world

Tea party leaders announce new federation

38 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

Several “tea party” leaders announced plans Thursday to form a national federation to promote the movement’s conservative message and to counter the idea that the tea parties are politically unsophisticated and disorganized.

There goes the death of Tea Party, from a legitimate grassroot movement to, well, just another Washington lobby group.

Fail!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it both sad and amusing that people who so strongly support Obama, like to trash the Tea Parties. Its amusing because Obama's only real experience outside of a few years as Senator consists of being a "community organizer" (IE working for something like the Tea Party)

Sad because these people just seem to hate conservatives in general, even while they preach tolerance and love for others, they do their best to silence anyone who disagree with them politically. In this case, by mocking and condemning the opposition group.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

T-axed E-nough A-lready. I hope they will resist this bait to become too organized. The idea is what is important, and that it gets votes/implemented in upcoming elections. Too much organization could lead to notions of a new party, which is not a good idea...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they didn't go the "christian" route, I'd join them. My brother is involved with them lately, but he went that "born again" route so I don't know what his goals are... I simply don't like paying the taxes and for what we are getting in return.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm wondering how many members of the Tea Party movement - a group that claims to be against big government spending - said nothing when the previous GOP govt. burnt through $6 trillion? Would you like hypocrisy with your tea, ma'am?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, do you like repeating mistakes? BTW, both myself and my brother were Clinton fans until the Elian Gonzalez case just for the record.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oh and he voted for Obama too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, do you like repeating mistakes? BTW, both myself and my brother were Clinton fans until the Elian Gonzalez case just for the record.

So you were a fan of Clinton until he rightfully sent a Cuban national back to Cuba? I suppose you had a problem with Elian being sent back, as you had problems with Haitians who entering the country being sent back too, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm wondering how many members of the Tea Party movement - a group that claims to be against big government spending - said nothing when the previous GOP govt. burnt through $6 trillion? Would you like hypocrisy with your tea, ma'am?

Sushi,

Fiscal conservatives said quite a bit about Bush and his spendthrift ways. And quite loudly too. The article is from 2006.

WHEN THE Washington Monthly recently asked seven conservatives to explain why they were rooting for GOP defeat this November, some of them complained about the Iraq war, some about the Bush administration's expansive view of executive power, some about the GOP's opposition to stem-cell research. But nearly all of them agreed on at least one point: If you were to boil down the domestic policy failings of the Bush years to just three words, those words might be spending, spending, and spending.

Pining for divided government, Joe Scarborough bemoaned the Republican-led "spending orgy," while Christopher Buckley lamented "six years of record deficits and profligate expansion of entitlement programs." The Cato Institute's William Niskanen accused Bush of being the "profligate" heir of Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman's "fiscal benders." Bruce Bartlett, the author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, suggested that a Republican defeat would put an end to "out-of-control government spending."

This assessment of the Bush era is shared by supply-siders and Christian conservatives; paleocons and libertarians; Phyllis Schlafly and John McCain; Dick Armey and George Will. Bush's fiscal apostasy is perhaps the only evil that Pat Buchanan and Andrew Sullivan have joined hands--rhetorically, at least--to condemn. The next Republican president, the emerging conservative consensus insists, needs to relearn the tenets of the right-wing catechism and renounce the crypto-liberal heresies of the last six years. Only then will the conservative movement return to the broad sunlit uplands it reached, fleetingly, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/762fiyke.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip, my post was not in response to yours.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the tea party’s brand of fiscal conservatism, which emphasizes limited government, less public spending and free markets.

Dream on. That's not being fiscally conservative, that is being fiscally naive. It's never going to happen because things are far too far gone for that. The government is the only thing keeping the whole thing from crashing down on their heads.

There is nothing wrong with being a "conservative", the problem is when the word becomes a euphemism for "I have no idea what is going on so I am going to stand here shouting". They should get their heads out of the sand, stop listening to the junk pushers (by the way Glenn "I could give a flying crap about the political process, we're an entertainment company" Beck only made $32 million last year), and find out what is really going on in their country and the world. Then they wouldn't be spouting perfect world fantasies of low taxes and low spending, or whatever else red team, divide and conquer, drivel that they have been fed, because then they would be REALLY scared.

