Is the Tea Party Dead? Ben Shapiro Believes So...

polifrog



I don't...



Ben uses the minutemen analogy as the way forward.

I believe that is what the Tea Party was and still is. It is a grass roots movement that can affect change not only on the local level, but at the state level in the form of congressional seats and subsequently congressional influence. That does not mean it has the power to affect change on the national level which is represented by the office of the president ... yet. Before the Tea Party can affect change at the presidential level it must become what the gentry conservatives already are ... established.

Give the Tea Party time to grow to the national level.





out

Get Government Out of Our Health Care -- Danville to DC and Back -- $10...

polifrog



Mark Hatchett:

There is a bus trip from Danville to the "Hands Off My Healthcare Rally" in Washington DC on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at the Supreme Court. RSVP Darriel at if you want a seat. darrett@gamewood.net .


It is up and back in one day for a total of 10 plus hours on a bus. The price is right...$10.00 round trip. Darriel is chairman of the Danville VA TEA Party and the tickets are subsidized by Americans for Prosperity. Michele Bachmann and Pat Toomey are among the speakers at this event. There is also a bus from Greensboro but I don't have those details.

out

Is the Tea Party Gone? Rick Santelli ...

polifrog



Santelli

...the Tea Party conservatives they’re working state houses, the governorships, the mayorships, the Senate, the House. See, they understand, they’ve read the Constitution. If you want to make a difference, don’t go break windows, okay?

I would add that it is only after the Tea Party has exerted its influence  in the  "state houses, the governorships, the mayorships, the Senate, the House" that it will have the influence and focus to internally impact the presidential nomination process.





out

Posted Before, Posted Again -- T12...

polifrog



Tea Party 2012:








out

Establishment Vs. The Tea Party...

polifrog




I am still looking for my own words to describe the events of late last week, but I am currently still locked in shrill mode.

Fortunately, Professor Jacobson is not:

There was a backlash on Thursday and Friday among talk radio hosts and a variety of people who were in a first hand position to observe Newt’s interaction with Reagan, culminating in Sarah Palin’s Facebook post on Friday afternoon denouncing the neo-Stalinist attempt to rewrite history.

That the attack on Newt’s Reagan bona fides came from someone who openly ran against Reaganism and against the conservative agenda in 1994 was an irony lost only on the pro-Romney Republican establishment and media.

Romney’s attacks on Newt’s late 1990s ethics charge also were distinctly from the left, echoing the talking points of anti-conservative Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. It took people like Byron York and Mark Levin to expose the truth that the charges were part of a Democratic Party vendetta, and that substantively Newt did nothing wrong and was vindicated.

But mostly, the Republican establishment and conservative media who howled...

out

Our Rogue Conservative Establishment Want You to Forget ...

polifrog



How else can anyone read the push for Romney amid the leftest styled Stalin-esque  character assassination of Newt.

Remember...






out

But He Can't Bring Himself to Say Tea Party...

polifrog



Erick Erickson from email:

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since.

Adding insult to injury, the party and thought leaders now try to foist on the base a milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts. Newt Gingrich can thank Mitt Romney and more for the second look he is getting. Base hostility will now be exacerbated by Mitt Romney’s backers now undoubtedly making a conscious effort to prop up Rick Santorum to shut down Newt Gingrich.

I tend to think of a Erick as having been absorbed by the gentry conservative contingent. This bit of truth speaks otherwise.




out

A Couple of Polls Indicating Where Tea Party Support May Have Been and Where it May Currently Be...

polifrog




Only three of the candidates have greater Tea Party support than rejection and they are Bachman, Gingrich, and Santorum.  Of those three Santorum garners 23% of Tea Party respondents, Newt 18%, Bachman 15%.

Furthermore, Santorum's base is top tier, nearly tying with the bases of Paul and Romney,  neither of which have Tea Party support in excess of Tea party rejection.

Santorum seems to be the strongest of the Tea Party candidates at the moment .






     PPP:



   






And for reference there is this older poll by CNN/ORC:

                                        Tea Pty     Tea Pty  Tea Pty
                                Total  Support  Neutral   Oppose
                                -----  -------  -------  -------
Bachmann                         22%         27%      17%       N/A
Gingrich                            12%         11%      13%       N/A
Huntsman                          3%           1%       4%          N/A
Paul                                 25%         25%      22%        N/A
Perry                                9%           6%      14%          N/A
Romney                           12%         14%      10%        N/A
Santorum                          3%           3%       4%          N/A
Someone else                     1%          *        1%            N/A
None/no one                      7%          5%       9%          N/A
No opinion                        7%          7%       6%          N/A
Sampling Error                +/-4.5     +/-6.5   +/-7.5        
 * percentage less than 1%




out

Where Is the Tea Party's National Voice?

polifrog



There seems to be no unified national Tea Party voice in this primary but, interestingly, the same could be said of the Tea Party during the mid term races a couple of years ago.

