FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents





jmi256
I’m glad to see that there has been some reporting on the eclectic mix of people at the Tea Party protests, rather than just accusations of racism and a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that we have been seeing. Personally, I don’t care what party someone wants to identify himself with, as I think most Americans will agree that the scope and size of the federal government has gotten out of control and needs a reset. I’d be much more willing to vote for a Democrat who is in favor of smaller government, lower taxes and a return to representation of the people than I would of a Republican who takes the opposite stance.

Quote:
Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents, Survey Says

More than four in 10 self-described members of the Tea Party also identify as either Independents or Democrats, according to a recently released, comprehensive survey.

Yet the Tea Party's priority appears to be fiscal conservatism, and the group by large margins trusts Republicans in Congress over Democrats to solve the country's problems.

In a collection of three national surveys conducted by the Republican-leaning Winston Group, 57 percent of Tea Party members called themselves Republicans while 28 percent said they were Independents, and 13 percent said they were Democrats. Two-thirds of the group identified as conservative, but 26 percent said they are moderate and 8 percent called themselves liberal.

Seventeen percent of people surveyed said they were "part of the Tea Party movement."

While a sizable portion of tea partiers identify as Independent or Democrat, they overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama. In the February survey conducted by Winston, 81 percent of Tea Party members said they disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, compared with 44 percent of people overall who said they disapproved.

Additionally, the Tea Party largely trusts the Republican party over the Democratic party to handle issues like health care, the economy and job creation. On each of those three issues, nearly three out of four tea partiers in the February poll said they have more confidence in the GOP to handle them. Seventy-four percent of tea partiers said they'd most likely choose a Republican to represent their congressional district, while 19 percent said they'd most likely choose a Democrat.

Like all Americans, most Tea Party members said the economy is the most important political issue, but 21 percent -- twice as many as Americans overall -- named the national deficit and national spending as their top issue. Eighty-five percent of Tea Party members polled in January said tax cuts for small businesses would create more jobs than government spending on infrastructure, while 61 percent of Americans overall preferred tax cuts.

Source = http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001743-503544.html
handfleisch
Notice how the media are spinning this, lumping Democrats and Independents together to get a "4 out of 10" claim. I guess "1 out of 10 are Dems" (13%) is not surprising enough, and definitely not surprising is the "8% are liberals" (which would probably mean they are conservative Dems in the Tea Party, of course). Without more info, it really is a meaningless spin -- could many of the Independents be former Republicans, for example? If so, this headline would be even more misleading than it already is. This all seems like some desperate attempt to justify the Tea Party after all the Obama victories lately.

The 4-in-10 spin really clashes with this part, for example:
Quote:
Additionally, the Tea Party largely trusts the Republican party over the Democratic party to handle issues like health care, the economy and job creation. On each of those three issues, nearly three out of four tea partiers in the February poll said they have more confidence in the GOP to handle them.

...after what Bush did with his eight years??? Really makes you wonder about Tea Baggers' mental state.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Notice how the media are spinning this, lumping Democrats and Independents together to get a "4 out of 10" claim. I guess "1 out of 10 are Dems" (13%) is not surprising enough, and definitely not surprising is the "8% are liberals" (which would probably mean they are conservative Dems in the Tea Party, of course). Without more info, it really is a meaningless spin -- could many of the Independents be former Republicans, for example? If so, this headline would be even more misleading than it already is. This all seems like some desperate attempt to justify the Tea Party after all the Obama victories lately.

The 4-in-10 spin really clashes with this part, for example:
Quote:
Additionally, the Tea Party largely trusts the Republican party over the Democratic party to handle issues like health care, the economy and job creation. On each of those three issues, nearly three out of four tea partiers in the February poll said they have more confidence in the GOP to handle them.

...after what Bush did with his eight years??? Really makes you wonder about Tea Baggers' mental state.


