Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

Jryan said:

The tea party wasn't relevant because they were just a bunch of republicans being controlled by corporate america...

Click to expand...

Nobody makes it to a seat in Congress unless they are Corp bought and sold to the highest paying lobbyist.

digsbe said:

It's relevant enough for the liberal media to foam at the mouth over it and for partisans to throw around sexual slurs to describe the movement.

How do you feel about OWS?

Click to expand...

They were the ones who invented the sexual innuendo themselves. Unless you think this is pro-Obama:

Removable Mind said:

Nobody makes it to a seat in Congress unless they are Corp bought and sold to the highest paying lobbyist.

Click to expand...

The problem is the people that follow the tea party don't follow that logic.

They weren't relevant to begin with, they are just a bunch of neo cons hiding behind a different label and have consistantly done nothing for the country. In my opinion the Tea Party was just a distraction to the public to act like it was some new revolutionary party when in fact they are just republicans with the same tax cutting and war mongering mind set. Boner will hopefully be crying his way off that chair real soon.

I voted maybe. It is impossible to tell unless it happens.

I personally find the TEA party to be a comical movement in general. They preach that the problem with America is that we spend too much. I assume this will mean that we also don't take in enough. Sadly, their idea of a balanced budget is to reduce social spending, increase military spending, dangerously deregulate (further shifting the already precarious wealth gap), and lower taxes. This is absurd to a comical degree. Why would someone who is pro-freedom restrict the freedom of gays and women? Only Thomas Jefferson is smart enough to contradict himself and still be effective.

I believe they will be very relevant as long as we have GOPers like McCain running around. Or, if the GOP POTUS (whomever that is) starts acting like Dubya Bush and spending money. Thats the great part about my party. They hold the GOPs feet to the fire a lot more than the lefts. I like that. We need some accountability on the right.

MarineTpartier said:

I believe they will be very relevant as long as we have GOPers like McCain running around. Or, if the GOP POTUS (whomever that is) starts acting like Dubya Bush and spending money. Thats the great part about my party. They hold the GOPs feet to the fire a lot more than the lefts. I like that. We need some accountability on the right.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. Where was the accountability during the Bush years? Where has the accountability been the last two years when Congress claims to pass "historic spending cuts" that are nothing more than smoke and mirrors while the total dollars spent continue to increase?

The Tea Party has identified the enemy as Democracts and a handful of RINOs, but it goes far deeper than that. Most of the GOP establishment is just as bad as the Democracts. The only difference being what their prioritize spending on and who's pockets they line. And the fact that the left is honest about its love of big government spending. The GOP trots out fiscal conservative rhetoric every two years and then immediately forgets about it after the first Tuesday of November.

The Tea Party for various reasons was unable to get behind a single candidate early in the primaries and it has hurt their influence. The only thing they seemed to know for sure is they didn't like Romney. Now they're coalescing behind Santorum of all people? A guy who has emphasized social issues over fiscal issues for most of the campaign and has a spending track record that could generously be described as "spotty".

At this point, the best thing that could happen for the Tea Party and for fiscal conservatism is for Romney to get the election, and then the base stays home and sends a message. Sure we get stuck with four more years of Obama, but maybe ... just maybe the GOP will realize that people want more than just a guy who says all the right things on the campaign trail, despite a track record that run counter to most of what he claims he believes in. Give us someone who can talk the talk and more importantly walk the walk.

Once the Tea Party actually got some people into office, mainstream America got to see how disastrous their positions are. Elected Tea Partiers were even more obstructionist than regular Republicans. They made the divide bigger, and made it more difficult to compromise. That's what most people want, compromise. They don't hold extreme ideals, don't believe in absolutist policies. They don't want a completely free or completely controlled market, nor a society where everyone is free to do whatever they want, because things scare them, but they want a society free enough for them to do most of the things they want to do.

The Tea Party was based on being the outsiders. Once they stopped being outsiders, they lost their fire. Regardless of what anyone thinks of their platforms, the fact that they failed to make or even try to make any kind of positive change once they obtained some power destroyed everything they stood for. All that idealism and chest beating became nothing. The Tea Party won't become relevant again later on, and they're not really relevant now. There's no Tea Party candidate in the Republican primary right now, and for a good reason. They talked a good game, but then they played their hand, and it was just a pair of fours.

digsbe said:

Yes, because if the Republicans continue on with fiscal irresponsibility the Tea Party will protest and hold them accountable.

Click to expand...

