talkpolitics | A follow up to an earlier post:

Current Mood: cynical

Entry tags:

tea party

A follow up to an earlier post:

So this is what being interested in the deficit and cutting taxes looks like, eh? Seems to me more that the Tea Party is Christian Right politics with a thin Fiscal Conservative veneer:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/02/montana-bill-to-ban-all-local-lgbt_23.html

http://www.salon.com/news/islam/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/tennessee_islam_law_felony_bill

And can anyone answer me how this remotely is compatible with Lawrence v. Texas? I thought Tea Partiers were also about defending Law and Order and Society As It Is? To me, this is just one of many examples of how the "Tea Party" is nothing but a front for the religious politicians of the Republican Party. Oh, and as to the second article: how does making Shariah Law a felony reduce the deficit and shrink government? I thought Supply-Side was Voodoo Economics, this type of deficit reduction is even harder to understand.

But if we take Tea Partiers at their word, and they are nothing but honest and honorable people, they are always about the deficit. When it's:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters

This it's always about the deficit.

When it's advocating that President Obama is not a US citizen, it's always about the deficit, for Tea Partiers are nothing but honest and honorable people and when they say it's all about the deficit, surely we should believe such honest defenders of the US as it is, the Constitution as it was:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/26/83026/tea-party-birthers-movements-somewhat.html

http://teapartynationalism.com/the-blogbri-news-updates-and-morei/item/131-tea-party-nation-founder-declares-himself-a-birther

When it's condemning something their own children are involved as re-education camps, it's all about the deficit and reducing spending, for Tea Partiers are honorable and honest people, and they would never say anything but honest and honorable things:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmanns-son-joins-group-she-once-called-a-re-education-camp/

So yes, the Tea Party *is* all about the cutting the deficit and less spending, and somehow, in some way these brave champions of ~~White League thuggishness~~ freedom and justice for all will reduce the Federal budget to an entirely balanced and well-founded fiscal base, and belief that the President is not a citizen, that live ammo should be used on strikers, that Shariah law should be a felony, and eliminating all the progress (however slow and halting it's been) for LGBQTI individuals since the 1970s will make the US Budget balanced.

Oh, and it might good to remember who the father of the Tea Party's sugar daddies was:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30065386/Fred-C-Koch-Going-Off-On-A-Bircher-Rant-Newspaper-Clipping-1964

There is indeed nothing new under the Sun.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

As there was with Van Jones and the President. The question of whether or not there is a casual link, the question is what it actually means and how much importance one can reasonably give to them. There are people in the Tea Party here in Arkansas whom I know personally and none of them get marching orders from anyone but themselves, and have in fact been resistant to becoming attached with the large-name national tea party organizers like "Tea Party Express" et al.

Cool story, bro. But that doesn't change the fact that the Koch brothers started and fund the Tea Party movement. The President doesn't fund Van Jones.

Funding? Yes, they do contribute funds to it. So do the people I know contribute to it with no outside funding.

I don't expect you to believe that I know people who you don't, who might have a better handle on the comings and goings of their own group than you do. But if you want to persuade me that the fact that the Koch brothers have contributed to the Tea Party means that the whole thing is their puppet to control, that's where we depart. What their contributions actually mean on the ground. Your claims as to what that means are grandiose, not unlike the grandiose connections Beck makes about what Van Jones, Soros, and the Tides foundation means when he pontificates.

Formed it, and contribute to it. The evidence is quite clear, and has been presented to all of you multiple times.

But even taking all of that as true, what does it mean? Do they have some kind of dictatorial control over the movement? Do they hold all tea party members in their sway as mindless automatons? What?

it means that it's not some spontaneous uprising by the old, white and fearful, but that it's engineered, and furthermore, is driven to benefit Koch Industries, and not the people who support the movement.

Just like my personal aquaintences. All of that would go away tomorrow without the Koch brothers. It can't possibly be that some undetermined percentage of this has evolved a life of its own.

*edit*

Or that there wasn't any legitimate reason people might be upset given the larger movements in government action in recent history.

Edited 2011-02-24 03:50 (UTC)

Oh, there's absolutely no legitimate reason people might be upset; that's clear given the fact that the GOP has had to lie about nearly every aspect of the health insurance bill and misdirect to create issues about Obama's birth, and him bowing to foreign nationals, etc, etc, etc, et fucking cetera.

And yes. A lot of the Tea Party stuff WOULD go away without the Koch brothers, because they're funding a significant percentage of it.

Well, you're free to speculate, but I'm afraid that's all it is because you haven't given me anything I can process analytically, though I don't suppose you'd say there wasn't anything to get upset about over Bush's 8 years either that was worth protesting, would you?

Can't say that I'm a member of the Tea Party (I'm a bit too cynical on the whole process independent of party to be a supporter of anyone until they demonstrate something in action first), but I recall being pretty damned upset when Bush AND Obama entered into federal bail-outs of big business, and I'd been critical of Bush long before that. It's not an uncommon phenomenon as you might think. They were only the most overt and attention-getting examples of what has been happening mostly under the radar and in more discreet ways by both parties for time-out-of-mind.

