What IS the tea party?

[Anonymous]

I just saw an article that mentioned tea party supporters (in connection with people's opinions of Palin). It got me wondering exactly what it means to support the tea party -- is it something more than general anger at the status quo? Can those of you who consider yourselves supporters of the tea party tell me how you define tea party?

[Anonymous]

less spending, smaller government (less debt as a result), less involvement in every foreign squabble.

[Anonymous]

Except when bailouts are needed because there was no oversight.

[Anonymous]

Except for the wars thru support and the defense budget they won't cut. And the social issues they won't admit to.

[Anonymous]

tea party wants to cut defense. and are def against iraq and afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:tea party wants to cut defense. and are def against iraq and afghanistan.

I don't see any consistency within the tea party on this. Ron Paul may think this but many others seem quite opposite.

[Anonymous]

It's a loosely organized group of angry white people who want to blame Obama for the economic disaster he inherited while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Bush started the bailouts. Oh, also they want smaller government except when it comes to things like what happens in the bedroom or their own personal retirement.

[Anonymous]

They just realized that cutting the government means cutting Medicare and they don't like that! They are just old republicans!

[Anonymous]

OP here. Seven responses, of which only one sounds like it may be from a supporter. Is there only one tea partier reading this thread?

[Anonymous]

There does seem to be two strains of tea partier going: a more socially conservative strain and a more libertarian strain. The former probably trend older and are more nativist and are, when you peel back the layers, less Randroid than the latter. On the flip side, they don't really like blacks, gays, etc., harbor lingering resentments from the 1970s/1980s, and are more likely to be against cuts to defense, Social Security, and Medicare.

The latter are more consistent in their anti-government spending stance and less likely to be spouting off racist/homophobic crap -- focusing their disdain upon the poor in general (and let's face it, we all know some poor people who've made stupid decisions or taken bad paths in life.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There does seem to be two strains of tea partier going: a more socially conservative strain and a more libertarian strain. The former probably trend older and are more nativist and are, when you peel back the layers, less Randroid than the latter. On the flip side, they don't really like blacks, gays, etc., harbor lingering resentments from the 1970s/1980s, and are more likely to be against cuts to defense, Social Security, and Medicare.

The latter are more consistent in their anti-government spending stance and less likely to be spouting off racist/homophobic crap -- focusing their disdain upon the poor in general (and let's face it, we all know some poor people who've made stupid decisions or taken bad paths in life.)

I think this is a good description (I would add that the former are likely the angry ones at rallies, often carrying firearms, chanting "I want my country back"). But I also don't think there'a a bright line test - it's a continuum.

As an admitted liberal, I hate to admit it, but the latter do raise some compelling points. However, they're most often drowned out by the hypocrisy and latent racism of the former.

[Anonymous]

I'm a bit cynical, but I think that the core Tea Party supporters are Republican's who are trying to distance themselves from 8 years of complete and total, across the board failure under President Bush. 6 years of which they have complete control of all three branches of government (yes, 6 of 9 justices were GOP appointees).

How do you run with that type of track record fresh in everyone's mind?

Murdoch & Co., fund and promote the rebranding and... *poof* success!!

[Anonymous]

Also, don't forget that a huge portion of this current financial mess we're in is a direct result of the Bush tax cuts. Both the corporate cut and individual cut for the rich.

Back while they were passing those cuts Cheney said "deficits don't matter". Funny how the GOP's tune changes when it turns out that they were wrong.

Jon Stewart showed a graph of the current deficit projection witha Bush tax cut overlay..Poof, at least half of the projected deficits disappear if we reverse them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:..at least half of the projected deficits disappear if we reverse them.

Why would we ever want to do that when we can just as easily fix things by cutting benefits and programs that help the middle and lower class?

[Anonymous]

We can easily fix things by cutting the size of the defense department. And stop funding highway improvements. And forget about giving the states money for education. I think we should cut the South - they use most of our tax dollars, so they drain our resources anyway. Who needs them?