Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Tea Party has been officially co-opted by the establishment

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Unhappy Tea Party has been officially co-opted by the establishment

    Well, if this recent poll is any indication; the Tea party is now preeminently neoconservatives in disguise; at least in Florida. I was resisting this as much as possible but the polls are showing a steady drift away from the values the tea party started with and towards the status quo.

    The Monmouth poll brings even worse news for Paul, whose campaign is expected to continue with our without a victory in the Sunshine State. Among those who support the Tea Party movement, support is split at 38% for each of the two leading candidates. Ron Paul doesnít even register among Florida Tea Partiers, which is ironic considering he is one of the ideological supporters of everything the Tea Party supposedly stands for. His son, Rand Paul, is a leading Tea Party conservative in the Senate. Even Newt Gingrich does better among those who say they strongly support the Tea Party with 49% to 24% for Romney, according to the poll. Those who support the Tea Party only somewhat Ė itís 51% for Romney to 27% for Gingrich.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...st-in-florida/


    *Sigh*, I wish they'd replace the Gadsden flag with something else so they don't further tarnish it and I don't feel compelled to change my avatar.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Nothing has changed since the beginning. I stated this a couple of years ago, that the 'tea party' is nothing more that your run-of-the-mill Republican. Grassroots something new, my butt!

    Romney is more of a 'tea party' type than Paul--the volumes that it speaks to "Don't tread on me" types.

    This is precisely why so-called 'grassroots' movements never go anywhere. All they are is a manufactured movements for short-term political gain.

    This is why I have stated that there are a number of seats in Congress that are fleeting for 'tea party' types. Once citizens realize what they are, well, it's all over with--back tot he two party system.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Nothing has changed since the beginning. I stated this a couple of years ago, that the 'tea party' is nothing more that your run-of-the-mill Republican. Grassroots something new, my butt!
    The very first couple of "tea parties" were actually pretty libertarian-oriented events. The establishment republicans rapidly co-opted it (so they could use it rather than fight it), and it's been associated with neoconservatism ever since.

    But it's simply false to say "nothing has changed since the beginning".

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    The very first couple of "tea parties" were actually pretty libertarian-oriented events. The establishment republicans rapidly co-opted it (so they could use it rather than fight it), and it's been associated with neoconservatism ever since.

    But it's simply false to say "nothing has changed since the beginning".
    You are the one opting for the co-opting of Libertarianism in the Republican fold. I would imagine that it pisses a number of individuals off to realize where they are actually standing--under the Republican banner.

    I disgree, btw, regarding something changing. All there has been is a clarifying of the 'tea party'. The 'tea party' may have made to appear they were standing in one place but we all know where they really stood.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-26-2012 at 03:02 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You are the one opting for the co-opting of Libertarianism in the Republican fold.
    Not really. RP is more of an old-gaurd conservative. The fact that he is considered "libertarian" just shows how far from libertarianism the mainstream of the GOP has come.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Beretta,
    If you look at the polls and surveys you'll see that the Tea Party did legitimately start out with a lot of libertarian members and ideals. Over the last 4 or so years it's pretty much been co-opted though. Your "leftyness" prevented you from seeing it.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Didn't need any new poll to prove to me that the Tea-Party was co-opted. You had Dick Armey running the Tea Party Express and that didn't raise any eyebrows. The latest proof was the Media crowned "Queen of the Tea Party" Sarah Palin endorsing Newt. This is the same man who during the 2010 elections said that if a Tea Party candidate was running against a GOP candidate, you should follow the party line and vote for the GOP candidate. The real Tea Party ended years ago, all that's left now is the name.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    The real Tea Party was assimilated long ago. Resistance is futile.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    ^ And ^^
    I guess I was holding on to hope and just didn't want to believe it until now that there is no denying it. Maybe I thought that it would be turned around by RP's run, but the opposite has happened.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  10. #10
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Nothing has changed since the beginning. I stated this a couple of years ago, that the 'tea party' is nothing more that your run-of-the-mill Republican. Grassroots something new, my butt!

    Romney is more of a 'tea party' type than Paul--the volumes that it speaks to "Don't tread on me" types.

    This is precisely why so-called 'grassroots' movements never go anywhere. All they are is a manufactured movements for short-term political gain.

    This is why I have stated that there are a number of seats in Congress that are fleeting for 'tea party' types. Once citizens realize what they are, well, it's all over with--back tot he two party system.
    You're comparing the Tea Party grassroots movement with your ass? So basically you had a nice, well defined ass that got fat and bloated? How sad.

    I kid, I kid.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Follow the money and power....the 'Tea Party' did. You don't get to play in 'the' sand box by bringing your own sand box.

