Tea party groups fire on each other

Boxes&Books

Two of the tea party movement’s largest organizations are at odds Monday after a fight over a resolution approved by the NAACP calling their tactics “racist.”

On Sunday, the Tea Party Federation, an umbrella organization, expelled the Tea Party Express over the actions of one of its leaders, Mark Williams.

The Tea Party Express fired back Monday with a statement excoriating the Tea Party Federation for its “arrogant” decision to expel the group after Williams posted a highly controversial satirical “letter” he wrote from NAACP head Ben Jealous to President Abraham Lincoln.

“Most rank-and-file tea party activists think we’re talking about 'Star Trek' when we try to explain who the ‘Federation’ is,” said Tea Party Express spokesman Joe Wierzbicki. “Given the absurdity of the actions by the ‘Federation,’ this is quite fitting, since their conduct is alien to our membership.”

“Groups trying to say who can or can't be 'expelled' from the tea party movement is arrogant and preposterous,” Wierzbicki continued. “Perhaps this explains why so many tea party groups have left the ‘Federation’ during the past few months. Whatever the reason, most tea party activists are focused on taking back their country and the upcoming 2010 elections and not silly power games being played by individuals such as those in the 'Federation.'”

After receiving criticism for his letter, Williams, a conservative radio host, said over the weekend in an interview with CNN that he would no longer talk about the conflict between tea party activists and the NAACP on his show.

But Williams’s announcement that he was bowing out of the fight wasn’t enough to keep the Tea Party Federation from expelling both the radio host and the Tea Party Express with which he is affiliated.

Federation spokesman David Webb said Sunday that Williams’s letter was “clearly offensive” and indicated that because of those comments, the Tea Party Express and the dozens of large rallies featuring the likes of former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin would no longer have a place in the movement.

The decision, said Wierzbicki, has harmed the tea party movement and aided the NAACP in its critique of the tea party.

“The ‘Federation’ has enabled and empowered the NAACP's racist attacks on the tea party movement, and they should be ashamed of themselves,” he said. “Circular firing squads of groups within the tea party movement attacking one another accomplish nothing, and on this issue the Tea Party Federation is wrong, and has both enabled and empowered the NAACP’s racist attacks on the tea party movement.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/07 ... z0uBxEqcei

gimmesometruth27

it was only a matter of time....i kind of respect the federation for taking a stand against mark williams and the tea party express though...

where do they get these names? lol... it is like the old Scottish clans from braveheart...

Boxes&Books

blogger:James P. McCampbell

Eureka! I know a way to cool down the internal conflict of the Tea Party groups... someone should take away their muskets.

mrvedderson

I think its funny when they show tea party events. Most of the people that attend probably wont even be alive come the next election

Boxes&Books

mrvedderson wrote:

I think its funny when they show tea party events. Most of the people that attend probably wont even be alive come the next election

I don't know if I should laugh or not comment on that...






it's to funny!
I apologize for laughing

WaveCameCrashin

I think it's funny that all you haters said we wouldn't last this long. And trust me I got pleanty of life left in me. What I don't get though is why do you have a problem with wanting a gov that stays within the confines of the constitution?



quote="mrvedderson"]I think its funny when they show tea party events. Most of the people that attend probably wont even be alive come the next election[/quote]

Jason P

This is another fine example showing the immense difference in different factions of the overall tea party movement. I break the tea party down into three groups:

1) Average Joe - Age 30 - 65; Conservative; Works for small business or farms; Concerned about family, mortgage, and stability. This group makes up the majority of the "Tea Party".

2) GOP Hi-jacked Tea Party Fronts - Conservative strategists who are trying to control group 1 by becoming the official voice through propaganda and fear-mongering.

3) Paranoid-Ultra-Conservative-Guy-Who-Starts-Local-Chapter & Whose 15 Year-Old Daughter Taught To Run Blog - This is a very, very small percentage of the group but they attract media attention like flies on honey. These people are known to talk out of their ass while a microphone is stuck up it (although this describes about 95% of this board . . . including myself at times ). Democrat strategist love these people for they market these personalities to cast the Tea Party as loons. (this is like assuming everyone in the NFL acts like T.O. or Chad Ochocinco)

Anyway, that's my five-minute analysis. Everyone I know that associates with the Tea Party falls into category one.

haffajappa

As an outsider... I never understand what they mean by "taking back the country"
Were you some sort of Utopia before Obama came into office?

gimmesometruth27

haffajappa wrote:

As an outsider... I never understand what they mean by "taking back the country"
Were you some sort of Utopia before Obama came into office?

apparently nobody cared what happened between 2000-2008 because it was their guy in the oval office..

obama wins by a landslide and suddenly they lost their country...

OutOfBreath

An alternative and supplemental analysis is that this is what always happen with protest movements. It's easy to rail against the perceived enemy, but the moment the protesters try to do something, it splinters apart. Seems that although people are somewhat united in who to blame or protest against, they disagree on what was the problem, and explosively on what to do about it. This splintering is what we're seeing now. The more moderate people are trying to ditch the fringe loonies to look more presentable. Trouble is, when movements like this do that, and start to meddle in regular politics, they soon become just another party, or rather (as in this case I think) gets absorbed by established parties.

