'Would the Tea Party Exist....'

[Foxfyre]

I think it is convenient for the left to view the Tea Party as a GOP creation. Which I don't think it is. It is also convenient for the GOP to view it that way, as they try to coat-tail to the extent the Tea Party gets traction.

It is undeniable, though, that the average tea party person is more likely to share GOP views than Dem views, although I know a few Dems who are part of the tea party locally.

If McCain had one, who knows what would have happened with the tea party. On the one hand, McCain and even Bush are not people who govern in the ways the tea partiers profess to want, so you could still see the movement come about. But on the other hand, it takes a certain amount of 'critical mass' to get people motivated and to turn out for something like the tea party events, particularly those members who haven't been politically active before. Even if those same people didn't like McCain, there may not have been enough dislike or concern for people to show up to tea party events.

You're right that the GOP had absolutely nothing, zero, zip nada to do with the organization and creation of the Tea Parties. In fact many GOP leaders initially turned up their noses in disdain and criticized the Tea Partiers. At least they did until they realized how popular the Tea Parties were becoming among much of their base and they they were scrambling like mad to get on board. Hypocrisy is not limited to the Democrats for sure.

I would guess maybe the largest group among our local Tea Party rallies has been registered Republicans, but I think they were only a plurality and not a majority. The Independents and Democrats and others together most likely made up the majority. We were not in any way interested in party affiliations or anything else among those who participated. We wanted people there who shared the primary Tea Party goals of smaller, more effective limited federal government, less oppressive taxes, and appreciation for the intent of the Constitution.

 

[boedicca]

If the Tea Party actually existed, if Tea Party People truly had the courage of their convictions, if the Tea Party wasn’t merely a PR gimmick – then we’d see Chuck DeVore running in the Tea Party. "

What if You Held a Tea Party and Nobody Came? - Robert J. Elisberg - Open Salon

Dude, you're confusing the Tea Party with the Coffee Party.

The Coffee Party is the one with no partiers.

 

[Steerpike]

I think it is convenient for the left to view the Tea Party as a GOP creation. Which I don't think it is. It is also convenient for the GOP to view it that way, as they try to coat-tail to the extent the Tea Party gets traction.

It is undeniable, though, that the average tea party person is more likely to share GOP views than Dem views, although I know a few Dems who are part of the tea party locally.

If McCain had one, who knows what would have happened with the tea party. On the one hand, McCain and even Bush are not people who govern in the ways the tea partiers profess to want, so you could still see the movement come about. But on the other hand, it takes a certain amount of 'critical mass' to get people motivated and to turn out for something like the tea party events, particularly those members who haven't been politically active before. Even if those same people didn't like McCain, there may not have been enough dislike or concern for people to show up to tea party events.

You're right that the GOP had absolutely nothing, zero, zip nada to do with the organization and creation of the Tea Parties. In fact many GOP leaders initially turned up their noses in disdain and criticized the Tea Partiers. At least they did until they realized how popular the Tea Parties were becoming among much of their base and they they were scrambling like mad to get on board. Hypocrisy is not limited to the Democrats for sure.

I would guess maybe the largest group among our local Tea Party rallies has been registered Republicans, but I think they were only a plurality and not a majority. The Independents and Democrats and others together most likely made up the majority. We were not in any way interested in party affiliations or anything else among those who participated. We wanted people there who shared the primary Tea Party goals of smaller, more effective limited federal government, less oppressive taxes, and appreciation for the intent of the Constitution.

Yeah, the largest group here are Republicans as well. But Dems and Independents are involved as well. At one rally, a Democrat was one of the speakers. It probably differs a bit from place to place, since a lot of these groups are local-area grassroots in origin. I'm sure some such rallys have been put together by people involved with the GOP establishment, but I don't think that's what happens in most cases, and it isn't what happened at the outset (and you're right about GOPers turning up their noses at the outset).

 

[daveman]

If the Tea Party actually existed, if Tea Party People truly had the courage of their convictions, if the Tea Party wasn’t merely a PR gimmick – then we’d see Chuck DeVore running in the Tea Party. "

What if You Held a Tea Party and Nobody Came? - Robert J. Elisberg - Open Salon

Dude, you're confusing the Tea Party with the Coffee Party.

The Coffee Party is the one with no partiers.

 

[johnrocks]

I think it would still exist but on a much smaller "Ron Paul/Libertarian scale" that it did prior to the election.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes, the TEA party movement would still have developed if McCain had won.

McCain is no fiscal Conservative. And that is really what the TEA Party movement is all about.

It's not GOP, but fiscal Conservatism. It's the Independent candidate's dream .... so long as that Independent is fiscally conservative.