During those races the Tea Party's influence rose no higher than offices decided by state vote. There being no presidential election there was no need for a unified national voice. All that was needed at that time was a unified state voice that could be tailored to the elections of specific states, the result of which repeated across the nation allowed for a changed congress.

If the Tea Party is a force more interested in affecting change from the local level  up to but not including the presidency as has so far been the case, then perhaps we have an explanation for the Tea Party's seeming disinterest or, perhaps, weakness in the current primaries.

The Tea Party may not be a force best used on the presidential level.

I may be becoming OK with that. Given the choice, I believe we are better served by  a potent force focused on all offices but the presidency than  one focused on the presidency to the detriment of lesser offices.

History points to that consideration.  Over the past 75 years the Democrat party has faired less well in presidential races than in all those offices below the level of the presidency.  Democrat success was more in controlling the generation of legislation for 75 years rather than controlling its veto.

I suppose the result is that my tolerance for the individual these presidential primaries produce is much greater than my tolerance for every other office.




out

There Was No Tea Party, There is Only Occupy ... Yeah That's the Ticket...

polifrog





Slate:

Suddenly, the issues of equity, fairness, justice, income distribution, and accountability for the economic cataclysm–issues all but ignored for a generation—are front and center. We have moved beyond the one-dimensional conversation about how much and where to cut the deficit. Questions more central to the social fabric of our nation have returned to the heart of the political debate. By forcing this new discussion, OWS has made most of the other participants in our politics—who either didn’t want to have this conversation or weren’t able to make it happen—look pretty small.

Really, the press is becoming an SnL skit:


There was no Tea Party, yeah that's the ticket.
And they never raised these concerns, yeah .... yeeah.
The Tea Party never set these thoughts in motion.
There is only Occupy, yeah that's the ticket...





out

Maybe, But I Still Think They Tea Partiers in Denial...

polifrog



I recognize these differences...

The Wall Street protesters and the Tea Party protesters have something in common, a revolt against the biggees each see as taking unfair advantages. The primary difference is that the Tea Party is opposed to the extra-constitutionality of liberal politicians in league with crony capitalists profiting each other at the expense of taxpayers, while the Wall Street protesters base is for more extra-constitutionality to expropriate for themselves the advantages garnered by all those profiting from free enterprise.

Tea Partiers want to keep the products of their labor and earnings, while the Wall Street protesters want government to redirect the products of others’ labor and earnings to themselves and causes of their allies

PRwise, the Tea Partiers had to overcome major media’s reluctance to provide them coverage and its trumpeting of false charges from the left, while the mostly liberal major media have almost instantly favorably or neutrally headlined the Wall Street protesters.

... but these protests seem ready to be co-opted  by Tea Partiers simply showing up. Just look at what some of them say.





out

NC Rep. Brad Miller -- Tea Partier...

polifrog


EyewitnessNews:

Republican state lawmaker Brad Miller was at the Raleigh protest. He said this is the beginning of efforts to demand big corporations, banks and the rich pay more taxes.

(screen shot)

Republican? Whatever, wishful thinking is not the point.

The central question is ... Who is responsible? Banks have been looting the public treasury via the socializing of their private debt. Their debt is now the debt of the citizenry and lawmakers like Democrat Brad Miller who have lent their votes to the transfer of $13 trillion according to PBS of public money to private interests are responsible.


Yet in utter denial of his own  responsibility and record of voting public treasury into the pockets of bankers, Brad Miller had this to say: (WRAL)

"The people who caused the financial crisis (and) the painful recession that we've been through seem to have gotten off scot-free," Miller said. "The people who did suffer were really without blame, and that offends people."

So, who was doing the marching?

Protester J.J. Jiang: (WRAL)

"The taxpayers' money bailed them out and they didn't sacrifice anything, but actually they benefited," Jiang said.

And protester Tanya Glover : (WRAL)

Tanya Glover attended the Occupy Raleigh protest at Moore Square Sunday evening. She said she feels like the American people are getting "dumped on" by corporations and Congress.

"The (bank bailout) money went straight back into the pockets of CEOs and corporations," she said. "We work harder, we get taxed more. The corporations give money to the politicians and the politicians are serving the corporations. The corporations are not people."

Protester J.J. Jiang and Tanya Glover are  Tea Partiers and don't seem to be aware of it. It does not seem that even the press or Brad Miller are aware of the true nature of theses marches.

Although these marches may not have have started as Tea Party marches, they certainly are Tea Party marches.








out

The New Leftist Racism...

polifrog



H/T Bubba.


