On October 22 2010 02:06 xDaunt wrote: It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party.
The opening paragraphs are all direct quotes from O'Donnell as well as press recaps of her various scandals. Are you saying direct quotation and statement of facts constitutes an "attack"? It's not the "liberal media" or her political opponent who said these things, they were direct lines from O'Donnell's speech. The rest of the article is filled with direct lines from founding fathers and various members of the Tea Party, the author of the article did not make any of that up.
In fact, the only opinion part of the piece is equating the Tea Party with fundamentalism, and the author draws this (objective) comparison from direct quotes from the Tea Party as well as comparison to similar, if not identical, fundamentalist groups from the past. If you disagree, which is your right, that hardly constitutes the article as a "failure". Civil discourse cannot exist if we're going to degenerate into outright dismissal of dissenting opinions and accusations of "agendas".
As an aside, I have never met a member of the Tea Party who admitted to supporting O'Donnell, or Glenn Beck, or Palin, or Bush, or anyone else like that. In fact, the media crusades of such people and their opinions are downright dismissed by such "real" Tea Party members, who claim that they do not truly represent the Tea Party, or that they have somehow hijacked the image of the Tea Party. Well, all I can say is, there must be an enormous underclass of highly opinionated phantom people in the Tea Party that are somehow managing the Tea Party's finances as well as selecting candidates for the Tea Party to support, over the objections of "real" Tea Party members.
The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Here's the meat of the article:
The Tea Partiers belong to a different tradition—a tradition of divisive fundamentalism. Like other fundamentalists, they seek refuge from the complexity and confusion of modern life in the comforting embrace of an authoritarian scripture and the imagined past it supposedly represents. Like other fundamentalists, they see in their good book only what they want to see: confirmation of their preexisting beliefs. Like other fundamentalists, they don’t sweat the details, and they ignore all ambiguities. And like other fundamentalists, they make enemies or evildoers of those who disagree with their doctrine.
Let me distill down what the author is saying: the tea party = the religious right in America. It's a load of garbage. The religious right has always been a prominent and vocal minority in the country. The religious right makes up only about 20% of the population. Just like the "liberal" 20% of the country, this minority by itself cannot drive elections. There has to be a broader appeal that attracts a broader voting base. Though it certainly is an element of the tea party, the religious right is not what is driving the tea party now. The tea party is much bigger than that.
The tea party is a grassroots reactionary movement to a federal government that a very large percentage of Americans see as, at best, disconnected and out of touch with the American people. Less charitably speaking, the tea party sees the federal government as being full of corrupt politicians that are answering to special interests and not the people. Watching Congress pass Obamacare, which was unpopular as a bill and is even less popular now, only serves as proof of the tea party's suspicions. A majority of people did not want Obamacare, they voiced that opposition, yet they got Obamacare anyway. Other bills, such as the stimulus bill, are further proof of this.
Just to be clear, the anger that has galvanized the tea party didn't start with the Obama administration. It started during the Bush administration when Bush and the republicans passed a bunch of bills that the people did not want. That's why so many incumbent republicans were slaughtered during the primaries.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding of the tea party.
The other thing that amazes me constantly is how the strength of the tea party movement has been consistently underestimated. It's been derided as "astroturf," "special interest driven," and "lacking staying power." There's going to be a grand reassessment following the elections in November.
Well, all the people who are running for office under the Tea Party name (or at least those mentioned n the article) are crazy people trying to promote their own selfish agenda. So that's all we hear about. The extremists.
And Congress doesn't give a damn if a majority of people don't want Obamacare. Something like 98% of Congressional incumbents get reelected. If the people aren't happy, they sure aren't showing it in the polls.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: Well, all the people who are running for office under the Tea Party name (or at least those mentioned n the article) are crazy people trying to promote their own selfish agenda. So that's all we hear about. The extremists.
The reason why there are so many misconceptions about the tea party is that most of the media intentionally misrepresents the tea party as a bunch of fringe lunatics. The Newsweek article was predictably guilty of it, and that's why I made fun of the article.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: And Congress doesn't give a damn if a majority of people don't want Obamacare. Something like 98% of Congressional incumbents get reelected. If the people aren't happy, they sure aren't showing it in the polls.
