Come 2012, will teabaggers be back behind the GOP?

Come on lets not play games anymore. I know folks here would love to put on their "anti-two party" hats and proclaim all seriousness regarding the creation of a new conservative party, but lets be honest with ourselves here, come 2012 tea baggers and anti-tax folk alike will be right back behind their favourite GOP candidates right? I remember last year the usual suspects, without really promoting any of their favourite GOP candidates, had no problem doing the straightin shooting at the liberals for em'. Can anybody honestly not lie to themselves here and come and admit that they will be voting GOP come 2012? Or are we going to continue to play this game? Lets all be honest here.

Tea baggers, anti-tax anti NWO. When 2012 comes, and when, once again the GOP candidate is paraded on the screens... are you all serious about following your "anti-two party" talk? Do you think its likely yourself, as a conservative, and your fellow "teabagging" conservatives will not be voting GOP in 2012? Are you that convinced?

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Even though your OP looks as though it's intended to bait people with assumptions that you can't support the tea parties without being a Republican, I'll bite. Being a supporter of the tea parties and leaning more to the left than I do to the right, no I won't be gung-ho for the GOP in 2012 just like I haven't been gung-ho for them in the past. Nor will I be gung-ho for any Democrats. I've given up on both sides, they're all idiots.

reply to post by Jenna


Well thats good to hear from atleast one teabagger I gotta tell ya. Would you be confident of your fellow tea baggers doing the same? Or is that insignificant to you? Who they vote for? To me if this movement means anything its that the folks would be taking the stand come 2012. Since most of these individuals at these tea parties are fox news watchers, who tend to parade pro-sucessionist GOP governors around, its unlikely they will not be going back to the same GOP party.

The way I honestly see it, this is all to do about faith. Most teabaggers will not bother with the third party due to lack of confidence and because of that they will find themselves supporting the GOP. The thing is, if one third party, such as the "boston tea political party" or "the libertarian party" were to gain say 20% of the national votes, and atleast two full states even in the south, it will raise eyebrows and will gain more attention to third parties. Yet it appears that there is always this cycle of returning to the GOP. Knowing the habits of the past Jenna, how could you be so confident your fellow teabaggers will follow up on their war against the "two party system"? I tell ya if this was my movement, I wouldnt be all too confident.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I didn't attend a Tea Party, but I roughly fit in with the group that you're describing, so I'll bite...

I'm a libertarian, and as a libertarian, I voted Obama. Many of us did. I hate the GOP and the thought of voting for them makes me physically ill (or at least, the thought would make me ill if I ever really thought about doing it -- which I don't). Most of my peers in the "lower taxes, counter-establishment" group will almost certainly vote GOP, however. To ensure that it happens, GOPers will tell them "a vote for [third-party candidate] is a vote for Obama " and people will show up and vote for Jindal or whoever...

I'll be voting third-party (if I vote) due to an epiphany I had the other day: if a vote for the Libertarian party takes votes away from the GOP, and I hate the GOP and would vote against them anyway, then there's no reason that I shouldn't just go ahead and vote Libertarian.

In summary: I will not vote GOP, but I expect most of my peers to show up and vote for whatever anti-intellectual, big-spending, dweeb the GOP prances out there.


[edit on 17-5-2009 by theWCH]

Thanks to Southern Guardian and Urban Dictionary, I have added a new term to my lexicon.

And this is a name people have chosen to call themselves?

First let me state that I did not attend any Rallies but my political stance is on the conservative side. I like to think of myself as an independent because I try to analyze each issue and not side with one side or another because I am for one party or another.

I feel that both parties are puppets to the elite, therefore, our vote are pretty worthless. I mean look at the elections, did anyone think Obama was going to lose to McCain? How about Clinton to Dole for crying out loud and Kerry in 2004? Jeez, a tap dancing monkey should have been able to beat Bush in '04.

I think a new and strong third party is exactly what this country needs, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

NO, this is not a name purposely adopted by any group.
This name was handed out by an equal yet opposite sect of the Democrats.

It's meant to group a previously silent group, with the louder pseudo-conservative group. Diminishing the effectiveness of both.
A lot like the Liberal term "tree-hugger". It even has the same rhythm, or cadence, like a bumpersticker.

It also servers as a convenient mask to drape over the rifts that are coming to light within the Democratic party. Pelosi's recent problems are one example.

It's so new, that I'm not completely sure that the term has been effectively defined though.

SG. How would you define it, and how about some examples of familiar politicians?

The tea bag "movement" was a political feel good moment... look we're doing something... and nothing more.

3 million max out of 350 million proves more than anything else that the whole notion struck most people as little more than a stunt and not worth supporting.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
NO, this is not a name purposely adopted by any group.
This name was handed out by an equal yet opposite sect of the Democrats.

It's meant to group a previously silent group, with the louder pseudo-conservative group. Diminishing the effectiveness of both.
A lot like the Liberal term "tree-hugger". It even has the same rhythm, or cadence, like a bumpersticker.

It also servers as a convenient mask to drape over the rifts that are coming to light within the Democratic party. Pelosi's recent problems are one example.

It's so new, that I'm not completely sure that the term has been effectively defined though.

SG. How would you define it, and how about some examples of familiar politicians?

I define it as angry former bush supporters, disgruntled republicans, folks who cant get over the elections. Tell me of all those tea baggers out there how many of them folks can count their history pure of the any of the "two parties"? Tell me how confident you really are that those folks wont be back behind their favourite GOP candidate come 2012 spacedoubt?

This movement of yours, do you really think the majority of those individuals take it seriously? How many of those individuals on April 15th do you think gave Paul the time of day during the early bush years? How are you so damn sure they'll ever do so in the future once the GOP gets majority again? How are you so sure they'll be pushing for third party come 2012? Because the way I see it history shows the same cycle of these folks going back behind the same GOP candidate of the year, you know the "average joe six pack from texas", and when that fella messes up these exact folks will come crawling back to the third party movement and act as if they give a damn again.. and before you know it their "tea partying" days will but a distant memory... again.

Do you really think even 10% of those self proclaimed tea baggers, revolutionaries, will be behind ya and this new movement come 2012? Its all in history spacedoubt. I hear the same garbage back in 2000 and it aint too hard to look into the history books back in the 70s to see the same posers pretending to be something and then going back. Most of these folks are posers spacedoubt. Had it been a republican they wouldnt have given you the time of day, and here you are, holding their hands.

I tell ya after what fox news and most of the republicans did to third party folks, Paulers and true constitutionalist, you have no issue holding their hands and walking with them for the sake of numbers. Why lower your movement to that standard?

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


It's all a game. As I understand this sudden media (and Internet) backed drive to call this administration / government to task was a creation of segments of the Republican backed party, who are upset that Obama took office. For the conspiracy nuts, the "Illuminati" (at least the bad parts of it).

If you're a conspiracy nut like I am, you'll also tie in this manufactured dissent - which, I might add, many sincere and well-meaning people bought into (I would have as well), to the broad and equally manufactured anti-Obama propaganda on the Internet.

The anti-Obama propaganda is both racist and political. It runs the spectrum.

But don't believe for one second that the Texas governor suggesting Texas secede, or the "Fox Nation" media push to form some sort of ideological nation separate from our physical nation, and everything else stirring the pot in here are not related.

To those who have the presence of mind enough to do the research and read between the lines it's clear this impromptu push to overthrow the government is dubious at the least.

No one finds it odd that none of this outrage was publicized during the Bush administration, when hundreds of the scientific, academic, political, etc., community gathered together in front of Congress in support of his impeachment (for crimes too numerous to count)?

I don't have resources to back up this assertion. Actually, I don't feel like it. I'll just say that this is the easy conclusion I've come to.

Fox and its public and private affiliates (affiliates more tied to that organization from behind the scenes) are effectively engaging in what could easily be called sedition (one of Rumsfeld's favorite words, during his dirty tenure with the Bush's).

The media, or, more specifically, the criminals who run / influence certain powerful media conglomerates, and their henchmen online are attempting to create chaos and incite an uprising, because their true power has been taken from them.

These suggested secessions, or attempts to incite a revolution are being manufactured by the folks who are waiting to take their power back and to make everything "neat" again (in their own minds).

Truth be told, this was it for them. They're not just fighting because they think they'll be out of the game for four (or eight) years. Their fighting because they are going to be not only made obsolete, but are going to be held accountable for what they did while in office.

There are folks reading this who will find my statements totally absurd.

Then there are some who will understand what I'm saying.

Either way, this country will not split apart because of what mischief these criminals are still stirring up. Quite the contrary; I feel it will be unified when it truly discovers what they have done (and are doing) at our expense.

People see things going south. I see things going the opposite direction.

Time will tell...

I wanted to add that I believe the swine flu media blitz is also related (even though the virus itself may not have been purposely spread...or maybe it was...). The same folks who peddled terror for so many years thrive on that stuff.

Also, in response to Southern Guardian's initial question, these folks WILL (the majority) be throwing up the banners and wearing their party hats when the GOP regains power, because, again, they are the ones pushing this program of dissent. We'll all have forgotten about the "Fox Nation" and the "tea baggers" by then, won't we?






[edit on 17-5-2009 by atswheat]

reply to post by atswheat


Well i'll be... there does exist reality here after all.

Well put my friend. Heck I couldnt care if folks are totally the opposite to what the dems and progressives are pushing for, but for petes sakes get off the GOP manufactured "grassroots movement".

This may have been manufactured by the GOP and Media... I'd say it probably was. BUT... it doesn't matter... it got people jump started. It may backfire on the PTB. I hope it does. It's been a long time since more than a special interest group protested anything in this country. The people have been encouraged and when they're let down again (which will happen) it will be very frustrating to them and they will rise again... only this time it will be the people doing it not the PTB.

Originally posted by atswheat
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Quite the contrary; I feel it will be unified when it truly discovers what they have done (and are doing) at our expense.

People see things going south. I see things going the opposite direction.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by atswheat]

I guess that's what I'm saying... except I don't think they'll find out.. they'll just be very frustrated.





[edit on 17/5/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

Originally posted by atswheat
Truth be told, this was it for them. They're not just fighting because they think they'll be out of the game for four (or eight) years. Their fighting because they are going to be not only made obsolete, but are going to be held accountable for what they did while in office.

Loved the entire post

Political power. With the power to make the laws to determine what gets done and who gets what. Money (wealth) translates into power.
For ex, women could be denied wealth/power through laws relating to marriage or, until society looked favorable on women working outside the home, women were "powerless" because they did not contribute to the economy of the family.

The GOP has a historical label as the party of "big business" (corporations). The country club base, wealth holders. The "haves' and "have mores".
Even though they opened their tent flaps to get the "little people's" votes by way of religion and racial issues decades ago, now that the party is over, it is not so much what the "little people" want in "their" party, but what does "big business" want to do with their traditional party.

Over recent decades, corporations have tended to hedge their bets and invest in both parties, but they got most bang for their buck in the GOP. Political power was used to transfer the wealth (power) of the "little people" upward.

A teabagging event gives the illusion that the "little people" have power, but, even in America, especially in America with its "classes", the "little people" need to reclaim their wealth/power. And a symbolic teabagging event put on by GOP hangerson will not do it.

The real GOP base of power are their "haves" and "have mores". It is this base that will determine if the GOP survives. Will "big business" abandon their GOP label in favorite of another?
What the teabaggers must not do is let "big business", corporations, control EITHER party (or future party!), or we will be here decades from now, asking if the Democrats will be around.

Instead of teabagging events, Americans who have seen their wealth/power diminish, should get out their mops and shop vacs and have house cleaning parties, and keep out the political freeloaders and gold diggers from their house.
Do not allow those who would rob you step one foot onto your property! "Some rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen."

Political baiting.


As a 'teabagger' I'll tell ya this ... IT IS MY OPINION that this teaparty thing will gain more votes for third parties then anything else since Ross Perot. EVERYONE I know who went to a teaparty was disgusted with both the republicans and democrats. Some I know were democrats, some I know were republicans, some I know were third party folks.

The tea parties are bringing people together.

If someone is scared of teaparties ... as, in my opinion, the OP seems to be, then they don't understand the movement at all.

The dems fear the tea parties because FOX saw a good business oportunity and they covered the parties. The republicans with foresight fear the tea parties because they see votes peeling off in mass quanitities for 2010 and 2012.

Be they disgruntled dems or unhappy republicans or tru-blue third party members or just independent Americans sick of politicians ... whatever ... these tea parties are bringing people togther and both the dems and republicans are going to feel the sting of 'less votes for themselves' in 2010 and 2012.

2012? Nah, the immediate effects will be felt as soon as the 2010 mid-term elections.

When Democrats fear something they demonize it, make fun of it, and try to get their media to discredit it.

FEAR THE TEABAG!

Shameful of you SG. It really is...and I was beginning to think you were above it.

This is nothing but an antagonistic post as you once again pool all of the protesters into one entity.

The teabaggers name was given to them from the liberal media...MSNBC was surely proud to run that name into the ground.

You, above all, know how the media spins the news...and you have fallen for it...hook, line, and sinker.

All one has to do is look at at our debt, at how it's unsustainable and the ills are that are soon to come, at how bad things will really get....and they will BE ANGRY.

I also find it crazy that YOU EVEN COMPLAIN....because if people fall back in line...we'll continue to get MORE OF THE SAME. No programs will be cut...everything will remain the same...the wars, social programs, and debt will be maintained.....the very same thing you know support.

I find that your OP defines who you really are.

I've lost respect for you.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by David9176]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

If someone is scared of teaparties ... as, in my opinion, the OP seems to be, then they don't understand the movement at all.

I agree. I really think that the Dems fail to realize how truly frustrated conservatives were with Bush and the Republicans after the 2004 elections.

Conservatives feel that the officials they elected sold them out, and then we were offered McCain as an option in 2008? Now we know how Dems felt when there best option was Kerry on '04.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
It's been a long time since more than a special interest group protested anything in this country.

I'm glad you brought that up.
The term "special interest group" has been reframed to have a negative connotation. "Special interest group" is neutral; there are "good" sig's and "bad" sig's, depending on whose side one is on.

Corporations have sig's, sometimes having an outward appearance of "grass roots". Citizens have their own sig's, groups they join to represent an interest. That interest might be for employment standards (unions), social interests (AARP), or other interests (airline comfort standards).

Some sig's promote the interests of bisiness/corporations, some for the individual citizen. Some corporations have an interest to promote the fact that they "do no harm"; other corporations have to put a spin on the fact that they do harm.