2010 Tea Party Convention

Yeah, you really set that imaginary person from the fake article on that satirical comedy website straight.

 

This was the Tea Party convention.

Tancredo was the lead speaker.

Most objective observers would surmise that a speaker given a lead role would establish the primary goals, tone and focus of the party.

I think Tancredo did this extremely well.

 

Agreed. Thumbs keeps talking about these rational, reasonable Tea Baggers, yet we rarely, if ever, hear them speak up. The voices we hear, including the lead speaker at their convention, speak with intolerance, derision, and hatred. They spew buzzwords they've heard on Fox News, spread half-truths and outright lies, and then shout you down when you try to tell them anything other than what they want to hear.

If, as thumbs says, the majority of the Tea Baggers are truly rational and reasonable, it's way past time for them to let their voices be heard and speak out against those who represent their group so poorly. But I doubt you'll ever see that happen.

 

Yeah, I have seen not one whiff of moderate voice, and I'm done with it, again.

Sorry, thumbs. When your opening speaker makes such ridiculous remarks. Then the organizer of the entire event supports those remarks, and then you have Palin as the keynote speaker -- let's just call it what it is: an event that plays overwhelmingly to the most conservative parts of the GOP base. For more people than not, Palin is a polarizing turn off. That's a terrible choice for a keynote speaker if you want to start something new, and the worst choice possible if you want to start something thoughtful.

And again, nobody can cite any "radical agenda" specifics for Obama. Again, Reagan's tax policies (except more policies aimed to help small businesses and small business owners)? Health care reform largely endorsed by the GOP of the 1990's (you know, the Newt Gingrich crowd, pre-Obama)? Cap and trade is radical?

There are honest ways to disagree with these, line by line, but "most radical agenda in history," is just plain silly.

 

For what it's worth, the groups with whom I communicate are irritated over the grandstanding by a non-elected leadership and over the GOP assuming the tea parties belong to them. I think the "leadership" wanted to "legitimize" the convention and make it a success so they needed some stemwinders and "stars."

I didn't go because, as I said before, I am not keen on hoopla, but this convention reminds me a lot of AARP. Who elects AARP's leadership who then says they speak for seniors? They are nothing more than an insurance sales organization.

 

There isn't one. That's what I was just expressing in the last post. If there was one national figure closest to the movement's true position, that person would be Mike Huckaby.

 

Trancredo should have read the signs at the Tea Party convention, before talking about other voters.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-qSMWTgLPuA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-qSMWTgLPuA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

FWIW, if you truly want the movement to be successful, the first thing you all need to work on is extracting yourselves from these bozos who are now nationally representing the group. The group is always going to be looked at through the prism of it's leaders. The GOP was Bush. The Dems were Pelosi and Reid and now Obama. If y'all don't want people like Tancredo representing you, then its up to you guys to not let that happen.

It's annoying, but ultimately, if the group can't even pick its own representatives properly, it doesn't have much hope of changing anything outside of its own group. You guys become just like any other political party and everything you're supposed to be fighting against.

 

What people don't understand is that the movement is in its infancy and probably won't achieve cohesion for months and months, maybe not until 2012.

Personally, I was opposed to this "convention" other than to hold workshops on how to organize precinct and county units, set up an internal voting methodology for leadership positions and perhaps draft clearcut iniatives to take back to the general tea party populace. The outrage that sparked the molten mass from out of the formless void now needs to cool and take shape and direction.

 

I love my country but it's people like this guy who just make me want to up and move. They speak as if what they say is gospel but it's just empty rhetoric with no substance or point.

The part about Jefferson and Madison epitomizes people like him. He's dead wrong but why let facts get in the way of a good talking point to rally more ignorant people to your cause?

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Major again.

 

But this "infant" movement is causing immeasurable damage to the United States by throwing temper tantrums on the national stage. They are spreading lies on a daily basis, and using FUD to spread their message of intolerance and hate. Why do the "reasonable, rational" Tea Baggers tolerate this? Why don't they speak up? Why don't they boo these people off the stage? If, as you say, they are they majority, why do we never see them or hear them?

Incidentally, Burke never said that. In fact, it's widely believed to be an adaptation of a quote from a Russian film of "War and Peace". Damn Commies!

 

Nicely put.

 

Immeasurable damage? Temper tantrums on the national stage? Spreading lies? I realize it is superbowl weekend, but you really have had too much to drink.

When the political process has run amuck, the comman man is obliged to step forward, protest and bring about redress. Didn't the hippie culture of the 60s have a profound impact on their time and did they not eventually bring change?

It's the irrational people like you and Batman Jones who make rational discourse and exchange of ideas very difficult if not impossible. You should learn to think before you cast aspersions. But I fear that won't happen.

