.
You mean the ones who--when it really counted--have backed every single one of President Obama's measures? Where are the brave Democrats who are willing to buck this President?
It'll be interesting to see what happens with the tea party movement. It reminds me of the Ross Perot movement of 1992 (before people realized he was batshit crazy). Mad as hell at the powers that be.... I think that right now the group has a broader appeal because it doesn't have to get into the details of legislating morality. For now it's simply enough to be anti-Obama, anti-Republican establishment, anti-Democrat, anti-government. If they do make some headway and start to really get organized, the old problems of christian right vs libertarian right will again rear its head, and morality will become a huge factor. Anyway, I do wish the public policy side of the tea party movement success. I disagree with them on many issues, but at least it isn't taking major stands on abortion and gay rights. It'd be great to have a right wing party in this country that wasn't so deadset smug about having god on their side.
Obama's measures are not at far left fringe of all possibilities. I think Obama would've preferred to be far more left wing than he has been. The reason he hasn't, at least in part, is because of the Blue Dogs. So no, they haven't taken major public stands to vote down legislation he favors. But they surely had a hand in its formation.
They should create another third party and stick all the baby boomers and aging hipsters into this party. It will be called: The "Get off my lawn!" Party
grass roots? laughable. http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_tea_party_movement_whos_in_charge.php
It's clearly grass roots, and unlike the Perot movement, there isn't any one or two or even three guys you can point to as "THE" leader. It's reminiscent of the actual anti-war movement from the 60s - a general sense that the war was wrong, mob mentality in their form of protest, and several fringe (like SDS) groups that were actually organized but not very big in real numbers. You wouldn't call Tom Hayden "THE" leader of that movement, would you? It's not at all surprising that people really disliked the republican spending, wanted "change," and are furious about both the amounts and nature of the kind of spending going on. It used to be "democrats tax and spend" and "republicans borrow and spend" but we're getting it both barrels now - tax and borrow and spend at unprecedented levels. They're motivated not by Dick Armey, but by their shared fury at what's going on. Anyone like Armey or Palin who appears at these things are taking advantage of a free PR opportunity. It was clearly moronic to diss this movement early on, and it's even more moronic to discount them now (after the NY house race). It only makes them madder ;-)
i love them because they splinter the conservative vote e.g. what happened in new york or what happened in 92. that means more of president obama and i know that makes your day.
i know but the tea baggers told them not to vote for the republican, the republican left the race and the democrat won- the same thing. the tea baggers are fracturing the opposition to the democrats and im alright with it but the real losers are fair, balanced conservatives whose voices are being marginalized by these nutjobs.
The tea party people nearly elected a 3rd party candidate. That's quite impressive. If there were a primary, the left-leaning republican wouldn't have been their candidate.
do they have a realistic shot of unseating a mainstream (centrist) president in a national election, especially in light of the changing demographics? here's what we know about tea baggers- they are white, many are retired, not very educated, clustered together in rural parts of america and they didnt vote for obama the last time around. oh btw, they didnt impede the president in 08 so how are they going to make traction in 2012? new citizens (mexicans), black ppl, professionals and yuppies have all summarily rejected the tenets of tea bagging- they have a base and thats all they have.
huge corporations own the other networks... I wouldn't call Disney or GE's interests "liberal." Words change their meaning sometimes and become labels... like how the GOP is still referred to as "Conservatives" when there is little that is conservative about the way that they govern anyhoo... unless there is a disaster or major happening, I rarely ever watch network news. I'd much rather use the internet and get to the point/crux on issues I care about STOMP
but how will you know what your opinion is without having the stories filtered through an echo chamber of talking heads?
when palin speaks i am reminded of bsing essays in high school - she makes up stuff that sounds sort-of-ok but is largely empty. this may not differ from most contributors, hers has more of an 'i'm bsing' sound to it 'fair and balanced' is just their tagline. no news show is 'fair and balanced.' or worth watching beyond cheap entertainment value
it is not only about who owns the network or media company, but the people who work in the network and media industries. i recall reading something like 65%-70% of workers in media are to the left. thus the media will tend to slant left, from the top down and bottom up. fox is the only alternative on television, which is why its ratings spank those of other individual networks
Great. I hope they get so mad they elect democrats all over the country like they did in the NY house race. Go teabaggers go! barfo
