Why the tea party movement is so frightening...

[Wicked Jester]

Gslack, they are so negative about the tea partiers because they abjectly fear them. They fear what happened with Brown. They know that this isn't just a flash in the pan movement. They fear the fact that so many people don't support their beloved messiah. They fear the fact that they are calling Obama out for his abject failures, and the insane direction he wants to take this great country. But the real fear comes from the fact that they are beginning to realize that they ignorantly bought into that hopey changey bullshit, and nothings changed. They were sucked in by an empty suit with nothing more than sappy assed campaign slogans, and no experience whatsoever. Their lives are no better with that asshat in office, and they know it........LMAO!

I find these lil' douchbags amusing. The way they express their fear is comical. Particulalrly that VA yank douchebag. His fear of Palin and the tea partiers is palpable and downright funny!

 

[Mr Natural]

Frightening, no.

Amusing, yes.

 

[Samson]

I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:

1) The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.

2) Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states. When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.

3) The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever. And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.

Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans. Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.

A playground is more difficult to build today than it was.

But I'm surprised that a third party wouldn't really be EASIER to build.

1. Obviously the Dems & Republicans don't want competition, but they've never been less popular

2. Why shouldn't it be easy to raise money? More people today have cable TV and internet, and I, for example, know more about growing "upside-down tomatos" than people could have ever imagined 20 years ago! Hell, I may even BUY ONE.

3. Media...pttthhhhhhhhhhhh......becomming less and less influential every time a toddler learns to log-on to the internet.

No, there will be some major changes in store for Dems & Repubs, either in 2012, 2016, 2020......We're just seeing the begining of the results of a modern (internet based, traditional media-independent political movement). No longer will representatives be shipped off to Washington to chase skirts and make backroom deals without answering for them THE SAME HOUR as consituants demand active representation.

I hope there will be major changes and major reforms within all political parties. Never has the country more desperately needed that.

But it is harder for a non-Democrat or Republican to raise money because they don't have the big, experienced,and well tested political machines the major political parties have, and therefore they don't have the connections to the big money donors that the major political parties have. Why do people give really big donations to political parties or candidates? There are exceptions, but for the most part it is not out of some noble ideological purpose. It is to have a foot in the door and the ear of those in power.

Few big money donors will take a chance on an unknown quantity. There are literally dozens of registered political parties in the United States, but most people have never heard of most of them, and even the more familiar ones are not considered viable in anything other than really local elections.

And don't shortsell the media influence either. Given the deplorable lack of curiosity re the issues and credentials of the candidates by so many of the electorate, name recognition and star appeal has become as important as anything else. The media may be in low esteem these days, but they still have the power to get the names and photos out there. And they can word headlines, pose photos, and cast the names into short impresssions that do color how the people feel about those candidates.

Those of us who actually do study the candidates and the issues are not as easily manipulated. But alas, I fear far too many are.

Out of Deperate Need, comes Desperate Measures.

I'd agree with you, IF Dems or Repubs were doing a great job, for ANYONE, but who would give money to such baffons?

Who wouldn't consider a possibly better investment opportunity?

Obviously TV media hasn't disappeared (as is the Vanishing Newspaper). But you neglected to mention that CABLE is the medium: Inexpensive, and wider-spread each day.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obviously TV media hasn't disappeared (as is the Vanishing Newspaper). But you neglected to mention that CABLE is the medium: Inexpensive, and wider-spread each day.

I consider Cable as media so that is certainly part of it. In fact, I suspect that most households have cable or direct TV or dish network or some such and don't depend on the free networks only for all TV content. But with the exception of Fox News, cable generally doesn't pull as many viewers as the free networks do. Therefore ads may be more affordable on cable only stations but it is necessary to advertise or appear on many more of them to reach the same audience as the free networks can claim.

Either way, running a campaign to reach and influence many millions of voters across a broad, diverse area is going to be costly.

 

[Samson]

Obviously TV media hasn't disappeared (as is the Vanishing Newspaper). But you neglected to mention that CABLE is the medium: Inexpensive, and wider-spread each day.

