Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tea Party movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:03, 31 January 2010 editScribner (talk | contribs)2,914 edits →Scott Brown victory← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:24, 31 August 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,962 edits →top 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
== Separate articles for ] and ]? ==
{{Talk header|search=yes|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=tpm|style=long}}
{{Not a forum|the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=high|American=yes |American-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}
{{Ticket confirmation|source=http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america|id=2010102610010161|license=c}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive index |mask=Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 25
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010","appear":{"revid":352403019,"parentid":352400715,"timestamp":"2010-03-27T21:03:57Z","replaced_anchors":{"Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010":"Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":382303098,"parentid":382302852,"timestamp":"2010-09-01T16:24:13Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"69≥19","rename_to":"2010 Reform details"} -->
}}
{{section sizes}}


== Original "Tea Party" VS RINO "Tea Party Patriots" ==
There is a discussion going on at ], and in the talkpage sections before and after that section, on whether or not it might be encyclopedically useful to separate the articles for ] and ], or ''{{tl|Merge}}'' them into a single article by expanding the scope of the TP protests article to include the broader activities of the incipient TP movement. {{Asof|13 January 2010}}, the ''Tea Party movement'' article redirects to ''Tea Party protests]]''. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. ] (]) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


During Ron Paul's bid for presidency, the "Tea Party Patriots" (red white & blue "Shield / flag" logo) ran an online discussion board called "Tea Party Patriots" - teapartypatriots.ning.com:
:The move had consensus, discussion on the move is now archived. <font color="green">]</font> 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20101001205028/http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
==The transition from '']'' to '']''==


They were the Republican RINO group that promoted Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and actively demonized RON PAUL and his stands on Non-intervention, "End the Fed" positions etc. and dismissed the "Original" "Tea Party" members who followed Ron Paul as well as dismissing Ron Paul as "the crazy uncle" to derail the true Tea Party movement.
Here is an article that might be useful for sourcing the ongoing transition from disparate '']'' to the broader '']'': , ], 2010-01-20. I'll leave it for others to decide which articles to use to source the transition within Americal political history. ] (]) 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


RINO backed Radio hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin all slandered Ron Paul by dismissing him as "the crazy uncle".
== Genealogy of the movement ==


At that time the (RINO) Republican Party would explain to the public at all the local republican headquarters that they were promoting Gingrich, Santorum and Romney and explained to people that "they", the Republican Party, "were" the "Tea Party".
I think it would be helpful to break down the different entities that make up this movement. Here are two segments from the Rachel Maddow Show that cover the different organizations, although the segments are probably too POV to use as sources. Below that is a list of the key groups we might include. Thoughts?


This clever move by RINOs who derailed the Original RON PAUL "Tea Party" (for Constitutional Originalism) movement into the Republican "Tea Party Patriots" (Corporate Capitalist so called Conservative) movement. This occurred from 2007 to 2012.
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34626539#34626539
(starting 2:45)


I was active both on the teapartypatriots.ning.com discussion board defending Ron Paul as well as being active in the Ron Paul original "Tea Party" discussion board called the "Daily Paul" that promoted Ron Paul http://www.dailypaul.com:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34815564#34815564
(starting 1:50)
|}


Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20080701000000*/http://www.dailypaul.com
* Libertarian anti-tax movement ~ Original pre-Obama activists
* Tea Party Patriots ~ Grassroots group with help from ]
* Tea Party Express ~ Bus tour run by consulting firm Russo Marsh and Associates (])
* Tea Party Nation ~ Holding a National Convention in February with ] as a speaker. ()


I and others battled the RINO's on the "Tea Party Patriot" discussion board for months in support of Ron Paul and to educate others to who the "Tea Party Patriots" were and what they were doing.
] (]) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


