Crash the Tea Party

[William Haskins]

http://crashtheteaparty.org/
http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/phpBB3/

http://crashtheteaparty.org/images/body.jpg

[Torrance]

Damn it! You beat me to it by 1 minute. Somebody kill my thread heheh.

[Synonym]

I heard an AP story about this site today. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

[Komnena]

Al Roker.He looks so innocent in the mornings that he has to be guilty of something.

[William Haskins]

Damn it! You beat me to it by 1 minute. Somebody kill my thread heheh.

i knew the moment you were pasting the photo URL with a rightclick of your mouse, while i used ctrl-v, that i had you.

[Torrance]

i knew the moment you were pasting the photo URL with a rightclick of your mouse, while i used ctrl-v, that i had you.

:D

[William Haskins]

n00b.

[Torrance]

n00b.

Next time call me before you post. This is so gauche.

[ColoradoGuy]

Reminds me a little of the Yippies.

[ColoradoGuy]

Damn it! You beat me to it by 1 minute. Somebody kill my thread heheh.
Merged yours into Haskins. Seniority and all.

[William Haskins]

face!

[Zoombie]

Now, the question is this a FAKE leftist thing or a fake leftist thing designed to let the Tea Party get away with whatever it wants!?

Or what if its a REAL fake leftist thing designed to make the conservatives look sneaky by pretending to have conservatives pretend to be liberals!?

Plans within plans within plans...

And at the center of it all is the puppet-master who has been controlling the world behind the scenes for the last century!






WILLIAM HASKINS!

[William Haskins]

you can't prove that.

[Zoombie]

That's because you're always two steps ahead of everyone. But I'll get the evidence...one of these days.

After we do seven more seasons with the evidence being taken away at the last second before the credits roll, of course.

[kuwisdelu]

The truth is out there.

[William Haskins]

it's not.

really.

[Zoombie]

Seriously though, these people are dumb.

"Durr, lets destroy the tea party by making a huge, obvious webpage that anyone can find!"

"Yeah! NO ONE WILL REALIZE OUR SEKRIT PLOT! WE ARE TEH GREATEST!1!11!!1111!"

If you are going to infiltrate and destroy a political party, don't make it so that everyone can see that you are infiltrating and destroying the political part!

God, guys, do I need to run ALL your secret plots for you!?

[MacAllister]

Yeah. Also, REAL leftists are effete hoity-toity intellectual elitists.

We'd NEVER abuse a semi-colon so egregiously.

[Synonym]

There you have it, the obvious flaw in this nefarious plot. Semi-colon abuse.

[Don]

Gee, Mac, you and I are on the same page.

Although my rationale isn't based on the semi-colon. :D


I see they've got a forum.

Total posts 11310 | Total topics 2203 | Total members 2447

In total there are 191 users online :: 38 registered, 0 hidden and 153 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1226 on April 9th, 2010, 4:25 pm

Compared to the most active "tea party" type site I visit:

Threads: 217,989, Posts: 2,614,815, Members: 25,177

Currently Active Users: 364 (114 members and 250 guests)
Most users ever online was 4,009, 01-03-2008 at 10:43 PM.

Looks as big or bigger than any of the "Coffee Party" organizations, though.

[Zoombie]

<whistles>

The information super highway goes...fast.

[benbradley]

Gee, Mac, you and I are on the same page.

Although my rationale isn't based on the semi-colon. :D


I see they've got a forum.

Total posts 11310 | Total topics 2203 | Total members 2447

In total there are 191 users online :: 38 registered, 0 hidden and 153 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1226 on April 9th, 2010, 4:25 pm

Compared to the most active "tea party" type site I visit:

Threads: 217,989, Posts: 2,614,815, Members: 25,177

Currently Active Users: 364 (114 members and 250 guests)
Most users ever online was 4,009, 01-03-2008 at 10:43 PM.

Looks as big or bigger than any of the "Coffee Party" organizations, though.
I'm making up a joke now (please at least give me an E for effort) - how can you tell when a "Tea Partier" is crashing a "Coffee Party" meeting at the local Starbucks?

Open carry.

[SPMiller]

The so-called "Tea Party" doesn't actually exist, so there's no way to oppose it.

Without reading the poll, I selected and voted for all nine options.

[jennontheisland]

Yeah, cause morons need help looking stupid.

[CACTUSWENDY]

Not a coffee drinker. Have to have too much sugar in my tea....so don't waste time with it. Am a coke-a-cola drinker. Guess I need to make a new party up. :) Hum....will have to get back to you on this. :evil Carry on......:tongue And I would never really care if anyone infiltrates it or not. :D

(The smileys are for WH.)

[robeiae]

The truth is in here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M47I6cIJfGg&feature=related

Seriously.

[Don]

I think those Coffee Party (http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/) people are the dangerous ones.
We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans.
The expression of our collective will?
(Marxist buzzword alert)

Democratic process?
(Who replaced our Republic with mob rule?)

Apparently these people have never heard of the Constitution, the rule of law, the Bill of Rights, or the whole concept of limited gunvernment, since not one of those things are mentioned. They should just call themselves The 21st Century Tory Movement, call for the coronation of King Barry the First, and be done with it.

WTF are these people putting in the brownies they eat with their coffee?

Oh, and look out, the masses are growing. The three rallys mentioned on their front page had

27 people in Santa Fe, NM
35 people in Mercer Island, WA
27 people in Naples FL

Oh, wow, a political force to be reckoned with.

If you visit, be sure to take the "Coffee Sphere." :ROFL: ROFL:

[Romantic Heretic]

The truth is out there.
But the lies are in your head. ;)

[Celia Cyanide]

The so-called "Tea Party" doesn't actually exist, so there's no way to oppose it.

Okay, may I ask a question, then? Is the Tea Party trying to establish itself as an actual political party? Or are they just a Republican Tea Club?

[Bird of Prey]

Okay, may I ask a question, then? Is the Tea Party trying to establish itself as an actual political party? Or are they just a Republican Tea Club?

It's actually the Tito Party. Somebody couldn't spell. . . .

[Don]

A few Tea-O-Cons are trying to turn the Tea Party into an actual political party, because that implies leaders and followers. Sarah Palin, for example, is running around trying to find the head of the parade so she can jump in front and claim to be leading.

I'll return once more to the mantra that collectivists really can't understand what's going on. This is not some monolithic group. It's a bunch of individuals who occasionally come together in defense against big government and the collectivist mindset. One person may speak for the majority concerning one issue, another for another. If one person claims unwarranted control over the "group", the "group" will disband and show up elsewhere.

The only concensus you're likely to find is that government is too big, and out of control, and the 545 who are responsible for that should be replaced ASAP.

[Don]

It's actually the Tito Party. Somebody couldn't spell. . . .
Tito was a socialist. He's more likely a hero of the Coffee Party.

[StephanieFox]

I voted that this was an illegal alien plot, but I meant illegal space aliens.

[MacAllister]

If you are going to infiltrate and destroy a political party, don't make it so that everyone can see that you are infiltrating and destroying the political part!

God, guys, do I need to run ALL your secret plots for you!?On second thought, this method actually worked pretty well, when the right-wing infiltrated and took over the Dems...

[Bird of Prey]

Tito was a socialist. He's more likely a hero of the Coffee Party.

Very little difference, Don. Tito was a dictator. The socialist part was a mere means to an end. . . .

[William Haskins]

Very little difference, Don. Tito was a dictator.

let's see you keep jermaine and michael in line.

[Bird of Prey]

let's see you keep jermaine and michael in line.

Almost impossible. They dance - well, danced - around every issue. . . .

[Don]

A Christian Science Monitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0403/Amid-harsh-criticisms-tea-party-slips-into-the-mainstream) on the tea party has some interesting revelations.
[P]olls suggest that tea party activists are not only more mainstream than many critics suggest, but that a majority of them are women (primarily mothers), not angry white men.

What's more, the release this week of the top three planks of the "crowd-sourced" Contract From America project, to some activists, shows a maturation from sign-wielding protesters to a political reform movement grounded in ideas.
...
The top three vote-getters among 360,000 respondents on the Contract From America website: Calling for an enumerated powers act to force lawmakers to check the constitionality of new laws; requiring a two-thirds majority in Congress for any tax hike; and a legislative backstop to prevent the EPA from "backdoor regulating."
...
Moreover, polls show that the anger at big government exhibited by tea party protesters is shared by many, if not most, Americans.

