• #39
    I agree so long as you stipulate a government as small as practicable, not as small as possible. Truth is, we are losing freedom as we are becoming more crowded.
    The more of us there are, the more rules we need. We could all end up living in Singapore.
  • #43

    "small as practicable"

    Of course. Anything less would be approaching anarchy. I don't want to have to hunt down and kill someone just because they wronged me. Although I can think of a few congress clowns...

    New bumper sticker : Save America, shoot a congress man

  • #93
    "I'll always favor small government, fiscal conservationism and personal responsibility. And I'll support politicians that think the same."
    But, you supported Romney who really only spoke out about those very things when it was convenient to do so.
    Small Government - Romney supported Patriot Act when it was brought about, and still did even during his campaign for President 2012. He spoke in support of NDAA 12, the TSA and Homeland Defense.
    Fiscal Conservationism - Only if it meant cutting social programs. He totally supported the outrageous spending of the Defense Budget and said several times not only would he not cut it, he would raise it. Not to mention he wouldn't have gotten rid of several Federal institutions like Dr. Paul would have.
    You say you favor those things, but when the time comes to show it, IE election time, you through your support into the two party system which fights against every one of those things you mentioned. Both parties and anyone that continually votes for them supports Large Government, spending, and Government Intervention.
    Your actions show hypocrisy. Sorry, but its the truth.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    No. I remember when Mark Williams was booted out of the Tea Party early on for being excessively racist -- and he was a key player in their early days. It was never a party of small shopkeepers. It was always a bunch of angry old white people with more bile than knowledge of government.
  • #14
    As opposed to the diehard liberal and conservative social agendas which got us here to begin with? Thanks for proving one of the article's bit points so succinctly. At least that group of angry old white guys tried to do something that wasn't based on religion or white guilt.
  • #69
    @Real4WheelDrv Sure it was. Despite the author's claim it started about something else, from the day The Tea Party formed, I saw a whole lot of the Christian theocrats flocking to it. I can agree their motivation had little to do with guilt -- or compassion, for that matter. Far more to do with greed. Not very attractive.
  • #98
    you need to try different angle there sport... read what you posted. you claim this guy was a racist in the same sentence you claim he was booted out of the Tea Party. and then you go on to try to say that the Tea Party were a bunch of racists. you see how that doesn't make any sense?
  • #109
    @bsking I said he was so bad they booted him out -- for getting them bad publicity. But he was only an example of the type that gravitated to the "movement."
  • #8
    I disagree with a few points.

    1) While it's true that the Tea Party's ranks swelled with the passage of Cash for Clunkers, Obamacare and other wastes of money spent during President Obama's two-year period when Democrats controlled both Houses, the Tea Party was not "a movement of shopkeepers initially galvanized by the Obama administration's health care, tax and regulatory heavy-handedness toward small businesses."

    It was/is a grassroots movement of Americans initially galvanized by the housing crisis, TARP, the auto bailouts, 8 years of a republican President who ran up as yet unprecedented debt etc.
  • #10
    2) "Unfortunately, the movement was too disorganized to keep social conservatives at a safe distance."

    And if we had been organized enough to effectively refute the claims of the Left that the Tea Party had been commandeered by the Social Right?

    If the Tea Party had been "organized" enough, they would have been slapped with the astroturf accusation more than they did. Never mind that the Tea Party did effectively repel the Social Right. Just ask Joseph Farah and his "Tea Party Manifesto. From the beginning the Social Right has been trying to get the Tea Party to take positions on abortion, gay marriage, etc. The best that the Social Right has been able to do with the Tea Party is that some of their guys snuck in and some of them got on ballots, like Akin and Mourdock.

