The tea party... Are they all this dumb, or is it just the ones who represent them?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

shreedder:

yes I watch the news, but here is a fun fact for you the speeches where Sarah Palin says stupid ignorant things are not edited.

So when I asked if by "they" you meant the majority of the Tea Party members, or just the ones who get media coverage, the answer was "the ones who get media coverage"?

If the majority of your knowledge of Tea Party members comes from the few individuals who get media coverage, then you are dealing with a biased sample. And if your sample is biased, then any generalizations you make from that have a decent chance of being wrong.

No man all the media is biased.

A completely valid statement, despite the sarcastic tone.

BrassButtons:

shreedder:

yes I watch the news, but here is a fun fact for you the speeches where Sarah Palin says stupid ignorant things are not edited.

So when I asked if by "they" you meant the majority of the Tea Party members, or just the ones who get media coverage, the answer was "the ones who get media coverage"?

If the majority of your knowledge of Tea Party members comes from the few individuals who get media coverage, then you are dealing with a biased sample. And if your sample is biased, then any generalizations you make from that have a decent chance of being wrong.

No man all the media is biased.

A completely valid statement, despite the sarcastic tone.

The probelem then is are these people so stupid that they can not get competant people to represent them? Like it our not our groups get judged by who stands up in front of the cameras and talks. If they say stupid things then they should be cast away from the group. However I do not see that happening, which logicaly leads me to belive that the tea party likes what their represintives have to say for them.

shreedder:

The probelem then is are these people so stupid that they can not get competant people to represent them? Like it our not our groups get judged by who stands up in front of the cameras and talks. If they say stupid things then they should be cast away from the group. However I do not see that happening, which logicaly leads me to belive that the tea party likes what their represintives have to say for them.

So if a politician says something stupid, the entire political party must therefor be stupid as well?

BrassButtons:

shreedder:

The probelem then is are these people so stupid that they can not get competant people to represent them? Like it our not our groups get judged by who stands up in front of the cameras and talks. If they say stupid things then they should be cast away from the group. However I do not see that happening, which logicaly leads me to belive that the tea party likes what their represintives have to say for them.

So if a politician says something stupid, the entire political party must therefor be stupid as well?

no, but when all polititions of the same party say the same stupid things you can link a pattern togther. This is what the tea party has done. Every person to stand up and speak has spewed some profoundly stupid shit. Then the tea party supports these people, which shows they agree with them on some level.

Again the problem is when stupid people say stupid things while representing a group and the group does not scorne these people, and in fact continues to support these people than you can assume both are similair in the group they are in. In this case incredably stupid individuals.

"The problem with political jokes is that sometimes they get elected." --Will Rogers

shreedder:

no, but when all polititions of the same party say the same stupid things you can link a pattern togther. This is what the tea party has done. Every person to stand up and speak has spewed some profoundly stupid shit. Then the tea party supports these people, which shows they agree with them on some level.

Again the problem is when stupid people say stupid things while representing a group and the group does not scorne these people, and in fact continues to support these people than you can assume both are similair in the group they are in. In this case incredably stupid individuals.

Well, like I said before, there's an easy way to solve this: wait and see what CNN does. If coverage of the Tea Party suddenly starts showing people making intelligent arguments, then we can be fairly certain that the media was deliberately ignoring them before. If that doesn't happen, then it means you were right.

BrassButtons:

shreedder:

See the thing is the media isn't what makes them look bad. It is when they talk and say the dumbest things about american history.

And by "they" do you mean every single member of the Tea Party, or even the majority of members? Or do you mean the members who get media coverage, and maybe the few you've happened to encounter that you found memorable? And where are you hearing them say these dumb things? Are you attending their rallies and witnessing the events personally--or are you watching edited videos on the news?

Here's my question; why would you go to a rally to watch Sarah Palin if you had two brain cells to rub together? If there are any brilliantly intelligent constitutional lawyers, bright young politicians looking to make an impact on the world, aspiring students of the government, etc., wandering through the crowds that the cameras never seem to spot, why are they going to a rally occupied with thousands of gun-toting mouthbreathers, and why in perfect hell would they want to watch an air-headed demagogue puke all over everything they actually know about the history of the United States and the constitution? Are we really supposed to believe that there's a bunch of smart people in these rallies who are also demanding to know how a Kenyan Muslim with a Socialist agenda got into office?