A Pew poll in early March found 71 percent of Americans "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today," while a CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans are more than just discontented with Washington. Instead, that majority of respondents agreed that the government is "so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."

[Zoombie]

The way I see it...if you don't have millions of discontented, politically active Americans seeking to shake up the system, then something is wrong.

Disagreement, discourse, debate and d-arguing are the four D's that keep America at least semi-sane. When Americans stop doing the 4 D's, then it means that someone has taken over and no one has noticed.

In other words: Vampires.

[MattW]

We definitely don't need a politically motivated group going around questioning our government.

That's unRepublicratican!

They must be ridiculed and marginalized at all costs.

[William Haskins]

agreed. in fact, there is too much division even with two parties.

we need to consolidate the american political system into one party.

[Synonym]

The Piss and Moan Coalition?

[Don]

agreed. in fact, there is too much division even with two parties.

we need to consolidate the american political system into one party.
You mean some people still think the Republicrats are two parties?

[William Haskins]

they are separate corporations, don.

don't make me stab you.

[Don]

From this page (http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2010/Search.aspx), you can find tea party events scheduled for tomorrow, as well as groups loosely affiliated with tea parties.

I'm in the Jacksonville area now, and found nine events within 100 miles tomorrow, and 21 groups involved on some level. That hardly sounds like a tiny fringe movement to me.

It's catchin' on, I tell ya. :D

[Don]

they are separate corporations, don.

don't make me stab you.
Tell it to the League of Women Voters (http://www.wisebread.com/why-league-of-women-voters-calls-presidential-debates-frauds), William.

ETA: Link added for clarity.

[Synonym]

There are a lot of ticked off people who don't think they are being listened to by their government representatives. After a year, you'd think they would at least notice this little 'snit fit' by a few disgruntled voters hasn't died down.

[robeiae]

It's a funny thing. I think the constant attempts to marginalize tea party-types by Dem leaders is effective with some part of the population. But my feeling is that the great majority of those that buy into that narrative were never gonna support any Repubs, regardless.

At the same time, the great majority of those that are "fired up" about such attempts at marginalization were predisposed to not support Dems from the get-go.

My feeling is--supported by anecdotal evidence--that there is a small but significant percentage of people who will be moved to not support Dems in their re-election bids, over and above that percentage of people who tend to flip to the out of power party every mid-term election.

That means a potential big loss for Dems, depending on the demographics in specific races. And it means a potential for some new faces. That's a mostly good thing, in my view.

The silliness of those "pushing back" against the tea party-types is, well, silliness. And it's ultimately doing more damage to Dem incumbents than it is to the tea party movement. Imo.

[Don]

Cogent analysis as usual, rob.

[William Haskins]

Tell it to the League of Women Voters (http://www.wisebread.com/why-league-of-women-voters-calls-presidential-debates-frauds), William.

ETA: Link added for clarity.

oh it's clear. i've been bitching for years about them owning the debates.

[Bird of Prey]

Yes, yes, that's it!! The Democrats are deliberately MARGINALIZING a group of people who think it's O.K. to carry guns to rallies in an effort to look intimidating. Yep, it's a Democrat plot to cast these people in an unfavorable light. . . .

[Synonym]

Oh my. My rural roots must be showing. Unless it's pointing at me, I'm not really going to pay much attention. Out here, you assume every vehicle has some sort of varmit gun. Maybe that explains the shortage of varmits. :)

[William Haskins]

Yes, yes, that's it!! The Democrats are deliberately MARGINALIZING a group of people who think it's O.K. to carry guns to rallies in an effort to look intimidating. Yep, it's a Democrat plot to cast these people in an unfavorable light. . . .

three questions:



who are you addressing?
what the hell are you talking about?


and, finally...



what the hell are you talking about?


thanks in advance.

[Zoombie]

I think BoP is referring to an incident a while back where two protesters showed up to a speech or a conference given by Obama carrying guns in the open.

[William Haskins]

did they look intimidating, and by way of a follow up... did they provide an ominous soundtrack to their walk that sounded like a guttural rendition of the 'mission impossible' theme?

[rugcat]

did they look intimidating, and by way of a follow up... did they provide an ominous soundtrack to their walk that sounded like a guttural rendition of the 'mission impossible' theme?Open carry discrimination, from the Daily Show.
(http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-12-2010/open-carrier-discrimination)

[Synonym]

I like how he's "gazing pointlessly across the 'icy' Potomac" in short sleeves. Someone should have double-checked their copy. Unless it was intentional and I just don't get it. (that's a huge possibility)

[Bird of Prey]

three questions:



who are you addressing?
what the hell are you talking about?

and, finally...



what the hell are you talking about?

thanks in advance.

Rob. . . .

[William Haskins]

understood.

you know he thinks that it's a dem plot to MARGINALIZE a group of people who think it's o.k. to carry guns to rallies in an effort to look intimidating. it's a democrat plot to cast these people in an unfavorable light, right?

[Bird of Prey]

understood.

you know he thinks that it's a dem plot to MARGINALIZE a group of people who think it's o.k. to carry guns to rallies in an effort to look intimidating. it's a democrat plot to cast these people in an unfavorable light, right?

I think it's ridiculous to assume that the "Democrats" are "casting" them in any light at all. The Tea Party folk speak for themselves. Blaming the Democrats for any negative Tea Party image - as was inferred - is ludicrous. . . .

[Bird of Prey]

And the plot thickens. . .

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated
By KATE ZERNIKE and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: April 14, 2010
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

[Synonym]

:Headbang:

I think I'll go do something constructive now. I feel much better.

[Celia Cyanide]

I got contacted by an agency who wanted me to do a "modeling job" for free. Their client was the Tea Party. They wanted hot models to hand out their literature at the State Capitol.

I declined politely and told them I had another photo shoot.

[Don]

ZOMG! Wealthier and more educated, in stable relationships, and actually out in the world earning a living! Those sure aren't the kind of people we want controlling the public discourse! Thank dog we always elect poor, stupid lawyers who cheat on their wives and never earned an honest day's pay!


ETA: Oops, my bad. Lawyers who go into politics aren't poor.

[William Haskins]

so which is it? wealthier and more educated, or brainless, toothless idiots?

man, it's so hard to stick to a narrative in this country.

[Romantic Heretic]

Shrugs. The Tea Party are nothing new. They're just on the news a lot more and some members have some organizing ability.

But Bobby Kennedy pegged them years ago. "The 20% of the people who hate everything, all the time."

As I've said before, it's how they get their hit. But they are anger junkies. And there's no rehab.

[rugcat]

so which is it? wealthier and more educated, or brainless, toothless idiots?

man, it's so hard to stick to a narrative in this country.I'll go with wealthier yet obsessed with taxes, educated yet brainless.

Dental hygiene unknown.

[William Haskins]

Organizer of 'Crash the Tea Party' receives threats

http://media.katu.com/images/1004114_tea_party_crasher.jpg

PORTLAND, Ore. – A group planning to infiltrate Tea Party protests on Tax Day is led by a local teacher who has received threats after it became known he was behind the group.

During April 15’s Tea Party rallies, Beaverton Middle School teacher Jason Levin’s group plans to dress and act like Tea Party members but “crazier” with the goal to damage the movement’s reputation. However, members of the Tea Party movement said that's defamation. They're also now claiming that Levin worked on his “Crash the Tea Party (http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/)” Web site when he should have been teaching.

Levin admits he did have plans to dress up like a member of the movement, but that all changed after his face and personal number were posted on the Internet. “My phone rang around the clock,” he said.

On his answering machine he received messages like: “Hey Jason, this is Robins Mitchell in Houston, Texas, again. ... We’re going to (expletive deleted) you April 15 if you try to mess with the Tea Party.”

His Web site (http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/), Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/crashtheteaparty.org) page, and Twitter (http://twitter.com/tpartycrasher) account are all devoted to bringing down the Tea Party movement from the inside by exaggerating its least appealing qualities.

