Watching the news the other day, a reporter commented on Tea Party results in the recent primaries. Another story dealt with the Tea Party and racism. There was also a newspaper article on poll results for Americans towards the Tea Party. Even the London Daily Telegraph ran a story relating a candidate for Prime Minister to the Tea Party.
It was pretty darn good PR for something that doesn't actually exist.
I mean, honestly now -- the Tea Party? There isn't a Tea Party, other than that thing your four-year-old daughter throws with her invisible friends. Which, come to think of it, is an excellent description of this other "Tea Party."
It's also one of the great examples of razzle dazzle. Getting the public pondering the Tea Party. As if it was an actual political party. Which it isn't.
Mind you, this isn't to say that there aren't people running around with tea bags hanging from their hats, carrying signs with swastikas, and even organizing in large groups that can sway votes. There are. Only a month ago, 9,000 activists rallied in Nevada to protest Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and health care reform. Television coverage was massive.
Then again, just one week ago, an estimated one million people gathered across America to protest Arizona's immigration bill. In downtown Los Angeles alone, there were 60,000 people.
For those keeping score, one million is larger than 9,000.
But still, that rally in Nevada sure got a lot of news coverage. More even than the million did. It was a Really Big Deal! Because they wore funny hats, had signs with swastikas, and called themselves -- TEA PARTYERS!!
Tea Partyers!!!!
Huzza, oh, huzza.
There is no Tea Party.
Forget the internal documents showing that the "Tea Party Express" outfit is merely a blatant, cynical effort to make money for the PR agencies who are organizing crowds. Those are just facts and can easily be dismissed by anyone willing to close their eyes.
But less easily dismissed is that for all the effort of the PR agencies putting together rallies, putting together town halls, putting together "conventions," there's one thing they somehow haven't been able to put together, that you'd think would be really important for a political party:
Candidates.
I don't mean Republican candidates who say they support the "Tea Party," pandering to get "Tea Party" votes. No, no, I mean people running on an actual Tea Party Ticket.
For instance, there was angst-ridden outrage last week in California when Sarah Palin endorsed fired Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for the Senate over the supposed "Tea Party Candidate," Chuck DeVore. Except that, you see, Mr. DeVore is a Republican. He's running in the Republican primary. He wants to be the Republican Senator.
If the Tea Party actually existed, if Tea Party People truly had the courage of their convictions, if the Tea Party wasn't merely a PR gimmick -- then we'd see Chuck DeVore running in the Tea Party.
We'd see somebody running in the Tea Party. Somewhere. I mean, honestly, if the Tea Party actually existed, if the Tea Party was a growing movement, a meaningful movement, a movement period -- you'd think we'd see one candidate who was actually, seriously running as a designated representative of "The Tea Party." Rather than what they are -- in Utah, Florida, Arizona, everywhere: running as Republicans, for the Republican nomination, to be a Republican candidates.
They may pander, but they're not idiots.
Hey, all you Tea Party folks who think you're in a real party? You've been snookered. Sorry.
There is no Tea Party. Tea Folks are the disenfranchised fringe of the far right wing of the Republican Party. The unwavering, blindly-supportive base of a Bush-Cheney Administration that brought you the Iraq War, warrantless wiretapping, economic collapse, divisive hatred, and so much less. And some clever PR marketing illusionists have figured out a way to bamboozle you, bamboozle the public and bamboozle the news media by rebranding something you threw out into thinking it is a Real Party - or a movement! - that can get the attention which the tiny, voiceless, discredited, radical conservative wing of the Republican Party that they are can't get on its own.
So, they call it a "Tea Party." Yes, it's a goony name. But it's better than Wing Nuts.
It's not a party. It's not even a "movement." It's the far right wing of the Republican Party. And that's fine, valid. But let's just be honest about who we are.
Scott Brown? He didn't become senator of Massachusetts because of the "Tea Party." He won because his opponent took a month off and went on vacation. And then ignored Brown. And then crumbled in the debate. So, Scott Brown won. As a Republican.
Sorry. I apologize for breaking it to you. But you're not a Tea Party. It doesn't exist. You're far right wing Republicans.