Is it really that surprising that Democrats and Independents identify with a movement that calls for smaller government, lower taxes, less intrusion and more individual freedom? I guess by extension you're saying Obama and the current Democratic leadership are against these values. No wonder they are looking elsewhere.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:


Is it really that surprising that Democrats and Independents identify with a movement that calls for smaller government, lower taxes, less intrusion and more individual freedom? I guess


Keep guessing
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
.after what Bush did with his eight years??? Really makes you wonder about Tea Baggers' mental state.


Not after they have seen what Obama has ALREADY done in just a year and a half....
Especially when you see that the economy, the national deficit and national spending are
their top issues.

Quote:
Notice how the media are spinning this, lumping Democrats and Independents together to get a "4 out of 10" claim. I guess "1 out of 10 are Dems" (13%) is not surprising enough, and definitely not surprising is the "8% are liberals" (which would probably mean they are conservative Dems in the Tea Party, of course). Without more info, it really is a meaningless spin -- could many of the Independents be former Republicans, for example? If so, this headline would be even more misleading than it already is. This all seems like some desperate attempt to justify the Tea Party after all the Obama victories lately.


I would agree that the majority of those '4 in 10' are probably independents and NOT Democrats.
Not that that should be much comfort to the Dems, as having the Independents turn on them
means bad bad news in November for the Dems. According to Gallup Polling, Democrats
have their lowest approval in the 18 year history of the poll. I am guessing that is not good for them
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35578.html



I'm pretty sure the Tea Party doesn't need any justification from you or the media.
It's a grassroots movement of people that oppose the current direction of our government.....
much like the ones from the other side that opposed Bush's policies. You don't agree with them,
and that's fine. As always in these things, the majority of people will make their views known
when it's voting time, and then that party will be in power until enough people get pissed and
vote them out, and then the cycle begins again........
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
.after what Bush did with his eight years??? Really makes you wonder about Tea Baggers' mental state.


Not after they have seen what Obama has ALREADY done in just a year and a half....

There is simply no comparison. Invading Iraq and the decades of damage and hundreds of thousands dead. Taking a hefty surplus and turning it into a deficit. Trashing America's image worldwide. Presiding over the worst economic disaster since the Depression. The FEMA Katrina neglect disaster. The list could go on and on.

Alaskacameradude wrote:

I would agree that the majority of those '4 in 10' are probably independents and NOT Democrats.
Not that that should be much comfort to the Dems, as having the Independents turn on them
means bad bad news in November for the Dems. According to Gallup Polling, Democrats
have their lowest approval in the 18 year history of the poll. I am guessing that is not good for them
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35578.html


Politics is always the lesser of two evils and despite their poll ratings Dems will clearly be the lesser (Repubs polls are worse). Look at the GOP national candidates -- their choices for prez are Romney, Palin and Gingrich. lotsaluck

Alaskacameradude wrote:

I'm pretty sure the Tea Party doesn't need any justification from you or the media.
It's a grassroots movement

It's astroturf
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
There is simply no comparison. Invading Iraq and the decades of damage and hundreds of thousands dead. Taking a hefty surplus and turning it into a deficit. Trashing America's image worldwide. Presiding over the worst economic disaster since the Depression. The FEMA Katrina neglect disaster. The list could go on and on.


I disagree and so do the Tea Party people. The economy is WORSE under Obama than under Bush.
Weakening our national defense. Growing our national debt at unprecedented numbers. Presiding
over the bailouts of both the banking and auto industry. Pushing through a healthcare bill that the
majority of people didn't want. But whatever, people disagree in politics all the time.....

Quote:
Politics is always the lesser of two evils and despite their poll ratings Dems will clearly be the lesser (Repubs polls are worse). Look at the GOP national candidates -- their choices for prez are Romney, Palin and Gingrich. lotsaluck


Maybe you didn't read the poll. It showed the Repubs as being HIGHER rated then the Dems......
For more on that:
http://www.politico.com/2010/

The Dems are losing Congress in November.....and their candidate for President will be Obama again. Enough said.....