I don't know what polls you're looking at, but everyone who voted for Obamacare and the stimulus package, except those who are in the staunchest of blue/democratic districts, is in danger of being thrown out of office. Every poll shows the democrats getting epically slaughtered in this election.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: Well, all the people who are running for office under the Tea Party name (or at least those mentioned n the article) are crazy people trying to promote their own selfish agenda. So that's all we hear about. The extremists.
The reason why there are so many misconceptions about the tea party is that most of the media intentionally misrepresents the tea party as a bunch of fringe lunatics. The Newsweek article was predictably guilty of it, and that's why I made fun of the article.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: And Congress doesn't give a damn if a majority of people don't want Obamacare. Something like 98% of Congressional incumbents get reelected. If the people aren't happy, they sure aren't showing it in the polls.
I don't know what polls you're looking at, but everyone who voted for Obamacare and the stimulus package, except those who are in the staunchest of blue/democratic districts, is in danger of being thrown out of office. Every poll shows the democrats getting epically slaughtered in this election.
Well, then I guess we'll have to wait for the inevitable "The Democrats suck! Let's vote them out!" So we vote them out, and four years later the country is still shitty. "The Republicans suck! Let's vote them out!"
On October 22 2010 03:07 Zeridian wrote: this thread is funny, I don't even like this lady but it shows where the political lean of the OP and thread readers mostly is.
On October 22 2010 03:08 xDaunt wrote: The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Really? Simply incorrect? I must say, I'm quite impressed that you can gloss over the 10+ paragraphs substantiating this claim through televised quotes and direct comparisons and then outright dismiss it all as "simply incorrect".
Let me distill down what the author is saying: the tea party = the religious right in America. It's a load of garbage. The religious right has always been a prominent and vocal minority in the country. The religious right makes up only about 20% of the population. Just like the "liberal" 20% of the country, this minority by itself cannot drive elections. There has to be a broader appeal that attracts a broader voting base. Though it certainly is an element of the tea party, the religious right is not what is driving the tea party now. The tea party is much bigger than that.
No. The author is stating the tea party is similar to the religious right, and the reason why they are similar is not because they're religious but because they both have a fanatical devotion to a document and they have very similar modi operandi. The author then proceeds to elaborate on this dramatic comparison. If you disagree with that assessment, that's fine, but it certainly doesn't make the article "garbage" or means it "failed miserably".
And I thought I made this point clear but it's rather silly to have all of this anger over people underestimating or misunderstanding the Tea Party. These conceptions are not made up on the fly by the "liberal media", they are taken directly from what members and candidates of the Tea Party are saying - Paul, Angle, and indeed, O'Donnell. If you have a problem with the image of the Tea Party and think it is being fundamentally misrepresented, take it up with your own party and start selecting better candidates to represent you, don't direct your anger at the other side. I hear this "I'm not a fan of O'Donnell" trash everywhere and well, if no one's a fan of O'Donnell, where's the support coming from? Why did the Tea Party finance her campaign if she is not supported by the Tea Party? How did she get the votes to defeat Castle? Why does she continue to speak at Tea Party rallies?
You provide these elaborate explanations of what the Tea Party "really" is while right behind you Tea Party loudmouths, financed by the Tea Party, say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. And yet you place the blame of the misunderstanding of the Tea Party on liberals?
On October 22 2010 03:08 xDaunt wrote: The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Really? Simply incorrect? I must say, I'm quite impressed that you can gloss over the 10+ paragraphs substantiating this claim through televised quotes and direct comparisons and then outright dismiss it all as "simply incorrect".
Honestly, it isn't that hard to do.
On October 22 2010 04:38 Krigwin wrote: No. The author is stating the tea party is similar to the religious right, and the reason why they are similar is not because they're religious but because they both have a fanatical devotion to a document and they have very similar modi operandi. The author then proceeds to elaborate on this dramatic comparison. If you disagree with that assessment, that's fine, but it certainly doesn't make the article "garbage" or means it "failed miserably".
If it weren't for the fact that the author distills the tea party movement down to being about a "culture war," I might agree with you. This is why the author "failed miserably" to explain the tea party movement and why the article is "garbage."
On October 22 2010 04:38 Krigwin wrote: No. The author is stating the tea party is similar to the religious right, and the reason why they are And I thought I made this point clear but it's rather silly to have all of this anger over people underestimating or misunderstanding the Tea Party. These conceptions are not made up on the fly by the "liberal media", they are taken directly from what members and candidates of the Tea Party are saying - Paul, Angle, and indeed, O'Donnell. If you have a problem with the image of the Tea Party and think it is being fundamentally misrepresented, take it up with your own party and start selecting better candidates to represent you, don't direct your anger at the other side. I hear this "I'm not a fan of O'Donnell" trash everywhere and well, if no one's a fan of O'Donnell, where's the support coming from? Why did the Tea Party finance her campaign if she is not supported by the Tea Party? How did she get the votes to defeat Castle? Why does she continue to speak at Tea Party rallies?
You provide these elaborate explanations of what the Tea Party "really" is while right behind you Tea Party loudmouths, financed by the Tea Party, say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. And yet you place the blame of the misunderstanding of the Tea Party on liberals?
The tea party movement is not represented by any one group or individual. It's a completely amorphous, grassroots movement that lacks a leader. Many people forget that the tea party movement started with Rick Santelli ranting on the floor of a stock exchange while on CNBC. Yes, there are prominent figures within the tea party, but there is no standard bearer. There are many factions within the tea party movement. The only common thread is a shared distrust of the federal government. That's what motivates the tea party and creates the political majority that is getting "tea party" candidates elected.
My problem with the liberal media is that it intentionally ignores this obvious fact in its representations of the tea party because the liberal media is for the very things (and politicians) that the tea party opposes.
This is certainly not a simple issue. I view government as a necessary evil, so naturally I don't like big invasive government. The U.S. government has certainly grown larger than it should have ever grown, IMO. So I liked the idea of the Tea Parties, protesting is a great thing, it keeps pressure on government to stay honest. What I'm seeing now in the Tea Party just sucks. The Neo-Cons have moved right in and is taking it over. Fuck Palin, Gingrich and all other main-line republicans who sweep in and try to steer the movement.
O'Donnell seems to me as something different thought, I don't think she is controlled by the republican party, just an idiot. So I ask myself: would I rather have a person who just goes along with the party or a honest idiot? I think I would rather have the idiot. Although I could be wrong about her being honest.
In ending my quick little chime-in, I hate political parties. I say that we should do away with them and just have people with ideas. Having party system just ends up having to make the choice of which one is less evil. I am fucking tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils. I want to vote for someone that I like and not someone who I think will screw me less than the other guy.
I live in Canada so this doesn't really affect me but honestly it's weird that a party like this is gaining any momentum. Guess it just goes to show how unhappy Americans are with the current system. Can't wait for the next federal election though
On October 22 2010 05:03 xDaunt wrote: If it weren't for the fact that the author distills the tea party movement down to being about a "culture war," I might agree with you. This is why the author "failed miserably" to explain the tea party movement and why the article is "garbage."
I don't know about the entire movement being distilled part, but you don't think it, even if just in part, has to do with a culture war? I think we might be at the beginning of a fundamental culture shift here.
The tea party movement is not represented by any one group or individual. It's a completely amorphous, grassroots movement that lacks a leader. Many people forget that the tea party movement started with Rick Santelli ranting on the floor of a stock exchange while on CNBC. Yes, there are prominent figures within the tea party, but there is no standard bearer. There are many factions within the tea party movement. The only common thread is a shared distrust of the federal government. That's what motivates the tea party and creates the political majority that is getting "tea party" candidates elected.
My problem with the liberal media is that it intentionally ignores this obvious fact in its representations of the tea party because the liberal media is for the very things (and politicians) that the tea party opposes.
You do bring up a good point though here about the Tea Party. If the Tea Party is not represented by any one person or group, and it includes a large amount of differing factions, it logically raises the question of what exactly the Tea Party is for and what they plan to accomplish. Now of course, we all get the anti-federal government part and the cutting of spending part, but how exactly do they plan to accomplish any of that and who is going to be the ones to do it?
Right now it seems like the Tea Party movement is just largely against things, without many substantial ideas on improvement or leadership, and that's hardly constructive. Without a central base or leader or official representatives does the Tea Party have any plans beyond "vote against the Democrats", and how do they plan on carrying those plans out?
On October 22 2010 05:03 xDaunt wrote: If it weren't for the fact that the author distills the tea party movement down to being about a "culture war," I might agree with you. This is why the author "failed miserably" to explain the tea party movement and why the article is "garbage."
I don't know about the entire movement being distilled part, but you don't think it, even if just in part, has to do with a culture war? I think we might be at the beginning of a fundamental culture shift here.
There definitely is a component to the tea party movement that is all about culture war. Think about it this way: for the past 50 years, America has swung very far left culturally. There are a lot of people, particularly those who are religious, who look at the country and don't recognize it. They think that acceptance (not just tolerance) of promiscuity, homosexuality, and other behavior that they consider immoral has been rammed down their throats. The country may very well be on the verge of swinging the other way.
On October 22 2010 05:03 xDaunt wrote: The tea party movement is not represented by any one group or individual. It's a completely amorphous, grassroots movement that lacks a leader. Many people forget that the tea party movement started with Rick Santelli ranting on the floor of a stock exchange while on CNBC. Yes, there are prominent figures within the tea party, but there is no standard bearer. There are many factions within the tea party movement. The only common thread is a shared distrust of the federal government. That's what motivates the tea party and creates the political majority that is getting "tea party" candidates elected.
My problem with the liberal media is that it intentionally ignores this obvious fact in its representations of the tea party because the liberal media is for the very things (and politicians) that the tea party opposes.
You do bring up a good point though here about the Tea Party. If the Tea Party is not represented by any one person or group, and it includes a large amount of differing factions, it logically raises the question of what exactly the Tea Party is for and what they plan to accomplish. Now of course, we all get the anti-federal government part and the cutting of spending part, but how exactly do they plan to accomplish any of that and who is going to be the ones to do it?
Right now it seems like the Tea Party movement is just largely against things, without many substantial ideas on improvement or leadership, and that's hardly constructive. Without a central base or leader or official representatives does the Tea Party have any plans beyond "vote against the Democrats", and how do they plan on carrying those plans out?
This is the big question with the tea party. Where is it going? I don't think anyone knows yet. The next two years will be particularly interesting in this regard.
On October 22 2010 03:08 xDaunt wrote: The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Really? Simply incorrect? I must say, I'm quite impressed that you can gloss over the 10+ paragraphs substantiating this claim through televised quotes and direct comparisons and then outright dismiss it all as "simply incorrect".
Honestly, it isn't that hard to do.
You are exactly correct, it apparently is not very hard for you to just ignore all that evidence when you answer it with a mere sentence like the above...
The Tea "Party" movement is more than just one defined by distrust of politicians - an advocacy is not defined by mere nay-saying; rather, it's been summarily defined under libertarian leanings seen in nearly every single candidate it has backed, along with all of its prominent figures.
On October 22 2010 02:41 Obsidian wrote: I'm still waiting for a creditable, or hell... SANE person to emerge from the Tea Party.
Granted, I don't follow their chaotic movement much, for all I do have some sympathies with their agenda. I have yet to see a creditable, competent, or consistent message with well founded logic, principals, or ideas.
Maybe the reason why nobody 'liberal' can identify the tea party is because they have no identity. They have some rough, highly biased positions with no real answers or solutions, and they make a lot of noise proclaiming them, but they don't really say anything in spite of it all.
This is interesting to me because many liberal americans believe that it is a fluid movement with a concise leadership that is extremely powerful and very organized. lol, I don't see how anyone could think that, but every time any movement starts in the US it is immediately met with conspiracy theories.
BTW i like that odonnell looks so dumb, for some reason democrats want to focus on her hardcore even though she is surely going to lose. I don't understand all the funding and press for her, seems like a waste of resources.
The Tea party is almost impossible to identify with because there are so many idiots in it. BUT, I could say the same thing about the republican party, the libertarian party, and the democratic party. So many morons who have no idea what the position of their party is but just say shit they hear on msnbc, fox news, cnn, any of them.
I am an independent conservative with some socially liberal views, and I don't understand how anyone nowadays can say a blanket statement such as "Im a republican" when that encompasses so many conflicting ideas.
just say ur independent and the government is bad and people will think ur cool. Now people wont judge you based on ur political affiliation. Also tell them ur green so they wont start putting u into a stereotype.
EPT