The present "Tea Party Patriots" may still be influenced or backed by Newt Gingrich (the RINO who allowed Bill Clinton to run over all of us in the west when he was Speaker), Rick Santorum ...and others, possibly still even Mitt Romney who the "Tea Party Patriots" Promoted in the 2012 Election.
:I've changed the last bullet point slightly, and added a source. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Understanding the True "Tea Party" movement, (or even Trumps Movement, which follows many of Ron Paul's non-intervention and other policies) so the cause is not derailed again is important as RINO's will try to make "similarities" of "causes" to get close and then veer people in the wrong direction.
== Grammar, sentence structure ==


Links referring to Ron Paul Tea Party VS RINO's can be found on the old American Patriot Party (of Oregon) website: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/
When putting in information be careful of run on sentences. Short sentences with subject verb direct object are best.]] 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120717105509/http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/
== positions and goals section ==


Submitted by Richard Taylor, American Patriot Party: http://www.americanpatriotparty.com <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I moved this section up in the article because of its importance and to enhance understanding for the reader.]] 07:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


:What exactly are you proposing to change in the article? The links you give are not ]. If you want to portray anybody in that movement as anything other than a crazy uncle (or aunt), you will probably encounter difficulties in finding reliable sources saying so. --] (]) 06:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
== lead/lede ==


== Original History of "Tea Party" Political Momentum ==
The article lead contained multiple errors of fact and POV pushing vis-a-vis that the movement has risen up as an anti-Obama movement, making it appear that as soon as he was inaugurated, protests began against him. This is not at all true. The movement originated in Seattle Washington because of frustration over the stimulus package. It gained ground after the March 2009 disclosure of the AIG executive pay bonuses, and the increasing number of home mortgage foreclosures despite provisions in the bill to support the banks holding the notes. Also note, that it is a grass-roots movement and also, it is not accurate to call it a conservative movement. People of all races and political persuasions have joined this movement. Please do not make changes without first discussing them here. Thanks.]] 07:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Related to the links supporting the reference to the T-Party as the recent culmination of the tobacco direct enfluence on the democratic process here are a couple of links.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4078698/bin/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815f01.jpg, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23396417/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-1-uid-0
This also bears a relation to the reference to Ron Paul taking the chair of the CSE.
In an emmotionally neutral space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil.
How have Philip Morris Brown & Williamson Lorillard RJ Reynolds furthered democracy with financial backing for Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, TASSC to enter a neutral political space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil? ChatGPT: It is not accurate to say that Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and RJ Reynolds furthered democracy by providing financial backing to organizations such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, and TASSC.


These tobacco companies have a long history of engaging in deceptive and manipulative practices to protect their profits and influence public policy in their favor. They have been known to fund and support organizations that advocate for policies that benefit the tobacco industry, such as opposing tobacco taxes and smoking bans, while downplaying the health risks of smoking and targeting vulnerable communities.
:You say that the other editors are pushing POV and that it is not accurate to call the Tea Party movement conservative. Most of the news reports I have seen do call it a conservative movement. Or a libertarian movement which, in common parlance, is on the conservative side of things. Our guide, especially on controversial matters, should be what is verifiable through the majority of reliable, secondary sources, not what someone thinks is true. Also, the way I read the article, it's not an anti-Obama movement; it's an anti-stimulus/anti-TARP movement.


While it is important for all voices to be heard in a democratic society, it is concerning when corporate interests use their wealth and power to sway public opinion and policy in their favor. It is crucial for citizens to be aware of these tactics and to critically evaluate the sources of information and influence in public discourse.
:By the way, do you have a reference for Seattle being the origin of the movement; that is, the first time the term Tea Party was ever used about this movement? I think we should limit ourselves in this article to situations where the term Tea Party was used, except in History where you can go back to Boston or even Ancient Greece, if you have the sources. --] (]) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)</small>


== Trump not "President" in 2015! ==
:::here is the first mention I found. There are several others. . This guy also mentions how the professional types have intruded on the movement. That can be included in the article, but these professionals should not dominate because it gives them ] and this is an article about the movement that started. The professionals didn't start it. Average people did.]] 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


A sourced sentence near the bottom of the article refers to President Donald Trump. The source was written in Aug. 2015 when he was one of numerous candidates. Even saying "future president" would not be a correct usage of the sourced material as he was a third-generation real estate investor at the time. If anything, it would only be correct terminology to say "businessman Donald Trump". ] (]) 12:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::And here, . This talks about the average people and their reaction to the invasion of the partisan groups like MoveOn.org and Freedom Works, etc.]] 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:Fixed. --] (]) 14:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for the fix. ] (]) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


== Why "was"? ==
::::::Here too, the grass-roots protesters are protesting the addition of people like Newt Gingrich, et al. .


