had a guy tell me that the Tea Party is America's...

[BDKJMU]

I agree. Once a great party.

For PETE'S sake! They lost the last Presidential election 51 - 47% without having a good candidate. And...again...not having the type of people y'all are demeaning turn out in numbers even as large as what they were in 2008...when turnout was already low among them...was a factor in that.

The Republicans would have NO SHOT to win national elections without the support of the "Tea Party" and "Religious Right" types. none. If they' alienate them they're done.

Yep. Same with the donks & the far left.

[houndawg]

The first protests began less than a month after Obama was sworn in. If all the spending was really an issue, why not start in 2004, 2006, etc..?

And don't say Ron Pauls Tea Party of 07 counts.

Were there trillion dollar deficits in 04', 06'?
Was TARP and the bailouts passed in 04', 06'?

TARP & the bailouts- the spending explosion, didn't start till the fall of 08'. Within a few months, by early 09', you saw the 1st protests. Movements like this don't start at the snap of a finger.

This one did, and they were blaming Obama before he took office.

[Ibanez]

The first protests began less than a month after Obama was sworn in. If all the spending was really an issue, why not start in 2004, 2006, etc..?

And don't say Ron Pauls Tea Party of 07 counts.

Were there trillion dollar deficits in 04', 06'?
Was TARP and the bailouts passed in 04', 06'?

TARP & the bailouts- the spending explosion, didn't start till the fall of 08'. Within a few months, by early 09', you saw the 1st protests. Movements like this don't start at the snap of a finger.

So the waste of the surplus, two wars paid via credit card that helped create the deficits were ok? Face it, a black guy won and the WORST of the GOP protested.

[BDKJMU]

Were there trillion dollar deficits in 04', 06'?
Was TARP and the bailouts passed in 04', 06'?

TARP & the bailouts- the spending explosion, didn't start till the fall of 08'. Within a few months, by early 09', you saw the 1st protests. Movements like this don't start at the snap of a finger.

So the waste of the surplus, two wars paid via credit card that helped create the deficits were ok? Face it, a black guy won and the WORST of the GOP protested.

Yeah, you and the libs are claiming people are only protesting runaway spending, deficits, and debt only because the POTUS is half black.

People should just shut up and not complain about spending, trillion + deficits and exploding national debt because the POTUS is half black.

So if a white democrat had won would it be ok in your mind to protest?

[houndawg]

So the waste of the surplus, two wars paid via credit card that helped create the deficits were ok? Face it, a black guy won and the WORST of the GOP protested.

Yeah, you and the libs are claiming people are only protesting runaway spending, deficits, and debt only because the POTUS is half black.

People should just shut up and not complain about spending, trillion + deficits and exploding national debt because the POTUS is half black.

So if a white democrat had won would it be ok in your mind to protest?

It would still be Bush's fault.

[JohnStOnge]

The onset of high profile Tea Party activity had nothing to do with the race of the guy elected President. The Tea Party as a national movement started when Obama announced the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan to bail out people who'd gotten themselves into trouble with mortgages they could not afford. It was a response to the Federal Government announcing a plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue people from trouble they got themselves into. Yes, something Obama did was a spark to start it and Obama's policies were like gasoline on the fire. But it's because of what Obama did, not Obama's race. And it's not just Obama they are in opposition to. They're in opposition to the whole thing with the national government spending money hand over fist in an effort to try to solve every personal problem anybody has.

I'm not sold on the Tea Party movement because I think a lot of them have their own things they like to see money spent on. They want the federal government to stick to the original understanding of the Constitution as far as what it can spend money on. They say they don't like the Nanny State. Yet the majority of them oppose any cuts to Social Security (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 91736.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and I think it's safe to say they'd vehemently oppose getting rid of the Social Security program; which I believe is unconstitutional if the original understanding is followed. And it's the epitome of the Nanny State. I'm guessing a majority feel the same way about Medicare (another unconstitutional Nanny State program).

Nevertheless, they didn't start making noise because Obama is Black.

[JohnStOnge]

For PETE'S sake! They lost the last Presidential election 51 - 47% without having a good candidate. And...again...not having the type of people y'all are demeaning turn out in numbers even as large as what they were in 2008...when turnout was already low among them...was a factor in that.

The Republicans would have NO SHOT to win national elections without the support of the "Tea Party" and "Religious Right" types. none. If they' alienate them they're done.

Yep. Same with the donks & the far left.

It would be like if the Democrats lost a couple of national elections, noted that they never win the majority of the White vote nationally, and decided that they'd do something that's going to alienate Blacks and knock Black turnout down in order to try to get more of the White vote. Only it'd be worse than Democrats alienating Blacks because the Religious Right and Tea Party types are far more numerous than Blacks are. In the 2012 election, for example, the Black vote resulted in a net edge of about 14.3 million votes for Democrats while the White Protestant vote resulted in a net edge of about 19.2 million votes for Republicans.

