From the New York Times: (bold is mine)
Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.
They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”
And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”
The Tea Party movement burst onto the scene a year ago in protest of the economic stimulus package, and its supporters have vowed to purge the Republican Party of officials they consider not sufficiently conservative and to block the Democratic agenda on the economy, the environment and health care. But the demographics and attitudes of those in the movement have been known largelyanecdotally. The Times/CBS poll offers a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of those supporters.
Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.
The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.
Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: the recent health care overhaul, government spending and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.
Do you agree or disagree?
Paul/Palin, 2012. Huzzah!!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/survey-ron-paul-dead-even-with-obama-in-hypothetical-2012-race/1
Marin, are you trying to finish me off? Do you know why so many people decided not to vote for McCain?
Finish you off?
No, this will finish Moon-howler off. From the same New York Times poll:
49. Some people say Barack Obama’s policies are moving the country more toward socialism. Do you think Barack Obama’s policies are moving the country more toward socialism, or are his policies not moving the country in that direction?
Here was the response:
General Public: Toward socialism 52% Not toward socialism 38%
Tea Party Members: Toward socialism 92% Not toward socialism 6%
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2010/04/15/ny-times-polls-tea-partiers-finds-them-educated-also-angry-and-inconsis#ixzz0lCzjR0Oe
In other words, a majority of the public, not just Tea Party members feel Obama is moving the country towards socialism.
You left off this headline:
NY Times Polls Tea Partiers, Finds Them Educated, But Also Angry and Inconsistent
I find that actually to their credit that they are inconsistent. It shows they aren’t total ideologues.
Still alive and kicking. Not finished off yet. 😉
Visitor, who put the thread up? Why do you think it will ‘finish me off?’
How many of these people who identify themselves as Tea Party do you really think voted for Obama? You may draw your own conclusions.
Agree, Moon. Even the Founding Fathers were “inconsistent.”
Just to pick one item from the poll:
“They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.”
Arthur Ashe, a native son of Virginia and one of the worlds greatest tennis players, contracted HIV after having heart surgery. This was to eventually claim his life in 1993. Ashe was once asked if this was the HIV infection was the worst thing that ever happened to him. Ashe is alleged to have said, “No, the worst thing that ever happened to me was being born black.” I don’t know if it is true or not, but if you have never walked a mile in a black person’s shoes, how would anyone ever know? Do I believe in reparations to decendents of slaves? No–they don’t deserve it any more than I do as a polygot white American. I do believe that all people of color deserve the same opportunities as all the other people in this great land.
I have written before about my mixed race granddaughter Winona. She was once asked by some black friends if she was black or white. Her response: “I don’t know about that, all I know is that I am Winnie.” She is a beautiful, extremely intelligent young woman today and she had this all figured out when she was around 10 years old.
I took an oath 59 years ago to, “Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” I spent the next 39 years of my life serving in the United States Navy doing just that and I am still doing it. As long as the Tea Party wants to overthrow the government, I consider them to be a “domestic enemy.” They would tear down the very institutions that give them the power to dissent.
So, forming up a citizen militia to go after the TEA party?
“So, forming up a citizen militia to go after the TEA party?”
“…go after” NO
Protecting the constitution against the intentions of those who would surplant it with a Theocracy through use of force?
With my life, I’ll defend the light of reason….
Except for the fact that the TEA Party has no intentions, has not demonstrated intention, and would resist attempts, to “overthrow” the goverhment, I agree with you George.
Other than a few, out of millions of people, there are no Tea Party people seeking the overthrow of the government or the Constitution. The fact is that the Tea Party is DEMANDING A RETURN TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. A huge portion of the Tea Party took that same oath. So, from a fellow sailor, you can take that attitude somewhere else. There may be domestic enemies involved in all of this, but it not the Tea Party. Perhaps you should take a look at some in the government that are attempting end runs around the Constitution.