Here's how I've viewed the Tea Party:

The common members are pushed by an underlying racial anxiety (not racism) that they seek to better explain to themselves. The "big government" and "personal liberties" mantra of the tea party is most appealing to them, as it gives them reason to be afraid without doubting their motives. This offers the most coherent explanation as to why they made such a sudden appearance despite a near-zero change in major government policy. It is also backed up by poll results that suggest this as a major possibility. Plus, everybody hates taxes, even when they pay the lowest taxes in the developed world. Examples: random crowd interviews during rallies.

The more intellectual members of the tea party are the people who want to disband major government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, pretty much every regulatory body and every program for the poor, the Civil Rights Act, and shift to the gold standard. These people are probably the most dangerous of the lot, because they are the ones who will write the legislation for when the Tea Partiers get elected. Examples: Rand Paul, Paul Ryan.

At the top are the media figures and politicians who are trying to make a name and a buck off the Tea Partiers. These are people whom they only need to appeal to this small portion of the population to drive ticket and book sales, television ratings, and win primaries in districts with no real competition in the general election. To them, being loud and incendiary isn't just okay, it's how they get the job done. Examples: Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Former-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Former-House Majority Leader Richard Armey, Former-Governor Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, pretty much everybody at Fox News, many Talk Radio hosts (I don't include Limbaugh in this one, though), etc.

And then there are your "crazies," which make up parts of all the above categories. These are the people who spout conspiracy theories and total insanity that everyone tries to distance themselves from, the "black helicopter" types, if you will. Examples: Birthers, John Birtch Members, racists, militia members/gun nuts, bigots, homophobes, 9/11 truthers, Florida Congressman Allen West, Glenn Beck, etc.

BrassButtons:

shreedder:

no, but when all polititions of the same party say the same stupid things you can link a pattern togther. This is what the tea party has done. Every person to stand up and speak has spewed some profoundly stupid shit. Then the tea party supports these people, which shows they agree with them on some level.

Again the problem is when stupid people say stupid things while representing a group and the group does not scorne these people, and in fact continues to support these people than you can assume both are similair in the group they are in. In this case incredably stupid individuals.

Well, like I said before, there's an easy way to solve this: wait and see what CNN does. If coverage of the Tea Party suddenly starts showing people making intelligent arguments, then we can be fairly certain that the media was deliberately ignoring them before. If that doesn't happen, then it means you were right.

to some extent you are correct, but I would not hold my breath on the subject Serge explained it very well. So look to his post for my continued skepticism.

shreedder:

BrassButtons:

shreedder:

no, but when all polititions of the same party say the same stupid things you can link a pattern togther. This is what the tea party has done. Every person to stand up and speak has spewed some profoundly stupid shit. Then the tea party supports these people, which shows they agree with them on some level.

Again the problem is when stupid people say stupid things while representing a group and the group does not scorne these people, and in fact continues to support these people than you can assume both are similair in the group they are in. In this case incredably stupid individuals.

Well, like I said before, there's an easy way to solve this: wait and see what CNN does. If coverage of the Tea Party suddenly starts showing people making intelligent arguments, then we can be fairly certain that the media was deliberately ignoring them before. If that doesn't happen, then it means you were right.

to some extent you are correct, but I would not hold my breath on the subject Serge explained it very well. So look to his post for my continued skepticism.

Plus, there is the whole fact that they're about to approach the second anniversary of when coverage of the Tea Party became in vogue in April. Two years of incoherent rage later and suddenly everybody in the "movement" is an intellectual? I doubt it...

The Gentleman:

Plus, there is the whole fact that they're about to approach the second anniversary of when coverage of the Tea Party became in vogue in April.

Except that now CNN is "teaming up" with them (other people's wording), which means that they may have reason to want the Tea Party to be seen in a more favorable light. If that happens, it will lend some credibility to the argument that media portrayal of the movement has been biased.

Serge:
Here's my question; why would you go to a rally to watch Sarah Palin if you had two brain cells to rub together? If there are any brilliantly intelligent constitutional lawyers, bright young politicians looking to make an impact on the world, aspiring students of the government, etc., wandering through the crowds that the cameras never seem to spot, why are they going to a rally occupied with thousands of gun-toting mouthbreathers, and why in perfect hell would they want to watch an air-headed demagogue puke all over everything they actually know about the history of the United States and the constitution? Are we really supposed to believe that there's a bunch of smart people in these rallies who are also demanding to know how a Kenyan Muslim with a Socialist agenda got into office?