    It is easier to stay out than get out. - Mark Twain
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Avatar officially changed.
    I'll miss my avatar of 4 years. Oh well....*sigh*.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  13. #13
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Read Timothy Ferris' The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason and the Laws of Nature

    http://www.amazon.com/Science-Libert.../dp/B0044KN08G

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Some people tend to use the term "neoconservative" (also "neo-conservative" and the colloquial "neocon") in the perjorative sense. Here's what the lexicographers have to say about it -

    Merriam-Webster's Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE:

    1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

    2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

    IMMHO, 1: (above) is indicative of a liberal who finally read that pesky document called the "Constitution of the United States", and 2: (above) is pretty-much historically standard practice for any national ideology - if you remove the word "democracy" and replace it with socialism/Marxism/Communism/Islamism (or whatever a particular groups "ism" happens to be), and replace "United States" with a different appropriate national designation. The only change that I would make to the definition would be to either delete the final four words from 2: (they seem to give it the flavor of Imperialism), or add "when conditions demand" at the very end. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor would be a good example of imposing a demanding condition.

    The Tea Party has been "infiltrated" by people of all poliitical persuasions, but conservatives - not just Republicans - seem to make up the majority. Many came to the Tea Party because of their personal disaffection with either of the two predominant political parties. Others came as "agents provocateurs" (somebody employed to gain the trust of suspects and then tempt them to do something illegal so that they can be arrested and punished) from liberal-"progressive" affiliations (DNC thugs), union organizations (such as the SEIU and NEA), and radical fringe elements such as the American Nazi Party. Their charter was essentially to "observe and report" and "do anything you can to discredit the Tea Party".

    I spoke at a Grants Pass (OR) Tea Party rally on tax day several years ago, and saw those elements present. The SEIU wore t-shirts emblazoned with SEIU. The neo-Nazis (less than 10 of them) wore their cute little brown-shirt uniforms (complete with armbands), and displayed a fairly large Nazi flag. They lined up along the edge of the sidwalk, and began chanting their slogans of hate. There were attendees present who wanted to do the Nazi's harm, but cooler heads prevailed. A line of Tea Partiers formed directly in front of the Nazis and drowned them out by beginning the Pledge of Allegiance (immediately joined by the 750 other attendees). The Nazis left in frustration. Understand that it is not my intent to draw any political parallels between the Nazis and unions other than the intent to disrupt/discredit. I don't have any true demographics on the legitimate attendees, but the entire socio-economic spectrum of Grants Pass was represented. There were relatively few men in suits or sport coats, or ladies in dresses or skirts. On the other end of the spectrum there were relatively few who looked homeless or near-homeless. As far as outward appearances go, most people were dressed cleanly and very casually - t-shirts, pullovers and jeans seem to be the "uniform". There were, what appeared to me to be, a representative number of Americans "of color", and "white" Americans, and an almost equal number of males and females. There were even a few well-behaved children in the crowd. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that our particular group was not composed of the "white elitists" that the liberal-progressives would have the rest of the country believe is the entire make-up of the Tea Party.

    Yes, the Tea Party is composed primarily of "political conservatives", but they are not necessarily "neocons" in the pure dictionary sense. My exposure to the Tea Party movement demonstrated it was, and may still be today, primarily a political "compound" of people who believe in our Constitution - as written by the Founding Fathers - and who wish to prevent the further expansion of government and its overly-enthusiastic approach to taxation, and also prevent the further decimation of our National culture, customs, and those freedoms which we so uniquely enjoy in this world!

    The condemnation of any movement that threatens the status quo (the primarily two-party system) will come swiftly, and with all the tsunami-like power both predominant parties can muster. I don't see where either of those two parties have the best interests of the United States or its citizens as their primary objective. The RepubliCrats are like two drunks on the Titanic, arguing over whose turn it is to buy a round while our "Ship of State" is capsizing! But that's just how I see things, and unlike some folks, I don't expect everybody to agree with me. But, please do try to understand what I am saying, without becoming immediately contentious. Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 01-28-2012 at 01:53 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    You want to change the definition of neoconservative? Make no mistake about it, those last four words are the truth. It's no coincidence that it implies imperialism.

    I agree that what you describe as the tea party is how it started out but that's long gone. The tea party IS the establishment now.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    The tea party IS the establishment now.
    If that were true, then the Tea Party would be THE DOMINANT political party, as opposed to the seemingly powerless (as a stand-alone), "grassroots third party" it is today, would it not? The Tea Party may exert some significant influence only if it aligns itself with one of the two established parties. (There have been no successful third party candidates for POTUS since 1850. The last one hundred sixty-one years of our history strongly implies that our only realistic choices for POTUS are whatever the RepubliCrats offer us. In our entire history there were only two "outsiders" - both Whigs - directly elected as POTUS. William Henry Harrison (Whig) in 1840, and Zachary Taylor (Whig) in 1850.) I submit that the only power the Tea Party itself has, is through its ability - as possibly the largest "lobby" (for lack of a better word) in the country - to influence the ruling RepubliCrats. However, I can see how one can get easily the impression that the Tea Party IS totally co-opted. Personally, I have taken the "Oath of Allegiance" three times, and in none of those three times 'was the phrase "...to support and defend the Establishment" or even "...to support and defend the government". It's all about our Constitution... and thus are my concerns directed. WHO IN WASHINGTON D.C. IS HONESTLY AND TRULY SUPPORTING OUR CONSTITUTION?