    It doesn't matter how organized the Tea Party is, if the media identifies the Tea Party with those yahoos instead of Paul, Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Scott, etc...
  • #11
    Other than that. the rest is pretty accurate. It definitely pissed off the Left who had declared in some secret meeting or something that "Grassroots" is only allowed on the Left... even if it has to be astroturf.
  • #12
    Somehow your trademark smiley manages to look even more astonished with a third dimension.:)

    For me at least the formation of the tea party as what it was when it gained the national spotlight only happened after Obamacare, before that the majority of Americans probably didn't realize such a movement existed. I think a hit of equal loss is the failure to elect a Ron Paul, Even if it was just to say we TRIED something different. Rand is no Ron, and I think gradually his bloc of followers will morph into more electable forms by trying to align with the other parties.

    For a short while though, the tea party was awesome, and one of few examples in modern politics of ordinary people beginning a movement of such influence.
  • #13
    @Real4WheelDrv-- I wasn't sure about it at first. A little small compared to the last one but the white background with the 3d effect works real well with the formatting. I'm diggin' it.

    Your comment is about where I am with the Tea Party. Part of me wants it to "re-brand" like the Left likes to do when they wear out a label. The difference is that the Tea Party didn't wear out the label because people figured out what the Tea Party really believes the Left does. The Tea Party label may be worn out but that's only because of the relentless attacks from the Left to smear enough so that people don't figure out what the Tea Party really believes.
  • #16
    @Bobolinsky And as the article and you point out, the rush of the ultra social conservatives to identify themselves as part of it because Americans were steadily paying more attention to their message instead of the worn out pillars of the other 2 parties. One propped up on a stack of bibles and the other on the backs of minorities.
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    It was a good well written article. I don't agree that the Tea Party ever could have gotten Democrats, even some to come around to the idea of government being smaller. and the reason the Tea Party didn't or wasn't as successful as predecessors is largely because the members were not willing to lose their fortunes weather small or large for the cause like the original Tea Party shopkeepers.. when faced with threats from Democrats very high up in government the Tea Party went underground and lost momentum, and who could blame them they were being call racist they're being called terrorists buy some of the highest ranking Democrats in the government ... and most knew what was coming next the full force of the government on the individual which would destroy them personally and professionally.

    the original Tea Party shopkeepers new that and put that all on the line in most of them lost everything they had.

    All in all is good article
  • #38
    Government will never get smaller as long as population continues to grow. Live with it.
    I don't necessarily think that 'racist' or 'terrorist' are appropriate terms to describe the tea party members, but maybe 'jihadist'. Willing to go down in flames rather than compromise their ideology.
    You can admire their characters while still knowing that you cannot run a government that way.
  • #52
    @bsking Jihad actually means 'struggle'. Lately it has come to mean 'tightly wound fanatic willing to die for his cause'. My usage refers to the more recent meaning.
    I use that term because the tea party principles, such as they are, applied to the nations finances, would result in a fiscal disaster greater than the great depression.
    To pretend otherwise is madness, which also describes much of the tea party movement.
  • #71
    @bsking The great depression had multiple causes, but the government actually shrank the money supply, and that tipped it from bad to disastrous.
    that's why certain teabaggers desire to go back on the gold standard is so insane. It would cut the money supply by more than half. It would destroy the worlds' economies.
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    It seems to me that by the time the Tea Party really gained national recognition, known personalities like Sarah Palin were stepping in front of any available camera hoping to profit and gain political traction by associating the name of the party with their own agendas, thereby obscuring the message of the original organizers of the movement.
  • #95
    I agree. I mentioned an interview I saw on CNN with Dr. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin about the Tea Party. That sorta cemented the end of it being about the initial idea and moving more towards a Social platform that I disagree with.
  • #3
    Would of, could of, should of. Total speculation. Tea Party slogans such as "Government keep your hands off my medicare" showed themselves to be ignorant. They were Koch Brothers and corporate dupes, nothing more.
  • #65
    The operative phrase: "Unfortunately, the movement was too disorganized to keep social conservatives at a safe distance." Now they are the Tea Party.
    Allowing the Zealots, like Christine O'Donnell, Aiken, Bachmann, Mourdock, et al. to become the spokespersons whom non believers identify as the Tea Party has marginalized the perception of the party to the lunatic fringes.
    They have taken control from the feckless orange tinged HR leadership. Now the GOP rabble in The HR are acting like half wits.
    What bunch of A holes, 57 votes against a totally pork free hurricane aid bill. In typical Tea Party, voting against their own self interests some votes came from Reps from coastal hurricane prone or tornado prone states. These little piglets are the great minds of our time, I think not
  • #66
    @martydotcom just remember, she is notca witch. The real stupidity was they vote against not only their interest, but their own goals. bohner had a better deal, they passed on it and taxes are going higher then they would have gone had they shown support for bohners idea. I think calling em half wits gives them too much credit.