I'm not asking for belief. I'm merely suggesting the possibility that not every person in the Tea Party conforms to the stereotype (there's likely a bell curve), and that if this is the case we may see evidence in the future due to CNN's partnership with the movement. My stance isn't "this is true, take my word for it," but rather "this is the hypothesis, let's see if it stands up or not."

(Edited to fix the misspelled name)

BrassButtons:

The Gentleman:

Plus, there is the whole fact that they're about to approach the second anniversary of when coverage of the Tea Party became in vogue in April.

Except that now CNN is "teaming up" with them (other people's wording), which means that they may have reason to want the Tea Party to be seen in a more favorable light. If that happens, it will lend some credibility to the argument that media portrayal of the movement has been biased.

Sterge:
Here's my question; why would you go to a rally to watch Sarah Palin if you had two brain cells to rub together? If there are any brilliantly intelligent constitutional lawyers, bright young politicians looking to make an impact on the world, aspiring students of the government, etc., wandering through the crowds that the cameras never seem to spot, why are they going to a rally occupied with thousands of gun-toting mouthbreathers, and why in perfect hell would they want to watch an air-headed demagogue puke all over everything they actually know about the history of the United States and the constitution? Are we really supposed to believe that there's a bunch of smart people in these rallies who are also demanding to know how a Kenyan Muslim with a Socialist agenda got into office?

I'm not asking for belief. I'm merely suggesting the possibility that not every person in the Tea Party conforms to the stereotype (there's likely a bell curve), and that if this is the case we may see evidence in the future due to CNN's partnership with the movement. My stance isn't "this is true, take my word for it," but rather "this is the hypothesis, let's see if it stands up or not."

1) I am not a sturgeon
2) I can see the possibility that they're not all the same kind of idiot, but I sincerely doubt that they're going to discover anyone in the movement that's both educated on how the government works and thinking the same basic things about how to fix the government that the main Tea Party representatives are advertising.

Serge A. Storms:

1) I am not a sturgeon

Sorry about that. Fixed (though I freely admit that I'll probably make the same mistake later on down the road--my brain always wants to add a 'T' when I read you name).

2) I can see the possibility that they're not all the same kind of idiot, but I sincerely doubt that they're going to discover anyone in the movement that's both educated on how the government works and thinking the same basic things about how to fix the government that the main Tea Party representatives are advertising.

This seems relevant.

BrassButtons:

Serge A. Storms:

1) I am not a sturgeon

Sorry about that. Fixed (though I freely admit that I'll probably make the same mistake later on down the road--my brain always wants to add a 'T' when I read you name).

2) I can see the possibility that they're not all the same kind of idiot, but I sincerely doubt that they're going to discover anyone in the movement that's both educated on how the government works and thinking the same basic things about how to fix the government that the main Tea Party representatives are advertising.

This seems relevant.

I think Sarah Palin is someone of relatively average intelligence that's extremely competitive and cunning like she was still bitching it up in high school, playing a political game occupied by people with similar average intelligence and extreme competitiveness, and she works the anti-intellectual so hard that I, along with many other people, have a tendency to view her as a first-rate moron. While I could believe that she's just doing it because she believes it that much, and I originally attributed her position to that, the way she constantly plays up the folksy-ness, the anti-intellectualism, and the general idea that the only way to save the country is to send it back to the 1780's when Ronald Reagan was writing the constitution with Senator McCarthy, combined with her recent profit-making moves after resigning as governor of Alaska, makes me believe that it's a conscious effort on her part to work an angle and make some money.

As far as my quote that you were responding to, I don't think she's as well-educated on how the government works as you'd expect for someone that's been mentioned as a Presidential candidate and the leader of a political movement, or even close to what you'd expect, and I think her strategy for "fixing the government" is so back-asswards that I'd puke a couple liters of blood if she were ever actually elected.

Serge A. Storms:

I think Sarah Palin is someone of relatively average intelligence

Wait, "average intelligence?" What happened to her being an "air-headed demagogue"? What happened to "all their public representatives are good-looking bimbos because their followers are subconsciously impressed by looks without realizing that they're looking at an idiot dropping rhetoric from a teleprompter"?

