The Progressive Tea Party that Never Was

American Thinker.com ^ | June 21, 2017 | Frank Santarpia

[Kaslin]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, it’s deadly serious, and it appears to be metastasizing. And don’t expect calls for unity after the attempted assassination of a Republican lawmaker to help encapsulate it, either. The disease is far too virulent for the crazed actions of a single individual to stop it.

After the election of Barack Obama, those of us to the right of center were sufficiently motivated by our beliefs -- and fears -- to coalesce for change; it was called the Tea Party Movement. It was intense, to be sure, and often loud, but mostly it was nonviolent political street theater. We were, compared to many of those suffering from TDS, model citizens. We cleaned up after our rallies, which were always peaceful. We respected private property. We believed in the rule of law and the Constitution, and acted accordingly. We strongly discouraged, oft-times to the chagrin of some of our more in-your-face followers, not only violence, but even any rhetoric that, taken out of context, might appear to promote violence.

Birth certificate issues aside, the vast majority of tea party devotees believed we had to play the cards we were dealt in November of 2008, voicing our displeasure but recognizing that the next time we could win a hand was Election Day, 2010. This led, of course, to the Tea Party wave election that drowned the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and led to a six-seat gain in the Senate.

[Olog-hai]

A Progressive mirroring of the Tea Party Movement is the thing I feared most after the election of Donald Trump, and for obvious reasons. We saw in 2010 what a difference-maker an “enthusiasm gap” could be, and watched with delight as Progressive attempts to blunt the Tea Party tsunami with rallies of their own flopped miserably. We saw that such a level of engagement could change the face of Congress. And finally, candidate Hillary Clinton saw firsthand that such a gap could not be overcome despite her “inevitability.”

Progressives could have started such a movement — there is no disputing they have the numbers. But they didn’t, and here’s why: what passes for the Progressive Movement in the United States today lacks any real message, which is one of the principle reasons their candidate was on the short end of an enthusiasm gap in the first place. We protested the abuse of the Constitution and espoused the rule of law — not the election of Barack Obama. That then, is the chief difference. We objected to the man’s actions; they object to the man. …

Not like they didn’t try; they actually did. But they do not get it, thanks to their ideology.

[Darksheare]

The Tea Party movement suffered violence, never caused it despite the media trying desperately to say it did.
The lefts version, always violent.

[Taxman]

I am of the opinion that most all, if not every LIEberal, has NEVER had to take responsibility for their words or actions.

IOW, they have never been knocked on their ass for saying or doing the hateful/unlawful things they say and do.

Given the LIEberal escalation of the “intensity level” lately, that MAY be about to change!

[Nateman]

I thought I came up with an original phrase to describe what is going on here: Cold Civil War. Turns out Ayn Rand came up with that phrase all the way back in 1962!

[Impy]

You need decent people to build a movement like the Tea Party.

They have a mob.

[x]

Sure. Democrats are a coalition of different groups that don’t get along with each other — even more than Republicans. There isn’t much of an overlapping common culture between the various groups, and they scare each other.