I couldn't give two turds about whether Obama bowed or not, where he was born in the States or not (though I have no reason to doubt he was born Stateside), and all of the other stuff I have to roll my eyes at because theyr'e so damn stupid to hear. I've had conversations with actual tea party members who agree with me on these things to boot, and have no love for Republicans as a party either. So pardon me, because as weak as anecdotal evidence is, I'll take it over speculation as being just slightly more reliable, with the understanding that reality is slightly more nuanced than the vision of the world you're presenting me with.

In short: Argue Better

"And yes. A lot of the Tea Party stuff WOULD go away without the Koch brothers, because they're funding a significant percentage of it."

Solid, well researched numbers (including percentage of money coming in outside of theirs, including personal funds of those individuals like those I mentioned to their local groups), or its just more speculation. Give me something that has real backing. You're the one making positive claims.

Edited 2011-02-24 06:31 (UTC)

He can't because none of it is true. Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement, a good portion of it is libertarian-minded and even some liberals. The Republican Party doesn't like them and is trying to figure out some way to coopt them rather than be taken over by them, and that's where he's confused. Also Dems can't seem to understand the concept of a group of people not being controlled from the top, which is weird when you think about how Dems are [incorrectly] considered to be the grassroots party.

That's interesting. Are they? (I need more education).

Re: FTFY

rasilio.livejournal.com - 2011-02-24 16:57 (UTC) - Expand

Re: FTFY

dwer.livejournal.com - 2011-02-24 15:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: FTFY

gunslnger.livejournal.com - 2011-02-24 20:57 (UTC) - Expand

Oh, there's absolutely no legitimate reason people might be upset

If you actually believe that you are highly clueless.

no, actually, what I am is well informed about the health insurance law, and how it will help people. If there's anything wrong with the law, it's that it doesn't go far enough.

Funding? Yes, they do contribute funds to it. So do the people I know contribute to it with no outside funding.

I think if you're handing out millions on a whim and funding whole expensive Tea Party Conventions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020402884.html) and providing over half the keynote speakers, you can be said to control things rather than contribute. Granted, the control is not final (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/tea-party-convention-is-canceled/) - witness the 30 or so Tea Party groups here in GA claiming to be the "real" ones - but I think uberCash is a pretty good indicator of power.

After all, money talks. What does it matter that this grassroots bunch over here is doing this or that when Supreme Teapot Bachmann gives orders from her Koch funders and the Caucus kneels to obey?

(Yes, hyperbole here. I like to imagine Bachmann robed and hooded, intoning "Tea Leaves, gather unto me and hearken to the hot water provided by the grand Kochtopus! Act so that we may throw down the Muslin Negro Usurper!" And the Tea Party Caucus raises their hands in the air, unsheathing their Liberal Kill Daggers, screaming "DEATH TO THE ZOBAMA!")

What were the orders and what percentage followed them as they desired? I recall there being skepticism especially on the libertarian wing of the tea party, over the conventions.

What were the orders and what percentage followed them as they desired?

To know that, we would have to have spies in their inner councils.
Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of espionage setup.

This realization then, is illuminating vis-a-vis how much weight should be given to what are essentially self-appointed figureheads.

If we're going to worry about people following orders from designated power-brokers and bogeymen, let's be sure there's a solid foundation to stake the claim on. Without it, it's no different than if switching the name of the bogeyman to Soros the way Beck et-al do, and people will end up wasting energy worrying about things for which they do not have a well-reasoned purpose to worry. The tea-parties are not a unified front led by the media. Foreign policy, the drug war, among other things are wedge issues that strike down the middle. Libertarians really don't have any love for political social conservatism (only the abortion issue gets tricky among libertarians depending on how certain principles are read, but they are principled divisions, not opportunistic ones)

But that doesn't change the fact that the Koch brothers started and fund the Tea Party movement.

Except that's not a fact. Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement.

This is the first time I've ever heard this... I'm not doubting you, I just find it a surprising comment.

Rep. Paul used the term in the 2008 elections, amd he's stated his frustration several times the movement today has been hijacked by neo-cons (he used that term), and changed the nature of the movement.

I documented it several times in past posts. I didn't bookmark it or I'd just point you to there. Since I don't have time to dig it up right now, you can Google for Ron Paul Tea Party 2008 and find out for yourself.

Fair enough! It's a pity the Tea Party isn't more like Ron Paul. I think Libertarians are overly idealistic and philosophically flawed, but it is far, far, far preferable to the racist, socialism for me, nothing for others, keep government out of my life and in your bedroom types that seem to epitomise the Tea Party from where I'm sitting (which is on the dunny, wifi FTW!).

far preferable to the racist, socialism for me, nothing for others, keep government out of my life and in your bedroom types that seem to epitomise the Tea Party from where I'm sitting

That's what the media wants you to see, as part of the "minimize the threat" tactics of the establishment.

lol

One word: Soroooos!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only