He said he plans to make the movement look bad by misspelling signs and making wild claims, which is an idea he borrowed from a recent counter-protest by Twitter.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/90815614.html

[robeiae]

He's a great American and should probably receive around the clock Secret Service protection.

[Torrance]

The guy is entitled to free speech where it concerns his opposition to the Tea Party. What he is not entitled to do is incite by stirring up a hoax ruckus at a Tea Party event. The guy is a moron and an illustration of what is wrong with discourse in this country. Nobody is interested in debating ideas. All anybody wants to do is discredit through fraud and outright lies... and that's the status quo from ALL sides. This guy should not be teaching kids. I can only hope that he isn't teaching history or civics. What a tool.

[William Haskins]

Update:
On Wednesday Levin explained the portion of his Web site code “BSD” that has come under scrutiny and has led to the allegations he built and worked on the Web site on school time.

On April 3 he registered the domain name and on April 4, while grading papers at school, he said he remembered he needed to get something up (on the Web site). He said he opened Microsoft Word on his school computer and typed “COMING SOON”. He then saved that file to a thumb drive and took it home where he said he used his personal computer and software to upload it to the Internet later that night.

It appeared on Wednesday that the “BSD” had been removed from the site and a KATU News reporter noticed both the “BSD” and the “COMING SOON” in the source code of the Web site on Tuesday. Here’s the “COMING SOON” code:

<head>
<meta name=Title content="COMING SOONÉ">

[robeiae]

And the plot thickens. . .

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated
By KATE ZERNIKE and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: April 14, 2010
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html
Yes, thicken it does: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436

Looking at voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement:

74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican;
16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic;
5 percent are solidly independent;
45 percent are men;
55 percent are women;
88 percent are white;
77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008;
15 percent voted for President Barack Obama.

[my boldface]

[Gretad08]

The guy is entitled to free speech where it concerns his opposition to the Tea Party. What he is not entitled to do is incite by stirring up a hoax ruckus at a Tea Party event. The guy is a moron and an illustration of what is wrong with discourse in this country. Nobody is interested in debating ideas. All anybody wants to do is discredit through fraud and outright lies... and that's the status quo from ALL sides. This guy should not be teaching kids. I can only hope that he isn't teaching history or civics. What a tool.

He's just a smug little twit looking to make a name for himself by being the oh-so-clever-look-how-I-tricked-those-hilljack-tea partiers-and-made-them-look-stupid guy.

[robeiae]

But he's a teacher...

[Monkey]

Teachers are people,too, and they have their own views...they just aren't supposed to push their views on their students.

I'd love to talk about that with some of the religion-pushers at my son's school, but in this town that sort of defiance can (and has, many times) stigmatized the children of those who dare speak out.

Point being: yes, he's a teacher. I don't see what bearing that has on anything, unless he was actively trying to get students involved with his personal political BS.

[ColoradoGuy]

He's just a smug little twit looking to make a name for himself by being the oh-so-clever-look-how-I-tricked-those-hilljack-tea partiers-and-made-them-look-stupid guy.
Sort of like James O'Keefe (http://washingtonindependent.com/74851/anti-acorn-filmmaker-caught-in-failed-wiretap-scandal).

[Don]

He's a great American and should probably receive around the clock Secret Service protection.
Better yet, throw his ass in Starke and save the extra salaries. He'd be safe there. :D

[SPMiller]

I like the word "hilljack". It's more endearing than "hillbilly".

[robeiae]

It is a fun word, isn't it? But it makes me think of that awful movie Freejack...

[Celia Cyanide]

It is a fun word, isn't it? But it makes me think of that awful movie Freejack...

Mick Jagger was in it, that makes it cool.

[Zoombie]

Hey, Freejack was *AWESOME*.

[robeiae]

Mick is cool. But he can't act.

[robeiae]

Hey, Freejack was *AWESOME*.

*adds some notes to Zoombie's profile*

[Zoombie]

He totally can act. Freejack has my favorite last line in the entire universe!

Also, I get a kick out of the dystopian and grim future of 2009

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

Some of us right here on AW just might be fondly considering or actually actively involved in their local Tea Party. Those same some might also be educated, even if white and looked upon as being from a less-than-erudite part of this great United States. They might also be from the flat lands and be 'jills' as opposed to 'jacks'.

In other words, don't assume too much and remember to respect (the views of) your fellow writers - even if they don't agree with yours - no matter how moronic, stupid, uninformed, and/or heartless you might believe they are.

[robeiae]

He's as good an actor as Steven Seagal, 'cept without the martial arts skills...

[robeiae]

Some of us right here on AW just might be fondly considering or actually actively involved in their local Tea Party. Those same some might also be educated, even if white and looked upon as being from a less-than-erudite part of this great United States. They might also be from the flat lands and be 'jills' as opposed to 'jacks'.

In other words, don't assume too much and remember to respect (the views of) your fellow writers - even if they don't agree with yours - no matter how moronic, stupid, uninformed, and/or heartless you might believe they are.

You're not a white man, OFG, therefore you can't be supportive of this tea party stuff. I saw that in the news... ;)

By the way, I ordered a cup of tea at Starbucks today and poured it into the gutter. It felt good.

[Celia Cyanide]

He's as good an actor as Steven Seagal, 'cept without the martial arts skills...

I thought he was awesome in PERFORMANCE

[Williebee]

Thanks, OFG.

Rob-- You saying Mick ain't got skills? What about Ned Kelly? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui3L2oSG1vA&feature=related)

[William Haskins]

In other words, don't assume too much and remember to respect (the views of) your fellow writers - even if they don't agree with yours - no matter how moronic, stupid, uninformed, and/or heartless you might believe they are.

the "respect (the views of) your fellow writers" is such a silly maxim.

[Don Allen]

Tea people scare me.. They whip out those little baggies on a string and try and hypnotize you..... very scary....

[cethklein]

The tea party could be a blessing or a curse for the GOP. If Steele were smart, he'd do everything he can to do just enough to please these people until the start of campaign season, then alienate them. They'll drag away most of the fanatics and cranks, leaving the GOP open to portray themselves as the moderate voice of America. Remember, the vast majority of Americans are moderates.

Embracing the Tea Party would be a curse. Remember what Palin did a few years back (how could you forget?) She lured in some diehards conservatives but scared the piss out of most everyone else. Conservatives and liberals don't win elections for a party, moderates do.

I figure by the time 2012 rolls around (hell, by the time this year's election rolls around) the Tea Party will have become so infested with fanatics that most sane people will steer clear. Like most other protests groups accross the political spectrum, they are being overrun (and taken off-message) by cranks and racists and other blathering half wits. And like most protest movements, their barely-adequate denuciations of said fanatics aren't working. It doesn't help that the movement has no clout. Find me a Tea Partier who protested when Bush was pissing away money at a rate that would make most liberals blush. Find me one who protested when Muslims and other "brown people" were being spied upon by the government. You can't do it, they don't exist. It also doesn't help that the majority of their claims about new taxes are, by their own admitance, still just speculation (based on little mroe than fearmongering).

These people will go the same way the "No blood for oil" idiots went. In a few years their movement will be nothing more than a gathering point for kooks and fanatics. It's a bit of a shame because they've actually got a few good points but those have been overshadowed by the racists, birthers, and people making any number of claims about "socialism". (I'll ponder once again as I have so many times before: I wonder how many of these people who claim to hate socialism have ever collected unemployment.)

So to answer the original question: Does it really matter who is crashing the Tea Party? The party itself has done far mroe damage to itself than a couple of unbathed hippies and Obama worshippers could ever dream of doing.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

the "respect (the views of) your fellow writers" is such a silly maxim.

I know... I know. It was just a nicer way to say 'get off my tits'.

[Kitty27]

No one needs to infiltrate the Tea Party. They show their arses regularly and need no interference.

Now they are denouncing the racists nutters who've joined them. Too little,too late. They should have distanced themselves from those people as soon as they started popping up. Now that they've hung with their racist homies for so long,the stain of racism is upon them and no matter how much they wash,the damned spot won't go away.

I am quite sure there are decent and sane folk amongst the Tea Party. I know some here in GA. I'm neighbors with them and I have listened to them. I don't agree with any of it,but I can respect their opinions.

