Tea Party still misunderstood

Writer sees "hostility" where there is simply good citizenship

  • Follow Editorials

Beware unattributed
“notions” in news stories.

A recent Associated Press story that puzzles over the reasons for Newt Gingrich’s rise to the top of GOP presidential polls says it “seems to upend the notion that this election cycle is driven by tea partyers’ hostility to Washington insiders.”

Where to start?

First, the story doesn’t say whose “notion” it is that the Tea Party is hostile. Is it the author’s – Charles Babington? Or someone else’s? It simply doesn’t say.

More importantly, the passage betrays a fundamental and profound ignorance of the Tea Party movement. The modern Tea Party movement was born out of concern for the financial future of this country. Nothing more, nothing less. It seeks to rein in government spending in order to prevent a cataclysmic failure of the currency or country.

The media – the real party showing hostility – wanted to make you believe the movement is racist, fringe, xenophobic – whatever horrid label they could attach to it. They wanted you to fear it. So, it’s quite natural that some folks don’t understand what it’s all about.

It’s not about hostility toward insiders. It’s about getting the job done. It’s pretty simple, really: If you’re a member of Congress and you’re part of the problem – i.e., you want to keep the country on its current unsustainable track – then, yes, the Tea Party wants you voted out. That’s not “hostility” – it’s called citizenship.

On the other hand, those “insiders” who get it – who realize the extent of the spending problem and its capability to turn us into the next Greece – have been warmly embraced by the Tea Party movement. Stalwarts such as Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and others are excellent examples.

In the long term, we need term limits. Careerists in Congress have learned the more of our money they spend, the more they can perpetuate their careers.

But for now, it doesn’t matter if you’ve been in Washington a month, a year or a decade; the problem is the same. We’ve got to stop stealing from our children’s tomorrows to live comfortably today.

Comments (39) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
robaroo
779
Points
robaroo 12/16/11 - 12:11 am
0
0
I don't know why the Tea

I don't know why the Tea Party would go for Gingrich - he is right in the middle of what is wrong with Washington. A career politician with a long history of ethics issues, on the take from Freddie Mac. At at time when the country is close to bankruptcy, he would raise the partisan bickering up a couple of notches and guarantee nothing would change.

Newt is so bad he makes Obama look like the better choice. Please tell me the major party choices won't be Gingrich and Obama.

carcraft
26233
Points
carcraft 12/16/11 - 06:38 am
0
0
Gingrich Balanced the Budget

Gingrich Balanced the Budget under President Clinton and had budget surpluses, engineered the take over of the House by the Republicans, Contract with America, reformed welfare, and can communicate with a wealth of knowledge that is incredible. Newt has a long, long, long way to go to be as bad as Obama. Obama promised the American people, (read my lips, this is what I will do, this is my policies etc ) to close Gitmo, cut the deficit in half ( Obama has run up 5 trillion dollars in deficits since being elected), balance the budget (the Democrats and Obama haven't submitted a budget in years and the ONLY budget Obama submitted was so bad it was rejected by the Senate 99 to 1), keep unemployment below 8%, try the terrorist in New York city ( we are still waiting to even have military trails of some of the worst of the 9-11 terrorists), and stop the seas from rising (that was just Obama's hubris, but I thought I would throw it in for a laugh). A long history of failed programs, poliies and beliefs. Obama's administration has been plagued by a steady stream of scandals (largley ignored by the press but I do keep track, Solyndra, Tesla Motors, Fisker Motors, and the waste of billions of dollars on "green' energy job training (the Inspector general said it was like "hooking a garden hose up to a fire hydrant"). Then there is Fast and Furious in which the Obama administration sent 2,000 guns into Mexico (with out the knowledge of the Mexican government) and two US law enforcement officers and over 200 Mexican citizens have been killed with these weapons) and Eric Holder doesn't know a thing! LOL Now tell me how Gingrich is worse than that? Please tell me, how many law enforcement officers have been killed by Gingrich's wivies?