And that is in spite of the fact that about 7% fewer White Protestants voted in 2012 than in 2008. If you're a Republican, you don't want that happening in a Presidential elections. You don't want to see the White Protestant vote down just like if you're a Democrat you don't want to see the Black vote down.

There's no exit poll question on being a member of the Tea Party. However, there's one on whether or not one "supports" the Tea Party movement and Republicans had a 20.1 million vote net edge among those who said they did. How people think the Republicans can say they're going to "get rid of" or significantly diminish the pro Republican enthusiasm of the Tea Party movement and be competitive is beyond me. They aren't going to gain enough by doing that to make up for losing support among that kind of voting block. Not going to happen.

[houndawg]

The onset of high profile Tea Party activity had nothing to do with the race of the guy elected President. The Tea Party as a national movement started when Obama announced the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan to bail out people who'd gotten themselves into trouble with mortgages they could not afford. It was a response to the Federal Government announcing a plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue people from trouble they got themselves into. Yes, something Obama did was a spark to start it and Obama's policies were like gasoline on the fire. But it's because of what Obama did, not Obama's race. And it's not just Obama they are in opposition to. They're in opposition to the whole thing with the national government spending money hand over fist in an effort to try to solve every personal problem anybody has.

I'm not sold on the Tea Party movement because I think a lot of them have their own things they like to see money spent on. They want the federal government to stick to the original understanding of the Constitution as far as what it can spend money on. They say they don't like the Nanny State. Yet the majority of them oppose any cuts to Social Security (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 91736.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and I think it's safe to say they'd vehemently oppose getting rid of the Social Security program; which I believe is unconstitutional if the original understanding is followed. And it's the epitome of the Nanny State. I'm guessing a majority feel the same way about Medicare (another unconstitutional Nanny State program).

Nevertheless, they didn't start making noise because Obama is Black.

Of course not; they don't believe he is Muslim or born abroad either.

[BDKJMU]

Cat finally gets it righ. The Tea Party only came around because a black liberal was elected. Where were they when Bush was ruining the country? How can you go to war twice and not raise taxes? That's fiscially irresponsible.

The seeds of the Tea Party were planted in the fall of 08' when TARP and the bailouts were passed. Bush was still in office. The 1st yr of trillion plus deficts was 2009'. Obama took Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and pumped it up on steroids, and that's when the Tea Party really took off.

And how could I forget to mention after the 700 Billion TARP fund with bailouts started by Bush:
-bailouts from TARP continued by Obama in 2009 (Fannie, Freddie, Citi, GM, Chrysler).
-862 billion so called "stimulus plan" in 2009 (Bush's in 08' was 152 billion)
-nearly 25% increase in non defense discretionary spending FY 09' passed under Obama in early 09' and FY 10' passed in late 09'.
-1+ trillion for Obamacare which was being debated in 2009'.

[Ibanez]

So the waste of the surplus, two wars paid via credit card that helped create the deficits were ok? Face it, a black guy won and the WORST of the GOP protested.

Yeah, you and the libs are claiming people are only protesting runaway spending, deficits, and debt only because the POTUS is half black.

People should just shut up and not complain about spending, trillion + deficits and exploding national debt because the POTUS is half black.

So if a white democrat had won would it be ok in your mind to protest?

I'm not liberal, but thanks for stereotyping. It's ok to protest. However, the fact is that these tea parties, at least early on, were more about a black man than anything else. When the official tea Party in Charleston had speakers saying racially charged comments about Obama and nothing about the runaway spending of Bush, I knew what the deal was. When these tea partiers started bitching about taxes within weeks of Obamas term, it was obvious they were butt hurt over losing.

Face it, the tea party is an extremist org that has had it's hey day and is losing ground. More and more conservatives are ignoring them and that hack Grover.

[Ibanez]

Yeah, you and the libs are claiming people are only protesting runaway spending, deficits, and debt only because the POTUS is half black.

People should just shut up and not complain about spending, trillion + deficits and exploding national debt because the POTUS is half black.

So if a white democrat had won would it be ok in your mind to protest?

It would still be Bush's fault.

Bush, the US Congress from 2000- today and the Americans that continue to elect them are to blame.

[AZGrizFan]

Were there trillion dollar deficits in 04', 06'?
Was TARP and the bailouts passed in 04', 06'?

TARP & the bailouts- the spending explosion, didn't start till the fall of 08'. Within a few months, by early 09', you saw the 1st protests. Movements like this don't start at the snap of a finger.

So the waste of the surplus, two wars paid via credit card that helped create the deficits were ok? Face it, a black guy won and the WORST of the GOP protested.