So, Jason, as to your categorization, I think the group 2 has won already. I think Group 3 is a little bigger than you seem to think, but they will soon be purged away. Then all that remains are "concerned republicans" who gets a grassroot boost out of the whole thing. A few more radical reps in the house, perhaps.

Peace
Dan

haffajappa

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

As an outsider... I never understand what they mean by "taking back the country"
Were you some sort of Utopia before Obama came into office?

apparently nobody cared what happened between 2000-2008 because it was their guy in the oval office..

obama wins by a landslide and suddenly they lost their country...

So he was a disappointment, but other than that how is he different from any other politician?
Its just kind of funny, "take our country back!"
FROM WHAT?

cincybearcat

NAACP calling someone or a group racist???? No way. Man, it must mean it's true to, they have no agenda whatsoever. I can see the headline now...

"Racist group calls other group racist - news at 11"

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

apparently nobody cared what happened between 2000-2008 because it was their guy in the oval office..

obama wins by a landslide and suddenly they lost their country...

I voted for Gore, then Kerry for President, followed by voting for Obama for Senate. Then I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 primaries and voted for Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party for President since Dr. Paul endorsed him.

Please tell me when my guy was in office. I already know when I cared thankyouverymuch.

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

apparently nobody cared what happened between 2000-2008 because it was their guy in the oval office..

obama wins by a landslide and suddenly they lost their country...

I voted for Gore, then Kerry for President, followed by voting for Obama for Senate. Then I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 primaries and voted for Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party for President since Dr. Paul endorsed him.

Please tell me when my guy was in office. I already know when I cared thankyouverymuch.

i am shocked you voted for a kenyan for senate....

Commy

The biggest threat to the United States government is threat from within, a revolution or mass popular uprising; it has been the only way signifivcant social progress has taken place.



i wouldn't be surprised to learn 20 years from now of heavy gov't involvement in these teaparties, doing everything they can to fuck it up for everyone.

Electric_Delta

Commy wrote:

The biggest threat to the United States government is threat from within, a revolution or mass popular uprising; it has been the only way signifivcant social progress has taken place.



i wouldn't be surprised to learn 20 years from now of heavy gov't involvement in these teaparties, doing everything they can to fuck it up for everyone.

Too late. Heavy government involvement is actually fucking everything up right now, actually.

Commy

Electric_Delta wrote:

Commy wrote:

The biggest threat to the United States government is threat from within, a revolution or mass popular uprising; it has been the only way signifivcant social progress has taken place.



i wouldn't be surprised to learn 20 years from now of heavy gov't involvement in these teaparties, doing everything they can to fuck it up for everyone.

Too late. Heavy government involvement is actually fucking everything up right now, actually.

agreed. but so is capitalism.

unsung

Can a revolution actually happen in this day and age? Or will they simply institute martial law and go door to door and confiscate all weapons to ensure compliance?

OutOfBreath

Historically, full blown revolutions happen when people starve. 5 years of bad harvests precipitated the french revolution for instance. You americans dont seem to be starving so far.

You could maybe hope for some reform, but too many are comfortable with the system as it is. And even among those that are tea-partying, a minor concession on a key issue will be enough to send many of them home.

Revolution won't happen, cause you don't have it so bad. Plain and simple. But if you allow your society to develop a significant underclass of frustrated penniless citizens who dont get any help or support, then something might happen.

And why the government would need or want to go around rounding up firearms for control is beyond me. That's just the boogeyman of the US right wing and the wacky militias. Real control has nothing to do with firearms or weapons.

Peace
Dan

Mikeack

OutOfBreath wrote:

Historically, full blown revolutions happen when people starve. 5 years of bad harvests precipitated the french revolution for instance. You americans dont seem to be starving so far.

You could maybe hope for some reform, but too many are comfortable with the system as it is. And even among those that are tea-partying, a minor concession on a key issue will be enough to send many of them home.

Revolution won't happen, cause you don't have it so bad. Plain and simple. But if you allow your society to develop a significant underclass of frustrated penniless citizens who dont get any help or support, then something might happen.

And why the government would need or want to go around rounding up firearms for control is beyond me. That's just the boogeyman of the US right wing and the wacky militias. Real control has nothing to do with firearms or weapons.

Peace
Dan

Agreed, but the angry underclass would never rise up and fight on an empty stomach, throwing stones at tanks. Civil unrest in US would lead to a tiananmen square type stand offs, grim as it seems :(

OutOfBreath

Better-man wrote:

Agreed, but the angry underclass would never rise up and fight on an empty stomach, throwing stones at tanks. Civil unrest in US would lead to a tiananmen square type stand offs, grim as it seems :(

On the contrary, it is precisely when they have empty stomachs, and a poor outlook to filling them in the future, that they DO revolt. People generally don't revolt unless their lives depend on it. The US have enough food, and it will be relatively simple to keep the peace with a social programme or two.

There may be protests from various groups to achieve limited political goals. The civil rights movemet largely succeeded for instance. But they didn't change the fundamentals of society, they infact appealed to them in making their case. I dont think we'll see Tiananmen square incidents, but rather more tea party-type stuff and perhaps minor Gwhatever meeting riots.

Peace
Dan