Dr. Sanity:

Real racism is indeed truly disgusting; and nowhere is it more real and objectively manifest than in the left's politically correct posturing and in the perpetual victimhood scams perpetrated by their compassionate policies--you know, the ones that infantalize other races and ethnicities and keep them "in their place" so that the truly superior denizens of the political left can manage their lives.

Dr. Sanity referenced this post in the NRO...

If you want to be disgusted, take a look at the front-page story in today’s New York Times, “On College Forms, a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” It’s about how selective colleges and universities are wrestling with the problem of how to deal with applicants who check more than one box for race and ethnicity: which mixes are to be most favored, whether it’s better to be mixed or pure, what do to about students who refuse to check any box, and how to tell if a student is really sincere in his or her self-identification or is just "gamming" the system. Now, maybe it’s just me, but I think a lot of people will find it really sickening to read about how these politically correct educrats sit around and give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down to an 18-year-old based on his racial and ethnic mix. As for “gaming” the system, were we supposed to lament the fact that a black applicant 100 years ago might try to pass for white? I think our condemnation then and now should be more concentrated on the racially discriminatory system itself rather than on those who tried or try to game it.

There is another strain of leftist racism - the presumption of racism without proof, an example which would be the accusations of racism hurled toward the Tea Party.

The war on traditional racism has nearly been won and it seems evident that as the old racism fades into history, the proof of its existence fades with it. What is slower to fade, though, is the perception of political leverage gained from the charge of racism. What remains is the current sea of baseless charges of racism for political advantage. Furthermore, without proof that there is racism involved then merely labeling something as racist is indicative of viewing events through a racial prism.

When an individual charges racism where there is none, the charge of racism becomes an act of racism itself.

out

Tea Party Salvation...

polifrog



Gota give him points on the Foundation reference alone.



Then, of course, he gets points for being correct.





out

Phony Anti-War Movements do not Equate to the Tea Party...

polifrog



Megan McArdle:

Have you noticed all the huge antiwar demonstrations in the last twelve months? Yeah, me neither. It turns out that a lot of the energy for the movement seems to have been provided by Democrats who are a lot less worried about wars conducted by Democratic presidents.

She references Scott McLemee:

"As long as voters remain highly polarized along party lines," he responded by e-mail, "self-identified Democrats are unlikely to protest against Obama's policies, even if they disagree with some of them strongly. A sudden end to the era of partisan polarization seems highly unlikely. So I would say that it is a very good bet that Obama will not confront large left-wing demonstrations. Of course, LBJ faced large left-wing demonstrations, but the party system was not polarized back then in the way that it is today."

The same dynamics apply to the Tea Party: "Our analysis implies that the Tea Party will have a lower degree of organization and success in 2012 than it did in 2010. Because the Republicans won the House and made gains in the Senate, Tea Party activists feel much less threatened today than they did a year ago. So, while the Tea Party will obviously be around in 2012 -- and it will likely factor into the Republican presidential contest -- our analysis suggests that the Tea Party will not generate the same level of enthusiasm next year as it did last year."

I do not believe this comparison to the Tea Party is accurate. Although there will likely be some reduction in Tea Party enthusiasm the next election cycle, there will not be the wholesale abandonment of the movement.

The antiwar movement got its modern start in reaction to the Vietnam War, but today has devolved into less of a grass roots movement than the appearance of a grass roots movement commonly known as astroturfing. The antiwar movement has become a tool in the hands of the Democrat Party by which they reattain during wartime conservative presidents. The evidence of this is the vanishing act we have witnessed since the election of Barack Obama. Neither war in Iraq or Afghanistan has ended as promised and, in fact, a new war has begun in Libya under Obama yet the antiwar movement is nonexistent. It seems only to have legs under conservative presidents. The antiwar movement as it existed during the Vietnam War no longer exists today.

To be sure, there were those who truly believe in the antiwar message. Cindy Sheehan comes to mind. She is still doing her thing today despite the absence of the astroturfed support she received years ago under Bush. I am not sure of she used the astroturfing or if the astroturfed anti(Bush)war movement used her, but I respect her for continued albeit misplaced commitment.


In looking at the Tea Party no evidence of astroturfing, can be found, Pelosi's comments not with standing. The Tea Party was and remains a real organic grass roots movement that did not and does not derive its support from currently entrenched political elites looking to further their political or media careers. In fact, the Tea Party has had a record of attacking both Democrats and Republicans for their profligate spending and lack if respect for the Constitution. Bush was no favorite of the Tea Party, neither was the conservative congress under portions of Bush's two terms in office. And frequently the Conservative Party found itself on the defensive in last summer's primaries as Tea Partiers had Conservatives across the nation on the run. Just as frequently Tea Party candidates found themselves in the cross-hairs entrenched conservative-media elites; even Rush took the nearly the whole of last summer to come around to the Tea Party. No love was lost between Conservatives and Tea Partiers as the Tea Party sought to change Conservatism in Washington DC.