The majority of your statements about the Tea Party, while they may contain valid criticisms, are so steeped in personal attacks that, to borrow a phrase from you, it makes me want to puke a couple litres of blood.

BrassButtons:

Serge A. Storms:

I think Sarah Palin is someone of relatively average intelligence

Wait, "average intelligence?" What happened to her being an "air-headed demagogue"? What happened to "all their public representatives are good-looking bimbos because their followers are subconsciously impressed by looks without realizing that they're looking at an idiot dropping rhetoric from a teleprompter"?

Most people are airheads.

BrassButtons:

Serge A. Storms:

I think Sarah Palin is someone of relatively average intelligence

Wait, "average intelligence?" What happened to her being an "air-headed demagogue"? What happened to "all their public representatives are good-looking bimbos because their followers are subconsciously impressed by looks without realizing that they're looking at an idiot dropping rhetoric from a teleprompter"?

The majority of your statements about the Tea Party, while they may contain valid criticisms, are so steeped in personal attacks that, to borrow a phrase from you, it makes me want to puke a couple litres of blood.

I don't regard "average intelligence" very highly normally, much less in politicians that claim to know how to fix the entire country.

OK, somehow I managed to hit "report" on your post. I doubt it will cause any trouble (your post is pretty obviously acceptable) but I feel the need to apologize anyway.

Serge A. Storms:

I don't regard "average intelligence" very highly normally, much less in politicians that claim to know how to fix the entire country.

Very well. I trust, therefor, that you refer to members of every political group as morons, bimbos, mouthbreathers, and the like?

BrassButtons:
OK, somehow I managed to hit "report" on your post. I doubt it will cause any trouble (your post is pretty obviously acceptable) but I feel the need to apologize anyway.

Serge A. Storms:

I don't regard "average intelligence" very highly normally, much less in politicians that claim to know how to fix the entire country.

Very well. I trust, therefor, that you refer to members of every political group as morons, bimbos, mouthbreathers, and the like?

No biggie

Oh good lord, yes, although I tend to use the phrases "spineless" and "useless" when referring to Democrats and "menstrual bleed" and "shitheel" when referring to social conservatives not directly related to the Tea Party movement. "Mouthbreather" and "bimbo" go best with the party that represents a lot of the South (where I live) and who's representatives often look like the politician-equivalent of underwear models.

Serge A. Storms:

Oh good lord, yes, although I tend to use the phrases "spineless" and "useless" when referring to Democrats and "menstrual bleed" and "shitheel" when referring to social conservatives not directly related to the Tea Party movement. "Mouthbreather" and "bimbo" go best with the party that represents a lot of the South (where I live) and who's representatives often look like the politician-equivalent of underwear models.

Fair enough. Nice to meet somebody who's consistent :D

The greater question here, then, is whether or not the same can be said for everybody else who uses ad-hominem attacks against the Tea Party. I don't think it can be--the way people discuss the Tea Party certainly doesn't appear to be on the same level of discourse used for other subjects. Yeah there are always people using ad hominems and the like, but usually they get called out--if you're discussing the Tea Party then that usually gets a free pass.

Something additional to consider, which ties back to my original point: if the Tea Party is indeed average, but they are shown as being below average (the media certainly doesn't seem to be trying to say "these people are on the same level of intelligence as you, typical viewer"), then that would indicate media bias.

BrassButtons:

Wait, "average intelligence?" What happened to her being an "air-headed demagogue"? What happened to "all their public representatives are good-looking bimbos because their followers are subconsciously impressed by looks without realizing that they're looking at an idiot dropping rhetoric from a teleprompter"?

"You know how dumb the average person is? Well, HALF of them are even dumber than that." -- J. R. Dobbs

The problem with the tea party is that right now, it's mostly about rhetoric. Tea party members normally try to make their party look good and everyone else look bad, and don't particularly care about whether or not they sound smart. It's like a high school election where the people that offers the most things people want gets elected, but the problem is that they can't keep their promises. Because the tea party is an independent, "grassroots" movement, it puts the people that yell about the things it likes to hear in charge of it, regardless of how impossible it is. Because of this, the people in charge of the tea party are used to being able to yell whatever they want and have people agree with it; so then you get the crazy people who don't know their American history yelling stuff on tv.

templargunman:
The problem with the tea party is that right now, it's all about rhetoric.

FTFY. It is 100% rhetoric, and the bullshit smell is starting to seep through.