And the left says that the Tea Party is delusional…..excuse me? Where do you find the an intention to start a theocracy in the words, “STOP THE SPENDING” or “Vote them ALL out.”
How about defending the Constitution, instead of the “light of reason.”
Oh, and George, I forgot to add. NO INSTITUTIONS give anybody the power of dissent. It is an inalienable right. The Tea Party is using that right.
…dangit Cargo, you stole my thunder. i was setting them up! 🙂
I find it amusing that people see concerned, active and mobilized citizens of all sizes, shapes, colors and origin looking to remind government that they obtain powers over the citizenry only through it’s consent and that the programs being pushed forward are not favored by the populace. That they seek to have government follow it’s own rules, to live within it’s own means, and to leave issues not delegated to it to the States or the People.
If the ‘battle’ is over independents I think the tide is in favor of the TEA party. Obama might be selling it but the independents are no longer buying it.
Moon,
I would not say that the Tea Party is wealthier. That is not my experience.
Other sources said that Rasmussen had a different poll (can’t find a link) that showed a 24% TP indentification, 53% women. And most of the organizers, I’ve found, are women.
As to the more conservative,…depends. Many are not the typical “social conservative.” But they are definitely more fiscally conservative. There’s a lot of libertarianism in the Tea Party. The TP is concentrating on fiscal, not social, issues.
Anger….yeah….We’re ticked. Our question is why are not more people PO’d at a Congress that uses these shenanigans and shows such contempt for the public.
Yep. We want a change in our politicans. Primarily Republican, as they state that they support limited government, but there are Democrats in the Tea Party that want change also. We want Republicans to stand up and support the platform, to put their money where the mouths are. Heck, we’d like them to start using their mouths. So far, the majority of Republicans refuse to fight. They’re afraid of being labeled the party of “no.” They don’t understand that sometimes its NECESSARY to be the party of “no.” They are also afraid of putting out alternatives to more government , because as typical of politicians, they don’t want to reduce their own powers.
There has been no “call for a boycott” about the Census. There has be questions about the necessity and the constitutionality about the questions. At the most extreme, the call has been to return the form with only the enumeration of citizens on it.
To summarize the rest of that paragraph….Tea Party members don’t mind paying taxes. Its payment for services. Most don’t mind Medicare/medicaid. Public schools are fine. And we don’t have a problem with helping the poor, even with programs. We don’t feel that Obama’s programs disproportionately help the poor. We are against his programs because they haven’t helped ANYONE. Well, except for politicians. The cost for the programs will bankrupt us. THAT is the cause of the anger. That and the underhanded ramming through of programs that will increase taxes and costs on EVERYTHING. The emergency “stimulus” is nothing more than a slush fund for Democrats. The TARP is now being used as a weapon against the financial markets. The extended unemployment benefit programs is causing states to borrow money from the fed. Everything that the Fed pays for has strings.
Depending on how the questions were written, one could say that Obama’s programs are supposed to help the poor. I don’t see them that way. I see them as attacking private enterprise to redistribute wealth and to control many portions of the economy from DC.
As to Obama favoring blacks over anyone else….Perhaps personally. But that comes from his knee jerk reaction in that police/professor brouhaha. He should have kept out of it. It also stems from his 20 year participation in Rev. Wright’s church. Also, the black population expected him to favor them, and looked upon his election as the coming of a savior. I have personal experience in seeing that reaction.
I can’t answer as to the idea of the TP’s opinion on “black problems.” Personally, I feel that the press makes too much of it, that the TP doesn’t concern itself with those social problems, and won’t pander to the black (or any minority) population in order to attract them. The whole attitude of the Tea Party is: HERE ARE OUR IDEAS. IF YOU LIKE THEM, JOIN US.
Since one has to know how the questions were posed and to whom the poll was targeted, I can’t answer as to the accuracy of the poll. The NYT’s audience tend to be very liberal, white, and wealthy. Rasmussen tends toward a better cross section of the populace.
