PastaRocket848
06-27-2011, 10:53 AM
OK so while i was away having babies and what not (in between the 2008 election cycle and now) it seems that this "tea party" has become quite influential. I have a couple questions maybe some of you can bring me up to speed on this.
How exactly did the tea party come to be viewed as anything but an extension of Ron's 2008 campaign? clearly, the money bomb is what started it all, it's even the movement's namesake. how did ron get "pushed out" of the movement he, frankly, created? the tea party is supposed to be all about the constitution and limited gov't, so how are michelle bachmann and sarah palin considered the "tea party candidates" and representatives of the movement when bachmann is a chicken-hawk morality warrior, and sarah palin couldnt quote the bill of rights if it was in front of her face? they, clearly, are not the best people out there to represent these ideals. we know who is...
It seems as though the "establishment" has co-opted the freedom movement into the "tea party". they seem to believe in the constitution, up to the point that it suggests they shouldnt be able to use the coercive force of gov't to enforce their morality, then they disagree. it seems as though they have pretty much "watered down" ron's message and made it more palatable to "old guard" repubs.
i guess my question is just, how did it come to this? shouldn't the "freedom movement" be all over tv instead of the "tea party"?
How exactly did the tea party come to be viewed as anything but an extension of Ron's 2008 campaign? clearly, the money bomb is what started it all, it's even the movement's namesake. how did ron get "pushed out" of the movement he, frankly, created? the tea party is supposed to be all about the constitution and limited gov't, so how are michelle bachmann and sarah palin considered the "tea party candidates" and representatives of the movement when bachmann is a chicken-hawk morality warrior, and sarah palin couldnt quote the bill of rights if it was in front of her face? they, clearly, are not the best people out there to represent these ideals. we know who is...
It seems as though the "establishment" has co-opted the freedom movement into the "tea party". they seem to believe in the constitution, up to the point that it suggests they shouldnt be able to use the coercive force of gov't to enforce their morality, then they disagree. it seems as though they have pretty much "watered down" ron's message and made it more palatable to "old guard" repubs.
i guess my question is just, how did it come to this? shouldn't the "freedom movement" be all over tv instead of the "tea party"?