The related organizations – e.g., ] – still exist. Why are past tenses used in the article? ] (]) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, I am gathering several reliable sources now. BTW, there is an editor from Barack Obama's page, The Magnificent Clean Keeper who just reverted my edit without using the talk page. He has a history of doing this and being disruptive to discussions on the Obama talk page. I removed the entire paragraph until this issue can be settled.

::I am happy to work cooperatively to bring this article at least to a good article status. When I finish gathering the sources, when you read them, you will see what I'm talking about. The people participating, the average people, not the pundits or the money making news shows and their commentators, have a lot to say and none of what they have to say is being represented in this article.

::At best, this article doesn't deserve more than a few sections. All the rest of the pundits going back and forth, Glenn Beck versus Olberman/Maddow, etc., none of that needs to be here more than as a mention that it set off a media frenzy.

::What really needs to also be here instead of all that, is a section on how the partisan groups and commentators on both sides have tried to usurp the movement or attach themselves to it. The average guy showing up at these rallies is not any of the things these commentators and pundits etc., are. I'm going to go and get the reference for the housewife. I'll add it to this post.]] 17:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see ] for lots and lots of references. Having read many hundreds of references, I would agree with much of what Malke says above. ] (]) 14:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks, I'll take a look at them.]] 14:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== Ron Paul's mention in lead ==

Yesterday, ] moved the paragraph on Ron Paul from History to the lead, citing a need for "clarity".

In my opinion, Ron Paul is only tangentially involved in the Tea Party movement and then only to its history, unless someone has a source that says the term Tea Party (in its modern context) derives from Rep. Paul's speeches. (Or he attended a TPM rally or mentioned TP in congress, etc.) In addition, by eliminating the second sentence in the History paragraph (But no independent movement...), the sole reason (IMO) for Rep. Paul's inclusion in the first place was also eliminated.

I have just reorganized the paragraphs in the lead section. Without the sentence about Ron Paul in the lead, the two sentences in the paragraph before it more properly belong at the top of the article just after the definition. I will make this change and restore the two-sentence paragraph (from the 19:40, 28 January 2010 version) to History some time within the next few days ''unless'' someone objects. --] (]) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

:The lead should summarize the article so that the reader can understand the topic by just reading it without having to read the whole article. The Tea Party Movement had a dramatic increase in protesters after the AIG bonus pay was announced. The citation from the New York Times should also be kept in place.]] 15:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

::In my opinion, the lead should have the following paragraphs: definition/etymology, history, positions for, reactions against. The scope of the article should be what's included ''under the definition'' and nothing else except for, possibly, a subsection named Background under History. --] (]) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Ageed, but it cannot call Fox News a promoter. I have looked, and I cannot find any source claiming that Fox News provided venues, covered expenses, provided free ads, etc.]] 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

== Fox News as promoter in lead/lede ==

I'm going to remove the reference to Fox News as a promoter of the protests. After researching this, I discovered that Fox News was the only news show to give coverage of the protests. Network shows like ABC World News with Charles Gibson, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, and CBS News with Katie Couric pointedly did not mention the protests, when they did later on, they presented them in a negative way. Fox News was not a sponsor nor a promoter. On their other shows, their opinion shows, on cable, they talked it up in the same way MSNBC and CNN talked it down. This is POV pushing and does not belong. ]. ]] 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:We have multiple reliable source that discuss how fox promoted these events (and really, that fact is undeniable to anyone who has seen their coverage). The sentence in the lede is mentioning that there were counter-protests/backlash against Fox which there were. --] (]) 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)::

