News -> INDReporter MON, DEC 5 12:17PM by Leslie Turk

Tea Party losing its luster

While more than half of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center Nov. 9-14 still won’t say whether they support the Tea Party movement, more have a negative opinion of it today than a year ago. In fact, the Pew study reveals that since its victories in the 2010 mid-term elections, the Tea Party has lost both national support and support in congressional districts represented by members of the House Tea Party Caucus.

The Pew also noted that the image of the Republican Party has declined “even more sharply in these GOP-controlled districts than across the country at large.”

pew_tea_study_jpegMore Americans, 27 percent, now disagree than agree, 20 percent, with the Tea Party movement. Pew noted that year ago, in the wake of the sweeping GOP gains in the midterm elections, opinions were just the opposite on the party: 27 percent agreed and 22 percent disagreed.

The general public may not like the Tea Party, but it isn’t particularly fond of Republicans or Democrats either: 36 percent now say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, down from 42 percent in March, according to Pew. Opinions of the Democratic Party, however, have shifted less, according to the survey – from 50 percent favorable last summer to 48 percent in March and 46 percent in October.

Read the full results of the Pew survey here



Comments (26)add
...
written by Farrow , December 05, 2011 - 04:21 pm
I think many Tea Party supporters had second thoughts when Tea Party candidates began talking about cutting funding to their parks, museums, schools, libraries, etc. As it turns out, a lot of what Tea Party supporters call "waste" is not viewed as waste when it funds things in their own backyards.
...
written by ragin_cajun , December 05, 2011 - 05:31 pm
I think a lot of tea party supporters and activists have given up on change because they see that changing things through the traditional political process takes A LOT of time. There can be no part time political activists anymore because the political process is too big now. There are too many politicians with too many plans and too much tax dollars to spend.

Faced with that, the activist can either give up and go home, or become a full time politician/bureaucrat. They're being "co-opted". Also, they've all gotten involved in the primaries, so their local groups aren't as active as they were last year.
...
written by Joseph Dugal , December 05, 2011 - 06:09 pm
What is your overhead? Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG) spends 23.6% of each of your tax dollars on administration and debt service, so:
When you or I contribute $100.00 to PASA, PASA gets $100.00
When LCG starts with $100.00 of our taxes, PASA gets $76.40
Which is better for PASA? Which is better for bureaucrats and bond traders?

...
written by snaildarter , December 05, 2011 - 08:33 pm
I think most TEAers are seeing how much schools, libraries, parks, museums and NGOs waste taxpayer funds or funnel it to privileged insider groups or individuals. For example, the wife of our illustrious tax assessor used to be the director of PASA for which she received a handsome salary and had low-paid staffers doing the less glamorous tasks required to run PASA.

Most TEAers are too busy working multiple jobs, running their own businesses and running their own households to go to PASA events, museums or parks. I know I have been.

I bet that Pew Research Poll data was based on the usual slanted, loaded research. And the population they call "Tea Party District" defies logic.

The libs/ collectivists don't get that "TEA Party" transcends all the old designations,
categories and stereotypes.

AND another misconception lying below the surface in this propaganda: TEAers are not in knee-jerk agreement with Republicans. The TEAer message to Republicans is the same as it is to all politicians and "leaders."

This article is just yet one more insult to TEA taxpayers from the elitists at the not quite Independent.

Snail
...
written by Resident , December 05, 2011 - 08:58 pm
Your terms "libs" and "collectivists," are those not designations, categories or stereotypes? It's hard to take a TEAer seriously when he is using the same kind of labeling and partitioning that TEAers supposedly abhor. And I think that's part of the problem. Lots of people see derision and division coming from TEAers.
...
written by holeinthedonut8 , December 05, 2011 - 09:18 pm
Snail,