To be clear, that doesn't mean that if such people are mobilized that they can't have a voice in an election. They can. And are -- especially as activist voices within the Republican Party. Driving it farther and farther to the right.
If there is dissatisfaction in government today, dissatisfaction in government has existed since the days of Genghis Khan. If there is a desire to vote for the party out of power in an off-year election, there is always a desire to vote for the party out of power in an off-year election. These have nothing to do with a Tea Party that doesn't exist. How it all will play out in November, however, and to what degree -- or not -- we'll find out in November.
In the meantime, if you want to join a Tea Party, don't forget to bring your invisible friends.
UPDATED
Jeanne Devon ("AKMuckraker"): Sarah Palin's New Book. Get the Dramamine.
Get out your double strength Dramamine, or your shiatsu pressure point wrist bands or whatever you use. Because we're going on a cruise. Sarah Palin's new book has a title, and a release date, publisher HarperCollins announced Tuesday.
Nathan Daschle: Is Bill McCollum the Next Victim of the GOP Civil War?
After Utah Senator Bob Bennett's defeat, an emboldened Tea Party is looking for even more establishment candidates to take down. Polling out this weekend suggests the Tea Partiers' next victory could be over Florida AG McCollum.
It's goal is to dismember government, return the nation to a quasi-anarchy, and obstruct the type of reasoned and intelligent governance required by a 21st Century nation.
The movement's primary motive is fear - fear of losing control, fear of losing majority, fear of losing resources to others more powerful. Their reactionary approach - insisting on an ideological purity that would make Mao or Stalin proud - is not intended to raise candidates, but to reduce candidates to impotence. They want government as we know it to end.
Like most utopian fantasies, this one is doomed to founder on the rocks of reality and strangle on internal contradictions. But in the meanwhile, it can accomplish a great deal of damage.
And contribute nothing else to health or future of the nation.
It hasn't actually helped the GOP, it is has only created a disjointed group that is very small in reality and is primarily composed of wealthy white older males. The total membership is only about 18% of the total population and only 25% of Americans say they support the "tea party".
The GOP has put itself in a position of getting pushed farther and farther to the right by a small group which isn't going to help them long term.
The media should stop using the term "tea party" candidate since they are not an actual party and don't have an actual "ticket".
Just because a very small group of right wingers shouts out the loudest doesn't mean the media should give this group the most attention.
It is unfair journalism and unfair to the American people to be fed excessive media coverage of a select group that really doesn't deserve the level of coverage they are getting.
So what are you all worried about, if we, the evil Tea Partiers, aren't real?
You libs live in lala land. You refuse to acknowledge the conservative revolt around you. But we don't mind.
We're having too much fun voting you guys outta here! Harry Reid is next, and we should know! Check out the revolt in Reno: http://www.examiner.com/x-28761-Reno-Conservative-Examiner
Harry Reid hasn't had the support of all liberals or all Democrats. Some of us find him a tad wimpy on key issues. And not too long ago, some liberals talked about dumping Reid. I say some because liberals don't all agree on everything.
Democrats don't have a ideological purity test. Although some Democrats will campaign against those who vote too often with conservatives, the party actually tolerates debate on issues far more than I've seen with Republicans.
My question to tea party types is where were you when the Bush administration started a war (I never bought into the bogus WMD intelligence so I don't understand why anyone else did) and refused to fund it? Where was your deficit outrage when the Bush administration took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit? Where were you when the Bush administration gave incentives to corporations to send American jobs overseas? Where were you when the Bush administration enacted the intrustive privacy violations? Where were you when the Bush administration sent our troops to war without proper equipment?
And are you one of the Tea Partiers who wants to keep "Government hands out of Medicare" --(aka the Government Healthcare), because I've heard that more than once.
I could go on...but I need to walk my dog.
The "movement" is a collection of slogans, anti-Obama posturings, and disassociation from reality. Facts do not sway them, because they believe that facts are irrelevant. Belief is all.
But make no mistake - this "movement" is deadly dangerous to our freedom. It is willing to sacrifice anyone else's rights to gain what it desires - power. It uses scapegoating in ways not seen since the thirties and forties. All they need is a charismatic character to act as a focus and we will see a new American Fascism.