::Please cite your "multiple reliable source(s)". We already have one -- Politico's "Fox teas up a tempest". It certainly sounds to me like Politico is accusing Fox of being a promoter (''not'' a sponsor). --] (]) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

:This is POV pushing. If there were specific protests against Fox news for legitimately covering the events, then that information can be mentioned with appropriate citations later on. It does not belong in the lead since this is not about Fox News. I am removing it because it violates ]. Please do not edit war. Use the talk page, and work toward establishing neutral POV.]] 15:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

::Malke, please cite ''your'' sources that Fox News was ''not'' a promoter. You can't just eliminate a reference by saying that's POV pushing; that's ]. If we have different, widely-held points of view from reliable sources, we can deal with that in a controversy section, like teabagging. In the meantime, I see nothing dreadfully wrong with removing (temporarily) the five words "including the Fox News Channel" from the lead. --] (]) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Fox News reported on the tea party protests as did the European news shows and newspapers. The networks, being partisan, as well as their cable channel sisters, did not. You can't say that just because Fox News legitimately covered the events that they are a promoter. Provide a citation or news article or something that shows where Fox News paid for the venue, where they offered free advertising, where they offered support services of any kind. I have looked, and there are none. And please note, this article does not contain a single quote from a tea party organizer. It does not even mention the housewife who started it all. It doesn't talk about the goals or the reasons these people came together. There is no mention of what motivated them like losing their homes, or their jobs, especially when they see AIG executives get bonus pay and then defiantly state their not giving them back.

::::According to Wiktionary, "promoter" means "someone who advocates or urges on behalf of something". It does ''not'' necessarily include any form of remuneration. The Politico article does accuse Fox of advocating support of Tea Parties in this sense and thus fits under the rubric "promoter". As a Misplaced Pages editor, I ''don't care'' if the opinion expressed by Politico is fair or even correct. Politico is a "reliable source" (in the context of the news, this means a mainstream press organization) so it trumps anything we editors have to say about Fox News. If ''you'' think (or I think) that Politico is incorrect or unfair, ''it doesn't matter''. All that matters is opinions expressed in other, reliable news sources.

::::For example, you say above "Fox News reported on the tea party protests as did the European news shows and newspapers. The networks, being partisan, as well as their cable channel sisters, did not." OK, where's your reference? What secondary source claimed that the networks are partisan on this issue? Please provide valid references to these statements otherwise I'll have to conclude that these are just your own, personal opinions, which, as I've said, ''don't matter'' to a Misplaced Pages article.

::::Even if I were sure that there was "a Mainstream Conspiracy of the Liberal Press Establishment" on this subject, I couldn't do anything about it in Misplaced Pages. Since this "conspiracy" would control the majority of news outlets, I, as an editor, am honor-bound to report the news in proportion to the percentage of reliable news sources that are expressing a certain viewpoint. --] (]) 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

:::This article is unfortunately filled with partisan POV and racist tones. In reading this article straight through, one is left with the impression that it's very bad to be part of this movement. You only want to join this movement if you can't talk because you are engaged in oral sex (Anderson Cooper on CNN), or you can't formulate an intelligent thought because you're too busy name calling others. And what is worse, this article gives the impression that the only real reason for the protests is for racist and stupid white people to rant against the first black president.

:::Most of this article can be reduced to a few paragraphs that concentrate on the protesters themselves and not the news coverage or the back and forth by Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow, two people, among all the others, who have a vested interest in keeping up ratings on their partisan shows.]] 16:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read just a handful of references you might conclude that Fox News is a promoter. If you read several hundred references as in ] I think you'll conclude that Fox News simply made a news judgment that a few of the thousands of Tea Party protests were newsworthy. Other new organizations judged that they were not newsworthy until much later. The vast majority of protests were home grown, often by people who had never previously been involved actively in a political movement. And you'll also find in the references that many of the participants were Democrats or Independents and that many were just as mad at past Republican big spenders as at current Democrat big spenders.