Did you have ice with the kool-aid?
...
written by scottman , December 05, 2011 - 10:07 pm
Reading snail's comment it is easy to see how these idiots failed miserably.
...
written by Mah Nà Mah Nà - Do doo be-do-do , December 06, 2011 - 01:53 am
Everytime I see the Tea Party I hear banjos and smell rancid chewing tobacco...
...
written by the original northsidian , December 06, 2011 - 07:23 am
I actually am not a TEA Party member, and my voter registration is No Party. But, I can assure you that even the dumbest of us know that the politicians could care less about them. Their main goal is to get re-elected and help the people who are in their clique. Power has always corrupted. The reason everyone knows, is the power of the internet!! That is why in the countries that do have revolutions, the first thing cut off is access to the internet. No matter if the Tea Party comes or goes the people are PISSED OFF and are tired of taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes! And they are tired of the politically connected paying $37.83 a year property tax on million dollar property!! Something is going to happen. I don't know if it will be in the short years I have left. But, the $h!t will eventually hit the fan!! Read your history and learn how the great powers of the world fell, due to political corruption and unfair taxation.
...
written by Soop. , December 06, 2011 - 08:39 am
First off, the TEA party, as a separate party did not have much of a chance of supplanting the Dems or Reps as a major party. But it did and has shifted both parties to the right. The TEA party came along at a time when the left was, yet again, telling us that conservatism had been kicked to the curb and we could only expect liberal government from here on out. The TEA party reminded everyone, but especially themselves, that conservatism does have a large and vocal part of the political process.

To the extent TEA party members are pulling back and tempering expectations with the realities of trying to get elected within the current political framework -- well that ought to make liberals quake. Because we saw it in 1992 and again in 2008 (the last two shifts to a Democratic president) that only when the TEA party side of the Republican party stays home or votes for a third candidate (as in 1992), only then does a Democrat win.

All the best,

Soop
...
written by ragin_cajun , December 06, 2011 - 10:03 am
Resident --

It's hard to take a liberal, or collectvist, seriously when he spends all his time telling everybody what he's NOT, and refuses to positively state what he is.

"Don't label me! Don't label me!" Why not? What's wrong with labels? What's wrong with clearly stating what you believe, who you read, where you stand?

I've asked you many times, and never gotten a clear answer from you about what YOU believe, what YOU read, which intellectuals YOU think have good ideas, what economists.

You're an ideological bomb thrower like everyone else, you're just too arrogant to admit it.
...
written by ragin_cajun , December 06, 2011 - 11:56 am
"well that ought to make liberals quake"

It's remarkable how Liberals have a hard time winnig national elections, yet over the last 100 years have gotten everything they want.

Democrats don't have to win for Liberals to win. GW Bush was a pretty liberal guy, so was his dad. Nixon instituted price controls. McCain was a Lib. Romney is. Maybe even Gingrich is.

Both parties have a left wing, a liberal wing.
...
written by Resident , December 06, 2011 - 12:14 pm
What's wrong with not accepting the limitations of the "label you then attack the label" approach? I think it's shallow and divisive. I can't help the fact that labels and slogans don't mean very much to me. I do know that terms like liberal and conservative have classic tenets with a long and complex history. But I don't accept the way they are typically thrown around today.

What's wrong with adopting parts of both conservatism and liberalism? I'd much rather talk about the particular tenets of each than vacuous arguments about "liberal vs. conservative." One subgroup which I do find to be very apt (and I condemn) is "neoconservatism," which emerged as a strong force right after 9/11. It is personified by people like Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz and holds that big government is desired/necessary to carry out US military hegemony across the globe. This is clearly spelled out in documents of the Project for a New American Century.

You might be disappointed to know that my reading material doesn't really include authors with political motivations. I'm more interested in larger issues such as energy independence. The book "1,000 Barrels a Second" comes to mind, a very informative and non-biased look at our energy history, present conditions, and future outlooks.

I can appreciate some of what Hayek says on economy (I'm a Ron Paul fan), though I haven't read his books in entirety. After all. But I don't think that a pure interpretation of Hayek is the answer. For instance, clean air and clean water are public assets and need to be protected by government on behalf of the public. I'm also a strong advocate of public lands, wilderness areas, and protection for sensitive ecological areas...and that we the public have a right to enjoy these places. Private ownership is not the entire answer here.

So does that satisfy you? I'm usually not very interested in detailed explanations of what I believe and what I read in the comments section here. I am interested in countering arguments, especially when people go around telling authors and commenters they have profound misunderstandings.
...
written by Resident , December 06, 2011 - 12:34 pm
"The TEA party came along at a time when the left was, yet again, telling us that conservatism had been kicked to the curb and we could only expect liberal government from here on out. The TEA party reminded everyone, but especially themselves, that conservatism does have a large and vocal part of the political process."

As I understand it, the real TEA Party blossomed after the TARP bailouts when politicians from both parties (and the Fed) gave trillions of our tax dollars to banking/investment institutions, propping up the system and the actors that brought our economy to its knees. The ideals of that TEA Party were embraced by a broad spectrum of people, but were lost in the subsequent co-opting by the Republican establishment.

Also, I don't think you're appreciating the rejection of Neoconservatism, as opposed to "conservatism" per se. The general populace (including traditional conservatives) became tired of invading and occupying countries, spending all that life and treasure, and the lies and propaganda that got us into those messes. Of course, with the Libya intervention we're not much better off now, although it's not even close to the magnitude of Iraq.

I believe this had a lot to do with the election of Obama, not the idea that Democrats win only when Republicans stay home. A LOT more people were motivated to vote because they saw that McCain represented a continuation of Bush on foreign policy and military interventions. Obama said good things back then, but now we see that he is largely a continuation of the status quo.
...
written by UrGeting Warmer.. , December 06, 2011 - 04:08 pm
Tea Party minded individuals........
Recognize as always, that the left leaning news mediums are extremely jealous of the power you wield as a group and as a voting block.

This article quotes figures from a study who’s authors report the margin of error of the study at +/- 7%,

Which means that when this margin of error is taken into effect, the declines claimed are not supported and are statistically insignificant.

You must not lose your diligence in working to recognize the propaganda this rag continues to spew regarding the Tea Party movement.
...
written by R Reagan , December 06, 2011 - 07:52 pm
Leslie,
It is nice to see that you are interested in national politics since you are speaking of the TEA Party in other areas, because the The Tea Party in Lafayette is kicking ass and taking names. Just ask RINO’s Joey Durell, Donnie Bertrand, Jay Castille, Sam Dore, LEDA, The Chamber of Commerce, the “Chamber core Insiders” the school board, TIF projects, LUS Terry Huval, the “machine”, consolidation, many other tax and spend crony issues etc. etc. etc. The TEA party is changing the thinking of the public nationally and locally, and moving everyone to the right by exposing corruption and cronyism by educating the public and even the media can’t obfuscate it with slanted little insignificant articles like this.
But if you are interested in “who is losing luster” on a national level would it not be more interesting, certainly more accurate, to talk about how the Dem’s lost the house, and the Senate is poised for a 80% chance to be taken over by the Republicans in 2012. Obama has reached the lowest level in the pols in history, talk about losing luster, and will likely be a one term president as the nation hits 15 trillion in debt and rising. Businesses have cast a vote of no confidence in his ability to lead. And you think people want to hear “the TEA party is losing luster”? I think your bias is showing my darling.
More to come. You aint seen nothing yet on a national level but certainly on a local level.

...
written by Phil N deBlanc , December 06, 2011 - 08:20 pm
Tea Party
1. Lower taxes
2. Support the Constitution
3. Constitutionally limited and fiscally responsible government

...
written by snaildarter , December 07, 2011 - 01:11 pm
Kool-aid, banjos, yea yea, keep it up, you are so hip and elite and knowing.

You are just adding to the littany of potty-mouthed,
mean-spirited ad hominem attacks The Ind allows to be used against the TEA group in these pages and to which I will refer when I tell these merchant advertising here why I don't buy their products and services.

