Seeing as they're more concerned with taxes and spending, I don't know if I've heard any statements from them on race relations. That's not really within their mission scope. They do have some black members, so I would assume that they're not white supremacists. The TEA Party is the target of Jackson's attack because he needs a booger man and because they advocate spending cuts that might take free stuff away from black folks.
He occupies some sort of no-man's land. He's been involved in numerous stupid things to damage the country, and pulling the race card like this would be too much for them to swallow?
I agree with Jackson on this: It's obvious that the kind of opposition we're seeing to Obama has to be based on the color of his skin. After all, that's the only thing about him that is different from former presidents, and it's not like we've ever seen a white president who had to put up with people opposing his policies...
If Obama's policies were really the main thing driving the Tea Party, the Tea Party would have been as loud and as visible during the Bush years as they are now.
Given that the first Tea Party reenactment-protests were in 12/2007, one would be hard-pressed to blame hatred of Obama's policies as driving it.
Among the Tea Party's oft-repeated goals is to "take our country back." Have they ever defined what they mean by that?
On the one hand, many of the same people were protesting during the Clinton administration. On the other hand, I don't recall any signs picturing Clinton as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose...
The main focus is economic. The party is in flux. AFAIK it's not even a formal political party. However it welcomes all.
WTF? Don't we have enough black comics in entertainment? It's pretty funny, but I wouldn't open with it. Obama could kick a lily-white toddler (with Conservative parents of course) in the nuts and he wouldn't alienate even one of the lunatics who voted for him.
Sometimes I wonder who's the king of the race baiters - Al or Jesse. It's neck and neck. I think Al says more inflamatory shit, but Jesse says more stupid shit.
Repeatedly. If you begin to pay attention to their complaints, you run the dire risk of understanding this.
Then you should be able to distill into a sentence or two. You'll refuse to, of course, because that's your game. If they're as organized as they'd like the larger world to believe, I'm sure there's a declaration of purpose written down somewhere. Perhaps one of our more engaged posters (evenflow?) can point to that. Otherwise, the inclination is to believe it's code for something they don't want to say too loud where the waitstaff and their camera phones might overhear.
Restoration of constitutionally protected rights and strict restraint on the size and scope of federal government power. Everything else serves those two objectives.
You are kidding right? Since Bush the (Conservative) was in power, would be there be a need for loud and visible Tea Party?
Dubya was far from perfect from a Big Government standpoint. I found myself doing the Marge Simpson grumble more times than I'd care to admit during his Administration. The big thing that helps me sleep at night is the thought of Al Gore dealing with 9/11. Or John Kerry dealing with, well, anything.
Joh Kerry would throw his medals at the enemy - they can be as deadly a one of those Ninja throwing stars.
Thank you. That's clear, succinct language without the drama. Then it becomes a matter of asking Tea Party members "What actions of yours can you point to that have effected this?"
At least one Tea Party organization can boast some success and further aspirations for unseating big government minded Republican incumbents.
That's useful, as far as it goes. Drives the GOP further and further to the right, further eroding their appeal to moderate voters and hastening their downspiral into impotence. What's even more fun to watch is when these folks actually get elected.