Where Does the Tea Party Go From Here?

Where will the Tea Party movement go from here?

The for-profit conference organizers declared that "we absolutely do not support a third party" and instead announced the creation of a new corporation and concurrent PAC to support conservative candidates, primarily in the South. This is still very much a leaderless movement with divergent tributaries. There's no shortage of anger at the GOP for starting the path of deficit spending last decade and then backing the first round of Wall Street bailouts under Bush.

There is a rejection of politics as usual, the feeling that both parties are captive of their respective special interests -- big business and big government.

For the Tea Party momentum to continue in a constructive way, it will need to take at least two further steps: First, repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes.

With a growing number of conspiracy entrepreneurs trying to profit off populist anger in a recession, it's also worth keeping the conservative virtue of healthy skepticism in mind.

Remember what the author Eric Hoffer warned in his book "The True Believer:" "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket."
www.cnn.com

"First, repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes"

The current administraction could use the same advice about bumper sticker rhetoric and un-hinged TeaBagger haters?

On the poll I'd be inclined to answer the Teabaggers will be swallowed up by the GOP, except I'm fairly confident the number who vote for anyone other than GOP candidates is at best infinitesimal.

The first group remains true to the roots of the movement as it emerged almost one year ago amid bailout backlash. They feel like modern Paul Reveres, warning their fellow citizens about the unsustainable nature of our government's deficit spending and unprecedented debt.

They still have an important civic role to play in our national debate.

What role is that, other than being painted with the same brush as group two?

I find that subtituting Dixiecrat for Teabagger explains much about who a good portion of the Teaparty movement are historically. Coincidence that the movement began when our first black president was elected??? Yet, their confused philosophy incorporates some aspects of populism which ordinarily would be associated with the Democratic Party. I think these folks would be Democrats but social issues keep them away and makes them easy pickings for Republicans who use words like "socialist", "elitist", etc. to focus the Teaparty folks' anger without using specifically racist remarks. They aren't "racists" but they are still angry at those who brought "big government" (things like forced integration, busing, seperation of church and state, affirmative action) into aspects of their lives.

Danni says Teabaggers are good ole fashioned racist Democrats.

Interesting take Danni...

"after spending time with the Teabaggers" isn't in the article--Doc must have inserted it himself.

Tell me Sarvis, does the idea of Barney Frank sucking on his boyfriend's balls disgust you? Or is it just funny, something to make a joke about?

Feel free to use the term "teabaggers" as an insult. I plan to, for a long, long time. After all--aren't most of them Obama voters? Not the small government conservative types--I mean the actual pole-smokers who invented the term?

after spending time with the Teabaggers" isn't in the article--Doc must have inserted it himself.

Tell me Sarvis, does the idea of Barney Frank sucking on his boyfriend's balls disgust you? Or is it just funny, something to make a joke about?

Feel free to use the term "teabaggers" as an insult. I plan to, for a long, long time. After all--aren't most of them Obama voters? Not the small government conservative types--I mean the actual pole-smokers who invented the term?

#7 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-08 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:PROTESTING A LITTLE TOOOO MUCH.

I'm not protesting. I think it's funny.

In fact, I don't even want Barney to lose his reelection. He's more valuable to us as a lightning rod. Ditto for Pelosi. Dems in those districts would just replace one with another--may as well make them fundraising machines for Republicans NOT in their ZIP codes.

Go Teabaggers! All of them!

In fact, I don't even want Barney to lose his reelection.

#9 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-08 11:52 AM

the idea of Barney Frank sucking on his boyfriend's balls #7 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-08 11:18 AM

I'll bet you don't, punkin.

You're right. I love him. There's just something about paunchy unibrows who speak with a lispy Massachusetts accent and who lose three trillion dollars that just gives me a big stiffy.

Feel free to use the term "teabaggers" as an insult.
#7 | Posted by rightisright

I use the term "Teabagger" because --- according to the National Review's Jay Nordlinger (nrd.nationalreview.com) --- that's what they called themselves before some opted for the incredibly fey "Tea Partiers," which sounds like a cookies and canasta gathering at Shady Acres. And since there's no formal name (and no real formal organization beyond the grifter stage) I'm using the terms interchangeably, just so those who call themselves "Tea Partiers" know they're included in the ranks of the pioneering "Teabaggers" who weren't afraid to let people know where their sympathies lay.

Tell me Sarvis, does the idea of Barney Frank sucking on his boyfriend's balls disgust you? Or is it just funny, something to make a joke about?
#7 | Posted by rightisright

I know you're going to find this hard to believe, given your fascination with the subject, but until you mentioned it that wasn't an image with which I bothered to fill my head. No doubt you won't understand it when I tell you homoerotic fantasies just aren't on my radar screen. But I don't begrudge you yours. Get your kicks however you want, just please don't bother trying to push them onto me or my kids. Thanks.