    But I'm counting on em to deliver dems to the wh in 2016, cause without help dem campaigns are their own worse enemies (modale, dukuckass, gore, kerry).
  • #67
    @PoliticalSpice I think if they're successful in Boehner's stated desire to shut down the Gov. screwing up our credit rating etc. we may only have to await the mid term elections. Pray for Hillary's total recovery for '16
  • R Load more replies

  • #56
    Among the Huffington Post crowd? Communists, Socialists, Marxists? Lazy Beggers?
    you mean Among those people?
    The Tea Party stands for lower taxes and smaller government, No wonder Obama people dont like the Tea Party, Heck they need Government to wipe their rears everyday.
    Obama's folks are merely just a liberal pile of indoctrinated fools.
    They drive their Toyota to get their EBT Card refreshed.....LOL

    In the mean time I drive my Ford to work, to pay for them!!
  • #20
    Once the tea party was backed by the koch brothers it was all about little to no govt and don't touch the big corporations. This article, while while well written, is not even close to the whole story and simply tries to rewrite history.
  • #17
    With all due respect to Mark Twain: The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated..the Teaparty due to an onslaught by the socialist propaganda machine may have gone underground a bit,but this last great hope for freedom is not yet conquered,freedom has a way of resurfacing no matter the odds
  • #53
    @MongoAPillager And if that makes you feel better, good. Now please let someone responsible run the country.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    wow, what an attempt at a well written piece of complete fiction. this tea party he speaks of bears little resemblance to the actual tea party. next time you're searching for a guest writer for an article, at least make it entertaining fiction. maybe stephen king.
  • #19
    Seems like a very historicaly accurate depiction of what happened to the tea party and how they were overtaken by the far right evangelicals, and thus brought to their destruction...
  • #22
    Yeah gotta agree with @woodtick57 here...the author was waxing poetic about what they STARTED AS and COULD have been, they were solely concerned with economic issues in the beginning. Once the hardcore social conservatives realized that people were actually listening to these upstarts, they jumped on the bandwagon and broke the axles, which opened the door for cries of racism, homophobia, good ol' boys etc.
  • #94
    @Real4WheelDrv I saw a CNN broadcast that had Dr. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin as guests talking about the Tea Party movement a while back. Dr. Paul looked somewhat uncomfortable every time Sarah opened her mouth and backed off his actual association with the Tea Party movement and instead focused on what he's always focused on, Small Government and Fiscal responsibility. He expertly answered the questions that attempted to link him to being Anti-Gay Marriage by saying the Federal Government shouldn't be involved. Sarah on the other hand felt it her responsibility to talk at length on the subject. I knew right then that the Tea Party had lost any Libertarians or Paulbots (as some call us) that might have been interested in the Tea Parties initial Small Government, Fiscal Responsible platform.
    Beginning of the end in my mind.
  • #106
    @Fishbone345 I was under the impression the tea party was less about small government and more about no Obama. If these people were truly concerned about goverment spending where were they before Obama was sworn into office. This was never about spending and government size. Those were talking points made to try and attempt to legitimize what was nothing more than an obstructionist movement determined to unseat a democratically elected president. That's how I viewed them from day one because that's how they seemed to present themselves. Screaming in town hall meetings. Talking about spending as if it suddenly had somehow just ballooned the day Obama took office and not a peep from these same people as the bush administration and his congress spent us into recession. They were from day one nothing less than anti-Obama activists. They failed. They did not remove him as president. They did help to further degrade the ability of an already strained two party system to make compromise. The way they scream the GOP seem to think they have more power and more numbers than they truly do. If that were true why is Mitt Romney not president during a bad economy the incumbent generally gets beaten. If the tea party had true power and influence why did the GOP lose the popular vote in the senate the house and the presidential election during a recession? What happens to their power when the GOP try to run Rubio and the people who were there for nothing more than trying to remove a black man are given a Cuban to get behind. I'm not saying that's all of them. I'm saying that's a lot of them and what overstated power they seem to have now is going to be even further diminished in 2016 and most are going to be scratching their heads wondering why when they just don't want to accept the ugly truth. Most of the tea party exist solely because a black democrat is president.
  • #112
    @frigginhell I think you mistook my post as defense of the Tea Party. That's not what it was at all.
    Personally, I am a Libertarian, and wish that we had a bigger platform. But, that takes time and effort, and we are getting there. Eventually Americans will be fed up with the poor choices they are offered and the third party option will be a reality. The Democrats and Republicans are only two sides of the same damn coin. Neither one does anything and what they do, harms us further and further as a nation. Grandstanding and writing bills with piggy backs does nothing but please the different cliques in Congress. If you truly believe that the two party system benefits Americans and does what is Constitutionally the right thing, you are sadly mistaken and naive at the very best.
  • R Load more replies

  • #116
    We need at least one political organization that does not believe we should continue to finance over 40 cents on the dollar to fund our government.
  • #113
    What I wish we could have is the Party of Common Sense. Something in the middle. Something that advocates for the regular guy, the average American, those whose voices are drowned out by the loud-mouths on the far right and left.
  • #110
    This article is utter nonsense. Its core is based on the size of government and how THAT size is intrusive into people's lives. I think differently. Size is not the issue, corruption is. A rotting piece of fruit can ruin the piece adjacent to it just as easily as the whole bushel.
    Our country was built on greedy opportunists, who fled countries to escape controlling laws and high taxation, and enslaving ( to say the VERY least) people to lower their building costs, writing their on laws which suited them along the way. All of this occurred before the industrial era.
    As our civility grew, so did our government to create agencies to mute the outcry of its citizens claims of unfairness. For a while the larger of those industrial ogres were able to stave off accountability by making those legislative types wealthy by making them their bitch.
    Money is king. So more and more people wanted a job like that: supposedly loved by the people while making tons of money under the table. Eventually there were momentary downslopes in the special interest money, so the congress had to vote into laws a system that rid them of accountability, prosecution, and being transparent. These laws made it possible for them to have unearned pay-raises, the best insurance, campaign freedom, amazing retirement packages. Big business influences wanted their bitches to be happy.
    Sure, there are times when congress does the "right thing" but you have to admit, thats pretty rare, especially over larger issues. If they were acting in the nation's best interest then why and how have things become so screwed up? It certainly was not by the will of the American people.
    From another angle, we are no longer the same nation we once were. Prior to the industrial era, most of us were farmers and cowboys, isolated and free to do what we had to do to survive, scattered about with relatively small percentages clustered in areas. As our population grew, so did our government, that only makes sense. A complete hierarchial system had to be created to maintain the chaos that grows from those who have the inability to govern themselves. A military force was created to protect it citizens from enemies of its precious way of life, both foreign and domestic.
    Eventually,many social programs were created: firemen, police, libraries, schools, postal, rid some of the chaos but more to create additional revenue. The government became a business.
    I'm not happy with all things the government does in terms of intrusiveness, but at the same time there are many issues where I feel they are not intrusive enough. Lawmakers are given free reign so that their business and the businesses that legally lobby them can operate,seemingly at will, with little chance of any accountability. We vote them in.
    Money and greed behind it is king. The size is irrelevant.
  • #101
    Oh Huff and Puff , yeh,,far left Media be the judge, can't have it both ways,,Tea Party has too much influence in congress,,,Tea Party is dying out and has no influence --please make up your minds.
  • R Load more comments...