It's too bad for them,because this party attracts racists like pigs to slop and their image is permanently stained for it. You cannot allow racists to run amok in your movement,politely laugh at their antics,and then expect people to take you seriously. Politics is about image just as much as it is about policies. The Tea Party's image is fucked up and nothing can repair it.

[FreeWhistler]

Having never seen a tea party anywhere but cable news, I decided to check out the local tea party today. They need more tea. Cookies would help too.

:e2cookie:

[Don]

Here's a Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041503344.html?hpid=topnews) report on today's activities.

Here's a CSM article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0415/Tea-party-Contract-From-America-Real-plan-or-bumper-sticker) on the "Contract from America." Newt Gingrich is trying to jump in front of this one and claim leadership. We'll see.

Here's one (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14890870) from the West coast.

[SPMiller]

I'm still waiting to see demographic breakdowns of those who claim to be part of the so-called "tea party". Haven't been able to find any reliable sources yet. My predictions: wealthier than average, more educated than average, and whiter than average. Possibly more male than average, but I wouldn't put money on it. I'd post a link to support these predictions, but that's the problem in the first place.

[kuwisdelu]

But...

What's their opinion of tea?

They're named the freakin' Tea Party.

Are they for?? Or against???

WOTS UH THE DEAL

[maxmordon]

But...

What's their opinion of tea?

They're named the freakin' Tea Party.

Are they for?? Or against???

WOTS UH THE DEAL

You know, I am affraid they may not give a damn about the tea. GIVE US LIPTON OR GIVE US DEATH!

[kuwisdelu]

I like oolong.

Am I anti-American?

[maxmordon]

I like oolong.

Am I anti-American?

Go back with your Oolong to Communist China! With the other communists... in China, yeah, that will yrach you.

[Don]

Find me a Tea Partier who protested when Bush was pissing away money at a rate that would make most liberals blush. Find me one who protested when Muslims and other "brown people" were being spied upon by the government. You can't do it, they don't exist.
Yeah, they exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneybomb). As a matter of fact, over 58,000 of them raised over $6.5 million on December 16, 2007 -- the first modern "Tea Party" and still the the largest single-day fundraiser of any kind in U.S. presidential campaign history. They were not Bush or Patriot Act supporters, guaranteed.
I'm still waiting to see demographic breakdowns of those who claim to be part of the so-called "tea party". Haven't been able to find any reliable sources yet. My predictions: wealthier than average, more educated than average, and whiter than average. Possibly more male than average, but I wouldn't put money on it. I'd post a link to support these predictions, but that's the problem in the first place.
Rob covered it here (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4861070&postcount=72), with data from this (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436) poll. BoP also posted a quote backing up your more wealthy and better educated assumptions.
74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican;
16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic;
5 percent are solidly independent;
45 percent are men;
55 percent are women;
88 percent are white;
77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008;
15 percent voted for President Barack Obama.

[Mara]

The Tea Party movement is rather broad and disorganized, although the Republican Party has tried to create it's own little organized factions inside it. Like most large movements, there are only a few unifying popular themes, so you get a really weird mixture of people.

That's why you've got small-government conservatives, older conservatives, and government reformists going to the same rallies as big-government theocrats, imperialist neo-cons, and hardcore racists. There's really not much they can do to keep out the crazies, although they could certainly quit letting elected crazies like Gohmert and Bachmann speak at their rallies or otherwise invoke their name.

If the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously as anything other than a right-to-ultra-right movement, though, it really needs to demonstrate that there are significant numbers of members with liberal views on anything at all. So far, most of the vocal "independants" in the movement are criticizing the Republican Party for not being right-wing enough.

I know there are some moderates in the movement, but they haven't been able to affect the media narrative in any way. And while Democratic leaders are certainly dismissive of the movement, I'd say it's media sensationalism, combined with the most ultra-right Republicans being Tea Party supporters, that's the real problem there.

Maybe the next time Gohmert opens his mouth, someone should point out that he's one of the incompetent legislators that supposedly the "non-partisan" Tea Party doesn't like, and maybe start throwing rotten vegetables at him or something.

And when the crazy racists show up and hog the spotlight, someone's going to have to take one for the team and out-crazy them. You're not going to get media attention by being reasonable or frowning at them.

[jennontheisland]

Only 15% voted for Obama. Sounds like a bunch of people who are cranky because the democratic process didn't work in their favour.

[Noah Body]

According to Rasmussen, number of people who say they’re part of the Tea Party Movement nationally has grown to 24%. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_profile_many_ways_to_describe_a_movement ) That's actually quite substantial, and very likely not something easily dismissed.

[Don]

According to Rasmussen, number of people who say they’re part of the Tea Party Movement nationally has grown to 24%. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_profile_many_ways_to_describe_a_movement ) That's actually quite substantial, and very likely not something easily dismissed.
That link just shows how out of touch with the mainstream these people are. :rolleyes:

· Ninety-four percent (94%) believe the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. That view is held by 67% of all voters nationwide.
· Seventy-four percent (74%) believe that government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. That’s very close to the national average. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of all voters hold that view.

And look at this kookiness. :rolleyes:
· By a 94%-to-one-percent (1%) margin, those in the Tea Party movement trust the judgment of the American people more than America’s political leaders. At the other extreme, among those who don’t know anybody in the Tea Party movement, 54% trust the people, and 24% trust the politicians.
What kind of people trust their own judgement more than someone they've only "met" through television ads and campaign spin?

[Noah Body]

Well, the position that the federal government is primarily invested in defending its own interests seem certainly valid, wouldn't you agree? :D

[jennontheisland]

And the government they hand pick wouldn't be?

[Don]

Oh, and that article proves the claims of racism, too.

· Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white. Six percent (6%) are African-American.

That compares to 66% white and 12% black in the general population. That's only half of the representation that blacks should have.

By comparison, here are a few schools (http://www.jbhe.com/preview/highestranked.html) that admitted less than 6% freshmen black students in 2006:

Cornell(5.9%)
Northwestern(5.9%)
Johns Hopkins(5.8%)
USC(5.6%)
Rice(5.3%)
Notre Dame(4.7%)
Tufts(4.1%)
Carnegie-Mellon(4.1%)
UC-Berkley(3.3%)
UC-LA(2.0%)
and California Institute of Technology(1.4%)

So who's exclusionary?

Then again, I bet the representation of liberals is less than half that in the general population, too. :ROFL:

[Don]

And the government they hand pick wouldn't be?
See, the thing is, these people don't want to control government, so much as they want LESS government, because of all the reasons cited.

Way less government.

When it's down to 10% of the current size, and FedGov's doing only what's listed in Article 1, Section 8, then we can talk about those last pieces. :)

If government was 10% of the size it is today, nobody would care much who the President was. That was the way it was intended.

[Celia Cyanide]

What kind of people trust their own judgement more than someone they've only "met" through television ads and campaign spin?

It doesn't say "their own judgement." It says "the judgement of the American people." Most of which they haven't met AT ALL. And whether they want to admit it or not, those politicians are part of "the American people" too.

I'm not saying that shouldn't feel that way. But I'm not impressed. Sorry.

[Celia Cyanide]

If government was 10% of the size it is today, nobody would care much who the President was. That was the way it was intended.

It was intended for us not to care who the President was? Why do I not think that's a good thing?

[jennontheisland]

If government was 10% of the size it is today, nobody would care much who the President was.

I'm afraid I totally don't believe that. People will always care who the president is and when they pare down the government to some minuscule proportion of what it is today there will be outcry that there isn't enough oversight.

Oh, and just because a group has few representatives of a certain population doesn't mean they are racist. It's not like the tea party is some kind of exclusive country club. Any nutjob can join it. If you're going to draw race lines, all you've done is show that white americans seem to have a greater instance of mental health issues.

[Don]

If the President's tasks were the administration of a Federal government tasked with the items in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the actions of the president would have very little impact on the average person's life. That was kinda what the founders had in mind, and I think it's a wonderful idea.

But then there's Hamilton, who missed King George and tried to get George Washington to sign up for a hitch.

Perhaps the solution is for the blue states to secede, and move back in with Great Britain. They seem to crave royalty.

[Slushie]

Don, you've read this haven't you?

http://mises.org/etexts/classical.asp

Every four years, as the November presidential election draws near, I have the same daydream: that I don't know or care who the president of the United States is. More importantly, I don't need to know or care. I don't have to vote or even pay attention to debates. I can ignore all campaign commercials. There are no high stakes for my family or my country. My liberty and property are so secure that, frankly, it doesn't matter who wins. I don't even need to know his name.

--cut--

His job is simply to oversee a tiny government with virtually no power except to arbitrate disputes among the states, which are the primary governmental units. He is head of state, though never head of government. His position, in fact, is one of constant subordination to the office holders around him and the thousands of statesmen on the state and local level. He adheres to a strict rule of law and is always aware that anytime he transgresses by trying to expand his power, he will be impeached as a criminal.

--cut--

But as for people like me who have concerns besides politics, it matters little who the president is. He doesn't affect my life one way or the other. Neither does anyone under his control. His authority is mainly social, and derived from how much the natural elites in society respect him. This authority is lost as easily as it is gained, so it is unlikely to be abused.

[jennontheisland]

Ah, so the goal is to take all the power away from the president and give it to the states. Just what we need. 50 little teaparties.

[Celia Cyanide]

If the President's tasks were the administration of a Federal government tasked with the items in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the actions of the president would have very little impact on the average person's life. That was kinda what the founders had in mind, and I think it's a wonderful idea.

I don't. It doesn't make me feel any better that my governor is doing something shitty instead of my president.

Many people actually do feel that the actions of the President have very little impact on their lives, and they don't care who the President is. It's unfortunate, IMO.

[robeiae]

I don't. It doesn't make me feel any better that my governor is doing something shitty instead of my president.

Many people actually do feel that the actions of the President have very little impact on their lives, and they don't care who the President is. It's unfortunate, IMO.

But you know Celia, more people vote in Presidential elections than in mid-term, State, and local elections. So, there are many people who mostly just care who their President is, but not other office-holders. And the people who don't care who their President is certainly don't care who their congressperson, senator, governor, or mayor is, either.

Think about that. There's a lot going on out there. One would think--logically--that people would know the most about--and care the most about--the things that impact them most directly, i.e. local politics, followed by state politics. Yet, they don't seem to, do they?

[Slushie]

Why is that unfortunate?

I don't give a shit who the President is. I'll throw pennies at Obama just like I did Bush, and I will the next one.

There's two options: Republican or Democrat. During the campaigns, they regurgitate the deep, irreconcilable, philosophical differences between Us and Them. This is your average divide and conquer strategy. But when it comes to practice, to actual action and not just talk, there's not enough of a difference between them for me to really give a shit who's in power, whether it's in the White House or Congress.

Both parties want to expand the scope and girth of government, want greater influence throughout the world, want to skew trade with preferential agreements, want to manipulate taxation for political leverage, and it seems they try to distort the other side's position more than try to articulate their own.

In rhetoric, relative to each other, one party wants to increase control of the economy while the other wants to increase control of society. To me, they're both wrong and I don't play the "lesser of two evils" crap, because there is no "lesser" any more than shooting myself in the left foot hurts less than shooting myself in the right foot.

So I will continue to waste my vote on alternate parties, on the hope that enough people will be as stupid as me and waste their vote too, and then it doesn't become a wasted vote at all, but I giant middle finger to the Republicrats.

[Celia Cyanide]

But you know Celia, more people vote in Presidential elections than in mid-term, State, and local elections. So, there are many people who mostly just care who their President is, but not other office-holders. And the people who don't care who their President is certainly don't care who their congressperson, senator, governor, or mayor is, either.

Think about that. There's a lot going on out there. One would think--logically--that people would know the most about--and care the most about--the things that impact them most directly, i.e. local politics, followed by state politics. Yet, they don't seem to, do they?

Yes, that's true. So I guess that if nobody really cared who the President was, most people wouldn't care about or be participating in politics at all, would they?

[Celia Cyanide]

Why is that unfortunate?

If you met the people I'm referring to, you'd understand why it is unfortunate. I've tried to engage people in politics who don't care who the President is because they don't feel like their lives matter and nothing will ever get better for them, no matter who is in charge of our country.

[Slushie]

If you met the people I'm referring to, you'd understand why it is unfortunate. I've tried to engage people in politics who don't care who the President is because they don't feel like their lives matter and nothing will ever get better for them, no matter who is in charge of our country.

Is that wrong? Does it really matter who is "in charge" of our country for an individual's life to get better?

Generally speaking, that's the problem. They're relying on someone else to make things better them. They're lazy, and not voting is a symptom, just like not getting a job if they could.

By all means, getting people to vote is a good thing, provided they're aware that there are more than two valid options.

[Celia Cyanide]

Is that wrong? Does it really matter who is "in charge" of our country for an individual's life to get better?

Generally speaking, that's the problem. They're relying on someone else to make things better them.

No, they're not. They have no hope left. To the point that they don't care what happens to anyone, anywhere, ever. There's a big difference between being lazy and not feeling like your life matters.

Many, many actions of our President do not directly impact my life. I still care about those actions.

[Slushie]

So do I. It's why I participate in this forum.

I'm apathetic about the two-party system and the media's arbitrating of it, but not about government policy in general. That's why I try to detach party labels from policies-in-practice because I think it makes for a more honest discussion on my part. And anyways, party talking points usually seem to be based on skewed information.

Is there really a big difference between feeling like your life doesn't matter and laziness? I think the two are linked, to various degrees. Would a motivated individual, someone who looks to themselves to improve their own situation, feel like they're worthless? I think you'd have to value yourself before having the motivation to fix yourself, you know?

So if someone says "eh, I'm not going to vote because my life won't get better anyways", that tells me they're expecting the government--in some part--to improve their situation, and is reflective of someone saying "yeah, I'm going to vote because they'll make my life better". It's outsourcing responsibility, and to me that seems like laziness.

I'd prefer to have 30m informed voters who look critically at all politicians, than 100m uninformed voters who swallow rhetoric as truth.

Say whatever we will about the Tea Party, but public discourse and political activism is rarely a bad thing.

[Don]

This from the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Hating-the-government-finally-goes-mainstream-90852389.html).
It turns out that watching Goldman Sachs, the United Auto Workers, public employee unions and a raft of other vampires drain the treasury at America's weakest moment in a generation will make a person pretty hacked off.
...
Just 18 months ago the leaders of both parties were quite sure that Obama would be the popular, transformative president he aspires to be. The Republicans who emerged from the wreckage of November were certain to look a lot more like Charlie Crist and Mitt Romney than Marco Rubio and Ron Paul.

But Crist's embrace of Obamanomics seems to have utterly destroyed his chances at a Senate seat that was once his for the taking. Romney, considered a near lock for the 2012 Republican nomination, has seen his candidacy badly damaged by a populist revolt against the passage of a national health care plan that looks like the one he designed for Massachusetts.

Obama, who said that passage of his health plan proved that Washington could still do big things, finds himself deeply at odds with an electorate that is not confident of government's ability to do anything at all.
...
Libertarian sentiment has finally gone mainstream.

A movement that said that people should do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't hurt anyone else couldn't compete during the culture wars that began in the 1960s.

But after two wars, a $12 trillion debt, a financial crisis and the most politically tone-deaf president in modern history, Americans may have finally given up on big government.

[Celia Cyanide]

So if someone says "eh, I'm not going to vote because my life won't get better anyways", that tells me they're expecting the government--in some part--to improve their situation, and is reflective of someone saying "yeah, I'm going to vote because they'll make my life better". It's outsourcing responsibility, and to me that seems like laziness.

On that note, I'm going to drop this because you are not one of the people I'm talking about and you don't know or understand who they are.

[rugcat]

This from the Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Hating-the-government-finally-goes-mainstream-90852389.html).The Washington Examiner is a free daily newspaper with a conservative viewpoint published in Springfield, Virginia, and distributed around Washington, D.C. and its suburbs. It is owned by Denver businessman Philip Anschutz who is one of the world's richest men.
Who would have thought?

[jennontheisland]

Who would have thought?
Wait, are you claiming there's bias in the media??

omg, say it ain't so.

[Monkey]

Government, or the will of the people....hmmmm...

I live in deep South Texas. Homophobia abounds. Put it to a straight vote, and you're going to get ZERO rights for homosexuals. Blacks? We have ONE black family in our entire town. When I asked my son's school why they don't ever get Martin Luther King day off, they said it didn't "really apply" in our town. They've never recognized Black History Month or even talked to the kids about racial equality.

