Posted on 01/23/2010 1:05:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In my opinion the term “Tea Party” or “Tea Party Candidate” and the whole “Tea Party Movement” is irrelevant. It means nothing! It hasn’t meant anything meaningful for a long time.
Perhaps this is too radical a statement for most people, but ask yourself this: Do Ron Paul and Sean Hannity have the same political views? The clear answer is no. Hannity supports supply-side economics, Paul Austrian. Hannity supports our current foreign policy (including Guantanamo Bay, torture, and our foreign presence in over 100 nations) while Paul supports a foreign policy of non-intervention. Hannity supports Bush regardless of the argument, while Paul will criticize both parties about their big-government policies. Hannity and Paul have completely different political ideologies when they are examined.
Here’s the problem: the tea parties were not entirely made up of libertarian uproar about BOTH parties, but instead have become a combination of libertarians, paleo-conservatives, and of course neo-cons. Ever since I saw Sean Hannity have a live show at a tea party and talk up the tea parties, I knew that there was a serious misinterpretation about what the tea party movement is and what the true identity is.
We can talk all day about how the “tea party” candidate Doug Hoffman was lifted up by conservatives across the nation. But now we have Scott Brown being lifted up as the “tea party” candidate. I have to give credit to The Humble Libertarian as they pointed out that Scott Brown might be against government controlled health care, but he most certainly is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. Comparing Brown to the libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy:
"One supports the nanny state and agrees with Barack Obama’s opposition to gay marriage, but support for civil unions. The other believes government should stay out of the issue of marriage altogether.
One supports the Federal government’s role in taxing income, regulating education, and allowing the Federal Reserve Bank to continue printing money out of thin air. The other adamantly opposes all three."
As a libertarian, I have to be alarmed. I like to think of myself as a “Tea Party” supporter. But then I realize that label means nothing. It’s just a way for neo-conservatives like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and others to put all non-progressives under the same banner despite the clear differences.
Let’s not kid ourselves. “Tea Party” means nothing.
The writer misuses the term neo-conservative. What an idiot....
LOL, the author supports leaving the bad guys alone.
That worked out so well on Christmas, didn’t it?
*snort*
So what is this guys game?
He’s obviously NOT a supporter of the Tea Party.
Wonder if he’s a liberal pretending to be a libertarian?
Naah, they wouldn’t do that to try and fracture the Tea Party that is scaring them so badly, would they?
They could never get the ball rolling so now they have to Alinski the TP movement, Right.
Just more sour grapes from someone who beleives that Gitmo is only about torture.
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_029.mp3
Where’s my barf alert, not to mention my barf bag?
Author (not OP Freeper 2ndDivisionVet) is a MORON, and HE means NOTHING!
And that's a bad thing?
First, the Tea Parties are gatherings . . . tea parties. It’s not a Tea Party like the Republicans and Democrats are a party. People are always trying to hijack things so they can lead them.
Second, libertarians might be 10% of the population. Maybe 20%. But I’m pretty confident they aren’t 30%. Which means they need to pick some allies and stop whining about them. Same goes for all the labels we plaster on our diverse coalition of voters for “conservative” candidates “they” all need allies. The “religious right,” the “neo-cons,” the “populists,” the “paleo-cons,” the “RINO’s,” the “Rockefeller Republicans” the . . .
whatever . . .
are not a majority and need to work together.
A politician cannot be a Tea Party nominee as there is no political party named “Tea Party”, nor should there be in my opinion. But those who consider themselves as “Tea Partiers” will remain politically active in their area and coalesce around a candidate.
Sure, Tea Partiers in Boston will coalesce around a more liberal candidate than Tea Partiers in Wichita, but all it means is that they are supporting a candidate in their area who supports the things that are locally important to them.
The Tea Party movement is NOT a conservative movement, or a libertarian movement, or even a constitutionalist movement. It is an awakening. People are becoming aware of politics, of what politicians have been doing to their lives, and frankly they are angry at what they see now that they are awake.
The fact that conservative and libertarian political goals meld nicely with many of the Tea Party participants areas of outrage is a nice pat on the back for those movements fighting the good fight all along, but people who consider themselves Tea Partiers for the most part don't care about a coherent political theory that they can adopt and learn the nuances of.
They are just mad that they are taxed too much, that their tax dollars are wasted, and that their government is unresponsive to their wants and needs. So Doug Hoffman and Scott Brown don't share the same political views. So what. Each was responsive to the voters in their local area and hold the views that Tea Partiers in those areas agree with.
We have liberals on FR posing as libertarians. So I wouldn’t be surprised.
The problem most people are having with the Tea Party is that they think the Tea Party is a political party like the DemocRATS and the Republicans. The Tea Party is not a political party. It’s WE THE PEOPLE.
Yeah, I’ve seen that too.
I like the author being against getting info out of the bad guys who are nonuniformed combatants.
It’s not like that is a hard concept to understand.
I look at it as a bunch of people who are ticked off at the government pissing on us and telling us it’s raining, and it has reached a critical mass. Whatever their alignment on other issues happens to be on an individual basis isn’t really relevant to the movement. Yes, it’s mostly a group of non-progressives, and maybe even some reformed progressives in there, and that’s the beauty of it... multi-partisan backlash over the same thing.
Not only that, but Kennedy got what, 1% of the vote? So that officially makes those voters the real one percenters!
Not only that, but Kennedy got what, 1% of the vote?
______________________________________________________
Good point! Kennedy was running as the libertarian candidate.
The Tea Parties scare the right people, just like Sarah does.
“One supports the nanny state and agrees with Barack Obama’s opposition to gay marriage, but support for civil unions. The other believes government should stay out of the issue of marriage altogether.”
Is or is not marriage a legal status, with a license granted by ‘the state?’ If so, does that not give the state (goverment) the right to determine to whom to issue such a license?
Do we give 5 year olds a drivers license, or a high school drop out a license to perform brain surgery? Or should government stay out of that, too? Maybe a libertarian wants to marry his pet goat. None of government’s damned business! At least according to this author.
There are limited purposes to government, and the feds have done a good job of overreaching, but there are some things where government, as reflecting the Constitution and the will of the people, certainly has its place.
Get this, I will say it one more time, The Tea Parties are not, in the old sense, a political party. Its a movement for reform and change. It has no leaders, it has voices, and they are not in harmony—and that’s a good thing. Did Hamilton like Jefferson? NO! They hated one anther’s guts. But, did they found a great nation! Yes. Hannity is one voice (a bit too much RNC for me —but a voice with good ideas some of the time) Ron Paul is another voice, so is Sarah Palin, and many others. They do not need to agree. This is democracy in action not fascism that needs a charismatic leader.
Eh? I rip the author for saying the Tea Parties are meaningless and you come at me with an “I will say this one more time” screed? Seriously?
What makes you think I disagree with anything you said? Now the tone...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.