posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 12:11 AM
I admit I haven't paid so much attention to the so-called "tea party" movement. So my impressions may be incorrect. My question in the thread title
is a sincere one...not meant to be provcative or to incite "political madness."
It seems to me the "tea party" movement began more or less spontaneously as something that was neither conservative or liberal: Just Americans
demanding a return to the constitutional values of the nation. People fed up with the big spending, erosion of civil liberties, foreign wars, and
corporate pampering that took place under Bush and continues to take place under Obama. In other words, beyond left and right. Beyond the tired old
Then I started seeing Ron Paul's name associated with it. Well, I thought, that's a change. I personally like Dr. Paul and most of what he says. I
think he's one of the few relatively honest and principled American politicians, and although he is a Republican in name, I respect his stance for
reaching beyond the bounds of traditional partisanship. But still it seemed a shift, because I thought the tea party movement was spontaneous,
"bottom-up," grass-roots, and not defined by any sitting politician or political party.
Then, the other day I saw some kind of clips from a tea party "convention" of some sort which struck me as very different from the first
citizen-based demonstrations. Instead of a wide selection of Americans standing up, leaderless, and taking matters into their own hands, I saw a
podium, "official" speakers, and logos. I saw Sarah Palin's name as a speaker, which made me do a double-take...she strikes me as a Neocon more
than anything, and I would think that any sincere movement would be as much against her as Obama. Then I listened to a few of the speakers and every
other word out of their mouths was "liberal" this and "liberal" that...blah blah blah...in other words, back to the same old one-dimsional
push-me-pull-you 2-party garbage I thought the tea party was meant to stand against.
It seems to me like a bunch of slick politicians are trying to get out in front of the "movement" and claim it as their own...and in the process,
distorting the true nature of what it was and what it was meant to be. They are, it seems, trying to crush something vital and alive into a stale
partisan discourse...the very same stale discourse the tea party seemed to be pushing against to begin with.
Or am I misunderstanding something?