The Tea Party doesn't have the balls, any more than any other party, to do what's necessary, they talk a good game, fiscally, but the second they're in power, they'll ***** out like everyone else because doing what we need done, being truly fiscally responsible, is a guarantee to be thrown out of power for the forseeable future and all political groups exist to stay in office. Doesn't matter what they say, I don't believe a word of it.

The Tea Party is the GOP at this point, sorry to say. The original movement was hijacked a long time ago. If the GOP come to power again the Tea Party will taper off.

Temporal said:

The Tea Party is the GOP at this point, sorry to say. The original movement was hijacked a long time ago. If the GOP come to power again the Tea Party will taper off.

Click to expand...

I agree, however, "hijacked" implies that there was some great misfortune become of them.

It was an open platform, broad enough for anyone to come in. Don't be sorry for it. There were plenty of sad Libertarians who were surprised that being bland in their message meant many flavors of conservatives could come in and, gasp, be more popular and more successful.

The Tea Party, while not a "republican" movement, is a "conservative" movement and thus while it encompasses some independent, libertarian and even democratic support its primary national presence in terms of elections is the Republican party. As such I imagine it’ll do what most ideological movements do when their side is placed into office…remain in existence but either be co-opted to remain in existence and keep power and/or move to the back and private channels for their unrest.

In regards to the first part happening, it would depend on whether or not the Republicans that are elected follow the Tea Party model or not. If they don’t, the chance of it being co-opted reduces itself as there is still a purpose for the movement. If they DO however make headway on Tea Party issues then the purpose of the movement is weakened a bit and, as is the case with most ideological political movements, those that seek power will attempt to co-opt it rather than embrace its success. Feminism and the Civil Rights movement are two such examples, rather than progress with recognition of the success those movements have made those that are at the top seek to keep it burning with as much, if not more, fervor then it was at its peak because to present the situation as somehow significantly better then it was would be to purposefully weaken their own foot hold and power. So the first part of the equation is hinged on how successful the Republicans are at pushing the Tea Party Agenda or not.

The second part has little bearing on whether or not the agenda is successful and more to do with human nature. Inherently people are lest app to PUBLICLY rip “their team”. You can see this in sports routinely, where fans will voice unrest concerning issues with the team privately but don’t typically vocally in public bash their team…but have no issue doing so to others. Look too at how people react toward speaking bad against strangers or even acquaintances and friends…but are less apt to do it PUBLICLY about family or very close friends.

In politics, this is in part due to an understanding that as bad as your guy might be on issues you care about there is a good chance that the other guy will be as bad if not worse on those issues AND on other issues you care about as well. So the method of complaining to get the results you wish changes. It’s beneficial to be loud, vocal, and in the spot light about your complaint with the other guy in office because such public negativity tends to do some damage and will help increase the chance of your guy getting in. However, when your guy is in power being extremely vocal, loud, and in the spot light is actually detrimental to your cause. Such acts are typically not significantly more likely to succeed in terms of getting your POLICY pushed than more private, individualized, and back channeled forms of protest. The purpose of loud and showy things is not so much to get your policy pushed but to get attention to your issue and gain VOTER support. As such, doing big protests like that when your guy is in power is actually increasing your chances of doing harm to your goals because it’s more likely to simply increase the chance of getting your guy voted out then it is to get policy changed.

It’s not like the anti-war movement and the immigration movement stopped putting pressure to get their policies enacted when Obama went in the white house. However, save for a portion of those who are single issue voters, they recognize that it is more beneficial in terms of the policies they want to make their push through a different method then they did when Bush was in office. If they continued to make their push in the same fashion the more likely result then getting a BETTER anti-war candidate would be that they’d simply help get a Republican elected who would end up being as bad if not worse on their pet issue AND on other issues they care about.

Similarly, the Tea Party movement will likely undergo a different method of protest and policy pressure if Republicans get elected in 2012. That doesn’t mean they movement won’t still push their issues, but they’ll do so in a different method that gives them the best chance to get the most of their policy enacted.

I personally have no issue or see no hypocrisy on the side of the Anti-War movement or would see it on the Tea Party movement if they acted similarly. It’d be one thing if they came out as a movement going “We support 100% of what the guy in office is doing in regards to our issues” when it’s clear the guy isn’t actually doing that…but that hasn’t happened, and I don’t think it will happen. But I expect an ideological movement to do what is most likely to bring about the most of their policy as is possible…and when the party that matches their ideological side is in office that action is to look towards more discreet methods of political pressure rather than overt. To expect ideological movements on either side to act differently is to expect them to act detrimental to their purposes and to be 100% slaves to ideology.

