http://oportet.livejournal.com/ (
oportet.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2010-04-27 10:09 am
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
(no subject)
I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.
I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?
Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).
Or am I missing something?
I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?
Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).
Or am I missing something?
no subject
The assumption is that Fox would be campaigning vigorously to show the truth....so where is it?
no subject
And why is the assumption that fox would be campaigning vigorously on this? They have done some segments on whether or not the tea party was getting a bad rep, where they have had some interviews... but I don't see them as exactly "campaigning" other than feeding off controversy because it makes entertaining news.
no subject
But since people on the Right complain Fox is the only outlet to tell the "truth", then I'd expect a vigorous campaign of Tea Partiers disavowing the racists to show the "truth" that the rest of the media has been showing...
no subject
But since people on the Right complain Fox is the only outlet to tell the "truth", then I'd expect a vigorous campaign of Tea Partiers disavowing the racists to show the "truth" that the rest of the media has been showing...
You're overstating Fox's role in things. There is not a massive campaign, because it isn't a massive problem. And furthermore, many feel this is exactly what people on the Left want to see happen--to make it a public discussion about race, etc, in order to distract away from the issues. Also, the Left has had some very different ideas on what exactly constitutes "racism". In my estimation, you have been successful. The more time we sit here constantly defending ourselves from attack and going back and forth with accusations, the more the message gets lost and ignored.
no subject
and for something that isn't a "massive problem" -- there SURE are a lot of photos and articles out there showing otherwise; So again, if you dont go out of your way to disavow the loons WHO CLAIM YOU, then it's noone's fault but your own if you get associated with the loons.
The message is lost NOT by the Left asking about the loons, but by the loons who claim you and are NOT disavowed.
Consistently disavow the loons (which all groups have to do) and it would be more credible to complain about "distraction"...