I wouldn't vote for him. You would. You wouldn't let him babysit your kids--at least at his house--but you don't mind putting him at the head of House Financial Services. Why? Because he's a Democrat.

Ah well. What could possibly go wrong?

Is the ability to babysit something you think of as a requirement to occupy a congressional seat? On this silly highway you've constructed, I'd let Charlie Rangel babysit a kid. But I wouldn't let him know where the cookie jar with the money was located. On the other side of the aisle, I wouldn't let Mitch McConnell babysit a kid or know where the rainy day fund was stashed. How far do you want to take this? I'll let you mull that one over and either do or not do with it as you will and probably check in again manana, in the morning. Have a pleasant evening.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-02-08 05:33 PM | Reply

Or let Nancy near a staple gun!
Or let Barney near my stash!
Or let Grayson near any sharp objects!
Or let Murtha near my - oops - nevermind...

No, you'd be afraid to let your kids stay over at Barney Frank's love pad, because you'd be afraid they would be raped. But you bend over yourself every day he shows up for work.

Moving away from the Barney part of the thread, and back to the subject for a moment...

I think the tea party supporters will hijack the gop. They will throw money and time and energy into candidates who propose cutting spending and balancing a budget. These candidates will be right-of-center challenges against incumbents.

Then, if these candidates win in the primaries, they will back them in the general elections, again with money, time and energy. If they don't, I expect a great number of the tea party supporters will sit out the election... thus providing an easier win for the dems.

At a guess, the 'hold your nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils' has gotten a little to hard to swallow.

Where do people go who want to see more fiscal restraint by government?

An end to the massive deficit spending practised by both parties?

Bottom line is the entire system is so corrupted and overly influenced by big-monied special interests (something that can only get worse after the latest SCOTUS ruling) that neither party can do much more than offer lip service to the concept.

Populist rhetoric wins election but corporate quid pro quo fills up campaign war chests and ultimately decides who is even gonna be allowed to run in any given election.

As long as that is the case all elections will remain as being a choice between the lesser of two evils.

The Tea Party, as Danni rightly pointed out, has a remarkable crossover with the demographics of the dixiecrats.

They need to get rid of the birthers and the racists and the other single issue wing nuts not to mention their corporate co-opters like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck before anyone gives them any credence wotsoever.

They are de facto GOPhers right now and until they start supporting Independents who campaign on fiscal sanity and a disavowal of the forces that are so corrupting the political culture they shall remain mere pawns being played by the very forces they oppose.

Be Well.

They need to get rid of the birthers and the racists and the other single issue wing nuts not to mention their corporate co-opters like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck before anyone gives them any credence wotsoever.

Why should the teaparty get rid of the birthers. The Democrat party is filled with racist union members that belong to locals that exclude minorities from large projects and 9/11 Truthers.

I actually kind of find it enjoyable to watch the Democrat obsession with the teabaggers. They are not going anywhere and they just might put up a few solid candidates

Why should the teaparty get rid of the birthers.

Umm, cos they're bat-shiat insane.

The Democrat party is filled with racist union members that belong to locals that exclude minorities from large projects and 9/11 Truthers.

Ya might wanna try a link to yer "racist union" rant.

911 Truthers?

Do you really think the 9/11 commission did an exemplary job or sommat?

I actually kind of find it enjoyable to watch the Democrat obsession with the teabaggers.

Because noticing deluded RWers wigging out like Rainman missing his Judge Wapner is EXACTLY the same thing as "obsessing" over them?

Such FAIL.

They are not going anywhere and they just might put up a few solid candidates

They might also split the GOP vote and party.

So far any of the Teabag candidates and spokemen have proven to to be "solid" only in the sense that their skulls seem to be entirely composed of bone with no detectable brainmatter within.

GL w/ THAT.

Be Well.

No, you'd be afraid to let your kids stay over at Barney Frank's love pad, because you'd be afraid they would be raped. But you bend over yourself every day he shows up for work.
#17 | Posted by rightisright

Again with your pathetic homoerotic fantasies. Where do you work? A bathhouse? The YMCA? A Republican precinct h.q.? What's your outlet?

Sorry, but I'm far more concerned if a politician is a crook, crippled by delusions of grandeur, best by early-onset Alzheimer's, or likes killing small animal than I am if s/he's gay.

It's interesting, I think, that you're incapable of addressing the point I made earlier: it's the Teabaggers themselves who embraced that label, which is why I employ both the robust term "Teabagger" and the fey appellation "Tea Partier" to describe the same syndrome of disillusionment and ignorance combined with the notable presence of the mark-grifter relationship.