Odd, we had eight years of deficit spending and they didn't emerge from the woodwork. PAYGO was allowed to expire, deficit-financed wars were started, deficit-financed entitlements were created, deficit-financed tax cuts were passed, deficit-financed "doc fixes" to the SGR formula were begun. Legislation curtailing civil liberties was passed, and executive action infringing on the Fourth Amendment was revealed. The largest expansion of the federal government in decades took place when a massive new cabinet-level bureaucracy was created. And they did nothing, not even so much as changing their voting pattern (which, despite your protestations, is obvious).

If they were about fiscal conservatism and smaller government, they would've emerged when fiscal conservatism was abandoned almost a decade ago.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, the TEA party movement would still have developed if McCain had won.

McCain is no fiscal Conservative. And that is really what the TEA Party movement is all about.

It's not GOP, but fiscal Conservatism. It's the Independent candidate's dream .... so long as that Independent is fiscally conservative.

Odd, we had eight years of deficit spending and they didn't emerge from the woodwork. PAYGO was allowed to expire, deficit-financed wars were started, deficit-financed entitlements were created, deficit-financed tax cuts were passed, deficit-financed "doc fixes" to the SGR formula were begun. Legislation curtailing civil liberties was passed, and executive action infringing on the Fourth Amendment was revealed. The largest expansion of the federal government in decades took place when a massive new cabinet-level bureaucracy was created. And they did nothing, not even so much as changing their voting pattern (which, despite your protestations, is obvious).

If they were about fiscal conservatism and smaller government, they would've emerged when fiscal conservatism was abandoned almost a decade ago.

Except that up until mid 2008, pretty much full employment had been achieved, inflation was under control, interest rates were low, the economy was rocking right along, and the deficts were coming down, down, down. If the housing bubble had not burst in 2008, the budget was on track to be balanced again within a year or two. That is not the sort of scenario that triggers major movements among the people.

It took extreme legislation, the looming prospect of taxes and regulation that the vast majority of the people do not want, and trillion dollar deficits to mobilize the Tea Parties. Personally, I think anybody who loves their freedoms and the traditional American way of life would have to appreciate that.

 

[Greenbeard]

Except that up until mid 2008, pretty much full employment had been achieved, inflation was under control, interest rates were low, the economy was rocking right along, and the deficts were coming down, down, down.

Thank you for making my point. These people aren't principled opponents of larger government or deficit-spending. We agree that they don't give a shit about those things, not as long as they've got bread and circuses. We're slowly coming out of a deep recession and they're angry and afraid and, luckily for them, the other party is now in charge and makes an easy target for their rage.

Their "movement" will disappear as the economy recovers, regardless of what policies are or aren't proposed and implemented.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, the TEA party movement would still have developed if McCain had won.

McCain is no fiscal Conservative. And that is really what the TEA Party movement is all about.

It's not GOP, but fiscal Conservatism. It's the Independent candidate's dream .... so long as that Independent is fiscally conservative.

Odd, we had eight years of deficit spending and they didn't emerge from the woodwork. PAYGO was allowed to expire, deficit-financed wars were started, deficit-financed entitlements were created, deficit-financed tax cuts were passed, deficit-financed "doc fixes" to the SGR formula were begun. Legislation curtailing civil liberties was passed, and executive action infringing on the Fourth Amendment was revealed. The largest expansion of the federal government in decades took place when a massive new cabinet-level bureaucracy was created. And they did nothing, not even so much as changing their voting pattern (which, despite your protestations, is obvious).

If they were about fiscal conservatism and smaller government, they would've emerged when fiscal conservatism was abandoned almost a decade ago.

Except that up until mid 2008, pretty much full employment had been achieved, inflation was under control, interest rates were low, the economy was rocking right along, and the deficts were coming down, down, down. If the housing bubble had not burst in 2008, the budget was on track to be balanced again within a year or two. That is not the sort of scenario that triggers major movements among the people.

It took extreme legislation, the looming prospect of taxes and regulation that the vast majority of the people do not want, and trillion dollar deficits to mobilize the Tea Parties. Personally, I think anybody who loves their freedoms and the traditional American way of life would have to appreciate that.

Defecits were coming down down down in 2008?????

 

[blu]

the real conservatives were in the tea party when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop

 

[Foxfyre]

Odd, we had eight years of deficit spending and they didn't emerge from the woodwork. PAYGO was allowed to expire, deficit-financed wars were started, deficit-financed entitlements were created, deficit-financed tax cuts were passed, deficit-financed "doc fixes" to the SGR formula were begun. Legislation curtailing civil liberties was passed, and executive action infringing on the Fourth Amendment was revealed. The largest expansion of the federal government in decades took place when a massive new cabinet-level bureaucracy was created. And they did nothing, not even so much as changing their voting pattern (which, despite your protestations, is obvious).

