Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tea Party Movement"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
("An under-organized, underfunded amateurs' movement with obscure leadership.": new section)
(what is their primary goal?)
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
Does this really need to go back in the article, RJJensen? [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 23:58, 14 January 2010 (EST)
 
Does this really need to go back in the article, RJJensen? [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 23:58, 14 January 2010 (EST)
 +
 +
:I agree.It is a grassroots movement, amateurish is not accurate. The movement does not have any one leader or leaders- mediocre leadership??? Under-organized? possible two million people met in D.C. on 9/12. Underfunded? I did not realize that sponsors are hurting for cash. Marc Rubio is trying to be elected as a conservative candidate for Senate. I see nothing whereby he is vying for leadership position within the TEA party movement. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:02, 15 January 2010 (EST)
 +
::Yeah, it's accurate. "amateur" -- yes this is a movement against professionals by people with no political experience. The national and state leadership cannot even be named because they do not exist. The funding does not exist. Who't the treasurer? where are the required financial reports? There's grass roots enthusiasm but much less organization than a high school pep rally. Now people may rejoice in this unled, underfunded, unorganized group but we're an encyclopedia and it's our job to describe it accurately and not ignore its most obvious characteristics.  [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:09, 15 January 2010 (EST)
 +
While "amateurish" may be accurate, it's a general term.  "Grassroots" is a somewhat more specific term which implies that it is not run by professional politicians (ie, amateur).  I also feel the amount of funding isn't the point: the fact that it brought two million people together in one spot demonstrates that whatever funding it has is at least sufficient to accomplish the primary goals of the movement, that is, organizing protests.  [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:14, 15 January 2010 (EST)
 +
::what is their primary goal??? without any visible leaders or any agreed on policy statement, that's very hard to say. I think the goal is to purify the GOP. That is they are really keen to throw out bad GOP leaders.  This is an echo of the progressive antibossism movement of 1900 (see [[Recall Election]].  What's very different is that the progressives of 1900 were very well organized, and very well led. "amateurish" means they are inexperienced outsiders.  There have been lots of movements like the Tea Partiers in American history and all of them have failed to achieve any of their goals. There were several in the 1930s, for example, such as "Share the Wealth", "Ham and Eggs" and the "Townsend Movement". In the 1880s the prohibitionists fit exactly the same mold. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:41, 15 January 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 23:41, 14 January 2010

TEA Party - wouldn't this be a backronym? When it first started, it was just in reference to the Boston Tea Party, as far as I can tell - making it stand for something seems to have come later. --JTutone 13:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Since before the Tax Day Tea Parties took place, TEA was and always has stood for 'Taxed Enough Already'. There's a difference between an acronym and a theme. You should read the Tea Party Movement page, the intro will answer your question and the rest will clarify it for you. DerekE 00:17, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Please fix vandalism

"In early 2010 it remains an under-organized, underfunded amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several aspiring conservatives especially Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its leader." danq 22:43, 14 January 2010 (EST)

"An under-organized, underfunded amateurs' movement with obscure leadership."

Does this really need to go back in the article, RJJensen? AlexWD 23:58, 14 January 2010 (EST)

I agree.It is a grassroots movement, amateurish is not accurate. The movement does not have any one leader or leaders- mediocre leadership??? Under-organized? possible two million people met in D.C. on 9/12. Underfunded? I did not realize that sponsors are hurting for cash. Marc Rubio is trying to be elected as a conservative candidate for Senate. I see nothing whereby he is vying for leadership position within the TEA party movement. --Jpatt 00:02, 15 January 2010 (EST)
Yeah, it's accurate. "amateur" -- yes this is a movement against professionals by people with no political experience. The national and state leadership cannot even be named because they do not exist. The funding does not exist. Who't the treasurer? where are the required financial reports? There's grass roots enthusiasm but much less organization than a high school pep rally. Now people may rejoice in this unled, underfunded, unorganized group but we're an encyclopedia and it's our job to describe it accurately and not ignore its most obvious characteristics. RJJensen 00:09, 15 January 2010 (EST)

While "amateurish" may be accurate, it's a general term. "Grassroots" is a somewhat more specific term which implies that it is not run by professional politicians (ie, amateur). I also feel the amount of funding isn't the point: the fact that it brought two million people together in one spot demonstrates that whatever funding it has is at least sufficient to accomplish the primary goals of the movement, that is, organizing protests. JacobB 00:14, 15 January 2010 (EST)

what is their primary goal??? without any visible leaders or any agreed on policy statement, that's very hard to say. I think the goal is to purify the GOP. That is they are really keen to throw out bad GOP leaders. This is an echo of the progressive antibossism movement of 1900 (see Recall Election. What's very different is that the progressives of 1900 were very well organized, and very well led. "amateurish" means they are inexperienced outsiders. There have been lots of movements like the Tea Partiers in American history and all of them have failed to achieve any of their goals. There were several in the 1930s, for example, such as "Share the Wealth", "Ham and Eggs" and the "Townsend Movement". In the 1880s the prohibitionists fit exactly the same mold. RJJensen 00:41, 15 January 2010 (EST)