Cargosquid,
Maybe people aren’t as angry as TPers because the majority of voters in this country who participated in the last election supported Obama and the present members of Congress. They also question why the outrage wasn’t as palpable during the Bush administration’s spending. The TPers come across as sore losers who didn’t like the outcome of the last election more than fiscal conservatives. Heck, I’m generally a fiscal conservative but I won’t align myself with the Republican Party until it kicks its social conservatism to the curb.
Locally, we have Corey Stewart who rails against new Medicaid regulations – even vowing to defy the feds. His stand will cost the taxpayers of this county money – just as his ill-fated Immigration Resolution did. I thought TPers were for fiscal responsibilty. How does that jive with the speech Stewart gave at their rally? Is it okay if a Republican squanders our tax dollars but wrong if a Democrat does it? It sure looks that way when you observe the Tea Party group. It’s overwhelmingly Republican, white, and older than the general population. Maybe its founders didn’t intend for the Republican Party to co-opt their message, but that has happened in many people’s opinion.
That financial responsibility thing ought to make everyone sit up and take notice. Why bring on law suits?
In fairness to Rod, there are many conservatives who advocate what he and I would both consider a theocracy. In fairness to the Tea Party Concept, it is the blending of people that makes us leery. If you continue to see people identifying themselves as TPP continue to make religious references…well…that’s where it comes from. I have never heard Cargo do that also.
The Tea Party could start by taking back the education system for localities.
Cargo, I think it is flattering that the Tea Party is more affluent than the general population. I also think it is flattering it doesn’t say all want to elect Sarah Palin.
I’ve heard this many times, in various forms, “why were all these protesters during Bush?”
I’ll answer that. Right here. Conservative activists spoke out about Bush’s spending all the time. However, when he left office, spending was a 453 billion dollar deficit and getting smaller. Obama took office and his first year spending, BEFORE his budget in October 2009, was over 1 trillion dollars. Projected deficits are larger.
The protesters were not there because conservatives do not, generally, demonstrate at all. The general conservative population is not organized, nor does it have a history of organizing, unlike the left. The pot started simmering under Bush and his lack of vetoes. Then Bush and the DEMOCRATIC Congress, which was elected as a protest against Republicans (they took conservatives for granted. They stayed home.) ballooned the budget. Yet, even then, the deficit was coming down under Bush.
If its “sore loser” to expose some of Obama’s ideas and plans, that were not vetted in the press, and be upset by the idea that he wants to “fundamentally transform” America, then I guess I’m a sore loser. Winning an election does not mean that the winning side gets everything they want. I will contest any action that I do not agree with. I never felt that those protesting Bush for any reason were acting as “sore losers,” just that they were wrong. Ok, and some (some of the antiwar protesters) were traitorous bas##ard that need to….never mind. 😉
Censored, then you won’t be a Republican. If the GOP “kicks the social conservatives to the curb” then the GOP would be…..Democrats. I don’t know why you dislike “social conservatives,” but if that’s your litmus test, so be it. However, the Tea Party, while it has “so-cons” in it, concentrates on fiscal matters and is not calling for any social programs. I’ve never understood the hostility toward the “social conservatives” since, in my experience, that’s almost everybody. I know, I know, they want to ban abortion and same sex marriage. You know what, compared to the projected bankruptcy of America, defaulting of its debt, and the inflation that comes with all that, abortion and same sex marriage is small potatoes. But, if you can’t join with the Tea Party because supporting those things is more important than saving the future of America’s grandchildren, one must have priorities.
As to Stewart, don’t know enough about him to put a speech in context nor do I know enough about how your County gov’t works to even know if he can do what he suggests. I can see his reasoning, though. He is trying to prevent “unintended” consequences. Those medicaid mandates will cost US, not the federal government billions. Why should we volunteer to spend money that we do not have.
That’s the crux. WE ARE BROKE. Everything needs to go on the table and we need to force the politicians to prioritize. Social programs, energy, defense, police, everything. From the federal to the local. We have to decide what is necessary, then justify it, and then spend the money.
Just noticed that I spelled bas#ards with one too many # and left off the “s”…..there, corrected now…..
Cargosquid, some of the large bailouts were initiated before Obama won the election. I’m just as fed up with what Bush did to Clinton’s surplus as you are about present spending. With Bush we had an unfunded war ginned up by lies about WMDs. And the damn thing has dragged on forever. (Why do you think that anti-war protestors are traitorous? They have the right to express their opinion just as you do about the deficit.)
Social conservativism touches on the most personal decisions people make – particularly women. I’m guessing that you’re at least a generation younger than I am and male. LOL about taxes!!! Those of us who lived in Virginia and paid state taxes were relegated to women’s colleges. We paid for state schools that men could attend – men whose grades were often much worse than ours – yet we couldn’t attend them. Moon-howler and I could tell some tales about college in the 60s. When I married after living in Virginia for five years, my school tried to charge me out-of-state tuition because of my husband who claimed residency in California while in the military – even though we resided in Virginia. That’s just a small sampling of why I’m socially quite liberal. That and I don’t want Bob Marshall in my bedroom or on my deathbed. (Major eeewww factor!)
I don’t think you have to be a social conservative to be a Republican. At least you didn’t have to be back in what now must be viewed as the olden days. Two of my best female friends are moderate Republicans – but they’re not Southerners. One’s husband would probably be a TP member if he had the time. Both of their husbands are more conservative than they are. Men of that age feel that they’ve lost the most – too many of them don’t acknowledge the actual priveleges they’ve enjoyed at women’s and minorities’ expense. Those are probably some of your angriest TPers.
A guy really needs to know how to spell ‘bastard.’
Almost anything to do with the economic melt down involving Bush and Obama is forgiven by me.
All sorts of people think they know the answers. I disagree.
Censored,
The large bailouts before Obama was the TARP, which he voted for. Bush did nothing to the “surplus.” There was a recession starting at the end of Clinton’s term. And then came 9-11. Also, was the surplus really there? If we are paying down a debt, how can we have a surplus. Was that money returned to the tax payer? No. Then it was spent. And thus, NOT a surplus.
About that war…..yeah. Would that be the “lies” that were based on the same info that the Senate Intelligence Committee had? Would that be the same intel that the French and the Brits stated that they believed? Would that be the same intel that Clinton, and other assorted Dems supported and demanded the removal of Saddam? So, no. it was not ginned up.
As to SOME of the anti-war protesters….I don’t believe that all of them are traitorous. Just the ones that support the enemy. Code Pink sent over $500,000 to the insurgents of Fallujah. ANSWER and some of the other groups supported the fragging of officers and desertion. The new Winter Soldier people lie about their service and slander the military. Some were never IN the military.
I’m perfectly fine with anti-war protesters and peace marchers.
Again, if the social concerns are your priority over the possible break down of the US fiscal system, more power to you. And remember, I’m not talking about Republicans. I’m talking about the Tea Party. Yes, I know that the majority are Republicans, but, about 20% are Democrats. Again, the Tea Party is about money. Not social programs.
George — I took that same oath 45 years ago to join the same outfit. Mind telling me where you got the idea that the intention of the Tea Party people is to “overthrow the government”?
I agree with that 100%.
Cargosquid, if the TPers aim is fiscal responsibility and the prevention of the breakdown of our financial system, then it better demand more accounting from the mega banks and Wall Street. It focuses too much on Obama and health care reform and ignores that big elephant in the room. Let’s see more “Bust Up the Banks” and “Put the Stockbrokers in Stocks” at the rallies and fewer caricatures of Obama. I think a full examination of the housing collapse with possible prison time for some of the participants is in order. Some small potatoes types are being indicted for bank fraud. Well, let’s get the biggies!
Its not the banks and Wall Street that started this. Let’s put some of those people that caused the housing bubble under a microscope. Great idea. That would be Chris Dodd, Barney Franks, and some others. The actually told Bush that they system was fine and there was no need to change it. Franks wanted the Democrats to keep claiming that it was their party that put poor people into houses. Wall Street and the banks did nothing more than what the government told them to do. Then, when they realized that Americans were greedy, and would fall for the re-finance and take the cash scam, lent money. Unless the lender lied or scammed a customer, its up to the customer to decide what they are willing to borrow.
The banks and Wall St. are not bankrupting the nation. Congress and Obama are. THEY are bailing out the banks, etc. We wanted them to fail. Yes, it would have been a disaster, but, healthy banks would have bought them. The government removed the risk from the derivatives market. Of course the banks made a profit. That is their reason for existence. Why didn’t the CEO’s of Freddie and Fannie get grilled and have to give their bonuses back. He made a $9 million bonus in 2008. Goldman Sachs is running the Treasury. That’s where Paulson came from. Geitner was put in there because he will do what the administration says and doesn’t know enough to actually buck their system.
Until the bailouts, no bank or Wall St. had my tax money. Or my children’s future tax money. Besides, if the banks are crooks, why aren’t my elected officials going after them? Should Waxman go after them as hard as they did the car companies or the oil companies? They aren’t because they keep THEIR money in Wall St. And they know who will pay ball. AIG was bailed out because they were liable for all the banks that they had insured.
Now, the new financial bill is supposed to give the government power to take over any bank that the treasury feels is unsound or not lending enough money. That should go well.
I’m all for a full investigation. However, who would conduct the thing? The powers that be are involved up to their neck. Audit the Fed while we are at it, if we can reform or disband it.
I am not ready to believe that code pink sent funds to the enemy. I would have to have some strong verification on that one.
Speaking of code pink and like minded things…do parents know that the military has the right to contact your under age child because of no child left behind. You have to opt out, not opt in. Most parents don’t even know about it.
Under the No Child Left Behind Act, if you attend a public high school, your school system is required to turn over your private information to the US military unless you opt out. Sec 9528 of The No Child Left Behind Act gives you the right to opt out by turning in a form signed by your guardian or parent stating that you do not want the military to have access to your private information. Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act can be found here:
http://www.ed.gov... And a opt-out form may be found at this link
And look, ANOTHER “compassionate conservative” idea that was invented by the Democrats, adopted by Bush, and signed into office in a fit of bipartisanship……wonderful. Well, even if they do contact him/her, they can’t sign them up.
Code Pink: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cindy-600k-for-fallujah-nothing-for-katrina
and
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10017
Supplies like these, delivered with no oversight, into the hands of refugees that support the enemy is the same as handing the enemy supplies. All non-combatants had left the city, but, the “refugees” were still supporters of the insurgency. Code Pink is a group that casually called our soldiers and Marines war criminals.
Code Pink took advantage of sorrowful parents to deliver the goods, thereby delivering said goods to the very people that killed those sons and daughters.
It tells a story but it doesn’t go any further. Too much inflammatory language to sell me. Stuff like ‘Radical left’ tend to be off-putting to me as well as ‘radical right wing extremists’…. When I read stuff like that I think to myself, ok, this is a person with an agenda. I don’t think I am getting the straight skinny.
Perhaps on a lighter note, when I put up a Rachel Maddow…I expect to be getting a left slanted story. My point in putting her up this week is there is just too much fodder. I feel certain she shined her own little light on it all. But she shouldn’t have had that much ammo. I* don’t dislike Rachel Maddow. But I also wouldn’t expect her ultimate goal to be fair and balanced.
And I am not fan of Code Pink. I don’t like the disruption and the attention seeking behaviors. Cindy Sheehan? I respected her and didn’t like some of her tactics. I feel her message got hi jacked by those with a ulterior motives. Cindy started out with a very personal agenda which was ok. Too bad she lost her way.