"The National Tea Party Convention, which wrapped up Saturday night with a televised speech by Sarah Palin, offered an outlet for some of the fouler strands of modern conservatism that had long been bubbling beneath the surface of the Tea Party movement."

This and other observations on the Teabagger funfest from an interesting piece by Zachary Roth, "Return Of the Repressed? Birtherism, Homophobia, Racial Paranoia Rise to Surface At Tea Party Confab" (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo
.com):

"Tea Party leaders had worked hard to keep the public face of the movement focused tightly on a small government, anti-tax message, largely steering clear of social issues, and appeals based explicitly on race. But this weekend, from the podium at Nashville's Gaylord Opryland Hotel, convention speakers espoused birtherism, anti-immigrant nativism, homophobia, Christian fundamentalism, and an apparent nostalgia for racially discriminatory barriers to voting....

"To some extent, the expansion into wider territory was due to the nature of the convention itself. Since details of the confab were announced, numerous Tea Party activists have complained that the event's organizers aimed to co-opt the Tea Partiers' energy for the benefit of the broader conservative movement and the Republican Party."

If the Tea Party morphs into a 3rd party it will hurt the Republicans. If they can change some of the behavior of the Republicans, only time will tell what the impact will be.

"Although the partyers' obvious target is President Obama, and they are doing him real damage, the whole thing strikes me as more demographic than political," opines Richard Reeves in "Party On! The Revolt of the Old" (www.richardreeves.com). "Republican politicians will try to take advantage of the energy of the movement because they share the anti-Obama agenda, but they had better be careful because true partyers are against everyone in power, including Republicans too comfortable or too understanding of the new things and the new America."

Some of Reeves's insight into the Teabaggers:

"The Tea Party's real strength is that people are living longer and no one is sure what to do about that. There are simply more old people. To put it bluntly: They want their kind of health care, with government money but without government regulation, and they don't much care anymore about paying local taxes for the education of other people's children, particularly if those other people are darker or speak with accents.

"It is convenient that the fears and frustrations of the fading white majority happen to coincide with the difficult tenure of the first black president. (The same could be said of the visibilty of the new scut workers from Latin America and Asia.) Racism you will always have with you, but that is not the fundamental cause, or even a fundamental cause, for their obvious hatred of that man in the White House. The state of the economy is more important right now than the race of the president giving the State of the Union address. The same demographic forces would be there if the president were white or a woman or both."

Which, Reeves contents, means...

"There is no role now in the society for many of these people. Their work is not needed, so they are turning to the power of their numbers and of their citizenship. Tea Partyers wave copies of the Constitution around as if (or because) they believe it was written for them. They don't believe it is for or even can be understood by these new others.

'But no matter how well we understand the Constitution, it is obviously still a living document which gives the fading and the fearful the space to shout out their anger in the open."
www.richardreeves.com

Why did you change the article, Doc?

I printed excerpts. That was made clear in the way those excerpts were presented. You did understand that, didn't you? 'Course you did. When you print excerpts that "changes" the article because you haven't reproduced the entire article but excerpts. Get it? Fortunately, you possess boundless intellectual curiosity and, not satisfied with the excerpts, exposed yourself to the entire article. I hope you found the experience edifying.

"after spending time with the Teabaggers" isn't in the article--Doc must have inserted it himself.
#7 | Posted by rightisright

You mean as in:

As the National Tea Party Convention concluded this weekend, it's clear that the Tea Partiers are propelled by two competing claims," writes political analyst John Avlon, after spending time with the Teabaggers, " -- a principled commitment to fiscal conservatism and a serious case of Obama Derangement Syndrome."

Right?

Well, bravo! You're absolutely correct! See, when you quote from an article you either let it stand alone or you put these "" around parts of the article quted. The phrase "writes political analyst John Avlon, after spendng time with the Teabaggers" is my way of letting you know (a) who wrote the piece and (b) the context in which he wrote it, i.e. after spending time with the aforementioned Teabaggers.

Now, march yourself straight up to the head of the class and let your chest well with pride!

"Obama Derangement Syndrome."

Half of DR has that.

Whatever. The term "teabaggers" never even shows up in the article.

I actually didn't know that was allowed here. I'm going to have some fun with it too, methinks.

A sad reality is that money is drawn to power. The founding fathers recognized that, and created a limited gov't for that reason.

The more congress controls, the more that the money will attempt to buy influence. The ONLY way to get the corrupting influence of money out of politics is to remove from congress the power to control so much of our lives.

This will, probably, have to be done at the business end of a gun.

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-02-08 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe the real question is what in the hell has Frank accomplished as a congressman that makes you worship at his drool?