And Christianity could become the state religion in a heartbeat. Who would stop it? They certainly outnumber everyone else, and I'm already in a situation where my son is being taught Christianity by his music teacher and singing about Jesus in school performances.

Abortion? Almost no one whom I've discussed abortion with in South Texas has even considered whether it should be allowed in cases where the mother's life is at risk. They either get angry and re-iterate some earlier point or give it a knee-jerk, "not even then," without even considering what that means.

And we elected *&^(ing RICK PERRY, REPEATEDLY. Forgive me if I don't have a lot of faith in the will of the people around here.

There are some reasonable ones, I'm sure...somewhere. But sadly, even most of the people I associate with on a regular basis--my own friends--don't really understand the concept of protecting the rights of the minority even when those rights go against the beliefs of the majority. From personal experience, most of the people around here WANT laws that tell us how to behave. They WANT laws to stop the lesbian neighbors from kissing, or to prevent Pagan symbology at football games, or to prevent that teenage mother from getting an abortion. They don't just want "a moment of silence", they want PRAYER, led by administration, in their schools.

I actually LIKE the fact that we have a representative democracy and not straight-run mob rule, and I LIKE the fact that there are national standards of behavior, based on a changing interpretation of the constitution. In the beginning, "All men are created equal" didn't apply to men of color, and sure as hell didn't apply to women. Now, we read those words and assume they mean ALL men AND women, as in "all mankind", but if that's how it was meant originally, they had a darn funny way of showing it.

And I don't buy the idea that politicians are somehow not people, not elected by the people and are just clueless nutjobs who somehow magically inserted themselves in the political process.

So yes, I like our government. It's not perfect. It's far from it. But it's also far superior to mob rule, or straight democracy to be determined state-by-state.

So I guess, on that poll, the way it's worded, I'd say "government".

[Don]

The first job of the Federal Government should be to protect the rights of the people... of course, we know how that worked out in the past.

Then again, if FedGov wasn't involved in everything else, perhaps they could have paid more attention to protecting the rights of the people from the states. It would even give them something productive to do.

As for politicians, they don't magically insert themselves in the political process. They look at the millions of ways they could make a living, and instead of picking from the huge and varied list of non-coercive, productive opportunities, they decide to devote their entire careers to telling other people what to do and taking their money to do it.

Dumb people with that attitude become petty crooks or low-level bureaucrats. The really smart ones go for elected office.

One day, the general desire for power over others will be recognized to be just as vile as racism and misogyny, the desire for power over those of inferior race or gender.

[Monkey]

My biggest problem wiht the Tea Party movement is that they're operating on a view of how they feel the world *ought* to be, instead of dealing with how it *is*.

A Tea Partier voting against federal funding for anything just because it's federal funding, or voting against, say, regulation of massive banks just because it's regulation, wouldn't be doing right by the people--they'd be pushing personal agenda beyond all sense.

And the truth is, states aren't set up to handle financing public schools. Or Medicare. Or lots of other things that we need, care about, and rely on on a daily basis.

And states pass referendums all the time curtailing gay rights, or abortion rights, or the rights of whomever they damn well please...regardless of what the Federal Government believes to be constitutional.

So when you say "the first job of the Federal Government should be to protect the rights of the people", I think that's kind of funny. The last thing that the Tea Party movement would want would be for the government to have MORE power, and to do this, they'd need it--they'd have to be able to override any state that tried to put limits on personal freedoms, affecting issues such as abortion, religion, race, disability, and poverty.

And personally, I'd hate to see complete de-regulation...even if it's not a "right", I don't like unbreakable monopolies, predatory lending practices, unmanaged industrial pollution...

[jennontheisland]

Yes, but you see, unlike politicians who are inherently evil, and only out to advance their own agendas (and should therefore be done away with), businesses and manufacturers and banks and corporations will suddenly behave perfectly ethically, not to mention socially and environmentally responsibly, as soon as we remove any kind of regulation governing their standards and practices.

(holy crap I hope everyone gets that that's sarcasm)

[Monkey]

Of course they will, Jen.

And of course we know that these Tea Partiers are critical of ALL politicians, because ALL of them got into politics so that they could control others...that's why they have "Maverick" Sarah Palin headlining their rallies and drawing huge crowds.

[Don]

Monkey, a recent CBS/NYT poll (http://current.com/news/92380472_most-tea-partiers-deem-palin-unqualified-for-president-poll.htm) found that over half the tea partiers consider Sarah Palin unfit to be president... so you'll have to dream up a new insult.

There are a few politicians that have had successful careers, then went into politics to do something positive. Most are career politicians with a law degree as a backstop, though, aren't they?

[rugcat]

There are people in politics who re venal, corrupt and power mad. As there are in police work, business, the Church, and every other human endeavor.

There are many politicians who go into government because they believe they can make a difference can make people's lives better, and even solve a few problems or ease some injustices.

Often, we don't agree with their actions -- our politics may be very different than theirs. But constant government bashing and contempt for elected officials is unwarranted, to put it politely.

My dad was the mayor of a small town for a great many years. He worked tirelessly on such power hungry projects as obtaining funding for a municipal sewer line and establishing protocols to ensure safe drinking water for the town -- with funding assistance from the evil federal government.

He was a staunch environmentalist and was instrumental in preventing our beautiful town (http://www.townofalta.com/noflash.shtml) from being overrun by developers -- for which he made a lot of enemies. Every month, week, and sometimes it seemed like day he dealt with people screaming how dare you interfere with my god given right to make money and do what ever the hell I want.

I've mentioned him before, and Don has said that he really just means the Federal Government. But what he says over and over, is that those who seek office are pathological people with the desire to control others.

Total crap.

[Don]

Yeah, I left out the caveat again. So sue me. I know a few decent local politicians myself. My nephew is one of them. His ambition is not to take off for parts unknown, but to stay in his community and do what he can for his neighbors. I think that's another self-selecting criteria.

Cream rises to the top. The real crooks end up in Washington, more often than not. In any event, they impact a lot more lives than they can at the state or local level, the opportunities for graft are immeasurably greater, and they're farther from the watchful eyes of their constituents.

[Kitty27]

I am confused about what college admissions have to do with the Tea Party and blacks.


I have never seen a black Tea Party member and if they are round me,they certainly keep quiet. It is not acceptable in our community to run round with these folks. Admit that to people and you will be called an Aunt Thomasina and Uncle Tom. Wait,it will be much worse. There are many black conservatives. MANY. I have family members who should be card carrying Republicans. But cavorting with folks who openly hang with racists, indulge them and don't say one word against them is not for blacks. At all. This is an urban myth dragged out by Tea Party folks to say look"we're inclusive,people".

Like I said,there are some who mean well. Again,they are my neighbors,people I've lived around for years. If they tolerate my Goth and agnostic crazy,I certainly can tolerate their conservative views. The well meaning are getting dragged down by the racists. I will say it to infinity,you don't lie down with shit and expect to get up smelling like a rose. The Tea Party should have checked these nuts from the get go. They didn;t and unfortunately,that is the image that many have of them.

The problem for me is that all this hollering from a certain segment of this group about the bad old government led by Obama The Anti-Christ is bullshit. It's nothing more than a cover. I will keep it real. From what I've seen,quite a few of them want to go back to a time that is long forgotten by the rest of us.

Shut the gays down and don't let loving couples get married.

Keep the women in their place.

All the folks of darker persuasion should either go back to segregation days or be exterminated. Blacks are Public Enemy #1. I expect that we are in the latter category.

Force Christianity on everyone.

This way of life is deader than a dodo and it isn't coming back.

Government is always corrupt. Both sides are full of shit and neither is better than the other. Forming a Party that is inclusive,speaks with common sense,doesn't seek to force "their" way on everybody,and open to all opinions would have been a wonderful things to witness. The Tea Party is none of this to me.

[SPMiller]

After perusing the links given so far, I've become glad my predictions were largely accurate. Of course, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Seems also that the majority of those who identify as "tea party" members (lol!) believe there's no need for another party. That's because they're mostly Republicans and will vote Republican in future elections. When they say "tea party", think "non-neocon Republicans".

[robeiae]

After perusing the links given so far, I've become glad my predictions were largely accurate. Of course, that shouldn't surprise anyone.Except for the male-female ratio, right?

But come on. A nebulous group challenging the current powers-that-be is OBVIOUSLY gonna be more republican/conservative, when the current powers-that-be are democrat/liberal. And given what the demographics (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx) are of the republican party, itself, it's actually surprising--to me--that the tea party folks aren't made up of even MORE "white" people.

[SPMiller]

Except for the male-female ratio, right?That was, as you'd have noted had you actually read the post, the only prediction I specifically qualified and said I wouldn't put money on. And the polls don't seem to agree on that, anyway.

it's actually surprising--to me--that the tea party folks aren't made up of even MORE "white" people.Where did you get the idea that they're NOT made up of even more white people?

[robeiae]

Where did you get the idea that they're NOT made up of even more white people?
From the same place that you got the idea your predictions were largely accurate.

Let's try this again. Given the demographics of the republican party and given the number of republicans that say they''re tea party types, what did you expect, when it cam to racial breakdowns? You predicted they would be "whiter than average." Wow. You're pleased that some of your predictions--like this one--are accurate, I'm mystified how any thinking person would suppose something different, in this regard.

School me. Who was supposing that tea-party activists would be made up of people more liberal, democratic, poor, uneducated, and non-white than average?

But that doesn't mean all tea party activists fit the same template. Because they don't.

It remains a nebulous group, and that's kinda on purpose. I don't think some people can come to grips with this, for one reason or another.

[Don]

I note from rob's link that the tea parties are 9% less white than the Republican party, and have three times the black participation of the Republican party. So the tea party crowd is definately more ethnic than the Republican party. About twice as much over all, with three times the black participation.

I can understand why the Dems are so upset about the tea party now. They must think the tea partiers are poaching. :ROFL:

Isn't that a good sign, that an organization with more ethnic diversity is beating up on the neocon-driven Republican party full of angry rich white men?

[robeiae]

I note from rob's link that the tea parties are 9% less white than the Republican party, and have three times the black participation of the Republican party. So the tea party crowd is definately more ethnic than the Republican party. About twice as much over all, with three times the black participation.

I can understand why the Dems are so upset about the tea party now. They must think the tea partiers are poaching. :ROFL:

Isn't that a good sign, that an organization with more ethnic diversity is beating up on the neocon-driven Republican party full of angry rich white men?
Dammit, Don. Don't you get it? The tea-partiers are all rich white republicans. All of them. Every single solitary last one of them. Except for those two. And that one. But the rest? Rich. Filthy rich. White. Pasty white. Republican. Hardcore republican.

Anyone that says this isn't true is a dupe.

[jennontheisland]

The racial profiling going on in this thread is epic.

[rugcat]

Dammit, Don. Don't you get it? The tea-partiers are all rich white republicans. All of them. Every single solitary last one of them. Except for those two. And that one. But the rest? Rich. Filthy rich. White. Pasty white. Republican. Hardcore republican.

Anyone that says this isn't true is a dupe.So what are you saying Rob? That anyone who believes the tea party is overwhelmingly conservative and white is buying into a stereotype?

That it isn't accurate?

[Monkey]

Monkey, a recent CBS/NYT poll (http://current.com/news/92380472_most-tea-partiers-deem-palin-unqualified-for-president-poll.htm) found that over half the tea partiers consider Sarah Palin unfit to be president... so you'll have to dream up a new insult.


Excuse me?

I said that they have Sarah Palin heading up rallies and drawing huge crowds. This is absolutely true and in no way an insult or a slander, nor does it mean, in any way, shape, or form, that I thought they wanted her to be president.

If you google "Sarah Palin" "Tea Party", you get links like this:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100414tea_party_ready_to_roll/srvc=home&position=0

Because yes, she IS heading up tea party rallies, and yes, the ones with her as a lead speaker ARE drawing record crowds.

A few interesting bits from that link, BTW:

The common-sense hockey mom praised Bostonians for electing upstart GOP star U.S. Sen. Scott Brown as she stood in the shadow of the Democrat-controlled State House.

She tossed in a call for “drill, baby drill” and to stop America from “bowing to Saudis.It was a speech aimed directly at the Democrats and it was the fuel that pumped up the Tea Party Express crowd.

Almost everyone said they came today to catch a glimpse of the conservative shooting star, but she’s not the only draw.
(bolding mine)

[robeiae]

So what are you saying Rob? That anyone who believes the tea party is overwhelmingly conservative and white is buying into a stereotype?That's all anyone is saying? Really?

That it isn't accurate?Well, I think--again--that both of those things are so blatantly obvious, as to make the observation meaningless, with the caveat that "overwhelmingly" is not well-defined. Of course, the "angry white man" line doesn't appear to work anymore, does it?

But again, the point is that the tea party types are not all coming from the same place. The group is nebulous.

[kuwisdelu]

I propose that by affirmative action, those AWers who are not white may continue to use the "angry white man" line regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy.

Anyone who says otherwise is just an angry white man.

[robeiae]

And "old." I forgot "old."

[Gregg]

What about the "rich" guys.
Are there no girls? Can they be rich and white?
I know they can be angry.

(oops, should I have said "women"?)

[Don]

Meanwhile, the guy this thread was originally about has been placed on administrative leave (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/16/teacher-sought-demolish-tea-party-placed-leave-school/).

An Oregon teacher who announced his intention to "dismantle and demolish the Tea Party" has been placed on administrative leave until his school district finishes its investigation into whether his political activity crossed the line.

The state's Teacher Standards & Practices Commission is also conducting an investigation into Jason Levin, a media teacher at Conestoga Middle School in Beaverton.
...
In a now deleted post on his "Crash the Tea Party" Web site, he called on his supporters to collect the Social Security numbers -- among other personal identifying information -- about as many Tea Party supporters as possible at the numerous rallies that took place on Thursday, Tax Day.
"Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks (name address, DOB, Social Security #). The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!" he wrote.

The state agency is investigating whether this is a hint at identity theft, and whether it is appropriate behavior for a public school teacher.

[Noah Body]

Duping people -- even stupid people -- into revealing personal information such as SS numbers is probably never a legal activity.

[Torrance]

Meanwhile, the guy this thread was originally about has been placed on administrative leave (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/16/teacher-sought-demolish-tea-party-placed-leave-school/).

If the allegations are true, the man should be fired.

[Monkey]

This is not to say that the guy in the OP shouldn't be in trouble or that the Tea Party is inherently bad. This post is in response to the race/racism argument that's been going on in this thread, with maybe a little commentary on how "nebulous" the make up of the Tea Party really is...

The last two polls I saw on the Tea Party, one from NBC/ABC News, the other from CBS, say that the number of blacks in the Tea Party is something like 1%. :

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

They're white. They're older. And they're angry.

Sounds like what a lot of people have been saying on this thread...the usual stereotypes. But the numbers do bear this out:

Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.

They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus.

Fifty-three percent of Tea Party supporters describe themselves as "angry" about the way things are going in Washington, compared to 19 percent of Americans overall who say they are angry.

(This poll also has them being more male than female, but the ratio is closer than on just about anything else, which could be why different polls come to different conclusions on that one.)

There's been commentary about how at least these people are "paying attention" and "not buying the rhetoric" and "critical of all politicians". Here's something that really stood out to me:

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.

Are these guys really paying more attention than the regular person? I don't think that "I just don't like him" is a very strong political point, really.

Another quote on how much attention they're paying:

Asked what socialism means, roughly half of Tea Party supporters volunteered government ownership or control, far more than any other answer. Eleven percent cited taking away rights or limiting freedom, and eight percent said it means the redistribution of wealth.

Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in another country, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Another 29 percent say they don't know.

Really, people? FIFTY NINE percent of you still aren't sure that Obama's an American citizen? Double you tee eff.

Another thing that stood out, as per how "nebulous" the ideology of the Tea Party really is:

More than half (54 percent) identify as Republicans, and another 41 percent say they are independents. Just five percent call themselves Democrats, compared to 31 percent of adults nationwide.

Nearly three in four describe themselves as conservative, and 39 percent call themselves very conservative. Sixty percent say they always or usually vote Republican. Forty percent say the United States needs a third party, while 52 percent say it does not.



Tea Party supporters were asked in the poll what they thought of a few notable figures. The most popular was Sarah Palin, who is viewed favorably by 66 percent of people in the movement. Only 40 percent, however, believe she would be an effective president, a smaller percentage than Republicans overall.

Fifty-nine percent of Tea Party supporters have a favorable impression of Glenn Beck. Nearly as many, 57 percent, have a favorable impression of former President George W. Bush, despite his role in raising the deficit and overseeing TARP bailout of the financial sector.

But if you look at this link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002536-503544.html

You'll see that all those numbers go UP if you look at those that have actually attended a Tea Party rally or donated money to the cause, with the opinions of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin at 77 and 75%, respectively.


Again, this isn't a commentary on the guy in the OP or whether he should be in trouble, but more a response to various posts within the thread about the true make up of the Tea Party and its beliefs.

[jennontheisland]

I wonder what the % sane would be if they all got mental health evaluations.

(including the dude who thinks it's smart to go around announcing he's planning on collecting personal information in order to cause mayhem)

[Monkey]

Well, you can probably eliminate the 59% who still claim to be "unsure" that Obama's from this country, or outright believe that he is not.

:D

(It's a joke. Sort of. "Insane" and "willfully blind" aren't always the same thing.)

[kuwisdelu]

Well, "sane" is a legal definition rather than a mental health definition, so it depends what kinds of disorders you mean...

[Don]

Well, not everyone who attends a tea party is enamored of Palin, but she's certainly got her hooks into some of the organizers. A guy was booted out of the Pleasanton event for carrying a sign something like this, commemorating the takeover of the tea party movement by TeaOCons.

http://inlinethumb15.webshots.com/45710/2668331110100527759S425x425Q85.jpg

[rugcat]

Well, not everyone who attends a tea party is enamored of Palin, but she's certainly got her hooks into some of the organizers. The over the top protesters we see at tea party rallies are just a few kooks. The standing ovations the Palin and Michelle Bachman get are not "real" tea party events; they're just the organizers inviting them and politicians riding the movement's coattails.

To reiterate:

59% aren't sure that Obama is an American citizen.

66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin.

59% of have a favorable impression of Glenn Beck.

75% self identify as conservative, almost 40% as "very conservative."

If these views match one's own, fine. But let's not pretend that the tea partiers are a diverse group concerned citizens from all walks of life, whose message is being distorted. It's not.

[robeiae]

This is not to say that the guy in the OP shouldn't be in trouble or that the Tea Party is inherently bad. This post is in response to the race/racism argument that's been going on in this thread, with maybe a little commentary on how "nebulous" the make up of the Tea Party really is...

The last two polls I saw on the Tea Party, one from NBC/ABC News, the other from CBS, say that the number of blacks in the Tea Party is something like 1%. :

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html


I've linked to (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4861070&postcount=72) and quoted from a Quinnipiac poll that suggests otherwise and--in fact--shows a greater percentage of blacks who express support for the tea party movement than self-identify as republicans.

But again, the movement is nebulous. There is no singular "Tea Party." No one--despite the attempts by some--can claim to speak for participants/supporters as a whole. Clearly, a majority of people in it are conservative and/or libertarian types. Those ideological mindests are the genesis of the movement. And clearly, such people are far more likely to be repubs than dems, based on that reality alone.

[Monkey]

From your Quinnipac poll, which is mainly focused on the impact of the Tea Party on the presidential race and not on the make up of the Tea Party itself:

"The Tea Party movement is mostly made up of people who consider themselves Republicans," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "They are less educated but more interested in politics than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack and are not in a traditional sense swing voters."

That's different than what pretty much every other poll I've seen suggests, and I wonder why?

While only 33 percent of all voters have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, 72 percent of Tea Party members have a favorable opinion of her.

And that's higher than the numbers I posted. Again, I wonder why the disparity...although both seem to agree that a high number 66-72 percent, approve of Palin.

From March 16 - 21, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,907 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points. The survey includes 253 voters who say they are part of the Tea Party movement, with a margin of error of +/- 6.2 percentage points.

That's actually a pretty big margin of error and a pretty small sample group.

They have the number of whites at 88%, as opposed to 89% from my link, but of that remaining 11-12% your poll has a higher percentage of them being blacks than other minority groups. It's a very small number, in a poll with a very high margin of error. In effect, they're parsing the racial makeup of about 28 people. I can see how extrapolating that into the movement as a whole could produce unreliable numbers. We all know that the group is overwhelmingly white, so it's a silly thing to argue just HOW white it is.

You can keep saying that the movement is nebulous, but it sure leans very heavily to white, Republican, Palin-loving birthers who like Glenn Beck. You can always point to minority factions within the group (such as Democrats) and say, "See, they aren't all like that, so the group is nebulous", but I can also point out Democrats that disagree with what most people think of as "mainstream Democrat" and Republicans that disagree with mainstream Republicanism. The fact remains that the group does have rallying points, they get all worked up over the same speeches, and have a very similar racial and political make-up to one another.

ETA: Just for fun...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2Xw-7gsf7g

I love the ending...(From memory) "I'm going to go get in my car that I got using Cash for Clunkers, drive down the interstate to the city park...the police are holding a benefit for local schools, and I'm going to do a presentation about how we need to get all government programs out of our daily lives."

[robeiae]

From your Quinnipac poll, which is mainly focused on the impact of the Tea Party on the presidential race and not on the make up of the Tea Party itself:



That's different than what pretty much every other poll I've seen suggests, and I wonder why?



And that's higher than the numbers I posted. Again, I wonder why the disparity...although both seem to agree that a high number 66-72 percent, approve of Palin.



That's actually a pretty big margin of error and a pretty small sample group.

They have the number of whites at 88%, as opposed to 89% from my link, but of that remaining 11-12% your poll has a higher percentage of them being blacks than other minority groups. It's a very small number, in a poll with a very high margin of error. In effect, they're parsing the racial makeup of about 28 people. I can see how extrapolating that into the movement as a whole could produce unreliable numbers. We all know that the group is overwhelmingly white, so it's a silly thing to argue just HOW white it is.I can rip apart the internals of the CBS poll--and the poor construction of questions--if you'd like me to. I'm not a big fan of polls, by and large. The CBS poll's margin of error was +/- 3%, which is greater than the Quinnipiac's.

But that's not the point. Mostly, I was just showing you a poll that had different results, with regards to blacks supporting the tea party movement.
You can keep saying that the movement is nebulous, but it sure leans very heavily to white, Republican, Palin-loving birthers who like Glenn Beck.Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean when I say it's nebulous. That means that it's not a clear-cut group. There aren't specific goals and issues on which all participants in the movement agree. There is no specific structure or leadership, etc. It's not about the demographics of the group, per se, it's about its structure. The fact remains that the group does have rallying points, they get all worked up over the same speeches, and have a very similar racial and political make-up to one another.Of course they have similar "political make-ups" It's a political movement, after all. As to having similar "racial make-ups," again the makeup--at worst--parallels the republican party. So what? That just means the race-baiters in the Dem party are good at their jobs, imo.

[Magdalen]

Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean when I say it's nebulous. That means that it's not a clear-cut group.

Thanks! Because I thought you meant they were a collapsing cloud of dust and gas.

[Death Wizard]

I can rip apart the internals of the CBS poll--and the poor construction of questions--if you'd like me to. I'm not a big fan of polls, by and large. The CBS poll's margin of error was +/- 3%, which is greater than the Quinnipiac's.

But that's not the point. Mostly, I was just showing you a poll that had different results, with regards to blacks supporting the tea party movement.
Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean when I say it's nebulous. That means that it's not a clear-cut group. There aren't specific goals and issues on which all participants in the movement agree. There is no specific structure or leadership, etc. It's not about the demographics of the group, per se, it's about its structure. Of course they have similar "political make-ups" It's a political movement, after all. As to having similar "racial make-ups," again the makeup--at worst--parallels the republican party. So what? That just means the race-baiters in the Dem party are good at their jobs, imo.

My guess is, the white supremacists who show up for Tea Party gatherings far outnumber the blacks who show up for Tea Party gatherings.

Just a guess.