DILYSI Dave wrote:
Yes, Michell Bachman, Sarah Palin, etc. say "I'm one of you guys." What you don't hear is a few million of us saying "Uh - no you aren't."
That would carry more weight if we did occasionally hear that. There has been a remarkable move by any and all elected Republicans to identify themselves with the Tea Party with very little, if any real backlash. When they had their convention, who did they invite to be the key note speaker? That's hardly distancing themselves from Sarah Palin. How can you fault anyone for identifying her with the party?
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
DILYSI Dave wrote:
Yes, Michell Bachman, Sarah Palin, etc. say "I'm one of you guys." What you don't hear is a few million of us saying "Uh - no you aren't."
That would carry more weight if we *did* occasionally hear that. There has been a remarkable move by any and all elected Republicans to identify themselves with the Tea Party with very little, if any real backlash. When they had their convention, who did they invite to be the key note speaker? That's hardly distancing themselves from Sarah Palin. How can you fault anyone for identifying her with the party?
This is me, saying it.
Of course they want to glom on - it's a popular movement. The fact that it IS decentralized makes it easy to do so. There is no such thing as a "Tea Party Convention". There was a bunch of Republicans who were trying to identify themselves with something that they know has the potential to kill their whole damn worthless party.
DILYSI Dave wrote:
This is me, saying it.
1.
And read the rest of my post. It's very difficult to make a case that it's unreasonable to associate the Tea Party with the people they invited to speak at their convention: specifically the vice presidential candidate and arguably the standard bearer for the Republican Party.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
DILYSI Dave wrote:
This is me, saying it.
1.
And read the rest of my post. It's very difficult to make a case that it's unreasonable to associate the Tea Party with the people they invited to speak at their convention.
I edited mine. IMO, the "Tea Party Convention" was nothing but part of the GOP co-opt.
Fair enough, and I concede the point.
But I will hold to the notion that it's not a clearly inflammatory statement to say the Tea Party is a rebranding of the Republic Party when our last several posts show just how convoluted it is.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
Fair enough, and I concede the point.
But I will hold to the notion that it's not a clearly inflammatory statement to say the Tea Party is a rebranding of the Rebublic Party when our last several posts show just how convoluted it is.
It's not convoluted to us! Just the media!
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
DILYSI Dave wrote:
This is me, saying it.
1.
And read the rest of my post. It's very difficult to make a case that it's unreasonable to associate the Tea Party with the people they invited to speak at their convention: specifically the vice presidential candidate and arguably the standard bearer for the Republican Party.
2! How many tea party folks have you asked? What's the poll percentage so far?
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
Fair enough, and I concede the point.
But I will hold to the notion that it's not a clearly inflammatory statement to say the Tea Party is a rebranding of the Rebublic Party when our last several posts show just how convoluted it is.
Associating Republicans with the Tea Party is every bit as insulting as associating Communists with Democrats, IMO.
DILYSI Dave wrote:
Associating Republicans with the Tea Party is every bit as insulting as associating Communists with Democrats, IMO.
Really? I don't believe you. I'm a Democrat. Yes, others have tried to say we're communists. We're not. If a Communist ran for office calling himself a Democrat, I would vote for the Republican before I would vote for him. But every Tea Party candidate was elected as a Republican. It's difficult for me to believe that they would run under the banner of a party they find as offensive as the Comunist party.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
I'm a Democrat. Yes, others have tried to say we're communists. We're not.
"I'm a Tea Partier. Yes, others have tried to say we're Republicans. We're not. "
See. Works both ways. Yes, some Communists have run as Democrats. Yes, some Republicans have run as Tea Partiers. That doesn't mean that you start equating the two in either case.
oldsaw
SuperDork
4/19/11 2:24 p.m.
DILYSI Dave wrote:
IMO, the "Tea Party Convention" was nothing but part of the GOP co-opt.
Politicians always align themselves with influential voter-blocks.This begs the question: Is the GOP co-opting the Tea Party, or is the Tea Party co-opting the GOP?
A lot of Republicans won't get elected with no endorsement by the Tea Party or (other) like-minded voters. The same principle applies to Democrats who actively court the votes of constituents who can help them gain office. The GOP has much to gain by gravitating towards the Tea Party "platform" but the Repubs have to perform accordingly if they expect continuous support.
DILYSI Dave wrote:
Associating Republicans with the Tea Party is every bit as insulting as associating Communists with Democrats, IMO.
And here we go...(you forgot to throw the term Nazi in though)
I think Boehner would disagree, as he has associated himself with the Tea Party on many occasions. "There is no daylight between me and the Tea party..."
Cone_Junky wrote:
DILYSI Dave wrote:
Associating Republicans with the Tea Party is every bit as insulting as associating Communists with Democrats, IMO.
And here we go...(you forgot to throw the term Nazi in though)
I think Boehner would disagree, as he has associated himself with the Tea Party on many occasions.
Of course he has. He's a lying politician who sees his party increasingly irrelevant.
BTW - if anyone should be pissed about being co-opted, it's the Libertarians. They got berkeleyed in the deal.
tuna55 wrote:
It's not convoluted to us! Just the media!
Well, I know this will make you angry, and I don't mean for it to, but that is about as close as you can get to a typical Republican response. Blame the media?
tuna55 wrote:
2! How many tea party folks have you asked? What's the poll percentage so far?
Well, first, it's not my job to market the Tea Party effectively. If they want to clear up their association with the Republic Party it's their job to do so, not mine. And second, it really doesn't matter as I've already conceded the point. Again, all I'm saying is you are pressing the indignation meter pretty hard when you make out like it's some kind of offensive statement to say the Tea Party and the Republic Party are by and large the same thing.
It really is to a very large degree a group made up of Republic Party members or former Republic Party members. Other than that, there are a few Independents and virtually no Democrats.
DILYSI Dave wrote:
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
I'm a Democrat. Yes, others have tried to say we're communists. We're not.
"I'm a Tea Partier. Yes, others have tried to say we're Republicans. We're not. "
See. Works both ways. Yes, some Communists have run as Democrats. Yes, some Republicans have run as Tea Partiers. That doesn't mean that you start equating the two in either case.
No. It does not work both ways. There was no movement that succeeded in voting in a large number of Democrats who were self-proclaimed Communists. It's so far beyond the pail it's ludicrous. And, no, "others" did not say 100% of the elected Tea Party candidates were Republic Party members. The candidates themselves said so. Each and every one of them ran as a Republic Party member. They could have chosen not to. They could have run as Independents, Democrats or started a third party. They made it quite clear they had no interest in starting a third party and made the decision to run as Republic Party members. All of them.
So, no, it does not work both ways. It just doesn't.
This has probably long ago gone beyond the point of anything productive, so I'll see if I can't get myself to drop out now and have some pie. I'll try. No promises. But I'll try.
You're right. No longer productive. Too bad.
Man, I derailed this thread big time.
But I find it fascinating that some people see the tea party as something other than a faction of the republican party.
Can this thread be locked yet?
And Iggy never got back into the rhubarb.
DILYSI Dave wrote:
BTW - if anyone should be pissed about being co-opted, it's the Libertarians. They got berkeleyed in the deal.
I don't think ANYONE would argue against this point.
Good job Iggy. Do you also set forest fires in your spare time. 
In reply to Cone_Junky:
Not be a contrarian but the Libertarian party had pretty much already imploded. Bob Barr for president? Really? He is Libertarian when it coincides with being a conservative republican. That is about it.
Otto Maddox wrote:
Not be a contrarian
Why did you have to bring the Contrarians into this?! They're just a rebranded branch of the Greene party. Everyone knows that.
