Posted on 05/25/2014 4:06:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The resounding victory that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell scored over "tea party" businessman Matt Bevin this past week has thrown the media into a tizzy. Is the "tea party" dead? Did the GOP establishment kill it? Or did the GOP subsume the tea party, taking its candidates, its issues, and its ideology for the GOP?
Nate Silver writes that recent "tea party vs. establishment GOP" stories are inadequate:
The term “tea party” is applied very loosely by the political media. Was Missouri Rep. Todd Akin a member of the tea party, for instance? Weigel says no: Most groups associated with the tea party endorsed either Sarah Steelman or John Brunner in the 2012 Republican primary in Missouri. I think the case is considerably more ambiguous: Akin was listed as a member of the Tea Party Caucus on Michele Bachmann’s website in 2012. But these ambiguities arise all the time. Marco Rubio was once strongly associated with the tea party but is now somewhat estranged from it. Sometimes the term seems to serve as a euphemism for “crazy Republican” rather than anything substantive.
What is the tea party, exactly? That’s not so clear. There are a constellation of groups, like Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, who sometimes associate themselves with the movement or are associated with it. But their agendas can range from libertarian to populist and do not always align. As in Missouri, they often do not endorse the same candidate. Nor do they always endorse the candidate who self-identifies as member of the tea party.
Perhaps it’s time to discourage the use of “tea party.” Or, at the very least, not to capitalize it as The New York Times and some other media organizations do. “Tea Party” looks better aesthetically than “tea party,” but triggers associations with a proper noun and risks misinforming the reader by implying that the tea party has a much more formal organizational infrastructure than it really does.
This is all right, but it's also what the mainstream media has been doing when it comes to the "tea party" since its inception. The use of the label "tea party" has almost always been meaningless in a purely electoral context. "The Tea Party" is something that should never have been capitalized by the mainstream media - there's no official campaign apparatus, no way of endorsement, no hierarchy in which to officially settle disagreements.
"The tea party" was always a loose collection of Americans who banded together to protest policies implemented at the beginning of the Obama era - bailouts, stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank. The primary disagreements between outsider candidates and the "GOP establishment" now is about tactics, not policy. If we are to say that people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are "tea party" type Republicans, it's because they are willing to risk a lot of political capital in order to push through a GOP agenda - filibusters, budget disagreements, etc. - despite their minority status.
This isn't new, though. In the first elections after tea parties began happening, we saw people like Scott Brown and Marco Rubio win surprising victories in a wave of grassroots conservative energy. They've got only a tenuous connection with what we might call "outsider conservatives" at this point.
The "tea party" was always about a grassroots energy that the GOP machine tried to translate into electoral victory.
Silver writes that "it's time" to abandon the phrase "Tea Party" as a proper noun. It should really never have been coined in the first place. The phrase "the tea party" implies more organization in and of itself than necessary.
I've personally tried to use the phrase "tea partier" or "tea partiers." There are individuals who have worked with or within assorted tea parties, but "the tea party" is never something that has accurately described this recent grassroots conservative movement.
someone’s trying to save the GOP’s image
the GOP has been fatally compromised and unless there is a near total change of the guard, it won’t recover
strangely enough,I find the latest Captain America movie paralleling the GOP and the country, swapping progressives and commies for hydra
You forgot Chuck Baldwin.
I just ran through a list of the people I am familiar with.
Unsure of Chuck Baldwin. I see from google he is with this party, so he is obviously important.
(just because I am not familiar with him)
Any thoughts on him?
Just saying, this could be an alternative to the GOP is all I am saying.
Thanks.
Here is Chuck Baldwin’s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chuck-Baldwin/226997970644468
Here is an opposing “Southern Poverty Law Center” page:
(it is an opposition page, just a heads up)
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/chuck-baldwin
Here is is (new) site in Kalispel Montana I believe.
http://libertyfellowshipmt.com/
He has evidently moved to Montana recently.
Again I am asking for feedback if anyone knows his background in detail.
He’s a pastor. Appears to hold a lot of my views about America and what is wrong.
Just saying.
What is he like please?
To All:
I would just like to ask a general question.
Aside from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is there any actual negative, about the church in Kalispel or about Chuck Baldwin?
I am looking for real feedback please.
If this group or church is racially organized or actually has any extremist views, I would like to hear from someone about those please.
They seem pretty good, so I am just checking.
Thanks. :D
OK I’m seeing nothing racist or otherwise extremist in the site, or other sites Chuck Baldwin has.
I just listened to his entire sermon from yesterday, which seemed to focus on Persia and Greece, and was interesting.
He seems to have generated a negative vibe from the (leftist) website Southern Poverty Law Center, and I’ve seen him listed (again on a leftwing website) as having racial views, though I do not see those evident so I don’t come to a conclusion right now.
He seems to have some very good views otherwise. He seems to have some leftist opponents. He seems to favor the Confederacy, though that was listed at a leftwing website, so I’m not sure about that. Could be, or not.
If those leftist opponents are just partisan hacks, then they do not count.
If however he is actually saying things which are racially based, that would tend to be a no-go.
The Constitution party seems significant, if still starting.
I haven’t received any feedback on Chuck Baldwin from this site yet. I’m not going to pay any more attention at the moment for today.
Feel free to follow-on with any important issues regarding Chuck Baldwin.
I would like to find out what some of you think about him.
Thanks.
Nate Silver is predicting GOP senate majority in 2014.
I think he is more of a statistician nerd than a party hack.
I like him. A lot. And even though I really like Governor Palin, I voted for him in 2008. I first started reading his editorials on News With Views, but if I don’t see any links to him for a little while, I’ll start looking. Check him out. I think you’ll be pleased.
Oh thanks.
I had stopped thinking about him, and had to go back to remind myself what in the world you were talking about.
I appreciate your feedback.
I also like what I heard. I am still a (very little) leery, but I am tending toward being ok toward the guy. I still invite anyone with a personal opinion of the guy to speak up please (for or against).
Thank you for your feedback. I will keep the guy on my list of people to watch and consider, for now.
Someone will eventually start one, but it probably not be the one you want.
You’re very welcome.
Hmm, well, Nate might want to check tonight’s Texas runoff returns before he writes any obituaries. BTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.