Quote:
It's astroturf


Uhhhh.....ok whatever.....
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:


Quote:
It's astroturf


Uhhhh.....ok whatever.....


You might want to scroll up and/or do your own research to learn about the creators and promoters of the Tea Party scam, namely corporate lobbyists, oil company shills, Repubs, and Fox News
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
You might want to scroll up and/or do your own research to learn about the creators and promoters of the Tea Party scam, namely corporate lobbyists, oil company shills, Repubs, and Fox News


Just because the Repubs promote the Tea Parties doesn't make them any less of a grass roots movement. By that token, I could say any of the protests on the left (say the protests in Arizona for example) are 'astroturf' because they are being promoted by Chris Matthews and other far left media members, as well as members of the Democratic party....

I'd think it's pretty obvious that those on both sides are going to 'promote' the movements that
agree with them. I find it interesting that the left has some kind of need to try and
'discredit' the Tea Party people somehow....because of course, REAL americans agree with the
Democrats.....we'll see how that works for them in November.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
You might want to scroll up and/or do your own research to learn about the creators and promoters of the Tea Party scam, namely corporate lobbyists, oil company shills, Repubs, and Fox News


Just because the Repubs promote the Tea Parties doesn't make them any less of a grass roots movement. By that token, I could say any of the protests on the left (say the protests in Arizona for example) are 'astroturf' because they are being promoted by Chris Matthews and other far left media members, as well as members of the Democratic party....

I'd think it's pretty obvious that those on both sides are going to 'promote' the movements that
agree with them.


You caught the word "promoter" but you missed the word "creator". The Tea Party as a so-called movement was created mainly by Freedomworks, a lobbyist organization representing large corporations and the rich. They even made fake "grassroots" websites to make it look like regular people were starting the movement. There is therefore no comparison between the Tea Party and the protests in Arizona, which isn't even a political movement in the same way, since it is mainly Mexican Americans who are just looking to avoid discrimination, and those sympathetic to that cause. (But you are half-right, the protests in Arizona were much more indicative of a real grassroots uprising in America.)

You make other mistakes of false equivalency. FOX actually runs ads for the Tea Parties, sends their stars to the rallies to speak. There is nothing comparable to that for the protests in Arizona, is there? Can you show me flashy advertisements by MSNBC or some other network for the protests in Arizona? (On a side note your characterization of Matthews as "far left" is pretty far out there on its own.)
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
There is simply no comparison. Invading Iraq and the decades of damage and hundreds of thousands dead. Taking a hefty surplus and turning it into a deficit. Trashing America's image worldwide. Presiding over the worst economic disaster since the Depression. The FEMA Katrina neglect disaster. The list could go on and on.


I disagree and so do the Tea Party people. The economy is WORSE under Obama than under Bush.
Weakening our national defense. Growing our national debt at unprecedented numbers. Presiding
over the bailouts of both the banking and auto industry. Pushing through a healthcare bill that the
majority of people didn't want.


Look at the list I made, and then look at yours. There's no comparison. There also isn't much sense. How is Obama weakening our national defense (funny how right wingers just automatically say that about any Democrat) and how did Bush help our national defense? Are you saying the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq somehow helped out national defense?

Do you realize that the current severe economic troubles all started under Bush and are a continuation of it? Do you remember the collapses of Wall Street companies and the bailout process that was started with Bush? A good argument can be made that Obama's policies stopped the country from going into a depression. Are you aware that bailout of the carmakers is going very well, and that GM has already paid back the bailout money with interest?

Personally I am really glad that all the people who just wanted to let the banks and auto industry collapse are mainly confined to anonymous voices on internet forums, where they can't do any harm.

Do you really think a health care bill that helps Americans is comparable to anything on the list of disasters that Bush was responsible for?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Do you really think a health care bill that helps Americans is comparable to anything on the list of disasters that Bush was responsible for?

It's worse; it'll be impossible to get rid of or reduce once people get used to receiving money from it.