That is really fucking lame, Mark.

[kalm]

The onset of high profile Tea Party activity had nothing to do with the race of the guy elected President. The Tea Party as a national movement started when Obama announced the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan to bail out people who'd gotten themselves into trouble with mortgages they could not afford. It was a response to the Federal Government announcing a plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue people from trouble they got themselves into. Yes, something Obama did was a spark to start it and Obama's policies were like gasoline on the fire. But it's because of what Obama did, not Obama's race. And it's not just Obama they are in opposition to. They're in opposition to the whole thing with the national government spending money hand over fist in an effort to try to solve every personal problem anybody has.

I'm not sold on the Tea Party movement because I think a lot of them have their own things they like to see money spent on. They want the federal government to stick to the original understanding of the Constitution as far as what it can spend money on. They say they don't like the Nanny State. Yet the majority of them oppose any cuts to Social Security (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 91736.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and I think it's safe to say they'd vehemently oppose getting rid of the Social Security program; which I believe is unconstitutional if the original understanding is followed. And it's the epitome of the Nanny State. I'm guessing a majority feel the same way about Medicare (another unconstitutional Nanny State program).

Nevertheless, they didn't start making noise because Obama is Black.

Of course not; they don't believe he is Muslim or born abroad either.

And that's the problem for conks. Their narrative that Obama is a commiesociolslamofascistiextremist simply doesn't hold water for moderate voters. In reality, he's center right...a moderate Republican. People might not agree with the spending but they recognize that it also occurred under Bush, and they can at least see the idea behind re-inflating the economy to avoid a deep depression. In fact, the democratic leadership as whole has moved to the right over the past decade.

[AZGrizFan]

And that's the problem for conks. Their narrative that Obama is commiesociolslamofascistiextremist simply doesn't hold water for moderate voters. In reality, he's center right...a moderate Republican. People might not agree with the spending but they recognize that it also occurred under Bush, and they can at least see the idea behind re-inflating the economy to avoid a deep depression. In fact, the democratic leadership as whole has moved to the right over the past decade.

That's fucking kalmical. He may be a CORPORATIST, but he's not Republican.

And regarding the democrat leadership moving to the right? I present to you Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, et.al. Your argument is hogwash.

[AZGrizFan]

The revenue problem in this country has little to do with the two wars (paid for with credit cards) and WAY more to do with 25,000,000 people out of work. That burns the candle at both ends. It vastly increases the carrying costs of these people on the government teet, and conversely they aren't working, paying taxes into the system, and helping shoulder their share of the burden. If Sortero could get off his dead ass, quit worrying about obamacare, gun control, DADT, immigration, and all the other ancillary issues facing the country and figure out a way to get these people back to work, a LOT of problems end up solving themselves or disappearing.
Then again, why should he give a fuck? He got reelected with unemployment at 8%--unheard of. In his feeble mind, the unemployment rate in this country is NOT a problem...he'd rather pander to the fringes with the issue's he's making center stage while 15% of the country goes to sleep every night wondering where their next meal will come from.

[kalm]

The revenue problem in this country has little to do with the two wars (paid for with credit cards) and WAY more to do with 25,000,000 people out of work. That burns the candle at both ends. It vastly increases the carrying costs of these people on the government teet, and conversely they aren't working, paying taxes into the system, and helping shoulder their share of the burden. If Sortero could get off his dead ass, quit worrying about obamacare, gun control, DADT, immigration, and all the other ancillary issues facing the country and figure out a way to get these people back to work, a LOT of problems end up solving themselves or disappearing.
Then again, why should he give a fuck? He got reelected with unemployment at 8%--unheard of. In his feeble mind, the unemployment rate in this country is NOT a problem...he'd rather pander to the fringes with the issue's he's making center stage while 15% of the country goes to sleep every night wondering where their next meal will come from.

This post doesn't jive with your previous post.

[kalm]

And that's the problem for conks. Their narrative that Obama is commiesociolslamofascistiextremist simply doesn't hold water for moderate voters. In reality, he's center right...a moderate Republican. People might not agree with the spending but they recognize that it also occurred under Bush, and they can at least see the idea behind re-inflating the economy to avoid a deep depression. In fact, the democratic leadership as whole has moved to the right over the past decade.

That's fucking kalmical. He may be a CORPORATIST, but he's not Republican.

And regarding the democrat leadership moving to the right? I present to you Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, et.al. Your argument is hogwash.

It's not my fault who you chose to self identify with.

[AZGrizFan]

The revenue problem in this country has little to do with the two wars (paid for with credit cards) and WAY more to do with 25,000,000 people out of work. That burns the candle at both ends. It vastly increases the carrying costs of these people on the government teet, and conversely they aren't working, paying taxes into the system, and helping shoulder their share of the burden. If Sortero could get off his dead ass, quit worrying about obamacare, gun control, DADT, immigration, and all the other ancillary issues facing the country and figure out a way to get these people back to work, a LOT of problems end up solving themselves or disappearing.
Then again, why should he give a fuck? He got reelected with unemployment at 8%--unheard of. In his feeble mind, the unemployment rate in this country is NOT a problem...he'd rather pander to the fringes with the issue's he's making center stage while 15% of the country goes to sleep every night wondering where their next meal will come from.

This post doesn't jive with your previous post.

Yes, it does.

[AZGrizFan]

That's fucking kalmical. He may be a CORPORATIST, but he's not Republican.

And regarding the democrat leadership moving to the right? I present to you Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, et.al. Your argument is hogwash.

It's not my fault who you chose to self identify with.

I voted for the Libertarian candidate.

[kalm]

It's not my fault who you chose to self identify with.

I voted for the Libertarian candidate.

It was a protest vote.

[Ibanez]

So the waste of the surplus, two wars paid via credit card that helped create the deficits were ok? Face it, a black guy won and the WORST of the GOP protested.

That is really fucking lame, Mark.

Deny it all you want, but these Tea Party cry babies don't give a shit about America. They are un-compromising. They are anti-women, anti-progress, anti-science, anti- anything and anyone that doesn't agree with them. Hell, they are anti-Republicans who have the AUDACITY to be statesmen and work with Democrats.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, you and the libs are claiming people are only protesting runaway spending, deficits, and debt only because the POTUS is half black.

People should just shut up and not complain about spending, trillion + deficits and exploding national debt because the POTUS is half black.

So if a white democrat had won would it be ok in your mind to protest?

I'm not liberal, but thanks for stereotyping. It's ok to protest. However, the fact is that these tea parties, at least early on, were more about a black man than anything else. When the official tea Party in Charleston had speakers saying racially charged comments about Obama and nothing about the runaway spending of Bush, I knew what the deal was. When these tea partiers started bitching about taxes within weeks of Obamas term, it was obvious they were butt hurt over losing.

Face it, the tea party is an extremist org that has had it's hey day and is losing ground. More and more conservatives are ignoring them and that hack Grover.

I didn't say you were a liberal, but you are parroting the same line the libs are when it comes to the Tea Party.

The Tea Party in Charleston is but one chapter. Doesn't mean its like the hundreds of other ones nationwide. And a couple of wing nuts who attended their rallies that the media likes to focus on doesn't mean they're representative of the whole group.

[BDKJMU]

That is really **** lame, Mark.

Deny it all you want, but these Tea Party cry babies don't give a **** about America. They are un-compromising. They are anti-women, anti-progress, anti-science, anti- anything and anyone that doesn't agree with them. Hell, they are anti-Republicans who have the AUDACITY to be statesmen and work with Democrats.

You may not be a left wing lib, but you are trying to sound like one on this message board with your Dback like spastic rant.

[kalm]

I'm not liberal, but thanks for stereotyping. It's ok to protest. However, the fact is that these tea parties, at least early on, were more about a black man than anything else. When the official tea Party in Charleston had speakers saying racially charged comments about Obama and nothing about the runaway spending of Bush, I knew what the deal was. When these tea partiers started bitching about taxes within weeks of Obamas term, it was obvious they were butt hurt over losing.

Face it, the tea party is an extremist org that has had it's hey day and is losing ground. More and more conservatives are ignoring them and that hack Grover.

I didn't say you were a liberal, but you are parroting the same line the libs are when it comes to the Tea Party.

The Tea Party in Charleston is but one chapter. Doesn't mean its like the hundreds of other ones nationwide. And a couple of wing nuts who attended their rallies that the media likes to focus on doesn't mean they're representative of the whole group.

I'll say it again. Michelle Bachmann is the chair of the congressional Tea Party Caucus.

The second question is where does the funding come from:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top contributors to the Tea Party caucus members are health professionals, retirees, the real estate industry and oil and gas interests. The Center said the contributions to caucus members from these groups, plus those from Republican and conservative groups, are on average higher than those of House members in general and also those of other Republicans. The average Tea Party caucus member received more than $25,000 from the oil and gas industry, compared to about $13,000 for the average House member and $21,500 for the average House Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't blame the Koch's, it's how the game is played and funding a fake movement to get favorable legislation passed is simply shrewd business.

[Baldy]

And that's the problem for conks. Their narrative that Obama is a commiesociolslamofascistiextremist simply doesn't hold water for moderate voters. In reality, he's center right...a moderate Republican. People might not agree with the spending but they recognize that it also occurred under Bush, and they can at least see the idea behind re-inflating the economy to avoid a deep depression. In fact, the democratic leadership as whole has moved to the right over the past decade.