If you think that Tea Party people are "... willing to sacrifice anyone else's rights to gain ... power", you know absolutely nothing about them. Just because they reject the oppressive power of an overweening social democratic state doesn't mean that they want power. To the contrary, they reject the scope of power being exercised against them by rent seekers and thieves through government.
They and their supporters are the productive in our society who are fundamentally apolitical. As the producers in our society, they simply have to protect themselves from the rent seeking leeches who seek to use the power of government for their ideological ends. This is why the left accuses them of "having no solutions" to "problems" they reject government solutions for.
Ironically, the face of the "movement" consists of grannies with time on their hands, while the tens of millions of us who support them are busy working. I just love the way the left can find disingenuous words to impugn grannies looking out for the interests of their children and grandchildren.
The Tea Party is a movement intended from the very start to take control of the Republican Party.
The Tea Party already controls the Clark County Republican Party (Las Vegas) and the Nevada Republican Party. The Tea Party just re-wrote the Maine Republican Party platform. In Utah, the insurgents ousted an incumbent Senator. In Kentucky, Rand Paul is leading an establishment candidate in the primary.
Dick Armey runs FreedomWorks, not the Tea Party Express.
Survey demographic data indicates that they are not the disenfranchised fringe. Most have college degrees and have middle class incomes. Actual activists have a slightly more education and income.
I am a severe critic of the Tea Party movement and have written on it extensively. To dismiss this movement as a joke is to ignore the threat they pose to the GOP and ultimately to our democracy.
If you dig beneath the surface, for example, in the Maine platform, you will see hints of a theocracy and a strong animus towards immigrants and minorities. At its core is producerism populism.
Moreover, you overlook its radical libertarianism which holds that the federal government and its policies are illegitimate; the ties between local groups and Oath Keepers and the Patriot militia; the Second and Tenth Amendment groups; the "continental congress" and its network; the delegitimizing aspect of the birther conspiracy within this movement; and, the open carry at town hall meetings.
And if you're worried about the republican party then you should be: because their election result will be enhanced by Tea Partiers.
But what that means is that the republican party needs to tidy up its backyard. Not that THERE IS a Tea Party.
The Libertarians, the Greens, the Communists - those are all political parties. Granted they are smallish and don't get many candidates or more than a few percent of the vote (Communists essentially get zero votes or candidates in America) but they are actually parties with platforms and ideas for change.
The Tea Party is not organized, and is defined more by what it's against than what it's for. Yeah, they say they're for freedom, for liberty, etc, but that's not new, and the other parties are ALSO for that. Being "for freedom and liberty" is not a platform. It's rhetoric, no matter how passionately yelled. The rest is "I'm against.... " rhetoric. It's not inspirational to most, but it is good theater. Which explains why the media just LOVES the baggers.
The Tea Party is for maintaining the status quo, or worse, a throwback to an idealized past that didn't exist. I recently heard a statement about how successful political movements are based in change, not in defending the status quo. Defense of the way things are works best in times of peace and economic security. That doesn't describe today. The Tea Party might have an impact on the elections, but unless and until they develop some progressive platforms of change, they will fail to really take root as a viable party in America. They'll remain disenfranchised far right conservatives.
Nuts and Tea, anyone?
One of the reasons that Tea Party people just kicked Bennet to the curb was that he, like Bush, is a social conservative rather than a fiscal conservative. Think smaller and less intrusive government.
Tea Party people don't want to spend anyone's money for a bloated government, but that concept is so anathema to the left that it blinds them to straighforward concepts staring them in the face. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I'd start by shutting down the wars, and slashing the Defense Department budget for traditional warfare materiel, while building up our military capacity for intelligence-based operations, small and "special" operations, the kind that win wars against terrorist multinational "forces." I think our Defense spending is so bloated, in exactly the wrongest possible areas, that you might could fix the problem, right there.
Either way, I'm with you - balancing the checkbook has to be, if not first priority, then tied for first.
I don't know what any of that has to do with the syndrome I described in my comment, of those who voted for Bush, and are rightfully ashamed, now describing themselves as Tea partiers, because the Republican party has let them down, and does not seem to intend to act to further the values of those voters, in the future, any more than it did, under Bush. Am I confused, somewhere?