Most Ideological movements, as is the case with most people, have to balance between ideological principle and ideological practicality. I.E. they have to balance between getting the purest policy possible or getting the most policy possible according to their desires. There are very, VERY few movements that are 100% ideological and 0% practical. There may be individuals within a movement that are of that make up, but few movements as a whole are. The ones that are you almost never hear about because they are SO far out of the mainstream that they have no real relevance.

So to summarize…I think the visible Tea Party influence will appear reduced if the Republicans get elected. I believe the back channel and private political pressure will remain relatively strong IF Republicans fail to follow through on tea party principles once elected. I don’t see any problem with this, or with how other ideological movements have acted, as I believe that such a change of approach is in the best interest of those movements to get the most of what they want done.

rocket88 said:

They were the ones who invented the sexual innuendo themselves. Unless you think this is pro-Obama:

View attachment 67122805

Click to expand...

They referenced "Teabagging" first. Specifically labeling them "Tea baggers" as a term was not created by the movement first but rather liberals in the media.

Could you go "WELL! They said they were going to teabag things so they're technically Tea Baggers". Sure. And TECHNICALLY Democrats use a donkey as their symbol and so technically it'd be correct to call Democrats "jackasses".

However, doing so would be childish and would be misrepresenting one thing they did (having a donkey as their mascot) as a sign that they willfully created the other portion themselves (Labeling themselves jackasses).

Those talking as if there wasn't opposition or issues with Bush while he was president are doing some revisionist history. There was displeasure with what Bush did, and it was outspoken. Were the great big loud protests? No. What there was however was complaint and discontent similar to what Liberals have done with Obama with regards to things like the Health Care bill and Gitmo. They voice their displeasure, they speak negatively abou tit, but they don't actively go out and protest and make a giant fuss about it because they understand that while they have issues...and they're going to fight for those issues and urge their guy to acknowledge them...they're goal is not to paint their guy as horrible but rathe rmisguided on a few things becuase taking him as a WHOLE he's better in their mind then the alternative.

Those suggesting there was silence by conservative voices both in the media and on the ground over things Bush did such as No Child Left Behind, about TSA, about TARP, about his Immigration policy and other things are simply deluding themselves and participating in revisionist history. Was there a similar outcry as there has been under Obama? No. The same can be said for Democrats under Obama compared to Bush though. The same can be said about Republicans during Clinton, and Democrats under Reagan, and so on. It's the basis of human nature and with regards to how individuals and movements seek to do what's best for their particular issue.

Zyphlin said:

They referenced "Teabagging" first. Specifically labeling them "Tea baggers" as a term was not created by the movement first but rather liberals in the media.

Could you go "WELL! They said they were going to teabag things so they're technically Tea Baggers". Sure. And TECHNICALLY Democrats use a donkey as their symbol and so technically it'd be correct to call Democrats "jackasses".

However, doing so would be childish and would be misrepresenting one thing they did (having a donkey as their mascot) as a sign that they willfully created the other portion themselves (Labeling themselves jackasses).

Click to expand...

Yes, but Democrats are jackasses, so...

Black_Zawisza said:

The Republican Party controlled all three branches from 2001 to 2006, and the federal government only grew under their watch.

Furthermore, a big chunk of the public outrage over Guantanamo, the USA PATRIOT Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a whole host of other things evaporated as soon as Bush left office and Obama came in (IMO, anyway, we can debate over this too).

With these points in mind, do you think that the Tea Party will remain politically relevant if the Republicans win in 2012? Or will fiscal conservatism be relegated to the back of the bus once the GOP is in power?

Click to expand...

I picked other.First of all The tea party are republicans.The idea that they are some actual party or separate from the republicans is idiotic. Second this whole Tea Party thing is nothing more than a ploy by the republicans to sucker people into voting for republicans.If the Tea Party was a actual party then they would be a actual party.When the republicans win the white-house it will be just business as usual just like when the democrats won and the republicans before them that won. They will not repeal Obama care, they will not fix the budget, They will not stop kissing globalist piece of **** ass, they will not crack down on illegals or any other thing issue they used as a ploy to con people into voting for them. Democrats are just as guilty as the republicans are.

jamesrage said:

I picked other.First of all The tea party are republicans.The idea that they are some actual party or separate from the republicans is idiotic. Second this whole Tea Party thing is nothing more than a ploy by the republicans to sucker people into voting for republicans.If the Tea Party was a actual party then they would be a actual party.When the republicans win the white-house it will be just business as usual just like when the democrats won and the republicans before them that won. They will not repeal Obama care, they will not fix the budget, They will not stop kissing globalist piece of **** ass, they will not crack down on illegals or any other thing issue they used as a ploy to con people into voting for them. Democrats are just as guilty as the republicans are.