I consider Cable as media so that is certainly part of it. In fact, I suspect that most households have cable or direct TV or dish network or some such and don't depend on the free networks only for all TV content. But with the exception of Fox News, cable generally doesn't pull as many viewers as the free networks do. Therefore ads may be more affordable on cable only stations but it is necessary to advertise or appear on many more of them to reach the same audience as the free networks can claim.

Either way, running a campaign to reach and influence many millions of voters across a broad, diverse area is going to be costly.

Sure it will.

But, its cheaper per capita than its ever been in history.

 

[geauxtohell]

Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?

It's basic comparative poli-sci. Our election system is "winner takes all" which means whoever wins gets all the chips with no mandate to share it with other parties. So there are only winners and losers. Parliamentary systems are based around power sharing where parties are allotted seats based on their percentage of the vote. That's why the United States has always had a two party system. Even when one goes away (i.e. the Federalists) another one steps in to take it's place. However, if you look at the parliamentarian systems in Europe, you'll see several parties that have seats in parliament. There still tends to be two dominant parties, but there are other real options for people who don't like either the labor or Torie party (for example in England).

I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?

See the above. If you win, you get all the marbles. That means there is little chance for an outside party to establish itself. Even if they do, it's usually to the detriment of another party that is going extinct.

If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.

It's more than the media. It's the system. People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party. However, the truth is America is a center-right nation. That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election. Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap. Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.

Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?

It's not, but the end result is that it would just push out one of the other parties and we would again have a two party system. I mean, this is nothing new under the Sun. There is a reason why this nation has generally had two parties since it's inception.

Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.

See above. Again, it's not the ideas. It's the way our system is configured.

Believe me, this isn't just me spouting off my opinion. It's just basic poli-sci (though it's been a decade since I've taken comparative poli-sci).

 

[Foxfyre]

It's more than the media. It's the system. People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party. However, the truth is America is a center-right nation. That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election. Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap. Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.

No it isn't. Just a few points of the Libertarian (big "L") platform in recent years:
--Oppose the death penalty (this would not be the position of many Tea Partiers or libertarians (little "L").

--Legalize all drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, suicide. Many, probably most members of both major parties would oppose no regulation at all on these things and Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") are out to reform the worst excesses of government but are not gung ho to completely rewrite the cultural social contract.

--No US intervention the affairs of other countries. I think a lot of Tea Partiers remember the Cuban missile crisis or understand the implications of nuclear weapons, etc. in the hands of a crazy man. They did not and would not oppose forcing a Saddam Hussein to relinquish illegal seizure of Kuwait who had done no harm to Iraq or preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields by force which he was poised to do. Meddling where it isn't any of our business should not be U.S. policy. But preventing madmen from creating intolerable situations on earth could of necessity involve us. What, for instance, would have been the consequences of allowing Hitler to continue unimpeded? How many more innocent Jews and others would have paid the price for us 'minding our own business'? What would that have ultimately cost us?

Abolish all trade agreements. I think most Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") do support free, unimpeded markets. But I think most would want to look long and hard as to whether no treaties or trade agreements are ever appropriate before just saying 'no'.

Repeal all gun control regulation including restrictions on any form of weapons. I think many Tea Partiers would want to look closely at this one too. I think they would think letting Uncle Billy, who gets drunk and stupid every weekend, have a fully armed Bradley Tank in his back yard would be a bad idea.

Repeal all restrictions on immigration. Of all Libertarian (big "L") concepts, this one is most strongly opposed by Tea Partiers and probably most Americans.

So it is little wonder that Libertarians (big "L"), who are very different animals from your average Tea Partier, don't attract a lot of support. When you look at how the Tea Partiers and their very sensible and reasonable emphasis are demonized, it isn't difficult to make the average Libertarian look like a crazed fanatic even when most are anything but that.

 

[geauxtohell]

It's more than the media. It's the system. People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party. However, the truth is America is a center-right nation. That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election. Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap. Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.