Bush's wars, while bad, will be only temporary in effect.
liljp617
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
There is simply no comparison. Invading Iraq and the decades of damage and hundreds of thousands dead. Taking a hefty surplus and turning it into a deficit. Trashing America's image worldwide. Presiding over the worst economic disaster since the Depression. The FEMA Katrina neglect disaster. The list could go on and on.


I disagree and so do the Tea Party people. The economy is WORSE under Obama than under Bush.
Weakening our national defense. Growing our national debt at unprecedented numbers. Presiding
over the bailouts of both the banking and auto industry. Pushing through a healthcare bill that the
majority of people didn't want. But whatever, people disagree in politics all the time.....


Of course the economy got worse under Obama -.- What else would you expect to happen with an economic downturn that starts in the midst of an election? To pin an economic downturn on a President that wasn't even in office yet is laughable at best. To pin a worldwide economic downturn on any single individual, even the President of the US, is far more laughable than the previous sentence.

The bailouts started under Bush as well.
gandalfthegrey
Not surprised that some are Independent, or that a minority are Democrats or Liberals.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
There is simply no comparison. Invading Iraq and the decades of damage and hundreds of thousands dead. Taking a hefty surplus and turning it into a deficit. Trashing America's image worldwide. Presiding over the worst economic disaster since the Depression. The FEMA Katrina neglect disaster. The list could go on and on.


I disagree and so do the Tea Party people. The economy is WORSE under Obama than under Bush.
Weakening our national defense. Growing our national debt at unprecedented numbers. Presiding
over the bailouts of both the banking and auto industry. Pushing through a healthcare bill that the
majority of people didn't want. But whatever, people disagree in politics all the time.....


Of course the economy got worse under Obama -.- What else would you expect to happen with an economic downturn that starts in the midst of an election? To pin an economic downturn on a President that wasn't even in office yet is laughable at best. To pin a worldwide economic downturn on any single individual, even the President of the US, is far more laughable than the previous sentence.

The bailouts started under Bush as well.
Bush very publicly stated that he was not in favour of the bailouts, and that went completely against what he believed in. He thought he had no choice in the matter as more than the Banks could have failed at the time. Obama however went all out with a 1.2-trillion package, far in excess of Bush and his mantra is "spend spend spend", always with a good marketing justification attached to it such as saving the economy. In mitigation however, he is not alone in that. That seems to be the mantra of most leaders in the developed countries in the current global economy.

Someone in the US has to take responsibility however for the lack of vigilance in the banking system. In my opinion a lot of it had to do with the Banking legislation over the last decades that had been changed so that Banks could get involved in lucrative ancillary businesses such as Investment and Insurance to the extent that they have. The Banks are so enormous now, that it is easy to hide excesses, so much so that a crisis of huge proportions could have happened such as at the end of 2008. Their business is as clear as mud. I wish they could take a few steps back in history and get banking back to where the people are, so that the banking industry would serve the people instead of the other way round. Problem for me is that instead of facing the problem, the Banks got bailed out as is, without any modifications, so much so that there is a very good chance of a repeat of maybe a different kind of excess. Bottomline is that they have grown much too large for there to be even a modicum of transparency in their dealings. And that problem is not being attended to, instead all of the members of the Boards of those Banks who got bailed out, are still in place and thriving as never before. So there is a very good chance of a repeat of a crisis. The problem was never dealt with.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
There is simply no comparison. Invading Iraq and the decades of damage and hundreds of thousands dead. Taking a hefty surplus and turning it into a deficit. Trashing America's image worldwide. Presiding over the worst economic disaster since the Depression. The FEMA Katrina neglect disaster. The list could go on and on.


I disagree and so do the Tea Party people. The economy is WORSE under Obama than under Bush.
Weakening our national defense. Growing our national debt at unprecedented numbers. Presiding
over the bailouts of both the banking and auto industry. Pushing through a healthcare bill that the
majority of people didn't want. But whatever, people disagree in politics all the time.....