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 12/16/11 - 09:01 am
0
0
I think it's a little clever

I think it's a little clever to try to claim that "Washington insider" merely refers to someone who's been in DC for a while. It doesn't. It's been used as a pejorative by people across the spectrum, including Tea Partiers, to refer to those who peddle their influence and connections to provide access to the legislative process to those willing to pay enough money.

And that's the real point of this editorial, to try to make the claim that Newt is not a part of this game. But he is.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/16/11 - 10:40 am
0
0
Life According to the Media

Life According to the Media in the United States.

Tea Party (which is peaceful & effective) - Racist, Old, Haters, Violent, Gun toters, no mention at all in Time Magazine, no positive coverage

Occupy Movement (which is violent & nasty) - Worthy Cause, Right, Brave, Upstanding, Wonderful, Moving, according to Time Magazine - "Person of the Year" (Good Lord.....)

Is there ANY doubt in ANYONE'S mind that the US media is in bed with the liberal/progressive/marxist movement to radically transform the United States of America?

Nope, didn't think so. To deny it is to admit you are a liar.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 12/16/11 - 11:07 am
0
0
Chillen: The Time magazine is

Chillen: The Time magazine is for all protestors, especially those in the Mid East, so it's not a liberal thing. It's a freedom thing. Who knows how many have died trying to bring freedom to their country in the Middle East, it's kind of a big deal.

The Tea Party was runner up in 2010 for person of the year, losing only to the Facebook guy. You can read the article here:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_20371...

They also used a Tea Party member as an example in the Time Magazine for person of the year. Paul Ryan is a runner up for 2011.

There are moments of the occupy which is disgusting, like this woman who used her children, toddlers, as a shield/barrier to prevent people from going into their building. The Tea Party has had their share, the one that sticks out most was when Tea Party folks people knocked a woman and stomped on her head because she was MoveOn.org.

There have been people in both movements that have given a black eye, but it's important for integrity to run through the movements and remove those people. With so many people in such a large movement/organization- you're going to have people do the wrong things.

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 12/16/11 - 11:21 am
0
0
That's very interesting

That's very interesting Chillen. Now what does that have to do with the flip flop that aligned support behind a career Washington influence peddler?

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 12/16/11 - 11:20 am
0
0
.

.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/16/11 - 11:18 am
0
0
Little Lamb
46370
Points
Little Lamb 12/16/11 - 11:20 am
0
0
The editorial does us a

The editorial does us a service by pointing out the Associated Press's insidious and underhanded smearing of the Tea Party and its goals.

But also I think Burninater is correct in pointing out that Newt Gingrich is a Washington insider influence peddler. He is doing the job of a lobbyist (i.e., getting paid for influence and information), but he has not registered as a lobbyist. There are some ethical questions there, if not legal ones.

If Gingrich winds up on the ticket, I'm voting for someone else.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/16/11 - 11:53 am
0
0
Gingrich....Obama.....Gingric

Gingrich....Obama.....Gingrich....Obama. Gingrich is not my first choice by any means, but he's far better than the alternative - a proven failed leader and radical transformer of America.

@tparty. I might have known you'd defend the occupy "person of the year".

@burninator - I didn't say it had anything to do with it. You love to put words in people's mouth by over analyzing their posts. The editorial just reminded me of the vast media bias, which, by the way, humorously, no liberal has denied.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/16/11 - 11:56 am
0
0
“Winnowing the Field” “‘I’d

“Winnowing the Field”

“‘I’d vote for Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform; Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is radical right-wing social engineering; I apologize for saying that, and no one should quote what I said because I was wrong; actually, what I said was right all along but nobody understood me. I helped defeat Communism; anyone who made money in the ’80s and ’90s owes me; I’m like Reagan and Thatcher. Local community boards should decide what to do with illegal immigrants. Freddie Mac paid me all that money to tell them how stupid they were.’ Enough. Gingrich has always said he wants to transform the country. He appears unable to transform, or even govern, himself.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285787/winnowing-field-editors?pg=1

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 12/16/11 - 12:09 pm
0
0
Chillen: It's not occupy

Chillen: It's not occupy person of the year, it's Protestor of the year. If you can't see how amazing and important it is that when a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire in a public square, how that action would incite protests that would topple dictators and start a global wave of dissent.... if you can't see how amazing that it is, well... I'm sorry you can't or won't see it.

