Tea Party Movement pays Palin to speak

bored

not bitter but bored
I like the idea of the tea party movement. It sends the right message to both parties. It's sort of a dissension of the GOP but also attracts independents.

I read today that they paid speaker for this weekend is Sarah Palin.

I have lost 99.9% of my interest in the TPM.
 
Who's gonna pay her to shut the hell up then?
 
Is this what you Yanks mean as a tea party:thumb:


Jukebox Jury
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sarah palin! what a joke. politics are a joke. just go read your history books if you want to see what happens to world powers when they stray off course. which is of course, what this country is doing.
 
I like the idea of the tea party movement. It sends the right message to both parties. It's sort of a dissension of the GOP but also attracts independents.

I read today that they paid speaker for this weekend is Sarah Palin.

I have lost 99.9% of my interest in the TPM.


It does sends the right message. Who in their right mind would be in favor of a Pubic Option?

original.jpg
 
I like the idea of the tea party movement. It sends the right message to both parties. It's sort of a dissension of the GOP but also attracts independents.

All kidding aside, The Tea Party Movement is a disaster for American politics. It's a coin toss between the GOP and the Tea Baggers, but either way the tea-timers are ridiculous. Forgetting about the circus-like atmosphere for a moment, if you actually take a look at what they believe in, they don't have a coherent platform from which to govern. The New Yorker did a piece recently that tried to explore what they were up to. Like you, the article basically concluded that many of the tea baggers were decent Americans who were tired of the Blue-Red monopoly in Washington. They're not made up exclusively of the crazies shown on TV. But if you pay attention, you'll notice that their movement is made up of people with wildly divergent political beliefs. They're great at protests, but it would be nearly impossible for them to come together on a firm set of principles to use as a basis for government. They all agree Washington is broken, but put them in charge for a year and see how broken things can really get. It's just a social protest movement, which would be okay if it weren't for the fact that they're influencing elections and candidates. If you think it's bad that the GOP is the Party of No, try imagining a Party of No totally lacking in ideological coherence.
 
Worm,

I don't disagree with what you said. I am simply interested in watching political movements that are not the standard two party system succeed. I'm just disappointed that this one got tainted with such an unlikable person.

If this movement can be successful then maybe people will believe that their movement could be to and we can see a shift in power from the old and busted to something that represents the people.

Right now everyone is loving Scott Brown for his "Regular Joe" image. Let's see how he is perceived in 18 months. I'm hoping he's the republican version of Kucinich who has is part of a certain party but in the end votes on what he thinks is right rather than what his party wants him to vote for.

Yesterday was yet another example of Kucinich not toeing the party line. The bill to raise the deficit cap was passed yesterday. Every republican voted no. All but 30 DEMs voted yes. Kucinich, not surprisingly, was one of those 30.

Too bad more law makers aren't voting on the merits of a bill instead of the party that originated it.
 
I am simply interested in watching political movements that are not the standard two party system succeed.

If this movement can be successful then maybe people will believe that their movement could be to and we can see a shift in power from the old and busted to something that represents the people.

No, I figured you agreed with me on some level. I wasn't really trying to clash with you. What I was trying to get across is that I think your interest in seeing this particular political movement succeed will end in disappointment. Even if they succeed in getting rid of the "old and busted", they're just going to replace it with the "new and busted". They would not be able to govern in the most basic sense because there is no party ideology aside from antagonism to the existing order. Essentially, if not in name, they are anarchists-- as a group. Individually they may all have distinct, rational points of view-- i.e. libertarianism-- but as a group they're a mess. Put them in a room and they would never, ever be able to agree on basic points of governance. It's no different than what the GOP is revealing with their version of health care or the budget: they sound great when they're bellowing about how flawed the Democratic plans are, but when they put together their own ideas they're a joke (balance the budget by 2060...?).

Although I am extremely pessimistic about the chances of success, I think the better idea by far is Obama's attempt at restoring bi-partisanship. Short of radical "D: None Of The Above" options, fixing the two-party systems as it is may be the only choice. I really don't think the tea baggers are an option, and I don't even think they're symbolically useful. I say that without knocking the idiots with the signs on TV, but attempting to take the serious tea baggers at their best.
 
Short of radical "D: None Of The Above" options, fixing the two-party systems as it is may be the only choice. I really don't think the tea baggers are an option, and I don't even think they're symbolically useful. I say that without knocking the idiots with the signs on TV, but attempting to take the serious tea baggers at their best.

Nader has suggested that there be a None of the Above on the ballot and if none of the above wins, new candidates are nominated and a new election is held.

I don't think it would really produce better results but it would have been hysterical to watch bush/kerry in 08. None of the above would have gotten like 107% of the vote.
 
Nader has suggested that there be a None of the Above on the ballot and if none of the above wins, new candidates are nominated and a new election is held.

Nader's a smart guy. But I think that's a problem within the electorate as much as it is a problem within Washington.

I don't think it would really produce better results but it would have been hysterical to watch bush/kerry in 08. None of the above would have gotten like 107% of the vote.

Probably true. Our democracy is rising to the level of Afghanistan. :rolleyes:
 
What's wrong with a party made up of people with wildly divergent beliefs?

I am pretty sure that the Democratic and Republican parties have people that compromise their beliefs in order to get the main things they want.

I am not saying that the "Tea Party" is the answer at all, but to overcome the two-party system it is going to take people that think for themselves.

I hope it works, and now seems to be as good a time as any for a viable third party to emerge.

For the time being, I think it's going to be easier for them to have an impact in local elections, where the grass roots movement relates specifically to the issues of each community and the candidates are participating citizens.

On a National level, it's going to be much more difficult. Take the Libertarians for example. In local elections, they often fare pretty well; but on a National level, can barely organize a dog show.
 
I do not just want a 3rd party, I want a totally different form of government or none at all :gun:
but yeah, when not angry I want a party that JFK, Teddy Roosevelt and Ralph Nader would all be a part of :thumb:
 
sarah palin! what a joke. politics are a joke. just go read your history books if you want to see what happens to world powers when they stray off course. which is of course, what this country is doing.

wow what a simple and accurate critique. all this other talk is rather unnecessary.
 
Part of that is because they aren't taken seriously at a national level but that could change, and then they could get the backing, be invited to the debates, and attract more polished candidates. Then the problem would be how to keep them from being just like what we have now. There will always be some show business involved, but at least it would change the mentality of the voters and make it possible for change to occur.

I agree.

Tea Party Movement: Don't let Sarah Palin take control.
 
Tags
palm reader
Back
Top Bottom