Click to expand...

Nobody's saying that the Tea Party isn't almost entirely a movement internal to the Republican Party. Who are you supposed to be calling idiotic?

I'm not sure why you voted "other". You seem to be saying that the Tea Party won't continue to influence public policy, and they will therefore no longer be relevant.

jamesrage said:

I picked other.First of all The tea party are republicans.The idea that they are some actual party or separate from the republicans is idiotic. Second this whole Tea Party thing is nothing more than a ploy by the republicans to sucker people into voting for republicans.If the Tea Party was a actual party then they would be a actual party.When the republicans win the white-house it will be just business as usual just like when the democrats won and the republicans before them that won. They will not repeal Obama care, they will not fix the budget, They will not stop kissing globalist piece of **** ass, they will not crack down on illegals or any other thing issue they used as a ploy to con people into voting for them. Democrats are just as guilty as the republicans are.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree for the most part with this statement, these politicians are nothing but talk. Obama who had a crusade against tax cuts is now wanting to lower the corporate tax rate to 35% to 28% which is a huge tax cut. Wether you agree with this or not the point is all these politicians are two faced and flip floppers and will say anything to get elected, it's disgusting.

Psychoclown said:

I'm not so sure about that. Where was the accountability during the Bush years? Where has the accountability been the last two years when Congress claims to pass "historic spending cuts" that are nothing more than smoke and mirrors while the total dollars spent continue to increase?

Click to expand...

I will agree that I was disappointed the Payroll Tax Cut got passed. Its a stupid policy. Tax cuts? Fine. That tax cut? Stupid. It will entertaining to see who blames who when SS goes belly up. The Dems can't blame the GOP, they asked for it. The GOP can't blame the Dems, they passed it in the House. Yep, gonna be funny. Anyway, I don't care about the Bush years. I'm just glad its happening. The question you have to ask about the House is this. Would you rather have been Pelosi and those idiots running it 2 more years or Boehner and the Tea Partiers?

Psychoclown said:

At this point, the best thing that could happen for the Tea Party and for fiscal conservatism is for Romney to get the election, and then the base stays home and sends a message. Sure we get stuck with four more years of Obama, but maybe ... just maybe the GOP will realize that people want more than just a guy who says all the right things on the campaign trail, despite a track record that run counter to most of what he claims he believes in. Give us someone who can talk the talk and more importantly walk the walk.

Click to expand...

Man, Obama getting re-elected would really hurt. I mean really hurt. Thats a bold statement lol. I really wish Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio would have ran. I can't believe they didn't. Michelle Bachmann was the Tea Party candidate..........yeah.

Black_Zawisza said:

Nobody's saying that the Tea Party isn't almost entirely a movement internal to the Republican Party. Who are you supposed to be calling idiotic?

Click to expand...

Many people tend to think the Tea Party is a actually a separate party.

I'm not sure why you voted "other". You seem to be saying that the Tea Party won't continue to influence public policy, and they will therefore no longer be relevant.

Click to expand...

They were not a influence to begin with.Politicians in general will oppose something because that is what they actually oppose or they will oppose something purely because the other side supports it. The fact that some of the so-called tea party candidates may have supported some of these things is just coincidence.

Somehow I doubt it, it seems like most of the tea party's outrage comes and goes with the news cycles, whether it be cable news or talk radio. If a republican gets into the white house, expect a 4 year long void in stories about deficits or unemployment.

jamesrage said:

Many people tend to think the Tea Party is a actually a separate party.



They were not a influence to begin with.Politicians in general will oppose something because that is what they actually oppose or they will oppose something purely because the other side supports it. The fact that some of the so-called tea party candidates may have supported some of these things is just coincidence.

Click to expand...

In other words...the Tea Party is a Pseudo Political Party, which was and is being propped up by a movement rather than a political machine commonly associated with the Republicans and Democrats...?

I pretty much agree with your views. EXCEPT...nothing in Washington is there by "Coincidence". Tea Party Congressional members...had big name financial backers. The problem is that they don't have a structured political organization at their back...which actually, you've already pointed out.

MarineTpartier said:

I will agree that I was disappointed the Payroll Tax Cut got passed. Its a stupid policy. Tax cuts? Fine. That tax cut? Stupid. It will entertaining to see who blames who when SS goes belly up. The Dems can't blame the GOP, they asked for it. The GOP can't blame the Dems, they passed it in the House. Yep, gonna be funny. Anyway, I don't care about the Bush years. I'm just glad its happening. The question you have to ask about the House is this. Would you rather have been Pelosi and those idiots running it 2 more years or Boehner and the Tea Partiers?

Click to expand...

If I thought the Bush years were an awful abberration that will never return, I would happily say I don't care about them either. But unfortunately I don't think the Republicans have learned their lesson. If McCain or Romney had won in '08, do you think either one of them would be substantially different than Bush? Or Obama for that matter. Do you really think any of the Republican candidates back '08 would've been that different? No matter who won, Republican or Democrat, we were going to get bailouts and massive inefficient stimulus spending. We were going to continue to follow Bush's outline for Iraq and Afghanistan. And we were going to get some massive over reaching form of "healthcare reform". Some of the details would've been different, but the overall impact would largely be the same: ballooning deficfits, ever expanding government, and tepid economic recovery.

As for Pelosi vs Boehner, yeah Boehner and his crew are slightly less objectionable. But as I've said time and time again, being marginally better than a bad option, does not make you a good option. Are you really content to cast your vote for a candidate or a party for the sole reason that they aren't quite as lousy as the people they are running against? Aren't you sick of shallow lip service to your ideals and nothing more? Shouldn't we start to demand better from our political parties?

Because voting for Boehner or Romney or Santorum or whoever the mainstream Republican establishment pushes forward as the spokesman of the party says that you are OK with that. That being not quite as bad as the ohter guy is good enough. And if that's good enough, where is the incentive to do better? Fiscal conservatives continue to reward the GOP with our votes even though they have let us down time and time again.

Man, Obama getting re-elected would really hurt. I mean really hurt. Thats a bold statement lol. I really wish Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio would have ran. I can't believe they didn't. Michelle Bachmann was the Tea Party candidate..........yeah.

Click to expand...

I ask again, has Obama really been that bad? Or I should rephrase that, has he been that much worse than McCain or Romney would've been? I disagree with him on a number of posititions, but many of those positions would've been taken up by the Republican candidates too. The Republican party has lost its way when it comes to small government fiscal conservatism. They managed to scare the base by labeling Obama as a big government liberal, while conviently ignoring the fact that they are the party of big government conservatives. Big government is big government, I don't care if it has a R or a D next to the name. The only way I see the GOP ever truly embracing fiscal conservatism in both talk AND practice is for fiscal conservatives to stand up and say "You can't take our votes for granted anymore. If you run big government candidates, we won't vote for them." And that will mean the Democrats will win a few elections, but if the end result is a Republican Party that is truly commited to fiscal conservatism, I'd say it was well worth it.

Zyphlin said:

Those talking as if there wasn't opposition or issues with Bush while he was president are doing some revisionist history. There was displeasure with what Bush did, and it was outspoken. Were the great big loud protests? No. What there was however was complaint and discontent similar to what Liberals have done with Obama with regards to things like the Health Care bill and Gitmo. They voice their displeasure, they speak negatively abou tit, but they don't actively go out and protest and make a giant fuss about it because they understand that while they have issues...and they're going to fight for those issues and urge their guy to acknowledge them...they're goal is not to paint their guy as horrible but rathe rmisguided on a few things becuase taking him as a WHOLE he's better in their mind then the alternative.

Those suggesting there was silence by conservative voices both in the media and on the ground over things Bush did such as No Child Left Behind, about TSA, about TARP, about his Immigration policy and other things are simply deluding themselves and participating in revisionist history. Was there a similar outcry as there has been under Obama? No. The same can be said for Democrats under Obama compared to Bush though. The same can be said about Republicans during Clinton, and Democrats under Reagan, and so on. It's the basis of human nature and with regards to how individuals and movements seek to do what's best for their particular issue.

Click to expand...

I understand the need and desire to want to take care of issues with your guy or your party quietly and in-house, but the question I have is was Bush really "our guy"? Did Bush do anything substantial that could be construed as fiscally conservative? Especially inthe first 6 years when him and the rest of the Republican party controlled both branches of Congress and the White House?

And the larger question we should be looking at is this: Is the Republican Party still the party of fiscal conservatism? Do they actually practice it? I don't see it. So why should fiscal conservatives keep quiet and try to deal with their issues with the GOP quietly and in-house? It hasn't gotten us anywhere. We got a Republican controlled house that got elected on a fiscal conservative message and they haven't made one cut. Despite all the smoke and mirrors, despite all the boasting about "historic" cuts, the budget growing. The deficit keeps ballooning. Why should fiscal conservatives continue to identify with the Republican Party when they fail to do anything that resembles fiscal conservatism?

Of course it won't. Even GOP Presidents can be big government spenders.