If they were about fiscal conservatism and smaller government, they would've emerged when fiscal conservatism was abandoned almost a decade ago.

Except that up until mid 2008, pretty much full employment had been achieved, inflation was under control, interest rates were low, the economy was rocking right along, and the deficts were coming down, down, down. If the housing bubble had not burst in 2008, the budget was on track to be balanced again within a year or two. That is not the sort of scenario that triggers major movements among the people.

It took extreme legislation, the looming prospect of taxes and regulation that the vast majority of the people do not want, and trillion dollar deficits to mobilize the Tea Parties. Personally, I think anybody who loves their freedoms and the traditional American way of life would have to appreciate that.

Defecits were coming down down down in 2008?????

Until the housing bubble began to collapse, yes they were.

This graph was put out in March 2009 using CBO numbers as projected by the CBO and Obama administrations. Because there is no way to project the numbers with pinpoint accuracy, the actual numbers have been some off, but the dramatic differences have come to be just as predicted. The Bush numbers nobody has quibbled with to date.

It all started unraveling in late spring 2008, continued over the summer and then collapsed triggering the bipartisan TARP rescue attempt. As you can see even the Obama administration projected deficits worse than the worst of the 2008 deficit for as far as we can see. Take Afghanistan and Iraq out of the Bush graph and you essentially have balanced budgets except for the short recession triggered by 9/11. And take the almost $400 billion of TARP money spent out of 2008 and it wouldn't look so bad either.

We aren't being shown projected deficits now that the healthcare legislation passed, but I'm guessing that once that and other unpopular legislation kicks in, Obama's really unacceptable projections as well as the reality are going to be much much worse.

The last I saw, they are projecting a 1.47 TRILLION dollar deficit for this year which is worse than their estimate from last year but I don't think last year's deficit was quite as bad as the projection--maybe close to this year's deficit?

 

[uscitizen]

the real conservatives were in the tea party when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop

when was the current tea party founded? I thought it was late 2008/early 2009?

 

[Foxfyre]

the real conservatives were in the tea party when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop

when was the current tea party founded? I thought it was late 2008/early 2009?

No I don't think so. Everybody was pretty incensed about TARP in late 2008 thinking that was really REALLY a dumb move, but they were still deciding whether to let the government convince them it was the right thing to do when Congress and Obama hit them with that pork laden appropriations bill that infuriated them further and then the stimulus package was absolutely the last straw. So the Tea Parties started revving up in late winter/early spring 2009 and has been further fueled by still more idiocies coming from our fearless leaders.

The Obama Administration and the current Congress, if they wanted to calm everybody down, have done a really good job so far to keep them angry, focused, and revved up. There is no "Tea Party" as such but just grass roots 'tea party" activists springing up in communities all across the land though they are now forming into something approaching an organization. It's been a fascinating thing to watch.

 

[blu]

the real conservatives were in the tea party when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop

when was the current tea party founded? I thought it was late 2008/early 2009?

ron paul started them in 2003 or so

 

[uscitizen]

the real conservatives were in the tea party when bush was president. the neo & social cons only joined once obama won. they are the sheep to the gop

when was the current tea party founded? I thought it was late 2008/early 2009?

ron paul started them in 2003 or so

Yeah but that was only 15 members, that is just a cult.

 

[midcan5]

Thank you for making my point. These people aren't principled opponents of larger government or deficit-spending. We agree that they don't give a shit about those things, not as long as they've got bread and circuses. We're slowly coming out of a deep recession and they're angry and afraid and, luckily for them, the other party is now in charge and makes an easy target for their rage.

Their "movement" will disappear as the economy recovers, regardless of what policies are or aren't proposed and implemented.

Exactly. Any reading of history often bewilders because it is as if nothing is new under the sun.

 

[Intense]

"Actually, there is no alienation that a little power will not cure." Eric Hoffer

Would the tea party exist if McCain had won? No, it would not. Even a leading tea party organizer admitted that aspect of the organization on Chris Matthews. So why? If you ask a tea party sympathizer they would tell you because McCain would be different. Of course he would be different, he would be a republican. Is that the only difference. The tea partier would of course say no.

So we know there would be no tea party if the republicans had won. That much is clear. If the tea party were a legitimate grass roots organization concerned with government and debt they would have attacked George W. Bush. They did not. So then next question, how is Obama different from Bush Jr? Well, he is not different in any fundamental way. Obama's policies so far differ nada with Bush Jr. OK then, why and whither the tea party?

Some would argue there are big differences between Obama and Bush, but a comparison so far is minimal. The difference is not real but created by the right after the loss of the presidency. Why? A simple reply would be if you think your ideology the right one, any change conflicts and confuses. Defining that ideology would be a challenge.

Jump back in that way-back machine for a moment to William Jefferson Clinton's election. Does anything seem the same? What is different? Hillary and Bill met the same anguished and resolute opposition, they were accused of the same socialism. Hillary was pilloried as beyond evil, often as the devil herself. Why? And what has changed. Eight more years of republican governance and power. Add more corporate money for think tanks, books, and other various propaganda and you have the makings of today.

Then there is the complex issue of race. Racists run from the label racist, only the skinheads actually admit their racism. Of course they will tell you they are protecting their race. For the tea party, racism exists at the fringes, but common foes always provide for an assorted group of odd bedfellows.

A great irony of the tea party is fact they appear mainstream and basically comfortable with their perks as baby boomers, social security recipients, and medicare participants. All the so called socialism they presumably are against provides them great comfort.

So who is their Marx, their Mao, because all movements of this sort have leaders. This is a question that deserves a study in mass movements. I would surely name Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and many conservative and corporate think tanks, web sites, and blogs as their leader, or at least instigator. The run-up to the election was filled with the worst vitriol, and had the republicans under Bush not failed so badly, or even selected a change candidate - is that possible - the election may have been different.

Would the tea party exist if the republicans had won? The human mind often lives a narrative that is pure fantasy. Conservative media provided and provides that fantasy. If only things were different all would be well. If only someone else was in charge. It is the power of mass movements and mass hypnosis that motivates the tea party today. But it is the loss of power that motivates its leaders as it always has.


"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." Eric Hoffer

I would disagree with you in principle, Midcan. Personally I believe McCain would have taken the Country is the same direction, at a slower rate. Is it an easier end for a live Lobster if you drop it in a pot of boiling water, or slowly bring it to a boil.

Not all solutions are compatible with life in a Federalist Constitutional, Republic, Midcan. It is how we approach the problems and solutions that matter as much as the problem's themselves. When a solution compounds a situation, that is not necessarily a measure of success. What you either fail to realize or refuse to admit and address, is that the main body of Tea Party Member's are Independent's. Many of whom supported Obama in2008. Honesty is the best policy Midcan.

 

[midcan5]

...What you either fail to realize or refuse to admit and address, is that the main body of Tea Party Member's are Independent's. Many of whom supported Obama in2008. Honesty is the best policy Midcan.

"...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...."

Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The majority are republican and conservative, I am never sure what independent means in America as our two party structure makes independent simply fence sitters. based on voting I am an independent as I often vote for republicans locally. The news on the funding from billionaires would also point away from independent.


"Koch’s detractors also like to point out the irony of the so-called grassroots tea-party movement’s being funded by a billionaire. Koch’s real motives, they say, are self-serving. In April, Fang posted a dossier on Koch that attributes to his groups a decades-long pattern of “Astroturfing”—funding movements designed to look grassroots, but which in fact represent corporate interests. Richard Fink insists that Koch’s political activity is about principles, not money. “I view David as a courageous American who has a set of beliefs that he’s willing to support consistently over time despite all the flak he gets,” Fink says. “Very few people would do that.”" How Oil Heir and New York Arts Patron David Koch Became the Tea Party's Wallet -- New York Magazine

 

[Foxfyre]

Most Americans are conservative, so it makes sense that most Tea Partiers are going to be conservative or identify themselves as conservative or center right. Maybe ALL Tea Partiers are going to be conservative or center right.

But as ALL Tea Partiers support the three basic principles of the Tea Party emphasis, it stands to reason that the Tea Partiers aren't going to attract liberals who don't support those three basic princples.

Since so few Americans identify themselves as Republicans, it is likely the Tea Parties might have a plurality of Republicans but rather unlikely that a majority will be Republican. Those not identifying themselves as Republican will be conservative or center right Independents and/or Democrats.

In a Gallup poll in June this year:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.
In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals

 

[lizzie]

Would the tea party exist if McCain had won? No, it would not. Even a leading tea party organizer admitted that aspect of the organization on Chris Matthews. So why? If you ask a tea party sympathizer they would tell you because McCain would be different. Of course he would be different, he would be a republican. Is that the only difference. The tea partier would of course say no.

So we know there would be no tea party if the republicans had won. That much is clear. If the tea party were a legitimate grass roots organization concerned with government and debt they would have attacked George W. Bush. They did not. So then next question, how is Obama different from Bush Jr? Well, he is not different in any fundamental way. Obama's policies so far differ nada with Bush Jr. OK then, why and whither the tea party?

We'll never know, obviously, but it would likely depend on whether or not McCain would have continued the bailouts and heavy-handed government interventions that Obama has. Republicans were already pretty pissed that McCain signed on to the initial bailout.