Tea Parties Looking Not Looking To Follow

[Annie]

Good commentary by Jennifer Rubin. Notice too the comment about Tancredo, I agree:

Commentary Blog Archive What You’d Find at a Real Tea Party

What You’d Find at a Real Tea Party
Posted By Jennifer Rubin On February 13, 2010 @ 11:59 AM

... (”Press attention focused on Sarah Palin’s speech, which was well-received by the crowd. But the attendees I met weren’t looking to her for direction. They were hoping she would move in theirs. Right now, the tea party isn’t looking for leaders so much as leaders are looking to align themselves with the tea party.”) And these are hardly a bunch of racists, as Chris Matthews et al. would have us believe. It seems they are backing a number of African American candidates. (To echo Pete’s [2] point, Tom Tancredo does the tea partiers no favors by spouting racial venom and peddling in conspiracy theories; activists as well as elected officials would do well to reject his eagerness to “play to people’s worst instincts.”)

...

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you Jennifer Ruben, Annie? (Her stuff sounds like stuff you would write and even the style is similar.)

Seriously though, good stuff here.

Being heavily involved in the Tea Party movement myself, I know first hand how much the nay sayers are distorting and misrepresenting the message. And Jennifer is dead on balls accurate that these events are joyful, happy, fun, and inspiring as well as being focused on specifics that must be addressed and soon to preserve the America we know and love. The opposition is doing its damndest to make them into hateful, angry, racist or worse extremist radicals.

And finally she is accurate in observing that the Tea Partiers are not soliciting the establishment but rather many in the 'establishment' are doing their damndest to align with the Tea Partiers. Whenever somebody talks the talks PLUS walks the walk, they are welcomed. Of course the Tea Party opposition then accuses the Tea Partiers of blindly following such recognized figures who sign on.

But if the old saw that good triumphs over evil is true, the Tea Partiers will continue to grow in numbers and influence so long as they keep focused on the right targets.

 

[Annie]

Are you Jennifer Ruben, Annie? (Her stuff sounds like stuff you would write and even the style is similar.)

Seriously though, good stuff here.

Being heavily involved in the Tea Party movement myself, I know first hand how much the nay sayers are distorting and misrepresenting the message. And Jennifer is dead on balls accurate that these events are joyful, happy, fun, and inspiring as well as being focused on specifics that must be addressed and soon to preserve the America we know and love. The opposition is doing its damndest to make them into hateful, angry, racist or worse extremist radicals.

And finally she is accurate in observing that the Tea Partiers are not soliciting the establishment but rather many in the 'establishment' are doing their damndest to align with the Tea Partiers. Whenever somebody talks the talks PLUS walks the walk, they are welcomed. Of course the Tea Party opposition then accuses the Tea Partiers of blindly following such recognized figures who sign on.

But if the old saw that good triumphs over evil is true, the Tea Partiers will continue to grow in numbers and influence so long as they keep focused on the right targets.

Thank you, FF! I wish I wrote that well. Alas, I am good at finding things that say what I think.

 

[Intense]

Great Link. This bears repeating.




What the tea party activists do have is a well formulated set of ideas — small government, debt reduction, spending restraint, and an aversion to hurried, secret deal making. It is an agenda that is resonating with conservatives and independent voters who see the opposite behavior in Washington.

This is, as much as anything else, yet another “mainstream media misses the boat” story. First they ignored and ridiculed the tea party activists. Now the media misrepresent them to the point of deliberate distortion. The media’s distorted characterization is not simply a matter of getting the details wrong, I think. This is, just as surely as that Big Labor slush fund, an effort to kill the movement in its crib and discredit it among average Americans. Treating them as rubes, extremists, religious nuts, and racists seems to be a bit of Saul Allinsky-type strategy. (”Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It,” was Alinsky’s mantra.) But the media is less and less credible and the tea-party activists are doing a good job of getting their own message out.

Commentary Blog Archive What You’d Find at a Real Tea Party

 

[Modbert]

If the tea parties want others to stop thinking people like Tom Tancredo, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, and Joseph Farah represent their views and values then they should probably stop supporting such figures and giving them a venue for speeches.

They also should boo and kick out anyone at these rallies who are being racist or just plain stupid.

For example: Everyone saw that Dachau sign and yet nobody had the guy take it down far as I know.

 

[elvis]

If the tea parties want others to stop thinking people like Tom Tancredo, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, and Joseph Farah represent their views and values then they should probably stop supporting such figures and giving them a venue for speeches.

They also should boo and kick out anyone at these rallies who are being racist or just plain stupid.

For example: Everyone saw that Dachau sign and yet nobody had the guy take it down far as I know.

at many nationally televised events, there will be someone like Terral with a sign that says 9.11 was an inside job, and no one make them take those signs down either.

 

[Modbert]

at many nationally televised events, there will be someone like Terral with a sign that says 9.11 was an inside job, and no one make them take those signs down either.

And that's the problem for the tea parties. However, there isn't just one Terral like person at these rallies. Especially with the amount of signs that people have been able to get ahold of picture wise.

 

[Stephanie]

Wow, so Palin, DeMint, Trancredo shouldn't EVA be allowed to speak.

 

[Modbert]

Wow, so Palin, DeMint, Trancredo shouldn't EVA be allowed to speak.

I never said that. Again, your dishonesty comes out with flying colors.

I said if the tea party folk don't want to be associated with such people, don't have them speaking at their rallies.

Makes sense to those of us who use logic, not so much for you I suppose.

 

[Stephanie]

Wow, so Palin, DeMint, Trancredo shouldn't EVA be allowed to speak.

I never said that. Again, your dishonesty comes out with flying colors.

I said if the tea party folk don't want to be associated with such people, don't have them speaking at their rallies.

Makes sense to those of us who use logic, not so much for you I suppose.

oh yeah, it made Perfect sense alright. Because you say so.

 

[Foxfyre]

at many nationally televised events, there will be someone like Terral with a sign that says 9.11 was an inside job, and no one make them take those signs down either.

And that's the problem for the tea parties. However, there isn't just one Terral like person at these rallies. Especially with the amount of signs that people have been able to get ahold of picture wise.

At our events, a handful (five or six at the most) would bring a sign that we thought disrespectful or inflammatory enough that we asked them to put them away. And all did. Almost ALL the hate signs you see at Tea Parties, I honestly believe are leftist plants there to discredit the Tea Party. And they do their damndest to make sure they get in front of the cameras with those signs every opportunity they have.

There is also evidence that a great many others that you find on the internet are photoshopped and were never ever at a Tea Party.

And those who are repeatedly posting those hate signs on threads like this, will never EVER respond when it is shown to them that their side has done far worse than anything done at any Tea Party event.

 

[namvet]

got this yesterday from a hard core lib i know. he asked me how to join the tea party​

 

[Modbert]

At our events, a handful (five or six at the most) would bring a sign that we thought disrespectful or inflammatory enough that we asked them to put them away. And all did. Almost ALL the hate signs you see at Tea Parties, I honestly believe are leftist plants there to discredit the Tea Party. And they do their damndest to make sure they get in front of the cameras with those signs every opportunity they have.

There is also evidence that a great many others that you find on the internet are photoshopped and were never ever at a Tea Party.

And those who are repeatedly posting those hate signs on threads like this, will never EVER respond when it is shown to them that their side has done far worse than anything done at any Tea Party event.

And here's another problem too. People who want to deny that the tea parties they apart of do not have a problem of radicals trying to gain entry. There is no sides in this. You want to use arguments that because A is worse than B, that B is not that bad. I can only imagine if someone used that sort of argument for holocausts.

But hey, be my guest, keep it up. So when the radicals have controlled the tea parties just like the religious right hijacked the GOP, the only ones you'll have to blame are yourselves.

 

[elvis]

At our events, a handful (five or six at the most) would bring a sign that we thought disrespectful or inflammatory enough that we asked them to put them away. And all did. Almost ALL the hate signs you see at Tea Parties, I honestly believe are leftist plants there to discredit the Tea Party. And they do their damndest to make sure they get in front of the cameras with those signs every opportunity they have.

There is also evidence that a great many others that you find on the internet are photoshopped and were never ever at a Tea Party.

And those who are repeatedly posting those hate signs on threads like this, will never EVER respond when it is shown to them that their side has done far worse than anything done at any Tea Party event.

And here's another problem too. People who want to deny that the tea parties they apart of do not have a problem of radicals trying to gain entry. There is no sides in this. You want to use arguments that because A is worse than B, that B is not that bad. I can only imagine if someone used that sort of argument for holocausts.

But hey, be my guest, keep it up. So when the radicals have controlled the tea parties just like the religious right hijacked the GOP, the only ones you'll have to blame are yourselves.

same could have been said about the truthers supporting obama.

 

[Modbert]

same could have been said about the truthers supporting obama.

Except the truthers never took over the Democratic Party. You never saw Bush being impeached by the Democrats in Congress. As much as we all do not like Nancy Pelosi, she never did anything like that.

However, you see plenty of Republicans buying all the conspiracy theories about Obama.

 

[elvis]

same could have been said about the truthers supporting obama.

Except the truthers never took over the Democratic Party. You never saw Bush being impeached by the Democrats in Congress. As much as we all do not like Nancy Pelosi, she never did anything like that.

pelosi said when she became speaker that impeachment was off the table. and what percentage do you need to throw the president out? isn't it 3/4?

 

[Modbert]

pelosi said when she became speaker that impeachment was off the table. and what percentage do you need to throw the president out? isn't it 3/4?

WikiAnswers - How many votes are required to impeach a President

According to Article 1, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The question of whether there will be an impeachment trial is determined by this clause. Keep in mind, that an impeachment is equivalent to an indictment, not a conviction.
An impeachment proceeding may be initiated by a number of sources including: members of the House of Representatives, special prosecutors, the President, state legislatures, grand juries, or by petition.
Upon receiving a resolution for impeachment, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary votes to determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. Upon attainment of a simple majority vote in favor of impeachment, the committee presents the resolution for impeachment, with the committee's recommendations, to the full body of the House. After deliberating the resolution, the House votes on whether to impeach the defendant.

In order to impeach the defendant, the hearing requires 1.) a quorum of a simple majority of House members, and 2.) A simple majority vote in favor of impeachment, by House members present, for the full resolution of the impeachment, or any article of the impeachment.

Once the vote in favor of impeachment has been attained, the House informs the U.S. Senate of the outcome, and then chooses some House members to act as prosecuting attorneys, called "managers".

The U.S. Senate prepares to try the impeachment case, during which, it will hear the arguments of both sides. In the case of the impeachment of a U.S. President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings.

In order to convict the defendant in an impeachment trial, the hearing requires 1.) a vote in favor of conviction equal to or exceeding two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate present, and 2.) a quorum of a simple majority of U.S. Senators.

 

[elvis]

pelosi said when she became speaker that impeachment was off the table. and what percentage do you need to throw the president out? isn't it 3/4?

WikiAnswers - How many votes are required to impeach a President

According to Article 1, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The question of whether there will be an impeachment trial is determined by this clause. Keep in mind, that an impeachment is equivalent to an indictment, not a conviction.
An impeachment proceeding may be initiated by a number of sources including: members of the House of Representatives, special prosecutors, the President, state legislatures, grand juries, or by petition.
Upon receiving a resolution for impeachment, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary votes to determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. Upon attainment of a simple majority vote in favor of impeachment, the committee presents the resolution for impeachment, with the committee's recommendations, to the full body of the House. After deliberating the resolution, the House votes on whether to impeach the defendant.

In order to impeach the defendant, the hearing requires 1.) a quorum of a simple majority of House members, and 2.) A simple majority vote in favor of impeachment, by House members present, for the full resolution of the impeachment, or any article of the impeachment.

Once the vote in favor of impeachment has been attained, the House informs the U.S. Senate of the outcome, and then chooses some House members to act as prosecuting attorneys, called "managers".

The U.S. Senate prepares to try the impeachment case, during which, it will hear the arguments of both sides. In the case of the impeachment of a U.S. President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings.

In order to convict the defendant in an impeachment trial, the hearing requires 1.) a vote in favor of conviction equal to or exceeding two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate present, and 2.) a quorum of a simple majority of U.S. Senators.

thanks. no way they had 2/3 of the congress that would have thrown Bush out of office.

 

[Modbert]

thanks. no way they had 2/3 of the congress that would have thrown Bush out of office.

and 2.) a quorum of a simple majority of U.S. Senators.

55 Democrats and 2 Independents including Joe and Bernie.

Poll: Bush Approval Rating At New Low - CBS News

(CBS) President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday night to a nation that's strongly opposed to his plan for increasing troops in Iraq and deeply unhappy with his performance as president, according to a CBS News poll.

Mr. Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he's handling his job.

They could of done it for Bush and Cheney and got applauded for it. Or Cheney at the very least.

 

[Stephanie]

what kind of "people" are Palin, DeMint and Tracredo suppose to be?