Tea Party Movement Evolves Into Political Force With Eye Toward 2010

[noose4]

Absolutely wrong in parallel (the teabaggers had more in common with Southern secessionists then the overall Democratic Party in 1860) and wrong in suggestion (in fact, the teabaggers in the news because the teabaggers make sure the media follow them with outlandish behavior and statements).

The mainstream GOP leaders want nothing to do with the Teabagger events, though they do want Teabagger votes, so the problem becomes metaphorically how to do get that particular elephant under the tent without the insects, smell, and crap.

In 1853 the republican party was formed to stand against slavery. The democratic party of the time was pro-slavery and made up mostly of the wealthy business men. Even if these men did not personally own slaves, they owned investments that depended on slavery to make a profit. The republican party elected a president in 1860 by organizing the 'common man'. The election of 1860 was a kind of class war, rich voted democratic(or know-nothing) and the poor voted republican. The democrats at the time, led by James Buchanan, stated during the mid term elections of 1858 that electing a republican to president would lead to civil war. Then they proceeded to make that prophecy come true.
The south remained democratic for almost a hundred years. During the civil rights movement of the 1960's, most of the south was under democratic control.

indeed and then once the civil rights act of 1964 was passed the south became solidly Republican, it is funny how the roles of the 2 parties reversed over the years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, the GOP was founded to promote white economic opportunity in the Territories and the West, which made it anti-slavery, not abolitionists.

Two, not every Republican is a racist in the South, but almsot every racist is a Republican in the South.

 

[bodecea]

Absolutely wrong in parallel (the teabaggers had more in common with Southern secessionists then the overall Democratic Party in 1860) and wrong in suggestion (in fact, the teabaggers in the news because the teabaggers make sure the media follow them with outlandish behavior and statements).

The mainstream GOP leaders want nothing to do with the Teabagger events, though they do want Teabagger votes, so the problem becomes metaphorically how to do get that particular elephant under the tent without the insects, smell, and crap.

In 1853 the republican party was formed to stand against slavery. The democratic party of the time was pro-slavery and made up mostly of the wealthy business men. Even if these men did not personally own slaves, they owned investments that depended on slavery to make a profit. The republican party elected a president in 1860 by organizing the 'common man'. The election of 1860 was a kind of class war, rich voted democratic(or know-nothing) and the poor voted republican. The democrats at the time, led by James Buchanan, stated during the mid term elections of 1858 that electing a republican to president would lead to civil war. Then they proceeded to make that prophecy come true.
The south remained democratic for almost a hundred years. During the civil rights movement of the 1960's, most of the south was under democratic control.

indeed and then once the civil rights act of 1964 was passed the south became solidly Republican, it is funny how the roles of the 2 parties reversed over the years.

Which makes it abundantly clear that in the South, party was not as important as their "particular way of life."

 

[Cold Fusion38]

\
The Tea Parties did not exist while George Bush ran up a $5 Trillion deficit.

It has existed in one form or another for about 10 years, however, the version of it which you know today really started in 2007. I admit it's being grabbed by big government Conservatives who are hoping to gain from it politically, but it's truly a libertarian movement. Sarah Palin speaking at TPPs makes me sick. She's the biggest opportunist of them all and does NOT represent the TP values.

BULLSHIT!!! Show me ANY of these protests prior to Obama.

 

[Samson]

\
the tea parties did not exist while george bush ran up a $5 trillion deficit.

it has existed in one form or another for about 10 years, however, the version of it which you know today really started in 2007. I admit it's being grabbed by big government conservatives who are hoping to gain from it politically, but it's truly a libertarian movement. Sarah palin speaking at tpps makes me sick. She's the biggest opportunist of them all and does not represent the tp values.

bullshit!!! Show me any of these protests prior to obama.

p-e-r-o-t

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I love how liberals paint folks as "right wing". That is humorous coming from the pro-war neocommunists.

The education continues...........

 

[Cold Fusion38]

it has existed in one form or another for about 10 years, however, the version of it which you know today really started in 2007. I admit it's being grabbed by big government conservatives who are hoping to gain from it politically, but it's truly a libertarian movement. Sarah palin speaking at tpps makes me sick. She's the biggest opportunist of them all and does not represent the tp values.

bullshit!!! Show me any of these protests prior to obama.

p-e-r-o-t

PEROT was a CANDIDATE and those are called CAMPAIGN RALLIES!

 

[slackjawed]

\
The Tea Parties did not exist while George Bush ran up a $5 Trillion deficit.

It has existed in one form or another for about 10 years, however, the version of it which you know today really started in 2007. I admit it's being grabbed by big government Conservatives who are hoping to gain from it politically, but it's truly a libertarian movement. Sarah Palin speaking at TPPs makes me sick. She's the biggest opportunist of them all and does NOT represent the TP values.

BULLSHIT!!! Show me ANY of these protests prior to Obama.

Nader, Perot, Baldwin, Badnarik, brown, Marrou ect, the list goes on and on.
Just because you were only paying attention to the two candidates in the past elections doesn't mean they were not there.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

It has existed in one form or another for about 10 years, however, the version of it which you know today really started in 2007. I admit it's being grabbed by big government Conservatives who are hoping to gain from it politically, but it's truly a libertarian movement. Sarah Palin speaking at TPPs makes me sick. She's the biggest opportunist of them all and does NOT represent the TP values.

BULLSHIT!!! Show me ANY of these protests prior to Obama.

Nader, Perot, Baldwin, Badnarik, brown, Marrou ect, the list goes on and on.
Just because you were only paying attention to the two candidates in the past elections doesn't mean they were not there.

Other than Perot how did those guys do in the election. 1% .5% give me a BREAK they are not even close to this ASTRO TURF "movment" Perot had a genuine GRASS ROOTS movement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perot was not a historical antecedent to the Teabaggers. That is revisionism of the worst sort.

 

[slackjawed]

BULLSHIT!!! Show me ANY of these protests prior to Obama.

Nader, Perot, Baldwin, Badnarik, brown, Marrou ect, the list goes on and on.
Just because you were only paying attention to the two candidates in the past elections doesn't mean they were not there.

Other than Perot how did those guys do in the election. 1% .5% give me a BREAK they are not even close to this ASTRO TURF "movment" Perot had a genuine GRASS ROOTS movement.

Most of us that voted for any of the above candidates knew they could not win- it was a protest vote.
How the Tea Party does in the elections remains to be seen. As much attention as they are getting, it appears a sure thing they will make a difference.
The ridicule will only serve to strengthen the movement. Keep it up, it helps to galvanize people against the miserable two party system full of crooks.
I would be surprised if many incumbents are elected to congress next year. I Think it will be due to the Tea Party.

 

[slackjawed]

i realized there is a more current example of a third party candidate. Joe Lieberman. When his own party wanted to ditch him in the primaries he dropped them and ran as an independent-and won.
Before the election, on here and most places in general, among the party faithful, Joe was washed up, finished, not to be taken seriously.
How did that work out for the Democrats?

 

[slackjawed]

i realized there is a more current example of a third party candidate. Joe Lieberman. When his own party wanted to ditch him in the primaries he dropped them and ran as an independent-and won.
Before the election, on here and most places in general, among the party faithful, Joe was washed up, finished, not to be taken seriously.
How did that work out for the Democrats?

 

[Bfgrn]

The party that opposed civil rights, the guys carrying those signs during the early 1960's who were opposed to desegregation were Democrats.
During the early 1960's, most blacks that voted (were allowed to vote) were republicans.
Propaganda alert.

In Washington, there was no such thing as a southern Republican in the 1960's...do you really believe southern conservatives were for civil rights? You need to learn human nature...

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

 

[slackjawed]

The party that opposed civil rights, the guys carrying those signs during the early 1960's who were opposed to desegregation were Democrats.
During the early 1960's, most blacks that voted (were allowed to vote) were republicans.
Propaganda alert.

In Washington, there was no such thing as a southern Republican in the 1960's...do you really believe southern conservatives were for civil rights? You need to learn human nature...

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

As i was pointing out that parties change, and that in the past the two party system wasn't full of partisan parrots like now, I appreciate the help in making my point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both parties have always had their parrots. What alternate univerise do you inhabit, slackjawed.

 

[slackjawed]

Jake taht is true, imo. Since it became easier to spread propaganda, it seems to be more pronounced.
What's the problem with working against it?

 

[Samson]

Perot was not a historical antecedent to the Teabaggers. That is revisionism of the worst sort.

No?

Why not?

I don't view the current political goals of the TPP as any different than Perot's Reform Party: In 1992, he emerged as an independent candidate for president, expressing serious concern over the national debt. In 1995 Perot founded a new national political party, the Reform party, as an alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Ahh, so now the Democrats who opposed slavery and civil rights were actually Republicans. Keep em coming............

 

[noose4]

Ahh, so now the Democrats who opposed slavery and civil rights were actually Republicans. Keep em coming............

well the Democrats who opposed slavery were not Republican but the ones who opposed civil rights became republicans after the President from the Democratic party passed the civil rights act of 1964.