by Mark Silva
Among the things we're learning about the TEA Party today:
Those who support that loose amalgamation of people protesting the reach of the American government lately aren't much different than the American public in general, the Gallup Poll reports today.
But they are having trouble forming any real party of their own, the Asscociated Press suggests today, in part because some fear the potential impact of an actual third party on a presidential election -- such as that 1992 vote in which Ross Perot's third-party candidacy drew 19 percent of the vote and handed the White House to Bill Clinton.
The Gallup Poll attempted to count heads, too, and found that 28 percent of those surveyed in its March 26-28 poll call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.
(A stylistic noted here: We've tended to capitalize a name that stands for Taxed Enough Already, but everyone else appears to be going lower case -- perhaps as an expression of just how unformed this "movement'' actually is.)
The supporters "are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings,'' Gallup reports. "Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.'' But in many other aspects, the survey finds -- in age, educational background, employment status, and race -- "Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.''
In their political sentiments, however, they stand apart: 87 percent of Tea Party supporters -- versus 50 percent of all Americans -- say they consider passage of healthcare reform a bad thing. Nearly two-thirds consider themselves "pro-life" on abortion issue, compared with 46 percent of all American adults surveyed.
The survey of 1,033 adults carries a possible margin of error of four percentage points.
The Associated Press report below, of course, is subject to far greater question about conclusions that come from a variety of interviews, but is interesting nonetheless..
It also points to the fact that Democrats alone are not the targets of many TEA Party activists, but that Republicans in some places should have a lot to fear this year from a movement which is not only upset with government, but also taking aim at incumbents in general. In Florida and arizona, the Republicans are facing revolts within their own ranks, with a once-popular governor, Charlie Crist, and longtime senator, John McCain, facing real threats from the more conservative ranks of their party. In Oklahoma, too, TEA Party activists are lining up against Republican incumbents in the primaries.
President Barack Obama has suggested this about the TEA Party: "I think that it is a still loose amalgam of forces. That is a part of the TEA Party movement that actually did exist before I was elected. There were some folks who just weren't sure if i was born in the United States -- that I was a Socialist.
"Then there is a broader circle of people around that core group of people who are legitmately concerned about the deficit, legitimately concerned that the government is taking on too much,'' Obama said in a recent interview with NBC News. "I wouldn't paint in broad brush and say that everybody who is involved or has gone to a Tea Party rally or meeting are somehow on the fringe.''
See "five things to know'' about the "movement'' below:
This is the Associated Press report today:
For the past year, a passionate group of Americans have rallied together under the banner of the "tea party," altering the direction of the nation's political discourse in the early years of Barack Obama's presidency.
The Associated Press reviewed tea party operations in almost every state, interviewing dozens of local organizers as well as Democratic and Republican strategists to produce a portrait of the movement.
Five key things learned in the states:
1. THERE ISN'T ONE ACTUAL "TEA PARTY," AND THERE MIGHT NEVER BE
Fred O'Neal founded the Tea Party in Florida, a state-recognized political party that has a candidate on the 2010 ballot to challenge a Democratic member of the U.S. House. He now faces a lawsuit filed by fellow tea party activists.
"There's been a steady campaign to try to drive a wedge between the Tea Party and the other people in the tea party movement," O'Neal said. "They're trying to basically discredit what we're doing."
The reason? Those opposed to the idea of turning the tea party into an actual Tea Party vividly recall the 1992 election, when a third-party candidate syphoned enough votes from President George H.W. Bush to allow Bill Clinton to win the White House.
"The one thing that people talk about over and over again is Ross Perot," said Michael Caputo, a political consultant who is helping movement leaders challenge O'Neal's use of the Tea Party name. "Ross Perot is the only reason that Bill Clinton became president."
2. DEMOCRATS THEY ARE NOT, AND TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS ARE HARDLY HAPPY WITH REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS
There aren't many states a deeper shade of red than Oklahoma. But in a state where Barack Obama failed to win a single county in his 2008 presidential race, tea party-aligned candidates are preparing for the state's July primary election and races against several establishment Republicans they feel aren't conservative enough.