What I'm suggesting is that if you want NPOV and want to avoid UNDUE then read hundreds of references, not just a few. ] (]) 14:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== History ==

The history section is completely POV pushing. It begins with Rush Limbaugh. He did not initiate the protest movement. This was a grass roots movement and the history of how it got started belongs here. Whether or not partisan commentators used the protest to increase market share for their programs has nothing to do with what an ordinary citizen started. Commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow flog something until they start to lose viewers/listeners, and then they go on to flog the next thing that is popular at the moment. This section needs to be rewritten with the actual history of the movement from the citizens, not the people making money off it.]] 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

== Tea bagging controversy section ==

I noticed in this section an especially POV pushing and offensive sentence:
"Continuing with the theme that "Tea Bag Movement" members were ignorant rednecks, Cartoonist Mark Fiore produced a satirical piece for NPR purporting to teach viewers how to speak "Tea Bag," ironically depicting Tea Party members as incapable of political discourse beyond name-calling. He claims to have received death threats because of the piece. <ref>Mark Fiore ] 01.10.10</ref>"

I think the entire paragraph is inflammatory and could be seen by readers as not only extreme POV pushing, but racist as well, since the majority of the protesters were white. I am deleting it.]] 16:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

:I would question the relevance of having the "teabagging" section in this article - it was just copied from the article ]. In that article it fits since it deals with a specific protest slogan/tactic, but regarding the broader movement it isn't super important (amusing though it may be.) ] (]) 04:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

::I agree. It should be removed. It isn't relevant.]] 14:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

:::The tea bagging controversy is relevant and will remain. ] (]) 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== Neutrality of article ==

This article reads with a POV slanted to make this movement seem like it is nothing more than a ploy of right-wing commentators like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. This is not true. No where in this article are there quotes from grass-roots organizers, nor is the history of the movement reflective of how things got started with average citizens. I've already removed some of the more overt POV, including the offensive language painting the protesters as rednecks who can do little more than perform oral sex and name call, but the article has a long way to go before it can be said to be neutral. There seems also to be ]. Obviously, conservative groups infiltrated the movement and held their own protest rallies under the guise of the movement, but actual grass-roots participants complained about them. That should be in the article, as well as quotes and perspective from the real grass-roots organizers. I've placed the neutrality template on the article. Please do not remove it until the problems with the article are resolved.]]

:The article is illegible in sections but I'm not seeing any POV violations. Good luck ] (]) 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

::I agree that the article needs a much better accounting of the groups involved, grassroots and otherwise. I don't think this is necessarily a POV issue, but it's certainly unclear. I wrote a bit about this problem at ] and I believe we need to add a section. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 04:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::I agree, we need a section, and we need to include quotes from articles about the individuals involved on the grass-roots level. Right now it's a shouting match between Rush and MoveOn.Org. Nice work on the new section.]] 06:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

::::No, it doesn't appear to be a shouting match between Rush and MoveOn. Your wild exaggerations hurt your claims of POV. Again, I'm not seeing POV problems in the article. ] (]) 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== Hundreds of readily-available references ==

I made this comment above but as I read more sections of this talk page, I found that my comment applies to almost all of them so I am repeating it here.

There are literally hundreds of references at ]. If you read all of these references - mostly from local news organizations - instead of reading just a handful of references from the more prominent national sites, you may reach different conclusions. In any case I think you'll find it easier to achieve neutrality and avoid giving undue weight.

