Why the Tea Party is being Mischaracterized

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    In recent days even Republicans, who call themselves conservative, are painting the Tea part as extremists. There are several reasons they are doing this and there are several reasons why everyone who paints the Tea Party as extremists are wrong. I find it ironic if not absurd that the very movement that won the House of Representatives back for the Republicans in 2010 are now being bullied and painted falsely. The very stance the Tea Party took in 2010 is now being characterized as extreme. How can this be? The first error in the recent caricature of the Tea Party is that it is strictly the extreme wing of the Republican Party.

    That is largely a Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi talking point. The truth is that the Tea Party has always been a movement made up of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats who are tired of the unceasing spending and heavy government regulations that puts Americans out of work.(1) The goal to paint the Tea Party as simply an extreme wing of the Republican Party is just plain dishonest. One of the caricatures of the Tea Party has been that they are not the party of Ronald Reagan. This false caricature is coming from within the Republican Party itself. It is sad and shameful that this is happening within our party.

    And honestly I question the motives behind this behavior as it is as extreme a behavior as they are falsely claiming the Tea Party to be. I would add that there are honest people who are buying into this false caricature but the point of origin is where I question the motives. The fact is this could not be more wrong. One of the recent reasons given for this has been the recent shutdown of the government. This was labeled as unnecessary and unlike anything Reagan would do. However, when you take a look back into time under the administration of President Ronald Reagan what you find is that the government shut down more times under Reagan than under any other conservative President in history. (2,3)

    Those who are Republicans and are at the point of origin of this false characterization of the Tea Party know these facts about history and are simply ignoring them due to political expediency for their own jobs because of their weak stomach for doing the right thing. With the recent election in the state of Virginia the mean spirited nature of the establishment Republicans could not have been more on display. There were a number of Republicans who were willing to endorse an extremist Democrat like Terry McAuliffe instead of what has been characterized as a Tea Party candidate. Boyd Marcus, the previous chief of staff for Cantor came out in support of McAuliffe, former Republican National Committee finance chairman Dwight Schar supported him as well, Judy Ford Wason, who is a GOP strategist who did work for Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, endorsed McAuliffe, Former Virginia Sen. John Chichester, the former GOP president pro tempore of the Virginia Senate, also endorsed McAuliffe, former state GOP Sen. Russ Potts did as well as a few others. The real kicker here is that while RNC chairman Reince Priebus spent Tuesday in New Jersey to support Chris Christie he did not make any effort to do the same for Cuccinelli.(4) Given that the Libertarian candidate who entered the race late was largely funded by Democrats it would seem that Preibus would want to make an effort.
    I believe this shows a clear attempt to undermine anyone dubbed a “Tea Party” candidate and this coming from the Republican Party that gained the majority in the House of Representatives largely because of the Tea Party. This appears to be highly hypocritical and nothing but a practice of how to shoot yourself in the foot. But Juan Williams wrote an opinion piece about the details of the recent conflict between some Republicans and the Tea Party. It appears that Boehner is seen as not having control of his House of Representatives because others have outside the House has been influential over House Republicans.(5) As Williams put it “The stampede ran over Boehner and he lost control. Now out of 232 Republicans in the House, he has at best 80 votes at his command.”

    So now it appears that Boehner and the establishment Republicans are in a battle over the House of Representatives and political power. It also appears that in order to gain back that so called power they are willing to undermine Republican candidates by giving support to Democrat candidates who are diametrically and politically opposed to what Republicans say they stand for. This behavior is shameful and should not be supported by anyone. It shows a lack of character and it shows severe immoral problems. No majority leader should try to have that kind of power over people. Each individual representative should be listening to their constituents that elected them, not buckle under the political power and pressure from some power hungry majority leader. We need ethical politicians who are looking out for the people. We need politicians who serve the people not themselves. Boehner and his ilk need to go. Period.




    1. www.teaparty.org ; http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/
    Rich Smith, “10 Fun Facts About the Government Shutdown”.
    2. www.dailyfinacne.com; http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/10/12/10-fun-facts-about-the-government-shutdown/ (Oct 12th 2013)
    3. "Brief Government Shutdown." In Historic Documents of 1981, 831-34. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1982. http://library.cqpress.com/historicdocuments/hsdc81-0000110833.
    4. Matthew Boyle. “Cantor's Ex-Chief of Staff Helped McAuliffe to Victory”; http://www.breitbart.com. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ff-helped-Terry-McAuliffe-beat-Ken-Cuccinelli (5 Nov 2013)
    5. http://thehill.com//thehill.com/opi...-boehner-is-leader-in-name-only#ixzz2jtHAGhWi
     
  2. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    New motto - The Tea Party, bring division to your political party since 2004!

    They are interesting group for sure. One question though, they said on their about page (thanks for the link) that one of their core beliefs is that gun ownership is sacred, really how do they determine that? Does that mean the Constitution is a sacred document?

    Sacred = holy, hallowed, blessed, consecrated, sanctified, venerated, revered; archaic blest

    I like the idea of less spending, lower taxes, less government, average citizen emphasis, but it is this kind of stuff that makes me cringe. Well, that and the whole nonsense about America being founded as a Christian nation.
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    So, like Reagan the Tea Party would embrace amnesty for illegal immigrants, raise the social security payroll tax to continue to fund it, and negotiate arms treaties with adversaries? Is that correct?
     
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reagan's "amnesty" program only covered 350,000 farm workers. It was not blanket amnesty like the flaming liberals want.

    Very limited in scope, and temporary. He signed it into law in 1986, with a "sunset provision" of two years later.

    After throwing out Carter's idiotic SALT II treaty to negotiate a much stronger treaty with a much more reasonable Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. It can be said without equivocation that Reagan's START treaty was the death knell for the old USSR.

    So before you try to paint Ronnie's compromises as blatant socialist B/S, let's put those compromises in perspective, shall we?
     
    #4 thisnumbersdisconnected, Nov 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2013
  5. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    I'd have ask a Tea Party member, but the first core belief on the website states

    Illegal aliens are here illegally

    I don't know for sure but it sounds like they would not support amnesty.
     
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    Where do you get your facts from? The number was 2.9 million. Even if it was 350,000 the Tea Party would never go for it.

    Umm...the FICA rate was changed in 1983, not 1986,and is still with us today, 12.4% (6.2% employer, 6.2% employee.) Obama lowered it for two years to 10.4% (6.2% employer, 4.2% employee).

    So you are admitting that he did negotiate arms control treaties with our adversaries. Good. Something the Tea Party would never do.

    Let's get our facts straight.
     
    #6 InTheLight, Nov 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2013
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, you're right. The 350,000 was the number of migrant workers who had been in the country for at least 90 days that were added into the amnesty plan at the last minute. Nonetheless, Reagan had no intent of allowing the plan to give green cards to 2.7 million -- not 2.9 as you stated, but close enough -- illegals. It appears that many did not qualify for temporary status, but the old INS bureaucrats waived many of them through the program rather than go to through the tedious task of vetting their alleged qualifications.

    http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

    Reasonable adversaries. If you think Reagan would have negotiated with terrorists, you have another think coming. Did he negotiate with Iran? No. He scared the crap out of the ayatollah and the hostages were released about five minutes after he took the oath of office.

    So, let's get your facts straight.
     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    Yeah, that's what I was thinking, for sure. Nice way to twist my words.


    They're as straight as I-8 from Gila Bend to Yuma.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    There are some assumptions made that cannot be supported about both the Tea Party and Reagan.

    Assumption # 1 Because Reagan did it before he would do it again.

    This cannot be supported and ignores some other facts. Largely that border security was also promised as part of the Reagan amnesty which never materialized. We can be fairly sure Reagan would not go for it again since what he wanted the first time, border security, was ignored and fought all along the way.


    Assumption # 2 The Tea Party would never have ever been for amnesty.

    This cannot be supported either. The fact is that the reason the Tea Party is so vehemently against this is because this has been done before and border security was never handled like it was promised. So the attitude is No more.


    Assumption # 3 Reagan would be ok with the current spending because he spent a lot before.

    This is in error because the deficit was no where near what it is today.

    Assumption # 4 The Tea Party would never have agreed to the spending in the past under Reagan.

    This assumption is in error. The Tea Party made of uo Republicans, Independents, and Democrats are tired of the unfettered spending that has reached new heights. Even under Clinton he agreed and worked with Republicans on spending. But Obama refuses to and wants only a blank check. That is far different than any spending under either Reagan or Clinton.

    (As far as spending goes Bush 1 & 2 are an entirely different thing.)

    Folks we really need to think these things through and consider all the details and motives rather than just blindly making claims.
     
  10. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure you want to stick with that analogy?

    [​IMG]
     
  11. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,186
    Likes Received:
    611
    LOL. Looks less than straight on that map but I've been on that highway before and the guy I was with that was driving took his hands off the steering wheel for longer than 2 minutes at a time.
     
    #11 InTheLight, Nov 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2013
  12. FollowTheWay

    FollowTheWay
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    4
    Mr

    Reagan claimed to reduce the size of government and the federal debt. The reality is he significantly raised both.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Anyone who questions the established order of things is going to get the smear treatment. There's a lot of people with a lot invested in this corrupt corporatist system the idea of giving up money, power and control scares them.

    They'll try to tar and feather anyone who isn't with the program and create divisons that can be exploited. That's what they do.
     
    #13 poncho, Nov 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...