You think about our 4th of July celebration of what it represents and how we got it and try to apply that importance to other nations and the protestors and you'll see why they should be person of the year.

Edit: Also, I was just trying to bring facts to where you were wrong about Time Magazine.

burninater
9627
Points
burninater 12/16/11 - 12:49 pm
0
0
@burninator - I didn't say it

@burninator - I didn't say it had anything to do with it. You love to put words in people's mouth by over analyzing their posts. The editorial just reminded me of the vast media bias, which, by the way, humorously, no liberal has denied.
-------
Lol, alright, forgive my over analysis that led me to believe that your comment on this article was related to the article you were commenting on. I'll be sure not to jump to such a ridiculous conclusion in the future.

Yes, there is a liberal bias in liberal media outlets. Just as there is a conservative bias in conservative media outlets, a religious bias in religious media outlets, a race bias in racial media outlets, etc etc etc blah blah blah. We all get it. I guess I don't worry about it too much because I don't let the media decide for me what it is that I think. Novel concept, huh?

allhans
23761
Points
allhans 12/16/11 - 01:53 pm
0
0
TParty, Did you join the

TParty, Did you join the occupiers? You should have, you would have fit right in.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 12/16/11 - 02:07 pm
0
0
Did I join the occupiers? No

Did I join the occupiers? No I did not, but I believe in their cause, because it's the same cause as the Tea Party. I'll take that your post as a compliment though, since people of Occupy overall are more educated and younger.

harley_52
23620
Points
harley_52 12/16/11 - 03:37 pm
0
0
TParty said "Did I join the

TParty said "Did I join the occupiers? No I did not, but I believe in their cause, because it's the same cause as the Tea Party."

Keep making the same false statement over and over often enough and you might get somebody to believe it.

The Tea Party is all about smaller government, less Federal spending, and a balanced Federal budget. Tea Party people gathered to politely show their support for those ideals. They have no agenda beyond those principles. They obey the law, clean up after themselves, did not present a problem with law enforcement officials, were not involved in violence, etc., etc., etc..

Take all of that and reverse it and you'll have the OWS participants.

There is NO reasonable comparison between the two movements and for someone calling himself "TParty" surely knows it.

So the question becomes, why would he do it?

We both know the answer, don't we?

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/16/11 - 03:45 pm
0
0
I'm tired of liberal posters

I'm tired of liberal posters who "claim" to be conservative. No one is amused or fooled. Posters who only comment on national articles/editorials and are clearly not from this area. Likely sitting in a chat room somewhere, being paid by the marxists or progressives or unions to post & confuse things a bit.

Might I suggest Huffington Post would be a better "home" posting site. But liberals probably don't get paid to post on rags like that.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 12/16/11 - 03:56 pm
0
0
Harley: The means of occupy

Harley:

The means of occupy going about their goals is very different compared to the Tea Party you are correct about that. However the goals are the same, regardless how much you deny that. Both sides wants a smaller federal budget that is balanced. It just happens that both side differ on how to get there. One side thinks removing funds to NPR, and stopping abortions is how you fix it. Another side thinks the wars are too much, and the defense budget it too big, and that oil companies and farms should be subsidized. Both sides believe that companies receiving tax payer monies while socializing the losses are a problem. That companies who have friends in the White House and Congress get our tax money, while the middle class continues to suffer. Meanwhile, secretly, 16 trillion dollars are being loaned out to banks that are too big to fail from the Federal Government.

Smaller government for some means that no one should receive any sort of assistance from tax payer monies. To others, it means TSA is too big, War on Drugs is a waste of money and enlarges the government, Patriot Act is intrusive to Americans, this SOPA bill coming up gives more power the government, NDAA is scary and large.