No it isn't. Just a few points of the Libertarian (big "L") platform in recent years:
--Oppose the death penalty (this would not be the position of many Tea Partiers or libertarians (little "L").

--Legalize all drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, suicide. Many, probably most members of both major parties would oppose no regulation at all on these things and Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") are out to reform the worst excesses of government but are not gung ho to completely rewrite the cultural social contract.

--No US intervention the affairs of other countries. I think a lot of Tea Partiers remember the Cuban missile crisis or understand the implications of nuclear weapons, etc. in the hands of a crazy man. They did not and would not oppose forcing a Saddam Hussein to relinquish illegal seizure of Kuwait who had done no harm to Iraq or preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields by force which he was poised to do. Meddling where it isn't any of our business should not be U.S. policy. But preventing madmen from creating intolerable situations on earth could of necessity involve us. What, for instance, would have been the consequences of allowing Hitler to continue unimpeded? How many more innocent Jews and others would have paid the price for us 'minding our own business'? What would that have ultimately cost us?

Abolish all trade agreements. I think most Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") do support free, unimpeded markets. But I think most would want to look long and hard as to whether no treaties or trade agreements are ever appropriate before just saying 'no'.

Repeal all gun control regulation including restrictions on any form of weapons. I think many Tea Partiers would want to look closely at this one too. I think they would think letting Uncle Billy, who gets drunk and stupid every weekend, have a fully armed Bradley Tank in his back yard would be a bad idea.

Repeal all restrictions on immigration. Of all Libertarian (big "L") concepts, this one is most strongly opposed by Tea Partiers and probably most Americans.

So it is little wonder that Libertarians (big "L"), who are very different animals from your average Tea Partier, don't attract a lot of support. When you look at how the Tea Partiers and their very sensible and reasonable emphasis are demonized, it isn't difficult to make the average Libertarian look like a crazed fanatic even when most are anything but that.

Again, if the Libertarian Party became wildly popular overnight, they would just end up displacing the GOP or the DEMS.

The problem I see with the LP is this: Their platform spans both parties and cuts across some of their core issues.

For example, most DEMS have no problem with the LP's social platform, but have issue with it's economic platform and vice versa for the GOP.

Couple that up with the fact that the GOP has defined itself by social issues and it's easy to see why there has been a lack of traction.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's more than the media. It's the system. People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party. However, the truth is America is a center-right nation. That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election. Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap. Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.

No it isn't. Just a few points of the Libertarian (big "L") platform in recent years:
--Oppose the death penalty (this would not be the position of many Tea Partiers or libertarians (little "L").

--Legalize all drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, suicide. Many, probably most members of both major parties would oppose no regulation at all on these things and Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") are out to reform the worst excesses of government but are not gung ho to completely rewrite the cultural social contract.

--No US intervention the affairs of other countries. I think a lot of Tea Partiers remember the Cuban missile crisis or understand the implications of nuclear weapons, etc. in the hands of a crazy man. They did not and would not oppose forcing a Saddam Hussein to relinquish illegal seizure of Kuwait who had done no harm to Iraq or preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields by force which he was poised to do. Meddling where it isn't any of our business should not be U.S. policy. But preventing madmen from creating intolerable situations on earth could of necessity involve us. What, for instance, would have been the consequences of allowing Hitler to continue unimpeded? How many more innocent Jews and others would have paid the price for us 'minding our own business'? What would that have ultimately cost us?

Abolish all trade agreements. I think most Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") do support free, unimpeded markets. But I think most would want to look long and hard as to whether no treaties or trade agreements are ever appropriate before just saying 'no'.

Repeal all gun control regulation including restrictions on any form of weapons. I think many Tea Partiers would want to look closely at this one too. I think they would think letting Uncle Billy, who gets drunk and stupid every weekend, have a fully armed Bradley Tank in his back yard would be a bad idea.

Repeal all restrictions on immigration. Of all Libertarian (big "L") concepts, this one is most strongly opposed by Tea Partiers and probably most Americans.

So it is little wonder that Libertarians (big "L"), who are very different animals from your average Tea Partier, don't attract a lot of support. When you look at how the Tea Partiers and their very sensible and reasonable emphasis are demonized, it isn't difficult to make the average Libertarian look like a crazed fanatic even when most are anything but that.

Again, if the Libertarian Party became wildly popular overnight, they would just end up displacing the GOP or the DEMS.

The problem I see with the LP is this: Their platform spans both parties and cuts across some of their core issues.

For example, most DEMS have no problem with the LP's social platform, but have issue with it's economic platform and vice versa for the GOP.

Couple that up with the fact that the GOP has defined itself by social issues and it's easy to see why there has been a lack of traction.

You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues? I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.

The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights. The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.

And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.

 

[Samson]

And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.

Really?

Why do you think that?

 

[Foxfyre]

And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.

Really?

Why do you think that?

Because right now even John McCain is talking the talk. I suspect it's temporary though as he has a tough time stepping out of character and being tough on immigration is waaaay out of character for him.

But I can't imagine any Republican, even the most obvious Rinos, ever agreeing to take down the borders and allow anybody and everybody to come and go at will. Can you?

 

[Maple]

The tea party people are the most educated group of people watching this election. They are thoroughly informed and educated on the candidates and the issues. Many are constitutional scholars. I know, I am a tea partier and a Republican state delegate. In my state of Colorado app 50% of the 6,500 were new to the process, most of them tea partiers who have decided to take the Republican party back to it's roots of fiscal conservatism and individual liberty and responsibility.

We rocked the assembly by voting Ken Buck for United States senate with 77% of the vote. Jane Norton, Washington insider, is having to petition to be on the ballot, she could not beat Ken at the assembly. That was the tea party that was responsible for this vote.

Another vote, Dan Maes, was the major under-dog, a small business man, won by a small number, and beat the national news favorite Scott McGinnis a former congressman. Dan is the favorite of the tea party. Dan and Scott are running for governor.

The news media has it wrong---including Fox News.

The senate election will not be between Senator Bennet and Jane Norton it will be Ken Buck and Romanoff. Democrat Romanoff won at the Democratic state assembly- both Bennet( we call him the accidental senator) and Norton are having to petition to be on the ballot. The tea party is the reason for this. We do not want any more Washington insiders, we want true conservatives, who have worked, had to see how business runs from the inside out. As Dan Maes puts it, " I have signed both sides of a paycheck." Ken Buck's statement is. " I have no friends in Washington and I won't have any when I leave."

Those are real fiscal conservative people running, not career politicians, the tea party is taking the Republican party back one state at a time, and beleive me we will get out the vote this November.

 

[Foxfyre]

I hope you're right that they are now committed to retake and reform the GOP Maple. We've been going back and forth in New Mexico and Texas as to whether the GOP is a lost cause and the time is ripe to generate that third viable party.

The fear of course is that it will so split the conservative vote that we put the liberal Democrats into power for perpetuity. And I think New Mexico and Texas are both coming around to that point of view too.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?

Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.

I believe it's because there are no current "third political party members" in congress to be courted and bought by contributors, therefore, there is no money to campaign and the third party gets lost.

Most third party candidates have been unable to generate the kind of money it takes to become known nationally. During debates on national tv, how many candidates from other parties are invited? So, I believe the media is partially responsible for the two-party system, however, I believe apathy is just as responsible.

Which brings me to OP question - why the fear? Because the apathy is dissolving and people are breaking away from group thought. Tea Party members are typically not part of a "groupthink" movement, they seem to be all over the board (which I believe another poster said), and that they have no coherent platform. So the fear is that we are questioning .......... "EVERYTHING". And, contrary to another poster wanting them to have a leader .... I hope they never do, because, so far, there are no leaders to be corrupted or demonized by the media and politicians.

 

[gslack]

I think the entire thing can be simplified even further... There is no legitimate 3rd party because most people have already been herded into their acceptable boxes. The stragglers are either being conformed through an apparent lack of realistic options, continued pressure from peers and media to pick an acceptable side, or simply dying off because the education system does not reward thinking but only following an accepted process laid before them.

The fact is some states if you register as an independent you cannot vote in primaries, and in most cases a registered independent is barred from party caucuses and conventions. This means your choices are already limited at the start. This is not true for all states but enough of them to make a serious limitation in options for a great many Americans. And if this were not enough take into account the electoral college and then see the limitations...

This government wants two parties, and as time goes on we will see all other options dry up. Do you really think its a coincidence Hollywood pushes politics in their films and TV so often these days? The media quietly vilify all non-conformists as crazies and worse, at every chance they get and no one seems to think its odd...

Bottom line if you vote liberal democrat these days, and your candidate wins; you will not get a liberal democrat but a progressive centrist... Its a fact look at Clinton and Obama... And by that same factor if you choose a conservative republican these days you will not get anything like that in the end. Bush was elected on the belief he was a conservative, but his policies and actions were anything but a conservative...

This is no accident.... As soon as a president is elected he is very quickly made aware of what will happen and where the lines are. He has some leeway but on major decisions and policies he is a puppet. Sure he can push for some of his political promises but only so long as they do not interfere with the status quo too greatly. if they do he is quickly put back in line or he suddenly finds himself with less and less support. its not a coincidence or happenstance; its a natural and well known effect of government that wishes to remain in power..

The UN likes it a certain way, the corporations like it a certain way, the banks like it a certain way, the tech, science, and medical fields like it a certain way and somewhere after all those are the people the government was built to protect and work for. You cannot ever think to get all of them to agree on anything. And trying to screw them will get you nowhere fast. So what do you think a government will do? THey will placate them as much as they can and create watered down laws with loop-holes and other nonsense to allow those at the top to manipulate their way through any uncomfortable laws. This keeps all those important to the function and well-being of government to remain pleased enough to help out...

If it were as simple as a third party choice based on merit, it would be easy. But thats not the case at all......

 

[fyrenza]

Why the tea party movement is so frightening...

Wow.

'cuz they just want to think and DO for themselves, with LESS gov involvement?

'cuz they understand that if YOU don't actively make the effort to feed yourself, they aren't responsible for your sorry ass?

There isn't an acronym for this, YET, but:

Too Stoopid, Didn't Read.

 

[rdean]

History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen. Look at Russia and China. Perfect examples.

 

[chanel]

Yes. Look at Russia and China. And Cuba, Venezuela, Greece...

Fortunately, the tea party doesn't idolize those governments like the America haters do. Did anyone see our asst Secretary of State's comments to China about the AZ law? Posner should resign immediately.

 

[The Infidel]

History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen. Look at Russia and China. Perfect examples.

The problem with your comment is, it does'nt describe the "Tea Party" folks at all.... Lots of them are just everyday common people who have never really been involved in politics and are expressing their anger and contempt for the sudden and extreme turn to the left our gov't has taken in the last couple of years.
I dont consider myself a "tea partier" b/c I have been screaming at Washington DC since around 2004 or so... maybe even before that.
Bush is the reason we have Obama, and "the people" who were promised change are seeing nothing but politics as usual and they are sick of it!

I dont see poor uneducated and terribly frightened people... I see middle class moms and dads who are watching the gov't flush their children and grandchildrens future right down pooper.... Thats what pisses me off the most. My kids are in debt to the tune of trillions of $$$ and I see no end to the spending spree.

 

[gslack]

History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen. Look at Russia and China. Perfect examples.

So then Jefferson, Adams, and all the rest were the poor and uneducated as well I suppose? They were part of a group that was pretty much feeling the same way.... When we had our first tea party in this country, there was a massive destruction of British property in the dumping of the tea into the harbor. Have there even been any acts of vandalism anywhere near that directly related to a tea party?

You generalize this like that and call people uneducated who participate or support the tea parties, yet you fail to realize the truly uneducated tend to follow the status quo rather than oppose it.....