Little difference between tea party and Grand Old Party

http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/news/the_numerologist/2010/03/27/tea_party_is_a_republican_movement

Little difference between tea party and Grand Old Party
Polling evidence indicates that tea partiers are just conservative Republicans by another name

By David Jarman


With Saturday’s much-publicized rally in Searchlight, Nevada, there is lots of talk about the effect that the tea party movement could have on this November’s elections.

But several polls released this week suggest that the only thing new about the tea party movement might be its name – and that the tea partiers themselves are simply the loudest, most revved-up subset of Republicans.

Quinnipiac’s March 24 survey found that, contrary to the notion that they’re a newly mobilized force of previously apolitical independents, tea party supporters represent the right-most flank of the Republican core. Tea partiers, who made up 13 percent of Quinnipiac’s nationwide sample, approved of the Republican Party by a 60 to 20 percent margin; among independents, by contrast, the GOP’s approval was 28-42 percent.

snip//

The same dynamic is evident in a March 25 Harris Poll, which looked at a hypothetical 2012 election. It found Barack Obama would defeat Mitt Romney 46-39 percent, but in a three-way race between Obama, Romney, and Sarah Palin as a tea party candidate, it turns into a 45-24-18 percent rout for Obama. The pattern is the same: the Democratic share stays almost the same, while the GOP vote is splintered by the presence of an even more conservative alternative.

In other words, the tea party movement could be as much a curse for the GOP as a blessing.

goooh.com is the REAL REVOLUTIONARY deal.

Tbaggers are the ones who simply cannot come to grips with the fact our President is a black man

It may have had a more libertarian flavor at first, but there were reports from the beginning that the GOP had funding ties to the Tea Party and of course it's now become quite obvious.

I utterly accept the notion that the Tea Part folks are mostly Republican and that they did not spawn from sort of political primordial soup, but they are distinct, perhaps severed in several important ways.

In the pantheon of conservative orientations there are essentially four streams: Libertarians, Fiscal Conservatives, Neo-Conservatives and Social Conservatives. he TPAs are the radicalized elements of the Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives who take their marching orders from RW Radio and are now being organized by AstroTurfers like FreedomWorks.

They hat republican Leadership in Washington. They think Michael Steele is a terrible RNC Chair. They simply stopped trusting the institutionalized leadership of the party.

But remember....not all Republican listen to Rush and Beck. But those who do are far more radicalized and that is the subset that has splintered off.

The big challenge for the Tea Party movement is figuring out a way to institutionalize their organizations and fundraising when what we are really talking about 250 ego-driven fiefdoms. If they can't do that they will never get anywhere and they will fold back into the GOP

The Challenge for the GOP is to hold the Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives in their coalition. Thus far the NeoCons and Fundies are still part of the base but the Fundies are tired of being lied to, its leadership is dying off and the Tea Party movement, because it is largely libertarian has yet to embrace them and from what I read probably won't.

Sounds like to me they've been embraced just fine. That is because they already were embraced, by this the Republican Party.

has rejected includidng Gay marriage, Stem Cell, pro-life stances as an are of concern to embrace.

It is a bridge too fatt given their libertarian/small government ideology. They have rejuect overtures for the Family Research Council and others

I would say they are conservative libertarians but have no idea what life would be like under pure libertarianism. There are also some social conservative racist-types in there too.
They are Rethugs that were angry with Bush and claim to want a real free market but have not given up any of their social services. Essentially, hypocrites.

They despise Democrats, hate the Greens, they are Republicans. Calling them by other names is a service to Republicans, who love having an auxiliary arm to speak their worst for them.
But they are Republicans, and that nice doctor down the street needs to own that fact, that he and they are in and of the same Party.
Some here seem very concerned that the nice doctor be treated kindly as a 'moderate Republican' and not conflated with the so called 'tea Party' but there is no difference save for style choices. In the end, they vote right wing, and that means Republican. Even their 'third party' candidates were Republicans last year, next year, and always.
I myself do not care if some more intelligent Republicans are offended at being grouped with their more radical branch. It is their Party, all of it.
So what we've been seeing are Republican Protests, filled with Republicans holding offensive signs. We see elected Republicans cheer them on, wave banners for them, and address their gatherings. What more proof do you need that they are simply Republicans?

stop them out right. I bet alot of repubs are just embaresed of them but would never say it in public. repubs are 90% about image- a calm conservate image complete with expensive tailored suits and well combed hair. the teabaggers are just loud obnoxious hillbillies who don't care about order. there's alot of tension going on under the surface

Same shit different hats.

Either way, they are all part and parcel of the GOP clusterfuck.

They've been around forever as the Rad Right and have long, long records as Bush's far-right base.