Which is begun by getting people on board on something like this.
The reality is, this is a sign they are doing exactly what you advise.
Those Nutty Tea Party Folks
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
The reality is, this is a sign they are doing exactly what you advise.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
do they teach american history in Mississippi anymore?
Epicurus
Reasonable
That's what they're trying to do. Rebranding with a sort of populist, traditional appeal to it. Personally I think the Tea Parties are great PR, and while I haven't seen any polling about them I would imagine a good number of people agree.
I understand that liberals don't like it, but you can't expect that Republicans would stay the same easily-defeatable Bush-style politicos that they were in '06 in '08. A rebranding was inevitable, and I completely support it. I don't want a deficit-spending, war-obsessed Republican party like we had under Bush. It seems that at least some factions of the party are attempting to move toward a more fiscally conservative and more broadly popular message, downplaying the social conservative issues.
In short, I see it as a positive thing for the country. The only people who should oppose this shift in the policies of the Republican Party are partisan Democrats who seek a weak and easily defeated opponent.
Epicurus
Reasonable
And for the record, I said the same thing about the Democrats after their defeats in 2002 and 2004. Rebranding is essential to sustaining a viable party, and maintaining at least two viable parties is essential to the preservation of our democracy. I would much rather have two viable parties than a dominant one-party, regardless of which it is. Our system benefits from political competition and responsiveness. The Republican Party would hardly be a responsive civic institution if it refused to reform itself after two collossal defeats. I would sooner have three viable parties than a dominant Libertarian Party, and I mean that. It it simply healthy for our country.
I think the tea parties are hilarious. And if you think Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich are the future of the Republican Party than the GOP is much worse off than I previously thought.
Well, I can agree with a lot of that, an you can count me as one who definitely wants 2 strong parties, at the very least.
It's the tone of a lot of it that has rubbed me the wrong way - the congresswoman from MN encouraging constituents to be "armed & dangerous" & other talk - both on this board & nationally - that because you can't win at the ballot box, it's time for armed revolution.
Epicurus
Reasonable
You're entitled to your opinion as I am, but I think we both agree that the Republicans needed to change their image. They have taken our advice, though you seem unhappy that they have done so. I don't know if it will work for them, but we will see.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Yeah a lot of that bothered me too. Hopefully they will tone it down. Rebranding or not, convincing voters of out-of-power party that the time for revolution is at hand is probably not the best long term idea.
I am actually pleased as punch that the GOP think there problem is one of image and that they are trying to re-brand. In my opinion their problem isn't the image but the policies. They can repackage the same old shit anyway they like, it's still shit.
Epicurus
Reasonable
That's what is done every two and four years by both parties. American politics is an exercise in biennial rebranding.
Just look at the Democrats. They aren't offering any substantially different policies now than Gore was in 2000. Two things were accomplished between 2004 and 2006 that allowed them to assume power. First, a rebranding away from the weak-kneed liberal stereotype with candidates like Jim Webb, Chris Carney, and Kirsten Gillibrand. Second, a shifting political reality with the continued and highly visible failure of the Iraqi occupation lent credence to Democratic critics of the invasion. There were a myriad of other reasons, but these are the primary changes that allowed a party with the same leaders and platform that had been rejected in 2000, 2002, and 2004 to take the House and the Senate in 2006.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Both of them have tried to piggy back onto a viral movement, they are being asked not to show up. Can't stop them from trying to co-op it, but I think they will do themselves more harm than good.
I can't say for sure with Gingrich but Armey's folks are the folks behind the tea party movement. FreedomWorks started the whole thing with the help of Rick Santelli and the folks at CNBC. It was an astroturf movement from the start.
You can't co-opt what you created.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
"Tea Party" ???
I mean, what is that?
Who actually thought that would work?
This was hatched by a bunch of OLD people on the right who don't have a clue how to attract young people.
Does anyone believe that young Americans want to associate themselves with a bunch of OLD geezers trying to reinvent an abstract scene from a history disconnected from their everyday lives?
Even for many people of all ages who may agree with the position, association with tea parties seems laughable.
I mean, what is that?
Who actually thought that would work?
This was hatched by a bunch of OLD people on the right who don't have a clue how to attract young people.
Does anyone believe that young Americans want to associate themselves with a bunch of OLD geezers trying to reinvent an abstract scene from a history disconnected from their everyday lives?
Even for many people of all ages who may agree with the position, association with tea parties seems laughable.
Epicurus
Reasonable
I don't know if it was supported, masterminded, or coopted by Freedomworks, but it really matters much less than the perception of its origin. And the perception is that its origin is individual people upset over flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars demonstrating in a historically important way. That's a compelling storyline to start with, so I guess that's why Dungheap is trying to hard to make this out to be an official Republican astroturf movement.
I don't so much care about how it really started as much as what effect it will have on the political system. People like Annie are going to argue that it was individuals; people like Dungheap are going to argue that it was rightwing RNC-affiliated organizations. I am not going to get sucked into that argument. I am much more interested in observing its effects than documenting and debating its origin.
I don't so much care about how it really started as much as what effect it will have on the political system. People like Annie are going to argue that it was individuals; people like Dungheap are going to argue that it was rightwing RNC-affiliated organizations. I am not going to get sucked into that argument. I am much more interested in observing its effects than documenting and debating its origin.
Epicurus
Reasonable
You obviously don't have a Facebook. This shit is everywhere. All the social networking sites are spreading invitations to various tea party demonstrations.
You can have a lot of legitimate disagreements with it, but to call it a demonstration of old people could not be more wrong. The only people I actually know in real life who have been a part of it are young people.
Last edited:
Facebook is for people who didn't need their kids to explain to them what "tea bagging" is.
They are trying to dismiss it, because they know it can be effective. We'll likely be at the one in Denver on Tax Day. You going to one?