The reality is much worse than the fantasy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is nothing wrong with being a "conservative", the problem is when the word becomes a euphemism for "I have no idea what is going on so I am going to stand here shouting".

Yes I'm sure they have never had to balance a checkbook, live within a budget and not go so far into hoc and debt that they end up filling for bankruptcy instead. Why should they expect the Government to actuall have to do the same is beyond me also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you were a fan of Clinton until he rightfully sent a Cuban national back to Cuba? I suppose you had a problem with Elian being sent back" Yes, we did. We know more of the story than most of you. He's one of us, not you so I won't bother going into details as your mind is set.

as you had problems with Haitians who entering the country being sent back too, right?" not sure what you mean there. If you are talking problems between the Cuban American community and the Haitian community, what do you want me to say?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tea party, crap or get off the pot. We need a new country, not a new party. It matters not what party is in power when the constitution is hijacked by funny money banksters and socialist demagogs. Government that controls the money controls the people. Americans are so dumbed down that they beg for more government and think themselves better off when they get it. Democracy in America is the illusion of freedom and power; a wave that crooks ride to the highest office, as if they do some great public good to save us all from something which they have no control over in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry -- they'll never convince anyone who has a brain that they are NOT unsophisticated... all the idiots are already fans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just read the Tea Party people are talking about merging with.....(no surprises here...) the GOP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those corporate interests are the same that fund the tea party. They just don't want their business machines to be regulated. The people within the party are being manipulated to serve their causes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tea Party movement would be a perfect vehicle for Sarah Palin to jump on to.

She shouts. They shout. Not many of them think.

Especially the ones who say they don't like massive government spending but who said nothing when the previous GOP administration burnt through more money than any government in the history of the planet and then blame President Obama for spending up big to fix up the mess.

Even funnier..they expect the rest of us to take them seriously.

The Right is a never-ending source of comedy. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even funnier..they expect the rest of us to take them seriously.

The Right is a never-ending source of comedy. :-)

I'm sure Martha Coakley is laughing it up also there Sushi with all that free time on her hands she has now. Scott Brown sure is a busy guy though with his new Senatorial duties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - I'm wondering how many members of the Tea Party movement - a group that claims to be against big government spending - said nothing when the previous GOP govt. burnt through $6 trillion? Would you like hypocrisy with your tea, ma'am?

I suspect very few of them. The Tea party consists mostly of the conservatives, the ones blowing the cash were mostly the moderate Republicans, the RINOs. Oh there was some party loyalty in there too, with a lot of Republicans in congress following like Sheep after Bush, but it was the big government Republicans that let it happen, most of whom have now been retired, or like Specter have changed parties.

Of course there are exceptions, particularly as the movement has grown. Now if a Republican pol wants to get elected, they have to take the Tea party movement seriously. Meaning everyone wanting to run for office, even if they are a RINO, is trying to claim not to be in order to get the seal of approval. Those people you're right are the hypocrites.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Seems like a group that's been hijacked quite a few times since it was created.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The movement’s name is taken from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 protest in which activists in the then-British colonies in America boarded ships and threw their cargo of English tea into Boston Harbor in a symbolic act of protest against taxes.

One of America's almighty lies it uses to brainwash its citizens with. The Boston Tea party was a direct result of the REPEAL of the tea tax, not a protest against taxes. Why would anyone in their right mind protest the removal of a tax? Because it was black marketeers who destroyed the British tea to protect their black market. The now cheap British tea would have destroyed them. The Boston Tea party was like bootleggers complaining that prohibition had ended, and their reaction was to destroy a liquor store. But I have no doubt that today's history lesson will be quite forgotten by tomorrow and you Americans out there will return to your usual brainwashing.

So anyway, the Tea party was a horrible choice of names for these people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"government has grown too large"

We ain't seen nothin' yet. We got 3 more years of Obama, LOL.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, one thing I like is that is does seem possible a third party may be a reality. I've been wanting that for a long time. I'm tired of repubs and dems fighting and then going out for drinks together.

helars: "But I have no doubt that today's history lesson will be quite forgotten by tomorrow and you Americans out there will return to your usual brainwashing." Hey, you guys need to stop this "I'm smarter than you" crap. How do you know you haven't been brain washed and what if the brain washing worked in your favor?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Boston Tea party was a direct result of the REPEAL of the tea tax, not a protest against taxes. Why would anyone in their right mind protest the removal of a tax?