Of course the economy got worse under Obama -.- What else would you expect to happen with an economic downturn that starts in the midst of an election? To pin an economic downturn on a President that wasn't even in office yet is laughable at best. To pin a worldwide economic downturn on any single individual, even the President of the US, is far more laughable than the previous sentence.

The bailouts started under Bush as well.
Bush very publicly stated that he was not in favour of the bailouts, and that went completely against what he believed in. He thought he had no choice in the matter as more than the Banks could have failed at the time. Obama however went all out with a 1.2-trillion package, far in excess of Bush and his mantra is "spend spend spend", always with a good marketing justification attached to it such as saving the economy. In mitigation however, he is not alone in that. That seems to be the mantra of most leaders in the developed countries in the current global economy.

Someone in the US has to take responsibility however for the lack of vigilance in the banking system. In my opinion a lot of it had to do with the Banking legislation over the last decades that had been changed so that Banks could get involved in lucrative ancillary businesses such as Investment and Insurance to the extent that they have. The Banks are so enormous now, that it is easy to hide excesses, so much so that a crisis of huge proportions could have happened such as at the end of 2008. Their business is as clear as mud. I wish they could take a few steps back in history and get banking back to where the people are, so that the banking industry would serve the people instead of the other way round. Problem for me is that instead of facing the problem, the Banks got bailed out as is, without any modifications, so much so that there is a very good chance of a repeat of maybe a different kind of excess. Bottomline is that they have grown much too large for there to be even a modicum of transparency in their dealings. And that problem is not being attended to, instead all of the members of the Boards of those Banks who got bailed out, are still in place and thriving as never before. So there is a very good chance of a repeat of a crisis. The problem was never dealt with.


Quote:
U.S. President George W. Bush, saying "our entire economy is in danger," urged Congress to approve his administration's $700 billion bailout proposal.

"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive actions," Bush said in a televised address Wednesday night from the White House.

Bush pointed out that the collapse of several major lenders was rooted in the subprime mortgage market that thrived over the past decade.

He said passage of the $700 billion bailout proposal was needed to restore confidence in the market.

"I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention," he said. But "these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence.

"Without immediate action by Congress, America can slip into a major panic."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/bush.bailout/index.html

He doesn't sound against it in the least. He's giving the exact same explanation Obama did -- "if we don't do something soon, the economy will see an even longer, more severe downturn."

I wouldn't call $500 billion far in excess either, in the grand scheme of things. The economy was worse by the time Obama's package was passed; obviously it would call for more money.

I just find it odd that the bailouts under Obama are evil socialism, but they're no big deal for Bush because he "didn't really want to do it, he just had to or else everything would have collapsed." It's an inconsistent stance and you know it. Either the bailouts were necessary to prop up the economy or they weren't. Argue one or the other, it can't be both ways simply because there's a different name behind the legislation.
Bikerman
I do think, however, that Dean is right to suggest that the root cause has not been addressed. Things continue as normal - the banks continue to pay obscene bonuses which means that the pressure is still on their employees to take unwarranted risks. The banks are still allowed to mix customer banking with gambling (commodities and merchant banking). The banks are still too large to be allowed to fail.
No action on any of these from either the US or the UK......
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
I do think, however, that Dean is right to suggest that the root cause has not been addressed. Things continue as normal - the banks continue to pay obscene bonuses which means that the pressure is still on their employees to take unwarranted risks. The banks are still allowed to mix customer banking with gambling (commodities and merchant banking). The banks are still too large to be allowed to fail.
No action on any of these from either the US or the UK......


While I agree not enough has been done, the reforms going on do somewhat address some of the root causes you mentioned. For some reason this news story back in January did not receive the attention it deserved:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8458689.stm
Quote:

Obama outlines $117bn bank levy

President Barack Obama has said Wall Street must repay $117bn (£72bn) to taxpayers and criticised banks for "massive profits and obscene bonuses".

The tax is to recoup money US taxpayers are expected to lose from bailing out the banks during the financial crisis.

"My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed," the president said.

The move follows populist anger at banks, seen as being responsible for causing the recent economic crisis.

Average American

"My determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people," the president said.

He said the aim was not to punish Wall Street firms but to stop abuses and excesses from happening again.


Also, the reforms do target derivative trading, one of the root causes you mention. If the ball keeps rolling, maybe all the root causes will be addressed in the near future.
Bikerman
Oh we've had similar words from Brown over here. When you look at the actual actions, though, we have nothing concrete here and I haven't heard any new measures passed in the US. A levvy is just a smash and grab one-off - it won't effect any change. We've had similar calls for a one-off bank-tax (exactly the same thing).
The action needed is, IMHO fairly straightforward:
1) Insist that any bank over a certain size must 'split'. Keep individual banks at a level where they can fail.
2) Separate customer banking from all speculative banking. With the banks that are too big (re part 1) then the obvious split would be here.

After that you can talk about other measures as and when, but those two changes would ensure no repeat should be possible.

As for the money that the US and UK put into the banks directly - ironically the 'nationalisation' option (ie the Government bought shares and became the controlling interest) is going to pay-off quite well for the tax payer. Lloyds is already back into profit and the shares are now worth more than the purchase price...and rising. The only question is when the gov. should sell the shares (for a tidy profit).
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

I just find it odd that the bailouts under Obama are evil socialism, but they're no big deal for Bush because he "didn't really want to do it, he just had to or else everything would have collapsed."

For the record, some of us despise the bailouts under Bush just as much. Only, it's not as much of an issue now, because Bush isn't still making the problem worse.
Alaskacameradude
I looked at both lists, and mine makes infinitely more sense. Funny how that works, I see my point
of view as logical and you see yours as logical. A health care bill actually DOES hurt me as it
forces me to come up with about $400 a month to pay for mandatory health insurance...money
that I don't have. I will not be able to pay it, and will be forced to pay a fine at the end of the year.

You say a good argument can be made that Obama's policies stopped the depression? Really, when
he HIMSELF said that if we didn't put his policies in place that unemployment could get as high at 8 percent and then we did put his policies in place and it went over 10%? I love how EVERYTHING is
Bush's fault when he isn't even president and Dems control both houses and the presidency, yet they
STILL refuse to take the blame for anything, ya, it's all Bush's fault. Sorry, the American people
don't buy that and the Dems are going to be kicked to the curb in November
Bikerman
Without wishing to engage in any point particular to US politics (because I don't have the knowledge), I would say that the roots of the crisis are probably measurable here from the major deregulations in the 1990/00s. I don't know if the US did similar around then or not. Wherever you trace it back to then it can be said with certainty that it was nothing of Obama's doing, so that leaves you several choices....
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
I looked at both lists, and mine makes infinitely more sense. Funny how that works, I see my point
of view as logical and you see yours as logical. A health care bill actually DOES hurt me as it
forces me to come up with about $400 a month to pay for mandatory health insurance...money
that I don't have. I will not be able to pay it, and will be forced to pay a fine at the end of the year.


I gave point-by-point examples about how your anti-Obama list was defenseless poppycock, so it's no wonder you don't bother trying to defend it. It's just the internet after all. Still, it's pretty entertaining to see you somehow equating the "hurt" you're going to feel from a miniscule fine for not organizing healthcare for yourself (despite all the new special programs and subsidies available) with the Katrina-FEMA disaster& Iraq War disaster. Another good comparison.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Without wishing to engage in any point particular to US politics (because I don't have the knowledge), I would say that the roots of the crisis are probably measurable here from the major deregulations in the 1990/00s. I don't know if the US did similar around then or not. Wherever you trace it back to then it can be said with certainty that it was nothing of Obama's doing, so that leaves you several choices....
Well, since it is a long-term process and Presidents only get to serve four to eight years, the blame probably needs to be apportioned collectively. I thought this was a good show reflecting this, as well as how little difference there really is:
handfleisch
Still think bigotry isn't a big part of the Tea Party movement? Tea Party leader Mark Williams has called the president of the US an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug" and now he is calling the god of Islam a "monkey god" and New York Muslims "the animals of allah."

http://www.youtube.com/v/5fymdNxn82M

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php?ref=fpb
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Still think bigotry isn't a big part of the Tea Party movement? Tea Party leader Mark Williams has called the president of the US an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug" and now he is calling the god of Islam a "monkey god" and New York Muslims "the animals of allah."

http://www.youtube.com/v/5fymdNxn82M

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php?ref=fpb
You probably need to find a new link for the youtube show as it has been removed by youtube.

Regarding the second show above, I agree with you, the negative references to Islam is offensive in the extreme. I'm all in favour of not allowing those remarks to be published, as I wonder what is doing the more damage. The remarks that Mark Williams have made, or when they have been published by an organization like tpmmuckraker.

Having said that, there are some extremists everywhere, and I'm sure that Mark Williams is not representative of all of the Tea Party movement. Being associated with it however has to do the Party lots of damage.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Still think bigotry isn't a big part of the Tea Party movement? Tea Party leader Mark Williams has called the president of the US an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug" and now he is calling the god of Islam a "monkey god" and New York Muslims "the animals of allah."

http://www.youtube.com/v/5fymdNxn82M

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php?ref=fpb
You probably need to find a new link for the youtube show as it has been removed by youtube.

Regarding the second show above, I agree with you, the negative references to Islam is offensive in the extreme. I'm all in favour of not allowing those remarks to be published, as I wonder what is doing the more damage. The remarks that Mark Williams have made, or when they have been published by an organization like tpmmuckraker.

Having said that, there are some extremists everywhere, and I'm sure that Mark Williams is not representative of all of the Tea Party movement. Being associated with it however has to do the Party lots of damage.


Mark Williams is a major leader of the Tea Party movement, chairman of http://www.teapartyexpress.org/about/. Have other Tea Party leaders condemned his atrocious, bigoted and hateful remarks? Have they distanced themselves? Apparently not. So what does that say about the Tea Party movement in general? To me it says the movement tolerates/encourages bigotry and hate.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
So what does that say about the Tea Party movement in general? To me it says the movement tolerates/encourages bigotry and hate.

Tolerate? Yes.
Encourage? Not in most circles.

I know it's convenient to dismiss your opponents as racist, but really, you need a better strategy.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Mark Williams is a major leader of the Tea Party movement, chairman of http://www.teapartyexpress.org/about/. Have other Tea Party leaders condemned his atrocious, bigoted and hateful remarks? Have they distanced themselves? Apparently not. So what does that say about the Tea Party movement in general? To me it says the movement tolerates/encourages bigotry and hate.
In addition to Ocalhoun's remarks, which are good ones, I also wonder how one can distance yourself from something that is not really official? The Tea Party is not really an official party, nor has an official leader. Mark Williams is leader of a Tea Party faction, called the Tea Party Express. Probably best way to treat a person like that is to ignore him?

Here is more information in a HuffPost article about the fact that he may not be well liked by the Tea Party members in overall:
Tea Party Hates Tea Party Leader
Related topics
War on Terror?
Tea Party Protests
Warning on Tea Parties: KKK, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists
Tea Party more popular than Republican Party
Anti-HCR protesters mock Parkinson's victim
Tea Party originator was lobbyist for Iranian terrorists
Black Tea Party Protesters
Tea Party Demographics
Is the Tea Party a Political Party?
USA Republican Tea Party Candidate Dresses as Nazi
From Egypt to Wisconsin? Anti-Tea Party Protest in WISCONSIN
Left-wing “Occupiers” Unleash Their Bigotry
Tea Party = Occupy??
Video: Tea Party hero Santelli freaks out
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.