30% in Colorado Say They Are Tea Party Members

The Tea Party in Colorado is the Tom Tancredo in races where it pits its candidates against GOP candidates.

I'm all for a strong third party in this country. It gives people more of a choice.

The Viking wrote: Just keep believeing we dont' exist. Cant wait till the next election. We will see who brings out more votes. Our imaginary million members of the Tea Party or the uninspired Democrats. I hope you keep underestimating us.

Aren't you forgetting the Republicans? It's not Tea Party vs Democrats. It's Tea Party vs Democrats vs. Republicans. In other words, the Tancredo effect.

AspenValley wrote:

Cat Crap Hill wrote: The Tea Party Movement is merely the GOP rebranding itself. If most the Tea Partiers identify themselves with the Republican Party (what's the difference?), then I can see where 30% of Coloradans say they're Tea Partiers.

Well, I certainly would agree they need a new brand. It's kind of like when you sell tainted food that gives people Botulism. You can either go bankrupt or change your name and hope no one figures out you're the same company that sold poison products.

I think a much better example is a shareholder revolt of a company. Yes, many tea-partiers are reps, or ex reps, but they are the same ones who saw the republicans becoming no different than the dems on the other side. Two sides of the same coin. Big govt, big spending, etc. Using your example of a company who sells a tainted food that gives people botulism...the shareholders of this company are revolting, and taking over that company by firing all the execs who let this happen. In the meantime, they are trying to bring in new people who actually CARE about the company itself, and not just their own jobs and fat checks, and want to do the best for the long term viability of the company. THAT is what the tea parties stand for.

RenegadeCJ wrote: I think a much better example is a shareholder revolt of a company. Yes, many tea-partiers are reps, or ex reps, but they are the same ones who saw the republicans becoming no different than the dems on the other side. Two sides of the same coin. Big govt, big spending, etc. Using your example of a company who sells a tainted food that gives people botulism...the shareholders of this company are revolting, and taking over that company by firing all the execs who let this happen. In the meantime, they are trying to bring in new people who actually CARE about the company itself, and not just their own jobs and fat checks, and want to do the best for the long term viability of the company. THAT is what the tea parties stand for.

No doubt that is what the typical "rank and filer" thinks that is what it is all about. But follow the money. No question this has influential and rich Republicans behind it. It has already been co-opted and is going to end up the new Republican brand. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Anyone who thinks this is some revolution that will take down the leadership among the powers that be is beyond naive.

AspenValley wrote: No doubt that is what the typical "rank and filer" thinks that is what it is all about. But follow the money. No question this has influential and rich Republicans behind it. It has already been co-opted and is going to end up the new Republican brand. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Anyone who thinks this is some revolution that will take down the leadership among the powers that be is beyond naive.

Great. If smaller govt, more freedoms, less spending is the "new republican brand", I'm all for it.

The tea parties have taken on lots of the "powers" and forced them to change their platform. Will they stick with it, only time will tell. They may just be pandering....

RenegadeCJ wrote:

AspenValley wrote: No doubt that is what the typical "rank and filer" thinks that is what it is all about. But follow the money. No question this has influential and rich Republicans behind it. It has already been co-opted and is going to end up the new Republican brand. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Anyone who thinks this is some revolution that will take down the leadership among the powers that be is beyond naive.

Great. If smaller govt, more freedoms, less spending is the "new republican brand", I'm all for it.

The tea parties have taken on lots of the "powers" and forced them to change their platform. Will they stick with it, only time will tell. They may just be pandering....

They are just pandering.

Just like they pandered when they brought the Religious Right onboard by pretending to care about THEIR issues. Thirty years later, have ANY of those issues made it to actual policy change? Nope. And neither will these.

I do think people are starting to wake up to the fact that the people they sent to Washington haven't been acting in their interest but I would bet my eyeteeth any candidates that actually make it into office as "Tea Party" candidates aren't going to be any different. The power brokers in Washington are owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests. Even if you could get someone elected who wasn't owned by that lobby, they would either soon become "bought" or they would be made totally ineffective at changing any kind of policy. There is no such thing as one lone wolf being the beacon of "change" in washington. Or even a whole horde of them. They won't be allowed to do that. And that is why you will find rich, influential Republicans feeding money and media attention into this movement. They ALREADY own it.

I sure wish you would point our 285 Corridor Tea Party Group towards some money to just cover our little expenses necessary to print any materials, buy water for the people who have come to our meetings, etc. No one contacted us and told us to form a Tea Party Group, we did it because we are frustrated not only by the rhetoric of both parties but by the crap that people like you are throwing out trying to brand us. As long as you get your marching orders and talking points you will have your arguments about everything. Unfortunately we don't have any marching orders and talking points. We are creating our ideas and agendas ourselves with only intelligent and rational debate between the core founders of our group with the hopes of finding common interests and goals. Whether or not those interests and goals are the same as yours should not be predetermined by you without participation by you.

Nmysys, no, they aren't going to pay for your copies or your coffee, but that doesn't mean they aren't putting big bucks behind making sure this little movement gets steered in a direction that benefits them. That doesn't mean "marching orders" or even talking points, but I would be very surprised if all the ideas and goals you come up with at your little meeting actually goes anywhere other than where the big boys want it to go.

I won't be participating because I know that even if my goals were in line with your goals what our goals are in the end don't mean squat in this country. I will remind you that when the Religious Right came on board with the Republicans 30 years ago, one of their biggest "goals" was overturning Roe v Wade. You may have noticed that has not happened. It is not because of "fierce opposition", either, it's because the big guys really don't care about that issue, they care about one thing - their own power. Well, it will be the same when it comes to the "Tea Party" goals.

We choose to focus on the future, rather than the past, in hope that enough of the people who have never been involved in anything before, can possibly make a difference. It gives us all a chance to vent our frustrations and realize that there are others who feel the same.

AspenValley wrote:
They are just pandering.

Just like they pandered when they brought the Religious Right onboard by pretending to care about THEIR issues. Thirty years later, have ANY of those issues made it to actual policy change? Nope. And neither will these.

I do think people are starting to wake up to the fact that the people they sent to Washington haven't been acting in their interest but I would bet my eyeteeth any candidates that actually make it into office as "Tea Party" candidates aren't going to be any different. The power brokers in Washington are owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests. Even if you could get someone elected who wasn't owned by that lobby, they would either soon become "bought" or they would be made totally ineffective at changing any kind of policy. There is no such thing as one lone wolf being the beacon of "change" in washington. Or even a whole horde of them. They won't be allowed to do that. And that is why you will find rich, influential Republicans feeding money and media attention into this movement. They ALREADY own it.

Your cynicism does no good. At least some of us are trying to improve the country. Whether or not we succeed will not be known for many years. We are seeing people with Tea Party mentality winning, a few have already won. I really don't care if the "tea party" survives, but for you to demean the principles of the organization is ridiculous. Feel free to play fiddle while the country burns. Some of us choose not to.

You may be perfectly happy to burden all the future generations with the problems the past and current generation has gotten ourselves into. I choose not to, and won't go down without a fight. The tea party is doing just that. The country may still be finished, but we have to at least try to change it. I'm not such a cynic that I believe we are done.