The name calling just means you have no reasonable or logical objection to the TEA paradigm.
...
written by ragin_cajun , December 07, 2011 - 04:15 pm
"What's wrong with not accepting the limitations of the "label you then attack the label" approach? I think it's shallow and divisive."

But, then...

"What's wrong with adopting parts of both conservatism and liberalism?"

If you don't like labels, won't say what you mean by them, then why do you use them? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to discuss political concepts with words, then you have to agree with the people you're discussing them with about what the words mean.

"I'd much rather talk about the particular tenets of each " Really? That's not what I normally see from you, but if that's what you'd like to do going forward, OK with me.

"big government is desired/necessary to carry out US military hegemony across the globe." we agree on this--I reject the idea of nation building and I would welcome cuts in military spending just as I would cuts in any other government spending. I think you and I might agree on much more than you realize.

"You might be disappointed to know that my reading material doesn't really include authors with political motivations. I'm more interested in larger issues such as energy independence. The book "1,000 Barrels a Second" comes to mind" I don't read authors with "political motivations" either, such as Colin Powell, Bush, John Kerry, George Will, Bill Kristol, etc. Political Science, and the history of political thought, however, are a much different animal, are they not? An analogy is the difference between reading philosophy and "self-help", or the difference between reading literature and reading detective novels.

"So does that satisfy you?" Well, it helps.

"I'm usually not very interested in detailed explanations of what I believe and what I read in the comments section here." I think, sometimes, the conversations demand it.

"especially when people go around telling authors and commenters they have profound misunderstandings." Authors and commenters here DO have profound misunderstandings sometimes, and I will point them out when I think it is important to do so--with solid explanations and links to supporting evidence, as always..:)







...
written by ragin_cajun , December 07, 2011 - 09:15 pm
Resident --

quick question, though....since you and I are talking about American influence overseas and all...what about Iran? If the US pulls troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq this year or next, and we quit "nation building", and we cut back on military spending.....what happens in the Mid-East?

I have no answers, no thoughts...how bout you?
...
written by jabbajaw , December 08, 2011 - 06:19 am
Me, I'm thinking what the T-Party needs is leadership, one who is willing to go the distance to give the group some real direction and focus. I'm thinking someone perhaps very much like Jim Jones.
...
written by LookSomeThings , December 08, 2011 - 10:15 am
No disrespect to conservatives/libertarians who want "less spending" (let's leave it as ambiguous as that, because they sure do) but with each passing day, the Tea Party is proving itself to have been little more than an easily exploitable collective of hardline GOP voters. Nothing. More. Isn't it odd that after all those House seats were filled, we just kind of stopped hearing from them and FoxNews stopped subsidizing them? Why? Did America's problems suddenly disappear? Where is the Tea Party on the National Defense Authorization Act, which, if passed, will give the executive power to indefinitely detain American citizens they simply presume to be terrorists? Where are they on SOPA, which threatens to fundamentally change the Internet in America (and only America) forever?

Isn't it interesting that the Tea Party is only interested in civil liberties when it's tied to their wallets? And not, you know, their actual, tangible freedoms?
...
written by James Melancon , December 08, 2011 - 10:46 am
The Tea Party and OWS are cut from the same cloth--Ignorance and Paranoia. They blame the evil rich and bankers, and before you know it, the Elders of Zion. If it is greed, it is human, and the Tea Party and OWS possess both in spades.
...
written by Middle of the Road , December 08, 2011 - 04:06 pm
Is "ragin_cajun" the same one who use that moniker in other local periodicals?
Why is he pretending to speak on behalf of our university?
Stealing the name of another is the greatest theft.
...
written by ragin_cajun , December 08, 2011 - 05:55 pm
"Is "ragin_cajun" the same one who use that moniker in other local periodicals? "

No. I only post here. If you see another "ragin_cajun" posting elsewhere, it's not me.

However, since there is no authentication here, anyone can post as "ragin_cajun.
...
written by Phil N deBlanc , December 11, 2011 - 11:15 pm
LookSomeThings, read section 1302.b please
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it