Tea Party Convention

[Sporanox]

Yes, that's exactly an example of the reasoning that basically claims it's impossible to criticize anything any Tea Partier does or says.

Really? You can't criticize Farah's birtherism because he's a Tea Partier?

 

[King of the Americas]

Oh, so the cheers as the Tea Party's new voting method?

Who sets a platform at a convention, if not the speakers and the attendees?

Better question, how would we know if the attendees would support any particular issue?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, they are Tea Party members. The question is, how many do they represent?

How many do they need to represent before criticism of their statements can be criticism of the movement in whose name they're making those statements?

As I've been saying, this business of one group claiming they're the real Tea Party and those others aren't seems to be the only thing that is typical of any group that calls itself the Tea Party.

See again,
http://www.officialchicagoteaparty.com/
http://houstontps.org/?p=1050

http://www.teaparty.org/ (By the way--the sign Dale Robertson is holding on the lower left of the page was photoshopped. The word "sinner" replaced the original "niggar".)

And on this page: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/BlogPostView.aspx?id=7d811355-aedc-49ca-8c3e-8694dc92cb01
I especially like this comment:

I think one problem with setting a defined 5, 6, or 8 points is that not everyone is going to agree with all of them. When that happens, people tend to splinter off and form their own little disorganized parties, and that leaves us with guys like Dale Robertson running around with signs that say "Congress = Slave Owner, Taxpayer = Niggar." Those little offshoots are what give Tea Partiers a bad name, and allow us to be easy targets for the far-left media.

Which seems to say that it's dangerous to spell out what the Tea Party movement stands for because that will surely divide the movement into a bunch of squabbling splinter groups. Of course, if they want to claim to be united, they have to be united for no purpose whatsoever (except, as tyr says, their hatred of Obama).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really? You can't criticize Farah's birtherism because he's a Tea Partier?

Whenever we try, people claim he's not a true Tea Partisan. So criticism of anything said at Tea Party events can only be criticism of the individual. The Tea Party (or the Tea Party movement) is immune to criticism, because it stands for nothing.

 

[DavidJames]

How many do they need to represent before criticism of their statements can be criticism of the movement in whose name they're making those statements?

As I've been saying, this business of one group claiming they're the real Tea Party and those others aren't seems to be the only thing that is typical of any group that calls itself the Tea Party.

See again,
http://www.officialchicagoteaparty.com/
http://houstontps.org/?p=1050

http://www.teaparty.org/ (By the way--the sign Dale Robertson is holding on the lower left of the page was photoshopped. The word "sinner" replaced the original "niggar".)

And on this page: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/BlogPostView.aspx?id=7d811355-aedc-49ca-8c3e-8694dc92cb01
I especially like this comment:



Which seems to say that it's dangerous to spell out what the Tea Party movement stands for because that will surely divide the movement into a bunch of squabbling splinter groups. Of course, if they want to claim to be united, they have to be united for no purpose whatsoever (except, as tyr says, their hatred of Obama).

I think it's interesting that "a Tea Party guy" thinks only the "far-left media" would be critical of people like Dale Robertson.

 

[cwalner]

At issue is the definition used - "Tea Partier" to refer to anyone who protests the Obama Administration's spending policies, or "Tea Partier" as a member of an actual party with an actual platform.

Since only one of the various TP organizations sponsored the convention and ran the show, how do you justify your definition?

Sporonax,

For good or for ill, only one of the groups had the resources and organization to put together a convention. Therefore they have earned the right to be the official voice of the Tea Party movement. Like it or not, they chose to embrace Brithirism at thier convention. I get that you don't agree with them on that, and good for you.

However, as I said, I tend to agree with most of the fiscal policy of the Republican party, yet on one social issue, gay rights, thier position is too anathema to me for me to count myself as a Republican. I still vote for them most of the time, the notable exception being those that campaign strongly on the anti-gay platform.

Now that the Tea Party has progressed from disparate protests to an actual party that intends to field candidates, you have to decide where your position in that party will be. This is complicated by two obvious facts. Thier acceptance of Birthirism and your rejection of it. I am not saying that your balnce point will or should be the same as mine, but it is something you have to decide. However, if all you do is continue to complain that those at the convention do not represent the 'true' Tea Party, you will go nowhere. They are the ones who had the drive to make thier version the official version, which makes them the 'true' Tea party in the eyes of the rest of America. Now you are only left with the choice to decide if thier flaws (ie Birtherism) are more imporant than what you agree with them on (ie Govt Spending)

As I said before, this choice is nothing special and is similar to one every Republican and Democrat has to make.

 

[Faithkills]

Except that it doesn't.

The keynote speaker got huge applause for his birther rant...

No one but Breitbart openly disagreed with Farah.

Wrong.

I'm an athiest, pro choice, skeptic, pro gay marriage teabagger who actually attended the event in question.

You may believe what you wish but you are speaking from ignorance.

The fact is everyone gets a seat at the table. Everyone who speaks is not speaking for everyone. Quite the opposite.

Teabaggers are united around what they have in common, not what they don't. They want smaller, law abiding government and less spending.

To be sure there are many people who would like it to otherwise. To be sure as well the GOP would like it to be about them.

But if it became a GOP cheerleader it would lose it's status, because many members are disgusted with GOP spending.

If it became a social conservative movement many people would leave (including myself) because while I don't see social conservatism as any sort of threat, I don't see it as any sort of answer either.

Also just FYI there's not likely to be a candidate fielding formal Tea Party. (although no doubt a few individuals will try) Consensus seems to be forming we can't compete directly with the two parties. But by not fielding candidates we can make both parties compete for us. Consensus seems to be forming there should not be a face to the movement. The face of the movement is all of us.

 

[tyr_13]

Wrong.

I'm an athiest, pro choice, skeptic, pro gay marriage teabagger who actually attended the event in question.

You may believe what you wish but you are speaking from ignorance.

The fact is everyone gets a seat at the table. Everyone who speaks is not speaking for everyone. Quite the opposite.

Teabaggers are united around what they have in common, not what they don't. They want smaller, law abiding government and less spending.

To be sure there are many people who would like it to otherwise. To be sure as well the GOP would like it to be about them.

But if it became a GOP cheerleader it would lose it's status, because many members are disgusted with GOP spending.

If it became a social conservative movement many people would leave (including myself) because while I don't see social conservatism as any sort of threat, I don't see it as any sort of answer either.

Also just FYI there's not likely to be a candidate fielding formal Tea Party. (although no doubt a few individuals will try) Consensus seems to be forming we can't compete directly with the two parties. But by not fielding candidates we can make both parties compete for us. Consensus seems to be forming there should not be a face to the movement. The face of the movement is all of us.

Ah, someone who was there! Can you provide evidence or at least examples of the fiscal conservative bent of the Tea Parties from the event? Were most people talking about spending and small government? Were there any ideas floated on what to do about defense spending? What were the general views on insurance and banking regulation reform?

 

[DavidJames]

Wrong.

I'm an athiest, pro choice, skeptic, pro gay marriage teabagger who actually attended the event in question.

You may believe what you wish but you are speaking from ignorance.

The fact is everyone gets a seat at the table. Everyone who speaks is not speaking for everyone. Quite the opposite.

Teabaggers are united around what they have in common, not what they don't. They want smaller, law abiding government and less spending.

To be sure there are many people who would like it to otherwise. To be sure as well the GOP would like it to be about them.

But if it became a GOP cheerleader it would lose it's status, because many members are disgusted with GOP spending.

If it became a social conservative movement many people would leave (including myself) because while I don't see social conservatism as any sort of threat, I don't see it as any sort of answer either.

Also just FYI there's not likely to be a candidate fielding formal Tea Party. (although no doubt a few individuals will try) Consensus seems to be forming we can't compete directly with the two parties. But by not fielding candidates we can make both parties compete for us. Consensus seems to be forming there should not be a face to the movement. The face of the movement is all of us.

We know about Joseph Farrah and what he said and we know how Palin feels regarding the God and social agenda. Who were the key speakers that were not social conservatives?

 

[King of the Americas]

Wrong.

I'm an athiest, pro choice, skeptic, pro gay marriage teabagger who actually attended the event in question.

You may believe what you wish but you are speaking from ignorance.

The fact is everyone gets a seat at the table. Everyone who speaks is not speaking for everyone. Quite the opposite.

Teabaggers are united around what they have in common, not what they don't. They want smaller, law abiding government and less spending.

To be sure there are many people who would like it to otherwise. To be sure as well the GOP would like it to be about them.

But if it became a GOP cheerleader it would lose it's status, because many members are disgusted with GOP spending.

If it became a social conservative movement many people would leave (including myself) because while I don't see social conservatism as any sort of threat, I don't see it as any sort of answer either.

Also just FYI there's not likely to be a candidate fielding formal Tea Party. (although no doubt a few individuals will try) Consensus seems to be forming we can't compete directly with the two parties. But by not fielding candidates we can make both parties compete for us. Consensus seems to be forming there should not be a face to the movement. The face of the movement is all of us.

Ignorance...?

I didn't get a few sound bites from news outlets. I watched the whole thing as aired by C-span. I have reported here what I saw and heard. Granted, I'll easily concede that you had a better vantage than I did, so maybe you'll answer some questions...

First, did YOU "boo" the birther comments, and did a majority of the other attendees join you in a rejection of those comments?

Second, did you "boo" or show any objection to the "return America to Biblical teaching", and were you then also joined by a majority of your fellow tea partiers?

Lastly, where were you sitting in proximity to the stage, maybe they put all the gay atheists in the back where their protests wouldn't interfere with the proceedings...?

Can you present any evidence that I am "wrong" about the findings I've presented here?

The clips I presented included applause and NOT disapproval, at the things I've presented...

No ignorance here, pal.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The fact is everyone gets a seat at the table. Everyone who speaks is not speaking for everyone. Quite the opposite.

So does this mean we can't criticize the Tea Party since the Tea Party itself is nothing but the table?

All it is is some kind of forum or conduit for individuals and it stands for nothing itself?

ETA:

But if it became a GOP cheerleader it would lose it's [sic] status, because many members are disgusted with GOP spending.

I haven't seen any Tea Party events express much disgust with the GOP.

But the claim that the movement stands for fiscal responsibility isn't the same as saying it should be a GOP cheerleader. In fact, if that claim were true, then why didn't the movement begin before Obama's rise to prominence? (And you have to wear blinders to ignore the strong anti-Obama sentiment of the movement that transcends any issue. Same with the racism and birtherism stuff.)

Surely Obama's first year has shown more oversight, transparency and accountability than Bush's terms. (In Iraq, there are tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer money that was dispersed with no accounting at all. We will never know where that money went. It was being passed out in bales of cash by gunnysack and wheelbarrow--literally.)

And why are they silent when members of the GOP pull stunts like this?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it's interesting that "a Tea Party guy" thinks only the "far-left media" would be critical of people like Dale Robertson.

I don't think that was his point. I think he was correct in saying if the Tea Party actually specifies what it stands for, then as a movement it will fragment, and its critics will then see the most extreme elements of it as typical of it.

I think in a way he's right. It's as if they're ashamed to admit what the Tea Party really is, so instead they just keep playing the "no true Tea Bagger" game.

 

[Faithkills]

So does this mean we can't criticize the Tea Party since the Tea Party itself is nothing but the table?

You will continue to criticize regardless of the facts. I'm not saying what you may or may not do.

All it is is some kind of forum or conduit for individuals and it stands for nothing itself?

I told you what it is. You don't believe. You believe it's all people sidearms with Obama hung in effigy because that's the only thing you're shown. Having never investigated for yourself that's all you know. Since it suits your preconceptions that's all you will ever know.

I can't fix that. I was just offering information.

First, did YOU "boo" the birther comments, and did a majority of the other attendees join you in a rejection of those comments? Second, did you "boo" or show any objection to the "return America to Biblical teaching", and were you then also joined by a majority of your fellow tea partiers?

No I did not. I'm not sure what it would accomplish? No one boo'd much of anything that I know. Why not? Because we share concerns about things I do think are important. And honestly the threat of someone saying a prayer in school doesn't seem credible much less dangerous.

FWIW I do continually prod them basically saying "You don't want tax money spent to 'miseducate' your child, can you see how they may feel the same? Isn't the answer to let parents decide and not government?" I use the same sort of argument on war spending and almost any other issue.

One difference I have found between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is often receptive to the idea that you can't have freedom, if you aren't willing to offer freedom.

A liberal almost never is.

Nevertheless I make headway. It's difficult at times.

Regardless the social issues aren't the common concerns.

Which, if you watched it, then you know damned well that prayer in schools or birth certificates are not the central concerns.

What binds us is as I stated.

Some may be ignorant but if you watched it then you are deliberately deceptive.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't think that was his point. I think he was correct in saying if the Tea Party actually specifies what it stands for, then as a movement it will fragment, and its critics will then see the most extreme elements of it as typical of it.

Ok, I just reacted to the "far left" qualifier to media.

 

[DavidJames]

One difference I have found between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is often receptive to the idea that you can't have freedom, if you aren't willing to offer freedom.