Some conclusions I draw from these references:
* it is a grassroots movement
* many participants, even many of the organizers, had never previously been involved in such events
* most protests were homegrown
* some of the largest protests were sponsored by organizations such as Freedom Works
* most were publicized through new media such as email, Facebook, Twitter rather than through (e.g.) Fox
* many participants were Democrats or Independents upset with big spending
* while many participants were Republicans, the protests were not pro-Republican
** some protesters were annoyed when Republicans tried to turn the protests into partisan events
** there were protests where Republicans were actively booed
* the focus was against bad ideas, rather than for a party
* there were signs complaining about both Republicans and Democrats
* while some people protested Obama by name, the focus was against big spending and big government

Those are from the top of my head. There probably are other conclusions to draw from re-reading all of the refs. ] (]) 15:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== Scott Brown victory ==

I'm thinking that perhaps there should be a section about ]'s victory in Massachusetts. After that victory, many in the press are reconsidering the Tea Party Movement. E.g.:

*
*
*
*
*
**

] (]) 16:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

::Don't agree. Scott Brown has nothing to do with the Tea Party Movement. He has not participated in it, etc. He does not identify with it. He views himself as a 'Scott Brown Republican.' He didn't even know what a Boston Globe reporter meant when she asked him about the tea party movement.]] 17:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Scott Brown disavowed the Tea party movement. When asked about the subject. ] (]) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

::::He didn't disavow it. I've listened to the tape of the interview and when the reporter asked him about the tea party movement, he didn't know what she meant by that phraseology, and so he said he didn't know what she meant but that all kinds of people were supporting him, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. It was actually the Independent vote that help put Brown in office because Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state. In looking over the stats for some of the precincts with the heaviest Democratic registration, Joe Kennedy siphoned off votes from Coakely, and Brown took the Independent votes in those districts. But overall, Brown did get a substantial Democratic vote as well. He did well with Independents, Republicans, and Democrats. So his assertion that all kinds of people are supporting him is true. Also, every time he's been asked if he is a moderate or a conservative or liberal Republican, he will always answer, "I'm a Scott Brown Republican." He's a very independent, go his own way kind of fellow which is most likely why people voted for him.]] 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::Yes, he did disavow it. He stated in response to a tea party question that his campaign was a "big tent" campaign. Scott Brown is about a liberal as Republicans come. ] (]) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::The ] endorsed a different candidate, ]. ] (]) 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC

:::::::MakeBelieveMonster, your new section violates ]. It needs to be written in the form of a paragraph. ] (]) 18:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:24, 31 August 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconUnited States Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American / Libertarianism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
WikiProject icon2010s Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
          Other talk page banners
Tea Party movement received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010102610010161.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Section sizes
Section size for Tea Party movement (38 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 10,357 10,357
Agenda 16,462 19,735
Foreign policy 3,273 3,273
Organization 6,408 6,408
Etymology 1,210 1,210
History 37 70,191
Background 5,312 12,142
Commentaries on origin 6,830 6,830
Early local protest events 7,817 7,817
First national protests and birth of national movement 8,287 8,287
Health care bill 1,851 1,851
U.S. elections 11,470 11,470
IRS controversy 6,627 6,627
Role in the 2016 presidential election 3,793 3,793
Decline 18,167 18,167
Composition 208 28,436
Demographics 10,917 10,917
Polling of supporters 6,497 6,497
Leadership 953 10,814
Individuals 2,463 2,463
Organizations 7,398 7,398
Fundraising 1,468 3,057
Support of Koch brothers 1,589 1,589
Public opinion 19 12,991
2010 polling 7,610 7,610
After debt-ceiling crisis 1,971 1,971
2012 polling 1,053 1,053
2013 and 2014 polling 2,338 2,338
Symbols 3,995 3,995
"Teabagger" 3,801 3,801
Commentary by the Obama administration 4,118 4,118
Media coverage 7,950 8,734
Tea Party's views of media coverage 784 784
Perceptions of the Tea Party 15,902 15,902
See also 895 895
References 28 28
Further reading 5,237 5,237
External links 1,670 1,670
Total 196,765 196,765

Original "Tea Party" VS RINO "Tea Party Patriots"

During Ron Paul's bid for presidency, the "Tea Party Patriots" (red white & blue "Shield / flag" logo) ran an online discussion board called "Tea Party Patriots" - teapartypatriots.ning.com:

Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20101001205028/http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

They were the Republican RINO group that promoted Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and actively demonized RON PAUL and his stands on Non-intervention, "End the Fed" positions etc. and dismissed the "Original" "Tea Party" members who followed Ron Paul as well as dismissing Ron Paul as "the crazy uncle" to derail the true Tea Party movement.

RINO backed Radio hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin all slandered Ron Paul by dismissing him as "the crazy uncle".

At that time the (RINO) Republican Party would explain to the public at all the local republican headquarters that they were promoting Gingrich, Santorum and Romney and explained to people that "they", the Republican Party, "were" the "Tea Party".

This clever move by RINOs who derailed the Original RON PAUL "Tea Party" (for Constitutional Originalism) movement into the Republican "Tea Party Patriots" (Corporate Capitalist so called Conservative) movement. This occurred from 2007 to 2012.

I was active both on the teapartypatriots.ning.com discussion board defending Ron Paul as well as being active in the Ron Paul original "Tea Party" discussion board called the "Daily Paul" that promoted Ron Paul http://www.dailypaul.com:

Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20080701000000*/http://www.dailypaul.com

I and others battled the RINO's on the "Tea Party Patriot" discussion board for months in support of Ron Paul and to educate others to who the "Tea Party Patriots" were and what they were doing.

The present "Tea Party Patriots" may still be influenced or backed by Newt Gingrich (the RINO who allowed Bill Clinton to run over all of us in the west when he was Speaker), Rick Santorum ...and others, possibly still even Mitt Romney who the "Tea Party Patriots" Promoted in the 2012 Election.

Understanding the True "Tea Party" movement, (or even Trumps Movement, which follows many of Ron Paul's non-intervention and other policies) so the cause is not derailed again is important as RINO's will try to make "similarities" of "causes" to get close and then veer people in the wrong direction.

Links referring to Ron Paul Tea Party VS RINO's can be found on the old American Patriot Party (of Oregon) website: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/

Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120717105509/http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/

Submitted by Richard Taylor, American Patriot Party: http://www.americanpatriotparty.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7900:D9A:A828:65A4:C9FA:58 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing to change in the article? The links you give are not reliable sources. If you want to portray anybody in that movement as anything other than a crazy uncle (or aunt), you will probably encounter difficulties in finding reliable sources saying so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Original History of "Tea Party" Political Momentum

Related to the links supporting the reference to the T-Party as the recent culmination of the tobacco direct enfluence on the democratic process here are a couple of links. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4078698/bin/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815f01.jpg, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23396417/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-1-uid-0 This also bears a relation to the reference to Ron Paul taking the chair of the CSE. In an emmotionally neutral space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil. How have Philip Morris Brown & Williamson Lorillard RJ Reynolds furthered democracy with financial backing for Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, TASSC to enter a neutral political space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil? ChatGPT: It is not accurate to say that Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and RJ Reynolds furthered democracy by providing financial backing to organizations such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, and TASSC.

These tobacco companies have a long history of engaging in deceptive and manipulative practices to protect their profits and influence public policy in their favor. They have been known to fund and support organizations that advocate for policies that benefit the tobacco industry, such as opposing tobacco taxes and smoking bans, while downplaying the health risks of smoking and targeting vulnerable communities.

While it is important for all voices to be heard in a democratic society, it is concerning when corporate interests use their wealth and power to sway public opinion and policy in their favor. It is crucial for citizens to be aware of these tactics and to critically evaluate the sources of information and influence in public discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiIndie (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump not "President" in 2015!

A sourced sentence near the bottom of the article refers to President Donald Trump. The source was written in Aug. 2015 when he was one of numerous candidates. Even saying "future president" would not be a correct usage of the sourced material as he was a third-generation real estate investor at the time. If anything, it would only be correct terminology to say "businessman Donald Trump". 173.23.42.9 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. 173.23.42.9 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why "was"?

The related organizations – e.g., Tea Party Patriots – still exist. Why are past tenses used in the article? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: