• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Tea Party has been officially co-opted by the establishment

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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 doesn’t 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 – it’s 51% for Romney to 27% for Gingrich.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/26/ron-paul-polling-dead-last-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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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".
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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. :lol:
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
^ 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. :(
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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. :p
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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...
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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...
 
Top