Lars, once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding American History. Seriously man, do some research before you post this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

The tea in question had already been taxed, meaning the costs would be passed along to the consumers. Something the people back then were smart enough to realize, even if the pols today manage to trick everyone into believing they're not really being taxed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the Tea Party will put up Palin and split the Republican vote giving Obama a second term. Conservatives should be listening to Newt Gingrich "it's the economy stupid" Had the Republicans followed his "contract with America" instead of going on a war fuelled spending spree the Dems would still be the opposition. The Republican party completely lost its way under Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I watched Mark Skoda when parts of the Tea Party convention in Nashville were broadcast on C-Span a few months ago. I found him to be well-reasoned, articulate and very aware of some of the fringe elements within the movement. In short, I was impressed by him, even though I thing he is fundamentally wrong about what the real problems are -- as are nearly all conservatives.

If you go back and look at how preposterously wrong the conservatives have been on so many issues, it's a wonder how the movement still brings in so many suckers. Then again, there are also plenty of used-car salesmen out there too.

Let's take one issue for example: the Soviet Union. One of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement, William F. Buckley, made that case that, essentially, the world would be better off in nuclear holocaust than if it were to fall under communist domination. "Better dead than Red," is how the saying went. The argument was that once a country fell under the thumb of the Soviets, it would remain that way forever -- and that communism could never reform itself internally. ("Once Red, always Red.")

That the argument in favor of nuclear war could be seriously thought of as preferable to living under a system that could never be sustained over many generations shows not only wrong thinking, but a missing dimension to thinking. And therein lies the problem: Conservatives believe in easy answers to all problems. As in "lower taxes and less government will bring about the best possible situation for the vast majority of people." As with the preference for nuclear destruction, nothing could be farther from the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if the corrupt left and the right had been doing a better job you would not even need a strong 3rd party. I am expecting more of these 3rd parties soon -and strong ones also.

Of course the Libs and Cons are mad about it -but they are their own worst enemy.

If you are a Lib or a Con -don't expect any votes since you have failed America. People want change now -change they can believe in!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That the argument in favor of nuclear war could be seriously thought of as preferable to living under a system that could never be sustained over many generations shows not only wrong thinking, but a missing dimension to thinking. And therein lies the problem: Conservatives believe in easy answers to all problems. As in "lower taxes and less government will bring about the best possible situation for the vast majority of people." As with the preference for nuclear destruction, nothing could be farther from the truth.

I hear what you're saying Yabits, and what you say here is true. Most conservatives do believe this. However the converse is true as well. Most liberals think more government and more regulation is always the solution. They want to strip the states of their authority and rights, so that they can force the same laws and regulations on all Americans. Thats where the fundamental difference is. Conservatives believe in less government and lower taxes, Libs believe in more government and higher taxes. These positions are pretty much diametrically opposed. Having someone like Bush in office doesn't help any either. He was more Democrat then Republican on most issues. Hence the massive entitlement spending conservatives so oppose. In a way, even though I think he's been a disaster for America, I actually applaud Obama for being true to his values. Oh, he hid them in the campaign, but if you did any research at all, you could tell what he was. Contrast that with Bush, who pretended to be conservative in order to get elected.

if the corrupt left and the right had been doing a better job you would not even need a strong 3rd party. I am expecting more of these 3rd parties soon -and strong ones also.

A 3rd party would be a disaster for America. It would merely enforce the status quo. As Dems would vote Dems, and those unsatisfied would split the vote between the 3rd Party and Republicans. Thats how Clinton got elected in 92 after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How would a 3rd party be anymore of disaster then the democrats and republicans? It's more then obivous that niether the Democrats or the Republicans, have any sort of clue as to what small government, fiscal conversatism, or proper management is and instead prefer to prostitute themselves out to the highest paying lobbyists. It's also clear that by listening to some of the more boisterous party faithful that neither party will be heading in the right direction anytime soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

only Americans fear their own elected government as if it suddenly isn't them anymore but just another corporation out to get them. However Americans support their troops and military but don't see the irony of these two ideas

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, some research for you: http://www.teagenius.com/history/the-boston-tea-party.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act

Yes indeed colonists were not happy with the tax left on tea even if tea was going to be much much cheaper than before thanks to other repealed taxes. For reason of taxation without representation Samuel Adams led protests, BUT HE DID NOT LEAD THE BOSTON TEA PARTY. In fact, all arrows point to the idea that he tried to prevent it. From your link:

While Samuel Adams tried to reassert control of the meeting, people poured out of the Old South Meeting House and headed to Boston Harbor. That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some of them thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped all 342 chests of tea into the water.

There is little doubt the actual perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party were black-marketeers doing nothing more than protecting their trade. Your link says its unknown if Samuel Adams approved or not. But I think the fact that he never took any credit speaks for itself. He didn't lead it. He didn't plan it. He did try to recharacterize it after the fact as damage control and in order to use it, which is a source of some of the confusion today. The recharacterization is, in fact, a lie.

Further, the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party brought hell down on the colonies, and did this for the sake of short term profits. The name is poorly chosen and American history texts mislead us about the event.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those corporate interests are the same that fund the tea party. They just don't want their business machines to be regulated. The people within the party are being manipulated to serve their causes.

I happen to like the Tea Party. They've done grass-root movements well. Not sure what'd you mean by 'business machines' hijacking the movement. BUT IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING the impact and effects of this so-called federation of Tea Party state chapters then you're fear is pretty likely...

With that in mind, the candid tempo of which Tea Party supporters are well recognized won't go away... it'll just be muffled for the sake of backdoor backers. Shame for the conservative movement!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey said: Of course the Libs and Cons are mad about it -but they are their own worst enemy.

If both liberals and conservatives did not approve of strong third parties, then who are going to be the members??? Are you saying all these Tea Partiers are in the middle? Also, I think you don't what a liberal is. They tend to be progressive. A true liberal would support more parties. Its conservatives who tend to be disturbed by change. They try to conserve the status quo, and that is why they are dubbed "conservative".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

only Americans fear their own elected government as if it suddenly isn't them anymore but just another corporation out to get them. However Americans support their troops and military but don't see the irony of these two ideas

Well thought of, you definitely captured the current malice (left or right) in American state of mind.

BUT to quote an American on the subject, "Hypocrisy is prejudice with a halo'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having someone like Bush in office doesn't help any either. He was more Democrat then Republican on most issues. Hence the massive entitlement spending conservatives so oppose.

One question this begs is that if he was "more Democrat than Republican," then why did he not ever once use the veto to block legislation from the Republican-led Congress for the first six years of his terms in office? Every one of the bills that Bush signed into law during those six years was co-authored and co-sponsored by Republicans, and approved by Republican-led committees in both houses of Congress.

The assertion that it was "all Bush" blends itself into the spin and myth (and self-delusion) that folks like these tea-partiers have to surround themselves with like a security blanket.

I view the tea party movement as the last vestige of the failed philosophy of Reaganism. "Favorites" like Michelle Bachman -- a loony-tunes case if there ever was one -- only indicate the desperation of the bitter-enders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Favorites" like Michelle Bachman -- a loony-tunes case if there ever was one -- only indicate the desperation of the bitter-enders.

She called for 1) exit strategies from previous stimulus funds, 2) opposes min. wage increases which Americans can ill afford right now, 3)she's against 'global currency' to replace the US dollar, 4) opposed previous Bush-Paulson/ Obama bailouts, 5) pro-life advocate-- her choice.

If you want a loony-tune case may I suggest getting acquainted with this Australian MP, Belinda Neil, who in 2008 called an unborn child of another MP (inside parliament) a demon child.

As for Ms Bachman, she's a conservative alright but a not a nutcase :P

Link http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/neal-sent-to-committee-for-demon-child-taunt/2008/06/17/1213468423185.html

Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_yHCUHC_t0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for Ms Bachman, she's a conservative alright but a not a nutcase

Bachmann is loony. She even had fellow conservative loony-tunes, Glenn Beck, shaking his head recently when she started ranting against the 10-question U.S. census form: "Why does the government need our phone number?" she asked. (Most of us are waiting for the robocalls soon to be issued from her office warning us on the dangers of government officials getting their hands on our phone numbers.)

Totally wacko.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites