Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey
OK, so I just discovered the Grill Room yesterday - and this thread. And there is a great discussion here and a lot of great points made. But the thing that stood out to me the most trying to catch up on this was the hatred of the Tea Party. Lots of name calling: whiny little babies, kick them in the balls, whaaambulance, tea baggers, cowards, Me Party, half-wit Megalomaniacs, etc.
Admittedly, I don't know a ton about the tea party and what they stand for - other than that they obviously would like to defeat Obamacare. So educate me - why the raw hatred for these folks? Is it just because they don't like Obamacare and you do?
The "Tea Party" is a label foisted on all GOP members (which these folks embraced because it showed that they were "mavericks" and had strong ideas - hence the parallel image of the Boston Tea Party) who won in 2010. They basically stand for fiscal conservatism and less government, which are core GOP principles. That's not bad at face value.
But I agree with Mr. Desmond. They are ideologues. I actually don't agree that ideologues are ALWAYS bad politicians, but they generally are combative and unwilling to compromise, which makes them difficult to deal with in a democracy where 50% of the population doesn't agree with them.
Their role in the Gov't shutdown fiasco shows the lengths they are willing to go to to promote their ideology. It was a grossly irresponsible way to promote ideas. Now is the time to fix the problems, not by literally holding hostage a million federal employees just because you don;t like big government.
I need to respond to the last two things you said in your last post:
------But back to the point at hand - just because someone is ideologists doesn't seem to support that amount of hate and rage against these folks. Nobody is raging against hippies. This is vitriol. There has to be more to it than the fact that they have ideals or you don't think they would effectively govern. I think that about pubs and crats right now - but I'm not calling for violence or resorting to childish name calling. Tell us why they deserve this. Or just tell us that they are wrong with an actual argument.
Who is the "YOU" being referred to here? The name calling is generally inane, but not everyone who disagrees with them are irresponsible about it. But they deserve part of the name-calling. They literally have hundreds of thousands of people believing Obama is a Muslim, that Obamacare is "socialized medicine," when it was a GOP-created idea back in the 90s that relies on private insurance companies, and that we can cut almost every federal agency with a big, sweeping stroke and nothing will happen, but business will grow. Their ideologies are quite strong, and appeal to an overly simplistic solution to problems that is dangerous.
As for the "no one is raging against hippies" comment, are you serious? The Tea Party got its name and got elected by staging massive rallies against the "liberals" and the "biased media" and "Obama the socialist," etc. The Boston Tea Party, if you remember, was a colonial
response to the British government and the East India Tea Company where our "forefathers" dressed up like Indians and threw crates of tea into Boston Harbor. You can Youtube videos of Tea Party organizers chanting, through a megaphone, that Obama is a Communist jihadist into large crowds of people who shout in support of them like it was a Hitler youth rally. Not everyone is obviously like that, but that's where their name calling comes from.
---------When the tea party started, I thought it was interesting because in my lifetime there had never been a visible group like them. There are always plenty of protests and pickets and groups and such from the left side - but none (less?) from the right. I thought it was kinda cool they got their own grass roots group what was willing to show up for stuff. Then everyone hated them.
Unless you were born after 1992, you should remember the "United We Stand America" and "Reform" parties begun by Ross Perot. Perot earned 18% of the popular vote in 1992 (I think, maybe a little less), but more than any third-party candidate since TeddyRoosevelt. My father was national chairman of the Reform Party beginning in 1996, and was on Ross Perot's campaign team in 1992. I saw from the ground up what went on behind the scenes. Much of it is patriotism, much of it is reprehensible. The "Tea Party" are basically the latest incarnation of these folks - generally Red State, white, older folks who resist liberal social causes like gay marriage, abortion rights, etc., and distrust big government because they liken it to Leninism, Stalinism, and Soviet Russia.