Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tea Party Movement"

Revision as of 17:13, November 10, 2011

TEA Party

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)

I've written it to be more polite and accurate while keeping RJJensen's message. See edit "Compromise" -danq

Nice job. I like it. AlexWD 14:25, 15 January 2010 (EST)

good solution--thanks! RJJensen 15:38, 15 January 2010 (EST)

If anyone has a problem they need to take it to the talk page first. And name-calling a senior administrator a liberal is beyond the bounds of propriety here. RJJensen 19:22, 15 January 2010 (EST)

• I agree with Jpatt, and have reverted. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:55, 15 January 2010 (EST)

Is it racist?

Liberals delight in calling the Tea Party racist, but I don't think they have any evidence of this. Would anyone care to comment? (You'd think at least they would try to fake it.) What about Andrew Breitbart's $100,000 offer to anyone coming up with a video? --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:53, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

The only racists outed have been liberals disguised as Tea Party Members. But you don't have to hold a racist sign to be called racist. The lamestream media calls the crowd mostly white- implying racism.--Jpatt 21:24, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

Referencing?

I've done some slight rewording and added a sentence that I think is important to the history of the Tea Party movement. It refers to execution of a Tea Party 2007 on December 16th of that year by the supporters of Ron Paul. However, I can not figure out how to reference the YouTube video that is the best compilation of sources reporting on the phenomenon. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

Another reference for the statement I've inserted can be found here: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090415005738&newsLang=en

I'm new at this and if anybody can help me out, I'd be very appreciative. I think it's important to defining the actual roots and positions of the original TEA party.

Along with some other organizational edits, I added a reference to the ronpaulforums.com page where a news video covering the event was posted. I also updated the sentence, which was: "One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a 'Tea Party 2007' to promote Paul's bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government." I corrected this sentence because the statement "manifestation of both the movement and the name" seems to imply that the TEA Party Movement materialized or manifested itself from the "Tea Party 2007" event, which is not accurate, as I referenced in citations. The only relation between the two is in their theme. One of the primary differences between the movement and Ron Paul's Tea Party 2007 rally, although related in theme, is in the use of the backronym "TEA."

I do not believe Ron Paul's rally used a backronym for the word "Tea"; he and his supporters used the name to describe how their event was a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party, which was also held to promote Ron Paul's bid for presidency. The Tea Party Movement is by the American people, not just American people for Ron Paul; it is America's indictment against the ruling class. Moreover, if Ron Paul's "Tea Party 2007" rally were a real Tea Party Movement protest, then the $6 million in donations received from it would not have gone to only Ron Paul's presidency campaign, it would have gone to the Tea Party Movement. It would have gone to help support all candidates whose values are in-line with the American people taking part in the movement. Candidates don't choose the Tea Party, the Tea Party chooses the candidates based on their values. DerekE 18:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Origin of "teabaggers"

In case anyone's interested, in using the term "teabaggers" Obama was being EXTREMELY offensive and making slanderous implications of homosexuality. The terms "teabagging" and "teabagger" are British military slang and extremely crude. As this is a family-friendly encyclopaedia I won't go into details, but the teabag in question is a small sac on the male body that appears to be made of elbow skin. It's not just a derogatory play on words; it's a serious and pretty despicable insult. If someone called ME a teabagger I would be extremely upset. --JMairs 18:49, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Unfortunately if you are not a crude person you do not know when you are being crude. The TEA party took that term as their own moniker initially, until those who knew what the slang meant began to explain our linguistic mistake. --DrDean 19:04, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't think it's accurate to assume 'The TEA Party' took the name as 'their own' term. I knew it was a crude term from day one when MSNBC and CNN first started using it. DerekE 03:18, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

No way we would coin it for ourselves. We're too smart for that. Everyone knows what teabagging means. If not, look it up on Urban Dictionary. danq 22:49, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Why wouldn't it be accurate? The vast majority of tea party members had no idea that it was a term that would even need to be looked up. It's not about being dumb or smart or clean or vulgar, it's just that a whole lot of people who were in the movement didn't know what it meant. I didn't either, I never used the term because I felt that it was pretty lame to be throwing tea bags in the trash and only used loose leaf tea at my first tea party, but that is beside the point... --18:37, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Koch Brothers

The article doesn't once mention them?- Barnes

And why would it? DerekE 12:02, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Remember when the liberals had a hissy fit and everything was Bush Cheney? Then came Obama and the rise of the Tea Party. It wasn't until late 2009/early 2010 that the name Koch was on every liberals tongue. So the Koch's were a nothing until a coordinated attack from Obama and the NYT. Koch's are not influential in the movement, they are supporters no doubt with American for Prosperity. However, they are not the boogey-men liberals think control the movement. --Jpatt 12:13, 10 November 2011 (EST)