 

I am being quite rational. What would you call someone who screams in the face of a congressman, then won't even let them respond to the verbal attack? That is throwing a temper tantrum, and that is what the Tea Baggers have done. What would you call someone who calls the President of the United States the leader of a "a fascist, socialist regime"? That is spreading an outright lie, and that is what the Tea Baggers have done. I'm not making these things up: these are the actions of the group with which YOU choose to associate. These actions are irresponsible, not in the best interest of the country, and are damaging to the country as a whole.

Fine, protest. Bring about redress. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not what's happening here. These "protests" are spreading fear and misinformation. Many of the people at these events don't even seem to be clear what, specifically, they're protesting. They just don't like Obama.

Ah, name-calling. How rational of you!

Why don't you answer my question: why do the "reasonable, rational" Tea Baggers tolerate this? Why don't they speak up? Why don't they boo these people off the stage? If, as you say, they are they majority, why do we never see them or hear them?

 

I don't know about the immeasurable damage, or temper tantrums one way or the other. But they have definitely been guilty of spreading lies.

 

'

Understood - but at the same time, the infancy is when the movement is shaped. And your movement is in the process of being hijacked by crazy people right now. If you're going to stop it, it has be now - or they are going to be the ones that ultimately define whatever the tea party movement becomes by 2012.

 

thumbs, Major's getting down to the nut here. As he put very well, "...your movement is in the process of being hijacked by crazy people right now. If you're going to stop it, it has be now - or they are going to be the ones that ultimately define whatever the tea party movement becomes by 2012... " If you aren't going to gain control of your own movement now, when on earth do you think you will ever be able to control it? People like you? The wack jobs from the far-right wing of the GOP are very busy grabbing control of your tea party and using it as a tool for their own interests. If you can't see that, I'm amazed, and if you don't stop it, your movement is not a movement at all, but an arm of the Republican Party, not exactly what I've been hearing that you and your comrades want to have happen.

 

I've taken my good easy time in addressing your post, Deckard and Major, so I could get some input on questions I posed to the advocates with whom I communicate (each of them are organizers on the precinct level).

I hate parsing because one loses the contextual meaning so let me address your concerns, even if I have to go the long way around the barn to do it.

No one as of yet controls the movement -- it is too fragmented. You and I date back to the hippie culture of the 60s and 70s so let's start there with some analogy. Back then there were the literal bomb throwers (Weather Underground like Bill Ayers) on one extreme and the absolute pacificists on the other. There were lots of middle ground protesters who advocated anti-war, pro-drug, free will positions.

The same IMO is true now of the Tea Party splinter groups. I believe the middle ground of advocates are fed up with Republicans and Democrats saying one thing and doing another. There are the bomb throwers (Tancredo) and the wave-riders (Palin) who are out to capitalize on the coverage. They have their followings but not the loyality of the whole.

I know you won't believe me -- perhaps because you don't want to believe me -- but this is not what the shop owner / middle management / regular mom / professional person / independent backbone of the movement is about. We genuinely want change, not lip service. A surprising number of people in the movement voted for Obama because of the open government, end of gridlock, balanced budget, compassion-for-all that he promised -- and now they feel like they were swindled by Obama and his promises. What's the cliche about hell having no fury like that of a scorned lover?

So, the people who will ultimately control the movement (which is neither Republican nor Democrat but certainly conservative leaning) will not be the people to whom the press attributes control. Votes for Blue Dog Democrats and moderate Republicans will reflect this, but my hypothesis will not be validated until you have the results of the 2010 elections.

Now, other than some overly ambitious hyperbole, I do not see the outright lies to which you and others allude. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of stretching the truth so thin a microscope is needed to see the connection. The only named lie is the one alleged by BetterThanI who said:
(Obama was called) the leader of a "a fascist, socialist regime?"

Well, although Nazis claimed to be both, facists and socialists are at opposite ends of the spectrum so that is very difficult. Is Obama a socialist? Yes, but so was my hero, Lyndon B. Johnson because he did in fact set up a socialist program called Medicare. Was it bad? No, I don't think many people consider it so today although a number of people 40+ years ago did. Socialism is bad when it goes too far. Where is too far won't be fully decided until 2012.

So is Obama a fascist? He is proving to be so by owning majority stakes in key industries (auto and banking so far) and setting the rules (like with a pay czar). Under Nazi rule, the little companies could do as they pleased so long as they didn't interfere with the general welfare of the country. ( I still liken Geithner to Albert Speer, even though Major continues to disagree.) But is Obama's position as strident as the Nazi regime? Of course not. Or, at least, not yet.

Lastly, in the end we want to be like Hispanics -- a powerful, growing group who is wooed by both paries. The Democrats own the black vote, and the Republicans own the religious right. The Hispanics lean to the Democrats but will vote Republican. The tea party advocates lean to the GOP but will vote Democratic, especially if the GOP continues to lie to us and assume we are in their pocket.

That is just my opinion and is only supported by groups in three states. We have a long, long way to go and there will be many who claim they speak for us as a whole. The press is too lazy to do anything more than listen to people who can give them a good sound bite, and so too will quite a few here who refuse to swim below the surface on occasion. But then, what do I know?