Among the challengers is state Sen. Randy Brogdon, who is running against U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin for the GOP nomination for governor. Fallin easily won her congressional seat in 2006 after 12 years as lieutenant governor, but is given no ground by Brogdon after voting in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program used to rescue the nation's teetering banks.
"It's a bad year for incumbents, it's a bad year for moderates and it's a bad year for people who voted for the bailouts," Brogdon said.
3. THE TEA PARTY DOESN'T HAVE A LEADER -- AND THAT'S JUST FINE
Chris Tawney is an active member of the Flint Hills Tea Party in Kansas. She and others in the group send out e-mails, participate in rallies and town hall meetings, and head to Topeka often to monitor the Legislature.
But the group has no leaders -- on purpose.
"There is nobody to tell me to go there and do that," said Tawney, a nurse from Manhattan, Kan. "All of us have our own commitments and our own lives."
Republican U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt thinks the loose organization has helped the movement grow quickly in Kansas. But the candidate for U.S. Senate acknowledges with a smile the structure can make it tough for his campaign. "The only inconvenient part of it is, who do I contact?" he said. "I want to consult with them."
4. TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS HAVE NO DEFINING ISSUE
The original tea party protest came in Boston, a rallying cry against taxation without representation. Their modern-day descendants in Massachusetts, credited for helping Republican Scott Brown stage an upset to win the U.S. Senate seat held for nearly a half-century by Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, aren't nearly as unified around a single idea.
"I don't think you could say that all tea party members feel the same about anything," said Barbara Klain, a former technical writer and educator who co-founded the Greater Lowell Tea Party.
"We have pro-choice and pro-life. We have people concerned about (President Barack Obama's) birth certificate and people who are concerned about their money. We come for all different reasons, but we agree the government is out of control and needs to be reined in."
That's not to say, however, that they aren't united.
"It's not a Democratic or a Republican organization. It's not a political entity," said Sandi Martinez, who founded the Greater Lowell group with Klain. "It's a group of people, concerned about their country, and they're from every background."
5. THE TEA PARTY IS AMPLIFYING VOTER ANGER BUT ISN'T A UNIVERSAL PRESENCE
In arguably the most politically active state in the nation, Iowans trying to get the tea party movement off the ground are struggling to find many takers.
Local tea partiers have staged only one large rally, and that was a year ago. Democratic Party officials say their candidates -- the prime target of the movement's conservative activists -- don't sense angry tea partiers deploying.
Iowa is, of course, the place where political organizers for the major parties spend months, even years, reaching out to individual voters to ensure they'll show up at caucus gatherings on an icy January night and help launch candidates on their journey to the White House.
"Iowa is a relatively small state," said former Iowa Republican Chairman Richard Schwarm. "If you want to make a difference in Iowa, you have to be involved in that kind of politics."
And that might not end up leaving much room for the tea party.
Comments
TeaBaggers = BushBase.
Same folks.
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | April 5, 2010 7:46 AM
I have not attended a TEA party rally and I doubt that I ever will. But I do agree with many of their sentiments.
I believe that government in Washington D.C. fails to listen to the people that cast the ballots that placed them into office.
I believe that the deficit is out of control and that the politicians are increasing the size of government when the vast bulk of the electorate want to see it decreased.
I still cannot understand why government bailed out General Motors and Chrylser and gave them 100's of billions of dollars, which will never be repaid. These companies made bad business decisions and they should of been forced into bankruptcy!
The Democrats and the main-stream-media are calling the members of the TEA party racists and right wign nut jobs but when you actually watch their events on television it appears that the group is just older folk who are concerned about the policies in Washington.
The politicians are the individuals that should fear those who share the concerns of the TEA party because those individuals will vote to remove them from office.
Posted by: Pat H | April 5, 2010 8:40 AM
But how will this affect Barack Obama's love of basketball? He likes basketball in case you didn't know. Basketball and Barack!