    Merriam-Webster's Definition of ESTABLISHMENT (as it pertains to the discussion at hand):
    2: an established order of society: as a. often capitalized: a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b. often capitalized: a controlling group
    Last edited by Gil223; 01-28-2012 at 05:12 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    If that were true, then the Tea Party would be THE DOMINANT political party, as opposed to the seemingly powerless (as a stand-alone), "grassroots third party" it is today, would it not?
    Once again, the Tea Party is no longer a discrete entity. It is merely an arm of the neoconservative mainstream of the GOP, and a means by which the GOP can increase its support amongst certain elements it would rather be linked with only indirectly. In other words, it only appears to be distinct.
    Last edited by marshaul; 01-28-2012 at 10:10 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Once again, the Tea Party is no longer a discrete entity. It is merely an arm of the neoconservative mainstream of the GOP, and a means by which it can increase its support amongst certain elements it would rather be linked with only indirectly. In other words, it only appears to be distinct.
    Your POV is duly noted. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    If the tea party is supporting Newt or Romney, then its obvious its been eaten by the establishment. Those are establishment guys, and just back in 2010 those guys were complaining about how awful it was that these upstart tea party people would run against establishment members.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    If the tea party is supporting Newt or Romney, then its obvious its been eaten by the establishment.
    If the Tea Party supports Gingrich or Romney, the only thing that is really obvious is that they would support anyone opposing a left-wing, tax-and-spend liberal-progressive. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    ROTFL!

    Gingrich and Romney ARE tax and spend liberals. That's why the term neoconservative. They use conservative rhetoric around election time but have moderate to liberal records. If they can't find a domestic program to spend our money on like mandated healthcare, medicare part D or bailouts (all of which and more, they've supported) they'll just spend it on the military industrial machine.

    No, if the Tea Party votes for them it proves that they're either part of the establishment, completely ignorant or both.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 01-29-2012 at 09:27 AM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    if the Tea Party votes for them it proves that they're either part of the establishment, completely ignorant or both.
    Which takes me back to my question in #16 - WHO IN WASHINGTON D.C. IS HONESTLY AND TRULY SUPPORTING OUR CONSTITUTION?

    It's obviously not the Obama administration, and the proposed contenders offered up by the opposition are as worthless as he is. Apparently many people here think our Democratic Republic is doomed, and must therefore believe that we are in a lose-lose situation this coming November.

    Granted, the Republican candidate for the office of the president, will be nothing to get excited about, and there are no Democrats other than the incumbent who have officially announced their candidacy for the office, so our choices are quite limited. Personally, I would vote for almost anybody other than Barack Obama. He has done nothing to improve our lives - his policies give with one hand, and he takes away with the other. Obamacare promises medical coverage for all... and then it limits what care you can get, and establishes conditions and limits on when! At the same time -as good as 'healthcare for all' sounds to some - the odds are severely against the timely availability of any care, because of the sharply increased patient-to-physician ratio! Obamacare will add 50,000,000 patients to the workload of the medical community. Where are the medical personnel to care for them coming from? Will he pull them out of a hat? His fiscal policies are bankrupting our country, and I have reached the point where I would vote for almost anybody who runs against Obama - including Rocky Suhayda! My vote will be a "just because this person is not Obama" vote, and has nothing to do with his race. I would vote for Alan Keyes, Alan West, Condie Rice or any other person of color that ran against Obama... IF they were Constitutionally conscious, fiscally aware, and American by birth!

    By definition, the "establishment" as it pertains to this discussion is: "a. often capitalized: a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation)". That makes anybody in an elected political office (from the White House down to the president of your local Rotary Club)a member of "the establishment" by default. Therefore on November 2nd it will be a waste of time to vote for anybody... let's all just stay home, sit back and relax, and let the Electoral College decide who our next president will be. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    It's simple. Look at a candidates actual record. Don't listen to the rhetoric and sound bites. You'll soon find that the candidates that the establishment dislikes and trys to exclude usually have the best records.

    There are two very good candidates to vote for this year and one of them will be getting my vote in the primary. Most likely, the other will get my vote in the general depending on how things work out.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  24. #24
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Aha... agreement at last! Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    If the Tea Party supports Gingrich or Romney, the only thing that is really obvious is that they would support anyone opposing a left-wing, tax-and-spend liberal-progressive. Pax...
    You seem to imply Newt and Romney are not left wing. Newt is anticapitalist and is responsible for the gun free school zones act of 1995. Romney has flip flopped his way through every left wing position including passing Romneycare, the precursor to Obamacare.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •