Talk:Mick Mulvaney

The Tea Party, such that it exists at all, is a slogan for a bunch of nebulous concepts. It has no national organization, no state organizations AFAIK. It has some local non-profit entities, but they are diverse from one locality to the next. It's national founders and organizers are long gone. It holds no elective offices or nominating conventions, appears on the ballot no where.

It's become little more than a label younger conservatives and Republicans can use simply because of decades of demonization by the media of the term, "Republican", that's all. Not unlike how the American Left for decades uses interchangably "liberal", "progressive", or "socialist" determined by the popular mood in whatever era they live. But underneath, it's all the same journalists and organizers promoting the label.

To characterize the Tea Party, I'd say they are traditional Republicans under 35. Some Libertarians have come home to the GOP. The only vague principal that's held up among some, dating back to the Gingrich Revolution and the Contract With America, is Term Limits, which the Gingrich Republicans themselves voted down. In a sense, Term Limits can be considered anti-establishment. But even this view isn't widespread or a high priority among Tea Partiers. The Tea Party has been little more than a "youth rebellion" among conservatives, if such an oxymoron is possible. Not much else. RobS^{CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2} 06:05, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

The Tea Party never was a political party. That's why no elected official officially belongs to the "Tea Party." It's political movement united by similar ideals of limited government rather than a political organization.

I disagree with your characterization of the movement. I don't think the Tea Party just exists among younger people, and nor is it a "youth rebellion". It is a libertarian-conservative-populist revolt by people of all age groups against the GOP and Dem establishment, which advances left-wing big-government policies. Many older people, as they tend to be more conservative anyway, strongly support the Tea Party. Also, libertarianism is a major (and essential, I would even say) strand of the Tea Party. Ron and Rand Paul, Justin Amash, etc.

I'm not so sure about your statement that people who use the term "Tea Party" do so because "Republican" has been demonized. The term "Tea Party" or "Tea Party movement" has probably been even more demonized by the media. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

Rand Paul is a good example. He and his father always were on the Libertarian fringes. His father actually ran for President against Reagan, not on an isolationalist platform as you would expect, but economic policy. Imagine, two Austrian school economics proponents running against each other? I mean, how many votes did he expect to peal off or gain?

The two are supposedly "anti-establishment" which boiled down means term limits. And even the public recognize the argument that banning the most experienced and qualified to let novices and idiots run things makes no sense.

"Drain the swamp." What does that mean? Throw out a Republican controlled majority?

Read chap 5 of H.R. Halderman's Ends of Power, The Hidden Story behind Watergate. It's only 9 pages. You'll learn all there is to know about Washington, and what Trump is up against now. And yes, it is probably true that most Tea Partiers who are too young to know Nixon probably have a favorable opinion of him. On Nov. 4th Nixon won a mandate with 63%, the largest in US history. On Nov. 5th he told the entire Excutive Branch of Washington, "You're fired," which was his right (this really did happen). He was finally gonna drain the swamp of every last New Deal and Great Society bureaucrat thst lurked there for 30 years. They responded, "No. You'll go before we go." [User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{CIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2} 10:58, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

The problem with the swamp is not that they're experienced. It's that they support and advance left-wing policies no matter who's in office. I have no problem with experienced officials if they're conservative (and I don't mean John Kasich-style conservative). Draining the swamp means getting rid of the Obama holdovers who inhibit Trump's conservative agenda. Nixon found out how powerful the swamp was. He was unable to undo Johnson's and FDR's welfare state accomplishments. However, even when he was president, Nixon was very popular. Just look at the 1972 election. Not even Reagan surpassed that result. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2017 (EDT)