Posted by: Scott | April 5, 2010 9:14 AM
Tea Party is over-rated. The Media keeps covering them yet they represent less than 1% of the U.S. Population. I would wish the Media would concentrate on real issues- it will do the country a better service.
There were like 150 people at the Tea Party Rally in Illinois. Illinois is a State of 11 million people. This Tea Party is so out of whack. . .it's not worth covering.
If the Tea Party was so serious about less govt, they should do tours to the foreclosures and lend some help. As we all know, they love to talk about freedom and less government. . .but it was less government that led to the financial failure because nobody was watching the crooks. So, there you have it, Tea baggers!
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | April 5, 2010 9:20 AM
The Tea Party Movement, which I am not a member, tend to be more Republican than Democrat. But many of the members are seem to be fed up with both the Democratic and Republican Parties. They seem to be more Male and Higher Educated. But they all do not march to the exact marching orders as the Far Left supporters of President Obama. And it is unfair to call them racists as some of the Far Left and Main Stream Media have done. This seems to be a tactic of the Far Left Obama supporters to call all critics and opponents of some or all of the Obama Agenda racist when they have nothing intelligent to say in a debate. Although the Tea Bag supporters seem to be more Republican than Democratic they are also a two edge sword. Democrats should have concern that they could tip tight elections to the GOP. But Republicans should also be careful because they could also turn on Republican candidates that they do not like or disagree with.
Posted by: Depot- Jim | April 5, 2010 9:28 AM
I have been trying to find a definition: What does the Tea Party stand for? I have been all over the internet. I keep seeing the words U.S. Constitution…..and this quote:
“The American public at large is ignorant of the purpose of government, the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. As a result, they allow politicians to sell them false hope and "rights" and "entitlements" that are not guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Ok, this seems to cover a lot of what I’m seeing, what Sara Palin seems to be squawking about. I just spent a few minutes re-reading the U.S. constitution, The Bill of Rights (need to read the Federalist Papers) and it seems that there are a lot of good ideas, for a country just emerging into its own. The Constitution went into effect March 4, 1789, the Bill of Rights1791.
Now in looking at the Constitution and what is being said by Tea Party groups, (there are more them then one could even count). They don’t hold with anything which is not covered by the Constitution or Bill of Rights, so with that said all of the below amendments should be repealed. They were not written by the founding fathers…..
Slavery Abolished (1865) 13th Amendment
Citizen’s Rights (1868) 14th Amendment
Race No Bar To Vote (1870) 15th Amendment
Status of Income Tax (1913 16th Amendment
Senators Elected by Popular Vote (1913) 17th Amendment
Liquor Abolished and re-instated 18th and 21st Amendment
Women’s Suffrage (1920 19th Amendment
Presidential, Congressional Terms (1933) 20th Amendment
Presidential Term Limits (1952) 22nd Amendment
Pres. Vote for D.C. (1961) 23rd Amendment
Poll Tax Barred (1964) 24th Amendment
Pres. Disab. And Succession (1967) 25th Amendment
Voting Age Set to 18 Years(1971) 26th Amendment
Limiting Congressional Pay (1992) 27th Amendment
It would appear to me that over one half, (probably more, but they aren’t great about minorities getting into the Tea Party, but they do let in Patriot Groups, Anti-Semitics, White Supremist), would not be able to Vote this November………. The original Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson covered all people, but it had to be changed….to what amounts to all white people.
I should mention that on Larry King, the St. Louis Tea Party co-leader and another gentleman firmly stated that we have had this Health Care shoved at us and we shouldn’t have to pay, therefore repeal the Health Care Bill. Mr. King said in 1935 the same thing happen with the Social Security Act, should that be repealed……..they both were firm in saying “Yes”. Tell that to the over 65’s in the Tea Party on a fixed income, guess what no income………. You have to depend on the money you beg for from friends, businesses to live.
Healthcare, now there is a major topic today, does anyone in the real world outside of Washington understand what has been going on the past year. There was a great editorial recently on line, one of the big papers, said that the average Joe has no idea what the Health Care Bill was, you pick up a paper and there it is spread all over the place. Each paper carrying there own news as to what it actually was, a lot of it rumors with no truth or partial truth behind it, but the papers picked it up anyway and ran with the story. No wonder there is so much turmoil. The editorial went on to say that the only time the major papers agreed on anything regarding the health care bill was after Sara Palin made the Death Panel statements, none of the papers bit into that rotten apple, seeing it for what it was, an ignorant statement with no truth behind it.
I don’t get to upset about the Health Care bill, first of all I live in Massachusetts which has had mandatory health care for all for several years. So. What’s the big deal, well I did read in one paper today someone said, the states should be handling health care not the Federal Government…so why is it my state thought about it and all the others didn’t. Should the Federal Government say “Ok, New York, you have to mandate health insurance, Ok Kentucky you have to mandate health Insurance”? Why didn’t the other states think of it themselves, don’t they care? Might have saved a lot of head aches.
To end my rant, all I can say is what I’ve found is that the Tea Party wants us to go back to our roots, The U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights. Take away all the services that help people, Unemployment (15 million unemployed), Social Security, Health Care……… Believe it or not I’m not a liberal; I used to be a staunch Republican (until they started a war and lowered taxes to pay for it) but these are tough times, take away all the services and you have millions in the streets. Try being 58 and looking for work today……omg, lol. Let them eat cake.
Posted by: Laura | April 5, 2010 9:48 AM
Well, no, Depot Jim.
Read the damm polls.
They show that 41% of Tea Partiers are Independents and disillusioned Democrats.
Next time, actually READ the information provided.
Posted by: Mary | April 5, 2010 9:53 AM
So-called Progressives have been touting the Forster and Meadows "Limits to Growth" screed for what seems like an eternity now. Remember, if you will and if it doesn't make you heave, how the mawkish, grinning, and sweatered Jimmah Carter educated us dumb bunnies 'bout the "energy crisis?" Now, it just so happens that we have on this planet enough thorium resources for nuclear energy production to last at the current consumption rate for a thousand years. Now, of course, we are told that we have to cut back on "entitlements" by the usual suspects in the Democratic and Republican parties "think tanks." Why? Because of course, we have limited resources, don't you see. Our economy just can't support spending on medical technology. Or so goes the Pete Peterson and his ilk's argument. Well, you can be a pessimistic sucker if you want. But just maybe you might want to be an optimistic human being. The choice is yours.
Posted by: Thingumbob | April 5, 2010 10:42 AM
I think the TBag thing was ginned up by Replican strategists, as a kind of "cat's paw" organization, a proxy, that could attack Obama in more direct "class warfare" terms, in an effort to reduce his electoral base of Nov. 08. And throw in a little direct racism they could indulge in in those "grass roots rallies".
But then the cat's paw took on a life of its own....supposedly.
One test I apply to whether a "demonstration" is for real or not is:
does the Government marshal the SWAT teams with all their truncheons and toys in the lobbies of smaller buildings nearby Federal Plaza in Chicago when things are getting started in the Plaza?
If so, as in the anti war demonstrations during the Iraq invasion, then you know it's for real.
If not, as during the TBag demonstrations more recently, then you know it's ersatz.
Posted by: ornery | April 5, 2010 10:48 AM
Well, no, Depot Jim.
Read the damm polls.
They show that 41% of Tea Partiers are Independents and disillusioned Democrats.
Next time, actually READ the information provided.
Posted by: Mary | April 5, 2010
9:53 AM
Mary, I did READ the recent Gallup Poll taken at the end of March. Although the Poll stated that the Tea Bag Movement represented the average American in demographics, there were two major differences. The Tea Baggers tended to be more Republican and Conservative. The Gallup Poll reported that the members of the Tea Bag Movement were 49% Republican, 43 % Independent, and 8% Democrat. It also stated that members were 70% Conservative, 22% Moderate, 7% Liberal. I suggest you go back and read the entire Gallup Poll. I also maintain that although members of this movement will probably back Republicans over Democrats, they can also turn on the GOP. One prime example is right in Illinois where some Tea Bag Members have expressed concerns with Republican Senatorial Candidate Mark Kirk and have said they will not vote for him because he is too moderate on certain issues. If a large number of those people do this it could tip the election to the Democrats.
www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx
Posted by: Depot- Jim | April 5, 2010 11:24 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: Laura | April 5, 2010 9:48 AM
.
It’s time for you to drop back 10 yards and punt, because you started on the wrong foot and stayed there throughout your “rant.”
.
For starters, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) and the rest of the Amendments (11-27) are all part of the “Constitution.” Thus, when the TEA party folks say they are against stuff that isn’t in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, they aren’t disavowing adherence to everything past the first 10 Amendments. What they are saying is that they are opposed to all the extra-constitutional stuff the federal government has been doing.
.
In the second place, anyone who must rely entirely upon Social Security for sustenance is truly in a pitiful situation. There are many places in this country where social security benefits won’t even pay the rent. In those situations, a person with no income other than Social Security benefits will have to beg, borrow or steal to make ends meet anyway. People should be (and should have been) saving for retirement on their own, rather than depending on the federal government. That’s because the federal government isn’t very dependable. This is generally a good rule of thumb. It would be a cold day in hell when I couldn’t get a better rate of return in the free market (even today) than what one gets in return for their (ehem) investment in Social Security. Besides, Social Security will be bankrupt very soon because of the federal government’s notorious style of mismanagement. So what do you think the government is going to tell all those 65+ year olds when that happens?
.
Furthermore, the point Mr. King was trying to make is that the health care law is closely analogous to Social Security. Both are an invasion of a person’s rights and abilities to care for his/her self, and to function freely in society. In both instances, the government takes away from the individual to micromanage the individual’s life (or forces the individual to dispossess himself or herself of property for the same purpose) on the theory that “the government knows better.” Anyone who has seen some of the people who make up Congress (like the Georgia Congressman who thinks that Guam might tip over and capsize if it becomes overpopulated) knows that Congress doesn’t know better. Both of Congress’ major social welfare programs - Social Security and Medicare - are rapidly going broke, and nobody in Congress is lifting a finger to fix this situation. How much more proof does one need to drive home the point that Congress is incompetent at handling large welfare-state programs? How much confidence can one have in the federal government’s ability to run a massive health care program given their track record?
.
Finally, the federal government does not have the power to order the states to develop health care programs without their consent (as you suggest). We live in a country in which the federal and state governments for a system of “dual sovereignty.” That means the federal and state governments each have their own spheres of power which cannot be violated by the other. Thus, even where Congress has the constitutional authority to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. This, in fact, is one of the problems with the current health care law. It hijacks the state legislatures, executive officers and state resources by requiring them to develop and implement certain aspects of the health care regulatory scheme. A great deal of the cost of health care is shifted from the federal government to state governments, many of which simply cannot afford it. This is one of the reasons that a number of states are up in arms over the law, and have filed suit to annul it.
Posted by: John W. | April 5, 2010 1:20 PM
Thank you, John W., for reading and responding to Laura's post.
She was so far out in left field that I stoped reading after the 16th amendment. Life is too short.
Posted by: DaveB | April 5, 2010 5:35 PM
I really do not how to respond to the theory that Amendments to the Constitution should somehow be disallowed even though they are provided for in the Constitution. Hopey Changey can I carry your Water
Posted by: Carl | April 5, 2010 6:11 PM
RodneyKing,
Compare the Tea Party movement with the Anti-Iraq War movement. The Anti-Iraq war movement, those that actually went out into the streets, was a small % of the population also. Yet, it is they who got BO nominated for the democratic ticket. The difference is the Tea Party members are more peaceful than the Anti-War Iraq crowd. Quite often there were a lot of arrests during those rallies.
BTW, it wasn't less gov't that caused the housing meltdown, but too much gov't.
John W - as always, most excellent
Posted by: Terry | April 5, 2010 7:21 PM