The dynamics between the Antiwar movement and the Tea Party movement could not be more different. One is an aged movement infected with a self preservation mentality in which power and money flows from above to the movement in an attempt to give the appearance of an energetic movement only when politically expedient while in the other power flows from the citizenry to affect change on a reluctant governing body.




out

Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13) -- Verbalizing Immorality...

..

Yet another article parroting Brad Miller's nonsense.

According to the article Brad Miller said opponents represent the interests of a handful of millionaires made rich by the health care and financial industries.

This kind of rhetoric serves only to strengthen the Tea-Party members who are maligned by such an idiotic statement. The Tea-Party has been and is fueled by such goading.

Brad Miller, for his part, seems to be more than just aware of the Tea-Party...

Rep. Brad Miller, whose congressional district includes part of Alamance County, described a “frightening” political anger in reaction to the Obama Administration and the national Democratic agenda, characterizing it as a “rage … that we have not seen since 'the 1960s.”

"Frightened" and "rage". Well, he should be frightened that he may loose his job to a citizenry rightfully enraged at his penchant for governance through broken consent.

There is reason for the palpable frustration many experience. One is ObamaCare.

Turning a population of health-care consumers with influence over their health-care providers into health-care business costs is immoral. Creating a situation in which the health-care industry caters to the government (the source of its income) rather than the sick, who become an expense to the health-care industry, is beyond immoral.

Supporting such a economic incentives is immoral and Brad Miller should be fired for his immorality.

Lastly, I had to reread this bit a couple of times due to its sheer idiocy......

The Tea Party movement may be to Democrats what Hillary Clinton was once said to be to conservatives – a source of political animosity intense enough to motivate people to political action.

Idiot.

Political animosity is created by the misgovernance of those in power. The Tea-Party is the embodiment of political animosity created by misgovernance. In short, the Tea-Party is a reaction to poor leadership.

out

BJ Lawson, Running for (NC-4) is No Extremist According to the the UK's Mial Online...

polifrog



Have you ever wanted to take a peek at your life through the eyes of another? When it comes to national politics, that is possible. We have a variety of nations and fortunately many speak our language; fewer ideas are lost in translation, while cultural differences can highlight interesting differences.

If you have a moment this Saturday, take a peek at your country from outside the window; below are some excerpts from an article by the UK's MailOnline:

It was clear from the start of our conversation that BJ Lawson was no Tea Party lunatic. A youthful looking 36-year-old, he studied medicine and then started his own medical software company. What, I asked, had brought a businessman into politics?

...

Lawson has the kind of anti-establishment attitude that the Tea Party cherishes. He is a ­libertarian who seeks to rekindle the values of the American ­Revolution, and has already handed out 50,000 copies of the Declaration of Independence and of the American Constitution.

Crucially, BJ struck me as the kind of Tea Party Republican who does not frighten the horses and can make inroads into the vital centre ground of uncommitted voters. If others in his movement can project themselves as well has he does, then the Tea Party could become a lasting force.

...

What really sticks in their craw is that, while Middle America struggles to make ends meet, profligate and incompetent banks, insurance companies and car manufacturers have all been ­rescued from their folly and greed with taxpayers’ money.

The U.S. is built on the power of ideas: the Land of the Free, the Shining City on the Hill, the Beacon of Liberty. Undermine these ideas, and you undermine the country itself.

For the Tea Partiers, the ­bankers and politicians have ­committed the most heinous crime of all. They have besmirched America’s cherished idea that each generation should be able to pass onto the next a legacy more prosperous than the one it inherited.

But then there is nonsense like this:

But some Tea Party candidates have brought with them a whole battery of extreme religious, ­cultural and social beliefs. It is these which give the movement its reputation for weirdness and eccentricity.

Witchcraft, anti-masturbation views, denial of evolution, opposition to gays and ‘sexually active single women’ becoming teachers — all have been injected into political debate by Tea Partiers.

There is more than a hint of ­racism in their hostility to Obama and his expensive healthcare reforms (aimed at helping the 40 million people without health insurance), which are seen as ‘European’ and ‘socialist’, two of the most damning adjectives that you can throw at an American politician.

out

Bill Whittle on Tea Party Conservatism...

polifrog


If only my speaking skills were 1/50 of Bill Whittle's.

Yea, you hear envy.





out

The Mainstreaming of the Tea Party...

polifrog



New campaign question:
Do you or have you ever ridiculed or ignored the Tea Party?



Via Hannity tonight. Fox News Poll Opinion Dynamics.
A link will be added when found.

Do you support or oppose the main issues the Tea Party has raised?
70% support
22%oppose
8% not sure


Support for the main issues the Tea Party has raised:
91% republicans
75% independents
49% democrats

out

Sometimes a Single Line Can Say it All...

polifrog



All we are saying is give tea a chance...




out