Remember their zero-tolerance policy for malfeasance? Well, tell that to this joker:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4sa1sGuZlt-Zgmy05-wSV6hKWCg?docId=cf91cdc012634cd596581e72d9cbe59d

Danger Mouse:

Remember their zero-tolerance policy for malfeasance? Well, tell that to this joker:

From what I've been able to find, the zero-tolerance statement was made by the Republican Party, not the Tea Party--there is a distinction between the two. Additionally, no one named in the article you linked is affiliated with the Tea Party.

templargunman:
It's like a high school election where the people that offers the most things people want gets elected, but the problem is that they can't keep their promises.

True, but is that really different from how politics are normally handled in the US?

BrassButtons:

Danger Mouse:

Remember their zero-tolerance policy for malfeasance? Well, tell that to this joker:

From what I've been able to find, the zero-tolerance statement was made by the Republican Party, not the Tea Party--there is a distinction between the two.

No there's not. The Tea Party is nothing more than Republican rebranding.

The people that are dumb are the ones that represent them

Their core ideas are sound. They believe in getting rid of the debt, fixing the economy and lowering taxes.

However, they have mostly become a more extreme Conservative group

Danger Mouse:

No there's not. The Tea Party is nothing more than Republican rebranding.

Not every Tea Party member is Republican, not every Republican is a Tea Party member. The Tea Party supporting some Republican candidates and policies does not make the two groups interchangeable.

BrassButtons:

Danger Mouse:

No there's not. The Tea Party is nothing more than Republican rebranding.

Not every Tea Party member is Republican, not every Republican is a Tea Party member. The Tea Party supporting some Republican candidates and policies does not make the two groups interchangeable.

On the other hand, the near lock-step support of the Tea Party by the GOP makes for very little light in between the two. Since they essentially expelled any moderates from the party and let Tea Partiers dominate the elections, they've become one and the same in terms of behavior.

Let's be honest here: these people aren't voting for the Green Party. They're voting for the Republicans and these people are the Republican base.

BrassButtons:

Danger Mouse:

No there's not. The Tea Party is nothing more than Republican rebranding.

Not every Tea Party member is Republican, not every Republican is a Tea Party member. The Tea Party supporting some Republican candidates and policies does not make the two groups interchangeable.

Oh, bull. The Tea party are just the Wahhabbi sect of the GOP.

The Gentleman:

Let's be honest here: these people aren't voting for the Green Party. They're voting for the Republicans and these people are the Republican base.

What he said. The Teabaggers can talk about how they're Independent and a Fresh New Voice all they want, but they're mainly fooling themselves.

TheNewDemoman:
The people that are dumb are the ones that represent them

And that makes the people who VOTED for these dummies what, exactly?

TheNewDemoman:

Their core ideas are sound. They believe in getting rid of the debt, fixing the economy and lowering taxes.

That sounds like a set of mutually exclusive goals to me.

The Gentleman:

On the other hand, the near lock-step support of the Tea Party by the GOP makes for very little light in between the two. Since they essentially expelled any moderates from the party and let Tea Partiers dominate the elections, they've become one and the same in terms of behavior.

Let's be honest here: these people aren't voting for the Green Party. They're voting for the Republicans and these people are the Republican base.

The Tea Party is a grassroots political movement composed of Independents, Democrats, and (mostly) Republicans.

The Republican Party is a political party that can only consist of Republicans, many (but not all) of whom also support the Tea Party movement.

They are different groups, and the two cannot be used interchangeably if we are to be able to have an honest discourse about either of them.

BrassButtons:

The Gentleman:

On the other hand, the near lock-step support of the Tea Party by the GOP makes for very little light in between the two. Since they essentially expelled any moderates from the party and let Tea Partiers dominate the elections, they've become one and the same in terms of behavior.

Let's be honest here: these people aren't voting for the Green Party. They're voting for the Republicans and these people are the Republican base.

The Tea Party is a grassroots political movement composed of Independents, Democrats, and (mostly) Republicans.

"A grassroots movement" lead by long-standing GOP leaders (Richard Armey, for one) and essentially promoted and popularized by the standard right-wing media outlets (talk radio and Fox News, Glenn Beck is almost always mentioned as a leader when these protesters are interviewed).

Before 2008, you probably could make the legitimate claim that it was grassroots when it was only a handful of Ron Paul supporters during the 2008 election cycle. When the healthcare fight began in the US, it became the territory of some of the most well-known GOP insiders.

The "Democrats and independents" claim is, at best, misleading and, at worst, an outright lie.
These are not your standard independents. The "independents" were largely those who made up the far-right groups that were expelled from the GOP when William F. Buckley was the intellectual voice of the party, the John Birch Society and such. I have yet to see any evidence that there are a number of Democrats who were politically active before 2008 in the tea party.

BrassButtons:
The Republican Party is a political party that can only consist of Republicans, many (but not all) of whom also support the Tea Party movement.

Technically true, but in essence not. The intellectuals within the GOP (the people who know how to win major elections, in particular)are the only real people with some semblance of opposition to the tea party within the GOP, and they have essentially been tossed out of the discussion.

All political parties have a base of voters whom will vote for their party with little exceptions (hence the term "playing to the base"). For the Republicans in 2010 and 2012, this group is the tea party.

BrassButtons:
They are different groups, and the two cannot be used interchangeably if we are to be able to have an honest discourse about either of them.

But you can't have an honest discourse if you treat them separately either. They are so heavily entangled, with one essentially being the leadership and the other their base, that to claim that they are separate independent entities is just as dishonest (if not more) than claiming they are one and the same.

TheNewDemoman:
The people that are dumb are the ones that represent them

Their core ideas are sound. They believe in getting rid of the debt, fixing the economy and lowering taxes.

However, they have mostly become a more extreme Conservative group

As opposed to the supper villain party who want to raise taxes and debt and destroy the economy for poops and giggles. All parties want the same thing, it is just how they go about doing it.

The Gentleman:
The "Democrats and independents" claim is, at best, misleading and, at worst, an outright lie.

It is a factual statement. 54% of Tea Party members identify as Republican, 41% identify as Independent, and 5% identify as Democrat (based on a CBS article from April 2010). Saying the Tea Party contains all three groups is in no way dishonest or misleading.

But you can't have an honest discourse if you treat them separately either.

When the two are saying and doing the same things, they should be treated the same--just as you would do with any other groups. However you cannot say "The Republican Party said/did X, so the Tea Party said/did X" without actual evidence that the Tea Party had something to do with X. They are not the same group, and the actions of one cannot be automatically taken as the actions of both (which is what Danger Mouse was trying to do).

BrassButtons:

The Gentleman:
The "Democrats and independents" claim is, at best, misleading and, at worst, an outright lie.

It is a factual statement. 54% of Tea Party members identify as Republican, 41% identify as Independent, and 5% identify as Democrat (based on a CBS article from April 2010). Saying the Tea Party contains all three groups is in no way dishonest or misleading.

Please read the third paragraph I wrote. That 5% voted Democratic may be accurate, but given that the US has a 60% voting rate, it may just refer to the 2008 elections where simply having an "R" next to your name cost you 10%.

BrassButtons:

But you can't have an honest discourse if you treat them separately either.

When the two are saying and doing the same things, they should be treated the same--just as you would do with any other groups. However you cannot say "The Republican Party said/did X, so the Tea Party said/did X" without actual evidence that the Tea Party had something to do with X. They are not the same group, and the actions of one cannot be automatically taken as the actions of both (which is what Danger Mouse was trying to do).

Right now, there's very little of the GOP doing anything that isn't simply a reaction to the Tea Party, and given the fact that half of the House Republicans identify themselves as Tea Partiers (as opposed to those who simply pandered to them) and acting on that identification suggests otherwise.

The Gentleman:

Please read the third paragraph I wrote. That 5% voted Democratic may be accurate, but given that the US has a 60% voting rate, it may just refer to the 2008 elections where simply having an "R" next to your name cost you 10%.

It refers to what Tea Party members self-identified as on a poll taken by CBS and the New York Times in April 2010. Unless you have demographic statistics that show those numbers to be false or no longer accurate, there is nothing to debate here.

BrassButtons:

Right now, there's very little of the GOP doing anything that isn't simply a reaction to the Tea Party, and given the fact that half of the House Republicans identify themselves as Tea Partiers (as opposed to those who simply pandered to them) and acting on that identification suggests otherwise.

And I already said that in the situations where the two groups are saying and doing the same things, I have no problem with judging them together. What I do have a problem with is the claim that the two groups are the same entity. They are not.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked