What is the Tea Party?

If you believe that wanting our borders secure and those entering our country illegally is discrimination against minorities then I certainly plead guilty. The problem that I, and many of my generation, see with our younger voters is that too often they confuse discrimination with opinions. They are not necessarily the same thing, and opinions are like you know what...everyone has one.

If you believe that wanting our borders secure and those entering our country illegally is discrimination against minorities then I certainly plead guilty. The problem that I, and many of my generation, see with our younger voters is that too often they confuse discrimination with opinions. They are not necessarily the same thing, and opinions are like you know what...everyone has one.

I agree in general about securing the border and stemming the tide of illegal immigration, although I disagree with republicans on how to go about it. Overall though the problem with the republican stance is that it tends to lack any compassion, which lends to the idea that it's driven by bigotry.

If the Tea Party ditched their social agenda and focused on fiscal issues, many more would support them.

It's the extreme social issues that are holding them back - especially with younger voters who are well aware of the fiscal crisis our country is facing, but are turned off by the discrimination against minorities, certain religions, and gays.

.
Totally agree and I would add older voters like myself to that mix.

Look over these names of candidates that were offered up by the Tea Party - not very mainstream and in some cases pretty much on the fringes. There are always some fringe candidates but this is a lot and I'm sure you can think of more I left off.

Joe Miller
Sharron Angle
Carl Paladino
Christine O’Donnell
Ron Johnson
Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachmann

The TP may have started out trying to stand for fiscal conservativeness and small government but they allowed too many of the fringe folks to dominate. This is enough to keep Independents like myself more than a ten foot pole distance away.

otoh, Huntsman or Romney would get a good looking over by me if they can make it through Republican primaries. I hope so, but suspect they are too moderate for today’s Republican party.

.

Geo, please re-read my post. I did not say anyone lacked common sense, I said they found it impossible to use it in their evaluation of what had been posted about the Tea Party movement. BTW, I knew exactly what BW was looking for when he created this thread. Yes, I agree, that to some degree the Tea Party has been hijacked. Still, much of what they believe in and support, hold true.

Oh, well that's different. :sarc:
:funn:

The tea party *could* have been something great. Its fiscal principles are what we need and people from all walks of life in this country would have gotten behind such a movement.

But (thankfully) only a small subset of the population is willing/able to use the brand of common sense you advocate to ignore/find acceptable the social aspects of this movement resulting from the hijacking by the right wing fringe.

If you believe that wanting our borders secure and those entering our country illegally is discrimination against minorities then I certainly plead guilty. The problem that I, and many of my generation, see with our younger voters is that too often they confuse discrimination with opinions. They are not necessarily the same thing, and opinions are like you know what...everyone has one.

Reducing illegal immigration is not discriminatory and IMO is something everyone wants to have happen.

Many of the discussions and proposed solutions are discriminatory.

I think everyone in the United States should have to be born here or enter the country/be here legally. It isn't fair to those who go through the process to get here legally otherwise.

Building the Berlin wall on our southern border will not fix the problem. Checking the IDs of anyone who is brown will not. Racial profiling and falsely blaming minorities for our problems will not. Stirring up people with lies will not.

Requiring employers to verify immigration status of all their employees and punishing them for hiring illegals will.

Doing a batter job of keeping track of legal immigrants will.

And illegal immigration is not the only area of Tea Party politics that advocates discrimination against a minority group.

I concur Scooter.

.
Totally agree and I would add older voters like myself to that mix.

Look over these names of candidates that were offered up by the Tea Party - not very mainstream and in some cases pretty much on the fringes. There are always some fringe candidates but this is a lot and I'm sure you can think of more I left off.

Joe Miller
Sharron Angle
Carl Paladino
Christine O’Donnell
Ron Johnson
Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachmann

The TP may have started out trying to stand for fiscal conservativeness and small government but they allowed too many of the fringe folks to dominate. This is enough to keep Independents like myself more than a ten foot pole distance away.
.

The Tea Party gravitated toward candidates who were outside the main stream political arena, for that I applaud them. (We aren't exactly getting quality service from the idiots who have been in congress or in Washington politics for years.) Naturally you're going to get some fringe candidates (and hopefully Tea Partiers have learned a lesson or two) but I have to disagree with some on your list - Joe Miller was a stand–up dyed in the wool conservative who only lost because democrats flipped on voting in his state. He would have made a good congressman. Sarah Palin - definitely not fringe although her experience is questionable. Michelle Bachmann is another dyed in the wool social conservative (which in this county is not fringe in any way) who also leans libertarian on foreign policy, and of course we should not forget about Ron and Rand Paul! (The rest on your list I don't know much about.)

All-in-all tea partiers promoted a wide swath of candidates most of which were not political elites or career politicians - even if they ended up with a few questionable candidates I'd say they moved things in the right direction.

Hunstman and Romney are the exact opposite - career politicians who already have lucrative ties to special interests and are beholden to political players. God forbid tea partiers fall back to electing types like that to Washington.

Oh, well that's different. :sarc:
:funn:

The tea party *could* have been something great. Its fiscal principles are what we need and people from all walks of life in this country would have gotten behind such a movement.

But (thankfully) only a small subset of the population is willing/able to use the brand of common sense you advocate to ignore/find acceptable the social aspects of this movement resulting from the hijacking by the right wing fringe.

Could have been? They aren't going away, trust me.

The Tea party came about during the election of our first black Presdent. The policies that snuffed out the economy came on GW's watch. This is an inconvenient truth to southern white knuckledraggers.

Could have been? They aren't going away, trust me.

And they're never going to achieve greatness.

And they're never going to achieve greatness.

The folks in this group helped take the House back from democrats in the last election.. they have already done great things!

The Tea party came about during the election of our first black Presdent. The policies that snuffed out the economy came on GW's watch. This is an inconvenient truth to southern white knuckledraggers.

No, it's a convenient excuse for the likes of you.

Governor Scotts own pollster indicates a change in the Tea Party, I think the word he used was tarnished.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/should-republicans-beware-tea-party

And they're never going to achieve greatness.

They aren't looking for greatness, they're looking to put this country back on the right track. In case you haven't heard, by 2021 our debt, at the current rate of spending will be 101% of our GDP. Ponder that awhile.

What most Tea Party members advocate are drastic cuts in spending to bring our fiscal house in order. True cuts have not been attempted in decades. What Washington calls a "cut" is simply a reduction in the rate of spending growth.

They aren't looking for greatness, they're looking to put this country back on the right track. In case you haven't heard, by 2021 our debt, at the current rate of spending will be 101% of our GDP. Ponder that awhile.

Ponder this, what was the projected health of our economy ten years out when Bush took office? You Tea Party Patriots were the the ones who encouraged GW in his policies and put him in office a second time even though the signs were there he had no idea what he was doing. I'm not defending Obama here, I sticking with the subject of the thread and asking why the Tea Party movement didn't form during the Bush years?

Ponder this, what was the projected health of our economy ten years out when Bush took office? You Tea Party Patriots were the the ones who encouraged GW in his policies and put him in office a second time even though the signs were there he had no idea what he was doing. I'm not defending Obama here, I sticking with the subject of the thread and asking why the Tea Party movement didn't form during the Bush years?

Because a whole lot of republicans placed blind faith in a "republican" president working with a "republican" lead congress. That was a mistake. The Tea Party was born out of the economic crisis which kicked off in the final months of 2007. Clearly they are now looking back and learning a lesson or two. (IMHO, democrats are currently making the same mistake with Obama.)

Because a whole lot of republicans placed blind faith in a "republican" president working with a "republican" lead congress. That was a mistake. The Tea Party was born out of the economic crisis which kicked off in the final months of 2007. Clearly they are now looking back and learning a lesson or two. (IMHO, democrats are currently making the same mistake with Obama.)

This is probably the best post you have ever written. It's refreshing to hear just a little bit of reality: that the Republican led combination of un-funded wars and tax cuts was the beginning of the spiral.

This is probably the best post you have ever written. It's refreshing to hear just a little bit of reality: that the Republican led combination of un-funded wars and tax cuts was the beginning of the spiral.

Wars yes; Tax cuts? Only because of huge increases in spending that overtook the increases in revenue. Add in the hyper-stupidity of loaning anyone money for houses they could not afford through freddie and fannie and the regulations jungle that killed businesses or drove them overseas and you have the critical mass. That mass was created by both democrats and republicans. Bush deserves the blame for getting us into Iraq for no good reason and staying in Afghanistan to "nation build" instead of destroying Al Queda and getting out. He also deserves blame for the TARP and the bank bailouts. Obama deserves blame for the stimulus, trillion dollar deficits and Obamacare. Just because Bush was a disaster for Republicans does not mean the Democrats had to get even with a disaster in Obama.