I have no idea what you mean.


Also...

We know about Joseph Farrah and what he said and we know how Palin feels regarding the God and social agenda. Who were the key speakers that were not social conservatives?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You will continue to criticize regardless of the facts. I'm not saying what you may or may not do.

What are you talking about?
Are you saying the criticism of the Tea Party has been contrafactual?

Back when we were talking about racism, I provided evidence of those claims. The criticism was brushed aside with the "no true Tea Bagger" fallacy.

That's what I'm complaining about now.

I told you what it is. You don't believe.

It's not a question of belief. If the Tea Party movement really was a non-partisan group whose only aim was fiscal responsibility in government, their actions would be consistent with that, but they're not. I've shown evidence.

You believe it's all people sidearms with Obama hung in effigy because that's the only thing you're shown. Having never investigated for yourself that's all you know. Since it suits your preconceptions that's all you will ever know.

You're wrong. You're making a strawman argument and a false assumption about whether or not I have investigated for myself.

Again, if your claim is that all the Tea Party movement is is a table for any voice to be heard (and criticism of those voices must not ever reflect on the Tea Party movement itself), is there then really any such thing as the Tea Party movement?

 

[King of the Americas]

No I did not. I'm not sure what it would accomplish? No one boo'd much of anything that I know. Why not? Because we share concerns about things I do think are important. And honestly the threat of someone saying a prayer in school doesn't seem credible much less dangerous.

...

Some may be ignorant but if you watched it then you are deliberately deceptive.

IF YOU HAD BOOED, it would have been a demonstration of "disapproval" of that particular statement. It may have even led to others join in, saving yourself and this tea party from having to defend yourself now.

Instead, you did nothing while others cheered...indicating passive approval.

I watched, and I provided links to the actual speeches of keynoters Farah & Palin, INCLUDING THE AUDIENCE CHEERING for birther & Bible thumper stuff.

Again, NO 'ignorance' here, and certainly no deliberate deception or mis-characterizations of the event. The clips I've provided speak for themselves.

IF you have evidence that a majority of Tea Partiers DISAGREED with these comments, please feel free to provide it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok, I just reacted to the "far left" qualifier to media.

And that's a valid point. I think it points to the actual position of the Tea Party movement on the political spectrum if they think it's the "far left" who decry racism.

But again, I don't think that's what the gut meant, since many "mainstream" Tea Party organizations are rejecting racist elements in the movement. I thought this guy's comments were appropriate to this point. That they better never put down a platform in black and white, because then they'll fragment even further. So their choice is either to be a unified movement that doesn't stand for anything, or to stand for something and be fragmented (or at least become a "no true Tea Bagger").

 

[A'isha]

One difference I have found between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is often receptive to the idea that you can't have freedom, if you aren't willing to offer freedom.

A liberal almost never is.

Really?

 

[Faithkills]

One difference I have found between a liberal and a conservative is that a conservative is often receptive to the idea that you can't have freedom, if you aren't willing to offer freedom.

I have no idea what you mean.

Exactly my point.

Are you saying the criticism of the Tea Party has been contrafactual?

Patently.

Back when we were talking about racism, I provided evidence of those claims. The criticism was brushed aside with the "no true Tea Bagger" fallacy.

There's no racists that I have seen. We don't allow them. You can be pro-choice or pro gay marriage, but there's one thing you most certainly can't be and that's racist. Racists are not welcome.

One of the speeches I have given emphatically stated that if there were any crypto-racists who have been lead by media coverage to think this was a fertile garden that they were in the wrong place.

If the Tea Party movement really was a non-partisan group whose only aim was fiscal responsibility in government, their actions would be consistent with that, but they're not. I've shown evidence.

You've shown evidence that there are socially conservative Teabaggers. News at 11.

You are quite erroneous at best, if not disingenuous, in asserting that's all it is. There are social conservatives. But everyone is not a social conservative.

Every teabagger is a fiscal conservative.

Those are the facts. As you must know if you indeed watched the entire thing. (which I doub't I didn't see cameras at every session)

Feel free to try to spin it as a social conservative movement all you like. At this point you're merely lying.

Ultimately I don't care. The best thing we have going for us is underestimation and being dismissed as kooks. We know we flipped Mass with a money bomb.

We want however both parties to believe otherwise.. we can't outspend either embedded group yet in a straight up fight.

The real danger, from my perspective, is the GOP co-opting the movement, which would neuter it. But I think the longer we go the less risk that is.