I've said it before: The anger in America stems from the Government having too much power, and the corporations having too much power. The large corporations lobby the government to have more power and in return, the government enacts laws and regulations favorable to corporations.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/16/11 - 03:59 pm
0
0
Don’t knock it, it’s good

Don’t knock it, it’s good money. I get paid by many groups but don’t tell each group the other is paying me. The Swedish Socialists don’t know the guys in Norway are paying me, the Marxists don’t know about the Leninists, Soros doesn’t know about Al Gore, the Moslems don’t know about the Jews, the Illuminati doesn’t know about the Knights Templar, the Lizard People of Zod are unaware of the Robot Tralfamadorians, etc.

I am raking it in; capitalism and moonlighting has been berry, berry good to me.

madgerman
236
Points
madgerman 12/16/11 - 04:08 pm
0
0
Chillen what do you mean by
Unpublished

Chillen what do you mean by "media bias" or is every article about Newt considered bias? Please just give us one example of a lie that the mysterious main stream media has said about the guy. To me he sure dosen't seem to fit the Family Values criteria, unless you have a bible with 8 or 9 commandments And he sure seems like a professional politician, sucking the dough out of the government after leaving office. Is that the person you really adore enough to hand over the keys of the country to?

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/16/11 - 04:08 pm
0
0
TParty: “Both sides wants a

TParty:

“Both sides wants a smaller federal budget that is balanced.”

Where do you get the idea OWS is concerned about balancing the budget?

“I've said it before: The anger in America stems from the Government having too much power, and the corporations having too much power. The large corporations lobby the government to have more power and in return, the government enacts laws and regulations favorable to corporations.”

This sounds like a tenet of OWS but not the Tea Party; they currently love the Citizen’s United ruling.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 12/16/11 - 04:16 pm
0
0
I’m tired of neo-conservative

I’m tired of neo-conservative war hawks who “claim” to be conservative. No one is amused or fooled. Posters likely sitting at home with Rush Limbaugh in the background, searching obscure neo-conservative websites looking for scary conspiracy theories to talk about and spread false fear, while dismissing history, facts and science because they always seem to have a liberal slant on them.
A clear indication is when Obama is labeled a commie socialist all the time, however taking money from tax payers to give to banks and other giant corporations does not scream communism or socialism, but rather plutocracy and oligarchy. Another sign is calling a lot of people RINO’s because they are not extreme.
Might I suggest certified and credited history books, dictionaries and science books, although it will all be moot since obviously anything not already conformed to the Neo-conservative beliefs will be labeled as anti-American communism.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/16/11 - 04:20 pm
0
0
Define Neo-conservative. [use

Define Neo-conservative.

[use a link, whatever you like]

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 12/16/11 - 04:26 pm
0
0
BJ: Neo-Conservative in

BJ: Neo-Conservative in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government.

Little Lamb
46370
Points
Little Lamb 12/16/11 - 04:45 pm
0
0
TParty, I think it would be

TParty, I think it would be more accurate if you made it "and/or" between "interventionalism" and "a hostility." The way you wrote it, a neo-Con would have to exhibit all three traits, whereas it is only necessary to exhibit one of the traits to qualify.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/16/11 - 05:01 pm
0
0
Some socialists/commies came

Some socialists/commies came from modest means.
Some socialists/commies are good speakers.
Therefore, good speakers come from modest means.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/16/11 - 05:05 pm
0
0
madgerman said "Chillen what

madgerman said "Chillen what do you mean by "media bias" or is every article about Newt considered bias?"

What in the world are you talking about?

I never said anything about Newt & media bias. You must be thinking about someone else's post. Get your fact straight my friend.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/16/11 - 05:06 pm
0
0
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox,

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 12/16/11 - 05:13 pm
0
0
Young Fred said: "If you were

Young Fred said: "If you were to actually read those certified and accredited history books you mentioned, you’d realize that many famous socialist and communist leaders had roots most would consider very modest and by no means wealthy. They rose to power through charisma and oratory skills.

Sound familiar?"

Who are you talking about, Ronald Reagan?

harley_52
23620
Points
harley_52 12/16/11 - 05:14 pm
0
0
Who would want to own Fort

Who would want to own Fort Knox?

All the gold is gone.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs